Why I am voting for Obama again

[Toddsterpatriot]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

Why do you feel that made any difference?

 

[Navy1960]

It looks like I still remain one of those undecided voters , Mitt Romney appears to represent failed economic policies that were tried and failed under the Bush Administration which led to where we are now. I did not vote for President Obama the first time around , for the simple reason is that his party while tending to the needs to the American people which is a noble thing to do, keeping this nations financial house in order is also noble and has been put on sidelines. Mitt Romney's economic and foreign policy is nothing but a revisit of the Bush Administration in which we as a nation made the choice to cut taxes several times while at war as well as reduce regulations to point where the economy eventually could not sustain it. I do not see much daylight betweeen these two men in terms of how much will get done while they are in office, so I tend to remain undecided and hopeful that perhaps one day someone will step forward and provide real leadership our nation has been lacking for a very long time now.

How can you say that with the state of the economy that the democrats take care of the needs of the people? The needs of the people should NOT be dependency on the government. Because of the democrats, who have controlled things for 5 1/2 years the needs of the people have risen to historic proportions. To me that stinks of failure. I am going to use an analogy that is consistant with the DNC history. Taking care of the needs of the people is like saying that the slave owner took care of his slaves that were in chains by feeding them.

Romney reformed Mass. and did pretty well at it. What you need to think is, does Obama deserve to be rewarded for the job he has done regardless of whom he is running against. In this case the man he is running against has a proven history of success so the choice should be easy.

Then the question becomes will Mitt Romney govern as President as he did in Mass. If you look at his positions now and what they were then, you see a stark difference between the two. While I will not deny like many others that Mitt Romney has had a history of success, I do think that the tendancy to say that President Obama is the sole reason why the economy is in the condition its in is to deny how we got here in the first place. That does not excuse President Obama for his policies that have helped add to that, however someone will have to explain to me in better detail what they mean by Dependancy I suppose, because take Food Stamps for instance, thats 78 billion dollars of out of a 3.7 Trillion Dollar Budget. So your not really talking about much when your spending about 8 Billion a month in Afghinstan with an unclear outcome. If your talking about Medicare or Social Security , then those are programs people worked for and paid into and and as for Social Security that program will not impact the Budget for another 20 years. Of course Medicare can use some reform but I for one think it doesn't serve any useful purpose to demonize those on it while seeking their approval to reform it. In the end, I do not see any use in advocating for less revenue into the Federal Govt. and at the same time advocate for increasing spending on DOD and saying that by cutting other areas you will balance the budget. To me thats rather like saying you will cut your salary by 20% , and your spending by 20% then go out and buy a new car and hope to pay off your existing bills it just wont work. As some point be it President Obama or Mitt Romney there has to be a happy medium between revenue and spending in order get this nation on it's feet and forgive me if I tend to see Mitt Romney as just a replay of President Bush and all of the former Bush staff and advisors he surrrounds himself with doesn't help much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You idiots want deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy.

that is what caused this mess

Which deregulation caused this mess? Be specific.
How did tax cuts for the rich cause this mess? Be specific.

The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.


why do you idiots keep pretending you have not been told all this before?

The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue

How much did they decrease government revenue? Why did that decrease cause this mess?

anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.

What does that mean? Spending $100 billion "on-budget" and spending $100 billion "off-budget" both have exactly the same impact on our deficit and debt.

 

[Sinjorri]

It looks like I still remain one of those undecided voters , Mitt Romney appears to represent failed economic policies that were tried and failed under the Bush Administration which led to where we are now. I did not vote for President Obama the first time around , for the simple reason is that his party while tending to the needs to the American people which is a noble thing to do, keeping this nations financial house in order is also noble and has been put on sidelines. Mitt Romney's economic and foreign policy is nothing but a revisit of the Bush Administration in which we as a nation made the choice to cut taxes several times while at war as well as reduce regulations to point where the economy eventually could not sustain it. I do not see much daylight betweeen these two men in terms of how much will get done while they are in office, so I tend to remain undecided and hopeful that perhaps one day someone will step forward and provide real leadership our nation has been lacking for a very long time now.

How can you say that with the state of the economy that the democrats take care of the needs of the people? The needs of the people should NOT be dependency on the government. Because of the democrats, who have controlled things for 5 1/2 years the needs of the people have risen to historic proportions. To me that stinks of failure. I am going to use an analogy that is consistant with the DNC history. Taking care of the needs of the people is like saying that the slave owner took care of his slaves that were in chains by feeding them.

Romney reformed Mass. and did pretty well at it. What you need to think is, does Obama deserve to be rewarded for the job he has done regardless of whom he is running against. In this case the man he is running against has a proven history of success so the choice should be easy.

Then the question becomes will Mitt Romney govern as President as he did in Mass. If you look at his positions now and what they were then, you see a stark difference between the two. While I will not deny like many others that Mitt Romney has had a history of success, I do think that the tendancy to say that President Obama is the sole reason why the economy is in the condition its in is to deny how we got here in the first place. That does not excuse President Obama for his policies that have helped add to that, however someone will have to explain to me in better detail what they mean by Dependancy I suppose, because take Food Stamps for instance, thats 78 billion dollars of out of a 3.7 Trillion Dollar Budget. So your not really talking about much when your spending about 8 Billion a month in Afghinstan with an unclear outcome. If your talking about Medicare or Social Security , then those are programs people worked for and paid into and and as for Social Security that program will not impact the Budget for another 20 years. Of course Medicare can use some reform but I for one think it doesn't serve any useful purpose to demonize those on it while seeking their approval to reform it. In the end, I do not see any use in advocating for less revenue into the Federal Govt. and at the same time advocate for increasing spending on DOD and saying that by cutting other areas you will balance the budget. To me thats rather like saying you will cut your salary by 20% , and your spending by 20% then go out and buy a new car and hope to pay off your existing bills it just wont work. As some point be it President Obama or Mitt Romney there has to be a happy medium between revenue and spending in order get this nation on it's feet and forgive me if I tend to see Mitt Romney as just a replay of President Bush and all of the former Bush staff and advisors he surrrounds himself with doesn't help much.

i really dont think he will, while he has more experience than Obama did and still puzzles me why people defend obama, the question isnt will he preside as he governeed, the questions become will he turn his back on the republican party and thats what some republicans will question, but our fight is the same as the libs was with BUsh and they didnt hide it, get Bush out, now its get OBama out, the difference is Obama cant run on his record, and some wont vote on his record, but hes a dem so its okay, Romney isnt Obama so its ok.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Mittens wants to do the exact same thing that Bush was able to pull off. And while those actions were excellent for the ultra rich, they put the fuks to me.

So Obama again. At least Obama wants to kiss before he fuks you. Rethugs just want you to bend over and take it. I like being kissed first.

They put the fuks to you?



What a moron.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Which deregulation caused this mess? Be specific.
How did tax cuts for the rich cause this mess? Be specific.

The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.


why do you idiots keep pretending you have not been told all this before?

The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue

How much did they decrease government revenue? Why did that decrease cause this mess?

anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.

What does that mean? Spending $100 billion "on-budget" and spending $100 billion "off-budget" both have exactly the same impact on our deficit and debt.

It's TM, she doesn't know her asshole from a buttonhole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.


why do you idiots keep pretending you have not been told all this before?

The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue

How much did they decrease government revenue? Why did that decrease cause this mess?

anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.

What does that mean? Spending $100 billion "on-budget" and spending $100 billion "off-budget" both have exactly the same impact on our deficit and debt.

It's TM, she doesn't know her asshole from a buttonhole.

I know, I just enjoy pointing out her errors.

 

[expatriate]

back to my point in the OP... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... whatever success he does have going forward will be down a path that democrats prefer over the alternative. Voting for Romney will guarantee that all motion down the democrat's preferred path will cease immediately and any success that Romney enjoys will be heading down a path that democrats do NOT support. People like to try to make voting for president like voting for Prom King... it isn't a popularity contest but rather a regularly recurring clash between diametrically opposed political philosophies.

 

[Navy1960]

How can you say that with the state of the economy that the democrats take care of the needs of the people? The needs of the people should NOT be dependency on the government. Because of the democrats, who have controlled things for 5 1/2 years the needs of the people have risen to historic proportions. To me that stinks of failure. I am going to use an analogy that is consistant with the DNC history. Taking care of the needs of the people is like saying that the slave owner took care of his slaves that were in chains by feeding them.

Romney reformed Mass. and did pretty well at it. What you need to think is, does Obama deserve to be rewarded for the job he has done regardless of whom he is running against. In this case the man he is running against has a proven history of success so the choice should be easy.

Then the question becomes will Mitt Romney govern as President as he did in Mass. If you look at his positions now and what they were then, you see a stark difference between the two. While I will not deny like many others that Mitt Romney has had a history of success, I do think that the tendancy to say that President Obama is the sole reason why the economy is in the condition its in is to deny how we got here in the first place. That does not excuse President Obama for his policies that have helped add to that, however someone will have to explain to me in better detail what they mean by Dependancy I suppose, because take Food Stamps for instance, thats 78 billion dollars of out of a 3.7 Trillion Dollar Budget. So your not really talking about much when your spending about 8 Billion a month in Afghinstan with an unclear outcome. If your talking about Medicare or Social Security , then those are programs people worked for and paid into and and as for Social Security that program will not impact the Budget for another 20 years. Of course Medicare can use some reform but I for one think it doesn't serve any useful purpose to demonize those on it while seeking their approval to reform it. In the end, I do not see any use in advocating for less revenue into the Federal Govt. and at the same time advocate for increasing spending on DOD and saying that by cutting other areas you will balance the budget. To me thats rather like saying you will cut your salary by 20% , and your spending by 20% then go out and buy a new car and hope to pay off your existing bills it just wont work. As some point be it President Obama or Mitt Romney there has to be a happy medium between revenue and spending in order get this nation on it's feet and forgive me if I tend to see Mitt Romney as just a replay of President Bush and all of the former Bush staff and advisors he surrrounds himself with doesn't help much.

i really dont think he will, while he has more experience than Obama did and still puzzles me why people defend obama, the question isnt will he preside as he governeed, the questions become will he turn his back on the republican party and thats what some republicans will question, but our fight is the same as the libs was with BUsh and they didnt hide it, get Bush out, now its get OBama out, the difference is Obama cant run on his record, and some wont vote on his record, but hes a dem so its okay, Romney isnt Obama so its ok.

You see though to me thats not what we as a nation need, to settle for someone because they are not the last guy and only because he is not in the party they are in. We as a nation in my humble opinion need real leadership and from someone willing to tell both sides we are ALL going to fix this and recognize that ideas are not the exclusive property of one side or the other and one should do whats best for the nation first before their respective party. I honestly do not see these two men as changing the dynamic to an atmosphere in which people can look to their President and get a sense that even though they might not agree with them sometimes they are there to reprent them and not the party they are part of. Be it Mitt Romney or President Obama I see an entrenched congress making it very difficult for there two to do anything that will change this nation for the better. I do agree with you that the current Republican feeling by some is more akin to the Democrat feeling towards Bush in 08, however there are a few of old timer Republicans out there who do not share that sentiment in this candidate nor do we share much enthusiam for the current resident of 1600 Penn. Ave.

 

[Freewill]

.

Funny, you won't give Obama the blame but are more then happy to give it to Bush and transpose that onto Romney. I would say that regardless of what you think Romney is saying now look at what he DID in Mass. and the Olympics and if you like that you'll probably like what he will do as president. MAYBE Romney will be a rehash of Bush but I doubt it seriously what we know is that Obama will be a rehash of Obama without the fear of reelection. Of course, as he said, that will then give him more flexibility with the Russians when he does not have to worry about what you or I think.

 

[NoNukes]

back to my point in the OP... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... whatever success he does have going forward will be down a path that democrats prefer over the alternative. Voting for Romney will guarantee that all motion down the democrat's preferred path will cease immediately and any success that Romney enjoys will be heading down a path that democrats do NOT support. People like to try to make voting for president like voting for Prom King... it isn't a popularity contest but rather a regularly recurring clash between diametrically opposed political philosophies.

If you look at the OP and then look at many of the replies, it is obvious why many of us do not vote Republican. We would never be associated with these people v

 

[Stephanie]

back to my point in the OP... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... whatever success he does have going forward will be down a path that democrats prefer over the alternative. Voting for Romney will guarantee that all motion down the democrat's preferred path will cease immediately and any success that Romney enjoys will be heading down a path that democrats do NOT support. People like to try to make voting for president like voting for Prom King... it isn't a popularity contest but rather a regularly recurring clash between diametrically opposed political philosophies.

If you look at the OP and then look at many of the replies, it is obvious why many of us do not vote Republican. We would never be associated with these people v

feelings are mutual I'm sure..now stable that high horse...or giddyup

 

[expatriate]

back to my point in the OP... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... whatever success he does have going forward will be down a path that democrats prefer over the alternative. Voting for Romney will guarantee that all motion down the democrat's preferred path will cease immediately and any success that Romney enjoys will be heading down a path that democrats do NOT support. People like to try to make voting for president like voting for Prom King... it isn't a popularity contest but rather a regularly recurring clash between diametrically opposed political philosophies.

If you look at the OP and then look at many of the replies, it is obvious why many of us do not vote Republican. We would never be associated with these people v

feelings are mutual I'm sure..now stable that high horse...or giddyup

we understand there are two different political philosophies here... and it is unreasonable to expect folks from YOUR side to vote for our candidate, and the reverse is true. What direction do you want the country to go? Pick which platform most suits your beliefs and then vote for that party. Pretty simple really. Denigrating folks on either side is not going to shame them into changing their political philosophy

 

[BluePhantom]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.

I see. And all this time I thought it was just because you were a tool.

 

[Shelzin]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.

I see. And all this time I thought it was just because you were a tool.

You do realize you have a Klingon symbol in your sig right? I mean... Romney with a Klingon symbol. Did you lose a bet?

 

[BluePhantom]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.

I see. And all this time I thought it was just because you were a tool.

You do realize you have a Klingon symbol in your sig right? I mean... Romney with a Klingon symbol. Did you lose a bet?

Yeah I know what a Klingon symbol is. One might reasonably conclude that by putting a Klingon symbol in my signature I have a pretty decent idea about what that symbol might signify. I know such concepts may challenge the intellectual capacity of the average liberal mind, but indeed I am fully aware of the implications.

BTW....Hab SoSlI' Quch. PetaQ!

 

[thereisnospoon]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.

First,Obama does not have supporters. He as "followers".
The reason why you people are voting for him again is because you know you made the wrong choice when you bought into "hopey changey"...It is you cannot admit to yourself and others that you made a poor choice. So you typify the base for the existence of liberalism. That is to keep doing the same wrong thing and expecting a different result.

 

[thereisnospoon]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.

23,000,000 people out of work under Obama's watch are counting on you to vote for this assclown again

Don't let them down.

Do you not realize that it's BUSH's FAULT!

 

[Unkotare]

... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... .

LOL! You are exactly the kind of fool obama dreams about.

 

[Unkotare]

I see. And all this time I thought it was just because you were a tool.

You do realize you have a Klingon symbol in your sig right? I mean... Romney with a Klingon symbol. Did you lose a bet?

Yeah I know what a Klingon symbol is. One might reasonably conclude that by putting a Klingon symbol in my signature I have a pretty decent idea about what that symbol might signify. I know such concepts may challenge the intellectual capacity of the average liberal mind, but indeed I am fully aware of the implications.

BTW....Hab SoSlI' Quch. PetaQ!

Whooo! Someone open a window. The geek-stink is getting pretty thick in here!