US Elections 2012 Obama v Romney Official Thread
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
Give up there Guam. It is long evident that some (by no means all) on this thread are licking the back of Obummer's bag; nothing of that substance will be acknowledged. Worry not though, the American people will address it.
Either address the issue we were talking about, or don't bother. Posting like that is a bit schoolyard, even for you, Jim, surely? 
Guam said:
Jimbeaux said:
Spot on, the here and now. Jobs numbers out yesterday; 44 months now of unemployment above 8%. 96,00 jobs created and 388,000 dropped out of the job market.
If you take out the Statistical slight of hand <something UK politicians have practiced for years> the real figure is believed to be well north of the 9% figure <how far depends on who you believe>.Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Give up there Guam. It is long evident that some (by no means all) on this thread are licking the back of Obummer's bag; nothing of that substance will be acknowledged. Worry not though, the American people will address it.
You have a lot of faith in the intelligence of American people. Bear in mind that 30% of Republicans think Obama is muslim. Does that seem rational or intelligent to you?Jimbeaux said:
All true. The ship must be righted. Obama would do so with massive tax hikes. Not just for the wealthy but for almost everyone. Raising taxes on the wealthy would run the government for 8 days (according to the CBO), so that line is for the truly stupid to swallow. The GOP approach is to grow the economy, thus taking in more revenue. I like that idea as opposed to choking it to death.
It seems that MR wants to cut taxes on the rich and raise them for everybody else.....Tax Policy Center said:
Under what Romney has said he wants to do "would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers."
"This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible," the center noted.
Romney wants to cut today's income-tax rates, which date back to the Bush administration's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, by 20% and eliminate the alternative minimum tax on high earners. Romney says he will make up the lost revenue in part by limiting deductions, exemptions and credits currently available to top-level income earners, though won't say which tax breaks he plans to eliminate.
If a Romney administration got rid of tax breaks like deductions for mortgage interest, health insurance and charitable contributions for top earners and cut them only by 42% for households that earn less than $200,000, the lower-income families with children "would pay, on average, $2,000 more in taxes," the group concluded. Households without children would see a $75 cut under that scenario, the group stated.
"This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible," the center noted.
Romney wants to cut today's income-tax rates, which date back to the Bush administration's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, by 20% and eliminate the alternative minimum tax on high earners. Romney says he will make up the lost revenue in part by limiting deductions, exemptions and credits currently available to top-level income earners, though won't say which tax breaks he plans to eliminate.
If a Romney administration got rid of tax breaks like deductions for mortgage interest, health insurance and charitable contributions for top earners and cut them only by 42% for households that earn less than $200,000, the lower-income families with children "would pay, on average, $2,000 more in taxes," the group concluded. Households without children would see a $75 cut under that scenario, the group stated.
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Yes he will, and Jim's will be as always more representative of all polls, not just one UR cherry picks to make his case.
Which of the ones that UR has quoted are not representative? Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Give up there Guam. It is long evident that some (by no means all) on this thread are licking the back of Obummer's bag; nothing of that substance will be acknowledged. Worry not though, the American people will address it.
You have a lot of faith in the intelligence of American people. Bear in mind that 30% of Republicans think Obama is muslim. Does that seem rational or intelligent to you?TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
Just trying to be like UR; he seems fine by you bunch.
"You bunch"Sorry, Jim any credit you used to have is rapidly leaving. UR is something else, but you really seem to have taken a tabloid mentality of late. I suggest you take a leaf out of Guams book.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Saturday 8th September 19:35
Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Yes he will, and Jim's will be as always more representative of all polls, not just one UR cherry picks to make his case.
Which of the ones that UR has quoted are not representative? On the RCP website it currently has Obama leading in 5 polls, tie in 1 and Romney leading on 1. The average lead for Obama is 1.3. It's too close to call but, given the economic situation, it says a lot about Mitt that he's still struggling......
TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
Just trying to be like UR; he seems fine by you bunch.
"You bunch"Sorry, Jim any credit you used to have is rapidly leaving. UR is something else, but you really seem to have taken a tabloid mentality of late. I suggest you take a leaf out of Guams book.
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Give up there Guam. It is long evident that some (by no means all) on this thread are licking the back of Obummer's bag; nothing of that substance will be acknowledged. Worry not though, the American people will address it.
