Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

[randomspot555]

In many ways, that's more than a fair point, too. Still, that particular reason doesn't hold any water with me because my financial aid has gone down every year that Obama has been in office (Pell and other grants, specifically). Now, being that I'm only one person whose situation varies mildly year-by-year, me saying this may not mean much, but I sure enjoyed federal aid under Bush much more than I do Obama. And with education funding being one of the big things you actually would expect Democrats to do a lot more of than Republicans, I can't see Romney really being any worse in this regard.

Pell Grants is one of the areas where Obama has undoubtedly laxed requirements. With all due respect, there's a very high chance that it is your personal situation rather than Obama cutting it that is your explanation for your fluctuating grant monies.

(Also, are you certain its all fed Pell grants? I know in addition to Pell, I qualify for a state grant as well)



Wait, were you replying to the hypothetical "omg romney offended me b/c i am a woman" part of Cometstarlight's post? Because if so, I misconstrued what you were saying and apologize. Though it really did look as if you were replying to her personal opinion, and that's how I responded.

So why make Planned Parenthood the named target?

Because it is the largest provider of abortion services in the country and shoveling money to them for other stuff frees up their general fund money to go to abortions.

It's a good resource for a lot of people. The more places for preventative care, the better in the long run.

Totally agreed. Is there a reason PP has to be the place for people to get this care?

Exactly. Most of them are on Medicaid, meaning the taxpayers are paying for it either way. Do you have any idea how many people come into hospital EDs for things like STD/STI testing because they're on Medicaid? A whole hell of a lot, I can tell you that.

If they have Medicaid, they can make an appointment in a place that accepts Medicaid. ERs are only legally obligated to stabilize anyone who comes in needed emergent care. People can, do, and should be turned away if they are walking into an ER with insurance for non-emergency reasons such as STI/STD screenings.

I know it's not government-run. Many hospitals are for-profit. At least, some of the ones around here are. Not many, but some. They have to act like businesses in order to keep running. Even the ones that are nonprofit have to make money in order to keep running. I highly doubt Planned Parenthood would be able to make enough money, considering the kinds of people they target for healthcare, to keep running.

PP makes tons of money as it is right now. In adddition to insurance and govt money, they do have a bunch of private donors as well. They hold fundraisers all the time.

Medicine doesn't have to refer to prescription drugs.

You specifically mentioned "old people". That's why I bought up Medicare Part D. Something the horrible, evil, satantistic George *gasp* Bush passed!

Romney's idea of repealing the affordable health care act and replacing it with vouchers

And you know he wants to replace "health care" with vouchers how?

As for your bolded comments:

They didn't like him after he had the office affair, people need to look past that.

You missed the point. Clinton had a hostile Congress, one much crazier than this one, and still got things done. What's Obama's excuse?

For one, how he plans on bringing jobs back to americans.

And how exactly is Obama planning to do that?

Romeny has yet to state how he will.

Neither has Obama, chief.

Obama's primary plan for job growth more exports, more U.S.-produced energy including natural gas, more support for education

None of these are actual, in depth ways of how he'd implement policies. This is just a list of stuff he wants to happen.

It's like saying I'd like a yummy sandwich, but no plan on how to get one.

So to put it bluntly: What is Obama's plan for "more exports, more US based produced energy, more support for education?"

reducing the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Okay, what taxes does he want to raise?

And just to put a damper on this whole "Obama is a warrior for the middle class!" love fest going on, you know his entire treasury department is filled with Wall Street fat cats, right? They've made all these supposed Wall Street reforms absolutely worthless and meaningless, all from within the administration. Man, talk about a tool for the upper 1%.

[Pesky Persian]

Because it is the largest provider of abortion services in the country and shoveling money to them for other stuff frees up their general fund money to go to abortions.

I don't actually have a problem with that, to be honest. They can't legally used the government funding for abortions. And if you look at the statistics on services they provide, only about 3% over the past few years (as I haven't been bothered to check much beyond that) has gone to abortions services. That means the vast majority of what they do is preventative healthcare. I personally don't have a problem with some of my tax money going toward that.

