Vote for Mitt Romney...the opponent thinks our success is not because of hardwrk

[PinchandBurn]

It was very clear over the weekend what Obama thnks. He does not believe people are successful because they worked hard, went to school, did residency,fellowship etc. Nope it's because the govt 'made roads and teachers' that we had access too...

This is the biggest slap in the face to each and everyone one of us. Especially physicians. Contrary to what Obama thinks, many of us were afforded the same roads and public structures. The difference is that everyone on this forum, actually made use of that and studied, read, compromised our 20s to a degree so we can be where we are. We didnt wait for handouts.

Vote for Romney. Even better donate to his campaign and tell your friends too also!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[scudrunner]

What an idiot.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng[/YOUTUBE]

 

[BLADEMDA]

It was very clear over the weekend what Obama thnks. He does not believe people are successful because they worked hard, went to school, did residency,fellowship etc. Nope it's because the govt 'made roads and teachers' that we had access too...

This is the biggest slap in the face to each and everyone one of us. Especially physicians. Contrary to what Obama thinks, many of us were afforded the same roads and public structures. The difference is that everyone on this forum, actually made use of that and studied, read, compromised our 20s to a degree so we can be where we are. We didnt wait for handouts.

Vote for Romney. Even better donate to his campaign and tell your friends too also!

The choice is clear: Socialism vs Individual Liberty. One breeds success and the other mediocrity. Romney has already got my vote and donation. Now, I'll be sending in more

 

[princechef]

I haven't decided who to vote for, but I am leaning towards not voting for Romney. I think the the main complaint higher income earners have is they don't want to be taxed @ 39.6 percent for income over $250,000. From what I understand, Romney is proposing bringing it down to 28%. The problem is that the numbers don't add up....

The federal government spends $3.796 trillion but brings in $2.469 trillion in revenue.

If Romney wants to cut taxes from 35% to 28%, he needs to give a specific list of cuts in spending that will offset the drop in revenue. The problem is that nearly 70% of our expenditure is Social Security + Medicare/Medicaid + Defense + Interest on the debt

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

Unless he lists specific cuts he will be making to spending, I can't vote for him....

I can run for president as well and promise everyone I will drop everyone's tax down to 9 percent "to reward hard work", but there would have to be painful cuts in many programs (e.g. social security) that would lead to a revolt (like Greece).

 

[BLADEMDA]

I haven't decided who to vote for, but I am leaning towards not voting for Romney. I think the the main complaint higher income earners have is they don't want to be taxed @ 39.6 percent for income over $250,000. From what I understand, Romney is proposing bringing it down to 28%. The problem is that the numbers don't add up....

The federal government spends $3.796 trillion but brings in $2.469 trillion in revenue.

If Romney wants to cut taxes from 35% to 28%, he needs to give a specific list of cuts in spending that will offset the drop in revenue. The problem is that nearly 70% of our expenditure is Social Security + Medicare/Medicaid + Defense + Interest on the debt

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

Unless he lists specific cuts he will be making to spending, I can't vote for him....

I can run for president as well and promise everyone I will drop everyone's tax down to 9 percent "to reward hard work", but there would have to be painful cuts in many programs (e.g. social security) that would lead to a revolt (like Greece).

Any cut in tax rates must be accompanied by elimination of deductions. Romney will support Simpson Bowles in 2013 while Obama won't. We need Simpson Bowles enacted in 2013

 

[DrAwsome]

It was very clear over the weekend what Obama thnks. He does not believe people are successful because they worked hard, went to school, did residency,fellowship etc. Nope it's because the govt 'made roads and teachers' that we had access too...

This is the biggest slap in the face to each and everyone one of us. Especially physicians. Contrary to what Obama thinks, many of us were afforded the same roads and public structures. The difference is that everyone on this forum, actually made use of that and studied, read, compromised our 20s to a degree so we can be where we are. We didnt wait for handouts.

Vote for Romney. Even better donate to his campaign and tell your friends too also!

I read that and it was pretty infuriating. I am planning on contacting the Romney campaign myself and will be voting for Romney. I am totally turning Republican. We should form a facebook page for doctors for Romney.

 

[IDBasco]

Unless he lists specific cuts he will be making to spending, I can't vote for him....

So thats the reason you can't vote for Romney, yet you haven't found a reason not to vote for Obama? You aren't looking very hard.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

It was very clear over the weekend what Obama thnks. He does not believe people are successful because they worked hard, went to school, did residency,fellowship etc. Nope it's because the govt 'made roads and teachers' that we had access too...

This is the biggest slap in the face to each and everyone one of us. Especially physicians. Contrary to what Obama thinks, many of us were afforded the same roads and public structures. The difference is that everyone on this forum, actually made use of that and studied, read, compromised our 20s to a degree so we can be where we are. We didnt wait for handouts.

Vote for Romney. Even better donate to his campaign and tell your friends too also!

Move to a ****ty country with no infrastructure. Work real hard and see what it gets you.

He didn't put it eloquently, but he's exactly right in my opinion.

 

[yappy]

Chick & Egg, man. We have good infrastructure because of successful private industry. Who pays taxes? What do those taxes pay for? The successful guy who started a good company PAID for the infrastructure already through taxation. We owe him not the government.

Move to a ****ty country with no infrastructure. Work real hard and see what it gets you.

He didn't put it eloquently, but he's exactly right in my opinion.

 

[Lunasly]

But if Romney becomes president, won't it be a certainty that the U.S. will go to war with Iran?

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

It was very clear over the weekend what Obama thnks. He does not believe people are successful because they worked hard, went to school, did residency,fellowship etc. Nope it's because the govt 'made roads and teachers' that we had access too...

This is the biggest slap in the face to each and everyone one of us. Especially physicians. Contrary to what Obama thinks, many of us were afforded the same roads and public structures. The difference is that everyone on this forum, actually made use of that and studied, read, compromised our 20s to a degree so we can be where we are. We didnt wait for handouts.

Vote for Romney. Even better donate to his campaign and tell your friends too also!

I'm really not seeing Obama's point. There is ample opportunity to do well and succeed in life. The upper (or upper middle) class is not some exclusive club. It is attainable if you go for it and work hard. Life is full of choices. Some choices lead to high income; some do not. You can work your ass off for a gender studies degree, but don't expect to be in the 1%. You made the choice to study something you like in exchange for having a lower income. Similarly many physicians could have done well in finance. We chose medicine because it's what we wanted to pursue. Finance would have likely yielded a higher salary and income potential. Choices.

To suggest that people who are successful did not become so as a result of hard work, but rather as a result of the infrastructure in place is utterly *****ic. The infrastructure has been in place. Everyone has access to it. I grew up in a household with income below the poverty level. I attended public school, earned a scholarship to college, and worked my way up to being a neurosurgery attending. I saw peers around me with access to the same opportunities and resources waste them away.

Obama is using the class warfare tactic. It's disgusting. Revenue is not the problem; spending is. It is absolutely ridiculous that over 50% of the budget goes into safety nets/medicare/medicaid, etc. The wasteful spending is overwhelming. There is an alarming number of people abusing the system, as well. We are creating a nation dependent on government aid and welfare, and removing the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility. The government has grown far too powerful.

Romney has my vote. He may not be the best candidate, but I cringe at the thought of a second term for Obama.

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

But if Romney becomes president, won't it be a certainty that the U.S. will go to war with Iran?

Nah, it's just tough talk. Romney is trying to appeal to the ultra conservatives before the election. We will get our ***es kicked if we enter another war in the East.

 

[yappy]

This is the American way. I grew up poor too. I joined the military for GI scholarship and hope to one day be a doctor. Opportunity doesn't mean anything if you dont work hard, pull the trigger, or take a risk.

We all have special people in our life that helped us along the way but that doesn't take away from the unique goals that people meet - it's them and them alone that must do the hard work and make the correct decisions. That cannot be taken away from them and I doubt the mentors that helped them along would like to see Obama tax their protege simply because they took their advice or succeeded.

Ben Carleson says it perfectly:

"The person who has the most to do with what happens to you is you... and the choices that you make"

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuYmhJUeoBE[/YOUTUBE]

I'm really not seeing Obama's point. There is ample opportunity to do well and succeed in life. The upper (or upper middle) class is not some exclusive club. It is attainable if you go for it and work hard. Life is full of choices. Some choices lead to high income; some do not. You can work your ass off for a gender studies degree, but don't expect to be in the 1%. You made the choice to study something you like in exchange for having a lower income.

 

[cincincyreds]

Why don't we get one of us to run for president. I'm going to put my name in for a House seat in 2 years. Rather than complaining I'm going to do something.

I would just add an amendment that says you can't be re-elected to president or congress if the federal budget isn't balanced for the year.

Why is it that only 1% of the people in this country have $1 million net worth while among members of Congress it is 50%?

I just saw an aweful commercial about food stamps saying how one can get improved nutrition being on food stamps. I found the commercial totally insulting.

 

[IlDestriero]

Why don't we get one of us to run for president. I'm going to put my name in for a House seat in 2 years. Rather than complaining I'm going to do something.

I would like to think I'm electable. Charm, grace, wit, intelligence, political leanings, appropriate background, real desire to help, frustrated with the current shenanigans, tall, handsome, etc., etc.
Where the rubber meets the road, I don't want the pay cut. Though maybe in another 5 or 10 years it won't be much of a pay cut at all.
Good luck.

-
Il D

 

[jwk]

I haven't decided who to vote for, but I am leaning towards not voting for Romney. I think the the main complaint higher income earners have is they don't want to be taxed @ 39.6 percent for income over $250,000. From what I understand, Romney is proposing bringing it down to 28%. The problem is that the numbers don't add up....

The federal government spends $3.796 trillion but brings in $2.469 trillion in revenue.

If Romney wants to cut taxes from 35% to 28%, he needs to give a specific list of cuts in spending that will offset the drop in revenue. The problem is that nearly 70% of our expenditure is Social Security + Medicare/Medicaid + Defense + Interest on the debt

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

Unless he lists specific cuts he will be making to spending, I can't vote for him....

I can run for president as well and promise everyone I will drop everyone's tax down to 9 percent "to reward hard work", but there would have to be painful cuts in many programs (e.g. social security) that would lead to a revolt (like Greece).

Spoken like someone who's never paid taxes.

Remind me - what cuts in spending has Maobama proposed? You don't want to vote for Romney "Unless he lists specific cuts he will be making to spending". So c'mon - enlighten me.

I know, like Barry, you think most of us aren't paying our fair share. As long as 1/2 the country pays nothing, I'm WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the curve.

 

[pgg]

But if Romney becomes president, won't it be a certainty that the U.S. will go to war with Iran?

No. We're not going to war with Iran. Even the neocons aren't stupid enough to do more than bluster and act tough, and Romney's not a neocon.


Iran's going to get nuclear weapons, Israel will wring its hands, the world will mope and be anxious, and life will go on. For all the talk of Iran being run by crazy religious weirdos ... they're as coldly calculating and rational as the USSR ever was.

ALL of the things being said about Iran and nuclear weapons now were said about the Russians in 1946.

 

[starsop93]

Nah, it's just tough talk. Romney is trying to appeal to the ultra conservatives before the election. We will get our ***es kicked if we enter another war in the East.

Sheldon Adelson is going to give Romney $100,000,000 to go to war with Iran. That's a pretty big bet that he's going to do it.

 

[pgg]

Sheldon Adelson is going to give Romney $100,000,000 to go to war with Iran. That's a pretty big bet that he's going to do it.

You're out of your mind.

 

[starsop93]

From The Financial Times in February. I don't think you should dismiss how much "free speech" $100 million is worth.



Then there is*Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas gaming mogul, whose $10m donation to a “super-political action committee” has kept Newt Gingrich in the Republican race. Mr Adelson, who is worth an estimated $22bn, has said he would fully support whoever was the Republican nominee. There are no limits on what Mr Adelson can spend to influence the general election. The Obama campaign is still informally hoping to raise $1bn – less than five per cent of Mr Adelson’s wealth.

In contrast to most Americans, who know of Mr Adelson through his super-Pac largesse, Israelis see him as one of Mr Netanyahu’s closest allies. Mr Adelson owns Israel Hayom (Israel Today), the influential daily newspaper, which is a strident Netanyahu supporter. “Netanyahu is a Republican,” says Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister. “Sheldon Adelson is his friend.”

Mr Adelson’s impact on the Republican debate has been direct. On most issues candidates have been driven by grassroots sentiment. On Iran, Mr Adelson leads a smaller electorate. It does not come in pastel shades. “If Obama is re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon,” says Mr Romney, who last week had what was described as a friendly meeting with Mr Adelson. “If you elect me Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

 

[cchoukal]

This is the American way. I grew up poor too. I joined the military for GI scholarship and hope to one day be a doctor. Opportunity doesn't mean anything if you dont work hard, pull the trigger, or take a risk.

Wait, so WHO is giving you the GI scholarship? Some might count that opportunity as tax-supported government infrastructure.

Is it possible that BOTH individual effort AND government are important?

 

[gasattack3]

Sheldon Adelson is going to give Romney $100,000,000 to go to war with Iran. That's a pretty big bet that he's going to do it.

A war with Iran would be catastrophic for this country.

I do agree with PGG that the Iranians are not the crazy lunatics American (and some other Western press) media make them appear to be. My concern is that some of the very interests whom seem very serious about driving towards war are also some of the same interests with massive influence in media which is WHY most dumb Americans feel they are such a threat. Because, that's all they hear/read.

 

[doctor712]

A war with Iran would be catastrophic for this country.
.

But It wouldn't be THE CAUSE of future financial chaos. . Right PGG?

 

[yappy]

I would say I earned it. No one gave it to me. However, the fund came from taxes I presume.

The whole fallacy is that Obama doesn't recognize individual achievement by stating that we're all a product of government programs. I enlisted and joined the PJ's as my role in the AF. The deal was I would serve and get paid to do a job - GI scholarship included. Many people have taken this deal and many others did not. That's the point - different outcomes based on different choices.

Wait, so WHO is giving you the GI scholarship? Some might count that opportunity as tax-supported government infrastructure.

Is it possible that BOTH individual effort AND government are important?

 

[jwk]

From The Financial Times in February. I don't think you should dismiss how much "free speech" $100 million is worth.



Then there is*Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas gaming mogul, whose $10m donation to a “super-political action committee” has kept Newt Gingrich in the Republican race. Mr Adelson, who is worth an estimated $22bn, has said he would fully support whoever was the Republican nominee. There are no limits on what Mr Adelson can spend to influence the general election. The Obama campaign is still informally hoping to raise $1bn – less than five per cent of Mr Adelson’s wealth.

In contrast to most Americans, who know of Mr Adelson through his super-Pac largesse, Israelis see him as one of Mr Netanyahu’s closest allies. Mr Adelson owns Israel Hayom (Israel Today), the influential daily newspaper, which is a strident Netanyahu supporter. “Netanyahu is a Republican,” says Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister. “Sheldon Adelson is his friend.”

Mr Adelson’s impact on the Republican debate has been direct. On most issues candidates have been driven by grassroots sentiment. On Iran, Mr Adelson leads a smaller electorate. It does not come in pastel shades. “If Obama is re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon,” says Mr Romney, who last week had what was described as a friendly meeting with Mr Adelson. “If you elect me Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Where do you see $100 million in this article?

I'll take Romney, BeBe, Adelson, et al any day over Maobama, Holder, George Soros, and that idiot Pelosi.

 

[cchoukal]

I would say I earned it. No one gave it to me. However, the fund came from taxes I presume.

The whole fallacy is that Obama doesn't recognize individual achievement by stating that we're all a product of government programs. I enlisted and joined the PJ's as my role in the AF. The deal was I would serve and get paid to do a job - GI scholarship included. Many people have taken this deal and many others did not. That's the point - different outcomes based on different choices.

All I'm saying is that for the lack of government infrastructure, this opportunity wouldn't exist and it would be harder for you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, so to speak.

 

[FrankWhite]

I really don't see how this message is so upsetting to you all. You must be taking it the wrong way?

OBAMA: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. "

​

 

[gasattack3]

But It wouldn't be THE CAUSE of future financial chaos. . Right PGG?

Unfortunately, I feel like we're heading for some tough times. Again, like so many of us seem to believe, I think we're going to see a major reajusting of the American standard of living. We could debate the cause of this, and I think with proper policy (obvious I know), it easily could have been avoided (given the magnitude of our problems).

Regarding war with Iran. Perhaps it wouldn't be the cause of our financial "issues", but it sure would exacerbate them and (I know, I know) could possibly throw the world into war. Iran is not Libya (I don't even want to go there), and it would be a big deal. It would be a financial, humanitarian, and moral catastrophe for the U.S. to go to war. Though, it's my firm belief that there will be some sort of "incident" in the Straits of Hormuz which is blamed on Iran as an excuse to do so, if cooler heads do not trump the war mongers in the Pentagon and in elected positions.

How easily we speak of "war". As long as someone else is doing the heavy lifting, and seriously risking THEIR lives..... Not withstanding the moral LOW ground our nation would be faced with under such circumstances.

 

[princechef]

.

 

[pgg]

I really don't see how this message is so upsetting to you all. You must be taking it the wrong way?

I don't see much in that statement that's factually inaccurate or especially worrisome.

Concern arises because it's not an isolated statement. It's a data point on a curve. The curve is what disturbs people.


The interstate highway project was a magnificent success and a perfect example of the great things government can do, that can't be done by the private sector.

What's the modern equivalent transportation infrastructure project? High speed rail in California? Ugh. Can anyone imagine Eisenhower getting behind that? The least they could have done was start it between Vegas and LA, but nooooo, Fresno and Bakersfield.

Ordinarily I'd support any project to help people get away from those cities faster, but the cruel joke there is that the destination is Bakersfield or Fresno. Also, those wankers are going to literally bulldoze the orchard where I bought some really tasty peaches, nectarines, apricots, and plums about 30 minutes ago. So it's sort of personal.

It would be a financial, humanitarian, and moral catastrophe for the U.S. to go to war. Though, it's my firm belief that there will be some sort of "incident" in the Straits of Hormuz which is blamed on Iran as an excuse to do so, if cooler heads do not trump the war mongers in the Pentagon and in elected positions.

It would be a catastrophe.

I wouldn't ascribe much motivation for war to the Pentagon itself though - yeah, it's infected with defense contractors and chickenhawks, but mostly it's senior military officers who've spent some time up close and personal with war. Few people are as reluctant to engage in optional wars as those who've commanded troops in previous wars.

Look at the members of Congress today, and count how many have prior military service. Count how many have kids serving in the military. There aren't as many as there used to be. This is a problem, and it's new (relatively speaking).

 

[jwk]

I really don't see how this message is so upsetting to you all. You must be taking it the wrong way?

OBAMA: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. "

​

What way should it be taken?

 

[starsop93]

Where do you see $100 million in this article?

I'll take Romney, BeBe, Adelson, et al any day over Maobama, Holder, George Soros, and that idiot Pelosi.

Adelson has said publicly that he may give $100 million to Romney. It's not in this article from several months back though. He has previously used his money to attempt to usurp the will of the voters (his bankrolling of Gingrich's campaign for months) so there no reason to think he won't do it again.

Given that Adelson's biggest issue has been Iran's threats against Israel and his friendship with those who would love for the Americans to do their dirty work (Netanyahu), I think this is a big risk if Romney gets elected. A war with Iran would be a huge disaster, and would make his supposed desire to decrease government spending even a bigger joke than it already is.

 

[2win]

Will do!
Go with the commie!

 

[jwk]

In my home state, the median household income is $50,000. Let's add up their yearly expenditures to see how much "income taxes" they can afford to pay.

Car Insurance for family : $3,000
Health Insurance plan for family : $800/month or about $10,000
Monthly Car payment : $300/month or $3,600/year
Gas money for family drive to and back from work : $100/month = $1,200
Utilities (water/electric/gas/internet/telephone): $350/month = $4,200
Cost of groceries/food for family : $500/month = $6000
Apartment rent = $800/month = $10,000
Federal payroll taxes and state and local taxes = $5,000
Unforseen costs (clothes, books, household repairs, necessary trips) = $2,000

Grand total expenditures just to get by with minimum necessities = $45,000

Exactly how much money do you want the bottom 50% to pay in income taxes if they themselves don't even have any money left over to give? If they were stashing away thousands into their bank accounts, I could see your point, but they are not because the cost of living is through the roof.

I hate "free-loaders" just as much as you do, but to say that all poor are govt free loaders is not fair. We live in an economy in which there are loads of people who are applying to hundreds of jobs and not getting any offers (think of California and Florida's horrific unemployment).

Its not the poor's fault that U.S. corporations have shipped millions of factory jobs overseas in order to increase profits even though they were completely profitable when they hired american workers. Maybe if we made sure these types of jobs came back, when can make sure the "free-loaders" actually had work and paid taxes properly. The problem is there is a political party that will never allow that to happen.

You didn't answer my question. What cuts has your President proposed? And cuts don't count when you increase spending more than the cuts you have made. Remind me how much the deficit has increased in the last 3-1/2 years...

Clearly you have no concept of how much money is taken out of the pockets of individuals who have earned it and given to those who have not. I have no problem taking care of those who truly need help. That does NOT include anyone with a smartphone, a 55" LED TV in their living room, and a seemingly endless supply of illegal substances to snort, shoot up, or inhale.

Sure, it would be nice if some of those jobs that went overseas came back. How do we do that? Lots of ways - eliminate unions that serve themselves rather than truly serving their members, lower corporate income taxes, reduce/eliminate senseless government regulations that increase the cost of doing business while providing no benefit to anyone or anything. And why don't you cite me some examples of profitable companies that shipped jobs overseas to increase their profitability. Most companies that ship jobs overseas do so to REMAIN profitable, not increase their profit. Obviously you don't understand that the object of a business is to make a profit, and if you don't, eventually the business fails. Of course your president doesn't understand that simple economic fact so it's little wonder that you don't either.

Curious - how much of MY money (or anyone else's money) is a reasonable amount to take out of my pocket and give to the government so they can give it to whomever they think deserves it more than I do? C'mon - give me a number.

 

[Somnus Tuto]

That day is gone. We may never again have a republican in the white house.

We are outnumbered

As the literacy mean for the country has tanked, so has the ability of voters to intelligently dissect the platforms of nominees and the dole party has learned to play the tune of promising more largesse and buying votes in this manner.

There are fewer and fewer of us calling for a return to common-sense personal and national economics or personal responsibility.

 

[jwk]

Adelson has said publicly that he may give $100 million to Romney. It's not in this article from several months back though. He has previously used his money to attempt to usurp the will of the voters (his bankrolling of Gingrich's campaign for months) so there no reason to think he won't do it again.

Are you so biased that you can't admit that this is done on the Democratic side as well? Surely you've heard of George Soros. Usurp the will of the voters? That's called free speech dude - surely you've heard of it.

Just about any media source is predicting Obama is sitting on a billion dollar war chest for the campaign. Don't whine about the Republican side.

 

[princechef]

You didn't answer my question. What cuts has your President proposed? And cuts don't count when you increase spending more than the cuts you have made. Remind me how much the deficit has increased in the last 3-1/2 years...

Clearly you have no concept of how much money is taken out of the pockets of individuals who have earned it and given to those who have not. I have no problem taking care of those who truly need help. That does NOT include anyone with a smartphone, a 55" LED TV in their living room, and a seemingly endless supply of illegal substances to snort, shoot up, or inhale.

Sure, it would be nice if some of those jobs that went overseas came back. How do we do that? Lots of ways - eliminate unions that serve themselves rather than truly serving their members, lower corporate income taxes, reduce/eliminate senseless government regulations that increase the cost of doing business while providing no benefit to anyone or anything. And why don't you cite me some examples of profitable companies that shipped jobs overseas to increase their profitability. Most companies that ship jobs overseas do so to REMAIN profitable, not increase their profit. Obviously you don't understand that the object of a business is to make a profit, and if you don't, eventually the business fails. Of course your president doesn't understand that simple economic fact so it's little wonder that you don't either.

Curious - how much of MY money (or anyone else's money) is a reasonable amount to take out of my pocket and give to the government so they can give it to whomever they think deserves it more than I do? C'mon - give me a number.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/economy/obama_budget_cuts/index.htm

- He ended the war in Iraq
- Defense spending cuts of $500 billion over ten years
- $359 million in EPA funds
- $452 million reduction in Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
- 210 other programs he listed in the budget proposal

I never said I was happy with Obama's proposal, but I don't see any difference in Romney nor Obama's approach to curb spending. When 65 + % of the government budget is spent on SS, M, Defense, and the interest on the debt, you can't take either guy seriously when they never laid out a single specific spending cut on entitlements. Romney dances around the issue saying "we need entitlement reform," but he never laid out exactly what. The only major budget cuts he explicitly stated was things like National Public Radio and Humanities programs (and eliminate medicaid for the poor).


And yes...you are entitled to the money you earn. I wouldn't be happy if a sizeable amount of my tax money was being abused by a group of people who were accepting handouts while having the money to buy iphones and ipads. Unfortunately, in this economic climate in which not everyone who wants a job can find one, there needs to be measures in place to help the ones who need the help. The way to deal with the problem is to make sure the "freeloaders" have a factory job waiting for them so they can make their own living. When the manufacturing base left this country, it left a permanent scar.

Regarding outsourcing, read this :

http://rockrivertimes.com/2012/07/1...ng-outsourced-from-bain-owned-freeport-plant/

"Despite rising profits, the company plans to institute the final layoffs in December. The workers are training their Chinese replacements, who have been flown to Illinois by the company"

 

[gasattack3]

I don't see much in that statement that's factually inaccurate or especially worrisome.

Concern arises because it's not an isolated statement. It's a data point on a curve. The curve is what disturbs people.


The interstate highway project was a magnificent success and a perfect example of the great things government can do, that can't be done by the private sector.

What's the modern equivalent transportation infrastructure project? High speed rail in California? Ugh. Can anyone imagine Eisenhower getting behind that? The least they could have done was start it between Vegas and LA, but nooooo, Fresno and Bakersfield.

Ordinarily I'd support any project to help people get away from those cities faster, but the cruel joke there is that the destination is Bakersfield or Fresno. Also, those wankers are going to literally bulldoze the orchard where I bought some really tasty peaches, nectarines, apricots, and plums about 30 minutes ago. So it's sort of personal.




It would be a catastrophe.

I wouldn't ascribe much motivation for war to the Pentagon itself though - yeah, it's infected with defense contractors and chickenhawks, but mostly it's senior military officers who've spent some time up close and personal with war. Few people are as reluctant to engage in optional wars as those who've commanded troops in previous wars.

Look at the members of Congress today, and count how many have prior military service. Count how many have kids serving in the military. There aren't as many as there used to be. This is a problem, and it's new (relatively speaking).

Boy, I just hope those that you describe can keep the chickenhawks at bay though. They are the true heros as I suspect it's getting harder and harder to fend off the "neocons" and hawkish-democrats the more your point #2 becomes more and more true, not to mention powerful lobbying groups.

 

[gasattack3]

Sheldon Adelson is going to give Romney $100,000,000 to go to war with Iran. That's a pretty big bet that he's going to do it.

Here's an article from Eric Alterman, illustrating how money talks and politicians can be very "pliable" when it comes to receiving the kind of cash you are refering to.

Don't let the headline disract from the real message behind his editorial. But, since you mentioned Sheldon Adelson, perhaps we should know something about this fellow.

http://www.thenation.com/article/166141/sheldon-adelson-and-end-american-anti-semitism#

 

[adenocard]

> Mittens or Obama

 

[starsop93]

You really think one guy with very extreme foreign policy goals giving $100 million to elect a politician is not going to have a HUGE effect on said politician's foreign policy?

I only brought this Adelson issue up because a lot of Romney supporters were quickly dismissing any talk that we might actually go to war with Iran if Romney were elected. As stupid as that war would be, I think the probability is much higher than they think given that the single biggest donor in this election probably wants us to do just that.

 

[gasattack3]

You really think one guy with very extreme foreign policy goals giving $100 million to elect a politician is not going to have a HUGE effect on said politician's foreign policy?

I only brought this Adelson issue up because a lot of Romney supporters were quickly dismissing any talk that we might actually go to war with Iran if Romney were elected. As stupid as that war would be, I think the probability is much higher than they think given that the single biggest donor in this election probably wants us to do just that.

I'm agreeing with you. Read the article from The Nation, which I've attached. Extreme is an understatement for this guy. And, yes, I too believe this will hold sway. That's why the real professionals in the officer corp and Pentagon need to prevail against the warmongers whom would have the U.S. go to war.

I don't think we can leave it to the politicians, including whomever is president. They have been notoriously "flexible" in their policies. Too bad so many top slots in the Pentagon and State Department are indeed political appointees.....

 

[starsop93]

I'm agreeing with you. Read the article from The Nation, which I've attached. Extreme is an understatement for this guy. And, yes, I too believe this will hold sway. That's why the real professionals in the officer corp and Pentagon need to prevail against the warmongers whom would have the U.S. go to war.

I don't think we can leave it to the politicians, including whomever is president. They have been notoriously "flexible" in their policies. Too bad so many top slots in the Pentagon and State Department are indeed political appointees.....

Actually this wasn't for you, but for those who are completely dismissing the possibility of unprovoked war with Iran. Just forgot to make a quoted reply!

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

All I'm saying is that for the lack of government infrastructure, this opportunity wouldn't exist and it would be harder for you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, so to speak.

Yes, but that infrastructure is available to everyone. Not everyone makes use of it. It's been in place and is sustainable on current revenue levels. Obama is saying that we're not paying our fair share. When I'm paying 40% of my income and 50% of America is paying nothing, who is he to say I'm not paying enough? Moreover, the additional revenue is being utterly wasted on creating a more government dependent nation. There are so many fraudulent claims of people coming in to see doctors just to get a pass stating that they cannot work. They hope for government aid, while they sit at home doing nothing. I have personally seen one such man lifting a large new television box outside his home. That same man was deemed unable to work and collects a check from the government every month.

I really don't see how this message is so upsetting to you all. You must be taking it the wrong way?

OBAMA: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. "

​

You are conveniently leaving out the part that people were actually upset about:
"Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Regardless of where we are in life, most of us worked very hard to get there. We are already paying a large percentage of our income. Why should we pay more to support the expansion of safety nets and social programs. They already take too large a portion of our budget. People are more upset over the fact that Obama is sounding more and more socialistic.

- He ended the war in Iraq
- Defense spending cuts of $500 billion over ten years
- $359 million in EPA funds
- $452 million reduction in Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
- 210 other programs he listed in the budget proposal

You forgot to add the additional spending measures. Defense spending may be a large part of the budget, but it is NOWHERE near the percentage of spending on social programs and safety nets (>50%). Obama is not willing to make cuts there. These small multimillion dollar cuts you listed are chump change.

 

[yappy]

This is key. Defense is a role that our government should fill and there is a lot of spin off technology that is aided from R&D that goes on in military contracts. It serves a real purpose and we truly benefit from having the greatest military in the world.

Many of the entitlement spending is money we'll never see again. It subsidizes people's bad decisions in the form of increased discretionary spending for drugs, cigs, or stupid things like fancy rims or the latest overpriced FUBU shirt. This spending not yield something good unless performance metrics are attached that force people to work towards getting off entitlements. Obama will never cut this because it's how he buys votes. The more people that rely on a government check without needing to work the more secure he is as a president. That is why he'll never cut in this area.

You forgot to add the additional spending measures. Defense spending may be a large part of the budget, but it is NOWHERE near the percentage of spending on social programs and safety nets (>50%). Obama is not willing to make cuts there. These small multimillion dollar cuts you listed are chump change.

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

In my home state, the median household income is $50,000. Let's add up their yearly expenditures to see how much "income taxes" they can afford to pay.

Car Insurance for family : $3,000
Health Insurance plan for family : $800/month or about $10,000
Monthly Car payment : $300/month or $3,600/year
Gas money for family drive to and back from work : $100/month = $1,200
Utilities (water/electric/gas/internet/telephone): $350/month = $4,200
Cost of groceries/food for family : $500/month = $6000
Apartment rent = $800/month = $10,000
Federal payroll taxes and state and local taxes = $5,000
Unforseen costs (clothes, books, household repairs, necessary trips) = $2,000

Grand total expenditures just to get by with minimum necessities = $45,000

Exactly how much money do you want the bottom 50% to pay in income taxes if they themselves don't even have any money left over to give? If they were stashing away thousands into their bank accounts, I could see your point, but they are not because the cost of living is through the roof.

Lol, you're forgetting the tax credits people in this bracket get which often nullify any taxes paid. Much of that payroll tax also goes into their own social security and medicare. It doesn't matter if they pay 1$. They should be paying something if they are using public goods. But my issue isn't so much that the bottom 50% should pay more taxes, it's that my tax rate is criticized and targeted for a raise. Ideally all citizens would pay less in income tax. Historically income tax was illegal in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, we do in fact earn revenue from other sources. I'm most upset though that my additional taxes are given to fuel wasteful spending. Not another percent should raised on income tax rates until they fix the government's spending problem.

The government behaves like a teenager with its first credit card.

Regarding outsourcing, read this :

http://rockrivertimes.com/2012/07/1...ng-outsourced-from-bain-owned-freeport-plant/

"Despite rising profits, the company plans to institute the final layoffs in December. The workers are training their Chinese replacements, who have been flown to Illinois by the company"

I laugh when people bring up Romney and outsourcing. Are you aware that Obama's right hand man on jobs (Chair of Council on Jobs), Jeffrey Immelt, was the champion of outsourcing? Do you understand why businesses outsource? It's because they can be profitable elsewhere. The Dems get so upset when businesses move overseas and outsource jobs. It's like a betrayal to them. There is a reason for it. The small business climate in America is toxic. Miscellaneous taxes are overwhelming for most business owners. Add to that cheaper labor and the new requirement to provide health care for employees and you have a recipe for disaster. It's not disloyalty to this country. It's common sense. If I were a small business owner and it was financially smart to move overseas, I would too.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Yes, but that infrastructure is available to everyone. Not everyone makes use of it. It's been in place and is sustainable on current revenue levels. Obama is saying that we're not paying our fair share. When I'm paying 40% of my income and 50% of America is paying nothing, who is he to say I'm not paying enough? Moreover, the additional revenue is being utterly wasted on creating a more government dependent nation. There are so many fraudulent claims of people coming in to see doctors ...

Just as a heads up, this isn't true. (The part about 50% of Americans not paying taxes. I obviously don't know what you pay in taxes. ) Essentially all Americans pay taxes of some variety or another. Most of the ones that don't pay income taxes are 65+yo seniors who are retired.

 

[jwk]

Just as a heads up, this isn't true. (The part about 50% of Americans not paying taxes. I obviously don't know what you pay in taxes. ) Essentially all Americans pay taxes of some variety or another. Most of the ones that don't pay income taxes are 65+yo seniors who are retired.

Did you actually read this article? It doesn't support your point at all.

 

[Substance]

Why do neither of your presidential candidates have any explanation for why they are continuing the clusterfuck of wars in Babylon and Afghanistan? Those things cost a lot of money and aren't really doing much.

 

[Baller MD]

herp derp