As a supporter of the ticket, it pains me to say this. But man, this choice was so freaking risky, akin to McCain picking palin but even worse on a fundamental level. I'm convinced that Romney did this out of weakness rather than strength or any political shrewdness.
I have some issues with the Ryan plan, but I admire his courage to tackle these major problems in an intelligent forthright manner. He does add a lot of substance to an otherwise spineless philosophically vacuous Romney campaign. Now it's a BIG election on fundamental questions on the role and limitations of the federal government and its proper relations to the American people. Without a doubt, it's the most important election since Reagan's defeat of Carter in 1980.
Whoever wins will do so by a large margin and transform this country. Both my brains and gut are telling me that unfortunately Romney-Ryan will be on the other side on election night.
Not trying to dismiss your opinion/prediction in any way, but I'm interested to hear why you say this, just because I find it to be the most unimportant election in history actually. Color me politically ignorant, but while Romney will probably do more to help the economy, the presidency isn't what's going to make everything better overnight. Personally I care more about what happens in Congress.
That said, I do think if Romney wins the stock market will jump pretty significantly.
Good points. I agree that the president by himself has little power over the economy. However, I think in this case, if Romney-Ryan loses, there's a good chances the dems take back the house, and if they win, the GOP can win the senate. This usually happens in a defining election in which there is a sharp contrast between the two presidential candidates. Under such circumstances, the American people choose one vision over the other, and one party wins it all (or close to it).
I think Obama's first term showed that he is far more liberal on domestic policies than his 2008 campaign indicated. He is a very arrogant man who is utterly convinced that government programs are the solution to our nation's woes. If Obama wins by a landslide, he will have a mandate to push through his radical agenda: much higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, card check, appointing ultra-liberal federal judges, more government subsidies for failed businesses, etc. The overall trajectory of this country will shift sharply towards the left, akin to what happened in 1964 after LBJ destroyed Goldwater.
Not really. He's just catering to his base just like Republicans cater to their bible thumpers
I rather sit my ass at home than vote for Obama or Romney. If Gary Johnson could actually get TV time on the national debates I'd vote him
Obama will win, because 99% of Americans are retarded. Let's try not to complain too much about it and profit from it.
you mean everyone 'cept the 1% ?
wait a minute...
I may be in the minority, but as a swing voter I was pleased with the pick. Reasons I would choose not to vote GOP is because of some of their ridiculous stances on social issues. By picking Ryan, we have two guys that are socially moderate (despite what Romney may claim) and show a greater ability to grasp what the economy needs than Obama and Biden who are completely clueless. I, like a lot of young people in my generation am fiscally conservative but just could not bring myself to vote for a Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin wingnut. Romney secured my vote with this.
Interesting points guys. Who do you think will be most beneficial to the Finance world?
Of course obama will win. I have never even thought once that Romney would have a chance. As blackhat said though i think congress is where things are important anyways.
I really wish the republican party could put up a better candidate than Romney. Would love to see Obama out of office, he is way too liberal on all the wrong issues (economy, regulation, government spending) and not liberal enough when it comes to our freedom (admittedly I was an Obama supporter over McCain).
But I have no idea where Romney stands on anything, and I doubt anyone does. Sure I wholly believe Romney would be better for the economy than Obama and he would also help this industry way more than the regulation-happy democrats. But let's face it, Romney is not a good candidate; this guy can't even connect with his own base let alone independents. If I knew a shred of what Romney believed on issues I might vote for him, but he says whatever people want to hear at the time (I know all politicians do, but Romney won't hold on any issue). Not to mention Romney's about as anti-gun as the "average" democrat (granted Obama would probably outlaw everything including bolt action hunting rifles if he could).
Unfortunately, I agree that Obama will win by a good amount. Even with what I've just said, a change would be better than an Obama's second term where he won't have to worry about reelection. Regardless, I vote for who I believe is the best candidate and at the moment that is Gary Johnson.
What I will honestly do: not vote and bitch about whoever wins. I think both Romney and Obama are much more similar than either side would like to admit.
Any thread with mcmillan in it, also deserves this ass clown. I won't embed for the sake of irrelevance, lol.
Absolutely NO chance Obama loses
It won't be a landslide. It will be a fairly close election. But Romney is fighting way too much here.
