Free Allegiance Forums

TangoVictor wrote:QUOTE (TangoVictor @ Sep 4 2012, 04:33 PM) I'm voting for Romney and here's why:
I think the biggest issue in this election is the economy. It was a big issue last time, but I think we also had foreign policy to deal with. So with a candidate that would be good with the economy and not as good at foreign policy (McCain) versus a candidate prospectively good at both (Obama), I think that Obama was the right popular choice for the country at that time. And I am pretty happy with Obama's foreign policy decisions.* This election, the economy is such a big issue that it overshadows everything, and so I would hope that the popular vote focuses on that almost exclusively. Romney is rich, this is true. That is pretty much a big reason I want to vote for him. If he had the ability to accumulate wealth for himself, and the organizations he worked in, then I do not see why we would not want this man at the head of our nation. You can think he's an "ass" and whatever else you may think of him, but even if that were true, I would not care. I am not voting based on this man's character, I am voting on his ability to lead our country upwards economically. Social issues can come later for me, as long as we don't regress in social liberties too much during his term.**
*Hilary Clinton is probably one of my favorite people in the world.
**I'm not saying this because I'm some entitled white boy. I'm a gay, Latino, Middle-eastern Christian, so get at me.

A couple of points:

- McCain was stronger in foreign policy than Obama was, and Obama was stronger in economics. Do you not remember when McCain "suspended" his campaign to go help with the bailout talks and everyone on capitol hill was confused since he normally isn't involved in those types of discussions?

- Romney is rich, it's true. It certainly doesn't hurt to be born the son of a millionaire CEO and future governor and essentially have the world handed to you on a platter. And as Night points out, the general pattern of behavior of his firm was:

1 - Buy a floundering company on the cheap
2 - Get a ton of debt for that company to retool/reorganize/restructure
3 - Pay himself and the other investors FIRST, before actually fixing anything
4 - Maybe the company succeeds, maybe it dies, maybe a lot of people lose their jobs. Regardless, Romney and his got paid whether they succeed or fail

It would be hard NOT to make money doing that, all it takes is a lack of moral fiber, a willingness to screw a large number of "little people" to make yourself even richer, and a few million dollars up front.

I was strongly pro-Obama in 2008, and while the honeymoon is over I'm even more strongly anti-Romney/Ryan this go around.

The biggest problem with Romney is his casual relationship with the truth. Most of the Republican attacks so far have been lies, very misleading, or complete fabrication. When they get called out on lying, they feign ignorance (again and again) and keep spouting the same bull@#(!. A lot of the lies are thinly veiled racism as well, like the claim that Obama is removing the working requirement for welfare (100% false).

If you want to talk facts instead of feelings I'll be happy to, since there are essentially 0 facts, figures, historical precedents, or any other evidence to support that Romney/Ryan would do a better job than Obama at anything besides lying.

Icky wrote:QUOTE (Icky @ Sep 7 2012, 09:44 AM) A couple of points:

- McCain was stronger in foreign policy than Obama was, and Obama was stronger in economics. Do you not remember when McCain "suspended" his campaign to go help with the bailout talks and everyone on capitol hill was confused since he normally isn't involved in those types of discussions?

- Romney is rich, it's true. It certainly doesn't hurt to be born the son of a millionaire CEO and future governor and essentially have the world handed to you on a platter. And as Night points out, the general pattern of behavior of his firm was:

1 - Buy a floundering company on the cheap
2 - Get a ton of debt for that company to retool/reorganize/restructure
3 - Pay himself and the other investors FIRST, before actually fixing anything
4 - Maybe the company succeeds, maybe it dies, maybe a lot of people lose their jobs. Regardless, Romney and his got paid whether they succeed or fail

It would be hard NOT to make money doing that, all it takes is a lack of moral fiber, a willingness to screw a large number of "little people" to make yourself even richer, and a few million dollars up front.

I was strongly pro-Obama in 2008, and while the honeymoon is over I'm even more strongly anti-Romney/Ryan this go around.

The biggest problem with Romney is his casual relationship with the truth. Most of the Republican attacks so far have been lies, very misleading, or complete fabrication. When they get called out on lying, they feign ignorance (again and again) and keep spouting the same bull@#(!. A lot of the lies are thinly veiled racism as well, like the claim that Obama is removing the working requirement for welfare (100% false).

