Jump to content

cjdomer04

Members
  • Posts

    3,221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cjdomer04

  1. My statements and yours aren't contradictory (they are basically unrelated), so why do you say I'm flat out wrong? My comment had little to nothing to do with who the president is - it was about my impressions on the "average American". I said that the average American will take the handout if given, but not that they particularly proud of doing it. I never said anything about approving/disapproving of the concept.
  2. I would completely disagree with this. The average American doesn't like being on government handouts, but will take them if they are there. The main thing we need to do is encourage/force people to not be on the dole, rather than encouraging them to remain on it. Err... I wouldn't point to the unemployment numbers to make your case here. Just because more people have given up looking for work (according to gov't definition), doesn't mean that more people are working. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OBMAUNEMPLOYMENTFAILCHARTSEPT.jpg
  3. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/your-taxes-work-all-you-need-know-about-who-pays-what-taxes-us Always fun to actually look at numbers.
  4. I don't think this will hurt Romney. In fact, I think it will help him. It doesn't disparage the "average American" (as you put it) - it disparages Obama's system that encourages people to be reliant on the government. The "average American" doesn't like relying on the government (I'd say most hate the concept), and this clip affirms Romney's stance against that.
  5. Once Golson learns to step up into the pocket, the o-line will look much better. He keeps trying to scramble around the pressure (even when there really isn't any), which really screws his line. They haven't been very good at run blocking through the middle the last two games, but on the whole, I'd say they've done pretty well.
  6. That's a different argument. He was specifically attacking the tax code, not lobbyist influence. Btw, if you don't like the amount of influence lobbyists have, you should try to elect people who want small government (note, I did not say the GOP). The smaller government is, the less influence lobbyists will have.
  7. Since your posts have no basis in logic, I'm going to try to help your debating style. (I'm doing this as a form of charity, since I think you need a lot of help.) You made these as statements, we all understand you think they are facts. There are three reasons you would add "FACT" on to the end of each one: 1) Redundancy, 2) You don't believe they are facts and think this adds to your point, or 3) you suck at writing. If it's reason 1, then you should just omit the term. If it's #2, then you should strengthen your argument, rather than adding on useless words. If it's #3, then I'm sorry, we can't help you. In any case, you probably want to avoid adding "FACT" on to the end of your statements. It makes you seem like a lunatic.
  8. First, I've never understood this argument. Why are people mad at Romney for following the tax code? How is that his fault? If you want to pay his level of income tax, then make income the way he does. Second, 28%? You aren't paying 28% of your income in taxes (unless you make a whole helluva lot of money). Even if you just mean marginal (which is highly disingenuous if you mix the two up), you are making enough money to be able to invest most of it and make most of your money through investments. That way you could pay the lower rate like Romney does.
  9. I generally like going after responses point by point, but these are basically "La la la... I can't hear you". If you want to actually have a discussion, please read people's posts first.
  10. Also, can do you define "a complete blow-out"? And why can Romney not debate on Oct. 3rd?
  11. Huh? How is Romney calling out Obama for not doing anything about an embassy being attacked a campaign-ender? His poll numbers have increased since he said that. Just because some media members are attacking him doesn't mean it won't help him.
  12. Would you like to retract that statement now? Not even MSNBC is attempting to spin this as a positive: http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
  13. I've never heard of someone who deems himself a libertarian, but not on finances. I guess it's just a relatively immaterial label, but that's a very odd one to me. The GOP has made internet privacy an official party stance this time around. The dems have made no such pledge and were the ones (along with Lamar Smith, who isn't long for his position) pushing the SOPA, etc. This is a tough one to me. Yes, we have gone into many places that we shouldn't have and we definitely went into others when there wasn't enough reason. However, there are other times when we went in at the request of other countries. We definitely should be slower to resort to military action, but I don't go along with the full pacifism of people like Ron Paul. The options on the table aren't zero regulations vs. perfectly reasonable regulations: it's limiting regulations/powers of regulatory groups (Romney) vs. the status quo/increasing regulations (Obama). For all the talk about how deregulation got us into this mess, that's simply not true. Bush increased regulations (TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.), so if people want to blame him, they can't blame deregulation at the same time. Also, I would disagree entirely with the example. That bill was pretty much written by insurance companies, so I'm not sure how it helps people from being exploited by them. Think about it this way: companies can no longer turn people away for pre-existing conditions and they can't charge more for them. How do you think they'll handle that? It's pretty obvious, isn't it? They will increase the rates for everyone to cover the new costs. Since a lot of people who don't have insurance simply can't afford it, the government will now write them a check. The insurance companies can now charge more and have a larger number of clients. What an awesome deal for them (and terrible for us). (I should also add that Obamacare does not actually change health care; it changes health insurance, which is a big difference.) Unemployment Rate = People without a job / People who want to work. The labor force participation rate is the denominator in this equation. When they drop out, the unemployment rate goes down. Is it okay to choose based on their stance on abortion? Or on the economy? Whatever the rationale behind why the electorate choose an official or why an official supports a position is immaterial to me (we generally don't know the real reason anyway). If it's religion, so be it. The Tea Party isn't an official group and their stance will change depend on where you are. The only thing that really ties them together is the fiscal policy: TEA = Taxed Enough Already. Everything else is personal. I actually don't think we need those regulations, either. Minimum wage hurts employment and does nothing but cause inflation. During the time of the Industrial Revolution, we needed regulations like those. Nowadays, it's not so much of a problem. (Why do I keep hearing that the GOP is the party of the 1800s, when the dems are the ones pushing regulations based on the conditions?) I would love to see the re-introduction of trade schools/apprenticeship as a viable alternative is the way to go long-term. People will always need mechanics, electricians (or future equivalent), etc. and this jobs don't require a college education in general. Yes, some people in those fields would benefit from college, but not everyone. Rather than them losing 4 years of potential earnings in exchange for paying a lot for an unnecessary education, why not just have them work? It will also allow the universities to only have to teach those that really want to be there and not those that feel they need to be there. http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/credulous-fact-checkers-fall-for-20-scam/ He did before Scott Brown (and even Brown sides with dems more than GOP). He had 60 in the senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
  14. You are again pushing for this Keynesian concept of the government multiplier. How does that go along with being a libertarian who want significantly less government intervention? Obama could have pushed a jobs bill through in the first year+ of his presidency, but he didn't. After he lost the super-majority, he was going to have to convince both the GOP and dems to pass a bill. The GOP didn't like the bill. Why is that hard to believe? This is standard practice.
  15. As opposed to liberals talking about Michael Moore movies as truth?
  16. Can you please explain how you can deem yourself a libertarian, but support Obama more than Romney? Obama is about as far from libertarianism as possible. Romney may not be as socially liberal as libertarians would like, but fiscally he is quite close. Obama is not really socially liberal either, but is basically anti-libertarianism on fiscal issues. I would agree. The catch then is that this logic needs to be applied to every study/work that's produced. (I'm not saying you don't, it's just a caveat that most people like to apply only when it helps them.) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/july-non-farm-payrolls-slam-expectations-163000k-unemployment-rate-8rises-3 (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/07-2/Part%20Rate%20July.jpg) The labor participation rate has plummeted. This difference is not a minor tweak to the statistics - it is basically a complete game-changer. If labor participation was the same as on inauguration day, unemployment would be 11%. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/OBAMAUNEMPLOYMENTFAILCHART.jpg The fact that jobs have come back a little is not "concrete evidence that Obama is creating jobs", other than creating by being in the right place at the right time. This recovery has been ridiculously slow be every metric. I would argue that Obama's policies have slowed job creation. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1366&bih=648&tbm=isch&tbnid=ZjDAslsBWm6m7M:&imgrefurl=http://www.westernfreepress.com/2012/08/03/new-obama-strategy-lower-expectations-so-america-celebrates-mediocrity/&imgurl=http://www.westernfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/recovery.jpg&w=450&h=621&ei=E-5EUKGmE6mniALUroCIDw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=236&sig=112292326010099078340&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=101&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:82&tx=50&ty=63 By administering policy, the government imposes its will on people. Whether intentionally or not, the religious/moral perspectives of our representatives influence their stances. I'm not sure how it's possible to remove religious/moral discussions from politics. How has it "gone away from its roots"? In my mind, the strongest thing the Tea Party has done is force many politicians back into being fiscally conservative (which is a weird use of the term conservative, but that's how politics have defined the term). While many in the GOP really aren't fiscally conservative, they are being forced to move that way in order to get votes. You kind of jump around in this paragraph. There seem to be two points: 1) Romney doesn't care about poor people and 2) demand drives an economy, not supply. To address point 1, you immediately eliminate charitable donations as a tax write-off, despite no evidence of that being his rationale. At the RNC last week, there were a series of stories from friends, kids, and co-workers (employees) that all talked about how caring and helpful he was to the needy/less fortunate. Do you think they were all lying? (Obviously, those people/stories were cherry-picked for this purpose, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.) The man seems to donate a lot of his time and money to help people, but you immediately dismiss this idea with no real rationale. For point 2, most (if not all) economics textbooks also agree with the Keynesian concept of the government spending multiplier. That concept has been both logically and practically disproved many times over (How can government simply handing out money possibly strongly improve an economy? Nothing new has been created, there is simply more money around. This means that the money that was around is worth less, i.e., inflation happens.) Also on point 2, you claim that large businesses are already operating at an optimal level, so encouraging supply-side doesn't help. Under that optimum premise, if businesses are scared/unsure of Obama's (future) policies, they will hold on to cash for the short-term. This cash is then not used to hire more people/grow the company. If Romney comes in and suddenly encourages companies to grow, the optimal allocations will change. The cash that they were holding on to will now be spent on growing the company, e.g., hiring more staff. If you don't assume that companies are run optimally (which, practically speaking they aren't), then this difference will be even greater since it will be driven more on emotion. Finally, despite your earlier assertion that you are a libertarian, your claims here seem to disagree with that. Again, you claim to be a libertarian, but are a big fan of government-sponsored, union-supported education. Are you sure you understand the definition of libertarian? In the 2008 election, Goldman Sachs was Obama's 2nd largest contributor according to OpenSecrets (that acknowledged their contributions, a big caveat when anyone can make an unchecked, anonymous, online donation). The banks will back who they think is more likely to win - they are pretty smart that way. For the educator pay, doesn't that speak more to the money people can get from welfare than the pay teachers get? Also, if pay determines quality of education, why do private Catholic schools pay less than the public equivalent (generally, way less), yet have much better results? Also, if Obama is so into improving education, then why does he keep getting rid of incentive-based funding? Teachers unions fight back against every metric (always claiming they aren't accurate), but never propose any other ones. Why not actually hold teachers accountable? If they aren't accountable (as is the case now), then it becomes very similar to charity. I would tend to agree with you on this topic. However, Obama has basically kept/increased everyone of Bush's domestic terrorism policies. DHS is a complete joke, yet they keep getting bigger. The TSA only serves to make airports worse and more expensive, so, naturally, they are being expanded to cover train stations as well. If you were against Bush doing it, how can you support Obama's use of those same groups? What about the Patriot Act? The dems said how horrible it was when Bush was in charge, but when Obama took office, it became a great thing. No, politifact is not a good fact checker. It has more or less become a mouthpiece for Obama. If you judge it in the right light (elevate everything said by a GOP member 1/2 levels, degrade everything said by a dem by 1/2 levels), then it may be okay, I would disagree with this sentiment entirely. If they feel an action by the president would hinder the country's progress, they should vote against it. Remember, Obama couldn't get a lot of his main items passed in his first two years, despite having a super majority, so this can't be blamed on the GOP. (Also, when the dems were being obstructionists during Bush's last term, why was that okay?) Also, based on what was this country founded on compromise?
  17. This article has been refuted (mocked is probably a better word, but I'll be polite) so many times in the past that there is no need to go into much detail attacking it again. Basically, this article claims that Obama's initial year spending counts against Bush, even though his first year dramatically increased spending. Then, the author compares year on year increases and says it's incredibly small. That's basically the same logic as buying a house one year (and putting a lot down), then going back to your normal spending habits the ensuing years and claiming that you have decreased spending - it's just stupid.
  18. Bush spent a ridiculous amount of money. Obama has increased the debt almost as much in less than half the time.
  19. Depends. They definitely have liberal talking heads (usually just to berate them, like MSNBC has conservatives). Also, for those who have actually been paying attention, Fox News has started moving away from the right in recent months. I think someone saw that CNN/MSNBC's ratings have plummeted and they now think they can get a bigger chunk of the market. Nothing of substance there - just an awful, forced analogy. Yea, those fact checkers are usually highly suspect themselves - there is rarely any oversight on them (MSNBC just made Ezra Klein, who previously said no one can understand the Constitution b/c it was written over 200 years ago, a fact checker.) But if Obama hadn't increased spending, the debt ceiling wouldn't have needed to be raised. That whole action also showed how much of a joke the credit ratings are - the government paid its bills; talking about not doing it shouldn't have any impact on its rating. Nope, it reduced work under Bush, but closed under Obama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janesville_GM_Assembly_Plant (yes, yes, citing Wiki is bad, but it was a very quick internet search). Having not heard/read the full speech yet, I don't know exactly what Ryan said. Obama claimed that without government help, people couldn't have built their businesses. I don't know if that's "all the credit", but it's certainly a necessary requirement. That is a comment from someone who has no clue about economics. If the government is paying $716B less, then there will be repercussions to the patients later. Claiming that the providers will just gladly take less money for the same work is simply ignorant and pathetic. Also, hasn't the left been attacking Ryan's plan for "killing grandma"? Why is it okay for Obama to have endorsed the same plan, but not for Ryan? Obama can't run on his record - the majority of the country thinks they are worse off now than when he started. He has to run on an attack ad platform. If only one side is attacking, then the other side is viewed as weak and will lose. Thus, Romney must attack as well if he wants to have a chance. As far as lying, I've yet to see an outright lie in this speech. There may be some I haven't read yet, but this list definitely didn't have any.
  20. Hey Tenacious, long time no talk to. The whole thing took about 10 minutes - not exactly a lot of time, and what can I say, I like disputing people's mindless rants. Btw, have you found work or are you still on the government dole?
  21. Wow... thank God that liberals are just looking out for those that "need the most assistance" as moostache put it. I would hate to see the level of vitriol towards people if you were a mean and uncaring conservative.
×
×
  • Create New...