Presidential Election Poll 10-2-2012

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vangaurdian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What specific program did Obama “save the country from the brink of a great depression” with?

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (net cost, $787 Billion for 3 million jobs, or $250k EACH)?

Our “rescue” of GM? They’re headed for bankruptcy (again).

forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Right the taxpayer owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout.

Guess what it’s trading at today? If GM does file Bankruptcy again, do you think the Federal funds owed will be renegotiated?

Do any of you Obama supporters have anything factual to back up these ephemeral fantasy claims?

If you do, PLEASE POST SOMETHING!!! I get so sick of “Obama saved X. Romney kicks puppies” type of rhetoric, with no basis in fact (or reality).
$787 Billion (if correct) is a small percentage of the annual budget/tax revenue - well worth preventing a further plunge of the stock market, housing market and to stall the tide of collapse among major businesses. His regulation of the banking industry has further stopped the economy from crashing and curtailed the greed and fraud of an industry left unchecked under the Bush administration. He stopped the war drums and has invested heavily in renewable energies (see DoD mandate for 25% renewable energies by 2025)…the list goes on.
 
CaptFun responds in RED
Why would people vote for Obama? For reasons known only to them, 67% of Hispanics and 97% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008. They will likely do so again. Because 20% of U.S. voters are self-identified liberals who will likely cast their vote for the face of progressive politics, Barack Obama. Because the nearly 50% of all Americans who pay no federal income taxes or otherwise receive federal entitlements will vote for the liberal Democrat who dispenses the goodies. Because millions of private and public union members, including public teachers, policemen, and firefighters, readily know where their bread is buttered and will vote for the incumbent President. - All good points T-Dave. IMO the Democrats’ Class Warfare tactic sees victory as crafting an alliance of self-interested groups into a majority. In some cases fostering a loyalty ethic through intimidation (i.e. - are you for black power or an “Uncle Tom”? - an implied litmus test).

Lastly, there is the unidentified percentage of Americans who simply like Obama and the concept of a black President and First Family. Right or wrong, the sentiment exists. Yes there is. And on the surface, Obama even looks conservative. Married. Well-dressed. Well-spoken. Short hair. Went to college. Sunday-dressed little girls. A new role model to young blacks to counter the criminal-chic rappers and their anti-social threats of violence?

BUT they’ve been there, done that, voted that way ONCE now. No need to prove to “the world” how racist we aren’t AGAIN. In FACT, on that note, vote for the Mormon now to show how religiously tolerant you are to “the world”.

Those whopping numbers Obama had in some demographics are hard to repeat I would think. And a juicy “mission field” for Romney (pardon the pun).

One could look at it as “The Democrats are nearing critical mass … 50% … and will never lose power again!” for the reasons you cited above …

… or look at it as if "They have peaked. They are losing states Obama carried last time, not gaining any of the Mc Cain states; with ALL that supposed support and the incumbency and power to reward people - Obama can’t crack 50%. More people DON’T support him than DO!

“If Romney ever figures out that our support is shallow and makes appeals to some of those groups we have so “in the bag” for us we’d be in trouble.” < theoretical (D) strategist.

The aforementioned voters are guided by ideology and self-interest. “Abysmal domestic and international policy failures” receive less consideration than ideology and self-interest.

I’ve seen what you are talking about. In both parties actually, but WAY more with Democrats. Often with folks whose “news sources” are People Magazine and the Entertainment Channel.

Certainly, conservatives and republicans hold their ideology and self-interest close to their heart in equal regard. The problem is demography. Conservatives and Republicans are slightly outnumbered in critical swing states. The electoral college favors Obama. Well maybe. Sometimes people are registered in one party and don’t vote that way. In 1972 I registered for the first time. I considered being an independent - as at the time I saw Rs and Ds as being like hot or cold water. Sometimes you need hot more, sometimes cold. But if you registered indy … you could not vote in a primary to PICK who was going to run. Less power. Sooo … I registered Democrat. Nixon was an incumbant and going to win his primary. I wanted TWO good choices. I voted for LA mayor Sam Yorty - a favorite son vote - so that California would have clout with the Democratic nominee in case he won. But I actually liked Yorty who was pro-business, did a great job — and even his more liberal spending proposals seemed like good ideas.

