• 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!

Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?

Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

ecofarm said:
Let's do one more. See if you like this: Democracy is good for the environment because those directly affected by social and ecologic degradation have a voice.
Click to expand...

Yes. But democracy is very, very difficult. Specifically,
* you have to have a well informed public and the apparatus to keep them well informed.
* you have to have fair representation. Look at how the legislative districts are drawn. Many people don't even know who there reps are much less what they stand for.
* all voices aren't equal. Money has a great impact on the voices heard. The think tanks fund much of what gets said on the news and talk radio.

In a nutshell democracy requires good citizenship. How do you require good citizenship and still maintain individual freedoms? The best I can come up with is something like a tax credit for taking civics classes or reading. I know it sounds silly but if the voters were more informed things would work much better.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Informed consumer means a basic public education must be available, whatever our philo on economics and government responsibility. Fair representation requires minority rights and a transparent legislative and judicial branch (and exc, as possible with details). Money is speech; my dollar lobbies the (global) market and is part of my free speech. What I gather is rightfully mine to disperse or save, minus basic secondary education (and maybe a lil help for college), police and other services that are 'naturally' monopoly-prone.

I don't get why you dont see, let alone understand, the criteria you put forth nor the existing institutions in effort to insure those for all people. Like we're not doin' it. Hello, free person.

I say Fair Tax. I like (retail only) consumption tax better than income, and the tax up to 'poverty' (% of 12k/person) prebate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

John.NoseTip said:
Yes. But democracy is very, very difficult. Specifically,
* you have to have a well informed public and the apparatus to keep them well informed.
* you have to have fair representation. Look at how the legislative districts are drawn. Many people don't even know who there reps are much less what they stand for.
* all voices aren't equal. Money has a great impact on the voices heard. The think tanks fund much of what gets said on the news and talk radio.

In a nutshell democracy requires good citizenship. How do you require good citizenship and still maintain individual freedoms? The best I can come up with is something like a tax credit for taking civics classes or reading. I know it sounds silly but if the voters were more informed things would work much better.
Click to expand...

With the American media and public schools clearly attempting to keep the American people uninformed there is little doubt that these civic classes would not do the same thing. The American people are woefully uninformed and that could lead to their downfall.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggl

hikari said:
Do you honestly think that people haven't? I mean are you naive enough to think that given the same set of information as you rational people would only come to the same choice as you?

And for the record looking at business people in politics I would say a background in one doesn't mean they are necessarily good at the other for every Mark Warner there is a George Bush.
Click to expand...

So the well informed voter is still going on about George Bush.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Smeagol said:
I think the explanation might lie in the reason they think they're worse off. If they even though Obama has been President for 4 years, its possible they think its not his fault. Maybe its because they think they're worse off because of corporate policies practiced by organizations that Bain Capital exemplifies, at least in imagery.

I also think for a lot of people, its not exclusively about the economy. Making women out to be sluts and porno queens because they want BC coverage isn't going to get a lot of female votes. I know it wasn't Romney who promoted this concept but it was Romney's "team" that did and denounced rigorously by Obama. Making Hispanics out to be presumed criminals in Arizona who should be racially profiled based on their ethnic features with only the authority to arrest and then release and no authority to try, deport or grant residency under federal immigration law, thus legal harassment under state law with other states wanting to copy it isn't going to get you many Latino votes. It might be a false perception or have anything to do with Mitt Romney himself but perception is reality and the AZ immigration law is seen as "this is how republicans treat Hispanics". I could go on but there are quite a few groups the GOP and those perceived as speaking for the GOP who have been alienated over the past 4 years on things having nothing to do with the economy.
Click to expand...

All of what you say here is perception, (i,e ignorance) and promoted by the Democrats and their media.

If perception and ignorance is going to rule the day then the American people will get what they deserve.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Middle-class income and wealth fell in last 10 years, survey shows

http://www.trbimg.com/img-503541e9/turbine/la-fi-mo-middle-class-20120822-001/600

By Walter Hamilton

August 22, 2012, 1:47 p.m.
The vast majority of middle-class Americans say their financial well-being has been crimped over the last 10 years by sagging home values and dreary job prospects, according to a new survey.

About 85% of middle-class people say it’s tougher now than a decade ago to maintain their living standards, according to the Pew Research Center report.

Middle-class income and wealth fell in last 10 years, survey shows - latimes.com
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggl

Grant said:
So the well informed voter is still going on about George Bush.
Click to expand...

I also mentioned Mark Warner, your point? Both have business backgrounds and one is unpopular and gave us huge debts, the other is incredibly popular and gave Virginia a huge budget surplus. My point was having a business background doesn't mean you will or will not manage the economy well, yet you choose to throw your hands up at the fact I mentioned Bush? How childish is that, completely ignoring a point because of a name.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggl

hikari said:
I also mentioned Mark Warner, your point? Both have business backgrounds and one is unpopular and gave us huge debts, the other is incredibly popular and gave Virginia a huge budget surplus. My point was having a business background doesn't mean you will or will not manage the economy well, yet you choose to throw your hands up at the fact I mentioned Bush? How childish is that, completely ignoring a point because of a name.
Click to expand...

You are right, and I was rude. But it would seem the odds are better if it is a successful businessperson with governing experience who is elected to higher office.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggl

Grant said:
So the well informed voter is still going on about George Bush.
Click to expand...

You think we could forget him? You wish.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggl

iguanaman said:
You think we could forget him? You wish.
Click to expand...

yeah the obama worshippers need someone else to blame for Obama's massive failures
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggl

Grant said:
You are right, and I was rude. But it would seem the odds are better if it is a successful businessperson with governing experience who is elected to higher office.
Click to expand...

Liberals would never consider that, they want someone that never ran a lemonade stand for president. And look what we got.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

katsung47 said:
V

Do you know why?
Click to expand...

Romney isn't "struggling" it's all media propaganda.

It's no joke or shock that the media is in the tank for Obama and the media will do absolutely everything in their power to psych the public out...

This media nonsense is nothing more than a persuasion technique... Sorry if this comes as a shock but journalists aren't exactly the most honest individuals, actually I would put them on par with lawyers and most politicians.

Generally if you want the truth always read the end of an article where the journalist "buries" facts that contradict or at least cancels out the original points being made in the article.

This is a great article that will give insight and credence to my assertions..

6 Subtle Ways The News Media Disguises Bull**** As Fact | Cracked.com
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggl

Grant said:
You are right, and I was rude. But it would seem the odds are better if it is a successful businessperson with governing experience who is elected to higher office.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and it probably is, I do know lots of governors seem to come from a corporate background, I would be willing to think that since states by and large need to balance thier budget and companies do too, in a way the federal government generally doesn't, that it is probably better prior experience than say being a lawyer...

Of course there is a way to prove it, and that is look at the percentage of people with corporate backgrounds that were in an executive position like governor and compare performance to those that had only legislative or law experience. It wouldn't prove one candidate is better than another but it could make a strong case for corporate experience. If I had more time I would look up the numbers.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Mr.Nick said:
This is a great article that will give insight and credence to my assertions..

6 Subtle Ways The News Media Disguises Bull**** As Fact | Cracked.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for the hearty laugh this morning. :rofl

db_CRACK148.jpg
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

katsung47 said:
V

Do you know why?
Click to expand...


I believe its the American People are far more turned off by the far right and their agenda than they are of obama....the far right has lost this election not Mitt Romney or anything else...Obama will NOT win even if he remains president....this entire election is a referendum on the Far Right and their agenda to enhance the rich at the expense of everyone else...and drive the final nail into the coffin of the middleclass
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

specklebang said:
Because they aren't being offered an alternative that seems better.

If things aren't going to get better, maybe they feel Obusha will be more sympathetic to them as they struggle.

Just an opinion, of course.
Click to expand...

When Romney first put out an economic document to fix the economy it had 59 points. The media rather than boil it down said it was too complicated. Now it is 5 points it is too broad. The candidate needs to take ownership and spend his time putting the mean on the bones of his five points, if he has any. He needs to understand that he is running for president and needs to communicate to 300 million people of varying intellectual skills. No longer the CEO sitting in a board room, telling a bunch of MBAs from the best schools what he is wants to accomplish and what they have to do.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

I agree with your analysis.

First, tax considerations for the top bracket should not be a primary focus. For all I know cutting top bracket taxes might actually do something but rerally, I doubt it and it's terribly self-serving and has a bad history.

I still want to see a well thought out approach that is viable in the current atmosphere. So far, I've seen better proposals on DP than I have from Team Romney (and Team Obama). No BOMFOG, let's see if anybody has an implementable idea.



washunut said:
When Romney first put out an economic document to fix the economy it had 59 points. The media rather than boil it down said it was too complicated. Now it is 5 points it is too broad. The candidate needs to take ownership and spend his time putting the mean on the bones of his five points, if he has any. He needs to understand that he is running for president and needs to communicate to 300 million people of varying intellectual skills. No longer the CEO sitting in a board room, telling a bunch of MBAs from the best schools what he is wants to accomplish and what they have to do.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

specklebang said:
I agree with your analysis.

First, tax considerations for the top bracket should not be a primary focus. For all I know cutting top bracket taxes might actually do something but rerally, I doubt it and it's terribly self-serving and has a bad history.

I still want to see a well thought out approach that is viable in the current atmosphere. So far, I've seen better proposals on DP than I have from Team Romney (and Team Obama). No BOMFOG, let's see if anybody has an implementable idea.
Click to expand...

The problem in today's politics if Romney were to explain where he would cut deductions to pay for a rate increase, the media will jump on who gets disadvantaged and try and start a fight about tax increases! Same with cutting the rate for corporations, which I see as one of the big issues to getting our economy going.

Romney may have no choice but to get more specific now that he is down in the polls. My sense is he will do it in the debates, if he does it at all. This would somewhat curb the media's ability to spin whatever he says.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Mycroft said:
Now you are confusing me.
Click to expand...

1) It helps to actually read what people write rather than just making up whatever **** you think they wrote.

On the one hand you say we need to raise taxes to pay down the deficit and debt. On the other hand, you say the debt is a good thing because the economy will do better with it.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

I said that in the future we need to raise taxes and cut spending to pay down the debt. What I also said, and what you completely failed to understand is incurring debt financed spending during the period of aggregate demand drops keeps aggregate demand from declining further. As aggregate demand from non-government sources rebounds, the government should curtail debt financed spending.

Serious. Read for comprehension rather than just making up whatever you think people write.

I have a better idea: stop spending...the deficit magically reduces...the growth in debt reduces.
Click to expand...

This assumes that tax revenue does not stay proportionally tied as aggregate demand declines. That is a big assumption.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

obvious Child said:
1) It helps to actually read what people write rather than just making up whatever **** you think they wrote.



*sigh*

I said that in the future we need to raise taxes and cut spending to pay down the debt. What I also said, and what you completely failed to understand is incurring debt financed spending during the period of aggregate demand drops keeps aggregate demand from declining further. As aggregate demand from non-government sources rebounds, the government should curtail debt financed spending.

Serious. Read for comprehension rather than just making up whatever you think people write.

I fully understand what you wrote...and I didn't make anything up. I only cut through your spin.

This assumes that tax revenue does not stay proportionally tied as aggregate demand declines. That is a big assumption.
Click to expand...

You're right. It also assumes the government will dump excessive and costly regulations. That is likely to happen if Romney is elected. Will only get worse if Obama is re-elected.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Mycroft said:
You're right. It also assumes the government will dump excessive and costly regulations. That is likely to happen if Romney is elected. Will only get worse if Obama is re-elected.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I no longer respond to people who make up what they think others wrote and ignore what was actually written.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

obvious Child said:
1) It helps to actually read what people write rather than just making up whatever **** you think they wrote.



*sigh*

I said that in the future we need to raise taxes and cut spending to pay down the debt. What I also said, and what you completely failed to understand is incurring debt financed spending during the period of aggregate demand drops keeps aggregate demand from declining further. As aggregate demand from non-government sources rebounds, the government should curtail debt financed spending.

Serious. Read for comprehension rather than just making up whatever you think people write.



This assumes that tax revenue does not stay proportionally tied as aggregate demand declines. That is a big assumption.
Click to expand...

So demand has been rising if only slowly. Government has continued to run trillion plus deficits helped by an easy Fed.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

washunut said:
So demand has been rising if only slowly. Government has continued to run trillion plus deficits helped by an easy Fed.
Click to expand...

Oh this recovery sucks. But most financial recession ones do. It really doesn't help that individuals are deleveraging as well. Savings go up, spending goes down.

QE effectively keeps borrowing rates low which does prop up some demand.

What I don't get is how some people think that just letting aggregate demand drop will somehow create more jobs. If you remove government spending and there is no corresponding increase in private sector demand, aggregate demand goes down. I've never seen an explanation how reducing demand increases jobs in the private sector. I just hear sound bites about how we need to stop spending and that will cut the deficit. Without a corresponding increase in private sector demand to replace the lost demand, revenues should decline as activity wanes.

This is the fundamental flaw of a balanced budget. Cutting to meet revenues causes aggregate demand drops which then causes less activity and less revenues until you're in default. The relations of activity to tax revenue to spending really seems to be lost on people like Mycroft. Partisans just don't seem to get that basic flow of money through the economy.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

We have had a net gain of only 400K jobs in 4 years during which quite a few HS and college grads and combat veterans are coming out in the market, none of whom are likely to have any sort of unemployment safety net to fall back on to sustain them. Spending is going down but people are not saving--they are barely scraping by. There have to be jobs for the recovery to take, otherwise we will be hit by the next dip. Wall Street is not creating any jobs domestically to speak of. We are screwed into reliving this Groundhog Day for at least the next 5 years by my estimate.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Yes they are worse off and they will be for a long time. Contrary to popular belief, presidents are not gods. Neither are other politicians. No one can bring us and the rest of the world out of this mess quickly. I know no one wants to believe this but it is true. The financial sector owns the government lock stock and barrel. Anything actually effective would impinge on their fortunes and that isn't going to happen. Banks, not just US banks, caused this and working stiffs must bail them out. That is basically what austerity really means. Glass Stegal served us well for nearly forty years but it was abolished. Eight years later the system collapsed. This is only one of a long series of financial crisis. Nothing is going to be done about the bank's ability to speculate in the casino economy with their customer's money. Suck it up. Get used to it. Nothing is going to change. Oh well, we can always blame the figurehead who heads up the party in office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom