Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers

[Barracuda 629]

Just as much blame can be put on the Republican party for their constant tax cutting and hiked spending as it can on Obama. The mess leading to these spending cuts started way before he became President. If you think this or any other shitty thing he's passed taking away our rights will be changed with a new President you're deluding yourselves. We're fucked either way. While everyone's arguing over stupid shit like gay marriage and abortion, both parties are ruining the country.

This^.

 

Voting for either Obama or the Republican Candidate is just two different means to the same end. It's almost like a Romeo and Juliet story. Two families pissed at each other but there's a secret love affair. Eventually it led to starting a whole new family here pretty recently. Meanwhile were wondering why no one shows up at the family reunion, and why they're secretly shacking up in the Middle East when there's another rivalry starting here.

 

“Each generation must renew its defense of liberty.” -Thomas Jefferson

 

"Each generation must renew and redefine what a political party stands for, remembering that political parties are but empty vessels unless we imbue them with values.” -Rand Paul, The Tea Party Goes to Washington

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

There is no dumb reason not to vote for Ron Paul, because he has 0% chance of winning. Even if he somehow got on the ballot, it just wouldn't happen. Would I vote for him if he had a chance? Absolutely, but he doesn't, so I can't consider doing so.

 

Your viewpoint is one which is shared by many others.

 

Let me explain why it is a horrible one to take. Even if you are correct, and Ron Paul has no chance of winning, if you agree with him, you should still vote for him. I did in 2008. Here's why.

 

A new political party does not appear overnight. If you just continue to simply vote for the Republican or Democrat nominee, even if you don't agree with most of their beliefs, just following the lesser of two evils philosophy, then the two parties will have no reason to change their beliefs. After all, they are still getting elected, why change? In order to force a new party into the system, it's going to take years, possibly decades, of taking a stand on your principles and not just voting for the lesser of two evils year after year. That doesn't mean you can't vote Republican or Democrat, on the contrary, if either party does put up a candidate that actually stands on his principles that you agree with, then you vote for them, to show people of that ideology, that yes, they do have support in the country.

 

Yes, that means in the early going, you will be voting for someone who can't win the election- that is NOT the point, it's NOT the reason why you vote for them. You vote for them so that you can start the change that this country desperately needs.

 

If we all just sit back and continue to say, "Oh, this guy can't win," we will never see any meaningful change in this country. It has to start somewhere Bware.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Thanatos19

[BwareDWare94 723]

How about voting on your principals rather than voting for who can win?

 

And in the most recent poll, Paul beats Obama 43-41.

 

Polls are irrelevant.

 

If I voted on my principles I'd have to disregard my own logic and vote for a Republican every time because I'm Catholic, and they provide the Church with lip service.

 

Hell, I'm even told every election year that it's a sin to vote for the Democrat. The Church needs to fuck off.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Your viewpoint is one which is shared by many others.

 

Let me explain why it is a horrible one to take. Even if you are correct, and Ron Paul has no chance of winning, if you agree with him, you should still vote for him. I did in 2008. Here's why.

 

A new political party does not appear overnight. If you just continue to simply vote for the Republican or Democrat nominee, even if you don't agree with most of their beliefs, just following the lesser of two evils philosophy, then the two parties will have no reason to change their beliefs. After all, they are still getting elected, why change? In order to force a new party into the system, it's going to take years, possibly decades, of taking a stand on your principles and not just voting for the lesser of two evils year after year. That doesn't mean you can't vote Republican or Democrat, on the contrary, if either party does put up a candidate that actually stands on his principles that you agree with, then you vote for them, to show people of that ideology, that yes, they do have support in the country.

 

Yes, that means in the early going, you will be voting for someone who can't win the election- that is NOT the point, it's NOT the reason why you vote for them. You vote for them so that you can start the change that this country desperately needs.

 

If we all just sit back and continue to say, "Oh, this guy can't win," we will never see any meaningful change in this country. It has to start somewhere Bware.

 

This may be true, but when it comes down to Obama versus Romney, might as well not change ship and let Obama finish off his 8 years. Romney isn't going to do anything all that different or effective. I'm more interested in seeing what Obama can do with another term.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

This may be true, but when it comes down to Obama versus Romney, might as well not change ship and let Obama finish off his 8 years. Romney isn't going to do anything all that different or effective. I'm more interested in seeing what Obama can do with another term.

 

So you're interested in even more debt?

[BwareDWare94 723]

So you're interested in even more debt?

 

A national debt that was mostly compiled by a senseless war on terror in which we attacked the wrong country? OH, and this war began long before Obama's term.

Edited March 4, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Our debt would've increased under Obama even without the wars.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Our debt would've increased under Obama even without the wars.

