Obama Or Romney?

Socialized healthcare works for every other country why won't it work for the USA? oh yes i know....privatized healthcare makes the 1% even more rich. They would care less if your 2 year old dies of a pre-existing condition.

 

Read the other posts thoroughly. This makes us have less and less economic freedom. How are private health clinics making the 1% richer? They are medical professionals. They deserve a much higher pay than what they get.

 

Okay SuF. I didn't have time to respond to 5 and 6 or feel the desire to because I had Kol Nidre, but now I have time

5) Keystone XL. In addition to Keystone XL, Obama repeatedly calls for ends to "tax breaks" for oil companies. These tax breaks include exploration deductions, and things like that. Things which are naturally beneficial to the area of the united states where the discovery is. Most oil tax breaks are well-intentioned, and beneficial, and Obama seems to want to punish oil companies. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/u...d-to-subsidies-for-oil-and-gas-companies.html



6) As shown by numerous examples in Africa, aid is normally counterproductive. Aid produces a culture of dependency and a culture of hatred when that aid is cut off. In addition to this, how would we even make sure this aid GETS TO THE NORTH KOREANS. In case you didn't notice, the north koreans happen to be one of the most totalitarian regimes on the planet. Anytime food or aid is delivered, it is simply rounded up by the government, and then mostly given to them, and the scraps go to the people. The people then worship the government because it fed them, when in reality the American government fed them. This helps to fuel the propaganda machine that is North Korea. Social unrest over starvation in North Korea is the only way that the regime will change, and making the regime appear as heroes is counter-productive.

 

1) Wrong. Congress was controlled by the Democrats but they did not have a super majority in the Senate. The GOP could block any bill they wanted and guess what? They did. It was their stated mission to make Obama a one term president. That was their goal. That was their top priority. The country came second, or third, or 99th. First and foremost. Stop Obama. At all costs. They blocked everything to make Obama look bad. They didn't want to let him have any credit for doing anything. So Obama didn't get anything done because the GOP refused to let him do so.

2) Fallacious appeal to authority. Richard's political views, in my opinion are very wrong. We already have socialized medicine for what Romney calls the "47%". If you don't work enough you get free healthcare. If you do however work your ass off and have something like type II diabetes you don't get any assistance at all. You can't get insurance because you have a condition. Your medicine alone will cost you over $500 a month and if you make $500 a week you make too much to get assistance. Every month living on $2,000 with at least $500 going to just your medicine alone? You could just stop taking it. Get sick. Go to the emergency room and get free care. But not everyone does. There are plenty of very hard working people out there that try to make it on their own but can't. And no her business will not go to shit. It will go to shit more if Romney gets elected. They are cutting more from health care than Obama is. Oh and the fact that every other first world country has some type of socialized health care. We are the only ones that let good hard working people die because for some reason having everyone pay a little more is for something important is just plain awful.

3) That is a bipartisan position but Romney wants to privatize social security (or at least his running mate does). We need to reform our entitlements but until both parties agree to compromise (which the Republicans have shown over and over again they will not do to the point of getting our credit downgraded) we won't get anywhere.

4) Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Iran's nuclear program has been going on for years. It didn't just start when we pulled out of Iraq. We have bases all around the middle east still. He never pulled out of the middle east. We shouldn't, but we do.

5) I'm just going to say THE GULF OF MEXICO. Do you know how much damage that did to the economy? Do you also know that we have less than 2% of the world oil reserves and use 20%? We will never be oil independent. Obama's policy has been all of the above. He has increased drilling. He has increased production. He is also putting money into renewables so that we can get away from middle east oil. He support hydrofracking.

6) North Korea is slowly making reforms. If we offer nothing they will just turn more hostile. When they give us a sign that they will do something we want or do something we want we have to throw them a bone. That doesn't mean it will work the first try. It's an on going process.

 

I honestly think obama would make a better president than romney.

 

5) Wrong. He approved the bottom half. He said he will approve the top half if they avoid environmentally sensitive areas. They are in the process of drawing up new maps that do this. Exxon made 41 billion in profit last year. The oil and gas tax credits total 4 billion. If Exxon was the only player getting the tax break (its not at all the oil and gas industry is massive) it would see its revenue drop by 5.5%. It's profits would drop about 10%. That's not a lot. Spread it out over the entire industry (I'm too lazy to find a number for that) and each company would barely notice the drop. They have no need for the tax breaks and do not deserve them.

6) So we should let them starve to death? Or we should not reward the good behavior of the government and thus encourage them to continue testing nukes? If the people get too angry the government will suffer. They don't want that so they will appease the US so that they can get help appeasing their citizens. As they start to do what we want we can start taking more and more and hopefully get them to slowly change. This is normal. This is the same thing that we have been doing with basically every country for decades. It's nothing new and its not some liberal idea.

 

Okay first of all, you didn't address half my arguments made for point 1, probably because you can't explain how it's justified to spent 300,000$ per job created. Plus you don't acknowledge that Barack Obama, even not counting 2009/2010, has increased the deficit by more than Bush.

Second of all, do you seriously think you can refute my argument on choice by saying that it was originally a republican idea? As if that's significant at all? You're grasping at straws and it's pathetic

Thirdly, Obamacare was not enacted to combat fraud. Seriously, it's an issue but it's not major enough to credit Obama with... maybe anti-fraud agencies

No, we aren't supposed to stay in Iraq forever. Apparently you don't know much about geo-politics. There exist micro-regions within the middle east. Iran/Iraq, Syria/Lebanon, Pakistan/India, Pakistan/Afghanistan, etc etc. The collapse of any regime in any of these pairings leads to the domination of that state by another. Seeing Iraq's oil and government controlled by Iran is not acceptable. And America is an empire, anybody who tells you otherwise hasn't studied history. You cannot prevent uprising or illegal seizure of American property unless you show you have the backbone to protect it. Study big stick/dollar diplomacy buddy

REALLY... the RNC produced lies, and the DNC only produced 1 lie?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...5b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120906/us-cvn-democrats-fact-check/

 

They're both terrible. I've used this website to view their policies: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Barack_Obama_vs_Mitt_Romney

Economy: Both are bad, Romney's is unpragmatic, you cannot cut taxes without reducing spending; Obama's increasing taxes are just bias against the upper class, whom might I add, are probably the reason for the creation of wealth as most of them are entrepreneurs.

Healthcare: Both are terrible, Obamas is going down the wrong direction, and Romney's is unpragmatic. There is so much intervention and regulation in the Healthcare sector that asking people to 'go private' is stupid. I sympathise for people who support socialized healthcare, they try to save the world by rolling the dice to make up their mind on how to do it. But to be so vociferous in supporting it while neglecting the economic forces which drive the market is unforgivable, socialism on a grand scale fails on a grand scale, why people think it will be so successful on the micro scale is beyond me. My dad had to go through the public system when he compound fractured his leg, at 65 (they didn't know he had private healthcare). He waited for 4 hours before surgery, with the bone out in the fucking air. But hey, if a poor person had the same dramas, at least he got free healthcare, never mind the fact that he would've had cheap healthcare to begin with in a purely private system, with higher quality service. The point is, healthcare is free, but there's on caveat, you have to wait... and wait... and wait... and if you're still alive to get it.

Immigration: Obama wins, Romney loses.

Iraq: Obama wins, Romney loses.

Iran: Obama wins, Romney loses.

Indefinite detention: Obama wins, Romney loses.

Intervention: Obama wins, Romney loses.

SSM: Obama wins, Romney loses.

Abortion: Obama wins, Romney loses.

On social issues, Obama clearly beats Romney. On economic issues, they are both terrible, and it is no wonder people in America are slipping out of the middle class.

 

1) I do not know the size of the stimulus nor do I know exactly how many jobs it saved. Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe not. We can't know since we can't go back in time and not do it. I'm less offended by trying to save the economy and spending a lot on it than invading Iraq for no reason and spending upwards of a trillion dollars on it. Now I also believe (I'm too lazy to check) that Obama voted for the Iraq war (although I could be wrong). Either way I still would rather Obama because Romney seems to want to get us into more pointless wars that will cost us massive amounts of money.

2) You said the indivudal mandate wasn't endorsed by Republicans. It is. Just not by the current breed of ultra conservative far right wingers that are currently dominating the party. It is a bipartisan solution that allows us to make slow progress in reforming healthcare instead of upending the system and starting over. I'm not offended by it at all.

And I'm not going to spend time trying to find the article I read years ago about fraud. There was a section in the health care bill that did something (I do not know if it just increased funding or changed laws or created a new agency or what) to combat fraud and it has already been very successful. So when Romney says we should repeal Obamacare (which he says he wouldn't do anymore, just by the way) he would be getting rid of succesful fraud fighting legistaltion. That doesn't make any sense.

3) Who says Iran controls Iraq? It doesn't. If they invaded Iraq the UN would stop them. They stopped Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. We can't be operating outside the bounds of international law and relations.

About the conventions. I wasn't clear. Paul Ryan gave a speach so filled with lies that Fox News (I would call it right wing propaganda and not news) even achkolegded it was a bunch of utter bullshit. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, gave a very long speach that had facts and specifics and fact checkers found only the one minor flaw. For Obama, Clinton is the most important person. He is more important than Biden because Biden kind of sucks. For Romney, Ryan is the most important. Romney has endorsed Ryan's economic ideas and that is the heart of their caimpain. One is filled with lies and the other isn't. Why would you ever vote for someone who accepts what a pathological liar says?

 

Not going to go too in depth, because I do not like either. I am a Ron Paul supporter.

But, as for raising taxes on the rich, the top 5% of Americans already pay for 56% of all taxes, isn't that enough? Almost half of Americans pay nothing at all, the top 50% pays 97.something%

Also, the amount of people unemployed has went up I am pretty sure. Even if the numbers went down I am pretty sure its just because people quit looking for work and are perfectly happy living off the welfare Obama gives out.

Also, why is Bill Clinton supporting Obama? Wouldn't it make more sense for Obama to lose, let the Rep. win, then the term after that Hillary would be the next best for the Dems?

 

Wrong. The top 5% of earners (150kish+) pay 56% of INCOME taxes. 47% pays no INCOME taxes. There are plenty of other taxes that they pay. Income tax accounts for 47% of the federal governments income. That means the top 5%, through income taxes alone, pays for 26% of the budget. 53% of Americans pay 100% of the total INCOME taxes. That's because the other 47% do not owe any taxes. This could be because of many factors including not making enough, various deductions such as the child tax credit, tax tricks such and other stuff like carrying over losses from a previous year (I don't understand it but it happens).

Secondly the unemployment rate has gone down and up but is trending downwards. Part of that is because people are just not looking for work anymore. They gave up.

Thirdly, Obama doesn't give out welfare. Welfare is given out by congress. The various welfare programs were created over the like 80 years. President Bush I and II both expanding the food stamp program. Bush I did it far more than Obama has (I don't know exactly how much it is under their control) I believe. Fourthly, I would like you to find out what you could get from welfare and try living off of it with the conditions it places on you. Unemployment benefits run out eventually. Other benefits require you to work or to be trying to find work. Some people try to cheat the system but to assume everyone or the vast majority of people who receive help do is just ridiculous.

And Bill Clinton supports Obama because he actually cares about the country. He isn't a self centered prick who just wants to be back living in the white house. He wants the country to suceed and he gives facts and reasons as to why Obama is the better choice.

 

As far as the better candidate goes, based on the track record I would have to suggest Obama. However, claiming Barack Obama will destroy the country is complete bull crap. I hear this argument every single election. Did the nation collapse under the socialist regime of Obama? No. Did it under the police state of Bush? No. Are most people caught up in the illusion of American Democracy they either consider themselves Republicans or Democrats? Yes.

 

I am an Obama supporter trough and trough, he has done great stuff for the country and the middle/poor class and all Romney wants is make the rich richer, which in my opinion is total shit.

 

I think this thread should defer to this sticky. I agree with most people in that the choice is a horrible one, but the one real answer is a clear one, according to the sticky. Incompetent socialist versus someone equally incompetent with no real economic stance, but at least it's not socialist.

 

I am just wondering what your extent of knowledge is on the policies of Obama. Calling him a socialist is akin to calling Bush a Nazi. I not be a fan of Bush but he was no where close to a Nazi and Obama is no where close to a Socialist. The choice is between Deregulation, massive upper-tax bracket tax cuts, and cutting social programs severely or increasing taxes on the upper tax brackets, support of social programs and social program reform, regulations. The trickle down theory has already been proven wrong, look at the 8 years of Bush. You can cut taxes on the '1%' but it isn't going to trickle down to the '99%' like they think.

 

Obama is taking so much away from our military and defense systems. If he gets re-elected, and we get attacked, there won't be much we can do. i don't want Romney, but i'd take anyone over Obama at this point.

 

The point that he is getting at is that if you aren't trolling then you're retarded. You're saying that decreasing the military spending is sending the US into some sort of impending doom. First off, if the US was attacked through some sort of military assault 2/3rds of the world are allied with us. it wouldn't work. Second, cutting the defense budget down isn't going to weaken the military. So I think the conclusion is that your conclusions of being helpless due to budget cuts is blatantly retarded.

 

He isn't really taking much away from our military, but I do believe a strong military is significant/important for the USA. Another reason why I am going for Mitt Romney... stronger military, stronger country. Without a strong military we wouldn't have all the "unalienable rights" that we have today.

 

Obama has cut Pentagon spending to a level that they requested. The Pentagon identified a large amount of cash that had been wasted and that they did not need. Secondly, I believe other than the fiscal cliff Obama is only stopping the growth of current military spending. Romney (you can't be sure with him) would either: A) Leave the current growth rate intact or B) increase it.

Currently we spend more on defense than the next 14 nations combined. If Romney chooses plan B (I've read this but I do not know if it is accurate) we will spend more on our military than the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD COMBINED (other than ourselves, obviously). I think that this is feasible if we continue to increase spending while other countries cut it because we currently spend 40% of the world's military spending (could be less since China may be spending much more than their official numbers. Same could be said for other countries). Getting above that 50% mark is very doable but its completely unnecessary.

Let's put this into perspective: We have 11 active duty aircraft carriers. We have 2 (or maybe more but at least two) non-active carriers that could be brought back into service. We have three carriers currently under construction. China on the other hand has... none. They have 1 that they just bought and that is in the process of being refurbished. That aircraft carrier is also about a third of the size of one of ours which means we have what, 33 times the amount of aircraft carrier capacity? No other country has more than two. Now, we do have two Ocean borders so we need at least two but that would diminish our influence so lets say we do 8. That'd let us have 4 around home at any given time. Two near Europe / Middle East and two in the Pacific. Want more influence in the pacific? Give Australia some military cash to get their own with some conditions that if we go to war with like China, they must help.

So what I'm saying is the amount we are spending on our military is kind of insane. Reducing it while not at war but being prepared to grow it quickly isn't something that is impossible. It makes no sense to be paying for "defense" when its not defense at all. We simply invade other countries. Europe could be made to pay for more of its own defense as well. We pay way more than our fair share for NATO and shifting away from them being almost completely dependent on us is something that really needs to be done and it would save us money in the process. Saying we need a bigger military is just asinine. It's already massive and it needs to be scaled back because we are just wasting our money at this point.

 

okay, there are a few things i agree on and disagree on in this situation.


first of all, i support romney. i dont feel obama has done much for this nation in the last 4 years. in fact i feel he has hurt this nation, and i do feel that romney is going to get this economy going, or at least out of the state its in.


i believe in small government. thats what the founding fathers believed in, and that belief is what helped the us economy grow to what it is today(recession or not, we still have the largest economy in the world...not for long, i know:embar: ). obama wants centralized government. if thats what this country was built on, there would be no state law. only federal. but there is a state law, and i feel that should be more important than federal. or at least equal. that just so happens to be romneys policy also.

i dont believe in redistribution of wealth. if a man works hard and makes triple figures in a year, he shouldnt have to pay for someone else to sit at home on welfare. it shouldnt happen. my father has owned about 13 rent houses for 20+ years, and for the most part the people that are on welfare of section 8 housing are the biggest jerks. they have a sence of entitlement like nobody else ive ever seen. and every time im at work(produce stand...im 16) and someone pulls out food stamps, theyre sitting there talking on an iphone or they go and get in a new car. the amount of fraud in the welfare system is insane, and if we could get rid of that, we wouldnt need to raise taxes on the rich.

i also dont like the way the president lied about almost every one of his campaign promises. thats just an opinion. but i dont like it.

granted, romney isnt perfect. but hes a hell of alot better than obama.

in a perfect world, Ronald Reagan would still be alive. he turned this country around like no other president, and if we had him again..who know.

EDIT: about north korea...this has been happening for years. theyre a broke country. they threaten nuclear weapons, nato or the un gives them food and money, wait a couple years, it happens again....
this is no different.

and one more thing....
the environmental movement is slowly killing america. the restrictions they have managed to place on the oil and gas industry are insane.
look at china.
almost no enviromental laws, and theyre economy is set to pass the us in a few years. there are other reasons, of course, but thats one of them

and nuclear energy...
if we had more clean nuclear energy in the us, it would help us immensely. we just need a president with the balls to let them be built...and stand up to the enviromental idiots who refuse to allow them now.

so your saying give the money the 1% make to the poor, dont make them work for it?
i would rather see the 1% make more, because in that situation bussineses will grow, therefore allowing more jobs to be filled by the 99%, therefore we wont need as strong of a welfare program. oh ya, and also maybe less jobs will be outsourced...
or we could just give it out and not make em work.