Enhance Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Good points. I can't really even find anything on Romney's plan save from what I would deem "liberal" sites so it is hard to find unbiased info yet. IMO, Obama has 3 yrs of record to look at vs the "proposals of Romney and Ryan. Forgive me if you have heard of or been to this website before - it's www.politifact.com. Admittedly, I just heard about this website within the last couple of days, but they appear (at first glance) to be fairly non-partisan. They take look at political issues and campaigns to point out which candidates are lying about different "facts" and which ones are telling the truth. There's also www.factcheck.org. I go to factcheck.org sometimes. I will check out politifact.com Thanks. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I can't really even find anything on Romney's plan save from what I would deem "liberal" sites so it is hard to find unbiased info yet. Tax Policy Center did a comprehensive analysis: http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm Highlight: The top 5% of wage earners get a tax cut and everyone else gets a tax increase. Looking back, with hind sight being 20/20 Bill Clinton actually did a nice job. It's funny what time does. When Clinton was president it was black helicopters, conspiracy theories about killing people, the end of liberty, etc. I suspect that in 15 years or so we'll be having a similar conversation about one Barack Obama. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 It's funny what time does. When Clinton was president it was black helicopters, conspiracy theories about killing people, the end of liberty, etc. I suspect that in 15 years or so we'll be having a similar conversation about one Barack Obama. Ummm....no. Clinton prolonged a time of good economic times. Obama prolonged a time of horrible economic times. BIG difference. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 It's funny what time does. When Clinton was president it was black helicopters, conspiracy theories about killing people, the end of liberty, etc. I suspect that in 15 years or so we'll be having a similar conversation about one Barack Obama. Ummm....no. Clinton prolonged a time of good economic times. Obama prolonged a time of horrible economic times. BIG difference. Is that why we've had 30 consecutive months of private sector job creation? We'll see. (I assume that you do remember the vilification of Clinton at the time? The witch hunts? The black helicopters? The UN? The end of the US as we know it? Time heals all wounds I guess. Even the end of the US. ) 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Obama prevented The Great Depression II, aside from presiding over 30 straight months of job creation. Clinton was handed an economy doing well, and kept the ball rolling. Obama was handed an economy half off the cliff and pulled it back to the edge. We're still at the edge, but claiming he did nothing is erroneous. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Obama prevented The Great Depression II, aside from presiding over 30 straight months of job creation. Clinton was handed an economy doing well, and kept the ball rolling. Obama was handed an economy half off the cliff and pulled it back to the edge. We're still at the edge, but claiming he did nothing is erroneous. Our economy still sucks. I'm not going just by what the media says....I live with in it every day. Now, a lot of that has to do with the world economy but, we the spending in Washington needs to come to a halt or we will be right with Europe not being able to pay our bills. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Now, a lot of that has to do with the world economy but, we the spending in Washington needs to come to a halt or we will be right with Europe not being able to pay our bills. And you blame only Obama and Democratic Party for this? You seem to focus more anger on them than the GOP. Why is that? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Now, a lot of that has to do with the world economy but, we the spending in Washington needs to come to a halt or we will be right with Europe not being able to pay our bills. And you blame only Obama and Democratic Party for this? You seem to focus more anger on them than the GOP. Why is that? No, I don't. Bush spent way too much also. HOWEVER, one party is running on the idea that we need to cut spending. The other one is acting like everything is OK or we need to increase spending. Pardon me if I vote for the ones that are at least saying the right things. Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 No, I don't. Bush spent way too much also. HOWEVER, one party is running on the idea that we need to cut spending. The other one is acting like everything is OK or we need to increase spending. Pardon me if I vote for the ones that are at least saying the right things. They're running on the idea that we need to cut spending on things that hurt the lower-income members of our country, while at the same time they're proposing huge benefits for the wealthy and super-wealthy. You can't ignore the other side of their proposals, and simply claim they're "saying the right things." Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 And, the other side in general always wants to increase spending and make someone else pay for it. Either it's the rich or future generations. Here's a thought. I'll be for increasing taxes if we also cut taxes. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 HOWEVER, one party is running on the idea that we need to cut spending. The other one is acting like everything is OK or we need to increase spending. Pardon me if I vote for the ones that are at least saying the right things. That would depend on which spending you're talking about, wouldn't it? The GOP wants spending increases . . . and they certainly have a history of giant deficits . . . so I don't know how much faith I'd put in what you're hearing. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Here's a thought. I'll be for increasing taxes if we also cut taxes. What? 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 many economists believe that gov't spending is exactly what we need to solve this recession. it is why reagan presided over such robust economies, it was his military spending. but instead of military spending, it should be spending on the infrastructure. consumers need money to spend, and that is exactly what will fix the economy. there are better explanations out there, but this is pretty good (i did not feel like hunting down the article i was thinking of): link Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 Here's a thought. I'll be for increasing taxes if we also cut taxes. What? exactly Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I had an economics professor at Northeast Community College who maybe was a little extreme on his views, but he said one thing that has stuck with me for the last 3 years. "Money always gravitates to its origin." Meaning, it doesn't matter how much we tax the rich because they are the ones who own and manage the lucrative businesses that middle- and lower-class people throw money toward each and every day. A lot of people would call this socialism (which it resembles) but it's not wrong IMO because if wealthy people play their cards right, they will continue to be rich regardless of how much they are taxed (to a certain extent). Link to comment
Recommended Posts