Forums → The Tavern → AG Presidential Election 2012
| 197 | 30309 |
--I'm not sure if this fits better in the Tavern or in the WEPR, so mods, move it as you see fit(of course you would do that regardless, but still--
As I'm sure AG's American members know, in 2012 the United States will be electing a new president or reelecting the incumbent. Normally this is done with electoral colleges, primaries, etc. on a national level. But I thought it would be kind of cool to hold a mock presidential election in AG, just to see what happens. The candidates will be the same, the only difference is that the voting will be on a much smaller scale. You guys will vote for which presidential candidate you like best, and at the end of two weeks(I may extend or shorten this deadline) we will see who the president of the United States should be, according to the members of AG.
But before we start voting between Obama and the Republican candidate, first we have to vote for a Republican candidate in the primary. I'm gonna change the rules a bit on the primary: you don't have to be a Republican in order to vote on the Republican primary. That's because there is no Democratic primary, Obama is the undisputed presidential candidate for the Democrats. The Republican who gets the most votes on AG, regardless of who wins the actual primary, will be the one moving on to face off against the incumbent Obama.
Rules
1. You can only vote once, unless you vote once in the primary and once in the main election.
2. In order for your vote to count, you must provide a reason for why you want that person to be president or to win the primary.
3. Let's try and keep this civil: no slandering, name-calling, or making fun of anyone because of their vote.
We are currently voting on the Republican primary(so no voting for Obama yet, vote for which Republican you want to be the party's candidate). I will be tallying the votes at the end of week one to determine the Republican primary winner, then we will start voting on who should be the actual president. At the end of week two, I will tally the votes from that election and post who is the official President of the United States as decided by ArmorGames.
- 197 Replies
Because the money has to come from somewhere. In 2009, $1,175,422,000,000 were collected through income tax. 2.25 percent of that came from the bottom half of income earners. So, if the top half contributed the same, we would only have $52,893,990,000 (much less). Even if the bottom half paid ten times as much as they do now, and the top half paid the some amount as them, we would still be reducing the income tax revenue by over half.
I'm not saying they should pay the same amount, but the same proportion, as SSTG mentioned. If a middle income pays 10% why should a rich guy pay 20%?
I'm not saying they should pay the same amount, but the same proportion, as SSTG mentioned. If a middle income pays 10% why should a rich guy pay 20%?
Because the government needs more money to be able to run, and the burden should be picked up by those who can afford it. The Middle Class in any country should not need to carry the baggage of the rich, who get tax breaks willy-nilly by Washington, the same rich who move jobs and companies overseas.
Because the government needs more money to be able to run, and the burden should be picked up by those who can afford it. The Middle Class in any country should not need to carry the baggage of the rich, who get tax breaks willy-nilly by Washington, the same rich who move jobs and companies overseas.
I find it funny that the rich can be faulted for moving companies overseas. In a free market, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, to maximise profits, and doesn't any American government support free market principles? So why lambast them for their decision? If America isn't as competitive and lucrative to invest in, any rational economic agent will just move. That's not a punishable offence.
Because the government needs more money to be able to run, and the burden should be picked up by those who can afford it.
So, remind me again, why I slog all day, but in the end, pay a higher proportion of my income to support those dregs of society.
My vote is for Newt Gingrich. He has strong conservative values that I think Mitt Romney lacks and I do not think that the other candadates have what it takes.
I find it funny that the rich can be faulted for moving companies overseas. In a free market, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, to maximise profits, and doesn't any American government support free market principles? So why lambast them for their decision? If America isn't as competitive and lucrative to invest in, any rational economic agent will just move. That's not a punishable offence.
If they had built their companies in China from the start and they wouldn't get tax break for it, that wouldn't be as bad. What's horrible is that they closed the factories that were already in place in the US and, in certain cases, used some of the American workers to teach the Chinese who were about to replace them.
This is totally cruel! We could make them pay by boycotting their products but if they all do it then we can't do much about it except to encourage the patriotic ones who stayed by giving them the tax break, not the traitor ones.
So, remind me again, why I slog all day, but in the end, pay a higher proportion of my income to support those dregs of society.
Because those who have more have an obligation to give more. It is selfish and wrong to not give more if you have more. If I was making $45 million over 2 years (Mitt Romney) I'd sure as hell give more money than legally required. 15% my ***.
My vote is for Newt Gingrich. He has strong conservative values that I think Mitt Romney lacks and I do not think that the other candadates have what it takes.
Sorry Zorvex, the Republican primary ended a while back, Ron Paul won. So the vote is currently Obama v. Paul, and it's tied up.
So, remind me again, why I slog all day, but in the end, pay a higher proportion of my income to support those dregs of society.
Have you... ever met a poor person? Have you ever worked somewhere that paid low wages?
Last summer I worked as a waiter in a small restaurant. It wasn't that bad, and I made pretty good money because (believe it or not) I'm actually quite charming in real life. Anyway, at this place I came to know the people who work in the kitchen. One of the prep cooks (and the only person besides myself who was fluent in english) had a pretty rough life.
He had to work about 60-70 hours a week, in a hot kitchen, with no break. And I mean he HAD to- this was pretty much the only place in town hiring food workers, because it was new. He had to take the bus to work, maybe two hours of commute a day since the American transportation system is horrible. He made about 1500 a month, most of which he sent back home to his family in California.
And before you ask, I gave most of my tips to the kitchen at the end of the day. Because that is the fair thing to do.
Do the math- that's maybe 6.20 an hour, no overtime. And he was lucky to get this job.
But you're right, he should have to pay just as much as some guy in New York who makes millions of dollars by schmoozing clients and taking them out to fancy restaurants.
So, remind me again, why I slog all day, but in the end, pay a higher proportion of my income to support those dregs of society.
Not all wealthy people worked hard to get that way. There are plenty of heirs and heiresses who did nothing but sit on their *** and inherit their parents' money.
Just bring back all the factories to the US and then people will get a pay check, will be proud of working again, will be less worried and depressed which will save them a fortune in hospital bill. They will start spending money that will stay in the country instead of only going in the pockets of the traitors who put so many Americans out of work by moving their companies to China.
Because the best way America can convince a company it supports the free market is to punish those that simply obey the free market? If you want the factories to come back, then why not strive to make America more competitive and lucrative to those factories? Rather than say, over-regulate the market. Or tax the wealthy into kingdom come.
I find it odd that you advocate taxing the rich, but then repine about the lack of factories. Let me ask you somethign: Who is it that creates the factories and the companies? Is it that homeless guy outside the county library? Or that multi-millionare in the office building? Somebody working the third-shift at Burger King, or the entrepreneur whose incorporated. You cannont punish those who are responsible for creating jobs and success in the country, and then expect them to do just that. If it becomes to hard to make a living, too hard to run a business, too hard to even start a company, then those people will simply start their business elsewhere, or move their current business.
Start taxing the rich parasites at the same rate as the workers who actually contribute in the economy and the debt will disappear in no time.
Precisely. Rather than taxing the top brackets in excesses of 40 percent, they should be taxed at the same rate as everybody else. Likewise, the 40-something percent of the population that pays no income tax should start to contribute. Even if its only a dime, everyone should contribue something to the government. Perhaps then, more people would actually care if its successful.
The only thing I don't like about Obama is that he keeps trying to reach out to the conservatives and they (racists) keep refusing to help him even though they know he's right on many points.
So you're saying that all conservatives are racist? Nice stereotype.
Once the propaganda was started, all the idiots on the conservative side believed all the bull**** that was thrown at them. They'll blindly follow someone with the charisma of a garbage truck like Gingrinch just because he is Republican. They will never vote for a black man even if he is the best fit for the job.
So provided we blindly follow someone with a high charisma (Obama), its OK?
Conservatives would never vote for a black man? Then I'm guessing you weren't aware of how successful Herman Cain was doing in the polls before he dropped out. Yup we're SOOOOOOOO racist, we support a man whose blacker than Obama is.
the rich will continue destroying the economy and the middle class will completely disappear
Thats odd. Last time I checked, it was ussualy the rich who started companies and actually helped the economy. Mitt Romney starting Staples, for example.
But if we tax the rich, as you say should be done, then the Rich will dissapear. The Middle Class, becoming the next richest, will also likely dissapear. Then what? When we're all poor, how are we going to attack, excuse me, tax the rich?
Because the government needs more money to be able to run, and the burden should be picked up by those who can afford it.
Its this mindset that got us in this hole today. Rather than cut back on wasteful spending, try to make the government more efficient, eliminate pork, etc, we should just print/tax/borrow more money to feed the lifestyle? Thats like giving more crack to an addict, in the hopes that he'll stop eventually. It hasn't worked, its not going to work, and it never will work. So why are you so insistent that it is going to work?
Likewise, the Upper Class need not carry the burden of the poor, and those who do nothing to contribute to society. Why should we punish those who are successful, merely because they are so? The Rich move jobs, as you say, because Washington is determined to create an environment inwhich the only profitable thing is to do just that. If you really want to see the jobs come back, if you want them to come back from Mexico and China and where have you, then you should cut down on Regulations, cut down on excessive taxes, and show the world that America is once again the most competivie market on the face of the earth.
Not all wealthy people worked hard to get that way. There are plenty of heirs and heiresses who did nothing but sit on their *** and inherit their parents' money.
If you look at most of the millionares in the US, you'd find that most of them created there wealth. Likewise, look in Europe and you'll find that most of them inherited their wealth.
Is it just me, or is AG randomly bringing up a Kingdom Rush ad everytime I click?
Just bring back all the factories to the US and then people will get a pay check, will be proud of working again, will be less worried and depressed which will save them a fortune in hospital bill. They will start spending money that will stay in the country instead of only going in the pockets of the traitors who put so many Americans out of work by moving their companies to China.
Because the best way America can convince a company it supports the free market is to punish those that simply obey the free market? If you want the factories to come back, then why not strive to make America more competitive and lucrative to those factories? Rather than say, over-regulate the market. Or tax the wealthy into kingdom come.
I find it odd that you advocate taxing the rich, but then repine about the lack of factories. Let me ask you somethign: Who is it that creates the factories and the companies? Is it that homeless guy outside the county library? Or that multi-millionare in the office building? Somebody working the third-shift at Burger King, or the entrepreneur whose incorporated. You cannont punish those who are responsible for creating jobs and success in the country, and then expect them to do just that. If it becomes to hard to make a living, too hard to run a business, too hard to even start a company, then those people will simply start their business elsewhere, or move their current business.
Start taxing the rich parasites at the same rate as the workers who actually contribute in the economy and the debt will disappear in no time.
Precisely. Rather than taxing the top brackets in excesses of 40 percent, they should be taxed at the same rate as everybody else. Likewise, the 40-something percent of the population that pays no income tax should start to contribute. Even if its only a dime, everyone should contribue something to the government. Perhaps then, more people would actually care if its successful.
The only thing I don't like about Obama is that he keeps trying to reach out to the conservatives and they (racists) keep refusing to help him even though they know he's right on many points.
So you're saying that all conservatives are racist? Nice stereotype.
Once the propaganda was started, all the idiots on the conservative side believed all the bull**** that was thrown at them. They'll blindly follow someone with the charisma of a garbage truck like Gingrinch just because he is Republican. They will never vote for a black man even if he is the best fit for the job.
So provided we blindly follow someone with a high charisma (Obama), its OK?
Conservatives would never vote for a black man? Then I'm guessing you weren't aware of how successful Herman Cain was doing in the polls before he dropped out. Yup we're SOOOOOOOO racist, we support a man whose blacker than Obama is.
the rich will continue destroying the economy and the middle class will completely disappear
Thats odd. Last time I checked, it was ussualy the rich who started companies and actually helped the economy. Mitt Romney starting Staples, for example.
But if we tax the rich, as you say should be done, then the Rich will dissapear. The Middle Class, becoming the next richest, will also likely dissapear. Then what? When we're all poor, how are we going to attack, excuse me, tax the rich?
Because the government needs more money to be able to run, and the burden should be picked up by those who can afford it.
Its this mindset that got us in this hole today. Rather than cut back on wasteful spending, try to make the government more efficient, eliminate pork, etc, we should just print/tax/borrow more money to feed the lifestyle? Thats like giving more crack to an addict, in the hopes that he'll stop eventually. It hasn't worked, its not going to work, and it never will work. So why are you so insistent that it is going to work?
Likewise, the Upper Class need not carry the burden of the poor, and those who do nothing to contribute to society. Why should we punish those who are successful, merely because they are so? The Rich move jobs, as you say, because Washington is determined to create an environment inwhich the only profitable thing is to do just that. If you really want to see the jobs come back, if you want them to come back from Mexico and China and where have you, then you should cut down on Regulations, cut down on excessive taxes, and show the world that America is once again the most competivie market on the face of the earth.
Not all wealthy people worked hard to get that way. There are plenty of heirs and heiresses who did nothing but sit on their *** and inherit their parents' money.
If you look at most of the millionares in the US, you'd find that most of them created there wealth. Likewise, look in Europe and you'll find that most of them inherited their wealth.
Is it just me, or is AG randomly bringing up a Kingdom Rush ad everytime I click
If you want the factories to come back, then why not strive to make America more competitive and lucrative to those factories?
Because conservatives like you just don't get it that the middle-class has been taxed to near extinction, the poor can't afford to keep the government up anymore, and since the wealthy are only looking after numero uno, the government has no more money to lower taxes. If the taxes were raised on the wealthy, than we could make the US a more lucrative business environment.
Precisely. Rather than taxing the top brackets in excesses of 40 percent, they should be taxed at the same rate as everybody else.
No, more like we need to tax ALL of their income at 40%, instead of the stupid law where all investments are only taxed at 15%. So while making millions of dollars, the rich are allowed to sit on their fat ***** and keep raking in the dough. Is it fair that these people are allowed to just keep munching on caviar while some have to bum around on the streets for money?
Likewise, the Upper Class need not carry the burden of the poor, and those who do nothing to contribute to society. Why should we punish those who are successful, merely because they are so?
It's not punishment for being successful, it's paying your dues and your fair share.
Because the best way America can convince a company it supports the free market is to punish those that simply obey the free market? If you want the factories to come back, then why not strive to make America more competitive and lucrative to those factories? Rather than say, over-regulate the market. Or tax the wealthy into kingdom come.
Didn't you read what I say before. Give a tax break to those who keep their companies in the US and tax the ones that moved to China.
A company paying normal salaries to American workers cannot compete against one that uses slaves overseas. Who do you think keeps blocking bills that would help change this fact? The riches do. They like it that way. It's all about their gigantic egos. Being the biggest all the time. Killing the competition means that they
decide how much we're going to pay.
If people would stop voting for someone just because he belongs to their political party and start electing the best candidate for the job, we wouldn't be stuck in this ridiculous situation.
My vote is for Obama,I feel he has more improved you're economy than destroyed it. I also feel that voting for any other candidate (primarily republican) is a shot in the dark. To say though, none of the candidates now seen decent or competent enough to hold a country on their backs. Likewise, we've seen what Obama will do and what he can achieve even while being stonewalled by the republicans. And that the economy is already in a hole, and all the republican candidates follow the same general principles that put you're country in the doghouse in the first place.
You must be logged in to post a reply!