Mitt Romney has a greater likelihood of fixing the USA than Barak Obama

Nonesense. You made the statement. You've still provided no evidence to back it up. Just your unsupported blather.

More tax cuts and increases in military spending is a recipe for more debt, as Reagan and Bush so aptly demonstrated.

Since you dispute all of them, proving one of my assertions will demonstrate your dispute of them is baseless and without merit.

My statement: Turned around an economy that was tanking at a -9% rate.

Source: BEA.Gov http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Quarter - Real GDP $2005 - % chng
2008q3 13,186.9 -3.7%
2008q4 12,883.5 -9.2% <- Economy tanking at -9%
2009q1 12,663.2 -6.8%
2009q2 12,641.3 -0.7%
2009q3 12,694.5 1.7% <- Economy turns around and starts growing.
2009q4 12,813.5 3.7%
2010q1 12,937.7 3.9%
2010q2 13,058.5 3.7%
2010q3 13,139.6 2.5%
2010q4 13,216.1 2.3%

You have demonstrated would consider any source "dubious" that does not support your argument.

It would mean that the Supreme Court which has the authority to detemine consitutionality determined it was unconstitutional. Others likely would have different opinions.

I agree that where possible people who are accused of crimes should be taken into custody as opposed to killed.

People are often killed based on things the did that were not proven in a court of law.

OK. Please provide your evidence the Supreme Court was bribed into making this decision.

It would be misleading to assert an unemployment number using another rate when U-3 is the rate commonly used.

Your point about what it is now is meaningless without historical context.

Unemployment is 8.2% today.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Rebutted by the Wiki article on Dodd-Frank I cited.

 

Bumpovskoe.

 

keep 50 million Americans without health care, repeal bank regulation so we can have another bubble, and repeal environmental regulations so manufacturers can spew poison into the air.

The idea is to fix America, not destroy it.

 

I think that many on the Right don't care about people.

Voting FOR Romney is voting FOR the party which 'directs' him. He will do what he is told to do by his party.

Using the paid-for-power of the money they spent on his election, corporations will shake Romney like an Etch-A-Sketch; and his views will be transformed.

I'm sure enough, that Romney is NOT a good leader. His views will change (disturbingly so), according to the conveniences afforded him by political opportunity and power of his office.

Bet on it.

 

I think that the average person cares about people. I think those guys at the top, left and right, have created anti-human policy. I would reference not the rhetoric but the actions. Everything from the Patriot Act (signed by Repub and Dem presidents) to the DAA to the suspension of due process and drone attacks on a US citizen, to Gitmo, to condoning of torture...

They just don't care and we are only fooling ourselves if we believe otherwise.

No, I'm certain he's getting his orders from folks way about that rabble.

No, he has liberal corporatist views. Check out his Massachusetts record. Liberals will love Romney. He talks like a Republican but acts like a liberal.

He's already acts like a sociopath so I don't see that changing.

 

I agree, there is surely merit in what you point out.

And I'm certain that Romney isn't the better choice for the American people.

 

Truth is though, I don't see either one of these candidates addressing the TRUE reason for the decline of manufacturing, which is the U.S. Tax Code.

 

I agree. I'm voting for Gary Johnson if I can't vote for Ron Paul. The two party players are bought and paid for. We cannot rely on them. Look at what they say, then what they do.

Its infuriating, actually.

 

You can't prove a negative. Please explain how government can create wealth by transferring it.

Not necessarily. They could have cut all other governemnt spending equal to the amount of tax cuts and increases in military spending they were making, and balanced the budget.

Even if you proved one point, you still would have to demonstrate that your other points are true as well.

All you did was prove that the economy was tanking at 9% before Obama took office, and then turned around after Obama got into office. Now you can prove that the turnaround was a result of his economic policy.

I've demonstrated no such thing. You're deflecting.

I agree that the Supreme Court has the authority to rule if a piece of legislation violates the Constitution or not, based on a majority vote determined by the judges' opinions. I disagree with your opinion that the judges' majority opinions are always factual.

Explain how it was not possible to take him into custody.

Depends on the circumstances of how they were killed.

Straw man.

Argument ad populum

You're the one who's trying to make a point, so it's up to you to inject the historical context. I can't read your mind.

U-3 is not as accurate of a measurement of unemployment as U-5 is. I'm sure that if U-5 were lower than U-3 then you'd be willing to use U-5 instead.

It did no such thing.

 

The presidency is almost irrelevant these days. The position is powerless. Without some support from Congress, nothing gets done.

 

Are you living under a rock?

 

Explain it yourself. I made no such claim.

Coulda.

False. I proved your statement was baseless and wrong. You're just playing games again.

Prove it yourself. I made no such claim.

Your record is clear to me. Others can decide for themselves.

Fabrication. I opined no such thing.

Explain it yourself. I made no such claim.

Sure.

False.
"See above regarding the decisions of courts not necessarily being consistent with the Constitution"
"Congress and the President could pass a law declaring it illegal to speak out against the government under penalty of death, and then bribe the Supreme Court to rule it Constitutional."

Not at all.

You're the one who is claiming U-5 is the proper measure. It is meaningless in a vaccum.

What was U-5 2 1/2 years ago?

Sure it did.

 

Maybe I am but Obama sure is hog-tied.

 

Feel free to elaborate.

 

Do you agree that government spending doesn't create wealth but only transfer it?

So your claim that tax cuts are responsible for debt is false. It's a lack of balancing the budget that is responsible for debt, regardless of what taxes and spending are.

You proved absolutely nothing other than the economy started to recover a few months after Obama took office.

Why would I do that?

You said that Obama "turned around an economy that was tanking at a -9% rate." Prove that he turned it around. And then after you do that, you can provide reliable sources to back up all of the other figures you claimed in that list.

Feel free to show an example of me dismissing a source based on emotion.

Do you agree that the killings were unconstitutional?

What steps did the Obama administration take to take him into custody before killing him?

I never claimed that the Supreme Court was bribed in its decision. That was only an example of how the Supreme Court failing to rule a law unconstitutional does not mean that the law is not unconstitutional; nor that it won't be ruled unconstitutional by a future Supreme Court that more correctly interprets the Constitution.

Just because it is a commonly used measurement does not mean it is correct.

Feel free to explain how it's meaningless in a vacuum.

I don't know, look it up.

Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble pointing out what specifically in your article rebuts my source.

 

Go ahead and elaborate on this statement.

 

Nope. Feel free to prove it doesn't.

Non sequitur. My claim is accurate. If you have a surplus budget like we did in 2000, and then slash taxes and revenues fall hundreds of billions and the surplus vanishes and becomes record deficits, it's fair to sai that tax cuts are responsible IMO.

No, I proved your statement disputing my claims was baseless and wrong. You're just playing games again.

You seem interested in it.

Please link to my post where I said "Obama turned around an economy that was tanking at a -9% rate." Thanks.

Pass on strawman.

I don't know.

I don't know. What?

So you were just blathering meaningless, irrelevant and unsupported assertions. Got it.

It is correct in what it measures.

Because a number "15.2%" or whatever it is is meaningless in isolation. If it was 17.2% two years ago, that is a big improvement.

Which is why I'm guessing you are dancing so much here.

Pass on your strawman.

I already did it. I'll do it again.


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in ("Financial Crisis Amnesia," op-ed, March 2) correctly states that regulators didn't have the tools they needed to avert or effectively mitigate the 2008 financial crisis. That is why banks, contrary to popular belief, supported many of the core reforms contained in Dodd-Frank, including federal supervision of the shadow banking industry.

Had the law focused exclusively on such core issues, banks and the Obama administration would likely be engaged today in a productive, cooperative effort to rebuild our economy. However, the powers that drove the process took a while-we're-at-it approach, lumping draconian, ill-considered and sometimes unrelated "reforms" into the legislation that have put banks in an operational straitjacket. Not surprisingly, a wary if not hostile relationship has set in between two of the most important drivers of our economic recovery: policy makers and banks. What could be more counterproductive?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304692804577283512784932648.html

 

"Do you agree that the killings were unconstitutional?"

"I don't know."

They were unConstitutional because I do know.

 

When the only candidates we are allowed to select are in love with creating nuclear Armageddon, neither one will "fix" anything, but instead will increase chaos, suffering, death and destruction in the world.

 

Feel free to explain or better yet, start a thread on it. This topic is pretty far afield the OP.

 

Yes. That is a very reasonable post.

I don't have the negative suspicions about Romney that you do, though.

You're smart enough to understand my theory on Romney, but I'm feeling too lazy to type it. Most leftists don't get it, I don't think.

 

If someone asked me who won this exchange you had with Dr. R, Iriemon, I'd say Dr. R did. I was a bit surprised that the victory was so apparent.

 

And who is Mittens going to fix the economy for?

I'm not sure if I understand the right-wing argument here. They are trying to both claim that the government can't fix the economy, that it is private companies that are solely capable of doing this. Then the right-wing completely ignores that private companies have ZERO motivation to "fix the economy". Record profits. Historically low taxes. A globally available cheap labor pool that lets them cut jobs where labor costs are a bit high because those (*)(*)(*)(*) workers don't want to work 18 hour days for company script.

Anyone who thinks that corporate lackeys will be our savior is just completely deluded and lacking knowledge of our country's past brush with corporatism which led to the labor movement.

 

The super wealthy, quite simply, is the answer. The black guy won't play ball so the corporate Titans want one of their own installed who "understands" the game a bit more.

 

It's called the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of These United States:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation