Election Day 2012

[Regulus]

Make what the federal government would over-complicate beyond all belief a little less over-complicated. It is not Washington D.C.'s business to worry about Small Town, Mississippi. Mississippi can take of that.

Think bigger. There is no 'Small Town,' Mississippi. There is no Mississippi. These are all just abstract ideas. There's no reason why 'Small Town,' Mississippi needs its own set of laws from 'Buttcreek Canyon Falls,' Missouri.

You think it's bad now? I guarantee you: You let Obama take care of you (or even Romney. Whats important is that it's the federal gov.), and things will be worse.

How would this make things worse? I could understand fearing that the federal government would become more powerful, but it would still be bounded by the same principles. In fact, I think it would become less powerful, because it would give more control back to the people.

The way it is now, the states control the federal government. But without the states, it would be the people directly.

I thought it was key to note that the video advocated paying employees just enough that they aren't worried about money. Currently, the education required to enter cutting-edge fields like engineering and medicine is extensive and very expensive, so the amount of money that these people need in order to not worry about it would necessarily be higher.

And that's because of our extreme capitalism today. This is why the largest sum of taxes should go towards education. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that all levels of education should be entirely free, not just public school. But I really can't complain, Obama has done a good job so far with funding Pell grants.

Also, I wonder what the study would show if you are essentially working for a greater reward, but having part of it taken from you and given to someone else because that's a bit of a different situation in my opinion. Finally, it didn't really address whether or not many people would choose the more complex mental tasks over simple mechanical work if everything paid equally let alone whether people would work at all if the government ensures that even those who don't work are completely equal to those who do like several others seem to be advocating on this thread.

I don't really think that matters all that much. What does matter, though, is that a lot of 'cool' projects require a lot of funds. That's the real reason why Wikipedia and Linux have done so well. It doesn't take much funding to create a website or OS, only time. But, we can't do things like build space shuttles in our free time, just because it requires physical resources that all but professionals have access too.

Give me what I need to live, give me tools to play with, and I promise, I'll be able to create something freaking awesome. And I will ask for nothing in return. Knowing that I did something awesome is enough for me, as long as I'm living comfortably.

People are lazy in regards to physical work, but not mental work. Though I can't speak for everyone, I personally, can't turn my brain off if I wanted to. I will always be thinking about something. No matter if I get paid to or not, I'll always want to make something better. Money takes away from that focus, and the final product almost always ends up being of lesser quality as result.

As for what I think the government is for, I think it is primarily to provide internal structure and order as well as defense from outside threats. I think those who advocate for more government support of the disadvantaged truly mean well. I just don't believe that a mandatory government redistribution program is the best means to accomplish the goal.

If the government doesn't support the disadvantaged, then who will? Historically, it has typically been family, but today, family isn't really as important as it once was; we're too focused on the individual. That's fine and all, but what happens when you're 70 years old, sick, can't work, and can't pay for your medical bills? What if your family is either dead at that point, or simply doesn't care? What if the government doesn't help you? What do you do? Shoot yourself in the head? In all honesty, that's what I'd do in that situation, but I'd rather not think about it.

[TheRoguePrince]

Think bigger. There is no 'Small Town,' Mississippi. There is no Mississippi. These are all just abstract ideas. There's no reason why 'Small Town,' Mississippi needs its own set of laws from 'Buttcreek Canyon Falls,' Missouri.

Go visit San Francisco, and just the west coast in general, and then go to Louisiana, Alaska, etc. They are very different places, different people, different attitudes. Different ways of life. Those are the extreme. I live in WV. When I go to Florida or Ohio, I see some differences. North of the Mason-Dixon line can be like a whole new world. You’d be surprised what you learn when you get off your furry butt and into the real world

In fact, I'd even go as far to say that all levels of education should be entirely free, not just public school.

You think it's expensive now?
Just wait until it's "free"
(And you think it's piss-poor now? Same quote applies!)

Nothing is free. If you get rid of the registration and class fees, as I am assuming that is what you are talking about, taxes will just rise to cover the deficit. Education is payed by taxes on the state, county, and local levels and getting rid of them to cover schools would cause the system to crumble. If education is free, where are the teachers getting a salary, the school building paying off the electric bills, and buses paying for gas to drive the students there?

It doesn't take much funding to create a website or OS, only time.

I know a website designer making six figures in Atlanta that would like to have a word with you

If the government doesn't support the disadvantaged, then who will?

Um. Charities, lol. United Way, Salvation Army, etc. I don't know about you, but I've seen the "TXT 90999 to the Red Cross" multiple times during the Hurricane Sandy.

[Azdgari]

So then, do you believe that we do not have a real responsibility to take care of our impoverished, but rather a luxury, something to be done when and if we feel like it?

[TheLionPrince]

So you don't believe it's ironic that someone who stands on the stump bellowing about lowering taxes across the board actually plans to, essentially, raise taxes?

Not really. Politicians have stating they will do this and that while campaigning, but when in office, they do something else entirely. Now concerning taxes, both Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton campaigned to not raise taxes, but raised taxes during office. Romney, if elected, will be no exception.

Why vote for him if nothing he says is reliable? Which, notably, it is not, as he changes his position unlike any other politician that I've certainly ever seen. He's turned his back on abortion, gay marriage, and climate stances since he governed my state, and gosh, what does that all have in common? It's not on the party platform he wants. So he's happy to sell out his principles as long as he satisfies his party.

Obama campaigned on ending war in Iraq. It is over. He campaigned on killing Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is dead. He campaigned on saving the economy: it has grown for 31 straight months and is far from the cliff it teetered on, and the deficit is shrinking each year. He campaigned on saving the auto industry: he saved it. He campaigned on environmental issues: he has followed through. He campaigned on cracking down on wall street: he created the financial Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. He campaigned on revolutionizing health care: whether you like the bill or not, he certainly kept the promise.

Why vote for someone you admit will not do what he says ? Why vote for a chameleonic idealogue like Romney?

I will vote for Romney because he's proven enough himself to be able to take troubled situations and turn them around despite the flip-flops he had. Since you feel the need to list the President's accomplishments, it's only fair I should list Romney's accomplishments. He took a position at Bain & Company, and turned the declining business around, and made a successful spin-off business, Bain Capital. In 2002, he took over the troubled management at the 2002 Winter Olympics to be held in Salt Lake City in Utah, and the games profitted $100 million in fiscal surpluses. And though I have some disagreements with Romneycare as well as Obamacare, he at least collabrated with the Democrats on the other aisle, and passed a decent health care plan that covered 95% of the state's uninsured civilians.

And yes, Obama has "saved" the economy with 12.3 million Americans unemployed and record-level unemployment rates in ethnic communities according to the October statistics by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While I will give Obama credit for the declining weekly unemployment aid applications, USA Today reports, "the total number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits rose to just over 5 million" slightly up from 4.9 million the previous week. The report also states that the economy grew at 2% annual [economic growth] rate last quarter, and that it needed a 3% or more growth rate in order to put a dent in the unemployment rate. Reaganomics did the complete opposite concerning economic growth:

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.

The deficit under Obama was "shrinking" each year. Well, not exactly:

•FY 2013 - $901 billion.
•FY 2012 - $1.327 trillion.
•FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
•FY 2010 - $1.293 trillion.
•FY 2009 - $1.413 trillion.

Don't I see an increase in the budget deficit from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012? Not to mention, President Obama promises early during his term that he will cut in the deficit in half before his first term is over. From the statistics above, he's not even close.

Yes, Obama kept his promise on ending the Iraq War and cracking down on Wall Street, and crammed down health care reform despite a Reuters/Ipsos poll released in June 2012 showing 56% of Americans opposed the healthcare overhaul.

[DGFone]

Another thing that I've seen posted everywhere by Obama supporters: That Obama killed Bin Laden.

Well he did, sorta... What Obama did was finish a fight that we started... in the Bush years. So what really tics me off is when people say things along the lines of this: "Curses to Bush, he started so many wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!" Yeah, but we killed Osama... "Praise be to Obama, who killed the terrorist!"

Obama was the guy in charge when we found where Osama is hiding, and I am glad to say, did not hesitate to order the attack. I do give him credit for that. But not 100% of the credit belongs to him, because we used forced already in the Middle East that were already there and ready to move due to a war that is considered 'uinjust'. Killing Osama on the other hand, oh, Obama can do no wrong... At best, Obama can be qualified as 'the guy in charge when we discovered Osama and ordered the attack'.

Bye the way, for everyone who said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Yes. Yes it did. Just not nukes. But poison gas I do believe is in the "mass destruction" category, and it can certainly kill as many people as a nuke.

[Azdgari]

For all the economic figures you post, you ignore the most basic fact: jobs continue to be added to the economy steadily. It will recover. 2% was well over what was projected. We are on a trajectory, even your deficit numbers agree with it (although I concede that one increase). Besides, with Romney's $2 trillion dollar unasked defense increase, he won't be shrinking much of any deficit. No expert backs his plan--they say it's too vague to judge. And mathematically impossible. But that doesn't seem to worry anyone. Yes, there are many unemployed Americans. You know as well as me the state of the economy he had coming in. You know the trend it's on. Do you deny that the economy is on a positive trend? Do you think it's a good idea to deregulate and return to policies that destroyed our economy ? It wasn't five hundred years ago.

To address healthcare, Americans disagreed mostly with the mandate, which I think is by far the most important part. So I suppose I'm not much good to argue there.


I will post a New York Times article tomorrow morning on Obama and Romney I found compelling. If you guys could maybe post an article or explanation of what really compels you about Romney, that would be cool. :]





@DG: It's all about circumstance! Indeed, he didn't have control over that. He also didn't have control over taking an economy losing 800+ thousand jobs a month. But in the end, he is associated with both. That's the game of politics.

[DGFone]

Here is what experts agree with (I heard it on NPR): Both sides are wrong. Romney is too vague. Obama's math doesn't add up.

And you know? I don't think any politician knows how to solve the economic problems. At least, non close to being President now or in the near future. Why? Because people who become presidents tend to study law. But if you want to solve an economical crisis, you know, it's a good idea to take that economics course you skimmed in school.

Nor do I trust those so called 'economics experts' that Presidents on both sides use. Those guys are lawyers first, economics expert second. Not to mention that it is the president who calls the final shot, and he didn't take economics...

So what I think is the best solution for the crisis? Let individual people and companies work it out. Yes, there will be hardships and loss. But the people and companies that will survive know that they survived because they did something right, and they know how to handle a crisis, while those who won't survive... that's evolution.

And what I also know is happening where I live: countless of businesses are withholding hiring in preparation for a potential Obama victory and almost certain tax increase. Because this is what most people don't know about many businesses: they file their taxes as individuals. So when you say "let's tax the rich, those who make over $250k a year", you are not taxing people, but businesses. Entities that hire people and increase the economy will suffer because it is easier for them to file taxes as individuals and not as businesses (which you need expensive lawyers for...). So a "rich tax" will harm the economy, because actual individuals who make that much can afford a lawyer who will tell them how to avoid this tax.

[TheRoguePrince]

So then, do you believe that we do not have a real responsibility to take care of our impoverished, but rather a luxury, something to be done when and if we feel like it?

No one is suggesting cutting off disability. It's the definition of disadvantaged beyond that that is the question. Guess what? We're broke. No amount of tax increases can balance the budget. It may suck but there's no money.

Another thing that I've seen posted everywhere by Obama supporters: That Obama killed Bin Laden.

Well he did, sorta... What Obama did was finish a fight that we started... in the Bush years. So what really tics me off is when people say things along the lines of this: "Curses to Bush, he started so many wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!" Yeah, but we killed Osama... "Praise be to Obama, who killed the terrorist!"

Actually, as The Lion Prince pointed out in another thread, it was because of the Bush Administration's enhanced interrogation techniques that we got Bin Laden. We waterboarded an al-Qaeda official and were about to locate bin Laden's driver and follow him into the compound where he was killed. So yes, please tell me some more about how torture is wrong and how Guantanamo Bay should be shut down, something Obama promised to do in 2008 and hasn't done yet (I wonder why)

And what I also know is happening where I live: countless of businesses are withholding hiring in preparation for a potential Obama victory and almost certain tax increase.

Lol, the exact same thing is happening over here. My dad says his boss is really scared (he works at a small business FYI)

So a "rich tax" will harm the economy, because actual individuals who make that much can afford a lawyer who will tell them how to avoid this tax.

This repeats what I said a few pages back, but no one rebuked it (Maybe cause I was right? LOL) Seriously, if you think the rich are going to hand over their money cause the government says so, you're gonna have a bad time.

[Regulus]

Think bigger. There is no 'Small Town,' Mississippi. There is no Mississippi. These are all just abstract ideas. There's no reason why 'Small Town,' Mississippi needs its own set of laws from 'Buttcreek Canyon Falls,' Missouri.

Go visit San Francisco, and just the west coast in general, and then go to Louisiana, Alaska, etc. They are very different places, different people, different attitudes. Different ways of life. Those are the extreme. I live in WV. When I go to Florida or Ohio, I see some differences. North of the Mason-Dixon line can be like a whole new world. You’d be surprised what you learn when you get off your furry butt and into the real world

I've lived in Florida for 3 years. I've lived in Virginia for 5 years. I've lived in North Carolina for 5 years. I've lived in Texas for a year. I've lived in California for a year. And I lived in Arizona for 3 years.

If there's anything I've learned about living in all these places, it's that they're all very similar. There are some differences, like the southeast being more religious, and the southwest having a lot of Hispanic influence. But all-in-all, we live in a very global world.

More than half of my teachers at my high schools were from states other than the one I lived in. My physics teacher was originally from New York. One of my geometry teachers was from Ohio, the other was from Iowa. My best friend in high school moved to Florida last year. My calculus professor right now isn't even from America. I had a teacher in High School that was actually a first generation immigrant from Germany. I knew a girl in one of my English classes that used to live in the UK. One of my other classmates was Russian.

We don't live in the 1800s anymore. Moving from state to state is actually rather common now. There's a lot more diversity, and the differences in locations are only going to lessen as time goes on.

Sure, the closest thing I can get to Mexican food is Taco Bell, and if I lived in Arizona, I wouldn't be able to get sweet tea at restaurants. But in the big picture, no matter where I live, there are so many things that don't change. There's always going to be Walmart and McDonald's. In any town, there's always going to be people that go to church every week, and there's always going to be atheists. There's always going to be criminals, and there's always going to need to be a police force. Every city has a power grid, every city has a water supply, every city has cars and roads and utilities...

The only exceptions I can truly think of are the few, rare cases. Like the Amish people. But for the rest of America, we all have very, very similar lives. We just don't realize it, because we get caught up in the superficial things, like accents. ZOMG THESE PEOPLE TALK DIFFERENT THEY'RE SO WEIRD!!!1111oneoneone!!!!111

Seriously, if you think the rich are going to hand over their money cause the government says so, you're gonna have a bad time.

As long as Republicans are in office, yep.

[Woeler]

I don't really have anything to add. I can agree with most of Regulus' and azdgari's arguments. I might add a few things here and there when school finishes.

And, btw READ before you post.

Since you believe so strongly against namecalling, remember that the next time you're about to call someone ignorant, delusional, etc. You seem to have a habit of it.

I argue and debate in a respectful way (except religion, no respect from my side on that).