(Totally forgot about this thread). But I feel like a lot of people did exactly that when they voted for Obama because "McCain's about to die and Sarah Palin is scary as fuck" and then regretted voting for him. I'm not nearly educated enough about the candidates to take a side so why vote?
Educate yourself. I really doubt you're too busy for that. That or just don't do anything ever because you might regret it.
Well then, there's the solution I work at least 10 hours every week day and spend most of my weekends... not working, and I still stay informed. And I'm a fucking idiot. If I can do it anyone else can.
I'm sorry but out of that entire list of grievances, there's only one on a stretch you can rightfully accuse him of. And no, it's not the Great Depression one, he actually helped avert a depression on that scale.
There's actually 100% proof that he ordered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. There's also 100% proof that he ordered the bombings in Libya. How do you think her averted a depression?
That killing is the only part you got right. He didn't start the Iraq War or Afghan War, Bush did. He didn't start the recession, Bush did. And I'm not gonna bother arguing the depression measure, because I already know what you're going to say. You're the sort who's determined to hate Obama no matter what because he hasn't gotten many bills through in his term. Look beyond the executive at the bigger picture, look at the bills he has passed rather than the ones he hasn't. The bailouts may be nothing more than a bad word now, but I know for a fact that his support for the Michigan automotive industry for example has done its part in bringing back my home state.
Ok. Even if you ignore Libya, continuing the wars of Bush isn't necessary. Why has he kept the wars going? Obama has passed many things. I'm not hating on him just for the sake of hating on him. I'm hating on him because he has no idea what he's doing, or because he actually knows what he's doing and he's ruining our country and civil liberties on purpose. Either scenario isn't good. And I would like to get into the depression measure, because I want you to know that the things that you think he's helped on have actually done the exact opposite. That's what Keynesian economics does.
Who gets training to be president? Certainly not first-term presidents. That's partly why I really want him to get his second term. Nothing wrong with Keynesian economics. There are plenty of problems with the Laffer curve however, and we've been seeing its effects quite vividly in practice the last decade or so.
Actually laughed out loud from this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Origin_of_the_term_.22Laffer_Curve.22 Keynesian economics says that if there's nothing going on, it's stimulating to the economy to have people dig holes and fill them back up. It says disasters are good for the economy because it gets people working. I hope you can see the faulty logic in there. A Keynesian would claim that 9/11 was stimulating to the economy. These are the people that are running our economy.
I ddon't think we should lock ourselves into anyone economic system. We have to be able to flex and bend with times and needs. I feel like a mixed economy is what we need right now. And we have to force these company's to bring jobs back to America and we need to start exporting goods instead of just importing goods. You can't buy and not sell and expect a profit
I saw a Ron Paul 2012 banner hanging from a pedestrian overpass over the highway today. I lol'ed. It was hanging from the bridge paid for by taxes so people don't have to play human frogger to cross an 8 lane freeway - which was also built because of that evil socialist interstate highway program. And the sign was tied to the fence on the overpass, the fence placed there by the nanny state government to prevent the Paulies from losing their balance on the overpass and falling 20 feet in front of an 18 wheeler barreling down the highway at 65 miles an hour.
So taxpayers shouldn't use what they paid for? A typical statist comment. If there were no taxes, nothing would be built or paid for. If there were no government, there would be nothing. If you abolish the Department of Education, there can't be education. It's all or nothing for statists. There is no thinking between the lines. Either the government supplies it or it won't be supplied. It's not possible to be supplied. Probably my favorite: "If there isn't an income tax, how will the government pay for things?" Um, we would pay for them. We are already forced to pay for things we don't always want. It would be cheaper, it would be of better quality, and it would be how we actually want it instead of how we're told we should want it. We don't need the government to take our money and decide what we need. We don't need a middle man making those choices with our money. Are we not capable of acting like adults and making our own choices and taking responsibility for ourselves? Or are we going to keep relying on the government to pay for things that they steal from other people to supply for you? But statists love socialism. They want other people to pay for things that they will never use and don't want to pay for. As long as you are supplied with what YOU want, who cares? Your comment reminded me of this: [youtube]htX2usfqMEs[/youtube]
Maybe I won't ever use it, but might not someone else? Is there really something wrong in providing for your fellow man/woman? After all, that's why society exists in the first place: I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.
Obama isn't a fucking socialist. Not wanting really small government doesn't make you a fucking socialist. Neither does not being against the income tax, and it doesn't make you some kind of totalitarian asshole and whatever else you're trying to imply. Funnily enough this is the guy who has essentially said before that capitalism that isn't pure unfettered 100% laissez faire capitalism ISN'T capitalism. You clearly aren't stupid and I dont have anything personal against you, but seriously, if you want more people to engage with you properly stop being so disingenuous and fallacious. I'm normally completely fine at discussing things civilly with people who don't agree with me, and I'm nearly at my wits end here.
Socializing things makes you a socialist. Taking from a certain group of people to pay for another group is socialism. Having an income tax means the government owns our income and decides what to do with it. This is socialism. Wanting the government involved in public affairs makes you a statist. There's nothing wrong with wanting to provide for other people. I'm fine with giving to charity and spending money for people I don't know when it's my choice to do so. I'm not fine with having that money stolen from me to provide for other people. And yeah, I know money is stolen from other people to provide for me. The point is people should have the choice to spend their money how they see fit. An income tax is dangerous. It literally means that the government owns our jobs and gets to decide what to do with what we earn. What if one day they decide to take 50%? 100%?