Short and simple. Who do you want for president, Obama or Mitt Romney?

[I.M. Gei]

What I don't even

What was the point of your post? To slander every republican as greedy assholes who only think for themself?

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about; Republicans like to whinge about taxes and "leeches," but they often don't stop and think about how much they've benefited from government since day one. Now, someone on another forum explained this far better than I can, so I'll post it here:

f you are a citizen of the United States, you are born entering a legal agreement with the United States Government. It's called the social contract. The written, spoken, and set agreement by citizen and government is "You take care of us and I will take care of you." This works both ways.

Before you go "Well I never agreed to that!" the fact is you've taken advantage of the extensive use of highways and roads, you've used the subsidized airports, you've eaten food inspected by the USDA, you have used public transportation, public schools, public libraries, public restrooms, parks, worked reasonable hours with a strong focus on safety, you've used electricity that powers your home, set your watches, you've listened to radio and watched television, the water you drink and the showers you take had to get pumped from somewhere? How much money is in your wallet right now- wait don't answer that it's rhetorical, the money in your wallet was printed and regulated by the United States treasury. You go to sleep safe at night from foreign boogeymen, because the United States military exists as well.

You've eaten well, and have used these ubiquitous services the United States government offers you, and more than I can list all of your life. You don't think about them because they've always there in the background. Paying taxes is about giving back to the government, so that you and your children can continue to use these services. The government takes care of us, and we take care of it. It's supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. Rich people use these services far far more than a poor person does. The reason they got rich to begin with was utilizing the United States focus on business relationships. That's exactly why it's not unreasonable to ask wealthier Americans to pay their fair share.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Balcerzak]

2. Deregulation, and regulation, are not automatically good or evil. Far too many regulations stifle business and innovation. Far too little regulations allow risky practices and exploitation of the rules to make a higher profit. There needs to be a balance. There is a point where businesses can thrive under regulations to ensure that they are not making decisions that will potentially cost them, say... 50 percent of their net worth. That is not just bad for that business, that is bad for everyone who has stocks in that business. Far too little deregulation is one of the major contributing factors to the two worst recessions in American history. One of these was the Great Depression. No regulations on banks or business meant they could do whatever they wanted, and when the bubble burst, many crashed. The other occurred in 2007. If there were regulations to control the degree of risks businesses could take, the sub-prime mortgage fiasco would not have happened. That occurred only because there was no one watching the banks to make sure they did not do something unethical or absurdly risky. The degree of deregulation proposed by the Republican Party scares me because throughout American History, it has led to recessions. As a history nerd, the arguments made by Romney/Ryan make no sense to me.

Holy shit are you way off base. Deregulation is not to blame. It's rather perverted incentives and risk mitigation, offered by the government that is the problem. More government is not the solution.

cf.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/05/25/is-deregulation-to-blame-well-kinda/

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/RUSS-final.pdf

Also, because I love this video, even though it doesn't fully apply

Edited October 4, 2012 by Balcerzak

[eclipse]

My post was probably a bit broad, but it doesn't mean I believe the government snould only do the absolute bare minimum possible. My parent's likely got some government help (never really asked them about their early life), but during the gist of it, they relied on themselves, not the government. People, to a certain extent, need to stop relying on the government for everything and start doing things themselves. Increasing the unemployment benefit period by almost four times as much, or forcing everyone to buy health insurance (to the detriment of medicare) isn't going to do that. Don't try and use a straw man argument to criticize my ideals, please.

I feel my blood boiling, because. . .gah. Before I lose my temper, go look at how people use government assistance. Then tell me that everyone on there is a freeloader.

[Sasori]

i'm Dutch so I don't know all that much about American politics, but I would prefer if Obama wins. Most of my country is probably pro Obama since most of the republican ideals just seem weird to us and on the other side we're probably a republican's biggest nightmare.

I watched an intersting show about the presedential elections yesterday. Apearently the repulicans where a lot more moderate 30 years ago before they where held hostage by their extreme right flank.

[CrashGordon94]

1. Yes because proving they're not guilty when they're dead is really useful to them.

2. Principles(assumptions) are everything in a political system. It's what they're based on, everything else flows from it. Keeping to these principles validates the system

1) That's true, however it seems that people are very rarely set free after life inprisonment anyway and that number of people can be (and is) brought lower by improvements in the justice system. Besides, even if you don't support capital punishment, there are STILL better alternatives.

2) Nope, not even remotely true. They're certainly the BASIS for everything but sticking with them even when they make no sense is NOT validating the system, it's just being a moronic zealot, these concepts (even if they're mostly good, and even that's questionable some times...) are NOT infallible and should not be treated as such.

For an example, the teachings of the Bible are the basis of everything in Christianity but what happens if you never question it and never make exceptions? You get bigoted, crazy fundamentalists, like these psychotic rednecks who dispise gay people and such. I'm sure you wouldn't defend those guys! The same goes for every religion, every belief system, every set of principles. Ultimately it doesn't do good to keep going with something when it doesn't make sense.

Nevertheless this arguement is very off-topic and clearly isn't going anyway, I might as well stop now since it'll only end in a ragequit from someone anyway.

[Excellen Browning]

1) That's true, however it seems that people are very rarely set free after life inprisonment anyway and that number of people can be (and is) brought lower by improvements in the justice system. Besides, even if you don't support capital punishment, there are STILL better alternatives.

2) Nope, not even remotely true. They're certainly the BASIS for everything but sticking with them even when they make no sense is NOT validating the system, it's just being a moronic zealot, these concepts (even if they're mostly good, and even that's questionable some times...) are NOT infallible and should not be treated as such.

For an example, the teachings of the Bible are the basis of everything in Christianity but what happens if you never question it and never make exceptions? You get bigoted, crazy fundamentalists, like these psychotic rednecks who dispise gay people and such. I'm sure you wouldn't defend those guys! The same goes for every religion, every belief system, every set of principles. Ultimately it doesn't do good to keep going with something when it doesn't make sense.

Nevertheless this arguement is very off-topic and clearly isn't going anyway, I might as well stop now since it'll only end in a ragequit from someone anyway.

IF THE CORE PRINCIPAL UPON WHICH AN ENTIRE SYSTEM WAS CREATED IS CONSIDERED INVALID YOU HAVE TO RETHINK THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

Read: john lock and thomas hobbes.

[Anouleth]

Social security tax isn't paid specifically for yourself, it's used to ensure people who can't work can still live. Being forced to pay for your own health insurance is not the same, no.

I was speaking about medicare and medicaid. Yeah, it's worse. Under Medicare and Medicaid, you're forced to pay for other people's health insurance, and nobody gets any choice in what insurance they get. But under Obamacare/Romneycare, you're forced to pay for your own insurance and can pick a plan that suits yourself.

[CrashGordon94]

IF THE CORE PRINCIPAL UPON WHICH AN ENTIRE SYSTEM WAS CREATED IS CONSIDERED INVALID YOU HAVE TO RETHINK THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

Protip: You don't have to think something is invalid to not apply it when it's inappropriate.

There's a difference between being invalid and being fallible, this is ONLY the latter. And you CAN base something on a simply fallible thing, you just have to view it as a simple ideal and not some competely perfect law of the universe that can never be subverted.

[Phoenix Wright]

To vote for Romney is to vote for a regression-focused president (all he's ever talked about is repealing, where's my change? Where's my progress?), and to vote for Obama is to vote for a president that will [probably] retain the status quo, or help the country gradually progress. Socially speaking here, not economically speaking.

Economically-focused, Romney is the worst type of person I'd want as president. Killing businesses to get rich doesn't strike me as evidence of one who cares

for all of us. I'd rather have someone who doesn't know economics than someone who does and has a terrible history with it.

Yesterday, Romney revealed to us that his primary focus is getting jobs to Americans, and that will, in turn, fix the economy. I'm not sure how he's gonna do that, and from what I've seen yesterday, he doesn't have a fucking clue either; the sentiment just sounds nice to us. He's also not going to raise taxes on the rich, or have the middle class take a higher tax-burden...so how's it gonna work? As Obama said repeatedly last night, Romney will be adding 7 trillion dollars to the deficit with the policies that he wants to implement (a point which Romney clearly did not grasp, as his retorts should have clearly shown).

Romney's social policies are terrifying in the face of progress, his business-management history is terrifying (or at least it should be) for businesses of all sizes, and perhaps most important of all, he's got all these ideas with no idea on how any of it's going to be done. He's got no concrete plans, and in the oft chance he does, the plans are terrible.

Not to mention Romney is a total flip-flop, which should make us even less confident in him. Politicians are already seen as being shady characters, but Romney has proven it to us. I cannot understand how he still has support.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Anouleth]

To vote for Romney is to vote for a regression-focused president (all he's ever talked about is repealing, where's my change? Where's my progress?), and to vote for Obama is to vote for a president that will [probably] retain the status quo, or help the country gradually progress. Socially speaking here, not economically speaking.

Economically-focused, Romney is the worst type of person I'd want as president. Killing businesses to get rich doesn't strike me as evidence of one who cares

for all of us. I'd rather have someone who doesn't know economics than someone who does and has a terrible history with it.

Yesterday, Romney revealed to us that his primary focus is getting jobs to Americans, and that will, in turn, fix the economy. I'm not sure how he's gonna do that, and from what I've seen yesterday, he doesn't have a fucking clue either; the sentiment just sounds nice to us. He's also not going to raise taxes on the rich, or have the middle class take a higher tax-burden...so how's it gonna work? As Obama said repeatedly last night, Romney will be adding 7 trillion dollars to the deficit with the policies that he wants to implement (a point which Romney clearly did not grasp, as his retorts should have clearly shown).

What? I don't know much about Romney's plan, but I highly doubt that adding 7 trillion dollars to the deficit is even possible. That would make the deficit 8.1 trillion dollars (the 2012 deficit is estimated to be about 1.1 trillion dollars), or more than half of the entire GDP of the United States. For that to happen, Romney would have to cut federal taxes to zero on all Americans, and then double the size of Medicare and Social Security.

[Phoenix Wright]

What? I don't know much about Romney's plan, but I highly doubt that adding 7 trillion dollars to the deficit is even possible. That would make the deficit 8.1 trillion dollars (the 2012 deficit is estimated to be about 1.1 trillion dollars), or more than half of the entire GDP of the United States. For that to happen, Romney would have to cut federal taxes to zero on all Americans, and then double the size of Medicare and Social Security.

It's over the course of ten years.

[Life]

It's over the course of ten years.

I wouldn't believe anything that Romney says about Obama or the opposite because both sides are trying to sling as much mud at the other as possible.

And when it comes to economical policies, I'd trust Romney a lot more than Obama. Romney actually understands business. Obama does not.

Proof? Well, the US auto industry is about sunk right now and it wasn't when Obama got in. Maybe laying off workers in the short run to get the companies to actually gain capital sucks now but in the long run, it produces more jobs than it lays off.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Life

[Anouleth]

I wouldn't believe anything that Romney says about Obama or the opposite because both sides are trying to sling as much mud at the other as possible.

And when it comes to economical policies, I'd trust Romney a lot more than Obama. Romney actually understands business. Obama does not.

Proof? Well, the US auto industry is about sunk right now and it wasn't when Obama got in.

Uh, really? In December 2008, Bush gave 17.4 billion dollars of temporary relief to GM and Chrysler (relief that Obama followed through on in January). That doesn't really sound like a healthy industry to inherit. I don't know exactly what the situation is in America now, but I don't think they still need government assistance.

Moreover, "understanding business" doesn't really mean much in terms of being the president. Herbert Hoover built a company from the ground up, but presided over the biggest crash in US financial history. While Ronald Reagan was an actor who had no previous business experience and presided over a strong economic recovery.

Maybe laying off workers in the short run to get the companies to actually gain capital sucks now but in the long run, it produces more jobs than it lays off.

But they did lay off workers in 2008/2009. I'm confused. Are you saying that they should have fired more people?

[Life]

Uh, really? In December 2008, Bush gave 17.4 billion dollars of temporary relief to GM and Chrysler (relief that Obama followed through on in January). That doesn't really sound like a healthy industry to inherit. I don't know exactly what the situation is in America now, but I don't think they still need government assistance.

Moreover, "understanding business" doesn't really mean much in terms of being the president. Herbert Hoover built a company from the ground up, but presided over the biggest crash in US financial history. While Ronald Reagan was an actor who had no previous business experience and presided over a strong economic recovery.

But they did lay off workers in 2008/2009. I'm confused. Are you saying that they should have fired more people?

1. Reagan didn't build a strong economy. He just managed to strengthen it. And while you're right about Hoover fucking up during the Depression, you forgot to mention that FDR was also skilled in business (being a corporate lawyer, he knew more about the failings of companies more than the average man) and pulled America out of the Depression with a combonation of his New Deal and wartime production.

2. Look at the unemployment rates. Companies didn't lay off workers, they went bankrupt. And I can guarantee that Obama was not for business growth through rebuilding from scratch. Remember, this is a man that doesn't have experience in the private sector. He just doesn't (not a negative). So you may excuse him for thinking that laying off people sounds counterproductive.

[Anouleth]

1. Reagan didn't build a strong economy. He just managed to strengthen it. And while you're right about Hoover fucking up during the Depression, you forgot to mention that FDR was also skilled in business (being a corporate lawyer, he knew more about the failings of companies more than the average man) and pulled America out of the Depression with a combonation of his New Deal and wartime production.

So, I suppose you think Romney would be better because you think... he'll start a war that kickstarts the economy? And reneges on his promise to cut the deficit?

2. Look at the unemployment rates. Companies didn't lay off workers, they went bankrupt. And I can guarantee that Obama was not for business growth through rebuilding from scratch. Remember, this is a man that doesn't have experience in the private sector. He just doesn't (not a negative). So you may excuse him for thinking that laying off people sounds counterproductive.

I'm talking specifically about GM and Chrysler. These companies went bankrupt and were bailed out by the government, but they did lay off workers. Looking at the table on page 9, GM laid off about 33,000 workers, or a third of the workforce, and closed 11 of it's 51 plants in between 2007 and 2010. But you said that the US auto industry is sunk because it didn't lay off workers. I'm asking about this specific claim that you made. And while I don't know the specifics of how the auto industry is doing now, they're not going bankrupt any more, so I can only assume things are better. Apparently, GM is now turning a profit again for the first time in several years. Now, I'm no corporate lawyer, but I think that profitability is a good sign.

[FionordeQuester]

Yesterday, Romney revealed to us that his primary focus is getting jobs to Americans, and that will, in turn, fix the economy. I'm not sure how he's gonna do that, and from what I've seen yesterday, he doesn't have a fucking clue either; the sentiment just sounds nice to us. He's also not going to raise taxes on the rich, or have the middle class take a higher tax-burden...so how's it gonna work? As Obama said repeatedly last night, Romney will be adding 7 trillion dollars to the deficit with the policies that he wants to implement (a point which Romney clearly did not grasp, as his retorts should have clearly shown).

He did too have an economic plan. In his first debate, he said, and I quote...

"The second area, taxation, we agree, we ought to bring the tax rates down. And I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth."

http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_21695181/full-transcript-barack-obama-mitt-romney-presidential-debate

So he does have a plan. In fact, he even has a website detailing his exact plans...

http://www.mittromney.com/jobsplan

It is true that not all of the details of his plan are worked out yet though. You know why? Because he wants Congress, the branch of the government who's actually SUPPOSED to be in charge of our finances, but has not passed a budget for more than three years (despite our Constitution demanding that our Congress do just that every year), to work this out.

Romney's social policies are terrifying in the face of progress, his business-management history is terrifying (or at least it should be) for businesses of all sizes, and perhaps most important of all, he's got all these ideas with no idea on how any of it's going to be done. He's got no concrete plans, and in the oft chance he does, the plans are terrible.

How do you know whatever plans he will have are terrible if he hasn't even come out with them yet? And besides, he has actually managed to cofound a successful business, Bain Capital, in 1984, and so far, it still hasn't failed. What claim to fame does Obama have compared to that?

Not to mention Romney is a total flip-flop, which should make us even less confident in him.

What, just because he's now pro-life rather than pro-choice? People ARE capable of turnarounds like that in very short periods of time. Just ask Oskar Schindler. And he has never been against withdrawing our troops, he was just against announcing a date, and therefore giving our enemies an advantage. As he said "The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars."

That's not correct. Go to this government site...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

And download Table 7.1. Admittedly, the national debt increased much more under Bush than it did under Clinton, but Clinton didn't do a darn thing to shrink the Federal Debt, even if he did balance the budget.

EDIT: Now, about Romney, if there's something else I don't know about in regards to his "flip flopping", feel free to tell me, but right now, I'm not seeing it. Oh yeah, and I don't know about pre-November 2011, but I know that he's voiced support for withdrawal from the Middle East ever since that date. And it's not as though he wants to leave EVERYTHING up to Congress, but he wants them involved in drafting a good financial plan for America's future.

Edited November 1, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Rehab]

You can tell me a lot of things about Romney, because I'm far from the most knowledgeable on him, but I'm sorry to be abrasive here, you can't fucking tell me he's not a big old open-toe flip-flop. His positions on medicare, flipped. His position on abortion, literally one, then the exact other. Immigration, climate change, stem cells, gay rights, what amounts to voter disenfranchisement, he's completely tacked to the hard right in primary season on all of them, and done not much but try to obfuscate his radical positions in the debates. Do you remember how he mentioned the "need to compromise" in the third one? Because neither he nor the Republican party at large has shown anything like that, having simultaneously demonized the idea of doing it themselves and basically ignored Obama's past efforts to do the same, all serving to further polarize everything political in the U.S. Does the 47% thing even need bringing up? Because not only was that way different from his governing years, but he then publicly went from saying "yeah it sounds bad but basically yeah that's what I think of those guys" to "apologizing" by saying it was "inelegant." How anemic can one person's attempts to redress criticism get?

There are some things that we just plain have to accept about our candidates. Both of them have said things that range from misleading to approaching, if not completely being, factually incorrect. I can't say Obama's never backed down from a position he's previously taken, or a promise he hasn't kept in the span of his first term. But Romney, both as a matter of opportunism, and as one of managing to survive as a candidate within his party as it stands, really couldn't have even gotten to be the Republican candidate without changing the way he presents himself.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Rehab

[FionordeQuester]

Immigration, climate change, stem cells, gay rights, what amounts to voter disenfranchisement, he's completely tacked to the hard right in primary season on all of them

Alright, well, I realized you might have been correct...so I did a quick little search on all of those issues you raised up...and have found all of this...

Abortion: Pro-life from 1986-1994 as an LDS minister, Pro-choice from 1994-2005, and then Pro-life again since 2005.

Stem Cell: Decided he was against using Embryos for stem cell research in 2005

Gay Rights: Stated in 1994 in a letter to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (an organization within the Republican party), stating "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.". However, he also stated in 2002 that he opposes gay marriage, though he's never stopped opposing gay rights in any other way, including gay adoption.

Climate Change: States in June 2011 that he believed that humans were making the Earth warmer, but then stated in October 2011 that there's no way of knowing whether that's actually the case, and will not support legislation that would spend "trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions".

Immigration: Uhh....I have no idea why people say he flip flopped on this. As early as 2004, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates at state colleges if they graduated from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and signed an affidavit affirming that they intended to seek citizenship. Nowadays, he says he supports legal immigration, is against illegal immigration, and though he would like to see illegal immigrants apply for citizenship, he says they shouldn't be given any special treatment over those who are applying legally.

"What amounts to voter disenfranchisement": I'm afraid I didn't quite understand what you meant. Could you please explain what you mean?

47% Thing: Yes, that was a flip flop, however, it only took him one day for him to change his mind. It's perfectly natural to say something stupid, look at peoples reactions to that, and think "Ok...maybe I oughtta rethink my position on this", is it not?

So, the only things he's flip flopped on recently is the 47% thing and climate change, but other than that, it doesn't look like he did it lightly. In other words, he seems more to me like an intelligent human being who is not afraid to reconsider his viewpoints. Everything else, he held his position on for 8-9 years, which I remind you, is still longer than it took for Oskar Schindler to change his views (around 5-6 years).

Edited November 1, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

Have you seen any of the debates? Obama has pointed out, accurately, his very many recent flip-flops. Romney is, simply stated, the type of person that becomes what you want him to be at any one time. First he's a warhawk, then he's not. First he hates the idea of spending more on education, then he doesn't. The man is not an honest one. The evidence is overwhelming.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mitt-romneys-flip-flops/

On his economic policy: He's come out with a few details. It's more or less the same plan that got us into the mess we're in now.

How do you know whatever plans he will have are terrible if he hasn't even come out with them yet? And besides, he has actually managed to cofound a successful business, Bain Capital, in 1984, and so far, it still hasn't failed. What claim to fame does Obama have compared to that?

Yes he has. I used "social policies" as an umbrella term, I think fittingly but perhaps not, for foreign and domestic policies. He's been going on and on about his plans with these for a little over a year now, if memory serves.

And it is frightening in the face of progress.

Bain Capital stuff (a fraction of it, anyway):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/17/fact-checking-attacks-about-bain-romney/

His work at Bain is usually summed up in this way: He buys companies and burns them into the ground for profit.

That's not the man I want running my country.

Obama's not either, I merely prefer him over Romney.

[FionordeQuester]

Have you seen any of the debates? Obama has pointed out, accurately, his very many recent flip-flops. Romney is, simply stated, the type of person that becomes what you want him to be at any one time. First he's a warhawk, then he's not. First he hates the idea of spending more on education, then he doesn't. The man is not an honest one. The evidence is overwhelming.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mitt-romneys-flip-flops/

First of all, one thing that I'd like to note is that ".com" sites have a profit motive in mind when they do anything with their sites. That's not to say that they're not accurate, it's just that the chances of them being accurate aren't as likely as the chances of a ".org" (non-profit), ".edu" (an educational source), or ".gov" (government source) site.

But onto the website itself. What it's listing is eight claims from Mitt Romney's opponents about him being a flip flopper. The site says that two of those claims are totally untrue, three of them aren't as much of a flip flop as his opponents claim, and three of them are complete flip flops. Putting aside the fact that there's nothing inherently "dishonest" about changing your mind on something (dishonesty is LYING about what you really think), 3/8 is hardly what I would call "overwhelming" evidence that he's a flip flopper. And that's not even getting into ways that I think you may have misinterpreted what this site is really saying. So let's cover what the site actually says about his three "Full Flops"...

1) Climate Change

I already covered this in my previous post. Yes, it's a flip flop, but, I don't think it's a very significant one. The guy's not a meteorologist or anything, so I can understand why he might have trouble forming a solid opinion on this matter. After all, that's some complicated stuff right there, so it would be stupid to not at least CONSIDER the idea that you're incorrect about that.

2) Abortion

Here I take issue with the blurb that says this...

Mitt Romney, Monday, October 10th, 2011.

Ruling: Full Flop | Details

...Because it implies that Romney didn't change his mind on that until October 10th, 2011, when in actuality, even the site itself says, if you click on the "Details" link, that he switched his stance as early as 2005, after a talk with someone knowledgeable on Stem Cell research involving Embryo's. So really, that's poor wording on the site's part.

3) On signing a no-tax pledge

It is true that he refused to sign a no-tax pledge during his 2002 campaign for governor of Massachusetts. However, he also said in that year...

"I am not in favor of increasing taxes. … At this stage, I am inclined to make that position as clear as I can but not to enter into a written pledge of some kind, and that's true on this and other issues."

And according to that same article that you linked to...

"'I'm against tax increases,' Romney told attendees of Western Massachusetts GOP meeting, according to the Union-News. 'But I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth.'"

So basically, he's saying "I don't want to increase taxes, but I don't want to make any promises until I'm sure that's an option", which is wise. You shouldn't foolishly make a promise you're not sure you're going to be able to keep. I don't know why the site deems that a "Full Flop", but it's certainly not exactly what I would call "dishonest" on the part of Mitt Romney.

On his economic policy: He's come out with a few details. It's more or less the same plan that got us into the mess we're in now.

Which plan are you referring to? Because if we're talking economics, Obama has increased the federal deficit more in four years than George W. Bush has throughout his entire presidency...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Download Table 7.1.

Yes he has. I used "social policies" as an umbrella term, I think fittingly but perhaps not, for foreign and domestic policies. He's been going on and on about his plans with these for a little over a year now, if memory serves.

And it is frightening in the face of progress.

Bain Capital stuff (a fraction of it, anyway):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/17/fact-checking-attacks-about-bain-romney/

His work at Bain is usually summed up in this way: He buys companies and burns them into the ground for profit. That's not the man I want running my country.

And who is it that sums it up in that way? Because it's certainly not the site that you linked to that seems to think that. Let's take a look at the claims that might actually suggest something about his character...

1) Mitt Romney "has a corporation in Bermuda (but) failed to disclose that on seven different financial disclosures."

That's true, however, as the article notes, it's possible that he may not have been required to disclose that information. So again, that's another case of bad wording on their blurbs.

2) After they bought GST Steel, "Mitt Romney and his partners loaded it with debt, closed the Kansas City plant and walked away with a healthy profit, leaving hundreds of employees out of work with their pensions in jeopardy."

Another case of bad wording on the blurbs. Mitt Romney did play a role in the decisions of Bain when that happened, however, the article also notes that Mark Esigg, former CEO of GST Steel, doesn't think it's Romney's fault that GST Steel failed. According to the article...

"Prices went down, costs had gone up, and it was kind of the perfect storm," he said. "Our debt load was a factor, no question about it. But there were companies without that debt load that also filed bankruptcy."

"No matter how you look at it or what side of the fence you're on, a plant closing is a tragedy for people. I think when you try to tie it to a person and say, Mitt was responsible for this — a lot of steel companies went out of business at that time, and Mitt had nothing to do with it," he said. "That was a macro-industry tidal wave that hit that plant. I bet if the Bain folks had to do it over again, they wouldn't have gotten involved with it. It can't be treated lightly, but to lay it at the doorstep of Mitt, I think, is not accurate."

Romney did say that he takes "personal responsibility" for making the investment, but other than that, it doesn't seem as though he caused most of the bad stuff that happened there.

3) Mitt Romney "supervised a company guilty of massive Medicare fraud."

The article notes that it is uncertain whether or not Romney actually had anything to do with this. So until there's clear evidence that he did, this can't be counted against him.

4) While Romney was a director of the Damon Corporation, the company was defrauding Medicare of millions.

According to the article, Romney was never implicated personally with the fraudulent activity at the company, and it was one of many companies with which Bain was involved.

And everything else important was deemed either "Mostly False" or "False". So again, this is not valid evidence against Romney. At worst, it makes you wonder whether or not Romney is capable of keeping his associates in line, but even there, that's something that could have absolutely nothing to do with his leadership ability. My dad holds a leadership position in a company, and bad stuff still happens under his watch. It's not always easy trying to police the activities of those who serve under you.

Obama's not either, I merely prefer him over Romney.

Well, as for me, I'd rather take someone who's economic policies MIGHT work over someone who has PROVEN to have bad economic policies.

Edited November 2, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Anouleth]

Well, as for me, I'd rather take someone who's economic policies MIGHT work over someone who has PROVEN to have bad economic policies.

I don't think that anything has really been "proven". As always, it might have been even worse without the stimulus. Certainly, the economic situation is worse in Britain than in the US (GDP in Britain is still behind it's pre-crisis peak, while in the US it's slightly above), despite a government with an entirely opposite fiscal policy. Whether that's due to the specific fiscal policies of the two governments, or due to other factors outside of the control of the governments is still up for debate.

[FionordeQuester]

I don't think that anything has really been "proven". As always, it might have been even worse without the stimulus. Certainly, the economic situation is worse in Britain than in the US (GDP in Britain is still behind it's pre-crisis peak, while in the US it's slightly above), despite a government with an entirely opposite fiscal policy. Whether that's due to the specific fiscal policies of the two governments, or due to other factors outside of the control of the governments is still up for debate.

Well, I know for a fact that Obama didn't need to spend the obscene amount of money that he did in order to drop the unemployment rate in our economy. I know this, because despite his claims to the contrary, he did not inherit the worst economy since the Great Depression (he inherited a country with an unemployment rate of 7.8. Unemployment has climbed as high as 10.8 in the past).

So let me compare him to another president who also once inherited a bad economy, Ronald Reagan. Now, Ronald Reagan only inherited a 7.5 unemployment rate to Obama's 7.8, so it wasn't QUITE as bad as what Obama got, but it was pretty close. I am going to use this list of numbers for the unemployment rates...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

...And compare how Reagan did compared to Obama. One important thing to note is that Reagan's party controlled the Senate for all of his presidency, however the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for his entirely presidency. Obama's party, on the other hand, controlled BOTH branches of Congress from January 2009 to January 2011, but then only controlled the Senate from January 2011 to today...

House of Representatives Composition Throughout the Years: http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/partyDiv.aspx

Senate Composition Throughout the Years: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

...So Ronald Reagan already started off at at least a slight disadvantage by not having the support of both branches of Congress, and never had control of the House throughout his entire first term. Now, Obama's term has not officially ended yet, so let's compare Obama's recent unemployment rate to the one Reagan had in October, during the 3rd year of his presidency...

Reagan: 7.4

Obama: 7.9

Compared to the beginnings of their respective 1st terms, which was...

Reagan: 7.5

Obama: 7.8

So, under Reagan's presidency, the unemployment rate DROPPED by 0.1% while under Obama, it RISED by 0.1%. Now, of course the pattern of the unemployment rates throughout their terms is very interesting. Obama's rate never rised higher than 10%, while Reagan's actually rose to 10.8% at one point, but it's not certain whether or not that was simply due to Obama having more control over Congress than Reagan did, since, a stubborn Congress can easily screw up the plans of a President.

The unemployment rate then proceeds to drop to 6.6% party under Reagan by January 1887, when his party then proceeds to lose control of the Senate. And yet, even then, the unemployment rate falls to 5.4% by the end of Reagan's presidency. So Reagan, whatever he did, did a pretty bang-up job of leading our country through a recession.

Now, of course, it's not as though Obama's been totally failing at the unemployment rate, right? He isn't doing any worse than Reagan, right? But, here's the thing, and this is where I get my opinion that Obama isn't doing a good job...

Ronald Reagan managed to do all of this WITHOUT ADDING $4.7 TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEFICIT!! Reagan, in contrast, only added, when adjusted for inflation, $1.8 trillion dollars to the federal deficit...

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

To put it in perspective, that's slightly less than 40% of what Obama spent in his first term. Of course, admittedly, that's still a lot of money, but the point is, Obama does not seem to be using our money as well as he could. So yes, even though I can't say FOR SURE whether or not Obama's stimulus package was needed...I think I can say with about 90% confidence that NO, whatever Obama did did not help that much!

Edited November 3, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Rewjeo]

It's hardly fair to just look at unemployment rates when someone comes into office. There's a lot more to the economy than that.

[FionordeQuester]

Alright then, fair enough. Is there anything else you would like for me to look up? I'm guessing perhaps, that you'd like either the Consumer Price Index, the Payroll Employment, the Average Hourly Earnings, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, our Import and Export prices, or our Productivity?

EDIT: Or perhaps you guys want to hear about our trade deficit right now, and compare it to trade deficits in the past?

Edited November 3, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[shaymin]

Well, I know for a fact that Obama didn't need to spend the obscene amount of money that he did in order to drop the unemployment rate in our economy. I know this, because despite his claims to the contrary, he did not inherit the worst economy since the Great Depression (he inherited a country with an unemployment rate of 7.8. Unemployment has climbed as high as 10.8 in the past).

