• 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 loosing donors

First off, I don't believe that another Stimulus or Job Bill is actually going to create any new jobs. Even if they do, they are going to be using MY money (via taxes) to force it, rather than the actual NEED in the economy. Like those new cops and firefighters we get every couple of years who disappear from the payroll the moment the Feds stop providing the money for their salaries. Most of us who PAY taxes are going to get raped (again) for this without really seeing any more help from it than we have from the prior Stimulus and Jobs plans.

I already have a decent job. I'm not looking for a new one. I will see a reduction in my take-home pay when the taxes go up to pay for these new programs and expansions of existing programs. It's literally that simple.

I go into Union negotiations starting in January. When Obama is re-elected, I can almost guarantee that the company proposals for the new contract will include a massive reduction or elimination of our healthcare benefit because of the availability of Obamacare starting in 2014. Since I WILL NOT accept any government healthcare, there is a reasonable possibility that I will not have any healthcare coverage starting in 2014.

Because real AMERICANS don't give a **** what anyone outside of the US thinks of us. Generally when I find that we've done something that foreigners LIKE, I find that it's something I disagree with in every way possible.

Rebuilding the infrustructure, which needs to be done, will create more jobs and create more tax payers. This will reduce your tax burden because it will pay for itself. If you make over 250K, everything over that amount will see a slight tax increase back to the Clinton era tax rates. The jobs bill will also pay for itself in that there will be fewer people needing food stamps and public aid. Once more people have jobs, demand will increase, thus creating more jobs and more tax payers and less demand for public aid. It's a win win. The need in the economy is for jobs. If your employer decides to stop providing health coverage for you, why whouldn't you get your own health care coverage? Most employers provide cheaper healthcare coverage, but you still pay the premium. Why wouldn't you get your own health care plan if your company stops providing group coverage? Isn't the conservative mantra all about taking personal responsibility? It seems strange hearing a conservative say they want their company to provide health care coverage but would not be willing to provide it for themselves.
Real Americans, in my opinion, don't want other Americans living or working abroad to be put in harms way. Having a bad reputation around the world only endangers our troops and foreign workers more.
 
The problem is not just that Romney has been a total bad candidate which I agree to some point but it's truly unfair how the media sided with Obama to the point of rigging polls as well. The media bombarding Romney for free on behalf of Obama has been huge. Again, Romney could've ran a better campaign and go after Obama hard on the issues that America faces while Obama focuses on Romney's past and Bain Capital in order to distract voters. I still can't wait for election day and really see what happens... According to Romney's campaign they have totally different inside polls. Let's see what that leads them too...

Blaming the media is rather lame, in my opinion. I don't think the media has treated Romney unfairly, nor do I see pollsters risking their reputation just to benefit Obama.
 
Reallocating money from the Presidential race to close down ticket races is hardly the exception. Both parties do it, especially if control of the Senate or House could be put in play by the money.
 
Rebuilding the infrustructure, which needs to be done, will create more jobs and create more tax payers. This will reduce your tax burden because it will pay for itself.

Short-term work. Great for the moment, but eventually that work runs out. Even more problematic is the fact that most States are not prepared to do this sort of thing. They contract the work out instead of having their own DOT do it; which means there would not be as many new jobs created as people like to think there would be.

If you make over 250K, everything over that amount will see a slight tax increase back to the Clinton era tax rates.

I don't make anywhere near $250K a year.

The jobs bill will also pay for itself in that there will be fewer people needing food stamps and public aid. Once more people have jobs, demand will increase, thus creating more jobs and more tax payers and less demand for public aid. It's a win win. The need in the economy is for jobs.

The problem with the whole idea of a jobs bill is that there are only 2 ways it works: 1. You CREATE work where there isn't any, which just means you have people being miserable at work rather than at home, and not really getting anything out of it. OR 2. You FORCE people who don't need more workers to hire more workers to do the same amount of work, in which case everyone's pay goes down.

