Obama wins reelection!

I really knew nothing about him other than continually seeing "Ron Paul 2012" bumper stickers until recently. Just go through his debates on youtube - seems like one of the few politicians with his priorities straight as far as I'm concerned.

 

Ron Paul is the man, and everyone should vote for him. But he is 77 right now, so in 4 years he will be 81 lmao. I do hear that his son Randall Paul will be running, and he is exactly like his dad.

 

For a 77 year old he's still pretty spunky, so hopefully he'll be like that when he's 81. I'd still vote for him.

 

Warning, the language I'm using is being drastically diminished to be understood clearly for the suggested audience.

The word taxation is synonymous with theft, which falls into the immoral stance of universally preferable behavior if I last recalled, but getting into the basics of philosophy might confuse many on these forums, so I'll stick to the economics. America does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. No matter how much revenue in taxation is taken from any class of people, the government will spend it all, which is thoroughly explained in this short video; moreover, the statement that rich people hoard wealth is absurd. Basic human nature elaborated by names such as Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith is that each human being is greedy, in the sense that they will always strive to gain more units of utility [definition]. The outcomes of this always leads to not only benefits for the individual, but other individuals that are also striving for the same thing. It's only with government intervention do we see a distortion of this natural process.

Furthermore, your statements on social security, health care, unemployment insurance, and food stamps are wrong. Social security is not what you assume it to be - it is not a system where people pay into a large pool when they work and get it all back when they retire. If that was the case, social security couldn't possibly be bankrupt like it is today. The reason why social security doesn't work is because the government uses the funds to pay for other needless expenses. However, private retirement is a far superior alternative to government retirement, which is explained well in this video. To quickly touch on health care, look at examples of countries with government health care like Cuda, Spain, or Canada in this video by John Stossel. To claim that people are not eager to become lazier when free money and food is offered to them is preposterous. Only since the government has made it easier to be eligible for these handouts have people suddenly lowering their standards of living. The average low class poor person in America has shelter, a refrigerator, television with cable, heat, a microwave, some even a car, you name it. To believe that without government forcefully taking money from others to give to the poor that the poor would be left to starve makes absolutely no sense, especially given the fact that America is the largest provider of charity on the entire planet.

By your presented rhetoric and self-believed knowledge I can tell what kind of educational background you've had, and for that I'm truly sorry. Of course a single reply to your single quote won't change your mind that has been utterly brainwashed through your life. It's not too late to discover such basic philosophical and economical truths. I would highly recommend the video Statism is Dead by philosopher Stefan Molyneux and yours truly. Have a good one


Shoutout to Sanct<3

 

Rand Paul is nothing like his father. If he was truly a libertarian he wouldn't be pandering to the religious right with his social policy. I like Gary Johnson's social policy, he had it right - I just don't agree with the privatization of public industries such as our prison system.

Utilitarianism, eh?

During the Reaganomics period the government opened the 'cookie jar' that was Social Security and allowed the government to dip into it.

 

If you want to call it that sure, I prefer to call it truth. I don't quite understand the relevance of your second statement seeing as how it doesn't change the fact that the social security system is not only destroyed but has always been a corrupt disaster of government intervention, relieving individual independence further and imprisoning the unborn with overwhelming debt and making radical promises to the living to get reelected. A video by economist Miltion Friedman on the common myths of social security goes into further detail on the subject.

 

I didn't really pay much attention but I like Obama.

 

This is the problem, way too many people vote because they like a candidate rather than read over their policies. E.g. (no racist) a lot of blacks voted Obama for the PURE fact he is half black (to them he is full black).

 

This is also very true.

People hear good stuff about obama from only media, peers, aka everything you're SUPPOSE to hear, and they think he's the man.

People hear bad stuff about obama from only media, peers, etc. and they think he's horrible simply based on that.

There's so much bias, it just seems unfair on every aspect - for, against, this guy, that guy, whatever. Seems like a perfect example of people abusing their rights.

 

Packing my bags and moving to Canada. :love:

 

Well that's the problem. Your opinion is just that - Your opinion. You can call it truth or whatever you want but it doesn't detract for the subjectivity of it all. I can be a Rothbarian, or a Neo-socialist, or an anarchist (of any variety) and have just as many economist discredit all of your economic theories and just as many philosopher debate the merit of your utility system. Heard of the Utility Monster?

Concerning point two before the 1980s the social security system was completely stable, but once Reagan opened it up to borrow from he decided to never pay it back. This lead to the destabilization of the system.

Hope you enjoy a country that is even more liberal than the US. Strict fire arm regulations, universal healthcare, high taxes, and more.

 

I think he deserve to be elected for the second time.

 

Obama and Romney are both fakes. Both puppets for the elites.

 

There is no problem. What people decide to label is completely irrelevant to truth, which is why it doesn't matter what you call it, it only matters what it means. You claim that it's subjective, but UPB shows empirically that what I've previously stated is truth. The non aggression principle (non coercion axiom) and property rights are truths, not opinions. Morals are not subjective, but can be easily proven and used to determine what is practical in reality. None of my arguments were based on subjectivity, merit, or the anything else you want to label them as. If you want to make an argument, you need to bring up what I said that's wrong, because all you've done was make claims without reasoning.

 

1) It is unfair to hold Obama to a higher standard than you did with Bush. Either hold them both to the same standard or shut up. It isn't that Bush's actions have anything to do with Obama's actions. It's about holding everyone to the same standard and judging them accordingly and when you do that Bush was obviously far worse.

We can't really know. I don't trust anything Fox says because it is a Republican propaganda show. When most of the other major networks that aren't biased as hell start saying that Fox is wrong, I assume Fox is wrong and is just lying to push a Republican agenda.

2) No. I'm not. Of course there are some people who try to game the system but they are in the very very very very very very small minority. The majority of the people actually need our help and have no where else to turn.

Ron Paul is a radical. He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. He believes states can ban abortion and force religious beliefs on people. He would completely isolate us as a country in regards to the rest of the world (pulling out of the UN and NATO, returning every single soldier home, etc). He is also a climate change denier and would do away with all environmental protections and allow individuals to sue if someone damaged their property.

Some of his ideas are good but all together he is very awful.

1) Government does not always spend all the money it brings in. The federal government might but local government may not. Baseless false claim.

2) Um. No. Rich people hoard their money. They invest some of it but that's just so that they gain more money which they can then hoard. You again have made a baseless false claim.

3) Social Security isn't bankrupt. Please get your facts straight. It still has a surplus. Another ignorant baseless claim. And no. Private retirement does not work because it is not guaranteed. Social Security is. No matter what, you will get your money. This protects people from having nothing if the economy crashes and their savings are wiped out. Social Security won't generate as much money from the money it takes in but it will always be there and that's the point. I don't see how that is hard to understand.

4) I'm not watching your video but we have a lower level of care and higher costs of care than basically every socialized system. We are obviously doing something very wrong.

5) So you are saying we should let people starve and freeze to death if they have 5 children to feed and their minimum wage job doesn't bring in enough? Most of the entitlements have some sort of work requirement. We believe everyone deserves at least a certain standard of living and if they can not provide it themselves the government should help. If they are trying to game the system, they shouldn't be.

6) I can tell by what you are saying that you are disillusioned young person that has absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are brainwashed by some stupid Youtube videos. I have had a very good education so far and I will not tolerate personal attacks. Also... Fun fact: The more education you have the more likely you are to vote Democratic. You're very wrong again. Please try to use facts next time, ok?

 

I'm British and not incredibly involved with US politics but all I can say is that Romney had some crazy ideas and him being the President didn't make me feel to good. Obama may have done some crazy things but at least he's got common sense.

 

I think it fucking sucks that we can't get someone in office that isn't a democrat or republican. It's all a scam.

 

Not happy. Now MY taxes are going to go up due to all the fools in the united states who can't/won't earn their own way through life? Just because I make a helluva fine living, now I have to pay their way through life and pay for their shitty healthcare system? This style of healthcare has been in effect in Canada for ages. Half of my family lives there, and they'll all be the first to tell you that it's worthless. It will work flawlessly for a few years until the flood of patients catches up to the capability of the healthcare system. My grandmother(lived in canada) suffered from Poleo, and had cancer which led to her passing. By the time that their wonderful healthcare system could find the time to actually help her, it was too late. When she had her hip replacement surgery, it took over six months before they actually did anything to help her.

anywho, it's quite comical that as soon as he got re-elected...the entire stock market began to plummet.
Thanks for re-electing him guys, now enjoy your recession when it's all said and done. Oh, and enjoy the increase in gas prices within about six months. Being an insider in the oil/gas industry, heavy budget cuts have already been made in many of the bigger drilling companies due to the re-election.

 

SuF do you even have a job? You're referring to your "very good education so far," but aren't speaking from the point of view of anyone who has ever had to fend for himself.

You're just introducing local government into this issue as a red herring. The discussion is about Obama, and as far as I can tell he hasn't run for local office since the 80s.

Also, you're wrong. The federal government DOES spend all of its money; it has for the past twelve years and counting. Not only that, but the federal government spends more money than it possibly can. And for that matter, the federal government actually orders the Fed to actually create more for it to spend. China is no longer the biggest supplier of our excess budget; the fed is, thanks to September 2012's QE3 being issued.

Here's where I wonder if you have a job. Where exactly do rich people "hoard" their money? I personally hoard my own money in a money market account, and my 401k is being hoarded in a retirement account that is tied to stocks, bonds, and other investments that are all aimed towards furthering someone else's dream. Have you have ever had student loans (before the government bought them out), a credit card, a car loan, a mortgage, or any other type of loan? Whatever money you borrowed, you got it because some rich person hoarded it.

Next you're going to say something even more ignorant like basketball players don't deserve to make millions of dollars a year.

Social security has a surplus now, but look at the facts. It will be bankrupt, and the social security cliff is looming. How can you deny that social security needs reform? Roosevelt created it in 1935, and back then the life expectancy was 61.7 years old (source), yet the retirement age was 65. On average, people were able to get SS benefits for -3.3 years. Now, the life expectancy is around 79, with an average benefits range of 14 years. At the very least, something needs to be done about that. For the record, I'm lumping in other entitlements to this criticism as well. I understand SS works differently than other things like Medicaid, but the benefits age is generally the same.

The fact that social security is guaranteed is also scary, but that's more of an ideological thing than fact based.

You've closed off your mind to any arguments, which tells me that you refuse to look at both sides of the issue. I find it hard to take criticisms from people who refuse to even look at evidence in order to refute it. Above anything else, all you're saying to me is you made up your mind out of impulse rather than a well-reasoned decision.

Where did he, or anyone else arguing against Obama, say that we want poor people to starve? What people never seem to realize is that the conservative vote is FOR the lower class. The fact of the matter is, the bloated state of government is what causes a lot of the "desolation" that we see. Furthermore, as Joey remarked, the "lower class" is hella well off. I'm technically eligible for food stamps by a long shot, although I personally consider myself well off, all things considered. No, I can't eat out at restaurants every night, but I can definitely put food on my table.

In fact, the people who seem to be against the lower class are the liberal base. If you need any other proof than campaign spending records, please let me and I'll find some. Obama out-spent Romney by two-fold in this election. Where do you think the campaign money came from? From starving lower-class people, or from extremely rich corporations and businessmen who are paying for the candidate they believe will keep them in their elevated strata? Likewise, of the ten most wealthy counties in the United States, eight of them voted for Obama. Again, are they voting because they feel obligated to help the poor, or are they voting because they understand what it will take to keep themselves up there?

I was going to ignore your post until you said this heinous, blatant lie. It reminded me of some bullshit CNN guest that they had on election night, who said the majority of Obama's support came from urban areas. He intimated that these urban areas have a higher percent of college-educated voters, and this educated base is what won the election. In fact, Romney took 51 percent of college graduates, compared to 47 percent for Obama. I don't know about you, but when someone has a four-point lead or higher in politics I generally call it a much decided victory. It's seeming more and more likely every day that they analyze the exit poll data that Sanct's video of Obama voters is actually more representative than we had thought. Obama had the ignorant and the government-dependent vote, and that is why he won.

I'm referring to facts in my post rather than attacks and vague statements, but let me point out that being a "disillusioned young person that has absolutely no idea what [he] is talking about" actually means he will vote for Obama. He thrashed Romney with the youth vote. In terms of statistics, the youth vote is a liberal vote, yet you are alluding to the fact that being young means being rash and misinformed. Therefore, one can only conclude that you think the liberal vote is the rash and misinformed vote?



It is clear that you seem to believe that you are rooting for the poor, but don't let your emotions overtake the issue. Politics is not about emotions. Why do liberals really believe that, by trying to redistribute wealth through entitlement programs and welfare programs, they are actually helping people? Jobs are being exported out of the United States in droves, and at the same time the minimum wage is exploding. I live in Alaska where we never had a $5 footlong, but it's my understanding that Subway can no longer afford to have that catchy campaign anymore because it is simply too expensive to employ Americans to make a sandwich for $5. That's terrifying. Additionally, as the federal government balloons to the point of exploding, the dollar is becoming even more and more shaky and people are investing in tangible commodities. The infamous gold explosion is one example, but let's look at more close-to-home stuff... hamburger, wheat, rice, chicken, pork, corn, soybeans. These have all exploded nearing the rate of gold's inflation over the last four years. Liberal economists never seem to take this "economy tax" into consideration when they talk about the government spending helping out the poor. For your starving family of five, do you think it helps to increase their effective cost of groceries by 50%? Now instead of having to spend $300 a week to feed five families, they have to spend $450.

Also, let's consider all the other rising costs. People are having to spend $30 more a week to fill up their tanks than they did before Obama was elected, and this is only considering the domestic use of gasoline. Crude oil can be refined into a large number of goods and is truly a mainstay in our economy: it can be used to transport goods to shops, service providers and restaurants; crude oil can be converted into heating oil; it even ends up producing plastic and wax. With higher transportation costs, a higher cost to heat warehouses and shops, this drives up prices of literally everything you can purchase. In the end, on top of the 50% food tax people are now paying thanks to the $17 trillion debt, they are paying countless other dollars for other economy taxes. To a rich guy who makes all the liberal decisions, this is penny change and it is understandable why nobody talks about it; to the family of five, this really could mean the difference between dinner and no dinner. That $150/month economy tax is growing more and more every day, as we trickle down the effects of high base costs.

Finally, let me just bring up Benghazi again. I know that you liberals think we're beating a dead horse, and that anything over 2 weeks old is ancient history, but this is an immensely serious issue that can't be swept under the rug. These people didn't need to die; there should have been military support, and there was not. That makes it a serious issue in national defense and foreign policy, and either it is because Obama didn't want to make a decision, or he thought the better decision was to do nothing. I don't know about you, but anyone who is willing to condemn four people "for the greater good" sounds an awful lot like Stalinism. For that reason alone I hope to God that Obama was merely apathetic and inept, rather than a neo-Stalinism who will put four lives beneath his own agenda. I mean, come on, this guy was utterly convinced that it was Youtube video for 10 days... truly, the only two options are incompetence or treason.