That fall I voted for Nixon (as most people did … it was a landslide, even in California). On PAPER though, it’d have looked like I’d be voting for Mc Govern (nice man, sick now, couldn’t vote for him, too far left). I’ve also heard that many people are switching their registrations from Democrat to (something else), which requires effort.

I wasn’t a “Reagan Democrat” as I’d switched by then. But some I think keep their label hoping that the party will one day return to them. They vote in their Democratic primarys, watch their kind of Democrat lose badly and vote in the fall for the GOP guy who is closer to what they believed. There may be some of that this time I think. Maybe enought to swing enough states to matter.

That leaves us with independents, U.S. voters ensconced in the middle of the political spectrum. The Romney campaign, the Republican National Committee, conservative super-pacs, and we (individual conservative and Republican voters) must persuade independents that Obama’s “abysmal failures” at home and abroad are indeed the important issues of the 2012 election. Unless we eliminate annual $1 trillion deficits, wipe out the $16 trillion national debt, reduce unemployment, eliminate ObamaCare, and re-establish America’s good name and strength on the international front, the United States will inexorably head down the path of the chaotic European model.

Simple enough answer?
Good last paragraph, but I’m in the choir.

Factual but (like Herbert Hoover found out) facts can lose out to the lure of fantastic emotional promises, ACTUAL payoffs, and social fashion.

One thing is hopeful. “People vote their pocketbooks!” This pearl of “wisdom” came from a “pro-life” guy who was about to vote otherwise. I thought of Judas trading Jesus’ purse for the 30 pieces of silver (in that case as $ had him going pro-abort candidate).

But THIS year that guy would vote like me. Pocketbook is empty now. Change happens.
 
Even the cookie monster is a flip-flopper. He was a big fan of cookies, but now only eats healthy vegetables. Don’t need kind of inconsistency in the White House.
 
$787 Billion (if correct) is a small percentage of the annual budget/tax revenue - well worth preventing a further plunge of the stock market, housing market and to stall the tide of collapse among major businesses. His regulation of the banking industry has further stopped the economy from crashing and curtailed the greed and fraud of an industry left unchecked under the Bush administration. He stopped the war drums and has invested heavily in renewable energies (see DoD mandate for 25% renewable energies by 2025)…the list goes on.
This doesn’t work.

I have a lot of bones to pick with Bush, but:

What this country had was a financial crisis. It has had them before, very bad ones, and recovered from them, usually within two years. It happened because underwriting standards on loans purchased by the market-makers, FNMA and FHLMC were so incredibly lax that others in the business did the same to remain in the market. When the securities issued on them became questionable, their value tumbled to an extent that nobody could actually gauge, but which they were required to gauge due to Sarbanes-Oxley. Theoretically, because there was no market for them (even though many had value) they were artificially worthless, which caused many institutions to be technically insolvent, if not actually insolvent.

Because banks portfolios were uncertain in value, banks became reluctant to loan each other Fed Funds, which really did threaten a liquidity crisis. The Fed guaranteed Fed Funds to the interbank lenders and the government created TARP to buy the questionable securities. It became apparent that it wasn’t enough money to buy them, so it morphed into TARP 1b, which was a temporary boost to bank liquidity and solvency in order for the already-solvent banks to absorb those which had over-loaned in (largely) development loans that failed.

Very few in government on either side of the aisle dissented from those measures. It was not entirely dissimilar to what Coolidge and J.P. Morgan did decades ago in resolving a similar financial crisis, but using banks instead of the government to re-establish liquidity. It was well targeted, and the measure worked both times. Dodd-Frank had absolutely nothing to do with it. Dodd-Frank was an attempt to close the barn door after the horse had left, been brought back and bedded in his stall. But the barn door is still wide open.
Nobody stopped the making of bad mortgages. I see it every day, and FNMA and FHLMC are still buying them and securitizing them. Very troubling. I see 100% and even 125% loans made all the time; with government guarantees of course.

Everything after TARP 1b was essentially political and more or less random spending.

As to the “rescue” of GM, it’s still insolvent, only kept on life support by the fact that the government stripped the bondholders and stockholders and paid $53/share for stock that’s perhaps now worth half that and will probably end up being worth nothing. You can keep any business going if you pump enough money into it and keep doing it. Eventually, it will go down because of legacy obligations that were NOT stripped away, and it will get bought by someone, just as it would have if the government had never intervened. The UAW workers will be hopping mad, but if Obama is safely re-elected before the fall, he won’t care.

And I thought everybody knew the present stock market is being largely supported by the “carry trade”; a very scary situation. The “retail market” has largely evaporated.

And the “war drums” stopped after what? After Obama’s undeclared and totally unwarranted war on Libya which appears to be putting Al Quada into power there? At least Bush had congressional approval for his wars. Obama didn’t. It served no national interest. Obama just went to war against Libya because, well, he wanted to.

And I think we know about the investment in “renewable energies”. The bankruptcy courts certainly do. Chinese manufacturers do as well, since they seem to be the only ones who are making the hardware anymore; subsidized by this government, of course, or even they wouldn’t be able to make the stuff cheaply enough.
 
Less jobs… more unemployemnt. More ppl on food stamps and disablility than have gotten jobs since he took office. Higher gas prices… trying to kill coal jobs… obamacare… no keystone pipeline… the list is goes on.
Facts. Obama must go.

DGB
 
$787 Billion (if correct) is a small percentage of the annual budget/tax revenue - well worth preventing a further plunge of the stock market, housing market and to stall the tide of collapse among major businesses. His regulation of the banking industry has further stopped the economy from crashing and curtailed the greed and fraud of an industry left unchecked under the Bush administration. He stopped the war drums and has invested heavily in renewable energies (see DoD mandate for 25% renewable energies by 2025)…the list goes on.
All those extreme, emotional words I’ve bolded… You’ve been duped by this President into thinking with your emotions and not with your brain. shakes his head

Simple fact is the deficit has increased under him. He has made government bigger, not smaller, which violates the principle of subsidiarity and gives the federal government more control over that which could be done more efficiently at lower levels. Obama’s policies and those of his senate and HoR have given the federal government more of the financial burden, which it cannot afford (as you can see by the rising deficit).

What we need, I suggest, is a smaller - not a bigger - federal government. We’ve seen what Obama has done towards this ends. We’ve also seen what Romney promises to this ends, and what Republicans of recent years tend to do - not all that much.

So, therefore, I’m voting for Romney. Better we do nothing than to make our financial problems worse.
 
From the Chicago Tribune:
President Barack Obama plans to hold his election-night rally at Chicago’s McCormick Place convention center, a move aimed at easing concerns over weather and security, sources with knowledge of the event said Wednesday.

Given the indoor location, the event seems unlikely to match the electric atmosphere of Obama’s 2008 outdoor victory rally in Grant Park. That event drew an estimated 240,000 people downtown and created picturesque images of the city’s skyline that were seen worldwide.
The largest room in McCormick Place has a capacity of 11,500. With theater seating (i.e., packing them like sardines). And, since they aren’t announcing which facility they are using, they could shrink down to a room holding hundreds. That is HUGELY different than the 240,000 people for his first coronation.

Sounds like they are preparing for a very dull evening in Windy City that night.
 
If both choices are evil, then while the smart man votes for the lesser of two evils, the wise man votes for the more familiar of two evils.

I’ll “stick with this guy.”
 
If both choices are evil, then while the smart man votes for the lesser of two evils, the wise man votes for the more familiar of two evils.

I’ll “stick with this guy.”
Sorry. I don’t understand your reasoning. The lesser of two evils has to be preferred over the more familiar of two evils simply because he is, by definition, less evil. Besides that, Romney has an established track record by which any voter can measure his performance. Why should he be any less “familiar” than Obama?
 
Sorry. I don’t understand your reasoning. The lesser of two evils has to be preferred over the more familiar of two evils simply because he is, by definition, less evil. Besides that, Romney has an established track record by which any voter can measure his performance. Why should he be any less “familiar” than Obama?
Both tickets have platforms and records that conflict with Catholic social teaching. For sake of argument we are calling both “evil”. While we can presume that one may be less evil than the other, we don’t really know that unless it were proven in presidential office, and for comparison’s sake we can’t have them both in office simultaneously… However, we do know how one ticket has already performed in presidential office. We know his strengths, limitations, and agenda. If the goal of voting is merely to contain “evil” (the reasoning behind “lesser of two evils”), then it is wiser to contain the enemy that we already know, than the one that we do not yet know.

It’s the logic behind “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.
 
I am just waiting to receive my ballot any day now and I will then be voting for the reelection of our President Barack Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top