• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney is a keynsian

thats racist!!!

How so? Explain.

See, my theory is that most on the far-right don't even know what the word 'racist' means. That's why they're always taken aback when they're called out for being/acting/talking racist.
 
Obama's supreme court pick tried to ban the right to keep and bear arms
Incoherent.

Obama wanted the clinton gun ban to be reinstated. He said so when he ran
There is no such thing as a "Clinton gun ban". There was a ban on threaded barrels and/or flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and new manufacture of magazines larger than 10 round capacity. Once again, all the right has to offer is propaganda.
 
I think the biggest problem you have with him is that he isn't a democrat and Obama is
What you think is irrelevant, counselor; all the court is interested in is what you can prove or reasonably argue given the facts available.
 
So you are saying you like Romney or you dislike Obama? I am confused.

Obama and Romney are basically the same thing, sporting a different political party label, as far as cutting any federal spending programs now is concerned. The idea that we can't change things until "things get better" is insane. The HUGE gov't deficit spending is precisely why the "private" economy is stalled, only a moron would not expect higher taxes, rather than cuts in gov't spending as the eventual "solution" from our congress to try to reduce the deficit. If (when?) higher taxes happen, then the future return on ANY current investment is lowered, making it less likely to happen in the first place. The REAL way to get the private economy going is to cut the gov't take from it, not to keep it high and hope that nobody notices that you are simply defering tax increases, by borrowing instead of acutally making those taxes due now. Obama is not fooling anyone but the voters, all of the business people can clearly see the writing on the wall. Current debt = future tax increases, is just not that hard to figure out.
 
Last edited:
Your point is Romney is Keynesian? Every president for a long time has followed the flawed Keynesian economic policy. They take statistics and try to project futures based on those statistics. The problem is they don't take into account certain variables that are not plugged into those stats. Those variables are a major issue in economics. Austrian economic policy does take those variables into account while dismissing the Keynesian future statistical models.

Point is that Romney and Obama are Keynesian. They share a lot of issues and don't contrast on very many other than social issues. That is why I see Obama and Romney like this:

156535_452131358146570_353492424677131_1636986_1420274991_n.jpg
 
Obama and Romney are basically the same thing, sporting a different political party label, as far as cutting any federal spending programs now. The idea that we can't change things until "things get better" is insane. The HUGE gov't deficit spending is precisely why the "private" economy is stalled, only a moron would not expect higher taxes, rather than cuts in gov't spending as the eventual "solution" from our congress to try to reduce the deficit. If (when?) higher taxes happen, then the future return on current investment is lowered, making it less likely to happen in the first place. The REAL way to get the private economy going is to cut the gov't take from it, not to keep it high and hope that nobody notices that you are simply defering tax increases, by borrowing instead of acutally taking those taxes due now. Obama is not fooling anyone but the voters, all of the business people can clearly see the writing on the wall. Current debt = future tax increases, is just not that hard to figure out.
So your argument is that future debt is causing current economic "not going"?

That somehow demand is being infringed by an anticipation of possible taxes in the future?
 
What I love is how he says cutting a trillion dollars would automatically make it a recessions so it would be bad, without considering whether that trillion dollars is actually economic activity or just digits of code. Of course, Romney would probably not achieve anything with spending cuts because he would cut all the wrong things and keep the stuff that actually is just a drain on our dollars.

The gov't does nothing more that redistribute/redirect wealth, it does not create it. Some gov't spending is obviously needed (military defense, federal law enforcement, federal courts and national infrastructure), but MOST is not, as it is really the responsibility of the states. Eliminaton of the federal DOEd, would do no harm at all, as there are no federal schools - it would freak out the states, as they now get about 10% of there funding from federal 'education aid'. The same is true of cutting agricultural subsidies, since food prices would go up - it would freak out consumers, as they now pay taxes (or have them borrowed in their names) instead. Cutting welfare would save massive amounts of gov't spending - but it would freak out the great loafing class, as they would have to rely on private (or state) charity, get educated, find jobs and stop reproducing liberal voters. Foreign aid can be cut - but it would freak out the corrupt foreign leaders that we pay to act nice to us (and our allies) causing them to 'buddy up' with someone else, perhaps our 'enemies', but then again, that is WHY we have a big military (isn't it?).
 
Last edited:
So your argument is that future debt is causing current economic "not going"?

That somehow demand is being infringed by an anticipation of possible taxes in the future?

Exactly. Gov't debt MUST be repayed by taxation, as there is no other source of gov't revenue. We pretend that the gov't may now spend 24% of GDP yet only dare ask for 17% of GDP by taxation, resulting in a 40% federal deficit. Nobody is talking about it, but that requires either cuts in federal spending of over 40%, federal tax increases of over 40% or some combination of tax increases and spending cuts that add up to over 40% of the current federal "budget". We, and all potential business investors, know that this is a FACT, yet DC pretends that it is some kind of "option" for a future president and congress to deal with. The economy is NOT going to change, especially for the better, by magical optimism over the future 'sanity' of the federal gov't.
 
Exactly. Gov't debt MUST be repayed by taxation, as there is no other source of gov't revenue. We pretend that the gov't may now spend 24% of GDP yet only dare ask for 17% of GDP by taxation, resulting in a 40% federal deficit. Nobody is talking about it, but that requires either cuts in federal spending of over 40%, federal tax increases of over 40% or some combination of tax increases and spending cuts that add up to over 40% of the current federal "budget". We, and all potential business investors, know that this is a FACT, yet DC pretends that it is some kind of "option" for a future president and congress to deal with. The economy is NOT going to change, especially for the better, by magical optimism over the future 'sanity' of the federal gov't.
Um...this economy is driven by consumers. You are arguing that consumers are not spending as much because they are thinking about future taxation.

I don't operate that way, I doubt the great majority of consumers do. We have cut back on spending because income has reduced.
 
Not true, which is one of many reasons why the birther nonsense is so idiotic.

Yeah, it is idiotic. I think most of them should know even obama was born in kenya like the claim he would still be a "natural"-born citizen. Obama was an American citizen the minute he was born. But doesn't matter. Romney should have his citizenship questioned the same way obama's was. The precedent has been set. Every presidential candidate from now on should have to prove they are natural-born citizen.
 
Back
Top Bottom