Forums → WEPR → Obama, 2012-2016 President of the United States of America
| 255 | 72414 |
Well he won.
274-203
Romney got more votes but Obama got more elecrol votes.
COMMENT!
- 255 Replies
Yes because we want Ryan to lead this country.
Pfft, I'd be long gone by then. It was more of a 'It's the thought that counts' deal. ^_^
(I find the fact that the president receives more money than some people have to use to pay just half their debts hilarious.)
Many people earn more then the President. It's power, not money that lies in the position.
Yay, Obama won! Obama may not do much, but Romney would send the US into the ground with no intention of giving a helping hand. Lesser of two weevils, in Aubrey's sense.
I flipped on a friend of mine when he posted "Woot! Now I can finish school and get my degree!"
The college system is broken. College is important, and we have a bunch of people who are profiting off of this. Now, that's PERFECTLY FINE. Profit is OKAY. However, the way in which they profit is not. They determine what classes students have to take and how many so they can obtain a degree to get a job. Because of this, they require students to give up many years of their life as well as a mother **** load of money so they may potentially obtain a job that may or may not be in demand.
The above scam is pretty weak, people are eventually going to find cheaper alternatives that are more affordable, more efficient, and just overall less demanding. This is why you have the government paying for student to go to college. Either students get the money for free, or they are loaned the money and they get their foot in the door. Either way, the college profits.
Romney got more votes but Obama got more elecrol votes.
Current stats show Obama ahead popularly by about 200K-250K (votes are still coming in, so it could change). That makes me slightly less miffed at the EC system, as the people aren't being cheated this time (for now).
With the recent update, Obama has both more electoral votes and has majority vote, so there won't be a third rarity in the history of the US.
Many people earn more then the President. It's power, not money that lies in the position.
To be honest, $500,000 a year for being President isn't too shabby, considering the colossal amount of stress he/she receives when on the job. Of course, you said it's the power that is the reason why people vie for the position, which is agreeable. It'd be silly for people to run for the presidency for the 500K salary.
The college system is broken. College is important, and we have a bunch of people who are profiting off of this. Now, that's PERFECTLY FINE. Profit is OKAY. However, the way in which they profit is not. They determine what classes students have to take and how many so they can obtain a degree to get a job. Because of this, they require students to give up many years of their life as well as a mother **** load of money so they may potentially obtain a job that may or may not be in demand.
Why, why, why must I know two semesters of Physics if I'm going for a Biology degree
On a different note!
Who else is waiting to see the victory speech? I've been sitting here for what seems like forever, listening to fools babble.
Personally, I was rather unhappy about Obama winning the election. Despite his lackluster and rather anticlimatical results from his last term, he is an exceptional speaker. This seems to have made him win...
Before we start, I would like to say that the political system of the United States is broken; instead of the best person being elected, the only way to win and disseminate information is to spend money... a lot of it.
@ SSTG You often cite Romney as spending a lot of money and having "rich buddies", but you fail to consider that while Romney may have more financial industry friends and has raised more money than Obama, Obama clearly has spent a lot more money than Romney has. The figure that Obama has spent is quite a bit more than the "richer" Romney. Care to shed some light on your views?
See this NY times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/politics/obama-spends-the-most-in-june-but-romney-raises-more.html
While I do agree with Obama on some views, gay rights, hopefully job creation, and some other issues, there is full disagreement on the Universal Health Care issue. Here is a couple tidbits on how he thinks this will work out.
http://www.barackobama.com/health-care
We americans sometimes are wary about the government and this belief is justified over history. After all, the government can do some crazy things...
Obama makes universal health care sounds like a great thing. In a way it is, people who couldn't afford health care before can and nobody will go with inept care. Isn't that what every nation wants? Let think about this economically. Economics is, all in all, the allocation of scarce resources.
It takes several things for granted, especially in a Laissez-faire economy.
1. People want the best for themselves.
2. In doing so they inadvertently impose costs on others.
This system gives individuals incentives to do well; if you start a successful business, you will do well. Unfortunately, universal health care IS going to pass down costs onto doctors causing a subsequent lowering in wages. Folling our assumptions, now that doctors will be paid less to do their procedures what will happen? Inevitably, they will lower their standards. A possible way is to spend less time? Another is to "save costs" by giving less quality care for the patient. If you are wondering, this isn't hypothetical.
See link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/
-Doctors will have to increase load.
-Costs will be passed onto patients.
Something tells me that this isn't going to work? Also, this money will be coming from YOUR pocket, taxpayer money. Where else can we get money from?
Second, the raising taxes on the 1% possibly isn't such a good idea. At first, this may sound like a nice idea to get easy money. What they fail to take into account is that this 1% has much more financial mobility than others of lower socioeconomic status and also have ways to evade thse taxes. Unlike the average american, they generally have a better financial literacy. By making the terrain more hostile for these people aren't we encouraging them to move? Also, this 1% usually isn't part of that 1% for no reason at all. Simply, they drive our economy. They aren't just some lazy people who randomly get money, they develop business models to run our economy...this is how our economy is the embodiement of capitalism. Yes, they may have recently trashed it, but that problem once again was caused by the government. (a story for another time)
The last thing that we americans are lacking is education.
Personally, I was rather unhappy about Obama winning the election. Despite his lackluster and rather anticlimatical results from his last term, he is an exceptional speaker. This seems to have made him win...
Before we start, I would like to say that the political system of the United States is broken; instead of the best person being elected, the only way to win and disseminate information is to spend money... a lot of it.
@ SSTG You often cite Romney as spending a lot of money and having "rich buddies", but you fail to consider that while Romney may have more financial industry friends and has raised more money than Obama, Obama clearly has spent a lot more money than Romney has. The figure that Obama has spent is quite a bit more than the "richer" Romney. Care to shed some light on your views?
See this NY times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/politics/obama-spends-the-most-in-june-but-romney-raises-more.html
While I do agree with Obama on some views, gay rights, hopefully job creation, and some other issues, there is full disagreement on the Universal Health Care issue. Here is a couple tidbits on how he thinks this will work out.
http://www.barackobama.com/health-care
We americans sometimes are wary about the government and this belief is justified over history. After all, the government can do some crazy things...
Obama makes universal health care sounds like a great thing. In a way it is, people who couldn't afford health care before can and nobody will go with inept care. Isn't that what every nation wants? Let think about this economically. Economics is, all in all, the allocation of scarce resources.
It takes several things for granted, especially in a Laissez-faire economy.
1. People want the best for themselves.
2. In doing so they inadvertently impose costs on others.
This system gives individuals incentives to do well; if you start a successful business, you will do well. Unfortunately, universal health care IS going to pass down costs onto doctors causing a subsequent lowering in wages. Folling our assumptions, now that doctors will be paid less to do their procedures what will happen? Inevitably, they will lower their standards. A possible way is to spend less time? Another is to "save costs" by giving less quality care for the patient. If you are wondering, this isn't hypothetical.
See link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/
-Doctors will have to increase load.
-Costs will be passed onto patients.
Something tells me that this isn't going to work? Also, this money will be coming from YOUR pocket, taxpayer money. Where else can we get money from?
Second, the raising taxes on the 1% possibly isn't such a good idea. At first, this may sound like a nice idea to get easy money. What they fail to take into account is that this 1% has much more financial mobility than others of lower socioeconomic status and also have ways to evade thse taxes. Unlike the average american, they generally have a better financial literacy. By making the terrain more hostile for these people aren't we encouraging them to move? Also, this 1% usually isn't part of that 1% for no reason at all. Simply, they drive our economy.
The last point that we need to cover is education. Not only is the education of students degrading greatly, the teacher education isn't that great either.
A friend of mine, a couple years back, had a teacher that said "Bird migrate because they are cold-blooded." Seriously? Not only this, but also "Venus flytraps live in Africa and will develop normal leaves if grown in regular soil."
Well, these live in North Carolina...and they die if put in normal soil. Honestly, if the teacher is comfortable making assumptions, such as these, while teaching, what else do they make up? These days education is too expensive and teachers are overworked.
Another depressing article about american financial literacy:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-dont-understand-investing-basics-2012-09-04?link=MW_story_popular
Last, for all of those who believe in less pay for top executives and using unions to better labor conditions/wages, consider this. By paying the workers more, your little supply curve will shift inward. Fewer goods will be produced at every possible price. When the supply curve shifts inward, quanity decreases and price increases. This makes our product uncompetitive and this cost is passed back to the consumers (workers spending their wages). So basically, our products become less competitive and the cost of paying adds out to have zero benefit.
Honestly, the current state of the government is in a terrible shape and none of the candidates have a reliable way to fix it. Honestly, Romney seems to be the lesser of two evils.
Note: My grammar may not be so great. Currently it is quite late where I live.
-fiss
Obama makes universal health care sounds like a great thing. In a way it is, people who couldn't afford health care before can and nobody will go with inept care. Isn't that what every nation wants? Let think about this economically. Economics is, all in all, the allocation of scarce resources.
It takes several things for granted, especially in a Laissez-faire economy.
What we got wasn't universal health care. What we got was just a requirement to be insured and prevention o be turned down for preexisting conditions. Also buried it this act are a number of things that aren't so good.
Though actual universal healthcare is a good thing and has worked for every other first world nation. This is an area America is severely lagging behind in, in comparison to the rest of the world's nations it tends to stand on par with.
What they fail to take into account is that this 1% has much more financial mobility than others of lower socioeconomic status and also have ways to evade thse taxes.
Tax evasion by the rich is a problem, it's also illegal. Though though not getting money where the money is hasn't shown to work. Giving tax breaks to the rich hasn't shown to be of any benefit and on top of not gaining anything from it financially it also has shown to have an affect on social unrest.
Also, this 1% usually isn't part of that 1% for no reason at all. Simply, they drive our economy.
Yeah into the ground if they thought they could get a few extra bucks out of it.
Overall this worry of taxing the 1% of yours is likely misplaced. It's likely Obama will give tax breaks to the upper and middle class, regardless of his campaigning rhetoric. He just won't be greasing the same palms the Republicans would have.
Honestly, Romney seems to be the lesser of two evils.
I don't see how he was. He never gave any real detail as to how he would really do anything and what he did claim was unfeasible. On top of this he lack the social support Obama had for rights and equality. On a global level Obama for the most part is more liked, giving better face for America, something that is very much needed right now. And in general having Romney would have added to the republicans government pull. A party that has been demonstrating themselves to be full of self serving bigots. Given the behavior overall, I would be willing to call the party evil at this point.
Obama won more popular votes in the end.
The market is the ultimate indicator. The dollar fell to the Euro, which is an extremely good sign for America. Paradoxical yes, but it is good for America.
In other news get ready for much more filibustering as the Reps control the House.
Jubilant that bigotry and elitism didn't triumph in the end. Would be supportive of Romney if he was his old Massachusetts self. But it was not to be because of the Tea Party.
Was just listening to TheAmazingAthiest's take on the reelection. These negative points he mentions are really the one's I would be more concerned with from him.
So Obama Won
In other news get ready for much more filibustering as the Reps control the House.
I am...
of the top 6 topics there are 5 about the usa elections and or the candidates.
can we plz. close some of them? it's annoying and overly done.
just stick whit 1 or 2 plz.
@ SSTG You often cite Romney as spending a lot of money and having "rich buddies", but you fail to consider that while Romney may have more financial industry friends and has raised more money than Obama, Obama clearly has spent a lot more money than Romney has. The figure that Obama has spent is quite a bit more than the "richer" Romney. Care to shed some light on your views?
Closing the loopholes allowing the rich, greedy unpatriotic weasels to get a tax break even though they moved their factories to China, leaving millions of Americans without a job is a great thing!
Why would these traitors get a tax break if no one else but the owner makes all the profit? That's the most important point for me!
Closing the loopholes allowing the rich, greedy unpatriotic weasels to get a tax break even though they moved their factories to China, leaving millions of Americans without a job is a great thing!
Why would these traitors get a tax break if no one else but the owner makes all the profit? That's the most important point for me!
It's cheaper to produce goods over seas. : /
At least it's good for the Chinese?
Rupert from Survivor didn't win Governor of Indiana. He did manage to get 7% of the vote, which is pretty good for an independent/Libertarian.
Lol freakensein... That would be pretty cool if he won And Obama for four more... I wanna just hit my head on a wall and cry there... :P
It's cheaper to produce goods over seas. : /
At least it's good for the Chinese?
Oh, yes. Sweatshops are the most idealistic places to live. Second only to seaside mansion. Oh, what am I saying? Sweatshops linger on the under-tiers.
As for it's cheaper, sure, cheap and high unemployment is great. Marvelous. That is, if those unemployed are sitting on stacks of cash. Which, dare I say, they're not!
You must be logged in to post a reply!