Left vs Right

[ChampU]

I knew you would bring up Healthcare.. but there is a reason why majority of people opposed this legislation and it was rammed down the throats by passing it in the middle of the night.. But anyways its upheld by the Supreme Court and is the law of the land, for now.. so lets respect it..

The reason why it was unpopular is:

1. Common sense tells me.. if the Healthcare Act really was that good, they wouldn't have to rush through passing it..they would have advertised it like crazy coz it is a land mark legislation..
Its like if you cook a good Biryani, you will invite people to smell it, look at it, sample it and enjoy it.. But you are making Kauwa-Biryani and selling it as Chicken Biryani, you wouldn't even lift the lid and allow the users to peep inside the vessel..it will be hush hush and parcels packed in the middle of the night..

2. It brings up taxes (0.9% across the board and 3.8% for high income earners) for Medicare for everyone when there are serious doubts about the sustainablity of the program for people of our generation..

3. About the issue of parents and pre-existing conditions, sure it eliminates coverage limits but there are no guidelines on premium calculation. And if the premiums exceed 10k per year (which is quite likely for 65+ individuals with any of the pre-existing conditions), guess what you pay a 40% excise tax on the plan (the limits are 10.2k for individuals and 27.5k for families)..

So no.. It won't be any cheaper with the new healthcare.. It is like instead of having a credit card with 100k limit and 20% APR, now you have a credit card with no limit credit line but 40% APR..

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act)

And while it provides healthcare to individuals with pre-existing conditions through the High-Risk Insurance Pools, for an individual to be eligible he/she must be uninsured for more than 6 months.. Now you wouldn't let parents with pre-existing to be uninsured, would you?

http://www.aad.org/member-tools-and-...nsurance-pools

In a lot of ways, the healthcare exchanges will be like the Ration Card stores that we have in India.. sure it would give access to the service for those who cannot afford it. But, if you have ever been to a ration card store and walked away with a happy experience regarding availability or quality of the product/service, you are in a minority. And with regards to the healthcare for our near and dear ones, I wouldn't want to compromise on it.

I'll get back on the other 2 points in lunch hour..

[cbpds1]

Atleast Oreilly doesnt swoon to Obama like the mainstream media does, they bow to him even if they dont agree to him, job security

Paul Krugman is the equivalent scam thats u pointed on the right.

If you want to move towards socialism, then u shd head to Europe,

The reason we are successful here is bcos of capitalism and not socialism, I do not believe in giving money for lazy people who dont just get off their ass and find work.

I understand we have to give money to poor or needy, no prob with that, do u know there is 100 million people in US who are dependant on welfare funds from the fed, (not SS or medicare)

Obama talked abt honest govt , but he is a proven liar in chief, did u see how he rammed his fellow dems to pass healthcare.



What abt fast and furious, what abt crony capitalism, the very essence of political corrupition in India(pay back donors with fed projects)

he has done nothing to the economy, the private sector wud have been much improved except for dodd frank(too much regulations than needed)

Obama is just pandering to people for votes, he pandered to gay folks with DADT, trying to get women votes with contraceptives, getting latino vote by giving amnesty without doing immig reform, large new Health care taxes in Obamacare.
He just want to redistribute wealth , this was not what America is based on, Is this the hope and Change u voted for?

We need to differentiate between U.K. / Europe economic policy in the last 30 years vs. U.K. / Europe response to this recession. Yes, Krugman recommends improving the safety net the way they have over the last 30 years, but he recommends stimulus to get out of the recession which they have not focused on sufficiently these last 4.

I may have to uninstall Firefox and IE as my will power is letting me down here.

[cbpds1]

If you run a business , You did not build it, qesehmk.org was not built by Q but Obama

Apart from the reasons I give above (that they are being led, informed and funded by lying, scheming, despicable folk)?

Here are a few reasons.

