Obama & mitt
-
MisterCMK;327496 wrote:
Therein lies the problem. With President Obama you know you are going to get a person who wants to put us on the road to recovery and one who has taken the steps necessary to do that.With Governor Romney, who knows what you are going to get? It would be foolish.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you really believe that?
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
MisterCMK;327496 wrote:
Therein lies the problem. With President Obama you know you are going to get a person who wants to put us on the road to recovery and one who has taken the steps necessary to do that.With Governor Romney, who knows what you are going to get? It would be foolish.
Its a joke right?
-
Obvious troll is obvious... No rational person would think that...
-
DaveH;327497 wrote:
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you really believe that?Why would I be sarcastic about something like that? You have President Obama who has laid out his road to recovery and has started us on that path. Then you have Governor Romney who has done nothing but flop around like a fish out of water. Your choice.
-
MisterCMK;327496 wrote:
With President Obama you know you are going to get
<snip>
With Governor Romney, who knows what you are going to get? It would be foolish.Back in '08, we didn't know what we were going to get with Obama either. Luckily, we now know exactly where Obama stands...
right next to Karl Marx.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
I personally hope Romney wins. I will be voting Libertarian (in ND, so it's not like my vote matters anyway, Romney will win the state easily).
That being said I wouldn't be surprised if Obama does win the electoral.
The real question is this, if Romney wins how long does he have to straighten the country out? 1st year spending is 95% pre-determined by the outgoing president and congress so there probably won't be much done year one. Year two through 4 is all on the new president and congressional leaders (spending, agenda, etc...)
Do you truly believe that Obamacare will be repealed year one? (I don't.... at least not without a replacement for it in place, which will take a super-majority in congress to pass because you know the Dems aren't going to vote it out)
Do you truly believe that unemployment will get better in his first year at a faster rate than it has in the past 4? (Again, I don't... he can do things that will make it better in years 2.5 through 4 though in my opinion)
Do you truly believe that spending is going to go down? Keep in mind that year-to-year spending from 2009 to 2012 has not increased (That should blow some minds on here ) and is growing at the second lowest rate in the past 60 years (when adjusted for inflation) however from 2008 to 2009 there was an increase, but again, that was MOSTLY predetermined by the previous socialist president that we had (GWB). Obama has mostly been the 3rd term of GWB in my opinion.... and Obama isn't tracking that far from Romney on things he's done (not what he said... what he's DONE) on many issues. http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Romney is just about as anti-gun as Obama... maybe even more so
Neither candidate meets my criteria as being able to represent me properly. Ron Paul was the closest and Gary Johnson is right behind him. Johnson will be on the ballot so he gets my vote. I just don't see enough difference between the two major parties (in practice.... in speech they are worlds apart) to vote for either of them regularly.
-
Trafik Jamz;327504 wrote:
The real question is this, if Romney wins how long does he have to straighten the country out? 1st year spending is 95% pre-determined by the outgoing president and congress so there probably won't be much done year one. Year two through 4 is all on the new president and congressional leaders (spending, agenda, etc...) I think the Pres can either help make things better, or help make things worse. I don't think they can "Straighten the country out".Trafik Jamz;327504 wrote:
Do you truly believe that Obamacare will be repealed year one? (I don't.... at least not without a replacement for it in place, which will take a super-majority in congress to pass because you know the Dems aren't going to vote it out) If they can get enough R's in the senate/congress, then they can. But realistically, I doubt it.Trafik Jamz;327504 wrote:
Do you truly believe that unemployment will get better in his first year at a faster rate than it has in the past 4? (Again, I don't... he can do things that will make it better in years 2.5 through 4 though in my opinion) Absolutely.Trafik Jamz;327504 wrote:
Do you truly believe that spending is going to go down? Keep in mind that year-to-year spending from 2009 to 2012 has not increased (That should blow some minds on here ) and is growing at the second lowest rate in the past 60 years (when adjusted for inflation) however from 2008 to 2009 there was an increase, but again, that was MOSTLY predetermined by the previous socialist president that we had (GWB). Obama has mostly been the 3rd term of GWB in my opinion.... and Obama isn't tracking that far from Romney on things he's done (not what he said... what he's DONE) on many issues. http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 I doubt much will change anytime soon.Trafik Jamz;327504 wrote:
Romney is just about as anti-gun as Obama... maybe even more so Not concerned about this.Trafik Jamz;327504 wrote:
Neither candidate meets my criteria as being able to represent me properly. Ron Paul was the closest and Gary Johnson is right behind him. Johnson will be on the ballot so he gets my vote. I just don't see enough difference between the two major parties (in practice.... in speech they are worlds apart) to vote for either of them regularly. I'm kinda in the same boat, but I won't vote for someone that doesn't have a chance of winning, so I vote for one of the two that have a chance of winning.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
I think points 2 & 3 are tied together there Dave. Right now businesses are rightfully afraid to hire people because they are unsure how Obamacare is going to affect them next year..... and they are terrified that they will be taxed/penalized for people who are offered major medical and refuse it as the business AND the employee will take a tax hit unless the cost of healthcare expense would have exceeded more than 9.5% of that persons income.... or if they work for someone who employs less than 50 full time equivalents.
-
Trafik Jamz;327506 wrote:
I think points 2 & 3 are tied together there Dave. Right now businesses are rightfully afraid to hire people because they are unsure how Obamacare is going to affect them next year..... and they are terrified that they will be taxed/penalized for people who are offered major medical and refuse it as the business AND the employee will take a tax hit unless the cost of healthcare expense would have exceeded more than 9.5% of that persons income.... or if they work for someone who employs less than 50 full time equivalents.Yup. Obamacare is one thing that is holding businesses back. And the talk about "making the rich pay their fair share" of taxes is another.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;327508 wrote:
Yup. Obamacare is one thing that is holding businesses back. And the talk about "making the rich pay their fair share" of taxes is another.I have a feeling everyone is going to see a slight tax increase.... regardless of who is in office. Either by closed loopholes or actual percentage increases.
-
Trafik Jamz;327510 wrote:
I have a feeling everyone is going to see a slight tax increase.... regardless of who is in office. Either by closed loopholes or actual percentage increases.Not everyone. There will still be close to half that won't pay any fed income tax.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;327511 wrote:
Not everyone. There will still be close to half that won't pay any fed income tax.And that number will continue to grow as the baby boomers continue to retire since many of their lifelong investments were pre-taxed and will not be subject to income tax come retirement (All of my IRA's and my 401K are Roth style.... tax when money is made, not when it is drawn)
-
Trafik Jamz;327514 wrote:
And that number will continue to grow as the baby boomers continue to retire since many of their lifelong investments were pre-taxed and will not be subject to income tax come retirement (All of my IRA's and my 401K are Roth style.... tax when money is made, not when it is drawn)You missed the point and fail at investing.
-
No, I didn't miss the point, nor do I fail at investing. It is FAR better by all of my financial planners estimates to pay tax on say $100+/week now (and for the past 19 or so years) than to pay tax on 7 figures in 25 years. My investment portfolio (aside from ROTH and 401K) are subject to capital gains as not all of them are in a TSA, mostly because I like to have some liquidity.
The point is that many people who are currently NOT paying taxes paid them for a pretty significant portion of their lives and a lot of them are drawing so little taxable income that they are not required to pay income tax. That is a fact. It is also a fact that there are a shitload of people who have never paid any income tax because they are too fucking lazy to get a job (which is the point I think you were getting at) and also that far too many people that are working don't earn enough to be required to pay federal income taxes after deductions.
I find it ironic that the republican's are pissed that the bottom half of the population don't pay any (income) taxes at all when they are striving for the same for the top half (we all are, let's be honest.... if you could find enough tax write-offs to where you were not required to pay taxes, you would utilize every single one of those write offs..... I know I try to get there). The lower half (if they are employed) are still paying into Medicare, Social Security, etc... via FICA, though their (and your) personal contribution is currently lessened by a little bit due to a tax relief measure put in place in 2009 by the "Making Work Pay" tax credit.
Now, I'm not trying to sound Pro-Obama here, I didn't vote for the guy last time or this time. I kinda wish we could re-write the last 4 years and see how things REALLY would have changed w/ a McCain presidency, my guess is financially we wouldn't be much better off than we are today as a country. (I have no faith in either party)
For the record, I don't think Romney will have enough electoral votes to win this election, though he will likely win the popular vote by 3% or more.
-
Trafik Jamz;327518 wrote:
I find it ironic that the republican's are pissed that the bottom half of the population don't pay any (income) taxes at all when they are striving for the same for the top halfNice speech, too bad its not accurate. They do NOT strive, they live off the system.
-
Not everyone in the lower 50% live off the system (though around 50% do receive a direct benefit from the government.... including most farmers http://farm.ewg.org/region.php). To say they ALL do is quite the stretch.... and to say that all of them strive to stay on these benefits is even more asinine. But I will concede that about 1/2 of the population receives a benefits.
I agree, for some people they feel they are better off not working rather than take a lower income job. For example, I think we've all heard stories of people who make less money taking a job than if they continue with unemployment. It SUCKS that this is the case, but I don't know if I can blame someone who has a family for staying on the system and maintaining their health benefits for themselves and their children instead of going to work at a job that won't be able to pay their bills (that they accumulated when they were working at a decent job before the economy started crashing in 2008). Ultimately we all do what is best for ourselves and our families, even if sometimes it isn't our ideal situation.
Now they are stuck in a perpetual spiral, they can't get a better job because their credit scores have dropped and they can't get out of debt because they can't get a job (my company won't allow us to hire anyone with a credit score lower than 600 for example)... so they can't get a job to get out of debt and they can't pay off their debt to get a better job.
Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That’s according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)
I found the charts above interesting and I am posting them for a point of discussion more than anything.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login