Obama vs Romney, who are you voting for and why?

[Listener]

It’s a tough decision. Here’s why. The Republicans seem to do the opposite of what they say they do, and the Democrats do the same thing. The Republicans say they want to make government smaller, but George Bush spent money like a there was no tomorrow.

The Republicans say they don’t approve of government spending. So they pay their low-level employees starvation wages, and guess what! A lot of these people qualify for help from the government because they don’t make enough money. Isn’t that what the Republicans supposedly disapproved of?

Romney made some snide comments about the 47% “victims” who don’t pay any income tax. Guess what! It was George Bush who decreased income tax rates so much that these folks wouldn’t owe any tax at all.

On the other hand, Democrats are supposed to approve of welfare. It was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who ended welfare as we know it. I’m thankful that I haven’t heard the term “welfare queen” in the past several years. Remember when people said that the government was going broke because of all of the “welfare queens?”

Democrats may be champions of giving welfare to individuals, but Republicans are champions of giving welfare to corporations. Oh, excuse me, corporations are really people, thanks to our conservative Supreme Court.

I may have even heard somewhere that there were fewer abortions when Bill Clinton was president than there were when George Bush was president, but I don’t know where to find statistics to prove that.

So when it comes to politics, black is white and white is black. Down is really up and up is down.

Just hold your nose while you vote and please refrain from accusing your neighbor of sin.

 

[interestedman]

It’s a tough decision. Here’s why. The Republicans seem to do the opposite of what they say they do, and the Democrats do the same thing. The Republicans say they want to make government smaller, but George Bush spent money like a there was no tomorrow.

The Republicans say they don’t approve of government spending. So they pay their low-level employees starvation wages, and guess what! A lot of these people qualify for help from the government because they don’t make enough money. Isn’t that what the Republicans supposedly disapproved of?

Romney made some snide comments about the 47% “victims” who don’t pay any income tax. Guess what! It was George Bush who decreased income tax rates so much that these folks wouldn’t owe any tax at all.

On the other hand, Democrats are supposed to approve of welfare. It was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who ended welfare as we know it. I’m thankful that I haven’t heard the term “welfare queen” in the past several years. Remember when people said that the government was going broke because of all of the “welfare queens?”

Democrats may be champions of giving welfare to individuals, but Republicans are champions of giving welfare to corporations. Oh, excuse me, corporations are really people, thanks to our conservative Supreme Court.

I may have even heard somewhere that there were fewer abortions when Bill Clinton was president than there were when George Bush was president, but I don’t know where to find statistics to prove that.

So when it comes to politics, black is white and white is black. Down is really up and up is down.

Just hold your nose while you vote and please refrain from accusing your neighbor of sin.

Sounds about right. I don’t really know which candidate would be better for the country. I think it is Obama, but maybe I’m wrong. I just hope whoever is elected gets the country out of the economic downturn.

 

[mary_bobo]

It’s a tough decision. Here’s why. The Republicans seem to do the opposite of what they say they do, and the Democrats do the same thing. The Republicans say they want to make government smaller, but George Bush spent money like a there was no tomorrow.

The Republicans say they don’t approve of government spending. So they pay their low-level employees starvation wages, and guess what! A lot of these people qualify for help from the government because they don’t make enough money. Isn’t that what the Republicans supposedly disapproved of? Please provide proof of this statement.

Romney made some snide comments about the 47% “victims” who don’t pay any income tax. Guess what! It was George Bush who decreased income tax rates so much that these folks wouldn’t owe any tax at all. Again, that is not exactly what Romney said nor was the infurence as you have painted it.

On the other hand, Democrats are supposed to approve of welfare. It was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who ended welfare as we know it. Meaning only that if one gets welfare, one has to do something to earn it. And he was pulled kicking and screaming into this idea by the GOP I’m thankful that I haven’t heard the term “welfare queen” in the past several years. Remember when people said that the government was going broke because of all of the “welfare queens?”

Democrats may be champions of giving welfare to individuals, but Republicans are champions of giving welfare to corporations. Oh, excuse me, corporations are really people, thanks to our conservative Supreme Court.

I may have even heard somewhere that there were fewer abortions when Bill Clinton was president than there were when George Bush was president, but I don’t know where to find statistics to prove that.If that is true, you should be able to find stats to back up your assertion.

So when it comes to politics, black is white and white is black. Down is really up and up is down.

Just hold your nose while you vote and please refrain from accusing your neighbor of sin.

Some of us are too busy worrying about our own sins to do that.

 

[Neildown]

(If I were old enough to vote) I would be voting for Romney. He’s got experience being the head of an organization (Obama hasn’t, so far as I recall) and he appears to uphold a better moral standard - not to mention I have high hopes for Paul Ryan as VP.

Obama made promises he simply didn’t keep and I don’t want someone who doesn’t keep to his word. I still recall there were some issues with Romney back in the day, but in comparison with the competition he’s worth a shot.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I didn’t paraphrase, I quoted

I didn’t happen to see either quote marks or a box around a statement in the very post of yours (post 855) to which I responded. (The one in which you said you “agreed with Colbert.”)

Feel free to disagree and move on with your day.

And likewise, feel free to move on yourself or not, as this discussion forum does not permit you or me to silence each other because one of us (that would not be me) is annoyed at being responded to or disagreed with. (I’m not required to “move on” to make you feel better; that’s called dismissing someone. )

Why you feel the need to get defensive is beyond me.

Hmmm. Given all the backpedaling on your part, I would not categorize myself as the defensive one in this exchange. I will express the idea in a different way, as this may have been missed:

Anyone who repeats the propaganda of a reductionist version of the American electorate (i.e., categorically and simplistically polarized, such as you did in your summary of Colbert’s view), without expressing an understanding of the many varied nuances in that electorate, is contributing to the same negative atmosphere (stereotyping, marginalizing) he or she accuses others of doing.

Generally, in Catholicism and Christianity overall, we are enjoined not to ascribe motivations to people – whether Democrats or Republicans – whom we have no personal knowledge of, and who have not shared their motivations with us.

You don’t know, I don’t know, Steven Colbert doesn’t know, whether “many,” “few” or “all” self-identified Christians

look upon their less fortunate brothers and sisters as lazy and unworthy of even the smallest amount of assistance.

And to assume so is un-Christian to the core.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Let’s see, Carlan - 12 more years of Democrats = 15,600,000 abortions. That is roughly equivalent to the population of the Netherlands. And you justify that how?

Ishii

Not to mention that the reason why unemployment is going “down” is because more people are dropping out of the workforce entirely than are getting jobs. The total rate of unemployment is still around 21%.

 

[Jeffrey]

It should be zero.

Hey they finally got up to 30 votes for Obama on this thing. One for every piece of silver.

 

[Jeffrey]

There… fixed it for ya. **Bold my emphasis. **

God bless America with anyone but obama!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not to mention that the reason why unemployment is going “down” is because more people are dropping out of the workforce entirely than are getting jobs. The total rate of unemployment is still around 21%.

Are you including under-employment in that figure, Scott?

Btw, another reason for the “downward count” is the May 2012 decision by Congress to end federal extensions for those who had at that point exhausted their State benefits.

I believe that those so “terminated” in this newer group would also not be “counted.”

 

[interestedman]

Not to mention that the reason why unemployment is going “down” is because more people are dropping out of the workforce entirely than are getting jobs. The total rate of unemployment is still around 21%.

Do you have a source on that? And if that is accurate, how many of that 21% are stay at home parents or people that are choosing not to work?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sounds about right. I don’t really know which candidate would be better for the country. I think it is Obama, but maybe I’m wrong. I just hope whoever is elected gets the country out of the economic downturn.

You are, indeed, wrong.

The CBO has estimated that Obamacare alone will reduce the GDP by 1.9% due to the additional costs imposed on individuals and businesses. The GDP growth rate right now is only about 1.5%. So, Obama has, by one act alone, baked a new recession into the economic cake. Then there’s “making utility bills skyrocket” which he promised to do. That does not help an economy.

Obama might still turn this recession into a depression. He almost already has. This recession has already been longer than past recessions, even financial recessions, and he’s making it worse. He can’t blame Bush for that any longer. If it were not for food stamps, unemployment benefits and welfare, we would be seeing soup lines on the street just like in 1936 and everybody would be calling it a depression.

It didn’t need to be.

 

[rlg94086]

I agreed your question held no weight. Because there will always be at least one poor person on earth and thus poverty will never be totally eliminated. Therefore I would not support the killing of millions of Jewish American adults as the alternative. I also agreed abortion will never be totally eliminated on this earth regardless of who the POTUS is, regardless of Roe, regardless of what one state would then do vs another. Al actually explained it better to you than I though. Peace.

Actually, neither you nor Al gave a decent justification to support the choice to kill innocent human beings. Requiring the complete end to abortion for a candidate to win your vote is not rational.

If anyone can come up with a proportionate reason for allowing people to killing innocent human beings, I will be surprised.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just hold your nose while you vote and please refrain from accusing your neighbor of sin.

It’s sinful to support any politician who promotes abortion and homosexual marriage. It is up to each person to find out who fits that description, though I think that’s obvious enough. The bishops have been trying to tell everybody, but they can’t name names. He who has ears, let him hear.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It’s a tough decision. Here’s why. The Republicans seem to do the opposite of what they say they do, and the Democrats do the same thing. The Republicans say they want to make government smaller, but George Bush spent money like a there was no tomorrow.

The Republicans say they don’t approve of government spending. So they pay their low-level employees starvation wages, and guess what! A lot of these people qualify for help from the government because they don’t make enough money. Isn’t that what the Republicans supposedly disapproved of?

Romney made some snide comments about the 47% “victims” who don’t pay any income tax. Guess what! It was George Bush who decreased income tax rates so much that these folks wouldn’t owe any tax at all.

On the other hand, Democrats are supposed to approve of welfare. It was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who ended welfare as we know it. I’m thankful that I haven’t heard the term “welfare queen” in the past several years. Remember when people said that the government was going broke because of all of the “welfare queens?”

Democrats may be champions of giving welfare to individuals, but Republicans are champions of giving welfare to corporations. Oh, excuse me, corporations are really people, thanks to our conservative Supreme Court.

I may have even heard somewhere that there were fewer abortions when Bill Clinton was president than there were when George Bush was president, but I don’t know where to find statistics to prove that.

So when it comes to politics, black is white and white is black. Down is really up and up is down.

Sounds about right, indeed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Just hold your nose while you vote and please refrain from accusing your neighbor of sin.

That’s an attitude, “please refrain from accusing your neighbor of sin”, that many hard-core posters on this thread might learn from. In the end, we are all just trying to please our heavenly Father, and accusing some of “not having their conscience formed properly” even when they obviously have studied the issues is going a little far I guess.

 

[interestedman]

You are, indeed, wrong.

The CBO has estimated that Obamacare alone will reduce the GDP by 1.9% due to the additional costs imposed on individuals and businesses. The GDP growth rate right now is only about 1.5%. So, Obama has, by one act alone, baked a new recession into the economic cake. Then there’s “making utility bills skyrocket” which he promised to do. That does not help an economy.

Obama might still turn this recession into a depression. He almost already has. This recession has already been longer than past recessions, even financial recessions, and he’s making it worse. He can’t blame Bush for that any longer. If it were not for food stamps, unemployment benefits and welfare, we would be seeing soup lines on the street just like in 1936 and everybody would be calling it a depression.

It didn’t need to be.

Meh, maybe, maybe not.

 

[rlg94086]

Precisely. The tax vs. charity argument is another questionable argument. I believe that for a large part it is** supported unthinkingly by conservative Christians to justify any corrupt, corporatist, inhuman and unjust stance **that the Republican party stands for, just because it is the “pro-life party”. Talk about contortionist mental gymnastics.

I support the subsidiarity principle of the Catholic Church. Yet too often it seems degraded into, and misused as, cheap political argument.

That’s an attitude, “please refrain from accusing your neighbor of sin”, that many hard-core posters on this thread might learn from. In the end, we are all just trying to please our heavenly Father, and accusing some of “not having their conscience formed properly” even when they obviously have studied the issues is going a little far I guess.

Thank you, Saint Al, for letting us know how* the rest of us* have all gone “a little far.”

 

[Carlan]

Thank you, Saint Al, for letting us know how* the rest of us* have all gone “a little far.”

Little lessons about humility do some of us good from time to time.

Oh how hard it is to swallow the nasty old pride!

Peace, Carlan

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thank you, Saint Al, for letting us know how* the rest of us* have all gone “a little far.”

Erm, I never accused you of sin. I only think that some of you are misguided in your attitudes and in your defense of the GOP at all costs.

 

[rlg94086]

Erm, I never accused you of sin. I only think that some of you are misguided in your attitudes and in your defense of the GOP at all costs.

Right…you only said we are “unthinking” and misusing the Church teaching on subsidiarity. I’m glad you are squeaky clean in your Christian charity.