2012 US Presidential Election.

[Smoking Guns]

Axl4prez, are you happy with the job your man did the first 4 years?  You were one of his biggest supporters here. Did he bring you the hope and change you desired?

[westcoast_junkie]

Obama has a tough road ahead of him. Unemployment is bad, really bad. Fiscally the country is in dire straits with the debt and he's done nothing but make it worse.

Romney still has to prove himself.

Again, as I said earlier, Romney will have to be quite persuasive to convince Americans lowering taxes on millionaires and billionaires will benefit a majority of Americans.
Also, in "swing" states, unemployment is better than the national average, which obviously benefits the president.

Obama wants to raise taxes on people making over $250K which is hardly wealthy. I have no issue with asking MILLIONAIRES for more but we need to stop grossly wasting taxpayers money first.  An increase of money going down the toilet won't help matters.

$250K hardly wealthy? 1.93% of all american households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000 in 2006 (Wikipedia, i know, ain't 100%). Raise the taxes on 1.93% and let them come the remaining 98.07% to some good sounds like a reasonable idea to me.....

[Axl4Prez2004]

Axl4prez, are you happy with the job your man did the first 4 years?  You were one of his biggest supporters here. Did he bring you the hope and change you desired?

Yes sir...and it wasn't all about a slogan either...the hope and change line is pure politics.   
To think the return of trickle down economics (George W. Bush's philosophy) will do anything positive for the economy is unrealistic in my opinion.
I have enjoyed having a steady hand at the wheel the past 4 years.
We've taken out Bin Laden...along with numerous Al Qaeda operatives and leaders (many with drones that have liberals/pacifists in an uproar) but ya know what?  I like that and I predicted he'd be excellent when it came to foreign policy.

btw, Blutarsky, no, it's not raising taxes on the wealthy...it's returning the taxation rate to what it was prior to G.W. Bush lowering it to an unsustainably low level.   

[Smoking Guns]

I think Osama would have been killed with McCain or Bush as well. But still, I give him credit for approving the kill.  I think Obama was in over his head and still is. His party is full of total clowns as is the republican party and they refuse to work together.  Jobs did not come back to America, he did nothing really to promote keeping jobs in the US vs sending them to India or China. I am not saying Romney is the answer, but I am certain he cannot be any worse.

[Smoking Guns]

I think Hillary would have been a much better president.

[Axl4Prez2004]

I think Hillary would have been a much better president.

Sorry, she would not have won the election if nominated in '08.
Her negative numbers were way too high at the time.
Her stint as Sec of State has helped a lot...she's looking much better for '16...if she's even interested in taking on a job that is guaranteed to tear a person down (regardless of party orientation)

[Axl4Prez2004]

I think Osama would have been killed with McCain or Bush as well. But still, I give him credit for approving the kill.  I think Obama was in over his head and still is. His party is full of total clowns as is the republican party and they refuse to work together.  Jobs did not come back to America, he did nothing really to promote keeping jobs in the US vs sending them to India or China. I am not saying Romney is the answer, but I am certain he cannot be any worse.

I've got news for ya (but I think you already know) it's a new global economy.
The "good ol' days" of American economic imperialism are gone.
We can no longer exploit the 3rd world (as much) to continue our growth.  Neither side can change the fact businesses need to outsource.
Lowering taxes on millionaires and billionaires when they damn well know the money won't trickle down to middle and lower class folks is unconscionable in my opinion.
That money will be invested in businesses that send the money overseas...where else are they going to invest it?  In businesses here in the U.S. where labor costs can be 10 times higher?
I don't agree with the Repubs on "shutting down Planned Parenthood" and their anti-gay stance either.
I'm not here to say anyone else's opinions are wrong, I'm just stating mine. 

Personally, I think Obama's support of gay marriage  was a ballsy as hell, but politically it will be a liability. 
A prob for the Repubs is the booming stock market.
It'll be interesting how it all plays out.
On paper, Obama has the edge...but the Repubs play better "dirty ball" (both do it, but the Repubs are better at it in my opinion).
We shall see!

[russkwtx]

Obama inherited such a mess from Bush, my thoughts in 2008 were "why in the world would anyone want to be president?" The domestic economy was a mess, foreign policy was a mess with allies and enemies alike, we were in two wars that we cannot afford, the budgetary situation was a mess and driving us to bankruptcy, there was no hope and Bush was absent, both mentally and physically. He wanted out and was in over his head, which explains why he did nothing the last 6 months of his administration. We were adrift. The entire country was basically collapsing. People forget how bad things were. The stock market lost 50% in the second half of 2008 and 7-8 million people were thrown out of work. Meanwhile, the nation's wealth was gravitating to the richest 1% more and more as a result of his tax cut, which we could not afford, and which increased the deficits. 

Obama has not been perfect. He has flaws in his policies and in his leadership. Granted.

But to think that another Rich Fuck like Romney cares about the middle class, other than political slogans to get elected, is naive. His policies will continue the evisceration of the middle class and will only accelerate the flow of wealth to the rich. And I don't even mean the top 1%, I mean the top .05% or even .01%. That is the reality and cannot be denied. On that basis alone, anyone who is not in the top 1% should vote for Obama simply to try to save your  financial future. This guy Romney is so out of touch. And Ryan is scary--an ideologue who appears reasonable because he is articulate and calm, but his ideas will kill us. He co-sponsored a bill to outlaw abortion. You want that? You want to end unemployment insurance? I could go on and on.

I've been reading a lot recently about inequality in America. It is very disturbing. As recently as 30 years ago the average pay of a CEO was something around 23 times that of an average worker. Today it is 230 times. The distribution of wealth has become significantly more unequal during the past 30 years only. The past 30 years are an anomaly, unlike any other time in US history. For most of our history the US was not so unequal. The trend started with Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich, and have continued since then. Another big push in inequality was under that Dick George Bush II, the worst president America has ever had. We are still paying for that stupidity of electing him not once (the first election he stole) but twice, when we were well along the road to destruction but he used the national security card and scared the electorate into voting for him.

America used to be the richest nation in the world. Now it is not. But we still have some financial assets, so the question is how to divide them. Give them to advantaged so they can get richer and richer? Or give them to ordinary people who work hard and give their lives to a corporation? I personally think that the single most important thing that a government can and should do is to take care of its own people, all of them, rich and poor. Support veterans, support homeless and unemployed. Support the disabled, those in poverty, etc etc. It does not mean a hand out for nothing. It means making sure that everyone has a minimal standard for a decent life. Spend money on retraining, education, job placement, infrastructure, environmental protection, things that benefit everyone. Not just the few who are already advantaged and who have used the system far too long. The question is not can we afford it, the question is how can we not? Stop spending 20% of the budget on defense that only enriches the defense contractors and their CEOs. The problem with America is not that we have too much redistribution of income, but too little.

[tim_m]

Obama inherited such a mess from Bush, my thoughts in 2008 were "why in the world would anyone want to be president?" The domestic economy was a mess, foreign policy was a mess with allies and enemies alike, we were in two wars that we cannot afford, the budgetary situation was a mess and driving us to bankruptcy, there was no hope and Bush was absent, both mentally and physically. He wanted out and was in over his head, which explains why he did nothing the last 6 months of his administration. We were adrift. The entire country was basically collapsing. People forget how bad things were. The stock market lost 50% in the second half of 2008 and 7-8 million people were thrown out of work. Meanwhile, the nation's wealth was gravitating to the richest 1% more and more as a result of his tax cut, which we could not afford, and which increased the deficits. 

Obama has not been perfect. He has flaws in his policies and in his leadership. Granted.

But to think that another Rich Fuck like Romney cares about the middle class, other than political slogans to get elected, is naive. His policies will continue the evisceration of the middle class and will only accelerate the flow of wealth to the rich. And I don't even mean the top 1%, I mean the top .05% or even .01%. That is the reality and cannot be denied. On that basis alone, anyone who is not in the top 1% should vote for Obama simply to try to save your  financial future. This guy Romney is so out of touch. And Ryan is scary--an ideologue who appears reasonable because he is articulate and calm, but his ideas will kill us. He co-sponsored a bill to outlaw abortion. You want that? You want to end unemployment insurance? I could go on and on.

