By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Now that I did not vote for Romney, I already wish that I did?

NintendoPie on 12 November 2012

I think in those last paragraphs you described how I felt...
Obama had his chance, and he was mediocre, we needed someone new. That new person would've been Mitt.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 12 November 2012
thranx said:
Mr Khan said:
Max King of the Wild said:
I went into bankruptcy 7 years ago from a collapsed lung while I was uinsured... I work at 10.28 dollars an hour... I don't have insurance because I can't afford it.

I dont make little enough not to worry about the penalty. Obama care will force me to obtain coverage that I can't afford or be penalized which I can not afford...

But you went into bankruptcy. That's the whole point of this whole thing, so people don't have to go bankrupt over stuff like that.


instead they go broke before they get hurt trying to pay for insurance or paying penalty fees?

If they really can't afford it, then expand medicaid to cover them. That's what's going to come out of all of this anyway: single payer is the inevitability in the long-run.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

dsgrue3 on 12 November 2012
bluesinG said:

I think that things are looking up because last month the US economy added 171,000 jobs. The month before Obama took office (December 2008), the economy lost 661,000 jobs. That's an improvement of 832,000 jobs per month in 4 years.

I'm not saying that the US economy is as strong as I'd like it to be. Obama hasn't said that, either. But the economy has improved a whole lot over the past 4 years, and I'm confident that it will continue to improve over the next four years (unless, of course, congress royally messes it up).

I mean, do you remember how bad the economy was in 2008/2009? It was terrible. I mean truly God-awful. They didn't call it the Great Recession for nothing.

No...taking 2 numbers 4 years apart does not yield an average of 4 years. Jesus.

Things aren't looking up though. They are stagnant. When I did that calculation when you confined your numbers to March 2010 onward, we still aren't really creating a surplus of jobs, which is what we need to have in order to start taking a chunk out of the 12 million unemployed. Every single month where job creation fails to exceed 150,000, we are worsening our situation. 

Economic Growth Rate:

2007:  1.9%

2008:  -0.4%

2009:  -3.5%

2010:  3.0%

2011: 1.7%

2-4% is considered a healthy economy, so in 2010 we hit it. Estimates for 2012 place it near 2%, so in terms of GDP, the economy is borderline healthy. (This is good)



sperrico87 on 16 November 2012
Flanneryaug said:
sperrico87 said:
Flanneryaug said:
sperrico87 said:
Flanneryaug said:

What makes you think he cares about the poor?

"I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there, if it needs repair ill fix it"

"There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

"And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


So you think everyone has a right to a house?

There is a safety net for the very poor...there are thousands of them.  Not even including the nearly 100 government welfare programs, there are also Charities and shelters that are publicly and privately funded.  Is all that not enough for you?  We need to throw even more money at the problem?

There is a difference between a house and housing. Housing means not living on the street. Don't you think people are entitled to food? Apparently Romney doesn't. The fact is that we should provide opportunity for people to succeed, not just a safety net.

Housing is not a right.  No one is entitled to someone else's money.

By that logic, we shouldn't help the hurricane victims, and we shouldn't help starving children in Africa.

Why should the government subsdize insurance and encourage people to build homes in areas susceptible to hurricanes?  Why should people in Missouri be taxed to pay for irresponsible building in coastal areas that sit below sea level?

I don't even know what you mean when you say helping starving chilren in Africa.  We give billions to Africa, but most of it is used by war lords to buy weapons and murder their own people.  The best way to help starving children in Africa, if you're so concerned about it, is to fly over there and feed them yourself.  It's called private charity.  Something the government can't do, because the only power the government has it what it takes from productive people who earn wealth.