Obama or Romney ?

[vampire]

Debating Obama vs Romney is a waste of time, if not it's poor entertainment. I would have hoped peoples of this forum knew better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgFXO522NU&feature=player_detailpage#t=28s

I am shitting on both of them. But Romney is MUCH worse than Obama. I prefer status quo over a liar.

[VeeMiner]

let's hope the economy won't crush so bad that there will be mayhem, because then without internet we wouldn't have much use for BTC...

[JoelKatz]

Debating Obama vs Romney is a waste of time, if not it's poor entertainment. I would have hoped peoples of this forum knew better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgFXO522NU&feature=player_detailpage#t=28s

I am shitting on both of them. But Romney is MUCH worse than Obama. I prefer status quo over a liar.

Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined.

Obama released the famous "torture memos" in 2009. However, his own legal opinions justifying the drone strikes have never been released and he continues to refuse to release them.

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/10/obama_88/
See this article for more on how Obama completely abandoned his most important campaign promise -- to end the abuses Bush started.

(Of course, I certainly don't think a Romney administration would fix this.)

[vampire]

Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined.

Tell me which president didn't break a single campaign promise? Romney is outright lying. Yes, Obama is status quo, he didn't change much Bush's policies. The change that Obama promised never happened.

[mdude77]

Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined.

Tell me which president didn't break a single campaign promise? Romney is outright lying. Yes, Obama is status quo, he didn't change much Bush's policies. The change that Obama promised never happened.

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: When his lips are moving.

Therefore, don't vote for the politician.

M

[JoelKatz]

Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined.

Tell me which president didn't break a single campaign promise? Romney is outright lying. Yes, Obama is status quo, he didn't change much Bush's policies. The change that Obama promised never happened.

This is not a case of breaking a single campaign promise. This is a total change in direction and philosophy on the second-biggest issue facing our nation.

If you think Obama will continue the same things Bush was doing, then what do you think Romney is going to do?

[vampire]

If you think Obama will continue the same things Bush was doing, then what do you think Romney is going to do?

Romney will try to capitalize on his victory by pushing interests of select few.

He will remove payroll tax cut - he will increase tax on all employees.
He will try to remove / reduce capital gain and dividends tax cuts.

[JoelKatz]

Based on the exclusive 2-party debate between Obama and Romney (well, the first 45 minutes anyway), I was slightly surprised that Romney did much better than Obama. Based on Internet anecdotes, I was expecting Romney to be more of a "used car salesman" with shiny gold teeth and a twinkle in his eye.

It was odd. I watched the entire debate and I didn't think that Romney "won". To me, he came across as a bully and he kept insisting on things that simply couldn't be true.

I think Obama was definitely trying to play it safe and be conservative and not risk any major blunder that Romney could capitalize on. As a result, he didn't really appear as strong as he could have. Maybe that's what everyone else was picking up on.

Or maybe their expectations for Romney were just insanely low.

[CoinDiver]

In honor of the debate tonight...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=WpMPu5p_QXU

[firefop]

It was odd. I watched the entire debate and I didn't think that Romney "won". To me, he came across as a bully and he kept insisting on things that simply couldn't be true.

I think Obama was definitely trying to play it safe and be conservative and not risk any major blunder that Romney could capitalize on. As a result, he didn't really appear as strong as he could have. Maybe that's what everyone else was picking up on.

Or maybe their expectations for Romney were just insanely low.

Granted Obama seemed a bit shy... probably because his advisors are telling him that if he makes any huge mistakes he runs the risk of catapulting Romney into total victory. But when it comes right down to it, Romney actually knew things and Obama didn't.

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

[jasinlee]

In honor of the debate tonight...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=WpMPu5p_QXU

Lmao never seen that before, love it.

[JoelKatz]

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.

[kokojie]

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.

I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves.

[Littleshop]

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.

I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves.

He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners.  He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget.  Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough.  Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either. 

A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it.  Neither side has the balls to do it. 

[BoardGameCoin]

LittleShop/JoelKatz

If you were a one-issue voter, debt-reduction was your single issue, and you had to vote for Obama or Romney, who would you vote for?

I'm asking because I'm legitimately curious. I was planning on not voting this election but decided that even though neither is a good candidate, their outlooks are sufficiently different that it *might* impact the debt situation.

Just curious to hear what your opinions are, and anyone else who feels they have a well-researched opinion on the matter.

As for me, I'm weighing a four year period where Obama did nothing to address the $1 trillion dollar deficits he inherited from bush in his entire four year term, vs. Romney clearly lying about the net effect of his 20% across the board tax cut and his litmus test of 'not adding to the deficit' as a freakishly low bar given our deficit spending rate these days.

On the plus side for Romney, he did balance the budget in Mass. but its not as impressive as it sounds. Massachusetts, like most US states, has a balanced budget law that requires the budget to balance every year.

Thoughts?

[mdude77]

He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners.  He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget.  Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough.  Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either. 

A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it.  Neither side has the balls to do it. 

The government shouldn't subsidize ANYTHING.

M

[jojo69]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc&list=PL96675BDF95286773&index=1&feature=plcp

[kokojie]

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.

I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves.

He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners.  He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget.  Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough.  Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either.  

A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it.  Neither side has the balls to do it.  