You have a lot of faith in the intelligence of American people. Bear in mind that 30% of Republicans think Obama is muslim. Does that seem rational or intelligent to you?Guam said:
Jimbeaux said:
The unemployment %, along with the "I have stopped looking for a job" figure (which has never been factored into the unemployment totals)is believed to be around 14% IIRC.
I heard 15% from some commentators, however given the partisan nature of most of the sites I went with the lowest <Conservative> 
Estimate........ooh I used conservative in a correct context does that mean I am on Romneys side now? Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Yes he will, and Jim's will be as always more representative of all polls, not just one UR cherry picks to make his case.
Which of the ones that UR has quoted are not representative? On the RCP website it currently has Obama leading in 5 polls, tie in 1 and Romney leading on 1. The average lead for Obama is 1.3. It's too close to call but, given the economic situation, it says a lot about Mitt that he's still struggling......
ETA: Even better, if you follow UR's logic, you are wrong about the "state of the economy", he has it as all roses. Jimbeaux said:
"You bunch", BTW, is a common American vernacular that is not meant offensively, for what that may be worth.
Whatever Jim. For some reason you seem to think I should take issue with every poster you come across. I address my own points, and ask my own questions. I told you why I thought UR may have thought you were bordering on racist. At no point did I back him up, support him, etc. Responding to Guam about the 800,000/Biden is a liar point apparently makes me an "Obummer bag licker". Anyone with such a crap point will be viewed appropriately. TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
"You bunch", BTW, is a common American vernacular that is not meant offensively, for what that may be worth.
Whatever Jim. For some reason you seem to think I should take issue with every poster you come across. I address my own points, and ask my own questions. I told you why I thought UR may have thought you were bordering on racist. At no point did I back him up, support him, etc. Responding to Guam about the 800,000/Biden is a liar point apparently makes me an "Obummer bag licker". Anyone with such a crap point will be viewed appropriately. Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
Give up there Guam. It is long evident that some (by no means all) on this thread are licking the back of Obummer's bag; nothing of that substance will be acknowledged. Worry not though, the American people will address it.
You have a lot of faith in the intelligence of American people. Bear in mind that 30% of Republicans think Obama is muslim. Does that seem rational or intelligent to you?It worries me that the electorate of the most powerful country in the world are so stupid. However it does tend to explain how the Texan Chimp managed to get elected twice.
With regards to your comment about finding polls that show otherwise, please do. (You have promised evidence before and not been exactly forthcoming when pressed).
Guam said:
I concur however if reviewing post Conference data teaches us anything, challengers have lost from ties and significant leads, conversely they have won from significant deficits in poll ratings following conference season.
The reality is I feel, neither side has yet produced a strong enough case to the American Voter.
Ultimately it will probably now come down to spending ability <the facet I dislike more than any other in US political life>.
.
Agreed. I think MR will win unless Obama can get the grassroots out to vote. He'll need a lot more motivational speeches if he's going to do that.The reality is I feel, neither side has yet produced a strong enough case to the American Voter.
Ultimately it will probably now come down to spending ability <the facet I dislike more than any other in US political life>.
.
Countdown said:
Agreed. I think MR will win unless Obama can get the grassroots out to vote. He'll need a lot more motivational speeches if he's going to do that.
The race will come down to a relatively small number of voters in a relaively small number of states. The votes of suburban women in 3 or 4 states could end up being the difference. I still think that Obama will win the popular vote by 6%. If he does that he will carry the swing states and retain the presidency.Countdown said:
On the RCP website it currently has Obama leading in 5 polls, tie in 1 and Romney leading on 1. The average lead for Obama is 1.3. It's too close to call but, given the economic situation, it says a lot about Mitt that he's still struggling......
I always look at RCP. The polls I quoted were the latest and included Rasmussen, who alone have consistently had Romney ahead but now have Obama ahead. Indeed, Rasmussen is the only poll that Limbaugh recognises, the rest are all "fixed" apparently. No doubt Rasmussen will be condemned as well now..... As you say the latest polls all have Obama ahead apart from the CNN tie, you have to go back to the ABC poll of two weeks ago to find one that has Romney ahead. The poll of polls is interesting but for trends you always need to look at the here and now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff