2012 Debates

[Erroneous]

Who will be watching and who wins?

[Gordon]

Glibness, international violence, and manic corporatism will probably win. Ideas will probably lose.

[Squid Vicious]

Romney will say that Obama's three-cent titanium tax goes too far, and Obama will say that Romney's three-cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough.

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Glibness, international violence, and manic corporatism will probably win. Ideas will probably lose.

.

[jaw2929]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Glibness, international violence, and manic corporatism will probably win. Ideas will probably lose.

This.

[Erroneous]

Round 1 to Mitt. Both MSNBC and Fox talked about Mitt winning. One MSNBC lady actually said President Romney and then corrected herself. Ed Schultz, who is the biggest asshole around, declared Mitt the winner.

Mitt was pretty darn good. I did not pick up on half the criticism of Obama. But I was listening to most of it and not watching

[Bondgirl]

Well l know l will only be seeing bits and pieces of the debate on Aussie tv

But l have a link that posted but l should have put it here

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146992

I will let you all look at it

it is about Romley and Obama disgussioning the jobs area and what they will do with it to improve this area

I still feel that Romley is for the rich but if l see any of the debate on tv l will be able to give my opinion on it

What l would like to know is waht plans and procedures Both men are going to put in place and if they will create more jobs for people out of work

[jaw2929]

BG, I like you and all... But I honestly don't understand why you feel you have to post in the US Politics related threads.... I don't get it. I know nothing about Australian politics, so I would never post in such a thread. But do what you will!

Erroneous, I'm a hardcore Democrat and a fan of Obama's. But you know what? Romney really did win. He embarrassed the President tonight, and I'm not being sarcastic in the least. I was quite surprised at how well he did tonight. I'm sour as fuck on politics in general, but I always enjoy a good debate. This however, was not one. It was pretty lopsided in Romney's favour. I don't know if it's going to be that way the next two upcoming debates though.

I also believe Obama will still end up winning the election overall. However, in general I really don't give a fuck who wins cuz it's all eventual bullshit anyway. But it's amusing to watch the debates leading up to the election nonetheless!

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Romney won on presentation more than anything else. He looked fresher. The president was stumbling his words and falling back on the same talking points he used earlier in the campaign. I don't buy the "anniversary" excuse, but maybe all the maritals he had that afternoon wore him down a little. Romney wasn't anything great, and his positions are more confusing and inconsistent than ever, but the president clearly had an off night.

That said, I doubt this will have a major impact on the election. John Kerry destroyed Bush in their debates and it didn't impact the polls at all. Lloyd Bentsen embarrassed Dan Quayle, but we all know who became vice president.

[Digifruitella]

I guess it's sad that I don't even care for this shit anymore? What's the point in even doing that when we don't matter, we have no impact on anything. "Free speech" my ass.

[ThunderStorm]

I gotta say Romney won this one. He was articulate and made some good points and was looking at the president the whole time. He outlined the way that he would go about stimulating the economy here and creating more jobs.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

I gotta say Romney won this one. He was articulate and made some good points and was looking at the president the whole time. He outlined the way that he would go about stimulating the economy here and creating more jobs.

And Newt Gingrich outlined an entire plan for putting a colony on the Moon by his second term.

But I have to agree with Brando, Romney won the debate but what does this really mean for his campaign or the election in general? Probably nothing. But one thing Mitt did get right was that he loves Big Bird!

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

And Newt Gingrich outlined an entire plan for putting a colony on the Moon by his second term.

But I have to agree with Brando, Romney won the debate but what does this really mean for his campaign or the election in general? Probably nothing. But one thing Mitt did get right was that he loves Big Bird!

And that has to do with what I said how? I am not talking about Newt Gingrich, he has nothing to do with this debate period. Romney offered a plan Obama said staying the course which clearly isn't working. Romney was direct and articulated his plan while Obama was meandering.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by jaw2929

BG, I like you and all... But I honestly don't understand why you feel you have to post in the US Politics related threads.... I don't get it. I know nothing about Australian politics, so I would never post in such a thread. But do what you will!

