Mitt Romney knows how to balance budgets. Obama only knows how to deficit spend and raise taxes. Anything is better than the destructive path Obama has us on now.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
2012 USA Election Thread: Obama projected winner
- Thread starter THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
- Start date
- Status
Mitt Romney knows how to balance budgets. Obama only knows how to deficit spend and raise taxes. Anything is better than the destructive path Obama has us on now.
I can't imagine voting for Romney, as that would be a vote for the insanity that is the religious right. Their denial of basic facts (like evolution, Civil War history, etc) and backwards stance on social issues (gay marriage, women's right to choose) is completely unpalatable to me.
Until Romney talks seriously about cutting the defence budget and raising some taxes (something the red congress is currently refusing to do), you cannot assume he'll balance the budget at federal level.
Also, Obama has lowered taxes, perhaps you should try knowing what you're talking about.
I was pleasantly surprised today to learn than Mitt Romney does accept evolution.
Also civil war revision is a joke from south park, it's typically given less weight than even holocaust denial or 911 conspiracies.
As evidenced by his brilliant and bold proposal to massively reduce taxes on the richest people in America and sharply increase military spending without raising taxes on anyone else, or cutting any domestic programs. While also not increasing the deficit. I'm not sure if you're familiar with how the federal budget works, but taxation is considered a "cash inflow", and military spending is considered a "cash outflow". Reducing a cash inflow while simultaneously increasing a cash outflow generally does not help address a cash outflow problem. Unless, of course, Romney actually plans on addressing the problem by getting even more cash inflow from elsewhere. Note: "elsewhere" means your paycheck and domestic programs intended to help not-rich people not-starve in the streets. But of course he would never outline this in a detailed budget like Obama has. Why? Because conservatives don't actually want anyone to know that their budgets will negatively impact well over 95% of the country.
Now, at least Paul Ryan's budget proposal was actually a thing, even if that thing was the fiscal equivalent of stabbing a kitten with long, sharp needles in an effort to housetrain it. You have to at least give him credit for sticking up for his beliefs, even if said beliefs drew the incredulity of everyone who has ever even potentially heard of the concept of an economy.
I don't disagree with your overall point, but "cash outflow" is the overall spending of the government, not just the military aspect.
Presumably Romney wants to balance tax cuts for the rich with lower spending in the non-military categories, ie medicare and education. You know, the things that are actually necessary.
Medicare in government isn't "actually necessary" beyond a point. Considering that Obama favors a system closer to the socialist free healthcare system, it makes perfect sense for Romney to spend less government money in [healthcare, because] his political party [historically limits government involvement in that field]
Edit: It was hard to word, no big deal
The Ryan plan only intends to balance the budget by 2040, or in other words, fix the national deficit. Fixing the national debt would take far longer, especially considering unforeseen circumstances.
Romney knows how to balance budgets yet only plans to balance the budget 30 years after he leaves office?
Please try to write legibly in this thread. I'm not going to complain about typos or anything, but at least try to use proper sentences.
That said, I think the Ryan pick will make for an interesting campaign. I assume it means this campaign will start to focus more on real issues and I think it will be hilarious to see Ryan attempt to defend his policies.
Don't confuse your state variables with their rates of change. Yes, Romney has been bringing in more money than Obama in recent months. However, the rate at which each campaign acquires money doesn't actually give you enough information to say who has more money. Indeed, Obama actually has much more money stockpiled in the campaign than Romney.
Don't let anyone on either side tell you Obama's broke.
This is a comment from the link you posted:
jameschirico from the comments section said:
The choice in this election couldn't be clearer.
You can either vote for Obama and keep getting free stuff from the government until it collapses under its own weight, hoping you won't be the parasite who finally kills the host, or you can vote for Romney and realize a lot of uncomfortable but necessary fiscal pain is coming the nation's way.
It's Fantasyland vs. Realville.
It's Economic Fantasy vs. Economic Reality.
In Economic Fantasy, the federal government has an infinite amount of money and resources to spend on anything it wants, and any life touched by government subsidy is happy and magical. Once someone starts getting subsidies, those subsidies can never go away because it will hurt someone. Thus all cuts, no matter how modest, are draconian because somebody's grandma will lose their livelihood.
In Economic Reality, we're the brokest nation in history, our government rewards sloth and apathy, and, newsflash young Smogonites: By the time you'd be eligible for all the government spending you think is good, proper, and necessary, the money for your benefits will have long run out. If you're 50 you have a prayer of being the last one grandfathered in. If you're 20 you're just delusional.
