Group items tagged

I think that it is nice to see some hope towards compromise at the white house, but at the same time respect Boehner so much more for saying that he simply will not accept any tax plan that isn't balanced. We  really can't afford to be increasing our budget deficit any more. At current rates, our debt to gdp ratio will be up 40% by the end of 2016, and we cannot afford to be increasing our deficit. By 2016, the interest on our massive debt because of our skyrocketing budget deficit will have tripled. We are financially headed in a horrible direction, and I am trusting Boehner to shut down any attempts to pass more debt-skyrocketing bills. I agree with this article's position on tax cuts to the wealthy, increasing taxes will only hurt the private sector even further. Even the CBO agrees that if bush tax cuts were to expire unemployment would rise to a whopping 9%, and as such should not be allowed to expire.The private sector, not the government, creates jobs, and this article confirms to me why the government should make it easier for the private sector to create jobs by allowing the bush tax cuts to continue. 

This article discusses Romney saying he wanted to cut government programs such as FEMA, the program for natural disasters, and that hurricane Sandy really damaged this point. Do you think the disaster was big enough to shift America''s general views on cutting government spending now that we've seen many citizens suffering and in need of government aid?

Article talks about Romney's BIg Bird comment. It brought a lot of controversy in Woodstock , Connecticut the home town of Big Birds creator.  It just further more proves how the debates are more of a chance to observe the candidates.  

I think that it was more inappropriate that he directly told Jim Lehrer that he was going to cut his job. Yes Big Bird is an icon, but he is fictional. Jim Lehrer is a real person who was specifically told that he is going to get fired if Romney wins.

Will brings up a good point. Romney's campaign is all about making jobs, but should we think about those who work for federally run businesses? Jim Lehrer would just be one of many to actually lose their job if government spending was decreased...

This article gives quote by Romney saying he is not going to change all of Obama's healthcare and he is not going to lower taxes for the wealthy. The article shows him trying to "meet the press" 

I find it really interesting that Romney does not want to get rid of Obama's health plan, rather he wants to change some parts of the reform like give coverage to kids for as long as they want as well as allowing people with pre-existing conditions. In my opinion just looking at what Romney's wants to do with healthcare is not as bad as it seems, but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem.

Yadria- I am slightly confused by what you mean with "but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem". Do you disagree with his plan? Just wondering. I agree with Ryan. Cutting spending, not taxes is the best way to get ourselves out of debt. The federal budget deficit is roughly a third of our federal spending, and is growing at an alarming rate. Our gross debt to GDP ratio is 104% because of our excessive spending. The per-capitia taxpayer debt (since only a third of americans pay taxes) is around 140,000. The fact of the matter is, no matter what way you want to look at it, we as a country are spending way too much. Yes, tax cuts for the middle class would be nice, but placing the debts on those making more than 250,000 a year is far from a solution because it is punishing those who work hard and stimulate the economy. Those small-buisness-owners, the job creators, are only going to get slammed with tax increases, and they are going to drag the economy down with them. Yes, our tax revenue is increasing, but drastically slower than the rate of our spending, which is a massive problem that can only be solved by cutting spending and reducing our budget deficit, unless Obama wants to try to increase taxes by 150%.

Romney's energy views

This is an incredibly drastic change between two Romneys which I agree makes me a feel a bit uneasy. That being said, as a generalization, I take the standpoint that having him changes his views some to be more likely to win the election is not necessarily a bad thing. Assuming he continues to do this if elected, it means that he will be acting to serve the more, or at least what he believes to be, the more popular vote on select issues. I do wonder if he hadn't changed his views on this matter where we would be in the election right now. Would he lose voters because they don't agree with his energy policy or gain democratic voters who are looking for a strong stance on clean energy? Would the republican voters be upset enough about his energy policy to truly not vote for him or would his other republican positions outweigh it and not make him sacrifice many votes at all?

I can't blame Romney for changing his opinion on investing in green energy, just look at how terrible government investment in green energy has come. He does still believe that green energy is good, but wants the government to stay out of it for obvious reasons. Yes, he is shifty, but so is every politician that has ever existed ever. For instance, Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he extended the bush era tax cuts and not to mention set up ACA to require about 1 trillion in tax revenue when he only increased taxes by 550 billion. Obama says lots of things that he also has no intention of following too, this 550 billion increase isn't going to come at no cost to the middle class. What all politicians say and do are very different things.

This article discusses Congress coming back into session and the democratic members deciding that Romney's tax plan is a good move for the nation. What do you guys think?

This article discusses Romney's ad in Ohio saying that, under Obama's supervision, Chrysler and GM auto company is getting rid of jobs here in America and creating jobs in China. This seems to be a critical point to attack Obama's presidency, but the GM and Chrysler auto company took this offensively, saying that they are opening more businesses in China but are simultaneously increasing jobs here in America, not getting rid of them. Is Romney's seemingly desperate attempts at  criticizing Obama in the last few days before the election worth offending such large corporations? Will the short term message expressed in his commercial have a greater affect on the people than the long term controversy of Romney's use of false information? How do you think this type of manipulation will play out in the future?

Going off of what Abby said, some people may not look into the truth of the add. In that case, I think it could benefit Romney. But for people who have been following the campaign, they know that one of Obama's main platform is to bring jobs back the US...so I think they will be skeptical of the ad.

Romney's attempt to make Obama look bad backfires on him because he offends these car companies. I think it might affect him greatly, but it will make people think twice about Romney in the way that he offend an american company, that is important to america.

This article highlight's Romney's lack of specificity on the issue of immigration at a speech where he had a hispanic audience. This also slightly goes into a comparison of Obama and Romney's views on immigration. 

I think that this same message applies to many other parts of the campaign. Giving only ideas without any propositions of how it is going to happen as well as being extremely vague.

Yes, Romney isn't specific at times, but then again, he is a politician. Like Obama, or other smart politicians, he is shifty on his politics to appeal to the masses. When Obama gives speeches to colleges, he talks about tax cuts for the middle class and "spreading the wealth around" (direct quote from 1998 speech) and then when he talks to the DNC he talks about how he isn't nessicarily in favor of increasing taxes for the wealthy. So what if Romney is shifty, Obama is too.

Now, despite small annual improvements, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama's explanation - that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy's total output - risks sounding professorial at best. This article highlights Obama's failing economic policies and challenges whether or not he will be up for fixing the problem if he is re-elected in 2012. It also highlights Romney's policies and what he plans to do if he ends up in office in January. What do you guys think? Who's plan is better and what could Obama have done better during his term as President to fix our economy?

Now, despite small annual improvements, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama's explanation - that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy's total output - risks sounding professorial at best. This article highlights Obama's failing economic policies and challenges whether or not he will be up for fixing the problem if he is re-elected in 2012. It also highlights Romney's policies and what he plans to do if he ends up in office in January. What do you guys think? Who's plan is better and what could Obama have done better during his term as President to fix our economy?

I agree with Obama in his plans. I think that Romney is just saying what he thinks people want to hear without thinking of the consequences or the practical applications. However, I wish that Obama would stop saying that he inherited the problem. Yes, he did. But he needs to follow his campaign and look forward instead of back.

I think this quote is interesting: "The fiscal imbalance on Mr. Obama's watch, however much a result of economic and demographic factors beyond his control as well as his own policy choices, has increased the nation's accumulated debt by about 40 percent and has saddled him with one of his biggest vulnerabilities." I know that things have been beyond his control. Sabrina, this reminds me of Michael Potepan's talk the other day. He mentioned that the government has a really hard time of getting anything done right now which is maybe why nothing has changed, regardless of his campaign.