Thought it would be interesting. Lets keep it anonymous unless of course you want to share...
Lets face it some of you are oversharers.:p
Printable View
Thought it would be interesting. Lets keep it anonymous unless of course you want to share...
Lets face it some of you are oversharers.:p
Another year of having to pick the shiniest turd:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gttz6kR7fF...ished-turd.jpg
Uh, meant to keep it anonymous. Screwed up. Hit the wrong button on the tablet screen. So, take one away from Obama talley and give it to Romney. Not signing this post so no one knows who I am. Roll Tide!!!
Rosanne Barr did such a good job as a mom on TV and a wife to the original fat power couple, I felt she and her running mate Cindy Sheehee could really have a positive impact on the country and world. It's a good thing that she was right there on the ballot, so all I had to do was color it in.
is FL really gonna go to Obama? ouch
sent from my home phone
I have only met like 3 Obama supporters in my life, maybe it's just from being in Texas, I don't know. I just can't understand how Obama can win but I guess in other states they don't know anyone voting for Romney
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
I'm super depressed :( :( I couldn't stay up long enough to see the results... so I woke up to the worst news ever... we are still being led by a muslim. Obama is NOT my leader. :(
To be fair, President Obama has proven to not be a leader for anyone. He did pass Health Care reform, but not much else. For any major legislation, there is a stalemate with no leadership from the white house.
I feel that the country lost an opportunity to elect someone with a proven record of leadership in the exact place we need it, finance. It does confuse me that I don't hear much positive from Obama supporters and have yet to hear a specific reason that he is supported by voters (unless you are black), but he did get the votes.
You can have confidence that your president is not a muslim.
I cannot actually... he is at least a sympathizer, which is worse in my opinion. He is a socialist, he will destroy capitolism if he is given half the chance.
The country has voted.... More benefits vs more jobs..... Godbless our children..
Gonna saturate the used boat market. :(
Maxpower, I would question his finance experience. I, personally, feel his business experience is difficult to translate to economic policy bc his experience seems to be motivated by personal greed. His experience isn't growing companies, it's maximizing shareholder happiness in a scenario where alot of the shareholders are "his people" or himself. It's a system designed to create leverage at the detriment of the majority. Along with that comes concerns for his plans for the tax system (lets face it, the math didn't work), foreign policy, medicare and social security, which all have an effect on the economy. The economist (yes, they are from a world stand point) supported Obama. Here is a Forbes article covering why the economist made that decision ... simple read and better put than I could do
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...for-president/
With that being said, I don't think Mitt lost the election, the influence of the Tea Party caused the Republican party to lose the election. (Ex: Akin and Murdouck) The campaign was full of lies and extreme propaganda (reference this thread) and has, hopefully, created a rift in the party bc it needs a make over. Mitt was the ideal candidate with moderate tendency until he became a puppet. I think they also just came across too partisan.
Admittedly those are all point against Mitt and not for Obama. I think "obamacare" (the rhetoric should be dropped) is more popular than the "loud talkers" make it out to be. The biggest complaint with it is the individual mandate which was dropped by 3 states last night. The people who preach how terrible it is, what are the actual concerns? For what its worth, the AMA (american medical association) supports the bill. The auto industry was also a huge deal, it saved that part of the country. I also think Sandy gave people some "feel good" about Obama. The response has been impressive (especially compared to Katrina) and he faced an opponent that is known to work against FEMA.
Those are, at least, my opinions on several of the popular topics. Maxpower, I'm not calling you out by quoting you, you just asked legitimate questions and since I have obviously posted my favor for Obama I felt somewhat of a need to respond. I tried to not go into too much detail (so it stayed semi-short) but I would love a clean thread discussing the economy and healthcare because like you said ... its hard to see how anyone things the opposite way of you and here I sit wondering the exact same thing from the opposite perspective. What ideas did Romney have that outshined Obamas plans?
and speaking of economy ..... there are two states economies, that after last night, will be interesting to watch. Anyone from CO or WA would have some interesting insight.
Yes, the Tea Party is full of "radicals" who want to control government spending and balance the budget. On the other hand the Obama supporters are intellectuals who want what is best for the country-- like this lady:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOw...ature=youtu.be
The Tea Party wants to control government with their personal belief system. A 20% tax cut across the board so we can pay down national debt is budget that is hard to balance in my head.
Yes there are radicals on both sides, from my view and the point I was hoping to make is the radicals on the right's presence is much more vital to you and I. As a democrat, I'm not too worried about the cell phone lady making decisions that will affect the people I represent. However as a Republican, individuals like Akin and Murdouck making decisions by serving in congress is down right scary.
I'm personally outraged at 502. My loser brother-in-law calls late last night "we won, we won!" - not referring to the presidential race. Friggin moron. He's a bartender, blows most of his $ on sporting event tickets and hanging out, is on food assistance (welfare) and he thinks legalizing is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are MANY more like him here...
I hope the Fed can and will overturn it.
OK, let's have George Soros instead.
