Oh YEA! ITS ON!

[WVDolphan]

its funny the people who are bragging how the unemployment rate is at 7.8 percent. you do realize that when obama took office that it was at that, so even if that number is credible, he still didnt reduce it, and as a matter of fact, i remember obama promising when he was elected that with the new stimulus package, the unemployment rate would be at 5.6 percent lol.

its funny how many people on here bash romney ( not saying he does not deserve any criticism) yet will defend anything obama does. under obama, the economy still ****ing blows, and for me personally as someone who makes a lot of money yearly, i dont need to be taxed more so i can ****ing pay for the bums who just decide to live off the government bc they are to lazy to get a ****ing job.

if you dont work or are lazy, obama is deff ur guy and should be, but for me i just cant afford for obama to be elected another term, it would hurt me, but to each his own i guess.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------


u cant argue vs these people who love obama, they will use anything to defend him. its not even worth it, i shouldnt have even gotten involved bc i wont win the argument, they are going to believe what they want to and nothing can change it. even if it was a credible number, thats still ****ing awful, its the same as when bush left, and if people destroyed bush over it, obama deserves the same bashing.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I was going to say the EXACT same thing after reading the previous posts about the unemployment rate.

These Obama people remind me of the Tony Sparano supporters around here following his third season.

The dude just now got the unemployment rate back to where it was when he took office. Which means the rest of the time he was in office it was WORSE than what it is now. Thats like a manager taking over a team that was 20 games under .500, making it worse for a long time, then getting them back to 20 games under by seasons end and the fans saying..... "oooo yea this guy is solid. we need to extend his contract".
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Clueless.

Facts are Obama has done an absolute **** job for 4 years. Just look at the numbers. If you want to blame Bush for the first 1 or 2 years, I will almost buy some of that ****. But, once youre several years into your own term, the **** that goes down is on you. Accountability. Thats all. Hold this loser accountable for 4 years of ****.

All he did was have Bin Laden killed. I give him credit for that. Some republicans want to argue that was thanks to all the work Bush did, but I call BS there because then you have to lend credibility to the Obama excuses for the economy. I simply hold people accountable for **** that happens when they are in office.

[Ilovemyfins4eva]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I was going to say the EXACT same thing after reading the previous posts about the unemployment rate.

These Obama people remind me of the Tony Sparano supporters around here following his third season.

The dude just now got the unemployment rate back to where it was when he took office. Which means the rest of the time he was in office it was WORSE than what it is now. Thats like a manager taking over a team that was 20 games under .500, making it worse for a long time, then getting them back to 20 games under by seasons end and the fans saying..... "oooo yea this guy is solid. we need to extend his contract".
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Clueless.

Facts are Obama has done an absolute **** job for 4 years. Just look at the numbers. If you want to blame Bush for the first 1 or 2 years, I will almost buy some of that ****. But, once youre several years into your own term, the **** that goes down is on you. Accountability. Thats all. Hold this loser accountable for 4 years of ****.

All he did was have Bin Laden killed. I give him credit for that. Some republicans want to argue that was thanks to all the work Bush did, but I call BS there because then you have to lend credibility to the Obama excuses for the economy. I simply hold people accountable for **** that happens when they are in office.

it is what it is man, some people just cant face the truth.

there are people on here who hate both romney and obama, which is fine, but then there are people who will bash Romney non stop and always defend obama, and yet theyll claim there not obama guys, those are my favorite.

---------- Post added at 06:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 AM ----------

This post is so pathetic I won't even bother commenting on it, except to say its pathetic.

of course its pathetic, u disagree with it. is anything anti obama considered pathetic on this site by you?

[cuzinvinny]

[QUOTE=rob19;1064447578]Like I've said I'm not an Obama supporter either, but I've yet to hear anyone say one actual way Mitt's Welfare program will be different than the current one.


Well to begin with, Mitt Romneys policies will bring jobs bring JOBS JOBS you know JOBS, People working and not needing to be on welfare. Lowering the amount of people on welfare so that we will still have a country able to give welfare to those who truly need it down the road, otherwise look at Europe Gov. control is workin great there right...NOT ). You have a great gift in a "vote" but it requires some level of intiative and responsibility to take the time to understand to some degree whats going on......With all due respect, It's hard to fathom your inability to see the answer to your question without feeling you haven't been paying enough attention .......This is the most important election of the last half century your future and ours is at stake and hopefully you will realize the seriousness and take the time to be more informed (either way) ....And I'm not saying that to be personnally critical Hopefully your young and politics is not very high on your list of priorities but son your future is going to be directly effect by the direction this country decides to go.........and you need to be informed enough to make a clear judgement (either way ) on whether or not you feel the policies of the last 4 years is working for our country or a change is in order.........

[-=DolfanDave=-]

I think his sarcasm might have escaped you.

It did. I'll admit it. Thought he was being serious like 99.9% of the other posts here.

[irish fin fan]

it is what it is man, some people just cant face the truth.

there are people on here who hate both romney and obama, which is fine, but then there are people who will bash Romney non stop and always defend obama, and yet theyll claim there not obama guys, those are my favorite.

---------- Post added at 06:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 AM ----------

of course its pathetic, u disagree with it. is anything anti obama considered pathetic on this site by you?

It's pathetic because its so full of bulls$&@ so called facts. The fact that I need to even point that out to you shows how deluded ultra right posters are.

[rob19]

Well to begin with, Mitt Romneys policies will bring jobs bring JOBS JOBS you know JOBS, People working and not needing to be on welfare. Lowering the amount of people on welfare so that we will still have a country able to give welfare to those who truly need it down the road, otherwise look at Europe Gov. control is workin great there right...NOT ). You have a great gift in a "vote" but it requires some level of intiative and responsibility to take the time to understand to some degree whats going on......With all due respect, It's hard to fathom your inability to see the answer to your question without feeling you haven't been paying enough attention .......This is the most important election of the last half century your future and ours is at stake and hopefully you will realize the seriousness and take the time to be more informed (either way) ....And I'm not saying that to be personnally critical Hopefully your young and politics is not very high on your list of priorities but son your future is going to be directly effect by the direction this country decides to go.........and you need to be informed enough to make a clear judgement (either way ) on whether or not you feel the policies of the last 4 years is working for our country or a change is in order.........

First off, WV stated the "poors" will have no motivation to work because he thinks Obama's removed the work requirement law for Welfare (which is false), so I've yet & still not heard anyone say precisely how the two will be different.

Furthermore, what specific evidence could you point to that indicates further decreasing of taxes paid by people who are in one-tenth of one percent of the highest income bracket in the country fosters job growth? There's actually compelling arguments that there's little to no evidence it fosters growth, but a lot of evidence that it continues to extend the ever-growing gap of income inequality.

At one campaign stop after another, Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney has been telling voters that "I know how to create jobs."Mr. Romney has not yet disclosed the fine points of his plan, but the guts of it are tax cuts. In the short run he would maintain current marginal tax rates-including the 35 percent top rate on earned income and 15 percent on capital gains incorporated in the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
In the long run, he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and simplify the tax code, making the top income tax rate 25 percent and eliminating as-yet-unspecified tax loopholes.

Inherent in these plans is the foundational conservative credo that cutting taxes creates growth. Unfortunately, the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress, which does research and analysis for members of Congress, has published a new report saying that since World War II, there is little evidence that cutting taxes promotes growth. But there is significant evidence that tax cuts have created more income inequality.
The cut-and-grow school has been around for a hundred years, but got its most thorough airing during the Reagan administration with the ascendancy of the supply-side economic theories of Arthur Laffer and the eponymous "Laffer curve."

It sounds reasonable enough. The theory is that cutting taxes, particularly on those who pay the most, results in more money to invest and greater incentive to do so. This, in turn, would create a big enough pie that even the government would have more revenue than it would have had with higher tax rates.
Skeptics call it "trickle-down economics." In 1982, the liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith called it "horse-and-sparrow economics," in that, "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

Alas, in a modern economy, the oats that pass through the horse don't necessarily have to land where the horse is standing. Investors can, and often do, choose to invest their tax savings elsewhere, either overseas or in financial products that churn money but don't create many jobs. Individuals amass great fortunes without becoming great industrialists. Companies today are sitting on $2 trillion in cash, which is a lot of oats.
Here is the key portion of the CRS report, written by Thomas L. Hungerford:

"Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90 percent; today it's 35 percent. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, 35 percent in the 1970s; today it is 15 percent. The real GDP (gross domestic product) growth rate averaged 4.2 percent and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4 percent in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7 percent and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1 percent.

