Obamney 2012 - Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate

[ax1]

Ah I see, so you can take me to task, which to me is reasonable, but Easy refers to Mexicans as "f*cking beaners" and you're quite okay with that. I get it. And yet, you want to talk about who went to what church, if they are racist, twitter accounts... blah, blah, blah. But referring to an entire group as f*cking beaners, that's cool with you. I guess that credibility door only swings one way eh tin-foil?

Where did he say that? So many posts popping up here.

I did not reference Obama's church and racism myself specifically. I state Obama is the ultimate racist for murdering blacks, and whites, and middle eastern people, etc....

 

[ax1]

A lot of scientists seems to agree as well, it also earned him the endorsement from Bloomberg. But I see your refusal to address my earlier points. Thought you had more courage than that Tin-Foil.

There are scientist that agree and disagree. Climate change is far more complex that carbon, a single volcano blasts more carbon than we humans emit with our factories, cars, etc...in 100 years.

Climate change has always been around, here in the northeast our mountains are round due to the glaciers, in middle America you can find giant boulders that were pushed by glaciers.

People can be extremely naive when it comes to disasters and saving humans and the planet. Its all problem, reaction and solution and is a common tactic for goverments and/or corporations to capitalize on a situation for their own benefit weather its true or fabricated.

As Rham Emmanual states, "Never let a good crisis go to waste" or as Chris Mathews thanks Sandy for Obama last night.

 

[southpaw23]

Where did he say that? So many posts popping up here.

I did not reference Obama's church and racism myself specifically. I state Obama is the ultimate racist for murdering blacks, and whites, and middle eastern people, etc....

Right, you just happened to miss that one AX? You focus solely on my statements, lob a criticism and then turn a blind eye to others? Noted. Easy DOES NOT engage in policy discussions, he puts for "ideas." There is quite a difference between the two and he gets nobbed for it. Comical.

 

[AE14]

You make the grandest assumptions. My industry has been profitable for years, salaries have grown, hiring is up, and quarterly and year end bonuses are still in place, without cuts.

SP I do truly enjoy talking to you, but I find it hilarious that as soon as I refute you you move on to something else. Awesome work. What happened to the budget being held hostage by the right? Oh yeah the demos ALL voted against it.

Love this type of debate. Kind of a bait and switch. When my point is no longer valid, time to move on quickly.

 

[southpaw23]

There are scientist that agree and disagree. Climate change is far more complex that carbon, a single volcano blasts more carbon than we humans emit with our factories, cars, etc...in 100 years.

Climate change has always been around, here in the northeast our mountains are round due to the glaciers, in middle America you can find giant boulders that were pushed by glaciers.

People can be extremely naive when it comes to disasters and saving humans and the planet. Its all problem, reaction and solution and is a common tactic for goverments and/or corporations to capitalize on a situation for their own benefit weather its true or fabricated.

As Rham Emmanual states, "Never let a good crisis go to waste" or as Chris Mathews thanks Sandy for Obama last night.

You always pose these "what if" scenarios. You should change your name from AX to Captain Ambiguous. Science...it works.

 

[ax1]

Right, you just happened to miss that one AX? You focus solely on my statements, lob a criticism and then turn a blind eye to others? Noted. Easy DOES NOT engage in policy discussions, he puts for "ideas." There is quite a difference between the two and he gets nobbed for it. Comical.

Everybody puts forth their own biased ideas, you do as well as myself. Easy does engage very well in policy discussions, its just that you dont agree with them which isnt a big deal.

 

[southpaw23]

SP I do truly enjoy talking to you, but I find it hilarious that as soon as I refute you you move on to something else. Awesome work. What happened to the budget being held hostage by the right? Oh yeah the demos ALL voted against it.

Love this type of debate. Kind of a bait and switch. When my point is no longer valid, time to move on quickly.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget/ - What was included in the bill?

You cannot make drastic cuts immediately, it must be done over a prolonged period of time, while still being able to drive revenue. Offering broad tax cuts does not do that, that much is clear with respect to the Bush tax cuts, that money did not circulate back into the economy. It's a model that was tested, it's a model that has failed. I also thought the stimulus package was a failure, a huge mistake by Obama. But I also understand how credit markets works, where one investment is tied into another, you let one fall, they ALL fall. People have their money wrapped up in these investments, pension plans, 401k's.

 

[ax1]

You always pose these "what if" scenarios. You should change your name from AX to Captain Ambiguous. Science...it works.

What do you mean what if? When solutions dont add up to change, but rather profiteering skepticism would be natural.

Yes, science works and its always put up to debate.

Look how these 50 prominant NASA scientists and engineers signed a petition not long ago to tell NASA to chill out with this carbon/climate change crap.

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

 

[southpaw23]

Everybody puts forth their own biased ideas, you do as well as myself. Easy does engage very well in policy discussions, its just that you dont agree with them which isnt a big deal.

Once again, you take my comments to task, but remain on your knees for another poster describing an entire group as "f*cking beaners." Just so we're clear...

 

[ax1]

Once again, you take my comments to task, but remain on your knees for another poster describing an entire group as "f*cking beaners." Just so we're clear...

I like debating with you because Im at most disagreement with you and many things.

My brother in law is a 1st generation Mexican immigrant, my 3 nephews are half mexican and my brother in laws entire family are Mexican and I love them all.

I didnt see the beaners thing, I dont approve of that if it happened and if it did maybe he was just getting caught up in the heat of the moment arguing with you. Its really not a big deal. People have called me racist things many times in the past so what. My priority problem is people like Obama who slaughter people to death and waking people up to stop voting for these criminals.

 

[southpaw23]

I like debating with you because Im at most disagreement with you and many things.

My brother in law is a 1st generation Mexican immigrant, my 3 nephews are half mexican and my brother in laws entire family are Mexican and I love them all.

I didnt see the beaners thing, I dont approve of that if it happened and if it did maybe he was just getting caught up in the heat of the moment arguing with you. Its really not a big deal. People have called me racist things many times in the past so what. My priority problem is people like Obama who slaughter people to death and waking people up to stop voting for these criminals.

Right, but you feel like you can address my comments, but not his, that's curious. Keep in mind, I don't mind his statements or insults. I know who he is and what he does, I'm good. But you should really rethink your approach to that integrity thing. You and I talk behind the scenes, even though we go at each other here. Your "priority" should be to remain consistent, that speaks to credibility.

 

[ax1]

Right, but you feel like you can address my comments, but not his, that's curious. Keep in mind, I don't mind his statements or insults. I know who he is and what he does, I'm good. But you should really rethink your approach to that integrity thing. You and I talk behind the scenes, even though we go at each other here. I had more respect for you than than that.

Well, what the hell you support a murderous dictator and your gonna tell me about integrity? Jeez, lol

 

[southpaw23]

Well, what the hell you support a murderous dictator and your gonna tell me about integrity? Jeez, lol

Sigh.

 

[ax1]

Right, but you feel like you can address my comments, but not his, that's curious. Keep in mind, I don't mind his statements or insults. I know who he is and what he does, I'm good. But you should really rethink your approach to that integrity thing. You and I talk behind the scenes, even though we go at each other here. Your "priority" should be to remain consistent, that speaks to credibility.

Ok look, EasyL is a evil bastard and I also condemn him for calling you a "moron" which I did see. Im a moron myself with no integrity.

Ok, please lets move on back with the issues.

 

[southpaw23]

Ok look, EasyL is a evil bastard and I also condemn him for calling you a "moron" which I did see. Im a moron myself with no integrity.

Ok, please lets move on back with the issues.

I don't mind being called a moron, number one I'm not that sensitive, and two I consider the source. Lol. You can say anything you want about me. It's all gravy. I know who I am talking to, so I just smile at this stuff. But the Mexican comment is quite telling as to who he is as a person, which I already knew. Seems to me, people pick and choose their battles here based on whether or not they agree with certain principles/ideology.

 

[ax1]

I don't mind being called a moron, number one I'm not that sensitive, and two I consider the source. Lol. You can say anything you want about me, I know who I am talking to, so I just smile at this stuff. But the Mexican comment is quite telling as to who he is as a person, which I already knew. Seems to me, people pick and choose their battles here based on whether or not they agree with certain principles/ideology.

So what do you think of the NASA statement?

 

[southpaw23]

So what do you think of the NASA statement?

I'd have to research each link/source in depth for myself in order to be able to answer that question. And you've listed quite a few there. Give me some time and I'll respond to your points.

 

[ax1]

I'd have to research each link/source in depth for myself in order to be able to answer that question. And you've listed quite a few there. Give me some time and I'll respond to your points.

At the end of the list there, those are just the signatures/professional background of each person that signed it.

 

[southpaw23]

At the end of the list there, those are just the signatures/professional background of each person that signed it.

I promise I'll research it and get back to you.

 

[ax1]

You guys ever hear of anonymous take a look at there latest video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnxDoU5MGvQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Max Keiser is no joke.

I didnt see anything about "Anonymous" though, did you post the wrong video?

 

[AE14]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget/ - What was included in the bill?

You cannot make drastic cuts immediately, it must be done over a prolonged period of time, while still being able to drive revenue. Offering broad tax cuts does not do that, that much is clear with respect to the Bush tax cuts, that money did not circulate back into the economy. It's a model that was tested, it's a model that has failed. I also thought the stimulus package was a failure, a huge mistake by Obama. But I also understand how credit markets works, where one investment is tied into another, you let one fall, they ALL fall. People have their money wrapped up in these investments, pension plans, 401k's.

again....it was not just the republicans that held this hostage. Not one democrat supported this, yet he now feels he has a mandate.

In many of your posts I have heard you mention your success and your education....which is great and I applaud you for that.

I came from a very lower middle class family of an immigrant. I put myself through undergrad and 2 grad programs, to have the opportunity to move forward and make life better for my family. Now that I have achieved a much higher level of success, I stand to lose a good portion of that to support those that are on entitlements (not inclusive of SS, which is not truly an entitlement imo). That is not what this country is about. At this point, we have veered so far away from the constitution that it is completely in the rear view mirror. This is not just an Obama issue, this was a Bush issue, and can be traced as far back as Carter. Obama for his own legacy better make sure that the economy grows faster than at 2%, or he will destroy his own party. Which might not be a bad thing....we need a new system

Also, in relations to your success, come back and message me when you get your first paycheck in January if this "cliff" is not avoided. We will talk then

 

[southpaw23]

again....it was not just the republicans that held this hostage. Not one democrat supported this, yet he now feels he has a mandate.

In many of your posts I have heard you mention your success and your education....which is great and I applaud you for that.

I came from a very lower middle class family of an immigrant. I put myself through undergrad and 2 grad programs, to have the opportunity to move forward and make life better for my family. Now that I have achieved a much higher level of success, I stand to lose a good portion of that to support those that are on entitlements (not inclusive of SS, which is not truly an entitlement imo). That is not what this country is about. At this point, we have veered so far away from the constitution that it is completely in the rear view mirror. This is not just an Obama issue, this was a Bush issue, and can be traced as far back as Carter. Obama for his own legacy better make sure that the economy grows faster than at 2%, or he will destroy his own party. Which might not be a bad thing....we need a new system

Also, in relations to your success, come back and message me when you get your first paycheck in January if this "cliff" is not avoided. We will talk then

We share a similar back story in terms of how you've described your childhood/economic status. My family immigrated here when I was a child. Three kids sleeping on a wooden floor, and this was the case for many years; as both my mother and father worked to put themselves through school, ALL WITHOUT HANDOUTS or government assistance. I watched my mother shrink down to 90lbs, as she'd pass me her dinner on a nightly basis so her kids could eat, so my perspective on certain issues may be a little different than some others here. I'm not lauding my education, I consider myself lucky. However, for some to trivialize education and tag someone or rather institutions as being "elitist" is the height of ignorance. Education is what took me out of one tax bracket and life path, and put me into another. Do I believe in unlimited handouts? NO. Do I believe that some people are lazy and game the system? Yes. However, do I also believe that some people just want a chance to improve their lives and need assistance in doing so? Yes. So it's a bit more complicated than painting everyone with a broad brush and saying let's get rid of all entitlements. You can't make drastic and immediate cuts to programs that some people utilize as a lifeline.You can't tell a kid, whose parents can't afford to pay for them to go to college that you're cutting or taking away their Pell grants. Investing in higher education is investing in the economy (not referring to lib art majors). Now we do have to make some cuts but it must be done over a prolonged period of time, NOT IMMEDIATE. I also think in order to escape a narrow perspective, people should travel outside of their little bubble, and I'm not referring to taking a trip to Cancun. So many people offer opinions about the rest of the world, when they've never even owned a passport.

This isn't an Obama issue for me, if Mitt Romney the moderate showed up, he might have received my vote. I actually liked him as "governor." The presidential candidate and more importantly his "policies," not so much.

 

[DAdams91982]

So i was in a discussion with a friend who was in contention that the problem with the economy is that the southern state put a huge drag on the rest of the US, calling all the southern red states welfare states (He is union and a more than staunch democrat). While I didn't have any data, I didn't carry on too long because I couldn't give any facts to back myself up.

I only bring this up because the insinuations of the ideals and writings of our forefathers are no more than old ways malarkey. Since the south is a bit more conventional in constitutional thinking, you can see my correlation there (besides flying the confederate battle flag on one of their state house )

Anyway, curious to the debate at hand I looked up the biggest welfare states in the US, and found a comprehensive list from a liberal media outlet (CNBC). The researched states with comparison to the 2012 Voters map is a bit more telling to me. The data fully implicates that the welfare nation of the US supported Obama where the labor bearing states supported Romney. Major metropolitan boons look to be a major drag on our economy, not the good farmers and food supply providers of our nation.

I personally didn't see a difference in the candidates. Some people don't like when someone states they are a conservative, not a republican, but that is what I have to say here. I am actually fully libertarian, but red seeks closer to my views than blue.

1. Cali - Blue
2. Maine - Blue
3. Tennessee - Red
4. Mass - Blue
5. Vermont - Blue
6. DC - Blue
7. New York - Blue
8. Minn - Blue
9. Washington - Blue
10. New Mexico (tie) - Blue
10. Indiana (tie) - Red
12. Rhode Island - Blue
13. Michigan - Blue
14. Penn. - Blue
15. Oregon - Blue

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310/The_Biggest_US_Welfare_States?slide=1

I then looked up state deficits for 2012, and found the below.

State Projected FY 2012 shortfall
(in millions of dollars)
California $21,300 - Blue
Illinois 17,000 - Blue
New Jersey 10,500 - Blue
Texas 10,000 - Red
New York 8,200 - Blue
Connecticut 3,800 - Blue
Minnesota 3,800 - Blue
North Carolina 3,000 - Red
Ohio 3,000 - Blue
Florida (tie) 2,500 - Uncalled (Looking Blue)
Oregon (tie) 2,500 - Blue

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/14/10-states-with-the-largest-budget-shortfalls

In the grand scheme of things, based on this election it looks that the red states are fairing better than the top blue states.

Just thought i would steer this thread away from personal attacks and maybe bring up some more real debate.

 

[DAdams91982]

I know not many people like Herman Cain, but he today had a call for a new third party for real contention against the big two.

No matter if you like him or not, he is fully right (I would like to see libertarians to be that, but that takes a sledge to welfare projects, so wont go over well, and would even the tax rate to everyone). He contended that the Repubs are to far from their own conservative constituents that they have no way of crawling back.

Thoughts?

 

[ax1]

Southpaw, the problem with entitlements is that government has nothing. It can only take from someone else to give to someone else. Basically an entitlement means someone less fortunate taking from someone else in a better position by force (income tax, IRS). Class warfare becomes natural nobody likes having the fruits of their labor taken away to someone that didn't earn it.


Nice post Daadams I was not aware of that.

 

[ax1]

I know not many people like Herman Cain, but he today had a call for a new third party for real contention against the big two.

No matter if you like him or not, he is fully right (I would like to see libertarians to be that, but that takes a sledge to welfare projects, so wont go over well, and would even the tax rate to everyone). He contended that the Repubs are to far from their own conservative constituents that they have no way of crawling back.

Thoughts?

I have a hard time trusting federal reserve insiders. I do like him on paper far more that what Rombamba both have to offer. Flat tax is better than the current system.


i really only support no income tax, something Gary Johnson would have bought to the debates if corporate media let him on which he was qualified to be a part of.

 

[DAdams91982]

I have a hard time trusting federal reserve insiders. I do like him on paper far more that what Rombamba both have to offer. Flat tax is better than the current system.


i really only support no income tax, something Gary Johnson would have bought to the debates if corporate media let him on which he was qualified to be a part of.

That's really what I was getting towards with the tax statement. Not a flat income tax, but the fair tax act that Gary supported. A tax at the register equal for everyone where the families below the poverty line get prebates for living essentials such as food (Not good toward cigs and alcohol).

 

[ax1]

Gary has spoken of some type of consumption tax which naturally would be easier on the poor, and at least gives middle/upper class better control on personal spending.

 

[EasyEJL]

Ah I see, so you can take me to task, which to me is reasonable, but Easy refers to Mexicans as "f*cking beaners" and you're quite okay with that. I get it. And yet, you want to talk about who went to what church, if they are racist, twitter accounts... blah, blah, blah. But referring to an entire group as f*cking beaners, that's cool with you. I guess that credibility door only swings one way eh tin-foil?

I did that solely to irritate you. seems like it worked.

 

[EasyEJL]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget/ - What was included in the bill?

You cannot make drastic cuts immediately, it must be done over a prolonged period of time, while still being able to drive revenue. Offering broad tax cuts does not do that, that much is clear with respect to the Bush tax cuts, that money did not circulate back into the economy. It's a model that was tested, it's a model that has failed. I also thought the stimulus package was a failure, a huge mistake by Obama. But I also understand how credit markets works, where one investment is tied into another, you let one fall, they ALL fall. People have their money wrapped up in these investments, pension plans, 401k's.

you can't even bother to look at Obamas budgets as a solution, as he has yet to get a single vote in either the house or senate for any budget he has put forth.

 

[DAdams91982]

Gary has spoken of some type of consumption tax which naturally would be easier on the poor, and at least gives middle/upper class better control on personal spending.

Yes, this is the FairTax Act.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/presidential-candidate-gary-johnson-calls-for-fair-tax-while-visiting-new-hampshire-business-incubator

You can read the details at fairtax.org

The tax will be obtained at the register, and low income family's will get pre-bates that will lower their overall effective tax rate on necessity's.

 

[southpaw23]

I did that solely to irritate you. seems like it worked.

You don't irritate me, you amuse me.

 

[southpaw23]

Yes, this is the FairTax Act.

Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson calls for Fair Tax while visiting New Hampshire business incubator

You can read the details at fairtax.org

The tax will be obtained at the register, and low income family's will get pre-bates that will lower their overall effective tax rate on necessity's.

And that is a reasonable approach. However, we need to make more of an investment in higher education. That means extending things like Pell grants, not cutting them. Making access to education affordable and easier for adults looking to transition and compete for available jobs. Education is what allows someone to move from one tax bracket to another, obviously heavily dependent on what you're studying. I'm not referring to liberal arts majors. I'm referring to things like math and science. People need to adapt to the current job market, not the other way around. I'll give you an example, prior to the Dodd/Frank Act being signed into law, most investment firms handled their own regulatory compliance responsibilities in-house, which was a huge drain on resources and productivity. We saw this as an opportunity and created a compliance firm as an off-shoot of the business, subsequently, we've seen growth each year since we've been in operation. It's essentially five guys handling the compliance responsibilities for mid-level size firms. The point is you have to remain adaptive to the environment. I'm not saying it is perfect for everyone, far from it. But you can't cut people off at the legs with expediency.

I also have a friend who works for Verizon Wireless corporate, he saw an opportunity where wireless companies could presumably outsource the testing of third-party devices/wireless attachments, so he created a company that does just that. Within a year, he now has contracts with all the major carriers. It went from three guys with an idea, to now 15 guys and he's only 29. He took advantage of the existing market and made it work for him. Those are things that help to boost the economy and create jobs, market opportunities.

 

[ax1]

SP, im all for education but how do we pay for this stuff this day in age?

 

[EasyEJL]

I'm not lauding my education, I consider myself lucky.

you are a ****ing liar, you constantly laud your education. You have stated that managing to get that paper is a mark of higher intelligence, even though somehow in your liberal lack of logic you can say the Bush's didn't count. I'd imagine that no conservative's degree counts as a sign of intelligence.

However, for some to trivialize education and tag someone or rather institutions as being "elitist" is the height of ignorance. Education is what took me out of one tax bracket and life path, and put me into another.

The education system is a system, and graduates too many liberally brainwashed tards like you. Your attitude about education is elitist, as you've repeated stated that people reporting on news who don't have a degree are meaningless, etc.

Do I believe in unlimited handouts? NO. Do I believe that some people are lazy and game the system? Yes? Do I also believe that some people just want a chance to improve their lives and need assistance in doing so? Yes. So it's a bit more complicated than painting everyone with a broad brush and saying let's get rid of all entitlements. You can't make drastic and immediate cuts to programs that some people utilize as a lifeline.

you hit the essence right here. nobody anywhere has talked about eliminating all entitlements. But NONE of the entitlements other than social security were meant to be a lifetime lifeline. They were meant to be short term assistance. They have instead become lifestyles. The war on poverty started in the 60s with those and has been a worse abject failure than the war on drugs.

You can't tell a kid, whose parents can't afford to pay for them to go to college that you're cutting or taking away their Pell grants.

Why not? college isn't a right, spending other people's money isn't a right

Investing in higher education is investing in the economy (not referring to lib art majors).

Sure, that makes sense. but the government doesn't understand investing. The government is a non-profit organization, made up of people who primarily act in their own self interest to increase their power base. The government doesn't look at ROI because they don't expect return. The low rate easy to get high balance student loans are bad enough honestly, they whether you believe it or not have contributed to higher education's cost growing at a rate faster than anything else's inflation. Its outpaced health care costs. If borrowed money was tighter and harder for students to get, schools would be forced to control their costs or more students would be going to cheaper online schools, and school price would start being part of a competitive model again. Right now with the grant and loan structure, what one college costs vs another is irrelevant in the decision process.

Now we do have to make some cuts but it must be done over a prolonged period of time. I also think in order to escape a narrow perspective, people should travel and I'm not referring to taking a trip to Cancun. So many people offer opinions about the rest of the world, when they've never even owned a passport.

Yes, travel to spain to see 25% unemployment. And see a couple who is a policeman and middle school teacher with 2 kids living in an 800sqft flat with one crappy 12 year old car and one nicer 7 year old car, because that is all they can afford. Try england, and walking through liverpool where we have families who have lived on the dole for so many generations they cant imagine working. Try greece, where they riot in the streets over haviing to pay property taxes.

Yes, cuts have to be done over a length of time, but we don't have a lot of time to do them in since the kick the can game has gone on so long. We already have more foreign owed debt per person than any other country on the globe. we have to reach balanced budget somewhere in the next 4-8 years to not see a greece-like reaction begin to happen. We'll see credit downgrades as our debt goes higher, which will raise the interest we pay. As of the end of bush's 2nd term with debt at 11-12 trillion, interest was on the order of 220 billion, near 10% of what got take in in taxes. The department of defense only gets 672.9 billion. All the other government programs combined not counting social security, defense, medicare/medicaid and interest come to just over a trillion. If we see our national debt double from that 12 trillion, and our interest rate goes up, we'll easily see interest eclipsing the cost of defense. Reality states that the deficit and debt truly is a national security concern, and far more important in the national interest (and "common good" as is used for the excuse of many non-constitutional programs) than many of the other things we spend money on.

As I'm not a republican I don't believe we can't raise rates however I believe they need to be raised across the board. The amount of the total us tax burden the upper end pays is the highest percentage its been since before Reagan, and the percentage that the bottom 50% pay is the lowest its been since before then too. The idea that also somehow with social security heading towards bankruptcy that maintaing the 2% lowered contribution is a good idea is also bat**** crazy.

 

[DAdams91982]

And that is a reasonable approach. However, we need to make more of an investment in higher education. That means extending things like Pell grants, not cutting them. Making access to education affordable and easier for adults looking to transition and compete for available jobs. Education is what allows someone to move from one tax bracket to another, obviously heavily dependent on what you're studying. I'm not referring to liberal arts majors. I'm referring to things like math and science. People need to adapt to the current job market, not the other way around. I'll give you an example, prior to the Dodd/Frank Act being signed into law, most investment firms handled their own regulatory compliance responsibilities in-house, which was a huge drain on resources and productivity. We saw this as an opportunity and created a compliance firm as an off-shoot of the business, subsequently, we've seen growth each year since we've been in operation. It's essentially five guys handling the compliance responsibilities for mid-level size firms. The point is you have to remain adaptive to the environment. I'm not saying it is perfect for everyone, far from it. But you can't cut people off at the legs with expediency.

I disagree with the investment into higher education. The government interference has driven up the cost of education to an astronomical high, and then instituted federal student loans which drove it up even higher. Education cost only sky rocketed when government interferance stepped in saying everyone has a right to education (Just like they did with the community reinvestment act written by Carter and given real life by Clinton, which blew up the housing market).

As for Frank/Dodd, that just gave more power to the Fed... I have more on that, but have a meeting!

 

[EasyEJL]

And that is a reasonable approach. However, we need to make more of an investment in higher education. That means extending things like Pell grants, not cutting them. Making access to education affordable and easier for adults looking to transition and compete for available jobs. Education is what allows someone to move from one tax bracket to another, obviously heavily dependent on what you're studying. I'm not referring to liberal arts majors. I'm referring to things like math and science. People need to adapt to the current job market, not the other way around. I'll give you an example, prior to the Dodd/Frank Act being signed into law, most investment firms handled their own regulatory compliance responsibilities in-house, which was a huge drain on resources and productivity. We saw this as an opportunity and created a compliance firm as an off-shoot of the business, subsequently, we've seen growth each year since we've been in operation. It's essentially five guys handling the compliance responsibilities for mid-level size firms. The point is you have to remain adaptive to the environment. I'm not saying it is perfect for everyone, far from it. But you can't cut people off at the legs with expediency.

