• 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!

AP-GfK Poll: Obama faces trouble with key voters

Thorgasm said:
It's one side saying, "We can't afford to pay more taxes." and the other side saying, "We refuse to pay more taxes. We were going to create jobs use automation to save on labor costs with that money."
Click to expand...

I can at least afford to pay what I already have deducted every pay period...but they give me about 75% of that back every year. I could probably afford another 3-5% of my income in taxes if I really had to. I don't even make 30k/year, but I make responsible decisions with my money, I accept that I don't need designer clothing and 52" flat screen televisions in every room of my house. I make goals and I save until I can afford whatever that goal will cost me. I live within my means. And yet when taxes come up it's always everybody but the "rich", which is just some arbitrary identifier used to identify anybody making more than the poster, is in dire straights and can't afford to be robbed of their money.

The reality is, most of this country is - or should be - doing fine with the money they make. The fact that they aren't doesn't mean that the "rich" should pay more so the rest of us don't have to. People need to be realistic with their money and their obligations (personal and public) and stop passing the buck to the next guy up the line. The class warfare bull**** we've bought into needs to stop.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Who do the GOP have? Idiots! Perry is the ONLY chance conservatives have. And once again Im not voting for the GOP or the Dems. Im writing in Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how Perry could win it. He appears to be a stone cold religious nut. IMO Romney is their best bet so far... Not great, but their best bet out of the options presented thus far.
 
Thus the republicans' quandary: you have to be an extremist to win the primary, but an extremist can't win the general election. Which is why Obama is going to win.
 
AdamT said:
Thus the republicans' quandary: you have to be an extremist to win the primary, but an extremist can't win the general election. Which is why Obama is going to win.
Click to expand...

So Obama will fool the populace by running on his record?
 
Thorgasm said:
Perry is too evangelical. Romney has RomneyCare.
Click to expand...

and the Obama Administration has been one long fiscal nightmare. However, your argument was that the GOP needs to nominate "someone with a strong fiscal background and policy to offer", and both men have that. Romney could run on his private-sector success and understanding of how actual jobs are created, whereas Perry has an impressive counter-narrative to the Obama years to offer.

THE issue in this election will not be whether or not you think the candidate prays too much or too little (and the Obama campaign might understandably be a little hesitant to accuse Perry of having ties to crazy pastors - people in glass houses and such); it will be about which Candidate can produce jobs, economic growth, and shrink the size and cost of government. On either of those scores, Obama starts at a heavy disadvantage against the lead Republican contenders.

No, it's because it's nothing more than rich people whining about poor people not "paying their fair share". As if that would miraculously fix the credit based economy.
Click to expand...

a tariff (as suggested) would immediately hike the cost of living on America's poor. It would also destroy innumerable jobs; and those with few job skills would be the most vulnerable and greatest effected.
 
cpwill said:
and the Obama Administration has been one long fiscal nightmare. However, your argument was that the GOP needs to nominate "someone with a strong fiscal background and policy to offer", and both men have that. Romney could run on his private-sector success and understanding of how actual jobs are created, whereas Perry has an impressive counter-narrative to the Obama years to offer.

THE issue in this election will not be whether or not you think the candidate prays too much or too little (and the Obama campaign might understandably be a little hesitant to accuse Perry of having ties to crazy pastors - people in glass houses and such); it will be about which Candidate can produce jobs, economic growth, and shrink the size and cost of government. On either of those scores, Obama starts at a heavy disadvantage against the lead Republican contenders.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that a GOP plan would have been better.

Jobs are created by an increase in demand.

Perry really benefited from businesses leaving California. Is he going to fix the country by taking all the jobs from California? :lol:

cpwill said:
a tariff (as suggested) would immediately hike the cost of living on America's poor. It would also destroy innumerable jobs; and those with few job skills would be the most vulnerable and greatest effected.
Click to expand...

It would cost more, of course. That's how American companies will have a chance to be competitive to increase demand for their goods.
 
tessaesque said:
I can at least afford to pay what I already have deducted every pay period...but they give me about 75% of that back every year. I could probably afford another 3-5% of my income in taxes if I really had to. I don't even make 30k/year, but I make responsible decisions with my money, I accept that I don't need designer clothing and 52" flat screen televisions in every room of my house. I make goals and I save until I can afford whatever that goal will cost me. I live within my means. And yet when taxes come up it's always everybody but the "rich", which is just some arbitrary identifier used to identify anybody making more than the poster, is in dire straights and can't afford to be robbed of their money.

The reality is, most of this country is - or should be - doing fine with the money they make. The fact that they aren't doesn't mean that the "rich" should pay more so the rest of us don't have to. People need to be realistic with their money and their obligations (personal and public) and stop passing the buck to the next guy up the line. The class warfare bull**** we've bought into needs to stop.
Click to expand...

So at roughly $575.00 a week that you earn, let's say that you can afford almost $1500 (5%) a year in taxes. A medical issue could wipe that out. Car trouble could wipe that out. A fire in your apartment could wipe that out. Having your wisdom teeth removed could wipe that out.

And as far as that 75% figure goes, are you including medicare and SS taxes as the 25% you don't get back?
 
Tashah said:
Source: The Associated Press: AP-GfK Poll: Obama faces trouble with key voters

Obama's approval/confidence numbers are plunging among whites, white independents, women, the young, and even liberals.