Closing loopholes would have the equivalent effect of raising tax on the high income earners, without actually raising tax. The top 5% pays 60% of the income tax, as stated in the debate. It's quite brilliant actually, so brilliant that Obama actually stole Romney's idea in the debate, saying HE will close loopholes, which I thought was pretty shameless, Obama has had the job for 4 years, and closed 0 loopholes.

[JoelKatz]

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.

I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves.

That's a good way to not answer my question. Do we know of even one loophole Romney would close? Romney said part of his plan was closing loopholes, but the only loopholes that make any real difference are loopholes used by average middle class people such as the home mortgage interest deduction. Regardless of what tricks he has up his sleeves, either closing loopholes is a bogus promise or he should be able to give at least one example of a loophole he might want to close. It sounds like he's promising to do magic.

I have to make much the same point with his comment about cutting government funding of public broadcasting. I think he's right and that's a good example of government spending that could be cut, largely a subsidy to the rich. But if that's the best example he can come up with -- something that won't make any difference to the bottom line -- it suggests he has no better ideas and has no plan for things to actually cut that will make an actual difference.

LittleShop/JoelKatz

If you were a one-issue voter, debt-reduction was your single issue, and you had to vote for Obama or Romney, who would you vote for?

I'm asking because I'm legitimately curious. I was planning on not voting this election but decided that even though neither is a good candidate, their outlooks are sufficiently different that it *might* impact the debt situation.

Just curious to hear what your opinions are, and anyone else who feels they have a well-researched opinion on the matter.

As for me, I'm weighing a four year period where Obama did nothing to address the $1 trillion dollar deficits he inherited from bush in his entire four year term, vs. Romney clearly lying about the net effect of his 20% across the board tax cut and his litmus test of 'not adding to the deficit' as a freakishly low bar given our deficit spending rate these days.

On the plus side for Romney, he did balance the budget in Mass. but its not as impressive as it sounds. Massachusetts, like most US states, has a balanced budget law that requires the budget to balance every year.

Thoughts?

That's a really good question. Based on long-term party history, you have to favor the Republicans on this. But based on short-term party history, neither party has done much when they were in power. It used to be that you could at least figure that if Congress and the President are from opposite parties, compromise will hold down spending. But a lot of the recent compromise has been "you spend money where I want, and I'll let you spend money where you want". Honestly, I'd say it's a pretty close tie with maybe a slight edge to Romney because he might actually return to old-school Republican reductions in government spending. But if you want tax increases to be part of the solution over cutting government services, then you may prefer Obama, even if you don't think he'll cut the deficit quite as much.

[kokojie]

The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it.

Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.

I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves.

That's a good way to not answer my question. Do we know of even one loophole Romney would close? Romney said part of his plan was closing loopholes, but the only loopholes that make any real difference are loopholes used by average middle class people such as the home mortgage interest deduction. Regardless of what tricks he has up his sleeves, either closing loopholes is a bogus promise or he should be able to give at least one example of a loophole he might want to close. It sounds like he's promising to do magic.

I have to make much the same point with his comment about cutting government funding of public broadcasting. I think he's right and that's a good example of government spending that could be cut, largely a subsidy to the rich. But if that's the best example he can come up with -- something that won't make any difference to the bottom line -- it suggests he has no better ideas and has no plan for things to actually cut that will make an actual difference.

LittleShop/JoelKatz

If you were a one-issue voter, debt-reduction was your single issue, and you had to vote for Obama or Romney, who would you vote for?

I'm asking because I'm legitimately curious. I was planning on not voting this election but decided that even though neither is a good candidate, their outlooks are sufficiently different that it *might* impact the debt situation.

Just curious to hear what your opinions are, and anyone else who feels they have a well-researched opinion on the matter.

As for me, I'm weighing a four year period where Obama did nothing to address the $1 trillion dollar deficits he inherited from bush in his entire four year term, vs. Romney clearly lying about the net effect of his 20% across the board tax cut and his litmus test of 'not adding to the deficit' as a freakishly low bar given our deficit spending rate these days.

On the plus side for Romney, he did balance the budget in Mass. but its not as impressive as it sounds. Massachusetts, like most US states, has a balanced budget law that requires the budget to balance every year.

Thoughts?

That's a really good question. Based on long-term party history, you have to favor the Republicans on this. But based on short-term party history, neither party has done much when they were in power. It used to be that you could at least figure that if Congress and the President are from opposite parties, compromise will hold down spending. But a lot of the recent compromise has been "you spend money where I want, and I'll let you spend money where you want". Honestly, I'd say it's a pretty close tie with maybe a slight edge to Romney because he might actually return to old-school Republican reductions in government spending. But if you want tax increases to be part of the solution over cutting government services, then you may prefer Obama, even if you don't think he'll cut the deficit quite as much.

Home mortgage interest deduction is not a loophole, please look up what a loophole is.

Here are some example loopholes Romney closed in MA while he's governor:
* Removed tax shelter status for fake "real estate lenders", (because banks were posing as real estate lenders to exploit this tax loophole)
* Computer software purchased in Massachusetts stores was subject to sales tax, but the same product downloaded from the Internet was not.
* Trusts were used as intermediaries in the sale of businesses to limit taxes on the transactions.
* Companies like WorldCom Inc., headquartered in low-tax states, charged subsidiaries located in MA royalty fees for business ideas coming from the home office. That moved money from MA to another low tax state, lowering taxes.
* Increased fee for use of Public land/facility, instead of subsidized by tax-payer.

Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him.