 

It would've increased under any President, because all he can do is sign his name on shit. Blame him all you want, but it's rather ridiculous when you think about it.

[Barracuda 629]

No doubt Bush was bad, but Obama is spending nearly 3 times more than he did every day.

 

It doesn't matter who wins. We lose either way.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

There is no dumb reason not to vote for Ron Paul, because he has 0% chance of winning. Even if he somehow got on the ballot, it just wouldn't happen. Would I vote for him if he had a chance? Absolutely, but he doesn't, so I can't consider doing so.

 

I've been a Ron Paul fan since before the last election (when Obama got elected)... But during the last election cycle, I had a similar mind set.

 

I loved Ron Paul... But he didn't have a chance of winning, so I voted McCain even though I didn't really like his politics.

 

Honestly... I regret decision. It makes my skin crawl knowing that I actually, at one time, thought that way.

 

From this election onward, I am going to vote for the best candidate regardless of political banner or his (or her) chance to win.

 

Change will not and cannot occur if everyone simply votes based on who they think "can" win. What if 30%+ of American thought like that? A candidate goes from having an ACTUAL chance to being out of it before it starts.

[CARDINAL 205]

Don't forget he wants to fuck with Venezuela and Cuba as well. Oh, and turn us into a theocracy.

 

He probably also wants to make it a crime to believe in anything other than a christian belief system. When I heard that he said in 2008 that "Satan is out to destroy America" I knew he was a nutcase. I like that he shows passion for something (where Romney is very wooden and boring to listen too), but what he's passionate about is pretty far into the woods of crazyville. It's very worrying, from an outside perspective, that America can't muster up some quality people to turn the country around. Every type of social system in America (economic, political, criminal justice, etc) has some serious and strutural fundamental flaws that you really need somebody to say "we have some serious problems, and we need to all grow a pair and get some stuff done". Like I wish people ran for office to actually make a difference in the lives of the average person, as opposed to just getting into office on deception and then sucking the financial cock of all the lobby groups and big bussiness / labour union organizations. America needs a leader that inspires everyone in the country to work together, not through constant speeches and misleading people, but through action. They need to lay out a detailed plan and say what the problem is, what their plan will do to fix it, and then say how long it will take to implement and bear fruit. Just cut the bullshit and actually work together to implement to best parts of both sides proposals and ideas. But alas, that's what America needs in realit and every person currently seeking office or is currently serving in some type of political office lives in this alternate bubble universe.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Our debt would've increased under Obama even without the wars.

 

That's how Keynesian economics works - deficit spending during a recession, then you pay that back when the economy picks back up (though our Congressmen are too fucking retarded to employ this method the correct way and that's where you get this massive RP following). It would have increased under any President period (except maybe RP, but his economic policies during a recession are not ones I'm interested in experiencing).

 

Edit: And all these "Ron Paul beats Obama in the national election according to polls" is absurd. Has Ron Paul won a single election primary yet?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Edit: And all these "Ron Paul beats Obama in the national election according to polls" is absurd. Has Ron Paul won a single election primary yet?

 

First of all, I haven't seen anything that says Paul beats Obama, but in all of the projections I've seen, he does very well against Obama, usually better than Santorum or Gingrich.

 

As for the primaries, Paul may have won Maine and Iowa (votes in the caucus still to be decided, etc.), but that's not the point. How Paul fares in the votes vs. other Republicans is not the same as how he will fare vs. Obama. In a general election, Ron Paul has more of the ability to sway the middle ground voters (where elections are decided), as well as younger voters, who would probably side with Obama against any of the other Republican candidates.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

How is the most far-right Libertarian candidate since Goldwater going to sway independents? You grab that vote with social issues, not economic issues, which is the basis of Paul's campaign.

[WindyCitySports 407]

How is the most far-right Libertarian candidate since Goldwater going to sway independents? You grab that vote with social issues, not economic issues, which is the basis of Paul's campaign.

Libertarianism is not on the far-right of the political spectrum, it is actually in the middle because it is conservative on economic issues but liberal on (most) social issues. He is so great t swaying independents because he shares positions with both sides, something independents love.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Libertarianism is not on the far-right of the political spectrum, it is actually in the middle because it is conservative on economic issues but liberal on (most) social issues. He is so great t swaying independents because he shares positions with both sides, something independents love.

 

Then explain to me how Ron Paul is socially liberal.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Shotgun 442]

So you're interested in even more debt?

 

 

Bware is actually kind of right about the debt. Blaming it on Obama is a bit ridiculous. The issues leading up to the recession were set in motion well before he became President. Whether it's Obama or a Republican, there would have been massive spending of money to create jobs and save jobs via bailouts.

 

 

There's two reasons why I believe this. First, Bush passed a smaller stimulus himself before the economy got really bad. It was smaller because no one knew just how bad the recession would get, but I believe it was for around $150 billion, some of which went toward Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Secondly, it's supported by both parties as a strategy to battle a recession. It was at the time Obama became President anyway. Therefore it's only logical to believe there would have been a large stimulus package passed whether it was Democrats or Republicans in office, and as a result the deficit would have increased regardless. How it was spent likely would have been different but that's another subject. Of course, hypothetically, if the Republicans did not do such a thing, the unemployment rate would have been (and would currently be) much higher. Companies wouldn't have sprung up by now to provide the same number of jobs the bailed out companies provide.

 

 

People also often forget to count the fact that the recession causing job losses decreased government revenue, and therefore increased borrowing, which from what I remember increased the deficit by well over a trillion dollars. Something else that was not caused by Obama.

 

 

On top of that the extension of the bush tax cuts forced by the Republicans is increasing the deficit itself without generating a positive increase in jobs as they falsely insist they do. In fact when Bush enacted this it was not balanced with spending cuts so it increased the deficit and continues to do so while Obama has been in office. The tax cuts weren't the only program that did this either. (See: Prescription drugs benefit)

 

 

Let's not forget the Iraq and Afghanistan wars he inherited added to the deficit, which is decreasing as the wars are winding down. Keep that in mind when you listen to Romney, Newt, or Santorum talk about Iran like they're ready to send the troops in guns a blazing just like Bush did with Iraq.

 

 

In my opinion the biggest issue right now having to do with the debt is the inability for a Democrat controlled white house and a Republican controlled congress to agree. Republicans want spending cuts, so that's what Obama's doing. The problem is he can't reduce the defense budget nor can he raise taxes while the Republicans have their say. Unfortunately spending cuts then would have to go towards government programs meant to aid the poor, middle class, as well as cutting off government employee benefits and salaries (the one's not earning 6 figures at least).

 

 

This isn't to say Obama isn't at all at fault for increasing the deficit. He's made enough mistakes to warrant a new President, and his medicare plan is horse shit. Unfortunately the way Republicans want to handle the deficit is beyond levels of retardation, so believing things are going to get better under a different party is a whole lot of false hope. As far as I'm concerned, as an Independent, I still don't trust the Republican party enough to believe they can responsibly run the country.

 

 

While following the primaries I've literally heard nothing in any sort of detail about how they're going to fix the situation. If I had to guess by percentages how much I've heard certain topics, it seems about 75% of all talk involves nothing but Obama bashing, another 10% is the typical abortion / gay rights talk, a further 10% of talking involves Iran and other foreign policy topics, 1% is bashing the poor for being lazy and not paying enough taxes on their $20,000 income, and a final 4% is the typical rich white guys making promises to the middle class as if they gave a shit, when their ideas on how to reduce the deficit say otherwise.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Then explain to me how Ron Paul is socially liberal.

 

This is a convoluted topic. Libertarians are not strictly conservative or liberal. That's just part of being a libertarian. Their positions are based on what allows for the least amount of government intervention and in the case of social issues -- whatever maximizes personal liberties. It just so happens, some of those positions fall conservative, some liberal.

 

 

He loves guns. Conservative.

 

Strongly anti-abortion. Conservative.

 

Firmly against the death penalty. Liberal.

 

Wants government out of same sex marriage. This is where the gray area comes in... Doesn't really want government involved in the process, but he wants the people to decide who they love... Liberal-leaning.

 

Firmly against censorship. History of both sides going back on forth on the issue... But definitely more conservative-leaning IMO.

 

Hates the drug war. Lift the bans. Neither side is going to legalize those drugs.. But the drug war is definitely conservative propaganda most of the time so... Liberal.

 

Wants to the end the welfare state. Conservative.

[Thanatos 2,847]

This may be true, but when it comes down to Obama versus Romney, might as well not change ship and let Obama finish off his 8 years. Romney isn't going to do anything all that different or effective. I'm more interested in seeing what Obama can do with another term.

 

But you see, that's the problem.

 

Then you're just voting for the lesser of two evils. Why should either party change its views, as long as you're going to vote for them as long as they are slightly worse than the other guy that this ridiculously fucked-up two-party system gives you as a "choice?"

 

If I voted on my principles I'd have to disregard my own logic and vote for a Republican every time because I'm Catholic, and they provide the Church with lip service.

 

Your principles contradict your logic?

Edited March 5, 2012 by Thanatos19

[BwareDWare94 723]

Your principles contradict your logic?

 

You haven't heard that 'Catholic' is the antonym to 'Logic?'