There is no interest of OURS in the current race, on the Republican side or the Democrat side. Unless your Huffington Moneysworth that is.
You guys are confusing "Default Vote" vs conscious decisions of selecting a Leader that represents your interests. You're voting for Obama because it's the default standard media issued candidate. Same as the Republican voters. But don't stand there and sing "My dog is better than yours.".
It's like two Crows arguing over who is going to make the best Pie.
Right on! Doublespeak - straight out of 1984. The Department of War is now The Department of Defense. Soon it will be the Ministry of Love.
The Navy - a Global force for good...armed with weapons of mass destrction.
BTW - common sense (an attribute missing in liberals)SCREAMS all the groups mentioned in the original thread above WILL VOTE democRAT.
Still waiting for that evidence. If it's so clear that they're going to vote democrat, it shouldn't be hard to find.
I'm a white male, well educated, married with three children, and I make north of $300,000 a year. I'll be voting for Obama for these reasons:
* Killed bin Laden.
* Ended one of the wars.
* Managed to get through some semblance of health care reform despite a congress that opposed it as though it was a call to eat our children.
* Ended DADT
* At least gives lip service to fixing the gross tax imbalance between the rich and the middle class.
- His likely opponents (Romney / Santorum / Gingrich; Sorry RP fans, he's got no chance)
* All anti-science luddites
* All extremely homophobic
* All in favor of more military macho bullshit posturing that will lead to at least one more war
* All believe that poor people don't pay enough tax and rich people pay too much.
Claiming that they're the same is just wrong. They may be the same to you if you're a single issue voter, but there is a wide gap in their policies.
Obama isn't my ideal president, but compared to the guys he's going to be running against he's washington, lincoln, and both roosevelts rolled into one.
To be fair, most blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic in every presidential election. That's been true for quite awhile now.
I do know a few (white) people who supported Obama because they felt it would compensate for the racism of the past. Not sure how common that sentiment is overall.
My two cents on Obama: he hasn't started any unwinnable wars, so he's already better than Bush. As for the economy, I can't really blame him for that. There was a massive real-estate bubble in the U.S. and western Europe. We're still suffering the debt hangover and will be for several more years, regardless of who is in office. As for ObamaCare, I think the intentions were good but only time will tell if it really makes things better.
Kevin,I asked "Who will they vote for". But was admonished for bad grammer. I guess it should have been "Whom will they vote for". Then that got shot down and replaced with "For whom will they vote" (I've always been bad with grammer...and spelling)
Can you think why any of the groups I named would NOT vote democ-rat? Other than brain damage? If thats the case, no wonder the country is in shambles...people with brain damage are making the decisions. Maybe thats where this quote came from: "The inmates are in charge of the Asylum".
Its a sad state of affairs when the people can vote themselve
the treasury, and destroy our country's economic foundation because of financial irresponsibility - which is what is happening, isn't it?
People on welfare generally don't vote, generally aren't registered to vote, don't know when elections are being held, don't have any idea who their representatives are in congress, and have no idea what the candidate's positions are, and may not even know who the candidates are.
Low performing members of society are exactly that: low performing. If you think that welfare recipients are secretly running the show, you aren't the sharpest tool in the chandelier.
It is reported that 20% of Americans rely 100% (One Hundred Percent) on Government assistance. Who do you think they will vote for?
Who is this 20%? I suspect that if this number actually exists, the prototypical member is an old white retiree. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as those Federal income taxes you claim they didn't pay were the highly regressive social security and Medicaid taxes.
The difference between Income taxes and FICA is just a name. They both go to the general fund. This means some poor sop making 50K a year pays 41% federal taxes (income and FICA) while Mitt enjoys sub 20% FICA and Income taxes. Very fair.
From what data I can find, about 3% can clearly be stated to be in this category; social security recipients with no other income, and prison inmates. TANF is trickier, since there isn't any good data on people who rely entirely on it, but the worst case would be 4.3 million, which would only be about 2% of the adult population.
So, we're looking at maybe 5%, tops, and probably much less than that.
whrthrfk80, that's not a definition either, now you're simply being silly. BUT YOU GOT IT RIGHT AT THE VERY BOTTOM: "SUBJECT TO CHANGE".
May I ask you, is a gallon subject to change? Is a foot subject to change? Is a meter subject to change? Is a pound subject to change? Is an hour subject to change? All of these examples, and millions of others, measure or quantify something.
Yes, a gallon, a meter or a pound are subject to change when used as units of value.
A gallon of gas can change it's value in gold, silver and yes, dollars.
What if we used gallons of gas as our currency? A gallon is a gallon right?
Alas gas prices are different from town to town, from gas station to gas station, from day to day.
Physical units of 'stuff' as a currency is no more stable in value than legal tender.
The difference between Income taxes and FICA is just a name. They both go to the general fund.
That's not true. Fica goes to SS/MC payments and the excess gets loaned to the general fund. There is a bond saying SS/MC is owed the money. It's worthless of course, but technically SS/MC have a reserve of funding.
The good news here is that eventually you will be funding this all from you IRA. At some point IRA's will be required to purchase a percentage of their value in Treasury bills. Once the foot is in the door the percentage will increase. It's already done in other countries, and is been proposed a couple times here already.
Physical units of 'stuff' as a currency is no more stable in value than legal tender.
Exactly right. The value of everything constantly changes, because the world is a dynamic, changing place. Oil is discovered and depleted, crops succeed and fail, new technologies change how things are done, etc, etc...
Even if we define a dollar as some kind of absoute, unchanging "frame of reference", the value of everything priced in dollars will constantly change.
It's sort of like high-school physics when we learn about motion. All motion is relative. We typically use the earth as our frame of reference, but even the earth is moving relative to the sun, the sun is moving relative to the galaxy, etc.
Yes, there's a good graph in a Ron Paul book ("End the Fed" I think) that shows that the purchasing power of gold varies over a ten-fold range. It doesn't go to zero, but it isn't really that stable either. And now we're back near the top of that range.
The real value of gold is that the Fed can't print more of it. Takes power away from them, and gives it you.
I've got no problem with a gold standard per se. Gold is naturally scarce, rather than "artificially scarce" (i.e. at the mercy of the Fed). Sounds good to me.
But even with a gold standard, the value of a dollar (relative to the value what it can buy) wouldn't necessarily stay constant. Am I right? If world population grows faster than the supply of gold, there would be deflation. Or if huge deposits of gold were discovered and mined, there would be inflation. Honest Abe seems to want a dollar that always buys the same amount of stuff (and who can blame him?). But I don't think that's possible in a dynamic, changing, unstable world.
There were booms and busts even under a gold standard.
Even under a fixed gold standard, debt levels can go way beyond where they can be meaningfully serviced. But a hard currency will force a depression when that happens no matter what. That's the nature of the hard currency.
What we really need is to resolve FOFOA's dilemma.
When a single medium is used as both store of value and medium of exchange it leads to a conflict between debtors and savers. FOFOA's dilemma holds true