Would you? Could you?

[Arawyn]

Agreed: people who didn't vote for him are obviously missing something.

yeah they are, their hard earned cash

Really? Have your taxes gone up because of recent federal bills passing into law?

My cigarette taxes have........and more are on their way.

 

[Alan Partridge]

Ciggies are a right, not a priviledge...

just like owning a car, or buying porn, and since you can change your behaviour, stop doing these things, if they are costing you money.

Fuck the government, don't play their raindeer games

 

[paperview]

If you voted for Obama in the last election, would you vote for him again?

What other options do I have?

 

[paperview]

I mean, seriously.

This is what I felt when I voted for him in Nov.

These were my options:

a) throwing away my vote third party
b) voting for a party and a ticket who holds stances I am about 85% diametrically opposed.
c) Obama

In Rumsfeldian lingo: you go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If you voted for Obama in the last election, knowing what you know now about him, would you vote for him again if the election was tomorrow?

If the election was tommorrow I would vote for neither the President to get another term nor would I vote for a republican ticket. I am highly dissapointed in both parties for various and different reasons.

Dems:

Racists, Pushing too much too fast without reading it, too much defecit spending, too much increase taxes talk

Reps:

Hypocrites, not offering better solutions to these rushed bills, too much defecit spending, no sensible spending cuts proposed.

 

[MaggieMae]

I mean, seriously.

This is what I felt when I voted for him in Nov.

These were my options:

a) throwing away my vote third party
b) voting for a party and a ticket who holds stances I am about 85% diametrically opposed.
c) Obama

In Rumsfeldian lingo: you go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Exactly, and thanks. That's exactly the way I felt. But I will reiterate that now that Obama IS the President of the United States, I will support his efforts until I find, in all of my daily efforts to educate myself as to what is going on, that what he is doing in a particular area is proven to be more destructive than beneficial. In the meantime, and until that happens, I'm not about to jump ship just because the Republicans happen to be having a feeding frenzy at the moment.

 

[Navy1960]

I didn't vote for Obama, last election, then again I didn't vote for McCain as well. His troubles in office as of late come as no surprise to me and reflect exactly my feelings as to his abilites. While some of the things about Obama that have been side are completely and utterly false and an attempt to smear him on a personal level. I do believe that Obama on a fundamental level is a devout socialist and thought so at the time and think so now. This has born itself out in the legislation that has come from his Administration so far on domestic issues as well as his current faux-pas in foreign affiars. While only speaking for myself here, I can say with 100% assurance that I would never vote for Obama in 2012 and if the Republican party were to put up someone such as John McCain they will not receive my vote as well. This poll however, would be interesting if it had a section for people who did not vote for Obama at all, so that the data could show in some form the real results as to how Obama voters feel now.

 

[amrchaos]

I was not registered to vote in the last election--but, in order to hear all the entertaining propaganda coming from the right, I would vote for Obama.

Let us admit--the right wingers are just more entertaining--you libs are just way to serious for Talk radio or TV!!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It's kinda funny, 'underfunding' is always the progessive's excuse for why their plans never work. They can never just throw enough money at a problem to solve it, so of course that means they have to take more of yours then. It's both sad and amusing how people fall for that lame ass excuse all the time.

Hey, Newby! Where've you been lately?

Its not the liberals want to "just throw money" at these programs. We want to reduce government inefficiency, corruption, etc. etc. as well. But how are these programs going to work without funding? We also don't want to raise taxes (at least not on middle-class working families) either.

They only things in this manner that conservatives and liberals are opposed to are the programs themselves. Liberals want medicare and medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, better public transportation, a better healthcare system, better family planning options, etc. Conservatives don't want the government to do anything but provide national security, it seems. But just think about those less fortunate than you. Without medicare and medicaid, and social security how would the elderly afford to survive or the poor afford healthcare to survive? What do you think the crime rate would do if we abolished the minimum wage, unemplyment insurance, welfare and/or abortion and contraceptive options? Sure, some people take advantage of the system but overall its better than not having the system at all, don't you think?

 

[paperview]

I mean, seriously.

This is what I felt when I voted for him in Nov.

These were my options:

a) throwing away my vote third party
b) voting for a party and a ticket who holds stances I am about 85% diametrically opposed.
c) Obama

In Rumsfeldian lingo: you go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Exactly, and thanks. That's exactly the way I felt. But I will reiterate that now that Obama IS the President of the United States, I will support his efforts until I find, in all of my daily efforts to educate myself as to what is going on, that what he is doing in a particular area is proven to be more destructive than beneficial. In the meantime, and until that happens, I'm not about to jump ship just because the Republicans happen to be having a feeding frenzy at the moment.

