Thread: Romney vs Barry

Originally Posted by FUZO

Put your money on Romney because as some of you might complain Barry canny run on his record and 4 years later he cannot keep blamming bush thats absurd. So every negative ad barry pits out The Republicans can put out double of what barry said 4 years ago which never came through. Ive been reading alot and i'm almost convinced that Barry wants to destroy the United States.But his 4 year terror is almost over. And as Romney brings on his VP and there are alot of good ones out there no matter what the base will come for romney

what's absurd is that people don't realize the cumulative negative effects of an asset bubble burst which lead to a banking collapse which then caused a global recession...

personal consumption is directly correlated to wealth and income...of which 50% of US workers have none

in the past 20 years 75% of the net jobs were created by small firms. small firms are reporting a lack of customers. people have no money. republican economic policies favor the top down, which only makes the problem worst.

What's really absurd is wanting to vote out this guy, just so we can have a "R" lead the 'distruction' of the U.S.

That would make it okay, then.

They're basically the same person. What's important is who owns them while they're in office. I know GE owns Obama. I know the NRA bought Romney when his career went national. But beyond that it gets fuzzy.

What would be helpful is a list of companies who own stock in each candidate. Then you could make a better comparison of who to vote for.

Originally Posted by troubador

They're basically the same person. What's important is who owns them while they're in office. I know GE owns Obama. I know the NRA bought Romney when his career went national. But beyond that it gets fuzzy.

What would be helpful is a list of companies who own stock in each candidate. Then you could make a better comparison of who to vote for.

Vibrant originally posted this.

Obama
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Romney
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

It will be interesting to see how Romney reinvents himself for the general, but right now, the only people excited about Romney are old white men, that's not enough to get elected.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

It will be interesting to see how Romney reinvents himself for the general, but right now, the only people excited about Romney are old white men, that's not enough to get elected.

Who you callin' old?!?!?

Originally Posted by LAM

in the past 20 years 75% of the net jobs were created by small firms. small firms are reporting a lack of customers. people have no money. republican economic policies favor the top down, which only makes the problem worst.

Have you seen the problem get better under Obama?

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Have you seen the problem get better under Obama?

What's your definition of better? My house is worth more, the foreclosures in my neighborhood are now all cleaned up and being lived in. I have a better job making more money. Should I answer yes?

Originally Posted by hoyle21

What's your definition of better? My house is worth more, the foreclosures in my neighborhood are now all cleaned up and being lived in. I have a better job making more money. Should I answer yes?

I was replying to LAM's assertion that most of our economy relies on small business. Small business are in terrible shape right now and he contends a Republican president will only make things worse. Therefore my question was, "Have you seen the problem get better under Obama?"

Again, this is all in reference to small businesses. If you own a small business and are thriving as you say then yes, your answer to the question should be yes. Although I'd venture to say you're in the minority of small business owners.

We could use more of that voooddoo and the trickle down economics works pretty well. if your a billionaire. If you wana know what runs down hill ask a plumber.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

I was replying to LAM's assertion that most of our economy relies on small business. Small business are in terrible shape right now and he contends a Republican president will only make things worse. Therefore my question was, "Have you seen the problem get better under Obama?"

Again, this is all in reference to small businesses. If you own a small business and are thriving as you say then yes, your answer to the question should be yes. Although I'd venture to say you're in the minority of small business owners.

there is only 2 ways for that to happen:

* wage increases - hundreds of economists all over the world have stated time and time again that wages need to come up in the US and it can be done with out causing price inflation.

* make the federal tax code more progressive and uses those monies productively (like not giving them back to large firms in the forms of subsidy, etc.)

the housing asset bubble burst and corresponding bank failures caused the loss of home owner wealth to the tune of around 30%. in previous recession that loss was no greater than 3-4% of homeowner wealth. income, wealth and consumption are directly related.

people mistook this for "just another recession" when it was surely not...

the Federal Reserve Board has been posting pro-union literature on it's website for years...that's how bad wages are in the US.

University of California	$1,648,685
Goldman Sachs	$1,013,091
Harvard University	$878,164
Microsoft Corp	$852,167
Google Inc	$814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$808,799
Citigroup Inc	$736,771
Time Warner	$624,618
Sidley Austin LLP	$600,298
Stanford University	$595,716
National Amusements Inc	$563,798
WilmerHale LLP	$550,668
Columbia University	$547,852
Skadden, Arps et al	$543,539
UBS AG	$532,674
IBM Corp	$532,372
General Electric	$529,855
US Government	$513,308
Morgan Stanley	$512,232
Latham & Watkins	$503,295

obamas top contributors

Ron Paul's:

US Army	$94,876
US Navy	$69,430
US Air Force	$69,131
Google Inc	$38,699
US Dept of Defense	$29,778

Originally Posted by troubador

Ron Paul's:

US Army	$94,876
US Navy	$69,430
US Air Force	$69,131
Google Inc	$38,699
US Dept of Defense	$29,778

That figures. I like RP political views, just not his ideas about defense.

Originally Posted by Jimmyusa

That figures. I like RP political views, just not his ideas about defense.

It's funny, those in defense do.

Yes it is, maybe they know something we do not...

Originally Posted by troubador

It's funny, those in defense do.

this is according to whom? because the voice of US service members is not the voice of the MIC.

Originally Posted by LAM

what's absurd is that people don't realize the cumulative negative effects of an asset bubble burst which lead to a banking collapse which then caused a global recession...

personal consumption is directly correlated to wealth and income...of which 50% of US workers have none

in the past 20 years 75% of the net jobs were created by small firms. small firms are reporting a lack of customers. people have no money. republican economic policies favor the top down, which only makes the problem worst.

Yes, and bankrupting the country with a budget that was voted down 414 to 0 really is a great plan. Regardless of how many studies you post, facts you regurgitate from the Fed offices throughout the US or post OECD statistics, you refuse to admit that O'Bama is a HORRIBLE leader, a divider of the country and a hater of those that are successful. Guess what, no one wants to share what they earned and it is real cute when those dipshits in Hollywood and media say they are fine with it when they all have tax shelters out the ass. Barry needs to go, I would rather take my chances with the GOP than Barry and that useless idiot Harry Reid (that guy needs to have a heart attack ASAP).

Originally Posted by hoyle21

What's your definition of better? My house is worth more, the foreclosures in my neighborhood are now all cleaned up and being lived in. I have a better job making more money. Should I answer yes?

Prove He or his programs did that. If you can for each, you can say yes. He has done nothing for wages that I have seen. Raising taxes or trying to last I checked is not a driver of wage increases; last I checked even if they go up some, unless it outpaces the increase in taxes and the 10% inflation we face, you don't make more at all. Keep believing the liar is the lord and savrior and watch this country make Europe look right wing.

Originally Posted by LAM

there is only 2 ways for that to happen:

* wage increases - hundreds of economists all over the world have stated time and time again that wages need to come up in the US and it can be done with out causing price inflation.

* make the federal tax code more progressive and uses those monies productively (like not giving them back to large firms in the forms of subsidy, etc.)

the housing asset bubble burst and corresponding bank failures caused the loss of home owner wealth to the tune of around 30%. in previous recession that loss was no greater than 3-4% of homeowner wealth. income, wealth and consumption are directly related.

people mistook this for "just another recession" when it was surely not...

The second will never happen, they have every member of congress bought and sold and there is no incentive to change without term limits giving them a reason to make the hard votes happen.

Originally Posted by oufinny

Yes, and bankrupting the country with a budget that was voted down 414 to 0 really is a great plan. Regardless of how many studies you post, facts you regurgitate from the Fed offices throughout the US or post OECD statistics, you refuse to admit that O'Bama is a HORRIBLE leader, a divider of the country and a hater of those that are successful. Guess what, no one wants to share what they earned and it is real cute when those dipshits in Hollywood and media say they are fine with it when they all have tax shelters out the ass. Barry needs to go, I would rather take my chances with the GOP than Barry and that useless idiot Harry Reid (that guy needs to have a heart attack ASAP).

your opinion on Obama's leadership skills is subjective and therefore non-factual.

the current US debt is unpayable. my guess is you hadn't notice the utter lack of papers on this topic out of the top economists in the country. nobody wants to touch it with a 10ft pool, so they just keep their mouths closed not even Krugman wants to go there. as is typical of the ideologue your understand of econ is pathetic and minimal at best.

the right keeps yammering on about budgets yet they never seem to pass one when they are in control. where was the balanced budget amendment when GWB was in office and raised the debt ceiling 7 times?

and if the economic policy's of the right are so efficient then why do all the red states rank at the bottom for all economic indicators, education and health?

Originally Posted by LAM

there is only 2 ways for that to happen:

* wage increases - hundreds of economists all over the world have stated time and time again that wages need to come up in the US and it can be done with out causing price inflation.

* make the federal tax code more progressive and uses those monies productively (like not giving them back to large firms in the forms of subsidy, etc.)

the housing asset bubble burst and corresponding bank failures caused the loss of home owner wealth to the tune of around 30%. in previous recession that loss was no greater than 3-4% of homeowner wealth. income, wealth and consumption are directly related.

people mistook this for "just another recession" when it was surely not...

They have been trying that for 50 years in Europe and it's collapsing. That's why it takes all of Europe and 800 million people to equal our economy of 300 million.
Socialism doesn't work, didn't you pay attention to the last century and the billion dead bodies socialism left behind?

Originally Posted by LAM

your opinion on Obama's leadership skills is subjective and therefore non-factual.

the current US debt is unpayable. my guess is you hadn't notice the utter lack of papers on this topic out of the top economists in the country. nobody wants to touch it with a 10ft pool, so they just keep their mouths closed not even Krugman wants to go there. as is typical of the ideologue your understand of econ is pathetic and minimal at best.

the right keeps yammering on about budgets yet they never seem to pass one when they are in control. where was the balanced budget amendment when GWB was in office and raised the debt ceiling 7 times?

and if the economic policy's of the right are so efficient then why do all the red states rank at the bottom for all economic indicators, education and health?

Your democrats haven't passed or even proposed a budget in 3 years, what exactly are Pelosi and Reed doing other than still whining about Bush? Why is it liberals have the Bush derangement syndrome? Is liberalism a genetic or acquired defect?
Obama has outspent all other presidents combined. He hates this country and everything we stand for.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

What's your definition of better? My house is worth more, the foreclosures in my neighborhood are now all cleaned up and being lived in. I have a better job making more money. Should I answer yes?

Where is your home and worth more than what? Your car? Foreclosures are up. Thats great your neighborhood is doing better, but compared to when? If you have a better job, congratulations. Obama is destroying our economy. That is a fact.

Originally Posted by BFHammer

They have been trying that for 50 years in Europe and it's collapsing. That's why it takes all of Europe and 800 million people to equal our economy of 300 million.
Socialism doesn't work, didn't you pay attention to the last century and the billion dead bodies socialism left behind?

the US debt has been increasing steadily since the Revolutionary war, the US hasn't been debt free since.

every country has been carrying debt since WWII, that was the whole purpose of it. and this debt has increased because of the global recession, which was also intentional.

the right always claims that "socialism" was the cause of European debt yet there is not one single paper from any economist anywhere in the world that supports those statements. now why is that?