Any Bets on the election?

[Karee 4,191]

Will they revoke my internet visa?

Go ahead laugh now. Dress warm. I hear it's cold in Siberia this time of year.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Go ahead laugh now. Dress warm. I hear it's cold in Siberia this time of year.

Gary said I could stay at his house, Alla needs a new pool boy.

[Karee 4,191]

Gary said I could stay at his house, Alla needs a new pool boy.

[Karee 4,191]

Actually, all kidding aside there is a Thai equivalent of VJ. This is straight out of their TOS:

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy. Members should not block contact with moderators or administrators. Doing so will result in suspension.

They don't even want you talking about moderation publicly.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Not everybody sees Romney as the lesser of two evils the way you do. So no, they shouldn't vote for "change" if they don't like what the change is proposing.

You're free to your opinion, but you shouldn't attempt to tell others what they should do with their vote or tell them why they aren't voting the way you'd like them to.

I am not 100% happy with Obama. However, I disagree with many of Romney's opinions on issues, so regardless of my disappointments in the last 4 years, I don't see Romney as a positive option or a risk worth taking.

Your opinion and mine are both equally valid.

why shouldn't I try to influence people how to vote. Isn't that what an election is all about, people trying to convince others how to vote ?

I agree your entitled to your opinion, however saying yours is equal to mine is a stretch. I am a white male, and we are entitled. Don't you read the news !

[bsd058 296]

I'm sorry, but if Obama doesn't understand how decreasing taxes can increase revenue, then he's either just saying that for the stupid majority, or he's stupid himself.

Sorry that math can sometimes seem counter-intuitive. If you take the time to understand, it DOES add up, unlike Clinton and Obama would have you believe.

If Mitt gets voted in, I think we will see a MAJOR change for the better in the US. He understands what kind of support businesses need to start hiring. What will act as incentives and what will act as disincentives. Obama seemed clueless in the debates on the issue of the economy. In short, Mitt understands economics and that's what the US needs.

Edited October 26, 2012 by bsd058

[JohnR! 5,495]

I'm sorry, but if Obama doesn't understand how decreasing taxes can increase revenue, then he's either just saying that for the stupid majority, or he's stupid himself.

Sorry that math can sometimes seem counter-intuitive. If you take the time to understand, it DOES add up, unlike Clinton and Obama would have you believe.

I think that everyone understands that decreasing taxes to the middle class will increase the amount of money in circulation and will stimulate the economy.

Some CEOs however might disagree with your assessment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/us/politics/business-leaders-urge-deficit-deal-even-with-more-taxes.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hpw

The business leaders’ goal contrasts with the campaign messages of both parties. While the executives seem to answer Mr. Obama’s call for “economic patriotism” by their tentative embrace of higher personal taxes, in interviews many of them have rejected his “pay your fair share” talk as class warfare, and a good number oppose his re-election.

But the business leaders’ position also contradicts the stand of Mitt Romney and other Republicans, who say that all tax increases are “job killers,” that the federal budget can be balanced with spending cuts alone and that any overhaul of the tax code should be “revenue neutral,” neither raising nor lowering the government’s total tax collection.

“To say that you can solve this without increases in taxes is ludicrous,” said David M. Cote, the chief executive of Honeywell, a Republican and a member of Mr. Obama’s Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission in 2010. “Most wealthy people get it. They just don’t want to be put in the position, though, where you pay more in the taxes and the profligate spending continues.”

[bsd058 296]

These CEOs are worried about risk. That in and of itself is a tax. That's why they want a deal to be reached. Once the risk is out of the way, the CEOs see the extra taxes as more of an insurance premium on future taxed profits. Are you kidding? They don't want to pay more. They want to be more profitable and spend more money on investing into their businesses so that they can grow.

I understand when middle class Americans aren't able to spend, businesses suffer. But what the president doesn't seem to understand, is that if you allow more money to be available to rich people, they WILL invest it. And when they invest it, businesses grow, and middle class Americans are able to spend more. I know plenty of CEOs. I work with them. They will do ANYTHING they can to invest one more dollar into their businesses. They usually get an additional $3+ out of their businesses when they reinvest that extra dollar.

Edited October 26, 2012 by bsd058

[JohnR! 5,495]

But what the president doesn't seem to understand, is that if you allow more money to be available to rich people, they WILL invest it.

However when you allow more money to be made available to the middle class, they will spend it in goods and services that will generate the additional revenues that will put more money in the hands of the business owners. I know plenty of CEOs who would much rather see more production rolling out of their companies because production increases revenues.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Gegel

[Teddy B 17,252]

I think that everyone understands that decreasing taxes to the middle class will increase the amount of money in circulation and will stimulate the economy.

Some CEOs however might disagree with your assessment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/us/politics/business-leaders-urge-deficit-deal-even-with-more-taxes.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hpw

The business leaders goal contrasts with the campaign messages of both parties. While the executives seem to answer Mr. Obamas call for economic patriotism by their tentative embrace of higher personal taxes, in interviews many of them have rejected his pay your fair share talk as class warfare, and a good number oppose his re-election.

But the business leaders position also contradicts the stand of Mitt Romney and other Republicans, who say that all tax increases are job killers, that the federal budget can be balanced with spending cuts alone and that any overhaul of the tax code should be revenue neutral, neither raising nor lowering the governments total tax collection.

To say that you can solve this without increases in taxes is ludicrous, said David M. Cote, the chief executive of Honeywell, a Republican and a member of Mr. Obamas Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission in 2010. Most wealthy people get it. They just dont want to be put in the position, though, where you pay more in the taxes and the profligate spending continues.

The middle class is what makes or breaks the US economy. If the middle class isn't spending money, or has no money to spend, the economy sputters and stalls. Mitt Romney says he will raise taxes across the board on everyone, Obama says he will only raise taxes on the people earning $250K and up. The choice is pretty simple, I think.

I get the whole trickle down affect of raising taxes on the upper class, but I don't think it has nearly as much affect on the economy as raising taxes on the middle class.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Teddy B

[bsd058 296]

However when you allow more money to be made available to the middle class, they will spend it in goods and services that will generate the additional revenues that will put more money in the hands of the business owners.

I know. I said that.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think Obama understands business owners. I really don't. I think the media misinterprets some CEOs and other CEOs just don't know what the heck they are saying.

Anyways.....Mitt all the way baby.

Edited October 26, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

First, you have to define a middle class. It is a moving target, so you need to be specific.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I get the whole trickle down affect of raising taxes on the upper class, but I don't think it has nearly as much affect on the economy as raising taxes on the middle class.

That seems to be the notion that escapes everyone but a few... Go frigging figure!

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And there is no harm in that...

[bsd058 296]

Gotta love this one...

[JohnR! 5,495]

Gotta love this one...

I think it is a good example of what you said: 'I think the media misinterprets some CEOs and other CEOs just don't know what the heck they are saying.'