1) When you become a c
2) If the Republicans win (and potentially even if they don't) the Keystone pipeline will be built to bring in crude from the oil sands in Canada to the U.S. That will bring in billions of additional tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere much sooner than we will be able to even have a plan to deal with it. The alternative, of course is that the Chinese will built a pipeline to get it over the Rockies into British Columbia, but that will be more expensive to build (so more unlikely to get built), time consuming and will increase the $/barrell production costs (the additional electricity required to pump it over the Rockies) that it may not happen. Thanks to the recession and the spread between crude oil and gas prices, we have finally started to decrease CO2 emissions in this country, the Keystone pipeline would expand it significantly. Yes, your gasoline would be cheaper, but so many other things would be more expensive. And with Bangladesh being amongst the most susceptible to rising sea level, we'll have a refugee crisis at our borders of gigantic proportions. Yes this is a scenario that will affect us only in the long term, but it's certainly not far-fetched.

3) Surely you agree that an economic recovery is better for you personally. You need to reflect on whether tackling the deficit & tax cuts for corporations are likely to trigger a recovery or an investment in infrastructure. You've probably heard the argument that Europe and the U.K focused on the former since 2009 whereas China and the U.S. focused on the latter and that China and the U.S. are currently better off. That argument is simplistic but accurate. There are economists on both sides of the argument. Figure out for yourself which you believe in. I recommend Paul Krugman's writing on the subject. My argument is that if the economy recovers, I have more job security and get paid more, compared to what I'd save on taxes if the taxes are dropped and the economy doesn't recover.

[cbpds1]

hey Pedro,

Your defense is not strong, you are deflecting by pointing to right wingers when there are much more left wing lunatics, they are the fringe, they are present in both left and right.

The points that u mentioned below is the main points that Obama is running on, so you might as well vote for Mitt Romney
". I don't like what unions have become, I think welfare should be used sparingly so as to not invite dependence on it, I believe in simplifying the tax code along with decreasing overall tax levels, I believe in limited government spending (although I think the government is obligated to invest in healthcare, education and infrastructure when the private sector will not), and I don't like bailouts."

I am fine with dem or rep as long as they treat every class equally, its not a crime to be rich, they earned it.
I dont like folks who promote welfare for ppl who are lazy, give more to the needy instead.

O is just pandering by giving goodies to all sections of voters to get votes, nothing more abt hope and change.
he is same as any other politician.

You say republicans disenfranchised the voters, what about the thousands of voter fraud that the Dems commit, what abt the black panther party threatening ppl not to vote and Holder took no action against them?



[QUOTE=Pedro Gonzales;29295]My apologies cbpds1, if I came across as aggressive. I did think you were a Republican, but I don't think of that as a negative. I have many Republican friends, including a cousin with whom I discuss politics every Friday. We still get along. He never forgets to end every debate with the reminder that he can vote and I cannot, so he wins all the time.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Paul Krugman is the equivalent scam thats u pointed on the right.

'Equivalent'? He's won the Nobel prize, and probably has more degrees than Coulter, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh put together.

If you want to move towards socialism, then u shd head to Europe,

Arguably, there's no pure capitalistic society in the world anymore. The U.S. and Europe are all partially socialistic. All I want is a stronger safety net.

I do not believe in giving money for lazy people who dont just get off their ass and find work.
Do u know there is 100 million people in US who are dependant on welfare funds from the fed, (not SS or medicare)

I don't need the hard sell on this. As I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I don't think we ought to incentivize indolence. It's a downside to voting Democratic, today but one I can live with until the Republican party moves a bit to the left. Eventually (perhaps as soon as after this election?) the extreme right will be routed out of the Republican party, and they will move to the center (only slightly to the right of where the Democratic party is today).

