Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

1 - its legal tax evasion, well really its one of those loop holes to be specific that the "Rich" take "advantage" of because they can afford to hire very expensive tax laywer which make a livign from knowing CRAAP GAAP.

 

i call it tax evasion, becuase well, imo thats what it is since it makes you appear to have earned less on your reporting income.

 

my point is, people tout Obama fights for the little man, i pointed out that he gives less to Charities (which help the little people alot.png more than Uncle Sam)

It's still tax evasion you can't deny that. That should not be allowed period.

 

I don't really see how Charities have anything to do with an election and what they have to offer to help the country progress.

 

Donating to a Charity doesn't mean I'm going to like them more than the other. If they don't have any policy that I can agree with but donate to a charity I support (which over all I have none) doesn't mean they get my vote.

 

well better than a man who says thers 57 states in the country with 2 more to go

 

People miss speak all the time. I have learned I get a stutter when I get nervous or I am telling people what had happened out of fear I may get the info wrong. Does that make me an idiot? No.

 

Also about the Obama fighting for the little people you have to keep the big companies floating or if they crash even more people are going to be out of jobs. You have to help EVERYONE. Not just the little ones not the middle class everything. If you let all the big corporations fall how many jobs are going to be lost when that happens? That is more of an issue than anything.

 

I'm not kidding at all. I was astonished at the lack of knowledge for someone WHO OWNS HIS OWN PLANES. It's like owning the best computer in the world but you don't understand why you can't put magnets on the side of the case.

 

And I quote:

"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem."

 

That's it. I'm moving to Canada.... If we can't provide better politicians than that how are we supposed to keep this country together? It's common since on why you can't open a window while in the air.

 

Sorry to bump in, but I'd take someone who makes systematical changes to really effectively support the poor rather than someone who gives away to charity because of their own greed.

 

I could not agree anymore. If you are using charities as a tax evasion you shouldn't be in office. That is dirty.

Edited by demonicvampiregirl

Share this post


Link to post

Guys, here's a site where it updates the results every few seconds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/e..._n_2036137.html

 

@Red2111: That was a few centuries ago when your country wasn't as mired in complication as you do now. Ben Franklin could afford to say that tbh because the U.S in those times was way smaller.

 

I would also like to add that "government assistance" was there for a longer time than you think, I can't think of one civilization that didn't have this system in one form or another.

 

Contrary to what you believe, the government isn't just there to "regulate of the economy to ensure against monopolation of goods and services and false price inflation and protect against threats." And even if it were frankly from what I've seen I've seen no signs that Romney will actually do those things.

 

what our gov does now makes them easy in poverty, and by doing so creates a reliance of those people on the gov to provide and a reluctance to get off that assistance.

And your evidence for that is?....

Edited by ylangylang

Share this post


Link to post

Obama's got real results in his bills. The Fair Pay Act for one. Romney is "severely conservative" as he put it.

 

As far as his charity goes, what seems to be the case is the money he paid in trust to charity... never actually gets there. It's an old loophole that was closed. But as he already had it, he got grandfathered in. He uses his church to avoid taxes, basically.

 

http://www.salon.com/topic/taxes/

 

Even so, I'd be happy with Romney if I thought he'd be as moderate as he was when Governor. I've just no clue what he's going to do if he gets president because he can't stick to a position. Given that Obama's had 4 years of action, I feel comfortable I have a handle on what he'll do.

Share this post


Link to post
what our gov does now makes them easy in poverty, and by doing so creates a reliance of those people on the gov to provide and a reluctance to get off that assistance.

 

 

to quote a proverb, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time. gov as it stands today, gives people the fish, it doesn't teach them how to fish.

I agree our welfare system needs to be changes, however THAT IS A STATE PROBLEM. Every state has their own regulation. Unless the president were to make a blanket rule over all states, there's nothing they can regulate. I've always said that it's ridiculous that people in my state can use their food stamps to buy twizzlers and K-Cups. However, in other states, junk food such as those cannot be bought with food stamps. It's a state issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Guys, here's a site where it updates the results every few seconds

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/result

 

@Red2111: That was a few centuries ago when your country wasn't as mired in complication as you do now. Ben Franklin could afford to say that tbh because the U.S in those times was way smaller.

 

I would also like to add that "government assistance" was there for a longer time than you think, I can't think of one civilization that didn't have this system in one form or another.

 

Contrary to what you believe, the government isn't just there to "regulate of the economy to ensure against monopolation of goods and services and false price inflation and protect against threats." And even if it were frankly from what I've seen I've seen no signs that Romney will actually do those things.

 

 

And your evidence for that is?....

I got the message "Somethings Gone Terribly Wrong". So the link don't work. -lol-

Share this post


Link to post

Regardless of what people can, or can't buy on Welfare I see this as the same as the healthcare issue.

 

Before the economy went down, all these people on welfare paid taxes the same as the rest of us. they paid them in part, in case times got bad there would be a failsafe. Well now that they need it, it seems that people want to kick them off. Same as the health insurance companies want to kick off people that get sick. It's selfish and greedy. And if people want to do that, frankly I don't want to pay taxes anymore. We can all just buy unemployment plans, turn all roads into tolls, make people pay for fire and police support and then the military is on it's own. dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Except for he gave me a chance to be on my parent's health insurance. Insurance my company refused to give me because I wasn't a manager. Which, in turn, not only saved me from a brain aneurysm and daily endless pain, but also allowed me to be diagnosed with Hypothyroidism, something that could have ALSO potentially killed me. I'd say he's looking out for me more than any other president before.

and this is goign to sound callous and for that i apologize, but why is it the responsability of your parents to pay for your healthcare coverage after the age of 18. you're an adult and are responsable for your own well being at the age of 18.

 

and to further my point, why should the government be given the authority to dictate that parents pay for their adult childrens expenses on any level.

 

its an over reach of authority. not to mention you likely qualified for state aid in the form of Medicare.

 

not to mention, doing so on a federal level is not constitutional. this shoudl fall under the 10th amendment.

 

 

and before you spout off about me with not knowing abotu expensive medical issues, i have two genetic disorders i was born with that are considered pr-existing conditions and really bad allergies that private insurance wont cover. so yes, while technically i could benefit form this absurd piece of legislation that does nothign to fix the actually issues in healthcare, i'm 100% against it.

 

 

tbh, peope who tout this point, its a poisoned apple covered in gold ebible paint your biting into. yeah he may have gave you a benefit in the short term, but at what expense long term?

 

becuase the gov is now a competitor in health insurance, companys will go under, which will increase costs. our federal income taxes will increase as a result too. Obama's aim was a Single Payer system, thsi will lead to a single payer system, not over night but in 20 years. this is NOT GOOD. it isn't Govs place to run an industry; and anythign the gov does run, fails horribly in comparison to the private sector.

 

not to mention Congress can now force us to buy gods and services via taxation penalties (oh you're car only gets 23 MPG, you now have to pay a penalty, or your appliances aren't energy efficent, you now have to pay a tax penalty).

 

the gov now has its nose directly in mine and my doctors convos. if i have insurance through the gov, they get to know whats wrong with me, what procedures and even deny me procedures based on cost x expense x life expectancy.

 

its also at the cost of medicare (what was that $700 billion dollars hes robbing from that program) and at VA coverage to the Vets.

 

 

 

also, one thing that doesn't make sense to me. most people will agree that Social Security is not handled right, why would you give the same people who control SSI, control of our Healthcare? do you really think they wont mess that up either? or bankrupt the Healthcare fund by borrowing from it liek they did SSI?

 

and most doctors wont accept medicare because the Government doesn't pay its bills, you really think Healthcare under these same people will be managed the same?

 

and speakign of SSI, look at how the gov uses it as a weapon to control people. the citizens want cuts in the budget, they go right for SSI first. you think they'll treat healthcare any different?

 

 

and you think the quality of healthcare is bad now in the states, rmove the profate ability for the equation and your pool of doctors plumets. people become doctors and lawyers because of the salary, as well as to help, but mostly for the salary.

 

 

so yeah, you gain short term, but you as an older person and your future children lose out in the long term

Share this post


Link to post
Regardless of what people can, or can't buy on Welfare I see this as the same as the healthcare issue.

 

Before the economy went down, all these people on welfare paid taxes the same as the rest of us. they paid them in part, in case times got bad there would be a failsafe. Well now that they need it, it seems that people want to kick them off. Same as the health insurance companies want to kick off people that get sick. It's selfish and greedy. And if people want to do that, frankly I don't want to pay taxes anymore. We can all just buy unemployment plans, turn all roads into tolls, make people pay for fire and police support and then the military is on it's own.  <_<

I'm saying that if you're getting assistance, you should be using to assist yourself and your family. Not buy luxury items with it! I see people who use the EBT Cash on their cards to buy Beer and Cigarettes. That's ridiculous. Not to mention, the abuse. They recently caught this lady in my state who WON THE LOTTERY (124 million, I think) and continued to use food stamps!

 

Healthcare is based on corporate greed in our country. It's completely different from welfare. If we could be more like Canada, we wouldn't have a problem. But, the insurance companies in our country are such massive cash cows and the hospitals are basically in cahoots. I don't believe anyone should be rejected for needing healthcare, however, hospitals constantly do because of insurance.

 

and this is goign to sound callous and for that i apologize, but why is it the responsability of your parents to pay for your healthcare coverage after the age of 18.  you're an adult and are responsable for your own well being at the age of 18.

 

Did you not read what I said? MY COMPANY WOULD NOT OFFER HEALTH INSURANCE. And because I was 20 at the time, the premium for getting health insurance outside of work was so high, i'd basically be using my entire paycheck each week to pay for it.

 

and to further my point, why should the government be given the authority to dictate that parents pay for their adult childrens expenses on any level. 

 

It's not. I can get my own insurance at any time. It's my parent's option to keep me on their insurance. Nowhere does it say that they HAVE to keep me on. And, i'm going to assume you don't have children, since any parent will tell you they would gladly pay for their children's insurance if it guarantees their child's safety encase of emergency.

 

its an over reach of authority.  not to mention you likely qualified for state aid in the form of Medicare.

I live with my parents, not mentally handicapped and am not pregnant or with a child. I don't qualify for medicare under my state's law.

 

and before you spout off about me with not knowing abotu expensive medical issues, i have two genetic disorders i was born with that are considered pr-existing conditions and really bad allergies that private insurance wont cover.  so yes, while technically i could benefit form this absurd piece of legislation that does nothign to fix the actually issues in healthcare, i'm 100% against it.

So, the fact you can't be denied or charged more for insurance due to your genetic disorders means nothing to you? I'm not sure why I understand your logic here.

 

tbh, peope who tout this point, its a poisoned apple covered in gold ebible paint your biting into.  yeah he may have gave you a benefit in the short term, but at what expense long term?  becuase the gov is now a competitor in health insurance, companys will go under, which will increase costs.  our federal income taxes will increase as a result too.  Obama's aim was a Single Payer system, thsi will lead to a single payer system, not over night but in 20 years.  this is NOT GOOD.  it isn't Govs place to run an industry; and anythign the gov does run, fails horribly in comparison to the private sector.

 

The private sector is the reason we are in the financial crisis. The government is the reason my state didn't go under when the auto industry was in trouble. Again, I fail to see your reasoning. And i'm not sure what else you are talking about here. Taxes have increased for years. It's nothing new.

 

not to mention Congress can now force us to buy gods and services via taxation penalties (oh you're car only gets 23 MPG, you now have to pay a penalty, or your appliances aren't energy efficent, you now have to pay a tax penalty).

Can you please show me a source for this? I've heard of tax BREAKS for efficient vehicles and goods, but not a tax.

 

the gov now has its nose directly in mine and my doctors convos.  if i have insurance through the gov, they get to know whats wrong with me, what procedures and even deny me procedures based on cost x expense x life expectancy.

Again, sources please. I'm not sure where this is coming from.

Edited by MysticTiger

Share this post


Link to post

and this is goign to sound callous and for that i apologize, but why is it the responsability of your parents to pay for your healthcare coverage after the age of 18. you're an adult and are responsable for your own well being at the age of 18.

 

and to further my point, why should the government be given the authority to dictate that parents pay for their adult childrens expenses on any level.

 

Ever think of the possibility that they can't afford it and parents being the loving people they are are still taking care of their child?

Share this post


Link to post

Romney was not my pick for President

 

BUT

 

If Obama wins, again, I have no President PERIOD.

 

Obama will RUIN the America as I know it.

 

SOCIALISM.

Share this post


Link to post

Romney was not my pick for President

 

BUT

 

If Obama wins, again, I have no President PERIOD.

 

Obama will RUIN  the America as I know it.

 

SOCIALISM.

Where is your facts? Where is the proof he will ruin this country? Where is the socialism you are getting from his policies? Where is all the proof in your hatred of Obama?

 

I'll have a president whether it's Romney or Obama (hoping for Obama). I can say I don't like this country with how it's turning out now but I'm not going to deny who won.

Edited by demonicvampiregirl

Share this post


Link to post

I'll take socialism over a guy who wants some of the people I care most for to be legally second class citizens and who doesn't support me being equal due to the fact I wasn't born with a penis.

Share this post


Link to post

thats fine if a parnet wants to do that for their child, i would for mine.

 

what i take issue with is the Federal Gove DICTATING that i MUST do so reguardless.

 

 

its no Govs place to tell me how and what i spend my money on; just like its no States place to tell me what size drink i'm limited to.

 

 

 

also, i know Welfair for the most part is State Aid, but theres SSI and Disability abuse as well, and states recieve funding for their welfair programs via Federal tax dollars.

 

 

 

Guys, here's a site where it updates the results every few seconds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/e..._n_2036137.html

 

@Red2111: That was a few centuries ago when your country wasn't as mired in complication as you do now. Ben Franklin could afford to say that tbh because the U.S in those times was way smaller.

 

I would also like to add that "government assistance" was there for a longer time than you think, I can't think of one civilization that didn't have this system in one form or another.

 

Contrary to what you believe, the government isn't just there to "regulate of the economy to ensure against monopolation of goods and services and false price inflation and protect against threats." And even if it were frankly from what I've seen I've seen no signs that Romney will actually do those things.

 

 

And your evidence for that is?....

the issues our fore fathers talked abtou then still applies to todays age reguardless of the size of the coutnry.

 

they (epsecially Franklin) were speaking of Humane Nature, which is a constant in all cultures reguardless of the size of the nation they belong to.

 

 

and the Federal Gov as it was designed and as it should be, was not to be ini social issues or to act as a chairty. it was to protect/regulate inter-state commerace, imports/exports with foriegn lands and for national defense. what our Federal gov should do is specifically laid out in the Constitution and these "confines" to the Fed's power were put there specifically for the protection of the citizens agaisnt what we see today.

 

our Founding Fathers knew a lot better how a country falls from freedom to tyranny a lot better than any of us US born citizens alive today. and they were wiser men than any alive today on how to build a country and keep its citizens free from enslavement to eitehr 1 person or a ruling body.

 

 

 

as for my evidence, what i hear from peopel on Unemployment for instance in my area

 

"why am i going to go work at that job when i make more on unemployment?"

 

 

this is making them easier in poverty (especially when the job creation by the current administration is for underpaid and part time employment btw).

 

also, my other evidence is humane nature, which alot.png of people are greedy, lazy and if they can get something for nothing (atleast at no expense to themselves) they will. see all the abuse alligations posted here. once a person starts getting that "free money' or that "obama phone" and finds they can be supported without having to work ... their going to abuse the system until their kicked off of it.

 

this is what Romney meant by his stupid 475 comment. which to be more accurate is likely more like 27% of society here in the USA. most people still have a shred of self decendy and would rather work for a livign than leech off the system.

Share this post


Link to post

Romney was not my pick for President

 

BUT

 

If Obama wins, again, I have no President PERIOD.

 

Obama will RUIN  the America as I know it.

 

SOCIALISM.

Um, please explain why you think there would be socialism. I hear this word thrown around a lot (along with "Nazi" and "Anti-Christ", to be honest), but i'm not sure if anyone knows what it actually means.

 

@Red2111:

You realize that "Obama phone" was never a real thing, right? It was a chain letter that was passed around.

Edited by MysticTiger

Share this post


Link to post

Where is your facts? Where is the proof he will ruin this country? Where is the socialism you are getting from his policies? Where is all the proof in your hatred of Obama?

his so called Energy policy alone will ruin this country man. *shakes head*

 

also letting the Bush tax Cuts expire on the Job Providers, and doing nothing abotu the absurdly high Capital Gains tax. why do you think jobs are goign overseas so much?? we have the HIGHEST tax rate in the world, Chinas is even lower than ours.

 

I'll take socialism over a guy who wants some of the people I care most for to be legally second class citizens and who doesn't support me being equal due to the fact I wasn't born with a penis.

as far as i know, Romney isn't going to be widening the gender gap with any policies.

 

and also, the only people he wants to make "2nd class citiznes" are illegals who shoudn't be here in the first place and should be deported as their being here is AGAINST THE LAW.

 

how about instead of sympathizing for people who have no respect for this country by breaking a law to enter it, you have more sympathy for those that are goign through the proper channels and are suffering and ebign held out of the country because of jackwagons who think their above the law and boarder jump.

Edited by Red2111

Share this post


Link to post

they (epsecially Franklin) were speaking of Humane Nature, which is a constant in all cultures reguardless of the size of the nation they belong to.

NOPE. I'm tired of people saying what their AMERICAN hero some decades ago is consistent throughout all cultures. Seriously we've been running fine for thousands of years before you guys came over and massacred everyone in your so-called "New world".

 

once a person starts getting that "free money' or that "obama phone"
Please learn what the "obama phone" actually does.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

 

why do you think jobs are goign overseas so much??

Because of unethical CEOs like Romney? /snark

 

his so called Energy policy alone will ruin this country man. *shakes head*
Explain. Edited by ylangylang

Share this post


Link to post
his so called Energy policy alone will ruin this country man. *shakes head*

 

also letting the Bush tax Cuts expire on the Job Providers, and doing nothing abotu the absurdly high Capital Gains tax. why do you think jobs are goign overseas so much?? we have the HIGHEST tax rate in the world, Chinas is even lower than ours.

Coal is not a indefinite source of energy and we need a back up plan for when it runs out. We can't just sit around and wait for it and THEN worry about it. So again how is that a bad thing?

 

Coal takes MILLIONS of years to form (if I recall correctly) we are running through it faster than anything. When that runs out tell me what are we doing to do if there is nothing prepared?

Share this post


Link to post

I meant the general attitude towards those on Welfare reminds me of health insurance companies. Obviously, these people weren't on welfare before the economy collapsed. And if Welfare was so juicy and fun, then why weren't they? Because it isn't. They are there because the economy collapsed. 8 million people lost their homes. But to hear people talk, if you are a moocher and leech if you are on it. Yet, it's doing exactly what we all pay taxes for it to do. Working in a time of crisis. There was actually a challenge last month to keep yourself on a foodstamp budget and try to make ends meet. I think a couple governors even did it, which is pretty cool.

 

And meh at "job creators" needing money. The Job creators have the lowest tax and highest profit now than at any point in history. The stock market is at record highs. They are sitting on 3 trillion in profits and just spent billions on the most expensive election in history. They don't look very poor to me. Even Romney stated they are doing fine.

Share this post


Link to post

job providers have the lowest taxes ... that absurd. you realize that most job providers are small business owners not coorperations. and these peopel pay two types of taxes. teh capital gains tax onthe revenue their company takes in and the personal income tax on the profit they take fromthat revune after expenese (like our pay as employees and the payroll taxes) are paid.

 

 

no one is saying that the healthcare industry was perfect of didn't need fixing. all i'm sayign is that Obamacare (since he's fond of the term) does nothign to fix those problems and infact creates new bigger problems.

 

 

Coal is not a indefinite source of energy and we need a back up plan for when it runs out. We can't just sit around and wait for it and THEN worry about it. So again how is that a bad thing?

 

Coal takes MILLIONS of years to form (if I recall correctly) we are running through it faster than anything. When that runs out tell me what are we doing to do if there is nothing prepared?

 

is Caol the only form of energy the US can produce o.0 thats news to me.

 

 

how about instead of continueing to give subsidies to Ethonal production that Bush started, we switch to the Ethonal from Sugar Cane. will have a very good effect on food prices.

 

 

how about Nuclear energy developement ... yeha neither cnadidate will touch that.

 

 

theres also an energy company that claims to be able to create gas from Co2 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...soline-From-Air

 

 

neither candidate will touch that either.

 

 

Obama focuses on Battery powered cars and Solar pannels. the Solar companies he gave money to are now bankrupt and those batteries last for 4 years and cost aroudn 40K to replace.

 

 

Romney will focus on fossil fuels which are finite and increase that blasted ethonal *bangs head* not a good alternative in the long run.

 

 

yes fossil fuels are finite, but Obamas plan doesn't work economically. we need to lower costs now by increasing home prodution of these so we can re-allocate the costs we spend on importing fuels to more R&D for renewable sources.

 

 

lower fuel costs, the economy rebounds all over. jobs start hiring, generating more revnue (both in tax revenue and consumer spending) which gives the gov more revune to invest in R&D (aside form the savings from imports)

 

 

Dems wont decreas the immediate cost and invest in Fossil Fuel production. Reps will be happy with lowering fuel costs without focusing on R&D. neither party has a good answer. atleast Mitts side will get us a step in the rela direction for energy while Obamas will do nothing but throw more peoepl into poverty and increase prices. especially since he plans to focus on that horrible Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax ponzey scheme that that loon Al Gore invited.

 

 

edit - not to mention, the increased revenue to the gov via exports of coal with increased coal production.

 

or the fact that a very good source of energy is constantly overlooked. one which is abundant, renewable and one of the worst greenhouse gasses to our Ozone.

 

Methane.

 

 

neither side will touch that potential for vehicle fuel either outside of heating soem homes.

Edited by Red2111

Share this post


Link to post
is Caol the only form of energy the US can produce o.0 thats news to me.

 

 

how about instead of continueing to give subsidies to Ethonal production that Bush started, we switch to the Ethonal from Sugar Cane. will have a very good effect on food prices.

 

 

how about Nuclear energy developement ... yeha neither cnadidate will touch that.

 

 

theres also an energy company that claims to be able to create gas from Co2 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...soline-From-Air

 

 

neither candidate will touch that either.

 

 

Obama focuses on Battery powered cars and Solar pannels. the Solar companies he gave money to are now bankrupt and those batteries last for 4 years and cost aroudn 40K to replace.

 

 

Romney will focus on fossil fuels which are finite and increase that blasted ethonal *bangs head* not a good alternative in the long run.

 

 

yes fossil fuels are finite, but Obamas plan doesn't work economically. we need to lower costs now by increasing home prodution of these so we can re-allocate the costs we spend on importing fuels to more R&D for renewable sources.

 

 

lower fuel costs, the economy rebounds all over. jobs start hiring, generating more revnue (both in tax revenue and consumer spending) which gives the gov more revune to invest in R&D (aside form the savings from imports)

 

 

Dems wont decreas the immediate cost and invest in Fossil Fuel production. Reps will be happy with lowering fuel costs without focusing on R&D. neither party has a good answer. atleast Mitts side will get us a step in the rela direction for energy while Obamas will do nothing but throw more peoepl into poverty and increase prices. especially since he plans to focus on that horrible Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax ponzey scheme that that loon Al Gore invited

No we need a clean reliable source of energy and not a single person is wanting to but the time and effort into finding the solution. No one wants to spend money on it. Coal is the most used source of energy and that will not be here for forever. So why just sit around and wait for it to deplete? Why not find something that is clean and will provide for everyone?

 

Plus I seen a post around here where only 1 or so companies that was into the solar energy has gone bankrupt. I wish I knew who posted that or what page it was on.

Share this post


Link to post
job providers have the lowest taxes ... that absurd. you realize that most job providers are small business owners not coorperations. and these peopel pay two types of taxes. teh capital gains tax onthe revenue their company takes in and the personal income tax on the profit they take fromthat revune after expenese (like our pay as employees and the payroll taxes) are paid.

 

 

no one is saying that the healthcare industry was perfect of didn't need fixing. all i'm sayign is that Obamacare (since he's fond of the term) does nothign to fix those problems and infact creates new bigger problems.

 

 

 

 

is Caol the only form of energy the US can produce o.0 thats news to me.

 

 

how about instead of continueing to give subsidies to Ethonal production that Bush started, we switch to the Ethonal from Sugar Cane. will have a very good effect on food prices.

 

 

how about Nuclear energy developement ... yeha neither cnadidate will touch that.

 

 

theres also an energy company that claims to be able to create gas from Co2 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...soline-From-Air

 

 

neither candidate will touch that either.

 

 

Obama focuses on Battery powered cars and Solar pannels. the Solar companies he gave money to are now bankrupt and those batteries last for 4 years and cost aroudn 40K to replace.

 

 

Romney will focus on fossil fuels which are finite and increase that blasted ethonal *bangs head* not a good alternative in the long run.

 

 

yes fossil fuels are finite, but Obamas plan doesn't work economically. we need to lower costs now by increasing home prodution of these so we can re-allocate the costs we spend on importing fuels to more R&D for renewable sources.

 

 

lower fuel costs, the economy rebounds all over. jobs start hiring, generating more revnue (both in tax revenue and consumer spending) which gives the gov more revune to invest in R&D (aside form the savings from imports)

 

 

Dems wont decreas the immediate cost and invest in Fossil Fuel production. Reps will be happy with lowering fuel costs without focusing on R&D. neither party has a good answer. atleast Mitts side will get us a step in the rela direction for energy while Obamas will do nothing but throw more peoepl into poverty and increase prices. especially since he plans to focus on that horrible Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax ponzey scheme that that loon Al Gore invited.

 

 

edit - not to mention, the increased revenue to the gov via exports of coal with increased coal production.

 

or the fact that a very good source of energy is constantly overlooked. one which is abundant, renewable and one of the worst greenhouse gasses to our Ozone.

 

Methane.

 

 

neither side will touch that potential for vehicle fuel either outside of heating soem homes.

While it is true that small buisness owners are getting taxed pretty heavily plenty of big buisness owners are getting away with paying less taxes than the small buisness owners because of tax cuts that only they can access. Heck, Romney got a tax cut for a dancing horse because it was for his "campagn". Seriously Romney is so flip-floppity I don't want to see him within 20 ft of the white house.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.