Totally agreed. Is there a reason PP has to be the place for people to get this care?

I didn't say it had to be the place. I just don't see the point in defunding them because of their abortion services when the vast majority of what they do greatly benefits the community as a whole.

If they have Medicaid, they can make an appointment in a place that accepts Medicaid. ERs are only legally obligated to stabilize anyone who comes in needed emergent care. People can, do, and should be turned away if they are walking into an ER with insurance for non-emergency reasons such as STI/STD screenings.

They can, but many of them don't. And while the ED isn't legally obligated to serve them, you also have to look at it from a hospital perspective. They get many, many people like that daily and turning away so many people is bad PR. Healthcare is a pretty competitive market so making people happy and not just treating them is part of the job. I really wish it was more acceptable to tell them to make an appointment, but I can almost guarantee you they're just going to go to the next hospital with an ED.

PP makes tons of money as it is right now. In adddition to insurance and govt money, they do have a bunch of private donors as well. They hold fundraisers all the time.

They kind of have to make a lot of money to keep it running. Healthcare is incredibly expensive. But again, I actually don't have an issue with my tax money going to something that provides preventative care and gives something back to the community. It's better, from my perspective, than some of the other things the government spends my money on. Of course, everyone has different opinions and everyone is welcome to vote accordingly.

[Marbi Z]

I'll try to make mine short and sweet! I'm voting for Romney cause he's the MUCH lesser of the two evils! That being said ANYONE who votes for Osama (er Obama) votes for the downfall of the United States. Don't Believe me? Then go to 2016 the Movie.com, check the theater listings, find the theater near you that's playing it and go see it!

[randomspot555]

^^^ I saw 2016. The movie distorts Obama's POTUS record in some parts, takes HUGE liberties with the historical colonization of Africa, and really doesn't have any new information that couldn't be found on Wikipedia.

They can't legally used the government funding for abortions.

This is a technicality and not true. If you give to PP, it indirectly supports abortion services. It frees up money from their general fund because they know they don' need to pay for their legit medicine, so that money instead goes to abortion services. If they had to divide their general fund between abortion and legit medicine services, then we'll see where the groups' values really are. This is the same logic used for food stamps. If someone uses food stamps (A program I generally support), it gives them allotted money for the purchase of grocery foods and frees up their income to pay for other necessities such as shelter, utilities, etc...

Now if you are for abortion-on-demand, any time, any trimester, then fine.

But if you are, like most Americans, have mixed feelings about abortion or are pro-life, then you should be gravely concerned about an organization that provides abortion-on-demand.

Let's be clear: "Defund Planned Parenthood" only means people on Medicaid can't use it. They can still go to any number of places that accept Medicaid. No one is going to be harmed if they have to go for a screening to a clinic (and surprise! A lot of PPs just refer people to clinics rather than doing the testings themselves) rather than PP.

But again, I actually don't have an issue with my tax money going to something that provides preventative care

I'm not arguing against providing preventative care.

[ebevan91]

I'll be a first time voter this year (if I actually decide to register), I was 17 during the last election so I couldn't vote then. I didn't know much about politics then either, but I've taken government/political/economic classes and now I know a little more than I did back then. And I'll be voting for Romney. I don't really care much for him either, but I did one of those online test things where they ask you your views on stuff, and gives you the best possible person for you to vote for, and Romney was the overwhelming favorite in all of those. I really wanted Romney to select Marco Rubio to be his running mate, but I'm OK with Ryan. He'll be an excellent debater, I'm expecting him to destroy Biden in their debate coming up next month.

[iFi Salamander]

^^^ I saw 2016. The movie distorts Obama's POTUS record in some parts, takes HUGE liberties with the historical colonization of Africa, and really doesn't have any new information that couldn't be found on Wikipedia.

That is a real movie? I thought he was just blatantly trolling.

[randomspot555]

That is a real movie? I thought he was just blatantly trolling.

It is doing surprisingly well for a documentary, partially because we're at the end of the summer and most of the big movies are out of the way.

[iFi Salamander]

It is doing surprisingly well for a documentary, partially because we're at the end of the summer and most of the big movies are out of the way.

Sounds like conspiracist nonsense truthfully.

[Marbi Z]

^^^ I saw 2016. The movie distorts Obama's POTUS record in some parts, takes HUGE liberties with the historical colonization of Africa, and really doesn't have any new information that couldn't be found on Wikipedia.



This is a technicality and not true. If you give to PP, it indirectly supports abortion services. It frees up money from their general fund because they know they don' need to pay for their legit medicine, so that money instead goes to abortion services. If they had to divide their general fund between abortion and legit medicine services, then we'll see where the groups' values really are. This is the same logic used for food stamps. If someone uses food stamps (A program I generally support), it gives them allotted money for the purchase of grocery foods and frees up their income to pay for other necessities such as shelter, utilities, etc...

Now if you are for abortion-on-demand, any time, any trimester, then fine.

But if you are, like most Americans, have mixed feelings about abortion or are pro-life, then you should be gravely concerned about an organization that provides abortion-on-demand.

Let's be clear: "Defund Planned Parenthood" only means people on Medicaid can't use it. They can still go to any number of places that accept Medicaid. No one is going to be harmed if they have to go for a screening to a clinic (and surprise! A lot of PPs just refer people to clinics rather than doing the testings themselves) rather than PP.



I'm not arguing against providing preventative care.

As Long as your not supporting Obama your all good in my eyes.

[Amiちゃん]

I'll try to make mine short and sweet! I'm voting for Romney cause he's the MUCH lesser of the two evils! That being said ANYONE who votes for Osama (er Obama) votes for the downfall of the United States. Don't Believe me? Then go to 2016 the Movie.com, check the theater listings, find the theater near you that's playing it and go see it!

Ehh I wouldn't site movies as evidence. Especially documentaries. It's kinda like saying that Capitalism: A Love Story is the reason why the US should adopt a socialist system.

[GrizzlyB]

I can understand people not wanting to fund Planned Parenthood because of the abortion factor. But really, that's one potential (because it depends on how you look at the situation) negative to the multitudes of positive things a facility like Planned Parenthood brings to the community.

Well, the basic idea, as I understood it, was to cut back their funding so that they'd have to re-appropriate their resources to things like preventative health care. But I think I lost whatever train of thought I might've had, because I don't know if what I'm saying is actually what's going on anymore. I don't think that Planned Parenthood should simply be shut down, either, but putting aside the entire abortion debate, I understand and agree with the sentiment that tax money probably shouldn't be going to non-essential, non-preventative healthcare (since preventative care will save tax money down the line if these people are reliant on it anyway), and abortions just so happen to fall under that scope. It being a huge political target on both sides doesn't serve to simplify the issue any, though.

Pell Grants is one of the areas where Obama has undoubtedly laxed requirements. With all due respect, there's a very high chance that it is your personal situation rather than Obama cutting it that is your explanation for your fluctuating grant monies.

(Also, are you certain its all fed Pell grants? I know in addition to Pell, I qualify for a state grant as well)

Yeah, I probably am just looking at this too much from my own viewpoint, because even though the loss of Pell money outstripped any salary I gained per year, I probably just hit some cutoff that had a profound effect. And I do receive state aid as well, but after reviewing my records, that hasn't tapered off any.

Still, looking into it, I think I do have one valid point, which is that the Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants (both of which I received at some point, granted; iFi Salamander would have gotten the SMART grant, too, with his field and assuming his GPA was high enough) were completely eliminated in order to divert their funding to Pell. Which may or may not be a bad thing, since it does reach a much wider proportion of the populace, not to mention that those grants were much less than the amount Pell increased by in 2011. But then again, both grants were targeted at on-track students who are much more likely to complete their education than an average Pell recipient (or so I'd imagine). I guess I just have a hard time wrapping my head around how giving free money to any student in need, regardless of any other factors, is better than encouraging students to do well by making merit at least part of the condition for the grant. But anyway, this is just my two cents at this point and has pretty much nothing to do with the election, so of course feel free to ignore this.

[waffle_x_v]

I'll try to make mine short and sweet! I'm voting for Romney cause he's the MUCH lesser of the two evils! That being said ANYONE who votes for Osama (er Obama) votes for the downfall of the United States. Don't Believe me? Then go to 2016 the Movie.com, check the theater listings, find the theater near you that's playing it and go see it!

This is so stupid on so many levels. Yeah, watch a movie and let that pick your political views. I didn't know people were such tools.

[Kazekage]

Heres why Obama will be the first president I vote for this November.

The state of the republican party is laughable at this point, if you honestly believe INCREASING the already historically high tax cuts on the upper class will fix the economy I urge you to go look up economics on wikipedia and get back to me.

This point is without a doubt the most ridiculous idea going around, keeping the bush tax cuts (or god forbid increasing them) will not solve the problems we are facing. Right now the government needs to generate revenue and burdening the middle class with tax hikes isn't just morally wrong, it doesn't make financial sense. Ending the Bush tax cuts would generate in excess of 1 trillion dollars in revenue, whilst having the smallest impact on the lives of Americans. If tax cuts create jobs, we should be awash in jobs right now considering how high they already are, if tax cuts save the economy why did George W. Bush's presidency only create 2-3 million jobs whereas Clinton created almost 10 times that (23 million)? Starting from 2010 (when the economy bottomed out) Obama created 4.5 million jobs-more than bush had in 8 years. (It's important that we start from 2010 because the Job losses starting in January 2009 can in no way be attributed to President Obama, I mean seriously these were to worst job losses in the modern era) .

Furthermore this whole culture of cutting programs is also ridiculous, I seem to remember a historic period when government regulations were at their all-time low and we had no social safety nets, it led to the Depression. Lets examine the 'Paul Ryan plan' (even though Romney doesn't seem to know if he agrees with it or not).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...lanced-budget/

In fact, looking at the next 10 years—the budget window that really matters to Congress—Ryan’s deficit would be roughly identical to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline. At the end of the period, in 2022, they’d be exactly the same. In other words, Congress would achieve the same amount of deficit reduction by doing nothing as it would by following Ryan’s blueprint

So in essence this plan is just a way for the government to cut the deficit quickly, but it won't balance the budget. On top of this, he has yet to specify (after 2 years mind you) what "tax-loopholes' he plans to close, this is very important because he plans to use the closing of these loopholes to generate TRILLIONS of dollars in revenue. I mean seriously I'm I just supposed to put my blind faith in a man who has been hiding a key component of his master plan for two years?EVEN IF he generates trillions of dollars through magic this is a very unsustainable way to maintain a small deficit. Eventually people will NEED the social programs that Romney (to be fair this is Ryans plan) is planning to cut.

I mean its simple demographics, the baby-boomers are ageing, how can we just let them go without Medicare, and Medicaid. As Bill Clinton said, under the republicans there will be NO medicare. At least not as we know it, its infuriating that a party can

1.) Make up a ludicrous fantasy about how Obamacare will result in the forced eunthanization of the elderly.

2.) Proposed nearly eliminating Medicare.

3.) Lie to old people and tell them they're the party that'll save medicare, and that Obama will destroy it.

Furthermore I cannot support a party that first, made it their NUMBER ****ING GODDAMN 1 priority, THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, to MAKE SURE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A ****ING DOUBT THAT BARACK OBAMA BE A 1 TERM PRESIDEMT not JOBS, not THE ECONOMY, not HEALTHCARE, not EVEN THEIR ******** SOCIAL ISSUES but making sure this guy doesn't get his job back. This isn't the tea party fringe group, this isn't Todd Akin. This is Newt Gringrich and Mitch McConnel the freaking intellectual leaders of the republican party.

Finally Obama is proposing policies that will actually help the country.

Ending the Bush tax cuts, I've touched on this before, but this is should be priority number 1, it will generate the revenue needed to pay off the deficit, and hopefully create enough revenue to fix the ailing infrastructure in the Midwest, Eastern Seaboard and New England regions.

His plan to reform the federal student loan program will (i pray to whatever diety this happens) prevent the often predicted education bubble. And hopefully make private institutions viable for low income families.

And overall his agenda is very moderate, when compared to the republican platform (we'll get into how fascist this is later) is very appealing.

With that said.... Come at me, BigLutz

[Marbi Z]

This is so stupid on so many levels. Yeah, watch a movie and let that pick your political views. I didn't know people were such tools.

Hey! Hey! Hey! I may constantly listen to the likes of Hannity, Rush, and Levin but I still think for myself! (Read my sig)

[randomspot555]

Furthermore I cannot support a party that first, made it their NUMBER ****ING GODDAMN 1 priority, THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, to MAKE SURE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A ****ING DOUBT THAT BARACK OBAMA BE A 1 TERM PRESIDEMT not JOBS, not THE ECONOMY, not HEALTHCARE, not EVEN THEIR ******** SOCIAL ISSUES but making sure this guy doesn't get his job back. This isn't the tea party fringe group, this isn't Todd Akin. This is Newt Gringrich and Mitch McConnel the freaking intellectual leaders of the republican party.

I'm going to shock you.

Barack Obama's one goal right now, #1 goal is to beat Mitt Romney.

Now I'm guessing that doesn't fill you with the same, profanity laden rage because well, its your guy so for him to have a partisan #1 goal is okay...but THOSE OTHER GUYS THAT'S JUST UNAMERICAN!!!!

Finally Obama is proposing policies that will actually help the country.

He hasn't proposed anything, or more precisely, hasn't proposed anything he hasn't already done. This is in contrast to Reagan 84 and Clinton 96 and Bush 2004, all of which used the campaign to introduce new policies they wanted to push in their second terms.

Also worth noting: Those guys all won.

Ending the Bush tax cuts,

First off, he's only proposed to end the tax cuts on high income. And because the high income ($250k up) still gets taxed at the lower rates below the threshold, it barely makes a dent in government revenues.

Yes, the entire Bush tax cut expiring would bring in about $1 trillion over 10 years. But that's mainly due to including lower and middle class tax cuts in the elimination.

If your belief is increase taxes for more revenue, the middle class has to have tax increases as well.

His plan to reform the federal student loan program will (i pray to whatever diety this happens) prevent the often predicted education bubble. And hopefully make private institutions viable for low income families.

And what exactly is this "reform" you're talking about? What does he want to do to these programs in a second term? And what will he do to prevent the ed loan bubble from bursting?

Also, I love it how this guy criticizes Republicans for loving social issues while giving a complete pass to Democrats having a 3 day love fest for abortion-on-demand.

[Cup of Tea]

I completely agree that it is a lose/lose situation for voters.

Obama's failed policies have gotten the unemployment rate up to ridiculous levels, spent thousands of dollars, and his apologetic foreign policy is laughable.

Romney, on the other hand, has regressive social policies. Not to say I support abortion, because I am pro-life. But some of his policies bother me.

[Kazekage]

[QUOTE=BigLutz;15078949]See I can't see how anyone can actually believe this argument. We started recovering before Obama even took office,

See I can't see how anyone can actually believe this argument. We started recovering before Obama even took office, and right now we are not even above water in terms of jobs added. Yet we are supposed to believe that no President can do better than 100,000 jobs a month, despite that even Bush was pulling in 3 times that amount at the same time in his Presidency and he was dealing with a .Com Bubble burst AND 9/11?

Recovering before Obama took office?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/03/news...arch/index.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6955IX20101007

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ct_GDP_History (note the dip between 2008 and 2010)

On top of that, if you don't average in 2009 (which as I've stated you shouldn't due to the fact that Obama became president in January and it takes time to pass legislation, and time for that legislation to take effect) Obama created 4.5 million jobs, which already has outstripped Bush. (Note I'm assigning 2008-2009 job losses to Bush)

In all honestly both these presidents have done poorly on Job creation, ( Bush's average month to month job growth was not too much higher than Obama, and was definitely not at the 100,000 you put it at)

Our economy turned around in less than four years in the 80s, the same in the 90s, and in the 00s. And that one had a major terror attack to effect it. What is so special about this time other than a poor President?

Well considering the economy under reagan hadn't turned around until a Democratic congressman sponsored a bill that remedied the horrible failure that was ETRA, you can't really blame Obama for having one of the worst congresses in modern history. What's their approval rating again, -97%?

On top of that Obama managed a similar level of GDP growth.

Furthermore, both Obama and Reagan ended their recessions in 2 years. And Reagans unemployment rating after 4 years was only .5% higher than Obama's is today (and remember people continued to look for jobs under Reagan due to his cut to welfare, under Obama most unemployed have already begun to give up.

What's so magical about Reagan? It honestly doesn't make sense to me.

And I'll give you Bush and Clinton. But their recessions were nowhere near the catastrophic levels Obama and Reagan had to deal with.

And how does that suddenly get our economy working again? What progress has he suddenly made in the first four years to get that done? He failed on the Stimulus, he wasted a year on Health Care Reform, and he nearly defaulted us. In none of that seems to be a concentrated effort to do the things you listed.

Yeah long term investments in education aren't going to fix the economy, but his work on reforming federal student aide might do well to prevent another bubble.

I'm going to shock you.

Barack Obama's one goal right now, #1 goal is to beat Mitt Romney.

Now I'm guessing that doesn't fill you with the same, profanity laden rage because well, its your guy so for him to have a partisan #1 goal is okay...but THOSE OTHER GUYS THAT'S JUST UNAMERICAN!!!!

I hope you do understand that it's different for a presidential candidate to want to beat his opponent, very different from being the leader of you party and proposing in 2010 (2 years before the election, when actual work needed to be done) that your number 1 goal is completely say no to everything the president proposed (before having heard any of it) and to alienate members of your party who do try to reach across the aisle. Yeah i'd call that not only un-american, but evil.

He hasn't proposed anything, or more precisely, hasn't proposed anything he hasn't already done. This is in contrast to Reagan 84 and Clinton 96 and Bush 2004, all of which used the campaign to introduce new policies they wanted to push in their second terms. Also worth noting: Those guys all won.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...n-reform-plan/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...l-it-help-you/

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion...arojasxml.html

So there's that.

First off, he's only proposed to end the tax cuts on high income. And because the high income ($250k up) still gets taxed at the lower rates below the threshold, it barely makes a dent in government revenues.

Yes, the entire Bush tax cut expiring would bring in about $1 trillion over 10 years. But that's mainly due to including lower and middle class tax cuts in the elimination.

If your belief is increase taxes for more revenue, the middle class has to have tax increases as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...R9aW_blog.html

True it wouldn't generate 1 trillion, but 850 billion is pretty close. Note its from the Washington Post which is conservative, and tends to undervalue these numbers I've read other publications that do in fact place the number at 1 trillion. Thats neither here nor there, as this amounts a large increase in revenue.

Also, I love it how this guy criticizes Republicans for loving social issues while giving a complete pass to Democrats having a 3 day love fest for abortion-on-demand.

1.) Democrats are talking about protecting the already existing right to have an abortion.

2.) Republicans are proposing ludicrous things such as

No legal representation of same-sex couples (including the already existing ones)

Replicating Arizona style immigration laws

Mandatory Ultrasound for abortions, which in their own words can't be preformed (even in rape and incest).

Auditing the federal reserve

No woman in combat

No statehood for Washington D.C (really this was setted almost 100 years ago....)

So yeah I'd say there's a difference.

[randomspot555]

his apologetic foreign policy is laughable.

How is this apologetic? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...men-drone-war/

It just seems like his foreign policy prefers drone wars and secret ops whereas Bush's wars favored 'boots on the ground'

[Auaria~]

This thread makes me wish I cared more about politics...

[Old Soul]

Replicating Arizona style immigration laws

i don't see the problem with that tbh.