• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

In Virginia, Romney says he’ll do ‘the opposite’ of Obama to help recovering economy

The GOP is a joke. Democrats can take republican ideas and republicans will automatically be against it (see: the Democrats using the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan an basically implementing it).
 
tydas said:
Is this how polarized we have become?
Click to expand...

The hilarious part is that Romney is the least polarized candidate this side of McCain.

When you've a Governor who implemented Obamacare in his own state, and then swears to repeal it nationally, you're not dealing with a true believer but rather an opportunist.

The rhetoric is merely playing to the stupid crowd.
 
Jaskalas said:
When you've a Governor who implemented Obamacare in his own state, and then swears to repeal it nationally, you're not dealing with a true believer but rather an opportunist.
Click to expand...

Actually, you have someone who understands that States have powers the Fed Gov do not have AND at the same time someone who understands that a State can do healthcare FAR better than the Fed Gov could ever hope to do it.
 
QuantumPion said:
Name one useful idea the Dems have proposed or passed.

Last I remember, Obama was arguing to raise the capital gains tax. He openly and publicly admitted that it wouldn't help the economy, but we should do it anyway because "it's fair".
Click to expand...

So the answer is yes, we are that polarized...
 
cybrsage said:
Actually, you have someone who understands that States have powers the Fed Gov do not have AND at the same time someone who understands that a State can do healthcare FAR better than the Fed Gov could ever hope to do it.
Click to expand...

Removed from past history your argument is sound. I'd like to believe he'd be a conservative nationally, I really would. Then I remember Bush... I remember the nomination of McCain.... I vow never again.

I was really just speaking to how Romney isn't polarizing. His rhetoric will be, but on the issues I fear he has more in common with Obama than we like to admit. The whole argument for his nomination was that he'd be the moderate voice, bring us independent voters to win elections.

Now it's time for the Democrats to paint him as some extremist while he plays to the crowd.
 
zsdersw said:
No I didn't. It is useful to the military.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt their is any meaningful boost to the military.

And really if repealing DADT is the most useful thing that Obama has done for the country I think that pretty much says all you need to know.
 
In Virginia, Romney says he’ll do ‘the opposite’ of Obama to help recovering economy
Click to expand...

Speaking of the issue at hand, economic policy, it really is quite binary, is it not?

  • Stimulus VS Austerity.
  • Deficit Spending VS Living within your means.
  • $5+ trillion debt VS Balanced Budget.
Wouldn't we like to see the 'opposite' of Obama? Why shouldn't we, and how does meeting somewhere in the middle accomplish anything?

Slowly driving off the cliff has no better consequence.
 
Yes, Republicans have always lived within their means, choosing austerity over deficit spending. Let's add to the silly contrasts:

Communism vs FREEDOM!
Kenyan vs Real American!
Secret Muslim vs Sort-of Christian!
Takes fishin' poles and table salt vs free gun for every white male!

Blasting Romney for campaign-trail speeches is silly, we all know he is just saying whatever he thinks will get him nominated. Once he's nominated he'll switch to saying what he hopes will get him elected. (Just like Obama is going to do.)

And if he was elected, just like Obama he'd find that half his campaign promises can't or shouldn't be delivered even if he really wanted to.

Both are politicians first, party members second, and "servants of the people" last.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
No I didn't. It is useful to the military.
Click to expand...

Ending DADT is more than just "useful to the military." Anything to improve civil rights of American citizens isn't exactly "useless." Was the Civil Rights Act "useless?" I don't think so. The trouble may be with certain people's definition of what is and isn't "useful." I personally would place advances in civil rights high on the list of things that are "useful," but apparently other people's mileage varies from my own.
 
Jaskalas said:
The hilarious part is that Romney is the least polarized candidate this side of McCain.

When you've a Governor who implemented Obamacare in his own state, and then swears to repeal it nationally, you're not dealing with a true believer but rather an opportunist.

The rhetoric is merely playing to the stupid crowd.
Click to expand...
It matters at what level something is done. As examples:

I am for my family establishing a budget; I am against my local government establishing one for me.

I am for the federal government going to war to protect America's interests; I am against my local or state government going to war to protect their interests.

I am for my state government adopting hunting and fishing regulations based on our unique circumstances; I am against the federal government adopting hunting and fishing regulations for the nation as a whole.

I am for my local government setting speed limits based on our roads' condition, surroundings and traffic; I am against the federal government setting them.

I am for the federal government establishing import tariffs; I am against my state and/or local government establishing import tariffs.

QuantumPion said:
Name one useful idea the Dems have proposed or passed.

Last I remember, Obama was arguing to raise the capital gains tax. He openly and publicly admitted that it wouldn't help the economy, but we should do it anyway because "it's fair".
Click to expand...
I actually agree with Obama there. Raising the capital gains rates will harm the economy, but I think out of basic fairness we should not tax the man who earns his living from his labor more heavily than the man whose accumulated capital earns his living. Just as I reject higher rates for high earners based on whether it is better for the economy, so do I reject lower rates for the investor class based on whether it is better for the economy.

Of course, that is perhaps not a useful idea, in that it will actually reduce economic activity and even federal income and accordingly would hurt our chances of coming out of recession. But philosophically I agree with Obama. And I tend to think that basic fairness is more important than the economy.
 
werepossum said:
I actually agree with Obama there. Raising the capital gains rates will harm the economy, but I think out of basic fairness we should not tax the man who earns his living from his labor more heavily than the man whose accumulated capital earns his living. Just as I reject higher rates for high earners based on whether it is better for the economy, so do I reject lower rates for the investor class based on whether it is better for the economy.

Of course, that is perhaps not a useful idea, in that it will actually reduce economic activity and even federal income and accordingly would hurt our chances of coming out of recession. But philosophically I agree with Obama. And I tend to think that basic fairness is more important than the economy.
Click to expand...

If we are going to tax capital gains the same as regular interest then you should be able to deduct inflation from the gains, since those gains were not real.

So, if you believe in basic fairness then I assume you would oppose people paying negative income taxes and agree that the EITC should be repealed?
 
DaveSimmons said:
Yes, Republicans have always lived within their means, choosing austerity over deficit spending. Let's add to the silly contrasts:

Communism vs FREEDOM!
Kenyan vs Real American!
Secret Muslim vs Sort-of Christian!
Takes fishin' poles and table salt vs free gun for every white male!

Blasting Romney for campaign-trail speeches is silly, we all know he is just saying whatever he thinks will get him nominated. Once he's nominated he'll switch to saying what he hopes will get him elected. (Just like Obama is going to do.)

And if he was elected, just like Obama he'd find that half his campaign promises can't or shouldn't be delivered even if he really wanted to.

Both are politicians first, party members second, and "servants of the people" last.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Very few politicians actually mean what they say, and with the notable exception of Chris Christy and the occasional Representative (or Bernie Sanders) in a true outlier district (or state) we do not reward those who do say what they mean and mean what they say. Instead, we generally reward those who say what we want to hear, even when what we want to hear isn't practical. Only past behavior is truly diagnostic in predicting a politician's behavior, and even that has to take into account the previous context. A Republican in Massachusetts will be forced to the left; a Democrat in Tennessee will be forced to the right. If these respective politicians do not honestly hold those positions, even past performance may come up short in predicting what they will do. The only thing for sure is that the vast majority of politicians are saying what they think we want to hear at any given time.
 
nehalem256 said:
If we are going to tax capital gains the same as regular interest then you should be able to deduct inflation from the gains, since those gains were not real.

So, if you believe in basic fairness then I assume you would oppose people paying negative income taxes and agree that the EITC should be repealed?
Click to expand...
Yes, capital gains should always be indexed for inflation, regardless of the level of taxation. And yes, I am against any federal wealth redistribution, including the EITC beyond the actual tax paid. I have no problem reducing the federal taxes of the working poor to zero, including payroll taxes, but I am against transferring someone else's money to them and pretending it is not welfare.

The financial shortfall of someone earning $20K in Manhattan is radically different from someone earning $20K in rural Kentucky. If people want to supplement the working poor's income with money taken from someone else, they should at least have the brains and honesty to recognize this and move these welfare programs to the state level where costs can be taken into account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top