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

Okay this post just got entertaining. I'm all ears! I can't wait to hear how "Welfare systems actually help the super rich." And please, be specific!

 

Assuming it will be Obama vs. Romney?

Neither.

 

I agree. I believe a large number of people getting assistance don't try to get off of it. And the cascade of voting democrat, more assistance, more assisted, more democratic voters, more national debt.

I keep saying I know what Paul wants to do, but what exactly in your opinion will he have the power and backup to cut?

 

I made my decision. The thread is about people trying to change my mind or solidify my decision. Read more than a thread title.

 

Another troll who didn't read...

 

If you don't like me asking who you are backing then don't respond to the thread....

 

Great post. Very nice

 

There is another title reader loo. I am getting embarrassed for these people. If you are debating politics and the only thing you read is titles then....

 

Several debates have sent me to 50/50 Obama/ Paul. Republicans had 0% to say. I really want to vote Paul but the transition is so extreme it is kind of scary. He even says there will be food riots. What will happen to the troops once they are home? Out of jobs?

 

If you want a Job......vote Republican

If you want an unemployment check.....vote Democrat
.
.
.
.

 

Republicans seem to have the hardest time reading....read the thread before posting please. Besides, that statement is what Republicans are selling but it screams uneducated. I know lots of democrats with good jobs. And the Republicans are the ones losing jobs as president. Look at employment charts.

 

Because of compelling arguments and lots of thought, my vote is now 100% Ron Paul. The debt clock link did a lot of talking itself. My fear WAS the transition period after Paul was elected. But after a lot of thought, we are going to go through that transition sooner or later. So I choose to go through it now by decision when it will be a softer transition. Rather than later when it is forced by bankruptcy.

I also learned that voting for Paul, even if it looks like he has no chance to win, is not a wasted vote. If he gets a large number of votes and doesn't win, people will still notice him more and learn a lot about how corrupt government is. And possibly vote him in the future or someone more like him.

Anyone who thinks they can change my mind is still welcome to try. Thanks to all who were civil.

 

I want you to look up some stats. Look at the amount of money the government provided to katrina victims compared to the amount that was gathered through all of the private organizations. You really think the government can ever do a better job than private charities? No. Because government is inherently evil. Even when they mean to do well, bad things can come from it. Like when they try to help the economy by pushing nearly 1 trillion into it. The only problem is when you pump that much money into something so quickly you also cause an inflation problem. No the best option is to keep the government out of it "as much as possible". "The people" are always and should always be more than "the government". For you to think that over the years government has provided more money than all private charities is laughable.

 

Exactly. What people don't realize is sooner or later things are going to have to change, or we will all drown. At least with Ron Paul we can control the changes, instead of pushing the debt until we collapse.

That's my favorite part about Ron Paul. Just by existing, he pushes the other republican candidates towards his side. He has them all in agreement on some topics like the fed for instance. I think Ron Paul would be doing extremely well if 1) the media didn't try so hard to ignore him and 2) people weren't 'afraid' to support him.

 

http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

skim this if you have any time. its a long read, but it has some excellent information on government programs vs private charities. written by an economist.

 

also:

Private charity is superior to government welfare for many reasons. Private charities are able to individualize their approaches to the circumstances of poor people. By contrast, government programs are usually designed in a one-size-fits-all manner that treats all recipients alike. Most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

The eligibility requirements for government welfare programs are arbitrary and cannot be changed to fit individual circumstances. Consequently, some people in genuine need do not receive assistance, while benefits often go to people who do not really need them. Surveys of people with low incomes generally indicate a higher level of satisfaction with private charities than with government welfare agencies.45

Private charities also have a better record of actually delivering aid to recipients because they do not have as much administrative overhead, inefficiency, and waste as government programs. A lot of the money spent on federal and state social welfare programs never reaches recipients because it is consumed by fraud and bureaucracy.

Audits of TANF spending by the Health and Human Services' Inspector General have found huge levels of "improper payments," meaning errors, abuse, and fraud. In 2005, the state of New York had an improper TANF payment rate of 28 percent and Michigan had an improper payment rate of 40 percent.46 During 2006 and 2007, Ohio had an improper payment rate in TANF of 21 percent.47 There are similar high levels of waste in other states.48

Another advantage of private charity is that aid is much more likely to be targeted to short-term emergency assistance, not long-term dependency. Private charity provides a safety net, not a way of life. Moreover, private charities may demand that the poor change their behavior in exchange for assistance, such as stopping drug abuse, looking for a job, or avoiding pregnancy. Private charities are more likely than government programs to offer counseling and one-on-one follow-up, rather than simply providing a check.

In sum, private charities typically require a different attitude on the part of recipients. They are required to consider the aid they receive not as an entitlement, but as a gift carrying reciprocal obligations. At the same time, private charities require that donors become directly involved in monitoring program performance.

Those who oppose replacing government welfare with private charity often argue that there will not be enough charitable giving to make up for the loss of government benefits. However, that assumes that private charity would simply recreate existing government programs. But the advantage of private and decentralized charity is that less expensive and more innovative ways of helping smaller groups of truly needy people would be developed.

If large amounts of aid continue to be needed, there is every reason to believe that charitable giving in the nation would increase in the absence of government welfare. In every area of society and the economy, we have seen that government expansion tends to "crowd out" private voluntary activities. So, in reverse, when the government shrinks, private activities would fill in the gaps.

