Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The election is less than a month away, and we still have not heard Obama's plan for turning the economy around.
Obama supporters, please 1) let us in on what his plan is, 2) tell us how it differs from the economic plan he has implicated thus far, and 3) why you think it will turn the economy around.
Rules:
- Don't just copy and paste from his website (if something is there?). We don't need anything long and detailed - just an explanation of his basic plan to get America back on track.
- Any reference to Romney, Ryan, Republicans, etc. will be considered an admission that Obama is unable to improve the economy. Same with one-liners, insults about my southern heritage, remarks about "birthers," "racists," or anything else that doesn't attempt to inform us about Obama's economic plan.
- I reserve the right to revive this thread every now and then if the answers aren't being posted, because we'd really like to know the answers.
People who vote on a single issue like the economy are naive and narrow minded. The economy will be just fine no matter who is president. There are so many other issues at stake. Women's issues and the Supreme Court are a major concern to me. And I base my vote on these issues because they affect me as well
People who vote on a single issue like the economy are naive and narrow minded. The economy will be just fine no matter who is president. There are so many other issues at stake. Women's issues and the Supreme Court are a major concern to me. And I base my vote on these issues because they affect me as well
The main issue at stake is that the only economic plan Obama has is to turn America into a socialist state, which is the bridge between capitalism and communism. If you read these posts you'll see that the only Obama supporter that could actually explain his plan is in favor of some type of socialism. Your major concern should be freedom, not just abortions or whatever you're concerned about. Romney wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and give the power to the states per the Constitution. So, there's really nothing for you to worry about. If it were overturned there would be plenty of states that would approve it. I don't know of any other Women's issues unless you mean we should pay for your birth control. If that's it, I say grow up. If it's about a payscale, you should understand that Stephanie Cutter, etc. are pathological liars and created these fake talking points out of desperation to deflect from Obama's failed policies. There's no war on women.
The main issue at stake is that the only economic plan Obama has is to turn America into a socialist state, which is the bridge between capitalism and communism. If you read these posts you'll see that the only Obama supporter that could actually explain his plan is in favor of some type of socialism. Your major concern should be freedom, not just abortions or whatever you're concerned about. Romney wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and give the power to the states per the Constitution. So, there's really nothing for you to worry about. If it were overturned there would be plenty of states that would approve it. I don't know of any other Women's issues unless you mean we should pay for your birth control. If that's it, I say grow up. If it's about a payscale, you should understand that Stephanie Cutter, etc. are pathological liars and created these fake talking points out of desperation to deflect from Obama's failed policies. There's no war on women.
You keep saying this, and then showing evidence you have no idea what you are talking about. As I have said three times, we are very far to the right of the Dem and GOP policies of our most successful decades under republicans and democrats. Going back in that direction is not a bridge to communism. Unless you consider Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower to be socialists. Outside of Limbaughland that is just laughable. We currently stand a far greater risk of going too far right (we saw what letting the foxes guard the chickens did to our economy) on economic issues than too far left. With our current congress, the socialist fear mongering is just silly to the point of being loony. Kind of like saying Obama is going to help the UN is steal your guns.
The funny thing is, you started this thread to ask for policy ideas and priorities, then you immediately dismissed them in the most superficial way. I thought you wanted to learn something, not just to wind up to spew your talk radio sound bytes.
What a ridiculous inquiry by the OP. The economy was in a free fall when he took office. You regressives try to ignore this but it's true. Had we kept on the same pathetic Republican path, we'd all be living in shanty towns while the rich flourished, fat, dumb, and happy. Unemployment rate would be historically high. Deficit would be double, maybe triple what it is now. There would be more foreigners working here than qualified Americans, and the number of displaced Americans would be shamefully high. NO person has ever had the misfortune of following George Bush as President, or dealt with the post-Bush stench.
President Obama HAS turned this economy around..and don't you forget it either.
Instead of yet another ridiculous inquiry that ignores what good the President HAS done, why don't you ask yourself what have Congressional Republicans done to help? What have Republicans done in the last 20 years to help the economy? Romney has GOALS, but no plans. He's vague, deceptive, and deceiving. He's has GOALS, not plans. Learn the difference.
Enjoy President Obama's second term. Despite Republican obstructionists, he continues to make progress.
The main issue at stake is that the only economic plan Obama has is to turn America into a socialist state, which is the bridge between capitalism and communism. If you read these posts you'll see that the only Obama supporter that could actually explain his plan is in favor of some type of socialism. Your major concern should be freedom, not just abortions or whatever you're concerned about. Romney wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and give the power to the states per the Constitution. So, there's really nothing for you to worry about. If it were overturned there would be plenty of states that would approve it. I don't know of any other Women's issues unless you mean we should pay for your birth control. If that's it, I say grow up. If it's about a payscale, you should understand that Stephanie Cutter, etc. are pathological liars and created these fake talking points out of desperation to deflect from Obama's failed policies. There's no war on women.
Obamacare makes it illegal to charge women more for health insurance than men. Romney wants to make it legal again.
The election is less than a month away, and we still have not heard Obama's plan for turning the economy around.
Obama supporters, please 1) let us in on what his plan is, 2) tell us how it differs from the economic plan he has implicated thus far, and 3) why you think it will turn the economy around.
Rules:
- Don't just copy and paste from his website (if something is there?). We don't need anything long and detailed - just an explanation of his basic plan to get America back on track.
- Any reference to Romney, Ryan, Republicans, etc. will be considered an admission that Obama is unable to improve the economy. Same with one-liners, insults about my southern heritage, remarks about "birthers," "racists," or anything else that doesn't attempt to inform us about Obama's economic plan.
- I reserve the right to revive this thread every now and then if the answers aren't being posted, because we'd really like to know the answers.
He is working on specifics and wont release them until after the election like Romney Ryan is doing His plan is just that good!! LOL
Who is demonizing success? I have confidence in the successful. If you earn $10 M, like Mr. Romney or Mr. Buffett, paying 25% instead of 14% in taxes is not going to hurt you. You could make the argument that conservatives are demonizing the contributions of public sector employees, be they teachers, engineers, scientists, etc. They do a tremendous amount to make our society better, but in the new narrative they are all worthless leeches and CEOs are selfless heroes.
Let's begin with a correction. The 14% tax rate that Mr. Romney paid in his tax returns that were presented, was not EARNED income .... it was on INVESTMENT income. Mr. Romney already paid 35% or more on income when he EARNED it. He, and others like him, are being taxed twice - first at a much higher rate for earning it and then again for taking that earned income and investing it. Not only that, as Gov of MA, Romney not only didn't take a salary, he funded the Inauguration with money from private donors and corporations: Romney Sworn In As Mass. Governor | News | The Harvard Crimson
The final price tag for the inaugural celebrations was the highest in the history of the Commonwealth—$750,000—but for the first time all events, including the $40-per-plate gala, were entirely funded by donations from supporters and corporate sponsors. The decision to refuse public funds for the ceremonies came on the heels of Romney and Healy’s pledge to forgo their salaries for the duration of their terms.
Compare that to our current President's lavish waste of taxpayer dollars on vacations and WH parties for celebrities.
Now, let's discuss what you seem to perceive as the Conservative's revulsion to government workers. Does it annoy me that my husband and I have to pay over $7,000 a year in school taxes which go towards a district in which a Phys Ed teacher gets paid $150,000 for 182 days of work? You betcha! Do I resent .gov awarding research grants to scientists and engineers for legitimate scientific research that can benefit society? Not at all. Do I resent .gov awarding grants to study condom use in Africa or PBS whose CEO makes over $1M? Yes, yes I do.
Quote:
But more generally, your argument about socialism is completely off point. No one is moving toward a complete socialist system. The notion that anyone who wants to move toward the historical center is a socialist is simply a snow job emerging from the talk radio circuits. We had a mixed economy for much of the 20th Century. It worked. Inequality exploded when we started down this rightwing trajectory in the 1980s, gaining momentum in the 2000s, and yet the GOP seems incapable of introspection, and a course correction. They rage against socialism, purge moderates, and as we lurch further and further to the right, seem completely unable to see that we have overdone it on deregulation several times as well, as I point out up thread.
Both Bush and Obama have moved us closer towards a completely socialist system, beginning with TARP I. The auto bailout, which Romney opposed and advocated for immediate bankruptcy which would have saved the taxpayers over $20 Billion which we will probably never get back, is a step closer to complete socialism. Having the government pick "winners and losers" (such as why was Lehman forced to fail but not Goldman Sachs) is a step closer to socialism. All of this can be traced back through the hidden agenda of non-profit foundations such as Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford whose ultimate goal is global collectivism through education.
Quote:
Any thoughtful person knows we have rejected liassez faire and socialist extremes, because they both lead to unacceptable outcomes. The only socialist element remaining in a mixed economy is that we need to create conditions that grow the middle class. The middle class is the source of stability, innovation, productivity, and the stewardship of all our countries civic institutions. Corporate leaders, by definition, will seek to carve increasing shares of profit for themselves. They are rewarded tremendously for doing it. Yet, in the pursuit of quarterly profits, they are eating the seed corn, yet when a CEO can earn more in a year than 100 employees can earn in a lifetime, the incentives for building long-term stability are just not there. Having a solid economy, a broad, skilled, and healthy middle class, maintaining a clean environment, and serving as world leaders in finding paths to peace, social justice, and sustainability are what we should be doing for the current and future generations, not signing antitax pledges to corporate shills.
Laissez-faire/free market capitalism is "extreme"?
Definition of LAISSEZ-FAIRE
1: a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2: a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action
Where is the unacceptable outcome? I don't see it. The "workers" are the workers and the CEO is the CEO. No CEO is going to siphon off more from a company than is feasible in order to keep the company in the green and keep people employed. Furthermore, there are Boards of Directors which decide a CEO's compensation and how best to serve its shareholders. Shareholders, aka investors, are also evil in your mind? Because money earned from stock investment is taxed at the 14% rate. Btw, do you ever watch the show Undercover Boss? If not, you should. Are there workers with tough lives and gripes about large corporations? Of course! Is every CEO a selfish, greedy, glutton? Good grief, of course not!
Quote:
What I find interesting as an upper middle class guy is that, now that I have thousands in the bank and a solid, established career, I feel more gracious. I have worked very hard (I like my work, so it is not a burden) but I have also been fortunate, gifted with analytical talent, opportunities, and having suffered no major setbacks by life. It is not so much about me and my family, we'll be fine, but about how I can contribute to my community and country. Once you reach some level of comfort and stability, it seems natural to me to look around and see how one can help. That is the bedrock of patriotism. All my mental energy and leverage is not spent toward getting more money at this point. I think it is understandable that the truly poor will be obsessed with getting more resources. They have to. But once you reach the middle, upper middle, upper, truly wealthy, and millionaire, billionaire classes, you should be able to give more to your country, not use your advantages to extort further advantages. None of this is disparaging the wealthy, but it strikes me as pathological for the wealthy and comfortable to work against the less fortunate. Ayn Randianism is a hollow and phony ideology.
Atlas Shrugged is one of my all time favorite books and Ayn Rand wrote it as a warning following FDR's New Deal. So we will have to agree to disagree about the most basic ideology of what constitutes "patriotism". Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence celebrate the rights of the individual. Our Constitution limits the reach of the Federal government.Your own personal observation that as you have attained more wealth you feel more generous towards your community completely flies in the face of your criticism of wealthy CEOs! Yes, wealthy people ARE very often more generous BECAUSE THEY CAN BE. They give of their own FREE WILL, not because .gov forces them to fork over more to .gov. As a primarily Christian nation, we ARE the most generous nation in the world. Liberals need to understand that there is no such thing as a "fair share". Our founders created a system which awards every individual a "fair opportunity" to enjoy life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. Fair shake, not fair share.
The main issue at stake is that the only economic plan Obama has is to turn America into a socialist state, which is the bridge between capitalism and communism.
Bold talk.
Prove it.
Quote:
If you read these posts you'll see that the only Obama supporter that could actually explain his plan is in favor of some type of socialism. Your major concern should be freedom, not just abortions or whatever you're concerned about. Romney wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and give the power to the states per the Constitution. So, there's really nothing for you to worry about. If it were overturned there would be plenty of states that would approve it. I don't know of any other Women's issues unless you mean we should pay for your birth control. If that's it, I say grow up. If it's about a payscale, you should understand that Stephanie Cutter, etc. are pathological liars and created these fake talking points out of desperation to deflect from Obama's failed policies. There's no war on women.
He is working on specifics and wont release them until after the election like Romney Ryan is doing His plan is just that good!! LOL
We already saw Obama at work. It didn't work for me. More of the same? No thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Romney has GOALS, no plans.
