Search the Community

i believe huskerxman asked who i support, so here it is (not very well organized): although i am a liberal, that is certainly not why i support obama. first, let me explain why i am liberal. there may have been a time when the greatest threat to personal liberty and freedom was the government, i do not believe that is the case now. today we have multinational corporations that have more money, power, and influence than some nations. as such, the american government is the only entity that can protect us from an unbridled assault on our individual rights. individuals no longer have leverage or bargaining power against such large corporations, yet we need their services and employment. as i see it, we need the gov't to enact mutually beneficial regulations and offer the citizens some leverage against big corporations. we see how corporations use its leverage at the state level. states, in need of employers, bid away all workers' rights and protections to get jobs. but at that point, what are the jobs worth? there is a balance and we need the federal gov't as a counter. so that is one reason i am liberal and think democrats help more than republicans. i also think democrats help the middle class more than republicans. this is where i really like obama over romney. tax cuts to the rich do nothing to help the middle class or the county. tax cuts should be reserved for the middle class and only to corporations if incentivized (my word). here is a good gop plan that tries to benefit both sides: Robert Dold's Unemployment Bill Offers $7,000 Subsidy For Hiring Long-Term Jobless. that is a pragmatic plan, but i generally find it hard to trust republicans. their ubiquitous solution of tax cuts (which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and often on the backs of the middle-class) make them seem like nothing more that shills for the opulent minority. also, i do not like how they sellout our environmental protections or want to privatize everything. this is interesting and helps explain our current state of politics: corporations spend more on lobbyists to fight taxes than they actually spend on taxes. so, the economy is getting stronger and will be stronger under obama (frankly, or romney. the economy is at a point where it will recover and whichever person is president will get credit). i saw a deb fischer ad where she mentioned tax cuts and paying down the debt in the same sentence. this is a common talking point for republicans. well, how will that work? we need revenue to pay down the debt and fix the deficit. you get revenue from taxes and enabling the middle class to spend (which generate tax revenue). also, the gov't needs to spend money because no one else will. corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves because it the middle-class is not spending nor are they. people like the analogy that when a household is in debt it cuts spending. well, the american government is not a household. surpluses are the time for austerity, not recessions. there needs to be money flowing into the economy to grow the economy so it can rebound. once the economy is jump started it should stabilize without any further help from the gov't and tax revenue will grow. that is the time to make cuts and worry about deficit/debt. now is not the time and the republican solutions will only lead to a weaker economy and more hardships for the middle class. also, wise spending can help generate more revenue at a lower cost. allocate more money to job training and green jobs. create a sector we can be a world leader in with jobs that can not be outsourced. car manufacturing jobs are not coming back, we need to find a replacement. invest in this new sector and invest in people who would otherwise be on food stamps and unemployment. they will have jobs to go to that help the economy by limiting our dependence on foreign energy and putting money in the middle-class. these are the solutions we need and that obama is willing to invest in. green energy is the future, if we are to have a future at all, and it is an industry we could be world leaders in. spend money on employing people modernizing our energy grid or building light-rails or getting high-speed internet accessible across the nation. these ideas have multiple benefits to the economy. they put people to work (money in middle-class consumer's hands), cheaper, more efficient energy, our economy is dependent on the internet and infrastructure, we could create a product to be exported to industrializing countries. along with investment ideas i agree with, i am a strong advocate for aca (obamacare). it is a pragmatic solution to a serious problem. many people have never known the pain of thinking their medical care will be covered by their insurance only to find out they were denied coverage and may go bankrupt because of a medical emergency (or a broken leg, for that matter). obama's plan was responsible and will be effective. i would have preferred a single-payer system, but this is far better than the alternative. the major complaint is the mandate, but that is what makes it so great. the idea is that a larger pool will mean smaller premiums, but that means everyone has to buy in. with such a large pool, insurance companies can do away with pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps. and if the insurance company spends less than 80 percent of premiums on medical care it must rebate the excess. that is a 1.1 billion dollar insurance rebate. this was a great solution with roots in responsibility and conservatism. finally, there are the obvious issues of environment and gay rights. i like obama much better on these and will extrapolate if anyone is interested. so basically, i think obama is better for the middle-class, offers a stronger (not bigger), more competent gov't for the people, and honestly i do not know what to expect from romney. there used to be an argument between the republicans and democrats over the role of gov't, not it is if there should be a gov't. the gov't is not the answer, but it is not the problem.