What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10317 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3525 Nov 27, 2012
oscumma, erases any credibility, from your point....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3526 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>The welfare program was started by a democrat which is now about 17% of federal spending. This program is overwhelmingly supported by democrats. Republicans have historically attempted to reduce this spending by working on programs that would allow for more independence rather than reliance on the govt. Subsidies exist equally under both parties. Romney didn't want to waste taxpayer money by giving our money to GM, for example, but oscumma did. Apparently, the freeloading liberal elites want govt. intervention in their mega corps as well. Lib elites want to grow the underclass in order to maintain their power which is why they want government dependence rather than independence. Republicans want people to be free and Demoncrats want their voting base beholden to the govt. and their supreme power. I'm afraid you are too naive to understand what is really going on.
yet no republicans have ever come up with any REAL solutions to our welfare system.

Romney would have let how many millions go on the unemployment rolls and you say he's not for handouts? how bout all the handouts to the farm subsisdies and oil subsidies romney wouldn't get rid of? your thesis is based on a faulty premise.

start over.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3527 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>The welfare program was started by a democrat which is now about 17% of federal spending. This program is overwhelmingly supported by democrats. Republicans have historically attempted to reduce this spending by working on programs that would allow for more independence rather than reliance on the govt. Subsidies exist equally under both parties. Romney didn't want to waste taxpayer money by giving our money to GM, for example, but oscumma did. Apparently, the freeloading liberal elites want govt. intervention in their mega corps as well. Lib elites want to grow the underclass in order to maintain their power which is why they want government dependence rather than independence. Republicans want people to be free and Demoncrats want their voting base beholden to the govt. and their supreme power. I'm afraid you are too naive to understand what is really going on.
Again, the whole point of this discussion, is that as many D's as R's use our gov't handout systems. to say one is beholden to the gov't more than the other, as you have stated, is categorically false.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#3528 Nov 27, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
oscumma, erases any credibility, from your point....
Too bad, that's what I think of him and I have the right to express my views....at least for the moment. This president is the scum of the Earth.
Eric Gustafson

Yorktown, VA

#3529 Nov 27, 2012
Amazing that from Indiana there should be such disstain for welfare being that in Indiana, 39% of the workforce pays no Federal Income Tax, but those with kids paying no income tax receive hefty tax returns.

I would assume those receiving tax returns, not paying federal Income taxes refuse to see those poverty payments as Welfare. Welfare averages out to approx $50.00 a week, or $200.00 monthly,$2400.00 a years, the average amount of those poverty payments received in disguise as income tax returns amount to $1000.00 per child.

Elementary math says those living in Indiana receiving those poverty payments are more of a drain on the tax payers pockets of the nation than those receiving welfare allotments.

People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>The welfare program was started by a democrat which is now about 17% of federal spending. This program is overwhelmingly supported by democrats. Republicans have historically attempted to reduce this spending by working on programs that would allow for more independence rather than reliance on the govt. Subsidies exist equally under both parties. Romney didn't want to waste taxpayer money by giving our money to GM, for example, but oscumma did. Apparently, the freeloading liberal elites want govt. intervention in their mega corps as well. Lib elites want to grow the underclass in order to maintain their power which is why they want government dependence rather than independence. Republicans want people to be free and Demoncrats want their voting base beholden to the govt. and their supreme power. I'm afraid you are too naive to understand what is really going on.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3530 Nov 27, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
oscumma, erases any credibility, from your point....
So it's your opinion that when someone resorts to insults and name-calling, they and their point lose credibility?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3531 Nov 27, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Again, the whole point of this discussion, is that as many D's as R's use our gov't handout systems. to say one is beholden to the gov't more than the other, as you have stated, is categorically false.
Let's clarify - you're claiming the right has created and supports as many welfare-type entitlements as the left?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3532 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> Too bad, that's what I think of him and I have the right to express my views....at least for the moment. This president is the scum of the Earth.
Calling it your opinion does not stop it from making you look like a fool when it is not founded in any fact or reality...

you could say a Cardinal looks purple and call it your opinion, but you will still look like a complete ass.
Eric Gustafson

Yorktown, VA

#3533 Nov 27, 2012
Good point about the Markets, however, what's more socialist Temporary Aid to Families in Need, or Farm Aid subsidies through the Farm Bill that thousands of Farmers in Indiana benefit from. Not receiving those Farm Subsidies would run a lot of those receiving the aid out of the business of farming.

