What happens if Obama can't get re-elected?

[Anonymous]

At this point, Obama needs to act like he's NOT going to get re-elected and become the cunning far-left radical he's been labeled as. It's a surefire way get re-elected, but more importantly it's the ONLY way to stop Republicans from making us a third world country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

You are confusing me with someone else. I was a new poster merely responding to your budget suggestions. Do you still think they are good suggestions or do you agree with me?

I'm not the person who responded to your comments above and I still believe in my budget suggestions. I'm not interested in a policy point by point fight but if you think Obamacare is set up to return the cost of care to free market mechanisms, you do not understand incentives.

[Anonymous]

When he loses, we get either a GW who will careless about the details of the government and really beliefs in 1960s crony capitalism or someone who will be like Obama, but white and have the full and unquestioned support of Fox News. Either way nothing to change the course of this country.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:When he loses, we get either a GW who will careless about the details of the government and really beliefs in 1960s crony capitalism or someone who will be like Obama, but white and have the full and unquestioned support of Fox News. Either way nothing to change the course of this country.

SCOTUS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

You are confusing me with someone else. I was a new poster merely responding to your budget suggestions. Do you still think they are good suggestions or do you agree with me?

I'm not the person who responded to your comments above and I still believe in my budget suggestions. I'm not interested in a policy point by point fight but if you think Obamacare is set up to return the cost of care to free market mechanisms, you do not understand incentives.

I'd argue that if you think the cost of health care is particularly well-suited to free-market mechanisms, you don't know much. Anyway, at this point such beliefs are clearly an article of faith. You think "the market" would solve our health care problems. All the evidence--along with basic common sense--points in the opposite direction. Anyway, I'm assuming you have some intellectual consistency, and would argue for returning the cost of policing and fire departments to free market mechanisms, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Obamacare is death by regulation. There are better ways.

You hear this a lot, but as far as I can tell, no one can actually articulate what it means. Every other developed country in the world has some form of non- pure free-market health care system. Whether single-payer, or Obamacare-style system like in Switzerland. So if you could expand on "death by regulation" a bit it would be helpful.

2. Going to a private retirement system doesn't mean you go 100% to risky equity positions. You could have an age based system where the allocations change and risks decrease based on your age. There are better returns to be had that ARE risk tolerant.

Maybe we should limit investments to investment vehicles that were rated AAA by the various ratings agencies. Unless you've slept through the last 5-6 years, it's pretty clear there are no such thing as risk-free investments.

Also, the one thing that advocates of dismantling social security never manage to get to is exactly how we're going to pay current beneficiaries in the event of a migration to your new system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

You are confusing me with someone else. I was a new poster merely responding to your budget suggestions. Do you still think they are good suggestions or do you agree with me?

I'm not the person who responded to your comments above and I still believe in my budget suggestions. I'm not interested in a policy point by point fight but if you think Obamacare is set up to return the cost of care to free market mechanisms, you do not understand incentives.

I'd argue that if you think the cost of health care is particularly well-suited to free-market mechanisms, you don't know much. Anyway, at this point such beliefs are clearly an article of faith. You think "the market" would solve our health care problems. All the evidence--along with basic common sense--points in the opposite direction. Anyway, I'm assuming you have some intellectual consistency, and would argue for returning the cost of policing and fire departments to free market mechanisms, right?

I'd say we are too far apart to have a productive conversation.

But as for police and fire, there are fields in which the government is the best provider, for natural monopoly or free-rider problems. I'd say police are a required state monopoly and that fire is a free-rider/shared burden problem; that is, it maters to me whether my neighbor has bothered to purchase fire protection because it affects the safety of my house.

Health care is difficult because things like vaccination do affect the whole. And as long as we have emergency care paid for by all of us, in essence, it is a problem when my neighbor skips the doctors, doesn't protect their health, and shows up in the E.R. at the point when care is necessary and expensive. But, yes, I am comfortable with the idea that market mechanisms for health care would improve our overall health as a nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

You are confusing me with someone else. I was a new poster merely responding to your budget suggestions. Do you still think they are good suggestions or do you agree with me?

I'm not the person who responded to your comments above and I still believe in my budget suggestions. I'm not interested in a policy point by point fight but if you think Obamacare is set up to return the cost of care to free market mechanisms, you do not understand incentives.

Where did I mention Obamacare? I mentioned everything else that you posted but that.

If your ideas are any good, they have to stand up "point by point". Coming up with a list of hypotheticals that you can't defend is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

You are confusing me with someone else. I was a new poster merely responding to your budget suggestions. Do you still think they are good suggestions or do you agree with me?

I'm not the person who responded to your comments above and I still believe in my budget suggestions. I'm not interested in a policy point by point fight but if you think Obamacare is set up to return the cost of care to free market mechanisms, you do not understand incentives.

Where did I mention Obamacare? I mentioned everything else that you posted but that.

If your ideas are any good, they have to stand up "point by point". Coming up with a list of hypotheticals that you can't defend is silly.

No, the point was to show another poster that those who want less regulation actually have content to their preferences. Go back and see; you're walking in a conversation but refusing to accept the point of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

You are confusing me with someone else. I was a new poster merely responding to your budget suggestions. Do you still think they are good suggestions or do you agree with me?

I'm not the person who responded to your comments above and I still believe in my budget suggestions. I'm not interested in a policy point by point fight but if you think Obamacare is set up to return the cost of care to free market mechanisms, you do not understand incentives.

Where did I mention Obamacare? I mentioned everything else that you posted but that.

If your ideas are any good, they have to stand up "point by point". Coming up with a list of hypotheticals that you can't defend is silly.

No, the point was to show another poster that those who want less regulation actually have content to their preferences. Go back and see; you're walking in a conversation but refusing to accept the point of it.

So you are saying that you have content, but you aren't willing to stand behind that content specifically??? What good is a bunch of ideas if they won't work? Should you get partial credit for baseless conjecture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love for the Dems to nominate another candidate. I am completely at a loss. I think Obama has done a horrible job. And I think the Republican options are as bad, if not worse.

I would absolutely vote for Hillary Clinton. I think she would have been a great President. And I say that as a fairly conservative Republican.

I think you might be the poster who's said this before--at least, I know I responded to a similar post before :0), but here's a "ditto" and "Yes!" to what you've said about yourself and opinion of Hillary.