The debates should be very important to all of us. Of course unless we know how to check the facts our inititial impressions are style. Where many of us stop is with style but it is important to continue checking the facts. In both debates so far neither party won if the primary objective is factual statistics. Since many people vote strictly down party lines then there will be no real reason for candidates to give us the truth in statistical data and will spin it and BS it to sound good to their party supporters. This ain't goin to change until we start voting outside of the box of partisan politics. When politicians discover that we are not idiots and morons and demand to know how their policies are going to affect each of us as an individual and all of us as a whole then these debates will be as important as they should be. When we take partisanship out of the equasion the liars become losers. Is this a fantasy of mine or is their hope? Right now the republicans are not giving us the whole truth as we do not know exactly how they will achieve a balanced budget by lowering revenue and removing loopholes. They are skirting the edge of deception however I do not think they have yet crossed that line (yet). For the last 4 years the democrats have accomplished very little and some of their policies are not working (healthcare, stimulus, cooperation with republicans). This is an independent voters reality which is "I can't believe this is what we are stuck with".
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
The Presidential debates.
- Thread starter Hop
- Start date
Actually, corporations do not hold cash unless they think they can use it more profitably than the "cost of capital," that is, the aggregate return on investment that debtholders and stockholders require to remain invested. If they don't, investors will insist that the cash be distributed (at which time it is taxed a second time). And the board will want to do so anyway, because a company that distributes cash that is not needed in the near future is more valuable than a company that holds cash. And if that weren't reason enough, there is something in the law called the Accumulated Earnings Tax, which says the IRS can just confiscate any cash a corporation holds if the corporation can't satisfactorily explain how they plan to spend it within a reasonable time.
Corporations have all sorts of methods to obscure cash on the books or distribute to either their stockholders (who in return give them more cash) or themselves in all sorts of perks (benfits). They can also form other corporations outside the US to manage this huge hoarding of cash. The relationship between corporations and stockholders is part of what causes the problem. The other part is GREED like nothing we have ever seen before and we have politicians that can not wait to help them with corporate wellfare.
The spinning of statistical data and the inaccuracy of both presidential candidates facts has been quite interesting in these debates. It supports the campaign strategies to confuse voters enough so that they will not try to find out whether or not their rhetoric has any truth behind it. The voters are generally left with voting down party lines rather than trying to decifer how the policies will affect them personally. IMO This is all we know after the debates:
1. Foreign policy. No difference between the two candidates except military spending.
2. Economic policy. Romney has not yet developed a specific policy to lower the deficit and it very likely will either increase the deficit or shrink the middle class even further. Obama's policies have increased the deficit. Romney's idea is to give big business additional corporate wellfare in an effort to create jobs. Obama's policy is to create jobs through federal programs.
3. Social policy. Romney wants federal government to intervene into the lives of all of us but especially women. Obama wants people to make their own choices. Romney wants to privatize healthcare, medicare and social security giving people a choice in how to approach retirement (problem is that big business operates under one simple strategy and that is to make profit at our expense). Obama wants to make small changes to these programs but not completely reform them (healthcare being the exception). Romney wants to include his mormon beliefs (not necessarily all Christian) into his policy making decisions. Obama believes in the separation of church and state. Romney wants to send back all immigrant workers that have either allowed their work visa's to expire or did not have the resources available to get a work visa at all. Obama seems to tolerate these people as he seems to understand that they are not taking away American jobs (Americans are resistant in seeking manual labor type jobs) plus they are adding to the Gross National Product (of course I understand that we have to find a way for them to pay for services that we are providing them).
I understand that there will be a strong disagreement with my simple minded look into our two choices for President and if you are extremely conservative you may even attack my "opinions" of these two candidates. This is the thing in that we know what the next four years will be under Obama but we have we really do not have any idea what the next four years will be under Romney. The bottom line is that one of these two people will be our President for the next four years and regardless of whoever it is we all need to be an American first and a Republican or Democrat second instead of the other way around and if we disagree with their policies let them know it by emailing, writing letters or even making a phone call.
1. Foreign policy. No difference between the two candidates except military spending.
2. Economic policy. Romney has not yet developed a specific policy to lower the deficit and it very likely will either increase the deficit or shrink the middle class even further. Obama's policies have increased the deficit. Romney's idea is to give big business additional corporate wellfare in an effort to create jobs. Obama's policy is to create jobs through federal programs.
3. Social policy. Romney wants federal government to intervene into the lives of all of us but especially women. Obama wants people to make their own choices. Romney wants to privatize healthcare, medicare and social security giving people a choice in how to approach retirement (problem is that big business operates under one simple strategy and that is to make profit at our expense). Obama wants to make small changes to these programs but not completely reform them (healthcare being the exception). Romney wants to include his mormon beliefs (not necessarily all Christian) into his policy making decisions. Obama believes in the separation of church and state. Romney wants to send back all immigrant workers that have either allowed their work visa's to expire or did not have the resources available to get a work visa at all. Obama seems to tolerate these people as he seems to understand that they are not taking away American jobs (Americans are resistant in seeking manual labor type jobs) plus they are adding to the Gross National Product (of course I understand that we have to find a way for them to pay for services that we are providing them).
I understand that there will be a strong disagreement with my simple minded look into our two choices for President and if you are extremely conservative you may even attack my "opinions" of these two candidates. This is the thing in that we know what the next four years will be under Obama but we have we really do not have any idea what the next four years will be under Romney. The bottom line is that one of these two people will be our President for the next four years and regardless of whoever it is we all need to be an American first and a Republican or Democrat second instead of the other way around and if we disagree with their policies let them know it by emailing, writing letters or even making a phone call.
Mputnal3, I have no doubt you believe what you wrote, but you may be surprised that I respectfully disagree with literally every sentence above except the two in bold. I watched all four debates, and, in my opinion, you have oversimplified, mischaracterized or just got wrong almost everything you say "we know." You are entitled to your opinion. I would like to believe you are a sincere person, but it amazes me that sincere persons can have such vastly different views of what we just saw.
LuciferSam
Banned
Seeing as there were only three debates, and you say you watched four of them, it comes as no surprise that you would view things from a different perspective.
Thanks Tsutcli. I was adding all four debates but I may have said Presidential Debates. Anyway we do not have to be condescending toward each other's opinions. I "simply" do not know the specifics of Romney's solutions to reducing the deficit and it will be very difficult for him to lower the deficit by increasing military spending and corporate wellfare without hurting the middle class. We sort of all agree that we know what we will get with Obama which is not anything to jump and shout about however I believe that my small business as well as my family will be okay. I am very worried about Romney's flip flops. It could be that he is going to do whatever "they" tell him to do. They being the mormon church, corporate CEO's, the very rich, war mongers and his superpac donors which is very troubling to me. You and I both are entitled to an opionion. I respect those who disagree with me (heck I even hope I am wrong). All I ask in return is a respectful discussion about the problems that we ALL face together and then to SUPPORT whoever becomes our next President. This extreme polarization of the American people needs to STOP...