Erroneous, I'm a hardcore Democrat and a fan of Obama's. But you know what? Romney really did win. He embarrassed the President tonight, and I'm not being sarcastic in the least. I was quite surprised at how well he did tonight. I'm sour as fuck on politics in general, but I always enjoy a good debate. This however, was not one. It was pretty lopsided in Romney's favour. I don't know if it's going to be that way the next two upcoming debates though.

I also believe Obama will still end up winning the election overall. However, in general I really don't give a fuck who wins cuz it's all eventual bullshit anyway. But it's amusing to watch the debates leading up to the election nonetheless!

Nothing wrong with her posting in here. The USA is the biggest baddest country in the world and she sees stuff that happens over where she is. Plus, it is good to get the pointof view from elsewhere.

Dude, no wonder we do not get alone.

I would not worry about the debate. 47% of the people will still vote for Obama, because they need him for their government programs. lol I mean they will vote for him no matter how bad he does in the debates or how little he has to say, because his record sucks and he knows it, because all black people who vote will vote for him, all unions and union people will vote for him, because that is what unions do, most young people will vote for him, because they have no idea what the real world is like and are all idealistic, anyone who wants stuff for free will cast their votes for obama as well. Those who have to pay for all these programs and want to work hard for themselves will vote for Romney. Romney people and not Obama people are the middle class and as we all know, they middle class is going down the drain. Funny how the people that Obama says he will help, do not want his help. Well, the only hope they want from him is for him to stop trying to cuddle those who refuse to help themselves.

I am not Ryan fan. but he is going to completely fuck up Lost Joe Biden the dumbfuck asshole who can't say something without fucking it up

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

And that has to do with what I said how? I am not talking about Newt Gingrich, he has nothing to do with this debate period. Romney offered a plan Obama said staying the course which clearly isn't working. Romney was direct and articulated his plan while Obama was meandering.

I'm saying providing articulation on a plan doesn't conclude the plans are probable or possess any validity. The reason I brought up Gingrich was because during his Moon colony plan, he possessed conviction and direction, doesn't mean it was a good hypothetical plan. Romney's plan is no better. I will admit Obama wasn't put together, at all really, but to say Romney was amazing because he remained on point the entire debate makes him a better candidate is beyond me when some of his stances on issues has changed over the last year

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I would not worry about the debate. 47% of the people will still vote for Obama, because they need him for their government programs. lol I mean they will vote for him no matter how bad he does in the debates or how little he has to say, because his record sucks and he knows it, because all black people who vote will vote for him, all unions and union people will vote for him, because that is what unions do, most young people will vote for him, because they have no idea what the real world is like and are all idealistic, anyone who wants stuff for free will cast their votes for obama as well. Those who have to pay for all these programs and want to work hard for themselves will vote for Romney. Romney people and not Obama people are the middle class and as we all know, they middle class is going down the drain. Funny how the people that Obama says he will help, do not want his help. Well, the only hope they want from him is for him to stop trying to cuddle those who refuse to help themselves.

This has got to be one of the most poorly misguided generalizations I have ever read.

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

I'm saying providing articulation on a plan doesn't conclude the plans are probable or possess any validity. The reason I brought up Gingrich was because during his Moon colony plan, he possessed conviction and direction, doesn't mean it was a good hypothetical plan. Romney's plan is no better. I will admit Obama wasn't put together, at all really, but to say Romney was amazing because he remained on point the entire debate makes him a better candidate is beyond me when some of his stances on issues has changed over the last year

Romney is a better candidate for a variety of reasons not just the debate , but I am talking about the debates because the thread is about the 2012 debates and Romney clearly had a better showing in the first one.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

Romney is a better candidate for a variety of reasons not just the debate , but I am talking about the debates because the thread is about the 2012 debates and Romney clearly had a better showing in the first one.

Please let me know what these variety of reasons are? And please include his better stances on things besides the economy, you know, like certain rights for minorities, the environment, education and any of those 47% of people who mooch off the government.

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

Please let me know what these variety of reasons are? And please include his better stances on things besides the economy, you know, like certain rights for minorities, the environment, education and any of those 47% of people who mooch off the government.

What rights for minorities is Romney not supporting? Even though Obama has stated he supports gay marriage there is no way he will attempt to drive through a federal law allowing it.The 47% comment was a blunder, but the entitlement system needs to change I know too many hard working people who don't qualify for welfare who truly deserve it, while there are other people who are lazy and play the system. I understand that there is a need for entitlement programs and people truly depend on them for their survival, but the waste of money and abusing the system needs to stop. I am actually fairly liberal on education to be honest, but I agree with Romney that the state and local level of government must first be responsible for their school systems, however I believe that also federal funding should not be cut for school systems. And the environment? What has Obama done besides drive gas prices up astronomically high and waste American tax dollars in futile investments in green energy. The EPA is joke and grossly over funded bureaucratic nightmare that has problems getting anything done. However, the economy is the main reason why Romney gets my support. And yes neither candidate is perfect, I realize that.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

What rights for minorities is Romney not supporting? Even though Obama has stated he supports gay marriage there is no way he will attempt to drive through a federal law allowing it.The 47% comment was a blunder, but the entitlement system needs to change I know too many hard working people who don't qualify for welfare who truly deserve it, while there are other people who are lazy and play the system. I understand that there is a need for entitlement programs and people truly depend on them for their survival, but the waste of money and abusing the system needs to stop. I am actually fairly liberal on education to be honest, but I agree with Romney that the state and local level of government must first be responsible for their school systems, however I believe that also federal funding should not be cut for school systems. And the environment? What has Obama done besides drive gas prices up astronomically high and waste American tax dollars in futile investments in green energy. The EPA is joke and grossly over funded bureaucratic nightmare that has problems getting anything done. However, the economy is the main reason why Romney gets my support. And yes neither candidate is perfect, I realize that.

I see Romney supporters ask this question all the time, "what has Obama done?"

Well, Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 12 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 30 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, and got us out of Iraq.

Now with both Romney and his running-mate have repeatedly stated that their intent is to cut taxes 20% for everybody who pays federal income tax. The cost of such a cut over a ten-year period is approximately $5 trillion (check the facts). Both Romney and Ryan say that these cuts would be deficit neutral because, at the same time, they would eliminate certain unspecified loopholes and write-offs currently in the tax code.

The problem is, even if they eliminated every single write-off, including charitable donations and home mortgage interest, it still wouldn't come close to $5 trillion. However, they also say that they would increase revenue by "broadening the tax base". The only way to interpret this is that they intend to tax low and middle income families who, until now, have no earned enough to qualify for paying federal income tax. Therefore, their stated intent is to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and raise taxes on the middle class. You can't get around that.

Romney has also stated numerous times that he wants to increase defense spending by a $1 trillion over the next ten years and $2 trillion over the next 20 years. He would also add more than 100,000 more personnel to the armed forces. He has vowed to do this despite the fact that the Pentagon has said it doesn't need the additional people or extra money. Romney just wants to be seen as a pro-military leader by his right-wing base. It is a completely disingenuous position.

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by jaw2929

BG, I like you and all... But I honestly don't understand why you feel you have to post in the US Politics related threads.... I don't get it. I know nothing about Australian politics, so I would never post in such a thread. But do what you will!

Erroneous, I'm a hardcore Democrat and a fan of Obama's. But you know what? Romney really did win. He embarrassed the President tonight, and I'm not being sarcastic in the least. I was quite surprised at how well he did tonight. I'm sour as fuck on politics in general, but I always enjoy a good debate. This however, was not one. It was pretty lopsided in Romney's favour. I don't know if it's going to be that way the next two upcoming debates though.

