yes

9/26/2012 2:44:58 PM

If all you care about is yourself I find that to be a sound decision.

9/26/2012 2:46:42 PM

no, it ignores other factors that effect yourself such as the economy

9/26/2012 2:50:15 PM

Well, ill let you decide if you want to explain that or not.

If I wanted to listen to a drum circle I'd just step outside my office.

9/26/2012 2:51:14 PM

republicans are bad for economy and prolonged wars that republicans want (iran) are bad for the economy

9/26/2012 2:59:26 PM

What exactly do you take issue with when Obama said small business owners "didn't build it themselves"

Do you actually disagree with his point or did the way he said it just rub you the wrong way? Or do you just quote it to make fun of Obama?

9/26/2012 3:17:59 PM

Who is that directed towards?

9/26/2012 3:21:09 PM

romney supporters

9/26/2012 3:28:16 PM

Plenty of folks on the left had a problem with that statement as well.

It was simply badly timed and poorly contextualized by him, not unlike what Romney does frequently.

Coming from Obama however, in a climate where everyone jumps on his administration for being big brother anyway, it was just easy fodder.

What reaction do you expect when he's lauded as a Socialist?

Answer: The same reaction you have to Romney's 47% comment because he's the evil cunt that fired you.

If you're surprised that either side latches onto the other side's slightest missteps, then let me be the first to welcome you to the 21st century.

9/26/2012 4:05:48 PM

no one who read the entire quote in context had a problem with it

9/26/2012 4:11:48 PM

"Obama is a socialist" is hyperbole at best.
"Romney is a rich shithead" is an accurate statement.

false equivalence is false.

9/26/2012 4:20:08 PM

I know this is hard for you to fathom, but not everyone agrees with you.

Romney's entire quote wasn't exactly widely panned either was it?

Have fun with the 2 or 3 sentences that the media spoonfed you in both instances.

Of course arguing this is moot; everyone stands by their team no matter what these days.

[Edited on September 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM. Reason : -]

9/26/2012 4:27:55 PM

Thing is, I don't even see how it was a "misstep" when you take the quote in context. It doesn't insult anyone like Romney's quote. It doesn't say Obama doesn't care about those people.

It was just a quote that said America's infrastructure helps small business owners.

9/26/2012 4:29:13 PM

Yes, because we need to be reminded that roads (for example) are an important part of any business?

Duh? So you just blindly accept that Obama thinks you're that stupid?

Well thanks! I love it when politicians just SPELL IT OUT for me.




At the very least it was another Obama "nothing" speech. I mean, no shit? He might as well offer up a press release that says "online sales are a boon to retailers."

OH GOD HE'S SO INSIGHTFUL.

The man talks just to talk, yet his supporters think it's the Sermon on the Mount all over again.

Especially now that the DNC has gone all religious! Ha,

[Edited on September 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM. Reason : -]

9/26/2012 4:30:38 PM

I think many people need to be reminded that not everything government takes money for and spends money on is bad.

9/26/2012 4:33:38 PM

It's also not some benevolent force to throw yourself behind blindly and haphazardly.

Some of us would like to make our own decisions with out own money without having it siphoned away before we touch it.

Madness I know, right?

9/26/2012 4:41:24 PM

Right, and you do so using benefits and infrastructure that the government has built. Making your own decisions with your money is pretty much what he was talking about exactly in the sentences leading up to and after that quote.

9/27/2012 7:55:24 AM

Obama's statement was both a strawman and false. It was a strawman because no one is arguing against bridges. I don't think we have much of an anarchist party in this country and even the libertarian candidate is in favor of roads and bridges.

It was false because roads and bridges are useful. If the federal government didn't build them then someone else would. It is doubly false because the vast majority of the infrastructure we and our businesses use were paid for with local taxes at the city, county, and state levels. If the federal government never built anything, most of us wouldn't notice the difference. State gas taxes would be higher to pay the full cost of interstate highways, but that's about it.

9/27/2012 9:43:30 AM

Or maybe he wasn't differentiating between Federal and State government nor making the argument for Federalism you think that he was. Maybe he meant what he said.

