This is not about which side you are on. It just seems like there has been so much hyperbole and distortion by both sides. The one big area of actionable difference is appointments to the Supreme Court. But aside from that, it's not going to make a huge difference who is president since the House and Senate will be split. I really want a specific candidate to win, but admit if the other one wins its not that bad. Do others around here feel the same way?
I think it depends on what you consider bad. If you consider the possibility of making abortion illegal, having the chance of making the SCOTUS more conservative, a Foreign policy that seems to follow the Bush doctrine, a "loop hole" tax solution (which in itself is a tax raise, but not exactly a good policy), and a more conservative control over the US (not Republican, conservative) bad, then yeah, you'd probably feel differently. The house and senate are split now, and look at the good that the R's have done? They've filibustered, hemmed and hawed, and stiffled any change (although have ramped up their anti-abortion rhetoric). Just seems to me that it's not that the two candidates are the same (why would billionaires be spending LOADS of money if they're the same). There is a fundamental difference. I think trickle down economics (and lets be honest here, thats what these Republicans are promoting) doesn't work. It hasn't worked in any time period, so I'm not sure why it will now. I'm not sure that just tax hikes (as little as they'll directly impact you or me) will be enough, but cutting the budget AND lowering the amount of $$ coming into the US budget won't help either). I think the bigger issue is the social issues. I think those are a bigger deal than the economic ones, and the "base" of Republicans have had their social issues common sense get kidnapped by some lunatic from the 50's. I personally find it troubling how womens issues can get dismissed as "not important", yet they try to pass laws about them. I find it odd how old white men are telling women what is and isn't rape, who should get contraception and what they should do with their bodies. If thats ok with you, then I guess you can say that the other side winning "isn't bad". Of course, I know that someone who is more conservative (or a Romney supporter) will counter what I said with "facts" and their spin/opinion of what will happen (much like I did), but whatever. But this wasn't about me convincing someone to vote, you asked if we felt the same way. I don't, and I said why.
In general, I agree. I think pretty much all Presidential candidates nominated and then those elected want to do right and leave a positive legacy. And each side lies and distorts nonstop about the other to the point the average person really doesn't know where parties and candidates really stand on the issues. And so far as the courts go, I am more concerned about the other judicial appointments rather then the Supreme Court as that's where 99% of the cases are heard. When Presidents simply place political advocates in those positions (as has been the case the last 20 years) there is less and less justice being handed down and just political decisions based on the judge's predisposition. And, sadly, that extends into the US Supreme Court. Alito, Ginsburg, Scalia, Sotomayer and Kagan's votes are known before the case if even briefed.
Trickle down economics has worked. It worked so well, a black man was able to be elected president and make himself a net worth of over $10M. Specifically, the Reagan years were very good for minorities. When economists measure mobility, it's how well people start in the lowest 1/5th of earnings and move upward to the 2nd lowest, middle 5th, etc. While mobility was excellent with trickle down economics policies in place, it was even better for minorities. And that's a fact. We can contrast against trickle down government. Unemployment among black people is near 15%. Poverty for black people has increased dramatically. Other than overspending on foolish things, the govt. has been unable to enact more trickle down govt. During that time, Obama brags about millions of jobs created. The housing market seems to have hit bottom and is rising. Growth is slow because of uncertainty and the major hit people anticipate from ObamaCare. You'd think if they did nothing sooner, spent less money recklessly, and weren't so antagonistic toward enterprise, we'd have better growth and would have bottomed out a couple years sooner.
A graph to illustrate the problem with trickle down govt. You spend $60K+ on "war on poverty" programs for every household living in actual poverty. Which begs the question of why we don't just cut those families a check for $30K and use the rest to reduce the deficit? A side note, taxing the rich as Obama proposes won't even cover the "Other" category on the graph. (This is spending outside of the entitlement programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)
That's part of my question on the "are you better off than 4 years ago?" question: The government (whose basic income source is our tax revenue) has rung up an additional ($6,000,000,000,000/300,000,000 Americans) $20k per person in debt. Not in "spending", but in "debt". So my family of 4--are we better off now than we would've been with $80k?
No, but we have the best govt. money can buy. And that is appealing to many for some reason I don't fathom.
I'm not particularly concerned about the other guy because 1) The chances of him winning are slim to none 2) All he cares about in the world is getting elected, so he probably won't try to accomplish much if he does get elected. 3) If there is one other thing he believes in, it is lower taxes for himself. So I'll likely get a big tax break paid for by many of those supporting him (thanks, suckers!). barfo
Who knows what Romney would actually do if he did get elected. Most likely not much, since congress will be divided. I don't want a Supreme Court even more conservative than it is now, but even there I'm not that worried. If abortions were outlawed in some states, it'd be disastrous for Republicans and quickly overturned when in most places after it plays out in the real world. But Romney is a reasonably competent guy and the US would continue to do what it's done under Obama--slowly claw its way out of a really bad economic spot.
I hope our next President repeals Obamacare, and makes necessary adjustments to Medicare, Social Security, budget deficit, national debt and defense spending.
You have very unrealistic expectations. With Dems controlling the Senate? Who is going to pass the bill that Romney would sign to do that? And do you really think any politician wants to be on the side of repealing rebate checks for excess insurance industry profits? Or allowing your kids to stay on your plan until 26? Some aspects of Obamacare are here for the long-term no matter who wins. Perhaps most.
I dont know...Mitt has a history of working both sides of the isle. barrycare is not popular with a lot of Ds as well as the Rs. Also take into consideration HOW IT WAS PASSED..then challanged.. Do you think that the Ds want to stand by a pos "tax" that is going to do a lot of damage, when they still have to face elections?
The executive branch can render the law moot by not enforcing it. Or as little as they can or have to. Like it is written into law passed by congress that no $$$ spent overseas for abortion. Yet GHW enforced that and it was a "gag order." Clinton didn't enforce it. More recently, Obama didn't enforce DOMA and DADT.