Romney will do well in the coastal swing states- he will probably pick up much of the southeast, maybe even New Hampshire and Vermont, but he'll be weak in swing states like Ohio and Wisconsin. Folks in flyover country are not going to be enthusiastic voters for a presidential candidate born apparently with a silver spoon in his mouth. They need to sense that he has been there, done that, and empathizes with their situation.
Were you shot down over Vietnam and tortured by the Vietcong and still carry a limp to this day? You'd be an IDEAL Republican presidential candidate.
Did you go to a state school, quit, be a bartender for seven years, go back and finish your degree, finally after a zillion hours of networking land at an investment bank? You would be an IDEAL Republican presidential candidate.
Were you the son of a governor, attend a private high school, go to Harvard undergrad, attend HBS, found Bain Capital, and become the definition of Massachusetts elite? You will have a lot of Republican voters- and voters in general- grittting their teeth.
Romney needs to have some stories here to try and mitigate this. Was he ever rejected from HBS before he got in? Did he have a business failure before he started Bain? Most people struggle in life and they want to hear that Romney had a lot of setbacks, failures, and unhappiness before he had success.
The northeast is not in play. Since 1992, only one norhteastern state has ever gone to a republican presidential candidate: New Hampshire for George W. Bush in 2000 after Nader took votes away from Gore. Romney could win NH, but that's it for that region.
I agree that Romney does not have a compelling personal story in the same breadth of McCain, Dole, or Reagan. Bush did not either, but he overcame it with folksy charm, which Romney clearly lacks. It's unfortunate though because Romney has done a lot of good stuff: byu undergrad after one year at stanford, 2 years as a missionary in france where he got into a fatal car crash, married his high school swetheart, worked his butt off at harvard jd/mba while with kids, and then totally dominated in the world of strategy consulting and private equity. The guy has been a success almost his entire life-the prototypical overachiever. I think American voters have a hard time relating to a man who is clearly so much better than them in every aspect. In a sense, he's too "perfect" for them to relate to.
Perfect? Are you kidding me? Anywhere outside of America that he goes, he makes an utter clown out of himself. Cameron, the leader of perhaps America's closest ally, openly insulted Romney for being ignorant. Popular British newspapers called him a twit. He is so ignorant that he thinks Iran is a land-locked country! Are you kidding me, this guy who hasn't ever even seen a map, or knows how to properly converse with a foreigner, thinks he can be president! Biggest joke of the century. With regards to PE, Romney was well-connected as hell, and was often in the right place at the right time (joined Bain just when it was starting out).
I'm no liberal, but it's pretty obvious that Obama will crush Romney come November.
Bush taught voters that you can't trust the elite folks who are Republicans. For that matter, for the next thirty years, Bush will cause problems for Republicans with ivy league degrees in politics.
Exactly. They are such colossal morons and utter failures that they want to feel "relatable" to the person yet they want the person to be an ultra mega genius who will fix the economy overnight.
Worst part about stupid people? They breed.
Other than that, no objections.
Honestly, the average American is being sold the following story: "Romeny was born rich and frankly doesn't understand you, and doesn't care to, unlike previous generations of the sons of scions such as T Roosevelt who was from the rich class but not FOR the rich class: he was for America. Obama, on the other hand, was poor and is now rich and powerful...HE GETS IT. He gets what being poor, middle class, and global power elite are about and can make them all work together, unlike Romney who doesn't take his responsibility as an American aristocrat seriously. Obama is at this point from the rich and celebrated for lifting himself up, but Romeny is FOR the rich and really no one else."
THAT'S the narrative at this point coming from the dems.
I'm not taking a side here, but that's pretty hard to argue with. Calling the public stupid doesn't help outsell this idea and I'm nor sure what would. The other thing is the cultural war: frankly, I'm a social liberal and I'm sick to death of the GOP's 9th century worldview. On that bullshit alone they deserve to lose. Seriously, WTF, get out of my bedroom, get out of my church, and seriously get the hell out of here with the holier than thou crap. I've had it.
Goosfrabah, counting to ten..........ahhh, happy place again
The only major issue that Obama really has to fight is the topic of fiscal deficits. The war, the cultural debate, his birth certificate etc etc etc won't cut it. This is the only issue where the GOP can really get their shot, but I'm not sure they see this.
