Thread: Ten reasons why I am not voting for Romney

Originally Posted by Conservative

I guess the question is the definition of trash which apparently you don't seem to understand

Your so called refuting my information has converted me into an Obama supporter as with a record like he has if that gains support from people like you then that is good enough for me. I always thought the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Treasury Department always lied but Obama with his rhetoric never does.

No Moderator has ever asked me to stop posting data and facts, just not to do it over and over again in the same forum. Seems you have been gone for a while and probably forgot the reasons to vote for Obama so I reminded you

You don't even know how to read stats. This is what got you in trouble with your posts in the past. People can simply go into your links and make you look ridiculous with your own posts.

btw... I'm not voting for Obama. Didn't vote for him before. Something else I've told you that you've forgotten. There are plenty of facts to drive people away from Obama. You just don't seem to have a clue as to what they are so you make them up.

A mod did in fact tell you to stop cutting a pasting all the time. And you specifically said you would. You lied.

Originally Posted by poweRob

You don't even know how to read stats. This is what got you in trouble with your posts in the past. People can simply go into your links and make you look ridiculous with your own posts.

btw... I'm not voting for Obama. Didn't vote for him before. Something else I've told you that you've forgotten. There are plenty of facts to drive people away from Obama. You just don't seem to have a clue as to what they are so you make them up.

I don't know how to read stats? Interesting, feel free to do it again since you have such an outstanding imagination. No one has refuted the numbers as they are very easily verified.

Sorry you aren't voting for Obama because with a record like he has he seems like your kind of candidate. the one thing I will never do is make up facts and that is why I post the link for the information I post. You ought to try it some time and do it with context. Percentage change doesn't mean a damn thing when you get to the numbers we are at today.

I have been told that Reagan tripled the debt which he did but what does that really mean? He took the debt up 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Does that make Obama's numbers look better? Obama increased the debt 40% but that 40% is 5.2 trillion dollars. Which one do you think costs more debt service

Then there is real vs. nominal dollars which is a favorite of the left but only when they believe it is favorable to them. If you adjust the 1.7 trillion debt that Reagan created by 1988 and put it into 2012 dollars tell me how much that is? By all measurement 5.2 trillion in 3 plus years is a lot worse than 1.7 trillion in 8 even in today's dollars.

Then there is the employment numbers, I hope you realize that discouraged workers were always counted in the official numbers prior to 1992 but not so today and they haven't been included since 1992. So when one ignores the 968000 discouraged workers in April 2012 that distorts the unemployment numbers.

Now I am willing to learn but in order to teach me you at least have to be intellectually honest in the discussion

Originally Posted by Conservative

Percentage change doesn't mean a damn thing when you get to the numbers we are at today.

I have been told that Reagan tripled the debt which he did but what does that really mean? He took the debt up 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Does that make Obama's numbers look better? Obama increased the debt 40% but that 40% is 5.2 trillion dollars. Which one do you think costs more debt service

Then there is real vs. nominal dollars which is a favorite of the left but only when they believe it is favorable to them. If you adjust the 1.7 trillion debt that Reagan created by 1988 and put it into 2012 dollars tell me how much that is? By all measurement 5.2 trillion in 3 plus years is a lot worse than 1.7 trillion in 8 even in today's dollars.

Then there is the employment numbers, I hope you realize that discouraged workers were always counted in the official numbers prior to 1992 but not so today and they haven't been included since 1992. So when one ignores the 968000 discouraged workers in April 2012 that distorts the unemployment numbers.

Now I am willing to learn but in order to teach me you at least have to be intellectually honest in the discussion

Well, let's see. We can start with this one:

Percentage change doesn't mean a damn thing when you get to the numbers we are at today.

Percents can be difficult to understand. If I got a 10% raise back, say, in 1970, that would have been about $80 a month or so. Today, such a raise would mean very little in real constant dollars, but back then it was a car payment. Comparing percents is much more realistic as it adjusts for inflation and increase in population.

Then there is this one:

Then there is real vs. nominal dollars which is a favorite of the left but only when they believe it is favorable to them.

A 2012 dollar compared with one from say, 1965 is worth roughly 8 cents. That is based on the cost of items I used to buy in Bolivian pesos, which were worth about 8 cents at the time, and cost about the same as things do now, perhaps a little less. A restaurant entre, for example, cost somewhere around 8 to 12 pesos, about the same as it costs in dollars in the USA today. So, whether you're "right" or "left", the fact of the matter is that the dollar simply isn't the same as it once was.

Finally, this one:

Then there is the employment numbers, I hope you realize that discouraged workers were always counted in the official numbers prior to 1992 but not so today and they haven't been included since 1992. So when one ignores the 968000 discouraged workers in April 2012 that distorts the unemployment numbers.

I'm not sure just what you mean by "discouraged workers." I'd think that anyone who has been out of work for a few months and been turned down again and again would be discouraged.

But, those workers are still being counted.

Not that unemployment is actually only 8% or so. That figure doesn't count people who have taken part time work, for example.

You can't say that, if 8% of the population is unemployed, then 92% have full time work that makes enough to pay the bills, but you can say that 8% unemployment today is the same as 8% unemployment 10 or 20 years ago.

Dittohead not!;1060542810]Well, let's see. We can start with this one:



Percents can be difficult to understand. If I got a 10% raise back, say, in 1970, that would have been about $80 a month or so. Today, such a raise would mean very little in real constant dollars, but back then it was a car payment. Comparing percents is much more realistic as it adjusts for inflation and increase in population.

But that 10% raise in 1970 was used to spend on 1970 expenses and not expenses today just like the debt in 1970 had to be paid for in 1970 dollars. My point continues to be is why someone calls tripling the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion worse than increasing the debt from 10.6 trillion to 15.8 trillion?

Then there is this one:



A 2012 dollar compared with one from say, 1965 is worth roughly 8 cents. That is based on the cost of items I used to buy in Bolivian pesos, which were worth about 8 cents at the time, and cost about the same as things do now, perhaps a little less. A restaurant entre, for example, cost somewhere around 8 to 12 pesos, about the same as it costs in dollars in the USA today. So, whether you're "right" or "left", the fact of the matter is that the dollar simply isn't the same as it once was.

The comparision was between the debt in 1989 vs. the debt today and the contribution for that debt. Intellectual honesty will indeed say that there is no way the 1.7 trillion created in 9 years would be worth 5.2 trillion in today's dollars. Just think another 4 years of Obama and we can say he has doubled the debt by adding over 10 trillion to it

Finally, this one:



I'm not sure just what you mean by "discouraged workers." I'd think that anyone who has been out of work for a few months and been turned down again and again would be discouraged.

But, those workers are still being counted.

Not that unemployment is actually only 8% or so. That figure doesn't count people who have taken part time work, for example.

Discouraged workers are now included in the U-6 number not the U-3 or the official unemployment number. They are people that have dropped out of the labor force and are a monthly number. Prior to 1992 the U-3 number included Discouraged Workers. The total number of unemployed/under employed Americans is 23 million and that continues to be much more than anything Bush ever generated.

You can't say that, if 8% of the population is unemployed, then 92% have full time work that makes enough to pay the bills, but you can say that 8% unemployment today is the same as 8% unemployment 10 or 20 years ago

But it isn't 8%, because as pointed out the under employed/unemployed numbers are 23 million and then there are the conract workers as well as private businesses that are out of business not being counted as unemployed. The labor participation rate today is at early 1980's levels.

old thread but this is still 100% relevant today

Originally Posted by Conservative

I don't know how to read stats? Interesting, feel free to do it again since you have such an outstanding imagination. No one has refuted the numbers as they are very easily verified.

Sorry you aren't voting for Obama because with a record like he has he seems like your kind of candidate. the one thing I will never do is make up facts and that is why I post the link for the information I post. You ought to try it some time and do it with context. Percentage change doesn't mean a damn thing when you get to the numbers we are at today.

I have been told that Reagan tripled the debt which he did but what does that really mean? He took the debt up 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Does that make Obama's numbers look better? Obama increased the debt 40% but that 40% is 5.2 trillion dollars. Which one do you think costs more debt service

Then there is real vs. nominal dollars which is a favorite of the left but only when they believe it is favorable to them. If you adjust the 1.7 trillion debt that Reagan created by 1988 and put it into 2012 dollars tell me how much that is? By all measurement 5.2 trillion in 3 plus years is a lot worse than 1.7 trillion in 8 even in today's dollars.

Then there is the employment numbers, I hope you realize that discouraged workers were always counted in the official numbers prior to 1992 but not so today and they haven't been included since 1992. So when one ignores the 968000 discouraged workers in April 2012 that distorts the unemployment numbers.

Now I am willing to learn but in order to teach me you at least have to be intellectually honest in the discussion

How much of that deficit is from the Medicare Drug law, the 2 wars that Bush started but couldn't finish, the 2 tax cuts, the stimulus that kept us out a depression, ongoing budget expenses from the Bush years, and last but not least revenue decline from the Bush recession? You claim to have a knack for numbers so get cracking.

BTW the decline in interest rates has made the cost for servicing our debt barely higher than in 2000. You can figure out what it was in the 80's when mortgages were above 15%, you might tbe surprised at how high it was.

Originally Posted by iguanaman

How much of that deficit is from the Medicare Drug law, the 2 wars that Bush started but couldn't finish, the 2 tax cuts, the stimulus that kept us out a depression, ongoing budget expenses from the Bush years, and last but not least revenue decline from the Bush recession? You claim to have a knack for numbers so get cracking.

BTW the decline in interest rates has made the cost for servicing our debt barely higher than in 2000. You can figure out what it was in the 80's when mortgages were above 15%, you might tbe surprised at how high it was.

You obviously don't realize how foolish you look as you have no understanding of the debt and the deficit. Further it is totally ignorant to believe that a tax cut is an expense to the govt. unless you believe the govt. owns the money first.

You show the problem with liberalism. Deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar national debt that is now 16.0 trillion. Liberals love to point to Medicare Part D as they ignore that the Democrat proposal was 800 billion dollars more.

It is really quite telling in that you as an Obama supporter are out of touch with reality

Originally Posted by Camlon

Should conservatives vote Romney?

Only if they buy into the voodoo economics of balancing budgets while drastically increasing defense spending all while cutting taxes. What am I saying? Of course they believe it. They've bought that balogna since Reagan and still do.

Originally Posted by Conservative

You obviously don't realize how foolish you look as you have no understanding of the debt and the deficit. Further it is totally ignorant to believe that a tax cut is an expense to the govt.

If Romney were elected and instituted a 20% across the board tax cut and spending stayed he same, what would happen to the deficit, debt? Would they go up or go down?

Originally Posted by pbrauer

If Romney were elected and instituted a 20% across the board tax cut and spending stayed he same, what would happen to the deficit, debt? Would they go up or go down?

What liberals don't understand is economic growth because you are used to European style growth which is about what we have now, 1.7%. If there is no economic growth, no new taxpayers created, and no deductions eliminated yes, the deficit will increase as will the debt. That is what has happened under Obama, no net job creation, poor economic growth, and massive increases in spending