Post: Who's Got Your Vote? Obama Or Romney?
Options
09-29-2012, 11:52 PM
#1
Saucy-_-
Red Wing's For Life!!!
Obama Or Romney?
Post why you like him!
Rules of Discussion!
Dont tell us if you dont want us to know.
Keep it calm in here no need for raging.
Post your reasons why!
My Opinion
The following user thanked Saucy-_- for this useful post:
10-21-2012, 03:01 AM
#38
Sicko72
Do a barrel roll!
How many times have these politicians said they were going to do this or do that? Then when they get in office they do NOTHING. Lol. And the masses fall for it every time. You vote for 1 puppet rather it be democrat or republic, you get the same thing. Why are ppl not looking at who funds these puppets? Or who are their advisors? If you do, you will see they are the SAME ppl.
10-21-2012, 02:28 PM
#41
10-21-2012, 06:55 PM
#42
My Hate
At least I can fight
Originally posted by Hannah
1) The President can't really control gas prices...it's just a general indicator of how an economy's doing. Saying Obama can influence the economy as a single man is like saying I can change where the sun sets because I sometimes lounge around to tan. He also didn't double the gas price. With cost of inflation considered - between 2008 and 2012, gas prices fell and then rose again to where they were before and a bit beyond. Again, with inflation considered - they only rose about 15% total.
You must login or register to view this content.
2) Obamacare has a lot more than just a "few good qualities" - it's like people forget about deductibles because they don't want to actually, well, admit they can be wrong about something. My argument is an anecdote, so you may choose to take it or dismiss it - but it's a pretty clear cut example. I get charged $200 extra on my premium because I am considered a "risk" on my insurance plan. This is also the cheapest tax plan available for me. However I only have a $20 deductible. With Obamacare they would shift the weighting from premiums to deductibles. That is, despite my preexisting condition of Type 1 Diabetes, I will be charged the same as anyone else - but my deductible might be $100 instead of $20 to see the doctor. This allows me to pay the same premiums as anyone else and not be discriminated against because of a preexisting condition.
The age requirement helps allow people to get on their feet, as you mentioned - it also allows for people to go to college without the extra burdens of healthcare.
Obamacare will also be run as a satellite agency - it might as well be its own unique company. It may use some taxes as initial funding progresses, but overall it will pay for itself with revenue.
3) He's pulling the troops out. Although I am disappointed that we're not out already. We did what we set out to do. Now they need to come home.
4) To be fair, Romney couldn't either. Congress didn't work with him and he didn't have the cajones to tell them to grow up.
-----
1) He won't raise taxes, but he plans to eliminate tax cuts and credits. No more writing off jet flights from La to NY as a corporate expense - pay full taxes on that gas guzzling flying monster.
2) Pretty much true, although to be fair the lower class would probably kill to have $100,000 per year.
3) No argument.
4) I don't think he keeps them hidden, I think he just doesn't have any. It's a country, not a washed out talk show. He can't play Dave Ramsey where his secret to success is scamming you out of money. The problem is Romney's not your typical rich businessman like Disney, Ford or Jobs. He made his money by feeding on the weak small businesses in America. Then he toppled them over and put people out of jobs - all so he could line his pockets.
You must login or register to view this content.
2) Obamacare has a lot more than just a "few good qualities" - it's like people forget about deductibles because they don't want to actually, well, admit they can be wrong about something. My argument is an anecdote, so you may choose to take it or dismiss it - but it's a pretty clear cut example. I get charged $200 extra on my premium because I am considered a "risk" on my insurance plan. This is also the cheapest tax plan available for me. However I only have a $20 deductible. With Obamacare they would shift the weighting from premiums to deductibles. That is, despite my preexisting condition of Type 1 Diabetes, I will be charged the same as anyone else - but my deductible might be $100 instead of $20 to see the doctor. This allows me to pay the same premiums as anyone else and not be discriminated against because of a preexisting condition.
The age requirement helps allow people to get on their feet, as you mentioned - it also allows for people to go to college without the extra burdens of healthcare.
