• 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.

Pres.Obama/Romney Presidential Debate, What question would you like to see asked?

If you could somehow get a question asked in a 2012 President Obama / Mitt Romney Debate, what question would you ask?

Mr. Romney seeing how you switched from being a liberal Massachusetts governor to a conservative the moment you decided you wanted to run for president how can we trust that you won't just flip flop back to being that liberal that ran Massachusetts once you are in office?
 
Now add in the cost of previous wars that we put on the national debt credit card that we are still paying for:

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Historical Costs of Previous U.S. Wars


And you want me to choose the guy that want to increase military spending and cut the means to pay for it?

You are almost running out of goalposts to move but I appreciate your persistence! Going back to WWII are we? According to your source we have spent $5.526 trillion on wars going back to WWII in current 2007 dollars. Let's use the CBO's current projections to see how long it will take us to spend that on NET Medicare and Medicaid ALONE.

According to the numerous reports I've already linked the United States plans to spend (net of offsetting receipts) $5.593 trillion over the next seven years. SEVEN years of net spending on Medicare/Medicaid alone will be larger than ALL of the wars going back to WWII (according to your source). That's completely ignoring the net social security outlays ($1.241 trillion) and mandatory income security outlays ($2.137 trillion) over the same period. Now, for your sake I chose the minimum number of years it took to exceed the "enormous" $5.526 trillion on wars going back to WWII. If we look over 10 years, it makes your number look puny. Over the next ten years we will spend a truly staggering $13.796 trillion dollars on NET M/M, NET SS, and MANDATORY Income Security outlays ($8.953, $1.802, $3.041, respectively).

All of this was done using the rosy, optimistic assumptions of the CBO, who in 2002 projected a $5.610 trillion surplus through fiscal year 2011. Why do I have to keep doing your homework for you?
 
... Over the next ten years we will spend a truly staggering $13.796 trillion dollars on NET M/M, NET SS, and MANDATORY Income Security outlays ($8.953, $1.802, $3.041, respectively).
...

And the nature of this spending is direct cash payments to individuals, not for hours worked, services rendered, materials or products, but as an Entitlement. No other form of government spending is as anywhere near as likely to be used for vote pandering or outright graft and corruption.

Since the beginning of Liberalism in the early 1900s, the ratio of Entitlement Spending to non-Entitlement spending has grown exponentially, and with its increase the standard of living of the common taxpaying non-government worker compared to the common "Public Servant" has plummeted.

When government spends money on a public work, such as a library, bridge, hospital, jail, park, school, or laboratory, individuals can and do profit from the spending, but only by participating in the construction or operation of such faculties. But, in any moderately well run and overseen project, the public at large receives the majority benefits of having those facilities and services.

In direct cash payment Entitlements, One Person is the direct beneficiary, well, until you look at the ratio of funds consumed by the bureaucracy employed to distribute the cash....

If you want to see why Liberals support Entitlements, simply follow the MONEY. And they've got the gall to state with a straight face that Wall Street is Greedy!

While I do understand the threat of the "Vast Military Industrial Complex", that threat is dwarfed by the threat of the
"Colossal Entitlement Redistribution Bureaucracy!"

Again, on average, since the great society program increases of the 1960s, the spending on Entitlements compared to all other
Spending has been 4X or greater.

And that spending is like a ratchet, good economic times or bad, the Entitlement Spending goes up when it can be afforded or crisis justified, but it NEVER goes down.

Military spending has always gone up and down on semi-predictable cycles, as it SHOULD!

It is the challenge of our generation to insure that Colossal Entitlement Redistribution Bureaucracy will also be expected and required to have significant cycles of growth and reduction.

Unrestrained exponential growth of any population, including Liberals, will always end in starvation, chaos and collapse. In that collapse, the rest of America will die with them.
 
You are almost running out of goalposts to move but I appreciate your persistence! Going back to WWII are we? According to your source we have spent $5.526 trillion on wars going back to WWII in current 2007 dollars. Let's use the CBO's current projections to see how long it will take us to spend that on NET Medicare and Medicaid ALONE.

According to the numerous reports I've already linked the United States plans to spend (net of offsetting receipts) $5.593 trillion over the next seven years. SEVEN years of net spending on Medicare/Medicaid alone will be larger than ALL of the wars going back to WWII (according to your source). That's completely ignoring the net social security outlays ($1.241 trillion) and mandatory income security outlays ($2.137 trillion) over the same period. Now, for your sake I chose the minimum number of years it took to exceed the "enormous" $5.526 trillion on wars going back to WWII. If we look over 10 years, it makes your number look puny. Over the next ten years we will spend a truly staggering $13.796 trillion dollars on NET M/M, NET SS, and MANDATORY Income Security outlays ($8.953, $1.802, $3.041, respectively).

All of this was done using the rosy, optimistic assumptions of the CBO, who in 2002 projected a $5.610 trillion surplus through fiscal year 2011. Why do I have to keep doing your homework for you?