I also believe Obama will still end up winning the election overall. However, in general I really don't give a fuck who wins cuz it's all eventual bullshit anyway. But it's amusing to watch the debates leading up to the election nonetheless!

Well l dont know that much about Amrican politics so that would have us in the same boat wouldnt it

Maybe as l go along l will learn more about what the American politics is about as l read each post

maybe as l am watching American politics on tv in Aus
I might have something to say about certain things about the debate

maybe as this politics threads are open to everyone more Australians might post in here and we might have a thread of our own

These threads shouldnt just be about the American side it can be from around the world

Plus you might learn some things off me about my Australian side of poliitics

Anyway for the past week l have asked qestions about certain things and some of you have helped me out with the answers

Anyway l like to push myself to learn and maybe as time goes along we might even get more females in here
You should applaud me for trying Jaw 2929 instead of being judgemental

[electriclite]

Well Obama was expected to lose the first debate. The economy is still no great shakes so in this context Romney's got lots of promises to sell and Obama only has his record. Whatever good you can say he did its still not enough and will always fall short of some other guy's promises. Obama promised 4 million jobs in '08, Romney's now promising 12 million.

Dubya lost his first round of debates on Domestic Issues as well. Wait till we get to Foreign and Social issues. The former is where I think we can expect the paradigm to flip on its head. You know the guy who said he wouldn't go after Bin Laden compared with the guy who gave the kill order aka Mr. Drone Strikes.

[SkyNet]

In the debates last night ROmney said that he wants to create jobs and not cut any... he then said that he wants to combine Govt agencies and cut some of those jobs...?!?!

I personally dont agree with either candidate in some major issues...

Obama wants to tax the rich more than everyone else.. i dont find that fair. If i make 20 million dollars that doesnt mean I should be taxed higher than everyone else just because i am successful.

I have always been a fan of a flat tax, it just makes sense... if you make $20, you get taxed 20% if you make $20 Billion, you get taxed 20%... i dont get why that is so complicated... can someone explain it to me??

I also dont like all these loopholes the rich people have, all they care about is money money money money, how can i make 100 million dollars profit instead of 98 million... it just annoys me... that is why a flat tax is what we need, no loopholes.. you pay 20% the end. If you withhold earnings, as always, your ass goes to jail.

Obama wants to tax any company that sends jobs overseas, i am 100% for that! If any of you have dealt with these dumb Indian call centers, you know how annoying and frustrating it is to deal with people that barely understand you. Those jobs should be kept in the states by Americans who can help out Americans while knowing any type of lingo we may use. If a company is an Indian company, they don't want Americans answering their complaints and not understanding their customers.. why do American companies think it is ok to do that to us?

My vote will be going to Obama, but i hate the 2 party system we have... there needs to be some sort of overhaul in american politics. Each side has great ideas and terrible ideas, they need to get on the same page without worrying about offending their party (or Fox News)!

[jaw2929]

I was gonna muster up some sort've argument, but because I honestly couldn't give a fucking shit about politics or who wins in general at this point, the following clip sums things up pretty well for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0teAvYRHBFk

[magjournal]

Romney won. He was confident, on-point, and focused.


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

[Squid Vicious]

I rather like Doug Henwood's take:

Unlike Franklin Roosevelt, who famously said that he welcomed the hatred of the rich, Obama wants to flatter them. He made the mistake of calling them "fatcats" once, so his former fans on Wall Street turned on him. That has something to do with why he didn’t mention the 47% thing, or tar Romney as the candidate of the 0.1%. That would be divisive and offend the people whose admiration he craves. FDR came out of the aristocracy, and had the confidence to step on the fancy toes of the rich now and then. Obama came out of nowhere, was groomed for success by elite institutions throughout his impressive rise, and no doubt wants some of those nice shoes for himself.

More broadly, the political problem of the Democrats is that they're a party of capital that has to pretend for electoral reasons sometimes that it’s not. All the complaints that liberals have about them—their weakness, tendency to compromise, the constantly lamented lack of a spine—emerge from this central contradiction. The Republicans have a coherent philosophy and use it to fire up a rabid base. The Dems are afraid of their base because it might cause them trouble with their funders.

What do liberals stand for these days? Damned if I know. It’s not a philosophy you can express in aphorisms. (Yeah, politics are complex, and slogans are simple, but if you’ve got a passionately held set of beliefs you can manage that contradiction.) Too many qualifications and contradictions. They can’t just say less war and more equality, because they like some wars and want to bore you with just war theory to explain the morality of drone attacks, and worry about optimal tax rates and incentives. Join an empty philosophy to an empty personality and you get a very flat and meandering performance in debate.

Romney believes in money. Obama believes in nothing.

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

I see Romney supporters ask this question all the time, "what has Obama done?"

Well, Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 12 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 30 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, and got us out of Iraq.

Now with both Romney and his running-mate have repeatedly stated that their intent is to cut taxes 20% for everybody who pays federal income tax. The cost of such a cut over a ten-year period is approximately $5 trillion (check the facts). Both Romney and Ryan say that these cuts would be deficit neutral because, at the same time, they would eliminate certain unspecified loopholes and write-offs currently in the tax code.

The problem is, even if they eliminated every single write-off, including charitable donations and home mortgage interest, it still wouldn't come close to $5 trillion. However, they also say that they would increase revenue by "broadening the tax base". The only way to interpret this is that they intend to tax low and middle income families who, until now, have no earned enough to qualify for paying federal income tax. Therefore, their stated intent is to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and raise taxes on the middle class. You can't get around that.

The economy is still in shambles wages are stagnant and prices are continually increasing, there is no job creation, small businesses are being crushed by Obama. Both the middle class and even the lower class are both still struggling just as bad, if not worse than before. The healthcare plan is going to also be a severe hit to the middle class and will effect some of the lower class as well. And Romney's tax plan is not to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, he has stated this multiple times. Obama has just cherry picked the parts of the tax plan. Some of that is Romney's fault because until the debate he was being very vague about his plan. Also, I wouldn't say Obama got Bin Laden that goes to the effort of our armed forces and the policies enacted under Bush.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

And Romney's tax plan is not to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, he has stated this multiple times. Obama has just cherry picked the parts of the tax plan.

Its not cherry picked. Before the Tax Policy Center decided to examine Romney's tax plan, his campaign was all for it and described the TPC as an independent 3rd party evaluator. Since Romney's tax plan stresses revenue neutrality, and Romney hasn't specified exactly what deductions he would do away with, the institute had to come with various scenarios where different kinds of deductions were done away with. After all these scenarios were played out they roughly all came to the same conclusion:

Originally Posted by Samuel Brown, William Gale, and Adam Looney Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center August 1, 2012;

This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform—maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates—drawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

Suffice it to say after the institutes findings the Romney campaign wrote them off as some kind of biased, liberal,yadda, yadda, you get the picture. Amazing how even math can become a liberal conspiracy.

I can send you the PDF of the study.

Also, I wouldn't say Obama got Bin Laden that goes to the effort of our armed forces and the policies enacted under Bush.

Considering Dubya is on the record as of March/April of 2002 as not having Bin Laden listed as "priority" I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that last part.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

The economy is still in shambles wages are stagnant and prices are continually increasing, there is no job creation, small businesses are being crushed by Obama. Both the middle class and even the lower class are both still struggling just as bad, if not worse than before. The healthcare plan is going to also be a severe hit to the middle class and will effect some of the lower class as well. And Romney's tax plan is not to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, he has stated this multiple times. Obama has just cherry picked the parts of the tax plan. Some of that is Romney's fault because until the debate he was being very vague about his plan. Also, I wouldn't say Obama got Bin Laden that goes to the effort of our armed forces and the policies enacted under Bush.

The new unemployment rate will show evidence that it's not in shambles. It was in shambles in 2008/2009 when he entered office. Romney can say he won't tax the middle or lower class because he'll extend the Bush cuts only this time, the rich will pay even less in taxes to create more jobs. Do you really think this is going to work? Romney's tax plan was different prior to the debate, every political analyst has noted this and even Romney's campaign manager said their campaign methods are like an etch a sketch, they have to continually shake things up. And Laden wasn't a main priority of the Bush Administration and even Romney commented on him not being something we should invest time and effort in because he hadn't been active for quite some time.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

This has got to be one of the most poorly misguided generalizations I have ever read.

You wish. Every word is 100% true, but I understand people do not like to hear the truth.

I guess you missed the week when Romney caught all kinds of shit for his 47% remark.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

I'm saying providing articulation on a plan doesn't conclude the plans are probable or possess any validity. The reason I brought up Gingrich was because during his Moon colony plan, he possessed conviction and direction, doesn't mean it was a good hypothetical plan. Romney's plan is no better. I will admit Obama wasn't put together, at all really, but to say Romney was amazing because he remained on point the entire debate makes him a better candidate is beyond me when some of his stances on issues has changed over the last year

I will tell you what makes Romney's plan better. He is a republican and republicans think like this. Hand up not hand out.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

Well, Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 12 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 30 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, and got us out of Iraq.
.

I only read this part, but I would like to weigh in here.

1. He did? He did little to get us out of the Great Recession though.
2. Rebult GM? GM is not rebuilt and he did not do it. He lent them money. They had to change and just got a loan. Ford rebounded nicely withouth government money. GM needed to re organize.
3. Reformed Healthcare he did do and it will be repealed, because it is a bad plan. He did nothing to address the root cause problem, which is rising costs.
4. Reformed Wall Street? This is so laughable. He may have made or reinstituted a couple laws, but Wall Street has not been reformed. Wall Street is still very much in charge. Everyone in that office for Obama is from Wall Street.
5. Doubled the stock market? The market did go up, but that is what the market does. It went down around the time he took office and then went back up to where it should have been.
6. You call that growth? WIth 12 straight quarters you think you would hear that a lot in ads. And to be fair, it is year over year growth. 2008 and 09 were so shitty and down it did not take much go up.
7. Again, millions were fired in 07,08,09. He did little to nothing to aid this growth. It was a natural progression. And like most everything, we are still below 2007 levels
8. He did get Bin Laden. Nice job.
9. He did get us out of Iraq. afghanistan hmmmm not so much

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

The new unemployment rate will show evidence that it's not in shambles. It was in shambles in 2008/2009 when he entered office. Romney can say he won't tax the middle or lower class because he'll extend the Bush cuts only this time, the rich will pay even less in taxes to create more jobs. Do you really think this is going to work? Romney's tax plan was different prior to the debate, every political analyst has noted this and even Romney's campaign manager said their campaign methods are like an etch a sketch, they have to continually shake things up. And Laden wasn't a main priority of the Bush Administration and even Romney commented on him not being something we should invest time and effort in because he hadn't been active for quite some time.

You can't have it both ways. Obama has been getting success (according to you) by using the Bush tax cuts. You can't say Mitt would not as well.

And this new unemployment data is bullshit. There are no more 99 weekers, or the number would be much higher and you know it.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

You wish. Every word is 100% true, but I understand people do not like to hear the truth.

I guess you missed the week when Romney caught all kinds of shit for his 47% remark.

Yup, it's totally true. Anyone who receives any type of government handout and doesn't pay income tax is mooching off of the government. Gosh, all those students who receive financial aid for school, darn them for being so unaware of how the world works. They should have just asked their parents for the money...

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

Yup, it's totally true. Anyone who receives any type of government handout and doesn't pay income tax is mooching off of the government. Gosh, all those students who receive financial aid for school, darn them for being so unaware of how the world works. They should have just asked their parents for the money...

Speaking of financial aid does anybody ever stop to think WHY the cost of college rises so quickly far above and beyond the rate of inflation?

Step 1: People always complain that tuition is too expensive so they demand that politicians make college more affordable.

