Presidential Election Poll 10-2-2012

[Maracuya]

If that is the answer, then my complaint is 100% validated.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721049

If you need a shoulder to cry… I am here for you…

Live and let others do the same, clean your heart, your soul and be happy!

God guide your steps!

 

[april32010]

If that is the answer, then my complaint is 100% validated.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721049

Forum Message
april32010, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

The page may have been pulled from the public forum due to a serious breach of forum rules.
Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else’s post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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.

I don’t think we can contain this kind of evil if we don’t vote it out of office. It will, more likely than not, end up leading to our and our brothers’ persecutions in the end. We’ve seen what Obama’s done.

He’s exercising his executive powers as president in a much stronger way than any president I’ve seen before, experientially or historically. The HHS mandate is already pushing back our religious rights - of all Americans, not just us Catholics. That’s why so many are filing lawsuits against the federal government and this president.

Obama was raised in a country and environment which very much did not favour the West or its ideologies because of colonialism (and I don’t entirely blame the Kenyan people for being anticolonial). On top of that, his mentor and his parents were very much leftists. The Mormon, on the other hand, is as American as apple pie, baseball, and the “spiritual but not religious” crowd. From his conception he was and is comfortably Western. Comfortably American.

Also, being a Republican, he’s not liable to get much done. A Republican presidency and government is like an aloof man floating on a river towards a waterfall. A Democratic presidency is like a man swimming towards the edge of the waterfall. I don’t wish to aid in the destruction of this country. Therefore, I’ll vote for the man who won’t purposefully quicken its destruction.

 

[Graubo3]

So sad many voters will be turned away because they don’t own an ID.

 

[Dale_M]

The news article mentions that tighter security may be a motivation for the change. It notes that, earlier this year, the NATO conference was also held at McCormick Place and it is known to be capable of high level security

 

[tskrobacz]

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.

You clearly have drank the Romney koolaid! I however would hate to see a return to the “every person for themself” philosophy of the republican platform that landed us in this mess 4 years ago.

 

[scipio337]

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”.

But when the “devil we know” in question, far and away openly supports intrisic evils, your argument rings a little hollow.

 

[Schmoo]

obama got us in this mess… will never figure out ( thank you God for that ) why libs don’t take responsibilty for thier own action.

You clearly have drank the Romney koolaid! I however would hate to see a return to the “every person for themself” philosophy of the republican platform that landed us in this mess 4 years ago.

 

[tskrobacz]

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.

The radically anti-government ideology of the current right wing Tea Party ideology is simply contrary to a more biblical view of government, the need for checks and balances, the sinfulness of too much concentrated power in either the government or the market, the responsibilities we have for our neighbor and the God-ordained purposes of government — in addition to the churches — in serving the common good and, in particular, to protect the poor.

 

[scipio337]

$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.

So again, which policies “saved the country”? ARRA cost $250k a job, so I’m not sure how that rates as 'success", and you only provide a bare assertion fallacy that it “prevented a further plunge of the stock market, housing market, stall the tide of business collapse…”.

Why not just throw “cured cancer and prevents athletes foot and male pattern baldness”, while we’re at it.

If you missed it, his “regulation” wasn’t his signature piece, it was from Senator Dodd and Representative Frank. It’s caused banking fees to skyrocket, and is hurting the smaller banks much more than the smaller ones, I assure you. Dodd was also part of the Fannie/ Freddie “fundamentally strong” boondoggle, was part of the “Friends of Angelo” Countrywide scandal, and is now a lobbyist, so you’ll forgive my guffaws of laughter with your “greed and fraud of an industry”.

As far as “green energy” investments go, its been a joke. Can you name JUST ONE company that’s received funding that has succeeded?? In the meantime, the price of gas has doubled, California’s ham-fisted regulations (a "model for the rest of the country, per EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson) causes them to pay 50% more for electricity and 84 cents/gallon more than the average American.

Here’s a short list of green companies that have failed with YOUR tax dollars:

“Abound Solar (Loveland, Colorado), manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic modules.

Beacon Power (Tyngsborough, Massachusetts), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.

Ener1 (Indianapolis, Indiana), built compact lithium-ion-powered battery solutions for hybrid and electric cars.

Energy Conversion Devices (Rochester Hills, Michigan/Auburn Hills, Michigan), manufacturer of flexible thin film photovoltaic (PV) technology and a producer of batteries and other renewable energy-related products.

Evergreen Solar, Inc. (Marlborough, Massachusetts), manufactured and installed solar panels.

Mountain Plaza, Inc. (Dandridge, Tennessee), designed and implemented “truck-stop electrification” technology.

Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. (Berlin, Wisconsin), a private company producing ethanol.

Range Fuels (Soperton, Georgia), tried to develop a technology that converted biomass into ethanol without the use of enzymes.

Raser Technologies (Provo, Utah), geothermal power plants and technology licensing.
Solyndra (Fremont, California), manufacturer of cylindrical panels of thin-film solar cells.
Spectrawatt (Hopewell, New York), solar cell manufacturer.

Thompson River Power LLC (Wayzata, Minnesota), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.”

heritageaction.com/2012/07/can-president-obama-name-one-clean-energy-success/

Again, can Obama supporters please provided factual to back up these ephemeral fantasy claims???

I want facts, I want numbers. Please quit arguing from emotion!!!

 

[scipio337]

The radically anti-government ideology of the current right wing Tea Party ideology is simply contrary to a more biblical view of government, the need for checks and balances, the sinfulness of too much concentrated power in either the government or the market, the responsibilities we have for our neighbor and the God-ordained purposes of government — in addition to the churches — in serving the common good and, in particular, to protect the poor.

We’re mostly Catholic here, so your idea of a “biblical view of government” is different from a vast majority of Catholics.

As TarkanAttila pointed out (which you ignored), see “subsidiarity”.

Interesting that you should mention the role of churches in “serving the common good and protecting the poor”, and yet I’m sure who wholly support the HHS mandate that could cause faith-based organizations who do just that to shut their doors.

If that irony doesn’t floor you, nothing will.

 

[scipio337]

You clearly have drank the Romney koolaid! I however would hate to see a return to the “every person for themself” philosophy of the republican platform that landed us in this mess 4 years ago.

Brilliant retort to Ridge’s factual post!

He’s right. QEIII has basically written an blank check for the treasury to buy bad bank debt, while there has been no softening of risk.

Yet liberals support it because its done under a president with a different consonant (D) before his name??

 

[tskrobacz]

So again, which policies “saved the country”? ARRA cost $250k a job, so I’m not sure how that rates as 'success", and you only provide a bare assertion fallacy that it “prevented a further plunge of the stock market, housing market, stall the tide of business collapse…”.

Why not just throw “cured cancer and prevents athletes foot and male pattern baldness”, while we’re at it.

If you missed it, his “regulation” wasn’t his signature piece, it was from Senator Dodd and Representative Frank. It’s caused banking fees to skyrocket, and is hurting the smaller banks much more than the smaller ones, I assure you. Dodd was also part of the Fannie/ Freddie “fundamentally strong” boondoggle, was part of the “Friends of Angelo” Countrywide scandal, and is now a lobbyist, so you’ll forgive my guffaws of laughter with your “greed and fraud of an industry”.

As far as “green energy” investments go, its been a joke. Can you name JUST ONE company that’s received funding that has succeeded?? In the meantime, the price of gas has doubled, California’s ham-fisted regulations (a "model for the rest of the country, per EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson) causes them to pay 50% more for electricity and 84 cents/gallon more than the average American.

Here’s a short list of green companies that have failed with YOUR tax dollars:

“Abound Solar (Loveland, Colorado), manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic modules.

Beacon Power (Tyngsborough, Massachusetts), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.

Ener1 (Indianapolis, Indiana), built compact lithium-ion-powered battery solutions for hybrid and electric cars.

Energy Conversion Devices (Rochester Hills, Michigan/Auburn Hills, Michigan), manufacturer of flexible thin film photovoltaic (PV) technology and a producer of batteries and other renewable energy-related products.

Evergreen Solar, Inc. (Marlborough, Massachusetts), manufactured and installed solar panels.

Mountain Plaza, Inc. (Dandridge, Tennessee), designed and implemented “truck-stop electrification” technology.

Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. (Berlin, Wisconsin), a private company producing ethanol.

Range Fuels (Soperton, Georgia), tried to develop a technology that converted biomass into ethanol without the use of enzymes.

Raser Technologies (Provo, Utah), geothermal power plants and technology licensing.
Solyndra (Fremont, California), manufacturer of cylindrical panels of thin-film solar cells.
Spectrawatt (Hopewell, New York), solar cell manufacturer.

Thompson River Power LLC (Wayzata, Minnesota), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.”

heritageaction.com/2012/07/can-president-obama-name-one-clean-energy-success/

Again, can Obama supporters please provided factual to back up these ephemeral fantasy claims???

I want facts, I want numbers. Please quit arguing from emotion!!!

Again it is you that are arguing from emotion by adding “Saved the Country” comments to your response. I never said he “saved the country”…I can provide a list of companies that have failed under every admin, what’s your point? The energy companies you have listed are evidence of a country discerning its path forward to energy independence. As with any new endeavor there will be casualties along the way as we seek energies like LIFE (Laser Induced Fusion Energy) at the National Ignition Facility - these are the brainchilds born of many failures and are likely to sustain our energy future.

 

[scipio337]

Again it is you that are arguing from emotion by adding “Saved the Country” comments to your response. I never said he “saved the country”…

Sorry, you did.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9906279&postcount=36

That’s a little dramatic - how has he ruined this country? He actually saved it from the brink of a great depression from the Bush years.

Emphasis mine.

tskrobacz:

I can provide a list of companies that have failed under every admin, what’s your point?

Can you provide a list of companies that received billions in federal funds or tax subsidies, which, oddly enough, in many cases, include large Obama donors on their boards??

If baby-eater Booosh had been doing the same thing with oil companies, and they were dropping like flies into bankruptcy, would you feel the same?

tskrobacz:

The energy companies you have listed are evidence of a country discerning its path forward to energy independence. As with any new endeavor there will be casualties along the way as we seek energies like LIFE (Laser Induced Fusion Energy) at the National Ignition Facility - these are the brainchilds born of many failures and are likely to sustain our energy future.

Would you have the same view on coal or gas production? Say a North Dakota company (with a Boosh bundler on the board) recieved $325 million for hydrofracking on the Bakken formation, and went belly-up in two years?

There’s no doubt that new energy technology is in our future, but just as the internal combustion engine replaced the steam engine, it will be driven by the private sector, without government cronyism picking the winners or losers.

Again, I have no idea why Obama supporters take this stance. If Boosh had done the same things with his oil buddies (and then have them file for bankruptcy, leaving the taxpayer on the hook), you would have called for impeachment.

 

[tskrobacz]

Brilliant retort to Ridge’s factual post!

He’s right. QEIII has basically written an blank check for the treasury to buy bad bank debt, while there has been no softening of risk.

Yet liberals support it because its done under a president with a different consonant (D) before his name??

It is the anger and fear mongering of the republican platform that I have long despised. It’s always about what they are against and never how Government and the Private Sector must BOTH have a role in restraining evil AND caring for the poor. While neither party directly talks to the poor the Democratic party is at least courageous enough to put forward social programs that seek to level the field and provide opportunities for lower and middle class to advance while regulating the greed and fraud of the super wealthy.

I, for one, am convinced that Romney will say whatever is necessary to be elected - and most of what he has to say is his 5 point “plan” and why we should fear the democrats.

