Who Should I Vote For? Convince Me. (Rep. vs. Dem.)

As an informed citizen, I would be more than happy if the turnout plummeted. I don't miss an election, so it would make my views more important.

 

Debate? I thought you were a poor independent that was confused and didn't know who to vote for?

I am courteous to those who are honest, not to those that pretend to be one thing, but show themselves to be something else.

 

Wow, what an objective opinion

 

I already told him that and it was ignored. I bet others tried as well.
Vote D or R and you get the same end result. So either way, you win or lose, depending on your point of view.

 

How can you put any of the blame on Bush for that? Free Trade and NAFTA was put in before Bush ever became President. Both were passed without tariffs, requiring any environmental regulations or minimum wage to these countries that benefited from companies moving there.

 

Yes - to varying degrees government has and always will exert some degree of manipulating influence on the economy - sometimes for the good, sometimes not. The problem is, there exists a substantial politically motivated effort to extend that influence,as if more must always be better. The solution to each and every problem is NOT necessarily more government manipulation or more government dependency, as if there were no limit to the degree that these can be implemented without producing negative consequences. As an abstraction, there exists a hypothetical point of diminishing returns where excessive manipulation produces increasing inefficiency and counterproductive results within the social-economic machine, and over-dependency on government undermines the incentive and resourcefulness by which productivity and growth are fueled. If this weren't so, ultra-manipulative totalitarian governments would tend to produce healthier economies than their less potent counterparts. But, they don't.

We all will differ in where we would place that optimal point of balance for government's role in all the various areas . However, pushing "more is better" as a general principle of government involvement disregards the fact that beyond some point, unique to each area of concern, MORE IS DEFINITELY NOT BETTER, and it's very unwise (and unhealthy for the nation) to indoctrinate people into believing that it is.

No. Nor would I allow the OTC derivatives market to remain free to crap on us all once again. There is a need for government oversight in many areas. The key is achieving a sensible, utilitarian balance. The need for some measure of oversight doesn't mean that there isn't a healthy limit to that oversight, beyond which we get blasted from some other direction by the unintended consequences of micro-managing what can't or shouldn't be controlled, regulated, or manipulated by the revolving door of government bureaucrats.

[OR - NO MORE COFFEE FOR ME! ]

 

I agree. The pendulum has swung way to far in the gov't manipulation. Gov't should never manipulate but maintain a control. A unbiased policing effort. I know, it is laughable to think that.

 

Just sayin: Any money invested was in fact worked for at some point and in fact taxes have already been paid on that amount. Even if you discount that because capital gains is paid on the dividend amount (aka the amount the investment actually returns to you), you don't just "magically" make those dividends; you have to actively buy and sell at the right time which requires quite a bit of work, skill, and a little luck as well.

Plus investing that initial capital is always a risk of total loss - part of the reason they lowered capital gains tax back in, uhm 2003 I believe, was to encourage people to take that risk and therefore stimulate new business (aka job) creation.

Also, from my understanding (and I have not had time to fully investigate this) first they pay the flat capital gains tax, THEN they pay the standardized income tax - which if true, means that capital gains dividends are actually double taxed right now... - I'm assuming I misunderstand something somewhere because I was under the impression that double taxation was illegal.



Frankly, the child support division is the most messed up, male bigoted, POS in the country as far as I am concerned. My husbands ex had filled out the paperwork incorrectly. Even with her telling them she made a mistake, it took a full 6 months to fix the mistake, during which CSSD withheld 50% of his income and handed to her (was around $4k a month if I remember right.) Of course she blew every penny of it on crap ... CSSD rectifies the situation by saying that he doesn't owe child support for nearly a year. What was our son supposed to live off of if she received no child support for a year! Ridiculous.

Then later it turns out she's been abusing our boy, $60k later we have full physical/legal custody. She never starts paying child support and he finally gets fed up and puts it into CSSD, she's listed as $10k in arrears. THEN the bigotry hits - when he calls CSSD they tell him that there is nothing they can do to make her pay anything, not even the MONTHLY obligation, much less the 50% that the withholding orders require to pay the arrears...

The sick part is that she works for a national children's mental health facility; who actively ignores child support withholding orders under the presumption that the employee will pay it on their own...

 

I think Obama has been pretty crappy. He has done some REALLY bad things as president.
* He wasted his first 9 months in office on ObamaCare. Horrible POS!
* He promised a bunch of "shovel-ready " when ANYONE knows that the bidding process etc... for government contract work would take time.
* He bailed out the banks in a way that was nearly as bad as Bush - and in the face of history that shows this is always bad for the American taxpayer (as opposed to the auto industry, which history shows is almost always good for the taxpayer.
* He signed NDAA - worst act of all. Americans can be indefinitely imprisoned for say, having two weeks of food stored in the house.

However, I'm an Independent so while I can see his mistakes, I am not blinded by ideology to his successes.
* He bailed out GM - history shows this is a good move.
* As promised, he shifted the focus from Iraq to Afghanist and going after those Bush claimed "were not important" (AQ & OBL).
* As promised, he withdrew from Iraq and got us out of an untenable situation.
* He got Osama Bin Laden and yes, he gets credit for this. There is a very traceable set of dots to connect there.
* He is now getting us out of Afghanistan.
* As promised, he repealed DADT.
* As promised, he improved the access to money for the only real "job creators" American small business.
* As you can tell by my avatar, an area that is important to me: He increased a LOT of the funding to the Veterans Admin that was eliminated between 2001 - 2006.

So it's going to be between Obama and Romney. What a crappy choice! Of ALL the people the GOP could have come up with, this is their guy? For two years I was certain would vote for "Republican Candidate" (who consistently beat Obama in the polls). But now I'll bite the bullet, gag a bit and be voting against Romney. Notice I'm not voting for anyone?

 

Same with money saved. But it is taxed at whatever income rate one belongs to.
I still fail to see how buying a stock today, and selling tomorrow at a higher price created any job, except for the programmer that did the code to do the transaction.

 

We don't need regulated government assistance if he got what he wanted. Our unemployment would be minuscule. Not only that, but private charities ALWAYS provide way more than government sources. ALWAYS. The only difference is, private charities diminish when the government steps in. Private organizations are the way to go. There are plenty of people that want to help other people, and there are plenty of rich people that will give money to charities to get out of taxes. Welfare systems actually help the super rich. They keep the poor poor. Once they begin to rely on these systems it is hard to get them out. What we need instead are programs that help get them into the middle class. That is what we need.

 

Everyone needs to learn and make their own decisions.

That's the best thing each and everyone of us should do.

 

Yeah. You should study history, really. And learn from the history.

 

Honestly you should probably just go back to your x-box or the mall. There are few things I loathe more than Americans who vote without actually having ideals of their own and even worse when they opt for someone to decide for them. What you are doing should be a crime punishable in federal court.

 

There was a time not too yore ago when this question was
considered rude.It just wasn't done.Parents in my day never
allowed this sort of question.Who someone should vote for.
I guess maybe the Democrats might have considered it,but
not in my Parish,school,neighborhood or Country Club,
or what have you.YMCA. Rotary club,Cub Scouts and Den Mothers.
I mean,I'm pretty sure Den mothers never sat around giving out
merit badges to little cubbies for askin their Den Mommies who they
like as Pres.I'm sure Obama will find a way to let that happen today.
After all Democrats are bullies.So why not bully the question as to
who ONE Should vote for.
That is and should remain a personal choice.There's a reason that
voting is done under cloak.Ya gotta prove who you are
{ I.D.,Drivers license } sign yer name as registered and then secretly,
go behind some curtain and pull a lever or press something or
write something or touchkey names.But by golly,this business of
advertising who one should vote for has been sacrosanct.It's just
not done in this Counrty.

This ain't no Banana Republic.

 

It seems to me that it's all of the Republican candidates saying "Ron Paul is stupid because of __________." And this is because they don't understand the original intent of the Constitution.

There's nothing wrong with being profitable or with becoming rich. The problem is that we have crony capitalism and not a real free market. Those in government pass laws to help their buddies - such as with the bailouts, and laws that limit their competition. They're all insiders and Obama is right there with them. How many people has he appointed from Goldman Sachs? Plenty. Obama knows the score and he wants their backing. So he's going to give them what they want in the end.

And the Democrats don't?????????? Remember when the Republican Congress wanted to slow the rate of growth in federal spending under Clinton in the mid-nineties? There were no actual cuts yet the Democrats kept fear mongering that "school children would starve" as a result of the "cuts." Funny, no one could ever show evidence of any starving children as a result of the policies.

We definitely don't want to end up with another Bush, and the only hope of not doing that is to vote for Ron Paul. The Republican plan and Democrat plan are basically the same. That's what you're missing. You're not seeing the big picture. Bush was a Keynesian statist. Obama is a Keynesian statist. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all Keynesian statists. The plan under any of these people will be to go further into debt to prop up the failed monetary system of central banking and fiat currency, and to continue to increase the size and scope of government.

Ron Paul is the alternative to this.

Have you ever heard the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Many of these policies have contributed to the bankruptcy of America. Yes, we are functionally bankrupt with over $100 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities. The welfare state with cradle to grave support cannot last.

That's because Obama doesn't share Ron Paul's views. Obama may appear to "bring them back slowly" - but meanwhile you've got troops amassing outside of Iran and the U.S. is trying everything in its power under Obama to make them fire the first shot so they can invade. Iraq will be a cakewalk compared to Iran, if we should attack. And China and Russia may get involved as well.

Obama is an interventionist and he's never going to bring all the troops back.

 

What, exactly, did I say that was historically inaccurate?

 

Everything. And your affirmation about public services vs charity and its efficiency. You should check how was society within charity until the XX century and from it. And tell me which one works better

Maybe you learn something.

 

There is that typical republican response

 

I stated from the start that I am voting Obama at this point. The thread was made to see if people could convince me otherwise. What exactly about anything I said makes me poor? Read the thread before posting and act mature.

 

Going round asking other people to tell you what to do is childish. I had a colleague once who used to say, 'Amuse me'. I don't know if a fairly comprehensive list of British swearwords did amuse him, but it certainly shut him up!

 

You sound like a self described independent voter

 

I want you to know it wasn't ignored. I didn't respond because I was brain stewing on it. A few peoples statements on here have put me 50/50 Paul/Obama.

 

Great post. You changed my mind. Thanks

 

Everyone dislikes Obamacare yet something has to happen with health insurance and no one proposes anything better.

As far as bailing out banks, I believe there were rules and regulations put in place to prevent.t it from ever happening again.

He could have got more done if Congress didn't sabotage his every effort