Forums → WEPR → Obama or Romney
| 213 | 61307 |
- 213 Replies
I chose Romney with out a doubt in my mined. The republican approach to economics is the best and the only way we are going to get out of this economic hardship is by taking the republican path. Why continue on the greatest spending spree in my life time when we are in debt up to our heads. Obama has raised the debt more in his first term than Bush in his two terms. What we need to do as a country is to take a step back and even use a little common sense. Take yourself for instance, lets say your in debt personally, what are you going to do to get out of debt? I would cut my spending (Buy more generic products, only buy what is a necessity, no vacations, etc..), and work overtime if I can to make more money. Well that seems like a plan, now how will the government get out of debt... Well it could cut spending from certain things, and not buy things it doesn't need like new healthcare(OBAMACARE). For the work overtime thing there isn't much the government can do, but what it can do is allow the people to work overtime by giving the private sector tax breaks so they can pay the workers more money and higher more. Solved the crisis OMFG!! Did you know that this is more towards a republican plan? That means getting republicans in Washington(Both congress and president) will be a step closer to implementing success... Vote for Romney!!! (Hes a republican).
Here is some stuff:
Obama's debt
Cutting simple spending
Aka this is one of my first posts so if I mess up using code sorry...
Obama has raised the debt more in his first term than Bush in his two terms.
check this site.
it's not bashing anyone. it's just stating facts.
Thank you for stating the facts, but there are holes... If you look at the link I gave you, you would see that I was correctly stating based on the trillion dollars of debt, not debt in %GDP (Keep in mine during bush we had the market crash, twin towers, war, etc..). May I also ask you to look a bit lower on your link. Your link supported my statement and also stated that Obama was worse on change in debt %GDP, actually being the worst out of all listed, something I did not know. btw your graph that you posted is not complete, while showing bushes full two terms(8 years) it only shows Obama's first 'year' only a year? Its been a term...
Oh ya and further on your link it points out the fact that the lowest debt in %GDP was during a time of :
This was a period of stagflation (high unemployment and high inflation), but was actually a good period relative to managing the US debt burden as a % of GDP.???... a bit confusion... Obama did raise the debt limit does that make an impact on these stats? I'm not sure since I'm not entirely knowledgeable on GDP.
Go Romney's wife ya! ... Watching the live presentation going on in Florida.
The republican approach to economics is the best and the only way we are going to get out of this economic hardship is by taking the republican path.
Yeah, until the 'republican' decides to be a democrat.
Republican (pre-election): I support a free market where we allow businesses to grow and prosper on their own. We should keep taxes low so that businesses can reinvest that money. Our economy will be better off!
Republican (post-election): I still do support the free market, but there are some moments where the government does have to get involved and stimulate the economy. This is why I am signing an expensive stimulus package, so that we can boost the market and allow the free market to thrive.
Democrat (Next pre-election): The free market favors the wealthy. That money belongs to everyone! I wish to increase taxes and use that money to give back to everyone! We're tired of the elite few controlling our free market! It is time we stepped in!
Democrat (Next post-election): We can not count on the free market. Our last president was pro-free market, and look where we are now. The government has to step in from time to time. This is why I am signing an expensive stimulus package, so that we can boost the market in spite of the failing free market.
Basically, both sides are, for the most part, the same.
The Obama administration has already amended its contraception regulation to provide accommodations for employers and insurers who object to covering birth control for religious reasons. A third-party insurer may pay for the birth control, ensuring no additional cost to either the employee seeking coverage nor the religious institution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If you believe abortion isn't ethical, who cares? But if you believe abortion goes against God's will, then you get a small break.
Also, Obama demanding health insurance covers contraceptives is the BIGGEST LOAD OF CRAP I have ever heard.
Even though I'm against socialized healthcare, allow me to express why contraceptives shouldn't be covered. The two reasons why people support socialized healthcare is because a.) healthcare is too expensive, and b.) people can't help it if they get sick.
1. Although there are some expensive forms of birth control, there are very cheap alternatives! Even the poor can afford condoms and health control!
2. Sex is an option! You can't control whether you have cancer or not, but you can refuse to have sex!
There is literally no reason why insurance companies should be forced to pay for contraceptives. I honestly don't know why I have to pay for other people to **** each other. If I spend money on condoms, I want those condoms covering my ****, not some cheap wanker's **** who refuses to buy condoms from his pharmacy using his own money.
If insurance companies are being forced to pay for CHEAP contraceptives, then why don't we force insurance companies to pay for toothpaste?! Toothpaste is important, it helps fight gingivitis!
Oh, and I already created a thread discussing how abstinence-only education was snuck into the Obamacare bill.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of thec press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
He gets bashed for not looking after them. He gets bashed for doing so. Is there no satisfying people with moderation?
1. Although there are some expensive forms of birth control, there are very cheap alternatives! Even the poor can afford condoms and health control!
2. Sex is an option! You can't control whether you have cancer or not, but you can refuse to have sex!
It's the concept of merit and demerit goods. You might not want to fork out a few cents for the condom, but it makes sense from a purely economic sense, marginal social benefit outweighs marginal social cost due to externalities.
Not going support a folly candidate suh as Paul who thinks even Federal highways are unconstitutional. What a load of crap. The Constituion is a great piece if legislation that serves to guide governments; yet when it is whipped out in strict adherence to dogma, it falls apart.
He gets bashed for not looking after them. He gets bashed for doing so. Is there no satisfying people with moderation?
What's the point of having rights if the government isn't going to abide by the rules?
It's the concept of merit and demerit goods. You might not want to fork out a few cents for the condom, but it makes sense from a purely economic sense, marginal social benefit outweighs marginal social cost due to externalities.
It makes no sense from a purely economical sense. Condoms are cheap and easy to buy. You can argue that people need contraceptives, but the market has already provided cheap and easily to obtain contraceptives. What externalities are there?
Before you create a law, there needs to be a problem.
What is the problem? Are contraceptives too expensive? Are they too hard to obtain? How will insurance companies providing contraceptives help us in any way?
Again, I want to know why condoms are so important anyway. Why isn't toothpaste covered by insurance?
Contraceptives cost money. It is unethical to use force against other human beings so that they must pay for other people's contraceptives. That's just wrong. But, ethics aside, we have NO PROBLEM. There's nothing that needs fixed!
I don't want to fork a few cents for a condom, because it's my few cents. Theft is always wrong. It doesn't matter if you take 5 dollars on the bill the next morning, or if you take it 5 cents at a time. Property is property. More importantly, if I don't want to pay for healthcare in which people are using my money to **** each other, I have no choice but to pay. If I don't, I have the government taking away my property and throwing me behind a cage.
It's one thing to use coercion to help the sick and the needy, but there are no sick and needy when it comes to contraceptives. People who need contraceptives are those in 3rd world nations where availability is a problem, not America where everyone can afford and obtain them.
I know I feel like a broken record, but, what's the purpose?
It makes no sense from a purely economical sense. Condoms are cheap and easy to buy. You can argue that people need contraceptives, but the market has already provided cheap and easily to obtain contraceptives. What externalities are there?
It does. Condoms are viewed as goods with positive externalities (reducing unwanted births, reducing the number of kids who grow up without proper care, who will likely end up as troublemakers yadayada). The marginal benefit to society is more than the marginal social cost to society, hence this is allocatively from an economic point of view, due to consumption. Merit goods are likely going to be underconsumed, that's why the government needs to step in to achieve allocative efficiency. Anyone can afford them, but it doesn't mean they will use them, unless the government forces them or coaxes them to.
If you're not willing to fork out a few cents, get ready to fork out more for other social costs in the future when the kids grow up.
Durex â" a leading condom manufacturer â" released a survey examining the condom practices of sexually-active individuals across the globe. Examing 26,000 individuals from 26 countries, the survey found the United States lagged behind other nations in terms of condom usage. A similar survey conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, examining the reproductive habits of various Western countries, found âalthough the rate of sexual activity among U.S. teens is similar to other developing countries, they donât use contraceptives as often as teens in other Western countries.â Finally, the Journal of Medicine released the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior which related that intervention efforts aimed at teens seem to be working, with teen condom usage increasing â" especially during first intercourse â" but usage seems to disappate as individuals enter their 20s and early 30s. Also, individuals over the age of 50 show extremely low condom usage.
May I also ask you to look a bit lower on your link. Your link supported my statement and also stated that Obama was worse on change in debt %GDP, actually being the worst out of all listed,
did you read my link or did you only watch the graphs?
i can't discuss it of you do not read it.
btw your graph that you posted is not complete, while showing bushes full two terms(8 years) it only shows Obama's first 'year' only a year?
maybe because the graph is from 2010?
check the link for 2012.
btw i also want to add the bush junior spended 1.4billion more per year then what he earned. obama 1.1billion more then what he earns.
8 times 1.4 billion is 11.2 billion spend to much.
4 times 1.1 billion is 4.4 billion spend to much.
pick your side
It does. Condoms are viewed as goods with positive externalities (reducing unwanted births, reducing the number of kids who grow up without proper care, who will likely end up as troublemakers yadayada).
You see these benefits when people USE contraceptives.
If the government wants to force insurance companies to provide free contraceptives, then we must assume that people aren't using contraceptives because they are either a.) too expensive, or b.) not available. As I have stated before, contraceptives are both. Forcing insurance companies to provide contraceptives solves a problem that doesn't exist.
I don't understand how government providing a good that's already cheap and easily obtainable will increase contraceptive usage.
Anyone can afford them, but it doesn't mean they will use them, unless the government forces them or coaxes them to.
Are we talking about the same thing? It sounds like you're suggesting people be coerced into using contraceptives, rather than making contraceptives cheap and affordable (which, they already are).
I assume you're trying to state that more people will use contraceptives if they're provided in a backhanded way. That is, instead of paying for condoms when we need them, we pay taxes so the condoms look as if they're free.
But let's assume that's true. It is still immoral to use coercion to "manipulate" people into using contraceptives, even if it does save money in the long run (less accidental births).
If you want more people to use contraceptives, then find a way to achieve this goal without resorting to use of guns and government threats.
I don't understand how Obama can demand insurance companies provide contraceptives, then allow this to slip into Obamacare. Regardless, if you want to change the world, find ways to better educate and convince people than through use of coercion.
This is more of a thought experiment than anything. Hugging, holding hands, and kissing can lead to sex. Let's suppose a law is passed in which students are not allowed to do these things at school. If a teacher allows students to do any of these things, the teachers may get sued. After the law is implemented, teen pregnancies are reduced greatly. Would you support said law? Why or why not?
@partydevil:
8 times 1.4 billion is 11.2 billion spend to much.
4 times 1.1 billion is 4.4 billion spend to much.
Look just because a president spent something in one year doesn't mean the spending is going to go in a linear rate. Therefore taking one year in Bush's term and multiplying it by 8 doesn't work and isn't supported on the graph you posted. It doesn't work for Obama either. If you looked at my link you would see your numbers are off anyway.
did you read my link or did you only watch the graphs?
i can't discuss it of you do not read it.
I read a good majority of it, parts I skimmed over, etc. Did you read my link? Also here it states as quote from your link to back up my statement (its not a graph):
Using the first method, Change in US debt as a % of GDP, Clinton is the best while Obama is the worst (interestingly, both Democrats!)
@NoNamec68:
I agree with much of what your saying. Since I believe that the government should not intrude on my privacy and should not be a snob thinking that I think I'm too poor or stupid to use protection I believe they should leave it out of conversation entirely. Forcing someone to do something for somebody else, whether it be good or bad is wrong.
Here is a little thing I came up with that will make people think (hopefully):
The government is pissing people off... The government is trying to force things onto the people... The government is trying to over tax the people... Starting to sound like the British during the colonial era when we were still part of them... The government is taking away the people's power and we need to stop them. They wish to overtake the people, but our fore founders were smart. They knew this would happen again and that the people would be in trouble, so they added a simple right: The right to bear arms. By adding this they didn't think that it would make people equal to each other, instead they knew that it would make people equal to the government. If every citizen was carrying around a gun then you would have the worlds 3rd largest army. Can somebody explain to me why the democrats want to limit the peoples only defense (guns). It makes no sense to take the guns out of legals hands because criminals will still get them due to the smuggling and wide open borders we have with both Mexico and Canada. Remember cars are made of metal and dogs can't smell firearms. Sort of gives me a feeling of insecurity and the thoughts that maybe the democrats are trying to take over the US?...........
ort of gives me a feeling of insecurity and the thoughts that maybe the democrats are trying to take over the US?...........
...
Go to the conspiracy theory thread.
This is more of a thought experiment than anything. Hugging, holding hands, and kissing can lead to sex. Let's suppose a law is passed in which students are not allowed to do these things at school. If a teacher allows students to do any of these things, the teachers may get sued. After the law is implemented, teen pregnancies are reduced greatly. Would you support said law? Why or why not?
I would support it if it were optional for the school to enforce it. Obviously, in this example, it is effective. If an area is having trouble with teen pregnancies then this would be a good way to stop that until their sexual education courses are up to speed, which have also been proven to greatly help.
You see these benefits when people USE contraceptives.
If the government wants to force insurance companies to provide free contraceptives, then we must assume that people aren't using contraceptives because they are either a.) too expensive, or b.) not available. As I have stated before, contraceptives are both. Forcing insurance companies to provide contraceptives solves a problem that doesn't exist.
I don't understand how government providing a good that's already cheap and easily obtainable will increase contraceptive usage.
It's not just forcing people yo use. It's educating people to use, they might know the functions of a condom, but it takes campaigns to really make people use them. That's the basic underlying assumption to merit goods. We have seen cases like this before. Education, mammograms, vaccines.
Are we talking about the same thing? It sounds like you're suggesting people be coerced into using contraceptives, rather than making contraceptives cheap and affordable (which, they already are).
By providing the condoms at cheaper prices, it is in a way education.
Do I know the reason why people don't use condoms? Not exactly. Have past programs worked? Yes. A program in a Baltimore, MD highschool demonstrated the importance of access to contraception. The program made condoms and other forms of contraception available for free to students and saw the pregnancy rate drop by 30% in 28 months.
As it is, contraceptives here don't just mean condoms. Until recently, virtually all health insurance plans in the US covered costs of prenatal care and childbirth, and most also covered sterilization and abortion, but a much smaller fraction covered costs of contraception. As of 2003, it was estimated that only 15% of health insurance plans in the US covered all five FDA-approved prescription contraceptives the pill, diaphragm, IUD, Norplant, and Depo-provera) and only 50% covered any method at all. Also, oddly enough, many insurance companies offered coverage for the drug "Viagra," as a treatment for impotence, while not necessarily covering costs of contraception. These drugs aren't exactly "cheap".
As to the "ethnics" question....good luck treasuring them being enshrined when the real world sets in. You guys have quite the high teenage pregnancy as it is.
By providing the condoms at cheaper prices, it is in a way education.
Do I know the reason why people don't use condoms? Not exactly. Have past programs worked? Yes. A program in a Baltimore, MD highschool demonstrated the importance of access to contraception. The program made condoms and other forms of contraception available for free to students and saw the pregnancy rate drop by 30% in 28 months.
Where were the condoms provided? If the condoms were given out at the school, I'm sure you would have also seen a reduction if they were sold at the school. Oh, and another curiosity. Were the condoms handed out or did the students have to ask for them? Seeing as how the school was an experiment, how much did they talk about contraceptives in the school? These are all important questions because it's a completely different environment.
I'm all for educating students, and if you want to give free condoms to people, YOU and everyone who supports giving free contraceptives to people should write your own checks. Or, you could become a part of one of the insurance companies that provide free contraceptives.
As it is, contraceptives here don't just mean condoms. Until recently, virtually all health insurance plans in the US covered costs of prenatal care and childbirth, and most also covered sterilization and abortion, but a much smaller fraction covered costs of contraception.
Contraceptives are:
a.) cheap
b.) easy to obtain
Child births and abortions are expensive procedures.
Also, oddly enough, many insurance companies offered coverage for the drug "Viagra," as a treatment for impotence, while not necessarily covering costs of contraception. These drugs aren't exactly "cheap"
You can choose whether you want to have sex or not, but being impotent is not a choice. Impotency is a medical condition, whereas urges to have sex isn't one.
As to the "ethnics" question....good luck treasuring them being enshrined when the real world sets in. You guys have quite the high teenage pregnancy as it is.
Teen pregnancy is rough. However, I hold strong the belief that cutting teen pregnancy should be done in a non-coercive manner. Heck, I bet teen pregnancies would drop if there were condom machines at high schools.
You must be logged in to post a reply!