# Why won't you vote for Obama?



## The Reverend

I personally am planning to, but after reading the Mitt Romney thread I was interested in seeing some reasons why some of you guys don't like Obama's politics. I know why Fox News and their ilk don't like Obama, but I was wondering what rational, intelligent conservatives think. 

Thinking about things from a different perspective is always interesting, I guess, which is why I'd like to hear your opinions! I'm not looking to debate you guys, or persuade you to jump ship; this is purely a learning experience.


----------



## broj15

While Obama has some great ideas and has made some great promises I'm afraid thats all they will ever be. It takes more than 8 years to get done what he says he would like to get done and 4 of those years have already passed with little to no progress (the economy is better and it feels like the civil unrest in the lower/ middle class has subsided). Not to mention his lack of support for the medical use of cannabis and continued persecution of those supporters of the community in Oakland and the bay are. But don't let my not voting for Obama make you think I would vote for Romney. I know that with the current system my vote means absolutely nothing and I have learned to accept that, but based off of my own principles and moral compass I can only bring myself to vote for a 3rd party candidate.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

I won't vote for Obama because of all the same ole basic "right wing talking points lol" that can be heard day in and out on popular shows like The Factor and more libertarian based shows like Stossel.

We don't want the Government/Obama to be "the man", thereby permanently replacing big banks and corps in their traditional role as "the man".
There's a natural eb and flow to banks and corperations rising and falling that has everything to do with the organic nature of survival of the fittest, and more specifically, their current leadership.

Obama in principal wants government to be the one who sets the stagger in the race.
If he were officiating a 100m dash, he would want to know everyone's racing AND social historys in order to handicap the race not only to equalize the results, but to in fact influence the results in a manner to have the ones who were more historically succesful to finish at the back, and the ones who were more historically unsuccesful finish at the front.

I don't want my goverment attempting to play the great equalizer, especially when so many of the people involved are crooks in their own right.

With all the documentation of govermental abuse of taxpayers money, why does anyone have confidence in their ability to redistribute success over such a huge spectrum.

If most small bussiness owners are very anti-obama (which by everything I've read and seen, they are), and they make up such a huge chunk of our tax base, then it would be a great idea for our domestic jobs situation and total revenue to attempt to please them.

Less government regulation/intrusiveness is always better to me.
I'm not afraid of a life without Obama "helping me along".
And, I'm also not envious of people getting 100 or 1000 times richer than I.
I'm a lazy bastard and do not deseve to be wealthy, while many people work their ass off and deserve what they get.


----------



## loki

I like trenchlord's thinking. Obama says he is for the middle-class but he is not. The middle-class gets it's power from it's work ethic and ability to earn. If Obama is anti-business and business is what nurtures the middle-class than Obama and his policies are also anti-middle-class.


----------



## flint757

I'd agree except I've personally witnessed my fair share of large business who gain more money via tax cuts or something like that and just pocket the difference. IMO there is no such thing as the trickle down affect. There is, however, the retaliation effect where a company doesn't get a tax cut or has to pay more and then decides their pockets aren't lined with enough mulla so they don't give out bonuses or fire people or don't give raises. In many ways it is disgusting to have to play the game, but what else is the little guy supposed to do? Think of the bailout where 1000's lost their jobs and CEO's are still getting million dollar bonuses, it's bullshit. Honestly, I don't like either parties approach to politics. I wish we could take qualities from them all, including third parties, and make a nice middle ground type party because cutting education and social programs won't solve our problem in the long run and neither will spending a shit ton of money. As it stands since I believe in social freedoms (like gay rights) and I want the EPA to stay around (seriously concerned it won'y if Mitt gets in) I'll probably be voting for Obama. Which I guess makes me rather off topic on this page.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

People that vote for a party that do not support gay rights is kind of scary IMO. Its pretty much the same thing as denying rights to people based on colour because you cant change sexual orientation.


----------



## MikeH

I'm going to.


----------



## nostealbucket

Not going to. Not voting either.
obama does actually have some great ideas.... But how the hell are they going to pass in this congress? For fucks sake...
IMO, Obama is trying to be LBJ. He's trying to re-establish "The Great Society". Which didn't work. It could work if everyone thought the same... But we aren't robots.


----------



## flint757

Hey speak for yourself I'm part robot and part Cherokee.


----------



## nostealbucket

flint757 said:


> Hey speak for yourself I'm part robot and part Cherokee.



I knew it. I was a Bunn coffee machine for a part of my early childhood until a pack of wolves took me into their pack as one of their own.... But thats another story for another time...


----------



## Powermetalbass

I won't vote Obama because I'm not an american!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Dont lie, you know you want to be


----------



## MikeH




----------



## Mexi

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Dont lie, you know you want to be



only if you can accommodate melted cheese and gravy on everything


----------



## Rick

Mexi said:


> only if you can accommodate melted cheese and gravy on everything



That's the best part of being American.


----------



## MrEzzyE

I am not American. Otherwise I would.


----------



## Xaios

MikeH said:


>



I think I just got naturalized. Is that a Bruce Springsteen song I hear playing in the background?


----------



## Customisbetter

I won't be voting for him because I think he is a lousy leader. I also will not be voting for Romney because he is too conservative and lets party rules stand before logic.


----------



## The Uncreator

I don't want to vote, who was the comedian who suggested putting a dead president back in office?

Someone put Kennedy back up there or something.


----------



## troyguitar

Customisbetter said:


> I won't be voting for him because I think he is a lousy leader. I also will not be voting for Romney because he is too conservative and lets party rules stand before logic.



Pretty much this. Obama has ideas and principles that I believe in, but has shown that he cannot make any of them come to pass. Romney was alright before he started thinking about being a presidential candidate. Now he just says whatever the party tells him to say.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

I didn't vote for him the first time because I found him vapid and hollow.. and now that all my suspicions about him have been confirmed, I will not be voting for him again. 
I will vote for Romney but my vote won't matter in the state of RI so im putting more emphasis on my state's politics and getting new members to the state house as the majority of the state seats have been held by RI Democrats for the past 70 years and we need a change... but since everybody knows everybody in my state, favors are often granted and powers never change.


----------



## Nonservium

I'm pretty sure we're still screwed no matter what retard puppet "we" put in office.


----------



## Mprinsje

cuz i ain't from america


----------



## Zugster

Ibanezsam4 said:


> I didn't vote for him the first time because I found him vapid and hollow.. and now that all my suspicions about him have been confirmed, I will not be voting for him again.
> I will vote for Romney....


 
Interesting because it would be hard to imagine anyone more vapid and hollow than Mitt Romney. A man who has changed his stated policies so many times on so many issues that his face ought to appear in the dictionary next to the word: "flipflop."


----------



## kerska

Because I don't vote. 

I get shit for it all the time but I never have and probably never will. I try paying attention to political debates and all the candidates and what not but every time it just seems like they start to run together and it eventually just turns into a huge shit flinging contest.

But I don't bitch about the government because I don't vote and technically give up my bitching rights by not voting.


----------



## cwhitey2

broj15 said:


> While Obama has some great ideas and has made some great promises I'm afraid thats all they will ever be. It takes more than 8 years to get done what he says he would like to get done and 4 of those years have already passed with little to no progress (the economy is better and it feels like the civil unrest in the lower/ middle class has subsided). Not to mention his lack of support for the medical use of cannabis and continued persecution of those supporters of the community in Oakland and the bay are. But don't let my not voting for Obama make you think I would vote for Romney. I know that with the current system my vote means absolutely nothing and I have learned to accept that, but based off of my own principles and moral compass I can only bring myself to vote for a 3rd party candidate.



Imo 100% correct.



Edit: Obama took off a bigger bite then he could chew. He should have set smaller more realistic goals.

Also im not voting.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Wasnt he cockblocked though?


----------



## mountainjam

I'm not voting for Obama because, he ran on the platform that he would get wall street out of Washington, wins the election, then fills his cabinet with former wall street people. Obama said the fed gov would ease up on californias medical marijuana patients, DEA raids are at an all time high in cali, more than Bush. Obama supported the NDAA. Fuck that shit. Obama is a liar. I'm voting Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Wasnt he cockblocked though?





One thing that people forget is that he wasn't able to accomplish more thanks to a 60-vote supermajority being required to break filibusters.

Since the rules allow filibustering without actually speaking or holding the floor, the opposition party filibustered pretty much everything, from judicial appointments to actual legislation.


----------



## ittoa666

I won't be voting again because I don't agree with either side. I voted for Obama in 08, and that did help me in one aspect (insurance to take care of some things til I'm 25), but other than that, I think he hasn't done as much as I believed he would. 

I've basically given up on the government as long as they run on a party system.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TemjinStrife said:


> One thing that people forget is that he wasn't able to accomplish more thanks to a 60-vote supermajority being required to break filibusters.
> 
> Since the rules allow filibustering without actually speaking or holding the floor, the opposition party filibustered pretty much everything, from judicial appointments to actual legislation.




100%

This is perceived as Obama not keeping his word, or lying, or just plain being ineffective. The fact of the matter is, the President's job is not what most people seem to think it is. If it were, we could vote a decent person into office (like Obama) and they'd make decent changes. Doesn't work like that and so it doesn't matter. Its all big business, really, and it's no wonder that somebody like Romney has made it to the forefront.


----------



## The Reverend

Thanks for giving me some things to think about, as well as some things I need to look into more in-depth, apparently. 

Keep 'em coming!


----------



## flint757

Part of me doesn't want him in office because he didn't accomplish much overall. However, I am aware that congress caused a lot of those problems and knowing that I also don't want to let congress get away with basically controlling elections by controlling the results. They made him look bad so that he would get kicked out of office and someone else would be more willing to bow down and take it up the ass.

So given that I probably will vote for Obama unless there is a 3rd party candidate that just really dazzles me. (but I won't be happy about it) He at least agree's with me on social issues which Romney doesn't even come close.


----------



## bob123

The only reason I wont vote for obama, is because I got in a car crash on the way to the voting booth and was put into a week long coma


----------



## renzoip

While I did maintain a slight support for Obama in 2008, his actions and my views have drastically moved in opposite directions, to the point where now I totally oppose his drone-striking anti-immigrant pro-imperialist free-marketer ass. Him and Romney (Reps/Dems for that matter) are just 2 factions of the 1 ruling class and the 1 state that serves their interests.


----------



## bob123

renzoip said:


> While I did maintain a tacit support for Obama in 2008, his positions and my views have drastically moved in opposite directions, to the point where I totally oppose his drone-striking anti-immigrant pro-imperialist free-marketer ass. Him and Romney (Reps/Dems for that matter) are just 2 factions of the 1 ruling class and the 1 state that serves their interest's.




I dont see a self made man, who put himself through harvard on the same levels as a silver spooner who inherited tons of money and lead a priviledged life....


----------



## renzoip

bob123 said:


> I dont see a self made man, who put himself through harvard on the same levels as a silver spooner who inherited tons of money and lead a priviledged life....



Well, they both claim to be self-made man, Romney being more arrogant about it than Obama. But in the end, it is not their upbringing that drives me to lump them together in the same category. Rather, it is the positions they both have decided to hold, and most importantly, the actions they have taken. IMO their actions is what make them look like mouthpieces (at best) or puppets (at worst) of the ruling class.


----------



## bob123

renzoip said:


> Well, they both claim to be self-made man, Romney being more arrogant about it than Obama. But in the end, it is not their upbringing that drives me to lump them together in the same category. Rather, it is the positions they both have decided to hold, and most importantly, the actions they have taken. IMO their actions is what make them look like mouthpieces (at best) or puppets (at worst) of the ruling class.




Well I know we're not going to agree, so will just have to agree to disagree.



Some facts that people dont like the take into consideration when they throw blame on obama : 

Withing the FIRST SIX MONTHS of obama's term (well before he would have ANY chance at implementing ANY policies), Gas rose from 3.12 (not sure why people think he came into office at 1.XX$...) to over 4$ a gallon. Prices have been floating around the 3.50$ mark for the past 2 years now. So in one candidacy, gas rose approx 38 cents over 4 years on average (9% total raise, or 2.25%. Inflation TOTALLY swamps this number).



He took office at 5% unemployment, at which that SKYROCKETED due to a recession for 1 year. It went from 5% to over 10% in 1.5 years. SINCE THEN it has CONSISTENTLY declined EVERY month. Over 10%, back down to 8%. I foresee this number dropping below 7% before the election term.

If you compare that number to the global economy, you will see we're doing better then most still. 





Basically the republican party has two cards up it's sleeve. Solyndra (blah blah), and skewing numbers around to make them look good in their corner.









U.S. gas prices


----------



## gregmarx7

I will always be more concerned on voting for my state's representatives and senate than the actual president.


----------



## mr_rainmaker

I "USED" to be a lib,but never again,all gov has done is stand in my way of restarting my business`s,KILLED by gov intevention,I`m PISSED,i can`t make a living,cant hire anyone can get anything off the board due to "new regulations" FUBHO.......

i`m out...
before i saysomthing i mignt regret,just look at the state of the indian nations some re dong good while those that need the most help.....
aaaaaaaaaaaaaagrrrrrrrrrrhggggggggggghghghhhhhhhhh


----------



## TRENCHLORD

bob123 said:


> Basically the republican party has two cards up it's sleeve. Solyndra (blah blah), and skewing numbers around to make them look good in their corner.


 
Like this? 
Arthur Laffer: The Real 'Stimulus' Record - WSJ.com


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Like this?
> Arthur Laffer: The Real 'Stimulus' Record - WSJ.com





> The evidence here is extremely damaging to the case made by Mr. Obama and others that there is economic value to spending more money on *infrastructure, education,* unemployment insurance, food stamps, windmills and bailouts. Mr. Obama keeps saying that if only Congress would pass his second stimulus plan, unemployment would finally start to fall. That's an expensive leap of faith with no evidence to confirm it.



I can see where he may be coming from with the portion I did not highlight. However, infrastructure not only gives someone a job (construction workers, architects, civil engineers, etc.), but education, whether beneficial now or not, is important to the future and welfare was never meant to be beneficial economically. The point of welfare was to help those less fortunate. Lumping all of those things together makes his point weaker IMO.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> gives someone a job


 
That's the whole problem with the stimulas packages, they don't give anything, they borrow from the future in an attempt to help Obamas stats in the present.
They do nothing for our economy other than effect it negatively in the long term. 
They're not even a bandaid, they are a harpoon jabbing in an open wound.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Every reason I would have said has already been said.


----------



## flint757

Yes, but infrastructure is not the same as unemployment insurance. Infrastructure is legitimately giving someone a job (and betters our society overall) whereas unemployment insurance is paying someone who is having trouble finding a job (or for the skeptic, to not work). Those do not go hand in hand IMO. They are distinctly different.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> Yes, but infrastructure is not the same as unemployment insurance. Infrastructure is legitimately giving someone a job


 
We are not making ends meet as far as expenditures compared to revenue (as evidenced by the growing debt), so in order to pay for it, we are financing it. 
In other words (to use some good ole christian lingo lol), we are borrowing from peter to pay for paul's reckless spending (coke habit haha). 
http://voices.yahoo.com/report-shows-stimulus-package-waste-fraud-abuse-6523242.html


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Why is anybody blaming Obama for the rise in gas prices? Let's be reasonable, not illogical. By that logic, we don't want Republicans office either, because gas prices went over $4 when Bush Jr. was in office. But, alas, that has nothing to do with the president, so let's leave it alone.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> We are not making ends meet as far as expenditures compared to revenue (as evidenced by the growing debt), so in order to pay for it, we are financing it.
> In other words (to use some good ole christian lingo lol), we are borrowing from peter to pay for paul's reckless spending (coke habit haha).
> Report Shows Stimulus Package Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com



I only have one major problem with that article, it only points out "useless" spending. Obviously that is not the case for the entire stimulus package. I would argue though that anything that gives someone a job is beneficial to the economy (albeit varied degrees). I imagine the idea is if someone is getting work, then they are getting paid and will then spend money. Once they spend money they are helping whatever businesses they are buying from and so on and so on. Whether it works that well in practice... What I can say is giving the rich a break pretty much never works. I will not bow down to the retaliation effect big business has forced the middle class and government to bend down too. (what the trickle down really means in other words) 

On a personal note I never have a problem with money being spent on science no matter how/where the money comes from or was meant for.


----------



## Waelstrum

I don't get this fear of spending. My (highly limited) understanding is that the economy is determined not by how much money people have, but how much it is moving around. There is a finite amount of wealth in the world (as evidenced by the concept of inflation, wherein printing more money reduced the value of the existing money in proportion to how much extra money is created.) This means that one person's income has to be another person's expenditure. Therefore, if the economy is slow, you need someone to take the bullet and start spending some serious dosh. In cases of hard economic times, it takes a power as large as the American government to solve a problem as large as the American economy. Look at Canada and Australia (as already mentioned in this thread): we increased spending when the GFC was just starting out, and we're pretty much fine now. Now look at the UK, who started cutting spending massively as soon as the GFC was starting out, and they're in a double dip recession. I'm probably massively over-simplifying, but the long and short of it is that Reganomics has been known not to work for ages, and it seems that government spending does.


----------



## flint757

Waelstrum said:


> I don't get this fear of spending. My (highly limited) understanding is that the economy is determined not by how much money people have, but how much it is moving around. There is a finite amount of wealth in the world (as evidenced by the concept of inflation, wherein printing more money reduced the value of the existing money in proportion to how much extra money is created.) This means that one person's income has to be another person's expenditure. Therefore, if the economy is slow, you need someone to take the bullet and start spending some serious dosh. In cases of hard economic times, it takes a power as large as the American government to solve a problem as large as the American economy. Look at Canada and Australia (as already mentioned in this thread): we increased spending when the GFC was just starting out, and we're pretty much fine now. Now look at the UK, who started cutting spending massively as soon as the GFC was starting out, and they're in a double dip recession. I'm probably massively over-simplifying, but the long and short of it is that Reganomics has been known not to work for ages, and it seems that government spending does.



Agreed.

It even relates well to my thoughts on distribution of wealth. I have mixed feelings because in one since it isn't fair for someone to be punished for being successful (although it is odd to me to call taxes punishment in the first place  and the wealthy can certainly affect change more than most citizens as well) and on the other we are working with a finite dollar amount (something inflation will never change in the long term). 

This means those that are already rich in essence have so much wealth that it is theoretically impossible for anyone to achieve the same result. For every dollar in the bank (or the mattress ) is a dollar someone else can never have. So in knowing that is it really fair for them to have so much while the rest have so little? 

It isn't about equalizing society or even redistributing wealth, but the only way to put some money (large chunks) back in to the system is in fact through taxes (wall street is more about taking money from one corner of the room and shifting it to the other side IMO). 

It isn't as if millionaires start 100's of companies all the time and many people have a huge nest egg stored for retirement (money being underutilized). That money will never be anyone else's. Even with inflation all we are doing is increasing the amount of dollars while reducing its overall value which literally changes nothing in the long term once prices stabilize. 

So it puts me at odds with myself because on the one hand it is the right thing to do as taxes is more of a duty than a punishment, after all we all benefit some way from taxes. And on the other taking more money from someone just because they are successful seems unjust as well (not the notion of taking it, but taking so much more).


----------



## TheAmercanLow

Honestly, to me, this election is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Neither is really that great.


----------



## flint757

Which is precisely why I'm choosing Obama. Even if his policies aren't the best (honestly too soon to really know IMO) he is the least influenced by religion and bigotry. He also seems the least likely to be all about party rhetoric which Romney has already proven he will follow to the T.


----------



## Zugster

TheAmercanLow said:


> Honestly, to me, this election is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Neither is really that great.


 
Romney is vastly more evil. (imo of course)


----------



## renzoip

flint757 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It even relates well to my thoughts on distribution of wealth. I have mixed feelings because in one since it isn't fair for someone to be punished for being successful (although it is odd to me to call taxes punishment in the first place  and the wealthy can certainly affect change more than most citizens as well) and on the other we are working with a finite dollar amount (something inflation will never change in the long term).
> 
> This means those that are already rich in essence have so much wealth that it is theoretically impossible for anyone to achieve the same result. For every dollar in the bank (or the mattress ) is a dollar someone else can never have. So in knowing that is it really fair for them to have so much while the rest have so little?
> 
> It isn't about equalizing society or even redistributing wealth, but the only way to put some money (large chunks) back in to the system is in fact through taxes (wall street is more about taking money from one corner of the room and shifting it to the other side IMO).
> 
> It isn't as if millionaires start 100's of companies all the time and many people have a huge nest egg stored for retirement (money being underutilized). That money will never be anyone else's. Even with inflation all we are doing is increasing the amount of dollars while reducing its overall value which literally changes nothing in the long term once prices stabilize.
> 
> So it puts me at odds with myself because on the one hand it is the right thing to do as taxes is more of a duty than a punishment, after all we all benefit some way from taxes. And on the other taking more money from someone just because they are successful seems unjust as well (not the notion of taking it, but taking so much more).




This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure why it is that so many politicians and people in general believe taxation to be system of rewards and punishments. This moralistic appeals are also frequently used when discussing government spending, welfare, and the like. I honestly don't think this is the appropriate context in which to discuss this issue. I think this moralistic rhetoric is mostly used by politicians to fire up angry "middle class" voters than it is an actual attempt to explain how the economy actually works. 

Another thing that should be examined is the way in which the media and politicians define the "successful" for us. Is a wealthy person necessarily a successful person by virtue of having a higher income level than most? What are the things that we are assuming about this person? These are things that more people should consider before turning those who own the means of production into mere victims of "Big Bad Government". 


Flint: I'm not trying to attack your position, just putting some extra info out there to consider. This is a looooong read, but it is a very interesting take on economics that often gets overlooked:

Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics? | Anarchist Writers


A more liberal oriented, and easier to digest explanation here: 




Just my two cents.


----------



## estabon37

MikeH said:


>



Dude, it looks like that fucking bird drew all over your flag! Are you gonna take that shit?


----------



## flint757

renzoip said:


> This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure why it is that so many politicians and people in general believe taxation to be system of rewards and punishments. This moralistic appeals are also frequently used when discussing government spending, welfare, and the like. I honestly don't think this is the appropriate context in which to discuss this issue. I think this moralistic rhetoric is mostly used by politicians to fire up angry "middle class" voters than it is an actual attempt to explain how the economy actually works.
> 
> Another thing that should be examined is the way in which the media and politicians define the "successful" for us. Is a wealthy person necessarily a successful person by virtue of having a higher income level than most? What are the things that we are assuming about this person? These are things that more people should consider before turning those who own the means of production into mere victims of "Big Bad Government".
> 
> Flint: I'm not trying to attack your position, just putting some extra info out there to consider. This is a looooong read, but it is a very interesting take on economics that often gets overlooked:
> 
> Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics? | Anarchist Writers
> 
> A more liberal oriented, and easier to digest explanation here:
> 
> Just my two cents.



I'll read/watch when I get home from work.

No offense taken either. As I said I'm unsure on how I feel about it all and I agree success is definitely a loaded term. Some are born into wealth, some get lucky and some just get a product made that everybody wants and thus get rich. There is definitely a variety. if I had to pick a side on the issue I'd say it is an important duty that the wealthy pay more taxes, but I can see where people with differing opinions are coming from.

FWIW I don't look at taxes like reward and punishment, but I don't like where some tax dollars go. But hey, I can pretend what little I contribute went to NASA. 

What you linked my clarify everything even more so I'll post again afterwards.

My other issue (excluding taxes) still stands though about finite money and would love to hear some opinions on that, but maybe someone should start a separate thread for it.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> I won't vote for Obama because of all the same ole basic "right wing talking points lol" that can be heard day in and out on popular shows like The Factor and more libertarian based shows like Stossel.
> 
> We don't want the Government/Obama to be "the man", thereby permanently replacing big banks and corps in their traditional role as "the man".
> There's a natural eb and flow to banks and corperations rising and falling that has everything to do with the organic nature of survival of the fittest, and more specifically, their current leadership.
> 
> Obama in principal wants government to be the one who sets the stagger in the race.
> If he were officiating a 100m dash, he would want to know everyone's racing AND social historys in order to handicap the race not only to equalize the results, but to in fact influence the results in a manner to have the ones who were more historically succesful to finish at the back, and the ones who were more historically unsuccesful finish at the front.
> 
> I don't want my goverment attempting to play the great equalizer, especially when so many of the people involved are crooks in their own right.
> 
> With all the documentation of govermental abuse of taxpayers money, why does anyone have confidence in their ability to redistribute success over such a huge spectrum.
> 
> If most small bussiness owners are very anti-obama (which by everything I've read and seen, they are), and they make up such a huge chunk of our tax base, then it would be a great idea for our domestic jobs situation and total revenue to attempt to please them.
> 
> Less government regulation/intrusiveness is always better to me.
> I'm not afraid of a life without Obama "helping me along".
> And, I'm also not envious of people getting 100 or 1000 times richer than I.
> I'm a lazy bastard and do not deseve to be wealthy, while many people work their ass off and deserve what they get.



I'd like to know how exactly your definition of "free market" is free at all. No market would exist without a government in place in society to educate and protect the consumers these corporations and banks ultimately rely on. We give so much money to corporations, yet based on the principles of capitalism, they have literally no legal or ethical obligation to protect us or our well being. More often than not, it is in their best interest to keep us in a constant state of fear and unrest.

The government has become a bureaucratic mess because we let corporations and special interests use all the influence they needed to make it exactly as inefficient and evil seeming as they needed it to be. They created the self-fulfilling tea party promise that government is evil to convince us that government is the problem. Because of that, there is no longer a consensus on what America is supposed to stand for. We have gone from "we" to "them", just like we did towards the end of Vietnam and during the failed reconstruction of the south. 

In all honesty, I find your views shallow and baseless. There is little to no evidence that an unchecked free market leads to more upward mobility and widespread economic growth in any time other than the Gilded age you've based this outdated theory on. As we have seen with the great recession we're now finally pulling ourselves out of (thanks to Obama's bank bailouts that were paid back to us tax payers WITH interest), the global economy takes a lot more rules than just supply and demand to keep from collapsing.

Did we forget why the banks collapsed in the first place? During Bill Clintons final year in office, he repealed Glass-Steagall, a wall street reform enacted in 1933 that forbade banks from gambling with commercial funds. In other words, the repeal of this "pesky, job killing regulation" allowed banks to gamble with our 401k's, our college funds, and even our mortgages.

Now you can keep telling your little socio-economic metaphors that have no basis in reality all you want, but that doesn't make Obama's often successful efforts against staggering odds and resistance any less groundbreaking to me or anyone else who can see past all the smoke and mirrors.


----------



## dethFNmetal

Vote for Obama! He'll Feed us all with his secret money stash.


----------



## Treeunit212

dethFNmetal said:


> Vote for Obama! He'll Feed us all with his secret money stash.





I think that's Romney you're thinking of.

Oh and that "secret" money stash isn't actually secret. It's in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.


----------



## dethFNmetal

romney.... obama.... whatever that just shows how into politics i am. wont be voting for obama though. or romney for that matter. haha


----------



## Treeunit212

dethFNmetal said:


> romney.... obama.... whatever that just shows how into politics i am. wont be voting for obama though. or romney for that matter. haha



...Then why exactly are you commenting in this thread in the first place?


----------



## dethFNmetal

because i felt like spouting out useless comments..... its not that im choosing not to vote. i cant. only 16.


----------



## highlordmugfug

dethFNmetal said:


> because i felt like spouting out useless comments..... its not that im choosing not to vote. i cant. *only 16.*


It shows. 

For your benefit, useless random posting in PC&E, and trying to troll (your post in the rap thread) will get you banned here.
Just a heads up.



And to be on topic: I plan on it, so yeah.  Later.


----------



## dethFNmetal

Not tying to get in fights here. I was sarcastic because I found his comment was s bit rude. And the rap thread? Please on a 7 string guitar forum? It has no place. Not trolling Im not even on the Internet really enough to know what trolling was until I joined this site.


----------



## flint757

Music is music. I assume it was in the "general music" section as in no specific genre. I'm sure someone could play hip hop with a guitar too as many have.

As for this discussion, I've already said my piece


----------



## mr_rainmaker

(note to the person who neg reped me) BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good one 2thumbs up,giveme your id so I can POSITIVE you back  ROFL.....


----------



## broj15

mr_rainmaker said:


> (note to the person who neg reped me) BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good one 2thumbs up,giveme your id so I can POSITIVE you back  ROFL.....


 

really not wanting to derail this thread and I apologize to the mods and the rest of the board if this is considered OT (although I have technically done nothing wrong since our own Mr. Rainmaker opend the door, I'm just walking through it.) but You have already broke 2 forum rules in this thread:

1. Poor grammar/ spelling. It says it in the rules. We're not grammar nazi's arounf here (or atleast most of us aren't) but when your post is hardly readable bue to an overwhelming amount of errors you deserve to be neg'd.

2. Complaining about rep. People get banned for this relatively often and it's entirly possible that the same will happen to you. 

Just for clarification, I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to explain that thier is a certain level of proffesionality that is expected of members of the forum, which is what seperates us from shit holes like HC or UG. 

Once again, apologies to the mods if this is considered too off topic. I've managed to avoid the banhammer thus far and would like to continue to do so.


----------



## mr_rainmaker

hahaha I`m not complaining,I thought it was DAMN funny....
but the PM`s weren`t working,scrip error 

Now back on topic


----------



## bloodlust

Since Ron Paul is out I won't be voting at all,I don't like Obama or romney they are one in the same


----------



## mountainjam

bloodlust said:


> Since Ron Paul is out I won't be voting at all,I don't like Obama or romney they are one in the same



Check out Gary Johnson then. They have very similar principles and he will be on the ballot in all 50 states.


----------



## Styxmata

Zugster said:


> Interesting because it would be hard to imagine anyone more vapid and hollow than Mitt Romney. A man who has changed his stated policies so many times on so many issues that his face ought to appear in the dictionary next to the word: "flipflop."


 
Exactly. If he seemed more genuine about his sudden policy changes and why he now stands on the other side of the proverbial political-fence, I might be more inclined to think about punching a vote in his name. As of where I stand now, neither Obama nor Romney will be getting my vote. 3rd party is where I stand at this point.

I find many of my core values very liberal (equal rights, civil liberties and such). On the other hand, many of my ideals on economy based policy are very conservative.


----------



## loki

Waelstrum said:


> I don't get this fear of spending. My (highly limited) understanding is that the economy is determined not by how much money people have, but how much it is moving around. There is a finite amount of wealth in the world (as evidenced by the concept of inflation, wherein printing more money reduced the value of the existing money in proportion to how much extra money is created.) This means that one person's income has to be another person's expenditure. Therefore, if the economy is slow, you need someone to take the bullet and start spending some serious dosh. In cases of hard economic times, it takes a power as large as the American government to solve a problem as large as the American economy. Look at Canada and Australia (as already mentioned in this thread): we increased spending when the GFC was just starting out, and we're pretty much fine now. Now look at the UK, who started cutting spending massively as soon as the GFC was starting out, and they're in a double dip recession. I'm probably massively over-simplifying, but the long and short of it is that Reganomics has been known not to work for ages, and it seems that government spending does.


When government taxes your money they are taking money out of the economic system that could be used for increasing production, employment, etc. then moving it to Washington where a significant percentage is removed by administrative expenses. Subtract the governmental waste and what is left over is returned. It is a far less efficient system than if the money was left completely in the private sector.

I would point out the "bigotry" of the left with regards to the "rich". When most people think of the rich they are thinking of the very top percentage. The problem is Obama's "rich", as defined by his proposed taxing scheme, included s many (mostly) "middle-class" small and medium business people. By attacking the rich/employers he is creating an anti-business climate that is stifling growth. 

Obama's spend and borrow economic plan is heading the country over a cliff. He is repeating the same mistakes as Greece. We can choose to go with the Ryan budget plan and have smaller social programs or go with Obama and lose ALL of those social programs in the not so distant future.

The choice is between traditional American free enterprise (Reganism) that has created the most prosperous, most advanced civilization in history or go with Obama's Marxism-lite and the failure associated with Communism/Socialism.


----------



## Deviliumrei

It doesn't really matter who you vote. Obama and Romney both have almost the same campaign contributors which means you are going to get the same shit from either one. So go and vote in your illusion that you general people have some kind of real power. Time to wake up.



And I know I don't live in USA but it happens that what you guys do affects the whole world


----------



## Captain_Awesome

Zugster said:


> Romney is vastly more evil. (imo of course)



As someone looking in from the UK, I wholeheartedly concur. All he did on his recent world tour was go around offending people, enforcing the American Stereotype.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Treeunit212 said:


> *random diatribes based in little evidence with no clear examples about how keynesian economic ideals that poster holds dear to heart as ever worked when applied outside of the university classroom*
> 
> Did we forget why the banks collapsed in the first place? During Bill Clintons final year in office, he repealed Glass-Steagall, a wall street reform enacted in 1933 that forbade banks from gambling with commercial funds. In other words, the repeal of this "pesky, job killing regulation" allowed banks to gamble with our 401k's, our college funds, and even our mortgages.



you realize you're completely wrong about how we got into this depression right? it wasn't because of that measure being repealed, it was because the housing bubble burst. 
you see, a long time ago back in the banks used to practice a "discriminatory" technique of Redlining. Redlining was the practice of choosing whether or not you could get a large longtime loan (home loans specifically) based off of your economic status and specifically where you lived. the practice was put in place, because 7/10 of the time most people from low income neighborhoods couldn't afford to pay off said loans. this protected the assets of the banks (your money that they invested through loans) and grew whatever money was saved there. 

During the Cater administration good 'ol Jimmy boy wished to bring more people out of what he considered "poverty"... and how did he propose to do this? was it through better education so that low income wage earners could climb out of their tax bracket? was it through encouraging of investments into American industries? No.. instead the peanut farmer believed that if they owned a home they couldn't afford, the economic status of the lower wage earners would increase... yeah he wasn't smart. 

But the president couldn't do this as banks would not lend to people who couldn't afford their loans. So Jimmy boy ever being the forward thinker that he was, determined that if he called Redlining a racist practice, then he could abolish it and go about his merry way. so the measure passed both houses that disallowed banks from discriminating against low income clients and pass out housing loans (15+ year loans specifically) that couldn't be paid for in full. 

Now if you really knew anything about banking, you would know that if you can't pay off a loan you default. and if enough loans default, your money you just have saved in the bank becomes worthless. so as it went the government learned sometime during the George H. Bush's bid to be re-elected, that these toxic assets (bad loans) were going to bankrupt major banks, because without a new influx of none-tainted cash, all of the loans would default, and all the money each bank held would evaporate. so he further reduced redlining practices, allowing even more people to get long term loans. this allowed the assets to stay afloat and not ruin his bid for the presidency. 

fast-forward to Clinton. he is 2-3 years into his presidency and has been riding high on the recovery the markets went through after the post-coldwar recession. he doesn't want any bad economic news hurting his approval numbers (he lived for good approval numbers) as they have already been shaken by rumors of his being free with his little Bill. So he hears of toxic assets and then goes the same direction as his predecessor. Redlining is further reduced. 
Moving forward to his last year of the Clinton presidency. Clinton repeals Glass-Steagall. Why? because at this point the housing bubble is growing dangerously large, and there is no way simply bringing more money into the pot is going to help anymore (the assets were _that_ toxic). So in order not to have everything crash and burn around him, so he allows the banks to sell their toxic assets on the stock market in the form of securities to con average investors (non-professional investors, everyday joes like you and me) into buying them so that the banks wouldn't lose their money overnight. the idea here being that this way the banks could back their bad assets and stay afloat. 

well this worked for a short time, until investment advisers caught wind of what was being sold in those securities and got the word around that people were buying bad money and would see no ROI. So during W. Bush administration the federal government and Freddie Mac buy up the securities and re-sell them as bonds. the idea being the same as before, but just with a different packaging. this works again for a brief time until investors get wise and spread the word not to buy this bad money as there will be no ROI. By this time many economists were predicting the housing bubble would burst soon and many investors were clearing their portfolios of these bad assets. 

So in 2008 before the election the housing bubble burst under the weight of bad assets. banks overnight lost their clients money. TARP was passed (the worst idea ever) in order to keep the banks afloat so that all of the retirement fund were not lost, and also that property values wouldn't go under as well. 
TARP works for like 2 seconds. and when Obama was elected, he passed the first of 2 bailouts. 

now lets breakdown (djent djent) what has happened here: banks have bad money, this money will not go away or be made better as the people who were lent this money tried living beyond their means. this by this time has extended beyond housing, and has settled into car purchases and credit card applications. people across america are able to buy things they normally couldn't afford because they can easily take out loans to do anything they wanted.
so there's tons of bad cash that frankly just needs to fail. the bad loans need to default (and should have defaulted a decade sooner) before the toxicity spreads through all sectors of the economy through asset absorption (by this time its too late because the assets were everywhere). so instead of taking the bigger hit and having a shorter recovery time, Obama opts to buy all of the bad assets in order for the big banks not to fail. 

Now before we proceed i would like to establish that rhetoric of "GOP doesn't care about the little guy, only big business" is partially true. the GOP constituency is comprised largely of private institutions. I say partially because once you get higher up the ladder _every industry_ supports you. big business loves the DNC just as much as the RNC. yet the stigma sticks cuz there is truth to it. 
however the DNC as large money donors in their back pockets that aren't talked about. Big Banks. the DNC looooooves big banking, and many top ranking DNC members are backed by, or made money off of big banking. the best example is Barney Frank, whose boyfriend was a big wig in Goldman Sachs. When i have used the words "banks" and "bad assets" together in the same sentence, i am not referring to small local banks or credit unions, Im talking about the big national monstrosities that are like the Golden Arches of the money world (AIG, Goldman Sachs, ect). 

so these large banking institutions are about to go under, and Obama rushes to the rescue to save what cannot be saved. by his mandate, the federal government absorbs all of the toxicity and managed to incur more federal debt overnight than was ever inured over 8 years of the Iraq war. of course we can't pay for any of it, as the federal budget is dwarfed by the national debt. so we borrow it, a good amount from china. 

Now to further burden this story down with more backroom dealings crap it should be noted we dont borrow the bulk of our money from china. in fact, most of the money we borrow is from private domestic sources... big banks. we borrowed billions of dollars in bad housing assets from big banks to fund our own budget which is already saddled with more debt, thus creating the biggest cluster fuck you've ever seen in your life.... 

the government bailed out the biggest domestic banks by buying their toxic assets that the government mandated they absorb back in the 70s, all so that a big portion of the national debt wouldn't become worthless.... and some wonder why our credit rating was downgraded  

all the while people's investments became worthless and Barney Frank's boyfriend and the rest of his big banking chums were able to abandon ship with cashed out benefit plans and not feel the pinch. 

the best part is it never worked. housing values are plummeting and foreclosures of homes is at a record high. the original loans are all still going bad and the homes are still being lost..... except now we have a bitch of a national debt problem, 48 states of the union are facing state deficits which they can't pay off, and we have a huge percentage of the population approaching retirement age who were hoping to be able to fall back on social security (which has been raided continually by this, and past administrations) and medicare (which Obama is threatening to cut by half a trillion dollars to fund Obamacare) who now have nothing left and as such aren't retiring; and because of this there is no job availability for kids graduating. 
Coupled with the non-existent business growth as the result of the Dodd-Frank act which smothers small businesses. 

so there you have Obama's America. double digit unemployment and millions out of work who have stopped looking for jobs... all because we bailed out toxic assets which shouldn't have existed in the first place... twice. 

im sorry but the bailouts have helped no one, and have never been proving to do anything but make bubbles bursting more drawn out and more devastating.

hopefully this post catches someone's eye and inspires them to actually look into what actually has happened to the economy over the passed 40 years when the government intervenes with it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^Good read, and I'm with you on most of it, but, as I remember it, "Obama's mandate" was the result of a bunch of grown up children coming to 1,000 disagreements before what ended up being ordered was ordered. It wasn't as if Obama simply wrote up a plan and it was passed in tact. Doesn't make the outcome any greater... But, would we expect anything else to happen other than a new bandage being put on an old wound?

What we need is some hard skinned mother fucker with no family who will come in and carefully orchestrate the destruction of this enormous clusterfuck. I actually voted for Obama initially, hoping that he would usher the collapse of said mess, allowing us to start the healing process sooner than later.. Oh well.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Too bad just about every modern economist knows allowing for failure like that is the worst idea ever. Maybe ill write some long response when I get home....and some of the statements you made are very wrong and/or misleadingly written. The bailout money wasn't entirely lost money, the government actually made a chunk of it back already.

Also, giving out loans back then was extremely racist. Even today a high level of racism exists when people go to get a loan. You don't have to believe me though, look it up.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

When we're talking about an irreparable problem, there's not a whole lot else that can be done. Although, I did mention an orchestrated dismantling, which would, ideally, be different than an outright collapse.. Though I don't know if there would ultimately be any difference.


----------



## flint757

Response to Ibanezsam4:

Bush initiate the bailout before his tenure was over Obama may deserve criticism however for allowing it to happen anyhow, we are not in double digit unemployment as a whole, from what I understand the first recession was caused by bank runs as rumors spread about them closing (hence why we have FDIC now) and banks only keep so much in reserve, the rest is invested, so they lost all physical cash that was available and tons of people lost most of their money.

Deregulation (or rather re-regulation) is the cause of almost every problem we've had in the past 30 years. I do find it funny though how you conveniently blame the presidents before and after the presidents you like (ie Bush jr. and Reagan). Reagan's deregulation of the airlines didn't do any damage at all, right. Mind you many things are circumstantial like the introduction of the internet into the market, beginning the huge growth of a new industry. This does not entail that Reagan was successful in the slightest. Never mind his pointless military spending. Under Reagan we went from being world's largest creditor to world's largest debtor. 



> President Reagan, has remained popular as an antitax hero despite raising taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.[20] Reagan ultimately raised taxes more times than he cut them.[21] According to Paul Krugman, "Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase."[22] According to historian and domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's tax increases over the course of his presidency took back half of the 1981 tax cut.



Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In general the president is not even important when it comes to economics since he has to have both sections of congress to approve it before he can then approve it. Congress deserves the praise and criticism for the failures more than anyone else.


----------



## Treeunit212

Ibanezsam4 said:


> you realize you're completely wrong about how we got into this depression right? it wasn't because of that measure being repealed, it was because the housing bubble burst.
> you see, a long time ago back in the banks used to practice a "discriminatory" technique of Redlining. Redlining was the practice of choosing whether or not you could get a large longtime loan (home loans specifically) based off of your economic status and specifically where you lived. the practice was put in place, because 7/10 of the time most people from low income neighborhoods couldn't afford to pay off said loans. this protected the assets of the banks (your money that they invested through loans) and grew whatever money was saved there.
> 
> During the Cater administration good 'ol Jimmy boy wished to bring more people out of what he considered "poverty"... and how did he propose to do this? was it through better education so that low income wage earners could climb out of their tax bracket? was it through encouraging of investments into American industries? No.. instead the peanut farmer believed that if they owned a home they couldn't afford, the economic status of the lower wage earners would increase... yeah he wasn't smart.
> 
> But the president couldn't do this as banks would not lend to people who couldn't afford their loans. So Jimmy boy ever being the forward thinker that he was, determined that if he called Redlining a racist practice, then he could abolish it and go about his merry way. so the measure passed both houses that disallowed banks from discriminating against low income clients and pass out housing loans (15+ year loans specifically) that couldn't be paid for in full.
> 
> Now if you really knew anything about banking, you would know that if you can't pay off a loan you default. and if enough loans default, your money you just have saved in the bank becomes worthless. so as it went the government learned sometime during the George H. Bush's bid to be re-elected, that these toxic assets (bad loans) were going to bankrupt major banks, because without a new influx of none-tainted cash, all of the loans would default, and all the money each bank held would evaporate. so he further reduced redlining practices, allowing even more people to get long term loans. this allowed the assets to stay afloat and not ruin his bid for the presidency.
> 
> fast-forward to Clinton. he is 2-3 years into his presidency and has been riding high on the recovery the markets went through after the post-coldwar recession. he doesn't want any bad economic news hurting his approval numbers (he lived for good approval numbers) as they have already been shaken by rumors of his being free with his little Bill. So he hears of toxic assets and then goes the same direction as his predecessor. Redlining is further reduced.
> Moving forward to his last year of the Clinton presidency. Clinton repeals Glass-Steagall. Why? because at this point the housing bubble is growing dangerously large, and there is no way simply bringing more money into the pot is going to help anymore (the assets were _that_ toxic). So in order not to have everything crash and burn around him, so he allows the banks to sell their toxic assets on the stock market in the form of securities to con average investors (non-professional investors, everyday joes like you and me) into buying them so that the banks wouldn't lose their money overnight. the idea here being that this way the banks could back their bad assets and stay afloat.
> 
> well this worked for a short time, until investment advisers caught wind of what was being sold in those securities and got the word around that people were buying bad money and would see no ROI. So during W. Bush administration the federal government and Freddie Mac buy up the securities and re-sell them as bonds. the idea being the same as before, but just with a different packaging. this works again for a brief time until investors get wise and spread the word not to buy this bad money as there will be no ROI. By this time many economists were predicting the housing bubble would burst soon and many investors were clearing their portfolios of these bad assets.
> 
> So in 2008 before the election the housing bubble burst under the weight of bad assets. banks overnight lost their clients money. TARP was passed (the worst idea ever) in order to keep the banks afloat so that all of the retirement fund were not lost, and also that property values wouldn't go under as well.
> TARP works for like 2 seconds. and when Obama was elected, he passed the first of 2 bailouts.
> 
> now lets breakdown (djent djent) what has happened here: banks have bad money, this money will not go away or be made better as the people who were lent this money tried living beyond their means. this by this time has extended beyond housing, and has settled into car purchases and credit card applications. people across america are able to buy things they normally couldn't afford because they can easily take out loans to do anything they wanted.
> so there's tons of bad cash that frankly just needs to fail. the bad loans need to default (and should have defaulted a decade sooner) before the toxicity spreads through all sectors of the economy through asset absorption (by this time its too late because the assets were everywhere). so instead of taking the bigger hit and having a shorter recovery time, Obama opts to buy all of the bad assets in order for the big banks not to fail.
> 
> Now before we proceed i would like to establish that rhetoric of "GOP doesn't care about the little guy, only big business" is partially true. the GOP constituency is comprised largely of private institutions. I say partially because once you get higher up the ladder _every industry_ supports you. big business loves the DNC just as much as the RNC. yet the stigma sticks cuz there is truth to it.
> however the DNC as large money donors in their back pockets that aren't talked about. Big Banks. the DNC looooooves big banking, and many top ranking DNC members are backed by, or made money off of big banking. the best example is Barney Frank, whose boyfriend was a big wig in Goldman Sachs. When i have used the words "banks" and "bad assets" together in the same sentence, i am not referring to small local banks or credit unions, Im talking about the big national monstrosities that are like the Golden Arches of the money world (AIG, Goldman Sachs, ect).
> 
> so these large banking institutions are about to go under, and Obama rushes to the rescue to save what cannot be saved. by his mandate, the federal government absorbs all of the toxicity and managed to incur more federal debt overnight than was ever inured over 8 years of the Iraq war. of course we can't pay for any of it, as the federal budget is dwarfed by the national debt. so we borrow it, a good amount from china.
> 
> Now to further burden this story down with more backroom dealings crap it should be noted we dont borrow the bulk of our money from china. in fact, most of the money we borrow is from private domestic sources... big banks. we borrowed billions of dollars in bad housing assets from big banks to fund our own budget which is already saddled with more debt, thus creating the biggest cluster fuck you've ever seen in your life....
> 
> the government bailed out the biggest domestic banks by buying their toxic assets that the government mandated they absorb back in the 70s, all so that a big portion of the national debt wouldn't become worthless.... and some wonder why our credit rating was downgraded
> 
> all the while people's investments became worthless and Barney Frank's boyfriend and the rest of his big banking chums were able to abandon ship with cashed out benefit plans and not feel the pinch.
> 
> the best part is it never worked. housing values are plummeting and foreclosures of homes is at a record high. the original loans are all still going bad and the homes are still being lost..... except now we have a bitch of a national debt problem, 48 states of the union are facing state deficits which they can't pay off, and we have a huge percentage of the population approaching retirement age who were hoping to be able to fall back on social security (which has been raided continually by this, and past administrations) and medicare (which Obama is threatening to cut by half a trillion dollars to fund Obamacare) who now have nothing left and as such aren't retiring; and because of this there is no job availability for kids graduating.
> Coupled with the non-existent business growth as the result of the Dodd-Frank act which smothers small businesses.
> 
> so there you have Obama's America. double digit unemployment and millions out of work who have stopped looking for jobs... all because we bailed out toxic assets which shouldn't have existed in the first place... twice.
> 
> im sorry but the bailouts have helped no one, and have never been proving to do anything but make bubbles bursting more drawn out and more devastating.
> 
> hopefully this post catches someone's eye and inspires them to actually look into what actually has happened to the economy over the passed 40 years when the government intervenes with it.



I'm not wrong. It was a multitude of problems concerning banking practices, one of which *did* include banks like Freddie Mac betting that U.S. homeowners won't be able to refinance their mortgages because they realized what was building up. So, when you combine these two banking debacles that really shouldn't be legally allowed under ANY president in the first place, we get huge banks with money spread throughout the economy betting against the very economy they're rooted in.



> TARP was passed (the worst idea ever) in order to keep the banks afloat so that all of the retirement fund were not lost, and also that property values wouldn't go under as well.



This is where I start to question your logic. You speak as though everything the government has ever done has been a bad idea rooted in corporate/banking interests. If TARP kept retirement funds from complete loss, how is that not a good thing? If they had been lost, it would have compiled the creeping baby boomer Social Security debacle, and both college students AND their parents would be broke from debt and moving into each other's houses. Doesn't that intervention seem kind of necessary?



> all the while people's investments became worthless and Barney Frank's boyfriend and the rest of his big banking chums were able to abandon ship with cashed out benefit plans and not feel the pinch.



Barney Frank's boyfriend was a Chief Technical Office and CEO of a subsidiary called MontaVista, so I think your slightly homophobic case for a Democratic Congressman's boyfriends' banking conspiracy is kind of far fetched. 

I enjoyed your theory, I really did. A lot of it touches on some real problems. But in the grand scheme of things, what you said doesn't help your case. If anything, it contradicts itself. 

Any bank that's too big to fail is too big to exist, and these banks are allowed to operate by the laws put forward by our government. Despite your attempt to twist the events leading up to the recession into a government conspiracy, this is still mainly an issue of corporate power, and the only way to quell it is through smart regulations.


----------



## The Reverend

I'm really glad I started this thread. You guys have given me a lot of things to do some research on. I'm pretty politically aware, but some of this stuff involving economics is over my head, and it's tough finding objective, knowledgeable sources when it comes to the last ~40 years of our country's economic policies. 

Keep it coming.


----------



## Waelstrum

loki said:


> When government taxes your money they are taking money out of the economic system that could be used for increasing production, employment, etc. then moving it to Washington where a significant percentage is removed by administrative expenses. Subtract the governmental waste and what is left over is returned. It is a far less efficient system than if the money was left completely in the private sector.
> 
> I would point out the "bigotry" of the left with regards to the "rich". When most people think of the rich they are thinking of the very top percentage. The problem is Obama's "rich", as defined by his proposed taxing scheme, included s many (mostly) "middle-class" small and medium business people. By attacking the rich/employers he is creating an anti-business climate that is stifling growth.
> 
> Obama's spend and borrow economic plan is heading the country over a cliff. He is repeating the same mistakes as Greece. We can choose to go with the Ryan budget plan and have smaller social programs or go with Obama and lose ALL of those social programs in the not so distant future.
> 
> The choice is between traditional American free enterprise (Reganism) that has created the most prosperous, most advanced civilization in history or go with Obama's Marxism-lite and the failure associated with Communism/Socialism.



My taxes actually go to Canberra, as I live in Australia (the western country least effected by the GFC). As soon as the trouble started, taxes were increased, and our government implemented large scale spending on infrastructure. This stimulated the economy. We are now fine. The UK did the opposite. They cut spending dramatically. They are in a double dip recession. The US was somewhere in the middle, and are slowly working their way back. Do you see where I'm going with this?


As an aside, I like how you associate communism and socialism. Would I be right in assuming you also associate democracy with capitalism? Would you call Australia communist? Would you call China a democracy? I was under the impression that capitalism and socialism were ways of organising an economy, whereas democracy and communism were ways of organising government. It's a bit nit-picky, and I could very well be wrong, as I've not really studied any of this.


----------



## flint757

It is a 4 part spectrum and places like Cuba aren't even in the same square


----------



## TemjinStrife

^ Those are decent for reference, but a dramatic oversimplification.


----------



## flint757

Obviously, and is useful as such. There are more complicated charts, but lose there usefulness in the process IMO.

Waelstrum asked a question, I felt these sufficiently answered it.


----------



## Waelstrum

^ I was asking more Socratically (sp) than to get the information, but thanks for the charts.


----------



## signalgrey

ill vote for a president who is worth voting for. Obama isnt a bad option, but Id like to see more of the most obvious problems just get fixed. I think the American Government is fucking broken, outdated and ineffective. 

Alot more needs to be changed and reevaluated than just who is President.


----------



## Jakke

loki said:


> The choice is between traditional American free enterprise (Reganism) that has created the most prosperous, most advanced civilization in history or go with Obama's Marxism-lite and the failure associated with Communism/Socialism.



I doubt the US is the most advanced civilization to exist. American exeptionalism probably has its place (somewhere), but making sweeping assertions like this just seems a bit rash

Marxism? _Marxism?_ I hate to say this, but do you even know what a socialist is? A lot of conservatives (which I hazard a guess that you are) claims Obama is a socialist, but that is pretty uninformed. Because let's be frank, you have no socialists (or even marxists) close to any sort of power in the US, thanks to McCarthy. 99% of your politicians are free market capitalists and libertarians to a varying degree, Obama included. He has more or less continued all of Bush's policies (and Bush were such a socialist) excluding healthcare, and it's terribly socialist and evil to make sure everyone has rudimentary healthcare. 
I wouldn't want to make the statement that socialism has always failed (but it's popular among american conservatives), my own country is one of the strongest economies in the world, and with the application of left-libertarianism, we came out extremely strong out of a recession. The socialist party actually governed here for almost eighty years, but that must be a fluke right? I mean, you just said socialism fails.. 
Meanwhile, the very right wing and right-libertarian US looks worse for wear, and you are bickering about wheather you should let countrymen die because their healthcare will raise your taxes slightly. 

As for the thread, I won't vote for Obama because I'm a foreigner.


----------



## loki

Jakke said:


> I doubt the US is the most advanced civilization to exist. American exeptionalism probably has its place (somewhere), but making sweeping assertions like this just seems a bit rash
> 
> Marxism? _Marxism?_ I hate to say this, but do you even know what a socialist is? A lot of conservatives (which I hazard a guess that you are) claims Obama is a socialist, but that is pretty uninformed. Because let's be frank, you have no socialists (or even marxists) close to any sort of power in the US, thanks to McCarthy. 99% of your politicians are free market capitalists and libertarians to a varying degree, Obama included. He has more or less continued all of Bush's policies (and Bush were such a socialist) excluding healthcare, and it's terribly socialist and evil to make sure everyone has rudimentary healthcare.
> I wouldn't want to make the statement that socialism has always failed (but it's popular among american conservatives), my own country is one of the strongest economies in the world, and with the application of left-libertarianism, we came out extremely strong out of a recession. The socialist party actually governed here for almost eighty years, but that must be a fluke right? I mean, you just said socialism fails..
> Meanwhile, the very right wing and right-libertarian US looks worse for wear, and you are bickering about wheather you should let countrymen die because their healthcare will raise your taxes slightly.
> 
> As for the thread, I won't vote for Obama because I'm a foreigner.


I invite you to read Obama's book "Dreams of my Father". He names "Frank" as a mentor during his teenage years who has been identified as Frank Marshall the communist writer. He admits to associating with Marxist groups in College.


----------



## loki

Waelstrum said:


> My taxes actually go to Canberra, as I live in Australia (the western country least effected by the GFC). As soon as the trouble started, taxes were increased, and our government implemented large scale spending on infrastructure. This stimulated the economy. We are now fine. The UK did the opposite. They cut spending dramatically. They are in a double dip recession. The US was somewhere in the middle, and are slowly working their way back. Do you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> 
> As an aside, I like how you associate communism and socialism. Would I be right in assuming you also associate democracy with capitalism? Would you call Australia communist? Would you call China a democracy? I was under the impression that capitalism and socialism were ways of organising an economy, whereas democracy and communism were ways of organising government. It's a bit nit-picky, and I could very well be wrong, as I've not really studied any of this.


Good points. I think you will find that Australia has lower tax rates than the United States which gives you more leeway to raise taxes without suppressing business growth. LIkewise Australia has half the debt of Europe and a third of the debt of the United States so the Australian economy is much less vulnerable to the global recession. To date President Obama has generated more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. One can only borrow so much money before going over the cliff. In order for the United States to approach the level of financial stability as Australia we will have to reduce Federal spending to responsible levels.

Democratic countries formally were associated with capitalism but in recent decades many have "experimented" with socialist polices with the negative consequences we are now experiencing.


----------



## flint757

loki said:


> I invite you to read Obama's book "Dreams of my Father". He names "Frank" as a mentor during his teenage years who has been identified as Frank Marshall the communist writer. He admits to associating with Marxist groups in College.



Gee I wonder who came to that conclusion. 



loki said:


> Good points. I think you will find that Australia has lower tax rates than the United States which gives you more leeway to raise taxes without suppressing business growth. LIkewise Australia has half the debt of Europe and a third of the debt of the United States so the Australian economy is much less vulnerable to the global recession. To date President Obama has generated more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. One can only borrow so much money before going over the cliff. In order for the United States to approach the level of financial stability as Australia we will have to reduce Federal spending to responsible levels.
> 
> Democratic countries formally were associated with capitalism but in recent decades many have "experimented" with socialist polices with the negative consequences we are now experiencing.



As for this last bit many countries have done so with positive results, you clearly get your information from very biased places. The US hardly is socialist in nature and capitalism is what is no longer working it seems.

I'll let someone who knows more about Australia's economy respond to your first paragraph as I'm probably not qualified nor educated enough on their system (honestly I can assume the same of you).


----------



## Jakke

loki said:


> I invite you to read Obama's book "Dreams of my Father". He names "Frank" as a mentor during his teenage years who has been identified as Frank Marshall the communist writer. He admits to associating with Marxist groups in College.


 
Admit? Like he would be a criminal? Damn man, I think there are valid ideas in Marx's writings, yet I am no socialist. Political ideology is no software license, you don't have to check "I agree to all these terms" at the bottom. 
I really admire Pink Floyd, did already as a teenager, and they were very left, Waters could even be considered a communist. So by the same logic, I would be one of those evil commies?
And let's not even speak of my huge love of Monthy Python


----------



## highlordmugfug

loki said:


> I invite you to read Obama's book "Dreams of my Father". He names "Frank" as a mentor during his teenage years who has been identified as Frank Marshall the communist writer. He admits to associating with Marxist groups in College.


So, as long as we ignore everything he's actually done, and just focus on the fact that he talked to a communist once, we can prove he's a communist.

Flawless logic, buddy. 

EDIT: I grew up going to church all the time, I am not a christian (or a pew for that matter). I've spent lots of time in garages, and yet I am not a mechanic (or a car). I even listened to someone completely insane talk for a long time once, and yet I am not insane or a psychiatrist!

Somehow your amazing skills of deduction have failed us!


----------



## Jakke

Okay, huddle around kids, it's personal story-time. Believe it or not, but your favourite angry atheist was actually confirmed. Yeah, at fifteen I was confirmed into the swedish lutheran church, it didn't take..
Well, until a conservative flawlessly showed me how one never can change associations. You can now refer to me as Jakke The Holy.


----------



## renzoip

Just for the lulz:


----------



## Jakke

Just as a point of order, the nazis were a socialist party, and no, since I am not ethically bankrupt, I am not equating all socialists to nazis.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

loki said:


> Good points. I think you will find that Australia has lower tax rates than the United States which gives you more leeway to raise taxes without suppressing business growth. LIkewise Australia has half the debt of Europe and a third of the debt of the United States so the Australian economy is much less vulnerable to the global recession. To date President Obama has generated more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. One can only borrow so much money before going over the cliff. In order for the United States to approach the level of financial stability as Australia we will have to reduce Federal spending to responsible levels.
> 
> Democratic countries formally were associated with capitalism but in recent decades many have "experimented" with socialist polices with the negative consequences we are now experiencing.




This is so fucking stupid, sorry man. Im tired of idiots making statements about things they know nothing about. This is like someone telling me the earth is flat. Google the basics of economics using even something as simple as an Agreggate expenditure model and you should be able to figure out why you dont know anything.

Kthxbai


----------



## Waelstrum

loki said:


> Good points. I think you will find that Australia has lower tax rates than the United States which gives you more leeway to raise taxes without suppressing business growth. LIkewise Australia has half the debt of Europe and a third of the debt of the United States so the Australian economy is much less vulnerable to the global recession. To date President Obama has generated more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. One can only borrow so much money before going over the cliff. In order for the United States to approach the level of financial stability as Australia we will have to reduce Federal spending to responsible levels.
> 
> Democratic countries formally were associated with capitalism but in recent decades many have "experimented" with socialist polices with the negative consequences we are now experiencing.



Actually, Australia has higher taxes than the US.
List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can see by this that I was actually wrong about the UK. They did increase taxes, but cut spending. The US increased their taxes too, to what Australia's were at the start of the GFC. Obviously, just the amount of tax isn't going to fix an ailing country, it must also be wisely spent. It does seem weird that the US does seem to be alone amongst western countries in have such little tax.

Also, did you notice how little tax is paid in China?


----------



## The Reverend

^^ It turns out that casually learning about economics is fucking insane. I'm not sure why I bothered, since people literally get degrees in Economics and _still_ can't explain it in any truly useful manner that laypeople such as myself can grasp.

I learned enough to know that the American economy, and really the global economy, is far too complex to be fixed, bolstered, or improved through any simple solution. Politicians on both sides of the ideological aisle in every country want you to believe otherwise, though, that if you cut taxes here, the world gets better, or that if you raise taxes over there, the sun will shine a little brighter and the grass will be a little greener. There is nothing further from the truth. So many things factor into the equation that changing one thing and expecting a positive, night-and-day result borders on lunacy, if not depraved carelessness. 

I'm going to continue learning what I can, but for my money, no candidate will be getting a vote from me because of their economic policies. They don't know anything other than what their advisers and economists tell them. I'm still interested in social programs, and in the budget, but not specific fixes, since I don't believe they exist.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

The Reverend said:


> ^^ It turns out that casually learning about economics is fucking insane. I'm not sure why I bothered, since people literally get degrees in Economics and _still_ can't explain it in any truly useful manner that laypeople such as myself can grasp.
> 
> I learned enough to know that the American economy, and really the global economy, is far too complex to be fixed, bolstered, or improved through any simple solution. Politicians on both sides of the ideological aisle in every country want you to believe otherwise, though, that if you cut taxes here, the world gets better, or that if you raise taxes over there, the sun will shine a little brighter and the grass will be a little greener. There is nothing further from the truth. So many things factor into the equation that changing one thing and expecting a positive, night-and-day result borders on lunacy, if not depraved carelessness.
> 
> I'm going to continue learning what I can, but for my money, no candidate will be getting a vote from me because of their economic policies. They don't know anything other than what their advisers and economists tell them. I'm still interested in social programs, and in the budget, but not specific fixes, since I don't believe they exist.



Economics is not that hard, its actually fairly straightforward. I'm terrible with math but have done really well on all my economics courses so far (as opposed to my calc ugh...) Most of the stuff makes sense when you think about it.


----------



## The Reverend

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Economics is not that hard, its actually fairly straightforward. I'm terrible with math but have done really well on all my economics courses so far (as opposed to my calc ugh...)



I did well in my high school courses, but they covered economics in the broadest possible strokes. Getting into different schools of thought, models, and theories has broken a part of my mind. If educated economists don't agree on what the best way to approach, or in some cases even define, some concept or another, I don't expect a politician to get it.


----------



## Treeunit212

loki said:


> I invite you to read Obama's book "Dreams of my Father". He names "Frank" as a mentor during his teenage years who has been identified as Frank Marshall the communist writer. He admits to associating with Marxist groups in College.



Wait, you mean Obama is a well rounded and educated member of society that has learned an economic perspective and proceeded to build his own in it's context? 

Compared to Romney's philosophy that Corporations are people because Corporations make people money, I think I'll take the man who spent less time at Harvard while learning more and finished paying his college loans just a few years before becoming president. He seems a _little_ more fit to govern than a whiny spoiled elitist bully that actively avoids taxes and publicly admits to enjoying firing people; not to mention the mess he left when he was done being governor.


----------



## AxeHappy

Wait...somebody actually enjoys firing people? 

And said that in public. Sweet Zombie Fucking Jesus.


----------



## renzoip

The Reverend said:


> I did well in my high school courses, but they covered economics in the broadest possible strokes. Getting into different schools of thought, models, and theories has broken a part of my mind. If educated economists don't agree on what the best way to approach, or in some cases even define, some concept or another, I don't expect a politician to get it.




I suggest the "Section C" link I posted in post # 55, Page 3. It's a long read but I think it's a very interesting alternate view of economic.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ

Anyone else blown away by how eerily similar the national debate is to when Clinton was president? The corporate elite are waging war on whether or not government should even exist (big surprise, as government IS the voice of the people and the largest threat to their ever-expanding power), and firing up the religious base with abortion, gays, etc.

Furthermore, the GOP has gone so batshit Ayn Rand insane that they're attacking positions they've held for years (For fuck's sake, the Individual Mandate for health insurance was THEIR IDEA!!!!). They're just so good at convincing most laypeople that the Democrats are radical communists, and those laypeople are so starved of critical thinking and conditioned that "the truth must lie somewhere between these two extremes", that our national discourse moves ever rightward. 


I would really like to vote for a liberal socialist, but it seems that I have only republicans to choose from. Do I want the 1980s model (NOW AVAILABLE IN BLACK!), or the new 2010 model (in classic white) with more extreme class warfare features?




A great book that should be read by everyone is Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". It does a wonderful job of putting this things into perspective.


----------



## galca002

kgad0831 said:


> Anyone else blown away by how eerily similar the national debate is to when Clinton was president? The corporate elite are waging war on whether or not government should even exist (big surprise, as government IS the voice of the people and the largest threat to their ever-expanding power), and firing up the religious base with abortion, gays, etc.
> 
> Furthermore, the GOP has gone so batshit Ayn Rand insane that they're attacking positions they've held for years (For fuck's sake, the Individual Mandate for health insurance was THEIR IDEA!!!!). They're just so good at convincing most laypeople that the Democrats are radical communists, and those laypeople are so starved of critical thinking and conditioned that "the truth must lie somewhere between these two extremes", that our national discourse moves ever rightward.



You'll see that these tactics are pretty common and have been for a while before Clinton's election.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ

galca002 said:


> You'll see that these tactics are pretty common and have been for a while before Clinton's election.


I just didn't expect them to recycle the EXACT SAME SHIT. Surely, people are too smart and would catch on... 


Someone should tell them that "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard Hofstadter is not a how-to manual! lol


----------



## Treeunit212

Another good book to read about our current political debacle is _Our Divided Political Heart_ by E.J. Dionne. He compares the current Tea Party movement to the extremist views of the John Birch Society of the sixties, while explaining in great detail why the current populism would make John Birch piss himself.

He explains that the popularity of a movement that got its start from a rant on CNBC is not based in ideological truth but in "astute marketing". That, combined with a right wing furious at both the failures of George Bush and the victory Democrats gained in reaction to it, is what gave rise to the bigoted logic now polluting our political dialog.

_"Don't be angry about the extra Gulfstreams or vacation homes of the very, very wealthy. Get mad over your neighbors imprudent addition."_

Rick Santelli's rant succeeded in distracting a huge chunk of the political spectrum from the real cause of the banking collapse by instead focusing the blame on those who suffered most from it for being "lazy".

That's despicable in my book; not only because it's outright wrong but because of the sheer irresponsibility of making that claim and knowingly distorting the entire discussion for years after.


----------



## Semichastny

Treeunit212 said:


> Another good book to read about our current political debacle is _Our Divided Political Heart_ by E.J. Dionne. He compares the current Tea Party movement to the extremist views of the John Birch Society of the sixties, while explaining in great detail why the current populism would make John Birch piss himself.
> 
> He explains that the popularity of a movement that got its start from a rant on CNBC is not based in ideological truth but in "astute marketing". That, combined with a right wing furious at both the failures of George Bush and the victory Democrats gained in reaction to it, is what gave rise to the bigoted logic now polluting our political dialog.
> 
> _"Don't be angry about the extra Gulfstreams or vacation homes of the very, very wealthy. Get mad over your neighbors imprudent addition."_
> 
> Rick Santelli's rant succeeded in distracting a huge chunk of the political spectrum from the real cause of the banking collapse by instead focusing the blame on those who suffered most from it for being "lazy".
> 
> That's despicable in my book; not only because it's outright wrong but because of the sheer irresponsibility of making that claim and knowingly distorting the entire discussion for years after.



It is also pertinent to mention to mention that The American model of Capitalism was switched in the eyes of policy makers, intellectuals, and the general public from an economic theory subjective to study and discourse to an unfaltering ideological/scientific truth similar to the Soviet view of Marxism. After the collapse of the 3rd position during WW2 and the Collapse of the Soviet union in the early 90's our economic model faced no major ideological competitors which created unmatched hubris in Washington regardless of the fact that American Economic Policies have had their hand in nearly every financial crisis since the 60's. Notably the rise of Finance capitalism (thanks to Nixon) which is best summarized in the following quote;

"...Finance capitalism, as its name implies, means making money by manipulating money, not trying to achieve a balance between the producers and consumers of goods. On the contrary, finance capitalism aggravates the problems of equilibrium within and among capitalist economies in order to profit from the discrepancies. During the nineteenth century the appearance, and then dominance, of finance capitalism was widely recognized as a defect of improperly regulated capitalist systems Theorists from Adam Smith to John Hobson observed that capitalists do not really like being capitalists. They would much rather be monopolists, rentiers, inside traders, or usurers or in some other way achieve an unfair advantage that might allow them to profit more easily from the mental and physical work of others. Smith and Hobson both believed that finance capitalism produced the pathologies of the global economy they called mercantilism and imperialism: that is, true economic exploitation of others rather than mutually beneficial exchanges among economic actors."

Due in part to our arrogance, lack of reform, and unwillingness to reflect critically, logically, and most importantly factually upon our problems as one nation we risk continuing trends which assure our decline. We have the unbridled arrogance, delusion, and violent rhetoric of the GOP balanced by an impotent and bloated Democratic party which lacks the courage to stand up and create meaningful change. Both sides selectively engage with fact and reality when they suit their views, but never when such realities reflect negatively on them or their policies. Unfortunately this lack of knowledge, understanding, and critical thinking undermines our democratic process by allowing demagogues and career politicians to continuously push policy that benefits special interest, corporations, and foreign interests at the expense of the American people and in many cases foreign countries. There is failure across the board, and neither side will admit they have made mistakes. We are in the midst of a decline and I have serious doubts we will be able to reform in time...


----------



## Treeunit212

Semichastny said:


> It is also pertinent to mention to mention that The American model of Capitalism was switched in the eyes of policy makers, intellectuals, and the general public from an economic theory subjective to study and discourse to an unfaltering ideological/scientific truth similar to the Soviet view of Marxism. After the collapse of the 3rd position during WW2 and the Collapse of the Soviet union in the early 90's our economic model faced no major ideological competitors which created unmatched hubris in Washington regardless of the fact that American Economic Policies have had their hand in nearly every financial crisis since the 60's. Notably the rise of Finance capitalism (thanks to Nixon) which is best summarized in the following quote;
> 
> "...Finance capitalism, as its name implies, means making money by manipulating money, not trying to achieve a balance between the producers and consumers of goods. On the contrary, finance capitalism aggravates the problems of equilibrium within and among capitalist economies in order to profit from the discrepancies. During the nineteenth century the appearance, and then dominance, of finance capitalism was widely recognized as a defect of improperly regulated capitalist systems Theorists from Adam Smith to John Hobson observed that capitalists do not really like being capitalists. They would much rather be monopolists, rentiers, inside traders, or usurers or in some other way achieve an unfair advantage that might allow them to profit more easily from the mental and physical work of others. Smith and Hobson both believed that finance capitalism produced the pathologies of the global economy they called mercantilism and imperialism: that is, true economic exploitation of others rather than mutually beneficial exchanges among economic actors."
> 
> Due in part to our arrogance, lack of reform, and unwillingness to reflect critically, logically, and most importantly factually upon our problems as one nation we risk continuing trends which assure our decline. We have the unbridled arrogance, delusion, and violent rhetoric of the GOP balanced by an impotent and bloated Democratic party which lacks the courage to stand up and create meaningful change. Both sides selectively engage with fact and reality when they suit their views, but never when such realities reflect negatively on them or their policies. Unfortunately this lack of knowledge, understanding, and critical thinking undermines our democratic process by allowing demagogues and career politicians to continuously push policy that benefits special interest, corporations, and foreign interests at the expense of the American people and in many cases foreign countries. There is failure across the board, and neither side will admit they have made mistakes. We are in the midst of a decline and I have serious doubts we will be able to reform in time...



Agreed.

Borderline off topic, but here's my much less educated two cents on this.

The financial ideology used by these banks is that of classic free market self-regulation, meaning that as long as there is a consensus on what is too low and what is too high of a price for stock, an equilibrium will exist and therefore the price should never be questioned.

But the free market is anything but free, and the rules of supply and demand that apply to the goods of a consumer driven economy do not apply to the assets of a homeowner. That's how bubbles develop; when the middle class is tricked into thinking they can become real estate tycoons by borrowing against their own homes.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm much more interested in learning more about the economics of banking than I am in being right on everything at this point.


----------



## RevelGTR

Two reasons: 1: Over-regulation will stranggle small business, my father is a small business owner, and it makes it very hard for him to hire people because it simply isn't worth the potential hassle. 2: I disagree with his on a moral level. Taking money from those who do well and giving to those who do not takes away the reason for working hard. For those of you in school, lets say you have a 4.0 gpa because you've been working hard, but Jimmy only has a 1.0 because he didn't feel like putting in the effort. However, to make it fair, school administrators have decided to take away from your GPA and add to his. So now you both have a 2.5. Takes away the reason to work hard, doesn't it?


----------



## Jakke

^No, because someone who earns much money is still going to have more money than someone who earns a smaller salary. Dishonest example is dishonest

What I and many other like is fair taxation. We are not communists, who believe everyone should have the same amount of money. With a progressive tax system people who earn more still earn more, but since they can, they also contribute more to the everything. Progressive tax is nothing that came with Obama either, so I am not sure why you hold that against him.
From what I understand Obama has not really added much regulations either, so is your list of reasons really valid?


----------



## highlordmugfug

^^Obama is not a socialist and the GPA analogy is poorly constructed, especially since this Robin Hood-esque idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't happening in the US anyway, nor is it being proposed.


----------



## Jakke

We have seen from communist countries that "Robin Hood-economics" (great name BTW Highlord) works just as bad as trickle down economics.


----------



## RevelGTR

The analogy was ment to be hyperbole, and I said that my disagreement with it was on a moral level, I did not say he had implemented any sort of policy to that end. However, I do believe that it is not so far from what many desire. I do not think he is an idiot, or a communist. I don't even dislike him as a person. I was simply saying that I would not vote for a candidate from a party who would like to move things more in that direction. Before you assume that I am a conservative lunatic, I would like to add that I am not against gay marriage, or even abortion. (To a certain extent - no partial birth)


----------



## Jakke

^That is not the issue, we merely pointed out that even hyperbole should be resonably on point at least, which your analogy was not. It would be like making a hyperbole against hunting, and stretching it to shooting people, related from a distance, but not very accurate.


And you are correct in that many likes progressive taxes, me included.


----------



## guitareben

If I lived in america... I could vote for Obama, but i'd have to check out all the 3rd party candidates first... 

As long as the republicans don't win... those guys are evil as fuck


----------



## Treeunit212

EGEDE said:


> Two reasons: 1: Over-regulation will stranggle small business, my father is a small business owner, and it makes it very hard for him to hire people because it simply isn't worth the potential hassle. 2: I disagree with his on a moral level. Taking money from those who do well and giving to those who do not takes away the reason for working hard. For those of you in school, lets say you have a 4.0 gpa because you've been working hard, but Jimmy only has a 1.0 because he didn't feel like putting in the effort. However, to make it fair, school administrators have decided to take away from your GPA and add to his. So now you both have a 2.5. Takes away the reason to work hard, doesn't it?



Can you explain exactly what kind of over-regulation would make it genuinely harder to hire people in a cost effective way? I'm not even talking about small business here, I'm talking about the monopolized banking institutions that would have collapsed the world economy without government intervention. I'm still interested to hear what regulations you think go too far.

Also, I think you're diluting wealth distribution into something it isn't. "Taking money from those who do well and giving it to those who do not" is both a huge oversimplification of what Obama and liberals everywhere believe in and somewhat of a red herring. No one is talking about just giving money to poor people, we're talking about using money to help the financially disadvantaged move up the socio-economic ladder. That's how economies progress and grow, and government is the only entity which could provide such incentives. 

Picture this scenario. You get in to college, but for some odd reason you can't just "borrow money from your dad". Luckily, there's government assured financial aid and student loans to get you through college and to a point where you can pay them off. Or, you could join the military, which is the focus of my next scenario.

The bulk of Government spending is focused on defense, the size of which is greater than the next 26 countries combined, all of which are our allies. This is arguably a bi-product of the Cold War effort. Why can't we downgrade defense spending? Because a huge part of defense is privatized. We are in a trillion dollar deficit, and yet our tax rate for the top 1% has stayed at a measly 35% since 2003. So really, an increase in the tax rate of the ultra rich wouldn't so much be giving money to lazy people as it would be starting to finally pay for the thousands of poor kids that were sent into a rich mans war in the hopes they'd get that free college that was promised to them.

The profit motive doesn't apply in the realm of shared prosperity unless it involves oil profits for Dick Cheney's Halliburton. The idea that the only way you'll be able to go to college is to drown in debt for years or risk your life occupying an unwilling country is more of a deterrent for working hard than your oversimplification.

You want to see what happens when you give people exorbitant amounts of money, live close to an Indian reservation. They get up to $50,000 a year with no strings attached. A lot of them go to college with it, and a lot don't do anything but buy nice cars and gamble with it. Are they lazy, or are they simply making the more obvious choice? That's the key, the freedom to make a choice in the harsh reality of a world where most of the odds are stacked against you. Could you honestly say you wouldn't make a similar choice, when you've been brought up your whole life knowing that you're going to get money from age 16 to 21?

_Most people don't have a choice._ That's what being poor revolves around.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Here's another good article on how current over-regulation is just strangling the hell out of small and large business.
FEULNER: Onerous effects of overregulation - Washington Times


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Here's another good article on how current over-regulation is just strangling the hell out of small and large business.
> FEULNER: Onerous effects of overregulation - Washington Times



The article cites higher taxes, without citing which taxes- if any - have gone up. The article also says that Obama recognizes the problems with over-regulation. Would not have expected that sort of balance in an article from you, trenchlord. 

I wonder if the regulation was spiked in 2010 due to the passing of the Affordable Care Act, or maybe the BP oil spill? Regardless, if I was writing that piece, I would be much more specific in what I was alluding to.

ALL regulations add $10,000 to each employee? Is that an extremely widely cast net of an average number, or am I reading a piece on the salary inequality of women in america that uses a worldwide average. 

Look, I know that over-regulation exists. I work in a restaurant with a boss that has 30+ years cooking all over the country, whom educated me on the New York art of bribing the health inspector and letting the free market decide which restaurants would fail. Some things are more efficient for both government and the private sector if they were just left to the nature of the market.

But I honestly don't think my other job at the only grocery store in town wouldn't exist for me because of regulation. If we need someone, we put up a sign, they get an interview, and they're working within days. In fact, we're about six workers short right now and DESPERATE for applications. I will admit that's because of at least one worker becoming unable to keep her home. 

That still doesn't change the most blatant of falsehoods in this article; the article itself. Anyone who thinks they know how a market will react to a change in the economy is full of shit. Never in the history of anything has the entire global economy been that predictable to anyone. 

Dissenting treeunit is dissenting.


----------



## YngwieJ

TRENCHLORD said:


> Here's another good article on how current over-regulation is just strangling the hell out of small and large business.
> FEULNER: Onerous effects of overregulation - Washington Times



What a piss poor article. I don't even know where to begin. 

Let's start with the SBA's estimated cost of government regulation on the US economy.

From:Flaws call for rejecting Crain and Crain model | Economic Policy Institute



> Flawed methodology
> 
> Flaws call for rejecting Crain and Crain model criticizes the Crain and Crain methodology that contains the following fundamental errors for determining the cost of economic regulations:
> 
> 
> It fails to capture the timing between changes in the determinants of economic growth and the amount of ensuing growth. The estimation does not properly take into account time-series dynamics.
> It misses the potential reverse causality between factors associated with economic growth and the growth itself. For example, the Crain and Crain model considers only how such factors as education, the extent of broadband use, and regulations affect economic growth without considering how economic growth can affect education, broadband use, and regulations.
> It uses a composite World Bank measure of &#8220;regulatory quality&#8221; that may capture a range of factors that could lead to higher levels of economic activity but have nothing to do with the stringency of regulations in a country. Indeed, one of the authors of the World Bank&#8217;s &#8220;Index of Regulatory Quality&#8221; disputes the way it is used in the Crain and Crain study.
> 
> As broad evidence of its conceptual flaws, the Crain and Crain regression analysis finds that a country&#8217;s economy shrinks as the level of education of its population grows. To unquestioningly accept Crain and Crain&#8217;s finding that economic regulations cost $1.2 trillion, one must also believe that more education somehow undermines economic growth.
> 
> Flawed data
> 
> In addition to flawed methodology, Flaws call for rejecting Crain and Crain model criticizes the results of the Crain and Crain study for its use of an erratic data set. In particular:
> 
> 
> The Crain and Crain data set is missing close to half of the potential observations. The study purports to use data describing various indicators in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries from 2002&#8210;2008 in order to determine the relationship between regulation and GDP. This implies a potential total of 210 (seven years times 30 countries) &#8220;observations.&#8221; Yet so much information is missing that 92 (44%) of the observations had to be dropped from the regression model.
> Missing data is primarily due to the education measure used, namely primary school completion rates.
> Among the observations dropped are all observations from five countries and one entire year (2008). Countries such as Austria are retained, but only partially represented due to incomplete data. For example, while Austria&#8217;s information for 2002, 2004, and 2007 are used, information for 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008 had to be dropped out of the data set.
> The use of erratic data sets often yields surprising and statistically fragile findings. EPI&#8217;s report updates the Crain and Crain study with data for 2008 and fills in nearly all of the missing data points. When this more complete data set is applied, there is no statistically significant relationship between regulatory quality and GDP, meaning that even Crain and Crain&#8217;s own flawed model does not provide reliable evidence that regulations impede economic activity.



There are several more reports on how poorly constructed their data is, so here's a few more. 
CPRBlog: The Economist Recycles Old Right-Wing Ideas to Gut Public Protections
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/CRS_Crain_and_Crain.pdf
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...ticles/SBA_Regulatory_Costs_Analysis_1103.pdf

Ok, so that's out of the way and the only other real facts that the article attempts to address are three regulations, all pertaining to regulation of pollution.  This will be easy. 

From:How EPA's Regulatory Surge Missed a Primary Target - NYTimes.com



> It was 20 years ago, just days before the election of 1990, when Democrats and Republicans banded together in an effort to solve a problem that people on both sides of the aisle saw as a stark failure of the Clean Air Act.
> 
> In the first few years after the law hit the books in 1970, U.S. EPA cracked down on airborne lead, soot and smog. Congress had also ordered EPA to figure out the risks posed by toxic contaminants, but the agency did little to stop mercury and other rare but dangerous chemicals from being released into the air.
> 
> In two decades, the agency had applied that section of the Clean Air Act to just eight substances.
> 
> Lawmakers who wrote the pollution law were fed up; so was President George H.W. Bush. After consultations with environmentalists and industry groups, they prepared a package of amendments that changed the rules for toxic air pollution. It listed mercury and nearly 200 other substances by name and told EPA to regulate them, sparing the agency the challenge of proving that the substances posed a risk.
> 
> The amendments sailed through the House, 401-25, supported by many Republicans who are now among EPA's most vocal critics. Bush signed the amendments into law the week before Thanksgiving, saying it was time to "break the logjam that hindered progress on clean air."
> 
> "Every American expects and deserves to breathe clean air," Bush said at a White House signing ceremony. "And as president, it is my mission to guarantee it for this generation and for the generations to come."



Wait, so it's not Obama that's implementing this regulation, but rather it was implemented decades ago by H.W. Bush and is just now taking effect? Preposterous! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of how conservatives have moved into the nut-house over the past few decades. But why stop there?

From: How to tally up the benefits from EPA&rsquo;s mercury rule - The Washington Post



> the EPA estimates that the regulation will produce $37 billion to $90 billion in health benefits by 2016



Additionally...


> The EPA tried to estimate the social cost of emitting carbon dioxide &#8212; trying to account for various expected global-warming impacts, like floods and agricultural damage &#8212; and estimates that the rule will help the United States avoid $360 million in climate costs by 2016.



So let's see, the cost of regulation has been grossly overstated, actually save lives, reduce healthcare costs, reduce the impact of global warming, and create a better world for all of us to live in. Yea, down with regulation guys. 

If you would like more information on how a cleaner world is better for everyone, just read _Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change_, by L. Hunter Lovins and Boyd Cohen. Hell, just read the first chapter. It gives hundreds of examples of how business have thrived and prospered as a result of becoming cleaner and more efficient.


----------



## Treeunit212

OR you could read Bill Clinton's _Back To Work: Why We Need Smart Government For a Strong Economy._ he also has tons of ideas on building a sustainable economy in green energy.

If more people read, we wouldn't have to even talk about this stuff.


----------



## YngwieJ

Treeunit212 said:


> OR you could read Bill Clinton's _Back To Work: Why We Need Smart Government For a Strong Economy._ he also has tons of ideas on building a sustainable economy in green energy.



Thanks for the recommendation. I'll be sure to check it out.


----------



## RevelGTR

Jakke said:


> ^That is not the issue, we merely pointed out that even hyperbole should be resonably on point at least, which your analogy was not. It would be like making a hyperbole against hunting, and stretching it to shooting people, related from a distance, but not very accurate.
> 
> 
> And you are correct in that many likes progressive taxes, me included.


 Folks use that analogy against hunting all the time


----------



## highlordmugfug

EGEDE said:


> Folks use that analogy against hunting all the time


... and it's just as flawed there, what's your point?


----------



## Jakke

^Exactly


----------



## BrainArt

I wasn't going to post in this thread until I saw the post I have quoted below...



guitareben said:


> If I lived in america... I could vote for Obama, but i'd have to check out all the 3rd party candidates first...
> 
> As long as the republicans don't win... *those guys are evil as fuck *



The bolded is ignorant as fuck.  Tell that to this guy:

Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Anyways, more on topic (since I'm here anyways). I'm not voting for Obama because I don't believe in voting just to vote, voting for the "lesser of two evils" or even politicians and the Government as it stands. I'm not voting for Romney or any 3rd party candidates either.


----------



## Jakke

BrainArt said:


> I wasn't going to post in this thread until I saw the post I have quoted below...
> The bolded is ignorant as fuck.  Tell that to this guy:
> 
> Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



But that is not really relevant, is it? Lincoln is not running now, and it was the current republicans that was commented on.


----------



## BrainArt

Jakke said:


> But that is not really relevant, is it? Lincoln is not running now, and it was the current republicans that was commented on.



But still, people can't be evil, they can be bigoted, ignorant and hateful, but not evil. Actions are evil, not people. That was my original point of the entire thing.


----------



## Jakke

Depends how you define evil IMO.

If you for example define it as something powerfully immoral, then I'd say the GOP can be classified as evil, some of them at least. I still hold a vain hope that John Huntsman will mow down Mittens with a machinegun and take his place as nominee...


----------



## petereanima

BrainArt said:


> I don't believe in voting just to vote, voting for the "lesser of two evils" ...



I used to think so too, along with almost a majority in my country. The next votes brought us the worst times since ages, as almost 50% stayed at home, and only bigoted idiots went to vote for even bigger bigoted idiots. 10 years later now, and still suffering from the consequences. The lesser of two evils is still better than the bigger one of those, no?

If I'd live in the U.S., hell, I'd vote for anything that is not the current republicans team. I could not bear the guilt, knowing that if they would win, me not voting actually helped them.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Jakke said:


> But that is not really relevant, is it? Lincoln is not running now, and it was the current republicans that was commented on.


 
It's still a hasty generalization, whether or not Lincoln is currently running. "Republicans are evil" is a blanket statement that can't possibly be true. You know better than that, dude.


----------



## Jakke

Yeah, I agree it was hasty. However, I do not believe it was as flawed as brainart made it out to be.
"Evil" is a problematic term, it's very arbitrary after all


----------



## Treeunit212

BrainArt said:


> Tell that to this guy:
> 
> Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Abraham Lincoln's convictions are about as similar to the current GOP's standpoints as a bowl of fruit.



BrainArt said:


> But still, people can't be evil, they can be bigoted, ignorant and hateful, but not evil. Actions are evil, not people. That was my original point of the entire thing.



Okay. Let's look at just two of the actions the current GOP have taken.

They've made an enormous and focused effort to disenfranchise 20 million of the poorest potential voters by requiring driver's licenses at voting booths based on the .0007% instance of collective national voter fraud in the past 10 years. Does that seem like something Abraham Lincoln would have done to win an election?

They've de-funded planned parenthood, required doctors to misinform patients about possibly life threatening birth complications during pregnancy, and have consistently voted to deny a woman's right to make her own medical decisions based on the moral stance that the life of something that doesn't exist yet is more sacred than the life of it's mother.

In my opinion, the collective efforts of the GOP over the last few years can be explained as nothing more than bigoted, ignorant, and hateful people organizing to carry out bigoted, ignorant, and hateful things. I don't think I can name even one thing they've done (in recent history) to help anyone but the rich.


----------



## flint757

^^^Don't forget the attack on women. Not even referring to the "rape" scandal either. Birth control, planned parenthood, healthcare, and abortion. The wand thing the GOP has initiated in some states is borderline sexual abuse since it has no medical bearing.

[EDIT]

Nevermind you mentioned it. 

I do see their point though. Not ALL Republicans subscribe to the same point of views. Some do in fact stand closer to the moderates than the radicals. Not the ones with the most influence or loudest voices though...


----------



## Cancer

Deviliumrei said:


> It doesn't really matter who you vote. Obama and Romney both have almost the same campaign contributors which means you are going to get the same shit from either one. So go and vote in your illusion that you general people have some kind of real power. Time to wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> And I know I don't live in USA but it happens that what you guys do affects the whole world




Wow man, thanks for posting this. Watching now.


Hmmm, standard issue Peter Joseph. Long and correct on what's wrong, short on solutions. Been that way since TZM began, shame too.


----------



## cajunboy2k

For the record, I'm not voting for Obama for various reasons already mentioned in this thread. What I am very pleased about is the members can discuss political ideology in a friendly and respectful way without getting nasty like on DU or CU. I love this place.


----------



## Jakke

Aaand it looks like the repubs have lost:
"The most interesting man in the world" endorses Barack Obama


----------



## TRENCHLORD

^golfing buddy lol


----------



## Scar Symmetry

If I could vote for Obama, I would.


----------



## CannibalKiller

BrainArt said:


> Tell that to this guy:
> 
> Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Just to point out, Abraham Lincoln was a racist.


----------



## Semichastny

CannibalKiller said:


> Just to point out, Abraham Lincoln was a racist.



So? Racism was very common and accepted during that time period.


----------



## Jakke

Indeed, H.P. Lovecraft was one too


----------



## CannibalKiller

So, I'm saying while the Democrats are about the present and the future, the Republicans haven't changed a bit over the centuries.


----------



## Mordacain

Honestly, if I didn't feel that this election was so utterly important to keep the limited progress we've made since 2008 going, I would be voting for Jill Stein (Green Party). 

However, we find ourselves yet again in this Catch 22 situation where not voting for the President is essentially a vote in Mitt Romney's favor. I'm also hoping that the President, having realized now that working with republicans was never an option will continue to make faster progress akin to the last year's worth of legislation (essentially by ignoring the Republican's trademark stall tactics).

I'm positing here that Mitt Romney is at worst: a sociopath that will set back women's and minority rights and allow Democracy to be weakened further until we're inseparable from the Theocracy the extremists so want. And at best: considers 200K-250K "middle income," will cater to the rich and cause further economic decline in this country and across the globe.


----------



## YngwieJ

Mordacain said:


> Honestly, if I didn't feel that this election was so utterly important to keep the limited progress we've made since 2008 going, I would be voting for Jill Stein (Green Party).
> 
> However, we find ourselves yet again in this Catch 22 situation where not voting for the President is essentially a vote in Mitt Romney's favor. I'm also hoping that the President, having realized now that working with republicans was never an option will continue to make faster progress akin to the last year's worth of legislation (essentially by ignoring the Republican's trademark stall tactics).
> 
> I'm positing here that Mitt Romney is at worst: a sociopath that will set back women's and minority rights and allow Democracy to be weakened further until we're inseparable from the Theocracy the extremists so want. And at best: considers 200K-250K "middle income," will cater to the rich and cause further economic decline in this country and across the globe.



While I can sympathize with that point of view, I will still probably be voting for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson because the electoral college has already determined that my vote goes for Romney anyways.

At this point, this country needs to reform it's elections. We need an instant run-off voting system that also gives proportional representation and allows every person's vote to play a factor, and not this winner-take-all electoral college bull sh*t.


----------



## Watty

Mordacain said:


> However, we find ourselves yet again in this Catch 22 situation where not voting for the President is essentially a vote in Mitt Romney's favor. I'm also hoping that the President, having realized now that working with republicans was never an option will continue to make faster progress akin to the last year's worth of legislation (essentially by ignoring the Republican's trademark stall tactics).
> 
> I'm positing here that Mitt Romney is at worst: a sociopath that will set back women's and minority rights and allow Democracy to be weakened further until we're inseparable from the Theocracy the extremists so want. And at best: considers 200K-250K "middle income," will cater to the rich and cause further economic decline in this country and across the globe.



A-Fucking-Men *_in the secular sense, of course_*

I don't know if Obama's going to be the right choice down the road, or if he can deliver on any of his claims made for both the previous election and this one. However, I do know that I'd rather live in a slightly unstable country where liberty is maintained than the theocratic, white man's land that the Right Wing wants to create. 

The one silver lining we do have even if by some miracle Mitt were to win is that most of the Republican parties extremist voting base will be dying out over the next few decades. Maybe we can finally start to steer the ship towards the model set by the Scandinavian nations...and make some real progress in our ever more secular world.


----------



## Mordacain

Watty said:


> A-Fucking-Men *_in the secular sense, of course_*
> 
> I don't know if Obama's going to be the right choice down the road, or if he can deliver on any of his claims made for both the previous election and this one. However, I do know that I'd rather live in a slightly unstable country where liberty is maintained than the theocratic, white man's land that the Right Wing wants to create.
> 
> The one silver lining we do have even if by some miracle Mitt were to win is that most of the Republican parties extremist voting base will be dying out over the next few decades. Maybe we can finally start to steer the ship towards the model set by the Scandinavian nations...and make some real progress in our ever more secular world.



Yea, I would like to hope that the extremist voting base would die out, but if we continue to allow religion to be allowed in classrooms (particularly in cases like Kentucky where it supersedes actual science) then a new extremist, easily led and utterly stupid base will be primed and ready to take over. The fundamentalists (and by extension, the Republic party, since they refuse to vote against the party line by and large) have been pushing hard against science education recently; obviously we can see the problems there, even aside from the political advantage.

The continual erosion of the separation of church and state is what really worries me, even beyond continuing the economy damaging policies of tax breaks for the wealthy (or at worst, expanding them like Romney promises to do). There is an undeniable element of religious fundamentalists that seem to be actively trying to bring about the armageddon that both Christianity and Islam have as a core of their beliefs. Those groups have made major strides in gaining power in government over the last several decades; there is no greater threat to liberty, prosperity and the continued evolution of mankind than religious extremists in positions of power as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Watty

^ Yep!

Though my point about the voting base dying out will be somewhat of a balm to all that right wing shit trying to be injected into the education system. Most of the things that you mentioned (I believe) are still required to be voted on by the community. So, as the old religious folks die out, and their children continue to evolve to a more secular mindset...all that power will fall out of the GOP's hands.


----------



## flint757

Yeah Federal government has little to do with school policies. I mean they do set a basic standard, but most of it happens at the state/ local level.


----------



## Dan_Vacant

This is why he rides moose and other awesome manly stuff.


----------



## Treeunit212

Dan_Vacant said:


> This is why he rides moose and other awesome manly stuff.



That is the longest image code I have ever seen. 

Teddy was the best. Especially when he was brave enough to storm that hill in Cuba with his imported horse hours after they sent the local troops in front of him and his platoon. 

Seriously though, Teddy was alright.


----------



## Dan_Vacant

Treeunit212 said:


> That is the longest image code I have ever seen.
> 
> Teddy was the best. Especially when he was brave enough to storm that hill in Cuba with his imported horse hours after they sent the local troops in front of him and his platoon.
> 
> Seriously though, Teddy was alright.


it could be cause I posted it twice put it didn't post the first time or i just copied and pasted it from my facebook.


----------



## Guitarwizard

Coming from a different perspective, I am surprised how many of you decide not to vote, or to vote for some third party that hasn't got a chance. I grew up with the ideology that "not voting ALWAYS helps the wrong guys". There's a thing I call "tactical voting": if there's no good thing to vote, vote for the lesser evil. Of course you can't always vote for a candidate who's views you support completely, but not voting for him is, in essence, giving his opponent a vote, since he will need one less vote to win the elections.


----------



## ihunda

I won't vote for Obama because I am French, that is all. Also I can't become US president.


----------



## Scar Symmetry




----------



## Guitarwizard

ihunda said:


> I won't vote for Obama because I am French, that is all. Also I can't become US president.



That's like anwsering to a thread about someone needing advice for buying a PRS guitar by saying "I don't have a PRS so I can't give you any advice.": Pointless.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

This upcoming election is a really tough situation. 
There's plenty of reasons to be opposed to both Obama and Romney, based on their lives before politics - Therefore completely bypassing any political debate.

Obama's relationship with the Ayer's.


No point in taking much effort to find negatives regarding Romney, after all, as a Mormon, he believes (or, perhaps, pretends he believes) this to be true...



I recently watched the Frost Nixon interviews. During one significant part of the conversation, Nixon described the danger posed by the American people publicly expressing their opinions due to international reaction and how this threat was perceived by the higher echelons of the Pentagon and the Whitehouse.



It's worth watching the interviews for Nixon's own perception of events and to see the many levels of paranoia in play during that, perhaps more direct, era.

NDAA 2012 indefinite detention without trial of American citizens



Now, by way of balance, time to have a good laugh at the British! 
Here's Prime minister Cameron (by way of coalition, his party was unable to raise enough votes for a majority) being interviewed by David Letterman...


----------



## djentinc

I'm not going to vote for Obama. I can't. I'm not a US citizen.


----------



## Murmel

Guitarwizard said:


> Coming from a different perspective, I am surprised how many of you decide not to vote, or to vote for some third party that hasn't got a chance. I grew up with the ideology that "not voting ALWAYS helps the wrong guys". There's a thing I call "tactical voting": if there's no good thing to vote, vote for the lesser evil. Of course you can't always vote for a candidate who's views you support completely, but not voting for him is, in essence, giving his opponent a vote, since he will need one less vote to win the elections.



If you feel like a third party has politics that you agree with more I don't see why you shouldn't vote for it. Even if it doesn't stand a chance. You don't HAVE to decide between only 2 parties, even though you know that there are only 2 that are going to compete for the throne.


----------



## Mordacain

Murmel said:


> If you feel like a third party has politics that you agree with more I don't see why you shouldn't vote for it. Even if it doesn't stand a chance.



I would, but unfortunately the two major parties are so polarizing and have such disparate goals (one being largely ineffectual, the other being completely degenerative) that I can not in good conscious vote with my values alone. It's too important to keep the degenerative party out of power until their influence wanes to the point that other parties can be established as legitimate options.


----------



## SuperMutant

Just going to leave these here.


----------



## Murmel

Mordacain said:


> I would, but unfortunately the two major parties are so polarizing and have such disparate goals (one being largely ineffectual, the other being completely degenerative) that I can not in good conscious vote with my values alone. It's too important to keep the degenerative party out of power until their influence wanes to the point that other parties can be established as legitimate options.


As it looks right now, I don't see any other parties than the democrats and republicans running for president for a looooong time. It would be better to hope that a sensible leader would emerge from either party.

We have a similar situation in Sweden, but it's still most definitely worth it to vote for a smaller party, because every party that's above a certain vote percentage gets seats in the government. Or the Riksdag as we call it.


----------



## Jakke

^SD 2014 eller?

Yeah, politics is by its very nature polarizing, can't see a change in the current paradigm coming very soon.


----------



## Murmel

Dagen SD vinner valet går jorden under  and I will make it happen.

int'


----------



## Jakke

Oh, you almsot had me fooled there

-Some men just want to watch the world burn...


----------



## elq

Guitarwizard said:


> ..."tactical voting"...


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Obama's relationship with the Ayer's.




I found this video very, very stupid. The guy in the suit clearly has an agenda; it's obvious that he doesn't like Obama.

Criticise politicians for always defending their every position and then the one time that one doesn't, jump down his neck... fucked up logic.


----------



## Sang-Drax

Guitarwizard said:


> Coming from a different perspective, I am surprised how many of you decide not to vote (...).



I couldn't agree more (with this part at least). The way I see it, there are many who won't vote because they're too lazy to care for it.


----------



## flint757

^^^Agreed

If your not going to vote at least make a spectacle out of not doing it. If they don't know why your not voting, they don't have a reason to care about your opinion. Why should they assume anything more than the fact that you're lazy if they are not told otherwise. Same with 3rd party, try and garner support from the community or something instead of just going to the polls and voting 3rd (without making it a big deal) as that is a wasted vote.

I don't think that would make much of a difference though. If you don't vote or vote third party, no matter the reasons or your convictions, you're potentially hurting the party you'd prefer out of the options.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

*@Scar Symmetry*
Thanks for reading my post, it kind of got swamped by the deluge of anti-Bush sentiment.

I'm not condoning the content of the video as such, you will have to do your own research, as I have done, on the Ayers, who they were, are, and the*questions* of their alledged relationship with Obama. The video was simply on topic and may give clues in how best to further your knowledge of the topic. After all it's a better head start on the topic than thousands of pages of text, right?

It's a complex and significant topic which raises many issues... *tin foil hat = on*

Needless to say, there are many negatives about both candidates, the same can be said for the last British general election.

*@Flint757*
3rd party voting caused the formation of a coalition in Britain for the current government, as the public sought to widen debate by empowering the quieter voices in parliament, due to disaffection with the main two parties, who were in power during various wars and times of economic hardship. 

However, the less prevalent (3rd *media acceptable* party ) Liberal Democrat party was _absorbed_ into the traditional Tory party (in your terms, Republican, although they are not alike) to form a coalition and have since only appeared in the media as figures of ridicule, who failed the public by losing their identity.

Changing the 2 party system by 3rd party voting, although initially successful, has failed in the UK. Perhaps the media are to blame, or the system itself (with the chancellor of the exchequer, and his relationship with the Bank of England, being the most important figure), who knows?

Perhaps empowering a "3rd party" could be more successful in the US and could widen the political debate. Again, who knows? 
After all there is a much larger and more diverse population in the US, perhaps 3 well represented parties in the house could be beneficial?

It would certainly spread campaign contributions more thinly and trim excess to some extent, provided a 3rd party was taken seriously and perceived as maintaining their integrity by the public.


----------



## renzoip

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Obama's relationship with the Ayer's.




I agree with Scar Symmetry about the host/narrator of the video's obvious attempt to guide viewers on the direction of his evident personal agenda. I'd take what he says with a grain of salt.

Still, in the end I believe that whatever he used to believe or whoever he used to be associated with is not as relevant today; what is more relevant is what he is doing now. He could have been a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Islamist rebel in the past for all I care. My opposition to Obama is based on that his policy decisions for the last 4 years have shown me that he is a right-wing war-monger imperialist free-marketer who associates with people who commit much greater acts of violence than those of Ayers. 

Obviously, I think knowing about a candidate's history is important. But in the case of Obama, who has already been in power for almost 4 years. It is more important to evaluate his current policy and how one feels about it.


----------



## flint757

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> *@Flint757*
> 3rd party voting caused the formation of a coalition in Britain for the current government, as the public sought to widen debate by empowering the quieter voices in parliament, due to disaffection with the main two parties, who were in power during various wars and times of economic hardship.
> 
> However, the less prevalent (3rd *media acceptable* party ) Liberal Democrat party was _absorbed_ into the traditional Tory party (in your terms, Republican, although they are not alike) to form a coalition and have since only appeared in the media as figures of ridicule, who failed the public by losing their identity.
> 
> Changing the 2 party system by 3rd party voting, although initially successful, has failed in the UK. Perhaps the media are to blame, or the system itself (with the chancellor of the exchequer, and his relationship with the Bank of England, being the most important figure), who knows?
> 
> Perhaps empowering a "3rd party" could be more successful in the US and could widen the political debate. Again, who knows?
> After all there is a much larger and more diverse population in the US, perhaps 3 well represented parties in the house could be beneficial?
> 
> It would certainly spread campaign contributions more thinly and trim excess to some extent, provided a 3rd party was taken seriously and perceived as maintaining their integrity by the public.



Well you are correct that after an election (and sometimes during) either party will try and absorb some the 3rd parties policies, but even the 3rd party members will typically convert to one of the 2 main parties at some point (tea party, libertarians). Our candidates aren't apportioned based on votes, we have an all or nothing system. It is rare even in the less important seats that a 3rd party wins much less the big chair. If they did win I guarantee they'd be shut out by the opposition and they wouldn't have the numbers to fight back.



renzoip said:


> I agree with Scar Symmetry about the host/narrator of the video's obvious attempt to guide viewers on the direction of his evident personal agenda. I'd take what he says with a grain of salt.
> 
> Still, in the end I believe that whatever he used to believe or whoever he used to be associated with is not as relevant today; what is more relevant is what he is doing now. He could have been a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Islamist rebel in the past for all I care. My opposition to Obama is based on that his policy decisions for the last 4 years have shown me that he is a right-wing war-monger imperialist free-marketer who associates with people who commit much greater acts of violence than those of Ayers.
> 
> Obviously, I think knowing about a candidate's history is important. But in the case of Obama, who has already been in power for almost 4 years. It is more important to evaluate his current policy and how one feels about it.



I could see right wing and free marketer (to a degree), but imperialist war monger doesn't seem like an honest representation. Don't get me wrong when it comes to his war policy I'm not pleased, but McCain or Romney are even more so imperialist war mongers. The incident in Libya, Obama and his cabinet are taking the tactful approach, they aren't dropping nukes or declaring war over the incident. Romney has basically declared that he wants to declare war on Iran, Libya and Egypt.

I must say I wasn't pleased that Obama wanted to put Israel back into the party platform and I thought trying to declare god under any platform (freedom of religion anyone) is just gross. My main point is I'm not pleased with his policies on the war front, but that statement is a tad exaggeratory. We aren't much in the imperialism business either, but I suppose that is just a matter of interpretation.


----------



## renzoip

flint757 said:


> I could see right wing and free marketer (to a degree), but imperialist war monger doesn't seem like an honest representation. Don't get me wrong when it comes to his war policy I'm not pleased, but McCain or Romney are even more so imperialist war mongers. The incident in Libya, Obama and his cabinet are taking the tactful approach, they aren't dropping nukes or declaring war over the incident. Romney has basically declared that he wants to declare war on Iran, Libya and Egypt.
> 
> I must say I wasn't pleased that Obama wanted to put Israel back into the party platform and I thought trying to declare god under any platform (freedom of religion anyone) is just gross. My main point is I'm not pleased with his policies on the war front, but that statement is a tad exaggeratory. We aren't much in the imperialism business either, but I suppose that is just a matter of interpretation.



Well, I agree that with republicans in power, foreign policy would not have been any better, I'm sure it would have probably been even more imperialist/war mongering. I can see how some people can see Obama as the lesser evil when compared to republicans. But I still don't feel that I should give Obama a free pass for being the least destructive (IMO). I guess the fact that Obama has move considerably right while I have moved considerably left since 2008, has affected my views on him and how I interpret his policy.


----------



## flint757

I share similar sentiment. He doesn't deserve a free pass, but voting for someone else or not at all does help the Republican party. It sucks to have to deal with lesser of two evils and it'd be nice for that to change, but in the mean time you kind of have to work with what you got.

I'm pretty far to the left according to a few political sites and Obama was a little closer to my ideals than he is now even from a calculated measure so I completely agree. Honestly, it probably has a lot to do with his war policy as well. That being said all of the good he has done at home will be undone if Romney wins and that is something I cannot willingly allow.


----------



## coldandhomeless

i went to whitehouse dot gov and downloaded obamas birth cirtificate pdf and opened it with photoshop. when i noticed that it was in 8 layers, i realized that it was CREATED in photoshop. FRAUD! also youtube a little something... obama admits kenya... i rest my case...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

coldandhomeless said:


> i went to whitehouse dot gov and downloaded obamas birth cirtificate pdf and opened it with photoshop. when i noticed that it was in 8 layers, i realized that it was CREATED in photoshop. FRAUD! also youtube a little something... obama admits kenya... i rest my case...



snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

Scroll down mid-way.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

In what ways has Obama gone to the right-wing? Just curious.


----------



## Jakke

coldandhomeless said:


> also youtube a little something... obama admits kenya... i rest my case...



Oh yes, anything on youtube or google is per definition a very compelling source. If I had a penny for every time a wild-eyed crusader passive-aggressively told me to google or youtube something...

It's also interesting how you are prepared to belive the birth certificate is faked, but not your own birther sources. Confirmation bias at its finest.


----------



## Waelstrum

EDIT: ^ Pretty sure he's being facetious.



Scar Symmetry said:


> In what ways has Obama gone to the right-wing? Just curious.



His foreign policy is quite conservative, his stance on national security is frighteningly similar to Bush's (with Guantanamo bay and various patriot act style laws), he's dragged his feet on gay marriage, he's continuing the (failed) war on drugs, he's not touching gun control, and he's fiscally conservative (although this is probably due to the Republicans not letting him increase taxes). This is just the stuff I remember off the top of my head, there's probably more. Interesting to note that this is the guy they think is some left wing radical.


----------



## Jakke

Fair enough..






This is pretty strange:


----------



## flint757

Scar Symmetry said:


> In what ways has Obama gone to the right-wing? Just curious.





Waelstrum said:


> His foreign policy is quite conservative, his stance on national security is frighteningly similar to Bush's (with Guantanamo bay and various patriot act style laws), he's dragged his feet on gay marriage, he's continuing the (failed) war on drugs, he's not touching gun control, and he's fiscally conservative (although this is probably due to the Republicans not letting him increase taxes). This is just the stuff I remember off the top of my head, there's probably more. Interesting to note that this is the guy they think is some left wing radical.



Pretty much what Waelstrum said, but also Obama is more middle of the road politically IMO. The Republican party is further to the right, but our mainstream political system has shifted, as a whole, to the right which means so did Obama (he is further to the right now then he was initially as well). On a global political spectrum there is little difference between him and most republicans, but that requires ignoring the minor differences that add up to huge differences.

That dude in that video is insane...


----------



## Gregori

I don't like Obama for his steadfast support of the NDAA. He's no worse than the republicans who wrote it. And I don't like Romney for many, many reasons.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

I got the impression that Obama's not right-wing, but what he wanted has been met by heavy obsctructionism from the right. If he can't do anything about what he set out to do, that doesn't mean that he is therefore condoning the opposite stance?


----------



## The Reverend

Scar Symmetry said:


> I got the impression that Obama's not right-wing, but what he wanted has been met by heavy obsctructionism from the right. If he can't do anything about what he set out to do, that doesn't mean that he is therefore condoning the opposite stance?



That's my thinking. In an effort to get some kind of progress out of this fucked up country, he's had to capitulate to the conservative side of the country to a certain extent. What's that old saying? Nobody wins when you compromise?


----------



## Treeunit212

Gregori said:


> I don't like Obama for his steadfast support of the NDAA. He's no worse than the republicans who wrote it. And I don't like Romney for many, many reasons.



Actually, the bill was written by both John McCain and my own state senator Lindsey Graham, a Democrat.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I can't believe people are still complaining about the NDAA. I thought it had been pretty well established here that it doesn't say what the pundits say it says.


----------



## ASoC

I will be voting for Obama 

Here's my (possibly simplistic) view. Oil companies and coal (clean coal is a thing, right? right? ) companies don't need subsidies any more, there need to be more tax brackets (right now the top bracket is 250K+ right?), regulation is good/corporations are bad, drugs like pot should be legalized outright (I don't care what you do with your free time), and everyone should get equal rights (I don't care where you like to stick your parts)

Now then, an argument that I'm still hearing is "Obama doesn't have enough experience." Bullshit. He's president longer than Romney has. I also hear "Romney knows how to run a business, he can run a country" Correction: He knows how to run a business into the ground. You should already know what I'm talking about; if you don't, just read up on Bain Capital

To be honest, I'm voting not-Romney (the idea of him being president scares me) and Obama has the best chance of winning.

EDIT: My opinion on foreign policy (and I know there are complications that make this difficult if not impossible) fuck everyone else. We have no business "protecting democracy" anywhere.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I'm the only Pro-bama person in my house. 

My brother is the only one who seems to have a decent reason to vote Romney, which he claims is because of the oil field. Although he didn't elaborate, he just said "I'm voting Romney ebcause of the oil field." Everyone else just doesn't want Obama in the White House again.


----------



## flint757

That just means your brother is pro Republican in general then because any one of them would drink it for breakfast if it wouldn't kill them.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Good point. 

Sucks being the only Pro-Obama guy in the household.


----------



## flint757

I enjoy the opposition honestly. I'm steadfast in my beliefs and my dad seems to respect me for it. On the other hand my Aunt agrees with me and I find it annoying.  She is WAY too passionate and passion is irritating when it leads to a debate and no one is disagreeing to begin with...


----------



## ASoC

flint757 said:


> I enjoy the opposition honestly. I'm steadfast in my beliefs and my dad seems to respect me for it. On the other hand my Aunt agrees with me and I find it annoying.  She is WAY too passionate and passion is irritating when it leads to a debate and no one is disagreeing to begin with...



My dad respects my beliefs too. He's from Missouri and his brothers are the people that take the word of Glen Beck as gospel (one of them has an autographed painting of W.). He isn't quite as programmed as they are and he recognizes that the system is broken. 

Basically, my family is passionate in the opposite direction, I don't even bother trying to debate with them. Someone is going to end up butthurt


----------



## flint757

With politics someone always is


----------



## Rick

I'm not voting for Obama because Jess is.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

As the debates unfolded, my household went from 1 Stein, 1 Obama, 1 Romney, 1 Supreme to 3 Stein 1 Romney

My mother )=


----------



## misingonestring

Because I'm not registered to vote.


----------



## Zugster

As long as non of you anti-Obama voters (pro Romney the total asshole voters) live in Ohio or Colorado - it doesn't matter much! This election is basically for President of Ohio.


----------



## Bloodbath Salt

kerska said:


> Because I don't vote.
> 
> I get shit for it all the time but I never have and probably never will. I try paying attention to political debates and all the candidates and what not but every time it just seems like they start to run together and it eventually just turns into a huge shit flinging contest.
> 
> But I don't bitch about the government because I don't vote and technically give up my bitching rights by not voting.



I completely disagree. Just because you don't vote doesn't mean your opinion doesn't count. Usually it's because you disagree with both the 2 main options you're forced with, realize that politicians are nothing but thieves and liars that only use power for self-interest, or that your vote doesn't count or is rigged (2000 election). I in no way defend Obama, because he tried to deal with American affluence by getting loans and giving American natural resources to China. But Romney's a Mormon, and if you don't know about Mormonism look it up. Most Americans don't really know about it, because Mormons keep it that way, because it's absolutely ridiculous, besides you and Romney aren't even on the same page. When push comes to shove, he'll only back up him and his "top 5% buddies."


----------



## Treeunit212

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I can't believe people are still complaining about the NDAA. I thought it had been pretty well established here that it doesn't say what the pundits say it says.



Please do explain so I can spread the gospel.


----------



## flint757

Not voting and complaining still is the equivalent of giving someone you think is a terrible driver the keys to your car willingly. At least put up a fight.


----------



## renzoip

Well, there are people out there who are very well informed and follow politics that still do not vote. Not because they don't care per se, but what is someone supposed to do if none of the candidates comes even close to his/her views? 

I see people going around repeating tired old phrases like "If you don't vote, don't complain" and "voting 3rd party is a wasted vote". A wasted vote for your party and your interests, perhaps! 

I think voting against one's own conscience is much more of a wasted vote. Specially for the people who have issues not just with particular candidates and policies, but with the system overall and with what electoral politics have turned into.

IMO it is unfair to assume that everyone who chooses not to participate in an elitist electoral process is apathetic and ignorant; and to patronize them based on these assumptions.


----------



## flint757

You are drawing far more assumption than I ever was. 

A 3rd party vote isn't a wasted vote, but not voting is. Yes I'm aware some people have an issue with the system, thinks none of the candidates fit their (clearly very specific) standards, but not voting is literally giving them license to do what ever they want without any say so from you. Will it matter in the end, probably not, but bitching about how it is all so unfair and refusing to do anything at the same time is rather ridiculous as the same result occurs, except instead of a minimal say you have no say at all. Not voting would only have any meaningful effect on a grand scale, not on the individual basis where politicians will assume they don't have to worry about your opinion as they will also assume you just don't vote in general.

On another note it is highly unlikely that no candidate fits fairly close to someones view point as there are far more than 3 or 4 parties (even if not relevant ones). By not voting you are saying it doesn't make a difference (and maybe it doesn't), but sitting here saying how it isn't perfect for you or how the system is broken and doing nothing, isn't a much better alternative. To each there own though...


----------



## Thrashmanzac

for all those saying they wont vote for a third party because it won't make a difference, how do you expect third party candidates to someday lead if no one can even be bothered voting for them? i voted for a minor party last election (in Australia) and don't regret it at all. sure, they didn't win, but thats one less vote that either major party will get, and also speaks to both parties that they have nothing to offer me.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

"Wasting your vote is voting for somebody that you don't believe in."

Words of wisdom, from Gary Johnson.


----------



## AxeHappy

Thrashmanzac said:


> for all those saying they wont vote for a third party because it won't make a difference, how do you expect third party candidates to someday lead if no one can even be bothered voting for them? i voted for a minor party last election (in Australia) and don't regret it at all. sure, they didn't win, but thats one less vote that either major party will get, and also speaks to both parties that they have nothing to offer me.



Exactly, this is a quote of me from the Canadian federal election when somebody said voting for the NDP is a wasted vote:



> You know, that that attitude is exactly why there never will be a difference?
> 
> Maybe (Ha, certainly) they won't get elected this time around. But how many people do you know who say that line?
> 
> Maybe if everybody who said that line voted for the NDP they'd do better than they do. Maybe if they start to do better people will realise we have another choice instead of being state with the Reformers and a just right of centre "Left wing" party.
> 
> You don't have to win every time to make a difference, but if you don't even try...well then it's a self fulfilling prophesy
> 
> If you want a difference you have to get out there and vote. And you have to galvanism those around you.
> 
> Vote for the NDP like a Leafs' fan think they're going to win the cup every year and a difference will eventually be made. Probably around the next time the Leafs do win the cup but that's better than never.


----------



## matt397




----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

Just got back a few hours ago from early voting!

2 hour wait in line.


----------



## renzoip

flint757 said:


> You are drawing far more assumption than I ever was.
> 
> A 3rd party vote isn't a wasted vote, but not voting is. Yes I'm aware some people have an issue with the system, thinks none of the candidates fit their (clearly very specific) standards, but not voting is literally giving them license to do what ever they want without any say so from you. Will it matter in the end, probably not, but bitching about how it is all so unfair and refusing to do anything at the same time is rather ridiculous as the same result occurs, except instead of a minimal say you have no say at all. Not voting would only have any meaningful effect on a grand scale, not on the individual basis where politicians will assume they don't have to worry about your opinion as they will also assume you just don't vote in general.
> 
> On another note it is highly unlikely that no candidate fits fairly close to someones view point as there are far more than 3 or 4 parties (even if not relevant ones). By not voting you are saying it doesn't make a difference (and maybe it doesn't), but sitting here saying how it isn't perfect for you or how the system is broken and doing nothing, isn't a much better alternative. To each there own though...



Well, not voting, by definition, could not be a wasted vote, since it's not a vote to begin with 

Also, just because one decides not to vote does not mean that one will do nothing. There are more ways to participate in politics than to stand in line every 4 years to pick between least worst A or least worst B, while the system remains unchanged. I agree with you that candidates will not likely fit exactly with one's views, specially if they are very specific or narrow. But if parties do not come even close to offering any kind of change one would like to see, then voting for either is giving them permission to act on one's behalf against one's own interests. And if one complain's later, then it would also be ridiculous, when one gave his/her vote to a party knowing that it was only the least worst and did not reflect his/her views. 

I think voting is great, but just because someone decides not to vote, does not mean they cannot participate in any other way or remain silent. People can join protest movements, use media to promote one's beliefs, strike, boycott, do investigative journalism, blog, etc. IMO voting is one thing people can do, but some of the most important changes in society have not come through voting but rather through other means of action.


----------



## flint757

renzoip said:


> Well, not voting, by definition, could not be a wasted vote, since it's not a vote to begin with



touche 



renzoip said:


> Also, just because one decides not to vote does not mean that one will do nothing. There are more ways to participate in politics than to stand in line every 4 years to pick between least worst A or least worst B, while the system remains unchanged. I agree with you that candidates will not likely fit exactly with one's views, specially if they are very specific or narrow. But if parties do not come even close to offering any kind of change one would like to see, then voting for either is giving them permission to act on one's behalf against one's own interests. And if one complain's later, then it would also be ridiculous, when one gave his/her vote to a party knowing that it was only the least worst and did not reflect his/her views.
> 
> I think voting is great, but just because someone decides not to vote, does not mean they cannot participate in any other way or remain silent. People can join protest movements, use media to promote one's beliefs, strike, boycott, do investigative journalism, blog, etc. IMO voting is one thing people can do, but some of the most important changes in society have not come through voting but rather through other means of action.



I agree for the most part, but my main point was also that you could vote for something other than the 2 main parties and accomplish more in just that action than doing nothing. And there are elections almost every year for something too. (local, state, federal, police chiefs, city officials, etc.)

I also agree that there are plenty forms of activism, that being said I honestly doubt too many people are that politically active, voting or not.

Your post was a bit of a tongue twister,  but you are 'technically' correct. There are a lot of people who run for each office every election and one is bound to be close enough and would suit someone better than not voting at all. If you don't vote at all and the guy who is the absolute worst gets in (IMO that'd be Romney) then I think you would disagree on it making no difference. While the paradigm of 'lesser of 2 evils' is silly and stupid, one candidate is still better than the other in such a circumstance. Why can't an individual cast a vote for someone (lesser of evils, 3rd party, their mom) and then also be politically active to affect the change they really want as well? It is a tad underhanded, but it is the only realistic option to make a difference without things progressing backwards at the same time. I do hate that I lack many options for my local elections though, and I think the first step to fixing the voting system is to eliminate the electoral college as states like Texas, other than for emotional support for a candidate (and sending a message), the majority of states have no real say. Honestly you should want to vote more than anyone being in a swing state.


----------



## Semichastny

When you cast your vote you are lending support to a politician, not questioning them. Politics is a big game, the politicians actions aren't solely based on the people. Their are Interest groups, Unions, Corporations, the party line, personal experiences/beliefs, and many other variables that influence or interact with our government and it's elected officials. No matter who I vote for on the state level it's problems will not be addressed, this isn't negativity it's reality. I have lived this and watched neither of the two-party politicians support legitimate and factual change. They just end up screwing up and causing problems, while tossing the blame at the other party. Voting for them is not the solution, it's the problem. The people who are partisans are pretty much the other side of the coin to people voting for the "lesser of two evils". When you vote for them and support their positions you only strengthen what you are fighting against. 

A person can't just meet a politician or crowd and offer an intelligent/well-informed opinion and expect them to instantly become rational, logical, and open-minded patriots who are willing to drop all of their previously held beliefs in the face of facts. Some people will hold their beliefs no matter what, others formed them in the absence of facts, some are in denial, and there simply are people who think they know what they are talking about when they don't. A fact by itself won't change a persons mind there are other variables at play. All we can do is attempt to convince people to accept a different point of view, and hope we get enough supporters to demand change. Not casting a vote does not make someone into mute, they still have a voice... and to be completely honest I think it's the people who support politicians who are acting against their beliefs who are losing their voice.

Edit: Not voting and complaining is the equivalent of REFUSING to give the car keys to someone who you think is drunk, while voting would be to willingly hand off the keys to who is the "least" drunk because that's better then having your unpopular but sober friend (3rd party) drive.


----------



## flint757

No, while I agree voting is kind of like that, not voting actually isn't any different; You are just letting others make the decision for you. I'll retract my point about complaining, but not voting doesn't do anything to help a cause either. Besides, the politican's don't know who you voted for unless you willingly gave them that information so it is just a tally to them. That is why most politican's consider it only a 2 sided issue: supposedly do (or say) what the voters wanted and ignore the non-voters or those who voted for the opposition.

To go with the metaphor not voting is more like getting robbed and voting for anyone you may mostly agree with is the 'least' drunk guy. Neither is favorable, but if you don't vote you are probably going to get the 'most' drunk guy driving your car.

Even voting for someone doomed to lose is a better alternative, but I suppose 'some' people feel like no one suits their need. That being said if you vote third party and enough people do it typically sends a signal to those already in power that if they don't adopt some of their qualities they may be dethroned at some point. I mean it is all just a game and everyone is playing whether they want to or not, that is reality.


----------



## Semichastny

flint757 said:


> That is why most politican's consider it only a 2 sided issue: supposedly do (or say) what the voters wanted and ignore the non-voters or those who voted for the opposition.


Voting doesn't change what their supporters think. Getting a politician to change their stance requires public outcry and changing peoples minds, voting has little to do with it and comes afterward.



flint757 said:


> To go with the metaphor not voting is more like getting robbed and voting for anyone you may mostly agree with is the 'least' drunk guy. Neither is favorable, but if you don't vote you are probably going to get the 'most' drunk guy driving your car.


So I end up dead with my car totaled or dead with a human-sized hole in my windshield? If neither are capable of driving in the first place choosing either one of them is irresponsible. If no one is capable of making a rational decision then I don't see choosing the one who is slightly less fucked up as an intelligent choice, at that point someone needs to take the keys away until they can find someone who can driver properly.




flint757 said:


> Even voting for someone doomed to lose is a better alternative, but I suppose 'some' people feel like no one suits their need. That being said if you vote third party and enough people do it typically sends a signal to those already in power that if they don't adopt some of their qualities they may be dethroned at some point. I mean it is all just a game and everyone is playing whether they want to or not, that is reality.



Public demonstrations also illustrate a problem with government. Seeing a person who had no change of winning getting a few extra votes isn't the only way to make someone fear being dethroned. Voting is not the be all end all of the political system. It's not just finding someone you agree with, it's finding someone who is doing the right thing, supporting someone who is doing wrong makes you wrong as well. That is why we have laws against aiding and abetting fugitives. 

Edit: I think your just reading to much into voting. All voting will determine in this case is who is in office. The opinions and issues they run on will be decided by the public and special interests groups not the votes. You said yourself politicians won't know who a person voted for, which means the person is on equal footing when speaking to the politician regardless of whether they voted for him, against him, or not at all. Convincing those that the politician relies to demand change is what creates it, not making it clear you will vote for him no matter what he does. When you vote for someone not acting in your interest you are inherent working against the change you want.

Not voting has nothing to with helping or hurting a cause, A person can do more good for a cause by making speeches and getting air-time then they could by casting a vote for someone working against their goals. You are still denying them the vote and sending roughly the same message that you would by voting for a third party. It's not just an issue of finding someone who suits my views, it's about finding someone who will act with morals and do the right thing. Some people just aren't willing to condone the millions of lives that have wrecked by our drug policy and don't find it acceptable to have our constitution shredded for our "safety". People hold themselves to moral standards, they weigh the consequences of our polices, and they don't think the two-parties or their positions are moral.


----------



## flint757

It isn't like it is either or though. You can vote and be politically/publicly active. I don't find the current main 3rd party candidates to be immoral though so I don't feel like I have zero choices, you may feel differently. A vote being a tally means it ultimately doesn't matter on a personal level beyond showing a higher numerical value in support of a candidate who is closest to what you want, which generally makes all the parties adjust their positions to match the public's voting position.

I don't think it is the end all to be all, but realistically not much is going to change as it hasn't in quite some time. Clinton balanced the budget because 3rd parties and the public made it a big deal. If Ross Perot hadn't garnered so many votes I doubt any of the parties would have spent the proper amount of effort on resolving the problem at hand.

It is a game I'd rather not play (and maybe some day I won't), but to assume anything else will have meaningful results is a pipe dream IMO. People CAN do it all (vote, picket, boycott, petition, etc.). We are not forced to choose between the two even though most people do it seems.


----------



## YngwieJ

Thrashmanzac said:


> for all those saying they wont vote for a third party because it won't make a difference, how do you expect third party candidates to someday lead if no one can even be bothered voting for them? i voted for a minor party last election (in Australia) and don't regret it at all. sure, they didn't win, but thats one less vote that either major party will get, and also speaks to both parties that they have nothing to offer me.



I agree with you, but doesn't Australia have an instant runoff vote? I think many more people would vote third party in the US if we had a runoff vote system. But since we don't, many people perceive it as a wasted vote.


----------



## renzoip

flint757 said:


> Your post was a bit of a tongue twister,



I just re-read my post, trying to come up with a coherent line of thought while fixing my Halloween costume = Bad idea! 


At least you got what I was trying to say.


----------



## Waelstrum

YngwieJ said:


> I agree with you, but doesn't Australia have an instant runoff vote? I think many more people would vote third party in the US if we had a runoff vote system. But since we don't, many people perceive it as a wasted vote.



It's a lot easier to vote third party here, because if they are deemed to have too few votes to be significant (as is usually the case) you're vote will go to the next preference you gave. The result is that we actually do have a few somewhat strong third parties, at least in comparison to the USA. Also, the Prime Minister is decided the person in charge of the party that's in charge, rather than the party that's in charge is decided by the president, which means small parties and independents have more influence.

I think compulsory voting helps as well. If you have to vote, it makes people think about it, so people look into the policies of the lesser parties. It does have draw backs, though. There are some people who are wilfully ignorant, and I don't think they should be deciding my future, so I'm of mixed mind on the whole thing.


----------



## groph

TRENCHLORD said:


> I won't vote for Obama because of all the same ole basic "right wing talking points lol" that can be heard day in and out on popular shows like The Factor and more libertarian based shows like Stossel.
> 
> *We don't want the Government/Obama to be "the man", thereby permanently replacing big banks and corps in their traditional role as "the man".
> There's a natural eb and flow to banks and corperations rising and falling that has everything to do with the organic nature of survival of the fittest, and more specifically, their current leadership.*
> 
> Obama in principal wants government to be the one who sets the stagger in the race.
> If he were officiating a 100m dash, he would want to know everyone's racing AND social historys in order to handicap the race not only to equalize the results, but to in fact influence the results in a manner to have the ones who were more historically succesful to finish at the back, and the ones who were more historically unsuccesful finish at the front.
> 
> *I don't want my goverment attempting to play the great equalizer, especially when so many of the people involved are crooks in their own right.*
> 
> With all the documentation of govermental abuse of taxpayers money, why does anyone have confidence in their ability to redistribute success over such a huge spectrum.
> 
> If most small bussiness owners are very anti-obama (which by everything I've read and seen, they are), and they make up such a huge chunk of our tax base, then it would be a great idea for our domestic jobs situation and total revenue to attempt to please them.
> 
> Less government regulation/intrusiveness is always better to me.
> I'm not afraid of a life without Obama "helping me along".
> And, I'm also not envious of people getting 100 or 1000 times richer than I.
> I'm a lazy bastard and do not deseve to be wealthy, while many people work their ass off and deserve what they get.



The bolded points are what Noam Chomsky would talk about when he speaks of the United States as supporting "state capitalism." You're probably well aware, but Chomsky is a lefty libertarian and I'm probably pretty close to him in my own political views. He's not a fan of anybody in government AFAIK. Same thing goes with somebody like Chris Hedges, he's interesting too.

Basically all heads of state regardless of their status as Republican or Democrat are corporatists, they're going to invest themselves in making sure the capitalist system survives (hence "state" capitalism) so I really don't anticipate any giant changes in how business will be done unless there are big trade agreements like NAFTA getting signed. We've gone too far to just let a failing business fail. If it's a big enough cash cow the government will do what it can to keep it on life support and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if a Republican did something like that.

I wouldn't vote for Obama because of his dirty deeds regarding "suspected terrorists" but if Romney is sitting in the White House at the start of the next term I'm not expecting liberty and freedom for all, either. Drone strikes will continue, there will still be terrorist paranoia, etc. I also wouldn't vote for Obama because I'm not a US citizen, but speaking hypothetically... 

Many people also work their ass off and get jack shit, keep that in mind too.


----------

