It's Election Day. So it stands, who do you vote for?

Basically I am pretty much certain that Obama is going to win. He is more charismatic and knows how to charm an audience better than Romney.

I'm not going to vote. I just don't care enough.

Yes, I keep getting told that it is stupid not to vote.

Romney. I don't like the idea of four more years of class warfare and ineptitude when it comes to the economy.

Romney. I don't like the idea of four more years of class warfare and ineptitude when it comes to the economy.

airshocker

I'll vote for whom ever:

• Doesn't want to go to war with Iran.
• will cut taxes for the middle class and raise taxes on the 1%
• Close tax loop holes for offshore investments.
• Uphold Internet Freedom
• Promotes a liberal justice to the Supreme Court (that wouldn't have vote for citizen United)
• End oil and farm subsidaries

Then you shouldn't be voting at all.DroidPhysX

Why is that? The Republicans aren't playing class warfare, and anybody would be better than Obama when it comes to the economy.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Then you shouldn't be voting at all.airshocker

Why is that? The Republicans aren't playing class warfare, and anybody would be better than Obama when it comes to the economy.

Class warfare is a fake term. You aren't saying anything.

Class warfare is a fake term. You aren't saying anything.

Blue-Sky

No it's not, but let's hear your liberal talking point in defense of President Obama anyway.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Then you shouldn't be voting at all.airshocker

Why is that? The Republicans aren't playing class warfare, and anybody would be better than Obama when it comes to the economy.

and anybody would be better than Obama when it comes to the economy.airshocker

Hyperbole much?

Their legislation says otherwise. A communist would be better for the economy, yes? I mean, he is not named Obama.DroidPhysX

No it doesn't. Don't be stupid, it's unbecoming.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]and anybody would be better than Obama when it comes to the economy.chessmaster1989

Hyperbole much?

Maybe a smidge.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Their legislation says otherwise. A communist would be better for the economy, yes? I mean, he is not named Obama.airshocker

No it doesn't. Don't be stupid, it's unbecoming.

See: Ryan Budget

See: Cuts of social safety nets for poor

See: Overprotective of corporate welfare

See: Overprotective of bush tax cuts

No seriously. A communist would be better since he is not named Obama. You would vote for him, right?

See: Ryan Budget

See: Cuts of social safety nets for poor

See: Overprotective of corporate welfare

See: Overprotective of bush tax cuts

DroidPhysX

1) I see nothing wrong with the Ryan Budget. 2) Cuts need to happen to social programs. 3) I didn't see the democrats do anything about that when they had control. 4) For the rich, sure.

None of that is really economic policy.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

See: Ryan Budget

See: Cuts of social safety nets for poor

See: Overprotective of corporate welfare

See: Overprotective of bush tax cuts

airshocker

1) I see nothing wrong with the Ryan Budget. 2) Cuts need to happen to social programs. 3) I didn't see the democrats do anything about that when they had control. 4) For the rich, sure.

None of that is really economic policy.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ALL of that is economic policy.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ALL of that is economic policy.

chessmaster1989

Budgets and taxes are more fiscal policy to me. What I mean by economic policy would be like corporate taxes, regulations, etc.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

See: Ryan Budget

See: Cuts of social safety nets for poor

See: Overprotective of corporate welfare

See: Overprotective of bush tax cuts

airshocker

1) I see nothing wrong with the Ryan Budget. 2) Cuts need to happen to social programs. 3) I didn't see the democrats do anything about that when they had control. 4) For the rich, sure.

None of that is really economic policy.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

See: Ryan Budget

See: Cuts of social safety nets for poor

See: Overprotective of corporate welfare

See: Overprotective of bush tax cuts

airshocker

1) I see nothing wrong with the Ryan Budget. 2) Cuts need to happen to social programs. 3) I didn't see the democrats do anything about that when they had control. 4) For the rich, sure.

None of that is really economic policy.

It's all economic policy

As for Democrats, their policies are either filibustered or blocked by the GOP owned house.

Even recently, Senate Republicans block bill that would penalize outsourcing, reward insourcing.

-This is why I don't understand how any republican can say Obama's policies fail. They can't fail if they haven't been implemented. . .

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ALL of that is economic policy.

airshocker

Budgets and taxes are more fiscal policy to me. What I mean by economic policy would be like corporate taxes, regulations, etc.

It's all economic policy

As for Democrats, their policies are either filibustered or blocked by the GOP owned house.

Even recently, Senate Republicans block bill that would penalize outsourcing, reward insourcing.

-This is why I don't understand how any republican can say Obama's policies fail. They can't fail if they haven't been implemented. . .

Blue-Sky

I see you gave up in responding to my other post.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ALL of that is economic policy.

airshocker

Budgets and taxes are more fiscal policy to me. What I mean by economic policy would be like corporate taxes, regulations, etc.

Why do you make a distinction between taxes and corporate taxes, both are clear tools of economic policy.

I think you mean monetary policy right?themajormayor

No. To me, but I'm unsure of what the official definitions are, fiscal policy usually refers to budgets, taxes, cutting spending/increasing spending, whereas economic policy refers to corporate taxes, regulation, legislation that deals with the economy, stuff like that. Monetary policy has to do with banking.

Why do you make a distinction between taxes and corporate taxes, both are clear tools of economic policy.

chessmaster1989

Whatever, you knew what I meant when I explained it.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Why do you make a distinction between taxes and corporate taxes, both are clear tools of economic policy.

airshocker

Whatever, you knew what I meant when I explained it.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]I think you mean monetary policy right?airshocker

No. To me, but I'm unsure of what the official definitions are, fiscal policy usually refers to budgets, taxes, cutting spending/increasing spending, whereas economic policy refers to corporate taxes, regulation, legislation that deals with the economy, stuff like that. Monetary policy has to do with banking.

Oh yes it has to do with banking. But in my economics we only learned about two policies, fiscal and monetary. I think both are within economic policy and what you're talking about is included in fiscal politics. But I might be wrong and maybe it's different in america.

No, not really. Even when considering spending issues as you mentioned, almost all spending issues are issues of economic policy.chessmaster1989

Then how are you conversing with me if you didn't understand it?

Sounds ridiculous.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Class warfare is a fake term. You aren't saying anything.

airshocker

No it's not, but let's hear your liberal talking point in defense of President Obama anyway.

People who call Class Warfare are total hyprocrites. They are always upset about people on welfare that could potentially abuse the system but completely turn a blind eye to corporate welfare. Yes there's minority of poor people that take advantage of benefits but there's also a minority of rich people that do the same to worse effect. The problem isn't "class warfare" but lack of accountability.

I'm not a personal fan of Obama, He's too conservative. I don't like his extension of Bush's policies, His cabinet members and stance on specific issues (particularly prohibition) but I made a list of demands I personally want to see happen, and will vote for the President that will try to carry them out. It just so happens that it's Obama will.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]No, not really. Even when considering spending issues as you mentioned, almost all spending issues are issues of economic policy.airshocker

Then how are you conversing with me if you didn't understand it?

Sounds ridiculous.

I don't understand how you think that the issues you listed aren't issues of economic policy. It more or less doesn't make sense for you to not consider them to be issues of economic policy (as well as issues of fiscal policy).

People who call Class Warfare are total hyprocrites. They are always upset about people on welfare that could potentially abuse the system but completely turn a blind eye to corporate welfare. Yes there's minority of poor people that take advantage of benefits but there's also a minority of rich people that do the same to worse effect. The problem isn't "class warfare" but lack of accountability.

I'm not a personal fan of Obama, He's too conservative. I don't like his extension of Bush's policies, His cabinet members and stance on specific issues (particularly prohibition) but I made a list of demands I personally want to see happen, and will vote for the President that will try to carry them out. It just so happens that it's Obama will.

Blue-Sky

Then Obama is a hypocrite to you? He's been playing the class warfare card almost his entire Presidency.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

airshocker

I see you gave up in responding to my other post.

Because a conversation with you is futile, your opinions are too pre-conceived. Even your use of "class warfare" feels regurgitated from Fox News "word of the week". I actually want to leave but feel somewhat obligated.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

People who call Class Warfare are total hyprocrites. They are always upset about people on welfare that could potentially abuse the system but completely turn a blind eye to corporate welfare. Yes there's minority of poor people that take advantage of benefits but there's also a minority of rich people that do the same to worse effect. The problem isn't "class warfare" but lack of accountability.

I'm not a personal fan of Obama, He's too conservative. I don't like his extension of Bush's policies, His cabinet members and stance on specific issues (particularly prohibition) but I made a list of demands I personally want to see happen, and will vote for the President that will try to carry them out. It just so happens that it's Obama will.

airshocker

Then Obama is a hypocrite to you? He's been playing the class warfare card almost his entire Presidency.

I don't care for the word. It's meaningless. "class warfare" can't you describe your position without. What exactly are you complaining about?

I don't understand how you think that the issues you listed aren't issues of economic policy. It more or less doesn't make sense for you to not consider them to be issues of economic policy (as well as issues of fiscal policy).

chessmaster1989

Because when I think of economic policy budgets don't really pop into my mind.

I don't care for the word. It's meaningless. "class warfare" can't you describe your position without. What exactly are you complaining about?

Blue-Sky

I know you don't care for the word, you're a democrat. It's okay when your side is using it, but it isn't okay when my side is calling you out on it.

Nobody. Neither Romney nor Obama deserve my vote.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I don't understand how you think that the issues you listed aren't issues of economic policy. It more or less doesn't make sense for you to not consider them to be issues of economic policy (as well as issues of fiscal policy).

airshocker

Because when I think of economic policy budgets don't really pop into my mind.

But budgets deal heavily with issues like taxation, subsidies, etc., which are clear economic issues.

It doesn;t matter who we vote for, we're going to get the same president. But, ObamaRing_of_fire

This is the truth. It really doesn't matter who we vote for. Obama will be in office for the next term.

Because a conversation with you is futile, your opinions are too pre-conceived. Even your use of "class warfare" feels regurgitated from Fox News "word of the week". I actually want to leave but feel somewhat obligated.

Blue-Sky

Opinions are always pre-conceived. You can't have an opinion if you haven't thought about something before.

I don't need Fox News to point out to me that Obama needs to distract the electorate with non-starter issues so he doesn't have to explain how his administration has done with regards to the economy. What non-starter issues are those? Class warfare for one, pitting the poor and the middle class vs the rich, business vs the country.

I would never be able to look at myself in the mirror again if I were to vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.famicommander

Right answer.

But budgets deal heavily with issues like taxation, subsidies, etc., which are clear economic issues.

chessmaster1989

All right, man. It doesn't really matter since it wasn't at the heart of my response to Droid.

Given the choice between our incumbent socialist dictator and a character off Gilligan's Island, I choose me.