The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central VOTE FOR RICK PERRY!! NO SERIOUSLY!

If I had to vote between those 3, I would have to say I wouldn't vote. But at the sametime as you say I want to pick one of the lesser evils. I would in the end have to go with Romney. First look at Perry and I thought, maybe he won't be so bad. But after looking further into it. He's a no go. If Obama had his way we would have a complete government ran healthcare system, more taxes for those millionaires (you know the $250,000 a year millionaires) instead of reforming the tax system and having something a little more fair. Obama's change was about chaning into a more socialist Government. Instead of going right for the juggler on Government ran healthcare, why not start with tort reform, cutting red tape that really has no impact on savings or healthcare just added cost. AGAIN... this doesn't mean we don't need regualtion. Remember the Constitution isn't very long, yet it covers pretty much everything in our lives. Consider that compared to say... the many thousands of pages of tax laws that even the douchebags that make them have no clue about them (see Charlie Rangel) So it's my belief Romney is the lesser of the Evils. He's going to be the same douche as the rest of them. And that's sad, that we can't find someone with a population this size that's willing to be a REAL leader. I guess it's up to us, as long as we don't vote in douchebags, WE can change it.

When we vote in dummies like Maxine Waters & Bachmann to public office, how the hell are we going to get anything done?

Jet, since you didnt read my other thread I will post this here. It is a write in to The Atlantic ( a left leaning mag) by someone from Ohio. I interact with a great many small business owners in my line of work, and I can say that this view is absolutely spot on. This is how people feel around here.

From another reader in the Midwest, about the plight of the well-meaning small business owner:
-----------------------------
>>While I do talk to people with much the same narrative as your university librarian (we live in a college town, I work at a nearby branch of the state university), I'd note that I could sit here and type out similar narratives of frustration and despair, but from people who are almost by definition semantically excluded from those categories.

They're people I work with in church and Scouts and neighborhood activities who own and run businesses of three to thirty some fulltime employees, and they talk about how hard it has become to have fulltime employees, to manage their businesses, and to navigate local, state, and federal regulation. Any entrepreneur over 25 talks constantly about the upsweep of the curve, and in my opinion, especially the three or four I know most personally, how challenged they are by the whole health insurance situation along with all that.

My sense is that they WANT to do right by their employees, and they want to be above, but not ridiculously above, the average wage rate for our area, but the gamesmanship of finding a plan for their twelve or twenty employees is sucking huge amounts of their time, and only to end up paying dramatically more for what they then have to tell their employees is less coverage, both in their contributions and co-pays, and in what gets covered. I am president of a non-profit with twenty to thirty employees over these last eight years I've been in the saddle, and every two years we go thru exactly that, so I know what they're talking about.

I try to present the upside of a basic single payer national health policy, and removing health care insurability from employment status, and they're intrigued and attracted, but ultimately, fearful of a health care bureaucracy that echoes what they already deal with in employment and workplace issues, and so turn away . . . and are easily lured to the simplistic rants of Tea Party "starve the beast" anti-Obama voices.

That said, I do think there's a progressive/moderate case to be made that government is getting too intrusive into daily life (just got back from a parent meeting where we were told, due to federal regulations, that no bake sales can happen at school for any reason, period -- there's one fine example right in front of me), and yet is not as responsive as it should be when it ought: if I may mention your competition, this web article has gotten much play among the folks I'm talking about .

So there's a "mood of revolt" among those who have not, and I am both concerned by and sympathetic to the reasons why that is, but I think there should be a fair presentation of the "mood of resistance" that is out there among those who could be hiring, but are saying "yes, I have an extra $50,000 in the budget, but if I hire someone and it costs me $75,000, it could bring down half the company, so NO."

I hope that view from Ohio is useful to you.<<
--------------------------------------

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...om-afar/244731/

Edit: This is the web article origionally referenced by the writer in the post - http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/...923ea3919e.html

I'm just saying from a sane Texan standpoint that Perry scares the hell out of me.

Given those choices and no other, which I actually have the right to vote other (In my case, even tho he has little chance of winning, Ron Paul will get my vote), but, if there were only those 3 available to me Jet, Romney would receive my vote hands down.

The reason Romney scares politicians and people is that they can not pin down what a Romney Presidency would actually look like. He may dable in the political arena, but he is a businessman first and foremost. This makes him an unknown commodity. I do believe his policies and direction would be good for the country economically and with respect to making enroads to clearing up the debt, IF, he could also depend on a balanced house and senate. I would suggest that Romney's ability to be flexible, rather than hardlined, is a good thing for him. In reality, none of us can really know what he would do, but of those 3 choices, he would be the best available. Of those 3 candidates, his record shows that he has the ability to look past the pettyness of party and choose people who will work based on ability and whatever vision is present. I would suggest the American people will keep their welfare as a strong vision, since so many continue to believe it's the governments job to improve their lives. As such, Romney will also be the liberal democrats best hope of holding on to some of the ridiculous things Obama has put into place. Not all of them mind you. I am convinced Romney will do away with this nightmare health bs and come up with something better and more appropriate, which would be Insurance Reform, if we must have the government messing in captolistic systems. A huge mistake by the way, but not one I see changing soon.

As far as Obama is concerned, we deserve (we being the metaphorical American, not me personnally) everything he has done to us. He had nothing to offer in the way of political focus, national respect or international capacity beyond the color of his skin. And thus, we get what we paid for. Anyone who does not understand the reality only has to look at the direct result of the government taking over GM to see where Obama's "give a shit" really rests. The Union and the "elite rich" of GM benefitted from that, the shareholders got stabbed in the ass and the continued unwillingnness of people to invest in major companies of the country continues out of fear of that happening again. His complete disregard of the US Constitution is abhorrent, and his political circus bs is pathetic. He got his deal for the debt ceiling so he could go on vacation. PHA...ass.

I sincerely wish for the revolution to begin, for the Veterans to take over and bring this whole system in line..oh wait..that is Starship Troopers...not the worst thing that could happen. :-)

Well I actually agree with these statements. Obama has disappointed me because he didnt do enough.

We are going to disagree on the role of government, etc, but I think we agree on this at least.

I think you should start drinking bottled water Vuldan.

I was not speaking to you about the post office. Someone else brought it up.

As for only arguing what I want to argue, you guys do the same exact thing all the time. My excuse is that I dont have time to respond to everything.

As for your statement regarding the Atomic Bomb? Name one private company that any of the people at White Sands worked for. They were clearly on the government payroll.

It boggles the mind that you guys fail to recognize some of the amazing accomplishments of our government. Government is needed, and only it can so some things. Self regulation in capitalism is a total joke. The ideas contradict each other. Imagine the NFL with now refs, it would be a total Hockey fight.

We have fundamental differences in our views as to our government and it's roll. None of us are going to change the others minds. All we can ever hope for is that the majority of the public agrees with our specific views.

All I can say, is there there is no mainstream candidate that agrees with your guys views. Not voting is just being part of the problem.

As for health care, I have a great job, and great insurance, and don't need anything different now. I do however have compassion for the people that have no insurance, and ruin their futures and credit if they get sick, and are forced into emergency room medical care that they can never afford to pay. And as Derid said about me, this is something that none of you have addressed that I have brought up before. Heath care to me is a right, not a privilege. If you want to go back to survival of the fittest, then move to a desert island. Oh wait survival of the fittest is key to evolution, and you guys and the candidates you support don't believe in science or evolution, so that is a moot argument.

"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."

"LOL,

Wow, where should I begin. How about the highway system as an example of something that only government could do. How about Hoover Dam? How about the Golden Gate Bridge?

Private Enterprise could have never taken us to the Moon or developed atomic power. Private enterprise could have never saved the world in WW2.

How quickly you forget the great things the American government has accomplished."


The government doesn't make anything,they take money from us then pay private company's to build things, they can pay for this because they can spend more money then any private company can afford to spend because they would go broke.
Not to mention the amount of money they waste on over paying for everything they do.
Once again they do not PRODUCE anything.
You can look at it one way, they are the only company that can spend as much as they want but make nothing to sell to make the money they spend. The idea that government should be able to spend as much as they want is what got us into this problem now. Health care could be affordable if we could control the spending on all the b.s.

The federal gov. should only be spending money on very few things, Military,interstate system to name a few.

The police and firefighters are local city, state and have nothing to do with fed.




"and the candidates you support don't believe in science or evolution, so that is a moot argument."
Who doesn't believe in science? I have never heard this one.

The NFL line was lame.

Jet, you are still failing to perceive the difference between a task and a deed.

To put it differently, its the conceptual difference between utilizing a market, and managing a market. When the government manages a market, or over inserts itself - suddenly it is politics that determines pricing and who gets what. This is not good.

Most pressing example you might ask? Housing. The financial crash. But, you might say, " wasnt the fault of greedy capitalists?". The answer is not so simple.

The housing bubble was caused because the govt was underwriting hundreds of billions in bad loans via Freddia and Fannie, and HUD et al make it politically and regulatorily necessary to extend loans to bad borrowers. Gov't intervention made for many millions more buyers than there would have otherwise been, thus inflating housing prices. Govt backing of the bad loans let shady Wall St types repackage them as securities ( hey its a great investment, the gov't is backing it! ) and sell them.

For some reason , a lot of people do not like to look past the involvement of a few dirty capitalists. And yeah, in any society, even if the old Soviet Union, when gov't gave people a legal way to fleece people... there is ALWAYS someone willing to take up that task. Capitalism as a system is about competition and letting the free market set value.... which is what was NOT happening in regards to the housing market, hence its collapse. Look at Medicare and other gov't intervention, and you will see that Health care costs are absurdly high not because of enough govt involvement but because of too much.

Also, I can say that Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness are rights. I do not count health care as a right.


Anyhow, I am more curious as to your thought about the person from Ohio writing in to the Atlantic a few posts back. If you want to talk about real effects of Obamaism on real people, that is a good place to start the conversation.

Especially since if this mood persists in Ohio, and Rick Perry gets the GOP nod... he WILL be the next president. If Perry carries Ohio he wins. Obama and his supporters ought to pay a little bit of attention to the plight of midwesterners if they truly want to keep govt from being dominated by right wing extremists, because that is where their policies are driving us.

The real ramification of the policies set by Pelosi and the Left over in Cali that let the Left feel good about themselves as they reduce carbon, give everyone free stuff, etc.... is extremely damaging to the lives and livelihoods of people in other parts of the country.

Got some news for you, most people here in Ohio actually believe in science. But we still hate Obama.