Were I a GOP political consultant, I'd make this obvious to Romney and FOX news and the rest of the GOP borg apparatus. However, I am not, and Karl Rove is off his game lately, so I see a win for Obama by a few points. At this point, the GOP understands two things: 1. that America is still pretty pissed off at them for Bush and 2. they'd do better running a much stronger candidate in 2016. Everything else is noise.
Like I said, I'm just calling it like I see it, and my own personaly views are basically not going to change anything. Thing is, I tend to be very accurate at calling this kind of thing, and I haven't been wrong before.
I would also point out that college liberals turn into working conservatives when they start paying taxes.
That said, I still find college Republicans creepier than college Democrats.
you mean all 4 of them
Start paying taxes THEN whine about it.
No point voting Romney considering I'm a New York resident. Shitty blue state.
http://supportpopularvote.com/
Brady, I completely agree with you. Ryan adds nothing to his campaign. When he's asked about the finances behind his budget proposals on CNBC, it becomes quite clear that he has no idea what he is talking about. This will single-handedly end the Tea-Party movement.
My Prediction, Obama will get 51-52% of the vote which isn't a landslide by any means but will probably be enough to pick up 325+ electoral votes (Assuming there isn't a market crash/unemployment spike to 9% before the election). By not picking Rubio in order to not get crushed by losing 2/3 of the Hispanic vote, Romney ensured his own defeat
Is no-one here giving Romney a chance? He has a few things going for him. Turnout isn't going to be as high as it was in 2008 and the current administration hasn't accomplished anything besides a borderline Unconstitutional health care bill.
I think this has to be analyzed the other way around. Romney is no savior but he is a clear upgrade on Obama. He just has to capitalize on Obama's lost ground.
I really fail to see how Romney is an "upgrade" on Obama.
--He isn't running on his record as Governor of Massachusetts
--He denounced his single biggest achievement as Governor (in essence, calling himself a failure)
--He claims his business experience is why he should be President, but then complains when his business experience comes under scrutiny (not to mention, being a good PE investor doesn't mean that you somehow have a magic bullet to fix the economy...seeing as no magic bullet exists)
--He wants to boost defense spending to cold war style levels which makes no sense given defense budget priorities as laid out by he DOD in the last two QDR reports (and as put in recent defense budgets)
--And he's more socially conservative, so fuck that.
Btw, to call Obama anything other than a moderate is such bullshit. He's only a liberal if you're moving the goal posts.
As for defence spending: I read the QDR, DOD, and CRS reports....daily....and have done so for well over a decade. Honestly, the militarization campaign espoused by Romney is is unviable: there's no pressing need and the resources to support a buildup will force canniblization of other areas of the budget. Frankly, every frustrated Republican denouncing Bush, calling themselves a 'libertarian' and openly distancing themselves from the TP movement (while privately agreeing) is not fooling anyone on the selling line of "they're all the same but Romney is closer to where I stand". If you think they're the 'same' you're not paying attention.
As for Paul Ryan, he's the same brand of doublespeaking 'Catholic' that is killing the Church. I actually AM a practicing Catholic who openly challenges the outdated social policy of the Church, just like I am a law abiding American who protested the last president's disastrous policies. Ryan, on the other hand, is the type of sleezy hypocrite that pays lip service to being a good Catholic, publicly grandstands the public line of 'morality', and then goes and does whatever the hell he damn well pleases. I can spot this a mile away because I grew up around it: I'm not judging his policies, I'm judging HIM.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm really disliking everything about the GOP and their ticket at this point. It's a political party, not a religion or family, they're fucking up and I'm throwing them to the wolves until they get their sorry asses in gear. If anyone here wants to debate/critique/argue any of these points on the facts, go for it, because I'm actually interested in making sure my perspective is on point. But do not waste time on rhetoric unless you want to be made fun of, I just have no patience for children parroting what they see on the news, and my understanding is that this site is populated by thinking adults.
Whats wrong with being socially conservative? Post 1960s America has slowly been turning into a cesspool.
Jesus , people act as if elections were decided on merits. Romney is a Mormon , and that is going to severely depress turnout - especially in the south. Furthermore , if you want to debate whether the US can cut taxes , increase military spending and leave Medicare/Medicaid intact , then your argument isn't with the democrats . It's with arithmetic.
If we come up with a reasonable definition of transformative , I'll take the other side of your bet. For size. Nothing will be trasformed yet. Cynicism about the political process is a winning betting strategy
Paul Ryan...wants to essentially tell old people to go fuck themselves when it comes to healthcare... that will not fly in Florida meaning Romney can't win the end.
Medicare will have to be cut eventually , whether it's on a democrat's watch or on a republican's. It's goddamn Arithmetic. Either the age , or the scaling of the copay by your income , some form of cost mitigation will need to be enforced.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the thing is old people aren't going to let that go down without a huge fight and since they are the largest voting demographic that doesn't help Romney at all.
Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Glad to see you guys realize that Romney-Ryan ticket doesn't stand a chance in hell
The fact that people think Romney/Ryan doesn't stand a chance is a sign the country is fuxed. This is a hold my nose and vote time for me. I'd vote a dead stinking dog into office before I'd vote for Obama. I mean, is it even legal to have a retard as a vice president?
Bring on the ms's. I'm ready.
SB since you made me laugh.
.
How can you expect Florida to go to Romney....
.
Obama just basically said: ''let's move forward to socialism''
Paul Ryan is just some tool that has tried to act smart his whole life.
Does anyone think he really "crunched the numbers"? His budget asserts bullshit like 2.8% unemployment in the 2020s, discretionary spending going from 12% GDP to to 3% by 2050 (defense spending is like 5% right now already), says he can close loopholes to make up for tax cuts (doesn't say which), says he can cut medicare costs by just giving out vouchers, etc. Simply put, the numbers he "crunched" are comical.
And oh my, the whole Ayn Rand thing. His obsession with her really shows how damn shallow his thinking is.
Mittens really should've picked someone who could do a lot more in sealing one of the swing states for him, like Rubio.
Now he gets this cool thing where he lets Obama paint him as a job cutting outsourcer and Paul Ryan wants to eat your medicare.
Honestly, you are really going to fault Ryan for not being to the dot specific, yet not subject Obama to that same level of scrutiny? Don't blame politicians for being vague, blame the majority of American for having a preschool understanding of how life works.
Romney has a massive outline on his website for how he is going to do things. Romney is anything but vague in real life. The man is detail orientated to almost a fault. Problem is the American public doesn't want details, they want slogans and hoopla.
The people get what they deserve. If Romney or Ryan actually got into the weeds with things people would glaze over and vote for Obama because he speaks like you would to a child.
Hope and Change youngin'.
Lets move forward little one
Get real.
lol the only reason I'd support Obama is for having 21st century social policies and the fact that fundie nutjobs aren't as numerous on his side. Fiscally I am no fan at all.
However, I very much dislike Paul Ryan
I'm not faulting Ryan for not being specific, I'm faulting him for living in a fantasy land with his budget and then getting all this hoopla surrounding him. His budget plan is not realistic and it simply hurts other alternatives now that everyone has piled behind him.
By picking him, Romney is pushing Ryan's budget into the spotlight even more, and whatever plan he has is honestly going to get overshadowed. He's not going to be able to distance himself from it anymore, and I think he's put himself in a weaker position by picking Ryan.
Honestly, I feel for Romney. From what I know about him, he's a nice person and intelligent. But damn, he comes off as a brick on TV and hasn't been able to really get his shit together.
The parallels are interesting to me.
Someone disagrees with you...
Regards
Again, it simply doesn't actually go into the stuff.
The budget is simply unrealistic. Although Ryan claims that he thinks that stuff like highways, public transportation, security, etc. are all within government limits of power, his budget pretty much guts everything except medicare, defense, social security, and interest. It projects crap like discretionary spending going down to 4% of GDP when it's been 8+ every year since WWII. There is a remarkable assertion that unemployment will be 4% in 2015, and 2.8 in 2021. And his medicare proposals are pressured by all sorts of issues like low physician payments, reduced care, requiring enormous revenues, etc.
CBO: http://cbo.gov/publication/22085 cbpp: http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-7-11bud.pdf Heritage analysis: http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/heritageanalysis452011.pdf graph of projected unemployment: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TZxfcaTNwLI/AAAAAAAAAZA/…
Like any model, when you put junk in, you get junk out.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/3zTW6Ekqn-4
How many of you vote? I don't mean how many of you are eligible to vote, but how many actually go out and vote? Actually, on second thought, I mean both.
You'd think there would be more Wall Street guys sucking Romney's kneecaps for his PE background. All this shit about how he doesn't have a likable personality and isn't relatable has been discussed ad nauseum, and let's just face that he's the lesser of two evils. For those who say it won't change a thing no matter who's president, then just vote for someone different if it doesn't matter.
I vote when I am registered.
I am still undecided. I will be gritting my teeth either way.
Here's hoping Ron Paul or Mayor Bloomberg gets on the ballot.
Rumor has it he'll be running in "the Gulp is too damn big" party.
Regards
The country's going fascist anyways; if we're going to have one in the white house, he may as well at least be smart and not hold grudges against minorities.
It's crystal clear in my mind.
If anyone here is confused, there's the breakdown. I know that business is mote efficient and humans are flawed, but in terms of vision I think parsing it out any differently is highly disingenuous.
So you will be voting Republican this election? I mean we currently live in a world where the top 10% paid 70% of all the Federal income tax.
This fallacy that the "evil" rich are ruining this country is being played to the hilt by the community organizer in chief. The rich pay their "fair" share. Taking from someone simply because they can feel the pain is not how things should be and are done in the USA. We need to cut spending, inject efficiency and allow people to succeed (or fail) on their own.
Utilitarianism is parroted by the left as an excuse for their morally bankrupt platform of governmental robbery. The good of the many is achieved through allowing the hungry, strong and inventive to succeed and the weak, lazy and entitled to fail.
The more we punish and rob from the successful in some failed attempt at helping, the more we water down and destroy what made this country great.
So you mean Romney?
Obama went to some good schools and that is about it. He is worth $2.1MM so I really don't see him mingling with the common man. His career has been based on manipulating this dumber than he is. Considering that Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan I am not sure how effective he is at organizing the community. Maybe if he spent less time with an anti American "pastor" he would have gotten more done. Oh well :(
Either way, people are free to vote however they way. I'd rather see a President who is more pro business and less about increasing taxes. The government already has too much money. Obama wasted all his political capital during a horrible recession on increasing government and adding yet another expensive entitlement program. He then spent the next 2 years blaming everyone but Santa Claus for not getting anything else done.
Yeah, a President who mocks religion and gun ownership, something that is held very closely to the majority of Americans.
Detached from the common man, interested in increasing our reputation overseas (which is a joke, as if America should care what bankrupt Europe or anyone else thinks of us), a man who has never created anything, but succeed on the backs of others.
I'll take Romney any day of the week. I'd vote for a stuffed animal as long as I don't have to hear people crying about "fair" and "you didn't build that".
One other thing: the top people at this point in America history are indeed BUILDING things, so I disagree with what was either a serious gaffe or a mistaken viewpoint of Obama. The people at the top organize things, and in this country they tend to do it well.
However
Just like facebook, microsoft, the military and every other large organization there is something to keep in mind. (1) Any number of other highly qualified candidates are standing right behind the #1 guy at any given time, so it's not like any leader is indespensible. (2) the people who function within these organizations are not to be neglected and/or abused simply for not being at the top....they have rights too.
What I see in the GOP is a rigid heirarchy that espouses a winner take all mentality about everything and while this is true in some sectors (war, trading, etc) it's not the basis of running a country. The GOP flat out ran this country into the ground the last time they were in charge and frankly, I question the judgement of anyone barking up that tree again.
I agree. I wish Bush never would have listened to the people of this country. Rates should have been risen. Lending standards should never have been lowered. Banks should have been let to fail. And Bush would have lost his re-election.
The sheep cry out for mortgages to buy homes they know they cannot afford. The sheep cry out for more protection after 9/11 and then complain they have to be pat down. The sheep cry out for healthcare, as long as they are not taxed anymore (and then complain about rising prices, brought on by inflation, brought on by a government that spends without taxation.
And whatever the Republicans did wrong, Obama is simply double downing on. I'd happily vote Democrat if Obama came in, cut the budget, pulled us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc. Instead he perpetuated all of Bush's policies, while keeping and increasing spending at all time highs.
He has brought neither hope nor change to this country. He was elected with high hopes and failed miserably.
Under promise and over deliver. Obama failed on both of these accounts.
I've refrained from any rhetoric, but part of compromise is meeting people half way. So:
Debate can be very subjective, but the objective data points are that they made bad decisions and blamed everyone around them for it...including each other. I understand that Obama's vision for the future is somewhat different than mine, but I don't see a spoiled rich kid riding into politics on his dad's name and rapidly fucking everything up. I see a guy who worked very hard in the face of serious personal setbacks, went to school, got a job, got involved, and fit the bill for his current position. His opponent is yet another kid who doesn't understand real life outside of the guilded comfort zone, and I don't see a compelling differentiation between him and the last one. These two narratives are very different:(1) rags to riches, assumes that a base line of rights are required for everyone for country to function well, most people will never be rich, but can at least live well vs (2) riches to ....well, still rich and BTW it's YOUR fault you're not yet, and fuck you for asking for help to just live, let alone really prosper, you're on your own
Not even close.
This is an easy sell dude, this contest was over before it even started.
Romney has done plenty on his own. Just because he came from money doesn't mean life was handed to him. And honestly, I care about results, not about Obama and whatever trials and tribulations he might have went through.
And maybe Obama should release his college transcripts if he is going to stand on this self built man BS. Perry and Bush got attacked for their college aptitude. I'd be interested to see the full story with Obama.
Hopefully the Republicans can pull off a sweep of the Senate and keep the House. If Obama wins the best that can be hoped for is keeping his policies at bay. The automatic budget cuts will come in and do the dirty work.
Ball isn't in my court. I support Romney because I think he will be pro business and not continually push tax increases. I don't care about his childhood, how rich he is, etc. He has proven to me that he is a pretty successful guy who knows how to make money, run businesses, run governments.
Obama, for all his rages to riches hoopla, has done jack. He got elected because the people hated Bush and thought Hillary is/was a bitch. A stuffed animal would have beat McCain in that election (actually, one did).
Obama is running on the populist/class warfare ticket and will most likely win. He isn't going to help this country and taxing people more to give to someone else isn't going to create a job or do anything to really help this country.
IMO, Romney will move the country to where I want to see it. Obama will move it away from that vision. Lever pulled, vote cast. As a fail safe, I will be throwing the lever and hoping that the Republicans take the Senate to nullify an Obama 2nd term.
If we can't beat him, neutralize him. I'll put up with 4 more years of crying about fairness like a 3 year old complain that their brother got more Cheerio's than they did.
Only in America where the top earners pay the vast majority of the taxes, where the population is obese from an overabundance of cheap and available food, where the poor and elderly have paid for healthcare, welfare, section 8, paid for K-12, great state schools, after school programs, charity upon charity, the ability to move throughout the country, labor laws, national security, etc et all, only in this country will people complain about not getting their "fair" share.
Can we please ship "Americans" overseas and bring in immigrants who actually know what suffering and injustice is?
[quote=TNA]Only in America where the top earners pay the vast majority of the taxes/quote]
Dude, stop making this argument, it's completely asinine. For a finance person, you're acting completely ignorant of basic segmentation analysis.
Of course top earners pay the vast majority of taxes, they are the top earners who earn the majority of income. Even if there was a regressive income tax the top earners would pay the majority of taxes, simply because of the taxable income base.
Please tell me how this is an unfair argument? The Federal government is financed from the earnings of the "rich". This is not Robin Hood times where the King took from the poor and taxed them to death.
YOU are not understanding the point that I am making. I agree with you that in a progressive income tax the wealth will pay more. I do not want the poor to pay more, if any. What I want is for them to shut up with this cry baby "fair" routine. The tax system is incredibly fair. If you are poor you pay zero. If you are wealthy you shoulder almost all the burden. Sounds incredibly "fair" to the lower half in my book.
Since you are not capable of civil debate or even a factual interpretation of reality, I offer the following:
That's what the Mexicans are here for. Personally, I'd grant amnesty to them, but the GOP isn't having it, so way to kill your own damn point. My family came here straight out of Auschwitz, has served in every American war since then, and my generation is mopping up the enormous PTSD mess, so don't even talk to me about injustice, you have no fucking concept of suffering, shut the fuck up with your ignorance.My personal perception of you is that the majority of your social circle is Republican and you arent' capable or willing of thinking for yourself for fear of alienating yourself. Facts are, your team is going to lose, and they deserve to. And I will go back to being an apolitical person who frankly doesn't give a damn.
I'm done here.
Wow, must have hit a nerve. I look at what I think a candidate will do and how I think it will benefit/hurt me. I don't focus on their upbringing.
If you want to vote for someone because you consider them the underdog, fine, that is your right. I will not.
And no where did I mention you in anything. This country, by and large, lazy and entitled. We are turning away students and people who want to work in this country LEGALLY. The GOP is against people coming into this country illegally.
When you calm down and want to have a rational discussion I will be here. Until then go stew.
UFO, I think you are sorely overestimating (1) how well Obama has done and (2) how much of Mitt's success was a result of where he started.
Mitt Romney may have been born on third and made it home, but he's subsequently been up to bat half a dozen times and he continually hits home runs. He graduated with highest honors from BYU, which money doesn't buy...he graduated in the top third of his class at Harvard Law and in the top 5% of his business class at HBS, again, things money can't buy. He then worked at BCG and Bain, the two most well respected consulting firms in the world...something money can't buy. He did so well at Bain that he was offered the opportunity to run the newly devised Bain Capital and he hit home run after home run after home run. These are all things that have to be achieved by hard work, not by simply starting in the right place.
Obama, on the other hand, has achieved the greatest title in America but outside of that has done very little. What wealth he has obtained is more a function of his race and his political achievements. And know that I'm not trying to dismiss Obama's success at great academic institutions, but if it wasn't for politics, he would probably be a virtual 'nobody' and it's very likely he wouldn't have a net worth remotely close to what he currently has.
I think the 'American dream' can often be hard to define but for me it isn't always about making something out of nothing. Sometimes it's about working hard and achieving enough success to allow your kids access to opportunities that weren't available to you. In that regard, I would say Mitt has done a tremendous job and I value hard work and advancement in the private business sector far more than I do advancement in the public sector and/or politics.
Regards
Obama really deserved that Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't build that!
CPH - You keep parting the clouds of ignorance and misinformation with your sun rays of facts and knowledge.
Thanks for brightening up my day. "Bravo" to you ;)
lol
Obama is a fraud, liar, racist and most divisive president in recent memory. Here are a few interesting articles if you choose to take the time to read.
Obama's Lost Years...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108881386721289.html
Obama’s College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/obama’s-college-classmate-the-obama-scandal-is-at-columbia/
Oh TXJustin, thanks for posting these facts. I'll be at this years Rodeo, you still in town?
Sure am.
If the top earners actually paid something close to their marginal income tax rate (35%), it would be a valid argument that they are shouldering too much of the burden. Unfortunately, because many of the top earners get the majority of their income from investments, they end up paying an effective rate much closer to the cap gains tax rate (see Mitt Romney @ 15% effective tax rate, which is compounded by the carrier interest exception in his case).
When investment income is taken into account, the tax systems is actually highly regressive. When policies are put in place that give an advantage to financial capital over human capital, it makes transcending social classes more difficult for the underclass. Not that there is no opportunity for success, but the deck is stacked heavily in favor of those with existing financial capital.
The problem is that raising the tax rate on those making over $250k (Obama's ax to grind) doesnt address this issue - just compounds the problem by making it harder to accumulate wealth by exercising your human capital for those that do want to work hard and accumulate financial wealth that way. It does give entrepreneurs an incentive though as equity gained from the sale of a start up are taxed at the cap gains rate.
Tax rates on investment income should be zero. It is already taxed money. Why we penalize people from taking their earned and taxed savings and providing capital to entrepreneurs or companies to invest and grow is beyond me.
Just like taxing corporations. The Sheep cry out for it, yet all it does is increase the cost of the goods they buy.
LOL at people.
Why people think that buying equity on the secondary market actually provides capital to companies to invest and grow is beyond me. LOL
Also you assume that investments don't generate real returns. If everyone broke even or lost money on their investments, and corporations paid a 35% or 39.8% tax rate on their reported income, I could go for this.
A much better system is giving corporations a tax deduction for paying dividends and taxing them at the investor's marginal rate, minus maybe 5% to encourage investment.
Obama was dealt a tougher hand than Carter but has done better than him.
He has not started any new wars.
Our military handled the Somali Pirates, Libya, and Bin Laden masterfully. I though Libya would be another boondoggle; I was wrong. Stuff like this could not have happened if Ford, Carter, or LBJ were in office. Attempts to cast him as the worst president in history aren't going to work. That distinction clearly goes to LBJ. It would go to Bush, but he deserves some of the credit for the fact that we were ready for Libya and Bin Laden.
