Welcome to PatsFans.com

If you Truly Wanted Change - Why Vote Obama or Romney?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Oct 30, 2012.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    Just asking ... many say they want change.

    Many seem to think they are voting for change.

    They are both in bed with the banks and Wall Street.

    Both are in bed with major money movers and string pullers.

    Obama was supposed to be change - he was Bush Light.

    Bill Clinton actually was change - too bad Monica derailed him.

    But back to the question ...

    Is voting for Obama or Romney really going to change or improve anything in our system?

    :americaflag:
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No. But that's neither here nor there (whatever that means).

    Now get back to bickering and making up nonsense about some candidate or another and DO WHAT YOU"RE TOLD!

    If you don't vote Red or Blue, all that left is Yellow, and you don't want to be called that. Well, there's Green too, but that's for sissies.
  3. Hamar

    Hamar Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I really can not see why anyone would vote for Obama. He tells us over and over that he is ineffectual. Everything is the fault of the previous administration. Everything he wants to do to make things better is blocked by the republicans.

    What is going to change? Will he go back in time and change the Bush admin? Will republicans all vanish?

    No, none of that will happen so we are looking at 4 more years of excuses. Lets assume those excuses are fact... Why then re-elect someone that can do nothing to change where we are headed?
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,247
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Obama did a lot more than Clinton. Clinton has no signature accomplishments other than the Family Leave Act. Obama passing health care and Wall Street Reforms were the first serious reversals to Reaganism. Obama's stimulus bills was one of the great achievements of liberal economics, saving tens of thousands of blue collar jobs and initiating a drive towards alternative energy that rivals Kennedy's space program. Obama's no Bush light in any respect.
  5. Hamar

    Hamar Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You are right there... Obama has doubled down on the worst Bush policies.
  6. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey

    You left out the best Clinton ... paying down the debt.

    Obama's stimulus bills were funded by money created by paper and ink.

    Health Care is still up in the air ... only reason they got it is because AARP screwed their membership.

    The alternative energy has been a big zero so far ... China is killing us with no end in sight.

    Wall Street reforms were good but they are far short of what is needed ... but it was good.

    As for the stimulus bill ... have they spent 1/2 the money yet or are they still sitting on it?
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012
  7. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    He left it out because it didn't happen. Thanks to the Enron-esque accounting of the Federal Government the Gross Debt never went down while we were running all those "surpluses".

    See: Table 470 here:

    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0470.pdf

    Code:
           Gross
    Fiscal federal
    Year   debt 
    1992   4,001.8
    1993   4,351.0
    1994   4,643.3
    1995   4,920.6
    1996   5,181.5
    1997   5,369.2
    1998   5,478.2
    1999   5,605.5
    2000   5,628.7
    
  8. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    I fell for a myth???? :eek::eek::eek:
  9. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    And I'm just asking:

    Do you expect an alternative to ever stand a chance when they're not invited to the TV debates?

    Stein would have left them both looking foolish, just by being honest with America about what the real problems are.
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    I was curious to see the responses.

    Stein would wipe them both ... she is so much more than just being Green.
    she would provide grants and low interest loans for local green companies and she wants to renegotiate NAFTA!!!

    Wants to end corporate subsidies and strengthen Medicare and social Security. She wants to end banks creating money :eek:, restore Glass-Steagall (sorry), wants to reform healthcare through Medicare for all (I love that idea), repeal the Patriot Act (Love that), I entirely love her foreign policy, she is in line with my thinking on immigration (let them stay here) ... I could go on and on.

    I think they could be a breathe of fresh air myself and they would actually make Congress and the Senate work for a change. They would be forced through public opinion to tackle the tough issues instead of tabling them.

    But we see so much Obama and Romney talk here and I think they will change little to nothing. Obama maybe a bit better on foreign policy and Romney perhaps a bit better on the economy - but no big swing either way regardless of who wins. Thus I was hoping for responses.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Yes, it happened. Every year's deficit goes by the accounting of what you took in and your outlays. We've done it the same way at least since the Reagan years, probably before... with the exception of George II, who just declared by fiat that wars didn't count when he had 'em.

    The deficit (or surplus) is the one-year number. The debt is another. Yes, the debt should go down in a year when you have a surplus - but slight surpluses over one year are easily overtaken by any slight change to interest rates affecting the prior 200+ years. That's my guess.

    But the basic point here is that using the math by which we judge whether there was a surplus or a deficit in a given year, Clinton ran a couple of surpluses.

    In any event, debt to GDP plummeted under Clinton, and skyrocketed under Bush. Under Obama it's continued to climb -- in no small part because of the dead weight of years of prior debt, not all of it admitted at the time, the need to clean up Bush's mess (continuation of Bush's wall-street bailout, the comparatively cheap Detroit rescue, continual -- and needed -- stimulus.)

    PFnV
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,247
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yes, if you're emphasis is on paying down the debt, I can clearly see why you support Clinton and Jill Stein. ;)

    Health care isn't up in the air, unless Republicans get complete control of Congress and even then my guess is that it would survive.

    The alternative energy efforts have certainly not been a zero, and venture capitalists have started moving in in a number of areas, such as weatherization, batteries, and wind energy. But, it will take more time before it truly takes off, especially given the dominant political position of the oil companies. China is killing us because we're playing catch up. That's why Solyndra sank, but I don't think we should cede this industry to the Chinese, as Romney apparently would.

    Fact check: Are half of 'green' energy firms helped by stimulus out of business? - CNN.com
  13. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    Here Here Titus!

    I couldn't agree more.

    The debate with Larry King and all the third party candidates I thought was great. Real answers, real ideas. (Im a Gary Johnson guy, but I think your point about Stein can be expanded to most of the 3rd party candidates).

    As for the original question of the thread - Obama ran on change in 2008 (and I voted for him accordingly). I bought the hype that he would go to DC and change the way things are done. He hasn't and I don't think will or wants to change anything. And to expand on that a bit I honestly I dont know if the machine would let anyone truly change DC.

    Mitt I don't think would change it either.

    So my POV is if you want actual change, vote 3rd party. The big 2 don't want change because business is good for them; even at the cost of good for us.

    D
  14. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    So Obama got what he got due to years prior, but not Clinton.

    Could you not cherry pick an argument any worse?




  15. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    3rd party will never make its entry as a head of state.

    The one thing the tea party is right about is where he push needs to start



  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    The problem is we really don't have a 3rd choice. All the "outside" candidates are unknowns with little support.

    The REAL problem in the US is that we have too many idiot, douche-bag, pure dumb party-line voters whose only goal is to have their idiot, douche-bag, pure dumb party-guy sitting in the WH.:D

    America doesn't have any true Patriots left in the political arena....and as we all know, Patriots Reign! Maybe I should change my screen name to Dead-Patriots.....

    Keeping in mind of course that all of the above is the "kinder, gentler" PatriotsReign. Imagine what I may have written without the rule changes! ;)
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  17. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    I tend to agree with you IC. But I'm just stating my opinion/belief that if you want true change, you will never get it from an R or D anymore.

    They are both puppets of the same master.

    OT: If anyone hasn't seen it, the mini series "Men Who Built America" on History is fantastic.

    Last night (replay) discussed how Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie, all rivals at the time, came together with their moneys/influence to set the political ship to their benefit - basically to ensure Bryan didn't win.

    Obviously to me, we are still paying for "that" now. Politics isn't about "one vote, one voice" anymore (maybe it never was). Now it is "who is going to give me money to pay my second mortgage? Then that is who I will represent".
  18. Kid~Brady

    Kid~Brady Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    This.

    I just told a friend the same thing, almost verbatum. Change won't happen no matter what party wins. If Romney wins, he will most likely be buried from the last 12 years of rolling debt and people will crush him just the same.
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    So what you and Drewski believe backs up my earlier post above....

    We can't blame anyone but ourselves for the idiotic partisanship we've adopted as our national mantra.

    It's not the fault of the "Masters"...it's our fault for being so stupid & gullible
  20. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    I will stand by that line to anyone who I discuss Politics with (here or in "real life").

    The two parties are identical; with the exception of the fringe issues. If Ds cared about "the common man" so much.....why did they extend those awful Bush Tax cuts?

    If the Rs care about small government so much....why do they want more government for women's issues, marriage and drugs?

    American Politics.....two sides of the same coin!
  21. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,247
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Conservative websites tend to mislead people by including Social Security in the debt. For Clinton's last four years he paid down the debt, unless you include Social Security trust funds and the like. Brandon did note that he's referring to "gross debt" (which includes the trust funds). Clinton paid down the debt by about $500 billion.
  22. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    That is exactly who I blame PR.

    We have, by and large, a "dumb" populace full of sheep.

    Was at a Halloween party on Sat night at my in laws. Since I was one of the few Independents, I would pose questions to the partisans to back up their statements....

    Their only "facts" for their beliefs were basically what Rachel, Chris, Glen, Rush, Lawrence and Grover told them to believe.

    Free thinking and learning is apparently a very 20th century thing.
  23. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    Clinton had "full employment" for most of his 2 terms. That means millions more were contributing and paying taxes than are now.

    Under Obama, he not only has millions fewer paying taxes, he's paying those who are unemployed for 99 weeks.....PLUS all those who have chosen to scam our disability system.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  24. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Because a 3rd party candidate cannot and will not ever win the POTUS election in a 3 party race. I voted for Ross Perot and learned my lesson. And, even if that 3rd party candidate did somehow win, they would still have to work with Democrats and Republicans once in office.

    In this election, Romney is better suited for the most important problems facing the country right now - the economy and the fiscal cliff approaching in 2 months.
  25. Patradomous

    Patradomous Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    It depends on the type of change you are looking for. I could see myself voting for Gary Johnson in a minute.

    The type of change I'm looking for all starts at a local level first.
    I think changing the country too much at once is a shock.Especially now that we are really a quasi socialist country and the farther left we go the less it works and the less people like it.But the more dependent they are on it.
    I mean now its barbaric to make people pay for their own screwing if you don't give them "free" birth control.
    At least voting for Romney your pumping the brakes on what is now a radical leftist agenda.And maybe if Romney can truly turn the economy around maybe people will start to see less government is better.
  26. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Where have you been living these last 4 years?

    If everything you stated was true, then Obama would be a slam dunk second term President.
  27. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    One thing everyone of us here on this board agree upon is that our FEDERAL gov't can't go any further left....it's just not financially possible.

    So yeah, I'd like to see less federal gov't and more handed back to the states without increases in state taxes. Or if state taxes have to increase, we must cut federal taxes.

    Just can not increase taxes upon our middle class or we'll be sticking a fork in them.

    Here is a simple fact of life most don't understand.....

    When middle class Americans make more, they pay more taxes. But when they make the same or less and revenues decline, you can NOT increase taxes upon them. There is no rational arguement against that simple truth.

    This especially applies to property taxes. Towns "think" they need to give raises based upon agreements with public unions....but if their citizens homes are losing value, they should NEVER/EVER have their property tax increased. Just tell the unions that no one is getting a raise until property values increase again.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  28. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,279
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Nope. All it will do is either speed up the inevitible, or delay it by a few years.

    Vote for Gary Johnson. I am.

    He did a lot alright, which is why we have more debt under him than any other president.

    To the sane in here, can you imagine how out there someone has to be to cite the trillion dollar boon doggle stimulus bill as a "great achievement". What was the end result, like a couple hundred thousand per job "saved"? Sheesh.


    Hard for it to go down when there weren't any actual "surpluses". When you borrow money from government pension funds and social security to "balance" a budget, the end result in the end is net debt. The bottom line is that the closest the government ever came to breaking even, was a $26 billion deficit in FY '99/00.



    Too bad there was never any surplus.

    Amen brother. Oops, can I say amen in here? [​IMG]

    Yet the debt continued to increase each year. What people don't realize, cuz they're either too ignorant to inform themselves, or simply listen to the parroted nonsense of the MSM, is that the government (yup, that would be Clinton's admin too), included excess social security, pension, retirment, etc. type funds as "revenue", even though these excess funds are borrowed. See, the gubmit is in such debt year in and year out, that it takes this money and hands the accounts in question an IOU in the form of a treasury note. So when we all see an annual deficit of $X Billion, or in Obama's case, $X Trillion, understand that it's actually much, much worse. It's worse because hundreds of billions of dollars on the revenue side, are actually borrowed dollars we have to pay back with interest when those checks come due. It's like you or I counting our mortgage as income each year.



    Exactly, yet he's in the fight for his life against Mitt Romney.
  29. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Oh, yes it can!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
  30. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Umm, it's not misleading. What's misleading is the scheme by which SS surplus are used to offset deficits in the operating fund. The gross debt is what the government actually owes. The increase in debt year over year is the deficit.

Share This Page