The question remains... Can he win reelection in 2012 without significant upturns in the economy/job sector/debt controls?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I still think it depends on who the GOP puts up to run against him.

The reason why he has a low approval rate among liberals is because he isn't liberal enough. However, that doesn't mean that those liberals will vote for a paleo-conservative such as Bachmann or Perry, who are the frontrunners among the GOP for the GOP nomination. So if a liberal had to choose between voting for Obama or a Tea Partier I think they'd still vote for Obama because a Tea Partier would be worse at representing their interests.

Also, Obama certainly is facing a high unemployment rate. But a growing number of the unemployed are public workers that have been fired by the austerity measures the federal, state, and local governments have been implementing. So it's somewhat doubtful if they will vote for a Tea Partier who will further cut government spending and will continue to put them out of work.

So disapproval of Obama does not necessarily mean approval of the GOP candidates. It just depends on what kind of alternative the GOP provides to voters. If the alternative they choose is worse than Obama then he will be a shoo-in for re-election.
 
tessaesque said:
I don't even make 30k/year, but I make responsible decisions with my money, I accept that I don't need designer clothing and 52" flat screen televisions in every room of my house.
Click to expand...

In many areas there are many people who can't even make 30k/year. Especially during this recession.
 
cpwill said:
THE issue in this election will not be whether or not you think the candidate prays too much or too little (and the Obama campaign might understandably be a little hesitant to accuse Perry of having ties to crazy pastors - people in glass houses and such); it will be about which Candidate can produce jobs, economic growth, and shrink the size and cost of government. On either of those scores, Obama starts at a heavy disadvantage against the lead Republican contenders.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

It has been alleged that Romney's business style was less about any competence of business plans and more about just slashing jobs to make shareholders happy with him. That would make him somewhat suspect when we need a President who will help us create jobs, not destroy them.

Also, it is arguable about how much of Perry's policies affect Texas' economy. After all, it helps that they're a border state with a nation that has incredibly cheaper labor. And if Perry is responsible for the Texas economy then he will have to explain how the Texas economy will be suffering a $5 billion loss from ranching and agriculture because of this previous heat wave.

Those two won't have any easier of a time than Obama will, if you ask me.
 
samsmart said:
Not necessarily.

It has been alleged that Romney's business style was less about any competence of business plans and more about just slashing jobs to make shareholders happy with him. That would make him somewhat suspect when we need a President who will help us create jobs, not destroy them.
Click to expand...

it has been alleged? Romney can also talk about 'saving the Olympics'; a situation that will dovetail nicely with our current doldrums. as for "somewhat suspect"; when your option is a sinking ship or a somewhat suspect liferaft, my bet is, most voters will take the liferaft. Obama would be left arguing that people shouldn't vote for Romney because he's a potential economic failure - better to stick with the proven economic failure. I just don't see that playing well.

Also, it is arguable about how much of Perry's policies affect Texas' economy.
Click to expand...

of course it's arguable. anything is arguable. and again, this is a line of attack that isn't going to play well for Obama, simply because it will sound like whining. mind you, they will have to make it, but their better bet remains to emphasize the "scare" tactics and try to petrify old people about Evil Wepubwicans Gonna Take Youah Medicawhe and Social Secuwity [/elmer fudd].

And if Perry is responsible for the Texas economy then he will have to explain how the Texas economy will be suffering a $5 billion loss from ranching and agriculture because of this previous heat wave.
Click to expand...

um. you just answered your own question? besides, it's an easy turn-around. we play the clip of Obama claiming to lower the oceans and ask him if he wouldn't mind bringing in some rain?

Those two won't have any easier of a time than Obama will, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

it's a zero sum contest - and either of these two still have a much easier case to make than Obama does. Obama is left attempting to find holes in their records, while attempting to find anything positive in his.
 
Thorgasm said:
I'm not convinced that a GOP plan would have been better.
Click to expand...

If we had matched the 1982 recovery rate, today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession—that's an extra $16,600 for a family of four—and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs. That's enough jobs to employ 100% of the 13.5 million Americans currently classified as unemployed. In addition, we would have provided jobs for 30% of both the 2.4 million discouraged or marginally attached workers and the 4.8 million who have totally dropped out of the work force since January 2008.

Jobs are created by an increase in demand.
Click to expand...

yes and no. "demand" as it is expressed is a function of supply.

Perry really benefited from businesses leaving California. Is he going to fix the country by taking all the jobs from California?
Click to expand...

Texas benefited alot from businesses fleeing more liberal big-government states, that is true. gosh, now why would businesses be so eager to set up and hire people in a less-taxed, small-government state with a lower regulatory burden?

It would cost more, of course. That's how American companies will have a chance to be competitive to increase demand for their goods.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect - you are assuming a constancy of demand that simply will not exist. as prices rise, demand plummets, and the resultant economic chaos and reordering of resources will create huge losses that will cause it to further fall off a cliff. I would ask you to read up on the Smoot Hawley Tariff to see what happened the last time we responded to a long-term recession by imposing a tariff to "help Americans".
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Who do the GOP have? Idiots! Perry is the ONLY chance conservatives have. And once again Im not voting for the GOP or the Dems. Im writing in Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Any man who would cavalierly throw away one of the most important treaties the US has signed since World War II does NOT deserve to be the chief executive. If Perry is the nominee, I am NOT voting for him.
 
what treaty is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom