Romney vs. Obama

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by NeoSupaMario, Aug 25, 2012.

?
  1. Barack Obama

    158 vote(s)
    76.0%
  2. Mitt Romney

    50 vote(s)
    24.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nathan Drake

    Nathan Drake Obligations fulfilled, now I depart.

    Member
    11
    Jan 2, 2011
    I don't know if a third party would really level things out. In the end, it's still just the lesser of a collection of evils. The biggest problem lies in the fact that we're still so reliant on the, as you stated, outdated two party system, when really, our political system is comprised of a myriad of parties all across the political spectrum, encompassing various values and viewpoints. None of these parties get TV time though because they don't have a big enough backing. Getting enough backing requires money. Getting enough money to run a political campaign requires getting yourself known to earn contributions. In the end, it's just the two majority parties with all of the backing, while the others are forced into obscurity with no recourse for ever becoming a serious political force within the US.

    With this problem comes the political problems in the US. The political problems generally hit this division: one side is for it, and the other side (generally republican, to be fair) has some Christian value stemming from 50's religious values that just keeps things that shouldn't even be a debate, a debate for decades. It's ridiculous, and it's held the US back for many years with nobody seeming to care to attempt to influence true change that this country so desperately needs.

    It's the politically primitive two party system that will lead me to not vote this November. My first presidential election, and I could care less for feeding my (government deemed useless) vote into the system. I mean, hell, for what's considered the most important election, "the people" just contribute to the popularity vote. When we're essentially just pushed into the "your vote is bullshit" column, you know that the system has some kinks to work out.
     
  2. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    17
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    That isn't even close to the truth.

    Not even close.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. ouch123

    ouch123 GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    2
    Aug 2, 2012
    United States
    Though I'm not so sure both of the above aren't biased, this is still significantly better than just repeating political spew as fact.
     
  4. BlueStar

    BlueStar GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    5
    Jan 10, 2006
    UK
    Found this interesting, from the 1956 GOP platform:

    We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

    Crazy, from outside looking in, how the constant lurch to the far right just doesn't show any sign of stopping for the Republicans.

    Barry Goldwater predicted exactly as much.

    This is someone who was known as 'Mr Conservative' back in his time. If he was in the GOP now they'd be calling him a RINO liberal marxist. Which I guess compared to the fringe wingnuts they're letting dictate the direction of his old party, he is.
     
    2 people like this.
  5. tatripp

    tatripp GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    5
    Mar 15, 2009
    United States
    The chart shown is misleading. It doesn't show the amount of debt from each president, but the amount of debt from their policies. Obama continued Bush policies, but that debt is labeled under bush. It is also misleading because it puts one man against another even though they have been president for a different amount of time. It is an old chart from 2011. 3 years vs 8 years. Try using the Debt to penny calculator from the treasury and entering in the terms of office for both presidents. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

    Bush spent a lot but Obama spent more in less than half the time. I will vote for Romney because a vote for Romney is a vote against Obama. Romney will still spend too much and debt will increase but not as much as if it was under Obama. Obama inherited a mess but Bush inherited a time bomb that is the housing market.

    @Ouch123 I am definitely biased but at least I know that I am. That chart is more biased than I am but it doesn't appear to be because of its clever manipulation of statistics. I think that chart is even less valuable than random political spew.
     
  6. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    17
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    Isn't that the point? You cannot blame Obama for debt accumulated due to Bush's policies, especially when Obama is against those policies and the Republicans are for making those policies permanent.

    Despite one of the charts being from 2011, the numbers are relevant, current, and accurate.

    The charts above clearly show that's not true.

    Obama is the candidate who has offered bipartisan deficit-reduction plans that include both decreasing spending and increasing revenue. Bowles-Simpson, anyone? Romney offers plans that decrease spending but decrease revenue to the point that the spending cuts don't offset even those. Romney's plan wouldn't decrease the deficit.

    One could successfully argue that Bush's deregulation of Wall Street had much to do with the economic downturn.

    It must be pretty convenient to label statistics that don't agree with your point of view as a "clever manipulation." Based on this thread, conservative ideology seems to depend on the idea that numbers and statistics don't matter, and as I've already said, that makes the truth pretty relative. However, I've shown how the above graphs you have a problem with aren't "clever manipulations." To say that Obama has contributed substantially more to the debt than the $1.4 trillion of Obama policies that were mostly economic recovery is what's a manipulation of facts (and those aren't even long-term contributions to the deficit). Bush policies are what are primarily contributing to the debt and deficit, and I'm not sure how that can be argued against.
     
  7. tatripp

    tatripp GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    5
    Mar 15, 2009
    United States
    The deficit since Obama has been in office has been more than when GW Bush's 8 year term. Obama said that he would only last one term if he didn't get the financial crisis solved. He specifically ran for president on the platform that he will get the economy back together. Bush policies are a main reason for the current economic crisis but obama's policies are worse than Bush's.
    It is unfair to blame bush's policies for Obama's failure. If you see someone push a kid who can't swim in a pool and you don't save him, you are as guilty as the pusher.
    My bottom line is that Obama is going to spend like crazy and the economy will not get better anytime soon. Romney is going to spend slightly less and the economy will still not get better anytime soon.
    Bush's tax cuts can also be seen as an economic stimulant so you shouldn't look at that in the short term either and shouldn't be on that chart.
    I do not want Romney as a president, but i really don't want obama as a president.
     
  8. BlueStar

    BlueStar GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    5
    Jan 10, 2006
    UK
    Some awesome sign placement by the RNC

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Gahars

    Gahars Bakayaro Banzai

    Member
    23
    Aug 5, 2011
    United States
    New Jersey
    I know this is a bit late, but it's been bugging me. Can we get Clint Eastwood's chair added to the poll?

    He's a risky upstart, but he's got a shot!
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    17
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    First of all, that's just not true. Obama has actually lowered the deficit. Second, even if the deficit were higher, Obama inherited much of that deficit from Bush's policies. Out of curiosity, what part of that don't you understand? Here's a quote from one of the links I already posted:

    Also, here's a chart from that same source:

    Warning: Spoilers inside!

    The deficit has not been significantly reduced, but that's because the underlying problems (Bush's policies) are still in effect. Obama wants to end those policies; Romney not only wants to make those policies permanent, but he wants to make them worse. Mitt Romney would slash revenues and likely explode the deficit.

    The last time I checked, the Stimulus worked. Unemployment is still bad, but the economy has improved under Obama. Keep in mind, however, that the economy was worse than anyone thought, and most economists agree that the Stimulus should have been bigger.

    Again, the economy has improved under Obama, so I'm unsure how "Obama's policies are worse" or how your analogy applies.

    Obama has viable deficit-reduction plans, regardless of anymore potential recovery spending. Also, unemployment is expected to average around 6.3% in 2016, thanks in part to Obama's economic recovery policies. Oppositely, as I've already said, Romney's tax policy would likely increase the deficit.

    Just because you think something is economic stimulus, which is a fair conversation to have about the Bush tax cuts, does not mean it is deficit-neutral; of course it should still be on the chart. You can't just pretend something isn't contributing to the deficit because you like it, haha. The vast majority of Obama's added spending has been economic recovery, so I fail to see the point of that. As for whether or not the Bush tax cuts should stay because they allegedly stimulate the economy, they actually don't stimulate the economy that much, particularly the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. The best kinds of economic stimulus give money to the poor, who have to immediately spend that money rather than sit on it like the rich do. This is why Obama is in favor or extending the Bush tax cuts, for the time being, for those making less than $250,000. Economists agree that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 would have no real effect on the economy.
     
  11. Jakob95

    Jakob95 I am the Avatar

    Suspended
    0
    Jan 15, 2009
    United States
    New York City
    I think Obama is better of the two because he is actually trying to do something about education. While when Romney got asked the question about college prices, he told the girl who asked to see what she can afford and go with that, this guy is basically not going to do shit about college prices... Plus I heard that he wanted to cut all financial aid to students.
    EDIT: Maybe Chris Christie for 2016 heard that guy was going to want to run. We need another Taft in office lmao.
     
  12. smile72

    smile72 NewsBot

    Member
    5
    Sep 23, 2010
    ???
    Yeah, but socialized healthcare won't work the Conservative media controls the South and a decent part of the Midwest, heck with the money they have they can destroy it all the want even though every modern country has it. Obamacare is the best you will get for the next decade.


     
  13. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)

    Member
    20
    May 6, 2009
    United States
    The Danger Zone
    In Chris Christie's defense he's probably, in terms of mass index, equivalent to two Romneys.
     
    4 people like this.
  14. smile72

    smile72 NewsBot

    Member
    5
    Sep 23, 2010
    ???
    I do not disagree with you. But I would say 2.5-3 Romneys.
     
  15. LightyKD

    LightyKD Future CEO of OUYA Inc.

    Member
    11
    Jun 25, 2008
    United States
    Angel Grove, CA
    Anybody watching the Democratic National Convention right now?
     
  16. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    He says that because the college tuition price issue is a "bubble" and the "air" is the over-availability of student loans. It's not that you shouldn't be able to get some assistance for college, but the reason schools have been able to jack up their tuition so astronomically over the last 25 years is because the federal government has shown itself willing to keep loaning however much it takes for the students to pay that tuition. If your parents make a lot then you can only borrow little, but if your parents don't make much, you can borrow a shitload!! Of course, never mind that once you get out you'll be competing for some shit low-paying jobs against all those people who didn't need to take out big loans (and who have connections through their wealthy parents that you don't). Simply put, going to a high priced school when you're poor and taking on deep debt to make it happen is a bad financial choice almost every time. Sure, you can find an exception here and there. But most people who come out of college $100k or more in debt on student loans find a job paying $35k or $40k if they're lucky and they are slaves to that loan. Believe it or not (and I know you don't want to believe it) a financially challenged 18 year old is much better off going into the military and getting a medical or aero-mechanic job, get the free technical training, then come out and either go to school on the GI Bill or else get a job in the private sector based on their technical skills.

    The advice was sound ... don't go so far in debt for a diploma that the salary it gets you is dwarfed 4:1 by what you owe. Your paycheck has to cover home, car, insurance of all kinds, taxes, gas, food, clothing, piano lessons for your kid, football uniform fee for your other kid, etc etc. A big student loan payment is a heavy burden to pile on top of that.

    Again, I know it sounds harsh, but the fact is the schools can charge that much because the government is willing to loan you that much.
     
  17. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    17
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    I'm watching it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Nancy Keenan had a speaking role.
     
  18. LightyKD

    LightyKD Future CEO of OUYA Inc.

    Member
    11
    Jun 25, 2008
    United States
    Angel Grove, CA
    My wife and I were tickled by Kal Penn's speech. #SexyFace :P
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    I don't watch American television, except for the occasional sporting event. I read. I do watch Japanese television though, every night. Far as I know it isn't on.
     
  20. Costello

    Costello Headmaster

    Administrator
    22
    Oct 24, 2002
    interesting thread (and poll)
    I am happy to see that, in spite of what bad mouthed haters might say, discussions on the Temp can be polite and people who disagree with one another don't necessarily insult and flame each other :)

    threads like this are what makes me proud to be a part of this community!

    I took the poll myself and see what I got:
    Warning: Spoilers inside!
     
    1 person likes this.
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.