Romney VS Obama: The Megathread

[Dormam]

Hello! Just wanted to pop in and give my political opinion! (Because I can do that!)

I believe that, honestly, when you really get down to the heart of it, both candidates, for lack of a better term, suck. And don't take this wrongly, but I believe that we should exercise our right as citizens to replace a corrupted government. Anybody else agree? Not saying there should be a revolution, but a "Purging" of the current branches of Government, then electing from the masses people that we believe would do best in power. I am QUITE aware that that system has a few rather generous holes, but it's a rough draft, so... Yeah. That's about it. Thanks for hearing me out! (Assuming you're still reading.)

[The Nuclear Fist]

Hello! Just wanted to pop in and give my political opinion! (Because I can do that!)

I believe that, honestly, when you really get down to the heart of it, both candidates, for lack of a better term, suck. And don't take this wrongly, but I believe that we should exercise our right as citizens to replace a corrupted government. Anybody else agree? Not saying there should be a revolution, but a "Purging" of the current branches of Government, then electing from the masses people that we believe would do best in power. I am QUITE aware that that system has a few rather generous holes, but it's a rough draft, so... Yeah. That's about it. Thanks for hearing me out! (Assuming you're still reading.)

A purge is a terrible idea and you should feel terrible.

[Sardine World]

who would vote for any of these terrible options when you can vote for rucka rucka ali?

[TaQud]

who would vote for any of these terrible options when you can vote for rucka rucka ali?

[Dormam]

Hello! Just wanted to pop in and give my political opinion! (Because I can do that!)

I believe that, honestly, when you really get down to the heart of it, both candidates, for lack of a better term, suck. And don't take this wrongly, but I believe that we should exercise our right as citizens to replace a corrupted government. Anybody else agree? Not saying there should be a revolution, but a "Purging" of the current branches of Government, then electing from the masses people that we believe would do best in power. I am QUITE aware that that system has a few rather generous holes, but it's a rough draft, so... Yeah. That's about it. Thanks for hearing me out! (Assuming you're still reading.)

A purge is a terrible idea and you should feel terrible.

At least explain why you dislike the idea, please.

[The Nuclear Fist]

At least explain why you dislike the idea, please.

Because it is a moronic idea proposed by someone who has never lived in a place where government purges were commonplaces.

They're not pleasant.

[Dormam]

No, I haven't, but I'll take your word for it.

[Silent Majority]

who would vote for any of these terrible options when you can vote for rucka rucka ali?

Who?

[Dustistan]

From Paul Krugman, Nobel prize-winning economist :

"neither candidate is offering a realistic tax plan, because the fact is that the federal government is going to need more revenue than either is currently proposing... Obama is proposing to raise revenue by $80b a year... Romney is proposing to cut revenue by $450b a year.... Obama['s plan] is inadequate; Romney['s] is intensely, screamingly irresponsible"

Editied to add reference : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... -on-taxes/

[Wikkiwallana]

Hello! Just wanted to pop in and give my political opinion! (Because I can do that!)

I believe that, honestly, when you really get down to the heart of it, both candidates, for lack of a better term, suck. And don't take this wrongly, but I believe that we should exercise our right as citizens to replace a corrupted government. Anybody else agree? Not saying there should be a revolution, but a "Purging" of the current branches of Government, then electing from the masses people that we believe would do best in power. I am QUITE aware that that system has a few rather generous holes, but it's a rough draft, so... Yeah. That's about it. Thanks for hearing me out! (Assuming you're still reading.)

No, I don't think tossing out every single person who knows how the system works could possibly end well.

[New England and The Maritimes]

From Paul Krugman, Nobel prize-winning economist :

"neither candidate is offering a realistic tax plan, because the fact is that the federal government is going to need more revenue than either is currently proposing... Obama is proposing to raise revenue by $80b a year... Romney is proposing to cut revenue by $450b a year.... Obama['s plan] is inadequate; Romney['s] is intensely, screamingly irresponsible"

Editied to add reference : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... -on-taxes/

The trouble is that Obama can't get much more than what he's asking. I think we'll see him proposing more hikes as we go on. To think, by now we could have had enough money saved away to weather the baby boom and then some...

[Tmutarakhan]

So for some reason I know not why, my thread here was locked: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=194335

When the mods create a "megathread" it means they don't want everybody creating a whole bunch of separate threads on every aspect of the question. So, your remarks about Romney's lack of specificity (we already had a post linking to Jon Stewart's great takedown of Romney for precisely this) belonged here, not as a thread-start.

