carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 1-he disputed the lefts claim that he will give tax breaks to the rich and raise taxes on the middle class. His own tax plan says that he will give tax breaks to the rich . . . unless he has flip flopped on that again. He has stated that he would pay for it by eliminating deductions. "“It is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers,” the study concludes." http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop 2- he explained that he would cut spending and decrease taxes for everyone. And that the resultant economic growth would replace lost federal revenue. Also he would eliminate tax loopholes which would help offset lowered rates.. But where would he cut spending? Eliminating funding for PBS isn't going to do it. Regarding loopholes, see above. 3-he explained his criteria deficit reduction; is it worth borrowing money from China to continue funding it. Percent of our debt held by China: ~8% Obama has not offered any more details or more credible information. I've gone to his website for his "plan". He only offers general ideas, no more specific than what Romney offers. American Jobs Act. (Romney has nothing comparable.) An actual budget. (Romney has nothing comparable.) Obamacare/ACA (Romney said he will repeal and replace . . . but refuses to explain what it will be replaced with.) Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 why did Obama not refer to Bain Capital and the 47%. Strategy for later debates? Probably saving it for the town hall style debate. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Carl- you don't want to discuss this you just want promote Obama. I'm good with that. We both watched it and apparently got different things from it. Not in the mood to play your games tonight. I said a healthy growing economy would generate more taxable income. That's an indisputable fact but you chose to post something about tax cuts not helping. If you're going to twist what was actually stated to serve your preconceived notions, I sure don't need to be involved. Good evening. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I watched about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of this and for all the jargon about my plan this and my plan that neither of the candidates talked about how they would implement any of these plans. Congress still is a huge road block and if you can't get things through Congress and without Congress bastardizing the bill you are not getting anything done. T_O_B very well said. i laughed out loud when obama got criticized for not trying to work with republicans. then romney said he was going to sit down with democrats on day one. republicans refuse to work with obama and i doubt democrats will be willing to work with romney. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 it seems a number of you don't understand the impact the media has on how people vote. please, enlighten us. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 You don't think the media can and does influence people? it seems a number of you don't understand the impact the media has on how people vote. I see you are one of those that doesn't get how the media can and does influence perception. That post didn't even make a good point. Read my response. Actually, I made a quite salient point. Each of those links are from Fox News, the Republican Mouthpiece, the King of the Mainstream Media, the most-watched news outlet in all the land. If THESE GUYS are calling Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Hermain Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum "the frontrunner" in the space of eight months (that's six separate candidates in 2/3 of a year), then you cannot with any conviction say that Mitt Romney is "your guy." He's simply The Guy Who Sucked Least. And you're all salivating over him like he's the best thing ever. Meanwhile, the one single policy he's ever discussed in detail has been shown to be mathematically impossible. The only thing - the ONLY thing - Mitt Romney has going for him, is that he's not Barack Obama. And that's exactly what's wrong with voters today. They'll vote for a statue holding a piece of burnt toast if it carries the correct letter behind the name (R or D). They don't care if he's got viable answers. They don't care if he's got a real plan. They don't care whose pockets he's into. All they care about is if he's from "my" party. Well, you vote like that, this is the mess you get. Anyone think Washington isn't ridiculously screwed up? If so, look no further than the letter behind your registered name for the reason why. You register as a Democrat, you're part of the problem. You register as a Republican, you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem. Stop supporting these idiots. Stop mindlessly following people like Mitt Freaking Romney. Just. Stop. Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Zoogies, you are correct, he was not abundantly clear when it came to entitlement spending. However, I do believe they are using the Ryan plan which is detailed somewhere (I haven't read it) but apparentley Obama has because he referred to it. He did say if you were near retirement age, 60ish, that you would not see benefit cuts. Obama indicated the Ryan plan would start affecting people 55-57ish and that they would be changing to some sort of "voucher" system. Now I do not know anything more specific than that but it does sound like they have a plan, good or bad, to start getting entitlements under control. Obama offered nothing on entitlements. He only wanted to scare people into thinking Romney was going to harm their social security and medicare. Ignoring the problem may get him elected for another four years but it doesn't begin to solve the impending problem. The Ryan plan left social security spending unchanged if I recall - you can see the CBO report in that thread I was referring to. In fact, that was one area that was not substantially different from the incumbent direction. The major difference in the Ryan plan was twofold: steady rather than massively ballooning medicare spending, and drastic cuts of discretionary spending to the extent that we are apparently no longer spending on defense, or no longer spending a penny on anything other than Medicare, SocSec, and Defense. This doesn't seem to be the Romney plan per his tax cuts, which means he has some things to explain about it. Link to comment
