do you think obama will win

Original post by Christianlady

To me it is a discourtesy. Why not simply say, Do you know ....? instead of calling someone ignorant? Anyways, it is water under the bridge now.

We'll have to just leave it as we are not going to agree on this.

Are you friends/family members with them? My friends and family members who are Republicans do not want to invade other countries and do not have any interest in dictating others' lives. As for abortion, because the fetus is human (not a cow fetus growing inside of a human for example, it is reasonable to understand that many people consider a human fetus to be worthy of not being killed. Please note that a human fetus = alive while growing/maturing in the womb. So, protesting against the killing of live humans (though tiny and helpless) in the womb is similar in many peoples' minds, including mine, to protesting against the killing of live humans outside the womb. One interesting point is when a pregnant woman who loves the tiny little human growing in her womb is murdered, people readily understand that there were 2 lives who were murdered, the big one and the little one growing in the safe and secure environment of the big one. However, it is sad that many do not consider the little life growing in the womb of the big life to be truly human when the "Mom" does not want that little life. :frown:

However, that is a different topic.

1. I am not talking about specific republicans. The Republican party is pushing for the "war on terror" and wants to invade other countries.

2.Ignoring most of what you said on abortion, simply put, what right do you have to dictate what a person can or cannot do? By saying you cannot do this because I believe it is wrong, is forcing your beliefs on someone else and dictating how they can lead their lives. But allowing the government to help leaves options for people to choose how they want to live their lives.

Again, there are many rich people who are more than willing to help those in need. Actually, many do help because of the tax breaks they get when doing so. If the government gradually shrinks its responsibilities, then it would not need to demand more taxes in order to do what many responsible wealthy people are already doing, one reason in order to avoid paying for the government to do it.

What makes you think this is at all accurate? Especially when you claim they will pay for other people's abortions and birth control? I don't know of any wealthy people who do this. Or many wealthy people who provide food for the hungry, or shelter for the homeless, or some form of income for those who are jobless, etc. What evidence do you have that if the government doesn't do this that corporations and wealthy individuals will? As it is they demonstrate quite well that they intend to save as much money as they can for themselves.

I actually do not predict it. Instead, I listen to what my friends who own small businesses say will happen to their businesses. Since it affects them more than me, I understand their concerns and am willing to support them in helping them with their businesses. It takes a lot of hard work to own a small business, and can be very stressful and time consuming. I greatly admire my friends' hard work, because I know for them, it is not easy.

You listen to what your friends say and then use that as a means to say what it will or will not do. Thats predicting what it will do. You should look into the law more and see how it will actually affect these people.

Just as an added point, while you have every right to admire your friends' hard work, that does not mean that their concerns are founded, nor that their business outweighs the needs of many Americans for affordable health insurance and coverage.

If people can get good jobs, then they will be able to afford going to the doctor.

And what about those who can't? There are only oh so many 'good jobs'. Not to mention that some companies won't give insurance to some of their employees. So this isn't accurate at all.

However, I have an extreme issue with how much medical expenses costs! My sister is an RN who works in a maternity ward in NY. She has explained to me that most of the high costs are due to people suing medical people in cases of mistakes. I personally believe there needs to be a change how medical costs are evaluated as well as a more reasonable guideline for the culture of sue-happy individuals. Getting medical help is a risk. That should be understood and I do agree that medical staff should be held accountable for their actions. However, upping the horribly high prices of medical expenses is what makes healthcare so unaffordable for many people. It would be better, in my opinion, for the US government to make reasonable limitations for medical prices, so that people can afford the costs better.This is better than forcing businesses to pay for insurance.

1.Remind me how that is 'small government'?

2. How is that better? That limits what hospitals can do and will affect how patients can be treated and the quality of treatment. Whereas 'forcing' businesses to pay for insurance (note that business are not required to pay for insurance under Obamacare but there is a penalty if too many employees are not insured) does not do the same and still allows for free market choices.

