AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Obama, 2012-2016 President of the United States of America

255 75767
superbobdabest
offline
superbobdabest
305 posts
Nomad

Well he won.

274-203

Romney got more votes but Obama got more elecrol votes.

COMMENT!

  • 255 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Oh well yeah about 47% of people are lazy and (as predicted) would vote for him no matter what because Obama promised to give them the most stuff.


Many of those lazy people in that 47% (actually it's closer to 46.4%) pay more in payroll taxes than Romney payed on his taxes. These people include the elderly, military personnel/vets, working poor families (making $50,000 a year), low income families (making $27,000 or less). These are the people Romney called lazy, if intended to mean them or not.
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,851 posts
Chamberlain

but don't forget mage that there are still plenty of people on welfare etc. that want higher taxes so that they get more stuff. there are (perhaps not that high) plenty of lazy people out there that would vote for him no matter what he did so long as they cashed in.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

but don't forget mage that there are still plenty of people on welfare etc. that want higher taxes so that they get more stuff. there are (perhaps not that high) plenty of lazy people out there that would vote for him no matter what he did so long as they cashed in.

I agree with you that there are lazy people but those on welfare who expect freebies won't get anything unless they prove that they're making some effort to find a job. They might get away with it in Canada but not in the US.
Blackbeltr0
offline
Blackbeltr0
769 posts
Jester

That's all you're worried about? Your precious gun?!? :O
You voted for an hypocrite who doesn't give a danm about you or any American but himself just because you thought Obama would take away your gun?
I mean come on, get a grip on reality. sstg

we have the same views

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Peasant

Here you go again, you're talking about Obama taking all the money from Bill Gates. He doesn't want to take all the money from riches, he just want to let the tax break expire the way it was planned in the first place by the Republicans, nothing else.


I think you misconstrued what he said, I can't be certain, but I do think that he was referring to the fact that raising or lowering taxes won't really help with lowering your national debt, because even though millionaires are rich they would hardly dent what America owes. I do not think that he was saying that Obama wants to take Bill Gates's money.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

I agree with you that there are lazy people but those on welfare who expect freebies won't get anything unless they prove that they're making some effort to find a job. They might get away with it in Canada but not in the US.


Woman walks into an Italian restaurant with an Italian flag hanging by the door. She asks for a resume, fills it out, then asks "What kind of restaurant is this?" She then asked the manager to sign a paper proving she looked for a job.

True story. It's ridiculously easy to search for a job and to blotch everything on purpose.
handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
185 posts
Nomad

I doubt that Mitt Romney is a financial genius.

TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,851 posts
Chamberlain

I agree with you that there are lazy people but those on welfare who expect freebies won't get anything unless they prove that they're making some effort to find a job. They might get away with it in Canada but not in the US.

I wish that were true, but those people are the ones getting unemployment compensation, different from those on welfare (many of whole have never and aren't planning in ever working a day in their life). Look at the occupy walls treat movement, bunch of druggy wellfare snobs wanting more money.

And yes what vinheisenourg said was right. If you took all of the rich people's money it wouldn't come close to compensating all the government spending. Fun fact, all of he gold, silver and platinum in the world wouldn't pay off the U.S. national debt.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

And yes what vinheisenourg said was right. If you took all of the rich people's money it wouldn't come close to compensating all the government spending. Fun fact, all of he gold, silver and platinum in the world wouldn't pay off the U.S. national debt.

Maybe not but it would be a start.
Congressmen should be elected for their merits and not for their party affiliation.
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,851 posts
Chamberlain

But a much better start would be cutting spending. Much better than taking people's hard earned money.

So I have a couple of question regarding this "rich people parasites" thing. So whoa if you ran into a ton of money, if you found out that you really have a thing for musicians become a famous rock star. And you become a millionaire and keep a fair amount for yourself, would you consider yourself a parasite like other rich people who keep a fair amount for themselves?
Also, do you realize that we need wealthy people like Bill Gates to be wealthy to create jobs, and that of everyone had the same paying jobs then we would be short on jobs because nobody has the money to start a big business hat creates jobs?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

but don't forget mage that there are still plenty of people on welfare etc. that want higher taxes so that they get more stuff. there are (perhaps not that high) plenty of lazy people out there that would vote for him no matter what he did so long as they cashed in.


Are you implying that if you are on welfare you're lazy? The percentage of Americans on welfare is only 4.1%, a far cry from the 47% percent Romney claims is "lazy". Sure I won't deny that there are those on welfare abusing the system but how many do you think that is in that 4.1%?

Let me help you. By this source they are giving an estimate of less than 2% committing fraud. For the sake o argument let's just say 2% even. If I did my math right that would mean 0.082% are legitimately lazy.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

So I have a couple of question regarding this "rich people parasites" thing. So whoa if you ran into a ton of money, if you found out that you really have a thing for musicians become a famous rock star. And you become a millionaire and keep a fair amount for yourself, would you consider yourself a parasite like other rich people who keep a fair amount for themselves?

They're not parasite if they pay the normal amount of tax.
If a teacher who makes 50 000 /year pays 30% tax why shouldn't a rich guy who make 5 million or 5 billion /year pay the same percentage?
It would still be 30%.
Also, do you realize that we need wealthy people like Bill Gates to be wealthy to create jobs, and that of everyone had the same paying jobs then we would be short on jobs because nobody has the money to start a big business hat creates jobs?

The problem is that those rich guys move their business in China so that they don't have to respect security norms, to protect the employees which the Americans work hard to get (remember the teamsters and all the violence back then from employers toward their workers?). Also when they move their factories there they don't have to pay a decent salary to the workers.
If those rich guys would stay here and employ people then it would be fair to give them a tax break since everybody benefit, the workers spend here in the US and the economy gets better.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

This China bashing is crazy. Sweatshops exist in part because of our demand, until we stop demanding such goods with such cheap prices the problem won't be solved.

Also, sweatshops are in part created by foreign companies. Foxconn anyone?

Also, "throwing huge sums of money" is just a crude way of explaining monetary and fiscal policy. These Keynesian methods were what built the world economy in the 1950s and 1960s and are proven to work.

Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

FactCheck is a left-leaning but pretty neutral group that, well, checks 'facts'.
Fixed that for you. It is a good website, but it's not perfect, and its bias is worth mentioning.

Why do people keep on thinking he was going to? Are you afraid of the (sorta) black man stealing your guns? Are you clinging to them so tightly that you just hallucinate these ideas? No president will ever 'take away guns'.
The president doesn't have the power to enact such legislature... or indeed do anything about most of the social policies or economic issues people like blabbing about.

Still, the president is relevant to the issue of gun control because of his ability to appoint members of the supreme court, whose job it is to interpret the constitution. Honestly, this "the president doesn't have the power" stuff is a little silly because he has the same power over gun control as he does over abortion and gay marriage and all that other stuff he won't do anything about but the supreme court might.

Anyway, this whole thing was kinda fun, and now that it's over, hopefully people are a little bit calmed down. In the post-election atmosphere, I'll say stuff about candidates.

First of all, to all the people concerned about Romney's views on women, gays and abortion: You know that he didn't actually care, right? Like, he just straight up doesn't care about abortion or gay marriage. Just like Obama. Even if he personally cares, he's not gonna even try to do anything about it. Mitt Romney believed he wanted to be the president of the United States, and that's about it. Gotta respect that, at least.

Anyway, both candidates would do the following on hotbutton issues:
Gay marriage. Romney would say he's against it and that's it. Obama will say he's for it and that's it.
Abortion: Both candidates would let precedent (Roe v. Wade) to dictate this matter while states enacted their own policies. Duh. So we'll still have the thing that most of us seem to like by our moral intuition: abortion law based on trimester. If this seems to you like it's arbitrary and a stupid attempt at being moderate for no reason, so that it can somehow be inconsistent with every rational view on the morality of abortion, that's because it is and democracy is terrible.
Pot legalization: That was actually a surprise and I'm sure it will start a larger conversation about the federal government's role in drug control that Obama will have nothing to do with. Still, kinda neat that this is happening in our lifetimes. History bein' made.
Gun control: both Obama and Romney support arbitrarily tyrannical gun control, such as the ban on assault weapons, which, as we all know, is a ban on weapons which sound scary. The reason they do this is because a lot of people like the ban on assault weapons, because people assume it's the logical middle ground (it isn't) or because they sound scary. In essence, because democracy sucks.

So it seems that most people have a decent handle on the fact that Romney was basically evil. But, uh, you guys know Obama is as bad, right? Like when Nemo comes in and complains about how Obama's a warmongering monster who looks nice to only morons, that's true.

I'm not saying there aren't sorta reasons to vote for one or the other, I guess. I mean, I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page. They're both pretty crap.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Fixed that for you. It is a good website, but it's not perfect, and its bias is worth mentioning.


So far I've only seen this accusation as a means to ignore the facts they provide.
Showing 76-90 of 255