I've been reading a lot recently about inequality in America. It is very disturbing. As recently as 30 years ago the average pay of a CEO was something around 23 times that of an average worker. Today it is 230 times. The distribution of wealth has become significantly more unequal during the past 30 years only. The past 30 years are an anomaly, unlike any other time in US history. For most of our history the US was not so unequal. The trend started with Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich, and have continued since then. Another big push in inequality was under that Dick George Bush II, the worst president America has ever had. We are still paying for that stupidity of electing him not once (the first election he stole) but twice, when we were well along the road to destruction but he used the national security card and scared the electorate into voting for him.

America used to be the richest nation in the world. Now it is not. But we still have some financial assets, so the question is how to divide them. Give them to advantaged so they can get richer and richer? Or give them to ordinary people who work hard and give their lives to a corporation? I personally think that the single most important thing that a government can and should do is to take care of its own people, all of them, rich and poor. Support veterans, support homeless and unemployed. Support the disabled, those in poverty, etc etc. It does not mean a hand out for nothing. It means making sure that everyone has a minimal standard for a decent life. Spend money on retraining, education, job placement, infrastructure, environmental protection, things that benefit everyone. Not just the few who are already advantaged and who have used the system far too long. The question is not can we afford it, the question is how can we not? Stop spending 20% of the budget on defense that only enriches the defense contractors and their CEOs. The problem with America is not that we have too much redistribution of income, but too little.

Don't forget that Ryan also wants to privatize SSI and Medicare and make Medicare a voucher program.

[Sober_times]

I support Obama and democrats because I believe their economic programs and ideas resemble mine more than Romney's and republicans.

Reducing tax cuts on the rich, or "job creators," has no assurances they will invest their windfall back in the us economy. Especially in times of economic recession with a bad out look on the economy, when they are more likely to save the money waiting for the economy to turn around when their investment will provide a bigger profit. Or reinvest that money elsewhere, where profit will be bigger.

Instead, raising taxes on the rich, "job creators," in times of economic recession and using that funding and additional deficit spending to provide stimulus (invest in public infrastructure, provide grants to companies in industry that will use that money to create jobs) is the answer in the short term. When the economy begins to rebound and the outlook is good you stop the stimulus and lower taxes on "job creators." When it is more likely they will reinvest that money back into the U.S. economy. You also send the message that when the economy enters recession you are more likely to tax them at a higher rate. Therefore, they are more likely to attempt to keep the economy out of recession to encourage less taxes.

Spending on the government safety net naturally goes down when the economy is doing well, as it spending naturally goes up when the economy is doing poor. Tax credits (child tax credit, other taxes exemptions for middle class) and additional spending on the government safety net programs need to be done when the economy is leaning poorly and removed or scaled back when the economy is growing or at a good stable level. Lowering government spending, an increased tax base, and removing of tax credits in good economic times would than help recover from the deficit spending and reduce government spending overall. History has shown we spend more time in good or stable economic times than in recession. Therefore you could make the judgement that during stable economic times the government budget could be more balanced or surplussed vs bad economic times. Basically the time to do hard work on the budget and deficit is during good economic times and not poor, as it is now.

[Axl4Prez2004]

great posts above. 

That said, we live in a country where 30 to 40% of Republicans believe President Obama is a Muslim. 
Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

[WAR41]

Instead, raising taxes on the rich, "job creators," in times of economic recession and using that funding and additional deficit spending to provide stimulus (invest in public infrastructure, provide grants to companies in industry that will use that money to create jobs) is the answer in the short term. When the economy begins to rebound and the outlook is good you stop the stimulus and lower taxes on "job creators." When it is more likely they will reinvest that money back into the U.S. economy. You also send the message that when the economy enters recession you are more likely to tax them at a higher rate. Therefore, they are more likely to attempt to keep the economy out of recession to encourage less taxes.

Spending on the government safety net naturally goes down when the economy is doing well, as it spending naturally goes up when the economy is doing poor. Tax credits (child tax credit, other taxes exemptions for middle class) and additional spending on the government safety net programs need to be done when the economy is leaning poorly and removed or scaled back when the economy is growing or at a good stable level. Lowering government spending, an increased tax base, and removing of tax credits in good economic times would than help recover from the deficit spending and reduce government spending overall. History has shown we spend more time in good or stable economic times than in recession. Therefore you could make the judgement that during stable economic times the government budget could be more balanced or surplussed vs bad economic times. Basically the time to do hard work on the budget and deficit is during good economic times and not poor, as it is now.

Sorry dude, I disagree with you 100%.  The government will not pull us out of this recession.  The US economy (and all economies) compete in a truly global economy.  Businesses need to be able to compete and yes, that will mean lowering wages, lowering taxes, and encouraging growth through tax cuts.  Obama already had one stimulus plan, and how much money went missing?  I mean, millions literally went missing.  You put money into hands of government employees and it will evaporate before it does any good. 

I saw a video the other day that encouraged people to try typing into Yahoo and Google search "How do I qualify for" and see what comes up.  Its all government entitlement programs.  Very scary to see.  We have to ween people off of this government dependence. 

[pilferk]

Obama wants to raise taxes on people making over $250K which is hardly wealthy. I have no issue with asking MILLIONAIRES for more but we need to stop grossly wasting taxpayers money first.  An increase of money going down the toilet won't help matters.

I would disagree on his tax increases..given the increase is ONLY on the portion you earn OVER 250k.  Maybe 250k isn't super rich...but it's enough to ask you to pay a bit more on the income you earn OVER 250k.

I agree on the wasted money.  The problem is: Romney is not providing any realistic suggestions on how to do that, either. 

In fact...Obama's tenet to STOP PAYING 50% more to Medicare Advantage administration companies is one of the best money savers I've seen.  That, however, was already passed with his healthcare plan.

I'm not particularly happy with what Obama's done over the past 4 years.  He over reached with his political capital after election to get health care passed (something that needed to be done..but not necessarily when it needed to be done) rather than addressing the more pressing needs of the economy.  While he's done some noteworthy things for our country...there were some BIG mis-steps in terms of timing.  I do give him credit for Osama and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I also recognize that part of the problem is the way the Repubs have turned Congress (both houses) into the place of no compromise.  That's not meant as an excuse, but it does bear mentioning.  It's hard to create good centrist policy when the right refuses to debate the left, and you get gridlock OR something completely crafted by one side.

My largest issue with Romney is he's largely espousing a return to the same economic policy adopted by Bush II.  Trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK.  It didn't work under Regan, it didn't work under Bush I, and it REALLY didn't work under Bush II.  Likewise, a push for deregulation is asinine. The bank de-regulation that Clinton signed, and Bush II further removed, is largely to blame for the housing meltdown and much of the economic downturn/recession we've seen recently.  MORE of that is not a good thing.

I may vote independant this time. 

[pilferk]

To think the return of trickle down economics (George W. Bush's philosophy) will do anything positive for the economy is unrealistic in my opinion.

Trickle down, originally, started with Reagan era policy.  He wasn't as heavy handed with it as Bush I (in his limited time...Clinton reversed lots of it) or Bush II was.

Romney has outright said that's what he wants to return to.

[pilferk]

I think Osama would have been killed with McCain or Bush as well. But still, I give him credit for approving the kill.  I think Obama was in over his head and still is. His party is full of total clowns as is the republican party and they refuse to work together.  Jobs did not come back to America, he did nothing really to promote keeping jobs in the US vs sending them to India or China. I am not saying Romney is the answer, but I am certain he cannot be any worse.

Romney's statements, time as governor, and his business history would state otherwise.  He's not been interested in keeping jobs in the US before (and I'm not just talking about the Bain nonsense), so I'm not sure what would make anyone think he would now.