"There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reductions in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

"The share of income accruing to the top 0.1 percent of U.S. families increased from 4.2 percent in 1945 to 12.3 percent by 2007 before falling to 9.2 percent due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced."

When the study was released two weeks ago, conservative critics noted how "convenient" it was for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. It is hard to argue, however, that there is such a thing as "liberal" or "conservative" math.

It is not likely that returning the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent-as would happen if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year-would by itself kick off an era of growth. If cutting taxes doesn't yield growth, increasing them is not likely to do so, either.

The importance of the CRS study, as in similar studies by other nonpartisan groups, is to remind us that simple solutions do not answer in complex times.

With all due respect, if you were so informed, I'd expect more of you to actually be able to provide more details and specific facts to expound upon and back your arguments rather than arguing by assertion and rhetoric, or worse of all; football analogies.

[Spesh]

First off, WV stated the "poors" will have no motivation to work because he thinks Obama's removed the work requirement law for Welfare (which is false), so I've yet & still not heard anyone say precisely how the two will be different.

Furthermore, what specific evidence could you point to that indicates further decreasing of taxes paid by people who are in one-tenth of one percent of the highest income bracket in the country fosters job growth? There's actually compelling arguments that there's little to no evidence it fosters growth, but a lot of evidence that it continues to extend the ever-growing gap of income inequality.

With all due respect, if you were so informed, I'd expect more of you to actually be able to provide more details and specific facts to expound upon and back your arguments rather than arguing by assertion and rhetoric, or worse of all; football analogies.

Out of all the claims Romney has made, that one amuses me the most(well, second to the most, the best one was "Obama would remove God from coins"). Obama gave the states more control to solve their unemployment numbers. Let me repeat: he gave the states more control. Thats a conservative philosophy...and Romney slams him for it. Amuses me endlessly. To be fair, Romney can say whatever he wants, its on Obama to shut down the claim. But still, i chuckle when i see Romney hammer away at it.

PolitiFact checked a Romney campaign ad's claim that Obama ended welfare work requirements earlier this month, rating it
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. In reality, the Obama administration has said it will consider proposals from states that are aimed at finding better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
have also said the claim is false.

But the claim lives on. The Romney campaign has released
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ads repeating the line that work requirements were "gutted" line and it's become a regular talking point for Romney campaign surrogates.

"Our most effective ad is our welfare ad," strategist Ashley O'Connor said
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
on Tuesday. "It's new information."

"We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," added Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Romney’s ad says, "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

That's a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

The ad tries to connect the dots to reach this zinger: "They just send you your welfare check." The HHS memo in no way advocates that practice. In fact, it says the new policy is "designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

The ad’s claim is not accurate, and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

So what, Spesh? Everybody knows politifact just a bunch of guys sitting around beating off to Das Capital.

[CedarPhin]

Right Wing Authoritarians FTW.

[cuzinvinny]

First off, WV stated the "poors" will have no motivation to work because he thinks Obama's removed the work requirement law for Welfare (which is false), so I've yet & still not heard anyone say precisely how the two will be different.

Furthermore, what specific evidence could you point to that indicates further decreasing of taxes paid by people who are in one-tenth of one percent of the highest income bracket in the country fosters job growth? There's actually compelling arguments that there's little to no evidence it fosters growth, but a lot of evidence that it continues to extend the ever-growing gap of income inequality.



With all due respect, if you were so informed, I'd expect more of you to actually be able to provide more details and specific facts to expound upon and back your arguments rather than arguing by assertion and rhetoric, or worse of all; football analogies.

Not going to argue with you, I stand by my statement.

As far as your new topic Decreasing taxes..In the debate several times as in more than 2-3 times Romney has stated that he was NOT going to decrease the amount of revenue (money) that that 1 in 1/10 % pay, Again will not decrease, Did You Hear That. He said he would lower their tax rate along with everybody elses except get rid of many loopholds being used to save taxes by the very rich. AGAIN... Romney has said he is NOT going to decrease that revenue of the very rich. Hopefully it doesn't need to be said again to You, but Obamas is using this misinformation to distort the truth and they call Romney a Liar.....I can see your next move but what loopholds will he stop. I have no clue how he will do it but will take him at his word and hold him responsible that he will do what is one of his basic policies. I think that more of an issue with the rich is the uncertainty of direction this admin. has taken us and with clarity will begin to put their money into investments again creating more jobs, which in turn greats more revenue which should be going along with a major tightening of the belt.....