Hit the poles everyone! Make sure you vote. (I have a preference, but I will only open up friendly debating once someone has mentioned they are pulling for the other candidate) but make sure you vote! It's a close race. And your vote counts! Yay!

You aren't old enough to vote, are you?

Nope

So, what do you know about politics?(this is an actual question, not poking fun at your age or knowledge of the subject) I would like to know what you think of politics in general and what influences your preference. Do you get your information from your parents, school, TV, or do you gather information about candidates yourself? Do you consider yourself independent, or do you affiliate your self to a certain political party?

Obama.

I'd be interested to hear Slender's preference, which is the only one I know that I won't.

What about you, Jacob?

.

I am not devoted to a specific party. My stepfather is straight-up democrat, my mother is roving republican, and my birth father is closed door republican. I am in favor of obama, because, well, despite doing nothing about the economy, he did pretty well. Not to mention his winning all the debates but one or two. Best thing I heard at the debates?
"governor Romney, when you were asked what you think is the biggest threat to the united states right now, you said Russia. The 1980's called. They want their foreign policy back.

Dr Dave wrote: You don't know as much as you think or you'd never talk politics in a FRIENDLY form that's a topic
That never ends well due to the differences in peoples out look on things. No offence

I say friendly because if things get heated bans happen. And this thread is just as much about voting as politics.

I have been of age to vote for 8 years but have not registered to do so until now and that's only because of a few local issues. I am not a fan of politicians in general. All of them are crooks in my opinion. I probably won't even vote for president or in any other races. I only care about one issue and that's all I plan on participting in. If I do decide to vote for one it will be Romney because Obama has done nothing to impress me. In the last four years I have only been negatively affected by governmental decisions. At least if Romney gets elected it won't be the same people doing it.

CalvinIsAwesome wrote: Obama.

I'd be interested to hear Slender's preference, which is the only one I know that I won't.

What about you, Jacob?

Whomever is the United State's president doesn't concern me. What would concern me is who is elected into the House, Congress & Senate. Those matter. Presidents are powerless and are generally hated during their term -- then revered after about 5 years by most parties for all the great work their staff or party did. Usually they're remembered for more diplomatic works. Clinton, Roosevelt -- even Washington. All are prime examples.

Rinse & repeat.

Not powerless. A bill cannot pass without the president's approval.

I guess I meant I'd like to hear your preference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Just because a President doesn't pass a bill doesn't mean it cannot be rewritten, renamed and met with increased pressure to pass it.

I've been voting sense Johnson was in office
And yes sir a president DOES and CAN have
the power the change a nation, and not
Always for the better. Think about what
land of county you want to live in before
you vote. Can that man deliver it or does
He even seem to care what you the voter
wants or needs... these things you consider
Before voting.

That's true. By that logic, however, no one has any power. I guess that is kind of the idea behind our governemnt, though.

I learned a long time ago that there are very few friendly conversations when it comes to religion and politics. I will share one of my political beliefs at the risk of offending someone : If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about government.

I can't vote, can I complain?

Youth is our future

Not yet! Lol.

Wino wrote: Youth is our future

But when it comes to youth and politics, you typically get one of the following:

1. Someone who simply regurgitates everything their parent's say. This is the most common.
2. The edgy cool teenager who disagrees with everything their parents believe in and therefor believe in the exact opposite, no matter how extreme it is.

We are all selfish.
We are all human.
Therefor, most political matters will not concern anyone until they start personally affecting people's lives.

Just look at any mainstream rights movement at the moment. Or heck -- look at the poorly understood SOPA. People only got involved because they realized it would be taking something away from their lives.

Very rarely do people get involved with things that don't concern them. C'est la vie.

Mitt romney, i hate obamas wife, she is a *****, she made the school lunches small. And obama has no business experinces while romeny is a millionare, who isnt in it for the money like obama.

From what I heard Romney is making the next

I'm voting for Nixon again. We can dig him up and he'll still be better than Obama.

[e]Sputnik wrote: From what I heard Romney is making the next

Dogfight, now including squad wars?

Ronmey for squads in 2012!
Romney on Dogfight."I love the idea of squad wars." Obama's rebutle"squad wars is lame."

Sorry, just kidding. Lol please don't let the candidates view on Dogfight influence your vote. Hit the polls and "shoot from the hip" let's see what happens.

Consider FlyMagic as a write in vote!

If Romney isn't in it for the money, then why is he giving the 1% (Read: Mitt Romney) tax breaks?

Because he makes more money by not being president. If he is elected he will take a hit in the income department. BTW capital gains tax and income tax are a little different, look into it. This "1%" pay taxes on capital gains not income. They have already made the money. But in the U.S. you pay taxes on pretty much everything anyway. Did you know that in this country you never really "own" anything? Land, house, car, and pretty much everything else. You may get the title but its never truly your own. I "own" land, a house, and a car, but if i don't continually pay taxes on these items (that I own) they will be taken away. So what do i do in order to keep my land/shelter? I have a job so i can pay the taxes on said items. Now by having a job i must also pay taxes on the money (that I earned, to pay my property taxes in the first place). It doesnt end there however, no, I also have to pay sales tax on anything i spend my remaining money on. What are these taxes used for? To fund many important things? No, to bailout car manufacturers so they can make more vehicles for me to buy so i can pay more taxes (sales taxes, personal property taxes, and even sales tax on parts that i buy to repair my vehicle. What does this all mean? Freedom is not nor will it ever be "free".

It would be enlightening if VortexIII would kindly define the terms "straight up democrat" and "closed door republican".

Jejeje

CalvinIsAwesome wrote: If Romney isn't in it for the money, then why is he giving the 1% (Read: Mitt Romney) tax breaks?

I am compelled to reply to Calvin’s question.

First, so you all know a little more about the man behind the Manfred mask, I think George Bush was one of the worst U.S. Presidents in my 40’ish years of semi-intelligent thought. Does that make me a liberal? No. In my opinion, Barack Obama is equally as awful in policies as Bush, and perhaps takes the prize. Am I conservative? Certainly more so than liberal, but I sure don’t look like what the media portrays as a right wing freak.

Mitt Romney wants to lower taxes *for everyone* because he believes that the U.S.A. taxes all of its citizens at too high a rate. No m¬atter what your opinion, a break-over point exists for each of us, at which lower taxes are too little and higher taxes are too much. Romney thinks we are past the “too much” point and should back off. I happen to agree. Why?

I’m a co-owner in a small business. Did we create the business to lose money? No, we founded it to do the following: to provide great products and services to customers who will pay money for their value, and to give good jobs to valuable people who can make those products and services for a wage that is worth their skill, all while making a good living for ourselves (the owners). All of those things need to occur simultaneously for this to be successful.

We have competitors. This is a wonderful thing. It makes us (the owners and the employees) want to do better. And the beneficiaries are the customers (better products at better prices), the employees (more employees, more secure jobs, and pay that will scale up with their growing value to the company), and the owners (growing company stability and a good living).

Our employees have competitors. This is a good thing too. Each one of them wants to be as valuable to the company as possible, through education, smart work, and strong work ethic. It’s called Merit. They don’t swing bats at each other; in fact, they help each other because they know the power of the group is greater than the sum of the individuals. They welcome new employees because those employees will provide value that is marginally greater than the pay afforded to them, and their company will gain stability through growing market share.

That last point is key. Companies are not in the business of hiring and paying employees who bring less financial value to the company than their salary; this would cause the company to tank. Employees who understand this (ours do) will welcome new employees because it means more stability for everyone.

So that’s why companies grow: Hiring more employees, who add marginal value above and beyond their pay, puts the company in better position to serve more customers and gain an edge on competitors, all while remaining profitable (instead of losing money and going out of business). We don’t hire new employees because “it’s the right social thing to do” or “because we owe people jobs” or “because the government tells us to.” We do it because the market is ready to pay for our products, and we need more people at the right salaries to develop/produce products and service those customers. We do it because a bigger company (that is operating with positive margins) makes more money.

I keep harping on the point about “the right salary.” If the wrong skill set shows up at my door, I can’t hire him or her because it would be an undue burden on the other employees, adding someone who isn’t creating more value than their salary. It would be unfair to the existing employees, a dumb decision for the owners, and ultimately a disservice to customers because the company would suffer and perhaps cease to exist.

Anyway, back to competitors. Note that the company’s competitors also hire similar kinds of people. So if our company wants to make gobs of unreasonable margin above a person’s salary (by paying them too little for their commensurate skill), our employees will accept jobs elsewhere and we will have no one left in our company. This competition is good. It naturally keeps our salaries at a fair market rate. Actually we stay above market rate, because we hire really good people. And salaries are only one dimension; we are loyal to our employees, treat them very well, and hope they stay for the long-term.

The economy sucks. Worldwide. People aren’t buying a whole lot of products and services. Why? Well, a combination of things. Lots of people are unemployed. And even for those with jobs, life is expensive.

So how do we dig out of this hole? Obama and Romney believe in two very different ways of getting us back into a positive cycle. Again, this is my opinion, an interpretation, but I’ve studied this hard. You can all interpret in your own way. IMO, Obama believes that the government must intervene. (Bush did too.) Cash infusions into certain companies. More government jobs. Plus, he fears that there is not a sufficient safety net for medical insurance, so he wants a universal government-sponsored healthcare system. And the money to do these things must come from taxes, and in his opinion, the “rich” are not paying enough. So increase taxes on the rich, those who in his opinion can afford it. Ok, I can comprehend the theory. But here’s my disagreement:

As a business owner, I *know* (not a theory, a fact) that when universal healthcare got passed, we *stopped* hiring. When you take the revenue that our customers pay for products and services, minus the salary that we pay to valuable employees, minus costs of health benefits, minus taxes, that number is our net profit. It must be greater than zero; actually, it must be high enough above zero to make our living or it’s not worth continuing the business; actually, it must be high enough above zero to be a sufficient reward for the risk we took in starting the business. (That risk thing is analogous to a professional golfer who skips college to join the tour, and who knows that his/her career might be long but it also might be short; when that golfer is winning tournaments, no one would resent them for the enormous purses of the big tournaments. They might only play for 10 years, and must earn enough to retire on. Same here. Except that I don’t expect anywhere near those bucks for myself!)

Anyway, Obamacare gave us pause and uncertainty about heathcare costs and fees. Added to the increase in corporate and family income taxes, now the net profit is pressured very hard. Hiring additional employees at market rate salaries might not get us the additional company value commensurate with the total cost, so we didn’t hire. In fact, we should have let some people go; but instead we took the hit ourselves and simply froze hiring.

Companies like ours make up about half (depending how you slice it) of the employment in the U.S. Other small and medium-sized businesses stopped hiring too, and of course many laid people off.

Mitt Romney believes in a different path out of the hole. Sure, he’ll turn out to be a normal politician, with all of the objectionable baggage that they all have. But he’s at least closer to the solution that I believe in.

I believe that government is a very inefficient organization, because by its nature it has no competition and therefore lacks the competitive drive to do things better. I speak only about administrative government, and not military or civil duty organizations, which are aided by a unique motivation to kick ass. Administrative government returns pennies on the dollar because it is generally slow, un-energized, and the goal for many is just to get through the day, pick up the paycheck, and grow their department budget but not the workload. Sure, I know some good people who work there, but they are surrounded by masses of bureaucrats and mini-bureaucrats. So we want to increase government’s role in taking in tax dollars and redistributing them? Highly inefficient.

Back to Romney. He believes that breaking the logjam starts with jobs (private sector, not public sector; for those who don’t understand those terms, private sector is companies operating in capitalistic markets, and public is tax-sponsored government). He wants my company and others like it to start hiring again, and many of us have healthy markets to address, but the cost to expand/hire is currently too high. He wants to lower taxes and remove the cost burden of universal healthcare so that we will make the decision to hire.

Many people argue that lowering taxes on businesses and business owners will only result in their pocketing the cash. At face value, this is a compelling argument. But if you dive deeper, it doesn’t hold up in reality. Go back to the earlier paragraphs, and note that I haven’t eliminated the greed factor from businesses; in fact, my position *relies* on it. If taxes were relieved somewhat and universal healthcare was repealed, I would make far more money by *hiring more people* (and having them add even more value to the company) than I would by simply pocketing the tax savings and healthcare fee savings. My greed, if you will, will make me hire. Sure, I’m a naturally good guy too and love having more families benefiting from our little company – a big source of pride for me; but the hiring decision is all about the profit that it will generate.

The argument that people will just pocket the cash is based on a belief that companies hire people out of goodness and that there is no goodness left in corporations. As I’ve stated, companies do not hire out of goodness, so in fact goodness is not required for this sequence of events to happen; they hire out of profit motive, and as long as there is a market for the company’s goods, hiring and expanding is GOOD FOR PROFIT. Go back to the competition discussion; if taxes and cost burdens are reduced and a company does not expand hiring, competitors will eat its lunch.

That’s why I believe that Romney has it right. Be careful not to believe everything that you hear from network TV news and the Obama campaign. They make Romney out to be the Evil Corporate Raider who farms out jobs overseas, causes unemployment, hates the poor, and loves the rich. Dig a little, and find out the facts. On the other hand, don’t believe everything the Romney campaign says about Obama. I don’t think Obama is out to destroy capitalism and freedom. Dig a little, and we see that he truly believes what he is doing is right.

With all the facts uncovered and the spin cast aside, Romney’s policies line up much more with my own beliefs. No one’s a saint in politics and he’s no exception, and I don’t expect him to make the Office of the President anything more respectful than the last guy. But I sure want him to break the logjam, using the policies that I believe in. Wealth will be gathered and redistributed to those who need it, not by the government, but by merit and hard work.

Manfred

Vote for Pedro!