Most of our debt is unpaid for wars. Deal with it. The GOP just proposes to keep adding to it. Romney has stated he will increase military spending and the means to pay for it. That just means more debt, because the GOP has no plan to reduce health care costs.

by: Mike Lofgren, Mike Lofgren is a retired Republican House and Senate staffer.

"Romney's initial tax plan was as follows: those making more than $1 million a year would receive an average federal income tax cut of $145,000 by 2015. This scheme would increase deficits by about $180 billion annually by 2015, according to the Tax Policy Center. But apparently that was not enough to satisfy his contributors, so at the end of February 2012, Romney added a 20 percent cut in all income tax rates and a repeal of the AMT. The Center estimated that the 20 percent rate cut would add an additional $150 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone. The policy group did not calculate a ten-year estimate, but it is safe to say that Romney's new and improved boondoggle would add about $3 trillion over ten years on top of Obama's pre-existing plan to increase the deficit by $2.7 trillion.

But as the old Veg-O-Matic ads would say, "Wait! - there's more!" In order to pander to the militarism in the GOP base (and potential contributors in the military-industrial complex), Romney advocates increasing military spending to 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Over the next decade, that would add another $2.6 trillion to the deficit."

Why Republicans Need Remedial Math: Their Budget Plans Explode the Deficit | Truthout

Its just Bush Redux. Next verse same as the first. Thanks, but no thanks!
 
Most of our debt is unpaid for wars. Deal with it.

You're deluding yourself. I'm sorry facts can't penetrate the bubble you live in. I'm done doing your homework for you.

by: Mike Lofgren, Mike Lofgren is a retired Republican House and Senate staffer.

"Romney's initial tax plan was as follows: those making more than $1 million a year would receive an average federal income tax cut of $145,000 by 2015. This scheme would increase deficits by about $180 billion annually by 2015, according to the Tax Policy Center. But apparently that was not enough to satisfy his contributors, so at the end of February 2012, Romney added a 20 percent cut in all income tax rates and a repeal of the AMT. The Center estimated that the 20 percent rate cut would add an additional $150 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone. The policy group did not calculate a ten-year estimate, but it is safe to say that Romney's new and improved boondoggle would add about $3 trillion over ten years on top of Obama's pre-existing plan to increase the deficit by $2.7 trillion.

But as the old Veg-O-Matic ads would say, "Wait! - there's more!" In order to pander to the militarism in the GOP base (and potential contributors in the military-industrial complex), Romney advocates increasing military spending to 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Over the next decade, that would add another $2.6 trillion to the deficit."

Why Republicans Need Remedial Math: Their Budget Plans Explode the Deficit | Truthout

Its just Bush Redux. Next verse same as the first. Thanks, but no thanks!

It's nice to see you back to your hackish ways. I have no problem with your habitual hyperbole and constant linking of irrelevant, radical news articles .... but when you start outright lying, expect someone to call you out for it.
 
You're deluding yourself. I'm sorry facts can't penetrate the bubble you live in. I'm done doing your homework for you.

It's nice to see you back to your hackish ways. I have no problem with your habitual hyperbole and constant linking of irrelevant, radical news articles .... but when you start outright lying, expect someone to call you out for it.


Your insults highlight your weak argument.

Its not just the analysis by the Republican I quoted:

(From Forbes)

Romney's Tax Plan Would Add $3T To Deficit Over A Decade

You are welcome to attempt to refute it.
 
Your insults highlight your weak argument.

Its not just the analysis by the Republican I quoted:

(From Forbes)

Romney's Tax Plan Would Add $3T To Deficit Over A Decade

You are welcome to attempt to refute it.

The fact you have given up defending them is evidence enough that my argument refuted your repeated lies.

Social Security is separate and self-funded.

A fraction of what we spend on the military and Veterans care.

Your figures are out of date, and unless you are planning on eliminating veterans care, you also have to include that, which makes M/M a fraction of our military spending.

Regardless, we spend more on defense than we do M/M

Most of our debt is unpaid for wars. Deal with it.
 
If you could somehow get a question asked in a 2012 President Obama / Mitt Romney Debate, what question would you ask?
QUESTION: Why is Romneycare good for Massachusetts, but not America?
 
Last edited:
If i were obama i would thank romney for coming up with obamacare. I think obamacare will hurt romney more than obama.
 
Reading the posts here, I can't help but wax philosophic.

But the source of the quote most apropos eludes me....

Just who was it that coined that most astute of phases:

"The Bureaucracy is expanding to fill the needs of the expanding Bureaucracy!"



In the end, I cannot but conclude that America is too far gone to be saved by any but the cynics.
 
Reading the posts here, I can't help but wax philosophic.

But the source of the quote most apropos eludes me....

Just who was it that coined that most astute of phases:

"The Bureaucracy is expanding to fill the needs of the expanding Bureaucracy!"



In the end, I cannot but conclude that America is too far gone to be saved by any but the cynics.


Cynic being defined as: a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.

I personally find cynics to be the problem. Every debate we have is framed as one side against the other, and it makes no sense to me.

If I don't subscribe to voodoo economics, that means I'm total liberal and believe government should pay a living wage to someone just because they exist? Of course that's not true, but when anyone speaks of higher taxes on the wealthy, it's automatically part of the debate that we need the wealthy to pay a living wage to the poor just for being poor.

Right is so cynical of higher taxes, that they can only hear about tax money going to a lost cause.

Left is so cynical of tax breaks for the wealthy, they ignore that there is a balance of maximizing income without overburdening the economy.

Because both sides are so cynical, we can't have the logical discussion that income tax, just like the pricing on any product, has an equilibrium. Too high and you discourage investment and hiring. Too low and your not maximizing your income. Instead of the logical discussion about where that equilibrium is, we hear how one side wants to play Robin Hood while the other side wants a free ride on the back of their workers.

Right down the list of issues, its the same thing over and over again.

Cynics cannot save America. In fact, they are the very problem. Instead of reaching logical answers, we compromise and spend money on everyone's ideas because we are too dense to entertain two arguments on the same issue at the same time...
 
Cynic being defined as: a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
...

Words have defined meanings.

History is both professor and prophet.

Cynicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...
Cynicism (Greek: κυνισμός), in its original form, refers to the beliefs of an ancient school of Greek philosophers known as the Cynics (Greek: Κυνικοί, Latin: Cynici). Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a simple life free from all possessions. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans. They believed that the world belonged equally to everyone, and that suffering was caused by false judgments of what was valuable and by the worthless customs and conventions which surrounded society. Many of these thoughts were later absorbed into Stoicism.
...
The left will try to malign my points by distracting re-definitions of the statements I've made, but I'm not really trying to convince the Liberals of anything, they are corrupt beyond any redemption.

My goal is to highlight the threat America faces to the apathetic, independent middle to galvanize action while there is still a chance to prevent America's fall to the: "Grand Socialist Transformation ... Yes, yes, yes, We Can, if we are all obedient, sycophantic Yes-Men!"

I try to do this through humor, interesting debate prose, and occasionally subtle double entendre.

I am always amused when the left tries to accuse others of greed;
“The man with five purses tucked in his vest, is always the first to point and yell ‘Thief!’ ”
 
If you could somehow get a question asked in a 2012 President Obama / Mitt Romney Debate, what question would you ask?

What is the purpose of govt in general and what is the purpose of the US govt?
 
How can we ever to expect to reduce our deficit spending if we continue to give tax cuts to the rich, without an expectation of jobs in this country, while simultaneously spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military industrial complex?

Mr Romney: Military spending is our highest priority and only 20% of spending, so Im not really worried about that. Same with tax cuts. The rich pay many times their 'fair share'. So what I would do if elected President is tackle the actual problems with the budget; too few people paying taxes, govt policies which prohibit growth, and unconstitutional and inefficient social spending.

[/fantasy]
 
My question to them?

Why do the both of you lie so much?
 
Interestingly, has anyone noticed that the questions liberals would ask are rhetorical and loaded? IE, mr romney, given youre douche, why shouldnt we shoot you right now?
 
Interestingly, has anyone noticed that the questions liberals would ask are rhetorical and loaded? IE, mr romney, given youre douche, why shouldnt we shoot you right now?

Interestingly, has anyone noticed that you don't read the threads?

The question I said I would want to ask on Page 2 of this thread was:

For both candidates:

What is your plan exactly to address the unemployment rate?

How is that a loaded or rhetorical question?
 
Interestingly, has anyone noticed that the questions liberals would ask are rhetorical and loaded? IE, mr romney, given youre douche, why shouldnt we shoot you right now?

Right, like amigo's question to Obama: "why do you hate this country so much?" :roll:
 
I would put Obama on the hot seat; make sure he answers and can't run off. I would ask him, "President Obama, did you and your Attorney General engage in a lawsuit against Arizona for protecting it's sovereignty and the safety of it's citizens?"

I assume he would answer in the affirmative. My follow up would be as follows:
"Well Mr. President, being is you joined a foreign leader and sued a US state, how can you complain when people question your American heritage?"
 
I would put Obama on the hot seat; make sure he answers and can't run off. I would ask him, "President Obama, did you and your Attorney General engage in a lawsuit against Arizona for protecting it's sovereignty and the safety of it's citizens?"

I assume he would answer in the affirmative. My follow up would be as follows:
"Well Mr. President, being is you joined a foreign leader and sued a US state, how can you complain when people question your American heritage?"

What in God's name does suing to preserve the federal government's constitutional power to control U.S. immigration have to do with whacko conspiracy theories about Obama's birth? :lol:
 
Then its not a very good example of my statement is it? I only mentioned liberals.

I wasn't trying to examples of your statement. I was showing that your statement is obviously biased.
 
What in God's name does suing to preserve the federal government's constitutional power to control U.S. immigration have to do with whacko conspiracy theories about Obama's birth? :lol:

In the 90s, If I would've told you that an American President is joining a foreign leader; Calderon on the White House lawn anyone, and trying to use his power to prohibit what Americans can do to protect their livelihood and secure their state, you'd call him insane and anti-American!
 
Back
Top Bottom