I'm voting for Johnson. But in fairness I will say this: you are lumping a lot of people together. They aren't all the same. Romney is a completely different kind of Republican than Gingrich is and he is a completely different kind than Santorum (bat shit crazy lol)

Just like Obama is not the same as Clinton who was not the same as Carter. They all had different agendas. As for Bush...who really knows what his presidency would have been if not for 9-11 and the subsequent (and dumb) wars that the U.S. went into?

But taking your last sentence...IF I wanted to lump all Democrats into some kind of monolithic thinking like you are doing with Republicans I could easily change your sentence to read: "You absolutely have to be an idiot, live in lala land or completely un-informed to actually believe the Democrats will ever "really" cut spending

That sentence kinda works for both parties. And it's why I registered as a Libertarian last week. :)

This argument that tax cuts create jobs is the biggest lie there is. Its the other way around; higher tax rates create jobs by forcing business owners to look for more deductions, hiring people and paying payroll is one of those deductions.

The UK is cutting spending, take a look at the IMF's prediction for the growth in the UK.

Dude...I would never hire more people because I had less money from paying taxes. Especially given that I have to match funds for employees social security. Either you've never had employees on full payroll or you're just trolling.

Dude...... People hire people because they need them to grow. If they don't make enough and can't afford the cost, they stay small.

Really that was so easy to knock back across the net. Sharpen up on your service game. :winkwink:

You're a dumbass Paul. That was NOT what the guy said. He specifically said that raising taxes caused people to hire people.

I specifically said I would never hire someone because taxes were raised.

Learn to read before you type ignorant sentences.

But somewhere along the line reality has to come into play. It's very easy to say "I want to cut spending". And then when your faced with making it happen you discover it's really impossible. Okay, nothing is impossible, but it's "extremely difficult".

It's only difficult because they make it difficult.
Eventually they will have to stop spending because the whole thing will simply implode.

10.6 billion dollars per day in spending. 4 billion of that borrowed every day. Printing new money every year and adding it into the economy (making everything more expensive and the dollar lose worth).

Sooner or later that just won't work anymore and there simply will be no funds for any of these things that politicians just can't bring themselves to cut.

I've been hearing it since I was a teenager that if we didn't do something now, we would be screwed completely in the future.
But every year the politicians in Washington D.C. (congress and Senate) kick the can down the road by applying temporary fixes and borrowing more money. And no President has had the balls to take the bull by the horns and step in with some real leadership.

I think the "future" is almost here finally. And we are about to have no choice but to "cut" a whole lot...simply because there won't be any money to fund things.

Maybe I didn't make it plain enough, should of realised I was discussing it with a one man band.

Cost of worker in wages/taxes = X Cost of worker in terms of equipment, location, etc = Y Profit from his work has to be more than X+Y to make it viable.

It's that simple to someone who employs people. Or more simply.

What ever it costs to employ someone, he/she should make there employment worth at least 50% more than cost.

Even if the cost includes tax, lunches, transport or a hooker every Friday. The cost of the worker has to be less that what the worker produces by a decent amount.

So you wouldn't employ someone whose cost was $1,000 a week and produced you $1,000 a week in in pure profit. Because $200 of the workers cost was tax. :upsidedow

And when the Government does stop spending, expect your US sales to drop.

But Democrats have cut spending before. lol

Also people keep forgetting , they are president not king.

It's very easy to promise the moon, but making good on those promises are usually impossible. Right now Romney is telling us he's going to lower taxes, increase spending for the military, decrease the deficit, and create jobs - And yet doesn't have a plan.

It's very easy to say "these are our goals" but once you get into office you get dragged into every fist fight and problem one can imagine.

Yeah, so have Republicans IF you accept the bullshit definition of "cutting spending" that these lying politicians have created.

When you or I cut spending we actually spend LESS.

When these corrupt bureaucrat career politicians "cut spending" they just decrease the amount that the spending INCREASES from the amount it increased last year.

No matter how you look at it...they are all crooks. Vote every goddamn one of them out of office.

Obama made a LOT of promises. And he convinced me in 2008 that he would actually do them. Instead he spent the first two years waiting on Congress to write the health bill while people needed jobs. :(

And yes, Romney has a plan. The plan is to create jobs. Whether you agree with his plan to unleash the oil companies and create jobs through the energy sector PLUS lower taxes on business is your personal choice. But just to say he doesn't have a plan isn't correct.

I've waited 4 years to see Obama's plan. Still don't know what it is. The only thing he keeps doing is giving out govt. money to his friends. :(

I think Romney's idea makes one helluva lot more sense. I agree with him on that part.
But his idea of growing the military and his stupid religious right stance on social issues makes him just as unacceptable as Obama.

This time I'm not going to waste my vote on the "lesser of two evils" which seems to be what everyone is doing...I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson.

Even if he doesn't win, at least I voted my conscience and not what the media on both sides is trying to convince me to do.

The government's own U-6 is 14.7% unemployment.
Which means its still probably even higher and can easily be higher in specific markets.

http://news.yahoo.com/real-unemploym...211815397.html

Now back to the arguments in progress.

I didn't buy into Obama. I didn't vote four years ago. But I had more faith in Obama than I did McCain.

People don't understand what we just went through. This isn't about high unemployment - this recession nearly took out a dozen countries and their governments. We are lucky it didn't become a full fledged depression. Half the people on my street lost their houses - HALF.

Well, what is his plan? All I've heard so far is he's going to increase spending to the military while reducing taxes and the deficit - all the while increasing jobs. He makes it sound so easy. Well, how is he gonna do it? Other than shutting down PBS and killing off Big Bird, how is he gonna do it?

What friends is he giving out money to? He must have some friends here in Sacramento in my home town, being as some of the stimulus money went for a $300 million freeway bypass that JUST opened this weekend. (Thanks for that btw.)

They say this about every politician - "He gives away the money to his friends". Who?

A lot of people dismiss the military thinking it's all about war and killing people. Our military is so much more than that. Our military is a massive training school that employs millions and creates all of the technology we have here.

This is what everyone always does anyhow.

I remember considering who to vote for in 2008. I might've actually voted for McCain if not for Sarah Palin. This time around, Ryan doesn't bother me much. Romney's a definite No. Pass. Anyone else. I also think Obama is the lesser of two evils. Anyway, I might go with Gary Johnson, but I'm afraid Florida can use all the Obama votes it can get.

Then Rochard, I guess you've already set your mind to things.

I told you in my answer that the "plan" Romney has is to unleash the Energy industry. I'm not here to argue his plan for him..but a lot of it is pretty obvious. Build the Keystone Pipeline is one of those "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised and failed to deliver (remember him laughing and saying that it turned out that jobs weren't "as shovel ready as I thought"?)
And just that one project will stimulate the economy as the workers will need food, clothes, buy stuff at the stores, go to the movies, go to bars, etc.

Then he pointed out that Obama has cut in HALF the amount of permits for drilling oil on public land. He said he will DOUBLE those.
Whether we believe them or not...the oil companies have said that they have found massive new oil reserves in Alaska, the Gulf, etc. in the last couple of years.

That's a lot of jobs...and not fast food employee type jobs..HIGH paying jobs.

That's just ONE of his ideas to get our economy going.

It's not brain surgery. There are jobs waiting to happen.

As for Obama giving stimulus money to his friends...did you not watch the debate? Romney told Obama to his FACE that he gave the stimulus money to his campaign contributors. He named the companies off in a list. The most famous of which is Solyndra.
Romney even pointed out that the feds give the oil companies 2.5 billion a year. But Obama gave 90 billion a year to "Green" energy companies. That's like 40 years worth of oil subsidies! And guess what..all the companies are campaign contributors and cronies of Obama.

Nothing new in that kind of shady shit in Washington. But what is new is people's refusal to SEE it and call him out on it.

As for the military....we are spending 10.6 BILLION dollars a day. We are STILL in Germany and Japan 70 years after WW2 (My brother-in-law is stationed in Germany right now and we the taxpayers are paying for him, his wife, and his little girl to all live in Germany and stimulate THEIR economy)

It's time to CUT that shit. I don't believe that it is the role of the United States govt. to have troops all over the world. That's just the way I see it. We can have that "massive training school" right here in the U.S.A.

Palin was a definite deal breaker. Not because she was "dumb"...but because she was fucking crazy! (religious nut)

Of course. And Obama goes and jacks up gasoline prices because he hates...something...I forget what. And he sent the hurricane to (further) wreck the GOP convention.

Obama has all kinds of evil power. :1orglaugh

Most GOP voters are idiots. The rest are greedy pricks.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xw_Wg7zhjt...epublicans.jpg

You must know that when you make generalizations about massive amounts of people...it makes you look really bad.

Seems to me Obama has opened up more land to drilling than ever before.

The pipeline... You need to open up your eyes here and apply common sense. If were building a pipeline directly to the heart of America, this would be a great idea. But why do we need to build a pipeline all the way to the Gulf of Mexico? Take a look at where our oil comes from and then a map. Canada is the biggest supplier of oil to the US, and we are going to build them a way to bypass us so they can ship it elsewhere?

