• 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

Did you see his interview on "60 Minutes" this evening?

He sounded pretty clear to me.

No, I didn't. But he changes all the time. What he says one day is something he will be against another day.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Why on earth do so many libertarians attempt to sound like television adverts when they talk online? Can't stop shilling?

Do you have something to say?

Why do so many partisans keep ignoring the fact that the politicians they support act against their values? Do they like ****ing themselves over? Do they enjoy ****ting on their children?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

His alleged religious affiliation has nothing to do with him doing worse than Obama in the polls. Romney is a dirty liberal who masquerades as a conservative.

... which also has nothing to do with him slacking in the polls.

Romney has failed to sell himself as an alternative to Obama. First, he isn't very likeable, which makes the sale a little harder. Second, he hasn't really given anyone a vision of what he would do. Third, he is running one of the worst Presidential campaigns we have seen in a generation. His message is all over the board, including being incoherent, contradictory, incomplete and insulting to the audience.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

No, I didn't. But he changes all the time. What he says one day is something he will be against another day.

It's too bad you missed it. He was quite clear and his message hasn't changed.

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

I have to disagree with your analysis. We spend much more in corporate welfare than we do social welfare.

I don't know about that, the so called 'war on poverty' has been waged for 40 plus years, at a cost of over $40 trillion. What you categorize as 'corporate welfare' is murky in its definition. Heck, some people think that business shouldn't even make a profit, or be incentivized to innovate, how do you think that would work out had that been the over riding principle of this country up to now? Think we'd be where we are today? Think we'd have reached the moon?

The idea that a large majority of the public would rather live poor so they can get food stamps is a bit hard to grasp. People who are poor have not been living a comfortable life style on the government dole.

Allow me to give a little bit of an anecdotal situation here...When I first started driving trucks, I worked for a company called Schwan's. They are a company most famous for their ice cream, but offer a full line of home delivered gourmet foods, and not cheap either. My best customers were those in the section 8 housing, using food stamps. They ate better than me and my family, and I worked 12 hours a day. So are they knocking it dead, living in the lap of luxury? No. Are they in their own way making out just fine? Yes IMHO.

However, executives in big corporations have been living large because politicians give them favors for campaign donations.

You just described 'Big Union'.... Does the same apply for them?

This happens on both sides, but I see the GOP catoring more to the rich than anyone else these days.

Again, I think you are being led somewhat. Catering, or pandering is what politicians do on the trail. When you see 'rich' I see the local business person. When you see 'rich' I see the family business. These people are far more in number than the Corporate CEO.

When Ryan talks about the takers and makers, he is clearly saying that the poor take from the rich.

For a segment of society this is true. The wealthy in this country pay more than 60% of all tax revenue taken in by the Federal Government, that is just a fact. So, why is it so awful to speak the truth? Other than it is being used to demonize those who do...So I guess, for all the blather that we want politicians that are honest, no we don't...We want people with really good ways to spin.

The rich get more than their share of our tax money and they use it to build bigger personal wealth.

How's that? Let me ask you, if a wealthy person makes $15 million in investment income, and pays $2.25 million in Federal tax on that gain, how did the remaining $12.75 million take from you? What you are saying doesn't make sense, we have the ability in our system not to be relegated to one pie being divided into ever smaller slices so that others can get a bigger slice, no, we have the ability in our system to bake more pies.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

It's too bad you missed it. He was quite clear and his message hasn't changed.

Oh well...your loss.

I saw it, and my wife and kids watched it with me...My son made a comment, that Romney looked confident in his answers, and sounded like he knew how to fix this country...I hope he brings that Romney to the debates...

Also, I thought it interesting all the editing they did with Obama's answers...for instance, when they asked Romney about what Presidents he looked to for guidance on the office, his answer on Adams was well thought out and clear, Obama, when asked the same question, said that he looked to the Presidents he admired, then they edited the answer before he could say who that was....I wonder why.....
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

As a nation, we need to tighten our belt.


I guess most Americans aren't ready to accept the necessary cuts to entitlement programs like welfare and medicare.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

So, NBC hides behind the WSJ moniker as they oversample democrats, and young cell phone users by as much as 13% points in order to come up with the data they want to project to the country....Even if you accept that these polls are anything more than junk plain and simple, take away the shenanigans in arriving at these numbers, and you come up with Romney leading by 5%...You libs are just shameless.

You need to read those poll numbers a bit closer because that is not at all what it says.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Because most of the media had done anything to divert from all issues to personality attacks against Romney.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

A more important question for our time is: will the lesser of two evils put a stop to the trillion dollar Ponzi scheme, or will he extend and expand it?

What do you really believe your lesser-of-two-evils will actually do? If you don't believe he will change much about the direction of politics and government, then you owe it to the country to send a message about your skepticism by voting third party. Regardless of who you think is actually going to win, vote you values. Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, 2012.

We know what Barrack Obama will do from the four years he has spent in office.

Could Mitt Romney possibly do worse and, if so, how?

Romney has a record of successes, Obama does not.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

I don't know about that, the so called 'war on poverty' has been waged for 40 plus years, at a cost of over $40 trillion. What you categorize as 'corporate welfare' is murky in its definition. Heck, some people think that business shouldn't even make a profit, or be incentivized to innovate, how do you think that would work out had that been the over riding principle of this country up to now? Think we'd be where we are today? Think we'd have reached the moon?

Allow me to give a little bit of an anecdotal situation here...When I first started driving trucks, I worked for a company called Schwan's. They are a company most famous for their ice cream, but offer a full line of home delivered gourmet foods, and not cheap either. My best customers were those in the section 8 housing, using food stamps. They ate better than me and my family, and I worked 12 hours a day. So are they knocking it dead, living in the lap of luxury? No. Are they in their own way making out just fine? Yes IMHO.

You just described 'Big Union'.... Does the same apply for them?

Again, I think you are being led somewhat. Catering, or pandering is what politicians do on the trail. When you see 'rich' I see the local business person. When you see 'rich' I see the family business. These people are far more in number than the Corporate CEO.

For a segment of society this is true. The wealthy in this country pay more than 60% of all tax revenue taken in by the Federal Government, that is just a fact. So, why is it so awful to speak the truth? Other than it is being used to demonize those who do...So I guess, for all the blather that we want politicians that are honest, no we don't...We want people with really good ways to spin.

How's that? Let me ask you, if a wealthy person makes $15 million in investment income, and pays $2.25 million in Federal tax on that gain, how did the remaining $12.75 million take from you? What you are saying doesn't make sense, we have the ability in our system not to be relegated to one pie being divided into ever smaller slices so that others can get a bigger slice, no, we have the ability in our system to bake more pies.

I don't care much about a war on poverty. There will always be poverty. I just think we should take care of our weakest members. If someone is able bodies and can work, we should give them the tools to be competetive in the work force because that is a good investment. They will eventually become higher tax payers. If someone wants to be lazy, so be it. However, a lot of people who are labled lazy usually have some health issue such as depression. If treated, these people could go on to be more productive. As for corporate welfare, it isn't murky at all. We spend much more money bailing out banks and corporations to prevent a total colapse of the economy. We should regulate sectors of our economy that can bring our economy down to prevent this in the future. I like some corporate wefare, but we should get something for the money we hand out. One example would be giving insentives for creating jobs. We already give tax credits to companies that hire people on welfare, which is a good thing. I see that as more of an investment. However, the way government contracts are awarded seems odd. These contracts don't go to the lowest bidders. They often go to corporations that have paid into a politicians campaign. Which means we should also have campaign finance reform. But that's another thread.
Back when you were driving that truck, things may have been a bit different. Also, food stamps are usually handled at a state level so I don't know how things work in the state you live in. I can say from personal experience that when I was much younger, food stamps were more plentiful for families. My mom worked for the Dept. of Human Services. When I first became disabled, I had to get food stamps. I was getting the max amount for a family and it was just enough to feed my family cheap meals. I couldn't have afforded extras. Regardless, I still think we should feed families. I don't think a country should let it's people starve.
Unions don't often get the perks big corporations get, but if we had campaign reform that would solve this issue. Unions often represent the workers, so when corporations fight for power, unions must keep up to help the workers. When I say rich, I mean million and billionaires. My husband runs a small business. Most small business owners are middle class. With citizens united money = speech now. Those with more money have more political speech. That needs to change. The wealthy in this country couldn't have made the wealth they have if it hadn't been for tax payers footing the bill to pave the path to wealth. It is time for the wealthy to pay that forward so future generations can have the same opportunities they had. Our progressive tax code is designed so that the wealthy pay a high rate than the lower classes. However, the wealthy now have enough loop holes that the rest of us don't have so that they now pay an effective tax rate lower than most everyone else.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

I don't care much about a war on poverty. There will always be poverty. I just think we should take care of our weakest members.

Then that is what you should do. But too many are expecting the government to do this job rather than the people themselves. This approach only serves to absolve us from our own responsibilities toward our fellow human beings.

We know from experience that when the government gets involved the bureaucracy increases, political favors begin, voting blocs are courted with promises from politicians for more taxpayer cash, and little 'trickles down' to those who actually need the help.

Knowing that power tends to corrupt it seems foolish that we have come to expect politicians and bureaucracies to make things right and, as we have also seen repeatedly, they can't. Their promises to do so should be ridiculed.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Then that is what you should do. But too many are expecting the government to do this job rather than the people themselves. This approach only serves to absolve us from our own responsibilities toward our fellow human beings.

We know from experience that when the government gets involved the bureaucracy increases, political favors begin, voting blocs are courted with promises from politicians for more taxpayer cash, and little 'trickles down' to those who actually need the help.

Knowing that power tends to corrupt it seems foolish that we have come to expect politicians and bureaucracies to make things right and, as we have also seen repeatedly, they can't. Their promises to do so should be ridiculed.

The government doesn't always cause problems when it steps in. But, when we cut regulations to corporations and allow them to control workers conditions, it gets much worse than getting government involved. We can also elect the people we hope will go to Washington to fight for us. When they don't we kick them out. We also can't count on the private sector to care for our weakest members. All throughout our history, when the people stand up to government and demand change, we get change. It isn't a perfect tool, but we don't have one better. It's not perfect because we count on politicians to do the work they promise to do. However, we have made progress along the way. Change takes a struggle, but change happens when the people demand it. That's why I often vote for those who are not beholding to big corporations or big money. I also follow the philosophy that politicians are like diapers in that they both need to be changed often and for the same reason. We have to hold politicians accountable, and we have to teach our children to do a better job of it than we did.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Why do so many partisans keep ignoring the fact that the politicians they support act against their values?

My values are intact. I'm just not a libertarian.

Do they like ****ing themselves over?

Yes. It felt great, actually.

Do they enjoy ****ting on their children?

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

... which also has nothing to do with him slacking in the polls.

Romney has failed to sell himself as an alternative to Obama.
First, he isn't very likeable, which makes the sale a little harder. Second, he hasn't really given anyone a vision of what he would do. Third, he is running one of the worst Presidential campaigns we have seen in a generation. His message is all over the board, including being incoherent, contradictory, incomplete and insulting to the audience.

How can he sell himself as an alternative Obama when he isn't? An alternative would imply a contrast.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

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

I attribute that to a woefully uninformed electorate due to a wholly biased mainstream media.

Simplistic, I know, but true.

In addition, I attribute it to Romney's LOUSY Campaign staff. They seem to be re-running the failed McCain campaign.

Makes me furious. There's no way anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty could vote to re-elect this utterly failed Administration.
There is not a single level of competence that can be attributed to the Obama Administration. Not one.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Worse off? Lol
Of course voters are worse off.

You dont actually believe that the congress and the president reflect the needs and wishes of VOTERS?

These are corporate puppetry instruments that serve the rich and powerful (who incidentally don't even need to cast a vote - that's how your slave based fascist corpocracy works)
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Voters: "Mr Romney, what is your plan?"

Mr. Romney: "I'll tell you after I am elected."
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Voters: "Mr Romney, what is your plan?"

Mr. Romney: "I'll tell you after I am elected."

That's a popular plan. Seems everyone's usin' it.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Obama is offering nothing but more of the same; high unemployment, out of control debt, and a weakened foreign policy.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Obama is offering nothing but more of the same; high unemployment, out of control debt, and a weakened foreign policy.

I see that you are using a comical avatar such as myself.

Are you aware that when Reagan took office, the USA was the worlds largest creditor (just about everyone owed money to the USA)

When Reagan the clown left office 8 years ago, the USA was the worlds largest debtor.

And the USA has been broke ever since and spiralling down the tunnel of self destruction

Are you sure you want to use a clown as an avatar?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Voters: "Mr Romney, what is your plan?"

Mr. Romney: "I'll tell you after I am elected."

We're still waiting for President Obama's plan. We're still waiting to find out how bad Obamacare will be.

Could you please give me a citation for that quote you attributed to Gov. Romney? I can't take your word that he said that.

As to why he's struggling? MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, NYT, LA Times and so forth ad nauseum say he's struggling. President Obama gets a pass.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

V

Do you know why?

Because every election comes down to a douche and a turd sandwich. And every time you think we've hit rock bottom, the Republocrats bust out a shovel. The government has stopped working for the people and have started to work for the aristocracy. They only maintain some faux sense of choice, but in the end the Republocrat machine moves towards the same ends.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Obama is offering nothing but more of the same; high unemployment, out of control debt, and a weakened foreign policy.

When Reagan took office the USA was the worlds biggest creditor and when he left office 8 years later the USA became the worlds biggest debtor

The USA has never recovered from the Reagan madness and Hollywood economics
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

The differences are there, and listed not only in the candidates platforms, but in speeches themselves. The choice is clear. So, I have to ask since you think that Obama is a "Corporatist, and an authoritarian" does that mean that you will not be voting for him?

What I do know is that Romney is an experienced turn around artist, with a proven track record of success, and when comparing apples to apples, Romney at this point in his career has more experience going into the job, than Obama ever had in '08.

Like it or not, an election for a 2nd term as President is always a referendum on the sitting Presidents performance in his first term, and based on that, if Obama is re elected, then America deserves to slide. Which IMHO, is exactly what Obama wants for the country.

I wouldn't vote for either one of those bastards. I'm not a fan of starting wars or letting bankers get away with laundering, fraud and theft. The courtry has been sliding for over thirty years. If you look at the numbers the only way the "middle class" has been able to maintain a decent lifestyle is through debt. Who the hell cares I guess let's have an election about rhetoric. Romney is going to get the jihadi's. Obama is going to get the fat cats.

Government is not a business. For example, private prisons want high inmate counts while good government only wants to jail people if they represent a danger to society. Meshing those two motivations will lead to nasty outcomes. If you don't believe me read about Mississippi's private prison industry to get an idea of how those things can go bad. Moreover, private equity entities like Bain don't build jack sh**. The next big thing will come from some smart person with the nerve to pursue their idea not someone looking for distressed companies.
 
Back
Top Bottom