why i support obama

[sd'sker]

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.

 

For someone that doesn't even know what extrapolate means (junior high math term), you sure do have a lot of opinions on the inner workings of the economy and health care - two things that are highly mathematical.

 

You can have all the "this is why i'm liberal" reasons you want, but the fact of the matter is you have no idea what you're saying and are regurgitating some bullsh#t you've heard somewhere else. Don't sit there and tell me how a change in variable A affects the price of insurance, and don't act like you know the components of claim costs. You have absolutely no idea what goes into these things, but you either a) think you do, or b) don't care. Whichever it is, you fit in with all your other clueless liberal buddies.

great point. man, you sure changed my opinion with all of your facts and examples and reasoning and logic. well done.

 

oh wait, you just pointed out that i misused a word. surely this is something of which i am the only one to ever be guilty.

 

someone asked who i supported, i thought i would tell him and explain why. but hey, at least you assumed i have buddies.

[KJ.]

I had to join this board just to respond to you, as you are the insensitive type of person that is ruining this country. First of all, Mr. Math, I assume just because you can do the crazy math Romney does, you assume you know it all. Do you even know what an integral or derivative is? I doubt it!

 

[ObamaRocks91]

I had to join this board just to respond to you, as you are the insensitive type of person that is ruining this country. First of all, Mr. Math, I assume just because you can do the crazy math Romney does, you assume you know it all. Do you even know what an integral or derivative is? I doubt it!

 

I bet youre the same type of tool that thinks Alex Henery is better than Dan Bailey, aren't you? Clearly Dan Bailey has contributed more to his team overall due to his 6 career total tackles as opposed to Alex Henery's 1 tackle. Sure, Bailey has missed a single PAT in his life, but his team was up 69-3 at that time, so give me a break!

 

And Dan Bailey has never ALMOST been cut from his team after losing a game on his foot as Henery did and becoming the only reason his team missed the playoffs

 

#GoLiberals #GoCowboys

[The Dude]

I cut Dan Bailey from my fantasy team, if that adds to the conversation in any meaningful way.

[The Dude]

Yeah, Alex Henery is clearly better than Dan Bailey.

[sd'sker]

Yeah, Alex Henery is clearly better than Dan Bailey.

i am a matt bryant loyalist. that guy can kick.

[Ziggy]

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.

 

For someone that doesn't even know what extrapolate means (junior high math term), you sure do have a lot of opinions on the inner workings of the economy and health care - two things that are highly mathematical.

 

You can have all the "this is why i'm liberal" reasons you want, but the fact of the matter is you have no idea what you're saying and are regurgitating some bullsh#t you've heard somewhere else. Don't sit there and tell me how a change in variable A affects the price of insurance, and don't act like you know the components of claim costs. You have absolutely no idea what goes into these things, but you either a) think you do, or b) don't care. Whichever it is, you fit in with all your other clueless liberal buddies.

 

I had to join this board just to respond to you, as you are the insensitive type of person that is ruining this country. First of all, Mr. Math, I assume just because you can do the crazy math Romney does, you assume you know it all. Do you even know what an integral or derivative is? I doubt it!

 

Gay rights should be at the forefront of this election and I'm sure your conservative agenda wants to make it about jobs. The unemployment rate is lowest since Bush ruined the economy because of Obama's policies. The point is, gays have been treated like the blacks were in the 1960's and there should be similar actions and protests in this country until everyone is treated fairly. I'm not a homosexual, but I certainly believe they are what is best about this country; being able to express yourself as yon please. Everyone deserves a fair shot in this great country and it's sad you don't feel that way, KJ.

 

And I have no idea how you can even argue that green energy is our future. Obama is the only one who has the vision to see that and it's a joke to think anyone could actually argue that!

 

Gay rights is already at a forefront in our country, how many states have had gay rights laws put to election and have failed to pass. Plenty. Funny thing is I agree gay couples and gay people should have the same rights as straight people/couples. Where I think people are wrong is to force change of the 1st amendment to suite what I think is right. Instead separate the word marriage from the debate, and make all legal commitments between two people as whatever you want to call them, like civil unions. Then if people want to get married, they can through whatever non government regulated group, like churches or atheist groups.

 

The Green jobs thing is laughable. Sure green tech is the new thing, and I think the future of our energy needs, but Obama is not the first or best person to push green tech. Even Bush II tried to push more green tech, the problem is Obama made piss poor investments into piss poor companies that never created a single product. If he was so great all the companies that got government investment money then those companies would have been at least a little successful.

 

Lastly, you attack a post that had nothing to do with either of these two points. It really didn't make sense. Not saying the previous poster was right, but at least his response was about the post of the previous poster.

[sd'sker]

The Green jobs thing is laughable. Sure green tech is the new thing, and I think the future of our energy needs, but Obama is not the first or best person to push green tech. Even Bush II tried to push more green tech, the problem is Obama made piss poor investments into piss poor companies that never created a single product. If he was so great all the companies that got government investment money then those companies would have been at least a little successful.

[sd'sker]

Mitt Romney's Campaign Forced To Clarify His Claims After First Presidential Debate

 

“These businesses, many of them have gone out of business,” Romney said. “I think about half of them -- of the ones that have been invested in have gone out of business."

Fact-checkers and media outlets quickly seized on the statement, pointing out that “only three of 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”

 

Time magazine’s Michael Grunwald said the Romney campaign confirmed to him that Romney’s assertion was inaccurate, tweeting:

 

“ICYMI: Romney camp told me (after my tweet-rants) Mitt didn't mean to say half the #stimulus-funded green firms failed. Probably <1% so far.”

 

Going after Obama’s green energy program has been a constant theme of Romney’s campaign, never missing an opportunity to cite the case of Solyndra, the California-based solar technology company that filed for bankruptcy despite a loan guarantee of more than a half-billion dollars from the Obama administration. But the roots of that loan actually originated in the Bush administration. And, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney also granted loans to companies in emerging technology fields that, like Solyndra, went on to fail.

 

Mitt Romney says Barack Obama provided $90 billion in green energy 'breaks' in one year

 

Romney used the number "$90 billion" five times in the first presidential debate, claiming, "In one year, (Obama) provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world … into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1."

That is incorrect in several ways. That $90 billion, as described in a report provided by the Romney campaign, wasn’t provided in one year, wasn’t distributed primarily via tax breaks, wasn’t primarily provided directly to companies, wasn’t primarily spent on solar and wind, and wasn’t spent at all on Fisker or Tesla.

 

In reality, more than 60 percent of it was directed to state and local governments and utility companies for energy efficiency, transportation and electrical infrastructure .

 

 

We rate his claim False.

 

In Debate, Romney Makes Dubious Green Energy Claims

 

Not even close. The Department of Energy reported that as of February, $23.3 billion had been outlaid in support of “over 15,000” clean energy projects. The implication that thousands of stimulus-supported companies have failed is more than just the “gross overstatement” the New York Times calls it.

Time Magazine’s Michael Grunwald today tweeted that the Romney Campaign has told him their candidate misspoke, and meant only to refer to the DOE loan program. (See: Can Energy Startups be Saved?) But even then, only three—Abound Solar, Beacon Power, and Solyndra—of the 23 recipients have failed.

 

Romney's Debate Dishonesty Came Straight From Fox News

 

Only Three Out Of 26 Loan Guarantees Dispersed Under The Loan Guarantee Program Have Filed For Bankruptcy. Only 3 out of 26 loan guarantees dispersed under the relevant Department of Energy loan guarantee program have gone to companies that later filed for bankruptcy. One of those three, Beacon Power, is still operating, has repaid most of its loan guarantee, and rehired most of its employees. Knowing that not all companies supported by the program would succeed, Congress budgeted $2.47 billion to cover for defaults. According to a Bloomberg Government analysis, that will be more than enough even if every high-risk project fails. [Media Matters, 9/28/12]

 

Chris Hayes fact checks Romney debate claim about green energy

 

During Wednesday's presidential debate, Mitt Romney said that the Obama administration has invested $90 billion into green jobs, and that half of the companies receiving that money have subsequently gone out of business. On Sunday's Up with Chris Hayes, host Chris Hayes graded both those claims false.

"Never mind that $90 billion hasn't even been spent yet," he said. "Never mind that only about $34 billion of it was allocated for that kind of clean energy business loans, and never mind the Energy Department has only approved $16 billion worth of those loans. Never mind the Romney campaign said later he was only talking about businesses that got those loans in the first year, and never mind that only three businesses actually went under. Forget all that, and you are still left with the fact that the most government will be on the hook for those businesses that went under is an estimated $600 million."

 

"Or, roughly equal to half of $90 billion," Hayes added wryly.

 

Though Romney is widely regarded as the victor of the first presidential debate, NPRreports that he's "getting dinged more ... by the fact checkers" (in part because he "made more factual assertions"). MSNBC contributor Ezra Klein said Romney often attempted to hide within "pockets of vagueness" throughout the debate.

 

but keep spreading that lie, if enough people believe it its veracity will not matter.

 

also, how come "the green jobs thing" is laughable? do you not agree that obama will be better than romney in environment interests and investments in green energy?

[Ziggy]

3 of 26 is about 11%, and that is as of right now, how many of those energy companies are profitable? How many are in production? How many are going to repay those investments ever, too early to tell right. But at this point 11% have failed completely. I never even said anything about Romney being better, or Romney at all. I was referring to the poster who said

 

"And I have no idea how you can even argue that green energy is our future. Obama is the only one who has the vision to see that and it's a joke to think anyone could actually argue that!"

[sd'sker]

3 of 26 is about 11%, and that is as of right now, how many of those energy companies are profitable? How many are in production? How many are going to repay those investments ever, too early to tell right. But at this point 11% have failed completely. I never even said anything about Romney being better, or Romney at all. I was referring to the poster who said

 

"And I have no idea how you can even argue that green energy is our future. Obama is the only one who has the vision to see that and it's a joke to think anyone could actually argue that!"

i never said you did. i was just asking your opinion.

[Ziggy]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

[ObamaRocks91]

3 of 26 is about 11%, and that is as of right now, how many of those energy companies are profitable? How many are in production? How many are going to repay those investments ever, too early to tell right. But at this point 11% have failed completely. I never even said anything about Romney being better, or Romney at all. I was referring to the poster who said

 

"And I have no idea how you can even argue that green energy is our future. Obama is the only one who has the vision to see that and it's a joke to think anyone could actually argue that!"

 

You can bring out all of this wizard math, but Obama's investment in green energy companies has been flawless in the eyes of a sane person. Do a little research and stop listening to the biased Fox News. If you watch real, credible new networks such as CNN or MSNBC you would know the truth!

[Ziggy]

3 of 26 is about 11%, and that is as of right now, how many of those energy companies are profitable? How many are in production? How many are going to repay those investments ever, too early to tell right. But at this point 11% have failed completely. I never even said anything about Romney being better, or Romney at all. I was referring to the poster who said

 

"And I have no idea how you can even argue that green energy is our future. Obama is the only one who has the vision to see that and it's a joke to think anyone could actually argue that!"

 

You can bring out all of this wizard math, but Obama's investment in green energy companies has been flawless in the eyes of a sane person. Do a little research and stop listening to the biased Fox News. If you watch real, credible new networks such as CNN or MSNBC you would know the truth!

 

I never quoted or said fox news. But to put out MSNBC you just revealed yourself, if your name wasn't enough. Flawless means no flaws, 11% failure is not flawless.

[sd'sker]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

ok, this is where we differ. you really think romney is going to spend money to invest in green energy and jobs? that is my concern. also, romney being a good businessman is a myth. he ran a corporate chop-shop. that takes no acumen.