Presidential Debate - USA

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Sachaztan]

Hmmm starting out with nothing and ending up with over 700 stores makes my father know a little something about business.  The tax rate here for companies is the second highest in the world, why make it less attractive for companies to come here than it already is? Tank, I think that if you had to pay 35%-38% tax on your business income then you might have another opinion. What is Canada's corporate tax rate 15%? When it comes to investors and people who are thinking about purchasing a new house are not spending their money instead saving it. Talking to a high producing realtor who knows of at least 40 people that will definitely purchase a new home if Obama doesn't get reelected. That means money to realtors, title companies, moving companies, painters, furniture stores, etc.

Also, you guys need the definition of inflation:  Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services.

Interestingly Japan and USA, which has the highest corporate tax rates in the world, also has some of the most powerful corporations in the world. While the lowest tax rates can be found in economic powerhouses like Ireland and Hungary.

It's almost as if what you insinuate about corporate taxes is just unsubstantiated theorycrafting...

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Yes, more money to realtors who will then sell under 5% amortized mortgage rates for X number of years, then having mortgage insurance companies start insuring against the failures and taking out derivatives on them, resulting in another housing bubble which would probably, at this point, sodomize America's economy.

Good thing we have regulation in Canada, where 3/10 homes in a neighborhood aren't boarded up after yet another foreclosure.

[Mysthalin]

Well of course your dad knows 40 people who would buy houses if Romney got elected.

If I had a good 1 million in disposable cash to invest while being an American citizen looking at a repeal of Dodd-Frank I'd definitely buy 20+ houses on shoddy mortgage deals from banks (who will be more than happy to securitize these assets and sell them on to an SPV) while the houses are still low in price (read: their actual market value without the speculative incentive taking part).

All I'd have to do afterwards is wait a year to watch my houses appreciate about 20-30% in value and sell them off to another dickhead who'll be doing the exact same thing. Or, if I don't see Dodd-Frank getting re-instated wait another year or such to make another 20-30% in asset appreciation. Keep doing until I start feeling the market might overheat, sell everything but my prime real-estate (which I can then lease to pay off my original mortgage contracts and still earn me enough money to live a cushy lifestyle on top of the massive "pillow" to fall back upon in case I fail to rent out any of the prime real estate I've bought at dirt-cheap.

[Jodomar]

Well Vermillion hawk real estate agent's don't sell mortgages, that would be a job of a loan officer. Second, I'm not talking about repealing dot frank they just know that the economy will more then likely get worse. I'm not talking about my father knowing 40 people who would invest but he certainly does know people who would. I was referring to a real estate agent that knows at least 40 people who are on the fence about buying a new home and would do so under a new more hopeful administration.

A repeal of certain unnecessary dot frank regulations would be helpful but some things do need to stay in place. You also forget is was Fairy Frank that helped deregulated/force banks to loan to people who could not really afford it in the first place, claiming every American should own a home. You saw how that worked out, not well at all. Sure, some people realized that they could take advantage of others with this and did. Then you have to ask yourself, what moron would sign such a document? Don't they kind of deserve to be thrown out for not reading the damn loan doc or hiring a lawyer to go over it? I just don't believe in hand holding and never will.

[Unkn0wn]

I'm amazed at how we rebutted the majority of Jodomar's claims but still he somehow manages to believe Romney is the solution. Romney's a tool, not just any tool mind you, you may as well elect a shovel for president and it would probably get more things done.

[Sachaztan]

I'm amazed at how we rebutted the majority of Jodomar's claims but still he somehow manages to believe Romney is the solution. Romney's a tool, not just any tool mind you, you may as well elect a shovel for president and it would probably get more things done.

Well the reason is two-fold.

Jodomar most likely feels insulted by several of us and when you feel that way it's very easy to just ignore absolutely everything they say no matter how right, logical and factual they are.

Also, he watches fox news "everyday" and he is "proud" of that fact. Watching fox news that much and actually believing everything they say is much like being in a cult. It's painfully obvious to the rest of the world that he's being fooled but in his mind he has found the ultimate truth. All the facts and logic that contradicts him will be discarded offhand and in his mind it's the rest of the world that's brainwashed communist nazi liberal hippies. Which is exactly what is going to happen when he reads these lines. It's going to be discarded offhand since I "obviously" have been brainwashed by the liberal hippie communist nazi agenda. That's the only thing I could be when I dispute in infallible and glorious truth that is fox news.

[Unkn0wn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BBEXB1Wf9c

Nailed it lmao

[Mysthalin]

Then you have to ask yourself, what moron would sign such a document? Don't they kind of deserve to be thrown out for not reading the damn loan doc or hiring a lawyer to go over it? I just don't believe in hand holding and never will.

I couldn't care less if they got thrown out if it meant only they themselves were being affected. I don't think everyone should own a home (I'll probably rent for at least the next 10-15 years of my life before deciding to buy a home) - and as such foreclosure on poorly repaid mortgages is not an issue to me. What is an issue to me is the fact these foreclosures and subprime mortgages DO affect me, even if I'm not even on the housing market and not even in the same country. It's this imploding housing market that set off this recession in the first place - and the contagion spread worldwide. As such I do think people should have a right in taking action and ensuring there's fail-safes against it re-occurring.

You'd believe in your right to grab a bat and beat up a home-intruder who's there to steal your valuables. Why don't you believe in your right to grab legislation to stop greedy fucks from causing you to fear for your job?

[Groundfire]

Im going to try and change gears here.

What does everyone think about the National Defense Authorization Act that Obama signed into law on new years eve 2011, and more specifically, section 1021 that authorizes the military to detain American  civilians without trial or due process for suspected terrorist activities, no specifics necessary.

Here's a quick read-over for those of you who are not familiar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Indefinite_detention_without_trial:_Section_1021


Of all the policy messes that president Obama has signed, I find that the repeal of "Habeus Corpus" is enough of a reason for the man to not receive my vote this time around; if not grounds for impeachment.

[nikomas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BBEXB1Wf9c

Nailed it lmao

BWahahha, Covers preexisting conditions... Damn, that was good 

[Sachaztan]

Im going to try and change gears here.

What does everyone think about the National Defense Authorization Act that Obama signed into law on new years eve 2011, and more specifically, section 1021 that authorizes the military to detain American  civilians without trial or due process for suspected terrorist activities, no specifics necessary.

Here's a quick read-over for those of you who are not familiar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Indefinite_detention_without_trial:_Section_1021


Of all the policy messes that president Obama has signed, I find that the repeal of "Habeus Corpus" is enough of a reason for the man to not receive my vote this time around; if not grounds for impeachment.

And you think Romney would be any better or what?

[Groundfire]

Tbh, I think they're both corrupt shills bought out by goldman sachs, but that wasn't the question.

I dont base my political opinions on "who is going to fuck me over less overall" but what's right from a moral stand point.

War is wrong unless in self defense. This is a big thing for me. Due process and the rule of Law is another. This legislation violates both.

[Sachaztan]

Tbh, I think they're both corrupt shills bought out by goldman sachs, but that wasn't the question.

I dont base my political opinions on "who is going to fuck me over less overall" but what's right from a moral stand point.

War is wrong unless in self defense. This is a big thing for me. Due process and the rule of Law is another. This legislation violates both.

Unfortunately the US presidential election has been reduced to simply voting for the lesser evil. Which is also why Mitt Romney has such a good chance of winning, people hating Obamas guts. So I guess it works both ways.

[punkmaster]

tankedit: Inappropriate post removed

[Unkn0wn]

Here's a quick read-over for those of you who are not familiar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Indefinite_detention_without_trial:_Section_1021


Of all the policy messes that president Obama has signed, I find that the repeal of "Habeus Corpus" is enough of a reason for the man to not receive my vote this time around; if not grounds for impeachment.

Uh, how would you impeach a president for signing into a law a bill that was passed through Congress? There's no way that could ever be a ground for impeachment. If anything, Congress is to blame. Granted I don't agree the bill should have been signed by the white house, it didn't come up with the bill in the first place. There's also a high likelihood that this provision will be destroyed if brought before a court.

I'm guessing not signing the bill would have significantly damaged the president's standing with both Democrats and Republican (the 'compromise' bill, altered after white house intervention, passed Senate 98 to 1...) Not signing it would have been an open door for the GOP to claim the president was soft on national security and outright jeopardising the troops. (Since the bill also involves funding)

Unfortunately that's politics, and more a symptom of your broken political system than of Obama being some sort of evil mastermind behind a plan to detain Americans without trial.

Anyway, if I was an American I'd vote for Obama, even if I wasn't fond of all his policies. Not doing so would just help Mitt Romney, and a Romney presidency is the last thing America needs right now.

[Groundfire]

Unky, there have been congressional testimonies that the Obama administration requested that the provision be put into the bill in the first place. (Senator Carl Levin testimony)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO23HoRv6Ms

Then Obama signs the bill with a reluctant note "I will not use these new powers".

The bill has already had a permanent injunction placed upon it by Judge Katherine B. Forrest, which has been overturned by the second circuit court and the Justice department. So, no the Indefinite Detention clause wont just dissolve when first challenged.

Here's a synopsis on the chain of events from investigative journalist Ben Swan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4

So, the administration wants it, threatens to veto the bill, but signs it anyways, but doesn't intend to use it, then fights tooth and nail to make sure it stays. He wants it, then he doesn't then he does, the hypocrisy is palpable.


Also, you are right, congress is the problem, they unanimously voted this monstrocity passed. All congressional delegates that voted in favor should be recalled in my opinion.

All parties are to blame and I think we should all be alittle more critical of all our politicians. Obama being "Strong armed" into signing such legislation is not an excuse, unky. Its in defensable.

Voting for anyone right now will just encourage them, so I withdraw my consent by not voting and speaking why I will not. Hopefully others get the idea. Politicians only have power due to our consent. Just withdraw your consent.

[Sachaztan]

Voting for anyone right now will just encourage them, so I withdraw my consent by not voting and speaking why I will not. Hopefully others get the idea. Politicians only have power due to our consent. Just withdraw your consent.

Not voting gives extremists disproportional power.

[Groundfire]

No, ignorance does. You will never change a corrupt system from the inside, nor can you solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it.

Thats like turning the mafia into a charitable organization. It wont happen.

[Sachaztan]

No, ignorance does.

Because they are mutually exclusive or what?

[Groundfire]

Let me just clarify the question. Your asking if I believe Ignorance and voting cannot happen at the same time?