[New Chalcedon]

What are you talking about now? Farn said that what you replied to Ash about had nothing to do with Ash's post. Your post was about Romney's tax plan, when Ash's had nothing to do with that. Where has Obama said he wants to raise taxes on everyone? He supports the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Last time I checked, the wealthy is not everyone.

Then do tell me, why did Obama renew the Bush tax cuts?

Because the Senate Republicans vowed to filibuster everything until he did so.

Personally, I think he should not have caved - but don't make like it was his idea to do it. Personally, what I love about the situation is how the media's treating the whole situation like it's his fault, while barely noting the record numbers, breadth and shallowness of the filibusters Senate Republicans are engaging in, specifically to obstruct Obama in anything he does.

Bush bitched about the Senate Democrats filibustering 6 nominees of his back in 2005, and the lamebrained media machine breathlessly reported it. Now, the Senate Republicans are literally filibustering hundreds of nominees, usually for reasons that have nothing to do with the nominee, and the media......is silent.

[Alien Space Bats]

Personally, I think he should not have caved - but don't make like it was his idea to do it.

Caving was the price he had to pay to get extended unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. If he hadn't caved,the families of those unemployed workers would be in far, far worse shape then they are today.

Oh, and to USSR: You continue to ignore my earlier statement that one-third of the stimulus was handed out to the public in the form of unemployment benefits; another third went directly to the States to cover budgetary shortfalls; most of the remaining third went to small business and the American public in the form of direct tax rebates, credits for such things as buying a home or computer, or paying college tuition, and tax credits for small business, such as changes in depreciation for equipment purchases and one-time expensing for capital investment.

So unless you're going to seriously try to assert that the majority of persons drawing unemployment are Obama supporters or people who live overseas, that State governments are foreign entities, and that the general taxpaying public is made up of foreigners and Democratic campaign contributors, your charge is complete and utter bullshit.

The stimulus was $780 billion, Show that most of that money went overseas or to Obama contributors, or get the Hell out of Dodge.

[Revolutopia]

$10 says he comes back tomorrow claiming to have won this debate (actually, that's an insult to the word).

Oh cool flaming, thats a great way to win a debate insult your opponent.

Conservative:Facts confirm Obama has sent billions to overseas' companies.
Liberal:Nah uh! I found one site that said he didnt so I win!
Conservative:One random site doesnt equal an actual source.
Liberal:Shut up! Its a liberal source so its better than yours!

Are you really crying about Bias when your sources are the Washington Times and Heritage Foundation?

[New Chalcedon]

Personally, I think he should not have caved - but don't make like it was his idea to do it.

Caving was the price he had to pay to get extended unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. If he hadn't caved,the families of those unemployed workers would be in far, far worse shape then they are today.

Oh, and to USSR: You continue to ignore my earlier statement that one-third of the stimulus was handed out to the public in the form of unemployment benefits; another third went directly to the States to cover budgetary shortfalls; most of the remaining third went to small business and the American public in the form of direct tax rebates, credits for such things as buying a home or computer, or paying college tuition, and tax credits for small business, such as changes in depreciation for equipment purchases and one-time expensing for capital investment.

So unless you're going to seriously try to assert that the majority of persons drawing unemployment are Obama supporters or people who live overseas, that State governments are foreign entities, and that the general taxpaying public is made up of foreigners and Democratic campaign contributors, your charge is complete and utter bullshit.

The stimulus was $780 billion, Show that most of that money went overseas or to Obama contributors, or get the Hell out of Dodge.

Now now, ASB, you know very well: it's OK when a Republican contributor gets billions in no-bid "national security" contracts that result in the taxpayer paying over $100 for every meal delivered to the soldiers in Afghanistan. But the moment that any Democratic contributor, ever, wins any contract from the Federal Government (no matter how competitive or transparent the bidding process is) it's proof positive of fraud, kickbacks, etc. etc.

[Risottia]

Italian media are reporting that Romney-led participation of Bain Capital in the Italian telephone directory company "Seat - Pagine Gialle"- through Luxembourg-based subsidiaries - is under scrutiny, as there are suspects of both tax evasion and illicit corporate practices.

This is a summary in English I found (not exactly unbiased, though).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021081334

An article in Italian:
http://www.repubblica.it/economia/2012/ ... ref=search

[Ifreann]

Hello! Just wanted to pop in and give my political opinion! (Because I can do that!)

I believe that, honestly, when you really get down to the heart of it, both candidates, for lack of a better term, suck. And don't take this wrongly, but I believe that we should exercise our right as citizens to replace a corrupted government. Anybody else agree? Not saying there should be a revolution, but a "Purging" of the current branches of Government, then electing from the masses people that we believe would do best in power. I am QUITE aware that that system has a few rather generous holes, but it's a rough draft, so... Yeah. That's about it. Thanks for hearing me out! (Assuming you're still reading.)

Why do you hate democracy?

[Libertas Liber]

Hello! Just wanted to pop in and give my political opinion! (Because I can do that!)

I believe that, honestly, when you really get down to the heart of it, both candidates, for lack of a better term, suck. And don't take this wrongly, but I believe that we should exercise our right as citizens to replace a corrupted government. Anybody else agree? Not saying there should be a revolution, but a "Purging" of the current branches of Government, then electing from the masses people that we believe would do best in power. I am QUITE aware that that system has a few rather generous holes, but it's a rough draft, so... Yeah. That's about it. Thanks for hearing me out! (Assuming you're still reading.)

Why do you hate democracy?

I think Dormam just has the idealistic hope that America will come together and at the next mid-term elections (and nominations before that) vote out the current crop of politicians. That's what I got from reading.

[Sardine World]

who would vote for any of these terrible options when you can vote for rucka rucka ali?

Who?

Hes the best parodist on the planet

[Ashmoria]

I dont know why so many people support Obama on this site. But quite honestly I hope Mr Romney wins against Obama when November comes. Under Obama he has made bad decision after bad decision over and over again. Universal Healthcare in a time when America is trying to balance its budget, are you fucking kidding me? And then the tax that universal healthcare brought is the biggest tax increase in history. Politically he has failed to promote democracy overseas during the Arab spring and has continued to remain silent. He does not care about the war effort, the presidents job is to talk to the general and in a 60 minutes interview it was revealed he hadnt talked with the General in 7 months. George Bush was responsible in that regard and would talk to the general once every two weeks. Obama has created more regulations hurting the economy, has refused to balance the budget having trillion dollar deficits (Worse then Bush) and has hurt states rights by abusing the federal power to overturn californias Anti-Gay Marriage law and Arizonas Immigration law.
You know Mitt Romney may not be the best candidate but I know he will do a better job then Obama is doing, the Founding fathers would be disgraced of him

i LOVE president obama. i am hoping that a miracle happens and the democrats take the house back so that we can get back to making this country better rather than worse.

health care HAD to be fixed. the PPACA went a long way toward doing just that. the president, ms pelosi and mr reid got it done when it could get done. if they hadnt it would have taken another generation.

the president has put in regulations that protect every single one of us. i see no sense in handing over extra money to banks, financial institutions and industries that make money by pushing the costs off onto us. '

it is impossible to balance a budget that is 1.5 trillion out of whack without hurting the country and tanking the economy. the president, however, has shown himself to be very willing to work on closing the deficit with cuts in growth in spending and increases in taxes IN THE FUTURE when the economy can stand the changes.

....
the president didnt overturn california's gay marriage ammendment or the arizona immigration law. the courts are working on that. its not up to the executive branch.

mitt romney is a terrible candidate who refuses to say what he would like to do as president. im not interested in electing a pig in a poke, thank you very much.

[Ashmoria]

So for some reason I know not why, my thread here was locked: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=194335

Here is what it asked, and I thought I would ask everyone here:

Ok, so I am, honestly, a Democrat. However, I do watch Fox News and I try to look at things from a Republicans point of view.

Still I am simply lost on Mitt Romney. I understand that people do not like Barrack Obama, but what does Mitt Romney stand for?

My real question is this: What are the specifics of his plans?

Barrack Obama gave specifics when speaking of his stimulus plans, healthcare laws, military plans, and more while he was a candidate. Mitt Romney, while he has made his stance as against anything Obama is for, has given no specifics as to what his plans are.

He is for lower taxes, but I do not know for who. Everyone? The rich, the middle class, and the poor? A tax cut for the poor would have to be like a cut in the sales tax or something, and the federal government can't do that.

He is for less government, but what does that mean? Is he planning to fire police officers and teachers, or is he going to get rid of the Department of Commerce or the Department of Education, or is he going to lower the military personel (since military officers are government workers as well).

He is against illegal immigration, but aren't we all? Does he want to round up everyone who speaks spanish ans send them to Mexico? Does he have a plan to allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens? He says he will make it too expensive for businesses to hire illegal immigrants. How?

He wants to stand up against the Chinese, but what does that mean? Is it like Donald Trump cursing them off?

I am honestly not trying to "knock" on Romney, I am just wondering what his plans are, or if anyone even knows.

everyone would like to know

but it turns out that mr romney wont tell us because if he does, we wont vote for him. he actually said that.

[Acroticus]

So for some reason I know not why, my thread here was locked: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=194335

Here is what it asked, and I thought I would ask everyone here:

Ok, so I am, honestly, a Democrat. However, I do watch Fox News and I try to look at things from a Republicans point of view.

Still I am simply lost on Mitt Romney. I understand that people do not like Barrack Obama, but what does Mitt Romney stand for?

My real question is this: What are the specifics of his plans?

Barrack Obama gave specifics when speaking of his stimulus plans, healthcare laws, military plans, and more while he was a candidate. Mitt Romney, while he has made his stance as against anything Obama is for, has given no specifics as to what his plans are.

He is for lower taxes, but I do not know for who. Everyone? The rich, the middle class, and the poor? A tax cut for the poor would have to be like a cut in the sales tax or something, and the federal government can't do that.

He is for less government, but what does that mean? Is he planning to fire police officers and teachers, or is he going to get rid of the Department of Commerce or the Department of Education, or is he going to lower the military personel (since military officers are government workers as well).

He is against illegal immigration, but aren't we all? Does he want to round up everyone who speaks spanish ans send them to Mexico? Does he have a plan to allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens? He says he will make it too expensive for businesses to hire illegal immigrants. How?

He wants to stand up against the Chinese, but what does that mean? Is it like Donald Trump cursing them off?

I am honestly not trying to "knock" on Romney, I am just wondering what his plans are, or if anyone even knows.

everyone would like to know

but it turns out that mr romney wont tell us because if he does, we wont vote for him. he actually said that.

Thanks, although I found a report analyzing Romney's proposed tax cuts and tax broadening:

My source for all this is the Tax Policy Center, an independent organization. Here is the wikapedia page asserting that they are independent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center

And here is the link to their analysis of Romney's plan: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... Reform.pdf

If you don't want to read all that, here is their summarized analysis, summarized by their own organization: http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

Here is the problem: Mitt Romney says he would reform the tax code to lower taxes. He says he will correspondingly increase the tax base in order to offset the costs, making it revenue neutral.

The Tax Policy Center, however, says that if Romney lowers the taxes in all the ways he has claimed, expanding the tax base would not be able to match the cost. Besides that, his tax plans increase taxes on those making under $30,000, not even 10,000 over the poverty rate. These people would not benefit in the shared tax cuts because many of them do not pay federal taxes. The people who benefit the most from Romney's most basic tax reductions and base expanding are the wealthiest americans, and the people who get hit hardest are those poorest and those making between $100,000 and $200,000.

Here is a quote. Disregard the first sentence, since it says without base broadening:

Absent any base broadening, the proposed reductions in individual and estate taxes specified in
Governor Romney’s plan would decrease federal tax revenues by $360 billion in 2015.
These tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers: Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million
would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000),
taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see somewhat smaller increases of
about 2.4 percent (an average tax cut of $1,800), while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning
less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about
$130) due to the expiration of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2009 and extended at the end of
2010.


And here is the last sentence of the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center's analysis:

We show that given the proposed tax rates and proscription against reducing tax expenditures aimed at saving and investment, cutting
tax expenditures will result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for
lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers—even if individual income tax expenditures could be
eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible.


There you have it. Romney wants to increase taxes on the poor and middle class and give the wealthy a tax cut.

Now, even under unrealistic conditions that the Tax Policy Center set forth to try to find a way for Romney's tax plans to work, it is still impossible to make his proposed tax cuts revenue neutral without a cut of more than half the federal government's tax funded programs:

According to this assumption, the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion
(instead of $360 billion). If we assume that base broadening therefore only needs to pay for
$307 billion in revenues (after five years), even in this scenario, more than 56 percent of all
available tax expenditures would need to be eliminated (versus 65 percent without this
assumption). Although a tax reform would need to raise $53 billion less through basebroadening, this is not be enough to offset the $86 billion net tax increase faced by lower- and middle-income households in the analysis above. Indeed, in this example, even if all of the
additional economic growth accrued to high-income taxpayers, and all of the additional revenue
were paid by high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers would still experience a net
reduction in their tax payments. Thus, even in this case, the required base broadening still results
in a net tax reduction for the top 1 percent and for taxpayers making more than $200,000, and a
net tax increase on taxpayers earning less than $200,000.


Vote for Obama, or show me why I am wrong. Choose one.

[Ashmoria]

everyone would like to know

but it turns out that mr romney wont tell us because if he does, we wont vote for him. he actually said that.

Thanks, although I found a report analyzing Romney's proposed tax cuts and tax broadening:

My source for all this is the Tax Policy Center, an independent organization. Here is the wikapedia page asserting that they are independent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center

And here is the link to their analysis of Romney's plan: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... Reform.pdf

If you don't want to read all that, here is their summarized analysis, summarized by their own organization: http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

Here is the problem: Mitt Romney says he would reform the tax code to lower taxes. He says he will correspondingly increase the tax base in order to offset the costs, making it revenue neutral.

The Tax Policy Center, however, says that if Romney lowers the taxes in all the ways he has claimed, expanding the tax base would not be able to match the cost. Besides that, his tax plans increase taxes on those making under $30,000, not even 10,000 over the poverty rate. These people would not benefit in the shared tax cuts because many of them do not pay federal taxes. The people who benefit the most from Romney's most basic tax reductions and base expanding are the wealthiest americans, and the people who get hit hardest are those poorest and those making between $100,000 and $200,000.

Here is a quote. Disregard the first sentence, since it says without base broadening:

Absent any base broadening, the proposed reductions in individual and estate taxes specified in
Governor Romney’s plan would decrease federal tax revenues by $360 billion in 2015.
These tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers: Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million
would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000),
taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see somewhat smaller increases of
about 2.4 percent (an average tax cut of $1,800), while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning
less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about
$130) due to the expiration of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2009 and extended at the end of
2010.


And here is the last sentence of the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center's analysis:

We show that given the proposed tax rates and proscription against reducing tax expenditures aimed at saving and investment, cutting
tax expenditures will result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for
lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers—even if individual income tax expenditures could be
eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible.


There you have it. Romney wants to increase taxes on the poor and middle class and give the wealthy a tax cut.

Now, even under unrealistic conditions that the Tax Policy Center set forth to try to find a way for Romney's tax plans to work, it is still impossible to make his proposed tax cuts revenue neutral without a cut of more than half the federal government's tax funded programs:

According to this assumption, the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion
(instead of $360 billion). If we assume that base broadening therefore only needs to pay for
$307 billion in revenues (after five years), even in this scenario, more than 56 percent of all
available tax expenditures would need to be eliminated (versus 65 percent without this
assumption). Although a tax reform would need to raise $53 billion less through basebroadening, this is not be enough to offset the $86 billion net tax increase faced by lower- and middle-income households in the analysis above. Indeed, in this example, even if all of the
additional economic growth accrued to high-income taxpayers, and all of the additional revenue
were paid by high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers would still experience a net
reduction in their tax payments. Thus, even in this case, the required base broadening still results
in a net tax reduction for the top 1 percent and for taxpayers making more than $200,000, and a
net tax increase on taxpayers earning less than $200,000.


Vote for Obama, or show me why I am wrong. Choose one.

there is one problem with this whole thing

it is an analysis of the implications of the few things mitt romney has specified about his "plan". aside from it making complete sense as the only way what he has said could possibly work, it doesnt mean that this is what he really plans to do. (if he really has any actual plans at all).

in reality his plans are unknown. he is unwilling to say whose taxes he will cut, what deductions he would remove, what loopholes he would close, what spending he would cut, what he would spend his increase in military spending on, etc.

of course im going to vote for obama. what idiot votes for a candidate who says that if you knew what he was going to do you wouldnt vote for him?

[Ashmoria]

$10 says he comes back tomorrow claiming to have won this debate (actually, that's an insult to the word).

Oh cool flaming, thats a great way to win a debate insult your opponent.

Conservative:Facts confirm Obama has sent billions to overseas' companies.
Liberal:Nah uh! I found one site that said he didnt so I win!
Conservative:One random site doesnt equal an actual source.
Liberal:Shut up! Its a liberal source so its better than yours!

oh ussr are you forgetting that you didnt claim that billions in stimulus money was spent on buying parts from foreign companies?

you claimed that a MAJORITY OF STIMULUS MONEY went to foreign companies.

1:The vast majority of the Stimulus went to overseas' companies. Giving money to corporate allies isnt helping the economy. Source 1:http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/renewable-energy-money-still-going-abroad/ Source 2:http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-stimulus-money-spent-overseas/story?id=10002592

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=185075&p=10440171&sid=020d239bb26935a728035e623b972eb1#p10440171

that was stupidly wrong.

did some amount of the stimulus money end up outside the country? sure. you showed the probability that it was less than $2billion out of about $800billion in stimulus....one quarter of one percent of the stimulus.

thats not really enough to make a fuss about but according to your links its being dealt with. changing the claim in midstream is the sign of a person who knows he made a big mistake.