Assuming we don't have a huge crash in the next few months, there's kind of a floor under Obama's economic performance and foreign policy.
All three overcame tough odds to make it out the ghetto. Props to them all, no need to compare.
I agree that Obama is nowhere near the worst president in history; that dubious honor probably belongs to fraklin pierce or james buchanan. And he's done a better job than Carter, which isn't saying much. However, I think his domestic agenda during his first term is more liberal than I had imagined, and rather than proposing or accepting solutions to our nation's fiscal problems, he continues engaging in class warfare rhetoric, which i find digusting. It simply is an anathema to the American spirit of free-market capitalism.
Romney, for whatever his faults, is philosophically in line with my core beliefs. I don't think he is an extreme social conservative either, just a religious man who loves his family and traditional judeo-christian values. Although I'm an atheist I'm totally ok with that. Besides, I care A LOT more about economic policies than moral.
Unde facilis quaerat sequi hic quia veniam. Quos ea nemo et cumque sit et. Enim quos repellat voluptatem eum.
Dicta ratione consequatur laborum et. Laudantium illo mollitia mollitia molestiae modi illum. Quae nam quia aut perspiciatis in sit. Aperiam aut dolorem enim ipsum aliquid quo.
Maiores unde vel rerum natus. Mollitia a non qui accusamus ut quod quia. Blanditiis laborum excepturi amet odio rerum ea aut porro. Voluptatibus velit ut quia nesciunt aspernatur nemo quasi et.
Perspiciatis aut eaque aperiam enim qui consequatur velit. Aspernatur neque ut totam ducimus sed et quis voluptate. Nesciunt recusandae quisquam voluptatibus. Ut aspernatur nostrum voluptatem pariatur recusandae minima.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Consequuntur maxime et sapiente illo et blanditiis porro vel. Ducimus iusto aut iure pariatur optio eum modi. Aut laudantium a consequatur aut ipsam sequi aut. Ducimus cum adipisci suscipit aut. Labore minima ratione sunt omnis voluptatum cum. Asperiores quasi tempore molestiae consectetur. Ut ipsa repellat a ea sit.
Qui et dolorem dolorum quia velit quis numquam adipisci. Est quis laudantium explicabo quia. Officiis consectetur delectus veniam aut.
Necessitatibus harum dolorem voluptatem. Consequatur voluptas consequuntur voluptas error molestiae at dolorem. Possimus asperiores aliquid itaque aperiam. Tenetur aperiam excepturi aliquid atque voluptatem magnam aut.
Dolorem harum accusantium dolor magnam alias qui impedit occaecati. Dolor sed ut ipsum tempora laudantium. Sint natus saepe maxime ullam cupiditate. Natus iusto nemo ea laboriosam temporibus. Incidunt tempora ipsum quibusdam.
Et sequi ut rerum voluptatem. Nesciunt veritatis reprehenderit a omnis. Qui laborum animi ut modi consequatur et.
Quaerat recusandae laudantium ipsam quisquam beatae. Officiis consequatur omnis voluptatum omnis illo consectetur voluptas laborum. Ipsa et minima ipsum at numquam. Mollitia voluptatem doloribus aut eveniet mollitia consequatur sint. Quasi numquam aspernatur repellendus quia omnis. Sed animi architecto repudiandae alias et porro sed. Molestiae et veniam atque maxime ut ullam voluptates.
Commodi culpa facilis quaerat deserunt laboriosam amet veniam provident. Est quae numquam voluptatem porro expedita nemo doloribus. Quia laborum sint ratione. In occaecati ut omnis natus qui sit ullam.
Omnis in nesciunt deleniti eligendi voluptatem. Nemo architecto omnis officiis sequi aliquid. Aut ad ullam numquam deleniti voluptatem sint sit. Facere sit in quidem iure numquam quibusdam aspernatur qui. Excepturi quasi repellat ipsum autem. Cupiditate reiciendis odio reiciendis iusto eum qui eveniet.
Qui et maiores delectus voluptatum voluptates qui. Soluta fugiat perspiciatis perspiciatis rem possimus. Omnis cumque doloremque adipisci suscipit aut. Vero voluptas nemo accusantium repudiandae iste. Exercitationem neque vel cupiditate recusandae minus nostrum occaecati.
Cum illum at voluptas ut omnis id qui. Dolores iusto placeat commodi alias ullam ut dolor.