Ok, we know the candidates. We now know some of what they plan on doing based on what little they've told us. So how do you feel about it? What would you the 'voter' like to see either of them focus on once in office? If you could look them in the face, what concern would you voice to Romney or Obama?
with jobs you get the growth with jobs you get rid of deficit and debt with jobs you get social programs
depends on which jobs of course. you need vision and direction before you get the jobs. and you cant get the jobs if you are making enemies with your 'customers'
of course everyone says jobs.
Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. and you lose.
Maybe my brain is full of prions but nevertheless, I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare
with jobs you get the growth with jobs you get rid of deficit and debt with jobs you get social programs
depends on which jobs of course. you need vision and direction before you get the jobs. and you cant get the jobs if you are making enemies with your 'customers'
of course everyone says jobs.
Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. and you lose.
Maybe my brain is full of prions but nevertheless, I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare
funbucket: It should be jobs.
with jobs you get the growth with jobs you get rid of deficit and debt with jobs you get social programs
depends on which jobs of course. you need vision and direction before you get the jobs. and you cant get the jobs if you are making enemies with your 'customers'
of course everyone says jobs.
Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. and you lose.
Maybe my brain is full of prions but nevertheless, I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare
with jobs you get the growth with jobs you get rid of deficit and debt with jobs you get social programs
depends on which jobs of course. you need vision and direction before you get the jobs. and you cant get the jobs if you are making enemies with your 'customers'
of course everyone says jobs.
Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. and you lose.
Maybe my brain is full of prions but nevertheless, I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare
funbucket: It should be jobs.
with jobs you get the growth with jobs you get rid of deficit and debt with jobs you get social programs
depends on which jobs of course. you need vision and direction before you get the jobs. and you cant get the jobs if you are making enemies with your 'customers'
of course everyone says jobs.
Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. and you lose.
Maybe my brain is full of prions but nevertheless, I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare
with jobs you get the growth with jobs you get rid of deficit and debt with jobs you get social programs
depends on which jobs of course. you need vision and direction before you get the jobs. and you cant get the jobs if you are making enemies with your 'customers'
of course everyone says jobs.
Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. and you lose.
Maybe my brain is full of prions but nevertheless, I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare
funbucket: It should be jobs.
with jobs you get the growth with jobs you get rid of deficit and debt with jobs you get social programs
depends on which jobs of course. you need vision and direction before you get the jobs. and you cant get the jobs if you are making enemies with your 'customers'
of course everyone says jobs.
Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. and you lose.
Maybe my brain is full of prions but nevertheless, I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare
Oops. I agree it's jobs - but good jobs; not "shovel ready" crap jobs that will evaporate in three years. Get our corporations back up and running and the rest will take care of itself. More people paying into the tax system + less people taking unemployment + higher GDP = instant deficit reduction.
Rumple4skinStoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England UK980 posts
raytheon1: Ok, we know the candidates. We now know some of what they plan on doing based on what little they've told us. So how do you feel about it? What would you the 'voter' like to see either of them focus on once in office? If you could look them in the face, what concern would you voice to Romney or Obama?
Jobs, but jobs that stand in their own right with an objective view to the future of how the economy needs to be balanced. Not jobs that are created by stealing jobs from other sectors of the economy or jobs created by illusionary wealth(debt)- so, no bureaucratic positions created by vote-seeking politicians, and no debt-driven retail jobs; all these jobs are manned by useless eaters.
For anyone who's been paying attention, it's long been obvious that Paul Ryan is a political fraud. Paul Krugman and Jonathan Chait have been on the case longer than most, noting since Ryan's initial emergence as the Republicans' go-to guy on all things budgetary that his numbers don't work at all. Somewhat encouragingly, if belatedly, lots of other folks seem finally to be noticing and not a moment too soon. Ryan's emergence as a GOP superstar and, until very recently, a media darling, is the apotheosis of a three decades long scam being perpetrated on the American people. That scam -- supply-side economics -- has always had one preferred public face. The public face is the notion that cutting marginal tax rates at the top would spur those who are now referred to as "job creators," to really get in the game, invest, work hard and innovate. The result would be an explosion in economic growth, such that reduced taxes on the well-to-do means everyone is better off - the right-wing version of something-for-nothing public policy. Those present at the creation, like Reagan's first budget director, David Stockman, more or less admitted this was a scam from day one. Through many fits and starts, and the inconvenient intrusions of political reality, supply side economics has, more or less, become a consensus view today among Republicans. And its partially obscured underbelly, laid out in detail by former Reagan treasury official Bruce Bartlett, was that reducing taxes on the wealthy would have a salutary goal - if one that shouldn't be uttered too loudly in public -- to starve the beast. Cut taxes on the rich, and there won't be enough revenue to fund social programs for regular folks. As Stockman pointed out in 1981, there was a politically palatable way to say this -- to insist that deficits would be stealing from our children. But Stockman made clear this was poppycock. No one has gone as far Paul Ryan to write that dystopian vision into an actual budget blueprint. In this sense, perhaps, his critics have been unfair. It took tremendous "brass," as President Clinton would say, to actually spell out, even with all the obfuscations he could marshal, what government looks like when you slash taxes on the rich, including eliminating taxes on investment, while taking a torch to vital social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance for the needy and so on, in order to (partially) pay for those tax cuts. Mitt Romney, of course, embraced the Ryan road map a few short months ago, before he was required by the dictates of the general election to tack one boat-length back toward the center from the utter insanity of the GOP primary season, and rhetorically qualify some of the worst excesses of Ryanism. But the Ryan plan remains the moral core of the GOP and is the reductio ad absurdum of three decades of fantasist thinking on the right about who is deserving and who isn't. In Ryan world, the deserving and undeserving are spelled out with comic book clarity by Ayn Rand, in particular, her two most famous characters -- Howard Roark and John Galt. Only a tiny elite of super-genius job creators deserve our respect and adulation (and all the concomitant rewards that ought to flow therefrom). Everyone else -- well, just be thankful for the table scraps (or that "prime movers," a la Roark, don't blow up their beautiful creations because society hasn't pay sufficient fealty to their greatness).
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
'Vote 2012'...What Should The Focus Be?(Vote Below)