• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Romney vs. Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spike15 said:
It is a myth they want you to believe. The leaders of the revolution pursued their own financial goals and ambitions.
Click to expand...

A hallowed tradition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...tart-in-1789/2012/06/23/gJQA1OvVyV_story.html

"It was 1789, and state-backed revolutionary war bonds had become virtually worthless. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton moved in to shore up the investments.

Before word spread, members of Congress secretly scooped up thousands of the bonds from unsuspecting farmers and war veterans, paying pennies on the dollar."
 
A.Nonymous said:
I think it's just human nature to look out for oneself first.
Click to expand...

..and this is certainly an important part of humans survival techniques. But working together is what brought forward society and gives us everything we have today. And respecting each other. And helping each other. And creating systems so that everyone gets a basic level of help and respect.
 
noonehereyet said:
... The issue is State based and who you elect locally that decides who becomes president. That being said the issue becomes who on a state level do the candidates have in their pockets...
Click to expand...

The Republicans realize this. :deal:

"Republican state legislatures fight nonexistent fraud with voter ID laws, but the lamestream media calls it a scheme to disenfranchise low-income and elderly voters."

Blood in the Water - Mike Turzai's Voter ID Remarks - The Colbert Report - 2012-27-06 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
 
Yep, when Republicans spend money, they don't monkey around, Shock and Awe comes to mind.:thrasher:

​
Deniability, lack of accountability and loopholes is not so much as a different story, but propaganda on steroids.

​
"NCPAC became one of the first groups to circumvent the contribution limits of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by exploiting the "independent expenditure" loophole permitted under a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Although federal law restricted political action committees' expenditures to $10,000 per candidate, an organization could spend unlimited amounts of money supporting or opposing a particular candidate as long as their campaign activity was not coordinated with a candidate. NCPAC pooled independent contributions in order to make independent expenditures on campaign attack ads.[1] Not only did this circumvent campaign finance restrictions, but it prevented candidates from being associated with advertising created on their behalf. NCPAC Chairman Terry Dolan was quoted as saying, "A group like ours could lie through its teeth, and the candidate it helps stays clean."[2][3][4] Dolan later said he was describing a hypothetical situation, not NCPAC's actual tactics.[5]"​
 
Android311 said:
When democrats spend money no one says a word, when republicans do it's a different story :p
Click to expand...

Supposedly Republicans are spending the money of rich people. Never forget that all rich people (whatever that means) are evil to the core. Democrats however are champions of the poor and the oppressed. Where they get their money is a secret known only to a few.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Supposedly Republicans are spending the money of rich people. Never forget that all rich people (whatever that means) are evil to the core. Democrats however are champions of the poor and the oppressed. Where they get their money is a secret known only to a few.
Click to expand...

You have a lot of opinions, but no facts. Here's a case study on corporate theft.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue42/pols.bushstadium.html

"George W. Bush loves baseball. And why not? After all, baseball has been very very good to the governor. When it comes to power, the governor is a true triple-threat. Consider his record: (1) His initial baseball investment of $600,000 carries the current potential of a 3,200% return. (2) Through savvy PR and political maneuvering, he and his partners have persuaded a city and the state to directly subsidize a facility for their business. (3) Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners have also successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens so it could be used for their own private purposes."
 
Big businesses may power the US but unregulated big business can do an awful amount of damage. Exhibit A, the recent depression, that started when the big money boys were allowed to run rampant with no little or no oversight.

Strong regulation may have hurt the ability for Lehman Brothers et al to make massive profits in the mid 2000s, but it may have also prevented tens of thousands of people being kicked out of their houses as result...

Personally I don't think either party has the answer. Too little oversight is just as bad as too much.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
Big businesses may power the US but unregulated big business can do an awful amount of damage. Exhibit A, the recent depression, that started when the big money boys were allowed to run rampant with no little or no oversight.

Strong regulation may have hurt the ability for Lehman Brothers et al to make massive profits in the mid 2000s, but it may have also prevented tens of thousands of people being kicked out of their houses as result...

Personally I don't think either party has the answer. Too little oversight is just as bad as too much.
Click to expand...

Aggressive antitrust enforcement would mitigate the harm caused by these too big to fail institutions. By definition, too big to fail means they're too big.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
You have a lot of opinions, but no facts. Here's a case study on corporate theft.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue42/pols.bushstadium.html

"George W. Bush loves baseball. And why not? After all, baseball has been very very good to the governor. When it comes to power, the governor is a true triple-threat. Consider his record: (1) His initial baseball investment of $600,000 carries the current potential of a 3,200% return. (2) Through savvy PR and political maneuvering, he and his partners have persuaded a city and the state to directly subsidize a facility for their business. (3) Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners have also successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens so it could be used for their own private purposes."
Click to expand...

Boy there's no political rhetoric there at all. Shall we do a case study on sports team owners who do are Democrats and do the EXACT same thing. Nah. Let's just assume that Bush did this because he's a Republican. A Democrat would never stoop to such lows. Let's just ignore that every single owner of a sports franchise does the exact same BS stuff.
 
