U.S Presidential Elections

[gambit]

Exactly, but that's what many americans simply don't understand, or are not used to, that you can only spend the money that you have, or that you are able to pay back. If they really would want to reduce the dept, the first thing they have to do is bring back a big part of their troops from Europe, Japan or the Gulf region, end the wars (especially the made up once), cut the military budget.
Raising taxes of the rich will not pay off the dept, it is a way to get the government additional money to fund other programs, for example modernising the infrastructure that is in a bad condition in the US as well, or to improve certain reforms to push the economy again. These in return will increase the income of the people and get the government more money to pay the dept as well, but reduction of spending is the most important step!

From the 2 candidates, Obama was clearly the only one that had understand that. Romney wanted to reduce taxes, which lowers the income of the government, he wanted to increase military spending with no way to balance the spending again, he wanted to stay even longer in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will cost even more billions, so basically everything that you can do against paying of the debt!

The rich cannot and could not get to be 'the rich' unless there is an economic system that is amenable to risk taking, entrepreneurship, property rights, and profiteering. For Romney to be as you falsely described him is to be intellectually dishonest because it would be self destructive in the first place, therefore he could not have gotten to be part of the %1 and the rest would not see their incomes rise at all. See post 472.

 

[gambit]

you posted the definition and you still do not understand which is the proper term to be used in this context.

A: Revenue (sometimes called sales) refers to all the money a company takes in from doing what it does — whether making goods or providing services.

do you still not get it?

ground pounder.

I get it better than you do, moron.

Tax revenue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax revenue is the income that is gained by governments through taxation.

And what do governments tax? Income from individuals, which are profits from corporations. So when I said the government could increase its revenue thru higher income, I was talking about personal income.

So how much allowance does your parents give you a week, little boy?

 

[LeGenD]

Are you kidding? Republicans are the worst for Pakistan.

No.

Most Republican Presidents have cooperated with Pakistan on numerous matters.

Pressler Amendment.....Larry Lee Pressler was a Republican

It passed under tenure of Ronald Reagon. However, he did not took any concrete steps against Pakistan. It should be noted that spread of Nuclear weapons is among the sensitive issues for US in general.

Now if you focus on the track record of Democrats, they were fine with us until the period of COLD WAR. Afterwards, Democrats started treating Pakistan like trash with total disregard of its issues and needs. The example of Obama is most recent. Prior to him, recall how Clinton treated Pakistan on the issue of Kargil.

I know that Pakistan needs to stand on its own feet but Democrats are no longer friendly to us.

Pakistan is bad news for itself

This guy a republican is vehemently anti-Pakistan- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher .. the point is that both parties are not any different in their foreign policy when it comes to pleasing Israel


the facade of BO somehow being better for Pakistan is only for gullible Pakistanis to believe

Bro, I am not saying that Republicans are in love with Pakistan. They do take tough stance when they feel like it.

However, Republicans are lesser of the EVILS among the two.

 

[saiyan0321]

well it doesnt matter to us its not like romney was going to change his drone policy they both had pretty much the same foreign policy

I know that Pakistan needs to stand on its own feet but Democrats are no longer friendly to us.

yaar both of their policy seemed the same to me about pakistan the both were going for drones right now none is good for pakistan well lets see if he changes anything although 99% sure he will continue the same thing expect a drone tomorrow as a celebration

 

[truthseer]

Good think for us. Romney is a warmonger.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Can Romney stand again for 2016 ?

 

[VCheng]

Can Romney stand again for 2016 ?

If he can win the Republican nomination, yes.

But that would be unlikely.

 

[KingMamba]

Can Romney stand again for 2016 ?

If he has any self respect he won't. I predict the Republican party will have a minority on the ballot or a woman.

 

[Backbencher]

Obama was the better person btw the 2 .

 

[VCheng]

If he has any self respect he won't. I predict the Republican party will have a minority on the ballot or a woman.

For the VP slot, likely.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

If he has any self respect he won't. I predict the Republican party will have a minority on the ballot or a woman.

Why do you say that ? In terms of popular votes , Romney came pretty close. Just a difference of 1.5 % votes between the two.

If he can win the Republican nomination, yes.

But that would be unlikely.

I believe he can win against any other Democrat

 

[WS-10 Engine]

Can but not must.


What is the difference between 'revenue' and 'income'?

What's the difference between revenue and income? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News

I was talking about taxes paid by INDIVIDUALS as part of citizenship. Enact policies that encourage businesses, which will stimulate the economy, which will make labor, intellectual and physical, more competitive, which will increase gross pay, which will increase the tax amount, and which will increase net personal income to inject back into the economy.


Smarter than you, moron. But given how ignorant you are so far about 'revenue' versus 'income', it looks like I have a job while you are still mooching off ma and pa.

You talking economics is like taking dancing lessons from Charles Krauthammer!

Just stick to airforce tech son, you have a hard time with that as it is.
Just leave economics alone mate.

 

[sancho]

The rich cannot and could not get to be 'the rich' unless there is an economic system that is amenable to risk taking, entrepreneurship, property rights, and profiteering. For Romney to be as you falsely described him is to be intellectually dishonest because it would be self destructive in the first place, therefore he could not have gotten to be part of the %1 and the rest would not see their incomes rise at all. See post 472.

I read your earlier post, but it is factually wrong as I already showed, because it's not an economical problem but caused because of overspending! So you have to find ways to reduce spending in first place and that was not the way Romney wanted to take.
The greed of the 1% btw caused all these problems and I am happy to see that the majority of Americans were smart enough to not trust on of these 1% again. With less risks and more regulations in the bank fields, we wouldn't face a global financial and economic crisis today, while your economy would also not be in such a mess.

 

[VCheng]

...
I believe he can win against any other Democrat

Much can change in 4 years, and we don't know who the Democrats will put up then.

 

[KingMamba]

Why do you say that ? In terms of popular votes , Romney came pretty close. Just a difference of 1.5 % votes between the two.



I believe he can win against any other Democrat

Not if Hillary Clinton runs, her husband has been pushing her too.

I said self respect because usually when you lose two Presidential elections back to back you get the hint, he came close in 2008 as well but didn't make the republican nomination. This was his best chance to win the Presidency and he failed despite 62% of America saying they are either where they were 4 years ago or worse.