Ivytalk wrote:
+2. The Supreme Court, higher taxes on everything under an Obummer administration, and aversion to European "social democracy" are my top 3 reasons to vote for Mitt.
Plus, BHO is an arrogant jackass who never admits a mistake.
The Supreme Court would be the only reason I'd vote for Obama...but it's still not a good enough one.
And Europe is big country, please be more specific.
OK, perfesser. Practically everywhere in Europe prides itself on being a "social democracy" with high taxes and cradle-to-grave social programs. Tiny Estonia, believe it or not, is one of the few European countries left that has lower taxes and encourages capitalists. Skype was invented there. Offhand, I can't think of any other exceptions to the European nanny state rule. Many countries are basket cases: we all know about the PIIGS countries, and Belgium is coming apart at the seams due to ethnic disputes between the Flemings and the Walloons. You?
kalm wrote:
The Supreme Court would be the only reason I'd vote for Obama...but it's still not a good enough one.
And Europe is big country, please be more specific.
OK, perfesser. Practically everywhere in Europe prides itself on being a "social democracy" with high taxes and cradle-to-grave social programs. Tiny Estonia, believe it or not, is one of the few European countries left that has lower taxes and encourages capitalists. Skype was invented there. Offhand, I can't think of any other exceptions to the European nanny state rule. Many countries are basket cases: we all know about the PIIGS countries, and Belgium is coming apart at the seams due to ethnic disputes between the Flemings and the Walloons. You?
Just like us, they are all mixed economies. It's just a matter of degrees and what they choose to fund. But it's not as if capitalism does not exist in Europe. Besides, they've had the luxury of not having to sink a bunch of dough into their militaries. But they're standard of living in many regards exceeds ours and I'm guessing we might be in an equal amount of trouble if not for our leverage.
Bottom line: socialismophobia is over-blown. Things are fucked up everywhere.
Ivytalk wrote:
OK, perfesser. Practically everywhere in Europe prides itself on being a "social democracy" with high taxes and cradle-to-grave social programs. Tiny Estonia, believe it or not, is one of the few European countries left that has lower taxes and encourages capitalists. Skype was invented there. Offhand, I can't think of any other exceptions to the European nanny state rule. Many countries are basket cases: we all know about the PIIGS countries, and Belgium is coming apart at the seams due to ethnic disputes between the Flemings and the Walloons. You?
Just like us, they are all mixed economies. It's just a matter of degrees and what they choose to fund. But it's not as if capitalism does not exist in Europe. Besides, they've had the luxury of not having to sink a bunch of dough into their militaries. But they're standard of living in many regards exceeds ours and I'm guessing we might be in an equal amount of trouble if not for our leverage.
Bottom line: socialismophobia is over-blown. Things are **** up everywhere.
We're all mixed economies to varying degrees but if you put the countries on a spectrum with capitalist to one side and socialist to the other (i.e. Great Britain .. Germany .. France .. Greece) I think you would find that the more socialist the country the more economically ****up they likely are.
I would also argue that while our leverage has been beneficial in limiting the depth of our problems it's irrelevant when compared to how much better shape would be in if we had military expenditures similar to what many of these countries have. Unfortunately we don't and we won't have limited military expenditures but don't use our leverage as the reason we're not as far gone. They're ****ed up because they over-committed on social programs using the cheap borrowing power that being in the EU gave them even though they didn't deserve that credit. Our leverage gives us access to a lot of credit but the credit isn't the problem it's spending our children's future earnings like drunken sailors that is going to **** us up.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It will probably be difficult for MAQA yahoos to overcome the Qult programming but they should give being rational & reasonable a try.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
blueballs wrote:Hopefully Romney and a GOP majority can repeal Obamacare and Dodd/Frank (financial services and banking reform) as well as shitcanning Bernanke.
That's enough reason right thar' for me...
This. Obamacare ALONE is reason enough for me to vote Mitt. I am definitely not going to be expecting much from Romney if he wins, but that abomination known as the "Affordable" (HA!) Health Care Act needs to be obliterated.
blueballs wrote:Hopefully Romney and a GOP majority can repeal Obamacare and Dodd/Frank (financial services and banking reform) as well as shitcanning Bernanke.
That's enough reason right thar' for me...
This. Obamacare ALONE is reason enough for me to vote Mitt. I am definitely not going to be expecting much from Romney if he wins, but that abomination known as the "Affordable" (HA!) Health Care Act needs to be obliterated.
Then institute Romneycare...and real, meaningful banking reform!
This. Obamacare ALONE is reason enough for me to vote Mitt. I am definitely not going to be expecting much from Romney if he wins, but that abomination known as the "Affordable" (HA!) Health Care Act needs to be obliterated.
Then institute Romneycare...and real, meaningful banking reform!
That was GOVERNER Romney. I'm talking about PRESIDENT Romney.
Part of it is always who the alternative is. But the reason is basic philosophy of government. Romney, as is the case with probably any Republican who could be nominated, believes in somewhat less federal government management of the economy, business decisions, the environment, etc. than any Democrat likely to be nominated would. There's also Supreme Court appointments. Though conservative appointees tend not to be as "reliable in being conservative as liberal apointees tend to be in being liberal, it's still the case that there is a better shot at getting an appointee that will stick at least somewhat closer to the actual Constitution and it's original understanding if a Republican is doing the nominating. You're not going to get a Ruth Bader Ginsberg with a Republican doing the nominating and you're not going to get a Clarence Thomas with a Democrat doing the nominating.
It's not ideal. But it does carry a better chance of slowing the degradation of our system precipitated primarily by the Democratic Party.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
Southerners are going to be funny on this vote. They hate Romney because he doesn't believe in some fake being and the tooth fairy that is their own, but they hate the brother.
Ivytalk wrote:
+2. The Supreme Court, higher taxes on everything under an Obummer administration, and aversion to European "social democracy" are my top 3 reasons to vote for Mitt.
Plus, BHO is an arrogant jackass who never admits a mistake.
+6.93
Mitt is an arrogant jackass also, but less so than Obama. Another four under Obama and he will have made everyone middle class, both the high earners and the no earners.
As opposed to the conk plan of eliminating the middle class and redistributing their wealth to the 1%.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
kalm wrote:
Just like us, they are all mixed economies. It's just a matter of degrees and what they choose to fund. But it's not as if capitalism does not exist in Europe. Besides, they've had the luxury of not having to sink a bunch of dough into their militaries. But they're standard of living in many regards exceeds ours and I'm guessing we might be in an equal amount of trouble if not for our leverage.
Bottom line: socialismophobia is over-blown. Things are **** up everywhere.
We're all mixed economies to varying degrees but if you put the countries on a spectrum with capitalist to one side and socialist to the other (i.e. Great Britain .. Germany .. France .. Greece) I think you would find that the more socialist the country the more economically ****up they likely are.
I would also argue that while our leverage has been beneficial in limiting the depth of our problems it's irrelevant when compared to how much better shape would be in if we had military expenditures similar to what many of these countries have. Unfortunately we don't and we won't have limited military expenditures but don't use our leverage as the reason we're not as far gone. They're ****ed up because they over-committed on social programs using the cheap borrowing power that being in the EU gave them even though they didn't deserve that credit. Our leverage gives us access to a lot of credit but the credit isn't the problem it's spending our children's future earnings like drunken sailors that is going to **** us up.
Too bad they aren't more like us, they'd be kicking ass and taking names economically. Oh wait.....
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
Gil Dobie wrote:Didn't vote for McCain or Obama because they were too much like Bush. Don't think Romney is much different, but he can't be worse than Obama.
Is Romney next for the hug of death
He already is.
Forcing insurance on the good citizens of Massachusetts and hiding his criminal profits abroad. This isn't going to look good when the campaign gets rolling...
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
Gil Dobie wrote:Didn't vote for McCain or Obama because they were too much like Bush. Don't think Romney is much different, but he can't be worse than Obama.
Sure he can. Not saying that he will be, but it's not at all out of the question. The way things are going these days I can easily see us going from out of the frying pan and into the fire.
I might vote for Romney, but I'm under no illusion that a vote for Romney is "risk free". Things can get better, they can also get worse.
houndawg wrote:
Forcing insurance on the good citizens of Massachusetts and hiding his criminal profits abroad. This isn't going to look good when the campaign gets rolling...
Illegal? Call the fucking police, then.
You forget one important thing. Taxachusetts is a very liberal state, and liberals want the government to provide for their insurance.
houndawg wrote:
Forcing insurance on the good citizens of Massachusetts and hiding his criminal profits abroad. This isn't going to look good when the campaign gets rolling...
Illegal? Call the **** police, then.
You forget one important thing. Taxachusetts is a very liberal state, and liberals want the government to provide for their insurance.
Way wealthier and better educated than Georgia. Hmm. Wonder why?