3. While this is all well and good, (I agree that medical costs are extremely high) that is the price of privatization of hospitals and such. They are out to make a profit. Even if you were to somehow abate the 'sue culture' that exists in the US it wouldn't solve the problem, because the money goes towards the entire hospitals activities (none of which are cheap), and the doctors (who make lots of money). And on top of all those high costs they have to make a profit because they are a business. So...it only leads to the extortion of the patient, there is no other way for them to get revenue.

By the way, I currently do not have health care insurance. When I attended university, I did sign up for the insurance of the university, and it astounded me how much the MRI scan cost, which I naively allowed after an accident!!! If I had known how much I would have had to pay, with the insurance helping, I would not have gotten the MRI scan! (The scan, by the way, found that I was perfectly fine.)

Putting aside the whole you don't have health insurance...you think it would have been a smarter choice to not have a test, and possibly have had something wrong with you and not know? That is really scary that you put money above your own health.

Reply 102

arros123

I don't think Obama will win because Romney is "obviously evil". I think Romney's stance on the auto bailout will disenfranchise him from critically important male working class Ohio voters. Ohio's unpopular Republican governor is another hindrance for Romney there.

Presidential elections hinge on swing states, and Ohio is the crown jewel of them for Republicans, they've never won without Ohio.

Reply 103

heyhey922

12

Original post by Made in the USA

The united states and it's economy is WORSE OFF IN EVERY MEASURE since Obama has taken office. More debt, more unemployment, more poverty, whatever the criteria you want to use, it doesn't matter. Americans were better off before he took office. He took a bad economy and made it WORSE

When Obama took office America's private sector was losing jobs at a rate of over 800k a month, in June 2012 jobs per month in the private sector was at just under 250k, which is over a million additional private sector jobs from when Obama took office.

Spending growth is at the lowest rate in decades at 1.4%, compare that to Bush's first term at 7.3% or Reagan's first term of 8,7%

Reply 104

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

Lol this is simply false. Under Obama unemployment has gone down and taxes have gone down. The poverty issue is a big one and the debt was something that we going to happen no matter who took office and can hardly be blamed on Obama.

On Inauguration Day in 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent.

Reply 105

Original post by arros123

I don't think Obama will win because Romney is "obviously evil". I think Romney's stance on the auto bailout will disenfranchise him from critically important male working class Ohio voters. Ohio's unpopular Republican governor is another hindrance for Romney there.

Presidential elections hinge on swing states, and Ohio is the crown jewel of them for Republicans, they've never won without Ohio.

What's wrong with Romney's stance in the auto bailout? I feel Romney's idea of a managed private bankruptcy would have been better. They would have been able to renegotiate the outrageous union contracts and come out a lot more profitable and a lot more competitive than they are now.

Reply 106

strawberry

13

Original post by Christianlady

Whenever I get emotional, my husband asks me about when my period is lol. Don't be sorry. It was a partly a joke (I'm gad it made you laugh) but please keep in mind I am a very emotional, literal lady.

From one woman to another, I can tell you right now that arguing with emotion gets you nowhere. Arguments are about logic. With the presence of emotion, logic flies out the window with the pigs.

Reply 107

Super Cicero

18

Original post by heyhey922

When Obama took office America's private sector was losing jobs at a rate of over 800k a month, in June 2012 jobs per month in the private sector was at just under 250k, which is over a million additional private sector jobs from when Obama took office.

Spending growth is at the lowest rate in decades at 1.4%, compare that to Bush's first term at 7.3% or Reagan's first term of 8,7%

The only reason spending growth is low is due to the Republican control of the House of Representatives. If the Democrats still had full control of Congress, spending growth would be much higher.

Even if you believe that Obama's big government policies have reduced unemployment and stopped the recession from becoming a depression, it is an indisputable fact that these policies have caused unprecedented levels of debt, which needs to be sorted out through massive spending cuts. This isn't going to happen in a second Obama term.

Despite this, I do think Obama will win unless something major happens (e.g. significant economic downturn, Israel attacking Iran) between now and November.

My prediction of the 2012 electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=pbD

Sadly it looks like America will have to wait until Marco Rubio is elected in 2016 before its massive debt can be sorted out.

Reply 108

johndoranglasgow

14

Original post by Made in the USA

Not a chance in hell. If Obama did win it would be historically unprecedented

No president has ever been elected again with this level of unemployment.

I'll bet you 50 quid and would have at the start of the republican primaries.

Reply 109

Original post by Made in the USA

On Inauguration Day in 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent.

My bad =\ I was thinking of job creation. Although looking at terms of job growth Obama has a strong record which would theoretically keep with its current trend and lower the unemployment rate even further.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 110

Captain Crash

9

Original post by Made in the USA

On Inauguration Day in 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent.

And what was the rate of unemployment growth when Obama took office?

Bloody hope so

It´s super close at the moment and it´ll probably come down to who says the wrong thing or slips up in an debate.

Bare in mind, ´Obama Care´ was actually Romney´s idea based off of similar models such as the UK´s NHS. I think for the swing of the American public favour, Romney has a great edge but by the simple desire to have a democrat representative, Obama will stay in power.

Reply 113

Original post by Kiss

It´s super close at the moment and it´ll probably come down to who says the wrong thing or slips up in an debate.

Bare in mind, ´Obama Care´ was actually Romney´s idea based off of similar models such as the UK´s NHS. I think for the swing of the American public favour, Romney has a great edge but by the simple desire to have a democrat representative, Obama will stay in power.

Obamacare has absolutely zero in common with the NHS

Obamacare is forced insurance. You get fined if you don't have a health insurance policy. You get arrested and thrown in prison if you don't pay that fine.

Which part of this sounds like the NHS?

Reply 114

Original post by Captain Crash

And what was the rate of unemployment growth when Obama took office?

I knew you would try to come up with a way to make the numbers look less terrible somehow.

Obama's economic team PROMISED us that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from exceeding eight percent. By now unemployment was supposed to be 5.6 percent.

So, at best we are looking at an administration that was ridiculously naive or they are just too incompetent to figure out how to fix the economy. Im not sure what's worse. Either way it's time for them to pack their bags. The American people have had enough of the excuses.

Reply 115

Original post by Made in the USA

I knew you would try to come up with a way to make the numbers look less terrible somehow.

Obama's economic team PROMISED us that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from exceeding eight percent. By now unemployment was supposed to be 5.6 percent.

So, at best we are looking at an administration that was ridiculously naive or they are just too incompetent to figure out how to fix the economy. Im not sure what's worse. Either way it's time for them to pack their bags. The American people have had enough of the excuses.

I would say at worst we are looking at an administration who learned how to manage even if they made a mistake. They have turned around the unemployment rate astonishingly fast. You can't argue with their results.

Reply 116

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

I would say at worst we are looking at an administration who learned how to manage even if they made a mistake. They have turned around the unemployment rate astonishingly fast. You can't argue with their results.

They havent turned it around astonishingly fast. It hasnt been turned around at all. Unemployment is higher than the day Obama took office.

If you want to see astonishing economic turnarounds look at Reagan's term where he was handed an economy worse than what Obama was given and by the third year the economy was experiencing the biggest economic boom in American history

Reply 117

sugar-n-spice

1

Original post by Made in the USA

Obamacare has absolutely zero in common with the NHS

Obamacare is forced insurance. You get fined if you don't have a health insurance policy. You get arrested and thrown in prison if you don't pay that fine.

Which part of this sounds like the NHS?

Does it even cover the unemployed? From what I've read this policy sounds as if it will increase the gap between the uninsured underclass, most of whom don't even have jobs (and will be even less likely to get them with forced insurance) and middle America. Funny Europeans thinking this helps the poor.

Reply 118