Romney vs Obama debate #2

It's not about limiting the rights of others. Romney is a person who believes in "pro-life" but wants states to make their own decisions. So he is going to try to overturn Roe vs. Wade because he believes that should be left to the people and instead it was placed in the hands of unelected judges. But liberals want to scare people out of their minds...they should be ashamed. Just like Biden saying "they're gonna throw ya'll back in chains". Is it a coincidence that Halloween happens during election season because Democrats are the biggest fear mongers I've ever seen!

 

Again, you're sorely mistaken with your limited scope worldview (and yes, I do recall you're identifying yourself as pro-choice).

When it comes to social matters, there should be a concern when it comes to limitations, be it states or federal. By your inane logic, the miscegenation laws should have been left up to the states, since after all...there shouldn't be any real federal interference. If that sort of mentality stood up with current politicians tomorrow, you'd be in an uproar and call it an infringement on your civil rights. Hypocrisy, I tell you. Women's rights are no different. If states were allowed to outlaw abortion (some have), it's a criminal and unconstitutional offense and contradictory to protecting the life and liberty of the individuals. Ergo, controlling women. (See Mississippi and Louisiana with their stints on their outlawing abortion laws).

Undermining the bigger picture regarding social matters and civil matters because it doesn't affect you directly comes off as disingenuous and liberals aren't scaring people especially when asinine comments coming from Ryan or Akin are people who are in positions in power. That's the reality, but people like you would dismiss fact and embellish in your own selfish worldview. There's a reason why SC Justices created a middle of the road solution for women's rights in the form of Roe v. Wade.

As for Planned Parenthood, out of the funding it receives from the government, only 9% of it tend to go toward abortion operations. The rest tend to be all about contraceptives and other venues to protecting the women's health. This is especially true (pay close attention Sir Selfish) when dealing with low income people who can't afford it. Such money would be justified in the given areas within Roe v. Wade and perfectly reasonable.

Yet, in the culture wars, in which conservatives are slowly losing in, they are quick to either embrace or dismiss the crazies in their own wings.

 

Are your kids starving then?
Did they eat dinner last nite? Breakfast this morning? Snack waiting when they get home from school?

Trade. It is important to understand some basic economics. We in the United States live in a rich country, that has a large amount of capital--machinery, etc.--to produce things relative to the amount of labor--people that want to work. Poor countries have a lot of labor, but relatively little capital. There is a basic idea of economics--the factor price equalization theorem--that states that wages in rich countries will tend to go down and increase in poor countries through trade (Wikipedia 2010b). Thus China, with low wages, puts pressure on wages in the United States, as production is shifted to China from the United States. This movement of production from richer to poorer countries is initiated by corporations, not individuals, but it does shift jobs and income to poorer countries and people, and has been doing so for the last 30 years or so. Lower income people in the United States are particularly vulnerable to such shifts.

So...yeah.
It's horrible that jobs would be shifted over seas by corporations so that people in the United States have to rely on unemployment insurance and thus to make up the difference you have to pay more. You poor thing you.

Reganomics.

Gotta love that shit.

 

First, you are right that I identify with the pro-life belief that a life begins at conception. But I believe that my beliefs are my beliefs..and should not be forced on someone else. Romney is saying the same thing "I support pro-life, but the decision will be left to your elected officials in the state".

By cutting funding to Planned Parenthood has been done several times in the past. The Mexico City Policy was first enacted by President Ronald Reagan. It established that the U.S. government would not give U.S. taxpayer-funded family planning funds to private organizations that perform or advocate for abortion in countries overseas. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush also enforced the policy. But pro-abortion presidents Clinton and Obama each eliminated the Mexico City Policy and began giving tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to groups that actively advocate for legal abortion.

Planned Parenthood receives over $350 million annually from the government. You mentioned that 9% went to abortions, when under federal law it should have been 0%. Federal law prohibits funds to be used for abortions. The problem Romney has is that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion. Planned Parenthood provides other great services, but there is no way to verify where the money is going.

So let's not be so quick to call them crazies. Or are you just following Obama's orders?

 

My point is that Obama is putting pressure on middle income families to shoulder the burden to support the poor. I was unemployed for 9 months during 2009-2010. I don't have a problem with people using unemployment benefits, I personally worked a bunch of part time jobs until I got a full time role. But the fact remains that there are millions of middle income people one paycheck away from poverty. So yes, my kids ate last night. But excuse me if I don't want to be worried about if they eat next week or next month.

Instead of figuring out how to tax more people, he should work with corporations to create more jobs. The city of Austin, TX offered Apple a $7 million tax break if they opened a new facility there and hired people from their area. Apple is creating the facility and hiring 3600 people over 10 years and paying them between $53,000-$74,000. Imagine what our country could do if the President had the same attitude and said "If you hire American workers, we will give you a tax break". On the back end, give a tax break to middle income families like Romney is proposing. If my tax bill was lowered it would allow me to save more money and maybe actually afford to go do something fun with my kids.

 

When I emphasize on personal liberties, I'm not talking about the elected officials, be it state or federal. I'm speaking of individuals and that they should be allowed to make those choices on their own without any government interference, namely those restricting rights. That won't solve anything, except reinforce the idea that conservatives would like to dictate what a woman should do with their bodies through limited options all because of some religious nonsense.

If it's your beliefs and would insist on them, then you wouldn't want your elected officials to put you and your own family situations in a bind. Doctor and woman relationships are what's more appropriate.

And which law are you speaking of? The Hyde Amendment? The states which funds the abortions were the 9% I speak of. I should have been more thorough in my statement. Here is the link:

Fact Checking: Planned Parenthood​

And yes, I would still insist on calling them crazies, or you're just too quick to ignore that fact since there are lawmakers would like to model after El Salvador and make abortion illegal on all cases.

Furthermore, the Mexico City policy was a broken law to begin with and again, there should some ways and means to exercise choice for women, hence reversing the decision is beneficial and could expand on the choice options.

 

Speaking for myself, I believe people should have their own choice even though I am a pro-life person. I believe Romney is approaching the issue purely from a legal standpoint. If the law states you can't use federal funds for abortions, then you can't provide money to Planned Parenthood. Because essentially you are saying that someone's money who believes in pro-life is going to fund abortions, it's not right on that end either. Planned Parenthood has an annual budget of over $1 billion and will easily raise that money through contributions if the government removes its $350 million grant.

 

Excuse the roughly 40% of American families who don't want to have to worry about the same thing..ok?


Don't you mean more tax breaks?


Section 199 is the domestic manufacturing deduction designed to help beleaguered manufacturers of all sorts by providing an incentive to keep their facilities and jobs in the United States. But beleaguered does not describe Big Oil for a number of reasons. These include the capital-intensive nature of oil production, the relative mobility of investments, and of course the level of profitability—there are vast differences between the oil industry and traditional U.S. manufacturing. Big Oil has been wildly profitable, with the five largest companies earning nearly $1 trillion in earnings over the past decade. Nonetheless, due to a concerted lobbying campaign in 2004, the oil industry got itself included in this provision intended to benefit manufacturing.

 

Not everyone will like the idea of pouring their tax money onto certain things they are against, whether we're talking about marriages (of any kind, including the interracial couples), abortions, government, etc...but you know what? It's a necessary evil because we're still a nation collectively and we all have to better not just ourselves, but pretty much the nation as a whole. If we really believe in strong individualism, then it's natural that this nation wouldn't be the USA.

I hate the idea of having some of my tax money going towards tax exemptions for religious organizations ($32 trillion total methinks), but I still pay them. I hate the idea of paying for welfare when we're talking about a percentage of them not doing anything to better themselves, but I still look at the others who are striving to do better and that's a level of encouragement for me to say that there are some government programs, subsidized or not. That's what I firmly believe and the positives do come with the negatives, but it's a matter of what you personally want overall.

 

My point is that nobody wants to worry about that. Obama doesn't need to divide the country and make people feel guilty about having a job or tell me I need to do more. I'm doing everything I can...he needs to do more!

No, not more tax breaks. I mean any tax break. He has left income taxes untouched even though admittedly we are in the worst recovery since the great depression.

 

You're right, we're not going to get everything we want 100%. That's why we have an opportunity to elect officials and vote on propositions which will affect these decisions. I live in California and I don't like where all my tax money goes either. So I vote for the candidate or proposition that best aligns with my views.

I think both candidates have been wrong at some point in this election cycle. For Romney, I don't believe all of the people on unemployment are just taking advantage of the system. I know there are some hard working people who came on hard times. For Obama, I don't believe corporations owe their success to the government or the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. Corporations are made up of hard working everyday people as well. There are always bad apples in both groups- those who are lazy and taking advantage of unemployment and CEO's who are corrupt and only out for themselves. But I believe the vast majority in the middle are good people.

 

Broad strokes lead to missing inks.

When I vote, I tend to look at it as "What's best for the overall country?" And this is where I extract the crucial argument of objective realization. When it comes to social views, everything is of a high level of progression, regardless whether the nation is center-right or center-left. It's mainly generational. We always fight for the culturally accepted and overall, we've moved forward, which is a natural.

As for economic views, this is where it becomes more of a melted mold. We officially adopt the stance that this is a capitalist country. However, the vast majority of people often ignore that there are elements of socialism embedded since it's inception. And quite frankly, Americans don't even know socialism in its proper definition, especially those who are conservative minded. The fact is, this sort of hybrid model has been around in the US and has helped tremendously keep the population from dying significantly and all else.

And as for whether corporations owing the government? Well, there is a lot of truth to it. Conservatives took Obama's "you didn't build that" remark out of context and failed to realize that it's a collective thing, between government and people. Corporations pay their taxes and everyone else. We all pay a lot of taxes which does go back to the government, so it could continue to fund some programs to keep people afloat and give others extra. It's not a matter of punishment or conviction. But the reality.

 

Saying "What's best for the overall country?" is a bit of a slippery slope. How do you know what's best for the overall country? The country is divided down the middle 50/50 so you will never do what's in the best interest of everyone.

Nobody is denying that America has always had a goal to protect the social welfare of its people. The issue Republicans are raising are that Social Security and Medicare are going broke. So we need to do something not just to protect current seniors but future generations. Social Security and Medicare are taken out of my check every week and they both will be extinct by the time I'm a senior if we don't make the necessary changes. That isn't a Republican talking point...the trustees of those two institutions said they're running out of money.

Barack is of the belief that government can actually correct the economy...it cannot. Look at every major country in the world, their economy is driven by a booming private sector. Every country that is government driven (ie- France and Greece) is going down the toilet. As far as taxes, Barack thinks that by taxing rich people and corporations more money that it will solve the problem. It will only make things worse. Lowering taxes is the only way to spur growth.

 

It's not much of a slippery slope when you look at it in this form: With every nation undergoing social progress (inevitable with the times), changes would have to be made. For instance, gay marriage should be nationally recognized. Sure, a couple of bigots wouldn't approve of it. But the same was said with interracial marriages. But, there's no negative affect behind it. Otherwise, government should get out of marriage altogether.

Healthcare: Private companies are all about gaining profit, that's a fact. With money being the ultimate determinate for whether a person can afford the best kind of coverage possible to sustain themselves, it's a problem that should be deemed a right. If the blood and sweat of the people who help build those companies to help them build a profit, there should be some leverage of compensation to help keep them from going into the shitter if they are working a small wage. If not, then the government does have the right to do such things.

Lowering taxes won't solve anything. For one thing, it'll only add to the deficit if we were to put more emphasis on tax cuts, which would lead to breaking the ceiling again and perhaps may lower the score some more. There would have to be an overall restructuring of the tax system, but also we would have to encourage ourselves that we can do our personal part to help out keep the economy from going to shit. Which means, billionaires and millionaires would have to take risks to help spur growth. Those safe havens they actually have, they are contributing to the problems and we're actually paying for that.

President Obama doesn't think government is the sole answer. Far from it. He believes that it should play a role in assisting the private sector to boom again, which is why he actually made some proposals during his first term trying to help spur jobs, whether we're talking about tax incentives for businesses for doing certain things (rewards system) or even finding ways to ship them back home. Granted, he wants to lower the corporate tax rate to an ideal level, but it has to be reasonable.

In short, a close relationship between public and private sectors would help keep the country healthy. But, there are people with very strong convictions in power that's preventing a more expedient growth. While you may argue liberals have a strong hand in it and this administration, you have to look at the guys in Congress who are in gridlock because they don't want to compromise.

 

I think your response just furthered my point that America does not agree and this is why we have elections. We fundamentally disagree. So we'll support the candidates & propositions that best align with our views.

 

Sure we do and this is why we're schizophrenic on so many levels.

 

You shouldn't leave over a prediction, you do have people that like to chat with you here. You would be missed.

 

Haha...I'll give you that!

 

sleeping at the debate is not as easy as it looks