The Hat of Love wrote:
What's more important to you - businesses doing well or healing the sick? Do you consider letting people who can't afford healthcare suffer/die to be fine?
I think that everyone would love to be able to treat all sick people and have everyone be happy. However, the US is a country where money dictates what gets done, most of the time. So when that is the case, small businesses have to be very well considered simply because they end up paying a lot of the taxes, or hiring employees who pay taxes, that pay for everyone to get state sponsored healthcare. If we let the small businesses fail then we will automatically lose funding for healthcare. So in that sense we need to make sure our economic foundation is strong before we can try and figure out new ways to spend the money. Lately this process has been done in reverse and money is being spent that the country doesn't have and so as a result we are over 16 t-t-t-trillion dollars in the hole. While it's seemingly nice to have the government gives us things such as entitlements etc. we must realize that it's going to bankrupt the country.
So basically we have a choice. We can cut spending aka reduce government programs/jobs/subsidies and then get our debt under control or we can continue at the rate we are going, inflate the dollar until its nearly worthless, and then bankrupt the country which will result in us having no government whatsoever.
Smaller government or eventually no government. You decide 2012
Also note that either candidate is capable (not necessarily willing) of reducing spending as president. They can issue executive orders that can save billions. But this is why I honestly don't care who got elected because I don't think either one would actually reduce spending.
Edited by Carnage on 11/07/2012 09:56:58
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
It's a fair point. I don't understand some of the finer points with politics. It gets complicated but still, I'm more of a socialist than a capitalist.
This is an interested page, btw. It's from the BBC site so it's nuetral and it's about the candidate's policies. Romney was going to increase spending on the military by $100,000,000,000.
That's exactly my point Hat. While both candidates are capable of reducing spending neither will do so.
It's sad that in my lifetime I have seen the national debt increase by about 13.5 trillion dollars and basically no presidents since Carter (probably before him even, I didn't look that far back) have lowered the debt.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
My american studies teacher was talking about the election yesterday in class. Said that the Electoral College needed to be changed up a bit, and the class agreed. One problem though, and thats changing it. Do any of you guys know what we need to do to change it?
Hi person below me!
Well, if everyone's vote is to be equal then the simplest way is just to use the popular vote to decide outright. That doesn't work in the real world.
When you vote you don't vote for the president, you vote for electors who will then go and (in theory) vote for the president on your state's behalf. This is pointless and an artefact of history.
All states get three votes no matter what and then votes are added depending on the population with the result that citizens in small states have a vote that counts for several times more than those in large states. This is pointless. Just go by population.
At the moment you only have to get a majority in a state to win it and all of its votes. Florida is always very close but even if you win by just a few hundred votes you get all 29 of its votes (see: 2000 election). Wouldn't proportional representation be better?
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