If you are 20 and you vote for a Democrat you are voting against your economic interests. Plain and simple. I don't care how progressive your values are, I don't care how much you feel morally or intellectually superior to social conservatives for your stances on gay marriage and abortion - if you vote for a Democrat you are voting for fiscal insolvency for which you will pay the tab, because by all estimates you are going to outlive the programs you feel are so vital. Democrats will not fix these programs. Democrats have not even offered a budget in four years - something they are constitutionally mandated to do. They are an unserious party for unserious times - this is not one of those times.
Romney and Ryan are not ideologues and to suggest they are is ahistorical and ignorant. When Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts he had to work with an 85% Democratic legislature. He vetoed them hundreds of times and they overrode his veto often. He even vetoed 3/4ths of the provisions of Romneycare. For Ryan's part his Medicare reform plan is called Ryan-Wyden - Wyden would be a liberal Democrat from Oregon.
Romney and Ryan have both been willing to put their necks on the line for serious policy proposals. Democrats respond with distortion, hyperbole, and demonization, but no plans of their own. Ever since 2010 Republicans have taken the lead on sending bill after bill to the upper chamber, and have been obstructed by Harry Reid. These are the facts, this is reality.
Be a Dem partisan if you want. But I can't afford that idiocy anymore and neither can you. Our tax rates our uncompetitive and must be lowered while broadening the base, even Canada and China have lowered their rates. Once Republicans steamroll Democrats out of the Senate and White House this November, we'll have substantially fewer problems with obstruction and go back to having a budget, not this continuing resolution garbage. Once we have a budget we'll be able to make baseline cuts and possibly pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. It may be true that Ryan's budget proposal doesn't go far enough - but if you're a Democrat, don't pretend you wouldn't attack a more vigorous proposal as anti-poor or anti-woman or whatever BS you'd be selling. You'd say Paul Ryan was trying to throw grandma off a cliff. Oh wait, Democrats already ran that ad.
I have no illusions about Mitt Romney. He is a transactional figure who does what is asked of him and not much more. He is driven entirely by results. Results are what we need right now, not intentions, not "hope and change."
We don't have the money for games any more. If you fear business owners - your fear is misplaced. You spend every moment of every day on a device a business owner innovated and made. If you believe the profit motive is evil - your belief is ignorant and ill-founded. Profit is what's left over after costs, and what business owners reinvest to keep improving those businesses and their products.
Willful economic illiteracy is no longer cost free. Complete ignorance of how the economy works is no longer acceptable. America as a nation can't afford those idiotic idealistic notions to drive votes anymore. Obama embodies both, and therefore cannot be re-elected. He is far in over his head and would rather talk about how Romney hates women or Romney murdered somebody's wife, somehow, or how somehow a tax cut for the bracket most small business owners file in is a tax raise on the rest of America. Even if you hate America and want to see it fail, it will have a sinkhole effect on the global economy you can't imagine, and the first nations to go will be whatever nation Russia or China decide to attack first, since the US bankrolls the defense for pretty much the rest of the world.
I'm tired of it, won't stand for it, and am doing everything in my power to get Republicans elected this year. Now is the time, and I fear it's the last chance any of us may have to turn this around.
You can either vote for Obama and keep getting free stuff from the government until it collapses under its own weight, hoping you won't be the parasite who finally kills the host, or you can vote for Romney and realize a lot of uncomfortable but necessary fiscal pain is coming the nation's way.
It's Fantasyland vs. Realville.
It's Economic Fantasy vs. Economic Reality.
In Economic Fantasy, the federal government has an infinite amount of money and resources to spend on anything it wants, and any life touched by government subsidy is happy and magical. Once someone starts getting subsidies, those subsidies can never go away because it will hurt someone. Thus all cuts, no matter how modest, are draconian because somebody's grandma will lose their livelihood.
In Economic Reality, we're the brokest nation in history, our government rewards sloth and apathy, and, newsflash young Smogonites: By the time you'd be eligible for all the government spending you think is good, proper, and necessary, the money for your benefits will have long run out. If you're 50 you have a prayer of being the last one grandfathered in. If you're 20 you're just delusional.
If you are 20 and you vote for a Democrat you are voting against your economic interests. Plain and simple. I don't care how progressive your values are, I don't care how much you feel morally or intellectually superior to social conservatives for your stances on gay marriage and abortion - if you vote for a Democrat you are voting for fiscal insolvency for which you will pay the tab, because by all estimates you are going to outlive the programs you feel are so vital. Democrats will not fix these programs. Democrats have not even offered a budget in four years - something they are constitutionally mandated to do. They are an unserious party for unserious times - this is not one of those times.
Romney and Ryan are not ideologues and to suggest they are is ahistorical and ignorant. When Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts he had to work with an 85% Democratic legislature. He vetoed them hundreds of times and they overrode his veto often. He even vetoed 3/4ths of the provisions of Romneycare. For Ryan's part his Medicare reform plan is called Ryan-Wyden - Wyden would be a liberal Democrat from Oregon.
Romney and Ryan have both been willing to put their necks on the line for serious policy proposals. Democrats respond with distortion, hyperbole, and demonization, but no plans of their own. Ever since 2010 Republicans have taken the lead on sending bill after bill to the upper chamber, and have been obstructed by Harry Reid. These are the facts, this is reality.
Be a Dem partisan if you want. But I can't afford that idiocy anymore and neither can you. Our tax rates our uncompetitive and must be lowered while broadening the base, even Canada and China have lowered their rates. Once Republicans steamroll Democrats out of the Senate and White House this November, we'll have substantially fewer problems with obstruction and go back to having a budget, not this continuing resolution garbage. Once we have a budget we'll be able to make baseline cuts and possibly pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. It may be true that Ryan's budget proposal doesn't go far enough - but if you're a Democrat, don't pretend you wouldn't attack a more vigorous proposal as anti-poor or anti-woman or whatever BS you'd be selling. You'd say Paul Ryan was trying to throw grandma off a cliff. Oh wait, Democrats already ran that ad.
I have no illusions about Mitt Romney. He is a transactional figure who does what is asked of him and not much more. He is driven entirely by results. Results are what we need right now, not intentions, not "hope and change."
We don't have the money for games any more. If you fear business owners - your fear is misplaced. You spend every moment of every day on a device a business owner innovated and made. If you believe the profit motive is evil - your belief is ignorant and ill-founded. Profit is what's left over after costs, and what business owners reinvest to keep improving those businesses and their products.
Willful economic illiteracy is no longer cost free. Complete ignorance of how the economy works is no longer acceptable. America as a nation can't afford those idiotic idealistic notions to drive votes anymore. Obama embodies both, and therefore cannot be re-elected. He is far in over his head and would rather talk about how Romney hates women or Romney murdered somebody's wife, somehow, or how somehow a tax cut for the bracket most small business owners file in is a tax raise on the rest of America. Even if you hate America and want to see it fail, it will have a sinkhole effect on the global economy you can't imagine, and the first nations to go will be whatever nation Russia or China decide to attack first, since the US bankrolls the defense for pretty much the rest of the world.
I'm tired of it, won't stand for it, and am doing everything in my power to get Republicans elected this year. Now is the time, and I fear it's the last chance any of us may have to turn this around.
I think its funny the Republicans prove they are okay with cutting programs that aid people who need help, but not okay with cutting programs for people who make a lot of money. And they accuse Obama of engaging in class warfare. Amusing.
And if you vote for a republican you are promoting war mongering and scientific illiteracy and a candidate who will bankrupt the states with yet another war in the middle east.
If you want to reduce the deficit you can cut health and education programs or you can cut military and business subsidies. Personally I think the latter could use the cut as the economy won't get anywhere with a sick uneducated workforce.
Since Pwnemon asked: Subsidies for Oil companies, For-Profit Universities, Religious organisations and others.
If you want to reduce the deficit you can cut health and education programs or you can cut military and business subsidies. Personally I think the latter could use the cut as the economy won't get anywhere with a sick uneducated workforce.
Since Pwnemon asked: Subsidies for Oil companies, For-Profit Universities, Religious organisations and others.
and although they aren't a program by definition, there does seem to be some sort of organized effort to maintain tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy.
EDIT: Also subsidies for farmers only benefit huge superpowers like Monsanto.
Don't forget that the economy isn't the only thing to worry about. Foreign relations with middle east are becoming exceedingly important with the revolutions and facilitation of oil increasing in significance. IMO obama and hilary have done a good job dealing with the middle east and can negotiate with them quite well. Republican's aren't exactly known for being able to deal with foreign countries, Romney in particular. IMO romney would just end up pissing off the middle east rather than being able to deal with them. The only country republicans are good at dealing with is Israel. This is because they like to suck at Israel's ding dong, for who knows what reason. We need a president who can cut off relations with Israel because they're just leeches draining our economy. People would say "Israel is our only ally in the middle east". Well there's a reason they're the only one. The only reason the UN, Europe, and america decided to invest in Israel was so that they could have a sector to control in the middle east to better facilitate the oil regime. That plan backfired. Israel made America its bitch and we're gaining absolutely nothing from them, other than hatred from other middle eastern countries. It's as if you have a cat. You want to raise it to be the best cat in the world and to boss the other cats around. So you feed it and keep feeding. With out realizing, you over feed it and it dies from some health problem. That's what the US is doing with Israel, they continually invest in it acting as if it wasn't a failed investment. Feeding a dead cat isn't going to bring it back to life. Once it's over, it's over, move on. If we take the money we invest in Israel and put into other middle eastern countries, oil trading becomes easier. The prices of oil may drop as a result of allying with the remainder of the middle east, people may buy more cars and our economy may steadily rise. Romney is appealing to the jew vote by supporting Israel. We don't need that. We need Israel to gtfo and fend for itself.
first, i hate the fact that you lumped religious organizations in there. First of all, they're not subsidized, but their non-profit status gives them a tax exemption. big difference. Second, the vast, vast majority are not rich - my church's three pastors live on a salary of $36400 a year, and we can't afford to hire any full time staff so jobs like secretary or maintenance are all done by volunteer work.
Second, subsidies don't really count imo because they're based on the (albeit faulty) logic that increasing subsidies lowers prices for the average consumer. While, in fact, the opposite is true, i'll give lawmakers credit that they just decided to study PoliSci instead of Econ and thus don't know this. I'm all for cutting subsidies, though. Don't know why some republicans aren't (though Paul Ryan is).
Well, everyone has access to these tax loopholes, but only the super wealthy can afford to hire the team of tax consultants to find them all. However, when someone suggests to simplify the tax code (like with oh, say, a flat tax) some in Congress flip and say it would be oh so unfair for the poor to pay such high tax rates!
Besides, it's not like only the republicans are in on this. Democrats are just as guilty of playing this BS corruption pandering to the rich scheme because let's face it, a campaign is expensive nowadays and you need a whole ton of money to get anywhere, and only Wall Street provides that kind of money. Both sides need to get some integrity before we can expect to see corporate welfare decrease
edit @ superbadd:
Oh, so you support Israel? Well tell me oh wise one, how have we benefited from them? Does being hated by the middle east and 9/11 count? Or is it wasting billions of dollars on country that doesn't respect us?
For the record, I'm not a democrat or a republican. I just happen to have studied history and know a shitty political viewpoint when I see one.
For the record, I'm not a democrat or a republican. I just happen to have studied history and know a shitty political viewpoint when I see one.
it's not so much that i disagreed with your argument (although you're incorrect in judging our motives; we support israel because a) they show unwavering support to the US and b) it's the only non-corrupted democracy in the middle east - we support the Saudis for their oil). It's that i just loved your statement "republicans aren't exactly known for being able to deal with foreign countries." Roosevelt (the elder). Eisenhower. Nixon. Reagan.
I was talking about the current republicans. The past ones, 30-50 years ago were great, I'll admit that. The current ones suck.
FYI Israel is not a democracy, it's a theocracy. No non corrupt democracy kicks out all the black people in it.
Israel has also killed american citizens in case you didn't know, I wouldn't say they give us unwavering support, in fact
I'd say they're just using us.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Edit: you might wanna take a look at this.
FYI Israel is not a democracy, it's a theocracy. No non corrupt democracy kicks out all the black people in it.
Israel has also killed american citizens in case you didn't know, I wouldn't say they give us unwavering support, in fact
I'd say they're just using us.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Edit: you might wanna take a look at this.
This is mostly with regards to huge churches with huge annual revenue. But either way, volunteers wouldn't pay income tax anyway, and I don't see any reason why your pastor should not be forced to pay the same social security tax that anyone else making 36400$ per year would have to pay.
If they don't count based on faulty logic, then they count. While it certainly is admirable that Ryan states opposition to the Big-Oil subsidies, Obama has actually tried to stop the subsidies while Ryan has proposed extending them.
Changing to a flat tax does not remotely affect how many loopholes there are in a system. A progressive tax structure is just as solid.
There is no doubt the Democrats could have done a better job cutting down on the tax loopholes, but I'd prefer a president who has at least attempted to try and fix them over the past 3.5 years than one who has probably been personally abusing the loopholes for the past 10.
making money on capital gains is not abusing a loophole. Yes, romney only pays a 15% tax on his income - because all his income is from the stock market, which is taxed 15%!
could give me some sources for this? i can't find anything that supports what you are saying, but i guess i'm not looking hard enough
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-israel-africans-idUSBRE85B0IY20120612
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/israel-expels-african-migrants_n_1580684.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-17/...frican-countries-south-sudan?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Israel kicks out africans! Just google that. The source on my previous post also had info on Israel killing american citizens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/israel-expels-african-migrants_n_1580684.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-17/...frican-countries-south-sudan?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Israel kicks out africans! Just google that. The source on my previous post also had info on Israel killing american citizens.
- Status