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. LightyKD

    LightyKD Future CEO of OUYA Inc.

    Member
    11
    Jun 25, 2008
    United States
    Angel Grove, CA
    ZOMG that last speech from the Governor of Massachusetts was AMAZING! Also, his situation should serve as prime example why Romney should NOT be president. That state, when ran by Romney was #49 in job creation and then this guy comes in and now that state is a mover and shaker in a positive direction.
     
  2. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    17
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    The only state that had more people leave the workforce than Massachusetts while Romney was Governor was Louisiana, and that was because of Hurricane Katrina.
     
  3. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    Factcheck.org says that is not accurate.

    http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/


    A new ad from the Obama campaign takes aim at Mitt Romney’s performance as governor of Massachusetts, claiming he had “one of the worst economic records in the country.” But the ad overreaches with several of its claims.

    • The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.
    • The ad’s claim that Romney “cut taxes for millionaires” isn’t as black-and-white as billed. Romney opposed a plan to impose a capital gains tax retroactively, insisting on delaying the hike eight months. That’s different than pushing for a tax cut.
    • The ad claims that Romney raised taxes on the middle class. It’s true that Romney imposed a number of fees, but none of them targeted middle-income persons. Also, Romney proposed cutting the state income tax three times — a measure that would have resulted in tax cuts for all taxpayers — but he was rebuffed every time by the state’s Democratic Legislature.
    • The ad claims Romney “left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt.” It’s true that long-term bond debt — used for capital improvements — rose under Romney, as it had in the years before he took office. But Romney wasn’t piling up yearly deficits to support operating expenses the way the federal government is, because Massachusetts requires balanced budgets.
    • The ad claims that when Romney was governor, “Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average.” That’s close to true, but the state lost a greater number of manufacturing jobs in the four years before Romney took office, and more in the four years after he left. In fact, the rate of job loss in manufacturing slowed during Romney’s time as governor.
    • The ad claims Romney “outsourced call center jobs to India.” Not exactly. What he did was veto a measure that would have prevented the state from doing business with a state contractor that was locating state customer-service calls in India. Democrats who controlled the Legislature could have overridden the veto, but didn’t. The veto was supported by leading newspapers as a savings to taxpayers.
     
  4. Kayot

    Kayot GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    4
    Jan 24, 2010
    United States
    Quote wars are annoying.

    Anywho, I'm with Hanafuda on this one.

    Of couse I'd like to the the president. I'd steward the office and collect a lifetime pay of 250,000$ a year for the rest of my life. Shame that the people winning this are billionares and piss that kind of cash away on a single blackjack round in Vegas. I wish I was rich. I also wish I had a DearS. And Lighthawk Wings. Wishings nice.
     
  5. LightyKD

    LightyKD Future CEO of OUYA Inc.

    Member
    11
    Jun 25, 2008
    United States
    Angel Grove, CA
    Just finished watching Michelle's speech. Almost cried a few times. It was VERY moving.
     
    2 people like this.
  6. BerserkLeon

    BerserkLeon Not-so-new member

    Member
    3
    Mar 22, 2010
    United States
    Pennsylvania
    I'm probably biased, but I like Obama more.
    Though, the entire [voting] process seems silly, considering:
    • The Electoral College people can do whatever they want. Yes, they're usually responsible people who want the process to work, but they can screw it all up.
    • The vote always comes down to the two major parties. This doesn't seem to be so much because what the minority parties' stance on everything is wrong, but because they're the minority. If one wants their vote to really matter at all, they're probably going to vote for one of the big two, even if they firmly believe someone from party X has the 'correct' views on everything. This is also a problem with the EC, since they probably figure not many people (or other electors) will choose someone from party X, they're more likely to go with the D/R candidates (that is, if they were to go out of line and vote for someone other than what the popular vote in their state was).
    If you ask me, an entirely new system needs to be established.
     
    2 people like this.
  7. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    17
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    This is why I advocate a two-round voting system, but that's not going to happen.
     
  8. BlueStar

    BlueStar GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    5
    Jan 10, 2006
    UK
    How can people get away with writing stuff like this that they've just pulled in its entirety straight out of their ass?

    http://therothshow.com/2012/06/obama-is-inventing-authority-out-of-the-sky-his-toy-executive-orders/
     
  9. LightyKD

    LightyKD Future CEO of OUYA Inc.

    Member
    11
    Jun 25, 2008
    United States
    Angel Grove, CA
    Just because my Wife and I were talking about it... :yaywii:

    (parody of Will.I.Am's "New Day" from The Boondocks)

    and you can find the original here...

     
  10. tatripp

    tatripp GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    5
    Mar 15, 2009
    United States
    You responded to everything that I wrote which is good but unfortunately I don't have much time so I will only respond to some of it.
    First go back to that treasury link i posted earlier and type the information in manually. The total budget deficit has increased slightly more in Obama's current time in office than in Bush's 8 years.
    Providing a link that says the stimulus worked means nothing to me because I can find plenty that say they don't work. You can't tell if a stimulus plan worked because you cannot compare it to what would have happened (especially in a case like this).
    The Economy has improved slightly under Obama after it has worsened a lot. Are we not in worse economic condition now than when bush was in office.
    My analogy was meant to show that Obama is as nearly guilty as bush for allowing his policies to continue. He can't just stop them all immediately but he willingly continued some of them.
    It is definitely not a good idea to expect a projected unemployment rate. Obama predicted while running for office that the economic crisis would be fixed or else he would be a one term president. The current unemployment rate is not a good description of actual unemployment. http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/07/06/n-youth-unemployment-labor.cnnmoney/ I'm not sure if the numbers on that video are completely accurate but the current unemployment rate certainly is not.

    It is also not fair to say that economists agree that bush tax cuts will not impact the economy. I'm sure that some say that but it is a huge generalization to say "economists agree."
     
  11. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    If Obama is in favor of extending the "Bush tax cuts," then isn't a bit disingenuous on your part to post a link to a chart purporting to show how damaging those tax cuts are to the national debt and economy? Not to mention continuing to attribute that purported damage to Bush in a prior post as a bad thing, and then touting the tax cuts as a good thing ("for the time being") in the post above and crediting Obama for it.


    On last night's convention speeches, here's a link to the AP, "SOME OBAMA PROGRAMS EMBELLISHED BY DEMOCRATS." Embellished. During the Republican convention they called that lying.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CVN_DEMOCRATS_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-04-23-35-49
     
  12. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    17
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    I don't think you understand the difference between "debt" and "deficit." The debt has continued to increase because we have a deficit. However, the deficit has actually gone down marginally under Obama. The deficit hasn't gone down much, however, because the major sources of our deficit (Bush policies) are still in effect. Obama wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, for example; Republicans want to both make them permanent and make them bigger. If the debt and deficit are what are important to you, then it appears that you should vote for Obama.

    Actually, it's pretty easy to see the causal relationship between the Stimulus and the economic recovery, so according to the numbers and most reputable economists, the Stimulus worked. Go back and look at those charts I posted. We can talk about what the role of government should be in the economy, the effect of economic recovery measures on the deficit, and many other things, but to say "the Stimulus didn't work" or "it's impossible to know if the Stimulus worked" are just a bold-faced lies.

    The economy is unarguably better off now than when Obama first took office, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It should also be noted that the economy got to where it was before Obama took office in part because of Republican views on deregulation.

    When it comes to the deficit and the debt, Obama has actually proposed bipartisan deficit-reduction policies that didn't happen thanks to Republican obstruction. Likewise, Obama would have repealed the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 if it hadn't been for Republican obstruction. You can't argue that Obama wants those Bush policies to continue and is just as guilty as Bush if Obama is the one who wants to end these Bush policies and the Republicans want to make them permanent. As for the economy, your analogy does not apply if Obama signed into law various economic recovery policies that worked. They didn't go far enough, but they worked.

    Based on the evidence, that "projected unemployment rate" is what appears to be the most likely. It's relevant because Romney claims that he will bring unemployment down to the level that it's expected to get to on its own thanks in part to Obama policies. It should also be noted that many previous projections on unemployment were made at a time when we didn't know that the economy was as bad as it was, which is why everyone now says that the Stimulus should have been bigger.

    It appears that Romney's plan for the debt and deficit is to give more tax breaks to the rich that counter any of the spending cuts he has proposed, and Romney's plan for the economy is to give more tax breaks to the rich and take credit for the projected unemployment rate that we're expected to get anyway. From my point of view, it sounds like Romney isn't offering any viable solutions.

    When most economists agree that tax breaks for the wealthy have very little economic benefit for each dollar "spent" (lost revenue), then it's a fair generalization. Tax breaks for the wealthy have very little effect on the economy because tax breaks for the rich don't tend to change their spending habits, nor does it incentivize job-creation. Even if a wealthy "job-creator" is given a tax break, if spending hasn't increased and the economy hasn't improved, the wealthy "job-creator" actually loses money if he or she creates jobs using that extra money. Oppositely, tax breaks and whatnot for the poor tend to increase spending and stimulate the economy, incentivizing "job-creators" to actually create jobs because there's a demand and it's profitable.

    Edit:

    Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, which is still a a significant reduction of the deficit. As I've already mentioned, tax cuts for the lower and middle classes actually have a positive effect on the economy, so Obama favors keeping them in place for the time being, just as Obama was in favor of economic recovery measures that included major tax cuts for the lower and middle classes. I also never said that the tax cuts were "damaging to the economy." I also never said that Obama's view to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 is good for the deficit, because it's not. None of what you said changes the facts that a.) The Bush policies are the source of our current deficit and debt problems because they were unpaid for, and b.) Obama is the candidate who actually offers solutions for the debt, deficit, and economy.

    Actually, there's a major difference between embellishing and lying. The difference is that when they say things like (for example), "So instead of the Medicare guarantee, Republicans would give seniors a voucher that limits what's covered," they're telling the truth. Sure, that only applies to future beneficiaries, but it doesn't change the fact that the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. Just because it would be more accurate to say, "Republicans would give future seniors a voucher that limits what's covered," doesn't make it a lie. In fact, considering it's common knowledge how the Republicans would end Medicare as we know it, it's not even embellishment (unless you've changed how words work and I don't know about it).
     
  13. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "end Medicare as we know it." It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it, we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs.

    There is nothing that government can give a man that has not first been taken from another under threat of force.
     
  14. Sterling

    Sterling GBAtemp's Silver Hero

    Member
    6
    Jan 22, 2009
    United States
    Texas
    The government is there to improve the quality of life for all it's citizens. Taking away social programs is a good way to remove the only things they've done to do so. After that we just have a government that funnels our money into things that won't help us at all, or military.
     
    2 people like this.
  15. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)

    Member
    20
    May 6, 2009
    United States
    The Danger Zone
    I like the sound of that.

    I'm just very tired of how "socialist" or "communist" are thrown around as negative words. Socialism and communism embody two fantastic ideas that a government should strive to be. A place where its citizens can live in peace, where there's no more poverty, no more unequal distribution of wealth, no more classes. It's utopian. Not that we have achieved it, but if a government is truly striving towards reaching that utopia, more power to them. If a government is trying to make my life better and easier, to make sure I don't fall victim to crippling poverty or stand on the backs of others and rule through economics, then I'm all the more for it.
     
    3 people like this.
  16. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    Not the job of government in my opinion, nor in the opinion of the men who wrote the United States Constitution. The Constitution established a federal government of (very) limited and specifically enumerated powers. Essentially, in the vision of the drafters of our Constitution, the job of the federal government was to maintain necessary infrastructure, handle the delivery of mail, oversee federal elections, and the common defense (i.e. military). Social welfare was not a job the Founders contemplated or gave to the federal government - it is a role which has been forced into the laws by yes, socialists among our elected officials, particularly since the 1930's. And their purpose in doing so was ever and always to get more and more people dependent on government for their standard of living, thereby forcing them to continue voting for the party that is sending them the check.

    "A place where its citizens can live in peace, where there's no more poverty, no more unequal distribution of wealth, no more classes. It's utopian."

    Simply put, this will never happen on this world, except where a poor mockery of it has been forced upon people by a totalitarian dictatorship in the name of communism (and so, only really happens in the propaganda). There will always be people who are smarter, work harder, and do more important things than others. Should those people not be paid more for their greater ability, harder work, and greater contribution? Or do you propose that the dude with the meth problem who works the graveyard shift at the 7-11 be paid the same as a brain surgeon?? Furthermore, there will always be people who see a peaceful condition as an opportunity ripe for violence. And there will always be people who see the offer of charity to the less fortunate as an excuse to give up at working themselves, and join in on the gravy train.



    No it isn't. See above.

    Edit: Sterling, I can't say I agree with you because the entirety of your post was based on the proposition that social welfare programs are one of the few things government does that is good. I believe social welfare programs create dependency and weakness in the culture, so I cannot agree with that. But, after giving it some thought I realized I have no objection to the statement I quoted above, "The government is there to improve the quality of life for all it's citizens." To the extent this means the roads are in good repair, the mail arrives promptly, etc. as I discussed above, I agree. But I don't want the federal government to be the world's largest insurance company, which is exactly what it is today. And the executives and managers are all corrupt.
     
  17. smile72

    smile72 NewsBot

    Member
    5
    Sep 23, 2010
    ???
    I'm tired of people attacking socialism... a lot of people in America especially senior citizens can't afford health insurance. That's why every other developed country has a universal health care system.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. BlueStar

    BlueStar GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    5
    Jan 10, 2006
    UK
    Universal health coverage isn't socialism anyway.
     
  19. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)

    Member
    20
    May 6, 2009
    United States
    The Danger Zone
    The fact that we still stick to the doctrine of long dead men from roughly 250 years in the past baffles me. Nowadays we live in such a radically different world that saying "The Founding Fathers wouldn't have liked that!" is just plainly dated. In 250 years we've gone from 13 measly colonies to one of (if not the greatest) super power the world has ever known. We've spread across to 50 states, adopted and outlawed slavery, been in (and won) two world wars, put a man on the moon, and created the most devastating weaponry in history. We shouldn't always assume the Founding Fathers wrote a timeless classic.

    Would you say every CEO, every politician, everyone of wealth is smarter, works harder, and does more important things? The people who mine coal and work in factories are what make our country work. Yes, we need a structure for distributing them, but the base of the country is often those of lower income in dead end jobs. We couldn't live without food from farmers, we couldn't have power without coal and whatever we use, we couldn't drive to work without gas.

    I think money is an irrelevant object. The fact that we use worthless paper currency to judge someone's worth is ridiculous. The fact that one human being gets put above another because of circumstances is ridiculous. Those that hold back society will filter out. But someone who was already born without no future shouldn't be suffering while someone born of privilege gets a free ride to continue privilege.

    There'd be a lot of things to fix before making that utopian society, actually it'd just be easier to start from scratch, but I think with enough regulations, programs, infrastructure, it's achievable.
     
    3 people like this.
  20. Sterling

    Sterling GBAtemp's Silver Hero

    Member
    6
    Jan 22, 2009
    United States
    Texas
    I can't say I don't agree with you. The government is full of the corrupt, but as a person who has been on Welfare for about 3 years now (only two of those have I been unemployed) I can safely say that I would probably not be here now if there weren't such programs. Before I was all along with the Republicans. That the government shouldn't be involved with Citizen's lives. To a certain extent I still agree. When I look at it from an unselfish human point of view, I can see how the central body of government should have a hand in helping out it's citizens. For people like me who are down on their luck or cannot afford to take care of themselves, these programs are a blessing. When I get on my feet, I'll gladly pay my dues to help others.

    I simply cannot fathom why someone would be so against social programs when they are so helpful. Is it jealousy, or malice, or simply human nature? I agree they can be better and should be revamped, but as a fellow human who has seen people just walk past someone who is on the street who is hungry, I just can't see how anyone one could want these things gone (especially since most people won't give willingly in the first place). When the government properly provide flawless help to anyone is the day when religion will no longer apply. It will simply not happen. Which is why I'm satisfied with flawed help with opportunity for improvement.

    EDIT: I'm in attendance for the "I agreed with Guild McCommunist" club again.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.