You should only vote if you can distinguish Obama from Romney

[georgephillip]

If government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining actual state policy, what other institution currently in existence has the power to regulate corporate influence over our money?

 

[dblack]

If government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining actual state policy, what other institution currently in existence has the power to regulate corporate influence over our money?

I think we should first look at what institutions are currently supporting corporate dominance and adjust them as necessary. The frustrating thing about the usual 'regulatory' approach is that it often succeeds in expanding these very same institutions - further securing the dominant positions of corporations with the clout to control the process.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your streak of being wrong continues.

The next four years will see 3 justices on the High Court reach their 80th birthday. Whomever is President will appoint, likely, 1-3 justices. Roe can be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Again, it's not about abortions, it's about the rights we all have, the rights we do not want government infringing upon, and the rights that come along with privacy. One of the justices will be Scalia. Having him replaced by a center-left Jurist would be reason enough to vote for Obama.

As for the economy; I'll issue you the same challenge I've issued to other republicans.

Look at Mitt Romney's spending cuts at his website:

Spending | Mitt Romney for President

His stated spending cuts--if he gets them--equals $319.6 Billion if memory serves. His numbers, his website; not from the Obama admin, not "edited" by anyone else. There are some "across the board" cuts too that he doesn't detail (translation; he doesn't know what those cuts would save).

Now, using the governor's numbers, please tell us how he is going to do the following things he's said he's going to do:

Balance the budget
Start paying down the deficit
Increase defense spending

He is on record as saying he won't raise taxes so it's all spending cuts.

Your move.

I see how deeply confused you are. First of all, Roe v. Wade is about abortions and nothing but abortions. The fact that you keep trying to pretend it's about anything other than killing unborn babies shows that beneath all that bluster, you are embarrassed and ashamed of the position you are supporting.

Read the decision. The decision of the court is based on privacy.

Whatever your understanding of Roe v. Wade may be, the issue is abortion, and if you are not embarrassed and ashamed by your support for killing unborn babies, why do you keep trying to dress it up as something else?

These days it takes a super majority in the Senate to appoint a Justice who is too far to the left or the right, and neither Obama nor Romney will have that so moderates will be appointed to the Court regardless of who is president. Keep in mind that Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both staunch supporters of Roe v. Wade, were appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Tea Party icon, David Souter, another pro abortion Justice, was appointed by Bush41 and John Roberts, a Bush43 appointee, saved Obamacare.
The days of a far left or far right Court are long gone.

Bull, meet shit. You're full of it.

No Nominee has been filibustered for one thing.

For another thing, Scalia is a far right jurist who should be replaced with a non-ideologue.

Advantage Obama once he's re-elected. Sucks to be you.

In fact, LBJ's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice was successfully filibustered, and in 2000 Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden joined with 23 other Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination. The threat of a filibuster is always present and serves to temper the choices presidents make for Supreme Court nominees, and after the polarizing an divisive effect Obama has had on our political system, it is more likely today than it has been for some time. You continue to overlook the fact that many key supporters of Roe v. Wade, such as O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter were nominated by conservative Republican presidents and the Justice who wrote the Roe v. Wade opinion, Harry Blackmun, was appointed by Richard Nixon. The argument that Obama has to be reelected to protect Roe v. Wade is clearly incorrect.

You have been so taken in by the defeatist attitudes of the can't do Obama administration that you have forgotten that the way to solve our economic problems is to encourage private sector investments which will create more jobs and more tax revenues, and this is exactly what Romney proposes to do. The tax cuts and limits of deductions he proposes will put more money into the hands of consumers and investors and the limits on deductions will encourage people to spend and invest their money where they get the best value instead of where they get the biggest tax break, thus stimulating the private sector economy by giving consumers and investors more money to spend and invest and encouraging them to do it more efficiently and productively. His proposal to open government lands to more oil and gas exploration and to allow the pipeline from Canada will create many thousands of new jobs, and not just the temporary and part time jobs we've seen created during Obama's time in the WH, and it will bring down the cost of energy making US businesses more competitive and creating still more jobs. In addition he proposes to reform some of the anti business excesses of Obama's first two years, such as Dodd Frank, in order to create and more business friendly economy.

So Romney's plan to increase employment and lower the deficit has two parts, cut non security discretionary spending and encourage new private sector investment to grow the economy and he has outlined how he plans to do it. Obama's plan for the economy: blame the Republicans.

In other words, you can't make the math work either.

Don't feel bad....100% of all republicans I posed the question too ran from it as well. You're no exception.

The math does work whether you want to recognize it or not. Romney has explained exactly how it works, but it is understandable that after four years of Obama's defeatist can't do administration, you may find it hard to believe. Romney will balance the books with caps on tax deductions, across the board 5% cuts on non security discretionary spending and by raising the rate of growth of real GDP from Obama's anemic 1.65% to 4%, and I explained above some of the ways in which he will do this. There is nothing wrong with the math, it's just that Obama has taught his supporters to love failure so much that they are frightened by the possibility of success.

 

[candycorn]

Read the decision. The decision of the court is based on privacy.

Whatever your understanding of Roe v. Wade may be, the issue is abortion, and if you are not embarrassed and ashamed by your support for killing unborn babies, why do you keep trying to dress it up as something else?




In fact, LBJ's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice was successfully filibustered, and in 2000 Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden joined with 23 other Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination. The threat of a filibuster is always present and serves to temper the choices presidents make for Supreme Court nominees, and after the polarizing an divisive effect Obama has had on our political system, it is more likely today than it has been for some time. You continue to overlook the fact that many key supporters of Roe v. Wade, such as O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter were nominated by conservative Republican presidents and the Justice who wrote the Roe v. Wade opinion, Harry Blackmun, was appointed by Richard Nixon. The argument that Obama has to be reelected to protect Roe v. Wade is clearly incorrect.

In other words, you can't make the math work either.

Don't feel bad....100% of all republicans I posed the question too ran from it as well. You're no exception.

The math does work whether you want to recognize it or not.

If it did, you'd illustrate it instead of taking personal swipes.

Romney has explained exactly how it works, but it is understandable that after four years of Obama's defeatist can't do administration, you may find it hard to believe. Romney will balance the books with caps on tax deductions, across the board 5% cuts on non security discretionary spending....

Ahh, so he is going to raise taxes by getting rid of deductions?

Anyway, these things have figures....show me numbers if you say the math works.

...and by raising the rate of growth of real GDP from Obama's anemic 1.65% to 4%, and I explained above some of the ways in which he will do this.

Basically you said it would happen with zero proof of any of it. Here is a reality check; weakening labor will result in less take home pay. That has always been the case...unless you think that the business owners just created the weekend out of the goodness of their heart, the minimum wage, and the 40 hour work week.

There is nothing wrong with the math,

Since you've shown none of it, I have to assume there is.

it's just that Obama has taught his supporters to love failure so much that they are frightened by the possibility of success.

Again, if you could make the math work, you'd have it in front of me at this point. You have a homework assignment....have it on my desk sometime today.

 

[georgephillip]

If government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining actual state policy, what other institution currently in existence has the power to regulate corporate influence over our money?

I think we should first look at what institutions are currently supporting corporate dominance and adjust them as necessary. The frustrating thing about the usual 'regulatory' approach is that it often succeeds in expanding these very same institutions - further securing the dominant positions of corporations with the clout to control the process.

The usual regulatory approach seems restricted to corporate capture of the regulatory agencies.
This works to the economic advantage of about 10% of the US population:
The "investor class" that funds the election campaigns of Republicans AND Democrats.
Maybe what we need is wall of separation between private wealth and public policy?
If so, don't wait for Democrats OR Republicans to start that fight.

 

[dblack]

Maybe what we need is wall of separation between private wealth and public policy?
If so, don't wait for Democrats OR Republicans to start that fight.

Absolutely. This is what I've been advocating for ages. The 'catch' is that, to be effective, it needs to be a two-way street. If you want to keep financial interests from manipulating government, you have to keep government from manipulating financial interests. And THAT's a power Congress is exceedingly reluctant to let go of.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe what we need is wall of separation between private wealth and public policy?
If so, don't wait for Democrats OR Republicans to start that fight.

Absolutely. This is what I've been advocating for ages. The 'catch' is that, to be effective, it needs to be a two-way street. If you want to keep financial interests from manipulating government, you have to keep government from manipulating financial interests. And THAT's a power Congress is exceedingly reluctant to let go of.

Assuming congress let go of that power, what other " democratic" institution is available to regulate financial interests?

 

[dblack]

Assuming congress let go of that power, what other " democratic" institution is available to regulate financial interests?

The police? I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than circling back around to your original question, which I've already addressed. Wealth exercises power via the institution of government, not in spite of it.

You seem to be starting with the assumption that someone needs to be in charge of telling us who we can trade with and under what circumstances. I don't think that is necessary to protect our rights. As long as we are free not to do business with people or corporations we don't like, and as long as wealthy interests are prevented from manipulating government policy to their ends, all we need are ordinary criminal laws against assault, theft, fraud and the like.

 

[georgephillip]

Assuming congress let go of that power, what other " democratic" institution is available to regulate financial interests?

The police? I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than circling back around to your original question, which I've already addressed. Wealth exercises power via the institution of government, not in spite of it.

You seem to be starting with the assumption that someone needs to be in charge of telling us who we can trade with and under what circumstances. I don't think that is necessary to protect our rights. As long as we are free not to do business with people or corporations we don't like, and as long as wealthy interests are prevented from manipulating government policy to their ends, all we need are ordinary criminal laws against assault, theft, fraud and the like.

Do you agree:

“'We have to grasp, as Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good.'

"'They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill, and lie to make money.'

"'They throw poor people out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars for profit, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship money and power.'
― Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class'"

The Death of the Liberal Class Quotes By Chris Hedges

Marx was clear about capitalism becoming a revolutionary force after it emasculates government.
Are you saying individuals will have more economic/political freedom with less government regulation of corporate power?

 

[dblack]

Do you agree:

“'We have to grasp, as Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good.'

Yes.

"'They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill, and lie to make money.'

Some do and will. And last I checked, depending on your interpretation of vague terms like 'impoverish', these things are illegal under ordinary law. No one, corporate 'citizen' or otherwise, should be free to harm others under the law. But, that's not really what we're talking about with 'regulation', is it?

"'They throw poor people out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars for profit, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship money and power.'
― Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class'"

Nah.. .this one goes off the rails. Corporations don't (yet) have the power to 'throw' people out of their homes, wage war or commit any of the other crimes grievances cited in the quote. Government does.

Are you saying individuals will have more economic/political freedom with less government regulation of corporate power?

What exactly do you mean by 'regulation'? Because that's the rub. I think we should re-address the entire structure of corporate charter - from limited liability to corporate personhood.

But the 'more regulation' fans aren't pushing for that. They want to create authoritarian agencies that regulate markets, that tell us who we can buy from and how we must do it. These regulatory regimes inhibit the freedoms of consumers more than they 'reign in' corporate power. And they are invariably manipulated by the dominate players for their own benefit.

I really do think we need to have a strong government to protect our rights - to monitor and punish corporations (and individuals) who lie, cheat, steal etc... But the regulatory state, in general, isn't about protecting our rights. It's about mandating conformity, conformity to standards that often (usually) have nothing to do with protecting freedom and everything to do with commandeering society toward someone's vision of the 'good life'.

 

[Thunderbird]

Well; nothing is more sacred than being able to do with your own body what you want.

So unborn babies should not be killed at whim?

Only a moron would think that subservience to the abortion industry makes you pro-woman.

1) Planned Parenthood, which receives 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars, lies to women. If you really care about choice you don't lie to the one making the decision.

Planned Parenthood’s use of unscientific and fabricated medical information

2) Just a few of the women chewed up by the abortion industry:

New 911 tape reveals botched abortion at Virginia Planned Parenthood

Authorities: Abortion doctors charged with murder

16-Year-Old Girl Suffered Botched Abortion at Planned Parenthood

DA: West Philadelphia abortion doctor killed 7 babies with scissors

The abortion industry, like many industries, has captured the regulatory apparatus. Legalization means mistreatment of women and a huge expansion of the industry.

For example: Lax state oversight results in widespread violations at Michigan abortion providers, report says

3) The abortion industry represents the greatest assault on women in human history. Tens of millions of unborn baby girls have been killed for the "crime" of being a girl!

Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls

4) Not a few abortions are forced on women.

Pregnant Woman Threatened & Assaulted for Refusing Abortion

Why it's The UnChoice
Most abortions are unwanted or coerced, many forced. Women are dying, too. Human rights abuse misrepresented as "choice."

And many rich people & bigots are eager to pressure working women & women of color into killing off their future.

5) The abortion industry just wants more abortions. They have no problem endangering women's health.

Planned Parenthood pushes California bill to let non-physicians conduct abortions

 

[George Costanza]

Well; nothing is more sacred than being able to do with your own body what you want. Outside of that, little else matters.

Should we force vasectomies on men at the age of 45? Would you like to put that up to popular vote in your state?

And Obama would say to you, "Exactly, don't worry your little head about things like the economy. All you need to think about is women's issues like abortion."

Your post highlights the reason women who think for themselves disdain the GOP. It's the idea that "government knows best" is a bad idea UNTIL you talk about a woman's body or marriage rights. Then you're all for an intrusive, totalitarian regime.

When it comes to taxing the rich and big business, Republicans are all for "smaller government," code for - lower taxes for the rich and big business. When it come to imposing their religious views on the rest of the population, they have no problem at all with bigger government.

 

[Thunderbird]

When it comes to taxing the rich and big business, Republicans are all for "smaller government," code for - lower taxes for the rich and big business.

Of course Obama is as much a tool of the plutocrats as anybody.

When it come to imposing their religious views on the rest of the population, they have no problem at all with bigger government.

Do you mean when secular and religious citizens work to protect the fundamental rights of unborn babies?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And Obama would say to you, "Exactly, don't worry your little head about things like the economy. All you need to think about is women's issues like abortion."

Obama would say, "you have a vagina, no need to engage the brain, let men take care of that."

Gay men have such contempt for women.

 

[JWBooth]

1: Don't tell people if they are allowed to vote.

2: There is little to no difference through policy from Obama to Mitt...

3: the only real difference between the 2 candidates is one takes both sides of near all issues over a given amount of years.

4: If you listen to Romney at some point yes, he will always disagree with Obama...

5: If you listen to Romney at some point yes, he will always agree with Obama...

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Vote with your vagina, honey. Don't try and think." Barack Obama - to America's women.

 

[George Costanza]

When it comes to taxing the rich and big business, Republicans are all for "smaller government," code for - lower taxes for the rich and big business.

Of course Obama is as much a tool of the plutocrats as anybody.

When it come to imposing their religious views on the rest of the population, they have no problem at all with bigger government.

Do you mean when secular and religious citizens work to protect the fundamental rights of unborn babies?

I meant EXACTLY what I said. Don't try to sugar coat it.

 

[George Costanza]

"Vote with your vagina, honey. Don't try and think." Barack Obama - to America's women.

Idiot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Idiot.

Yes Obama is. But mostly he's a gay man, with utter contempt for women.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Whatever your understanding of Roe v. Wade may be, the issue is abortion, and if you are not embarrassed and ashamed by your support for killing unborn babies, why do you keep trying to dress it up as something else?




In fact, LBJ's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice was successfully filibustered, and in 2000 Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden joined with 23 other Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination. The threat of a filibuster is always present and serves to temper the choices presidents make for Supreme Court nominees, and after the polarizing an divisive effect Obama has had on our political system, it is more likely today than it has been for some time. You continue to overlook the fact that many key supporters of Roe v. Wade, such as O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter were nominated by conservative Republican presidents and the Justice who wrote the Roe v. Wade opinion, Harry Blackmun, was appointed by Richard Nixon. The argument that Obama has to be reelected to protect Roe v. Wade is clearly incorrect.

The math does work whether you want to recognize it or not.

If it did, you'd illustrate it instead of taking personal swipes.


Ahh, so he is going to raise taxes by getting rid of deductions?

Anyway, these things have figures....show me numbers if you say the math works.


Basically you said it would happen with zero proof of any of it. Here is a reality check; weakening labor will result in less take home pay. That has always been the case...unless you think that the business owners just created the weekend out of the goodness of their heart, the minimum wage, and the 40 hour work week.

There is nothing wrong with the math,

Since you've shown none of it, I have to assume there is.

it's just that Obama has taught his supporters to love failure so much that they are frightened by the possibility of success.

Again, if you could make the math work, you'd have it in front of me at this point. You have a homework assignment....have it on my desk sometime today.

Governor Romney has provided all the numbers necessary to reach his goal of reducing the deficit by $500,000,000 a year by the end of his first term: a cap on tax deductions, a 5% across the board cut on non security discretionary spending and a plan to raise the growth rate of real GDP for Obama's anemic 1.65%, down from 2.5% two years ago, to 4%. The reason you continue to be confused is that you don't understand the argument you are trying to make. Obama and you claim that if you don't value Romney's across the board 5% cut on non security discretionary spending or his plan to raise the growth rate of real GDP by 4% a year, the math doesn't work, but if you ignore these things, you are not talking about Governor Romney's plan. Your problem clearly is not with Governor Romney's tax plan; you problem is that you've been punked by Obama.

First of all, Obama's $5 trillion number is bogus. He claims to have gotten it from the Tax Policy Center's analysis, but they claimed the Romney tax cuts, under which they included the Bush tax cuts he would maintain, would cost about $4.8 trillion. Further they stated it was impossible at that time to determine how much the rest of Romney's plan would offset this cost; for example, they stated that limiting deductions alone would produce additional revenues of between $1.3 trillion and $2 trillion depending on what the limits eventually were.

Second, the Tax Policy Center did not evaluate the savings that would come from Romney's plan for an across the board 5% cut on non security discretionary spending. In the first two years in office, Obama increased non security discretionary spending by nearly 25%, proposing over $134 billion in new spending for 2011 alone, and rolling back this spending to 2008 levels would save at least another $1 trillion.

The wild card in Romney's plan is the effect of his promised 4% a year growth in real GDP for which he has outlined his plan. No one can reasonably estimate how Romney's plan for reviving the slumping Obama economy will effect tax revenues, but by the above analysis it would have to raise an additional $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion over a decade or $170 billion to $250 billion a year to prevent the deficit from increasing, and when one considers that the Bush tax cuts allowed President Bush to collect substantially more in personal income tax receipts over Clinton, $7.37 trillion for Bush to $5.66 trillion for Clinton, it is reasonable to expect Romney's tax cuts along with his plans for reviving the slowing Obama economy will produce not only enough additional revenues to keep the deficit from increasing but enough to meet his goal of reducing the deficit by $500 million a year by the end of his first term.