Step 2: Politicians, to get votes, provide financial student aid.

Step 3: Schools suddenly able to get more money raise tuition. College becomes unaffordable again.

Step 4: Go back to step 1. Rinse and repeat.

When demand increases faster than supply, prices increase. So instead of keeping them somewhat unaffordable for some we make them even more and more and more and more unaffordable for everyone.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I would not worry about the debate. 47% of the people will still vote for Obama, because they need him for their government programs. lol I mean they will vote for him no matter how bad he does in the debates or how little he has to say, because his record sucks and he knows it, because all black people who vote will vote for him, all unions and union people will vote for him, because that is what unions do, most young people will vote for him, because they have no idea what the real world is like and are all idealistic, anyone who wants stuff for free will cast their votes for obama as well. Those who have to pay for all these programs and want to work hard for themselves will vote for Romney. Romney people and not Obama people are the middle class and as we all know, they middle class is going down the drain. Funny how the people that Obama says he will help, do not want his help. Well, the only hope they want from him is for him to stop trying to cuddle those who refuse to help themselves

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

This has got to be one of the most poorly misguided generalizations I have ever read.

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

Yup, it's totally true. Anyone who receives any type of government handout and doesn't pay income tax is mooching off of the government. Gosh, all those students who receive financial aid for school, darn them for being so unaware of how the world works. They should have just asked their parents for the money...

So you like salad bar politcs. You use only certain things to prove your points, but ignore everything else.

If you have been on welfare for more than 4 years, yes you are mooching off the govt.
If you took out a huge student load and now bitch about having to pay it back, yes you are an asshole and mooching off the govt. Should have went to community college for 2 years first.
Are you actually saying that college kids are aware of how the world works? Now in all honesty, I think you are a smart guy, so maybe because you were smart coming out of college (or still in. i dont know) you knew or know more than the average kid, but most kids coming out of college know little about the world and how it works.

See you are just like Obama. At the debate, he just does not get it. Or pretends like he does not. Hand up, not hand out. Government programs are good, but should be thought of as an investment. Just to give away to people year after year just so they can stay alive is not a wise way to use money. I am not saying people need to die or starve, but one who is getting free government money should feel as if this is an opportuntity to reboot their life and that the money is temporary.


Getting back to my original point that you thought was misguided, but 100% true.
99.9999% of all black people are voting for Obama and I dont blame them
95% of union people will vote for Obama. That is what they do.
80% of young voters will vote for Obama, because frankly they are stupid and bought into his slogan bullshit and the Republicans are wall street evil people. Hope and Change my ass!

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by creekin111

Speaking of financial aid does anybody ever stop to think WHY the cost of college rises so quickly far above and beyond the rate of inflation?

Step 1: People always complain that tuition is too expensive so they demand that politicians make college more affordable.

Step 2: Politicians, to get votes, provide financial student aid.

Step 3: Schools suddenly able to get more money raise tuition. College becomes unaffordable again.

Step 4: Go back to step 1. Rinse and repeat.

When demand increases faster than supply, prices increase. So instead of keeping them somewhat unaffordable for some we make them even more and more and more and more unaffordable for everyone.

Now this, one could argue is the fault of American culture. For years going to college and becoming somebody was one of the pillars of the American dream. Speaking personally, I can remember being 6-7 years old and seeing a HUUUGE bottle filled with coins and loose change that stood atop the narrow ledge of my kitchen window growing up. This bottle, my father explained to me was for my future college tuition. He also went on to explain that going to college was not an option, it was an expectation of me and my siblings. He even went as far to say that any of us who didn't go to college could expect to be written out of his will! I got the message.

Now my father was an immigrant who thoroughly embraced all aspects of American culture and thereby all tenets of the American dream. He learned English (at a period where you were shamed if you spoke anything other than English), got his citizenship, went to Woodstock, joined the Army, went to Vietnam, got out, went to school on the GI Bill, got his degree, got married, ran 2 businesses, and bought and owned property. I mean that is note by note the American dream. Something many older Americans grew to believe as sacrosanct and more than likely taught their children. Its what politicians go on and proliferate as well (as you inferred). Now we actually have to take this gospel of American culture, that started from just before the birth of the Baby Boomer generation, and in essence re-brand the American Dream into "The American Management of Expectations".

What would be an interesting way of reducing the congestion that is college enrollment is One: doing away with internships. They're wildly abused since they are predominantly unpaid which means only the wealthy can afford to take them and students end up doing nothing related to learning from the industry because of it or end up benefiting a company but with no payback for their efforts. Two: Create more apprenticeships as an alternative to college with tax incentives for small and big businesses who employ them. Apprenticeships are usually paid, and in this instance that would be a requirement (maybe just below entry level pay). Once a business has to pay for someone, they're inclined to actually do something meaningful with them. The apprenticeship

Think about it, most of the recent college grads can't get work because no one wants to spend the money to train them in the real world application of their schooling. Cut the amount of money going to financial aid to pay for college in (ex: ) half and divert it towards tax incentives towards apprenticeship programs for big and small businesses. Theoretically, you'd could end up with more of a younger population beginning a career early with valuable real world training and application and a younger population burdened with significantly less debt. You'd also have the people who absolutely need to go to college (STEM, Med, Law and Architecture majors for example) and less people needing financial aid and a slower controlled growth of colleges. And if the people in apprenticeships need a little school training, it won't be four years worth, but (off the top of my head) one class a semester, say at the local community college. And if their apprenticeship ends and they don't continue with the company they trained with, well they've already got maybe a year's worth of experience working with a real company on real projects.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by creekin111

Speaking of financial aid does anybody ever stop to think WHY the cost of college rises so quickly far above and beyond the rate of inflation?

Step 1: People always complain that tuition is too expensive so they demand that politicians make college more affordable.

Step 2: Politicians, to get votes, provide financial student aid.

Step 3: Schools suddenly able to get more money raise tuition. College becomes unaffordable again.

Step 4: Go back to step 1. Rinse and repeat.

When demand increases faster than supply, prices increase. So instead of keeping them somewhat unaffordable for some we make them even more and more and more and more unaffordable for everyone.

That is not how or why costs go up. It is logical, but not true.

Teachers demand and get more pay. I
Insurances and other expenses go up.
Schools have to install all kind of shit and put on more people to police these kids, because everytime they do something stupid and hurt themselves, the school is sued.
Technology is just hammering schools to death with costs.
Pensions. Always was a bad idea and it is sucking the systems dry.
Some schools raise because other lower level school go up.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

That is not how or why costs go up. It is logical, but not true.

Teachers demand and get more pay. I
Insurances and other expenses go up.
Schools have to install all kind of shit and put on more people to police these kids, because everytime they do something stupid and hurt themselves, the school is sued.
Technology is just hammering schools to death with costs.
Pensions. Always was a bad idea and it is sucking the systems dry.
Some schools raise because other lower level school go up.

Those specific instances still fall under the 'supply demand' part of what I said. Professors demand more pay because the demand for them increases. The amount of college students have risen dramatically over the past 50+ years above the amount of professors & schools that get produced. If you had less students then lawsuits would be less. Technology 'demand', 'demand' for higher pensions, etc. Its still supply & demand. If there was little/no demand then the costs wouldn't be as high.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by creekin111

Those specific instances still fall under the 'supply demand' part of what I said. Professors demand more pay because the demand for them increases. The amount of college students have risen dramatically over the past 50+ years above the amount of professors & schools that get produced. If you had less students then lawsuits would be less. Technology 'demand', 'demand' for higher pensions, etc. Its still supply & demand. If there was little/no demand then the costs wouldn't be as high.

Yeah, but the way colleges handle that demand with professors is they reduced the amount of tenured professors and hire a large amount of adjuncts. There's one college I know of that one campus only has 5 tenured professors and the rest are all adjunct.