Accepted!
Just note that "straight forward" has a different meaning from the single English word "straightforward."
Terms are 2012 US Presidential Election. 500 dollars to me from you if Romney wins, 500 dollars from me to you if Obama wins.
It is a bet if you accept these straight forward terms.
Accepted!
Just note that "straight forward" has a different meaning from the single English word "straightforward."
Might want to clarify that Romney conceding is still a loss.Accepted!
Just note that "straight forward" has a different meaning from the single English word "straightforward."
Can anyone argue with the fact that we're (collectively and economically) worse off than we were four years ago?
So yes, while we certainly know more details about Obama's "plan" -- the status quo -- than we know about Romney's, we also know from first-hand experience that Obama's plan just plain f'n sucks.
What we know:
-- healthcare premiums still rising AND increased taxes/fines/fees to pay for Obamacare
-- a near 50% increase in food stamp recipients
-- fewer jobs available than the day he took office
-- a national debt that has increased by an amount higher than all previous Presidents... COMBINED!
-- Border is still grossly unsecure
-- quickly rising energy costs
Etc...
Since Obama's track record is a known quantity, I think I'm absolutely willing to take a chance on Romney in a desperate time that calls for business acumen and a documented history of bipartisan success.
Only the most dense of the wingnut righties actually believe we are worse off now than when Obama took office. You have to swallow some seriously spun numbers to fall for that shit.Can anyone argue with the fact that we're (collectively and economically) worse off than we were four years ago?
So yes, while we certainly know more details about Obama's "plan" -- the status quo -- than we know about Romney's, we also know from first-hand experience that Obama's plan just plain f'n sucks.
What we know:
-- healthcare premiums still rising AND increased taxes/fines/fees to pay for Obamacare
-- a near 50% increase in food stamp recipients
-- fewer jobs available than the day he took office
-- a national debt that has increased by an amount higher than all previous Presidents... COMBINED!
-- Border is still grossly unsecure
-- quickly rising energy costs
Etc...
Since Obama's track record is a known quantity, I think I'm absolutely willing to take a chance on Romney in a desperate time that calls for business acumen and a documented history of bipartisan success.
It's not so much that I like Romney -- I really don't -- it's that I really despise Obama for what he has done (or, more accurately, FAILED to do).You totally sold yourself on Romney. Great job!
Please address my bulleted points.Only the most dense of the wingnut righties actually believe we are worse off now than when Obama took office. You have to swallow some seriously spun numbers to fall for that shit.
Done and shake.
It's not so much that I like Romney -- I really don't -- it's that I really despise Obama for what he has done (or, more accurately, FAILED to do).
As with every other election, it's simply the lesser of two evils... a known horrible quantity versus an unknown, but potentially less horrible, quantity.
These tired talking points have been thoroughly debunked here many times. Do your own research because you won't listen to what I tell you anyway. If you want to count this response as a "win" under your belt, knock yourself out.Please address my bulleted points.
It's not hard given how much you're normally willing to write around here. Seriously, go for it. Counter those bullets.These tired talking points have been thoroughly debunked here many times. Do your own research because you won't listen to what I tell you anyway. If you want to count this response as a "win" under your belt, knock yourself out.
Start with politifact and factcheck for an easy explanation of why your numbers are known to be awful.
Many have made that bet, myself included. Him and Matt have no backbone to stand behind their candidate.I've got $500 says Obama beats Romney this fall. Do you have the courage of your convictions? Is it a bet, spidey?
I don't think it was a trouncing, but Romney clearly did better in the debate. Obama let him get away with all kinds of factually inaccurate stuff, which BTW was pretty well articulated in spite of being false. Most of it just went unanswered.
Let's see what this does with the polling. We'll know in a couple days. My bet is it tightens up the race.
Please address my bulleted points.
#3 means EVERYTHING. If you've got a flatlining economy it doesn't matter if you have tax rates at 60%.
The problem here is that the tax increases always come first then the cuts never occur.
One thing is certain I think, raising taxes doesn't grow the economy.
The economy is not a zero sum game. If you grow the pie each piece is larger and you don't have to make huge cuts.
He sort of answered this last night. A president can't get everything that he wants. He needs to negotiate with congress to get closer to his ideal.
Can anyone argue with the fact that we're (collectively and economically) worse off than we were four years ago?
So yes, while we certainly know more details about Obama's "plan" -- the status quo -- than we know about Romney's, we also know from first-hand experience that Obama's plan just plain f'n sucks.
What we know:
-- healthcare premiums still rising AND increased taxes/fines/fees to pay for Obamacare
-- a near 50% increase in food stamp recipients
-- fewer jobs available than the day he took office
-- a national debt that has increased by an amount higher than all previous Presidents... COMBINED!
-- Border is still grossly unsecure
-- quickly rising energy costs
Etc...
Since Obama's track record is a known quantity, I think I'm absolutely willing to take a chance on Romney in a desperate time that calls for business acumen and a documented history of bipartisan success.
It's not so much that I like Romney -- I really don't -- it's that I really despise Obama for what he has done (or, more accurately, FAILED to do).
As with every other election, it's simply the lesser of two evils... a known horrible quantity versus an unknown, but potentially less horrible, quantity.
Many have made that bet, myself included. Him and Matt have no backbone to stand behind their candidate.
We still have 2 debates to go, this is far from over and debates rarely if ever cause 5% bumps.
That reminds me of the biggest opportunity for Obama to call out Romney on his bullshit last night:...
1. Healthcare premiums are still rising as they have been doing for a very long time. Healthcare costs while still rising have slowed to rising at the slowest rate in decades. Unless you want him to nationalize the healthcare system it's hard to stop what private industry is doing. The ACA wasn't perfect, it was just better than what we had. No one has offered a solution to healthcare issues except "REPEAL OBAMACARE derp derp" even though that would increase the debt now by more than leaving it in place would.
...
Easy response would have been: "Oh really? Private markets have always been in control and look how well that was working out for us. You think going right back to that model will somehow be better this time?"Romney said:In my opinion, the government is not effective in -- in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the cost than the government will ever be.
Your example of the Cleveland Clinic is my case in point, along with several others I could describe.
This is the private market. These are small -- these are enterprises competing with each other, learning how to do better and better jobs. I used to consult to businesses -- excuse me, to hospitals and to health care providers. I was astonished at the creativity and innovation that exists in the American people.
In order to bring the cost of health care down, we don't need to have a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have. We instead need to put insurance plans, providers, hospitals, doctors on target such that they have an incentive, as you say, performance pay, for doing an excellent job, for keeping costs down, and that's happening. Innermountain Healthcare does it superbly well, Mayo Clinic is doing it superbly well, Cleveland Clinic, others.
But the right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across America, telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have.
That's the wrong way to go. The private market and individual responsibility always work best.
Raising taxes may not grow an economy but it sure as hell doesn't contract one. Clinton raised taxes, the economy grew, Reagan raised taxes and the economy grew, after wwII taxes were ridiculously high and the economy grew. Can you point to a similar trend that shows cutting taxes grows the economy? No you can't.
We understand that growing the economy means you can make less cuts but what specifically has Romney said he will do to grow the economy? Cut taxes and remove regulations? Show me an example where that worked and didn't end in a financial disaster.
I love these posts because, A) it exposes the posters ignorance on how our government works and B) it shows how unrealistic your expectations are.
Health care premiums are still rising but they are rising at its slowest levels in at least 30 years. Did you know that premiums have been rising exponentially over the last 50 years?
Yes more people are on food stamps, is that because Obama created this financial mess or because it's what naturally happens in a bad economy even as it recovers. Who are usually the last people to recover from a bad economy?
Fewer jobs available? When Obama took office the trend was 800k+ jobs being lost every month! The trend now? 40k-90k+ being added every month for 30 straight months!
Yes the national debt has grown, do you know why? Here's a hint, tax cuts, wars, bailouts, all before Obama was elected. And the part I find funny is that you have a list of complaints that you expect Obama to fix (yet not one mention of congresses role) and yet you think he should be able to do it all while cutting spending! So either you have unrealistic expectations or severely lacking in logic or are just plain retarded to think that's possible.
The boarder still unsecured? Was it more secured by previous presidents? What exactly do you think the president should be doing to secure the boarder more? More deportations? Check! Create a policy to bring illegals into the light? Check! Build a mile deep moat with alligators? Nope, I guess he isn't doing anything then. If only the president would have come up with the brilliant idea of self deportation!
Higher energy costs? Another funny one. You would think that investing in alternative energy would be a good thing but nope! One word, solyndra. The president can't invest in alternative energy unless he can accurately predict the future and knows exactly who the winners will be. It's easy to do right? Romney has never picked a company to invest in that ended up a loss, nope, his record is perfect!
So alternative energy is out so what else should the president do? Increase energy production at home and lower imports to record highs and record lows respectively? Done! Approve funding for nuclear energy? Done!
Yes Obamas record is clear, you are just blind or ignorant about it.
Yes in the absence of facts Romney looks great which is why he won the debate. If I debated someone and I made shit up and no one called me on it I'd probably win too.
One of my favorite things to do when reading these threads is to look at posts from the right whose posts never offer facts but are instead based on gut feelings or emotions, never logic. Just look at all of the responses from the right of why Romney won, not a single one was because he had better policy positions or because he had specifics he could talk about, no instead it was, Romney sounded better, he had more conviction, he controlled the debate, all feeling type responses.
Compare and contrast that to the lefts response, "he didn't counter romneys lies", "he didn't ask Romney to give specifics", "he didn't explain his policies well". All responses were looking for more facts and information.
Do I want a president who sounds good and will tell me what I want to hear (whether I'm an undecided voter or a high dollar donor) even though what he says to different people are contradictions?
Or do I want a president who will stick to the truth no matter how politically negative it may be?
Everyone always complains about politicians lying but no one is ever willing to do something about it. I had enough lying and manipulation from my president under Bush I don't want that again.
<snip>
Or do I want a president who will stick to the truth no matter how politically negative it may be? <snip>
.
Cut federal spending (some temporary, some permanent)
More money in the pockets of citizens
People can use that money to buy things or start a business
Demand means more people need to get hired
More hired means fewer on the govt dole, so govt costs drop
More workers means more taxes paid (from employer, employees)
More tax revenue enables govt to restart some federal spending
Simplify tax code to make this all more efficient