I support Obama because I want America to have a better economy and society.
| ManusJustus said: I support Obama because I want America to have a better economy and society. |
We used to have the strongest economy in the world. That was when keeping what you earned was incentive to work more. When the people are in control of where there money goes, they are far more inclined to work hard to earn it. When you become socialized, you remove all incentive to go that extra mile.
Obama's politics moves us away from a better economy, not towards it.
| BenKenobi88 said: Lesser of two evils... |
What he said.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
TheRealMafoo said:
We used to have the strongest economy in the world. That was when keeping what you earned was incentive to work more. When the people are in control of where there money goes, they are far more inclined to work hard to earn it. When you become socialized, you remove all incentive to go that extra mile. Obama's politics moves us away from a better economy, not towards it. |
I wish it was that simple.
You forget externalities associated with many of today's issues, including healthcare and education. More educated people means better jobs and better economy. More healthy people means more people are able to work which means better economy. You need government funding to provide these public goods efficiently due to market failure.
The market is also unable to produce advanced technology where information is uncertain. That is why it took NASA, a government funded agency, to develop space technology and satellites, because the free market would never (or atleast very slowly) develop these technologies. If it wasnt for government involvement in the economy, you would not be using a computer on the internet which uses satellites right now. That is why alternative energy is better in the hands of the government than the free market.
Healthcare, education, and alternative energy all go to Obama. Since these issues also have a large effect on the economy, the economy goes to Obama as well.
not voting because he's black, that and because I'm Canadian, and because i'm not legal voting age. McCain FTW!
I'm writing in Lieberman because his fish mouth makes me laugh.
Plus, he switched parties. I appreciate that kind of confusion.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
Education, Healthcare and Alternative Energy goes to Obama?
How do you figure. On all three his stances are compromised and don't work.
I've seen no plan for him on educawtion.
His healthcare plan is to force people to buy healthcare. That's it. It's not really a step in the right direction, and i'm for government run healthcare. If anything it's just an inconvience to parents who cant' afford healthcare... as they now have to pay a fine on top of their hospital bills since they can't afford the stuff they are now mandated by law to buy.
As for Alternative energy.... he's for Ethanol.... which a major cause of the global food crisis and against Nuclear power, one of the few alternative energies that are currently mass market feasable.
Other then that, he supports a lot of technology that won't be feasable until AFTER his terms as president are over.... and it's the same technologies John McCain supports.
John McCain definitly wins alternative energy.
Obama's plan relies too heavily on Ethanol, Coal and "getting people off the grid" which wouldn't work in a large country like the US.
It's no coincidence i imagine that Obama comes from a state that is one of the largest Ethanol and Coal producers in the state. He's just owned by those lobbys and it shows in his energy policy.
I mean... the liquid coal fuel which he supports is twice as bad for the enviroment... and biofuel Ethanol seems to have no benefit at all do to the added oil costs to produce it and the reduced efficency.
I will never in my entire life vote for someone with a predominantly conservative stance towards social issues. The religious right has enough power as it is.
Economic issues are another matter, but if Republicans keep signing up politicians with both (or even just the worse of the two, Thanks GW Bush! you crazy populist bastard), I'll be a Democrat for life.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
I agree with Obama's energy goals (cutting consumption and developing alternative energies), but the means with which he would achieve these goals are where I disagree with him. I partially agree with his education policy, but he favors subsidizing the producers (government-funded schools) whereas I favor subsidizing consumers (vouchers). He has some good ideas, but I wish he would change the means with which he would implement them.
ManusJustus said:
I wish it was that simple. You forget externalities associated with many of today's issues, including healthcare and education. More educated people means better jobs and better economy. More healthy people means more people are able to work which means better economy. You need government funding to provide these public goods efficiently due to market failure. The market is also unable to produce advanced technology where information is uncertain. That is why it took NASA, a government funded agency, to develop space technology and satellites, because the free market would never (or atleast very slowly) develop these technologies. If it wasnt for government involvement in the economy, you would not be using a computer on the internet which uses satellites right now. That is why alternative energy is better in the hands of the government than the free market. Healthcare, education, and alternative energy all go to Obama. Since these issues also have a large effect on the economy, the economy goes to Obama as well. |
I worked with NASA, and at the Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles division (there satellite division). And yes, they have done some great things. But 9 out of 10 of the bright minds that have come up with these things, have been contractors from the private sector. Companies like CSC, Ball Aerospace, LockMart, Boeing, IBM, and a dozen other major government contractors. The private sector does things better... always.
Healthcare. How come when it's totally a capitalist endeavor, like elective surgery, I can get it done faster, cheaper, better. let's take eye surgery for example. I can use the best equipment in the world, top doctors, incredible comfort, and customer service for $800 an eye. A simple MRI is a pain in the ass to schedule, I was treated ruddily, and it cost me $2,000.
Funny how things get better with competition. Remove the heath insurance equation from the MRI trip, and I bet it would cost $50. When industries compete, they provide better services... always. Obama wants to remove all of that.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
