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

[sees_all1]

My great grandmother also isn't progressive, nor does she have Romney-care. Is she a valid Presidential candidate?

And precisely why is big government always a bad idea? I'm sure a small government would have struggled to bail out banks in 2008-9 etc, a problem caused by a lack of regulation and small government approach to banking.

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her.

 

Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Big government caused the problem.

[Celt23]

If Paul wins the nomination (brokered convention etc) then I'll vote for him. If not, it will be Romney or Obama and I'd rather have Obama.

[obfuscator]

My great grandmother also isn't progressive, nor does she have Romney-care. Is she a valid Presidential candidate?

And precisely why is big government always a bad idea? I'm sure a small government would have struggled to bail out banks in 2008-9 etc, a problem caused by a lack of regulation and small government approach to banking.

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her.

 

Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Big government caused the problem.

They were allowed to offload those mortgages because there were no regulations preventing it - not big government...

[The Dark Lord]

@sees_all

 

Why not vote for Ron Paul?

[sees_all1]

My great grandmother also isn't progressive, nor does she have Romney-care. Is she a valid Presidential candidate?

And precisely why is big government always a bad idea? I'm sure a small government would have struggled to bail out banks in 2008-9 etc, a problem caused by a lack of regulation and small government approach to banking.

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her.

 

Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Big government caused the problem.

They were allowed to offload those mortgages because there were no regulations preventing it - not big government...

They offloaded the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were Government Sponsored Enterprises. I think its something like 90% of all housing loans are owned or backed by the U.S. government. Anyhow, if banks couldn't sell their mortgages to the government (big government's fault), and didn't have incentives to loan to people who couldn't pay them back (again, big government's fault), we wouldn't have had to bail them out.

 

@sees_all

 

Why not vote for Ron Paul?

Like I said before, I don't like his foreign policy.

[jasignhagj]

What do those of you who are Ron Paul supporters think of Gary Johnson? He's running for the Libertarian Party's nomination. His views are like Ron Paul's, although he is more socially progressive. I know third party candidates are never taken seriously in American elections, but he does seem like a good alternative to Obama and Romney.

 

If I were American I would probably reluctantly vote for Obama or a third party candidate depending on whether my state was a guaranteed Democrat win or not.

[obfuscator]

My great grandmother also isn't progressive, nor does she have Romney-care. Is she a valid Presidential candidate?

And precisely why is big government always a bad idea? I'm sure a small government would have struggled to bail out banks in 2008-9 etc, a problem caused by a lack of regulation and small government approach to banking.

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her.

 

Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Big government caused the problem.

They were allowed to offload those mortgages because there were no regulations preventing it - not big government...

They offloaded the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were Government Sponsored Enterprises. I think its something like 90% of all housing loans are owned or backed by the U.S. government. Anyhow, if banks couldn't sell their mortgages to the government (big government's fault), and didn't have incentives to loan to people who couldn't pay them back (again, big government's fault), we wouldn't have had to bail them out.

 

 

Then it's only the bad half of "big government". Canada's government is bigger than the states, yet the much stricter regulations we have over the banking industry prevented banks from handing out these kinds of mortgages.

[Crocefisso]

My great grandmother also isn't progressive, nor does she have Romney-care. Is she a valid Presidential candidate?

And precisely why is big government always a bad idea? I'm sure a small government would have struggled to bail out banks in 2008-9 etc, a problem caused by a lack of regulation and small government approach to banking.

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her.

 

Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Big government caused the problem.

Come on sees, stop dodging the question: what is there about Santorum that's worth voting for?

 

As for the big/small govt debate, obfuscator has answered what I would in a clearer manner. Point being that the big/small govt dichotomy is not as one-sided or clear-cut as many make out.

[Jonanananas]

While I am not a big fan of Obama (My biggest issue with him is that he's not serious enough about reducing debt, but then again, with such low tax levels and all tax raises for the rich being blocked by republicans...), I would most certainly vote for him if I was a US citizen, simply because the republican candidates are just a lot worse.

