WHY?

[GONEWEST]

Why?

Because Anita Dun didn't say she loves Mao, she was just saying one of his quotes can be fitting.  If you have ever listened to her you would know she isn't a devote communist by any means.  Eric Holder wasn't alone in letting the 3 black panthers go.  The Bush lawyers before him decided the case wasn't worth pursuing and put it on the back table and the paperwork to dismiss came through when holder was there.  Also the "new black panther" group consists of around 3 whack jobs, it isn't a giant growing movement to keep white people from voting.

Among other reasons Romney's economic advisors are really really special.  One authored the book Dow 36,000 so of course he is just brilliant.  Others have praised George Osborne for his budget cuts in Great Britain.  He was warned they would put the economy back into recession and they have.  The sad thing is their deficits aren't any lower now because of the lost revenue (concepts like this aren't something businesses have to worry about because they don't just sell to their workers).

As for printing money, well I just can't help you with that one.  I guess if you feel the gold standard is something we need to be on then show me a country who has made it work.  Iceland has turned the corner pretty well but not out of the woods yet, and they have done everything with their currency the gold standard wouldn't allow.

I think this is a perfect example of why people vote for ALL OF THESE PEOPLE. Not just Obama. Hamburgerman you either have your facts absolutely wrong or you are just trying to spin the truth to meet what you would like it to.

First off IF YOU LISTEN TO HER SPEECH Anita Dunn says QUOTING " My favorite philosopher is Mao Tse Tung." Who cares if he is a communist? He and Joseph Stalling are the biggest mass murderers in HISTORY. They make Hitler look like Little Bo Peep. It's not the communist party affiliation it's the character of ANYONE  who wouldn't be repulsed by anything these people ever wrote, much less that he has become her favorite philosopher.

Secondly the Bush Administration had ZERO interaction with this Black Panther voting deal. 100% Eric Holder and the Obama Administration. It is just flat untrue to say otherwise.

Three and out of all the things I listed this was the best you can come up with as to WHY you would vote for Obama? Tell me what YOU like about him and why you think it is better for this cast of characters to run the country than say........the Disney cast of characters.

 

[GONEWEST]

The world isnt coming to an end and our system is still the best in the world.  China's economy is in much worse shape than ours and Europe's certainly is.  

American corporations are flush with cash, they arent investing it in themselves or the market because of the uncertainty risk Knabe alludes to.  If Obama wins, the uncertainty goes away and even though corporations might not like his policies, things will get back to normal.

I've said it a million times, but there's nothing simple about macroeconomics and running our govt.

Robert you are my good friend but the results of the election you speak of is just not accurate. One if Obama is elected and manages to raise taxes on businesses and those who create jobs how in the world do you think businesses would get back to normal? WHAT incentive would they have to spend that cash they are sitting on? WHY would they when there is no return on their investments? Why would anyone who creates jobs create more when they receive no benefit from it?

And as far as our system being the best in the world goes, you have touched on what it wrong with this country at its very core. Many people believe that no matter what, the good old USA will just keep clicking along no matter what. Why is it so difficult to see that this man his administration and his big money backers do not want this country to have this system that is the best int he world. HE TOLD YOU before YOU elected him he wanted to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE the American system. If you believe him why would you allow it? If he can't get it through Congress he is going to do it through appointments to the Supreme Court and through judicial activism.

Things will not always be the same. It is his POLICY that you pay $4 a gallon for diesel fuel and he wants it to be so high you can't afford to drive or use electricity. That way this "green energy" crapola becomes attractive from a price standpoint.

 

[GONEWEST]

Let's get away from the policy comments and back to the idea of the original post.

WHY do you believe it is ok, no preferable, for the people in this administration who have shown their character openly to continue to be in charge of your country? Why would you not vote against ANY President who had sacrificed the lives of 4 Americans serving our country in order to make strengthen his chances for re-election?

Don't tell me about how this person isn't going to fix things or make things better or any thing like that. Tell me why you believe it to be ok that people of this character remain in office?

 

[hamburgman]

    A lot of you have great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together and that answers the why not question. There is usually not a good reason. And then the 3rd lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers. Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa, not often couple with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is you’re going to make choices, you’re going to challenge, you’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal, these are your choices, they’re no one else’s.

    In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party, on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side and people said how can you win, how can you do this, how can you do this against all odds against you, and Mao Tse-tung said “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine.” Think about that for a second, you don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices in the past. Okay. It is about your choices in your path, you fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what is right for you. You don’t let external definition how good you are internally. You fight your own war. You let them fight their’s. Everybody has their own path.

No where in there does it say she agrees with Mao's decisions, just that he was pretty good at playing the politics side of the game and she sees him and mother theresa as both people who are really good at getting their point across with words.  Never says it is ok to kill millions.  I  find this to be the same as saying you can't has respect for the German Generals in WWII who hated Hitler but fought the war because that is what had been in their families for generations. 

So I guess I look at this and think pry shouldn't have said that because some people hear anything Mao come out of your mouth and believe you love communism.

As for others I will address them when I get time, but reasons I am skeptical to believe I should vote for Romney is the same people who are saying he has what it takes also said:
Obamas trip to India was costing $200 million a day
Obama was indoctrinating children with songs
Obama couldn't speak to grade schoolers because he would make them tell their parents  Obamacare is ok
Romney himself just said Jeep is thinking of relocating all jobs to China.  Such a lie that Chrysler itself put out a newsletter saying it was false and scolding Romney
Hyperinflation was supposed to be here already

there are more but I have to go, be back later

 

[GONEWEST]

How can you POSSIBLY defend ANYONE who says her favorite philosopher is a mass murderer? How can he be her favorite philosopher if she doesn't like what the man has to say? Good grief, give me a break. How can you say she doesn't agree with what his philosophies are when she states he is her favorite?

ALSO, the original question is why would you vote for these people, if you can't say anything besides a reason you wouldn't vote for Romney, don't comment. Start your own discussion about why you wouldn't vote for Romney. Otherwise tell me why you are ok with the character of the people the President has in his administration and a President who has covered up the situation in Libya. Tell me why you would vote for Obama, not why you wouldn't vote for Romney. What has he done that you like, what is he going to do that you like, and how do you defend his character and his record?

 

[Gargan]

(pop)

 

[chambero]

Gonewest - make no mistake, I want Obama out.  But I think we have to blame ourselves for our problems at least as much as we do our politicians.  Local elections impact our lives every bit asuch as national ones.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

Maybe Im not OK with the adjendas of a former president who took us from the largest lender to the largest debtor in the world:with the long term force of that avalanche to be felt for decades and then  blamed on anyone in office or who is convenient.The first long road out of a recession back in Reagonmics was actually the work of a Carter appointed Fed Chairman,so none of this is as quick or cut and dried as some candidates would have you believe. What about a Candidate who (has since changed his tune on this and alot of other things,and sometimes back again) used the situation at the embassy as a political pundit and was basically called an embarrassment by his own party.There are any number of other "facts" that I could sensationalize LIKE BOTH PARTIES HAVE DONE.Anyone who had a clue about what a commander in chief deals with has to understand that they have sometimes thousands of things hitting them at once,and you cannot hold them under a microscope for everything that goes on in a day:whether it be the decision of a military  or intelligence advisor putting a hit on or holding an Alquaida principle to lure terrorists into a drone strike(you never hear about it,We"d be called assassins LOL),or a filibustered attempt tp pass a bill. IT HAS NEVER OPERATED THIS WAY,PERIOD.Any president has to rely on a number of peoples input when things like that occur:especially in terms of National Security.So making the assertion that the President   was soley responsible for all decisions made when that deal went down strikes me as a little naive,and maybe out of proportion before all the facts are in.However:as a Citizen-voter you are entitled to this and other opinions,as are everyone in this Country.  The bottom line-is the reasons I would vote for or against a Candidate might be long term issues and trends involved,along with the experience needed to deal with International agendas in short order,or maybe I just  like the Horoscope better for candidate B.Its not going to change anyones overall  direction attempt to dissect the many reasons a voting  decision is made: etc. they have a right to thier opinion based upon thier overall view of things,just like you do. O0

 

[ZNT]

American corporations are flush with cash, they arent investing it in themselves or the market because of the uncertainty risk Knabe alludes to.  If Obama wins, the uncertainty goes away and even though corporations might not like his policies, things will get back to normal.

Chambero is correct, many of these corporations are very flush with cash, and are not investing it.  Personally, I think many of these big players are sandbagging going into the election.  It would be very detrimental to the Republican party if these companies did go out and invest heavily, and reporting good earnings.  The windfall these corportations could receive in tax breaks and reduced regulations if the Republicans can take over is worth a little short-term stagnation.  A perfect example is Apple, who is sitting on over $168 billion of cash overseas, because they do not want to pay the tax on it, and are waiting for someone that will cut them a deal to bring the cash into the country.  As long as there is hope that someone may cut a deal, then they will wait.

When the election is over, it will be back to business as usual.  It will be back to creating fat earnings for their investors, and fat bonuses for the executives.

 

[Gargan]

OBAMA WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY Biden: No Coal !!!

nuff said for me.. (thumbsup) lets get rid of this joker

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

What do you think apple will do with this money? They have never built anything in the states. All manufacturing is overseas.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

Apple will probably do someting similar to what the republican candidate did just on a larger scale.-send the money to the highest bidder-Alot of his recent fortune and consulting was a result of sending jobs overseas=Such as buying companies like the one in Indiana-firing the workforce,and sending production to China. O0

 

[hamburgman]

Chambero I agree that the EU is in a lot of trouble.  I have yet to see them present a policy that shows they are serious about keeping the whole deal together.  They should design an exit plan for Greece as a top priority.

I am not ok with some of the people who have been accepted into the present administration.  Nor was I ok with many of the people in the last administration.  So for me that becomes a somewhat of a draw.  Not a fan of Van Jones at all.  Not a fan of putting lawyers who only token was they graduated form Pat Robertson's University, I feel there had to be better lawyers available LIKE ANYWHERE.  I also don't believe the administration let the 4 Americans die for their political benefit.  I have more faith in people then that .  

As for the Panther thing, GoneWest let me know if something is missing in on this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
My take from this is part of the case was dropped by Bush lawyers and the rest by Holder's lawyers.  There is an investigation as I feel there should be to make everything legitimate.  That is a far cry from calling Holder the most corrupt AG of all time as he has been called by some people.  Gonzalez might take the cake there.

Why vote for Obama
Doesn't want to balance budget until economy is stronger.  Cough Great Britain, cough.
Obama hasn't used the government to hire a bunch of people to get unemployment artificially low (Bush, Regean)
Don't Ask Don't Tell
The financial rescue and auto bailout both of which were started under Bush to his credit
Never has Obama complained about fiat type money or hinted the gold standard is what we need to get back to.
Ben Bernanke

 

[hamburgman]

These guys do a pretty good job of summing up my reasons also when it comes to the lack luster recovery.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.html

 

[GONEWEST]

Chambero I agree that the EU is in a lot of trouble.  I have yet to see them present a policy that shows they are serious about keeping the whole deal together.  They should design an exit plan for Greece as a top priority.

I am not ok with some of the people who have been accepted into the present administration.  Nor was I ok with many of the people in the last administration.  So for me that becomes a somewhat of a draw.  Not a fan of Van Jones at all.  Not a fan of putting lawyers who only token was they graduated form Pat Robertson's University, I feel there had to be better lawyers available LIKE ANYWHERE.  I also don't believe the administration let the 4 Americans die for their political benefit.  I have more faith in people then that .  

As for the Panther thing, GoneWest let me know if something is missing in on this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
My take from this is part of the case was dropped by Bush lawyers and the rest by Holder's lawyers.  There is an investigation as I feel there should be to make everything legitimate.  That is a far cry from calling Holder the most corrupt AG of all time as he has been called by some people.  Gonzalez might take the cake there.

Why vote for Obama
Doesn't want to balance budget until economy is stronger.  Cough Great Britain, cough.
Obama hasn't used the government to hire a bunch of people to get unemployment artificially low (Bush, Regean)
Don't Ask Don't Tell
The financial rescue and auto bailout both of which were started under Bush to his credit
Never has Obama complained about fiat type money or hinted the gold standard is what we need to get back to.
Ben Bernanke

I appreciate so much your answer! You are the only person who has given his reasons!

We have diametrically opposed views as to the "financial rescue" (PULEEEZE) and the auto bail out being good or bad things and the devaluation of the dollar, what could be good about that? How does other country being able to buy more stuff and you being able to buy less turn out to your advantage?

It is absolutely factually inaccurate that to say that jobs created under this administration were not primarily in the public sector.

I haven't heard anyone who wants to balance the budget in less than 10 years and if the economy isn't better by then there will be no budget to balance.

But I so much appreciate knowing the misinformed and poorly thought out ideas of someone who would vote for this administration. All of them. It was interesting to know that you believe that things like the auto bailout and "financial rescue" were more important than the character of the people who run this country. Also interesting to know that your head is either in the sand or up, well if you don't think Eric Holder is one of the more corrupt politicians of all time. As I thought all along, character holds no importance to those who would vote for this administration. It's all about the ideology of "redistribution of wealth." I wish you had just came out and said that to begin with.

 

[hamburgman]

Devaluing is a way to increase exports to temporarily increase demand when domestic demand is short.  Why would you want to have the strongest currency all the time?  If we did our beef, corn, pork etc. would be much higher on export markets and therefore less competitive. 

Did I ever say redistribution was a goal or ok?  I guess I see that all governments do it in someway/shape/form.  How can a couple who never make more than 30,000 a year afford to put their 3 kids through public schools?  They never pay enough in taxes to make up for that or pay enough to pay for the roads they pry use amongst other things.  So someone is paying that couple's way.  Doesn't mean the couple is lazy or un-responsible necessarily (though some are).  What would you have done with the group of people who don't make enough to support their kids education in taxes?

 

[GONEWEST]

Devaluing is a way to increase exports to temporarily increase demand when domestic demand is short.  Why would you want to have the strongest currency all the time?  If we did our beef, corn, pork etc. would be much higher on export markets and therefore less competitive. 

Did I ever say redistribution was a goal or ok?  I guess I see that all governments do it in someway/shape/form.  How can a couple who never make more than 30,000 a year afford to put their 3 kids through public schools?  They never pay enough in taxes to make up for that or pay enough to pay for the roads they pry use amongst other things.  So someone is paying that couple's way.  Doesn't mean the couple is lazy or un-responsible necessarily (though some are).  What would you have done with the group of people who don't make enough to support their kids education in taxes?

Do you think it matters to this couple that exports are up.......a little? Do you think it really matters to ANYONE since the trade deficit in the last quarter is an all time record? Few other places have money to buy anything we produce. Do you think your $30,000 a year couple is better off now that their $30,000 is really $20,000? Really? You think that's good for them?

The best thing to do for that couple would be to have an economy that offered jobs that paid better wages so that they could have more take home pay and also would pay more in taxes. This deal about 47% of Americans not paying taxes has nothing to do with a change in that tax code, it has to do with the poor paying jobs they have or don't have at all.If they made enough to pay taxes, they wouldn't be in that 47%.  We need BIG business back again who pay good wages to employees. This concentration on small business does the economy no good because they are the ones who employ your $30,000 a year couple. That couple does nothing to power the economy because they have no discretionary spending. Food and shelter is about all that supports. Consumer discretionary spending is what drives this economy and to have that you have to have MILLIONS of higher paying jobs  that in turn would broaden the tax base and bring more into the federal coffers. Not Obama's so called "shovel ready" jobs in infrastructure that a. wouldn't pay anything and b. would be staffed mostly by illegals anyway.

You support an administration who's policy is for you to have to pay $10 a gallon for fuel so that you their "Green Energy" agenda will be accomplished. Never  you can't drive anywhere, like work for instance without it breaking your pocket book. The head of the energy department doesn't even own a car. Is that what your American dream is, too? You support a government that MANDATES 36 billion gallons of ethanol be consumed this year driving corn and all grain prices higher. Making millionaires out of corn farmers and costing everyone else from the pump to the grocery store.

Next you can tell me this. How is your $30,000 a year couple going to do with $10 a gallon gasoline, food prices going up along with his electricity and all other basic needs and his wages being stagnant and that $30,000 now being worth $20,000 all due to government policy? 

You never said redistribution of wealth is ok. What you said is that you support an administration that states publicly this is their policy. What's the difference? You support an administration made up of the most corrupt politicians in history. Obviously character is of little importance to you. And that's fine. It is your right to vote to either bankrupt your $30,000 a year couple or take my money to care for them. I now know why someone would vote for this administration and I appreciate you admitting it.

 

[knabe]

send the money to the highest bidder-

kind of like we would all like in an auction for our cattle?

 

[hamburgman]

Yeap public sector job growth is booming, besides all the job losses.  Just ignore the evidence, though the last month did show a positive public job growth I believe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-press-conference-the-public-sector-isnt-fine/2012/06/08/gJQAp5rxNV_blog.html

So we don't have $10 gas, not seen in the future or anything, just something a bunch of paranoid people are squawking about.  
You never answered my question about a couple making $30,000 a year who can't truly pay their way through taxes, what do you do with them?

That couple would care about exports if one of their jobs happens to be an export type of job.  
This liberal bastion newspaper talks about how exports are on the downhill:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/greggfisher/2012/04/18/the-rise-of-us-exports/
o wait here is the liberal newspaper, lol
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/business/trade-deficit-narrows.html

Trade deficit isn't a big deal because you are trading goods and services for money, trade deficits are just a boogy man out there used to scare people.

I feel Obama has done a fair(not great) job of keeping the economy above water after a financial crisis.  You fail to show me a better example of how to handle the situation that any country has taken and whose policies you would support.

 

[knabe]

You never answered my question about a couple making $30,000 a year who can't truly pay their way through taxes, what do you do with them?

Here's a thought. Lower taxes and spending.