View Poll Results: Do you support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Voters
316. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mitt Romney

    86 27.22%
  • Barack Obama

    230 72.78%
Page 39 of 111 FirstFirst ... 293536373839404142434989 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 975 of 2770

Thread: Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

  1. #951
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    1. When the policies that caused the recession were being implemented to begin with, Obama hadn't even been elected Senator yet. Not to excuse him from some of his mistakes on this, because I think Geithner and Summers were awful picks, and it's embarrassing that everyone responsible for the crash escaped justice. But as I made clear, it's a choice between barely adequate and disastrous. Romney is friends with the people that bet on risky loans, the people that promised investors these were safe investments, knowing full well they weren't. I mean, given that Romney worked as CEO for Bain Capital, of course he knew some of those people. That he comes out of that environment suggests to me that he'd be hesitant to do anything his old friends wouldn't like. And the fact is the government needs to do some things that are going to anger the hedge fund managers and brokers and venture capitalists.
    So you have no proof you just assume he knew them. By the way the people who assured the banks were safe, that would be Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the people who pushed these loans via a Clinton directive to the banks. OH and you know who else said these loans were safe? That would be Democrats like Barnie Frank.

    But hey continue to blame Romney by using a strawman for these so called "Friends" while ignoring the fact that Obama actually worked with those who wished to expand these Subprime loans in a way that created this crisis.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/wi...can-americans/

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    2. Because Civil Rights is important, even in a crappy economy.
    In a crappy economy, it is always the economy that takes importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    3. He's said he would and he wouldn't. He changes his mind so often nobody can tell what his actual position on this is. But here's a link that troubles me. Old, but still troubling: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story...1#.UHy1_8Xm5UQ
    I don't see how you claim to not want a national law against abortion and yet say fetuses should have the same legal rights as already born people. I'm sure he's backpedaled or "had a change of heart" on this issue several times since then, but that he ever held this position bothers me.
    "He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that the life issue can be returned to the Democratic process through the people and their elected representatives." Seems to be rather direct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    4. You keep trying to make Solyndra a thing, but nobody cares except angry Republicans.
    That and I would think the Tax Payers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Besides, you want to talk cronyism? Bush administration, Halliburton. If Obama did practice any of that (which I don't think there's any strong evidence of, but whatever), it's dwarfed by the scale of Bush's malfeasance.
    And may I ask what was wrong with Halliburton? Even Clinton used it for the nation building efforts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    5. I don't think those are the only options on the table. I'm as far from an expert as you can get, but what I know is that the escalating costs of healthcare are largely to blame, and so much of that can be fixed by reforming the healthcare system in other ways. If you want a detailed policy argument about it, you've got the wrong guy, this isn't the area of policy I love to argue about. But I think something's seriously wrong when one visit to the emergency room can ruin a family financially.
    So you whine about Romney's idea, but fail to offer any of your own. What does that remind me of? Oh yes the Obama Administration: "We don't have a definitive solution... We just don't like yours"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h_f20ZDBj5k

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    I see nothing in that article that says definitively that it would Romney would be cutting programs for the poor, just assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    7. I don't know what you mean here.
    Merely saying both sides are engaging in class warfare.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    So you have no answer that he also saved companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    9. Are you ignorant of chronology? The crash happened before Obama even took office, and had been set in motion by policies started under the Reagan administration.
    Er no try again.

    "The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

    Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

    "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

    http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/bu...e-lending.html

    Care to talk to me about being ignorant of chronology again?

    But to continue it, what did the Democrats say when Republicans started warning about this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Things have gotten somewhat better since the crash, although still shitty. Your argument is that we should let the Republicans, largely the ones responsible for the irresponsible spending orgies and deregulation during the Bush regime,
    Spending orgies?

    http://media.patriotpost.us/img/ref/obama-deficits.jpg

    The spending had began to decline in the last year of a Republican budget ( 2007 ). What happened in the following year budget and further? The Democrats went on "Spending Orgies" and now have a deficit of over 1 trillion a year for each year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    back into power to clean up their own mess because Obama hasn't done a good enough job.
    Actually it would be cleaning up the Democrats mess...

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Well, he hasn't, and if basically a living symbol of corporate greed wasn't running against him, he would be absolutely crushed on election day. Face it, your party nominated a terrible candidate for the times.
    Hey face it, your candidate doesn't have a economic record to run on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Occupy may have failed, but the language they pushed of 99% versus 1% stuck. And Romney is so visibly, obviously a part of that 1%. If Romney wins, it will be a narrow victory, but you know it shouldn't have been. The factors were all in favor of a Republican winning.
    It was always going to be a close election, denying that is the height of ignorance.

    Also I would suggest using quotes, it comes off rude not doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka
    It may be old, but it goes perfectly with Romney's Etch-A-Sketch policies regardless.
    The video I just watched was right: Romney is a pancake, all flippidy-floppidy.
    Then you must agree Obama is just the same for flip flopping on his view of mandates, who in the debates against Hillary opposed mandates. And then Pancake Flip Flopped Etch-A-Sketched his position after he won and he had to sign Obamacare.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 16th October 2012 at 4:35 AM.

  2. #952
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Interesting fact:
    If Romney and Obama tie in the number of electoral college votes(which is possibility, given how close it is), things could get quite interesting...
    See, then it would go to the Senate to pick the President, mostly Republican out of the top three, in other words,
    1. Obama
    2. Romney
    3. Stein
    And they'd pick Romney.
    However, the VP is picked by the House, separately! Same deal as before:
    1. Biden
    2. Ryan
    3. Honkala
    But in this case, the House is democratic meaning...

    So if Romney and Obama tie...
    Romney would become president and Biden would be Vice.
    Well, at least the news would be interesting...
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  3. #953
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Riding on my Crimson Loftwing
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    Interesting fact:
    If Romney and Obama tie in the number of electoral college votes(which is possibility, given how close it is), things could get quite interesting...
    See, then it would go to the Senate to pick the President, mostly Republican out of the top three, in other words,
    1. Obama
    2. Romney
    3. Stein
    And they'd pick Romney.
    However, the VP is picked by the House, separately! Same deal as before:
    1. Biden
    2. Ryan
    3. Honkala
    But in this case, the House is democratic meaning...

    So if Romney and Obama tie...
    Romney would become president and Biden would be Vice.
    Well, at least the news would be interesting...
    You saw all of that in a YouTube video I'll bet. I saw it too.
    † I am a Christian and proud of it! Copy and paste this if you are too.†


    Credit goes to FairyWitch at Flower Paradise Graphics

    Fanfic Status: Currently postponed-- Kingdom Hearts: Memories' Reflection. Last updated 8/17/13

  4. #954
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Umm no.

    The letter they sent out was this " many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation and other ills" No where does it say that they would lay off employees if Romney was elected. Now David Siegel did correctly say that if Obama was elected that layoffs were coming. But it was not in Koch's letter.
    Either way, it's basically making a threat. And you know, the Koch Bros. are funding the GOP Super PACs.

  5. #955
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Either way, it's basically making a threat. And you know, the Koch Bros. are funding the GOP Super PACs.
    How is it a threat? It warns of the possibility of a Obama Administration Second Term would effect their employees, but it does not threaten their job or livelyhood of the employee in anyway that the Koch Brothers have control over.

  6. #956
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    How is it a threat? It warns of the possibility of a Obama Administration Second Term would effect their employees, but it does not threaten their job or livelyhood of the employee in anyway that the Koch Brothers have control over.
    Sure it does. Although according to 42 USC 1971 b:
    No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

  7. #957
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cometstarlight View Post
    You saw all of that in a YouTube video I'll bet. I saw it too.
    I didn't, my Government teacher might have, but I didn't. My gov teacher is always coming up with stuff like this.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  8. #958
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Sure it does. Although according to 42 USC 1971 b:
    And yet you will find it very hard for a court to find those words, of which provide no immediate threat, intimidation, or coercion to the employee. Simply saying "Hey we feel you guys should know this may happen to the economy" just simply does not rise to that level.

  9. #959
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And the chances of Romney actually doing that? Yeah pretty much nill...
    Are you serious? That's almost certain with Ryan being the VP. Not to mention abortions will be banned in almost all scenarios.
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  10. #960
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle...ish
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    Irresponsible spending is largely a Republican thing and it's Romney who represents the 1 percent? It's like you haven't paid any attention to the number of vacations the current president has taken.


    I'm not going to say much about the rest except to point out that it's laughable that you'd use an old link for the abortion issue. It will be fun to see BigLutz take apart your response.
    What does number of vacations have to do with anything? Being president is a stressful as hell job. Bush took his fair share of vacations, too. As did Clinton, and most other Presidents going back quite a while. But you're going to use THAT to deflect from the fact that the Republican controlled Congress from 2003-2006 spearheaded two wars America couldn't afford while at the same time putting into effect massive tax cuts. And they slashed through financial regulations that would have prevented the kind of risky trading that brought down the global economy. And appointed friends of the industry in regulatory positions, people who flat out looked the other way when this stuff went down.
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...nancial-crisis
    Now, this says both Republicans and Democrats were at fault. Sure. But Obama and the Democrats have since admitted they were wrong and tried to move in another direction, while Republicans have pretended they did nothing wrong, and have continued touting the ideas that got us into this mess in the first place.
    And about the article referring to Romney's position on abortion: yes, it is an old article, from 2007. But shouldn't it still hold true? If it's no longer accurate, it's a clear demonstration of how Romney changes his mind to suit the audience he's speaking to.

    I'll respond to Lutz tomorrow, but the reason I said it wouldn't accomplish anything is because he's deeply convinced of one thing, I of another, and we don't trust each other's motives enough to have a free and honest debate. It could all too easily descend into name-calling and ad hominem attacks on both sides. We have a fundamentally different worldview, life philosophy, and understanding of politics and economics. In order for a debate of any interest to occur, there needs to be agreed upon common ground. I don't believe we have any possibility of that. When he says stuff like "What's wrong with Halliburton?" I don't even understand the kind of mind that comes from. And I largely suspect he doesn't get how I think either. So, tell me, what's the point?

  11. #961
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the Matrix
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    They want to make America like Iran, and they don't really believe in democracy? Man, there are some mighty big insults being flung around in this debate.
    Of course, the Christian Dominionists would like America to become a theocracy. We see it with the war on women's reproductive rights, the malice directed towards gay people, the attacks on the 1st (and arguably the most precious) amendment, the war-mongering, the loathing of people with different religious (or lack of) beliefs, attempting to subvert education with dogma and the affinity for draconian controls over society. The ayatollahs and their filthy myrmidons practise all of these things.

    And the Republicans are so obsessed with power that they were willing to filibuster Obama rather than let him fulfill his mandate (sic). If I were Republican, I would be very happy with the past few years because Obama gets all the blame for their Tauros-****.

    But you can't say that or else you're 'biased' and 'unfair'.
    And do you think that unto such as you;
    A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
    God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
    Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
    ~Omar al-Khayyām, poet of Persia.

  12. #962
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    Interesting fact:
    If Romney and Obama tie in the number of electoral college votes(which is possibility, given how close it is), things could get quite interesting...
    See, then it would go to the Senate to pick the President, mostly Republican out of the top three, in other words,
    1. Obama
    2. Romney
    3. Stein
    And they'd pick Romney.
    However, the VP is picked by the House, separately! Same deal as before:
    1. Biden
    2. Ryan
    3. Honkala
    But in this case, the House is democratic meaning...

    So if Romney and Obama tie...
    Romney would become president and Biden would be Vice.
    Well, at least the news would be interesting...
    No, it's the opposite, the president goes to the republican house, and the Veep goes to the democratic senate.
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  13. #963
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the fog.
    Posts
    51

    Default

    It is when you have one candidate that can viably fix the economy and get it moving forward, and one that cannot. How a candidate will do on the economy should be everyone's deciding factor. Lets talk about Gay Rights in say 2016 when the economy is doing better.
    Why do insist that the government is only capable of taking on one issue at a time? The U.S. had fought the Vietnam war whilst dealing with civil rights movement. The U.S. has coped with the 1970's energy crises while dealing Arab countries declaring war on Israel. And so on and so on. I simply don't accept your premise that an entity as powerful as the U.S. federal government is not well with its means to deal with more than one thing. At this point it honestly sounds almost deceptive to me. What happens in 2016? I'm sure there will be a bigger issue than gay marriage to worry about. In fact, there probably always will be. It's not an excuse to ignore it.

  14. #964
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyRaikou View Post
    No, it's the opposite, the president goes to the republican house, and the Veep goes to the democratic senate.
    Okay, well, same result then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryzera View Post
    Why do insist that the government is only capable of taking on one issue at a time? The U.S. had fought the Vietnam war whilst dealing with civil rights movement. The U.S. has coped with the 1970's energy crises while dealing Arab countries declaring war on Israel. And so on and so on. I simply don't accept your premise that an entity as powerful as the U.S. federal government is not well with its means to deal with more than one thing. At this point it honestly sounds almost deceptive to me. What happens in 2016? I'm sure there will be a bigger issue than gay marriage to worry about. In fact, there probably always will be. It's not an excuse to ignore it.
    Exactly. All the people who shove it off sound like they just want it to be put off indefinitely, but they can't find a legit, lawful argument to face us with.
    And I have yet to find one argument against it besides "The country isnt ready for it", "It's the Bible", or "We cant deal with it right now".
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  15. #965
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula View Post
    And the Republicans are so obsessed with power that they were willing to filibuster Obama rather than let him fulfill his mandate (sic). If I were Republican, I would be very happy with the past few years because Obama gets all the blame for their Tauros-****.

    But you can't say that or else you're 'biased' and 'unfair'.
    Really Obama lost his mandate the minute he switched from the economy to healthcare. His mandate by the people was to fix the economy, he surrendered that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryzera
    Why do insist that the government is only capable of taking on one issue at a time? The U.S. had fought the Vietnam war whilst dealing with civil rights movement. The U.S. has coped with the 1970's energy crises while dealing Arab countries declaring war on Israel. And so on and so on. I simply don't accept your premise that an entity as powerful as the U.S. federal government is not well with its means to deal with more than one thing. At this point it honestly sounds almost deceptive to me. What happens in 2016? I'm sure there will be a bigger issue than gay marriage to worry about. In fact, there probably always will be. It's not an excuse to ignore it.
    The problem with your premise is you are comparing situations where you had a domestic issue and a foreign issue. The Congress can just wave the Army off to fight Vietnam and not have to worry about it, I mean that is why we have a Commander in Chief to deal with the military. Here you are asking for Congress to split it's time on a polarizing domestic issue while working on the economy. We saw how well Congress can do that with Obamacare when Congress grounded to a halt while both sides debated it and refused to budge. The reality is you cannot expect Congress to work on fixing the economy while at the same time debating a polarizing issue.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 16th October 2012 at 4:36 PM.

  16. #966
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Following that star
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    What does number of vacations have to do with anything? Being president is a stressful as hell job. Bush took his fair share of vacations, too. As did Clinton, and most other Presidents going back quite a while. But you're going to use THAT to deflect from the fact that the Republican controlled Congress from 2003-2006 spearheaded two wars America couldn't afford while at the same time putting into effect massive tax cuts. And they slashed through financial regulations that would have prevented the kind of risky trading that brought down the global economy. And appointed friends of the industry in regulatory positions, people who flat out looked the other way when this stuff went down.
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...nancial-crisis
    Now, this says both Republicans and Democrats were at fault. Sure. But Obama and the Democrats have since admitted they were wrong and tried to move in another direction, while Republicans have pretended they did nothing wrong, and have continued touting the ideas that got us into this mess in the first place.
    And about the article referring to Romney's position on abortion: yes, it is an old article, from 2007. But shouldn't it still hold true? If it's no longer accurate, it's a clear demonstration of how Romney changes his mind to suit the audience he's speaking to.

    I'll respond to Lutz tomorrow, but the reason I said it wouldn't accomplish anything is because he's deeply convinced of one thing, I of another, and we don't trust each other's motives enough to have a free and honest debate. It could all too easily descend into name-calling and ad hominem attacks on both sides. We have a fundamentally different worldview, life philosophy, and understanding of politics and economics. In order for a debate of any interest to occur, there needs to be agreed upon common ground. I don't believe we have any possibility of that. When he says stuff like "What's wrong with Halliburton?" I don't even understand the kind of mind that comes from. And I largely suspect he doesn't get how I think either. So, tell me, what's the point?
    The point is to present facts, and use reason. The world around us is common ground. Reason is common ground.

    Take this for example: You provide a link saying that both parties are at fault. Yet you say that the democrats admitted their fault. Really? Where? Some evidence would be good. It is also interesting that the current president has kept up one of the wars started in Bush's presidency, and gotten involved in other conflicts (which costs money). And the current president has, by anyone's reckoning, spent a massive amount of our nation's money (which is why the huge number of vacations is important--he's not exactly helping cut down our debt).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula View Post
    Of course, the Christian Dominionists would like America to become a theocracy. We see it with the war on women's reproductive rights, the malice directed towards gay people, the attacks on the 1st (and arguably the most precious) amendment, the war-mongering, the loathing of people with different religious (or lack of) beliefs, attempting to subvert education with dogma and the affinity for draconian controls over society. The ayatollahs and their filthy myrmidons practise all of these things.
    Who are the "Christian Dominionists"? Are they some specific group or does it include any self-professed Christian who votes (presumably not democrat)?

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  17. #967
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    On a island.
    Posts
    26

    Default

    I'll probably be penalized for this, but I think Romney would be a better president in office then Obama, his ideas all seem to be better and it makes more sense. And like he said in his advertisement, "We don't want another 4 years like the lasts 4 years"...
    [img]http://oi52.*******.com/x0zrbb.jpg[/img]
    ~Have a Lovely day, an don't forget to be Victorious!~

  18. #968
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    My mom's basement
    Posts
    685

    Default

    Both candidates are risky; Obama created only 4 million jobs, but he told everyone exactly how he did it. Romney says he'll create 12 million jobs, but he isn't telling anyone how he's doing so until after the elections are over.

  19. #969
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle...ish
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VictoriousVictini View Post
    I'll probably be penalized for this, but I think Romney would be a better president in office then Obama, his ideas all seem to be better and it makes more sense. And like he said in his advertisement, "We don't want another 4 years like the lasts 4 years"...
    Please, please do more research. Because Romney is being advised by many of the same people who advised George W. Bush, the real culprit behind this economic mess. I don't want to "penalize" you for your comment, but I think it demonstrates a lack of knowledge about our situation. Don't take what Romney says at face value. For that matter, don't take what Obama says at face value either. Both have lied a lot. I just happen to think Obama has a steady, competent personality, while Romney's constant mind-changing suggest a man without principle, an indecisive leader easily influenced by others. See, that's the thing, it's a lousy set of choices. But this is what being an adult often entails: making hard choices where neither option seems satisfactory.
    Anyway, what ideas of his seem better? Cutting taxes for everyone while closing unspecified "loopholes", and hoping this magic math sorts everything out? Destroying Medicare under the guise of saving it? Increasing the military budget to absurd amounts while slashing programs that benefit the lower class disproportionately? Committing the U.S. to a costly and in all probability horrific war with Iran? Letting the US auto industry go bankrupt? Oh, sure, he has LOTS of great ideas.

  20. #970
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the fog.
    Posts
    51

    Default

    The problem with your premise is you are comparing situations where you had a domestic issue and a foreign issue. The Congress can just wave the Army off to fight Vietnam and not have to worry about it, I mean that is why we have a Commander in Chief to deal with the military. Here you are asking for Congress to split it's time on a polarizing domestic issue while working on the economy. We saw how well Congress can do that with Obamacare when Congress grounded to a halt while both sides debated it and refused to budge. The reality is you cannot expect Congress to work on fixing the economy while at the same time debating a polarizing issue.
    And congress wasn't split on the Iraq war example? How many times did Pelosi and the democrats in congress try use the power of the purse to get troops from overseas back home? Such as voting against the troop surge, or voting against bills that would supply U.S. military personnel with the equipment that they needed? I don't think it's so much a problem with congress as it is the current presidents inability to work and compromise with congress. He's an asshat. Not to mention, healthcare and gay marriage are two completely different ball parks. 70% of Americans were against Obama's idea of healthcare, so it's no surprise that congress went into a deadlock when Obama tried to ram it through. Congress has an obligation to be loyal to their constituents. Gay marriage on the other hand while polarizing, wouldn't be anywhere near the nightmare that the healthcare debate caused in congress. The majority of the U.S. population is moving in favor of gay marriage and any politician in the senate or house is paying the hell attention to the changing demographic if they care at all about keeping their seats.
    Last edited by Dryzera; 16th October 2012 at 11:07 PM.