9/27/2012 9:46:11 AM

^^^^^^^^^That, but also I want to draw some attention to Lonesnark's knee-jerk anti-Federalism:


So just how low does the road rabbithole go, Lonesnark? You know if States didn't build roads, counties would...if they didn't, municipalities would...if they didn't, townships would...if they didn't, neighborhoods would!

Do you seriously not see how drilling down like that incurs extra costs (losing economy of scale) and lost efficiency because all coordination is inherently short-sighted?

Is it really so hard to just admit that Federal government is good for building roads? You can't give them one thing? It's really that important to you that not one single possible benefit of a large government every be admitted, ever, isn't it?

[Edited on September 27, 2012 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

9/27/2012 9:46:15 AM

Don't need no stinkin government

9/27/2012 9:49:46 AM

LoneShark is one of those people that think things would magically be different if all of the roles of the federal government were handled at the State level and from what I can tell, any argument ever made on any part of this website has the ability to turn into a discussion about this issue by LoneShark. Dude's crazy.

9/27/2012 10:21:25 AM

maybe if states had more control all the crazies would just move to a couple states and then everyone else can start their own country.

9/27/2012 10:26:45 AM

Quote :

"what are the issues that you care about and how does romney deliver on these issues?"

Issue: Jobs/Economy
The U.S. has gone 40 straight months of unemployment higher than 8%. And the current 8.1% unemployment doesn't include all the people that have given up looking for employment, which the Obama-loving media tends to leave out of their reports. More people have been added to welfare under Obama than any other president.

Obama would rather add more gov't jobs like policeman and firefighters and for more people to depend on the gov't. Romney has a private sector business background and wants to help the private sector by removing gov't regulations that keep the small businessman from adding jobs and the entrepreneur from entering the market.

Issue: Debt
When he took office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. The president claimed that he would cut the deficit in half. We are now at $16 trillion. This president has added more debt to the U.S. than any other president. The U.S. has been borrowing money during its entire 236 year existence - so that means that 1/3 of the entire debt has been added just under his term.

For the first time in U.S. history, our prestigious AAA national credit rating was downgraded. Under Obama's term, the congress has never passed a budget. So last summer when they approved to extend the debt ceiling, we can just kick the can down the road and continue out-of-control spending with money we don't have. And now we are projected to reach $20+ trillion by 2016. Romney wants to immediately reduce non-security discretionary spending by 5% and cap federal spending below 20% of the economy.

9/27/2012 12:34:06 PM

Quote :

"Romney has a private sector business background and wants to help the private sector by removing gov't regulations that keep the small businessman from adding jobs and the entrepreneur from entering the market."

Which regulations?

Quote :

"For the first time in U.S. history, our prestigious AAA national credit rating was downgraded"

they straight-up said it was because of republicans

Quote :

"This president has added more debt to the U.S. than any other president."

false

Quote :

"Romney wants to immediately reduce non-security discretionary spending by 5% and cap federal spending below 20% of the economy."

but he hasn't outlined how

9/27/2012 12:40:24 PM

Quote :

"And the current 8.1% unemployment doesn't include all the people that have given up looking for employment, which the Obama-loving media tends to leave out of their reports."

It's all relative



The "Obama-loving media" as well as the Obama-hating media tend to use the U3 because that's what we've used in common parlance for decades and thus forms our collective frame of reference. Want to use the U6? Okay, then unemployment is about 16%, great, but bear in mind that the average over the past few decades is then about 8-10%.

Quote :

"Obama would rather add more gov't jobs like policeman and firefighters and for more people to depend on the gov't. "

Public employment has fallen under Obama, after peaking right after his inauguration.

Quote :

"More people have been added to welfare under Obama than any other president. "

That's because A) There are more Americans under Obama than any other President and B) We just suffered the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. Obama didn't increase welfare eligibility, he simply presided over the fallout of a crisis, and automatic systems in place long before him grew the rolls exactly like they're supposed to.

Quote :

"Romney has a private sector business background and wants to help the private sector by removing gov't regulations that keep the small businessman from adding jobs and the entrepreneur from entering the market."

In other words, Romney believes the current crisis is a supply-side one. That big businesses biggest concern is taxes and regulation and that's why they aren't hiring. Alright, before I start to debunk that, can you acknowledge that if the problem is actually demand-side, that the major constrains are falling on consumers and not businesses, then Romney's plans wont do a thing to help?

Quote :

"The president claimed that he would cut the deficit in half."

This was said in early 2009, back when our estimates of the depth of the recession were about half of what the reality was. Granted, it doesn't reflect well on Obama's grasp of its depth, but to be fair nobody on the other side of the aisle had any idea either. Economists on nearly all fronts grossly underestimated.

Quote :

"The U.S. has been borrowing money during its entire 236 year existence - so that means that 1/3 of the entire debt has been added just under his term. "

It helps this kind of statement heavily that debt isn't affected by inflation.

Quote :

"For the first time in U.S. history, our prestigious AAA national credit rating was downgraded."

Because of Republicans. Moody's literally said so themselves.

Quote :

" Under Obama's term, the congress has never passed a budget."

False, the last budget to be passed was the 2010 one passed on April 29, 2009
After that, I think it says more about the Republicans in the House and Democrats in the Senate than Obama.

Quote :

"So last summer when they approved to extend the debt ceiling, we can just kick the can down the road and continue out-of-control spending with money we don't have. "

Whether or not we "have the money" has literally nothing to do with whether an official budget is passed. Budgets do not actually allocate or appropriate money, they are simply policy layouts. You can knock the lack of a budget because it shows poor organization, but whether or not we spend money we don't have has exactly nothing to do with the budget process. Every budget since Clinton (and most all of them before) ran a deficit, AKA "Money we don't have."


[Edited on September 27, 2012 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2012 1:08:32 PM

I was very serious about asking which regulations Romney wants to remove that is stopping small businesses from creating jobs. Can any Romney supporters explain?

Also, are we all in agreement that the only way to meet Romney's proposed spending cap (which he has never explained) is through drastic cuts to medicaid?

9/27/2012 1:12:00 PM

Quote :

"I get the feeling that Romney is more likely to raise taxes, at least on the majority of Americans. That's what all current indications point to."

Dont you mean that is what the Obama commercials tell you? haha

For me it has to do with spending and entitlement reform. I also think Romney is more likely to help the economy bc he understand actual business vs theory. Cutting some govt bs and giving businesses some confidence will go a long way. imo

9/27/2012 1:28:20 PM

which government BS specifically, what regulations is he proposing do cut (or that you expect him to cut) that is currently preventing businesses from creating jobs?

9/27/2012 1:30:57 PM

^Obamacare/ACA would be a big one.

To your point, I dont know of any other specific regulations he would go after. But given the choice between Romney or Obama, Romney would be the choice of less regs. As he would have a much better understanding of the actual costs they put on businesses.

9/27/2012 1:32:56 PM

Can someone tell me why the majority thinking is that Dems increase the deficit more? In modern day money from 1981 to 2010 under Democratic presidents the debt increased, by my count, $2.38T and under Republican presidents $5.06T. 20 years or Repub and 10 years of Dem leadership.

That isn't exactly a whole lot of difference. Why am I to believe Romney, whose plans don't seem to differ to what has been done under Republican leadership back to Reagan is going to change or halt this??

And obviously this will grow faster now that interest payments are higher..

[Edited on September 27, 2012 at 1:43 PM. Reason : X]

9/27/2012 1:42:40 PM

Quote :

"For me it has to do with spending and entitlement reform. I also think Romney is more likely to help the economy bc he understand actual business vs theory. Cutting some govt bs and giving businesses some confidence will go a long way. imo"

Your vote seems to hinge on believing the current problems are supply-side. Hypothetically, what do you think would happen if we applied supply-side solutions to a crisis that's actually demand-side?


[Edited on September 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2012 1:53:08 PM

^^dems/liberals tend to be more for bigger govt. But those come at a cost. Republicans, imo, are correct at wanting to let people keep more of what they earn, however they tend to increase spending as well, which isnt good.

Honestly the debt is going to take off as the boomers get on the entitlments and financing our growing debt costs more. The issue is how do we get more people paying taxes. Focusing on the rich wont get it done, but a good amount of envy always helps during election season.

I do think Obama will continue to expand govt, it is truely what he believes is the right thing to do. How one could hold that view today is beyond me.

9/27/2012 2:20:43 PM

You didn't answer my question man.

9/27/2012 2:39:23 PM

what has he done to expand government in his first term?

9/27/2012 2:40:06 PM

A panel of bureaucrats can decide to have your granny killed off. Next question.

9/27/2012 2:48:21 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

Here is a good read for some of you.

^^ACA, again, is a huge one. How many new Czars do we have now?

Expanded many entitlements, unemployment, food stamps. (which many have argued has slowed the recovery)

9/27/2012 2:50:14 PM

On Czars, just on a quick search on wiki:

Bush Czars vs. Obama Czars

Czar Titles = 33 vs 38
Czar Appointees = 49 vs 43

(i'm not sure what the difference is between those two sets of numbers)

9/27/2012 2:53:27 PM

Quote :

"Expanded many entitlements, unemployment, food stamps. "

He did? Aside from extending unemployment benefits, I'm not aware of any such "expansion". Are you counting automatic programs from the past kicking in when people get fired as "expansions"? Because in that case you're simply upset Obama didn't cut them.

Quote :

"(which many have argued has slowed the recovery)"

How so? Why does it hurt to feed someone when there aren't any jobs for them to take?


[Edited on September 27, 2012 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2012 3:05:57 PM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-great-bush-obama-food-stamp-expansion/article/2500895

Here is a good history on the expansion of food stamps.

^and yet statistics show that people either get hired in the first couple months of unemployment or in the last months of it. By paying people not to work you have govt competing with businesses (while using their own money) for labor. Which drives up the costs of labor and lowers the employment rate in down times. It really isnt that difficult to understand.

9/27/2012 3:13:58 PM

Quote :

"^Obamacare/ACA would be a big one."

small business can get a 35% tax credit that goes up to 50% in 2014. For my company (small business), we have been able to increase our coverage because of the credit and the fact that our costs have gone down. We also have an exchange now which makes it easier for us to shop around. And for very small companies, they are exempt from new employer responsibilities.

If anything, not doing something was killing small businesses with average premiums increasing 125% over the last decade.

(Another benefit is that since the language is now standardized, our office manager has had a much easier time comparing policies and procedures.)

My opinion as a liberal, however, is that I am not very happy with the conservative, privatization, mostly status-quo system and think that we need ACTUAL universal healthcare. Remember, this is a conservative plan that conservatives created and wanted because it keeps things with private healthcare companies. The anger is only rhetoric.


^so what is it about expansions, that started under Bush, and that Obama has given states more flexibility to increase requirements, makes you think that Romney will reduce expansion?

[Edited on September 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2012 3:41:21 PM

Quote :

"^and yet statistics show that people either get hired in the first couple months of unemployment or in the last months of it. By paying people not to work you have govt competing with businesses (while using their own money) for labor. Which drives up the costs of labor and lowers the employment rate in down times. It really isnt that difficult to understand."

Yes, it is difficult to understand because you're assuming a labor shortage in what's clearly a job shortage. 8%+ for four years and I'm supposed to accept that somehow unemployed laborers are calling the shots in wage negotiations? Exactly how luxurious do you think welfare is that millions of Americans are turning down jobs constantly?

More importantly, how do you square this with the fact that real wages have been falling, uninterrupted, for decades, and especially in the last few years?

I mean, comon, you're making a pretty clear prediction and the exact opposite is playing out around you. Enough with the theory, show me which hidden, secret industry you're referencing in which labor costs are rising.


[Edited on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2012 4:35:48 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/26/917651/phoenix-mayor-attempts-to-live-on-a-food-stamp-budget-im-tired-and-its-hard-to-focus/?mobile=nc

eyedrb should try this, then come back and tell us all how unmotivated he was to work after living on a food budget of $29/week.

9/27/2012 5:32:06 PM

Quote :

"Is it really so hard to just admit that Federal government is good for building roads? You can't give them one thing? It's really that important to you that not one single possible benefit of a large government every be admitted, ever, isn't it?"

Again, strawman. No one, not even me, is arguing against the construction of roads and bridges.

9/27/2012 5:36:18 PM

You said the states should do it

9/27/2012 5:45:42 PM

Hmm, I said they would, I don't see a should in there anywhere.

9/27/2012 6:24:14 PM

9/27/2012 10:08:26 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, I said they would, I don't see a should in there anywhere."

Yeah it's not like you were trying to imply the Federal government's role was unnecessary or anything.

10/1/2012 12:09:29 PM