 

[Schmoo]

And yet another reason to kick this ‘president’ out…

The 7-Eleven Presidency

weeklystandard.com/blogs/7-eleven-presidency_654846.html

In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been. Here’s the upshot: Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95). That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.

 

[scipio337]

It is the anger and fear mongering of the republican platform that I have long despised. It’s always about what they are against and never how Government and the Private Sector must BOTH have a role in restraining evil AND caring for the poor. While neither party directly talks to the poor the Democratic party is at least courageous enough to put forward social programs that seek to level the field and provide opportunities for lower and middle class to advance while regulating the greed and fraud of the super wealthy.

Democrats put forth social programs that are insolvent, and then charicature Republicans who propose fiscally sound plans to help the poor as “anger and fearmongering” (like you just did). They try to instill “anger and fear mongering” with their fellow Americans who make more money than them.

Is this your way of saying you support QEIII?

 

[tskrobacz]

Sorry, you did.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9906279&postcount=36



Emphasis mine.

I said depression, not “Saved the Country”…in fact we did NOT enter into a second great depression.

Can you provide a list of companies that received billions in federal funds or tax subsidies, which, oddly enough, in many cases, include large Obama donors on their boards??

If baby-eater Booosh had been doing the same thing with oil companies, and they were dropping like flies into bankruptcy, would you feel the same?

The same government bail-out approach was used in the 1930’s to revive the economy after the real Great Depression. Worked then and it has worked again with bipartisan support.

Would you have the same view on coal or gas production? Say a North Dakota company (with a Boosh bundler on the board) recieved $325 million for hydrofracking on the Bakken formation, and went belly-up in two years?

There’s no doubt that new energy technology is in our future, but just as the internal combustion engine replaced the steam engine, it will be driven by the private sector, without government cronyism picking the winners or losers.

Wrong again - our energy future is intertwined with the world political situation in the mid-east and will have dramatic consequences on diplomacy around the world. Both Government AND private industry must collaborate to move us to sustainable energy infrastructures.

Again, I have no idea why Obama supporters take this stance. If Boosh had done the same things with his oil buddies (and then have them file for bankruptcy, leaving the taxpayer on the hook), you would have called for impeachment.

Why do you refer to him as “Boosh”?..President Bush also made strides in addressing the energy crisis during his presidency. The urgency has and will continue to increase as we approach the end of what many refer to as the petroleum era.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

I ended up merging the two poll threads so people have an opportunity to vote beyond Obama or Romney in the poll if they wish to.

 

[scipio337]

I said depression, not “Saved the Country”…in fact we did NOT enter into a second great depression.

So “saving the country from the brink of a great depression” isn’t "saving the country?

tskrobacz:

The same government bail-out approach was used in the 1930’s to revive the economy after the real Great Depression. Worked then and it has worked again with bipartisan support.

So you support bank bailouts? Odd. We didn’t bailout banks during the Savings and Loan crisis, and somehow the country survived.

tskrobacz:

Wrong again - our energy future is intertwined with the world political situation in the mid-east and will have dramatic consequences on diplomacy around the world. Both Government AND private industry must collaborate to move us to sustainable energy infrastructures.

Agreed with the “world political structure”, which is why this president needs to cease attacking fossil fuels, and picking the winners and choosers in “sustainable energy infrastructures”.

tskrobacz:

Why do you refer to him as “Boosh”?..President Bush also made strides in addressing the energy crisis during his presidency. The urgency has and will continue to increase as we approach the end of what many refer to as the petroleum era.

“Boosh” is the onomatopoeic representation of how someone who blames him for everything pronounces it.

President Bush provided tax credits (which he was soundly criticized by many Democrats for), while the Obama admin has expanded that to include “guaranteed loans”.

When you look at US Import Weighted vs OPEC Export Weighted Average for crude oil, you see how the US energy markets reacted to Obama policy (particularly attempts at "cap and trade):

weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-energy-policy-led-higher-gas-prices_654795.html