How is this even being debated? Unless China starts full out nuclear war, the Soviet Union posed a drastically greater threat to our national security.
Case in point; the Cuban Missile crisis. As previously stated, the only reminiscent idea of a greater threat to national security would be nuclear war.
Chinese bust their assess off like robots
thats one reason China cannot surpass us. Their lifestyle ousts the creative mind, obviously the most important aspect for any sort of invention or break through. The U.S. on the other hand, nourishes inventors by allowing a rather rude and easy life.
Soviet Union was never a threat to the USA. Stalin always wanted to have power within the USSR, he never thought about surpassing USA.
Did you miss the space race and the entire cold war?
Your entire argument is seemingly based on a few personal confrontations, leading to entirely false generalizations.
This argument is not only fundamentally un-constitutional, but an attempt to alleviate the power and voice of the lower and middle class. Based on the only reason for exemption of voting, it is pretty clear your argument lacks merit in addition to being an example to that very same statement. Regressing basic American rights should not be a goal of this country.
The lowest yearly deficit under Clinton was still nearly 18 billion
The surplus referred to is the public debt surplus. Meaning the administration was paying back its debt to the public.
On the point you stated, that 18 billion was down from 430 billion yearly from the first Bush. Considering Clinton took over in a economic recession, this is a pretty incredible feat. Your ability to demean that feat only provides insight to the partisanship that has engulfed the Republican party.
In its entirety, he isn’t saying literally that successful people didn't build there business. Its the juxtaposition of others that create a successful big business in addition to the great idea of one individual. In reality, it is the Romney equivalent of “I like to fire people”. The Democrats did chastise Romney for that mistake so I will not engage in the same affair.
He meant to give credit to the middle class, saying that, like the country, it takes a universal effort to create a large success. If you entirely believe exxon mobil is the result of one man, you need to stop believing in Super Hero’s.
There is a large connection between getting rid of regulations and lower taxes with a good economy.
Yeah, Bush thought that too when he took over from Clinton, look how well that worked out.
In a free market there can't be a monopoly, these regulations protect big business and corporations and make it much harder on smaller and newer businesses.
This has honestly got to be a joke. Have you any reminiscence of knowledge regarding U.S. history? There was something called the Sherman anti-trust act that was created as a result of the monopolies created in an overly free market. The deregulation allowed a few massive companies to thrive while destroying small businesses.
Not all regulations, but a good amount of them should be gotten rid of.
Your ideas and writing style all correlate to someone with meager intelligence
There proposing (and doind it) raising taxes on just the rich, not only is this not equal or fair, your pushing the rich out, money and rich people can be easily moved out of a country.
The ultra-rich on average pay a smaller percentage of taxes than you do. Mitt Romney for example, payed 13% while the American average is 20%. Exxon, a company making 5 million per hour, payed an effective tax rate of 17.6%, again below the national average. America was a country founded by the wealthy and in turn wrote a constitution to protect them selves and equivalents. The least the rich can do is pay an equal tax rate.
when they fire all their workers, close their shops and start shipping jobs to other countries... oh wait, they already are.
You don’t even know the root cause for the exodus of factory jobs. America has something called minimum wage, something the destinations of those same factory jobs, don’t have. Yet, they have the profligacy to sell their products in our country after they fired our brothers, our sisters, our family. How does America compete with those nations? TAX the big businesses that think its ok to ship jobs over seas, then sell to our people. Take away the benefit of expediting our jobs over seas. Reward those that see the wrong in hurting our economy. Most, especially the rich, are self-interested. Until you force them to come back, that money saved hiring a Chinese worker, far out weighs the moral injustice to firing an American.
It is laughable to hear people say that we're better off now.
Going from an average job loss of 700,000 a month to 4.5 million private sector jobs created sounds like a sound improvement to me.
As well as interfering to much with businesses.
That “interfering” has been with massive industries such as the auto industry. It has allowed the previously mentioned example to grow and regain a reputation of quality needed to push to the top of car sales. Chrysler as a specific example, reported a 26% increase in sales last year. That really sounds like the government is hindering that business, who knew strict quality standards were a good thing? In addition, Democrats seem to understand small business better than Republicans as well; Republicans blocked a small business tax cut that would obviously help their ability to grow and create solid MIDDLE CLASS jobs rather than favoring the wealthy.
Obama will continue to drain the middle class he's never done otherwise.
Interesting that you say that, he (Obama) wants to raise taxes on the rich to maintain tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Romney literally wants the opposite, he wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class by about $2,000 to pay for tax cuts on the wealthy.
When the Government is telling us that we need more and more government something is wrong.
FDR did the same thing, and he is widely considered the best President of the 20th century.
We're getting involved in so many things over seas and ignoring problems here. This needs to stop.
I agree. But Romney wants to get involved in Syria while Obama does not. Funny that you support Romney on that issue, it almost seems hypocritical, but I know Republicans would never be like that.
Mitt Romney has a large focus on helping the middle class and giving business more freedom so that the economy can take care of it's self.
I’ve already proven how thats false. But I’m not quite sure how cutting government spending helps middle class jobs, that seems like it would actually cause the government to fire quite a few people to accommodate the lower spending budget.
We actually know more about Mitt and Paul's life than we know about Obama’s
Did Romney give you a private report on what his policies as President would be? With most of us, his plans as our nations leader have been pretty bland and un-descriptive.
How would that restrict voting rights?
By making it harder for minorities to vote. Which is why a texas court deemed it unconstitutional
What are you talking about prop 8? It would be a big government move to ignore the majority vote would it not?
The American government was set up so that the majority still had to favor the beliefs of the minorities; minority beliefs still have a significant voice (madison wanted to protect the rich, funny enough). Anyway, this issue is the equivalent of the women’s rights issue, the country was divided in beliefs, but it was unconstitutional to deny them the rights Americans treasure. For a party that loves the beliefs of the founding fathers so deeply, its hard to believe that “All men are created equal” has fallen on deaf ears. Last time I checked, gays are people to.
We want the good parts. Not slavery and discrimination
Republicans want the power of the wealthy, reinstated.
Isn't it great? If protecting the constitution is what you mean by constant referrals then yeah.
It is and it isn’t, it was a Republic born to favor the wealthy, but for the time, inherent equality for normal white men.
I meant referring to the document, not protecting it. Enlighten me to the ways in which they do so.
The ecomony wasn't good when he got in but is is a lot worse now. If all you democrates would stop going on about what you feel is right and acted on it maybe we would be better off now. Oh wait i forgot your ideas are stupid. It is time to look at facts not opinions.
This is ignorance in such a blatant form, I really did laugh. How can you say the economy is worse then when Obama took over? We were losing 800,000 jobs A MONTH and now, in the last 29 months, we have created 4.5 million private sector jobs. This is a pretty stark difference, and honestly, I think thats just a wee bit better then when Obama took office. Now before you go on about the budget and how the stimulus sucked, lets check out those facts you know so much about. That stimulus saved 400,000 educator jobs (considering our educational rankings, we kinda need those) and countless other jobs. The only reason it didn’t work better was because it wasn’t enough (in terms of money). I mean really, look how well China’s doing, don’t you wish we did the same thing? Then contrast that to Europe’s economy (which tried more or less, those republican ideas by cutting government spending) which is so bad, it speaks for itself. Then look at our own history. Widely considered one our very best presidents, FDR created a program called the new deal, which also spent huge amounts of money to get the economy running. Funny thing is, this great president took over a decade to get the economy moving, and people are chastising Obama for an economy that will likely require an equal amount of time to fix (they are similar in their depth of economic tragedy, you know).
Anyway, back to our ideas being stupid! In fact, we are so dumb that since 1961, we dems have created 42 million jobs and you republicans have created a meager 24 million! Man, we are the stupid ones, really! Oh wait, another part of our intelligence (or lack there of) has allowed us to create the only deficit reducing presidency since that same time period (thanks Bill)!
Obama can not campain on what he did the last four years.
He can, and whats more, can campaign on what was blocked in an attempt to make him fail. The partisanship created by the republicans was absurd, you can not create a committee (which Paul Ryan was on) to make a President fail, it is totally un-American. To jog your memory of a more recent example of this, republicans blocked a tax cut for small businesses ( profit of less than $500,000) which would obviously allow them a better chance to grow in tough economic times. Unless this indeed was part of the rhetoric to make him fail, it really creates doubt about their claimed prowess of the economy. Unless you can prove your own points with facts rather than speculation, which you yourself depone, then your commonality with your representatives will be a lack of depth in which you speak.
I entirely agree. He failed to address one or even both demographics he has had extreme troubles with; latino’s and women. Ryan addresses the base of the party (as we all know), a group that in its entirety, hates Obama. This conclusion is not difficult to come by, but another factor of his equation was his (Romney’s) inability to excite those very same people; the base of the party. So in a way, Ryan will bring out that demographic, but the effect someone such as Marko Rubio would have posed a detrimental problem to Obama’s campaign. Rubio would certainly have alleviated the pain of a 20% support rate from a Latino group, and so far, a rate at which it is nearly impossible to win.
