Election Poll, June 2012 Debate - Quakertown, PA

Discuss the national Election Poll, June 2012 debate in Quakertown, PA.

If the election were held tomorrow, who would get your vote?

Quakertown is voting for Romney.
Mitt Romney
 
26
Barack Obama
 
15
3rd Party Candi...
 
2

Vote now in Quakertown:

Comments
21 - 40 of 56 Comments Last updated -
notoorangeman

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 13, 2012
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's total corporate profits where large mega companies skew the results with billions in profits. For a real picture, look at the condition of small and medium sized businesses - the heart of the economy. Count the closed stores in shopping centers. That's why unemployment is so high and these are the business owners Obama wants to tax further and drive out of business. This is the private sector that's not doing so well and he's prepared to ignore.
And if you drive up or down 309 in Quakertown/Richland township you will see a lot of empty stores. But if you pay attention you will notice that every one of those empty stores moved to a new shopping center when Richland Township allowed them to be built!
shemp

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 14, 2012
 
It's called the " White House " for a reason .
JJJ

Trenton, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jun 14, 2012
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's total corporate profits where large mega companies skew the results with billions in profits. For a real picture, look at the condition of small and medium sized businesses - the heart of the economy. Count the closed stores in shopping centers. That's why unemployment is so high and these are the business owners Obama wants to tax further and drive out of business. This is the private sector that's not doing so well and he's prepared to ignore.
Honestly, do you think Obama had a meeting where he said "Let's figure out how to make it really hard for small business to survive" ?

Admittedly, that "doing fine" line was a screw up. But what he meant to refer to is this...

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/22480/F...

Private sector jobs growth has been climbing steadily since Obama took office. Just look at where the low point occurred (the end of 2008). Compare that to the public sector job growth. Up one month and then steadily negative growth since 2010. This says two things...

1. Despite all of the right's hemming and hawing, Obama actually isn't creating some giant communist government (how could you be a commie if your term has included much more elimination of government jobs than creation of government jobs?).

2. If you're looking for a reason unemployment is staying fairly steady is that although the private sector is showing mostly positive job growth, cuts to the public sector are doing some offsetting.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jun 14, 2012
 
notoorangeman wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you drive up or down 309 in Quakertown/Richland township you will see a lot of empty stores. But if you pay attention you will notice that every one of those empty stores moved to a new shopping center when Richland Township allowed them to be built!
I'm talking about storefronts I see all across the country.
But I don't think the stores that were in that shopping center across from BonTon or the one on Park Avenue at 309 are reopening anywhere else. I hope I'm wrong about that.
getting by

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jun 14, 2012
 
i thought hillary clinton would have made a better president than obama in 2008, but after he got the nod i voted for him. don't think i will this year, he has disappointted me and my family. mitt rommney sounds like he has a good head for business and the economy and strong family values.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jun 14, 2012
 
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly, do you think Obama had a meeting where he said "Let's figure out how to make it really hard for small business to survive" ?
Admittedly, that "doing fine" line was a screw up. But what he meant to refer to is this...
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/22480/F...
Private sector jobs growth has been climbing steadily since Obama took office. Just look at where the low point occurred (the end of 2008). Compare that to the public sector job growth. Up one month and then steadily negative growth since 2010. This says two things...
1. Despite all of the right's hemming and hawing, Obama actually isn't creating some giant communist government (how could you be a commie if your term has included much more elimination of government jobs than creation of government jobs?).
2. If you're looking for a reason unemployment is staying fairly steady is that although the private sector is showing mostly positive job growth, cuts to the public sector are doing some offsetting.
No, I don't think he DELIBERATELY is trying to sabotage small businesses. I think he's doing it for two reasons:

1) He really doesn't understand how small businesses, specifically S Corporations, are taxed, operate and manage their cashflow. He and the people he's surrounded himself with have zero experience. They come from a social activist background.

2) His goals of increasing revenue to the govt cannot be met by simply increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires. He has to go down to people (and businesses) with incomes of $250K per year. That wasn't an arbitrary number. He talks about private jet owners and such, but do you hear him talk about dry cleaners, contractors, bakers, and other small business owners who are in this category but have payrolls to meet, estimated taxes to pay, and other operating expenses that require adequate cash on hand during a bad economy? Most small business owners take a relatively small salary and keep most of the profits in the business, except for occasional distributions when things are good. This is taxed as ordinary income by the government, so the net effect will be less money put into the private sector to pay for hiring new employees, workers raises and benefits, supplies, capital equipment, etc., and more money into the wasteful govt coffers.

The statistics you quote are "smoke and mirrors." Most people freely admit that real unemployment is much higher than the already high 8.1%, depending on the region and demographics. It's true that public sector hiring is down - that's good, but it has a long way to go. It's estimated that in the defense sector alone, redundant departments and programs are costing taxpayers $800 billion per year.

I don't think Obama wants to turn the country Communist, or has the belief that he could do it even if he wanted to. I do think it's clear if you take an honest look at his background, mentors, and associates, that an extreme Left bias is there. Many of the people in his influence circles have, in fact, been admitted Communists and Socialists. That doesn't mean he wants to take the country there, but it does give you an indication that his agenda is for big govt and more govt influence and regulation in the lives of Americans. It not only suits his ideology, it reinforces his lust for holding onto political power by locking in the entitlement mindset of the voters.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jun 14, 2012
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think he DELIBERATELY is trying to sabotage small businesses. I think he's doing it for two reasons:
1) He really doesn't understand how small businesses, specifically S Corporations, are taxed, operate and manage their cashflow. He and the people he's surrounded himself with have zero experience. They come from a social activist background.
2) His goals of increasing revenue to the govt cannot be met by simply increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires. He has to go down to people (and businesses) with incomes of $250K per year. That wasn't an arbitrary number. He talks about private jet owners and such, but do you hear him talk about dry cleaners, contractors, bakers, and other small business owners who are in this category but have payrolls to meet, estimated taxes to pay, and other operating expenses that require adequate cash on hand during a bad economy? Most small business owners take a relatively small salary and keep most of the profits in the business, except for occasional distributions when things are good. This is taxed as ordinary income by the government, so the net effect will be less money put into the private sector to pay for hiring new employees, workers raises and benefits, supplies, capital equipment, etc., and more money into the wasteful govt coffers.
The statistics you quote are "smoke and mirrors." Most people freely admit that real unemployment is much higher than the already high 8.1%, depending on the region and demographics. It's true that public sector hiring is down - that's good, but it has a long way to go. It's estimated that in the defense sector alone, redundant departments and programs are costing taxpayers $800 billion per year.
I don't think Obama wants to turn the country Communist, or has the belief that he could do it even if he wanted to. I do think it's clear if you take an honest look at his background, mentors, and associates, that an extreme Left bias is there. Many of the people in his influence circles have, in fact, been admitted Communists and Socialists. That doesn't mean he wants to take the country there, but it does give you an indication that his agenda is for big govt and more govt influence and regulation in the lives of Americans. It not only suits his ideology, it reinforces his lust for holding onto political power by locking in the entitlement mindset of the voters.
as to reason 2.
how did business get by when Clinton tax rates were in place?
the tax reduction under Bush was touted as job creation when in fact job creation was flat during his terms of office.
Lastly why are the republicans against any spending cuts for the Defense department?
when has the tea party advocated Defense cuts?
i have not seen that plank.
JJJ

Trenton, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jun 14, 2012
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think he DELIBERATELY is trying to sabotage small businesses. I think he's doing it for two reasons:
1) He really doesn't understand how small businesses, specifically S Corporations, are taxed, operate and manage their cashflow. He and the people he's surrounded himself with have zero experience. They come from a social activist background.
I'm pretty sure he understands how businesses are taxed, but what can he do? Any effort to rewrite the tax code are blocked. Our government is run by a bunch of stubborn children right now.
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The statistics you quote are "smoke and mirrors." Most people freely admit that real unemployment is much higher than the already high 8.1%, depending on the region and demographics. It's true that public sector hiring is down - that's good, but it has a long way to go. It's estimated that in the defense sector alone, redundant departments and programs are costing taxpayers $800 billion per year.
How is quoting real, actual numbers, smoke and mirrors? Pretending statistics don't exist and then saying whatever you believe to be true that makes the president look bad (Romney's apparent platform) is the real smoke and mirrors. It's true you can skew unemployment however you want, but that chart is not showing unemployment, it's showing the actual rate of jobs added/subtracted from the economy. There's a difference. Also, only one candidate argues for cutting defense spending. Romney is campaigning to INCREASE it.
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Obama wants to turn the country Communist, or has the belief that he could do it even if he wanted to. I do think it's clear if you take an honest look at his background, mentors, and associates, that an extreme Left bias is there. Many of the people in his influence circles have, in fact, been admitted Communists and Socialists. That doesn't mean he wants to take the country there, but it does give you an indication that his agenda is for big govt and more govt influence and regulation in the lives of Americans. It not only suits his ideology, it reinforces his lust for holding onto political power by locking in the entitlement mindset of the voters.
Talk about smoke and mirrors. That's almost some Dan Brown fiction. I'm sure you're very familiar with the things Obama lusts for.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jun 14, 2012
 
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
as to reason 2.
how did business get by when Clinton tax rates were in place?
the tax reduction under Bush was touted as job creation when in fact job creation was flat during his terms of office.
Lastly why are the republicans against any spending cuts for the Defense department?
when has the tea party advocated Defense cuts?
i have not seen that plank.
You're mixing up topics again. Businesses "got by" because we weren't in a deep recession. It didn't amount to pouring gasoline on a fire. Even Clinton and Obama's friend, the Democrat Mayor of Newark, think it's a bad idea.

I don't know that all Republicans are against any cuts to defense spending or that all Tea Partiers do not advocate them. Sounds like Democrat talking points to me. My understanding is that Boehner, Republican leaders, and Tea Party supporters say that everything is on the table. Admittedly, Democrats are more willing to compromise our national security than take a hard look at entitlements than are Republicans.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jun 14, 2012
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You're mixing up topics again. Businesses "got by" because we weren't in a deep recession. It didn't amount to pouring gasoline on a fire. Even Clinton and Obama's friend, the Democrat Mayor of Newark, think it's a bad idea.
I don't know that all Republicans are against any cuts to defense spending or that all Tea Partiers do not advocate them. Sounds like Democrat talking points to me. My understanding is that Boehner, Republican leaders, and Tea Party supporters say that everything is on the table. Admittedly, Democrats are more willing to compromise our national security than take a hard look at entitlements than are Republicans.
the tea party has never advocated defense cuts.
republicans have stated that defense is off the table in the past.
your last statement is nice spin on how republicans like spending on defense whether it is needed or not.
i admit nice twist.
kudos.
when the republicans get serious about defense costs they can tout how they want to cut government spending.
till then they have no real right to argue at least with a straight face.
most republicans want to increase defense spending usually on things that even the defense department says they do not need.
the number of not needed programs they wanted to fund are a little too long to list.
where is the House on massive cost over runs in the defense department?
try the new LST ships they want the navy to buy.
or the stealth destroyer they are now selling for scrap after spending gobs of money on.
Democrats like defense pork as well if it is in their district.
so they get blame as well.

they adopt the "nothing to see here" attitude
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jun 14, 2012
 
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pretty sure he understands how businesses are taxed, but what can he do? Any effort to rewrite the tax code are blocked. Our government is run by a bunch of stubborn children right now.
<quoted text>
How is quoting real, actual numbers, smoke and mirrors? Pretending statistics don't exist and then saying whatever you believe to be true that makes the president look bad (Romney's apparent platform) is the real smoke and mirrors. It's true you can skew unemployment however you want, but that chart is not showing unemployment, it's showing the actual rate of jobs added/subtracted from the economy. There's a difference. Also, only one candidate argues for cutting defense spending. Romney is campaigning to INCREASE it.
<quoted text>
Talk about smoke and mirrors. That's almost some Dan Brown fiction. I'm sure you're very familiar with the things Obama lusts for.
He may or may not understand it, but he sure is keeping it a secret. Not many people know about the way S Corporations are taxed or that the $250K threshold pertains to business income and not just salaries. What can he do? He can stop misleading people into thinking that increasing these taxes will do anything to improve the economic situation we're in and that it's only the "super rich" giving their "fair share." It does absolutely NOTHING about the $16,000,000,000,000 debt, trillion-dollar deficits, and out-of-control spending. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. In fact, the debt ceiling will have to be raised again in November regardless, and we'll be another trillion dollars in the hole. How long can we keep putting band-aids on a hemorrage? In that respect, you are right - there's a bunch of children on Capital Hill, whose only concern is with keeping their jobs. Most are content with kicking the can down the road, Democrats and Republicans. Romney may not be the answer, but he deserves a chance now that Obama has proven that he's not up to the job. Why give a guy who's struck out another swing at bat - especially when he's not intending to do anything differently?

As for statistics, you know as well as I that they can be spun and manipulated. What's reported as jobs added and subtracted from the economy doesn't take into account many factors, such as seasonal/temporary workers, forced retireees, people no longer looking, and the "off-the-grid" population. In truth, there are areas of the country where unemployment is low - about 4-6%. In other areas, it is in double digits and in some demographics it can approach 25%. So, the aggregate number doesn't mean much. Statistics mean even less if you are one of the unemployed.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jun 14, 2012
 
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
the tea party has never advocated defense cuts.
republicans have stated that defense is off the table in the past.
your last statement is nice spin on how republicans like spending on defense whether it is needed or not.
i admit nice twist.
kudos.
when the republicans get serious about defense costs they can tout how they want to cut government spending.
till then they have no real right to argue at least with a straight face.
most republicans want to increase defense spending usually on things that even the defense department says they do not need.
the number of not needed programs they wanted to fund are a little too long to list.
where is the House on massive cost over runs in the defense department?
try the new LST ships they want the navy to buy.
or the stealth destroyer they are now selling for scrap after spending gobs of money on.
Democrats like defense pork as well if it is in their district.
so they get blame as well.
they adopt the "nothing to see here" attitude
The Tea Party, to my understanding is for ANY cuts in govt spending that are deemed excessive or unsustainable. I've never heard anyone from the Tea Party, including Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, say that absolutely nothing in Defense spending can be cut. That is a myth put out by the Democrats. Are they less likely to cut defense spending, yes. And national security is a good reason. Are both parties guilty of holding onto their "pork" spending, defense and otherwise? I agree. Even Ron Paul admitted to being guilty of that.
JJJ

Trenton, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jun 14, 2012
 
Just for fun, everyone should try this out:

http://www.politify.us/

You put in some basic information about yourself and it will tell you which candidate will treat you the best.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jun 14, 2012
 
JJJ wrote:
Just for fun, everyone should try this out:
http://www.politify.us/
You put in some basic information about yourself and it will tell you which candidate will treat you the best.
Interesting. Romney's my man, no surprise there. It says I will lose $22K in federal benefits, but gain $47K in tax benefits. Wonder which govt bennies it assumes I'll lose. It doesn't say how each candidate's programs will affect the economy, though. That's where my interest lies, not so much in how it will affect me personally.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jun 14, 2012
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The Tea Party, to my understanding is for ANY cuts in govt spending that are deemed excessive or unsustainable. I've never heard anyone from the Tea Party, including Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, say that absolutely nothing in Defense spending can be cut. That is a myth put out by the Democrats. Are they less likely to cut defense spending, yes. And national security is a good reason. Are both parties guilty of holding onto their "pork" spending, defense and otherwise? I agree. Even Ron Paul admitted to being guilty of that.
palin on defense cuts. for what it is worth

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

"Palin also took on Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, challenging his drive to rein in procurement spending and reevaluate the need for certain huge weapons systems.

"Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy. He said we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers,$7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers. He went on to ask,'Do we really need ... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?' " Palin said. "Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and yes, we do, because we must."
grimk

Pottstown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jun 15, 2012
 
we cant afford four more years of obama
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jun 15, 2012
 
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
as to reason 2.
how did business get by when Clinton tax rates were in place?
the tax reduction under Bush was touted as job creation when in fact job creation was flat during his terms of office.
Lastly why are the republicans against any spending cuts for the Defense department?
when has the tea party advocated Defense cuts?
i have not seen that plank.
Because we weren't in a recession, that's how. Have you forgotten Clinton's surplus and booming economy so soon? The why of the Bush tax cuts don't matter. In fact, they are not Bush tax cuts any longer, Obama has said before it is not time to raise taxes on anyone (that was before he said it was time)and he kept the tax cuts not to create jobs, but to keep the money in the economy.

Republicans would agree to going back to the tax situation in 2008 IF the Democrats agreed to going back to the SPENDING levels of 2008. Of course, they won't. As for the Tea Party, when have they NOT advocated Defense cuts? Planks are not generally about what a party will not do.

As far as I know, everything is on the table as long as the other party cuts in other areas. The Democrat idea of a spending cut is a reduction in the forecasted increase of spending. In other words, still an increase but not as much of an increase. They have the b*lls to call that a "REDUCTION" in spending. That's the kind of BS that voters are tired of.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jun 15, 2012
 
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
palin on defense cuts. for what it is worth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
"Palin also took on Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, challenging his drive to rein in procurement spending and reevaluate the need for certain huge weapons systems.
"Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy. He said we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers,$7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers. He went on to ask,'Do we really need ... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?' " Palin said. "Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and yes, we do, because we must."
Thank you for proving my point with this article. First, it underlines what I said about the Tea Party being open to cuts in defense spending - that's why Sarah Palin's support is being sought by those who do not want Defense on the Tea Party's hit list. Secondly, you omitted this quote:

"Something has to be done urgently to stop the out-of-control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny," she said."

Again, NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY would not seem to exclude Defense.
She does go on to qualify that:

"We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great. That is a price we cannot afford to pay."

I don't think many Americans would argue with that statement.
So here you have a "leader" of the Tea Party movement, allowing for cuts in Defense spending as long as it doesn't undermine the effectiveness of the military.

Do Liberals want to undermine the effectiveness of the military?
GIO

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jun 15, 2012
 
In the past 4 years things have only gotten worse for me. Seems that even though I am a struggling middle class person I am not poor enough for his help. My business failed when I did not qualify for his stimulus plan. Seems you needed to be green to get assistance.
He is arrogant, done nothing, and wants to cater to Ilegals. Can anyone do worse?
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jun 15, 2012
 
GIO wrote:
In the past 4 years things have only gotten worse for me. Seems that even though I am a struggling middle class person I am not poor enough for his help. My business failed when I did not qualify for his stimulus plan. Seems you needed to be green to get assistance.
He is arrogant, done nothing, and wants to cater to Ilegals. Can anyone do worse?
Sure, give him and the Democrat Senate another four years. Without having to worry about being re-elected, he'll push through things that will make your hair stand on end. You won't be able to recognize the country by the time they're done.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

24 Users are viewing the Quakertown Forum right now

Search the Quakertown Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
PA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Pennsylva... (Oct '10) 46 min snag 3,810
Paul Stepanoff Needs to be Removed NOW! 1 hr Tim Arnold 139
Memories of Quakertown (Jan '10) 10 hr QT-cutie 744
PA Who do you support for Governor in Pennsylvania... (Oct '10) 14 hr More Settled Science 51,184
What is the primary function of the U.S. Govern... 17 hr TerryE 4
Zorro's? 17 hr Huh 3
Emu Brian Tue Huh 2

Quakertown Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]