| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
Non-Americans see a stark difference between Democrats and Republicans. It's only Americans that perceive them as the same.
FYI: Outside of the US the Republican party has become viewed as far right-wing over the past 4 years, while the Democratic party is seen as centre/centre-right.
FYI: Outside of the US the Republican party has become viewed as far right-wing over the past 4 years, while the Democratic party is seen as centre/centre-right.
Shit at economics? The Democrats have generally adhered to Keynesian economics, which has been the mainstay in Western economic theory since WWII. Keynesian economics is about minimizing recessions by drafting safety nets (i.e. regulation of financial institutions, establishment of social security, etc.).
The Republicans however adhere to no concise economic theory, but it generally revolves around the total deregulation of the financial sector, the abolition/privatization of all social services such as social security, medicare and medicaid and further tax cuts for "job creators" (millionaires, billionaires).
Obama for example pays 21% of his income in taxes, less than that of his secretary. Romney pays 14% of his income in taxes, which is lower than someone making an income of $8,375 (15%). This is because most rich people get their income through investments (stock), which is taxed at a much lower rate.
The Republicans however adhere to no concise economic theory, but it generally revolves around the total deregulation of the financial sector, the abolition/privatization of all social services such as social security, medicare and medicaid and further tax cuts for "job creators" (millionaires, billionaires).
Obama for example pays 21% of his income in taxes, less than that of his secretary. Romney pays 14% of his income in taxes, which is lower than someone making an income of $8,375 (15%). This is because most rich people get their income through investments (stock), which is taxed at a much lower rate.
Their control is too spread out. There's no accountability as to how they spend their money. Easiest example I can think of: I work on an air force base over the summers, I get paid 15 an hour to mow lawns. WTF? Any other job would be paid quite a bit less. Also, anything they have done by contractors has to be done like 5 times because they never do it right the first time. If a company wanted something done, whoever they hired would get it done the first time if they wanted credibility and to be hired again. With the military, the people paying them aren't spending their own money, nor do they have much of a cap. They can just spend whatever they like. If it's like that in the military, I'm pretty sure it's similar in other government institutions.
#9377 to #9323
-
largenintimidating (09/25/2012) [-]
Sooo...
Obama is the real deal, mixing the right amount of refreshment, taste and kick, while Romney is a cheap knockoff whose drinkers are all of lower educational achievement, income, intelligence and too pussy to handle the kick of an actual Cola?
inb4 liberalfag. I just like Coke.
Obama is the real deal, mixing the right amount of refreshment, taste and kick, while Romney is a cheap knockoff whose drinkers are all of lower educational achievement, income, intelligence and too pussy to handle the kick of an actual Cola?
inb4 liberalfag. I just like Coke.
Pepsi could taste exactly like Coke if they wanted to. But their advertising strategy is that they're not coke, they're something different. If they tasted like Coke, no one would buy it unless they lowered their prices.
A lot of people prefer one over the other, but what's the difference in the end? They both accomplish the same goal, you're not really going to be any happier or more refreshed if you drank coke rather than if you drank pepsi. Same with these candidates, mostly the same ingredients, but present themselves way differently from the other.
I was trying to make a joke, not a political statement.
I think you have a valid point, but I wouldn't go as far as to say marketing is the only significant difference between the candidates. There are important differences of ideology, policy and experience between them that you have omitted and that would make a difference in the lives of the citizens and the condition of the nation.
But I still think Pepsi is better
I think you have a valid point, but I wouldn't go as far as to say marketing is the only significant difference between the candidates. There are important differences of ideology, policy and experience between them that you have omitted and that would make a difference in the lives of the citizens and the condition of the nation.
But I still think Pepsi is better
Not that their marketing strategies themselves are different, their strategy is to make themselves seem different. Romney: "Well at least I'm not Obama" Obama: "Well at least I'm not Mitt." That's what all this mudslinging is about, to make themselves seem better without any real facts.
I don't think people got your joke though (myself included)
I don't think people got your joke though (myself included)