I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney

[Henrin]

Agreed, if by "fix" you mean wipe out the middle class.

Support your claim please. It could easily be argued that what he is fighting against is the destruction of the middle class.

 

[Zyphlin]

You and others who think this way ensure Obama's re-election. Stop being so hard-nosed about it.

I'm sure Grimm knows that. I don't think he cares. My guess is that he thinks that, on a scale from 1 to 100 in regards to how much damage the person would do, if he has Obama at an 80 he has Romney at like a 70. So he could either vote for someone who he still thinks is going to be really bad for the country, but will be doing so with his blessing and support...or he could not vote and have someone who will be a little bit worse for the country than Romney, but do so without his support. My guess is, also, that he feels that 4 more years of Obama...with the possability of having a candidate he DOES like in 2016 due to the message sent by voters not turning out for Romney...would, in the long run, be BETTER for the country then electing Romney in 2012, having possibly 8 years of Mitt Romney doing things he thinks will harm the country, AND making the Republican Establishment think they can keep pushing that kind of Republican for the future doing even more long term harm.

Essentially, he may feel like his choice is either accepting very bad harm now with a good chance for improvement in the future....OR.....accepting slightly less harm now with a good chance for continued harm in the future.

As such, the potential for better things in the future outweight the potential for slightly less bad things in the present.

 

[AdamT]

Support your claim please. It could easily be argued that what he is fighting against is the destruction of the middle class.

You couldn't make that argument in a million years. Not if you employ the rules of logic.

First, Paul proposes government cuts that amout to about $700 billion per year. That alone would send the economy spiraling back into recession, which generally hits the poor and middle class the hardest.

Second, Paul would gut safety net programs, turning Medicaid into a block grant. Again, that would devastate poor and newly poor (the former middle class). He would allow people to opt out of Social Security and Medicare, which would be the death knell of those programs for future generations.

Third, Paul would drastically cut corporate taxes, and eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains, all of which benefit the wealthy, and the savings would have to come out of the asses of the poor and middle class. In short, huge tax cuts that only benefit the very wealthy.

Of course we can't ignore the loss of services from all those agencies Paul would eliminate. No more department of education means lower quality public schools, which primarily benefit the poor and middle class. No more EPA means worse pollution, which generally impacts the poor and middle class more than the rich (who can simply move to a less polluted environment), etc.

If you're a middle class person, voting for Ron Paul is like voting for someone who will immediately turn around and kick you repeatedly in the nuts.

 

[iguanaman]

Reading statistics is one thing, understanding them and putting them into context is another. we have a second amendment right to own a gun and no matter how liberals spin it you cannot be the savior of everyone else and why would you want to be?

Why would I want to prevent people like you from committing suicide? I do believe in Darwinism, don't you?:lol::lol:

 

[Conservative]

Why would I want to prevent people like you from committing suicide? I do believe in Darwinism, don't you?:lol::lol:

Guess personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world. What gives any liberal the responsibility to take care of someone else. You certain have that right but not the responsibility. Seems you have bought the liberal rhetoric and broad brush everything judging everyone else by your own standards

 

[Henrin]

You couldn't make that argument in a million years. Not if you employ the rules of logic.

First, Paul proposes government cuts that amout to about $700 billion per year. That alone would send the economy spiraling back into recession, which generally hits the poor and middle class the hardest.

Make that a trillion and it is necessary to return the economy back to stable footing for the future. You can't return the country back to stable footing and sound money/fiscal policy without a great deal of pain. It is only up to the people to recognize this.

Second, Paul would gut safety net programs, turning Medicaid into a block grant. Again, that would devastate poor and newly poor (the former middle class). He would allow people to opt out of Social Security and Medicare, which would be the death knell of those programs for future generations.

Almost all government programs were put in place because of government action on industry and fiscal/monetary policy that increased cost. Social Security is only needed as much as it is because of inflation which is the result of bad policy.

Third, Paul would drastically cut corporate taxes, and eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains, all of which benefit the wealthy, and the savings would have to come out of the asses of the poor and middle class. In short, huge tax cuts that only benefit the very wealthy.

Government taking your property with the use of force is against property rights and should be stopped regardless if the person is rich or poor. Its also immaterial with a stable monetary system if the rich is taxed more or less.

Of course we can't ignore the loss of services from all those agencies Paul would eliminate. No more department of education means lower quality public schools, which primarily benefit the poor and middle class.

Actually education is overvalued and is a supply side service regardless if government does it or not.

No more EPA means worse pollution, which generally impacts the poor and middle class more than the rich (who can simply move to a less polluted environment), etc.

The EPA doesn't punish acts of pollution or protect people from pollution, but enacts policy to control business with solutions the government decides regardless of harm by individuals in play. There is better solutions than an executive agency that is unelected that basically exists to destroy liberty.

If you're a middle class person, voting for Ron Paul is like voting for someone who will immediately turn around and kick you repeatedly in the nuts.

In the long run you would have more freedom, no inflation, and less disparity of wealth. In the short term it could be very painful but that is the cost of a return to sound footing but it would be painful for everyone not just middle class and poor.

 

[iguanaman]

You couldn't make that argument in a million years. Not if you employ the rules of logic.

First, Paul proposes government cuts that amout to about $700 billion per year. That alone would send the economy spiraling back into recession, which generally hits the poor and middle class the hardest.

Second, Paul would gut safety net programs, turning Medicaid into a block grant. Again, that would devastate poor and newly poor (the former middle class). He would allow people to opt out of Social Security and Medicare, which would be the death knell of those programs for future generations.


Third, Paul would drastically cut corporate taxes, and eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains, all of which benefit the wealthy, and the savings would have to come out of the asses of the poor and middle class. In short, huge tax cuts that only benefit the very wealthy.

Of course we can't ignore the loss of services from all those agencies Paul would eliminate. No more department of education means lower quality public schools, which primarily benefit the poor and middle class. No more EPA means worse pollution, which generally impacts the poor and middle class more than the rich (who can simply move to a less polluted environment), etc.

If you're a middle class person, voting for Ron Paul is like voting for someone who will immediately turn around and kick you repeatedly in the nuts.

You left out getting rid of the Federal Reserve and putting us back on the "Gold Standard". The Great Depression will seem like a picnic in the park after that.

 

[AdamT]

Make that a trillion and it is necessary to return the economy back to stable footing for the future. You can't return the country back to stable footing and sound money/fiscal policy without a great deal of pain. It is only up to the people to recognize this.



Almost all government programs were put in place because of government action on industry and fiscal/monetary policy that increased cost. Social Security is only needed as much as it is because of inflation which is the result of bad policy.



Government taking your property with the use of force is against property rights and should be stopped regardless if the person is rich or poor. Its also immaterial with a stable monetary system if the rich is taxed more or less.



Actually education is overvalued and is a supply side service regardless if government does it or not.



The EPA doesn't punish acts of pollution or protect people from pollution, but enacts policy to control business with solutions the government decides regardless of harm by individuals in play. There is better solutions than an executive agency that is unelected that basically exists to destroy liberty.



In the long run you would have more freedom, no inflation, and less disparity of wealth. In the short term it could be very painful but that is the cost of a return to sound footing but it would be painful for everyone not just middle class and poor.

You haven't made a single argument for why Paul's economic policies would do anything but wipe out the middle class and benefit the wealthy. The rest of your arguments.... :doh

 

[Henrin]

You haven't made a single argument for why Paul's economic policies would do anything but wipe out the middle class and benefit the wealthy. The rest of your arguments.... :doh

Arguably the path we are taking with dis-valued money and huge amount of spending destroys the middle class has been doing so for a great while now. Arguably, taking a trillion of spending away in spending would affect the people that benefit strongly from those programs, but to conclude that this is to the extent it would destroy the middle class is unsupported by the facts. Undoubtedly however, the economy as a whole with the benefits taken away would take a hit, but its unreasonable to conclude it wouldn't rebound stronger than before.

 

[iguanaman]

Arguably the path we are taking with dis-valued money and huge amount of spending destroys the middle class has been doing so for a great while now. Arguably, taking a trillion of spending away in spending would affect the people that benefit strongly from those programs, but to conclude that this is to the extent it would destroy the middle class is unsupported by the facts. Undoubtedly however, the economy as a whole with the benefits taken away would take a hit, but its unreasonable to conclude it wouldn't rebound stronger than before.

but its unreasonable to conclude it wouldn't rebound stronger than before.

I think the Irish would agree with that. Cutting spending hurts a consumer economy. Black isn't white.

 

[TurtleDude]

Only someone who should be committed thinks that free markets can function without regulation.

Only people who don't read the posts would think that anyone is in favor of absolutely no regulations

 

[TurtleDude]

Why would I want to prevent people like you from committing suicide? I do believe in Darwinism, don't you?:lol::lol:

No you don't. LIberal (ie statist welfare redistributionists) don't believe in that They want to force those who have evolved the farthest have to fund those who are failures. real darwinism would be to allow the unproductive, the untalented and the unlucky to die off or survive on what they could be given in charity. Giving them all sorts of government handouts is ANTI-DARWINIAN

 

[Henrin]

I think the Irish would agree with that. Cutting spending hurts a consumer economy. Black isn't white.

Cutting spending people are dependent on hurts the economy in the short term, but greatly helps the economy in the long term if the spending comes from debt or the printing of money.

 

[Henrin]

You left out getting rid of the Federal Reserve and putting us back on the "Gold Standard". The Great Depression will seem like a picnic in the park after that.

When the country had the gold standard it experienced times of deflation even in good economies, didn't experience inflation beyond usual fluctuations and recessions were more like market down turns. It wasn't until we changed to a faith based spending based economy did the recessions get deeper and an inflation start to become a problem where deflation is seen a sign of a down turning economy. The changing back to the standard would in fact stabilize the economy.

 

[AdamT]

When the country had the gold standard it experienced times of deflation even in good economies, didn't experience inflation beyond usual fluctuations and recessions were more like market down turns. It wasn't until we changed to a faith based spending based economy did the recessions get deeper and an inflation start to become a problem where deflation is seen a sign of a down turning economy. The changing back to the standard would in fact stabilize the economy.

Depends what part of history you're talking about. In the late 19th and early 20th century we had a boom and bust economy that produced catastrophic recessions/depressions on a regular basis.

 

[haymarket]

from AdamT

If you're a middle class person, voting for Ron Paul is like voting for someone who will immediately turn around and kick you repeatedly in the nuts.

......... with very pointy steel tipped shoes!

 

[Misterveritis]

That should worry you all the more. Having a gun in the house doubles your chance of suicide.

What a piece of work you must be.

How can you desire a tax on consumption when we are a consumer economy? Do you want to end capitalism? Taxing money spent is self defeating, we need to tax income NOT spent if we want a healthy economy. You have most everything backwards, I'm afraid. Confusion is a painful thing, have you considered professional help?

have you ever considered that you are the one who has it backwards? Confusion is not always painful. Sometimes the one who is most confused is the least aware and the last to know.

 

[upsideguy]

Unfortunately, if the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama wins another four years, you too, will arrive at the same conclusion. Do you wonder why Obamacare will explode in our economy with a vengeance during his second term? He has made the calculation that most of us are too stupid to realize we are walking into a trap. Some of us here, more than others, fulfill his calculation. Do you wonder why he has been using the Executive arm of the federal government against us? His agencies are writing expansive regulations to cripple the economy so that he can fundamentally transform this nation. One must ask from what to what? I believe it is from a free market capitalist economy to a centrally planned socialist economy.

Such a thing is hateful to a free people.

.... ah, yeah........ Sorry, but I have to get back to Earth now.

Until we meet again, I do hope the staff continues to treat you well. Are you still getting your ice cream each day at 4?

 

[Misterveritis]

Forceing beliefs on others is a Right wing trait, don't project it on me. I'm no expert but I can read statistics, and it is a shame that some choose to ignore them at their own (or their family members) peril.

•Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
•Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
•Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
•Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.

AFSP: Facts and Figures: National Statistics

I think you are confusing the means of suicide with its "reasons." Perhaps the next time you "read" the bullet points you will try some evaluation. How about showing us it is possible by giving us four bullet points with the top reasons people commit suicide? Are you up to it?

 

[Misterveritis]

Ron Paul is the only nominee with a plan to fix the economy.

What an interesting statement.

 

[iguanaman]

No you don't. LIberal (ie statist welfare redistributionists) don't believe in that They want to force those who have evolved the farthest have to fund those who are failures. real darwinism would be to allow the unproductive, the untalented and the unlucky to die off or survive on what they could be given in charity. Giving them all sorts of government handouts is ANTI-DARWINIAN

What a RESPONSIBLE Govt. must do is prevent the few from overpowering the many. Encouraging the few to amass more and more wealth they do not spend is self defeating in a consumer economy. Spending = Growth. But you think the unlucky should die? What kind of religion is that?

 

[Misterveritis]

Sorry but for some of us it's about something much larger than an election, or even this nation.... It's about PRINCIPLES. Some day in the future I will have to stand before my Creators and defend every single decision I made in my life. Not sure I could defend a vote for Mitt Romney.

LOL. Awesome. Do you think He will excuse you for not standing in the breach to defend a nation at risk?

 

[Misterveritis]

You couldn't make that argument in a million years. Not if you employ the rules of logic.

First, Paul proposes government cuts that amout to about $700 billion per year. That alone would send the economy spiraling back into recession, which generally hits the poor and middle class the hardest.

Second, Paul would gut safety net programs, turning Medicaid into a block grant. Again, that would devastate poor and newly poor (the former middle class). He would allow people to opt out of Social Security and Medicare, which would be the death knell of those programs for future generations.

Third, Paul would drastically cut corporate taxes, and eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains, all of which benefit the wealthy, and the savings would have to come out of the asses of the poor and middle class. In short, huge tax cuts that only benefit the very wealthy.

Of course we can't ignore the loss of services from all those agencies Paul would eliminate. No more department of education means lower quality public schools, which primarily benefit the poor and middle class. No more EPA means worse pollution, which generally impacts the poor and middle class more than the rich (who can simply move to a less polluted environment), etc.

If you're a middle class person, voting for Ron Paul is like voting for someone who will immediately turn around and kick you repeatedly in the nuts.

If all these things be true and possible I shall have to reconsider Rom Paul.

Now if we could just fix his foreign policy...

 

[iguanaman]

I think you are confusing the means of suicide with its "reasons." Perhaps the next time you "read" the bullet points you will try some evaluation. How about showing us it is possible by giving us four bullet points with the top reasons people commit suicide? Are you up to it?

So your "conclusion" is that households with guns have more "reasons" to commit suicide? That could be, but what does that say about gun owners then?

 

[Misterveritis]

So your "conclusion" is that households with guns have more "reasons" to commit suicide? That could be, but what does that say about gun owners then?

I knew you would fail. It was a very simple exercise. Still, I knew you would not be up to completing a simple task requiring comprehension.