Topic: Obama or Romney ? - page 12. (Read 21126 times)

I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves.

Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.

Lmao never seen that before, love it.

Granted Obama seemed a bit shy... probably because his advisors are telling him that if he makes any huge mistakes he runs the risk of catapulting Romney into total victory. But when it comes right down to it, Romney actually knew things and Obama didn't.

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

In honor of the debate tonight...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=WpMPu5p_QXU

It was odd. I watched the entire debate and I didn't think that Romney "won". To me, he came across as a bully and he kept insisting on things that simply couldn't be true.

I think Obama was definitely trying to play it safe and be conservative and not risk any major blunder that Romney could capitalize on. As a result, he didn't really appear as strong as he could have. Maybe that's what everyone else was picking up on.

Or maybe their expectations for Romney were just insanely low.

Romney will try to capitalize on his victory by pushing interests of select few.

He will remove payroll tax cut - he will increase tax on all employees.
He will try to remove / reduce capital gain and dividends tax cuts.

This is not a case of breaking a single campaign promise. This is a total change in direction and philosophy on the second-biggest issue facing our nation.

If you think Obama will continue the same things Bush was doing, then what do you think Romney is going to do?

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: When his lips are moving.

Therefore, don't vote for the politician.

M

Tell me which president didn't break a single campaign promise? Romney is outright lying. Yes, Obama is status quo, he didn't change much Bush's policies. The change that Obama promised never happened.

Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined.

Obama released the famous "torture memos" in 2009. However, his own legal opinions justifying the drone strikes have never been released and he continues to refuse to release them.

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/10/obama_88/
See this article for more on how Obama completely abandoned his most important campaign promise -- to end the abuses Bush started.

(Of course, I certainly don't think a Romney administration would fix this.)

let's hope the economy won't crush so bad that there will be mayhem, because then without internet we wouldn't have much use for BTC...

I am shitting on both of them. But Romney is MUCH worse than Obama. I prefer status quo over a liar.

Debating Obama vs Romney is a waste of time, if not it's poor entertainment. I would have hoped peoples of this forum knew better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgFXO522NU&feature=player_detailpage#t=28s

+1

M

Gary Johnson. 

You wouldn't have hundreds of millions of illegals, you would have hundreds of millions of immigrants. The time periods where the US has had lots of immigration have been some of the most prosperous times. And they're hardly all unskilled, either. Now, quit with the fear-mongering, and listen to some reason.

As for the tax, yes, rich people can save more. You're neglecting the fact that with no income or capital gains taxes, the poor will also be able to save more. A minimum wage worker would, on average, get a 15-20% larger check. And you cannot deny that the rich consume more. because they consume more, they will be paying more taxes.

Being rich, in itself, does not incur a debt to society. Unless that wealth was gotten illegitimately, any debt to society has already been paid, and the wealth is the visible result of paying that debt. Bill Gates, for instance. How did he get his money? Very likely, by putting the operating system that you're currently using onto your computer. (less likely here than elsewhere, but no less true for that) Bill Gates got his money by providing a product that people wanted. If nobody wanted any Microsoft products, Gates would be broke. The same is true for almost every rich person out there. They got rich by providing goods or services. If they had not already served society, they would not have the money. So stop being so jealous that you didn't provide those goods or services.

Neither fear nor jealousy are pretty emotions, and you should not be displaying them so openly.


The problem is not the fact that the prisons are private. It's that they are private corporations with government granted monopoly. Since they have no competition (and certainly, their "customers" get no choice in the matter), and their only obligation is to the shareholders, They don't have the prisoners' best interests at heart.

The solution, of course, is the same as any other industry dominated by a big monopoly that's fucking it's customers. Open it up to competition, and let the market decide.

That makes sense.  I'd say that prisons should be governmentally funded and owned for the reasons you mentioned then.