But this is double talk. We've increased drilling in these areas over all. We've cut back on drilling on public land, and increased drilling on privately owned land. Overall we've increased. So Romney is going to do what - increase drilling? Gee, that's what Obama boy did.

What your saying is Romney was to open up all of this public land - owned by us, the people - and turn it over to big business so they can continue to bend us over at the pumps?

So his "one idea" to get our economy going is to turn over public land - land owned by our government - over to the oil companies so they can take the oil and sell it as a massive profit while shipping Canadian oil to Asia.

Holy crap, that's brilliant. Business as usual for the big oil companies, and now the largest oil exporter to the US is going to increase their oil exports to Asia. That will fix everything.

If I recall correctly, Telsa was named on that list. Are they Obama supporters? Romney mentioned that they failed to produce what they promised. Telsa built over one thousand roadsters and is working on their next generation of cars. Tesla employs 900 people. They are building electric cars that are faster than Ferraris. I've seen them on the road down in LA, at The Grove.

Romney named all of what, four companies that "Obama gave stimulus money to"... Fucking half of the country voted for him, so that number seems mighty small. Some of that stimulus money went build a new freeway two miles from my home (thanks for that btw) - Is that because Obama has friends in Sacramento? You can take any government list of businesses and half of them are owned by someone who supports one party or the other.

And this is bullshit childish politics. Again, nearly half of the nation voted for him. It's entirely possible that half of the companies that got the 90 billion dollars might have contriubted to Obama - but half send money to the Republican party.

Unless you have a master list of everyone who received money and how much they contributed to Obama, your pointing imaginary fingers at imaginary crimes.

But... Romney wants to increase the money we spend to on our military.

And either way, I'm okay with us being in Japan and Germany. It sends a message to the rest of the world saying "Fuck with us, and we will occupy your country until the end of time". We should still be in Iraq and we should remain in Afghanistan. We need to send the message saying "fuck with us and we'll piss on your country for the next one hundred years".

With Germany, great, it gives us a military base directly in the heart of Europe. Might come in handy with what's going on in Turkey this week. With Japan, great, it gives us a base in Asia - where China is whipping out it's dick. We need bases in places like Germany, Japan, Korea...

I don't know much about Ryan, but I'm wondering if he might be the better candidate for the Republican party.

Rochard...how did Obama increase drilling on PRIVATE land? He has now power over that.
He DECREASED the amount of new permits for drilling on public land...the only place he can.

That is why when Romney said that to his face...Obama just stared blankly and couldn't defend himself against that. Because it's TRUE.

If there had been no private drilling...there would have been a HUGE decrease in oil production in the U.S. which is exactly what Obama has stated he wants. He wants less oil to "force" us to use "green" energy.

Not because she was "dumb" :1orglaugh

So having a dumb President is OK.

"Dumb" is relatively speaking.
She would be "dumb" compared to a guy like Clinton.

On the other hand she would be a genius compared to a Paul Markham. :1orglaugh

But is this really true or this more political bullshit?

Fact checking from CNN:

So oil production over the past four years on federal land is up, not down. Romney lied.

And at the end of the day, what's the point? Oil production goes up, and oil production goes down.

Romney said permits on federal land have gone down, not production.

But I wasn't running for vice President with an old man and cancer survivor.

As I said, your service game is weak. :1orglaugh

I heard something like over 7,000 permits were issued, but were still just sitting there unused. Doesn't sound like there's a permit problem. :2 cents:

Your right really. Here's exactly what he said:

While it's true that permits have dropped, this is a decade long trend - not because of Obama. The decrease isn't fifty percent, far from it. It was 37% - compared to Bush, who decreased such permits 42%.

This is completely misleading. It's not 50%, it's 37%, it's part of a decades long tend, and the President before Obama (which was Bush) also decreased such permits by a whopping 42%.

This is political bullshit already - taking fact that is pretty much irrelevant, making it seem important without telling the public the entire story, and making it sound like it's the solution to our economic woes - It's not. And in the mean time production is still up, and I'm paying more than ever at the pumps.

(source for my stats)

I think Obama just wants to pay off his supporters that are pushing green energy, read this
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/17/...bama-cronyism/
you think Solyndra was bad?

Tesla has only manufactured 255 cars, they have lost 660 million in the last 14 months and Obama loaned them 465 million. That's 1.8 million per car.

http://www.freep.com/article/2012092...s-expectations

And one thing on drilling our own oil, we lease the land to the oil companies, places like Anwar, place is not good for anything else but the oil and it will put people to work.