Obamacare will also be run as a satellite agency - it might as well be its own unique company. It may use some taxes as initial funding progresses, but overall it will pay for itself with revenue.
3) He's pulling the troops out. Although I am disappointed that we're not out already. We did what we set out to do. Now they need to come home.
4) To be fair, Romney couldn't either. Congress didn't work with him and he didn't have the cajones to tell them to grow up.
-----
1) He won't raise taxes, but he plans to eliminate tax cuts and credits. No more writing off jet flights from La to NY as a corporate expense - pay full taxes on that gas guzzling flying monster.
2) Pretty much true, although to be fair the lower class would probably kill to have $100,000 per year.
3) No argument.
4) I don't think he keeps them hidden, I think he just doesn't have any. It's a country, not a washed out talk show. He can't play Dave Ramsey where his secret to success is scamming you out of money. The problem is Romney's not your typical rich businessman like Disney, Ford or Jobs. He made his money by feeding on the weak small businesses in America. Then he toppled them over and put people out of jobs - all so he could line his pockets.
I do agree with #1 for Obama. It's true that he can't totally influence the economy as one single man but he can still create some jobs for the lower class which will help the economy. Factory jobs, construction, ETC. Pretty Much trade school jobs that involves a lot more manual labor than a lot of jobs today. I don't want the US to end up mostly an industrial state but industry is where the jobs are. Where I live, Alabama, we're in need of more than 60,000 welders.
2. I don't like ObamaCare due to the whole balance of the health care system he's trying to input. The deductibles and premiums are a good idea but if someone has a pre existing condition and they need to see the doctor more than someone that just came down with a cold, would should be seen first? If you have the money, you should pay more to be seen first. Universal healthcare is a great idea, it just needs to be set up in a way where the wealthy have to pay more to see the doctor before the lower class do. Confused? Please tell me so I can explain it in a simpler format. A lot of people get confused about my view on ObamaCare.
3. He does need to pull the troops out. Seal Team 6 already took care of Osama. With that crippling blow to the Taliban and Al -Qaeda, they'll slowly diminish. The only reason we need to be involved with the Middle East is Gas and Trade. If we discovered oil in Northern Canada and Mexico, than we would never need to worry about the Middle East. To be honest, I'm sick of America trying to play big brother to the rest of the world.
4. Romney wouldn't be much better than Obama but in a mainly Republican government, he would have more cooperation from Congress than Obama would. I see your point there.
---------------------
1. Eh, no argument.
2. Romney needs to pull his head out of his ass and realize the nation's true poverty level.
3. -
4. No Argument.
After seeing your opinions, I might as well not vote for either. My vote wouldn't make a difference anyway. Both of them will screw up the nation anyway.
10-21-2012, 07:24 PM
#43
Hannah
Banned
Originally posted by My
I do agree with #1 for Obama. It's true that he can't totally influence the economy as one single man but he can still create some jobs for the lower class which will help the economy. Factory jobs, construction, ETC. Pretty Much trade school jobs that involves a lot more manual labor than a lot of jobs today. I don't want the US to end up mostly an industrial state but industry is where the jobs are. Where I live, Alabama, we're in need of more than 60,000 welders.
2. I don't like ObamaCare due to the whole balance of the health care system he's trying to input. The deductibles and premiums are a good idea but if someone has a pre existing condition and they need to see the doctor more than someone that just came down with a cold, would should be seen first? If you have the money, you should pay more to be seen first. Universal healthcare is a great idea, it just needs to be set up in a way where the wealthy have to pay more to see the doctor before the lower class do. Confused? Please tell me so I can explain it in a simpler format. A lot of people get confused about my view on ObamaCare.
After seeing your opinions, I might as well not vote for either. My vote wouldn't make a difference anyway. Both of them will screw up the nation anyway.
2. I don't like ObamaCare due to the whole balance of the health care system he's trying to input. The deductibles and premiums are a good idea but if someone has a pre existing condition and they need to see the doctor more than someone that just came down with a cold, would should be seen first? If you have the money, you should pay more to be seen first. Universal healthcare is a great idea, it just needs to be set up in a way where the wealthy have to pay more to see the doctor before the lower class do. Confused? Please tell me so I can explain it in a simpler format. A lot of people get confused about my view on ObamaCare.
After seeing your opinions, I might as well not vote for either. My vote wouldn't make a difference anyway. Both of them will screw up the nation anyway.
And after seeing your opinions I think I might know where some controversy lay (which is a primary reason why I am a little bit ashamed to vote either. I'm really considering Johnson if I vote at all - but my guess is that it will be a near-tie in the popular vote and a landslide victory for Obama in the EC.
There are just two issues I want to address: the first point being jobs. I find it a little ironic that people will spout, "Small government, less involvement!" blah blah blah and then expect the President to create jobs. I'm not entirely sure how the executive branch can manage to make jobs without expanding government.
The second is Obamacare - while I see your point, and I'll validate it with a hypothetical situation later in this post - I'd like to bring attention to the fact that it's not Universal healthcare as FOX News and Friends would so vehemently claim. It is supposed to be an optional, affordable healthcare for the poor and the less fortunate (I fall into both categories). The main concern, however, is that Obamacare does not limit the statutes (that is, who can get Obamacare and who can't) - which means many businesses will probably act off of greed (Hmm? Greed is a problem...I think we're finding the core of America) and when they can afford to pay for better healthcare for their employees, they will choose Obamacare instead.
I believe personally that Obamacare should only be available to anyone making less than $25,000 per year (calculated with family considerations as well, but this is from the individual standpoint) and only individuals (or families) could purchase it. It could be either up the employer or the employee whether the employer takes the money out to pay for it or the employee pays for it and is exempt from paying for the provided healthcare (if there is any at all). I believe that would help draw a significant line so it does not become a socialist program abused by the system.
And on a further basis, more often than not it will be up to the medical agency whether or not people are seen for the seriousness of their condition or the amount of money paid. More often than not the only way more money can make any significant influence is if you actually bribe the doctor. I know in most practices around here, unless you are dying, you are seen on a first come-first serve basis. Even if the rich pay more, there is little chance that their ear infection is going to preclude someone who is having a heart attack.
Of course, there are some corrupt doctors - just like there are corrupt politicians, businessmen, friends, coworkers, managers...or, well, people. However no legislation is going to make them honest, so the argument falls short as begging the question. Doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and are sworn to protect life, not their wallets. If they are so hidebound that their wallet precedes the life of another individual, there is nothing short to be done other than petition and have that doctor removed from his practice by the state (which can be done).
10-21-2012, 07:28 PM
#44
Herbal_T_Bag
You talkin to me?
10-21-2012, 07:28 PM
#45
My Hate
At least I can fight
Originally posted by Hannah
And after seeing your opinions I think I might know where some controversy lay (which is a primary reason why I am a little bit ashamed to vote either. I'm really considering Johnson if I vote at all - but my guess is that it will be a near-tie in the popular vote and a landslide victory for Obama in the EC.
There are just two issues I want to address: the first point being jobs. I find it a little ironic that people will spout, "Small government, less involvement!" blah blah blah and then expect the President to create jobs. I'm not entirely sure how the executive branch can manage to make jobs without expanding government.
The second is Obamacare - while I see your point, and I'll validate it with a hypothetical situation later in this post - I'd like to bring attention to the fact that it's not Universal healthcare as FOX News and Friends would so vehemently claim. It is supposed to be an optional, affordable healthcare for the poor and the less fortunate (I fall into both categories). The main concern, however, is that Obamacare does not limit the statutes (that is, who can get Obamacare and who can't) - which means many businesses will probably act off of greed (Hmm? Greed is a problem...I think we're finding the core of America) and when they can afford to pay for better healthcare for their employees, they will choose Obamacare instead.
I believe personally that Obamacare should only be available to anyone making less than $25,000 per year (calculated with family considerations as well, but this is from the individual standpoint) and only individuals (or families) could purchase it. It could be either up the employer or the employee whether the employer takes the money out to pay for it or the employee pays for it and is exempt from paying for the provided healthcare (if there is any at all). I believe that would help draw a significant line so it does not become a socialist program abused by the system.
And on a further basis, more often than not it will be up to the medical agency whether or not people are seen for the seriousness of their condition or the amount of money paid. More often than not the only way more money can make any significant influence is if you actually bribe the doctor. I know in most practices around here, unless you are dying, you are seen on a first come-first serve basis. Even if the rich pay more, there is little chance that their ear infection is going to preclude someone who is having a heart attack.
Of course, there are some corrupt doctors - just like there are corrupt politicians, businessmen, friends, coworkers, managers...or, well, people. However no legislation is going to make them honest, so the argument falls short as begging the question. Doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and are sworn to protect life, not their wallets. If they are so hidebound that their wallet precedes the life of another individual, there is nothing short to be done other than petition and have that doctor removed from his practice by the state (which can be done).
There are just two issues I want to address: the first point being jobs. I find it a little ironic that people will spout, "Small government, less involvement!" blah blah blah and then expect the President to create jobs. I'm not entirely sure how the executive branch can manage to make jobs without expanding government.
The second is Obamacare - while I see your point, and I'll validate it with a hypothetical situation later in this post - I'd like to bring attention to the fact that it's not Universal healthcare as FOX News and Friends would so vehemently claim. It is supposed to be an optional, affordable healthcare for the poor and the less fortunate (I fall into both categories). The main concern, however, is that Obamacare does not limit the statutes (that is, who can get Obamacare and who can't) - which means many businesses will probably act off of greed (Hmm? Greed is a problem...I think we're finding the core of America) and when they can afford to pay for better healthcare for their employees, they will choose Obamacare instead.
I believe personally that Obamacare should only be available to anyone making less than $25,000 per year (calculated with family considerations as well, but this is from the individual standpoint) and only individuals (or families) could purchase it. It could be either up the employer or the employee whether the employer takes the money out to pay for it or the employee pays for it and is exempt from paying for the provided healthcare (if there is any at all). I believe that would help draw a significant line so it does not become a socialist program abused by the system.
And on a further basis, more often than not it will be up to the medical agency whether or not people are seen for the seriousness of their condition or the amount of money paid. More often than not the only way more money can make any significant influence is if you actually bribe the doctor. I know in most practices around here, unless you are dying, you are seen on a first come-first serve basis. Even if the rich pay more, there is little chance that their ear infection is going to preclude someone who is having a heart attack.
Of course, there are some corrupt doctors - just like there are corrupt politicians, businessmen, friends, coworkers, managers...or, well, people. However no legislation is going to make them honest, so the argument falls short as begging the question. Doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and are sworn to protect life, not their wallets. If they are so hidebound that their wallet precedes the life of another individual, there is nothing short to be done other than petition and have that doctor removed from his practice by the state (which can be done).
Well there we go. I support both of those opinions.
10-21-2012, 08:05 PM
#46
Hannah
Banned
Originally posted by Lito
I'm not voting. Either candidate will make things worse for the economy, education or health care but Ron Paul would of been a great president.
Ron Paul is a fruitcake. I don't think he has any real policies that could work in an age where we have machines and technology. Sure, maybe his policies would work back when people were riding horses down to Bob's General Store -- but now you drive a car to Wal-Mart. The problem is people look back on the 20s and think, "Well that was the bomb, why don't we practice all of that stuff?"
Well that's because back then they weren't mass producing refrigerators, cars, reefer units, planes...Basically, transportation and technology was crap compared to today. Back in the 20s it may have been viable to say, "Well if we pull the government completely out, then everyone can prosper!" I guess that would work if we didn't need things like air flight control to make sure pilots weren't crashing into each other or safety requirements to make sure that plane didn't fall out of the air with you in it.
Roads were also not in mass-usage. You could go ahead and privatize everything, but good luck explaining how they're going to fund their operations.
---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:48 PM ----------
Originally posted by Saucy
Romney is the best choice because he no's how to work money and make a dime or too!!!
Give me $20 and I'll explain to you why Romney's a moron.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