If you want to talk facts instead of feelings I'll be happy to, since there are essentially 0 facts, figures, historical precedents, or any other evidence to support that Romney/Ryan would do a better job than Obama at anything besides lying.

Nice post Icky. Agreed.

With more tax cuts for the rich, more tax increases for the poor, I don't understand how anyone could still think that this would help the economy... I mean, it would surely help the people that are already wealthy. Woohoo! Thanks American Dream.

The point when the argument of "I worked hard for this money!" gets ridiculous is when the money to work ratio gets WAY out of whack. Try working 3 jobs and going to school and make no money. Try graduating with 30k+ in debt only to find you need to invest another $XX,XXX to get a Masters. Not everyone is born into an awesome financial situation. The hardest workers out there right now don't get vacations.. they don't have cars.. they don't get to sit back and relax. They might even be on welfare. They are still working hard. Shouldn't the playing field be slanted in their favor? Sure rich people pay a lot in taxes but that is because THEY ARE RICH. THEY CAN AFFORD IT. Rich people should take pride in knowing they are helping to fund programs (welfare, etc) that help other people get to where they are... or programs (social security, medicare, disability, etc) to help people that can't get to where they are.

Instead there is greed. Pompous ungrateful bull.

I didn't mention other places tax money goes to (defense, education, running the government, roads, parks, etc) but I'm aware that people may be against these too for a variety of reasons (reasonable or not).

@TangoVictor: Romney is a classic corporate raider. He knows how to play the system, and make more money for himself with all the advantages he has. This in no way makes him a good candidate for running a country. You can't run a country like a business anyway, nor should the president be there looking out for #1 (which is what he has a good trackrecord of doing).

Italians thought it was a good idea to elect a super wealthy tycoon to run the country, as he would "fix the economy". You may want to check wikipedia on how well that worked out.

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Sep 10 2012, 11:01 PM) @TangoVictor: Romney is a classic corporate raider. He knows how to play the system, and make more money for himself with all the advantages he has. This in no way makes him a good candidate for running a country. You can't run a country like a business anyway, nor should the president be there looking out for #1 (which is what he has a good trackrecord of doing).

Italians thought it was a good idea to elect a super wealthy tycoon to run the country, as he would "fix the economy". You may want to check wikipedia on how well that worked out.

If a system is based on corruption then it is definitly an advantage to be the master of corruption.
You must admit that he brought some stability into the italian politic system. Look up how long he was in office compared to the 125 coalitions before him since WW2.

Oh I had some bad phrasing in my first response. Thank you for not just like going crazy on me for it though, I appreciate the civil discussion.
Let me start from my last post.
@Adept: That video was great, I actually agree with you on your followup post. I will agree to hard numbers and facts before anything. Rhetoric drives me insane sometimes for two reasons. 1) It's obvious pandering to those who don't analyze anything and don't think rationally. 2) Politicians know that what they're saying is completely stupid but they're doing it to just win the vote. One would hope that this would not happen with the intelligent "elites" of society, but such is the state of politics. This speech more than anything is making me re-look at my vote. Thanks for showing it to me! All I can offer up as a rebuttal to it is that Obama (especially last election), was very rhetoric-heavy and that's probably what you focus on as the non-incumbent. That being said, I think Romney's campaign should focus more on his experience in business and government more than promises, but hey, I'm not running the show here.
@Icky: This is my first time being able to vote. Last election was when I was 14 and I did not pay much attention to it other than "Hey cool, there's a black guy and a woman running," so I'm honestly sorry if anything I say about 2008 is wrong. To your next point, I think it's obvious that I'm not voting for Romney just because he's rich. But tell me what's wrong with the behavior pattern of his firm when,
1. The company is floundering to begin with
2. Getting debt was necessary to retool/reorganize/restructure so that the company could possibly succeed
3. Paying himself is reasonable as his firm's services are a part of the expenses incurred fixing things
4. Maybe the company succeeds, maybe it dies, maybe a lot of people lose their jobs, maybe a lot of people keep their jobs. Regardless, Romney and his got paid whether they succeed or fail - that's good business.
Consulting/venture capital is a service rendered. They're selling a product and expect to get paid for it like anybody else would. If it's so easy to do, then the company would have restructured themselves in the first place. But it's not, so they needed the expertise and experience of someone who's seen their type of situation before to help.
Your problem with Romney's "casual relationship with the truth" is valid. I hadn't heard about this ad (I don't watch TV anymore) and kind of tune out political ads anyway. So I looked the welfare stuff up and it kind of pissed me off. I can see why, if it was true, Romney would use Obama gutting welfare's work requirement as an issue. But it's not true apparently, and the source he got it from, Heritage, is so ridiculously partisan that it really annoys me that he used it.
Going to your facts v. feelings part, I just have to reiterate that I think Romney's work in the private and public sectors support that he would be a better president than Obama at this point in time.
@Dome: There are definitely tax cuts for the rich in some sense. I don't think he should honestly bother with such things at the moment because I don't think that eliminating those taxes will do anything for the economy. I'm all for smaller government, but in a situation where we're in debt, some revenue streams are welcome, especially when those taxes weren't created by you in the first place. So the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax is stupid to me. I can only hope that it's something he won't actively pursue in office while there are bigger things to do. The other tax that will benefit the rich probably a little more in being cut is the marginal tax rate, which Romney plans to cut. This is a 20% cut for all tax brackets, so while the poor won't be paying as much, neither will the rich by rule of percents. The only way this really helps the rich more is that they make more money, ergo, they pay less money total when tax cuts come around. Ideally, I'd like a flat tax rate but, going back to our debt situation, I don't think it's something Romney should actively pursue while he has bigger fish to fry. Meanwhile, part of Romney's tax plan is to "Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains." From what I understand, this is a tax cut that really doesn't help the already rich guys. Sure it doesn't hurt them but that's not the point of taxes anyway. This cut would help small businesses more than anyone it seems, which I think fuel a middle class. tl;dr for the tax part: he is cutting taxes for the rich and the middle class. He's not raising taxes on the poor.
Your money to work ratio argument is something I can't really answer to in a way that would satisfy either of us. Like I said, I think a flat tax is the best thing, but I do realize the government does need money to pay for programs such as the ones you mentioned. While the programs may not be perfect, they do help some hardworking people survive, which is important. I have my own issues with healthcare in this country but those are personal and I'm not going to get into them at this point. They're not what I'm basing my vote on in this election. What I'm trying to say is that there's a fundamental point that underlies the argument in this paragraph (big v. small government) that doesn't have an easy answer. I'd prefer not to debate this because I don't debate things that I know that I/ the other person won't change opinions on.
And yes there is greed. I do believe there is a point where you have more money than you could possibly need, but I am certainly not educated well enough to dictate to anyone what that point is.
@Adept: Life is playing the system and doing the best for yourself with all the advantages that you have. The fact that Romney does this makes him a good candidate for running the country. People should do this whether they're rich or poor. If you're poor, why not use medicare and food stamps and all the other programs you can possibly apply for? You may not agree with them, but they're there, and not using them is kind of dumb. It's like trying to break through a door with your hands instead of the ax in the corner because the ax was what the last person used to get through and you think you're better than him. When really, you're being a stubborn ass.
Discuss.

TangoVictor wrote:QUOTE (TangoVictor @ Sep 12 2012, 11:55 PM) Things

Thanks for the biggo post there Tango. Interesting perspective.

I'd like to make one comment on something you said.

"Regardless, Romney and his got paid whether they succeed or fail - that's good business."

First of all, our country isn't a business. Secondly, the mentality of "I got mine so who cares about the rest of you" may be extremely good competitive business sense, but again, our country isn't a business. Romney may be a shrewd business man but I believe this in no way translates to being a good president. He will make sure that he and his friends get theirs while telling the rest of us to learn how to game the system better. There's a fundamental ethical flaw in that. It goes against so much of what makes this country great. Communities will suffer. Domestic and foreign policy will suffer. The earth itself will suffer. I'm not trying to be dramatic.

An aside: With the amount of ridiculous @#(! that has come out of Romney's mouth can you imagine how the other nations of the world will view us if he gets elected? I'm not saying we should take a lot of care about what other people think but we are still making up for the W. Bush epic debacle. We need a leader that best represents our country and its actual values. (Obviously the values I attribute to the U.S. (community, stewardship of the land, informed discourse, equal rights, fairness, hard work) may be different from the values you attribute. Therein lies an important distinction.)

Dome wrote:QUOTE (Dome @ Sep 13 2012, 12:21 AM) Thanks for the biggo post there Tango. Interesting perspective.

I'd like to make one comment on something you said.

"Regardless, Romney and his got paid whether they succeed or fail - that's good business."

First of all, our country isn't a business. Secondly, the mentality of "I got mine so who cares about the rest of you" may be extremely good competitive business sense, but again, our country isn't a business. Romney may be a shrewd business man but I believe this in no way translates to being a good president. He will make sure that he and his friends get theirs while telling the rest of us to learn how to game the system better.

This.
He knows how to profit at the expense of others. If he becomes president, the "others" becomes the 99%.
Everything possible will dismantled, sold off, outsourced, and everyone will be left to fight over minimum wage jobs.
Romney is delusional enough that he really believes tax cuts/profits to CEOs and such benefits the poor and middle class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A
He has no understanding of the constitution, the role of government, and every time I hear him speak I feel my brain working more slowly.
He's got to be one of the stupidest politicians of all time, up there with George W Bush.
At least Obama doesn't sound completely retarded when he speaks (even though he's completely full of @#(!).
Gay college students aren't exactly the target demographic of the Republican Party. Tango must have really conservative parents.

The current news state that either romney intentionaly wants to loose the election.


palin2016

His campaign should be pretty much over. I mean he has done absolutely everything imaginable to shoot himself in the foot. The RNC was a disaster, his comments about Obama apologizing for the US for the Libyan embassy incident was mortifying, he just called 47% of the US lazy, freeloading and entitled slobs, and the campaign has repeated the same lies again and again even while being called out by fact checkers and then saying that they don't care about the facts!

If this small son gets elected, it would be unbelievably shocking.

TangoVictor wrote:QUOTE (TangoVictor @ Sep 13 2012, 09:55 AM) <snip>
@Adept: Life is playing the system and doing the best for yourself with all the advantages that you have. The fact that Romney does this makes him a good candidate for running the country. People should do this whether they're rich or poor. If you're poor, why not use medicare and food stamps and all the other programs you can possibly apply for? You may not agree with them, but they're there, and not using them is kind of dumb. It's like trying to break through a door with your hands instead of the ax in the corner because the ax was what the last person used to get through and you think you're better than him. When really, you're being a stubborn ass.
Discuss.

It's nice to see you having a serious think about all this.

I'd like to offer a less "American" point of view to all this, but it's hard to know where to start. There needs to be a common reference point, and I may inadvertently use words that have very different meaning in the political discussion over there than they do over here in Northern Europe.

I'll start with tax. Flat tax may seem the most fair thing in the world, but it's an illusion and a simplification of the truth. Let's say everybody would pay 20% tax from their earnings. If you make a thousand dollars a month, you'd pay $200, if you make four thousand, you'd pay $800. Clearly the guy earning more, is also paying more. Fair's fair, right?
Except a lot of things aren't percentage based. Let's say you need to pay $400 minimum for rent, and $300 minimum for food. The person scraping by with 1k income would have $100 left for clothing, medicine and everything else each month. The 4k earner can meet the same minimum regs and have $2500 left to spend. The 20% tax is having a very different effect on these two individuals. Phone bills aren't scaled to your income, nor is the cost of buying a car or using public transport.
Sweden is one of the most successful countries in the world on all the measurements. They have a heavily progressive system of taxes. Those who don't earn much pay back a little bit, and those earning millions every year pay heavily from the high end of their earnings. Everybody benefits, even though it may seem "unfair" to those who have higher income.

Why do I say everybody benefits? Because in such a society nobody is hungry and desperate. The rich get to live in a society that is safe and orderly, and where services and infrastructure work like they should. They aren't hated and envied by the poor who think they are being exploited by those on the top.

***

Back to candidate Romney. Yes, he's good at playing the system, and succeeding in life. As the president though, he should stand for the whole country, rich and poor. He should be there to make sure that the citizens of the USA can live good lives and feel that the government is working for the best interests of them all. All I see from Romney speaks to him being a very selfish and predatory individual. He reminds me of the aristocrats we all worked hard to dethrone. While not a blue-blood, he's definitely a plutocrat.

Obama has been too timid, and tried to continually compromise with the right wing that hates and fears him. That was foolish and undermined his effectiveness a lot. He has also proved to be a classic center-right technocrat, rather than the idealist that people thought... but at least he has some principles and seems genuinely intelligent. I honestly believe Romney would be a disaster for the majority of americans, and for the country as a whole. Obama isn't great, but he's very much the less bad option you have.