If your employer decides to stop providing health coverage for you, why whouldn't you get your own health care coverage? Most employers provide cheaper healthcare coverage, but you still pay the premium. Why wouldn't you get your own health care plan if your company stops providing group coverage? Isn't the conservative mantra all about taking personal responsibility? It seems strange hearing a conservative say they want their company to provide health care coverage but would not be willing to provide it for themselves.

Under the Obamacare plan, it is my understanding that the way to purchase private plans is through a governmental clearing house. I do not believe that the Government should be involved in the healthcare field in ANY way, and will not purchase a plan through a governmental agency. Nor would I take care "free" from the Government in terms of insurance or payment of bills at a medical facility. I actually have legal documents to the fact that I will not take ANY healthcare that the Government pays for.

Real Americans, in my opinion, don't want other Americans living or working abroad to be put in harms way. Having a bad reputation around the world only endangers our troops and foreign workers more.

In my opinion Real Americans aren't outside the US to begin with, except in the military; and I believe that about 99% of those individuals currently need to be brought back inside the US Borders. As for foreign workers.... they LEFT. That means they've chosen somewhere else over the US. That's THEIR problem, not mine. I would also close all US Consulates and Embasies.
 
Short-term work. Great for the moment, but eventually that work runs out. Even more problematic is the fact that most States are not prepared to do this sort of thing. They contract the work out instead of having their own DOT do it; which means there would not be as many new jobs created as people like to think there would be.



I don't make anywhere near $250K a year.



The problem with the whole idea of a jobs bill is that there are only 2 ways it works: 1. You CREATE work where there isn't any, which just means you have people being miserable at work rather than at home, and not really getting anything out of it. OR 2. You FORCE people who don't need more workers to hire more workers to do the same amount of work, in which case everyone's pay goes down.



Under the Obamacare plan, it is my understanding that the way to purchase private plans is through a governmental clearing house. I do not believe that the Government should be involved in the healthcare field in ANY way, and will not purchase a plan through a governmental agency. Nor would I take care "free" from the Government in terms of insurance or payment of bills at a medical facility. I actually have legal documents to the fact that I will not take ANY healthcare that the Government pays for.



In my opinion Real Americans aren't outside the US to begin with, except in the military; and I believe that about 99% of those individuals currently need to be brought back inside the US Borders. As for foreign workers.... they LEFT. That means they've chosen somewhere else over the US. That's THEIR problem, not mine. I would also close all US Consulates and Embasies.

We have years of work needing to be done right now. The work would not be done by government employees. COnstruction companies would be getting the contracts. Then there are jobs that support construction such as lagistics and material building jobs. Years of rebuilding the infrastructure would create jobs based on demand from people having more money to spend. It is a chain reaction and it will improve the economy. There are no short term infrastructure jobs.
If you don't make anywhere near 250K, then your taxes will not go up. I don't get your logic on the jobs bill. Creating jobs in both the private and public sector is a good thing. We won't be creating jobs just to have people sitting around doing nothing. These jobs will be based on rebuilding the infrastructure.
It doesn't matter if you pay for health insurance or not. If you would rather pay for your medical bills yourself, then do be it. However, did you know that the individual mandate was originally a GOP idea because it forced people to take personal responsibility for their own health care coverage?

Currently, my son is working in the Middle East supporting the military there. There are a lot of private sector jobs over sears that are support systems for our military. I care very much what the world thinks of us because a bad reputation puts more of our Real Americans in harms way.
 
We have years of work needing to be done right now. The work would not be done by government employees. COnstruction companies would be getting the contracts. Then there are jobs that support construction such as lagistics and material building jobs. Years of rebuilding the infrastructure would create jobs based on demand from people having more money to spend. It is a chain reaction and it will improve the economy. There are no short term infrastructure jobs.

You're right there's years of work to be done.... with money we don't have and by people we're going to have to hire. I assume we're just taking the money for those things off the Money Tree out behind the State Capital Building or on the White House property? You do realze those construction companies don't want to hire Joe Hamburger to drive a dumptruck when they can get Hector Jalepeno to do it for half the cost, right? Especially since they have to win the competitive bid to get the job in the first place. Those jobs are NOT going to create that much of a change in the economy. Sorry.

If you don't make anywhere near 250K, then your taxes will not go up.

I keep hearing this, and every year I find my tax burden going up and up.

I don't get your logic on the jobs bill. Creating jobs in both the private and public sector is a good thing. We won't be creating jobs just to have people sitting around doing nothing. These jobs will be based on rebuilding the infrastructure.

It's a good thing when it's the businesses that want to do the hiring, not when they're forced to do the hiring. Especially when the Government has to pay them to do it. I would almost rather pay them directly through Welfare, so I know the people to avoid than to have to be constantly researching which companies have taken these "job creation incentives" so I know who not to do business with.

It doesn't matter if you pay for health insurance or not. If you would rather pay for your medical bills yourself, then so be it. However, did you know that the individual mandate was originally a GOP idea because it forced people to take personal responsibility for their own health care coverage?

It's a bad idea no matter WHO suggests it. I get to see it every day here in the Communistwealth of Taxachusetts. It doesn't work. I will pay for whatever health care costs I can and then simply not get the service after that. Nor will I accept Medicare when I turn 65.

Currently, my son is working in the Middle East supporting the military there. There are a lot of private sector jobs over sears that are support systems for our military. I care very much what the world thinks of us because a bad reputation puts more of our Real Americans in harms way.

By cousin is overseas working security in Baghdad with a private firm as well. We had quite the "discussion" when he told me he'd chosen not to re-enlist and to do this instead. I simply don't want the Americans to be outside our borders. At that point it makes no difference.
 
Considering the economy... yes they are bad for Romney. He should be far ahead.

Not necessarily. A large portion of what should be Romney's "base" is more concerned about SOCIAL issues than FISCAL ones.
 
The most revealing fact in this article to me was that Obama has only raised $432 million. That's way off his goal of $1 billion and way behind 2008's $750 million. He has been constantly fund raising like no other incumbent president, of course because he again refused public funds. The first party nominee and now the first incumbent to refuse federal funds. He has placed a higher priority on campaigning than governing.
Why aren't democratic donors supporting him?
 
Romney is a “total bad candidate” but widespread polling showing him behind, and losing ground for about a month now, is because the polls (including those from consistently right leaning outlets) are rigged? :roll:

Yes, even Fox News has allowed themselves to be 'rigged' by the Democrats.
:lamo
 
The most revealing fact in this article to me was that Obama has only raised $432 million. That's way off his goal of $1 billion and way behind 2008's $750 million. He has been constantly fund raising like no other incumbent president, of course because he again refused public funds. The first party nominee and now the first incumbent to refuse federal funds. He has placed a higher priority on campaigning than governing.
Why aren't democratic donors supporting him?

So Mitt Romney is accepting public funds? Who knew?
 
So Mitt Romney is accepting public funds? Who knew?

Obama filed with the Federal Election Commission to run in early 2011. That's when he began fund raising. The administration made no secret of their goal to raise 1 billion dollars. After watching McCain accept federal funds in 2008 and get outspent by Obama 4 to 1 why would Romney even consider matching funds? Obama destroyed the system and has turned his presidency into a perpetual fund raising campaign.
 
No, they're not bad ... if you're an Obama supporter.

The race is a dead heat with skewed polls oversampling Democrats by 8%

Obama is going to lose in a landslide
 
Anybody know why Obama has fallen so short of his fund raising goal? Why such tepid support?
 
No, they're not bad ... if you're an Obama supporter.

Right. Even polls just happen to be bad for the guy you're against but good for the guy you're for.

The definition of hackery.
 
Considering the economy... yes they are bad for Romney. He should be far ahead.

They're not bad enough for donors to give up, which is what you were implying. An even race is an even race and par for the course for the last three elections.
 
You're right there's years of work to be done.... with money we don't have and by people we're going to have to hire. I assume we're just taking the money for those things off the Money Tree out behind the State Capital Building or on the White House property? You do realze those construction companies don't want to hire Joe Hamburger to drive a dumptruck when they can get Hector Jalepeno to do it for half the cost, right? Especially since they have to win the competitive bid to get the job in the first place. Those jobs are NOT going to create that much of a change in the economy. Sorry.



I keep hearing this, and every year I find my tax burden going up and up.



It's a good thing when it's the businesses that want to do the hiring, not when they're forced to do the hiring. Especially when the Government has to pay them to do it. I would almost rather pay them directly through Welfare, so I know the people to avoid than to have to be constantly researching which companies have taken these "job creation incentives" so I know who not to do business with.



It's a bad idea no matter WHO suggests it. I get to see it every day here in the Communistwealth of Taxachusetts. It doesn't work. I will pay for whatever health care costs I can and then simply not get the service after that. Nor will I accept Medicare when I turn 65.



By cousin is overseas working security in Baghdad with a private firm as well. We had quite the "discussion" when he told me he'd chosen not to re-enlist and to do this instead. I simply don't want the Americans to be outside our borders. At that point it makes no difference.

Haven't you ever heard the saying that is takes money to make money? Creating jobs will pay for itself. By saying we don't have the money to spend to create jobs is like saying you don't have the money in your personal budget for gas to get to work. It makes no economic sense. When you spend money that will pay itself back and then some, that is wise spending. This is economics 101. I can't understand how you can't see this. A company can't just hire an unskilled worker to do a skilled job. Skill labor pays good money. My husband runs a business dealing with construction. He can't hire skilled labor for less than $10 an hour now. Once demand for skilled labor goes up, wages will also go up.
Your Federal income tax rate has no increased. That is a fact. Now, your state income taxes , property taxes, or sales taxes may have gone up. But that has little to do with the Federal Income Tax system.
There is no bill being proposed that forces businesses to hire people. I don't know where you got that idea. Businesses usually hire when demand goes up because they stand to make more money. I like the welfare to work program. It gives businesses tax cuts for hiring people on welfare, but it doesn't force businesses to hire anyone.
Now, on your comment about health care. Are you really saying that if you need health care to prolong your life when you are elderly, you will not use the system you paid into all your working life? If that is true, then I don't know what to say. I hope your family disagree with you. I am currently disabled. If I didn't accept medicare, I would die much sooner than I need to. That would hurt my family a great deal. I also think saving the lives of children who happen to be born into poor families is a good thing to do. When my oldest daughter first left her abusive husband, she had a hard time getting on her feet. She accepted medicaid for her children. Her daughter ended up with a condition that would have caused her to go blind had it not been treated. I just wonder if you have children now or will have children in the future if you would let one of them go blind if they had the same condition all because you refuse to accept a government health care program.
 
Haven't you ever heard the saying that is takes money to make money? Creating jobs will pay for itself. By saying we don't have the money to spend to create jobs is like saying you don't have the money in your personal budget for gas to get to work. It makes no economic sense. When you spend money that will pay itself back and then some, that is wise spending. This is economics 101. I can't understand how you can't see this. A company can't just hire an unskilled worker to do a skilled job. Skill labor pays good money. My husband runs a business dealing with construction. He can't hire skilled labor for less than $10 an hour now. Once demand for skilled labor goes up, wages will also go up.

I am well aware of that axiom. You can't spend money you don't have, and you can't get money by squeezing a rock any more than you can get water that way. We're quickly reaching a point where a minority of the people (the workforce) pays for the needs of the majority of the people (those on gov't assistance). THAT really doesn't work.

I'm sorry, but having worked with people in the Construction field for most of my adult life, through positions in Design Engineering firms, I can pretty much guarantee you that you husband is not going to hire an out of work Architectural Designer and pay him $17 an hour to drive a dump truck. Especially not when he can get Juan or Manuel to do the same work for $8 an hour. The problem is that most construction work is NOT skilled work, OR it requires extensive training (carpentry, plumbing, electrical, etc....) which most people do not have. Road Construction is not a highly skilled work set.

Your Federal income tax rate has no increased. That is a fact. Now, your state income taxes , property taxes, or sales taxes may have gone up. But that has little to do with the Federal Income Tax system.

I still have to pay the excise, state, and sales taxes; regardless of who they go to. The more those taxes take, the less I have to give to the Feds and put in my own pocket.

There is no bill being proposed that forces businesses to hire people. I don't know where you got that idea. Businesses usually hire when demand goes up because they stand to make more money. I like the welfare to work program. It gives businesses tax cuts for hiring people on welfare, but it doesn't force businesses to hire anyone.

The problem is that right now no intelligent business man is willing to take the risk of adding that additional cost without seeing a high likelihood of return on that investment, and that likelihood just isn't there right now. I don't like the idea of paying (tax cuts) companies to hire people. It's just a shell game of where the money is coming from. As I said, I'd rather pay the person directly, because then I don't have to figure out which companies to avoid due to their taking the Government money.

Now, on your comment about health care. Are you really saying that if you need health care to prolong your life when you are elderly, you will not use the system you paid into all your working life? If that is true, then I don't know what to say. I hope your family disagree with you. I am currently disabled. If I didn't accept medicare, I would die much sooner than I need to. That would hurt my family a great deal.

That is exactly what I'm saying, and I have LEGAL DOCUMENTS that keep my family from overruling those decisions. I would rather be dead than to take Government money.

I also think saving the lives of children who happen to be born into poor families is a good thing to do. When my oldest daughter first left her abusive husband, she had a hard time getting on her feet. She accepted medicaid for her children. Her daughter ended up with a condition that would have caused her to go blind had it not been treated. I just wonder if you have children now or will have children in the future if you would let one of them go blind if they had the same condition all because you refuse to accept a government health care program.

I was born with a condition that could have ended my life at age four, and almost did. If a child of mine had the same issues, I would still not accept Government Aid. It's better to live a short life with a clean soul rather than a long life with a dirty one.
 
I am well aware of that axiom. You can't spend money you don't have, and you can't get money by squeezing a rock any more than you can get water that way. We're quickly reaching a point where a minority of the people (the workforce) pays for the needs of the majority of the people (those on gov't assistance). THAT really doesn't work.

I'm sorry, but having worked with people in the Construction field for most of my adult life, through positions in Design Engineering firms, I can pretty much guarantee you that you husband is not going to hire an out of work Architectural Designer and pay him $17 an hour to drive a dump truck. Especially not when he can get Juan or Manuel to do the same work for $8 an hour. The problem is that most construction work is NOT skilled work, OR it requires extensive training (carpentry, plumbing, electrical, etc....) which most people do not have. Road Construction is not a highly skilled work set.



I still have to pay the excise, state, and sales taxes; regardless of who they go to. The more those taxes take, the less I have to give to the Feds and put in my own pocket.



The problem is that right now no intelligent business man is willing to take the risk of adding that additional cost without seeing a high likelihood of return on that investment, and that likelihood just isn't there right now. I don't like the idea of paying (tax cuts) companies to hire people. It's just a shell game of where the money is coming from. As I said, I'd rather pay the person directly, because then I don't have to figure out which companies to avoid due to their taking the Government money.



That is exactly what I'm saying, and I have LEGAL DOCUMENTS that keep my family from overruling those decisions. I would rather be dead than to take Government money.



I was born with a condition that could have ended my life at age four, and almost did. If a child of mine had the same issues, I would still not accept Government Aid. It's better to live a short life with a clean soul rather than a long life with a dirty one.

Wow, I feel sorry for your children or future children. I can't imagine someone not wanting to get medical care for their child. Your lack of basic compassion compells me to end our conversation.
 
Right. Even polls just happen to be bad for the guy you're against but good for the guy you're for.

The definition of hackery.

And again, you make no sense whatsoever. The polls favor Obama. That's just how it is. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your hackish world view.
 
The race is a dead heat with skewed polls oversampling Democrats by 8%

Obama is going to lose in a landslide

I still want some proof that Democrats are being oversampled by any percentage. Where does this idea come from? It sounds more like a sore loser making up excuses rather than a factual statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom