If Gary Johnson would have been included in this Poll I honestly believe it would be close to a 3-way tie. And if more people at SBR knew who he was and what he stood for I think he could win(an SBR Poll anyhow).
-
Comment -
[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]Comment -
Does anyone clearly remember media coverage during the 2000 election? I wasn't old enough to vote so I wasn't paying terribly much attention, but it seems to me there was considerably more mainstream media coverage of Ralph Nader then than there is of Gary Johnson this year. I am absolutely certain Nader was listed on screen with Bush and Gore on election night when they were showing the national and state results. Nader got 2.74% of the vote; I haven't seen a single poll that had Gary Johnson lower than that.Comment -
Yes, it was a 500M oops. From wiki:
Government support and politicsSolyndra also received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.[19]
The majority of Solyndra funding was provided under Title XVII section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (as amended by the Title 1705 has provided $36 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects.[20] As of May 16, 2012, "The 1705 loan guarantee program has provided loan guarantees to projects worth $16.1 billion," about 2% of total federal loan guarantees.[21]
In February 2012, five months after Solyndra declared bankruptcy, President Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod responded[22] to questions about the Department of Energy loan to Solyndra. He said that the Obama administration "won't back off" over its clean energy policy.[23] "It’s good for the planet, it’s good for the economy, it’ll create great jobs…high end manufacturing jobs. This is going to continue being a thrust for us."[24] He added that President Obama's first 2012 campaign ad,[25] defending his clean energy policy, was a response to an ad[26] sponsored by a SuperPAC mentioning Solyndra.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney visited the empty Solyndra factory in mid-2012 as his campaign shifted from the primaries toward the convention and the general election. He criticized the bankruptcy and President Obama's previous support.[27] Soon after Romney's visit to Solyndra, another solar energy company, Konarka, declared bankruptcy. Like Solyndra, Konarka had received federal financial support.[citation needed] But Konarka also had received 2002 financial support from then-Massachusetts Governor Romney's administration.[citation needed] As such, Konarka became something of a counterpoint to Solyndra in the political exchange with the Democratic president. But this seeming hypocrisy could also be undercut by the fact that the Konarka loan in the amount of $1.5 million was repaid, whereas the much larger $535 million loan to Solyndra was, for all intents and purposes, a complete loss to federal taxpayersComment -
First of all, you really need to do your own research on these issues before you speak about them. I know it must be fun to just watch TV and listen to the radio and regurgitate what you hear, but the reason you don't see many intellectuals hosting news shows these days is because the truth requires much more effort to comprehend than a lie.
For instance, if you look at the Congressional Budget Office report for last year's corporate tax filings, you find that the average rate paid by American corporations is in fact 12.1%, the lowest reported by the CBO since 1972 under Nixon. Conservatives love to use the top possible rate of 35% as a scare tactic, knowing full well that they've spent decades writing loopholes into the law for every corporation under the sun to more than carve it in half. So you see, we're already taxing corporations less than Canada is. In fact, industrial machinery companies have so many loopholes now they get paid each year by the federal government instead of having to pay taxes on their profits; IT companies are paying an average of 2.5% of profits, and utilities at only 3.7%. These companies aren't leaving American soil because of corporate tax rates, they're leaving because their greed demands that they seek out cheaper labor than America can offer, and their bottom line means more to them than their purported "devotion" to the health of the American economy.
Speaking of which, I find it highly disingenuous that you would waive the flag during this election, John, after moving the vast majority of your operations off American soil as well. The wages you pay your people aren't helping our economy, and your recent listings for job openings in Costa Rica offering $4.50/hr (much lower than the U.S. federal minimum wage of $7.25) for computer programmers prove my point: this exodus of companies and jobs we're having in the U.S. isn't about taxes, it's about wages.
Moreover, the problem of runaway debt is actually proof that we don't have nearly enough redistribution of wealth in this country. Warren Buffet himself is telling us that, saying that as a billionaire he pays less income tax than his secretaries. As someone whose credentials at making money are unimpeachable, what say you when he explains that the most effective solution to our national debt is an effective tax rate of at least 30% on every dollar earned by American millionaires with no possible loopholes? Compared to the 11% you pay on average with the current loopholes, that must have you wetting your Depends.
Why don't we return your tax rates to 30% like they were under the boom years of Clinton and get the boots of the rich off the necks of the middle-class again? If you are so concerned about the national debt, why aren't you lobbying for much higher taxes on the rich like Warren Buffett is? Wouldn't the already rich be in the best position to pay it off? We had balanced budgets, even surpluses in the 90's, when we were taxing the rich proportionately with the rest of the country. Why is your solution for you to keep as much of your money as possible while the services and infrastructure that made this country great are eroded because the poor and middle-class can't fund them alone? Could it be because you only care about what happens to you and your money?
Your claims that higher taxes suffocate the economy don't hold water either. Hoarding of wealth is what suffocates the economy, like when companies move their operations from Texas to Costa Rica to cut their payrolls nearly in half. Here's a chart of the U.S. tax rates for the rich from the boom times after World War II to the present day.
How anyone can say the rich need tax relief is ridiculous. You've almost never contributed less to the American economy than you do now. The only true statement you've made in this whole thread is your implication that the poor and middle classes will always suffer the most. They suffer because they've been brainwashed into thinking they have a choice in their government by the two major parties, both of which are killing the country. If they had the courage to rise up and vote every Democrat and Republican out of office, and pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign contributions to a paltry sum, we'd finally have a shot at fixing this country.
I only voted Obama in this poll because you gave me no other option, just like the U.S. political machine. Obama isn't the answer anymore than Romney is, but at least Obama stands for a more just set of social values. If anybody reading my posts here is moved to learn more about our other choices for government in this country, I beg you to Google the name Gary Johnson.Originally posted by StraitShooterComment -
I give up with you on this. Usually you make good points even though I might disagree but this is just hopeless.Comment -
The biggest problem in our country is our economy. The past 4 years Obama has spent trillions of dollars that we dont have to stimulate the economy and his attempts have simply failed. Now, think about this. You're the GM of a professional sports team and you're looking for a coach. Do you choose to hire someone who has had ZERO experience playing and has had a horrible 4 year record at his previous job or do you hire someone who has IMMENSE amounts of experience and was very successful in his positions? I think its obvious you'd choose the latter. So how do we as Americans not realize that Romney is the better choice for OUR country. We need to start thinking whats best for my country instead of whats best for myself.
PS- I am a college student and think its absurd the majority of college students side with Obama. The commercials stating that Romney doesnt care about college students because he doesnt want to make college more affordable is ridiculous. That is like saying you're mother doesnt care about you because she wont buy you a toy. We have to be responsible with our money and quit spending it like we have an unlimited amount.Comment -
U obama supporting mental midget bums are wound way too tight.
All of you bums need to go out and get laid and stop blaming the successful people for your failures
Comment -
hey dipstick; go buy a life insurance policy. That will take care of your gift tax issues.Comment -
-
Economic policy is no different than physics. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Context always matters, as tax rates don't exist in a vacuum.First of all, you really need to do your own research on these issues before you speak about them. I know it must be fun to just watch TV and listen to the radio and regurgitate what you hear, but the reason you don't see many intellectuals hosting news shows these days is because the truth requires much more effort to comprehend than a lie.
For instance, if you look at the Congressional Budget Office report for last year's corporate tax filings, you find that the average rate paid by American corporations is in fact 12.1%, the lowest reported by the CBO since 1972 under Nixon. Conservatives love to use the top possible rate of 35% as a scare tactic, knowing full well that they've spent decades writing loopholes into the law for every corporation under the sun to more than carve it in half. So you see, we're already taxing corporations less than Canada is. In fact, industrial machinery companies have so many loopholes now they get paid each year by the federal government instead of having to pay taxes on their profits; IT companies are paying an average of 2.5% of profits, and utilities at only 3.7%. These companies aren't leaving American soil because of corporate tax rates, they're leaving because their greed demands that they seek out cheaper labor than America can offer, and their bottom line means more to them than their purported "devotion" to the health of the American economy.
Speaking of which, I find it highly disingenuous that you would waive the flag during this election, John, after moving the vast majority of your operations off American soil as well. The wages you pay your people aren't helping our economy, and your recent listings for job openings in Costa Rica offering $4.50/hr (much lower than the U.S. federal minimum wage of $7.25) for computer programmers prove my point: this exodus of companies and jobs we're having in the U.S. isn't about taxes, it's about wages.
Moreover, the problem of runaway debt is actually proof that we don't have nearly enough redistribution of wealth in this country. Warren Buffet himself is telling us that, saying that as a billionaire he pays less income tax than his secretaries. As someone whose credentials at making money are unimpeachable, what say you when he explains that the most effective solution to our national debt is an effective tax rate of at least 30% on every dollar earned by American millionaires with no possible loopholes? Compared to the 11% you pay on average with the current loopholes, that must have you wetting your Depends.
Why don't we return your tax rates to 30% like they were under the boom years of Clinton and get the boots of the rich off the necks of the middle-class again? If you are so concerned about the national debt, why aren't you lobbying for much higher taxes on the rich like Warren Buffett is? Wouldn't the already rich be in the best position to pay it off? We had balanced budgets, even surpluses in the 90's, when we were taxing the rich proportionately with the rest of the country. Why is your solution for you to keep as much of your money as possible while the services and infrastructure that made this country great are eroded because the poor and middle-class can't fund them alone? Could it be because you only care about what happens to you and your money?
Your claims that higher taxes suffocate the economy don't hold water either. Hoarding of wealth is what suffocates the economy, like when companies move their operations from Texas to Costa Rica to cut their payrolls nearly in half. Here's a chart of the U.S. tax rates for the rich from the boom times after World War II to the present day.
How anyone can say the rich need tax relief is ridiculous. You've almost never contributed less to the American economy than you do now. The only true statement you've made in this whole thread is your implication that the poor and middle classes will always suffer the most. They suffer because they've been brainwashed into thinking they have a choice in their government by the two major parties, both of which are killing the country. If they had the courage to rise up and vote every Democrat and Republican out of office, and pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign contributions to a paltry sum, we'd finally have a shot at fixing this country.
I only voted Obama in this poll because you gave me no other option, just like the U.S. political machine. Obama isn't the answer anymore than Romney is, but at least Obama stands for a more just set of social values. If anybody reading my posts here is moved to learn more about our other choices for government in this country, I beg you to Google the name Gary Johnson.
You speak of the infrastructure in this country eroding because we aren't taxing the rich high enough. The only reason we were able to ever afford building that infrastructure in the first place had nothing to do with taxes but the global economic conditions following WWII. (That, and our ability to keep printing more money.) However, the world has caught up over the last 60 years and printing money has become more and more problematic. Europe has rebuilt itself from the destruction we took advantage of, as did Japan. China has turned itself into an economic superpower and the Asian Tigers have reduced America's ability to control global finance. Third world countries in Africa/Latin America have built up their own economies thanks to stretches of (relative) stability sustained within their governments. Add all this up, and the US economy can no longer bully foreign economies with the power of the dollar into lopsided returns of raw materials and finished imports. Adding to this problem is a senseless escalation of the tariff war which often ensnares would be expanding US businesses.
The bottom line is that we can't afford to build up our infrastructure not because our tax rates are too low, but because our money no longer carries with it the magnitude it once did. Our economy is in the shitter. When you raise taxes in a weak economy it only compels greater hoarding and the shifting of resources offshore. (This is well documented. I suggest you look into Stanford economist Thomas Sowell's research on the matter) We need to bring that money back out of tax shelters and put it into the economy. That is how you grow the tax base, increase the power of the dollar, and put us back on the track to raiding the natural resources of foreign countries like we used to. And in order to do that, you have to elect
Now, if that sort of exploitative American Imperialism is something you're not interested in and you'd like to see us avoid,
well, in that case,
you'd want to see us start pushing towards a massive large scale development/plundering of our own domestic reserves of minerals, oil, and lumber. But then, in order to do that, you'd have to elect Mitt Romney.
or......
just don't worry about rejecting the reality of the laws of nature, hold firm in your faith of good intentions, and keep those dreams of hope and change alive by doubling down on Obama.
You know, whatever, your call.Last edited by SBRAdmin3; 06-09-14, 02:03 PM.No more of that talk, or I'll put the leeches on you.Comment -
Could you please list all this spending he has done? Thanks. Does this include the trillion dollar deficit he was handed the day he walked into office? Those Bush tax cuts, those two wars, that horrible prescription drug bill. All on a CC. You are a college student with no common sense that is as naive as it gets. Maybe u should listen to the other students that surround you instead of Fox News or nitwits on this site.Comment -
This is wishful thinking!Comment -
No common sense? I'd said the person with no common sense would be Obama. I've heard first hand from multiple people from countries that have universal health care and they say it is the worst thing ever created. Why doesn't Obama look at that? Also, the problem with health care now is the cost. Everything is inflated. But what will health care do? It adds more costs to insurance companies. Even someone with "no common sense" can predict that any added cost will be handed down to the customers, resulting in higher prices. I can't wait for that.Comment -
I was a pretty big Nader supporter in 2000 and remember it well. Unfortunately, 3rd party candidates were shut out back then even moreso than they are now. Johnson at least gets exposure through the internet, but the internet had far less penetration back in 2000. Also, it may be difficult for someone your age to grasp this, but the Nader blackout was more egregious than the Johnson blackout because while Johnson was not very well known before this election, Nader pre '00 was essentially a celebrity. He had near-total name recognition and enormous positive favorability ratings across the political spectrum (including Republicans). Nader was drawing live crowds at his rallies that dwarfed what Bush and Gore were drawing, and was consistently polling at the higher end of 5-10% (it was only at the very end that his numbers nosedived). Yet, the near entirety of the small amount of mainstream coverage he would get were interviews grilling him about being a "spoiler." The only halfway mainstream organization that treated him like a real candidate was, in a Machiavellian twist, Fox News. When Fox invited Nader to appear on their post-debate coverage of the first Bush/Gore debate, which was located at the site of the debate, Nader was stopped by police and told he would be thrown in jail if he did the interview. The whole rules of the debates themselves were changed in '00 specifically to exclude Nader.
Without question Gary Johnson isn't getting a fair shake from the media this election, but it really isn't even comparable to the treatment Nader got 12 years ago.Last edited by SBRAdmin3; 06-07-14, 10:54 AM.Comment -
Obama is pulling a wag the dog to ensure his victory. There will be somekind of military action days before the election, similar to Bush false terrorist alert warnings. Unlike Bush, Obama is going to pull another successful Navy Seal operation with them taking out them Benghazi Perpetrators.Comment -
ANYBODY who votes for OBAMA really has no clue on what is going on in this world.Comment -
-
This is exactly the kind of idiotic stupidity that exist in our country today. People like you should take your supposedly big income, and go buy a fuk'in brain! Whoa look out, douche bag here worked a "1000" more hours than a teacher! "And now he worried the big bad black man gonna take his money!" If you were really paying attention and truly knew how our political system works, you wouldn't be voting for the real fuk'in thief who will steal you money and give it to other rich fuk's who don't need it. Do you make over 250K a year smart guy? I seriously doubt it! And if you do, why the fuk are you playing for points on a web site? Go actually learn what President Obama has accomplished and will continue to do to help idiots like you, before you open your big mouth and remove all doubt as to how stupid you are! Must make you feel real cool to think you're in and support the super rich on a web site full of (as sbr john says it), broke dick fuks! Brainwashed and ignorant is no way to go through life man. Read a book sometime, you might actually developed a personality not controlled by greed.
Here I'll get you started:
Killed bid laden - check
Affordable health care for everybody - check
Brought our troops home - check
Saved General Motors and thousands of jobs - check
Stopped wall street and banks from ass fuk'ing everybody - check
I could go on, but you've already wasted your vote! Loser!Last edited by mikejamm; 10-22-12, 02:36 AM.Comment -
Yeah, like health care premiums are so affordable now? What dunce college are you attending, because you need to go back and repeat math. It's called the "Affordable Health Care Act", get off your fuk'in xbox and get on line and read what is does to help you! Yes you dumb college dork! One main point is being able to stay on your parents insurance until you're 24! That covers you until you graduate, although in your case, you might be one of those smart guys who's still in college at 30. Also. it's a pool where "everybody" contributes, thereby bringing the cost down for everybody, get it? People like me, who eat right, exercise and stay healthy wont need as much health care, so my low premiums go to help idiots like you who might step in front of a bus.
And once the full system is in place, it will pay for preventive health care, helping you get well before you have to bolt to the emergency room and run up thousands of dollars in uncovered expenses that would be passed along to paying people if no national health care plan was in place. Get it? There's strength in numbers and the more people participating the better off we'll all be. And all this bullshit about employers not being able to afford it for their employees is just another republican smoke job tactic to scare small business owners! Most if not all employers want to offer health care to their employees, it's one of the main benefits of working for a good company.
Time and time again, President Obama has said he will provide incentives, tax breaks, and major federal funding to make this affordable to everybody. I'll never be able to understand why idiots listen to rich ass republicans, who have excellent health care by the way, and could give a rat's ass if you live or die, would not want something that will benefit them and their children from birth until the time you leave this world.
So you've "heard first hand from multiple people from countries that have universal health care and they say it is the worst thing ever created" huh? Don't you mean "people from multiple countries"? I honestly think you're full of shit and probably couldn't name one country with universal health care, let alone multiples. Yeah other countries may have their problems just like us, but at least they had the balls to care about their people and tackle this issue. And for the record, the United States has the most modern technology and the best doctors in the world. That's why medical students from around the world come here to learn. This is not a money issue, unless you're a heartless bastard rich republican who's so scared a single mother with three kids is gonna be able to take them to the doctor when they are sick, it's an issue of compassion and caring enough to allow all Americans access to affordable healthcare.Comment -
Talk about regurgitating what you hear off the news ^. Instead of focusing on continuing or developing policy to help America grow the next four years, Obama's whole focus of his campaign is portraying Romney as the devil who will only help out his billionaire (buzz word) friends. He is trying to make the election into a social class warfare. He wont get anything done in a bi-partisan fashion.Comment -
I have visited both Ireland and Canada and had people from both countries tell me it didn't work. And having compassion to allow all Americans access to health care?! So why don't you donate your time and money to the poor and homeless? I just find it unamerican for the government to tell its citizens to buy something or else we will tax you. And again you state that health care is already too expensive. So now I can just pay the fine each year until I find out I have cancer then decide to get covered? You honestly do not think that this added cost will not get passed on to us? Oh and what about the almost 100 million pharmaceutical companies will be forced to pay in the next ten years? You don't think that will drive drug costs up? You can't just give everything to people and expect them to continue to work for it. That's what's wrong now. Why would people want to go work at McDonald's and make 250 a week when they could get unemployment for 99 weeks, that's right 99 weeks, and make slightly less than that.Comment -
No option for 'none of these', unfortunately. Yay Nevada. It's on our ballot!Comment -
-
Sad there are 93 sickos in this forum that think that NON US CITIZEN who is a global banker puppet is doing a good job.Comment -
You don't always post in here,/\ /\ but when you do, it's stupid shit.Comment -
Health care in Canada rocks. It is hardly ever in the news here because there's very little controversy over it. I've had nothing but the best and immediate care over my entire life here. Your anecdotal evidence is bullshit.
You should start by trying to understand the concept before critiquing it for things it doesn't do.
Comment -
u crack me up. I haven't meet anyone who rather have our health care system than theirs. Go ask a few Canadians and try to leave the bullshit right wing talking points out of it.No common sense? I'd said the person with no common sense would be Obama. I've heard first hand from multiple people from countries that have universal health care and they say it is the worst thing ever created.
Why doesn't Obama look at that? Also, the problem with health care now is the cost. Everything is inflated. But what will health care do? It adds more costs to insurance companies. Even someone with "no common sense" can predict that any added cost will be handed down to the customers, resulting in higher prices. I can't wait for that.Comment