Subsidies in the fashion of Farm Subsidies pretty much guaranteed farmers a return yearly, where's the risk in waiting on a government check?
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmmm, when the government intervenes and interfers to the extent the oscumma admin has, you won't have 'up markets' and low risk. Imposing socialistic programs and a hostile business climate, you're not going to see anything going up except unemployment, crime and poverty. It's been four years and the only thing that has grown is the deficit.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3534 Nov 27, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
<quoted text>
Couldn't agree more.

Does your glass house have any mirrors?
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#3535 Nov 27, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet no republicans have ever come up with any REAL solutions to our welfare system.
Romney would have let how many millions go on the unemployment rolls and you say he's not for handouts? how bout all the handouts to the farm subsisdies and oil subsidies romney wouldn't get rid of? your thesis is based on a faulty premise.
start over.
Uh, can you please provide a link that supports your comments? Additionally, seems like it makes sense to eliminate ALL subsidies and reduce welfare spending to under 5%. Of course you realize food prices will go through the roof. Are you saying the oscumma admin hasn't been subsidizing farm and oil? I think they are, so what is your point?

We wouldn't know what Romney solution was although he supported strategies to get people OFF welfare. With his business knowledge, I think he would have been done it. The liberal elite wanted no part of that. Why release their govt. reliant slaves? They would have become Republicans.

“Ignore the trolls”

Since: Oct 08

London, UK

#3536 Nov 27, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me.
I should've typed that there have been 17 TIMES when a Republican president has won with more than 50% of the votes cast.
Editing my post to remove the other factual information given is merely a way of hiding your misinformation. And you are still wrong.

Since 1920 when women received the vote, Republican Presidents have won 7 times with a majority of the popular vote, not 17 times. The years were 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1980, 1984 and 1988. For the same period, Democrats achieved it 5 times - 1932, 1940, 1944, 1976, 2008, 2012. Do try to be accurate with your statistics. Or was that just anothewr typo?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3537 Nov 27, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's your opinion that when someone resorts to insults and name-calling, they and their point lose credibility?
Exactly...always has, always will.....
Eric Gustafson

Yorktown, VA

#3538 Nov 27, 2012
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing is, history shows higher taxes encourage growth more than lower taxes, when it comes to business reinvestment.
But that's not your high school Econ class, so a little beyond most people.
This is exactly what an analysis of the data from 65 years of Marginal and Capital Gains rate cuts have shown.

the Congressional Research Services performed a detailed analysis of the Tax Rates over the last 65 years in America. As the Marginal and Capital Gains rates have been reduced it's show that Gross Domestic Product has decreases with the rate cuts.

The greatest expansion of our economy was during the 50s and 60s, when the Marginal Tax Rate exceeded 60%, and the Capital Gains rate were over 35%.

Since, as the rates have been reduced, the American economy has constricted. From 2000 to 2009, the year over year growth was limited to 1% or less. In the 50s nd 60s the average year over year growth rates were 4%

The study was posted on the internet but the Republicans complained to have the Congressional Research Service take down the information before the public could consume the report.

“Ignore the trolls”

Since: Oct 08

London, UK

#3539 Nov 27, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>What will you do if they don't, pee down your leg again? Please grow up before voting again.
Leaving aside the contradiction of a childish comment and then telling the other poster to grow up, you might wish to consider the repercussions if Congress does not play ball ands the fiscal cliff is reached in January 2013. The USA is facing what may be a greater financial crisis than the 1930s and unless the legisature and the executive work together, both the country and the rest of the developed world will have a major problem.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3540 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>Uh, can you please provide a link that supports your comments? Additionally, seems like it makes sense to eliminate ALL subsidies and reduce welfare spending to under 5%. Of course you realize food prices will go through the roof. Are you saying the oscumma admin hasn't been subsidizing farm and oil? I think they are, so what is your point?
We wouldn't know what Romney solution was although he supported strategies to get people OFF welfare. With his business knowledge, I think he would have been done it. The liberal elite wanted no part of that. Why release their govt. reliant slaves? They would have become Republicans.
My poin is what i have continued to repeat to you. your premise that it is only democrats that use gov't handouts is faulty.
lol

Farmington, MO

#3541 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>Your ignorance astounds me because you have little understanding of who makes $250,000 and above. Your class envy is ugly and shows how little you know. This amount is only a typicial upper middle class wage of dual income earners, business owners, doctors, attorneys, CPAs, managers, school superintendents, investors, chemists, biologists, inventors, college department heads, etc. If you live in a big city or on either coast, this amount isn't even close to being 'rich'. Obviously, you don't make much and are angry about it to the point you feel you have the right to steal it from them via taxes and govt interference.
Lol, why does everyone assume that if you are ok with taking taxes back to a reasonable level for higher earners, you must be a lower earner yourself.

This is the narrow-mindedness that I was speaking of.

It's all stereotypes and black and white with you. Your right, I, along with the majority of this countries voters, don't understand it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3542 Nov 27, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's clarify - you're claiming the right has created and supports as many welfare-type entitlements as the left?
no, that is incorrect. if me saying it ten times on the same day doean't make it clear for you, you will never get it, will you...

go back, re-read. s-l-o-w-l-y. see if you can grasp the point i stated clearly many times.
Eric Gustafson

Yorktown, VA

#3543 Nov 27, 2012
it's that the objective of a Free Market, allow the market to dictate the price of a good or services...... The principles of Supply and Demand often will determine the cost of goods and services in an economy?

subsidies is nothing more than picking winners and losers. No, there's not been a Farm Bill yet under this president, the Farm Bill only comes out every 5 years, the last was signed into law in 2007.

Romney and job creation is a myth, Romney has more than 150k employees in Best Buys, Staples and Sports Authority retail establishments. 90 to 95% of his employees work part-time and earn minimum wage, selling merchandise imported from China. Romney doesn't make anything in America.

Surely if Romney provides minimum wage jobs, how certain are you he was capable of enticing other businesses in America to pay livable wages to their employees. Any production facility that has a chance to pay a livable wage Romney owns is outsourced to China to take advantage of cheap production cost there.
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>Uh, can you please provide a link that supports your comments? Additionally, seems like it makes sense to eliminate ALL subsidies and reduce welfare spending to under 5%. Of course you realize food prices will go through the roof. Are you saying the oscumma admin hasn't been subsidizing farm and oil? I think they are, so what is your point?
We wouldn't know what Romney solution was although he supported strategies to get people OFF welfare. With his business knowledge, I think he would have been done it. The liberal elite wanted no part of that. Why release their govt. reliant slaves? They would have become Republicans.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3544 Nov 27, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's your opinion that when someone resorts to insults and name-calling, they and their point lose credibility?
that's pretty muchh te first law of commenting sites. you have proven it true on many occasions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Harry Reid calls mother of Benghazi victim 'cra... 16 min o see the light 20
News GOP at war with itself 1 hr WasteWater 1,685
News Ralph Nader shook up the election in 2000. Will... 2 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 7
News Think black people aren't voting for Trump? Gue... 2 hr OccupyThis 7
News Sarah Palin photos of son stepping on dog trigg... (Jan '15) 14 hr Serratus Anterior 195
Did Hillary Clinton Violate the Espionage Act? 21 hr crockton1234 1
News Clinton, in Mormon pitch, compares Trump to rel... 22 hr tongangodz 42
More from around the web