A number of studies have demonstrated such a government crowd-out effect in low-income assistance.49 Charitable giving declined dramatically during the 1970s, as the Great Society programs of the 1960s were expanding. The decline in giving leveled out in the 1980s as welfare spending began to level out and the public was deluged with news stories about supposed cutbacks in federal programs. Then, after the passage of welfare reform in 1996, there was a large spike in private giving.50 Studies have also shown that when particular charities start receiving government funds, there is a decrease in private donations to those charities.51

Americans are the most generous people on earth, contributing more than $300 billion a year to organized private charities. In addition, they volunteer more than 8 billion hours a year to charitable activities, with an estimated value of about $158 billion.52 Americans donate countless dollars and countless efforts toward providing informal help to families, neighbors, and others in need. There is every reason to believe that the elimination of government welfare would bring a very positive response both from recipients of government welfare and from Americans wanting to help those who are truly in need.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending#7

 

Outstanding!

You're right - we're going to have an economic calamity either way because there's simply no easy way to deal with the level of debt that we have. But it would be better to go through this transition by returning to liberty and to the original intent of the Constitution than by becoming more of a police state with less freedom. That way will lead to revolution of one form or another.

Yes, indeed. If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination, I'll be writing his name in for the general election. The only wasted vote is a vote for another Keynesian statist who continues to place the country further in debt.

 

The Structural Debt of our country will be $45 Trillion in 2032. Only one candidate is serious about cutting the budget.

The Federal Reserve continues to inflate the housing market and flood the world with cheap, fast, easy dollars. They are re-creating the crisis of 2008. Only one candidate is serious about ending the pain which the Fed causes.

Now why are these two things significant? The massive structural debt is a direct threat to your property. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said: "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value". In other words, as long as there is deficit spending, politicians and the wealthy will continue to steal money from the middle class. YOUR bank account is worth less because of the structural debt. YOUR money is worth less. YOU OWN LESS PROPERTY, all because of this deficit spending. There's no "tax the rich to feed the poor". It's taxing the poor and middle classes to feed the poor.

The politicians design these debts, and the Federal Reserve provides fuel for the fire. There is only ONE candidate who is serious about these two existential problems, the two most serious problems this nation faces.

Ron Paul.

 

Who should you vote for?

I can tell you one thing...

...you should vote for the best possible candidate on the issues that matter to you.

AND NOT vote for the candidate that you think has the best chance to win.


If Joe Blow starts his own party, gets on the ballot and has more positions then any other candidate that you believe are important then you should vote for him...whether he has a chance to win or not should be 100% irrelevant.


Too many people abandon integrity just to be on the winning side.

 

First of all, investing involves taking risks. There is no "work" involved per se, but if you make a $5 bet with your buddy that the Giants will win the Super Bowl, why shouldn't you be able to keep all your winnings if the Pats lose?

Second, struggling to pay bills because of child support? That means nothing to me. They made a bad decision, they should suffer the consequences. Don't have a kid if you can't afford it.

Third, the Government makes more money off of the Capital Gains tax when the rate is lower. Weird isn't it? But it's true. When the tax is higher, there are less investments made (because the risk is now higher), and less revenue is generated.

Finally, an analogy: We put a tax on cigarettes because we think it is a bad behavior and it costs us as a society to care for those who smoke. As the tax got higher, the number of people smoking went down. Makes sense right? Now what do you think will happen if you put a tax on risk and investment? Won't we have less investment? Won't we have less JOB GROWTH?

The urge to "raise taxes on the very rich" is common, but you must put in more thought. It doesn't "seem" fair, but how is it fair for me to come in and take some money out of your $5 bet? Why am I entitled to that? You took YOUR property, made a good investment decision, and earned some reward. It is YOUR property, I have no right to it. The bottom line is that there is more growth and more revenue when the Cap Gains tax is lower. It's a fact.

 

With the economy like it is, I sure couldn't vote Democratic. Their views are mostly just the opposite of what is needed to bring back jobs.

1. This is not the time to force unions on companies when they are already fighting for their life with cheap labor abroad.

2. While we need to do more to clean up our air, this isn't the time to say you must close down your coal fired plants. You not only put thousands of miners out of work, but you raise the price of goods produced by coal, like electricity, etc. at a time people can least afford it.

Instead of wanting to tax business more, we should be giving tax breaks to any company willing to move here. Now Obama says he is now willing to do that, but I haven't seen any move by him to do it. It's against everything Liberals believe in.

Putting on more and more regulations when our economy is the worst it's been since the Great Depression is not very smart.

It would seem Liberals complain of lack of jobs and the wealthy having all the money. But their policies do nothing to help their cause, it only hurts it. The only true way to redistribute wealth is through jobs, and Liberals seem to do all they can to drive business away and keep them from hiring.

 

If you like how the country has been going for the last 20yrs, obama is your candidate. If you don't like what's been going on and want to see if we can get our economy going again, obama is not your candidate.
Pretty simple.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/obama-jobs-tax-plan_n_1199064.html

President Barack Obama, under pressure in an election year to boost the economy and reduce high unemployment, will unveil tax proposals aimed at encouraging U.S. firms to keep jobs at home, the White House said on Wednesday.



"In the coming weeks, the president will put forward new tax proposals to reward companies that choose to invest or bring back jobs to the United States, and to eliminate tax advantages for companies moving jobs overseas," the White House said in a statement.


Not much for details, so it could be hot air.

 

PS, by liberls I assume you mean D's and R's, since policies have pretty much been the same for 30 yrs. So now where do we turn?

 

Ron Paul. His voting record in Congress has proven he's consistently stood against Keynesian statism, which is what Democrats and the majority of Republicans clearly represent.