I also have a friend who works for Verizon Wireless corporate, he saw an opportunity where wireless companies could presumably outsource the testing of third-party devices/wireless attachments, so he created a company that does just that. Within a year, he now has contracts with all the major carriers. It went from three guys with an idea, to now 15 guys and he's only 29. He took advantage of the existing market and made it work for him. Those are things that help to boost the economy and create jobs, market opportunities.

again though, we don't need to spend more. We can spend even less than we do today, but spend it in a targeted way. Even keep the amount the same, but structure it as a loan that is automatically paid off at the end of graduation and only for certain degree programs, the ones that the economy actually needs. I'd be all for that. They change majors in their junior year from Electronic Engineering to Jazz Studies and the loan is no longer automatically paid off.

 

[EasyEJL]

I disagree with the investment into higher education. The government interference has driven up the cost of education to an astronomical high, and then instituted federal student loans which drove it up even higher. Education cost only sky rocketed when government interferance stepped in saying everyone has a right to education (Just like they did with the community reinvestment act written by Carter and given real life by Clinton, which blew up the housing market).

As for Frank/Dodd, that just gave more power to the Fed... I have more on that, but have a meeting!

Frank/Dodd like most legislation created by goobers in congress in both parties who have no understanding of economics or the industry they are trying to regulate just created more headaches, more cost to business with little real change for consumers.

 

[southpaw23]

you are a ****ing liar, you constantly laud your education. You have stated that managing to get that paper is a mark of higher intelligence, even though somehow in your liberal lack of logic you can say the Bush's didn't count. I'd imagine that no conservative's degree counts as a sign of intelligence.




The education system is a system, and graduates too many liberally brainwashed tards like you. Your attitude about education is elitist, as you've repeated stated that people reporting on news who don't have a degree are meaningless, etc.




you hit the essence right here. nobody anywhere has talked about eliminating all entitlements. But NONE of the entitlements other than social security were meant to be a lifetime lifeline. They were meant to be short term assistance. They have instead become lifestyles. The war on poverty started in the 60s with those and has been a worse abject failure than the war on drugs.



Why not? college isn't a right, spending other people's money isn't a right




Sure, that makes sense. but the government doesn't understand investing. The government is a non-profit organization, made up of people who primarily act in their own self interest to increase their power base. The government doesn't look at ROI because they don't expect return. The low rate easy to get high balance student loans are bad enough honestly, they whether you believe it or not have contributed to higher education's cost growing at a rate faster than anything else's inflation. Its outpaced health care costs. If borrowed money was tighter and harder for students to get, schools would be forced to control their costs or more students would be going to cheaper online schools, and school price would start being part of a competitive model again. Right now with the grant and loan structure, what one college costs vs another is irrelevant in the decision process.



Yes, travel to spain to see 25% unemployment. And see a couple who is a policeman and middle school teacher with 2 kids living in an 800sqft flat with one crappy 12 year old car and one nicer 7 year old car, because that is all they can afford. Try england, and walking through liverpool where we have families who have lived on the dole for so many generations they cant imagine working. Try greece, where they riot in the streets over haviing to pay property taxes.

Yes, cuts have to be done over a length of time, but we don't have a lot of time to do them in since the kick the can game has gone on so long. We already have more foreign owed debt per person than any other country on the globe. we have to reach balanced budget somewhere in the next 4-8 years to not see a greece-like reaction begin to happen. We'll see credit downgrades as our debt goes higher, which will raise the interest we pay. As of the end of bush's 2nd term with debt at 11-12 trillion, interest was on the order of 220 billion, near 10% of what got take in in taxes. The department of defense only gets 672.9 billion. All the other government programs combined not counting social security, defense, medicare/medicaid and interest come to just over a trillion. If we see our national debt double from that 12 trillion, and our interest rate goes up, we'll easily see interest eclipsing the cost of defense. Reality states that the deficit and debt truly is a national security concern, and far more important in the national interest (and "common good" as is used for the excuse of many non-constitutional programs) than many of the other things we spend money on.

As I'm not a republican I don't believe we can't raise rates however I believe they need to be raised across the board. The amount of the total us tax burden the upper end pays is the highest percentage its been since before Reagan, and the percentage that the bottom 50% pay is the lowest its been since before then too. The idea that also somehow with social security heading towards bankruptcy that maintaing the 2% lowered contribution is a good idea is also bat**** crazy.

Obviously you and I will never see eye to eye on education, for rather obvious reasons. Of course in your small world educated people are brainwashed "tards," while uneducated individuals like yourself simply delude themselves.

You can say I laud my education, however, I prefer to say I advocate education. You live in your tiny little bubble out there in the southeast and somehow think that applies to the rest of the country, sadly, this makes you think you're informed. Comedy. What's funny is because this part of the forum is one massive conservative/libertarian circle jerk no one questions you when toss out insults, presumably because they share the same ideology as you. But since we're trading insults, you should stick to reviewing fatburners, since that is clearly where you've peaked.

 

[southpaw23]

Frank/Dodd like most legislation created by goobers in congress in both parties who have no understanding of economics or the industry they are trying to regulate just created more headaches, more cost to business with little real change for consumers.

But you have insight into different economic models, applications and real world practice? Oh please, enlighten us...

 

[ax1]

But southpaw, lets say everybody goes to school and gets a degree, then what? We will have a bunch of college graduates washing dishes at a diner. Fact is why invest in higher education when right now we can't even hire them all?

 

[southpaw23]

again though, we don't need to spend more. We can spend even less than we do today, but spend it in a targeted way. Even keep the amount the same, but structure it as a loan that is automatically paid off at the end of graduation and only for certain degree programs, the ones that the economy actually needs. I'd be all for that. They change majors in their junior year from Electronic Engineering to Jazz Studies and the loan is no longer automatically paid off.

And how exactly do you structure these loans to be paid off "immediately" upon graduation? You're a guy who likes to throw out a ton of ideas, yet you hardly offer ANY details on how to go about putting those ideas into practice. Let's see some...(in before a grown man writes "tard" and "goober" again)

 

[southpaw23]

But southpaw, lets say everybody goes to school and gets a degree, then what? We will have a bunch of college graduates washing dishes at a diner. Fact is why invest in higher education when right now we can't even hire them all?

Where are you coming up with this? I read one of your comments where you likened that example to what is happening in parts of Asia. However, what you fail to mention are that there are dominant industries there, like the tech sector. So you have thousands of people competing for the same industry. That IS NOT what I'm saying. You can invest in VARIOUS areas like economics/finance, accounting, technology/engineering, law etc. Those are areas that will continue to expand and see growth and create jobs. I cited some examples up above from personal first-hand experience.

 

[EasyEJL]

But you have insight into different economic models, their applications and real world practice? Oh please, enlighten us...

Just to give you one of the simpler points that maybe even you can understand... One of the ways in which banks made profit was charges on the interchange system for handling atm and some other electronically processed transactions. Due to sensitivity none of that travels across the interenet, but across leased lines and a full separate network, which the banks maintained themselves. They'd charge __ cents per transaction, which was part of why using an atm other than your financial instution gets you charged a fee. Dodd/Frank cut + removed those charges with the goal of "lowering the cost to consumers". But that is moronic, as the banks to acheive profit need to have a certain level of income to overcome costs. So what do the banks do? they pass the charges for maintaining that network to consumers another way, not on those particular fees. So what Dodd/Frank "accomplished" with that part was to take charges that were being charged as direct usage charges for a system to the charges being spread over all sorts of things that had nothing to do with using that system.

its the series of unintended consequences of people who don't truly understand a system manipulating it. The same was true with the law about not charging bounce fees on debit transactions that are allowed to go through taking an account negative unless the person opted in to that. There are many things that the politicians (both sides) do with good intentions that in the end don't particularly accomplish their goal and actually create new problems without particularly solving their initial goal.

Part of the concept of Dodd/Frank was to help protect consumers, and lower banking costs for consumers. But as you noted, it added significant cost to FIs in terms of a lot of the compliance to the point where your company founded a profitable growing subsidiary on it. Did they not think that the added costs to the FIs would be just passed along to consumers? Its hard to imagine a bill that increases the costs of doing business to lower the cost to the consumer, but government officials seem to believe that magic is possible. It was evident with Clinton's HIPPA act as well. Part of its goal was to lower health care costs, while saddling health care providers and insurers with a huge mass of new cost complying with all the regulations. It never works to lower costs, only manages to raise them, while creating new federal level departments to oversee it.

 

[EasyEJL]

And how exactly do you structure these loans to be paid off "immediately" upon graduation? You're a guy who likes to throw out a ton of ideas, yet you hardly offer ANY details on how to go about putting those ideas into practice. Let's see some...(in before a grown man writes "tard" and "goober" again)

It seems you don't particularly believe in contracts, at least not when its the constitution. But its all just in how the contract is worded. It could be a regular student loan till the person graduates or leaves being at least a half time student, that is fully paid (or some $ amount of grants are applied to the balance of) upon proof of graduation with a degree with a major selected from the list of ones that will help drive the economy forwards. Engineering, health care is also critical. Other hard math + science degrees as well. What goes in that list can easily be debated. But it would either reduce the cost of pell grants that we have today, or make them far more valuable to the economy and give the government some tangible ROI.

 

[EasyEJL]

Where are you coming up with this? I read one of your comments where you likened that example to what is happening in parts of Asia. However, what you fail to mention are that there are dominant industries there, like the tech sector. So you have thousands of people competing for the same industry. That IS NOT what I'm saying. You can invest in VARIOUS areas like economics/finance, accounting, technology/engineering, law etc. Those are areas that will continue to expand and see growth and create jobs. I cited some examples up above from personal first-hand experience.

see? here I totally agree with you. Hard science for research, biochemistry, technology. Right now there is a light shortage of tech workers, which gets worse year by year. Bill Gates I beleive projects having over 1 million technology related jobs that we can't fill in the US by 2020, due to the lack of people graduating with technology degrees. That is totally crazy, and is something that significantly holds back our growth as a service based economy.

 

[ax1]

Where are you coming up with this? I read one of your comments where you likened that example to what is happening in parts of Asia. However, what you fail to mention are that there are dominant industries there, like the tech sector. So you have thousands of people competing for the same industry. That IS NOT what I'm saying. You can invest in VARIOUS areas like economics/finance, accounting, technology/engineering, law etc. Those are areas that will continue to expand and see growth and create jobs. I cited some examples up above from personal first-hand experience.

Yes china has too many college graduates and not enough job supply (real jobs).

It becomes a matter of quantity decreases the value of the degree.

Its already a big problem in the USA degrees aren't meaningful as much as they used to be, too many cant find jobs or work where they are overqualified.

 

[ax1]

see? here I totally agree with you. Hard science for research, biochemistry, technology. Right now there is a light shortage of tech workers, which gets worse year by year. Bill Gates I beleive projects having over 1 million technology related jobs that we can't fill in the US by 2020, due to the lack of people graduating with technology degrees. That is totally crazy, and is something that significantly holds back our growth as a service based economy.

I'm all for this I'm just saying you can't tax and pay for everyone to have an education it's impractical.Should be selective.

 

[southpaw23]

Just to give you one of the simpler points that maybe even you can understand... One of the ways in which banks made profit was charges on the interchange system for handling atm and some other electronically processed transactions. Due to sensitivity none of that travels across the interenet, but across leased lines and a full separate network, which the banks maintained themselves. They'd charge __ cents per transaction, which was part of why using an atm other than your financial instution gets you charged a fee. Dodd/Frank cut + removed those charges with the goal of "lowering the cost to consumers". But that is moronic, as the banks to acheive profit need to have a certain level of income to overcome costs. So what do the banks do? they pass the charges for maintaining that network to consumers another way, not on those particular fees. So what Dodd/Frank "accomplished" with that part was to take charges that were being charged as direct usage charges for a system to the charges being spread over all sorts of things that had nothing to do with using that system.

its the series of unintended consequences of people who don't truly understand a system manipulating it. The same was true with the law about not charging bounce fees on debit transactions that are allowed to go through taking an account negative unless the person opted in to that. There are many things that the politicians (both sides) do with good intentions that in the end don't particularly accomplish their goal and actually create new problems without particularly solving their initial goal.



Part of the concept of Dodd/Frank was to help protect consumers, and lower banking costs for consumers. But as you noted, it added significant cost to FIs in terms of a lot of the compliance to the point where your company founded a profitable growing subsidiary on it. Did they not think that the added costs to the FIs would be just passed along to consumers? Its hard to imagine a bill that increases the costs of doing business to lower the cost to the consumer, but government officials seem to believe that magic is possible. It was evident with Clinton's HIPPA act as well. Part of its goal was to lower health care costs, while saddling health care providers and insurers with a huge mass of new cost complying with all the regulations. It never works to lower costs, only manages to raise them, while creating new federal level departments to oversee it.

The banks were experiencing issues with financial viability PRIOR to Dodd/Frank being enacted, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Wachovia is is prime evidence of that. Bank of America? Same issues, prior to Dodd/Frank, which was created with the intent of protecting consumer "investments." We all know who Madoff is, however there were many other IA's who cost their clients full pensions, investments, 401ks due to widespread abuses, fraud and mismanagement. How do I know this, apart from reading a headline? I work in the industry. I personally worked with two clients who defrauded their investors. Here is one -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Schrenker

These consumer protections have ensured the viability of client accounts. Prior to Dodd/Frank, examine the number of complaints received by the SEC from investors versus what they are today. They are substantially lower than they were prior to oversight. As for healthcare, years ago, I was denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition. You know what the pre-existing condition was? High cholesterol. Since my body naturally produces higher amounts of cholesterol (rolled snake eyes on genetics), it meant that when shopping around for insurance policies, it would cost me as much as a small mortgage payment, because cholesterol is viewed as high risk for other health issues. That is unrealistic, in one of the ONLY industries that has experienced growth despite an economic downturn, do I feel sorry for insurance companies now having to absorb higher costs? Hell no. My premiums are lower today, than they've ever been....EVER BEEN. When an insurance company now has to worry to about competing with lower cost alternative plan subsidized by the government or not, we all win. They can either keep their premiums high, or forced to lower them by competing for business, and that is a good thing for consumers.

 

[southpaw23]

It seems you don't particularly believe in contracts, at least not when its the constitution. But its all just in how the contract is worded. It could be a regular student loan till the person graduates or leaves being at least a half time student, that is fully paid (or some $ amount of grants are applied to the balance of) upon proof of graduation with a degree with a major selected from the list of ones that will help drive the economy forwards. Engineering, health care is also critical. Other hard math + science degrees as well. What goes in that list can easily be debated. But it would either reduce the cost of pell grants that we have today, or make them far more valuable to the economy and give the government some tangible ROI.

Two questions, WHO is paying off the ENTIRE loan upon graduation? And more importantly HOW? And yes Pell Grants are vitally important to college students. I have a friend whose income jumped from early 30k to over 70k, as she earned her degree and became a paralegal at a law firm, all this as a direct result of Pell Grants. Now she spends more, which is a good thing for the economy. She just purchased her first home. Education and easier access to it, opens the doors to growth, both personally, and economically.