2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected

[Estonian dude]

Wait, it's a bit more complicated still. We have income tax of 30-something % for everybody, yet everyone has free public healthcare and it is great. Education is also free. And the tax is the same for everybody, no matter how much you earn.

But I meant flat VAT of 20%. I think it is VAT, that gets added to everything you buy from stores.

[obfuscator]

You pay 20% sales tax? Brutal...

 

Here we pay 13% sales tax (on non-essentials), and I pay about 23% income tax. Income tax goes as high as 40% to as low as 18% I think.

[Estonian dude]

That 20% ain't brutal at all. If you consider what we get from the government. And well, food and everyday objects are still a lot cheaper than they are in the USA.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not calling them lazy, they have no incentive to change. One of the crowning jewel's in Obama's progressive policy was to remove the work requirement from means tested welfare. Also, when you have 99 paid weeks to find a new job, where's the incentive to find work?

This is an argument based on an incredible amount of ignorance. You're acting as if people on welfare receive anything close to the working average wage.

Cite numbers then. Because I can tell you in 2011 America spent more than $1 trillion on means tested welfare.

 

E: http://www.foxbusine...r-cost-welfare/

That trillion figure means nothing without context. Is it for 800,000 people, or is it for eight million people? The economic consequences and the political points change quite drastically if you put that figure into any kind of perspective and analyse it properly.

 

While the unemployment insurance schemes in America are fraught with various complexities, both on a state-by-state level and on a personal level, therefore making it very difficult to draw a representative, national figure, the average UI compensation packets only add up to about a third of the average working wage of the geographical region they are awarded in (Tobey/Washington Post, 2010). Clearly, missing out on the remaining two thirds of the average working wage isn't enough incentive for people who are unemployed to find work...

 

Call it 100 million people, and instead they could've cut a check of more than $10,000 to each of them for the same amount. Or 47 million, the number of people on food stamps, and the number becomes more than $21,000.

Yes, unemployment costs the state massively in social support and the loss in GDP because there's less jobs filled. They also cost healthcare systems, because the unemployed are generally not as healthy as their employed counterparts, especially when it comes to mental health. Why are you so surprised by this? Shall we depart on a mass murder of old people too? They act as a drain on society, moneywise.

 

Why is it you seem to be making emotional appeals (A TRILLION DOLLARS?!?!) rather than reasoned logic as to why you think unemployment benefits--despite having a set time limit and despite only giving a third of what the average American picks up in a month, therefore leaving many of their fellow Americans below the poverty line by quite some distance--act as a disincentive from finding work?

[Estonian dude]

Come on, you silly 'Muricans, your unemployment benefits are nothing compared to some European countries. And somehow, the more socialist ones (I mean Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland here) don't have such large foreign debts or lack of money as you.

[obfuscator]

That 20% ain't brutal at all. If you consider what we get from the government. And well, food and everyday objects are still a lot cheaper than they are in the USA.

 

I'm Canadian - we have free healthcare and education too. Can't speak for item prices.

 

Come on, you silly 'Muricans, your unemployment benefits are nothing compared to some European countries. And somehow, the more socialist ones (I mean Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland here) don't have such large foreign debts or lack of money as you.

 

Stop doing this. It's insulting, not funny or clever, and has no place in a serious conversation.

[Estonian dude]

OK, Canada is an awesome country and I don't know that much about it, so I can't comment other than that your prices are way higher than ours.

And them 'Muricans has grown into me, but if you say so, I will stop it, and I will refer to you everybody as Americans. Deal?

 

Anyways, I hope that Obama does try to decide more on his own, instead of relying too much on advisors. And a prosperous 4 years to you all.

[obfuscator]

I don't particularly care, I'm not american (well not really). But calling them "Americans" is much more suitable and polite.

[sees_all1]

Why is it you seem to be making emotional appeals (A TRILLION DOLLARS?!?!) rather than reasoned logic as to why you think unemployment benefits--despite having a set time limit and despite only giving a third of what the average American picks up in a month, therefore leaving many of their fellow Americans below the poverty line by quite some distance--act as a disincentive from finding work?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313429/keep-pay-raise-i-can-t-afford-it-michael-g-franc#

Our 80 or so federal welfare programs are designed so that benefits phase out as incomes rise. Fair enough. After all, the government’s generosity must end somewhere. Neither Warren Buffet nor the typical middle-income family should receive even one dollar of food stamps or other welfare assistance, right?

But this feature of welfare — the necessity of phasing out benefits as incomes rise — brings a serious moral hazard. In many cases, economists have calculated, welfare recipients who enter the work force or receive pay raises lose a dollar or more of benefits for each additional dollar they earn. The system makes fools of those who work hard.

[Donnie]

yeah they are. and if China was to launch an invasion against the united states what weapon would be used to fight them? Stealth bombers or nukes? probably nukes

 

with the othes you probably never heard of lodge practice until now, and i doubt you even read the article ot see how it was destroyed. You probably have some belief that the great recession was caused by lack of regulations. Social security would be a challenge because of current obligations to people whove paid into it 20+ years. But the best approach is everyone under 50 has the choice whether or not to continue and everyone under 30 has to switch to an IRA based retirement plan.

 

If china ever invaded the United states and nukes were used, there would be no world left to worry about. If anything you should be pushing for dismantling the nuclear weapons program rather than the military.

 

I think that the size of the US military could be reduced...but a country that large cannot maintain a completely isolationist foreign policy which is what they'd have to effectively do if they had no military.

 

The recession was not caused by lack of regulation, but lack of regulation certainly contributed.

 

Canada seems to be doing fine. Russia to my knowledge hasn't fought a battle since the cold war ended.

 

The united states is in a politically stable region and doesn't need a military for defense. Also the US is the biggest market in the world so any country that wants to sell products would want to trade with us. Unless your talking about using the military to have artificially low prices on goods, but that doesn't really justify the cost of the military.

 

China would never declare war with us because of nukes, even if their military is twice our size in the year 2050 they wouldnt touch us for that reason alone.

 

 

the recession was not caused by lack of regulations AT ALL. The sub prime sector was the most heavily regulated part of the economy and thats the part that failed. if you want to see the meat of the scam that caused the recession I posted a link to a short youtube video explaining the factual elements of the recession.

 

Here you go:

 

 

yeah they are. and if China was to launch an invasion against the united states what weapon would be used to fight them? Stealth bombers or nukes? probably nukes

 

with the othes you probably never heard of lodge practice until now, and i doubt you even read the article ot see how it was destroyed. You probably have some belief that the great recession was caused by lack of regulations. Social security would be a challenge because of current obligations to people whove paid into it 20+ years. But the best approach is everyone under 50 has the choice whether or not to continue and everyone under 30 has to switch to an IRA based retirement plan.

 

"Nuke all enemies" is not an acceptable method of handling defence.

A nuke obliterates everything in its blast radius, and poisons the ecosystem surrounding it for decades. A large barrage of nukes could render an entire country uninhabitable.

Do you honestly believe that if China were to attack us we would be justified in the genocidal slaughter of billions of human beings?

 

Say that China attacks India. Would you nuke them then?

They've taken over India and are massing arms. How about now?

They've taken Japan. Well?

Their warships are cutting off our sea trade and preventing us from trading. Any ships they catch are confiscated. Will you nuke them?

They invade Mexico. Shall we nuke?

Canada falls. Is it time?

When do you draw the line? At what moment does it become permissable to obliterate an entire people?

 

And this isn't even getting into the small stuff, like dealing with pirates and protecting ambassadors.

I'm not addressing the rest of the stuff right now, but to say that a country does not require a military is dangerously nieve.

 

1.) China attacks india is none of our business. If we had a mutual protection pact with India then yes it would be the same as a Chinese lead invasion against the state of California.

2.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with india.

3.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with Japan

4.) Yes that is a declaration of war. Give them warning that if they steal 1 more american ship that we will treat it as a declaration of war.

5.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with Mexico, which we do called NAFTA.

6.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with Canada, which we do called NAFTA.

 

7.) When should nuclear war be an option if the United States had no conventional military

A.) A deliberate and continued attack on United States citizen and territories.

B.) A deliberate and continued attack on a country we have a mutual protection pact (ie: NATO)

C.) A refusal to stop said attacks when the threat of nuclear war is stated

 

8.) I would keep the national guard still and keep the current numbers they have, but disband every other branch of the military. Plus actually allowing merchant ships to carry arms stops piracy. What a concept, thats why you got pirate problems because they exploit those disarmament laws. Even keeping just the national guard and a minimal navy and airforce you would be saving 750B+ a year. Even with a 50B budget we would still have one of the largest military budgets in the world.

[obfuscator]

 

Canada seems to be doing fine. Russia to my knowledge hasn't fought a battle since the cold war ended.

 

Yet both countries have sizeable militaries. Not to mention that the only reason Canada's military is less than NATO's reccommendation is because the american military compensates.

 

The united states is in a politically stable region and doesn't need a military for defense. Also the US is the biggest market in the world so any country that wants to sell products would want to trade with us. Unless your talking about using the military to have artificially low prices on goods, but that doesn't really justify the cost of the military.

 

A politically stable region? Increased globalization has put and is putting that term in the garbage. The world is every developed country's region now.

 

China would never declare war with us because of nukes, even if their military is twice our size in the year 2050 they wouldnt touch us for that reason alone.

 

Just like the US wouldn't touch china because of their nukes. Hence your nuclear point is irrelevant unless you believe either of those world leaders are stupid enough to cause the end of the world.

 

the recession was not caused by lack of regulations AT ALL. The sub prime sector was the most heavily regulated part of the economy and thats the part that failed. if you want to see the meat of the scam that caused the recession I posted a link to a short youtube video explaining the factual elements of the recession.

 

CBA watching vid. Perhaps later.

 

 

 

1.) China attacks india is none of our business. If we had a mutual protection pact with India then yes it would be the same as a Chinese lead invasion against the state of California.

2.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with india.

3.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with Japan

 

None of your business? How about when all of a sudden all of your imports from those two countries are gone because they're using them to fight a war? I don't know about regulations, but that's a sure-fire way to cause a depression.

 

4.) Yes that is a declaration of war. Give them warning that if they steal 1 more american ship that we will treat it as a declaration of war.

5.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with Mexico, which we do called NAFTA.

6.) None of our business unless we had an alliance with Canada, which we do called NAFTA.

 

And how is the US going to go to war without a military?

 

7.) When should nuclear war be an option if the United States had no conventional military

A.) A deliberate and continued attack on United States citizen and territories.

B.) A deliberate and continued attack on a country we have a mutual protection pact (ie: NATO)

C.) A refusal to stop said attacks when the threat of nuclear war is stated

 

I don't think you understand the nature of nuclear war. You don't just "use a nuke" and be done with it. Any country that has nuclear weapons will retaliate against a nuclear strike with a further nuclear strike, and vice versa until the entire world is destroyed.

 

If the attacking country has no nuclear weaponry initiating with a nuke would never be justified.

 

8.) I would keep the national guard still and keep the current numbers they have, but disband every other branch of the military. Plus actually allowing merchant ships to carry arms stops piracy. What a concept, thats why you got pirate problems because they exploit those disarmament laws. Even keeping just the national guard and a minimal navy and airforce you would be saving 750B+ a year. Even with a 50B budget we would still have one of the largest military budgets in the world.

 

So now you don't want to disband the military completely? I'm a little unclear.

[Donnie]

1.) those countries wouldn't be gone.

2.) well im not sure whats changed. Globalization means governments are more willing to negotiate then ever before and less likely to seek wars then ever before. Besides theres ways to deal with pirates as is.

3.) the entire world is destroyed? If you shoot a nuke at china and given china has nukes and retaliates. At worst a large portion of both those countries would be destroyed at best the threat stops the situation from happening. Unless the political situation is set up in that way I wouldnt expect other countries to join the bandwagon. Whether or not the country has nukes of their own doesn't matter, because of the requirements I would have for going to war. (Much differnet then bushes)

4.) well the national guard isn't an offensive military so yes I am consistent in my views. I recognise the importance of a civil military presence in some disaster situations which the national guard is perfectly capable of handling.

[jasignhagj]

I'm curious what the House of Reps popular vote will end up being. Republicans really gerrymandered the hell out of states Pennsylvania and Ohio.

 

EDIT: Berg conceded the ND senate race, so the final senate should be 54D - 45R - 1I, depending on who King decided to caucus with.

[obfuscator]

1.) those countries wouldn't be gone.

 

Not sure what you're getting at?

2.) well im not sure whats changed. Globalization means governments are more willing to negotiate then ever before and less likely to seek wars then ever before. Besides theres ways to deal with pirates as is.

 

Globalization means economies and governments are linked more than ever before. 100 years ago, the US could afford to not give a shit what happens in Iran. No longer.

 

3.) the entire world is destroyed? If you shoot a nuke at china and given china has nukes and retaliates. At worst a large portion of both those countries would be destroyed at best the threat stops the situation from happening. Unless the political situation is set up in that way I wouldnt expect other countries to join the bandwagon. Whether or not the cou

ntry has nukes of their own doesn't matter, because of the requirements I would have for going to war. (Much differnet then bushes)

 

Do you know what nuclear fallout is? If all of china and all of the US were nuked, the fallout would cover the entire planet I imagine within a matter of weeks. Nuclear weapons are not typical explosives, where the damage is typically local to the area of detonation.

 

What are these requirements you speak of? I find it hard to imagine a situation where a country will just accept being nuked.

 

Make fun of bush all you want - if your plan includes actively using nuclear weapons bush had leagues more common sense.

 

 

4.) well the national guard isn't an offensive military so yes I am consistent in my views. I recognise the importance of a civil military presence in some disaster situations which the national guard is perfectly capable of handling.

 

That's a flip-flop on your previous views that no military is necessary.

[chenw]

Without nukes there will be no threat to MAD (Mutally assured destruction), without MAD there would have been more wars (Cold war, without having Nukes, would have outright blown into a WWIII or even IV).

 

It isn't about how likely the MAD would occur, we can all concur that the chances of it happening is bloody slim (otherwise we would not be here having this conversation), but the mere threat of it is enough to deter full all-out war against each other. Without it, the world we know it may actually be in ruins.

[sees_all1]

MAD isn't a deterrent to martyrs, which is why unstable regions can't have nukes or stable regions with nukes can't become unstable. Hence, the need for foreign policy.

[Omar]

That 20% ain't brutal at all. If you consider what we get from the government. And well, food and everyday objects are still a lot cheaper than they are in the USA.

The way improvement happens in a capitalist system is through competition. The government isn't some god that can figure out the best way to do things, but when businesses compete with their each other, since innovation is rewarded by profits, the best (cheapest) way to provide the services you're paying the government for emerges.

[TTanT]

Donnie, I'd also like to question something:

If, say, Cuba got some insane new leader who had 0 common sense and attacked us with their army, would you nuke Cuba?

Because:

1. You'd be commiting genocide on all Cubans because they got stuck with a crazy [wagon] dictator. I don't see how you can justify that.
    
   
2. The fallout would cause extreme sickness in the Southern US.
    
   
3. To actually kill the invading army you would have to nuke your own land.
   

This is adding on to the points of sees and obfuscator of course.

 

You're basically saying that if the US stopped interacting with the world in general we'd never have to worry about some crazy tossing a nuke at us. Unless you want to start nuking every country that looks at us funny, in which case you're committing mass genocide regularly just because you're too cheap to use weapons that are less blindly destructive than nukes.

[The_Gabe]

Wow, why is there so much extreme negativity towards Obama? I'm far from a fanboy, I see the appeal that Romney had and don't think he'd be that much worse than Obama, though I'm still moderately happy about the outcome. But I have to say the amount of gloom surprises me...

 

I'm looking forward to see what can be accomplished in these next four years.

 

Probably the same thing he achieved in the past 4 years. Nothing.

 

There are enough things he's done. You don't have to like them, but I don't really see how you can say he achieved nothing. Besides, it's somewhat understandable with Republicans controlling the house of representatives for a good part of his term.

 

 

 

I stayed up til 4:40am (or there abouts) last night watching the BBC coverage down in my University's student bar... The atmosphere there was almost tangible, and the relief and celebration we had, even here in England, was amazing... So much happier Obama is in. I sincerely worried for the safety of the world when I read about some of the things Romney has said over his election campaign.

 

Still... 4 more years of the best man for the job sitting in the Whitehouse!

 

In before a nuclear Iran, 20 trillion in debt, breaking ties in with Israel, and support of more Muslim countries.

 

Iran: What exactly should he have done/do to prevent it? Start another war? Be more restrictive, because that has worked so well? The Iranian government is so opposed to America that trying to get any progress done is unbelievably difficult. And does another war sound like a good idea?

 

Debt: Fair enough, it's the biggest issue I have with him too. But the last years were the worst recession since 1929. There is only so much a government can do to fix the economy, and without stimulus packages it gets really difficult. Romney also didn't exactly seem to have a great plan to deal with the deficit, though I'd concede that he'd probably do better on this issue than Obama, although the question would be what he sacrifices for it.

 

Breaking ties with Israel: What? The USA is far from doing that...Obama won't do it either. And tbh, I feel/have felt? at times that some less support, or rather, some equalizing support for Palestineans wouldn't be bad for trying to solve that issue. While Palestina is the more hostile, Israel hasn't been acting like a lamb either and as it's a problem between two parties, you have to work with both to fix it, trying to find some common ground.

 

More support for muslim countries: Lol? And what's so horrible about that? Everyone has a right to their religion. And while it surely plays a part in how the country behaves, it's far from all of it. Judge a a country/government by its actions, not its main religion...and again, some support might help to be able to work better together

 

 

Have you honestly not felt the recent tensions between the United States and Israel? Or how Obama is blowing off Netanyahu as "noise"?

 

I would think it is rather messed up that America is giving foreign aid to Muslim countries that are so anti-Americans, that protests with killing and flag burning is the norm whenever they find something to offend them. Or maybe it's the fact that they let US Embassies get attacked (Hint: Egypt). The United States needs to cut off all foreign aid to those countries. There is no negotiating or building friendly relations with those people.

[Omar]

Not even biased though.

[The_Gabe]

Not even biased though.

 

Look up the facts.

[Donnie]

touche.

 

Well I was wrong about the military point. You would need some sort of army even if your a nuclear state. Does it need to be as expensive as the US army? probably not. Do you need to invade Iran even in a globalized economy to maintain order? I dont think so. But who knows I could be wrong, I already was wrong with nuclear deterrent based military. Your right its not feasible against a cuba type country and the fallout would make them unusable.

 

 

I still hold to a completely free market health care has existed in every western economy and if it was still around today would cost $64 a year (not subsided at all) for excellent healthcare. Saving Well over a trillion a year in the US. Lodge practice is what it was called if you are interested in what a completely free market healthcare system looks like.

 

Market interventions are always bad. The great recession is a good example of that especially when you actually look at why it occurred and why the bail outs are a bad idea. The greece bailouts are an interesting one as well, once again its just a patch on the problem. Japan also has had market stagnation in recent times because of interventions too.

[decebal]

Have you honestly not felt the recent tensions between the United States and Israel? Or how Obama is blowing off Netanyahu as "noise"?

 

I would think it is rather messed up that America is giving foreign aid to Muslim countries that are so anti-Americans, that protests with killing and flag burning is the norm whenever they find something to offend them. Or maybe it's the fact that they let US Embassies get attacked (Hint: Egypt). The United States needs to cut off all foreign aid to those countries. There is no negotiating or building friendly relations with those people.

Netanyahu is calling for a strike on Iran, Obama wants to avoid another costly war. I'd call him "noise", too, if I were him. Netanyahu's beliefs, while I find them to have certain merit, border fanaticism and desperation. Netanyahu is lucky he is still able to talk to the US after Pollard's conviction.

 

As for the extremists burning and spitting on the American flag: why widen the gap with them? Why cut off the entire country because of a few bad apples? Why create enemies?

[champion]

 

Some interesting data on religion v. voting data, showing Jews still overwhelmingly supporting Obama.

[The_Gabe]

Have you honestly not felt the recent tensions between the United States and Israel? Or how Obama is blowing off Netanyahu as "noise"?

 

I would think it is rather messed up that America is giving foreign aid to Muslim countries that are so anti-Americans, that protests with killing and flag burning is the norm whenever they find something to offend them. Or maybe it's the fact that they let US Embassies get attacked (Hint: Egypt). The United States needs to cut off all foreign aid to those countries. There is no negotiating or building friendly relations with those people.

Netanyahu is calling for a strike on Iran, Obama wants to avoid another costly war. I'd call him "noise", too, if I were him. Netanyahu's beliefs, while I find them to have certain merit, border fanaticism and desperation. Netanyahu is lucky he is still able to talk to the US after Pollard's conviction.

 

As for the extremists burning and spitting on the American flag: why widen the gap with them? Why cut off the entire country because of a few bad apples? Why create enemies?

 

There is no way to avoid an eventual war with Iran.

 

The US isn't creating enemies. The enemies are already there.