 

While Romney is still bearable(I am glad that he's become the republican candidate, considering what most of the others were like), I believe America would really be in need of some social reforms, and Obama is just so much more likely to deliver those. Obviously no system is perfect, but I can just say that personally I by far prefer the system here in germany over that in america, even if we pay way higher taxes.

[sees_all1]

Then it's only the bad half of "big government". Canada's government is bigger than the states, yet the much stricter regulations we have over the banking industry prevented banks from handing out these kinds of mortgages.

Croce's point was that big government couldn't effectively deal with failing banks. What he didn't mention is that big government caused the problem in the first place, which is why I brought it up. I could bring up dozens of more examples of big government failing in a spectacular way, but that isn't the point of this thread. If you still need an example of why small government is better than big government (which there are very few examples of), look at Taiwan.

 

Come on sees, stop dodging the question: what is there about Santorum that's worth voting for?

Are you disagreeing with his positions or his experience?

He was a US Representative for 6 years, and was a US Senator from Pennsylvania for 12 years. That makes him more qualified than Barack Obama was in 2008.

 

In my mind, Santorum has been much more consistent with his positions than Romney. When asked about bad legislation (or endorsement), he apologizes for it. When Romney is asked about Romneycare, he makes a small distinction. Santorum was also able to pull his campaign from obscurity 6 months ago into the national spotlight, while to date spending about a sixth of what Romney spent.

 

The Republican Presidential candidate needs to be able to stand next to Obama and describe everything wrong with his policies, without worrying about Obama saying "his legislation inspired me."

[Assume Nothing]

It sounds as though you're persuaded by his apologies rather than his positions. I'll briefly clarify that I have little political knowledge of the US systems, but that doesn't sound like a great reason to vote, to me.

[Crocefisso]

Are you disagreeing with his positions or his experience?

He was a US Representative for 6 years, and was a US Senator from Pennsylvania for 12 years. That makes him more qualified than Barack Obama was in 2008.

 

In my mind, Santorum has been much more consistent with his positions than Romney. When asked about bad legislation (or endorsement), he apologizes for it. When Romney is asked about Romneycare, he makes a small distinction. Santorum was also able to pull his campaign from obscurity 6 months ago into the national spotlight, while to date spending about a sixth of what Romney spent.

 

The Republican Presidential candidate needs to be able to stand next to Obama and describe everything wrong with his policies, without worrying about Obama saying "his legislation inspired me."

 

My problem with Santorum is the ludicrous and reactionary nature of his policies. Looking from the outside in, I cannot see a single positive with this man. Let us not forget he was anti-gay, a destructive environmental policy, a silly immigration policy, pledging to repeal Obama's attempt at bringing European-style health care to the USA and the rest. I found a nice little link that isn't, as far as I can tell, too partisan, though correct me if I'm wrong: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/candidate/Rick-Santorum/.

 

And in the areas where he's not entirely backwards, his ideas are still markedly less sensible than those of other candidates.

[obfuscator]

Didn't Santorum withdraw anyway?

[Danqazmlp]

I'm not American, but I hope to god that Obama wins as I'm scared shitless of all the Republican candidates.

[Alg]

Didn't Santorum withdraw anyway?

Earlier this week, I think.

[sees_all1]

My problem with Santorum is the ludicrous and reactionary nature of his policies. Looking from the outside in, I cannot see a single positive with this man. Let us not forget he was anti-gay, a destructive environmental policy, a silly immigration policy, pledging to repeal Obama's attempt at bringing European-style health care to the USA and the rest. I found a nice little link that isn't, as far as I can tell, too partisan, though correct me if I'm wrong: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/candidate/Rick-Santorum/.

 

And in the areas where he's not entirely backwards, his ideas are still markedly less sensible than those of other candidates.

 

What I don't understand is why you're trying to debate the qualities of a candidate from a party you're diametrically opposed to anyway.

[Hawks]

Nobody likes Obama's "Free Healthcare Shit Trololololo" if they aren't freeloaders.

Except, you know, the millions of previously uninsured children that his health plan covers. Oh no, those damn freeloading 6 year-olds :rolleyes:

 

No. 6yr olds could easily get coverage in the previous system - it's called Medicaid or Children's Special Health. For people whose employers don't offer insurance or those who don't make enough. I know because I was on it for a span of about three months where my family didn't have health insurance because my dad had just switched jobs and the new insurance didn't kick in for 90 days. Having a pre-existing condition (type 1 diabetes) I desperately needed coverage - 3 mo of supplies are easily over 10k, although we paid 1k for my insurance for a year - that I don't get.

 

I will probably vote for Ron Paul unless it seems like the Rep nominee has a good likely hood of winning. There is no way in hell I want to see Obama reelected.

[Crocefisso]

My problem with Santorum is the ludicrous and reactionary nature of his policies. Looking from the outside in, I cannot see a single positive with this man. Let us not forget he was anti-gay, a destructive environmental policy, a silly immigration policy, pledging to repeal Obama's attempt at bringing European-style health care to the USA and the rest. I found a nice little link that isn't, as far as I can tell, too partisan, though correct me if I'm wrong: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/candidate/Rick-Santorum/.

 

And in the areas where he's not entirely backwards, his ideas are still markedly less sensible than those of other candidates.

 

What I don't understand is why you're trying to debate the qualities of a candidate from a party you're diametrically opposed to anyway.

This is the funny thing: in principle, I shouldn't be. Since I got British citizenship, I voted for the Conservative Party in the 2011 local elections, and plan to do so again in the general election a few years hence unless they trip up badly. Of all the developed democracies in the world, I fall on the left only in America, and it is because the right there is so very far to the right that, in Britain for example, it would be considered a fringe/extreme party.

 

Therefore, my rather simple question was: why vote for Santorum? I was just curious as to why you supported him, because you seem sensible and he is backwards and unable to grasp the concept of secularism. I've not been debating, just making the question longer each time so you've got something to respond to.

[Jonanananas]

My problem with Santorum is the ludicrous and reactionary nature of his policies. Looking from the outside in, I cannot see a single positive with this man. Let us not forget he was anti-gay, a destructive environmental policy, a silly immigration policy, pledging to repeal Obama's attempt at bringing European-style health care to the USA and the rest. I found a nice little link that isn't, as far as I can tell, too partisan, though correct me if I'm wrong: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/candidate/Rick-Santorum/.

 

And in the areas where he's not entirely backwards, his ideas are still markedly less sensible than those of other candidates.

 

What I don't understand is why you're trying to debate the qualities of a candidate from a party you're diametrically opposed to anyway.

This is the funny thing: in principle, I shouldn't be. Since I got British citizenship, I voted for the Conservative Party in the 2011 local elections, and plan to do so again in the general election a few years hence unless they trip up badly. Of all the developed democracies in the world, I fall on the left only in America, and it is because the right there is so very far to the right that, in Britain for example, it would be considered a fringe/extreme party.

 

Therefore, my rather simple question was: why vote for Santorum? I was just curious as to why you supported him, because you seem sensible and he is backwards and unable to grasp the concept of secularism. I've not been debating, just making the question longer each time so you've got something to respond to.

 

Yeah it's quite funny how in America Obama is often portrayed as a socialist/commie by those who like to attack persons instead of their programs, when here he would definitely be in the conservative party, and probably be even one of the more rigid ones in that party.

[aspeeder]

Nobody likes Obama's "Free Healthcare Shit Trololololo" if they aren't freeloaders.

Except, you know, the millions of previously uninsured children that his health plan covers. Oh no, those damn freeloading 6 year-olds :rolleyes:

 

No. 6yr olds could easily get coverage in the previous system - it's called Medicaid or Children's Special Health. For people whose employers don't offer insurance or those who don't make enough. I know because I was on it for a span of about three months where my family didn't have health insurance because my dad had just switched jobs and the new insurance didn't kick in for 90 days. Having a pre-existing condition (type 1 diabetes) I desperately needed coverage - 3 mo of supplies are easily over 10k, although we paid 1k for my insurance for a year - that I don't get.

 

I will probably vote for Ron Paul unless it seems like the Rep nominee has a good likely hood of winning. There is no way in hell I want to see Obama reelected.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the looks of things the Children's Special Health program only covered children with recognized pre-existing conditions. While that does cover a lot, if something happened to an uninsured child like, say, a broken bone that doesn't qualify for CSH then the family is shit-out-of-luck.

 

Then it's only the bad half of "big government". Canada's government is bigger than the states, yet the much stricter regulations we have over the banking industry prevented banks from handing out these kinds of mortgages.

Croce's point was that big government couldn't effectively deal with failing banks. What he didn't mention is that big government caused the problem in the first place, which is why I brought it up. I could bring up dozens of more examples of big government failing in a spectacular way, but that isn't the point of this thread. If you still need an example of why small government is better than big government (which there are very few examples of), look at Taiwan.

You know what, if our country was only slightly larger than Maryland, with 2/3rds the population of California, produced less than 1/15th of our total GDP, and was under the boot of a vast global power that forced us to severely limit the possibilities that the government can do I'd agree with you. But you know what, America isn't in a similar situation to Taiwan, at all. Oh, and if you knew anything about Taiwan's politics then you'd know that they have been supporting more progressive governments over the past 30 years, so if you actually were in a government similar to Taiwan's I'm sure you would be raging about how the country is turning socialist.

[sees_all1]

You know what, if our country was only slightly larger than Maryland, with 2/3rds the population of California, produced less than 1/15th of our total GDP, and was under the boot of a vast global power that forced us to severely limit the possibilities that the government can do I'd agree with you. But you know what, America isn't in a similar situation to Taiwan, at all. Oh, and if you knew anything about Taiwan's politics then you'd know that they have been supporting more progressive governments over the past 30 years, so if you actually were in a government similar to Taiwan's I'm sure you would be raging about how the country is turning socialist.

That's fine. Except you're ignoring how an area with a GNP of $170/person, with no natural resources to speak of, grew into a country with a GNP of about $37,000/person in about 50 years. Socialism didn't get them there, free markets did.

[aspeeder]

You know what, if our country was only slightly larger than Maryland, with 2/3rds the population of California, produced less than 1/15th of our total GDP, and was under the boot of a vast global power that forced us to severely limit the possibilities that the government can do I'd agree with you. But you know what, America isn't in a similar situation to Taiwan, at all. Oh, and if you knew anything about Taiwan's politics then you'd know that they have been supporting more progressive governments over the past 30 years, so if you actually were in a government similar to Taiwan's I'm sure you would be raging about how the country is turning socialist.

That's fine. Except you're ignoring how an area with a GNP of $170/person, with no natural resources to speak of, grew into a country with a GNP of about $37,000/person in about 50 years. Socialism didn't get them there, free markets did.

And it had nothing to do with massive amounts of US aid sent in by the US to counter Mainland communist influence, the massive influx of intellectuals escaping the Great Leap Forward, or the fact that the Taiwanese government did massive amounts of planning and greatly supported universal education to shift the workforce away from agriculture and towards technology.

[sees_all1]

The other example to look at is Hong Kong.

[aspeeder]

The other example to look at is Hong Kong.

If you're referring to the policy of positive non-internention, it's important to remember that he government was still important in creating and maintaining physical and regulatory infrastructure in order to strengthen healthy decision-making, which is absent in the truly lassiez-fairre future that I imagine you're dreaming of. And once again, that's a city-state less than half the size of Rhode Island and the population of Virginia with little to no military concerns, these two examples where "small" government works is unsurprisingly in small countries. And you know what's one of the first things we could cut from the government to become more like the countries you listed? The military.

[Range_This11]

The only problem I see with downsizing the U.S. military is that the U.S. has angered many, many nations over the last century. Showing signs of weakness (aka, slashing military funding) could encourage possible hostile nations to attack. Pure speculation here of course. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

That being said, I think that the best bet is to bring our men and women home from any and all combat situations. I mean for god's sake, we spent $20 billion on air conditioning alone in ONE year in Iraq and Afghanistan.