Whistlebritches Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Obamacare/ACA (Romney said he will repeal and replace . . . but refuses to explain what it will be replaced with.) He wants it to be a state decision. He's alright with Romneycare because it's at the state level but not Obamacare (despite it being damn near identical) because it's at the federal level. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Obamacare/ACA (Romney said he will repeal and replace . . . but refuses to explain what it will be replaced with.) He wants it to be a state decision. He's alright with Romneycare because it's at the state level but not Obamacare (despite it being damn near identical) because it's at the federal level. he just started saying that last night. not to mention it is much more efficient at the state level and states still have a lot of control. look up 'healthcare exchange', both utah and mass. have them and they are totally different. not every state has the leverage mass. has to implement a policy like obamacare. also, what would he replace it with? he talked about how his 'plan' would not prohibit people with pre-existing conditions and basically he would keep everything people liked about it, how to you pay for that without a mandate? Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 As far as the discussion about supporting Romney now, or anyone other than Obama, there are a few reasons for that. 1- The liberal media wanted Romney as the candidate. They literally destroyed every other front runner (that didn't destroy themselves) the second they were in the lead. Personally I would rather have seen Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich win the nomination but they drummed up some affairs or womanizing BS and got rid of those 2 quick. I believe it was a concerted effort because they knew repubs were luke warm to Romney and he is just not the type to generate a lot of excitement. 2- It doesn't take much to figure out that most any conservative leaning person would prefer any republican candidate to Obama. I seriously cannot think of one person, dem or repub, that I would not rather have than Obama. Well, ok that's not true. I would take Obama over Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid but, those really are the only two that come to mind. 3- Things are not good economically for many many people in this country. Right or wrong, Obama and our elected representatives will pay for that. If there is one thing I have little tolerance for it is a man like Obama, who is still blaming the country's ills on his predecessor and not taking any responsibility for his inability to deliver on his promises. He promised us many things 4 years ago. He did not deliver on too many critical issues. He has to go and the sooner the better. BINGO!!! Somebody gets it! Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Why would the liberal media want the most competent, capable, and moderate of the Republican field to win the nomination, knowing that the Republican base would rally behind him regardless? Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 You don't think the media can and does influence people? it seems a number of you don't understand the impact the media has on how people vote. I see you are one of those that doesn't get how the media can and does influence perception. That post didn't even make a good point. Read my response. Actually, I made a quite salient point. Each of those links are from Fox News, the Republican Mouthpiece, the King of the Mainstream Media, the most-watched news outlet in all the land. If THESE GUYS are calling Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Hermain Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum "the frontrunner" in the space of eight months (that's six separate candidates in 2/3 of a year), then you cannot with any conviction say that Mitt Romney is "your guy." He's simply The Guy Who Sucked Least. And you're all salivating over him like he's the best thing ever. Meanwhile, the one single policy he's ever discussed in detail has been shown to be mathematically impossible. The only thing - the ONLY thing - Mitt Romney has going for him, is that he's not Barack Obama. And that's exactly what's wrong with voters today. They'll vote for a statue holding a piece of burnt toast if it carries the correct letter behind the name (R or D). They don't care if he's got viable answers. They don't care if he's got a real plan. They don't care whose pockets he's into. All they care about is if he's from "my" party. Well, you vote like that, this is the mess you get. Anyone think Washington isn't ridiculously screwed up? If so, look no further than the letter behind your registered name for the reason why. You register as a Democrat, you're part of the problem. You register as a Republican, you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem. Stop supporting these idiots. Stop mindlessly following people like Mitt Freaking Romney. Just. Stop. Hey, I have said that from the get go, I even said I won't be voting for either of these 2 jokers. My point was nothing more than the media created the stir about the "other" guys and proceeded to destroy them. Please tell me you can see the game that is being played here. The media does this to limit your choices and force a 2 party ticket with both parties being a joke... and most eat it up and believe every word. If it is mainstream then it is gospel. Fox news is nothing but a news site created to pit and grow the them versus us mantra. They do nothing but help divide, that is why they go over the top sometimes. Fox news does, at times, tell the truth, but then other times they fabricate things. Since they are seen a pub/right station it helps push the hate. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Why would the liberal media want the most competent, capable, and moderate of the Republican field to win the nomination, knowing that the Republican base would rally behind him regardless? because in the end they are really no different.. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 As far as the discussion about supporting Romney now, or anyone other than Obama, there are a few reasons for that. 1- The liberal media wanted Romney as the candidate. They literally destroyed every other front runner (that didn't destroy themselves) the second they were in the lead. Personally I would rather have seen Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich win the nomination but they drummed up some affairs or womanizing BS and got rid of those 2 quick. I believe it was a concerted effort because they knew repubs were luke warm to Romney and he is just not the type to generate a lot of excitement. 2- It doesn't take much to figure out that most any conservative leaning person would prefer any republican candidate to Obama. I seriously cannot think of one person, dem or repub, that I would not rather have than Obama. Well, ok that's not true. I would take Obama over Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid but, those really are the only two that come to mind. 3- Things are not good economically for many many people in this country. Right or wrong, Obama and our elected representatives will pay for that. If there is one thing I have little tolerance for it is a man like Obama, who is still blaming the country's ills on his predecessor and not taking any responsibility for his inability to deliver on his promises. He promised us many things 4 years ago. He did not deliver on too many critical issues. He has to go and the sooner the better. this is a joke right? the media picked romney? what did obama promise us specifically, that you are upset for him not delivering? also, obama is a man who you disagree with ideologically, but you are disappointed in him for not doing what he said he would, which you presumably would have disagreed with? where and when has obama blamed bush for the country's current ills? please, with sources. final thought, funny how the liberal media has so much control over the republican party's voters in the primaries, but conservatives are not completely indoctrinated by fox news. 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I think they would be. Romney is quite good. I think the democrats would be having a field day if this were Hermain Cain or Michele Bachmann or the guy that can't count to three. The Daily Show still hasn't let go of Hermain Cain But it's pretty funny. Cain's a good sport and really playing up the comedy angle. Romney on the other hand, capable, smart, has the ability to poach some of the middle that the others didn't have. Link to comment
Recommended Posts