So let me compare him to another president who also once inherited a bad economy, Ronald Reagan. Now, Ronald Reagan only inherited a 7.5 unemployment rate to Obama's 7.8, so it wasn't QUITE as bad as what Obama got, but it was pretty close. I am going to use this list of numbers for the unemployment rates...

http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS14000000

...And compare how Reagan did compared to Obama. One important thing to note is that Reagan's party controlled the Senate for all of his presidency, however the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for his entirely presidency. Obama's party, on the other hand, controlled BOTH branches of Congress from January 2009 to January 2011, but then only controlled the Senate from January 2011 to today...

House of Representatives Composition Throughout the Years: http://artandhistory...y/partyDiv.aspx

Senate Composition Throughout the Years: http://www.senate.go...rs/partydiv.htm

...So Ronald Reagan already started off at at least a slight disadvantage by not having the support of both branches of Congress, and never had control of the House throughout his entire first term. Now, Obama's term has not officially ended yet, so let's compare Obama's recent unemployment rate to the one Reagan had in October, during the 3rd year of his presidency...

Reagan: 7.4

Obama: 7.9

Compared to the beginnings of their respective 1st terms, which was...

Reagan: 7.5

Obama: 7.8

So, under Reagan's presidency, the unemployment rate DROPPED by 0.1% while under Obama, it RISED by 0.1%. Now, of course the pattern of the unemployment rates throughout their terms is very interesting. Obama's rate never rised higher than 10%, while Reagan's actually rose to 10.8% at one point, but it's not certain whether or not that was simply due to Obama having more control over Congress than Reagan did, since, a stubborn Congress can easily screw up the plans of a President.

The unemployment rate then proceeds to drop to 6.6% party under Reagan by January 1887, when his party then proceeds to lose control of the Senate. And yet, even then, the unemployment rate falls to 5.4% by the end of Reagan's presidency. So Reagan, whatever he did, did a pretty bang-up job of leading our country through a recession.

Now, of course, it's not as though Obama's been totally failing at the unemployment rate, right? He isn't doing any worse than Reagan, right? But, here's the thing, and this is where I get my opinion that Obama isn't doing a good job...

Ronald Reagan managed to do all of this WITHOUT ADDING $4.7 TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEFICIT!! Reagan, in contrast, only added, when adjusted for inflation, $1.8 trillion dollars to the federal deficit...

http://www.bls.gov/d..._calculator.htm

To put it in perspective, that's slightly less than 40% of what Obama spent in his first term. Of course, admittedly, that's still a lot of money, but the point is, Obama does not seem to be using our money as well as he could. So yes, even though I can't say FOR SURE whether or not Obama's stimulus package was needed...I think I can say with about 90% confidence that NO, whatever Obama did did not help that much!

Obama did not add $4.7 trillion dollars to the deficit, since the deficit is currently lower than when he took office; in FY 2012 the deficit was 1.1 trillion USD, while when Obama took office midway through FY 2009 the deficit was 1.4 trillion USD. Under his presidency, the debt has increased by 4.7 trillion USD, but given that much of that is due to things beyond his control (cf. http://www.politifac...us-5-trillion/), and given that Congressional Republicans are hellbent on making Obama what McConnell called a "one-term president," this is not surprising. When you filibuster a bill intended to help 9/11 responders -- an ostensibly nonpartisan thing -- I must question your willingness to get things done. At least in Reagan's time it was still reasonable to address the opposing party as the "loyal opposition."

Deficits are determined by subtracting federal spending from federal revenues. Spending has not changed too much (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/); revenues, however, are uncharacteristically low because of the recession. I think it is reasonable to conclude that a more competent president could have done more to bring in more revenues; if you think Romney can do that, then by all means vote for him, but your argument seems to be "Obama has not saved the economy, and I do not know what Romney is going to do, but it sure as hell has a better shot of succeeding than Obama's plans!", which is an odd thing to say given that a) no one has any clue how Romney's $5 trillion tax cut will be paid for since he has continually dodged the question and b) both Moody's and Macroeconomics Advisers agree that if the upcoming fiscal cliff is handled gracefully, 12 million new jobs will be created whether Obama or Romney wins the presidency.

But anyway, Moody's Analytics and CBO agree that the ARRA helped the economy:

http://www.economy.c...nomy-070110.pdf

http://www.google.co...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Although I agree that Obama has not been a great president, the alternative is someone who believes 47% of the country are moochers; denies the existence of global warming and has political allies who want to introduce the teaching of intelligent design in public schools; wants to deny a woman's right to control her body; endorses politicians who believe rape pregnancies are God-given gifts; claims to "Believe in America" while hiding a significant chunk of his wealth outside of America; and promises to make "tough choices" on Medicare while making the politically easy choice to irresponsibly spend $716 billion on rebates and subsidies for drug and insurance companies, respectively.

Edit: More evidence of bad-faith governing from the Republicans: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

Edited November 3, 2012 by shaymin