Ignoring your rant against Obama, which is so far off keel that I do not think I need to counter....

the private sector wud have been much improved except for dodd frank(too much regulations than needed)

Another area where I have some personal knowledge. Wall Street, (where i've spent the last 7 years) like the Oil and Gas Industry (where I spent the previous 7 years) will never self-regulate. These are smart, generally ethical, but incredibly ambitious people in a system that rewards people for taking risks with little to no personal downside (opportunity cost, which they will point to, is not real downside). Dodd-Frank tries to tackle it but ineffectively. Dodd-Frank's problem is that it focuses on many costly non-issues while not addressing vital segments of the industry that require regulation. In 2005, I was sold on the '99 repeal of Glass Steagall by Gramm Leach Bliley. Yet, in my time in a top investment bank, many of the contradictions of the common banking model started to come to light. I had decided for myself before 2008 that common investors (through retail bank accounts or pension fund / mutual fund investments) weren't sufficiently rewarded for the profits their funds enabled the investment bankers to make. I didn't expect the bail out so I thought common investors would fit the bill whenever losses mounted, although partners (stock holders eventually as more of these banks IPOed) would a hit too. As it turned out, the buck stopped with the taxpayer. Cbs, if you're with a hedge fund, as many of my friends are, nothing I can tell you will seem to justify the regulations you are starting to face, and that's the only reason I can see for you to be against it. For everyone else, the fact is, this regulation replaces the board supervision and investor manager prudence that have been found wanting.

Much has been written on the topic by experts, who have put far more thought on it than I have, so don't just believe that Krugman is shit because O'Reilly says so. Read his work and figure out for himself. Or read any of the other neutral economists.

[Pedro Gonzales]

If you run a business , You did not build it, qesehmk.org was not built by Q but Obama

Surely you know better than to spout that lie. Surely you know that Romney is quoting him out of context there. Surely you know that Obama was referring to the infrastructure in place to help businesses succeed. If you buy that crap from Fox news, I think you're beyond hope.

EDIT:- The above possibly comes across as a personal attack. If so, I apologize. I'll leave it to Q or the other mods to delete if they see fit.

[Pedro Gonzales]

hey Pedro,
Your defense is not strong, you are deflecting by pointing to right wingers when there are much more left wing lunatics, they are the fringe, they are present in both left and right.

Except, on the left the fringe are not on TV every day spouting their BS. On the left, the fringe do not get talk shows on TV and radio. Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart (who is a comedian, btw, not a newshound) are not in the same league as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

The points that u mentioned below is the main points that Obama is running on, so you might as well vote for Mitt Romney

And yet, I can't stand Romney and what he stands for (actually, no one knows what Romney stands for). I would vote Democrat (if I could vote) despite their stance on some of these issues.

O is just pandering by giving goodies to all sections of voters to get votes, nothing more abt hope and change.
he is same as any other politician.

No argument here either. But we don't have an Idealist like Ron Paul on the other side. We have Romney and Ryan, also politicians.

You say republicans disenfranchised the voters, what about the thousands of voter fraud that the Dems commit, what abt the black panther party threatening ppl not to vote and Holder took no action against them?

Never heard of the Black Panther threats, so I think it must be some obscure issue that Fox is talking up. From what i've read (in the WSJ, Time and the Economist), there is no evidence for any voter fraud. The 1000s that you allege have no basis - just complaints by Republicans. In any case, I have no issue with voter ID requirements. As long as you're making it equally difficult for everyone it's difficult to argue against. My issue was with selectively disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts in Ohio compared to Republican districts. That is unethical, and i'm surprised not illegal.

[ChampU]

'Equivalent'? He's won the Nobel prize, and probably has more degrees than Coulter, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh put together.

Pedro, my friend.. The Nobel Prize used to be noble.. but ever since the kid was awarded a Ph.D. before he stepped out of kindergarten.. I for one, have lost respect for that award. You know the kid about whom, I am talking about. I am yet to find a soul who convincingly justifies that Nobel Award..


Arguably, there's no pure capitalistic society in the world anymore. The U.S. and Europe are all partially socialistic. All I want is a stronger safety net.

Safety Net is good.. but at what cost? Too much emphasis on the safety net becomes a shackle on the one who wants to fly high.. the ones who are not afraid to fall down.. Do you blame them for being too reckless? If the Wright Brothers had worried about the safety net, they would have never managed to fly.. Edison failed a thousand times.. he didn't worry about a safety net.. Had Steve Jobs and Ellison and Bill Gates worried about the safety net, they would have never summoned the courage to drop out of school...George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were wealthy farmers with a very very secure future.. Yet they risked it all because they believed in the idea of freedom.
America is built by people who took all kinds of risks to get to its shores.. work hard and make a better lives for ourselves..
Think about it.. we left the safety net and comfort of our homes to come here.. were there any guarantees that we'd be successful.. no.. but we worked hard and here we are.. young, successful professionals.. had we thought of a safety net, we would be somewhere in India contemplating what could have been had we made up our mind to go to the U.S.



I don't need the hard sell on this. As I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I don't think we ought to incentivize indolence. It's a downside to voting Democratic, today but one I can live with until the Republican party moves a bit to the left. Eventually (perhaps as soon as after this election?) the extreme right will be routed out of the Republican party, and they will move to the center (only slightly to the right of where the Democratic party is today).

Ignoring your rant against Obama, which is so far off keel that I do not think I need to counter....


Another area where I have some personal knowledge. Wall Street, (where i've spent the last 7 years) like the Oil and Gas Industry (where I spent the previous 7 years) will never self-regulate. These are smart, generally ethical, but incredibly ambitious people in a system that rewards people for taking risks with little to no personal downside (opportunity cost, which they will point to, is not real downside). Dodd-Frank tries to tackle it but ineffectively. Dodd-Frank's problem is that it focuses on many costly non-issues while not addressing vital segments of the industry that require regulation. In 2005, I was sold on the '99 repeal of Glass Steagall by Gramm Leach Bliley. Yet, in my time in a top investment bank, many of the contradictions of the common banking model started to come to light. I had decided for myself before 2008 that common investors (through retail bank accounts or pension fund / mutual fund investments) weren't sufficiently rewarded for the profits their funds enabled the investment bankers to make. I didn't expect the bail out so I thought common investors would fit the bill whenever losses mounted, although partners (stock holders eventually as more of these banks IPOed) would a hit too. As it turned out, the buck stopped with the taxpayer. Cbs, if you're with a hedge fund, as many of my friends are, nothing I can tell you will seem to justify the regulations you are starting to face, and that's the only reason I can see for you to be against it. For everyone else, the fact is, this regulation replaces the board supervision and investor manager prudence that have been found wanting.

Much has been written on the topic by experts, who have put far more thought on it than I have, so don't just believe that Krugman is shit because O'Reilly says so. Read his work and figure out for himself. Or read any of the other neutral economists.

Being an employee of a major bank in New York and currently working in Washington, I can tell you that problem isn't Wall Street.. Its the K street.. I see everyday, how the lobbyists work and get favorable legislation in their favor..My golf buddy is a lawyer in Rudy Giulianni's law firm in Washington and if you hear some of the stories about how public policy is toyed with, it will blow your mind..
Plus I see everyday about the Govt. waste across Federal Agencies and scumbags who wouldn't survive a job at McDs, stick in Govt. for years, doing nothing.. collecting 100k+ and lifetime pensions.. it just makes you sick... And when you realize the tax you pay, makes these mo-fos rich and bolster their safety nets.. you do imitate the crew on Monday Night Football and say.. "Come on , Man"

There aren't any saints in any party.. its just pick your poison and pick your sector.. Big Oil/ Insurance for the Reds.. Unions/Green Energy thugs/Big Govt. Contractors for the Blues.. Finance Companies/ Banks.. we pay everyone, it works both ways..

[cbpds1]

Well said Champu,
"its just pick your poison and pick your sector."

Pedro, I dont like Rush, Coulter or the Jessie Jacksons either, stop talking abt the extreme right or left , it will make our discussion futile.

Guess we need a centrist party

Being an employee of a major bank in New York and currently working in Washington, I can tell you that problem isn't Wall Street.. Its the K street.. I see everyday, how the lobbyists work and get favorable legislation in their favor..My golf buddy is a lawyer in Rudy Giulianni's law firm in Washington and if you hear some of the stories about how public policy is toyed with, it will blow your mind..
Plus I see everyday about the Govt. waste across Federal Agencies and scumbags who wouldn't survive a job at McDs, stick in Govt. for years, doing nothing.. collecting 100k+ and lifetime pensions.. it just makes you sick... And when you realize the tax you pay, makes these mo-fos rich and bolster their safety nets.. you do imitate the crew on Monday Night Football and say.. "Come on , Man"

There aren't any saints in any party.. its just pick your poison and pick your sector.. Big Oil/ Insurance for the Reds.. Unions/Green Energy thugs/Big Govt. Contractors for the Blues.. Finance Companies/ Banks.. we pay everyone, it works both ways..

[qesehmk]

ChampU K street is a hire gun of wall street and corporate America. More later. Hard to type on phone.

Being an employee of a major bank in New York and currently working in Washington, I can tell you that problem isn't Wall Street.. Its the K street.. I see everyday, how the lobbyists work and get favorable legislation in their favor..My golf buddy is a lawyer in Rudy Giulianni's law firm in Washington and if you hear some of the stories about how public policy is toyed with, it will blow your mind..
Plus I see everyday about the Govt. waste across Federal Agencies and scumbags who wouldn't survive a job at McDs, stick in Govt. for years, doing nothing.. collecting 100k+ and lifetime pensions.. it just makes you sick... And when you realize the tax you pay, makes these mo-fos rich and bolster their safety nets.. you do imitate the crew on Monday Night Football and say.. "Come on , Man"

There aren't any saints in any party.. its just pick your poison and pick your sector.. Big Oil/ Insurance for the Reds.. Unions/Green Energy thugs/Big Govt. Contractors for the Blues.. Finance Companies/ Banks.. we pay everyone, it works both ways..

[cbpds1]

Pedro,
The majority of the people like voter id laws
http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-h...9#.UCvTzqDrSSp

The voter id law applies to the whole state and republican governors are doing it, why dont the dem governors do the same !!

The more I discuss with u, it seems u are emotionally a lefty but practically a centrist, takes time to change

Never heard of the Black Panther threats, so I think it must be some obscure issue that Fox is talking up. From what i've read (in the WSJ, Time and the Economist), there is no evidence for any voter fraud. The 1000s that you allege have no basis - just complaints by Republicans. In any case, I have no issue with voter ID requirements. As long as you're making it equally difficult for everyone it's difficult to argue against. My issue was with selectively disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts in Ohio compared to Republican districts. That is unethical, and i'm surprised not illegal.

[geterdone]

this is all i got to say:
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...n-foil-hat.jpg

Well said Champu,
"its just pick your poison and pick your sector."

Pedro, I dont like Rush, Coulter or the Jessie Jacksons either, stop talking abt the extreme right or left , it will make our discussion futile.

Guess we need a centrist party

[ChampU]

Pedro,

Regarding your point about the Keystone Pipeline and CO2 emissions... I don't get the correlation.. Even if the Keystone Pipeline does not go through, the US will use gas from other sources..they crude will have to be refined and it will generate CO2 exhausts, anyways.. I don't see where the "additional" billions of tons would come from.. The crude refinement may not happen in the US but i dont think it matters where the Co2 exhausts come from. If you are talking about additional energy expenditure of pumping it over the Rockies, then help me understand how that is less efficient than shipping it from the world's most volatile waters.
Regards to problem with Bangladesh and the world's rising Oceans.. Understand this that the demands for energy are going to rise no matter what the environmentalists say.. India and China.. A third of the world's population is about to breakthrough towards development and they need energy.. Do you think that Indians who face a mega shortage of energy and have to basic necessaities would listen to the environmentalists sitting in A/c cabins lecturing them about rising waters?? What are they supposed to do?? Live in dark and Cook on woodfires so that the liberals can protect some purple assed crab's environment? Why dont we do this.. Since all the Dems worry so much about the rising levels of waters in Bangladesh, they stop using A/C or any other "luxury materialistic energy hogging pleasures".. How about that?

Funny how you talked about only the correlation of co2 and rising waters when Co2 is not even the largest GHG and a bulk of the CO2 on the planet has nothing to do with Energy..Most of the sources are natural..

The real reason for opposition to Keystone pipeline is it would have helped solve the energy crisis at home.. So the Al Gores of the world who have invested billions in "clean energy" of the Solyndra kind would have been seen running around with wind turbines up theirs..See all this care for environment is just a disguised and pathetic way to fill their pockets..

[qesehmk]

ChampU - the debate we are having is not whether personally for YOU whether democrats or republicans make sense. Sure republican policies are good for high income / high net worth people. So if you are one of those then good for you.

The debate we are having is - is it good for the country and society. Just go back in the history and look at FDR and what he did. Why ? Just go back and look at what Lyndon Johnson did. All those things would be considered absolutely socialistic in nature. However, a lot of those things (social security, infrastructure, big projects, internet, defense research, equal opportunity, fairness in employment and so on and so forth) are things that really gave USA the competitive edge sicne WWII.

Progressive taxation is universally accepted by economists. The simple reason behind progrssive taxation is the law of diminishing returns on an individuals amassed wealth for the society as a whole. Estate and inheritance taxes exist for the same reason. Wealth is killed when accumulated. Wealth lies in products and services creation and consumption. When accumulated, one is only accumulating future claims and creating a gurantee for his ability to consume at a future date without doing anything then.

Republicans being antiimiigrant - I would stand by that. The amnesty is driven more by business lobbying rather than republicans love for immigrants. Dems on the other hand oppose immigration for fear of losing jobs rather than fundamentally being hateful of other cultures. Thats a crucial difference.

One simple reason why anybody should vote Dem this time around is because republicans will destroy American fabric. They have become a party with narrow ideas, narrow identity and narrow interests. Dems are slight better in practice and a lot better in theory.But I do grant that they are nearly same.

If i were to accept the Democratic party's accusation that the Republicans cater only to the rich, it would want me to vote Republican even more strongly coz thats what i came to this country for.. To become rich......


Would you think its fair for being taxed a little extra for your success?
...
And we are gonna tax that spirit and the hardwork?

Another false propoganda is Republicans are "anti-immigrants"..

Can anyone supporting the left please give me a few good reasons why I should vote Dem?

Q

Obama implemented health care reform which no presidenct could do in past century. and Dodd-Frank too

bieber - yes. Agree. But abortion rights, gay rights, guns and wars is where dems agenda has not been pushed much.

Pedro
No need for sorry brother

I just read you suggested Paul Krugman, that's the path to Europe

bieber - Europe's problems are not out of Austrian economics. They primarily stem from having a monetary union without a political union which is then prohibiting them to make right choices. What you quote "path to Europe" is a clever propoganda from those who are financially motivated for more stimulus. We should be careful in catching these kind of terms on the fly and recycling them. Sorry - don't mean to be rude.

Atleast Oreilly doesnt swoon to Obama like the mainstream media does,

...

Paul Krugman is the equivalent scam thats u pointed on the right.

...
If you want to move towards socialism, then u shd head to Europe,

....
I understand we have to give money to poor or needy,
..

Obama talked abt honest govt , but he is a proven liar in chief, did u see how he rammed his fellow dems to pass healthcare.
...

What abt fast and furious, what abt crony capitalism, the very essence of political corrupition in India(pay back donors with fed projects)

cbpds1 - i think swooning or not to obama is not a qualification or disqualification. That shouldn't matter. When I check the list of things you said above - its hard to argue since all of them are opinions at best and baseless accusations picked from right at worst. Instead if you write your analysis your words and your logic, it would be a better way to have a dialogue.

If you run a business , You did not build it, qesehmk.org was not built by Q but Obama

This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one

[bieber]

'Equivalent'? He's won the Nobel prize, and probably has more degrees than Coulter, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh put together.

Pedro brother

I knew it will come

The people who oppose Krugman are also nobel prize winners,
Did you see the journal yesterday, 400 economists (4 of them with Nobel) supported Romney plan over Obamas (tax rich and spend)

[bieber]

Surely you know better than to spout that lie. Surely you know that Romney is quoting him out of context there. Surely you know that Obama was referring to the infrastructure in place to help businesses succeed. If you buy that crap from Fox news, I think you're beyond hope.

EDIT:- The above possibly comes across as a personal attack. If so, I apologize. I'll leave it to Q or the other mods to delete if they see fit.

As Romney said, the context is even worse than quote.
by the way, how did govt pay for those roads and bridges? it's the money that people paid as taxes, so it's not a winning argument to say that you didn't build that

and there is a reason in this world, why there are fewer employers than employees, it's risk taking. Obama would never understand this.
he is a good person genuinely, but he never gets what it takes to run a business and tackle economy

[bieber]

Q
I have been following Krugman for long time, his idea is big government. it's definitely path to Europe it's not propaganda for sure.

There are people who get respect from both parties and they laugh at what Krugman proposes each time. if a new 5-6 T debt created less than 2% growth in GDP it doesn't take Nobel to acknowledge it's not working. administration borrows 40 cents on every dollar they spend, and the growth that comes out is less than a dollar, you can see where it's leading to (to maintain 1 dollar income, gdp needs to grow at 3%)

[ChampU]

Q,

Ofcourse, i was looking out for whats good for me, when i said I'd vote republican.. But isn't it what an individual looks for when s/he votes...
Sure, through some of the Democtatic policies, the safety net for the poor/middle class exists.. And it is equally true that the Dems can never live within a budget.. When they run out of money alloted for a program they borrow from programs that they shouldn't or come back to the taxpayer for more.. Can any Dem politician guarantee that the Social Security and Medicare program would exist and i would get the same benefits that people are reaping today, If i pay the money i am paying today?
If not, why? Is it my fault that i'm in the back of the line and therefore i'm screwed?? Please don't tell me that its ok to get screwed, just because I can afford to pay a little bit more.. Given a choice, i'd much rather spend the money somewhere else or donate to a charity of my choice..

I agree stagnation of wealth, destroys it.. But its also true that those who know how to accumulate wealth, also know how to make it grow.... And to have 40% of the population not pay taxes and expect more and more off those who do isn't a sign of a healthy society.. To have millions of healthy individuals who are addicted to public welfare does not help a nation rise.. It just helps a politician get a vote.. Coz a vote by a thoughtless hungry man given a loaf of bread counts just as much as the vote of a person who works hard to earn it..except that the former is happy with the free bread and doesn't ask any questions..

I'll end my posts on this topic, with a video of what i truly believe in.. You may say i'm cocky, arrogant and don't care about the society/environment but its not so.. I just can't stand it when people blame everything on someone else and refuse to take responsibility for their actions..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

I'm sorry, if I might have across as someone who is imposing his personal opinions on a general discussion..

[cbpds1]

Q,

Republicans being antiimiigrant - I would stand by that. The amnesty is driven more by business lobbying rather than republicans love for immigrants. Dems on the other hand oppose immigration for fear of losing jobs rather than fundamentally being hateful of other cultures. Thats a crucial difference.
cbpds1----hey Q, Dems wud not care a rats ass if it wasnt for votes, they try to keep minority blocks as latinos are an every growing population, its pure votes nothing else, if this was the case why Harry reid is holding up on HR 3012?


One simple reason why anybody should vote Dem this time around is because republicans will destroy American fabric. They have become a party with narrow ideas, narrow identity and narrow interests. Dems are slight better in practice and a lot better in theory.But I do grant that they are nearly same.
Q---guess ur watching msnbc all the time, can you tell how repubs have become narrow on ideas, Pedro likes many of repubs ideas except for social issues, O spent 5 trillion and still the under- emeployment acc to gallup is 17%, its like talking and u still want to vote for him after the points below?
Obama said
“I promise that I support traditional marriage-1 man-1 woman.
“I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”.
“I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”.
“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.
“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.
“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”.
"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."
“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”.
“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration."
"I'll close Guantanamo."
"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."
"I'll unite the people of this great country."
It's like a comedy routine! But it's no laughing matter!



cbpds1 - i think swooning or not to obama is not a qualification or disqualification. That shouldn't matter. When I check the list of things you said above - its hard to argue since all of them are opinions at best and baseless accusations picked from right at worst. Instead if you write your analysis your words and your logic, it would be a better way to have a dialogue.
----THe news channels need to be independant and apply the same yardstick to Dems and rep, if its not happ then its purely biased, Oreilly tries to present both of them, u cant sit and tell me that msnbc is independant either.
MSNBC does not have the highest ratings like Oreilly and lots of independants watch his show, show some credibility for this man.

This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one

This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one [/QUOTE]
Probably i gave the wrong example of your site, google or facebook did not build their business on govt' help, in terms of internet etc, the people paid the govt to invest in research, do u really say the govt built the internet?

[cbpds1]

Imagine the kind of HARD questions the prez gets to answer, and Q says the media is not in the tank for him
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...152537128.html

[bieber]

Imagine the kind of HARD questions the prez gets to answer, and Q says the media is not in the tank for him
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...152537128.html

LOL

Imagine Paul Ryan saying Virginia in Carolina and 'back in chains' and media would cry like there is nothing else matters

on the other side, Obama called Bush unpatriotic for debt and promised he would cut it half in first term, otherwise he should not be contesting 2nd term (his own words, also before superbowl in 2009) and what happened
he added more debt than what Bush did in 8 years, no follow up

he told american ppl thagt HC law is not tax, his lawyers argued it's tax (not penalty) in SC, no follow up

he and his party repeatedly lies that Ryan plan would end medicare for seniors, the plan won't touch any body over 55 and Obama team took 700 billion from medicare to sponser HC reform and they don't talk a word about it

[Pedro Gonzales]

As Romney said, the context is even worse than quote.
by the way, how did govt pay for those roads and bridges? it's the money that people paid as taxes, so it's not a winning argument to say that you didn't build that

and there is a reason in this world, why there are fewer employers than employees, it's risk taking. Obama would never understand this.
he is a good person genuinely, but he never gets what it takes to run a business and tackle economy

That's a weak cop out, brother. First, misquote the man, then when the lie is pointed out, make a tangential argument to try to distract the issue.

If you agree that Obama didn't say that business owners didn't build their business, you ought not to bring it up. Period.

As to your latest argument, of course, the government builds these through taxes. Not every country is a Norway or Saudi Arabia, rich in resources that it can exploit without taxing the public. The point is, if the government hadn't taxed and built this infrastructure, it wouldn't have got built.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Q,
Pedro likes many of repubs ideas except for social issues,

I said no such thing. I like many Republican ideals. Unfortunately, except for Ron Paul, no Republican stands by your ideals anymore.

Probably i gave the wrong example of your site, google or facebook did not build their business on govt' help, in terms of internet etc, the people paid the govt to invest in research, do u really say the govt built the internet?

Of course the government built the internet. Who paid taxes for it is irrelevant. If the government hadn't funded it through DARPA it wouldn't have got built.

[bieber]

That's a weak cop out, brother. First, misquote the man, then when the lie is pointed out, make a tangential argument to try to distract the issue.

If you agree that Obama didn't say that business owners didn't build their business, you ought not to bring it up. Period.

As to your latest argument, of course, the government builds these through taxes. Not every country is a Norway or Saudi Arabia, rich in resources that it can exploit without taxing the public. The point is, if the government hadn't taxed and built this infrastructure, it wouldn't have got built.

When Dems say context is different, I talk about context.
Now, after I talk about context, you say, because I talked about context, I lost mu argument on quote

Both the quote and context mean the same thing, you didn't build it, somebody else (govt) made it happen

[Pedro Gonzales]

he and his party repeatedly lies that Ryan plan would end medicare for seniors, the plan won't touch any body over 55 and Obama team took 700 billion from medicare to sponser HC reform and they don't talk a word about it

Reading from Karl Rowe's talking points i see. Obama's campaign line is 'end Medicare as we know it', doesn't mention anything about who it will affect. The onus is on Ryan and Romney to clarify that it won't touch those who are 55 or over today. Also, would you like to check on what those $700bn of cuts are, and get back to us? Hint: They're not cuts to entitlement (if they had been, I'm sure you righties would have praised him to the moon).