We can all stick our heads in the sand and pretend this doesn't exist, but it does and it's very real:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
I challenge everyone to compare today's number (I know, it's a moving target) with the number 4 years from now. I wish the Dems would have held O accountable for his BS promises. Nevermind our dead Americans on his hands. Just vote yourselves more money and more benefits. It will work forever.
personally, I don't think either candidate was a solid choice. I sure would like to see a financial guy get into office and turn our budget/economy around, but it's too late for that this go-around.
I didn't want to see o make it another 4 years and feel he's wasted the first 4, but he was re-elected so I feel I should support him as he is our leader and hope he listened to the people during the elections..
Kane, i feel the debt will decrease if Congress can come together. Sure Obama hasn't delivered on his promises but can you say he hasn't faced a huge battle, due to partisanship, around each corner? They fight to fight. In reality, i think Congress is a larger issue than the presidential election for the progress of the next 4 years.
American blood ... I'm assuming you are referencing the one event that was dramatically over politicized. What about the soldiers that are home from an unnecessary war and the soldiers that won't be sent back overseas from a war hungry party?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Sandm, agreed you won't see much on a micro level. However, i think some of the tax law changes that have been discussed could change things at a macro level and will hopefully benefit the country. If history is any precedent, it stands a chance to come true.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Libs conveniently forget history. When O had both houses he barely got his Obamacare passed. They haven't passed a budget in 3 years. They blame republicans for this. O got his stimulus passed. Both the stimulus and the O-care were/are very expensive and failed or doomed to fail. The post office is broke-- how do you think they will do with health care. It's asinine. You also conveniently forgot the Holder scandal on O's watch and the dead Americans from that one. But that's what the TV teaches you-- blame somebody else. Not your fault. Blame the republicans. Blame Bush. Blame the rich. I'm telling you right now that you can't keep taking money from working people and giving it to someone else to make them feel better and vote for you. It will have to end. He knows this and that's why he wants to take our guns away. I have 6 kids and don't want a handout-- my grandparents were proud democrats. They were poor but too proud to go "on relief". They wouldn't take something for nothing. It's just a different mentality now. Ask what your country can do for you and give you on someone else's back.
I don't often speak out loud about politics or religion. with that being said, thank GOD.....TEXAS is a republican state
sent from my home phone
Kane, the history i was speaking of was from an economic standpoint in relation to tax rates. Go pull the history. He barely got obamacare passed bc he had no plans to shove it down everyones throat. Despite all the negativity around it, is it suprising to see so many for it? They have done a TERRIBLE job educating people on what obamacare is. Like I asked earlier, what parts of obamacare are so terrible? I think it is pretty widely accepted that the stimulus saved the economy from a double dip recession. Rhetoric aside, that comes from both sides of isle.
The TV talk is almost comical since i feel it so strongly biased the other way. And who in the hell has taken someones guns away? The NRA probably loves that Obama got reelected as people who feel the way you mentioned rush to the store to load up. I think the TV really exaggerates the amount of people "living off the government". There is a generalization close to the point of 47% .... how many people do you come across on a daily basis, I'm talking everyone you see, that rely on the government? Anywhere near 47%? I think this is an idea that feeds off peoples egos.
Also, a subsidy is basically an advantage one way away from an equal playing field ... So the working class are subsidizing the lazy people by giving them money, benefits, etc. bc its for the good america. That's the philosophy on subsidies, right? At the same time, isn't it also a subsidy when the government lowers the tax rates for the wealthy? This is an advangtage away from an even playing field. So the tax dollars you pay, yes go to Bergs bum BIL but they are also going to fund the government as a whole due to lost tax dollars from the subsidy on the wealthy. Both are subsidies and a use of your tax dollars.
Now from a macro standpoint, in a time of uncertainty people hoard cash bc its the smart thing to do. How badly does it hurt america that some bum makes poor decisions. From an economic standpoint, him spending every dollar he comes across is better for the economy than the rich holding their money. Transactions are the economy. The current admin isn't asking to give more subsidies to the poor, they are asking to take away the subsidies from the wealthy. This is why the backbone of america has to be the working class. The working class is that group between the two current subsidy groups that are eating away at our economy. They are the ones that are fiscally responsible but don't have enough leverage to use the system to their benefit (which is currently happening). Instead, they are getting squeezed by both groups. The subsidies for the wealthy are way to often left out of the media. I think it stands to reason that with an even playing field, the poor decision makers are going to drift lower and the good decision makers will rise. It's capitalism. What concerns me, is that with an uneven playing field as is, poor decision makers with money have much more leverage than good decision makers without money.
What is worse for the economy, a bum spending every last dollar or a fat cat hoarding capital? Transactions are the economy and there is is finite capital. It's not a redistribution of wealth, its a redistribution of playing field.
... and at this point I'm basically playing devil's advocate, especially looking at our "local" poll but maybe it inspires some thought, either for or against, thought is thought.
Also, I'm a lazy democrat so this def beats working :D
boat still for sale KG?
Well, I think your point is that we need a third party that represents the people who go to work and pay their bills. The left is too eager to promise handouts and subsidies using other people's money. Meanwhile the right has sold out to the biggest businesses-- the ones that open a big box store and put 20 mom n pop shops out of business. The right uses small business for convenience but really does little to benefit them. The folks in the middle get squeezed from both ends. Just keep in mind that when O talks about raising taxes on the rich he's talking about folks like us as part of the "rich" -- otherwise the numbers don't add up.
A real plan would lower taxes for everyone and cut spending. That would boost the economy and speed up the transactions thereby increasing the tax base. But, eliminating "waste" by putting government in charge of health care will not work -- that I can guarantee.
You are exactly right in that the getting rid of the current party system would go along way for the majority of america. No doubt about that. I'm not sure I agree on the tax side, though. Some examples of where my thinking comes from ...
Tax rates on dividends. We have subsidized dividend income by allowing a tax rate of 15% opposed to the ordinary rates (which would vary depending on your income level). Now, your Romney's of the world (and honestly a whole world that operates above the heads of many americans concept of business) don't "have to have" ordinary income like you and I. They can live off savings, per say. The idea behind the subsidy is that americans shouldn't be taxed on their savings OR on investing in the market. Great and noble concept, that entices people to invest, awesome. The problem, average "rich" joe (who you are saying gets lumped in) invest $50,000 in ABC Inc., he gets dividends for his investment and the taxpayers subsidizes the difference bewtween 15% and his normal rate (not necessarily the highest rate). At his small investment (yea i called 50k small bc on wallstreet it is) how much benefit are you providing for him?Now, your Romney's of the world (the real rich that ooze capital) need a way to make money but not a 9 to 5 (i mean who would right?) So how? They invest dollars into ABC Inc (often times, enough money that gives them control of the company). They have the power within these companies either over actual interest or through lobbying interest to basically "run" the company. They push for profits and pay out dividends, to themselves. They do it bc this is the smartest way to make money, its the least taxed. They are simply playing the game the way it should be played. Rounding down, Romney made 3.6 million in dividends in 2011. Assuming normal rates of 40% and the subsidy rate of 15%, that is a subsidy of $900,000 to one individual!!!!!! He isn't a genius, that's what they are all doing. The idea of subsidizing the rich because it will trickle down has proven not to work.
^and that doesn't even address the abuse of capital gains rates which is where most of Romney's money comes from.
Social Security and Medicare. Two broken systems that were designed for americans, especially the working class. Average rich Joe from above pays the way by paying the tax on all of his annual income. Guess how much of that dividend income from above Romney pays medicare and social security on ... $0. Sure he won't need it so why should he have to pay in? Well following that theory, if it's designed to fail and I'm going to receive no money, I don't want to contribute either. Also, you don't even pay into these systems once your income passes the 106,000 range (too lazy to look up at this point) which has been adjusted very little with inflation throughout the years. I still don't understand that limit, especially with a growing economy and increased living age. I mean defined benefit plans were nearly the death of the auto industry and that is exactly what social security is ... with a very poor financial plan. Yes, this is a great place to say the government can't run the show, I'll agree there but it isn't obama. That is status quo for years back.
Once again, obamacare, where in this plan do you see the government controlling healthcare?
Do you really think there is enough room in the tax base to produce the type of revenues you could get by leveling the rates on wealthy america? You are saying there are enough people out of work that if you put them back to work they will pay in enough tax to cover what we could get by ending wealthy subsidies. How many people do you have to put back to work to get the 900,000 back in taxes you subsidized for Romney?
I would support anyone that can show me a real plan for lowering taxes for all. nothing personal kane, but it pisses me off to no end that I pay and pay and pay into the govt and don't have kids for deductions and yet my neighbor that has 3 pays a MUCH lower tax rate because he has them, not to mention the fat refund at the end of the year he cashes and I do not.. I know, kids cost money, but that's a choice..
give me a progressive flat tax based on income and close all these stupid loopholes. imo, no one should ever get back thousands of $$ more than they pay in..
and the sad thing is that the more you make, the better tax man you can afford to make your liability go away.
democrat or republican I care not, show me the guy that can make that happen and he's my friend for life :)
our entire political and governmental system needs a major overhaul. that would fix all the problems, but that's just a pipe dream as those that make their living off politics will NEVER let that day come..
and the media. It is part of the reason for the large divide. People don't even look to educate themselves on the topics, they just want to know what their team is cheering for/against and a couple solid tag lines which they get fed depending on which news source they watch, or their peers watch.
Edit for disclosure: pulled the wrong dividend number earlier. Should be 2.2, not 3.6.
Wow, you guys are tough! Why aren't all you Romney guys out buying new Mastercrafts (oh wait, Mittens has a Malibu), isn't that what rich people do? I'm never going to be rich, therefore I will continue to own Moombas and vote democratic.
I doubt that women in Cleveland owns a moomba... Lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can't beat Santa Claus.