Why I voted for Obama

[BoredDead]

Mainly for his budget, which I feel has unnecessary things in it.

Here is a wall of text! If you care about defending Romney you will wade through it and discuss it!

Here are my problems with Romney's budget: He has a 10 year 5 trillion dollar spending cut, he has large holes in what he wants to cut, he is likely to cut something important, and his budget won't create jobs when he thinks it will.

Romney has said he doesn't have a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, but I have a good source on this, his own website. In it he says he wants to take spending from 24.3% of our GDP to less than 20% of it.

(open the link, hit ctrl f, type 24.3)

Here are my base numbers:

3.6 trillion - 2011 spending (source)
less than 20% - Romney's planned percent GDP spending
15.09 trillion - 2011 GDP (wikipedia, scroll down, the table)
(I'm going to raise the GDP to 15.50 because Romney expects growth)

Here are my calculations:

15.50x.20=3.1 trillion - Romney's proposed spending
3.6-3.1=.5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts
.5x10=5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts after 10 years

So Romney has a 5 trillion dollar tax cut according to my calculations and the various sources I used.

So another problem I had with Romney's budget is that it has spending cut holes. When you add up all his cuts he listed on his website, it totals 319.6 billion yearly. (source, (ctrl f, type American people)). so you subtract yearly 319.6 billion from 500 billion yearly (his planned total spending cut) and get 180.4 billion yearly. We also have to take into account his increased defense spending, which goes from 3.3% of gdp to 4% of gdp. (source). That totals 100 billion when you calculate it. In all, this totals 280.4 billion yearly dollars he has not accounted for which he plans to cut.

500-319.6+100=280.4

Romney also wants to replace Obamacare which costs 95 billion yearly, so unless he wants to make it less potent, we can assume it will cost a similar amount (although he wants to move it to the states control and budget, not the federal budget, so we can't count it here)

So what can he cut?

Here is a pie chart of the federal governments expenditures.


24% defense 878.5 billion
24% health care 858.2 billion
22% pensions 775.6 billion
13% welfare 472.9 billion
6% interest 230.0 billion
3% education 113.7 billion
3% transportation 93.0 billion
2% protection 56.1 billion
1% general government 29.0 billion
3% other spending 96.3 billion

(source)

so Romney needs to find another 280.4 billion to cut, 8.2%, what do you think is not important?

My last problem is that Romney believes that reducing taxes and reducing spending will creates jobs, while that isn't true.

When I think about taxing and spending I have a hypothesis: taxing costs jobs, spending creates jobs, and taxing and spending is neutral in job creation. It's hard to deny that it's reasonable. Can you deny that spending money on healthcare doesn't increase the demand of it? And that increases in demand cause increases in supply of healthcare? And that to increase the supply of healthcare requires a hospital to expand and hire more doctors? To me it's basic economics, but I'm sure I will hear about it.

So cutting taxes and cutting spending doesn't create jobs.

Another problem for which I can't blame Romney is the debt to foreign nations. Because of our debt we will have to tax money and give it to people overseas to pay it off. This means taxing without job creating spending. So my view overall is that Romney's budget has to cost a small amount of jobs (my same view of Obama's budget on job creation). But that part is Bush, Obama, and the economy's fault.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ok nutjob.

My BA in Economics and MBA say you are full of shit.

The majority of the budget is made up of the entitlement programs that Obamination will never touch, so his other option is to slice up the DoD budget. The Constitution has nothing in it about entitlement programs but it discusses the Feds are responsible for maintaing the "Army and Navy."

So what you and Obamination are doing is ignoring the Constitution and spending money on things not the responsbility of the Federal Govt while cutting the most important piece of the Feds....national defense of the states. Nevermind the million jobs that will be lost in January-March when the $500B DoD budget cuts kick in...that should do wonders for the economy.

Speaking of tax cuts, you might want to see what JFK said about endlessly spending and raising taxes to keep up with spending....get to it, idiot.

 

[BoredDead]

Ok nutjob.

My BA in Economics and MBA say you are full of shit.

The majority of the budget is made up of the entitlement programs that Obamination will never touch, so his other option is to slice up the DoD budget. The Constitution has nothing in it about entitlement programs but it discusses the Feds are responsible for maintaing the "Army and Navy."

So what you and Obamination are doing is ignoring the Constitution and spending money on things not the responsbility of the Federal Govt while cutting the most important piece of the Feds....national defense of the states. Nevermind the million jobs that will be lost in January-March when the $500B DoD budget cuts kick in...that should do wonders for the economy.

Speaking of tax cuts, you might want to see what JFK said about endlessly spending and raising taxes to keep up with spending....get to it, idiot.

I have doubts about your education, I'm sure anyone with a respectable understanding of economics would be cultured and wouldn't immediately resort to attacks over a simple political discussion. You have the look of a an angry conservative who is trying fake economic degrees to gain an advantage in an argument. If you really do have a good education in economics you would use that knowledge in your arguments, but I see none of it.

That aside, since you've ignored my arguments on how taxing and spending are neutral, I'm going to reiterate that jobs are not being lost and taxes are just being put on those who can afford it. Please debunk my theory with your glorious economic degree.

As for your responsibility arguments, they are already defeated by the supreme court allowing the government to provide "for the general welfare". So logically we should enter a discussion on whether or not they should. You know we can't allow people to go into severe poverty because of sudden job loss or disability.

 

[Two Thumbs]

9.2 million more Americans are jobless today than there was 4 years ago.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[WillowTree]

Twenty trillion dollars of debt. That's what a democrat votes for. Twenty Trillion.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ok nutjob.

My BA in Economics and MBA say you are full of shit.

The majority of the budget is made up of the entitlement programs that Obamination will never touch, so his other option is to slice up the DoD budget. The Constitution has nothing in it about entitlement programs but it discusses the Feds are responsible for maintaing the "Army and Navy."

So what you and Obamination are doing is ignoring the Constitution and spending money on things not the responsbility of the Federal Govt while cutting the most important piece of the Feds....national defense of the states. Nevermind the million jobs that will be lost in January-March when the $500B DoD budget cuts kick in...that should do wonders for the economy.

Speaking of tax cuts, you might want to see what JFK said about endlessly spending and raising taxes to keep up with spending....get to it, idiot.

I have doubts about your education, I'm sure anyone with a respectable understanding of economics would be cultured and wouldn't immediately resort to attacks over a simple political discussion. You have the look of a an angry conservative who is trying fake economic degrees to gain an advantage in an argument. If you really do have a good education in economics you would use that knowledge in your arguments, but I see none of it.

That aside, since you've ignored my arguments on how taxing and spending are neutral, I'm going to reiterate that jobs are not being lost and taxes are just being put on those who can afford it. Please debunk my theory with your glorious economic degree.

As for your responsibility arguments, they are already defeated by the supreme court allowing the government to provide "for the general welfare". So logically we should enter a discussion on whether or not they should. You know we can't allow people to go into severe poverty because of sudden job loss or disability.

Dude.. You went off into left wing moon bat land with your claim that if the gov't spends more on healthcare that it will magically create more demand and supply.

As for the rest, just more left wing talking points.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Ok nutjob.

My BA in Economics and MBA say you are full of shit.

The majority of the budget is made up of the entitlement programs that Obamination will never touch, so his other option is to slice up the DoD budget. The Constitution has nothing in it about entitlement programs but it discusses the Feds are responsible for maintaing the "Army and Navy."

So what you and Obamination are doing is ignoring the Constitution and spending money on things not the responsbility of the Federal Govt while cutting the most important piece of the Feds....national defense of the states. Nevermind the million jobs that will be lost in January-March when the $500B DoD budget cuts kick in...that should do wonders for the economy.

Speaking of tax cuts, you might want to see what JFK said about endlessly spending and raising taxes to keep up with spending....get to it, idiot.

I have doubts about your education, I'm sure anyone with a respectable understanding of economics would be cultured and wouldn't immediately resort to attacks over a simple political discussion. You have the look of a an angry conservative who is trying fake economic degrees to gain an advantage in an argument. If you really do have a good education in economics you would use that knowledge in your arguments, but I see none of it.

That aside, since you've ignored my arguments on how taxing and spending are neutral, I'm going to reiterate that jobs are not being lost and taxes are just being put on those who can afford it. Please debunk my theory with your glorious economic degree.

As for your responsibility arguments, they are already defeated by the supreme court allowing the government to provide "for the general welfare". So logically we should enter a discussion on whether or not they should. You know we can't allow people to go into severe poverty because of sudden job loss or disability.

We have doubts about your math. Most of all we have obamaturds record to work for us.

 

[blackhawk]

I am looking at what Obama has done over the last four year's in regards to debt, deficit, spending and the overall economy and I'm not impressed. Can Romney do any better I don't know but Obama has given no indication he would do anything any different in the next four years than he has for the last four.

 

[Votto]

Mainly for his budget, which I feel has unnecessary things in it.

.

You voted for Obama for his budget? He proposed a budget that was so extreme with spending that not one democrat voted for it. In fact, here is what then Senator Obama said of Bush in terms of his budgets in 2006.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US government can't pay it's own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better."

How can anyone vote for Obama after this quote? He increased spending, not decreased spending. He then goes on to say that such spending weakens the nation at home and abroad. Considering that such spending is defended by progressives under the general welfare clause to see to the general welfare of the people, it could also be concluded that overspending is in direct violation of the same general welfare clause used to legitimize such spending because Obama conceeds that it weakens the nation.

Face it, the gig is about up and the progressive movement, now over a century old, has run its course. We need to now embark on a new path.

 

[Darkwind]

Mainly for his budget, which I feel has unnecessary things in it.

Here is a wall of text! If you care about defending Romney you will wade through it and discuss it!

Here are my problems with Romney's budget: He has a 10 year 5 trillion dollar spending cut, he has large holes in what he wants to cut, he is likely to cut something important, and his budget won't create jobs when he thinks it will.

Romney has said he doesn't have a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, but I have a good source on this, his own website. In it he says he wants to take spending from 24.3% of our GDP to less than 20% of it.

(open the link, hit ctrl f, type 24.3)

Here are my base numbers:

3.6 trillion - 2011 spending (source)
less than 20% - Romney's planned percent GDP spending
15.09 trillion - 2011 GDP (wikipedia, scroll down, the table)
(I'm going to raise the GDP to 15.50 because Romney expects growth)

Here are my calculations:

15.50x.20=3.1 trillion - Romney's proposed spending
3.6-3.1=.5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts
.5x10=5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts after 10 years

So Romney has a 5 trillion dollar tax cut according to my calculations and the various sources I used.

So another problem I had with Romney's budget is that it has spending cut holes. When you add up all his cuts he listed on his website, it totals 319.6 billion yearly. (source, (ctrl f, type American people)). so you subtract yearly 319.6 billion from 500 billion yearly (his planned total spending cut) and get 180.4 billion yearly. We also have to take into account his increased defense spending, which goes from 3.3% of gdp to 4% of gdp. (source). That totals 100 billion when you calculate it. In all, this totals 280.4 billion yearly dollars he has not accounted for which he plans to cut.

500-319.6+100=280.4

Romney also wants to replace Obamacare which costs 95 billion yearly, so unless he wants to make it less potent, we can assume it will cost a similar amount (although he wants to move it to the states control and budget, not the federal budget, so we can't count it here)

So what can he cut?

Here is a pie chart of the federal governments expenditures.


24% defense 878.5 billion
24% health care 858.2 billion
22% pensions 775.6 billion
13% welfare 472.9 billion
6% interest 230.0 billion
3% education 113.7 billion
3% transportation 93.0 billion
2% protection 56.1 billion
1% general government 29.0 billion
3% other spending 96.3 billion

(source)

so Romney needs to find another 280.4 billion to cut, 8.2%, what do you think is not important?

My last problem is that Romney believes that reducing taxes and reducing spending will creates jobs, while that isn't true.

When I think about taxing and spending I have a hypothesis: taxing costs jobs, spending creates jobs, and taxing and spending is neutral in job creation. It's hard to deny that it's reasonable. Can you deny that spending money on healthcare doesn't increase the demand of it? And that increases in demand cause increases in supply of healthcare? And that to increase the supply of healthcare requires a hospital to expand and hire more doctors? To me it's basic economics, but I'm sure I will hear about it.

So cutting taxes and cutting spending doesn't create jobs.

Another problem for which I can't blame Romney is the debt to foreign nations. Because of our debt we will have to tax money and give it to people overseas to pay it off. This means taxing without job creating spending. So my view overall is that Romney's budget has to cost a small amount of jobs (my same view of Obama's budget on job creation). But that part is Bush, Obama, and the economy's fault.

I stopped at budget..

If you don't even know that he does not have a budget, the rest of your post is a worthless read.

 

[Votto]

I am looking at what Obama has done over the last four year's in regards to debt, deficit, spending and the overall economy and I'm not impressed. Can Romney do any better I don't know but Obama has given no indication he would do anything any different in the next four years than he has for the last four.

I don't think Romney will balance any budget, but then, if he does not reduce spending he will be toast in 2016, and I think he is smart enough to realize that.

Romney is just a watered down version of Obama, but it is better than not watering it down.

 

[blackhawk]

I am looking at what Obama has done over the last four year's in regards to debt, deficit, spending and the overall economy and I'm not impressed. Can Romney do any better I don't know but Obama has given no indication he would do anything any different in the next four years than he has for the last four.

I don't think Romney will balance any budget, but then, if he does not reduce spending he will be toast in 2016, and I think he is smart enough to realize that.

Romney is just a watered down version of Obama, but it is better than not watering it down.

Right now I will be happy with someone who will at least make a effort to do so Obama didn't and won't in my view hopefully Romney will but there is guarantee of that.

 

[BoredDead]

9.2 million more Americans are jobless today than there was 4 years ago.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

We have to look at what presidents are going to do, Romney will cut spending, and Obama will cut spending and raise taxes on the rich. Obama provides another tool for fighting the debt and the deficit.

 

[Votto]

9.2 million more Americans are jobless today than there was 4 years ago.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

We have to look at what presidents are going to do, Romney will cut spending, and Obama will cut spending and raise taxes on the rich. Obama provides another tool for fighting the debt and the deficit.

And you have no problem with the largest tax increase in US history on the middle class under Obamacare? What is worse is that corporate America is now setting the tax rates for the middle class.

What baffles me about lefties like you is that you complain about corporate America being in charge in Washington, but then seek to empower Washington more and more. Do you see a problem with this insanity?

Just because you are bored dead means you have to be brain dead.

 

[Murf76]

Obama didn't get one vote for his last budget... not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Not from a Republican, not even from a Democrat.

Obama budget receives zero votes in Senate - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
0-414 vote: House clobbers budget proposal based on Obama's 2013 plan - The Hill's Floor Action

And his leadership is such a fail, Washington so divided... that we haven't had a budget passed in more than three years.

 

[syrenn]

Mainly for his budget, which I feel has unnecessary things in it.

Here is a wall of text! If you care about defending Romney you will wade through it and discuss it!

Here are my problems with Romney's budget: He has a 10 year 5 trillion dollar spending cut, he has large holes in what he wants to cut, he is likely to cut something important, and his budget won't create jobs when he thinks it will.

Romney has said he doesn't have a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, but I have a good source on this, his own website. In it he says he wants to take spending from 24.3% of our GDP to less than 20% of it.

(open the link, hit ctrl f, type 24.3)

Here are my base numbers:

3.6 trillion - 2011 spending (source)
less than 20% - Romney's planned percent GDP spending
15.09 trillion - 2011 GDP (wikipedia, scroll down, the table)
(I'm going to raise the GDP to 15.50 because Romney expects growth)

Here are my calculations:

15.50x.20=3.1 trillion - Romney's proposed spending
3.6-3.1=.5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts
.5x10=5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts after 10 years

So Romney has a 5 trillion dollar tax cut according to my calculations and the various sources I used.

So another problem I had with Romney's budget is that it has spending cut holes. When you add up all his cuts he listed on his website, it totals 319.6 billion yearly. (source, (ctrl f, type American people)). so you subtract yearly 319.6 billion from 500 billion yearly (his planned total spending cut) and get 180.4 billion yearly. We also have to take into account his increased defense spending, which goes from 3.3% of gdp to 4% of gdp. (source). That totals 100 billion when you calculate it. In all, this totals 280.4 billion yearly dollars he has not accounted for which he plans to cut.

500-319.6+100=280.4

Romney also wants to replace Obamacare which costs 95 billion yearly, so unless he wants to make it less potent, we can assume it will cost a similar amount (although he wants to move it to the states control and budget, not the federal budget, so we can't count it here)

So what can he cut?

Here is a pie chart of the federal governments expenditures.


24% defense 878.5 billion
24% health care 858.2 billion
22% pensions 775.6 billion
13% welfare 472.9 billion
6% interest 230.0 billion
3% education 113.7 billion
3% transportation 93.0 billion
2% protection 56.1 billion
1% general government 29.0 billion
3% other spending 96.3 billion

(source)

so Romney needs to find another 280.4 billion to cut, 8.2%, what do you think is not important?

My last problem is that Romney believes that reducing taxes and reducing spending will creates jobs, while that isn't true.

When I think about taxing and spending I have a hypothesis: taxing costs jobs, spending creates jobs, and taxing and spending is neutral in job creation. It's hard to deny that it's reasonable. Can you deny that spending money on healthcare doesn't increase the demand of it? And that increases in demand cause increases in supply of healthcare? And that to increase the supply of healthcare requires a hospital to expand and hire more doctors? To me it's basic economics, but I'm sure I will hear about it.

So cutting taxes and cutting spending doesn't create jobs.

Another problem for which I can't blame Romney is the debt to foreign nations. Because of our debt we will have to tax money and give it to people overseas to pay it off. This means taxing without job creating spending. So my view overall is that Romney's budget has to cost a small amount of jobs (my same view of Obama's budget on job creation). But that part is Bush, Obama, and the economy's fault.

ever had a job and paid your way in life yet? And just curious... how old are you?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck....the US Treasury brought in record revenues when the Bush tax cuts were put in place. When companies and investors are able to grow the economy with more money in their pockets to invest across the economy, more economic production happens and tax revenues increase over time.

It's that simple, moron. Oh, me calling you names is just stating the obvious and it doesn't prove I don't have a BA and MBA, which I do in addition to a MA in another field.

So moron, when you take money out of the hands of investors through higher taxes so that you can give away goodies to poor people the ghetto you are misusing that money and not getting the best bang for the buck. The Federal Govt is inefficient in getting results from money spent via taxes compared to most companies and rich people in the private sector.

If Bob can take $5 and turn it into $10 with his investments while a moron like you only makes $1 on that $5 with your Federal spending, you just have a $4 opportunity cost loss. Reality is scumbag liberals like you don't care that you're inefficient since you see that $5 spent on welfare and other goodies as getting you votes for the next election. Bob doesn't care about getting elected, he just wants to make more money and employ more people.

I know you don't even have a college degree, so stay off my radar.

Ok nutjob.

My BA in Economics and MBA say you are full of shit.

The majority of the budget is made up of the entitlement programs that Obamination will never touch, so his other option is to slice up the DoD budget. The Constitution has nothing in it about entitlement programs but it discusses the Feds are responsible for maintaing the "Army and Navy."

So what you and Obamination are doing is ignoring the Constitution and spending money on things not the responsbility of the Federal Govt while cutting the most important piece of the Feds....national defense of the states. Nevermind the million jobs that will be lost in January-March when the $500B DoD budget cuts kick in...that should do wonders for the economy.

Speaking of tax cuts, you might want to see what JFK said about endlessly spending and raising taxes to keep up with spending....get to it, idiot.

I have doubts about your education, I'm sure anyone with a respectable understanding of economics would be cultured and wouldn't immediately resort to attacks over a simple political discussion. You have the look of a an angry conservative who is trying fake economic degrees to gain an advantage in an argument. If you really do have a good education in economics you would use that knowledge in your arguments, but I see none of it.

That aside, since you've ignored my arguments on how taxing and spending are neutral, I'm going to reiterate that jobs are not being lost and taxes are just being put on those who can afford it. Please debunk my theory with your glorious economic degree.

As for your responsibility arguments, they are already defeated by the supreme court allowing the government to provide "for the general welfare". So logically we should enter a discussion on whether or not they should. You know we can't allow people to go into severe poverty because of sudden job loss or disability.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Mainly for his budget, which I feel has unnecessary things in it.

Here is a wall of text! If you care about defending Romney you will wade through it and discuss it!

Here are my problems with Romney's budget: He has a 10 year 5 trillion dollar spending cut, he has large holes in what he wants to cut, he is likely to cut something important, and his budget won't create jobs when he thinks it will.

Romney has said he doesn't have a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, but I have a good source on this, his own website. In it he says he wants to take spending from 24.3% of our GDP to less than 20% of it.

(open the link, hit ctrl f, type 24.3)

Here are my base numbers:

3.6 trillion - 2011 spending (source)
less than 20% - Romney's planned percent GDP spending
15.09 trillion - 2011 GDP (wikipedia, scroll down, the table)
(I'm going to raise the GDP to 15.50 because Romney expects growth)

Here are my calculations:

15.50x.20=3.1 trillion - Romney's proposed spending
3.6-3.1=.5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts
.5x10=5 trillion - Romney's total spending cuts after 10 years

So Romney has a 5 trillion dollar tax cut according to my calculations and the various sources I used.

So another problem I had with Romney's budget is that it has spending cut holes. When you add up all his cuts he listed on his website, it totals 319.6 billion yearly. (source, (ctrl f, type American people)). so you subtract yearly 319.6 billion from 500 billion yearly (his planned total spending cut) and get 180.4 billion yearly. We also have to take into account his increased defense spending, which goes from 3.3% of gdp to 4% of gdp. (source). That totals 100 billion when you calculate it. In all, this totals 280.4 billion yearly dollars he has not accounted for which he plans to cut.

500-319.6+100=280.4

Romney also wants to replace Obamacare which costs 95 billion yearly, so unless he wants to make it less potent, we can assume it will cost a similar amount (although he wants to move it to the states control and budget, not the federal budget, so we can't count it here)

So what can he cut?

Here is a pie chart of the federal governments expenditures.


24% defense 878.5 billion
24% health care 858.2 billion
22% pensions 775.6 billion
13% welfare 472.9 billion
6% interest 230.0 billion
3% education 113.7 billion
3% transportation 93.0 billion
2% protection 56.1 billion
1% general government 29.0 billion
3% other spending 96.3 billion

(source)

so Romney needs to find another 280.4 billion to cut, 8.2%, what do you think is not important?

My last problem is that Romney believes that reducing taxes and reducing spending will creates jobs, while that isn't true.

When I think about taxing and spending I have a hypothesis: taxing costs jobs, spending creates jobs, and taxing and spending is neutral in job creation. It's hard to deny that it's reasonable. Can you deny that spending money on healthcare doesn't increase the demand of it? And that increases in demand cause increases in supply of healthcare? And that to increase the supply of healthcare requires a hospital to expand and hire more doctors? To me it's basic economics, but I'm sure I will hear about it.

So cutting taxes and cutting spending doesn't create jobs.

Another problem for which I can't blame Romney is the debt to foreign nations. Because of our debt we will have to tax money and give it to people overseas to pay it off. This means taxing without job creating spending. So my view overall is that Romney's budget has to cost a small amount of jobs (my same view of Obama's budget on job creation). But that part is Bush, Obama, and the economy's fault.

I'm glad you like his budget, but it's so good he couldnt get a single vote in congress for it, why????? not even Harry Reid said yes on it......

 

[blackhawk]

9.2 million more Americans are jobless today than there was 4 years ago.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

We have to look at what presidents are going to do, Romney will cut spending, and Obama will cut spending and raise taxes on the rich. Obama provides another tool for fighting the debt and the deficit.

The only major cut Obama will make is on defense and while there is stuff that can and should be cut there just doing that and increasing taxes on the rich will not begin to do anything about the debt and deficit. Both parties have their sacred cows they won't cut and there tax talking points until both get beyond that your not dealing with the problem.

 

[Murf76]

9.2 million more Americans are jobless today than there was 4 years ago.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

We have to look at what presidents are going to do, Romney will cut spending, and Obama will cut spending and raise taxes on the rich. Obama provides another tool for fighting the debt and the deficit.

The only major cut Obama will make is on defense and while there is stuff that can and should be cut there just doing that and increasing taxes on the rich will not begin to do anything about the debt and deficit. Both parties have their sacred cows they won't cut and there tax talking points until both get beyond that your not dealing with the problem.

They can toss all the "sacred cows" on the scrap heap. Won't matter. We're borrowing or printing EVERY DIME of discretionary spending. Entitlements HAVE to be repaired. Obama had four years to do it... and didn't even look at it.