Romney vs. Obama

[ElasticNinja]

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.

It is not either or, it is BOTH. You have to decrease spending and increase the tax take.

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.

Mmmmm generalisations. Especially loved the punishing bit. Perhaps we should send them off to work on collective farms over the Urals?

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.

Well both have to be done. Federal spending is obviously too high, especially in the military and security fields. I'm sure money could be saved on stuff like Medicare if the government directly intervened in the market but that wont happen.
And on the tax sides you have the Bush era tax cuts etc. I personally find the idea of Obama wishing to keep them going for 97% of people ludicrous (Although this is hopefully a political stunt). Income tax surely needs to be hiked on income over say, $45-55K. Excise and capital gains could surely be put up too (These would have a fairly decent net positive effect on the economy if the money was to be spent, not saying it shouldnt be used to reduce the deficit, it should).

 

[OutofDate1980]

... Shall we do a case study on sports team owners who do are Democrats and do the EXACT same thing...

Well can you find a exact case study where a Democratic Governor used the government to raise sales tax, confiscate land, and use taxpayer subsidies to fund a professional sports team the governor had a ownership interest ?

I think not, the Republicans would have hounded the Democratic Governor out of office.

 

[A.Nonymous]

It is not either or, it is BOTH. You have to decrease spending and increase the tax take.

In order to take out the deficit yes. In order to not go further in debt you've got to do one or the other. I agree with you that we should do both but I doubt that's going to happen. Then you would have to pitch spending cuts AND tax increases which is not going to be popular at all with anyone.

Mmmmm generalisations. Especially loved the punishing bit. Perhaps we should send them off to work on collective farms over the Urals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're not in the US. The media here regularly lampoons Romney for being rich. There are a number of calculators on the Internet that will calculate how long Romney has to work to make what you earn in a year. The implication is that people should pass on him because he's rich. People frequently criticize prominent Romney supporters as well because they are rich. Rarely are their politics actually criticized. Just the fact that they're rich.

Income tax surely needs to be hiked on income over say, $45-55K. Excise and capital gains could surely be put up too (These would have a fairly decent net positive effect on the economy if the money was to be spent, not saying it shouldnt be used to reduce the deficit, it should).

Please don't hike the taxes on the $45-55k bracket. That's my bracket and I pay enough as it is.

Start taxing capital gains and you murder retirees. I'd love to see some politician pitch increased taxes on retirees as a good thing.

Well can you find a exact case study where a Democratic Governor used the government to raise sales tax, confiscate land, and use taxpayer subsidies to fund a professional sports team the governor had a ownership interest ?

I think not, the Republicans would have hounded the Democratic Governor out of office.

Sure. The San Jose mayor recently tried to lure the Oakland A's to town and were going to use eminent domain to give them the land. The mayor is a Democrat. He didn't get his way, but he did propose it. The Rams moved to St Louis after the Democratic mayor there used eminent domain and public funds to build them a stadium.

Oh, and just for the record, the bill to use eminent domain and public funds to build the Texas Ranger's stadium was signed by Governor Ann Richards. Bush had not even run for Governor at that point. Also, Richards is a Democrat. Bush was a managing partner of the team at the time and I confess I don't know how much campaigning he did. It's certainly not inappropriate for a partner in a sports team to campaign for public funds though.

 

[OutofDate1980]

You did say "... Shall we do a case study on sports team owners who do are Democrats and do the EXACT same thing..."

Neither Richards or the San Jose major had an ownership interest.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Neither did Bush so I'm not sure what your point is. Bush was not governor of Texas when the state voted and Richards signed off on using eminent domain. I'm unsure of your point. When TX used eminent domain and taxpayer money to fund the Ranger's stadium, Bush was a managing partner of the team, nothing more. I'm not sure what Republican governor you are referring to then who used the government to build up a team that he owned.

 

[ElasticNinja]

In order to take out the deficit yes. In order to not go further in debt you've got to do one or the other. I agree with you that we should do both but I doubt that's going to happen. Then you would have to pitch spending cuts AND tax increases which is not going to be popular at all with anyone.

I would've thought pitching both would be somewhat popular with those who believe in fiscal responsibility. People don't want tax rises or spending cuts but they also don't want default and half the federal tax take going on debt servicing.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're not in the US. The media here regularly lampoons Romney for being rich. There are a number of calculators on the Internet that will calculate how long Romney has to work to make what you earn in a year. The implication is that people should pass on him because he's rich. People frequently criticize prominent Romney supporters as well because they are rich. Rarely are their politics actually criticized. Just the fact that they're rich.

Well I hardly think he is worth what he has earned.

Please don't hike the taxes on the $45-55k bracket. That's my bracket and I pay enough as it is.

Well everyone has to share the pain, not to mention paying down the excesses of the past.

Start taxing capital gains and you murder retirees. I'd love to see some politician pitch increased taxes on retirees as a good thing.

Oh come on, capital gains is broader than that. And everyone has to share the pain, even of said part of the electorate scare politicians more than any other part.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I would've thought pitching both would be somewhat popular with those who believe in fiscal responsibility. People don't want tax rises or spending cuts but they also don't want default and half the federal tax take going on debt servicing.

Both parties play lip service to fiscal responsibility while embracing the opposite in practice. Raising taxes is unpopular with everyone in general unless it's on someone other than them. Cutting services is unpopular as well. The culture in this country is that everyone wants something but doesn't want to pay for it. Suggesting that people should either pay for it or not get it is a very unpopular stance for a politician of either party to take. Libertarians tend to take this stance and their showing in the polls reflects it.

Well I hardly think he is worth what he has earned.

That may well be but he's certainly not the only one in the country who's overpaid. There is a lot of heat directed toward him for no other reason that because he's wealthy. To be fair when Al Gore ran he got heat for the exact same reason. It is not popular at all to be wealthy in this country. The exception would be if you're a movie star or some other celebrity. Then it's ok. But a wealthy businessman is generally extremely unpopular.

Well everyone has to share the pain, not to mention paying down the excesses of the past.

Sure, but does everyone have to include me?

Oh come on, capital gains is broader than that. And everyone has to share the pain, even of said part of the electorate scare politicians more than any other part.

It is broader than that, but from a political perspective that's how it would be painted. You want to raise capital gains means you want to tax old people more. That is how those opposed to it would paint it. Politics in America isn't about what's right it's about what you can pitch successfully so you can stay in power.

I don't know the numbers and am too lazy to look them up, but I would be curious what the demographics are on people who make the majority of their living off capital gains. I'd bet it skews older.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Neither did Bush so I'm not sure what your point is. Bush was not governor of Texas when the state voted and Richards signed off on using eminent domain. I'm unsure of your point. When TX used eminent domain and taxpayer money to fund the Ranger's stadium, Bush was a managing partner of the team, nothing more. I'm not sure what Republican governor you are referring to then who used the government to build up a team that he owned.

Gov. Richards signed legislation to create the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), but had no involvement in its activities.

This Bush graft was notable as the taxpayers paid for and gave a Sports Stadium to private wealthy owners, which one of the owner's father happened to be President of the United States.

Then again the Bush family has a tradition with respect to the love of money.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism."

 

[A.Nonymous]

Gov. Richards signed legislation to create the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), but had no involvement in its activities.

This Bush graft was notable as the taxpayers paid for and gave a Sports Stadium to private wealthy owners, which one of the owner's father happened to be President of the United States.

Just to make sure we've got this straight. You do realize that just about every single sports team owner in the country does the exact same thing at some point or another. They threaten to leave town if a new stadium isn't built. They play multiple cities against each other. One of two things either happens. Either one of the cities caves and uses tax increases and eminent domain to build a new stadium or none of them buy it and the issue dies for a few years. Bush was the owner/managing partner of the Rangers at the time. Yet him doing it is "graft" and is apparently far more evil than when every other team owner does it. And you apparently blame Bush in particular for evil and not the state legislature who voted for it or the Democratic governor who could've veto'd it but didn't. A sports team owner advocating for a new stadium is evil. If the voters give it to him it's his fault and if the governor and legislature sign off on it, it's also his fault and his fault alone. Just want to make sure I'm following your logic.

Then again the Bush family has a tradition with respect to the love of money.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism."

Aannnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddd Godwin's law!!

First of all, assuming all of the above is true, are you really advocating that George W. Bush be held responsible for something his grandfather did years before he was even born. Seriously? So now the guy is not only evil for doing what every other sports team's owners do routinely, but he's also responsible for stuff his grandfather did before he was even conceived? Seems reasonable.

Second of all, Prescott Bush owned all of one share in the bank that was seized for "financing the Nazi's." Not to mention the fact that it was not unusual at all for companies to be invested in pre-war Germany. WWII comes around and those companies are still invested there so they're technically "financing the Nazi's." And companies like Standard Oil and GM did the exact same thing.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2434/was-president-bushs-great-grandfather-a-nazi

Also, Prescott Bush was not even a Nazi sympathizer. At least not according to the Anti-Defamation League - http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm

Please do some fact checking before posting silly things.

 

[Android311]

So I take it that most people here are for obama

 

[Spike15]

Go Romney!

 

[Rachel A]

In the UK I would vote for the Conservative party. Here in the US I'd have voted for Bush I and not II - nor will I vote Romney. It's not that I'm necessarily for Obama, just that, as a Christian, I am disgusted by the rise of the Religious Right within the GOP. I feel if the Tea Party wishes to stand on its own 2 feet and separate from the Republicans then that's fine by me because I'll probably end up voting for the GOP again.

However for me, a vote for Obama is one less vote than the Republican/Tea Party will get.

Until then, a vote for Romney only serves as food for the Tea Party.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I like to think that the Tea Party and the Religious Right aren't all that powerful. Vocal to be sure, but not all that powerful. Then I see the success Santorum had and it kind of scares me. I'll point out that neither the Tea Party nor the Religious Right is all that fond of Romney as he's more towards the center than the extreme right.

I'd also caution against voting for someone you don't like just so you're not voting for someone you like even less. To me if you're going to vote you should vote for who you believe in regardless of what party that person happens to belong to.

 

[Android311]

I understand your guys point, I like romney, I've always been a republican and probably always will, I do agree with some democratic views. To me, I think Obama has proven to America that he can't get the job done so now its time to give someone else a chance

 

[Rachel A]

I like to think that the Tea Party and the Religious Right aren't all that powerful. Vocal to be sure, but not all that powerful. Then I see the success Santorum had and it kind of scares me. I'll point out that neither the Tea Party nor the Religious Right is all that fond of Romney as he's more towards the center than the extreme right.

I'd also caution against voting for someone you don't like just so you're not voting for someone you like even less. To me if you're going to vote you should vote for who you believe in regardless of what party that person happens to belong to.

At the moment I'm more for Obama than Romney. Mitt is flipflopping to appease the Religious Right and Tea Party activists. Obama has come out however for equal rights which is something the RR wish to stamp down hard upon.

This is what happens when you let extreme factions loose in your party - some people love it and others despise. Count me in for the latter.

I believe at this current juncture Obama would be a better POTUS than Romney would. So I choose to vote Obama in this upcoming election.

 

[saptech]

To me, I think Obama has proven to America that he can't get the job done so now its time to give someone else a chance

That doesn't always work, Bush had two terms and he didn't get the job done either! Well, actually he was given the office the first term, but that is another topic.

 

[Rachel A]

We're also in a radically different world than we were a decade or so ago. Now the fortunes of China, Europe and others directly affect the financial markets over here. I think that we'd be in this much same position, market wise, regardless of who was in power these last 4 years.

I don't have any answers as to how I'd proceed there - do we limit the financial world's ability to speculate in foreign markets or just give them free reign? Limiting them may have the benefit of mitigating any damage the world might have on the US economy but equally it could make us weaker as the financial power houses shift their bases abroad as a result.

I don't think anyone 10 years ago could have even imagined that a general election in Greece could have extreme ramifications over here...

 

[saptech]

Did George W. Bush cause this crisis?- MSN Money

 

[A.Nonymous]

At the moment I'm more for Obama than Romney. Mitt is flipflopping to appease the Religious Right and Tea Party activists. Obama has come out however for equal rights which is something the RR wish to stamp down hard upon.

This is what happens when you let extreme factions loose in your party - some people love it and others despise. Count me in for the latter.

I believe at this current juncture Obama would be a better POTUS than Romney would. So I choose to vote Obama in this upcoming election.

Romney is definitely running around trying to appease the right. No question about it. He was largely ignoring them though until Santorum came out of no where and proved that they were indeed a force that shouldn't/couldn't be ignored.

Personally, I don't think either guy is a good choice. But we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[Rachel A]

In the UK we have The Monster Raving Loony Party headed back in the day by David 'Screaming Lord' Sutch. They were always a good alternative when neither a Tory, Labour or Lib Dem vote would do.

Apparently they're trying to make in roads to the USA now...

 

[Spike15]

At the moment I'm more for Obama than Romney. Mitt is flipflopping to appease the Religious Right and Tea Party activists. Obama has come out however for equal rights which is something the RR wish to stamp down hard upon.

This is what happens when you let extreme factions loose in your party - some people love it and others despise. Count me in for the latter.

I believe at this current juncture Obama would be a better POTUS than Romney would. So I choose to vote Obama in this upcoming election.

Equal rights? For who? For illegal immigrants? I think Obama is playing for the other team.

In addition, Romney is smarter than Obama. I hope he will be able to handle fiscal crisis better.

I don't particularly enjoy either candidate, but I prefer Romney over Obama.

 

[Rachel A]

Equal rights? For who? For illegal immigrants? I think Obama is playing for the other team.

In addition, Romney is smarter than Obama. I hope he will be able to handle fiscal crisis better.

I don't particularly enjoy either candidate, but I prefer Romney over Obama.

LGBT rights - something I'm very passionate about. Under a Romney administration with the RR & Tea Party involved, I fear that what little rights have been gained would be lost again.

 

[Spike15]

LGBT rights are nothing compared to the problems this country is facing. Romney is not a conservative. Tea party will not have much say once Romney is elected.

 

[Rachel A]

Whilst it's true the economic situation is by far the most important aspect, I'm also not convinced either party has a good answer, so it's a wash for me.

As for immigration, I think both sides recognize there is much more to do. So again, a wash.

On the social side of things, I'm no lover of all aspects of 'ObamaCare', but at least it's an attempt to address the countries lamentable health care situation. Is it the right way? To be honest I don't know but it seems reasonable to at least give it a chance.

So I'm left with LGBT rights and, for me, there it's a no brainer... Under the current administration we've seen Don't Ask Don't Tell being dismantled, DOMA left to fight on its own with no Justice Department support and an affirmation of the constitutional rights for same sex marriage.

On that front all I'm seeing from Romney is almost the opposite.

However, that all said these are only my reasons to vote Obama. I fully respect anybody else's rights to vote for whom they choose. Every one has different priorities and these just happen to be mine.

However, if Mitt Romney should win, regardless of what he believes in, I shall still give him the same respect that the office of POTUS deserves. At the end of the day, no matter who is in charge, they will be the President of the United States and, as such, I will wish them well in fighting for what's best for the USA.

If it turns out we were wrong, well there's always 2016...

 

[Rachel A]

Then there's the BlackAdder school of politics: "... firstly, we shall fight this campaign on issues, not personalities. Secondly, we shall be the only fresh thing on the menu. And thirdly, of course, we'll cheat."