Romney raised $100 mil last month. No doubt the vast majority of it from big corporations and filthy rich individuals. Obama raised $70 mil last month. Again, I'm sure the vast majority of it was from big corporations and filthy rich individuals. Big money runs the political system regardless of the party.
 
Android311 said:
Your right, Both partys don't have an answer....it's pretty sad
Click to expand...

No political party anywhere has all the answers. Doesn't mitigate the fact that some parties have more answers than others. You cant expect to get a perfect party that does everything you want it to, you just have to choose the one thats best at the time.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Romney raised $100 mil last month. No doubt the vast majority of it from big corporations and filthy rich individuals. Obama raised $70 mil last month. Again, I'm sure the vast majority of it was from big corporations and filthy rich individuals. Big money runs the political system regardless of the party.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
ElasticNinja said:
No political party anywhere has all the answers. Doesn't mitigate the fact that some parties have more answers than others. You cant expect to get a perfect party that does everything you want it to, you just have to choose the one thats best at the time.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think either party has any answers. They are both in agreement that the solution is to spend more money. They disagree on where the money should come from and what to spend the money on, but they agree that the solution is the feds spending more money.
 
The government is spending to much money, and democrats want to raise taxes for them to get more money when taxes are already high, just cut out things we don't need
 
Android311 said:
The government is spending to much money, and democrats want to raise taxes for them to get more money when taxes are already high, just cut out things we don't need
Click to expand...

I think there is room for both. I have no problem with low income families getting some assistance, but I do think that there are crazy loopholes in it. I have a friend whose wife works with welfare recipients in Texas and there are a few examples of things that I have issues with. For example:

1. Welfare recipients are allowed to deduct cable TV expenses as a "utility" bill. Cable TV is completely unnecessary so I have a real issue with paying taxes for that, especially when I cancelled my own cable about 2 years ago for the sole purpose of saving money (and I get paid quite a bit as a software developer with a graduate degree).

2. There has been at least one case where the welfare recipient was receiving more in aid than my friend does working at the welfare department. Granted, the lady received large amounts of money because she has 6 kids, but it's still insane to work on someone's case and see that the state pays them more in welfare than they pay you in salary.



So I agree there is some fat to be trimmed. Each excess is probably rather minuscule in terms of our overall spending but combined they might total up to something reasonable/substantial. But in order to really trim the deficit we need to both increase revenue and cut spending. Note however that the government isn't looking to raise taxes on the majority of Americans -- they are looking to raise taxes on a very small minority (say the top 2% which Obama proposed last year). In that case, 98% of Americans wouldn't see an increase!

In any case, I think Jon Stewart did the best job describing the whole marginal tax increase and class warfare issue so I'll just leave you with that...

World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/18/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
 
A.Nonymous said:
I disagree. I don't think either party has any answers. They are both in agreement that the solution is to spend more money. They disagree on where the money should come from and what to spend the money on, but they agree that the solution is the feds spending more money.
Click to expand...
I think they both do not condone spending more, but do it nonetheless. The federal stimulus was very important (The importance of a federal level stimulus here can not be understated), but now spending needs to be cut back. The issue is that the GOP's solutions have focused on cutting already measly federal benefits, while increasing military spending and failing to increase taxes. The Democrats want to protect welfare spending, and have some areas set out for cuts and increasing the tax take.

Android311 said:
The government is spending to much money, and democrats want to raise taxes for them to get more money when taxes are already high, just cut out things we don't need
Click to expand...

But the GOP doesnt want to cut spending in a meaningful way. In fact cutting welfare spending and increasing military spending will just lead to a reduction in the tax take furthermore.
Anyway, taxes HAVE to be increased, if at least to fund welfare measures due to GWB's cutting of social security taxes, and borrowing. You cant just keep running a large deficit (Although the US has run a mid sized one for 50 years due to economic witchcraft/being the largest entity that borrows in the world), its just not proper or logical.
 
ElasticNinja said:
I think they both do not condone spending more, but do it nonetheless. The federal stimulus was very important (The importance of a federal level stimulus here can not be understated), but now spending needs to be cut back. The issue is that the GOP's solutions have focused on cutting already measly federal benefits, while increasing military spending and failing to increase taxes. The Democrats want to protect welfare spending, and have some areas set out for cuts and increasing the tax take.
Click to expand...

I think both parties pay lip service to curbing spending but have no interest in actually doing it. The problem is you've got to either cut services or raise taxes. Both are political suicide in a lot of ways. The Republicans propose cutting welfare benefits because said benefits are excessive and that system is broken as far as their base is concerned. The Democrats propose raising taxes on the wealthy because their base is inclined to believe that all rich people are evil so punishing them is a good thing.

Both solutions would actually work in reality given that spending is kept the same or cut but that's not gonna happen. So we are stuck in an endless loop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom