Humble Rodent Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 So Obama was on Reddit earlier: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Obama and Romney could make more unscrutinized money as private citizens than as public officials currently. So what makes you think they, or more specifically Obama wants more power and money? As a mean to what ends exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 The ACA also known as Obamacare will affect hiring because it mandates that employers provide health insurance. Instead of paying your employees more, or adding more employees, employers will now have to add this benefit. The average benefit plan costs an employer about $15,000 per employee per year for a family plan. A true free market would allow employers to pay their employees more, say $10,000 a year or more, and let them buy their own insurance plan on the free mareket or whatever they want to spend that money on. More money in their pocket, more money they will spend, and the better the overall economy will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Few on this thread have the slightest clue what is actually going on . We who live in the United States and actually have a say in all this appreciate your concern . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 You know Republicans (namely Paul Ryan in this case) are really full of BS when even Fox News is calling him out on it! http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz251rvLkSe to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold. The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 So Obama was on Reddit earlier: http://www.reddit.co..._united_states/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrawfull Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Obama's record is so bad, Paul Ryan doesn't have to lie about it. Everybody knows what has Obama done to help grow the economy. Nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Obama's record is so bad, Paul Ryan doesn't have to lie about it. Everybody knows what has Obama done to help grow the economy. Nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Obama's record is so bad, Paul Ryan doesn't have to lie about it. Everybody knows what has Obama done to help grow the economy. Nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Have you ever heard of war profiteering? Why do you think Obama hasn’t brought the troops home like he initially promised? He’s never going too, and neither will any of these other clowns. The US is powerful, so they can benefit greatly from that, but they’re fighting and aiding wars they shouldn’t be involved in, we all know this. The US has spent over 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it’s consistently increasing. Do we really know what goes on in the Middle East? NO. Only the soldiers themselves know, and they know firsthand its bull. Why do you think an incredible majority of troops are supporting Ron Paul? The government spends far too much money they don’t have, resources, and lives on war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 http://watch.ctv.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/latest-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ep-17144-august-29-2012/#clip750771 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 http://watch.ctv.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/latest-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ep-17144-august-29-2012/#clip750771 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I have heard of war profiteering. If Obama was perpetuating 'war profiteering' he wouldn't have ended the Iraq war. Also, And to be fair, it wasn't this President who started two wars and didn't budget for them 'on the books', and then tossed them both like a live grenade to his successor. He ended one war and is in the process of ending another. Romney, wants to attack Iran and start another war, this time in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I believe that Obama and Romney differ in certain aspects, but at the end of the day their purpose is the same; explaining why the former never brought about the great change people hoped for. In my opinion the role of the state is to ensure that our economy continues to function, flow and prosper moving forward. Some will accuse me as being economically deterministic with this view, but that is only the case if one holds a very narrow definition of what economics is. To me economics is actually political economy (modern day economics is a joke in my opinion) and this involves the state guiding, protecting and ensuring the continuation of the hegemonic social relations that rule the day. The social relations which ensure people eat, sleep and reproduce in a manner that is optimal for all of society. Today, that social relation is largely based on the employee/employer relationship. As a result, much of what the state does is centered on maintaining the "peace" and continuation of this relationship. Indeed, more "progressive" leaders promote moves that seemingly are not in favour of "big business" and such. However often this is a case of the state saving big-business from itself. Think about it. Most huge corporations would love to do away with mandatory wage floors (min. wages). It is the STATE that legislates the floor price. Similarly, many employers would love to not have to pay time and a half or double time after 8 hours; again, the state ensures that this (when officially documented) occurs. In each of these cases I would argue this is a result of the state protecting the social relation. That is, if no minimum wage or cap to the length of a working week was given, one would witness a severe degradation of the workforce. Indeed this was the case during the industrial revolution in England. With this degradation comes an inability to reproduce (have children, eat, survive!) and hence a slowing of the social relation: employees and employers. Consider Obama and mandatory pseudo-health insurance. When one looks at it through the perspective I provided, how is this much different than ensuring a maximum work week, or min. wage. It's a case of the employer not wanted to, on an individual level, provide a service, which on the macro scale, will impact the entire social relation as it threatens the reproduction of a significant part of the working class. The same could be argued with women's integration into the workforce. As nuclear families struggle to make ends meet, the best way to ensure their reproduction is by way of increasing their income - that is having both parents work. As an aside, women's rights to me has never been about them being allowed to be a part of the workforce (of course they should). Rather, it has always been about why the home-parent (traditionally the woman, but increasingly men as well) were not paid equally to the working counter-part. This is one of the main issues of equality in my mind. Even today our society suggests that being part of the "workforce" is a greater service to society than staying home and raising children. Lost in this is the fact that without the raising of children, there is no reproduction of the workforce. Anyways, as I continue to rant again, I will end by saying that on the surface Obama and Romney seem different. But at the end of the day, in my opinion, their purposes are the same. Hence, nothing will ever really change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrels.Gone.Wild Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Republicans are so entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Republicans are so entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Obama's record is so bad, Paul Ryan doesn't have to lie about it. Everybody knows what has Obama done to help grow the economy. Nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Sure, but he's still profiting by supplying arms, tanks, training, etc. We don't need to be in the middle east. Edit: Also, if Obama wanted to end the war on Iraq, like he initially promised. he would have done so in the beginning. He's also not promising he wont invade Iran, because there are possible WMD, honestly man, it's the same crap, just a different face and country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 How is he personally profiting exactly?? And Obama, one month after being sworn in, in Feb 2009, announced an 18-month withdrawal window for combat forces. In August 2010, he declared Operation Iraqi Freedom over, and handed over security and other duties to the Iraqi's. In September 2010, the remaining forces s3witched to an advisory capacity, with the ability for combat, if needed. The last U.S. troops left Iraqi territory on December 18, 2011. That's less than 2 years in which he said he was going to stop the Iraqi war, and through a process, accomplished what he set out to do. That's less than 2 years into his 4 year term. It was done relatively safely and methodically, but it was done. And he's also not promising to not invade Canada....does that make you think he will?? He's not promising to come to your house and punch you in the head....does that mean he will?? Try to interject some logic and facts into your current thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.