Your sentiments echo mine perfectly with that well written post.

 

[Navy1960]

I was not registered to vote in the last election--but, in order to hear all the entertaining propaganda coming from the right, I would vote for Obama.

Let us admit--the right wingers are just more entertaining--you libs are just way to serious for Talk radio or TV!!

*laughs* and all this time amr, I always thought it was the other way around. I mean come on, you have to admit you liberals especially groups like code pink, the EDF, greenpeace, are a lot more hilarious than say. John McCain? I'm a republican and even I can admit that.

 

[Newby]

It's kinda funny, 'underfunding' is always the progessive's excuse for why their plans never work. They can never just throw enough money at a problem to solve it, so of course that means they have to take more of yours then. It's both sad and amusing how people fall for that lame ass excuse all the time.

Hey, Newby! Where've you been lately?

Its not the liberals want to "just throw money" at these programs. We want to reduce government inefficiency, corruption, etc. etc. as well. But how are these programs going to work without funding? We also don't want to raise taxes (at least not on middle-class working families) either.

They only things in this manner that conservatives and liberals are opposed to are the programs themselves. Liberals want medicare and medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, better public transportation, a better healthcare system, better family planning options, etc. Conservatives don't want the government to do anything but provide national security, it seems. But just think about those less fortunate than you. Without medicare and medicaid, and social security how would the elderly afford to survive or the poor afford healthcare to survive? What do you think the crime rate would do if we abolished the minimum wage, unemplyment insurance, welfare and/or abortion and contraceptive options? Sure, some people take advantage of the system but overall its better than not having the system at all, don't you think?

Hi CMM, I was on vaca last week and just been catching up most of this week. I'm sure you must have really missed me!!

Yes, what you want is for the government to provide everything for you, but that's not how a Constitutional Republic works. I believe that those who have certain circumstances where they cannot provide for themselves should be taken care of, the rest of it should be gotten rid of. I don't need Social Security, yet I have NO CHOICE, you know CHOICE?? That thing that progressives are always so fond of unless it's something they wish to force on you, then it's okay for there to not be any, cause they 'know best'. I don't need their healthcare, I don't need their medicaid, but I have to pay for it all the same. We could pay at a much smaller rate to take care of only those that needed it instead of trying to micro-manage and control everyone's lives in the guise of helping them out whenever what they really want is to be able to control you. Those programs are all about political power, just look how they are used every election cycle. Health care will be the biggest and best yet, in 10 years you're going to regret handing over control your life to them. I guarantee it. The problem here is that I don't want to hand over control to them, yet people like you who want it your way are giving people like me no CHOICE, I'm being forced. Yet you don't seem to mind that at all. Ironic.

 

[Navy1960]

It's kinda funny, 'underfunding' is always the progessive's excuse for why their plans never work. They can never just throw enough money at a problem to solve it, so of course that means they have to take more of yours then. It's both sad and amusing how people fall for that lame ass excuse all the time.

Hey, Newby! Where've you been lately?

Its not the liberals want to "just throw money" at these programs. We want to reduce government inefficiency, corruption, etc. etc. as well. But how are these programs going to work without funding? We also don't want to raise taxes (at least not on middle-class working families) either.

They only things in this manner that conservatives and liberals are opposed to are the programs themselves. Liberals want medicare and medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, better public transportation, a better healthcare system, better family planning options, etc. Conservatives don't want the government to do anything but provide national security, it seems. But just think about those less fortunate than you. Without medicare and medicaid, and social security how would the elderly afford to survive or the poor afford healthcare to survive? What do you think the crime rate would do if we abolished the minimum wage, unemplyment insurance, welfare and/or abortion and contraceptive options? Sure, some people take advantage of the system but overall its better than not having the system at all, don't you think?

Do you know CMM I think that it's a very noble thing to want to help you fellow citizen and to want to lift them up if they are unable to lift themselves up. I also think that the mark of advanced society can be seen in how it treats it's elderly, disabled, and those unable to do for themselves. Where I part ways with most democrats on these sorts of issues is who is better at doing these things and how to do them . I think that most democrats are under the impression that republicans want to throw these people into the streets and starve while, most republicans are under the impression that democrats want to give everything away to anyone , even those who don't care to earn it. What I do believe is true is that most of us are most likely somewhere in the middle and don't want to see people hurting, or wanting for the basics in life. It's my humble opinion though that we as citizens though are better able to take care of our neighbors than a nameless faceless entity in Washington can. While Govt. has it's place and IMO that is to provide the environment to promote that, I do not feel that Govt. should be in a place where it "levels the playing field" or puts this nation into a position where anyone who dares to raise their heads high in life are chopped down for the needs of others. IMO everyone should have an opportunity in life and given that , they are the ones that should take advantage of it and do whats best for themselves and their families. Those that cannot , of course our society has an obligation to see to it that they are not wanting, it's a duty that we owe as citizens. While I think this great debate will continue to rage on and on as to the best ways to proceed, and while me may disagree on the basic tenants , we can all agree that in the end we are all in this together like it or not and that eventually every voice no matter what that is should be heard and respected.

 

[Newby]

It's kinda funny, 'underfunding' is always the progessive's excuse for why their plans never work. They can never just throw enough money at a problem to solve it, so of course that means they have to take more of yours then. It's both sad and amusing how people fall for that lame ass excuse all the time.

Hey, Newby! Where've you been lately?

Its not the liberals want to "just throw money" at these programs. We want to reduce government inefficiency, corruption, etc. etc. as well. But how are these programs going to work without funding? We also don't want to raise taxes (at least not on middle-class working families) either.

They only things in this manner that conservatives and liberals are opposed to are the programs themselves. Liberals want medicare and medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, better public transportation, a better healthcare system, better family planning options, etc. Conservatives don't want the government to do anything but provide national security, it seems. But just think about those less fortunate than you. Without medicare and medicaid, and social security how would the elderly afford to survive or the poor afford healthcare to survive? What do you think the crime rate would do if we abolished the minimum wage, unemplyment insurance, welfare and/or abortion and contraceptive options? Sure, some people take advantage of the system but overall its better than not having the system at all, don't you think?

Do you know CMM I think that it's a very noble thing to want to help you fellow citizen and to want to lift them up if they are unable to lift themselves up. I also think that the mark of advanced society can be seen in how it treats it's elderly, disabled, and those unable to do for themselves. Where I part ways with most democrats on these sorts of issues is who is better at doing these things and how to do them . I think that most democrats are under the impression that republicans want to throw these people into the streets and starve while, most republicans are under the impression that democrats want to give everything away to anyone , even those who don't care to earn it. What I do believe is true is that most of us are most likely somewhere in the middle and don't want to see people hurting, or wanting for the basics in life. It's my humble opinion though that we as citizens though are better able to take care of our neighbors than a nameless faceless entity in Washington can. While Govt. has it's place and IMO that is to provide the environment to promote that, I do not feel that Govt. should be in a place where it "levels the playing field" or puts this nation into a position where anyone who dares to raise their heads high in life are chopped down for the needs of others. IMO everyone should have an opportunity in life and given that , they are the ones that should take advantage of it and do whats best for themselves and their families. Those that cannot , of course our society has an obligation to see to it that they are not wanting, it's a duty that we owe as citizens. While I think this great debate will continue to rage on and on as to the best ways to proceed, and while me may disagree on the basic tenants , we can all agree that in the end we are all in this together like it or not and that eventually every voice no matter what that is should be heard and respected.

Very well said, as usual.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

It's my humble opinion though that we as citizens though are better able to take care of our neighbors than a nameless faceless entity in Washington can.

You know, Navy, I've heard this statement a great many times, and the question I now come back with is: all right, you're a citizen who is fortunate enough to have met all his needs and satisfied many of his wants. Are you willing to allow another citizen who's down on his luck to stay in your home until he gets back on his feet?

If not, the only way to avoid hypocrisy is to have an organization that makes sure it happens. Churches and such may try, but even they can't make sure (they have no authority to pool resources the way government does).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I was not registered to vote in the last election--but, in order to hear all the entertaining propaganda coming from the right, I would vote for Obama.

Let us admit--the right wingers are just more entertaining--you libs are just way to serious for Talk radio or TV!!

*laughs* and all this time amr, I always thought it was the other way around. I mean come on, you have to admit you liberals especially groups like code pink, the EDF, greenpeace, are a lot more hilarious than say. John McCain? I'm a republican and even I can admit that.

I think you are both right, they are both pretty funny to me.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's my humble opinion though that we as citizens though are better able to take care of our neighbors than a nameless faceless entity in Washington can.

You know, Navy, I've heard this statement a great many times, and the question I now come back with is: all right, you're a citizen who is fortunate enough to have met all his needs and satisfied many of his wants. Are you willing to allow another citizen who's down on his luck to stay in your home until he gets back on his feet?

If not, the only way to avoid hypocrisy is to have an organization that makes sure it happens. Churches and such may try, but even they can't make sure (they have no authority to pool resources the way government does).

And you're full of shit, as usual. The American private citizens gave 1.78 billion dollars in relief when a terrible tsunami hit Asia. This giving was above and beyond what the United States Government gave in aid.

In a few short months after the devastating Asian tsunami a major earthquake hit Pakistan causing great devastation there. The American people stepped up and gave 78 million dollars to aid the suffering there.

When America's own coastal areas got hit with hurricanes our people began sending in needed funds for rebuilding and relief. When hurricane's Katrina and Rita hit our shores, Americans responded and gave 3.12 billion dollars and relief efforts are still underway today.

The generosity of Americans shines through year after year in their willingness to give in big needs and in little needs. Americans donate an estimated one-quarter of a trillion dollars to charities such as the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army and The American Cancer Society. This is in addition to what they give through their places of worship.

Americans are the most charitable people in the world. And the poor are the most generous givers.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Pretending I were a US citizen for a moment... I would not have voted for Obama in the last election, but I would vote for him knowing what I know now.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

It's my humble opinion though that we as citizens though are better able to take care of our neighbors than a nameless faceless entity in Washington can.

You know, Navy, I've heard this statement a great many times, and the question I now come back with is: all right, you're a citizen who is fortunate enough to have met all his needs and satisfied many of his wants. Are you willing to allow another citizen who's down on his luck to stay in your home until he gets back on his feet?

If not, the only way to avoid hypocrisy is to have an organization that makes sure it happens. Churches and such may try, but even they can't make sure (they have no authority to pool resources the way government does).

And you're full of shit, as usual. The American private citizens gave 1.78 billion dollars in relief when a terrible tsunami hit Asia. This giving was above and beyond what the United States Government gave in aid.

In a few short months after the devastating Asian tsunami a major earthquake hit Pakistan causing great devastation there. The American people stepped up and gave 78 million dollars to aid the suffering there.

When America's own coastal areas got hit with hurricanes our people began sending in needed funds for rebuilding and relief. When hurricane's Katrina and Rita hit our shores, Americans responded and gave 3.12 billion dollars and relief efforts are still underway today.

The generosity of Americans shines through year after year in their willingness to give in big needs and in little needs. Americans donate an estimated one-quarter of a trillion dollars to charities such as the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army and The American Cancer Society. This is in addition to what they give through their places of worship.

Americans are the most charitable people in the world. And the poor are the most generous givers.

None of which has anything to do with the point I made.

 

[eagleseven]

A collision course with what? Communism! Velcome to Ahmehreeka, comrade! Please, eagle, that just sounds reactionary (which is a very GOP-like habit). I have appreciated and found your posts compelling and challenging (like the one I'm responding to now), so please don't combine your critical thinking and analytical skills with reactionary statements, it diminishes the effects of your earlier very sharp and well-put points.

With what?

Government insolvency and the collapse of our social programs, of course!

Our current economic situation is unsustainable (something an environmentally-minded liberal would understand). Ask any economist and they will tell you that Medicare and Social Security are 5-25 years from imploding.

Rather than dealing with this impending disaster, Obama is adding fuel to the fire. With all these new programs, it is simple IMPOSSIBLE for the US economy to pay our unfunded liabilities.

There are two events that could cause Government fiscal collapse any day now:

1. China's economy collapses, and with it, our credit line. No government debt means that a majority of government services simply stop. Soldiers don't get their paychecks, the elderly don't get their social security, and massive civil unrest ensues.

2. The financial sector collapses, and with it, our federal income. This almost happened last September, and can still easily happen again, as our economy continues to dive.

And the guaranteed event sometime in the future:

1. Social Security and Medicare run such massive deficits that no single country can lend us the money to make up the difference, resulting in government fiscal collapse.


It's not Reactionary at all. It is simple mathematics.

Our nation's GDP is $14 trillion.

Our unfunded liabilities are pushing $70 trillion.

Even at a theoretical 100% tax rate, it would take nearly a decade to balance our budget. This situation, impossible as it may seem, is manageable in the long-term.

Only, Obama is pretending it doesn't exist, acting as though we have a massive bank account and no bills. We're on a collision course with government insolvency, and Obama has his foot on the gas pedal, like all of his predecessors (save Clinton).

Again, there is nothing reactionary about it. Just mathematics and hard reality. Maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones who will retire before it happens...but I'll be living with the fallout of today's decisions for the latter half of my life.


P.S. Need I remind you that "unfunded pension liabilities" are what killed GM? If unfunded liabilities can take down the world's largest automaker, they can take down the world's richest government. Or, as they used to say "As GM goes, goes America."