• 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.

Where will they each lead??

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Instead of arguing who's the better candidate from many different perspectives, would it make sense to argue who has the better plan going forward? Is it possible to have a discussion strictly on those merits? I'm not sure; but it'd be nice. What I mean by that is that, rather than attacking the other candidate, thoughtfully present what you think your guy is prepared to do to get us out of the mess we're in. I'm thinking here are some our major problems:


  • Job Creation to get Americans back to work
  • Overspending everywhere
  • Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money
  • Immigration -- we've got to address this issue
  • Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble
  • Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one
  • Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home
  • Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again
  • Add your own

IOW, without attacking the other guy, can you articulate what YOUR guy intends to do to solve these problems? Who has the better plan??
 
Instead of arguing who's the better candidate from many different perspectives, would it make sense to argue who has the better plan going forward? Is it possible to have a discussion strictly on those merits? I'm not sure; but it'd be nice. What I mean by that is that, rather than attacking the other candidate, thoughtfully present what you think your guy is prepared to do to get us out of the mess we're in. I'm thinking here are some our major problems:


  • Job Creation to get Americans back to work
  • Overspending everywhere
  • Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money
  • Immigration -- we've got to address this issue
  • Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble
  • Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one
  • Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home
  • Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again
  • Add your own

IOW, without attacking the other guy, can you articulate what YOUR guy intends to do to solve these problems? Who has the better plan??

I'm looking at both platforms for guidance here. Where's a damned bullet list from either of them? There isn't one because that would make it easy for the American people to vote with their brains. Politicians don't want the American people to have that opportunity. Smoke and Mirrors.

I hope someone has better luck than I'm having, though I'll keep trying.
 
I'm looking at both platforms for guidance here. Where's a damned bullet list from either of them? There isn't one because that would make it easy for the American people to vote with their brains. Politicians don't want the American people to have that opportunity. Smoke and Mirrors.

I hope someone has better luck than I'm having, though I'll keep trying.

The problem with that Maggie is that the president proposes, congress enacts. The president can cheerlead and influence the results somewhat, but the heavy lifting must be done by the congress. All eyes are on the candidates for POTUS now and they're in campaign mode. Which means they're saying whatever they can to get (re)elected - even if they have to lie. For the candidates the supreme goal right now is to get their foot in the door and they'll say anything to get there. They can, and often do, abandon or alter beyond recognition platforms and promises made to get to the goal.

Of course Romney has less of this wiggle room than Obama. First termers must at least appear to make a stab at the platform/promises they made in order to gain a second term. Obama is under no such burden, if he takes it, this will be his last term, and he can go the way he wants, platforms and promises be damned.
 
The problem with that Maggie is that the president proposes, congress enacts. The president can cheerlead and influence the results somewhat, but the heavy lifting must be done by the congress. All eyes are on the candidates for POTUS now and they're in campaign mode. Which means they're saying whatever they can to get (re)elected - even if they have to lie. For the candidates the supreme goal right now is to get their foot in the door and they'll say anything to get there. They can, and often do, abandon or alter beyond recognition platforms and promises made to get to the goal.

Of course Romney has less of this wiggle room than Obama. First termers must at least appear to make a stab at the platform/promises they made in order to gain a second term. Obama is under no such burden, if he takes it, this will be his last term, and he can go the way he wants, platforms and promises be damned.

Clownboy, I completely agree with you. I'd bet this thread gets no serious play. Know why? The information isn't out there. Maybe we should all make educated guesses about who the winner of the Presidential Race is going to be and then vote the opposite in hopes that Congress will be divided. I'm just bummed.
 
Bumpity.

It appears this is a tough thread. Am I right? Is it because we really can't find out what each side would do when one looks for specifics? Does that seem right to you? Has it always been that way? Should bullet lists be mandatory? :rofl

Come on, guys, give it a try. Tell me what YOUR guy plans to do to solve these problems. Be specific. If you can. ;)
 
You're to be commended for continuing your call for real data rather than partisan 'my way is better because I'm more likeable' wars. However I, like you, am not seeing that info available for all the flak that exists.
 
With Obama, it's just regurgitating the 2008 campaign, without the fresh "rock star" image. Blah blah roads and bridges. Blah blah fair share. Blah blah equal opportunity.

With Romney it's Blah blah big government. Blah blah create jobs. Blah blah bring home jobs.

However, Romney has said that he would stop ObamaCare. That's good enough for a lot of people.
 
Instead of arguing who's the better candidate from many different perspectives, would it make sense to argue who has the better plan going forward? Is it possible to have a discussion strictly on those merits? I'm not sure; but it'd be nice. What I mean by that is that, rather than attacking the other candidate, thoughtfully present what you think your guy is prepared to do to get us out of the mess we're in. I'm thinking here are some our major problems:


  • Job Creation to get Americans back to work

IMO, the "engine of commerce" is not going to be switched on by government this time. This is a global economy in a sense that has never been true before. I still think this is a recession, and that doesn't get remedied by the same techniques as a period of hyper-inflation.

So, basically, I don't think either candidate can make this dramatically better. But I think, on balance, Romney will make them worse. Many of our problems now exist because we didn't insist on stricter enforcement of existing laws and regulations -- and Romney wants to lower this performance even more. I also do not buy "trickle down" on damned bit, but again, that's old thinking on a new day problem -- something both candidates are guilty of.


Overspending everywhere

The debt load concerns me, as does the harmful effect of certain government programs. But "overspending" in general doesn't. Both candidates are likely to waste money.

Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money

Again, not a big concern of mine. I think there might be some short-term gains Obama will capture and Romney will not, but overall we are fast approaching the maximum level of taxation. Since neither candidate wants to take on that far larger issue, to me, this is a draw.

Immigration -- we've got to address this issue

The best we can hope for from either of them is more of the same: piss-poor enforcement and mealy-mouthed support of the amnesty idea. Neither one is even going to address the consequences of these terrible choices.

Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble

Not on my radar.

Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one

Not a federal issue, IMO. If various states and localities have to go bankrupt (as seems likely now), that will be a federal issue, but neither candidate will address it. I'm not even sure how I want to see it addressed.

Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home

That ship has sailed, Mags. The jobs will never come back.

Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again

Well, more than just the housing debacle. Obama will pay more lip service to the concept but has a horrendous track record at DOJ, SEC, etc. Romney won't even try. A slight advantage to Obama here, IMO.

Add your own

Women's rights -- advantage, Obama

Environment -- they both suck. No advantage.

Health care reform -- neither one will be able to effect any meaningful change.


IOW, without attacking the other guy, can you articulate what YOUR guy intends to do to solve these problems? Who has the better plan??
 
Last edited:
Pinkie, I would Like your post -- and thank you very much for your thoughtful response -- but the formatting on it, at least on my screen (even after a few refreshes) is just totally jacked. Don't know why...

Nonetheless, I agree with much of what you said. And thanks again.

Edit: Oooooo!!!! It's better now!! (I wonder what that was about??) Anyhow, Liked it is!

Ooooo!!! And thank you for the compliment.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie, I would Like your post -- and thank you very much for your thoughtful response -- but the formatting on it, at least on my screen (even after a few refreshes) is just totally jacked. Don't know why...

Nonetheless, I agree with much of what you said. And thanks again.

It was the bullets, Mags. I think it's fixed.

BTW, I thought yours was an excellent OP.
 
[*]Job Creation to get Americans back to work

Obama has already stimulated the economy and brought about a number of consecutive months of positive job growth. His bailout saved GM and prevented a lot of layoffs. Can someone do a better job, maybe. It is better than i thought he would do considering how fast we were falling when he took office. I cannot say I see the same growth in going back to the old ways that got us in the mess, and Mitt has failed to offer up the new ideas he supposedly has for me to evaluate on my own so I don't see him as an alternative.
[*]Overspending everywhere

Obama has cut out the medicare prescription drug loophole, and he has also ended the war in Iraq and has made a timetable for lowering our activity in Afganistan. These will save a lot of money. Aside from that the candidates are the same except for where they are going to spend their money. I don't see much reason in higher spending with the pentagon and giving more tax breaks to the people who can afford to pay them without a problem.
[*]Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money

The poor and middle class have been hit hard in the past decade and asking them to pay more is just going to hurt them more. Asking the rich who make more money in a year than many see in a lifetime doesn't seem to be problematic. They have more money than they can spend, so why not pay some out for the country that allows them to live in such a fashion?
[*]Immigration -- we've got to address this issue

I don't really see what the huge deal is. in states that have cracked down hard opn mexican immigrants they have had to let crops wither and die in the fields because no one wants the jobs to pick them. Here is a bunch of people who are willing to take crappy jobs in the hopes that they can give their kids a better life. it is not much different from the italian, german, irish, and other immigrants that have come to our country to make their dreams. If obama wants to give legally working immigrants who are trying to be a part of our community a break then I don't really care. I also don't care to spend a lot of money persecuting hard working immigrants for the sake of some xenophobes. It works just fine for me if people who commit real crimes and are illegal get shipped out when caught. Other than ridding ourselves of illegal foreign criminals I don't see a purpose in overloading ourselves in another unwinnable war.

There is one thing i would like. i would like certain parties to stop giving visas to known terrorist sympathizers for whatever favor they have gotten. if their name is on some terrorist watch list for whatever reason we should stop them at the airport ad send them home. I really don't give a damn about paco the fruit picker coming here, but abdul the terrorist should not be getting any favors for coming here.

[*]Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble

I think obama has the right idea in limiting payments to a percent of your income for 20 years. It allows payment of the loan, and it allows graduates to actually get a start in the world without being drowned by debt. That sounds like a great idea to me.

[*]Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one

Whoever wants to stop robbing the things to pay for wars and other bull****. We pay taxes into Social security, unemployment, and even for the sake of welfare, and medicaid if we need them. I am for cracking down on fraud and stopping abuses. I just see a massive problem with just taking them away from people who have paid into them all these years and are not prepared to lose them. Also, if we are going to privatize retirement savings for the future we also need huge regulations which keep the investment companies from passing off toxic debt as good investments to retirement funds and draining people of their money for retirement. That means more regulation, and not letting the greed of the free market strip the middle class of their retirement savings.

[*]Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home

You can only do so much as president when competing with foreign sweatshop labor. I don't think either candidate has much of a plan for this, but obama has made some headway into it. About the only thing i see doing it would be high tarrifs on imported goods, and a lenient code allowing foreign businesses to avoid tarrifs by manufacturing in the US. neither candidate seems to be doing much to keep underpriced foreign labor from accessing the lucrative american market.

[*]Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again

Obviously there is only one party looking to reinstate the regulations which were removed that allowed this to happen. I also blame the cradit and banking industries for this problem much more than the government. They are the ones who allowed the creation of the buble through creating demand by giving out loans to people who could not pay them. hence they made the flipping market and drove housing costs way higher than they needed to be.

IOW, without attacking the other guy, can you articulate what YOUR guy intends to do to solve these problems? Who has the better plan??

If you want to say why one guy is good then you need to make that relative to the choice. Good is a relative description reliant on the comparison of choices in a system where all choices are not represented like the two party system. Good in some people's eyes may not even be a choice in an election where you really only have 2 choices, which makes good relative to the choices you have.
 
Obama has already stimulated the economy and brought about a number of consecutive months of positive job growth. His bailout saved GM and prevented a lot of layoffs. Can someone do a better job, maybe. It is better than i thought he would do considering how fast we were falling when he took office. I cannot say I see the same growth in going back to the old ways that got us in the mess, and Mitt has failed to offer up the new ideas he supposedly has for me to evaluate on my own so I don't see him as an alternative.


Obama has cut out the medicare prescription drug loophole, and he has also ended the war in Iraq and has made a timetable for lowering our activity in Afganistan. These will save a lot of money. Aside from that the candidates are the same except for where they are going to spend their money. I don't see much reason in higher spending with the pentagon and giving more tax breaks to the people who can afford to pay them without a problem.


The poor and middle class have been hit hard in the past decade and asking them to pay more is just going to hurt them more. Asking the rich who make more money in a year than many see in a lifetime doesn't seem to be problematic. They have more money than they can spend, so why not pay some out for the country that allows them to live in such a fashion?


I don't really see what the huge deal is. in states that have cracked down hard opn mexican immigrants they have had to let crops wither and die in the fields because no one wants the jobs to pick them. Here is a bunch of people who are willing to take crappy jobs in the hopes that they can give their kids a better life. it is not much different from the italian, german, irish, and other immigrants that have come to our country to make their dreams. If obama wants to give legally working immigrants who are trying to be a part of our community a break then I don't really care. I also don't care to spend a lot of money persecuting hard working immigrants for the sake of some xenophobes. It works just fine for me if people who commit real crimes and are illegal get shipped out when caught. Other than ridding ourselves of illegal foreign criminals I don't see a purpose in overloading ourselves in another unwinnable war.

There is one thing i would like. i would like certain parties to stop giving visas to known terrorist sympathizers for whatever favor they have gotten. if their name is on some terrorist watch list for whatever reason we should stop them at the airport ad send them home. I really don't give a damn about paco the fruit picker coming here, but abdul the terrorist should not be getting any favors for coming here.



I think obama has the right idea in limiting payments to a percent of your income for 20 years. It allows payment of the loan, and it allows graduates to actually get a start in the world without being drowned by debt. That sounds like a great idea to me.



Whoever wants to stop robbing the things to pay for wars and other bull****. We pay taxes into Social security, unemployment, and even for the sake of welfare, and medicaid if we need them. I am for cracking down on fraud and stopping abuses. I just see a massive problem with just taking them away from people who have paid into them all these years and are not prepared to lose them. Also, if we are going to privatize retirement savings for the future we also need huge regulations which keep the investment companies from passing off toxic debt as good investments to retirement funds and draining people of their money for retirement. That means more regulation, and not letting the greed of the free market strip the middle class of their retirement savings.



You can only do so much as president when competing with foreign sweatshop labor. I don't think either candidate has much of a plan for this, but obama has made some headway into it. About the only thing i see doing it would be high tarrifs on imported goods, and a lenient code allowing foreign businesses to avoid tarrifs by manufacturing in the US. neither candidate seems to be doing much to keep underpriced foreign labor from accessing the lucrative american market.



Obviously there is only one party looking to reinstate the regulations which were removed that allowed this to happen. I also blame the cradit and banking industries for this problem much more than the government. They are the ones who allowed the creation of the buble through creating demand by giving out loans to people who could not pay them. hence they made the flipping market and drove housing costs way higher than they needed to be.



If you want to say why one guy is good then you need to make that relative to the choice. Good is a relative description reliant on the comparison of choices in a system where all choices are not represented like the two party system. Good in some people's eyes may not even be a choice in an election where you really only have 2 choices, which makes good relative to the choices you have.

Tererun, this is one of the best posts I've read from you. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm beginning to think that, while Obama hasn't done everything I wish he had done, he hasn't done a bad job. Well, actually? I never thought he'd done a bad job...just not enough. You've made some excellent points. Thank you.
 
Wherever their corporate benefactors tell them to go.
 
Something else to consider: Obama, if reelected, will face a majority of GOPers in the House and possibly one in the Senate. It's not likely much of what he initiates will be passed.

OTOH, a Romney presidency will enjoy widespread congressional cooperation, meaning Romney is likely to get more of his ideas enacted.

So, I judge them differently. Considering I see Romney as presenting some very hazardous ideas, it'd take much more than I've been offered to vote for him. OTOH, voting for Obama feels a lot like voting for no major changes over the next four years, and that seems to be the best of the lousy choices on offer to me.
 
Something else to consider: Obama, if reelected, will face a majority of GOPers in the House and possibly one in the Senate. It's not likely much of what he initiates will be passed.

OTOH, a Romney presidency will enjoy widespread congressional cooperation, meaning Romney is likely to get more of his ideas enacted.

So, I judge them differently. Considering I see Romney as presenting some very hazardous ideas, it'd take much more than I've been offered to vote for him. OTOH, voting for Obama feels a lot like voting for no major changes over the next four years, and that seems to be the best of the lousy choices on offer to me.

The problem isn't Romney so much, I think this guy is a moderate and will govern mostly from the center. The problem is that Ryan will likely get to his say in financial policy which is fundamentally the wrong way for this country to go. Its good that he is trying to reduce deficit, but he is going about it the wrong way.
 
The problem isn't Romney so much, I think this guy is a moderate and will govern mostly from the center. The problem is that Ryan will likely get to his say in financial policy which is fundamentally the wrong way for this country to go. Its good that he is trying to reduce deficit, but he is going about it the wrong way.

Nothing signaled Romney's "moderate views" like choosing Ryan as his VP. I wasn't seriously considering voting for him before that, but after it, I would never, under any circumstances.

And....if there are vacancies on the Supreme Court during the next 4 years, as seems inevitable, I don't trust anyone who is anti-abortion to fill them.
 
Instead of arguing who's the better candidate from many different perspectives, would it make sense to argue who has the better plan going forward? Is it possible to have a discussion strictly on those merits? I'm not sure; but it'd be nice. What I mean by that is that, rather than attacking the other candidate, thoughtfully present what you think your guy is prepared to do to get us out of the mess we're in. I'm thinking here are some our major problems:

Job Creation to get Americans back to work

It's eye popping when you see the national debt, flooding this country with 6 trillion in just 6 yrs and all we have to show for it is unemployment over 8%, and GDP of 1.5%. This is a staggering failure in my opinion. These facts alone are extremely troubling, and under Obama another 4 yrs all I see is more of the same high unemployment, slow growth, and increasing the national debt another 5 trillion. This is not a future I would be proud to hand the next generations.

Overspending everywhere

Over spending is a huge problem, and it seems no one really wants to do any real cuts to get it under control

Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money

I look at raising taxes like I do immigration reform, close the border shut and then lets talk what to do with the ones that are already here. Same with taxes, show me you can cut spending then I'll talk tax increases. The Obama approach is he wants a balanced approach, the problem is you get the tax but not the cuts. In both cases "Show Me"

Immigration -- we've got to address this issue

I look at raising taxes like I do immigration reform, close the border shut and then lets talk what to do with the ones that are already here. Same with taxes, show me you can cut spending then I'll talk tax increases. The Obama approach is he wants a balanced approach, the problem is you get the tax but not the cuts. In both cases "Sh

Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble

I agree it's a bubble, the only reason Obama took over the student loan program is so that he can impose forgiveness. As he thinks everyone should get a free education. This is his entitlement society. All this will do is add to the national debt. This needs to go back into the private sector. No different than Freddy and Fannie.

Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one

Public pensions, is a huge problem all across this country, it was put on center stage in Wisconsin and Scott Walker where as union pensions are killing the states ability to provide the services it should, but can't because of onerous pension funds. Obama bailed out the auto union and left the bond holders broke, GM's stock is now worth half of what it was when it came out of bankruptcy. Once again the tax payer is the loser, and the future generations that have to pay back the borrowed money to bail out GM

Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home

In order to bring jobs back home you have to create an environment for companies to want to say home. Example: California is one of the most non friendly business environment, thus business have been out of California to business friendly states like Texas. California don't care about businesses leaving, yet they are over 20 billion in debt. This country is 16 trillion in debt as it is also unfriendly against businesses. Obama would never change that environment but Romney would IMO

Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again

Shut down Fannie and Freddie, government should never be in the housing loan business

Add your own

Energy, the most important part of our economy, with cheap energy we will have a strong economy, with high energy cost a weak economy. Obama wants high energy cost to promote his green. Romney would take advantage of opening up our natural resources to exploration lowering our energy cost. Low gas prices leaves more money in people pockets to spend here at home, low heating oil does the same, low diesel lowers cost of good and services at the store, I could go on and on about how low energy cost creates a booming economy. We send 500 billion a year to Oil Lords and all the jobs that go with it, bring that money and the jobs it would create and this country would boom.

Energy is the life blood of our economy. And the cheaper it is the stronger our economy


IOW, without attacking the other guy, can you articulate what YOUR guy intends to do to solve these problems? Who has the better plan??
 
Instead of arguing who's the better candidate from many different perspectives, would it make sense to argue who has the better plan going forward? Is it possible to have a discussion strictly on those merits? I'm not sure; but it'd be nice. What I mean by that is that, rather than attacking the other candidate, thoughtfully present what you think your guy is prepared to do to get us out of the mess we're in. I'm thinking here are some our major problems:

Job Creation to get Americans back to work

It's eye popping when you see the national debt, flooding this country with 6 trillion in just 6 yrs and all we have to show for it is unemployment over 8%, and GDP of 1.5%. This is a staggering failure in my opinion. These facts alone are extremely troubling, and under Obama another 4 yrs all I see is more of the same high unemployment, slow growth, and increasing the national debt another 5 trillion. This is not a future I would be proud to hand the next generations.

Overspending everywhere

Over spending is a huge problem, and it seems no one really wants to do any real cuts to get it under control

Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money

I look at raising taxes like I do immigration reform, close the border shut and then lets talk what to do with the ones that are already here. Same with taxes, show me you can cut spending then I'll talk tax increases. The Obama approach is he wants a balanced approach, the problem is you get the tax but not the cuts. In both cases "Show Me"

Immigration -- we've got to address this issue

I look at raising taxes like I do immigration reform, close the border shut and then lets talk what to do with the ones that are already here. Same with taxes, show me you can cut spending then I'll talk tax increases. The Obama approach is he wants a balanced approach, the problem is you get the tax but not the cuts. In both cases "Sh

Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble

I agree it's a bubble, the only reason Obama took over the student loan program is so that he can impose forgiveness. As he thinks everyone should get a free education. This is his entitlement society. All this will do is add to the national debt. This needs to go back into the private sector. No different than Freddy and Fannie.

Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one

Public pensions, is a huge problem all across this country, it was put on center stage in Wisconsin and Scott Walker where as union pensions are killing the states ability to provide the services it should, but can't because of onerous pension funds. Obama bailed out the auto union and left the bond holders broke, GM's stock is now worth half of what it was when it came out of bankruptcy. Once again the tax payer is the loser, and the future generations that have to pay back the borrowed money to bail out GM

Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home

In order to bring jobs back home you have to create an environment for companies to want to say home. Example: California is one of the most non friendly business environment, thus business have been out of California to business friendly states like Texas. California don't care about businesses leaving, yet they are over 20 billion in debt. This country is 16 trillion in debt as it is also unfriendly against businesses. Obama would never change that environment but Romney would IMO

Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again

Shut down Fannie and Freddie, government should never be in the housing loan business

Add your own

Energy, the most important part of our economy, with cheap energy we will have a strong economy, with high energy cost a weak economy. Obama wants high energy cost to promote his green. Romney would take advantage of opening up our natural resources to exploration lowering our energy cost. Low gas prices leaves more money in people pockets to spend here at home, low heating oil does the same, low diesel lowers cost of good and services at the store, I could go on and on about how low energy cost creates a booming economy. We send 500 billion a year to Oil Lords and all the jobs that go with it, bring that money and the jobs it would create and this country would boom. Energy is the life blood of our economy. And the cheaper it is the stronger our economy

National Debt, this is the most serious problem that is going to hit the next generations to have to pay back for greed and excess. There is no better way to put it as we are the most greedy bastards, spending money we don't have, and laughing like it's Christmas. How anyone can in this country can sit there an not give a damn about future generations having to lower their standard of living because all the money they have it going to have to pay for our greed. This is money thy could use to improve their lives, but no is has to go to pay for greed. How to cure this problem is a pro-growth, business friendly environment.

