Ok wow, this is incredibly stupid. Like so incredibly dumb that I cannot believe this is real. Did someone get tricked by the onion? My mind is full of fuck...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Ok wow, this is incredibly stupid. Like so incredibly dumb that I cannot believe this is real. Did someone get tricked by the onion? My mind is full of fuck...
Link
The Autumn Wind
Black Mamba
Member
What was Romney's plan that wasn't a load of bullshit or contradictions?
Which is also a lie.
When Romney was looking to hire for his cabinet during his run as Governor, he had his staff get him a binder full of women because he really wanted to hire on a woman for his cabinet.
Kevitivity
Member
Do you agree with Romney that the Government never creates jobs?
http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx
He took credit for the idea but it wasn't his idea and the way he implemented turned out bad.
I see you got the memo. Funny to use a sexist statement and attempt to turn it around as a political statement. Good job Jessica Yellin.
NullPointer
Member
He presented his 12 million new jobs promise, the arithmetically-challenged tax plan (using a hypothetical cap), self-deportation and e-verification of illegals, said he'd bring higher wage jobs, and employers will have so much need to hire new employees that they'll extend flex hours and other benefits, just because. Please let me know what I missed.
I didn't see a vision there. I saw empty promises, backed by absolutely nothing.
Kevitivity
Member
Listen, opinions aside, Obama presented no plans, no hope and change message. Romney at lest did present ideas (that you disagreed with) for getting us out of this mess.
He presented math that doesn't add up (WHAT DEDUCTIONS?) and goals (energy independence within 5 years?) that are objectively impossible.
So no specifics then.
Kevitivity
Member
No, clearly the government can create jobs by spending, etc.
Black Mamba
Member
I ask again, what was Romney's plan other than a tax cut no economist says is actually possible to be revenue neutral without increasing taxes on those under $250k?
Because I didn't hear anything last night from him besides that and possibly putting a tarriff on Chinese imports.
What was his plan for equal pay for women?
What was his plan to actually streamline immigration?
What was his plan to bring manufacturing jobs back?
What was his plan to help college students?
"magic tax cuts" is not a solution to every fucking problem. So please, tell me what answers he actually provided for the questions asked last night that can constitute and actual "plan."
jamesinclair
Banned
The binder thing really is a bucket of gold.
1) Just the comment is absurd
2) The concept that after being a SUPER SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN for so many years, Mitt couldnt think of a single woman to hire and had to get a study done
3) Mitt is all about the affirmative action apparently, which the GOP hates
4) Women need to be let home at 5pm to cook dinner
1) Just the comment is absurd
2) The concept that after being a SUPER SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN for so many years, Mitt couldnt think of a single woman to hire and had to get a study done
3) Mitt is all about the affirmative action apparently, which the GOP hates
4) Women need to be let home at 5pm to cook dinner
Kevitivity
Member
Cutting spending, balancing the budget, lowering taxes, stimulating small business as, lowering corporate taxes.
My boss is crazy enthusiastic for Obama now. He also said that he brought over someone to watch the debate, and beforehand she didn't much like Obama and wasn't enthused about voting. Afterwards she thought Romney was just awful and seemed like a terrible lost old man. She's pretty excited to vote for Obama now, apparently.
So what does it say about a candidate for President who is vowing to create jobs as the leader of a government that he believes cannot create jobs?
And how is he going to do all of these things at once?
And just remember, Teddy Kennedy has the only confirmed kill in the War on Women.
Interesting.
Jumped right on that "empty binder" talking point, did you?
Obama named a bunch of specific policies he'd like to put in place. For just one example, he specified that he'd like to remove the deduction for outsourcing jobs.
HOW?
Black Mamba
Member
How is he going to do any of that?
He proposed $2 trillion more military. Where are the budget cuts?
Obama agrees on the corporate tax policy and said as much.
We already know the "lowering taxes" bit. That's it.
The last Republican to promise cutting spending, lowering taxes, lowering corporate rates, lowering deductions, stimulating small businesses, and more military was...wait for it.
George W. Bush.
Another new Romney ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OPfRbp2zycc
He is going for the ladies hard!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OPfRbp2zycc
He is going for the ladies hard!
He was talking about how the people 'he' was told were qualified for cabinet positions were all male and how he wanted to change that for more diversity, 'he' said he asked his staff to help compile a list of qualified women to even out the gender gap (this was a question on how women make 73% less then male counter parts... he didn't answer the question with his answer). When it was all done he had a "Binder full of women, qualified women". He was likely talking about binder full of resumes of qualified women but it came out... odd to say the least.
The reason I said 'he' is because there is rival story that came out after the debate that basically said Romney was trying to take credit for the work of a women's organization in Massachusetts as if it was his idea about getting resumes for women because he didn't like the diversity issue personally. Not to mention the absurdity regarding getting fewer hours to go home and cook early or the fact that as a businessman he knew absolutely zero qualified women of his own to nominate, he had to get the opinion from someone else.
Black Republican
Member
Kevitivity
Member
Clearly, in a healthy, growing economy, most jobs are created by the private sector. We don't want an economy that is completely propped up by government spending.
NullPointer
Member
Fixed for redundant redundancy.
(and I'm just going to ignore the spending increases)
Well, if this is what being "more positive" is for you, then you have very different priorities than me.
If you are serious then let's talk about this. On foreign policy Governor Romney's plan is to complain about everything Obama is doing, then admit that its more or less what he would do as president, and when pressed, not offer specifics on how his foreign policy would differ. On healthcare he would repeal Obamacare, pretend to cover pre-existing conditions while not actually doing so, and offers no other specifics for healthcare reform except to let the states come up with their own. Is he going to give federal dollars for what sound like state exchanges which are almost exactly what Obamacare sets up already? On education Governor Romney is on record praising Race to the Top. We know he wants to further expand the military. We know he wants an "all of the above" energy policy which is the same as the president's position. On taxes we know both candidates differ.
So ignoring that Obama has posted something like thirty (forty?) straight months of job growth including five million private sector jobs, taking the unemployment rate from a high of 10% to 7.8%, how exactly will Mitt Romney create these jobs (seven million of them, no less) from his perch at the top of a government that can't create jobs? What is his plan to do this?
Black Mamba
Member
And anyone who is trying to cut government spending is also trying to cut private sector jobs.
Less government workers = less aggregate demand = less private demand for workers.
speculawyer
Member
I talked to some Indian co-workers and they said . . . well, any real decision makers have drivers so they can just work in their car.
There are a lot of different ways to approach what's wrong with this post, but the one I'll go with is that nobody is arguing that the private sector shouldn't be the primary "creator of jobs."
Link
The Autumn Wind
Holy crap...
I'm a man and I was completely insulted by what Beth Lindstrom said. Single moms and women going back to work can't take care of themselves? How fucking condescending can you be?
Proceed, Kevitivity...
This boss is pretty liberal, so he was always going to vote Obama. He's just way way more enthusiastic than I've seen him before.
Also, in case it's confusing, I have 2 jobs. One is an office full of conservatives. My main job though is all 30 years old or younger from the owner on down, so it's pretty liberal and we all laugh at Romney.
Also, in case it's confusing, I have 2 jobs. One is an office full of conservatives. My main job though is all 30 years old or younger from the owner on down, so it's pretty liberal and we all laugh at Romney.
Kevitivity
Member
Bush's biggest failure, and one of the reasons even his base had turned on him in the end was his inability to cut spending. And lets not forget who's responsible for signing the checks in government.
But are you arguing that we don't need to balance the budget, cut spending, cut corporate taxes, etc?
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43318402&postcount=491
I dunno you guys. As a liberal, my capacity for doubt makes this hard.
I dunno you guys. As a liberal, my capacity for doubt makes this hard.
Why would we have to do any of that?
Obama has cut a trillion in spending, he's been more aggressive than any other president in going after Medicare fraud, and he's presented a balanced budget plan with specifics (raising taxes on income over 250,000 a year) and he also supports cutting corporate tax rates while closing loopholes.
In contrast, Romney has not presented specific plans on any of these things.
Black Mamba
Member
No, we don't need to balance the budget or cut spending RIGHT NOW but eventually we should bring our budget into closer alignment (running small deficits is beneficial). I'd definitely like to see some spending cuts, like military. Our tax revenues are depressed from the recession and makes up 1/3 of the deficit. Once that comes back and a natural trail off of spending on safety nets as people return to the workforce will automatically lower spending as would military shrinkage from the War in Afghan. That makes in combo with the $400 billion in lost revenues form the recession makes up most of our deficit.
As far as corporate tax rates go, they should be cut with removal of many deductions/loopholes. Both candidates support this.
But you've still yet to explain how Romney is going to "cut spending" by increasing the military by $2 trillion or how he's going to reduce the deficit with a $5 trillion tax cut without raising taxes on anyone and the deductions don't meet that (nor do growth in economy).
It's fucking magic math.
speculawyer
Member
Yes, we know all the details about Romney Tax Plan.
I love how they realized no one believe they could cut taxes, spend more on the military, and cut the deficit so he has decided to go with 'cut taxes but eliminate deductions' such that it is revenue neutral.
But if it is revenue neutral . . . how does it have any stimulus effect at all? If you cut my taxes but take away my deduction then NOTHING HAS CHANGED! How is doing nothing supposed to change anything?
At best you can say that this will change things so certainly people who were not taking deductions will pay less in tax but those that took a lot of deductions will pay more. But how does that have any real net effect? There is no reasoning presented as to how that is supposed to do anything. It is just Mitt Magic!
speculawyer
Member
What's that? But Kevitivity told me Obama had no plan! That reads a lot like a plan!
Seriously. In a normal political climate, I would be criticizing Obama for spending too much on military and not taxing enough. But Romney is so bad I forget it.
NullPointer
Member
Black Mamba
Member
Romney's using double speak. He's saying the rich will pay the same in TOTAL REVENUES but not in EFFECTIVE TAX RATE. he's lowering their tax percentages.
He is not arguing that in his plan next year the rich will pay the same. The math can only theoretically work something like 5 or 10 years down the line when their earnings went up so much that they pay the same taxes they do now in total dollars but not rate.
Which serves another point. Even if his plan is revenue neutral in the long run it still has to balloon deficits in the short run. There's no other way it can work. At all. No economist would defend the other position.
He's going to fail so hard this route. If women are flocking to Obama, just wait until Obama reveals Ryan's position and Romney's position of signing whatever he gets.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Actually, in the debate, he said the exact opposite thing -- that the top 10 percent will continue to pay 60% of total revenues. This could just be more of his strategy of committing to so many different tax plan restrictions that nobody can find one that fits all the rules.
soon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked