Based on the Issues - Which Presidential Candidate Represents You?

I respond with factually based statements that I can back up to erroneous claims.

 

Get to work, then. 218 sourced arguments against Obama to try and refute with your self-proclaimed "factually based statements".

 

Libertarian based opinions will of course discredit both Democrats and Republicans and to some degree I can agree. Where I do part ways with Libertarians is when they select some one like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Mitt Romney. Look at that, two corporate businessmen out of three. Coincidence? I think not. If I were to vote for a third Party it would not be Libertarian as long as they continue to lean far to right for me. But I do encourage any one to vote for who ever they want to. We have had a two party monopoly for too long and need to mix it up a bit!

As a left leaning Independent, I will vote for Obama. While I do see things I like in other parties. This election is far to important for me to vote simply by conscience and take a chance Romney wins. That will demolish what little progress Obama has made. Don't get me wrong, I am not 100% satisfied with Obama. Indeed, I would have liked to see Obama Care go further! I would have liked to see him stand up for the working class even more! I would have liked to see him pull out of Afghanistan and cut back more on our military strikes. We got bin Laden there is no need to spread out all of our resources and spend billions of dollars on wars and foreign aide. Why does Israel need $1 billion dollars aide from us? Still I feel Obama is 100% better then Romney!

 

Perhaps but since Obama has taken office he's added $5.243 trillion to the national debt. If we refer to the history of the US national debt it took 220 years for the US government to create this much debt and Obama managed it in only four years. Based upon the White House projected deficits for the next four years and the already accumulated increase in the national debt all personal and corporate income taxes would have to be over doubled to add an additional $2 trillion per year in revenues if Obama was to serve a full eight years and leave the country with the same national debt that we had when he took office.

Yes, we can always say that prior presidents also left the US government fiscally worse off than when they took office but President Obama, even if he served 8 years, would set a new record for how much worse off he'd leave the country after 8 years surpassing former President Bush.



http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

 

No libertarians that I'm aware of support Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney doesn't care about the Rights of the People or even the welfare of the People. He's a corporate elitist and does not support free markets and he's endorses religious intolerance wanting to codify it into the US Constitution by Amendment.

 

Why would you think that is simply a function of spending and not tax cuts?

We created proportionately far more debt in WWII.

But it is not Obama that is obstructing tax revenue increases.

That remains to be seen. If the Bush tax cuts expire and miltary spending is cut (ie fiscal cliff) we will see the deficits shrink procipitously. It also depends whether the obstructions maintain control of the House.

And of course, the debt is not the only metric of how well off the country it.

 

I could probably come up with more reasons to not vote for Obama but I can't find a single reason to vote for Romney.

 

thats why Johnson doesnt have a shells chance of winning cause nobody has heard of him.well very few.I hadnt heard of him till a couple weeks ago as an example.

 

It would be pretty asinine to vote for Romney-"oh to make it clear,I wont vote for Obama either." If you vote for either,you are the problem why america is a police state,the establishment does not care if either of them get elected.they are both backed by the zionists and fans of Israel.

Israel is always trying to start wars all the time and congress is bought off and paid for by them.the ones who are not such as dennis kucinich for instance,they get rid of just like they did with him recently.Thats why Ron Pauls son Rand is a traiter to the american people.He sold out his dad and endorced Romney and gave away 9 million of YOUR tax dollars to Israel.

Romney is a war mongrel just like Obama.they are both members of the evil CFR organization,neither believe in the constitution.they both work for the same people which is wall street and the zionists.Romney was one fo teh first people who signed Obamacare.face it,if you like romney,then you like Obama as well since they both work for the same people which is not us.

 

The voter suppression tactic will not work this time!


People are outraged at what President Obama and his cronnies have been doing for four years.


LOL, Try as you might, we're not buying the snake oil of either the spoiler distration or the voter suppresion gambits.

 

90% Romney but note


Should the government raise the federal minimum wage?

You and Obama: No, there are more effective ways of reducing poverty than raising the minimum wage

WHAT?????


Should Congress raise the debt ceiling?
You, Obama and Stein: Offset the debt with tax reforms and reduced spending

WHAT?????

 

2007 Rev. 2,567 Out. 2,728 Def (161)
2011 Rev. 2,468 Out. 3,603 Def (1,300)

That's the best excuse you could come up with?

Yes he is as long as he continues to push his policies that have prevented us from getting into a full recovery and getting everyone back to work.

See above, they produced the highest levels of revenue we ever collected. The problem we have is not enough people paying taxes not rates that are too low. As has been shown to you over and over we collect more revenue at the lower rates.

You mean the White House and Senate House who cannot even present a budget to negotiate with the Republicans. Who refuse to take up the legislation the Republicans have passed to get people back to work.

Yes lets take the unemployment situation, the longest period of high unemployment since the depression and no end in sight.

 

OK, we had additional tax cuts on top of the Bush tax cuts. And we see revenues in 2011 *lower* than in 2007. Proves my point, revenues are definately part of the problem.

It wasn't an excuse at all. It was a fact.

It wasn't Obama policies that caused the great housing bubble, or diverted almost all the growth of the nation's wealth and income over the past 30 years to the 10% and most to the 1%.

So what? They were proportionately hundreds of billions lower than under Clinton, and far lower than the wild Republican spending spree.

Instead of taking advantage of the Clinton surplus, Bush ran up $5 trillion in debt, that is hurting us how.

Nope. What's to negotiate with obstructionists who will not compromise because their top priority is to get Obama out of office instead of improving the economy?

Sure let's look at it.

When Obama took office, the economy was losing 700,000+ jobs a month, and unemployment was skyrocketing upward.

But now the private sector has added jobs every month for more than two years, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 8.2%, and over 4 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Under that metric, the country is doing much better than when the last Republican was in the WH.

 

You assume too much!


Just because it has happened before does NOT mean that it happen that way again!


Obama has TOLD us, or at least he has told the Russians, once he's un-restrained by the spectre of re-election, he'll be free to be far more radical.


Additionally, you claim these things to be "Facts", when I could name hundreds of exceptions to those claims. The supposed FACT that presidents do less damage in a second terms isn't a "fact" at all, it a convienent claim made in a political argument with no basis in reality.

 

ROFL while you ignore the HUGE increase in spending that accounted for the HUGE increase in the deficit and debt. A drop of $100 billion in revenues due to the recession and an increase of almost $900 billion in spending yet according to you the increase in spending was not responsible for the deficit/debt increase.

A fact you tried to use as an excuse.

And has nothing to do with what I stated. It is his policies that have prevented a housing recovery and an economic recovery and and unemployment recovery.

Me>> See above, they produced the highest levels of revenue we ever collected. The problem we have is not enough people paying taxes not rates that are too low. As has been shown to you over and over we collect more revenue at the lower rates.

THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF REVENUE EVERY COLLECTED and see above as to who engaged in the spending spree.

That was already cut in half before the first Bush budget as we were in a recession. But kept the deficit from going over $400 billion and for just the one year then knocked it down to $161 Billion.

The Bush/Republican deficits totaled $1,547B 2001-2007. WITH the deficit decline in 2005, 2006 and 2007 down to $161B. Then Pelosi and Reid and then Senator Obama took over the budgets for 2008 and 2009 and ran up $1,871 in just two years and have given us deficits over a trillion ever since.

When the otherside can't even pass a proposal to put on the table and refuses to take up the other sides at all? Yep there can be no negotiation.

And more excuses. Obama had a veto proof congress his first two years.

And hit bottom the month he moved over to the White House and began rebounding. The recession ended in June of 2009, here it is July of 2012 and the economy is still horrible and unemployment is still horrible. And his policies have done nothing to turn it around and get us back on solid footing.

Barely keeping it's head above water, GDP last two quarters under 2%, not enough to grow the economy enough to keep up with population and job requirements. The private sector always creates jobs, we haven't been creating fast enough.

His policies failed to get us into a sustained recovery and he offers nothing to do so now.

Only if you count the period when Reid and Pelosi and Obama were running the Congress. When we had Republican control, 52 months of growth and full employment and deficits at their peak 1/3 of where the Democrats have taken them, the last year 1/10 of where they took them.

And you support more of the high unemployment and high deficits..............amazing.

 

That's a great list but it should be 218 reasons not to vote for Obama or Romney because 95% of the list are things that both would do or have done.

 

Not surprisingly, I side most with the "unelectable" Ron Paul.

 

Your numbers are humorous. When Bush came into office the debt was 5 Trillion .. by the time his last fiscal year- ending in October 2009.. had ended, the debt was 12 Trillion. 7 Trillion "minumum"

6-6.5 Trillion of that number is directly attributable to Bush .. but you can tack on another couple of trillion because of the money the next administration had to spend trying to clean up the mess that Bush made.

 

Yes I repeat, he Bush/Republican deficits totaled $1,547B 2001-2007. WITH the deficit declining in 2005, 2006 and 2007 down to $161B. Then Pelosi and Reid and then Senator Obama took over the budgets for 2008 and 2009 and ran up $1,871B in just two years and have given us deficits over a trillion ever since..

Nope, 2008 and 2009 the Bush budget request were DOA, in fact Pelosi, Reid and Obama could only pass a budget to get through half of 2009 and haven't done so since. together they have run up more debt than another other President and Congress in our history and they want to spend more.

 

It's not an "either or" proposition. Under President Obama federal spending has increased dramatically and Obama has also signed into law about a half a trillion dollars in annual tax cuts since taking office. We must remember that the Bush era tax cuts were temporary tax reductions that were supposed to expire and President Obama has repeatedly extended them and even added to them by reducing the FICA/Payroll taxes which have to be made up for with income tax revenues which failed to meet existing expendatures. He's "robbed Peter to pay Paul" but Peter was already bankrupt.

We've had gross fiscal irresponsibility under the Obama adminstration and the Bush administration that preceeded it. Romney promises a continuation of that fiscal irresponsibility if elected. Both the Obama and Romney proposed budgets for 2013 reflect roughly $900 billion in deficit spending.

One simple fact that I'd address. I can understand an adminstration needing to borrow to meet an emergency of government but when a President borrows they need to establish exactly how and when that borrowing is going to be repaid. I haven't seen ANY recent president do this. Recently I took out a loan to buy a new car and the condistions for that repayment are explicit. I'll pay it off early but the maximum amount of time and the minimum payments required are explicitly established.

When and how does Obama plan on paying off the debt he's created by borrowing and cutting taxes? The proposed deficits continue for the next ten years under current projections. Where's the surplus to pay off the borrowing? When and how is this debt to be paid off? NEVER? That's the fundamental problem.

 

Bush did not leave an approved federal budget for 2009 and that budget was not passed until after Obama took office and Obama signed it on March 11, 2009. If the Congress and the President had fulfilled their Constitutional responsibilities then we could blame the spending on Bush. Since the budget was passed and approved by Obama we have to credit that spending to Obama and not Bush. Of course we can condemn Bush and Congress for not following the Constitution by passing a budget in 2008.

 

Not a problem. With the Libertarian leanings then Gary Johnson who will be on the ballot, is the logical choice.

 

It is interesting to me that I'm seeing a lot of those that I thought were either conservatives or liberals based upon posts I've read actually showing up as being highly libertarian based upon their apparent positions on the issues. There was a poll several years ago, which I wish I had a link to, that reflected that most Republicans and Democrats had more in common with Libertarian positions than than they did with their own party. Is this quiz also reflecting that? There seems to be some correlation.

Are any registered Republicans or Democrats that have had the results come up as showing "libertarian" leanings surprised by that result?