Health Care, we now have Obamacare, which was enacted without one republican vote or one republican idea. This alone tells me this is not a good bill for this country. A bill that effects 1/6th of our economy should have full bipartisan support, in fact most all bills should have bipartisan or at least some support from the opposing side. We have to start over with Obamacare, and it has to be a real bill that can be supported by both sides.

EPA, is killing jobs, it has marching orders to shut down business if it smokes a cigarette. Yeah the left always comes out and the first thing they say is you don't want clean water or air. BS. But we don't shut down and over regulate businesses without thinking about what it does to jobs and families that rely on those jobs. We're all for clean, but we use oil and coal as a cheap energy source that fuels our economy, take it away, and you put more people out of work and on the streets of America. We have made huge steps in cleaning up our air, without killing jobs. Lets not go over the edge and kill the jobs in this country for one less drop carbon in the air at the expense of American jobs and more people being poor and on food stamps. There is no dignity being on food stamps, this country needs a pro growth, pro business friendly policies that will get America working again. And as a result we can have a more balanced approach cleaning up our environment and keeping America working
 
Last edited:
I look at raising taxes like I do immigration reform, close the border shut and then lets talk what to do with the ones that are already here. Same with taxes, show me you can cut spending then I'll talk tax increases. The Obama approach is he wants a balanced approach, the problem is you get the tax but not the cuts. In both cases "Show Me"


Shut down the border and what are our farmers going to do to get their crops in? Up here in Washington state the farmers would lose their crops without the illegals.

I know the political chant is to get America working again but I don't think all America is really that anxious to work. I am not lumping all unemployed Americans in that grouping either as I realize in some locations there is simply no jobs but that isn't true everywhere.

The other political chant is stop outsourcing but if they bring back those low paying jobs to America they are simply going to stay unfilled.

I work in the medical field and constantly I am seeing people wanting to file for full disability status. There are definitely some people who qualify for that status and rightly so. But in some situations I have to shake my head. I realize they may not be capable of driving a skidder for loggging crew but how many people do you know that are working on a logging crew.

Not meaning to use a broad brush to paint all of us. But tell me you don't see the people I describe above too. We have a segment in our population who are too lazy to work or unwilling to improve their skills.
Remember the plan to convert to the Metric system in the US back in the 70's? We were simply unable to get the masses to learn it.
 
I work in the medical field and constantly I am seeing people wanting to file for full disability status. There are definitely some people who qualify for that status and rightly so. But in some situations I have to shake my head. I realize they may not be capable of driving a skidder for loggging crew but how many people do you know that are working on a logging crew.

Not meaning to use a broad brush to paint all of us. But tell me you don't see the people I describe above too. We have a segment in our population who are too lazy to work or unwilling to improve their skills.
Remember the plan to convert to the Metric system in the US back in the 70's? We were simply unable to get the masses to learn it.

I think some are slackers just looking for an easy ride; I think some are too disabled to do what they know, and either can't or won't retrain. And, of course, the greater majority are probably truly disabled.

What's a glass maker supposed to do when all the glass plants close? He may or may not have a high school education...glass-making is all he knows. He loses his job to outsourcing at 48 years old. He's scared to freakin' death. He sees some of his friends suddenly develop back injuries, or PTSD due to stress, or whatever the flavor-of-the-day diagnosis is needed to get interviewed for disability.

And, if he can't get it on his own? There are a slough of attorneys standing in the background willing to walk his claim through the system (including sending him to their doctors) for a % of the award. And. If a guy's willing to jump through all the hoops? Mr. Healthy-As-Pie starts getting his disability check.

To deny this is happening on a somewhat regular basis is to deny reality, in my opinion.
 
Well, I've given up on this thread. The information is not out there. We can talk about why "our guy" can do it better...we can chat about this one's record v that one's record. We can bad mouth this one -- bad mouth that one. But the candidates? They haven't given us a roadmap to one damned thing.
 
MaggieD said:
Job Creation to get Americans back to work
Alas. I'm afraid no one can get Americans back to work at satisfactory levels until deleveraging from the Bush Depression is over. Obama (Bernanke too) undeniably kept many working and the bailout preserved the infrastructure. We're in a dead decade as the 1930's with [unelected] QE's keeping us afloat.
Corporatons and wealthy individuals are sitting on Record hoards of cash. They don't need breaks to invest, they need Demand created by poorER consumers with [more] money in their pockets.
A Recession IS not enough people with money buy things.
So let's Tax them more ("Broaden the base") and the rich less...?
We have a demand-drought recession. ie, Intel (MSFT, CSCO, etc) have tens of billions but the won't be investing because of Lack of Demand, NOT Tax rates.
Tiffany, Hermes, LVMH, etc doing great thanks.

Overspending everywhere
There is overspending, but reining it in now defeats your first point: it puts people out of work.
Eventually (make that 'soon') spending Will have to be cut.
This may be Romney/Ryan's main/only + in my book. Except they deny they will be cutting things like Medicare which truly need a Huge haircut.
Just lying as they are about Tax rates.

Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money
This a No-brainer as Romney/Ryan suggest a 20% Tax CUT for everyone. "Double down on trickle down."
One can't take their whole platform seriously until they come clean on this.
It's an election whopper that even their numb supporters must demand.
The only way TO raise revenues without effecting spending would be to Tax those whose spending wouldn't really be affected, the rich, who already have plenty of 'disposable' income. Now earning .1% in T-bills at Morgan Stanley, when it could be taxed and spent Directly on, say, Infrastructure jobs; A task we desperately need anyway.
Heard Romney today on radio, he will NOT raise taxes. Period.

Immigration -- we've got to address this issue
Both parties suck on this point - forever.
We need employER sanctions and it will end.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigration/107590-employer-sanctions.html
We could put millions of low and unskilled back to work and paying taxes.

Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble
To get anywhere today you need a college degree. (Ask conservatives here who call em lazy).
So what are those who can't afford to pay immediately to do?
Obama Has lowered rates.


Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one
We will have to have Federal Legislation to allow states to alter pension obligations without bankruptcy. (Gingrich)
This will be tricky and nasty.


Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home
Romney is a Free trader. You?
Obama has slapped tariffs on several industries now (Solar, Steel, etc), but it's not enough. Someone has to start fighting the Economic War China has waged on us and the EU, (and planet) and won.


Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again
Another no-brainer 'for' Obama'. Romney a no-reg wall streeter.
(as Was yours truly)


Add your own
More on this issue of Raising Revenue.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html
How do you propose to get more from the bottom 40%?
One could get some small increase but every dollar you take from them comes OUT of the economic recovery/is not spent and makes the poor, poorer/this demand recession worse.

I'm disappointed by most here who treat this as sporting event and will support their 'team' no matter what.
The R-R Economic/Tax 'plan' is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an 80+ IQ.
Yet 50% of the populace, and many posters here, don't care.
It made Clinton look good for over half an hour debunking it's idiocy for those who didn't see how bad it was on it's face/instantly.
 
Last edited:
Shut down the border and what are our farmers going to do to get their crops in? Up here in Washington state the farmers would lose their crops without the illegals.

I don't want to derail this thread, but your statement is ludicrous. What did farmers do before illegals? The Amish plow their fields with horses. So you say without illegals, so what we have a secret hole in our fence to let so many illegals in. Then we ask them if they are going to pick our fields, and if they say no we send them back. What is so hard to understand illegal means illegal. So we have a closed border but our agents let so many sneak in to pick lettuce. This is insane. Last only a small percentage of illegals work in the fields. Illegals are in ever fabric of working society. They are cooks, nannies, hotel/motel maids, landscapers, commercial fisherman, truck drivers, carpenters, construction workers of all kinds. I think you get the picture. Illegals have replaced millions of American working families all across this country, and you say let them in. I don't think so

I don't want one, and I mean not one person enter this country illegally. Period..... We have legal immigration laws, and it's those laws that need to be fully enforced. Now their is always ways to amend current law, like work permits and the like. But it has to be done legally.
 
Last edited:
Alas. I'm afraid no one can get Americans back to work at satisfactory levels until deleveraging from the Bush Depression is over. Obama (Bernanke too) undeniably kept many working and the bailout preserved the infrastructure. We're in a dead decade as the 1930's with [unelected] QE's keeping us afloat.
Corporatons and wealthy individuals are sitting on Record hoards of cash. They don't need breaks to invest, they need Demand created by poorER consumers with [more] money in their pockets.
A Recession IS not enough people with money buy things.
So let's Tax them more ("Broaden the base") and the rich less...?
We have a demand-drought recession. ie, Intel (MSFT, CSCO, etc) have tens of billions but the won't be investing because of Lack of Demand, NOT Tax rates.
Tiffany, Hermes, LVMH, etc doing great thanks.


There is overspending, but reining it in now defeats your first point: it puts people out of work.
Eventually (make that 'soon') spending Will have to be cut.
This may be Romney/Ryan's main/only + in my book. Except they deny they will be cutting things like Medicare which truly need a Huge haircut.
Just lying as they are about Tax rates.


This a No-brainer as Romney/Ryan suggest a 20% Tax CUT for everyone. "Double down on trickle down."
One can't take their whole platform seriously until they come clean on this.
It's an election whopper that even their numb supporters must demand.
The only way TO raise revenues without effecting spending would be to Tax those whose spending wouldn't really be affected, the rich, who already have plenty of 'disposable' income. Now earning .1% in T-bills at Morgan Stanley, when it could be taxed and spent Directly on, say, Infrastructure jobs; A task we desperately need anyway.
Heard Romney today on radio, he will NOT raise taxes. Period.


Both parties suck on this point - forever.
We need employER sanctions and it will end.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigration/107590-employer-sanctions.html
We could put millions of low and unskilled back to work and paying taxes.


To get anywhere today you need a college degree. (Ask conservatives here who call em lazy).
So what are those who can't afford to pay immediately to do?
Obama Has lowered rates.



We will have to have Federal Legislation to allow states to alter pension obligations without bankruptcy. (Gingrich)
This will be tricky and nasty.


Romney is a Free trader. You?
Obama has slapped tariffs on several industries now (Solar, Steel, etc), but it's not enough. Someone has to start fighting the Economic War China has waged on us and the EU, (and planet) and won.



Another no-brainer 'for' Obama'. Romney a no-reg wall streeter.
(as Was yours truly)



More on this issue of Raising Revenue.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html
How do you propose to get more from the bottom 40%?
One could get some small increase but every dollar you take from them comes OUT of the economic recovery/is not spent and makes the poor, poorer/this demand recession worse.

I'm disappointed by most here who treat this as sporting event and will support their 'team' no matter what.
The R-R Economic/Tax 'plan' is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an 80+ IQ.
Yet 50% of the populace, and many posters here, don't care.
It made Clinton look good for over half an hour debunking it's idiocy for those who didn't see how bad it was on it's face/instantly.

This belongs in the rant section. I would sure like to take the time to fully debunk your post, but I'm not going to waste my time.
 
Instead of arguing who's the better candidate from many different perspectives, would it make sense to argue who has the better plan going forward? Is it possible to have a discussion strictly on those merits? I'm not sure; but it'd be nice. What I mean by that is that, rather than attacking the other candidate, thoughtfully present what you think your guy is prepared to do to get us out of the mess we're in. I'm thinking here are some our major problems:


  • Job Creation to get Americans back to work
  • Overspending everywhere
  • Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money
  • Immigration -- we've got to address this issue
  • Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble
  • Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one
  • Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home
  • Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again
  • Add your own

IOW, without attacking the other guy, can you articulate what YOUR guy intends to do to solve these problems? Who has the better plan??

Well, here's my take on each of these.

  • Job Creation to get Americans back to work

There's 2 things in play here. The cost of doing business and uncertainty in future costs. People don't like to hear this, but the only way to see more jobs is to make it affordable for companys to hire people and/or less of a financial risk to do so. Just the threat of higher taxes and the impending cost of Obamacare has a lot to do with why job creation is stagnant. This stagnation due to uncertainty and fear, didn't happen after the 81', 90' or 2001 recessions, because we didn't have a president in office that alienated job creators by contantly threatening to raise taxes and impose costly regulations. Obama has created such an atmosphere and the only way to reverse the situation is to replace him.


  • Overspending everywhere

Who knows how Romney will be on the issue of spending. We never know until there in office. What we do know is that we have a president now who has taken spending to a new level and in my opinion hasn't earned any trust on that front. Both have made proposals and if memory serves, the Romney plan cuts more spending that Obama's does.



  • Tax Revenue -- with even the best of intentions, we need more money

You DO NOT raise taxes when the economy is stagnant and unemployment is high. The way you raise more revenue is by making it easier for companies to hire, which adds hundreds of thousands more people per month paying income taxes and purchasing goods. Once you get employment levels back to normal and the economy is doing well, then you can slowly raise taxes to pay down the debt. Raising taxes in this economy only exasterbates the situation... It's kicking a man while he's down.



  • Immigration -- we've got to address this issue

Obama just offered amnesty to millions of illegals and is fighting states that want to enforce immigration laws. That is incentive for people to enter the country illegally, not a deterrent. On this issue, it's clear that Obama has no intention of solving this problem, so Romney can't be any worse.



  • Student Loans -- our next horrendous bubble

Student loans need to be secured with collateral and pay back enforced. All I hear from the left is how this is a problem for the people who received the loans, not for the ones who issued them. Who's better... Who knows.


  • Public Pension Funds -- our horrendous bubble after our next one

Only members of one party have taken steps to address and impliment solutions to fix this problem, while members of the other party have fought tooth and nail to resist such solutions. Hint: Scott Walker and Chris Christie


  • Outsourcing -- bringing jobs back home

This year under Obama, we became the country with the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If you think this is how we bring jobs back home and keep companies from going overseas, then by all means re-elect Obama. Romney has made it clear he will make it easier and less costly for companies to do business here, and based on his business experience and record of success, I think the question of who's the best choice here is a no-brainer.


  • Financial Regulation --to make sure our housing collapse never happens again

In a word... GSE's. Fannie and Freddie must go and we need to take government out of the home mortgage business. We need to go back to simple, common sense lending practices that prevent unqualified people from getting a home loan. Democrats have done everything in their power to protect GSE's and keep the American tax payer on the hook for unpaid mortgages issued to unqualified buyers. Will Romney take steps to fix this? Who knows, but one thing we do know... Obama and the democrats haven't.
 
Back
Top Bottom