Obama hasn't done a good job at it either..but then, the couple of times he's proposed legislation (through his party) that MIGHT have helped, it's been bogged down or flat out stalled in Congress.  Not that it's been great legislation...but it was better than what the Repubs were proposing...which was cut all taxes, cut all programs, and let the free market reign completely. I don't think the Tea Party Republicans REALLY understand what they're asking for....because if that's what we did, the US economy would either bleed jobs and die OR would become a country filled with sweatshops paying paltry wages to the producers, with no hope for upward mobility (because there would be no access to higher education for those folks or their kids). 

Essentially, you'd kill the American dream.

Now, the dems don't have all the answers, either.  They go too far in the other direction.  But Obama has been, surprisingly, centrist.  The Repubs won't actually give him credit for that..but it's true.

[pilferk]

Personally, I think Obama's support of gay marriage  was a ballsy as hell, but politically it will be a liability. 
A prob for the Repubs is the booming stock market.
It'll be interesting how it all plays out.
On paper, Obama has the edge...but the Repubs play better "dirty ball" (both do it, but the Repubs are better at it in my opinion).
We shall see!

The nice thing about Obama's support of gay marriage (for HIM) is he can easily turn around and say it's as much constitutional as it is personal.  He doesn't say he wants the Fed to make laws recognizing gay marriage.  He's said he wants NO LAW concerning gay marriage.  He'll leave it up to the states, and then the fed recognizes whatever any particular state does.

It's largely the way I feel.  It's not a federal issue...so the Defense of Marriage and Family Act is overreaching their constitutional mandate.  It's a state issue..so any state can rule/recognize whatever form of marriage it deems appropriate..and then the fed has to follow suit concerning the citizens of that state.

I agree: The Repubs play better dirty pool.  However, the whole Bain Capitol bent the president's campaign took was much more "dirty pool" than anything I've seen out of the Dems in years.

Of course, now the Repubs are spouting patent untruths about guns, wellfare, and "Swift Boating" Obama on security leaks (from a group of vets who, it so happens, are all registered republicans).

[pilferk]

Sorry dude, I disagree with you 100%.  The government will not pull us out of this recession.  The US economy (and all economies) compete in a truly global economy.  Businesses need to be able to compete and yes, that will mean lowering wages, lowering taxes, and encouraging growth through tax cuts.  Obama already had one stimulus plan, and how much money went missing?  I mean, millions literally went missing.  You put money into hands of government employees and it will evaporate before it does any good. 

I saw a video the other day that encouraged people to try typing into Yahoo and Google search "How do I qualify for" and see what comes up.  Its all government entitlement programs.  Very scary to see.  We have to ween people off of this government dependence. 

The problem is this:

Corporations are entities, much like people, who's sole purpose is to turn a profit.

When they don't turn profits, their investors turn around and fire the rich guys running them, and find new rich guys to run them who will do whatever they can to turn a profit.

As we've seen..businesses don't give two shits about the bulk of the people, especially not the people working for them.  They cut anything and everything they can to turn a profit.

We KNOW they will not turn those tax breaks into additional investment into their businesses..or at least not investment that will create new jobs.  We know it because they haven't done it.

So, if business isn't going to help...what's left?

In the past, that's been the government..but the problem is: Those governing are so firmly entrenched in the pockets of the corporations..they're unwilling to step on their toes to help the masses.  Because that's not, really, in the best interests of the people actually funding their campaigns (and their turn at governing...and their lives post government when they get their cushy, high paying, consulting job).

So..that's where we are.  Kinda sucks, huh?

I know this: The answer is not to vote the Repubs into office, so they can give MORE money back to the businesses.  We tried that, it worked like shit.  If we do it again, we're just stupid.

[pilferk]

But to think that another Rich Fuck like Romney cares about the middle class, other than political slogans to get elected, is naive. His policies will continue the evisceration of the middle class and will only accelerate the flow of wealth to the rich. And I don't even mean the top 1%, I mean the top .05% or even .01%. That is the reality and cannot be denied. On that basis alone, anyone who is not in the top 1% should vote for Obama simply to try to save your  financial future. This guy Romney is so out of touch. And Ryan is scary--an ideologue who appears reasonable because he is articulate and calm, but his ideas will kill us. He co-sponsored a bill to outlaw abortion. You want that? You want to end unemployment insurance? I could go on and on.

That pretty much sums up how I feel about Romney, in a nutshell.

[WAR41]

Sorry dude, I disagree with you 100%.  The government will not pull us out of this recession.  The US economy (and all economies) compete in a truly global economy.  Businesses need to be able to compete and yes, that will mean lowering wages, lowering taxes, and encouraging growth through tax cuts.  Obama already had one stimulus plan, and how much money went missing?  I mean, millions literally went missing.  You put money into hands of government employees and it will evaporate before it does any good. 

I saw a video the other day that encouraged people to try typing into Yahoo and Google search "How do I qualify for" and see what comes up.  Its all government entitlement programs.  Very scary to see.  We have to ween people off of this government dependence. 

We KNOW they will not turn those tax breaks into additional investment into their businesses..or at least not investment that will create new jobs.  We know it because they haven't done it.

Wow, that's a pretty generalized statement.  I agree with you if we are talking about the Obama job's czar, Jeff Immelt, and his corporation, but not everyone thinks the way you do.  This is why small business is so so important to the American economy.  But our boy in office thinks that those who make $250K are too rich and are taxing them even more.  Those are the small business owners.  If they want to compete they NEED to grow, they cannot rely on their reputation alone like a multinational corporation can.  That growth includes employee and capital investments.

And one of the big reasons why job growth is so slow these days.... technology.  We have made incredible technological advances the last few decades.  The demand for unskilled labor has subsided.  People need a special skill set these days.  My advice to all young people aka middle school/high school age kids is to get into math, science or technology.  The days of social sciences, undergraduate business degrees, and physical education are long gone.  Those are all dead end careers.  Go back to school for the MBA later on. 

[tim_m]

Obama wants to raise taxes on people making over $250K which is hardly wealthy. I have no issue with asking MILLIONAIRES for more but we need to stop grossly wasting taxpayers money first.  An increase of money going down the toilet won't help matters.

I would disagree on his tax increases..given the increase is ONLY on the portion you earn OVER 250k.  Maybe 250k isn't super rich...but it's enough to ask you to pay a bit more on the income you earn OVER 250k.

I agree on the wasted money.  The problem is: Romney is not providing any realistic suggestions on how to do that, either. 

In fact...Obama's tenet to STOP PAYING 50% more to Medicare Advantage administration companies is one of the best money savers I've seen.  That, however, was already passed with his healthcare plan.

I'm not particularly happy with what Obama's done over the past 4 years.  He over reached with his political capital after election to get health care passed (something that needed to be done..but not necessarily when it needed to be done) rather than addressing the more pressing needs of the economy.  While he's done some noteworthy things for our country...there were some BIG mis-steps in terms of timing.  I do give him credit for Osama and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I also recognize that part of the problem is the way the Repubs have turned Congress (both houses) into the place of no compromise.  That's not meant as an excuse, but it does bear mentioning.  It's hard to create good centrist policy when the right refuses to debate the left, and you get gridlock OR something completely crafted by one side.

My largest issue with Romney is he's largely espousing a return to the same economic policy adopted by Bush II.  Trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK.  It didn't work under Regan, it didn't work under Bush I, and it REALLY didn't work under Bush II.  Likewise, a push for deregulation is asinine. The bank de-regulation that Clinton signed, and Bush II further removed, is largely to blame for the housing meltdown and much of the economic downturn/recession we've seen recently.  MORE of that is not a good thing.

I may vote independant this time. 

The Repubs in congress are a big part of the problem. Its hard to get anything done when they are playing obstructionists just cause they want to see Obama fail at all costs, even at the cost of making things better for the American people. Those who are responsible for these actions should be fired in November. Their job is to work with the other side and the president. Not obstruct simply cause they don't like him for whatever reason. A few months back i was watching an episode of Real Time with Bill Mahr. I thought he made an excellent point. Get rid of the fillibuster and make voting mandatory and things would be very different in this country and i agree. Especially where the fillibuster is concerned. It is used way too much these days.