Posted by HappyCat123

Not trusting him for laying off someone? Paycuts? He was a buisnessman. He had to do what it took to make a profit. Things like this aren't 'dirt on his slate'. It's buisness.

You can't vote for someone just because you had second thoughts? Makes me wonder why you like Obama...

So you're saying it's okay to lay off and reduce the amount of income of our nation's workers? "It's just business". The thing about Romney is he's backed by company owners and the upper class. If he's elected, they're obviously going to want something in return. The upper classes' needs differ a whole lot from the middle and lower classes' needs. What's good for them, isn't necessarily good for us. And what I want, is what's best for the people.  

Posted by Blueh

So you're saying it's okay to lay off and reduce the amount of income of our nation's workers? "It's just business". The thing about Romney is he's backed by company owners and the upper class. If he's elected, they're obviously going to want something in return. The upper classes' needs differ a whole lot from the middle and lower classes' needs. What's good for them, isn't necessarily good for us. And what I want, is what's best for the people.

And Obama isn't backed by his share of the upper class and company owners? Also why is that necessarily a bad thing?  

Posted by Blueh

So you're saying it's okay to lay off and reduce the amount of income of our nation's workers? "It's just business". The thing about Romney is he's backed by company owners and the upper class. If he's elected, they're obviously going to want something in return. The upper classes' needs differ a whole lot from the middle and lower classes' needs. What's good for them, isn't necessarily good for us. And what I want, is what's best for the people.

It's not a good thing to have to layoff workers and reduce their income. It is part of buisness. It happens. Whether you like it or not. He's backed by the upper class and company owners? They EMPLOY AMERICA. When they get money, they can employ more workers. Romeny is in support of the tax cuts for the middle and the upper class. Tax cuts for the middle class make it so we can spend more and save less, making the economy better. Tax cuts for the higher up help employ more people. It's a win win.

About the 'they are going to want something in return' comment, Romney isn't stupid. He isn't going to do something that the upper class want that will hurt the economy but bennifit the wealthier people.  

Posted by HappyCat123

It's not a good thing to have to layoff workers and reduce their income. It is part of buisness. It happens. Whether you like it or not. He's backed by the upper class and company owners? They EMPLOY AMERICA. When they get money, they can employ more workers. Romeny is in support of the tax cuts for the middle and the upper class. Tax cuts for the middle class make it so we can spend more and save less, making the economy better. Tax cuts for the higher up help employ more people. It's a win win.

About the 'they are going to want something in return' comment, Romney isn't stupid. He isn't going to do something that the upper class want that will hurt the economy but bennifit the wealthier people.

Not exactly. If the upper class is getting the biggest tax cuts, the other two are just getting what's left over. I understand it's okay and a very postive and beneficial thing to have company owners to support candidates. But if Romney has been laying all these people off, it's not employing America. It's losing jobs, valuable resources and workers. You are right about Romney benefiting the wealthier people, the problem is it's not benefitting the middle and lower classes. The wealthy don't need bigger tax cuts. They've already got money. We the middle class need more tax cuts. Favoring the rich over the majority throughout history has only lead to chaos. Our voice should be used for our needs, not theirs.  

Posted by Blueh

Not exactly. If the upper class is getting the biggest tax cuts, the other two are just getting what's left over. I understand it's okay and a very postive and beneficial thing to have company owners to support candidates. But if Romney has been laying all these people off, it's not employing America. It's losing jobs, valuable resources and workers. You are right about Romney benefiting the wealthier people, the problem is it's not benefitting the middle and lower classes. The wealthy don't need bigger tax cuts. They've already got money. We the middle class need more tax cuts. Favoring the rich over the majority throughout history has only lead to chaos. Our voice should be used for our needs, not theirs.

Looks like you've been buying into all those liberal attack ads trying to make it look like Romney is going to do nothing for the middle class and only gives a damn about the rich. Romney has said that he isn't going to increase taxes on the middle class, they'd have the same tax rates as the other classes.  

Posted by NCJohn

Romney has said that he isn't going to increase taxes on the middle class, they'd have the same tax rates as other classes.

Romney paid a 14% income tax rate in 2011. That's not exactly the same as the middle class...  

Posted by Xavier

Romney paid a 14% income tax rate in 2011. That's not exactly the same as the middle class...

I'm not saying Romney is paying the same, I'm saying that he doesn't plan on giving the rich any greater cuts then the middle class. Also referring back to one of your previous statements on foreign policy, what happened in Benghazi on September 11th? Seems like a pretty big screw up with Obama's foreign policy plan.  

reading this thread has given me greater insight into every individuals demographic and intelligence than all my other activity on this forum combined.  

Posted by HappyCat123

You act like we don't need a ****ing navy just because we have some aircraft. Also, are you sure that a aircraft can do more to a warship that a warship to another? No. A warship designed for engaging enemy boats would EASILY deal more damage to other warships. Assuming that the aircraft makes it to the boat, for a lot of warships have AA guns. Also, it depends what kind of warship we are talking about. Some, which are designed for shooting down aircraft (cruisers are one) and other purposes could easily take down a plane. Aircraft carrier even carry airplanes. They are an essential warship for transporting aircraft, refueling them, an keeping them close to the fight.

So please stfu.

No we need ships. We dont need to build them we need to upgrade older ones. Beside america is in huge debt and this will just make the debt even larger. Along with this metal prices wil skyrocket and most everything is made from metal. Also he wants more m1 abrams. This too will contribute big time to skyrocketing prices. The only good thing this will do is put people to work. But building a warship takes a crap ton of guys and americas navy labor wont have the man power needed. Now what will take a huge spike is oil prices. Why simplie because warships take a crap ton of oil to run.

No aircraft now a days can deal MASSIVE damage to ships with rocket pods, heat seaking missiles. Now they dont deal as much damage as a gun from a ship directly. But planes are much more consistant and accurate than main guns leading to higher damages in the end.  

Posted by Ghettoicedtea

No we need ships. We dont need to build them we need to upgrade older ones. Beside america is in huge debt and this will just make the debt even larger. Along with this metal prices wil skyrocket and most everything is made from metal. Also he wants more m1 abrams. This too will contribute big time to skyrocketing prices. The only good thing this will do is put people to work. But building a warship takes a crap ton of guys and americas navy labor wont have the man power needed. Now what will take a huge spike is oil prices. Why simplie because warships take a crap ton of oil to run.

No aircraft now a days can deal MASSIVE damage to ships with rocket pods, heat seaking missiles. Now they dont deal as much damage as a gun from a ship directly. But planes are much more consistant and accurate than main guns leading to higher damages in the end.

ಠ_ಠ
I am beginning to worry for the youth of this nation. We really need more funding into education so children don't have this type of Call of Duty based logic.  

That too romney is going to cut school funding. I dont see the call of duty logic i am just using my own logic.  

Posted by Ghettoicedtea

That too romney is going to cut school funding. I dont see the call of duty logic i am just using my own logic.

I don't understand this argument. We spend much more money on school than our competitors already and yet we are falling behind. Its the attitude of the students, our parents, and our culture that need to be changed. And that starts with better teachers. We don't need more money, it just needs to be spent differently.

And frankly, the government shouldn't decide how our school systems are funded. That should be entirely up to the states. It shouldn't even be a topic with the presidency.  

Posted by Ghettoicedtea

That too romney is going to cut school funding. I dont see the call of duty logic i am just using my own logic.

Oh really? When did Romeny specifically say he would cut education funding? Or is this just another assumption pulled out of the ass that was formulated from attack ads?

Also your logic is a little off there.

Posted by Ghettoicedtea

No we need ships. We dont need to build them we need to upgrade older ones. Beside america is in huge debt and this will just make the debt even larger.

Well considering China's navy is expanding and improving at an alarming rate, new and upgraded ships would seem like a pretty wise idea if we were to find our selves at war with china in the near future. These costs wouldn't put the economy in no more of a hole then the auto industry bailouts did and atleast this cost would be reasonably justified seeing that some auto companies avoided bankruptcy with out even needing government assistance (Ford).

Posted by Ghettoicedtea

Along with this metal prices wil skyrocket and most everything is made from metal. Also he wants more m1 abrams. This too will contribute big time to skyrocketing prices. The only good thing this will do is put people to work. But building a warship takes a crap ton of guys and americas navy labor wont have the man power needed. Now what will take a huge spike is oil prices. Why simplie because warships take a crap ton of oil to run.

Basically what this could mean is that since cars use a crap ton of oil and metal then we should just get rid of them too. Of course creating and managing ships and other military expenses would use up natural resources but they would barely affect the prices of these resources; I mean it's not like we are producing millions of ships. Also to say that the navy doesnt have the man power to build ships is insane. For one, typically now a days most government equipment and vehicles are produced by private military contractors or other companies in the respective industries. The equipment is just inspected and regulated by the military; they don't physically build the equipment and weaponry themselves.  

Posted by Ghettoicedtea

most everything is made from plastic.

fixed  

This thread isn't going anywhere, (because that's how politics work) so I'm going to whip out the silliness. (Don't take this video seriously.)