Why I am supporting Obama

[pellegrino]

Except the democrat in the white house is actually very marxist in his views and has no problem using executive orders to implement his agenda. He'll be even less so when he isn't facing re-election.

what does it matter? we're stuck with the law now, it doesn't have an expiration date.

[Portland Ute]

Like I said:



Yes, Romney seems to be for the so called patriot act and the NDAA. Therefore, we might be better off keeping the government at a stalemate (i.e. democrat for an executive and, hopefully, a republican control congress). Actually, one reason to vote for Obama.

Except the democrat in the white house is actually very marxist in his views and has no problem using executive orders to implement his agenda. He'll be even less so when he isn't facing re-election.

[Uncle Ted]

Didn't Romney say he would have signed NDAA? The past decade has seen a massive erosion of our civil rights.

Like I said:

Of course, I am not convinced that Rmoney and many of the other republicans will offer much in the way of change either.

Yes, Romney seems to be for the so called patriot act and the NDAA. Therefore, we might be better off keeping the government at a stalemate (i.e. democrat for an executive and, hopefully, a republican control congress). Actually, one reason to vote for Obama.

[pellegrino]

Besides Obamacare...


Of course, I am not convinced that Rmoney and many of the other republicans will offer much in the way of change either.

On the NDAA...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...-act-now-what/

It is ironic that this man got the nobel peace prize.

Didn't Romney say he would have signed NDAA? The past decade has seen a massive erosion of our civil rights.

[wuapinmon]

Good luck with that, Tim. A while ago I started a thread to share positive information on a great American midwestern city and the haters came out in droves. Every time we try to shine a light on the good, the moths show up.

I'm a luna moth.

[YOhio]

Wrong thread. Your posts belongs in the "Why I'm not voting for Obama" thread...

Good luck with that, Tim. A while ago I started a thread to share positive information on a great American midwestern city and the haters came out in droves. Every time we try to shine a light on the good, the moths show up.

[Jacob]

You'll note that I advocated getting rid of the programs while continuing to pay the taxes until I'm 60.

I did note that. I'm just pointing out that your scheme is so radical, that is probably wouldn't require you to pay so many taxes for so long. Not that I don't support your radical budgetary proposal.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm voting for Obama for the following reasons:

• Capturing bin Laden
• Pulling us out of Iraq
• Timetable set for departure from Afghanistan
• Ending DODT
• Sponsorship of successful legislation geared toward minimizing decision-making capabilities of profit-driven health insurance companies.
• Increase in domestic oil production while working to minimize risks of offshore drilling.
• From a personal perspective, I've seen tremendous growth in own economic situation during his presidency.
• Lastly, I find him to be a decent, moral, intelligent man of the people.

You forgot extending the Bush tax cuts (on 12-18-2010).

[Uncle Ted]

Wrong thread. Your posts belongs in the "Why I'm not voting for Obama" thread...

Who said I am not voting for Obama? I am still undecided.

[Tim]

Besides Obamacare...



Of course, I am not convinced that Rmoney and many of the other republicans will offer much in the way of change either.

On the NDAA...





http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...-act-now-what/

It is ironic that this man got the nobel peace prize.

Wrong thread. Your posts belongs in the "Why I'm not voting for Obama" thread...

[wuapinmon]

You have proposed scrapping Medicare, and changing SS into a system only for the really old poor.

If we could enact those to preferences of yours, there would be no need to raise more tax revenue. Here is what we spent on SS and medicare last year:
Social Security - $820 billion
Medicare - $523 billion

If we took your plan and made no changes to taxation, we could easily balance the budget next year, rather than in 2040, as Paul Ryan plans, or never, as Obama plans.

Of course, if we eliminated those programs, as you propose, there would be no justification for the payroll taxes and we'd have to replace all that revenue. The difficult part of that is that we currently charge poor people and rich people alike 15% payroll taxes up to $104,000. It's the only way we get middle to low income people to pay any federal tax.
Still, it could be easily replaced, as you have proposed, with a national VAT or sales tax of 10%. I'd wager we could still flatten marginal rates and keep the budget balanced next year.

But none of that will happen.

You'll note that I advocated getting rid of the programs while continuing to pay the taxes until I'm 60.

[Uncle Ted]

Besides Obamacare...



Of course, I am not convinced that Rmoney and many of the other republicans will offer much in the way of change either.

On the NDAA...

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

[...]

“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...-act-now-what/

It is ironic that this man got the nobel peace prize.

[Jacob]

I'm using animal feces rhetoric too much in this thread. I have a migraine aura at the moment, and it's coloring (forgive the pun) my language at the moment. I appreciate the thoughtful responses to my posts, but I'd like to point out that I'm in favor of SCRAPPING Social Security for anyone born after 1959. I also want to completely SCRAP Medicare--all of it.

I think health dollars should be spent on the young, not the old.

I like food stamps for those who are employed or seeking employment. I struggle with how to cut people off. It's not little kids' fault that their parents have them out of wedlock, or that they're born into less-than-ideal situations. I do believe that an educative system that rewards healthy choices with more purchasing power could be a great thing (and also penalizes poor choices).

I really really really really dislike that getting knocked up at 15 is almost rewarded, but I don't know how to slay that entitled dragon.

I think we need to get out of Afghanistan and probably cut back our deployments in Europe (Germany, Sicily, Spain). For example, and admittedly, I don't know the resources on the ground, but do we really need Rota and Sigonella?

I'm willing to contemplate a national sales tax. I'm always willing to consider the estate tax.

I'd get rid of Veterans Benefits unless they were related to injuries or conditions sustained in the service. However, if they are related to service, 100% coverage always, even transportation reimbursement to and from the hospital.

Unemployment would be a LOT harder to get, and the requirements for finding work would be higher. There would need to be some kicker about employers paying a penalty to lay someone off.

With all of those cuts, and an increase in taxes, my plan balances the budget more or less.

But, it's political suicide, so none of it will ever happen. We just need to grow the economy to increase tax revenue, while cutting a few things. But, people want to cut from the poor. Other want to cut from the rich. I want to cut everyone and raise their taxes to a sustainable level.

I'm willing to make very real sacrifices with the modest amount I earn.

You have proposed scrapping Medicare, and changing SS into a system only for the really old poor.

If we could enact those to preferences of yours, there would be no need to raise more tax revenue. Here is what we spent on SS and medicare last year:
Social Security - $820 billion
Medicare - $523 billion

If we took your plan and made no changes to taxation, we could easily balance the budget next year, rather than in 2040, as Paul Ryan plans, or never, as Obama plans.

Of course, if we eliminated those programs, as you propose, there would be no justification for the payroll taxes and we'd have to replace all that revenue. The difficult part of that is that we currently charge poor people and rich people alike 15% payroll taxes up to $104,000. It's the only way we get middle to low income people to pay any federal tax.
Still, it could be easily replaced, as you have proposed, with a national VAT or sales tax of 10%. I'd wager we could still flatten marginal rates and keep the budget balanced next year.

But none of that will happen.

[frank ryan]

Unless you are a CEO in Goldman Sachs then what does the government really do for you?

Does it protect our borders? Nope.

Does it protect your jobs? Nope.

Does it protect your US Constitutional rights? Nope.

It does those things, the arguement is whether or not it does a good job doing those things.

[edward777]

Probably not. If there were some way to put a monetary value on the benefits I receive from my American citizenship, I think they would be more valuable than my tax burden.

Unless you are a CEO in Goldman Sachs then what does the government really do for you?

Does it protect our borders? Nope.

Does it protect your jobs? Nope.

Does it protect your US Constitutional rights? Nope.