  21. #971
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Please, please do more research. Because Romney is being advised by many of the same people who advised George W. Bush, the real culprit behind this economic mess.
    Yes lets look at how responsible George W Bush is shall we?

    2001

    April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

    2002

    May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

    2003

    February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

    September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

    November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).

    2004

    February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

    February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).

    June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).

    2005

    April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).

    2007

    August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

    December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

    2008

    February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).

    March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).

    April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).

    May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

    “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).

    “[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).

    “Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).

    June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).

    And then the rest is history... Fannie and Freddie Collapsed as the Subprime Mortgages they started peddling under the Clinton Administration toppled them.

    http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09...in-2008-alone/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

    Yes how dare those in the Bush Administration.... warn about the failures in the housing market that could destroy our economy! Dammit they must be playing some kind of mind games where they screw up the economy while warning the exact same time!

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Destroying Medicare under the guise of saving it?
    Leaving Medicare alone will destroy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Increasing the military budget to absurd amounts while slashing programs that benefit the lower class disproportionately?
    Which programs will Romney cut to do that? Name them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Committing the U.S. to a costly and in all probability horrific war with Iran?
    No matter if the U.S. stays out of war with Iran or not, Iran will still blame us and attack us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire View Post
    Letting the US auto industry go bankrupt? Oh, sure, he has LOTS of great ideas.
    Letting the auto industry go bankrupt IS a good idea, going bankrupt does not mean it disappears, it means it allows it to restructure those deadly contracts it has with unions, and come out stronger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryzera
    And congress wasn't split on the Iraq war example? How many times did Pelosi and the democrats in congress try use the power of the purse to get troops from overseas back home?
    None that I can remember, they never actively cut off funding, they threatened it but at the end they did not want to risk looking anti troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryzera
    Not to mention, healthcare and gay marriage are two completely different ball parks. 70% of Americans were against Obama's idea of healthcare, so it's no surprise that congress went into a deadlock when Obama tried to ram it through. Congress has an obligation to be loyal to their constituents. Gay marriage on the other hand while polarizing, wouldn't be anywhere near the nightmare that the healthcare debate caused in congress. The majority of the U.S. population is moving in favor of gay marriage and any politician in the senate or house is paying the hell attention to the changing demographic if they care at all about keeping their seats.
    Gay Marriage gets about 50% polarization, and can go even higher when put on a ballot in states, even gay friendly states like California voted against it. Furthermore if the Congress is seen focusing on this and letting the economy slide, expect the number of people opposed not to gay marriage, but to Congress focusing on it at this time to rise drastically. Remember not everyone was opposed to health care reform, the 70% number was helped by people looking at the crappy economy and saying "REALLY?! You are doing this NOW!"
    Last edited by BigLutz; 16th October 2012 at 11:59 PM.

  22. #972
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Supreme Court approves Ohio early voting this election. This is considered a win for the Obama campaign especially since Obama has an edge in Ohio.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

  23. #973
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Oooooh shiz, Obama brought his A+ game today. And he's gonna need it. But man, he's on fire!
    "Romney doesn't have a five point plan; he has a one point plan!"
    Yes! Attacks!
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  24. #974
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    These town hall debates generally suck but there's so much tension right now lol.
    FC: 1779-0800-2195
    My friend safari: Noibat, Gabite, Druddigon

  25. #975
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pokemon world, I wish ._...XD
    Posts
    1,667

    Default

    Obama sounds better tonight...At least in style. xD Something he should of sounded like last time...xD

    I'll see about the facts later.

    and i agree...so much tension. ._...XD
    When refering to learning..."In other words, groups are not where ideas are born. Groups are where ideas are evaluated."
    My eyes! (my eyes!) are filled with curiosity! You think! (You think!) that you have power over me! In this life! (This life!) There’s no room for you and me! So turn around and face the day with me!
    Such a sexy song. Urgh.

Page 39 of 111 FirstFirst ... 293536373839404142434989 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •