fjl2nd

Great response. Thank you! I agree with most of what you said. Like I said before, the Recovery Act was "okay". It was meant to be a temporary jolt to the economy but it wasn't enough to fix the entire problem(s). I agree that the tax code needs to be reformed. We probably disagree on certain rates on different taxes, but we still can agree that it can't remain the same. Regulation is a necessity, but it must be smarter and shorter (and actually enforced). We also can agree on trade deals for the most part. Drilling isn't a waste, but we need to start moving to other energy sources NOW. Education is an area that I believe needs to be fixed from elementary all the way to the college levels. It's a mess. It's such a tough issue to tackle at a federal level however. These are all issues that need to be addressed along with reform to our safety net programs. It's sad that neither candidate wants to talk about solutions though. Hopefully, the debates are more promising.

It's pathetic to ignore that it exists. I understand money =/= currency. I don't agree with you that stimulus spending takes money out of the economy. For 3 years now, I've seen people complain about the initial stimulus bill. Some, like myself have pointed out what we have done different. I've said it should have been larger with more spending and less tax cuts. What do you who oppose the bill and the President have as an alternative? Is it really "just sit on our hands, the economy always turns around"? Some claim the stimulus hampered growth. Show me some evidence. There are definitely some studies that have shown the opposite.

Sad to see some defending her. At least she gives me hope that one day I too can get elected to Congress!

Obviously a biased question there. Just because taxes rise doesn't mean it will always harm the economy. It could very well be a good thing for the economy long term in decreasing our deficit and collecting more revenue. I said the cuts should be extended for one more year so we can let them expire in a non-election year. When unemployment has dropped a bit more and growth is consistent, taxes could then return to their previous levels to increase more revenue. I wouldn't be against keeping the middle class tax rates permanently. Obama could have explained his thoughts so much better. I think the point he was trying to drive home was that the economy itself is driven by everyone together. Businesses can't survive without customers, etc. When he got into talking about the government, he went to a dangerous place. I'm sure the Romney campaign will have a field day with this and pretend he stands for limited government. He needed a break like this.

The latter. Polling shows Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy so I don't think it would be politically popular.

I do think the cuts should be extended one more year. I believe it was mostly a gaffe. I know what he was trying to say but it came out wrong. I think Romney's comments on firefighters, police, and teachers is in the same realm. And I agree that the candidates have different views for the direction of the country. Romney just hasn't really made it clear what his vision is though. It's just, "the economy is bad, elect me!". (To be fair, Obama's campaign is mostly attacks) Neither candidate is talking about the FUTURE. The one who can do that and convince the public their vision is right for the country will win. Ehh, I don't really see it that way. Neither party has even shown ability to cut the size of government down. The Republicans like to claim they do it though.

The questioning was pretty stupid. And the answers from Reid was even worse. The right thing was done to extend the tax cuts in 2010. The economy was even more fragile then. I don't think it would have had a major effect on the economy if they were raised then however. I think the tax cuts should be extended for one more year because next year isn't an election year and we will know what to expect. I would hope Obama and the Democrats are bluffing with raising the tax rates on the wealthy to possibly get the Republicans to pass more stimulative measures. We'll see though. It would be nice to see Congress get this stuff out of the way now, but there is a 0% chance of that happening.

I thought you Romney backers wanted to stay on the real issues here...

The thread's premise is flawed. It assumes the President can do whatever he wants policy wise. The fact is that the last year and a half, Congress was completely useless. I believe the stimulus had a positive effect on the economy. It slowed the downturn and reversed some economic indicators. The problems was that it contained a lot of tax cuts which aren't as stimulative as direct spending by the government. It should of been bigger or more focused on spending in the right areas. Dodd-Frank should have been a better bill. They dropped the ball there and the banking sector is still running amok. For the last 2 years, the President should've really been pushing Congress harder to do more for the economy. I know the Republicans made it their goal to not do anything that could benefit the President, but he still has to put on the pressure. He ran on big ideas, he should have proposed more. Another stimulative bill with long term reforms to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid would be so politically popular. Just do it! It wouldn't be just politically popular either - it would benefit the economy greatly!

Hope you're not serious. That would backfire in a heartbeat.

Yeah, presidential elections come down to who is the more likable guy, whether that's a good or bad thing. I know they right likes to complain about class warfare, but it works as a campaign strategy. The Obama team is trying to paint Mitt Romney as an out of touch wealthy guy and frankly it seems to be working. Romney is on the defense and doesn't seem like he will ever release any more tax returns which is probably a bad idea. They should get it out of the way now. The problem I think is that he probably paid ZERO taxes one of the years.

Virginia is perplexing to me, but polling has shown Obama in the lead for a while now.

Not sure if you are familiar with 538, but he uses pure statistics to come up with the results. Was pretty accurate last election too. 538 has all the polls on the sidebar and gives you a % for each candidate in each state. Here is my prediction on 270towin anyways: My link

Truth. 538's Forecast

92% Barack Obama 88% Jill Stein 66% Gary Johnson 56% Ron Paul 39% Mitt Romney 92% Democratic 88% Green 61% Libertarian 39% Republican 75% of NY voters 71% of US voters

The Romney campaign has been BRUTAL. Not sure how anyone on the right could feel slightly confident in winning this election. If the election happened today, Obama would win in a landslide. (Basing it off electoral votes)

Fair then. If there is legitimate resources to get citizens an ID to vote then that's all fine. I don't think I would be in favor it since it's still unnecessary, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Okay.... I don't follow Axelrod on twitter, and I've probably seen him speak on TV like once.

I don't if you're just playing games, or you really want me to keep repeating myself. This shouldn't be that hard to understand. My initial comments were in response to the OP. This isn't just about minorities, but they are part of the group that is mostly affected. And I also said the voter fraud argument is made up deeming regulation unnecessary.

Some or most probably can. But, are they going to have to pay for it? Nobody ever answered the question of why this is suddenly a top issue for Republicans? Voter fraud virtually doesn't exist and making people get a state ID isn't going to fix anything. If these laws are put in place, are they people going to have to re-register to vote? Because if not, I think any 18-20 year old kids figured out fake IDs a long time ago.

Apparently remain as CEO for three more years.

I thought it went: Obama lied, the economy died.

Got me!!! I was wrong on that along with the media. I fell for it. George Zimmerman is still a killer and deserves to go to jail. But I've retired from talking about that case so I'll end it there.

Oh, of course! That too. He said he was done with the company in 1999. He lied.

I don't use my ID very often in day to day life besides driving. As I pointed out before, I'm not sure. I know I had to drop $80 for mine.