So that's your litmus test on whether new technology should be pursued or not? If they are not showing a profit in their infancy scrap it? In your world we would still be eating off of rocks in caves.

Tesla is leading the world in advances of using solar to power cars, the govt should be pumping ten times that amount to them.

I don't understand what this proves. Some of the stimulus money went to bad companies? I'm sure it did.

Your stats are off about Tesla. They've produced one thosand roadsters, and the next model is just coming off the assembly lines. They only 300 or of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

It's 1.8 million per car. It's creating a new business model from scratch.

I don't think that their profit margin has anything to do with what he was saying.

I too, think Tesla is kicking ass. Can't figure out why they can do it, but Detroit can't build a good electric car.

Anyway...I think the point is...they got a huge chunk of money from the gov.t but didn't DO anything. With all that money given to them we (the taxpayers) should be seeing some RESULTS.

They already had the technology and the cars. That money should have built them a newer factory with more efficient production which SHOULD have put more Tesla's out on the road and made them a helluva lot cheaper.

My guess is that money just disappeared down a rabbit hole like so much federal money seems to.

I couldn't agree more with this. This is cutting edge stuff that Toyota, Ford, and Chevy cannot do and here we have this little scrappy upstart that is about to turn the automobile industry upside down.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, oil is they key here. We need oil to move our cars around and oil to move our products around. Our entire economy revolves around oil, and our entire defense plan is based on it. Here we have a small company that might just change that - you would think the US Government would be investing billions after billions just for the chance to be done with oil.

But do you see the irony here? They are bitching about throwing "bad money" at green company that is able to build battery powered cars that don't need oil while also bitching that Obama is not issuing enough permits to drill. Battery powered cars is bad, but sucking every last drop of oil out of federally owned property is good. You know, it's all about big business.

(And while I'm at it, if Tesla can make battery powered cars that can go 300 miles on a charge, why isn't the bigger companies like Chevy and Ford trying to buy them?)

I'm not being a dick here about this, but I'd love to know why that is. How the fuck is it that a small upstart can do it but Toyota can't? Chevy? Ford?

Something is seriously fucked here.

Maybe oil companies have a hand in it? You are right why does auto technology move extremely slow.think about it the combustion engine is really old technology.

I absolutely believe the oil companies bought up the patents on most electric car technology and shoved it in a box somewhere covered in cobwebs.

We had electric cars in the late 1800's...hell New York had an entire FLEET of electric cabs in the 1890's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City

But now...in 2012 we just can't figure it out? Give me a break!

Sorry, I meant to say since they got all that money, what business model are you talking about? making cars that only 2% of the population can afford with tax payer money, then giving tax breaks to buy them? electric cars have been around for a long time. Longer than gas powered by a long shot.

I didn't know that about the cabs

It's pretty outrageous isn't it? The last thing that oil companies want to see is electric cars.

My father in law swears the oil companies killed off the electric car in the 1970s. I always thought he was a nut.

Now I'm wondering if he was right all along.

Now your just making no sense.

The US government has invested into a company that is making electric cars in a way no one has ever even attempted before. This can change the way we do everything, make everything cheaper - Produce won't be going up because the price of gas went up because some leader in the Middle East woke up with a headache... It will all be powered by solar electricity. Fucking brilliant. We won't have to pay for gas, the price of everything will go down, and all of the people like my brother who works in the oil industry can move into the new and exciting market of solar energy.

And the best part is we can change the our government works - no need to protect our oil interests in the middle east, so they can just to fuck each other now.

Win win.

Nah, where's the fun in that? Let's keep drilling for oil and not invest any money into the battery powered cars. So not worth it.

My dad said the same thing in the 1970's to me when I was a teen. There was no internet then...so I had to go to the library and read up on it. And he was right.

How about lets invest in an electric car that sells for $20k that regular people can afford, instead of a car that 2% of the population can afford.
That idea worked pretty good for Henry Ford.

As for the price of oil, read this...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Did you know about the 3.5 billion barrels of oil they found in North Dakota?

We need to work on that so we can say FUCK our middle east interests, develop an electric car that everyone can afford, because at 50k and up, it's not going to make a difference if the unemployment rate is still this high.

You're debating if we should or not, I'm just saying they are going about it the wrong way, not if they should do it.

You guys should know just how long electric cars have been around



they're faster now

and at 1.8 million a piece when this KID built this for $2400?

A lot of different electric vehicles being made, the price will come down as electric motors and battery solutions get more efficient and cheaper.
http://www.plugincars.com/cars

You're fucking with us aren't you.

200 unemployed:winkwink: