[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…the President’s place in the history of America will NOT be of a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain.
[/quote]
‘The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.”’ - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…the President’s place in the history of America will NOT be of a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain.
[/quote]
‘The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.”’ - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals[/quote]
Okay. Let me make sure I have this right:
Conservatives should be considered “the Establishment” AND
It was a conscious, deliberate “plan” for the President to have himself viewed as a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain?
Mufasa
I’m not sure why everyone is cheering so much. Frankly neither candidate is truly an alternative to the other. Yeah, there’s some details that are different but overall you’re talking about minor differences.
For example, Rommney is not going to appeal all of the AHCA only parts of it. We’ll still have provisions for over age dependents and pre-existing conditions. Both candidates are focusing not on why health care is so expensive but shifting the costs of it.
Rommney will lower the corporate tax but it’s a mistake to think that’s suddenly going to mean more American jobs. I might see my taxes go down which is always cool but that does nothing to address our huge deficit.
Spending isn’t really going to take a dive with either candidate. We will still have Medicare (the huge bump of baby boomers isn’t going away). Sure, we will mess with future benefits but current ones are untouchable. Same goes for social security. We simply aren’t going to mess with that for the current recipients.
As long as there’s a global war on terror we aren’t going to be getting our freedoms back anytime soon either.
So in essence we’re cheering that we’re getting the lesser to two evils which is a crappy situation to be in.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Rommney will lower the corporate tax but it’s a mistake to think that’s suddenly going to mean more American jobs. I might see my taxes go down which is always cool but that does nothing to address our huge deficit.
james[/quote]
The reaction to a cut in tax rates will largely depend on what he does to make them revenue neutral imo.
Thing is, if he cuts the repatriotation rate down to a reasonable number, and we see massive glut of capital flow back into America (which will happen) this alone could spur large increases in the volicty of money and well, we know that means good things for everyone.
The major difference between Obama’s plan (tax the rich) and romney’s plan (tax everyone less) is obama gives people an incentive to sent more money overseas and keep it there, romney gives an incentive to bring that profit back.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…the President’s place in the history of America will NOT be of a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain.
[/quote]
‘The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.”’ - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals[/quote]
Okay. Let me make sure I have this right:
Conservatives should be considered “the Establishment” AND
It was a conscious, deliberate “plan” for the President to have himself viewed as a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain?
Mufasa
[/quote]
You are very often the voice of reason, Mufasa.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think that what History writes and thinks about President Obama will be independent of whether or not he wins or not.
(Note: I am still on record predicting a Romney win).
Mufasa[/quote]
Can’t agree with you Mufasa. Obama has been a disaster for this country both domestically and foreign policy wise. If he is lucky enough to only be a one termer he can go down in history as merely the guy who tried to shove national healthcare down our throats, could not fix a poor economy but gave a hell of a speech as long as his teleprompter was working. Most likely he’ll be viewed as better than Jimmy Carter…maybe.
If the MSLM has their way and he sneaks in another four years history will be most unkind to him. As he seeks to raise taxes on job creators he will destroy any possibility of a recovery and we head back into a deep recession. Only this one will be far deeper than the previous one as we do not have as strong a financial base because we’re still limping along.
Foreign policy and the mid east hang in the balance. And as he throws Israel under the bus he only makes her enemies more embolden.
I see real danger in an Obama second term where he doesn’t have to answer to the electorate.
If he wants history to be even somewhat kind he will throw the election.
And…based on his first debate performance maybe that’s what he’s trying to do?
PS: Did anyone really think that a far left academic race baiter would be a good President?
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
So in essence we’re cheering that we’re getting the lesser to two evils which is a crappy situation to be in.
james[/quote]
Wrong, I’m cheering the fact that we might be getting rid of Obama. That’s all…simple.
And I say “might” as there are two more debates and anyone who has followed this stuff longer than a few years knows that 27 days in a Presidential race is a lifetime. Romney is still up against it!
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…the President’s place in the history of America will NOT be of a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain.
[/quote]
‘The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.”’ - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals[/quote]
Okay. Let me make sure I have this right:
Conservatives should be considered “the Establishment” AND
It was a conscious, deliberate “plan” for the President to have himself viewed as a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain?
Mufasa
[/quote]
You are very often the voice of reason, Mufasa.[/quote]
He’s also very often wrong.
If he was correct there would be a President McCain.
Come on…kidding…kidding 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
He’s also very often wrong.
If he was correct there would be a President McCain.
Come on…kidding…kidding :)[/quote]
lol, this is before my time but I’m assuming Mufasa predicted a McCain win.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
He’s also very often wrong.
If he was correct there would be a President McCain.
Come on…kidding…kidding :)[/quote]
lol, this is before my time but I’m assuming Mufasa predicted a McCain win.[/quote]
Now that you brought it up yeah he did predict that McCain would beat Obama. Can you imagine that? The race wasn’t even close…(shakes head) I don’t know about that Mufasa…But I do have plenty of fun with him on these threads. Certainly one of the nicest guys who posts on PWI. And it just wouldn’t be the same around here without him.
I don’t say this often enough but…well I’m just going to say it. I’m smarter than Mufasa!
LOL…I set you all up for that one didn’t I?
But seriously I’m wrong at least as often as Mufasa. If you mouth off as much as we do around here you’re going to be wrong on occasion.
Me not letting Mufasa ever forget that he predicted McCain is just a way for me to keep him humble.
And if the MSLM (or the Obama campaign) does not crash Romney’s chances with some sort of 11th hour dirty trick then Mufasa will be able to hold that over my head for four years.
The anti-Bush movement was too strong, you could have put anyone up on the stage and they would have beaten McCain.
This is a different story, Obama does not have the 2008 momentum, and the GOP seems more enthusiastic, I think the GOP will do much better than most people think.
LOL!
Yeah…Zeb won’t let me forget!
I have to tell you, smh…I thought that the GOP convention that year was electric (much more than this year)…and that McCain had REALLY made a “Game Changer” of a pick in Palin. What I missed was just how much the Country was ready for change.
Oh well…
I don’t see the Country voting for Romney in the same way they voted for the President (in the sense of voting “for” him)…but I see each and every day a STRONG “Not Obama” sentiment. The only way I see Romney losing is a) there is some huge “game changer” OR b) Romney somehow defeats himself.
(But I’ve been wrong before!)
Mufasa
Agree, Push…BUT:
#3 is a BIG “IF” AND
Our largest trading partner (Europe) is in a total mess.
Mufasa
One other thing:
Do you guys know what the best ANYONE has proposed in relation to spending?
Merely decreasing the RATE OF RISE of spending. (I think Simpson/Bowles?)
This apparently is a damn difficult issue to tackle.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I’m not sure why everyone is cheering so much. Frankly neither candidate is truly an alternative to the other. Yeah, there’s some details that are different but overall you’re talking about minor differences.
For example, Rommney is not going to appeal all of the AHCA only parts of it. We’ll still have provisions for over age dependents and pre-existing conditions. Both candidates are focusing not on why health care is so expensive but shifting the costs of it.
Rommney will lower the corporate tax but it’s a mistake to think that’s suddenly going to mean more American jobs. I might see my taxes go down which is always cool but that does nothing to address our huge deficit.
Spending isn’t really going to take a dive with either candidate. We will still have Medicare (the huge bump of baby boomers isn’t going away). Sure, we will mess with future benefits but current ones are untouchable. Same goes for social security. We simply aren’t going to mess with that for the current recipients.
As long as there’s a global war on terror we aren’t going to be getting our freedoms back anytime soon either.
So in essence we’re cheering that we’re getting the lesser to two evils which is a crappy situation to be in.
james[/quote]
I agree.
However, lowering taxes CAN reduce the deficit:
Good thing you point this out, where I live, I have seen where the total opposite of what you wrote has caused an increase in deficit.
When you tax and regulate too much, people leave, it’s really that simple.
Last week, I saw 1800 jobs leave in a single day, and I was not even paying attention.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In our lifetimes - past, present and future - it has NEVER been about insufficient taxes. It has ALWAYS been a spending problem.[/quote]
I certainly agree.
Any tax increase seems to be “sucked into the vortex”, with no decrease whatsoever in the overall deficit.
And there is enough blame to go around for both the DEMS and GOP.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Merely decreasing the RATE OF RISE of spending. (I think Simpson/Bowles?)
Mufasa[/quote]
I don’t know about S/B but I believe Ryan’s plan does that as well.
It isn’t a bad idea, and sort of eases the pain, but it requires consistant and some what robust growth of the private sector. Grow our way out of the problem.
The other option is an axe…
Every day that we stagnate like we are, the closer we get to “axe” is our only option.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Agree, Push…BUT:
#3 is a BIG “IF” AND
Our largest trading partner (Europe) is in a total mess.
Mufasa[/quote]
The amount of $ sitting overseas is staggering. Even a fraction of that coming back (<50%) would make serious waves of awesome.