New to this board with a comment.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2006
New to this board with a comment.
40
Mon, 10-15-2012 - 9:56am
Lately I have been thinking about how lucky we are to have 2 honest hardworking men running for the position of President of the United States. I have a preference, but it makes me very hopeful to know that I am comfortable with whoever wins. I don't agree with either of them on all the issues, but they both seem like thoughtful decent men. I think that is an important observation as we move forward in this season of heated partisanship. :smileyhappy: Robin

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 12:46am

Better shape than the EU?  That's like someone in Hoboken saying they're "less underwater" than the people in Atlantic City.  But in your opinon, which Obama policies have been successful?  And if they were so successful, why isn't the unemployment number going down?  Why isn't the economy growing at anything more than a snail's pace?

And Obama did escalate the war in Afghanistan...and Obama did interject us in Libya...and Obama has threatened Iran with military action (which no one believes, especially Iran)...and it was Bush who negotiated the withdrawal from Iraq but it was Obama who failed to get a status of arms agreement.  And the hunt for Bin Laden wasn't "on going"...the CIA accidentally stumbled upon him, largely thanks to the intelligence infrastructure and policies enacted by Bush.

Yes, in a moment of extreme crisis, Bush agreed to TARP because he was told that the US economy could fail if he didn't and put a cap on spending after $270 billion...the vast majority of that money being loaned to banks who repaid the loans with interest.  AFTER that crisis had been stabilized, Obama took an additional $350 billion, with a lot of that money being used to "bail out" Chrysler and GM...who went bankrupt anyway.  Then Obama spent $830 billion on his stimulus and another $410 billion on his Omnibus spending bill.

Regarding the laughably titled Affordable Care Act, you probably missed it, but the Republicans did propose many insurance and health care reforms.  They were just silenced and dismissed because they didn't contribute to Obama's drive toward socialized medicine.  The lies behind the ACA have also been exposed with it's hidden taxes, oppressive policies and hugely increased costs.  Fortunately, Romney has said he will repeal the ACA.

And sorry, but your allegations about Republican "attacks on women's contraceptive and reproduction choices" are simply ridiculous.  The only "attack" on women's contraception was the Republican position that the government, i.e. other taxpayers, shouldn't have to pay for it.  That position, in no way, limited women's access to the birth control method of their choice...they simply have to pay for it themselves, at the staggering amount of $9/mo, get insurance that covers it, or get it free at PP or a local clinic.  And reproduction choices?  It hasn't been impinged at all.

And as liberals are wont to forget, it was Democrat policies that led to the housing market crash which precipitated the economic crash.  It was also the Democrats who controlled the budget and purse strings for the two years before the crash and for the two years following.  They're actually the ones who killed Lazarus...and far from bringing him back to life, Obama has done everything in his power to keep Larry in a coma.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, actually does have vast economic experience and does have experience in creating jobs.  Of course, as a capital investment firm, making money for investors is a high priority...responsibility towards investors and shareholders is any businesses primary concern.  But what liberals always ignore is the fact that making money for investors means that the company is profitable which means that the company is healthy and a healthy company creates jobs.  They're all tied together.

With Obama, women and the unemployed can look forward to more of the same...no jobs, increased costs, lower incomes and loads of food stamps.  With Romney...who proved his respect for women by having a female Lt. Governor and filled 30% of his cabinet positions with women...they can look forward to jobs and a growing economy that eliminates the need for food stamps.  For people who want to be self-reliant and independent, the choice is simple.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 10-31-2012 - 8:32am

First of all, it's not true that all of Obama's policies have failed. 

We're in better shape than the EU.

Obama didn't start any new wars, managed to get the misbegotten and hideously costly foray into Iraq to wind down, and kept up the hunt for Osama bin Ladin, which ultimately resulted in success.

TARP and the auto industry bailout started under Bush (many conservatives have forgotten that salient fact), so even though Bush drove the U.S. off the road economically, he at least called in the wrecker truck. 

Last but not least, I'd like to point out that many of Obama's initiatives were delivered stillborn by the GOP-dominated House.  They have railed and fumed about ACA but did nothing to rein in out-of-control health care costs.

I don't trust the GOP or its minions after attacks on women's contraceptive and reproduction choices.  They trashed the economy in the first place, then belittled Obama for not being capable of bringing a Lazarus back to life.  Mitt has no experience with creating jobs, only with making money for his investors.  If he's elected, I see no reason to expect better for women, for those who are un/under-employed, or for our already over-stretched armed forces. 

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 10-28-2012 - 5:48pm

* Most people want to make a comfortable living and to be left alone.*  *Liberty is for the individual.*

You speak of freedom in one sentence but then demand government provide for you in the next.  You can't have it both ways.  But this kind of hypocrisy is rife in liberalism...decrying the death penalty but supporting abortion.  Claiming a developing baby is a "clump of cells" of "a parasite" in order to dehumanize it and rationalize it's killing...but then giving it a name and painting a room blue or pink for it when the baby is theirs, and wanted.  It's a strange and confusing ideology.

Individual freedom comes with personal responsibility.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 10-28-2012 - 5:36pm

The idea that Romney would make women "brood mares for the new generation of wage slaves" is simply ignorant.  Romney chose a woman to be his Lt Governor.  Romney's administration was composed of 30% women...including cabinet positions.  There is nothing in Romney's past or policies that have ever denegrated or discriminated against women, and to claim otherwise is, as I said, simply ignorance of the facts.

And to your fears of a "lower population" from '70s business magazine articles...well, let me alay them by telling you that the US population has INCREASED by 100 million people since 1970 and shows no signs of decreasing significantly.  Illegal immigrants come here, not becuase of a waning population problem, but because of our strong economy, social benefits and available jobs.  One only has to look at the decrease in illegal immigration in the past 4 years...less jobs, less opportunity, less illegal immigration.

And greed?  To borrow a phrase..."greed is good."  I don't know anyone who gets up and goes to work all day for anything but self-serving motives.  Of course there is philanthropy and charity, but most people do most things for personal enjoyment or personal achievement.  "Greed" is what drives...everything.

Btw, birth control is available for men...and men pay for it. Birth control is cheap and in many places, available for free.  It should not be paid for with tax dollars and certainly NOT imposed on religious organization forcing them to act contrary to their beliefs.

And you've heard of 401Ks?  Pensions?  Retirement investment funds?  All funded by investments in the stock market.  Aside from a few historical anomalies, investment in the stock market has always seen positive growth...that's why people invest.  Your notion that the nanny-state should take care of everything from birth control to retirement is an anathema to the American ethic of self-reliance and individualism.  It robs people of the opportunity to excell, promotes mediocrity and places personal responsibility on the shoulders of others.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 10-28-2012 - 5:04pm

Every enterprise needs certain basic regulations, but capitalism and a free market are the best and most opportunistic economic systems.  History proves that it does not create a two-class division in society...that is a liberal myth designed to prop a skewed political agenda.

And to your mention of Henry Ford...a great example of capitalism at it's best.  We can start with the fact that Ford started his automobile company with capital from outside investors.  Unlike your uninformed "Gordon-Gekko-vulture-capitalist" description, this is exactly what Bain Capital does.  It provides PRIVATE investment in companies to help them grow and then sell the healthy company later for a profit.  With an over 80% success rate one can hardly accuse the Bain business model of being  "game players who make their money by dismantling companies"...at least if you're honest.

And Ford did, indeed, pay his workers almost double the existing market wage, but was this because he was such an altruist?  Nope...it was to benefit his company and generate profits.  It was Ford's manipulation of the free market.  This was the burgeoning industrial age, and Ford's new assembly line style of manufacturing required employee training in order to run efficiently.  In the Ford company's early days, there was heavy employee turnover that cost Ford heavily in line inefficiency, productivity and new employee training.  So Ford's solution?  Pay workers more so they'd stay.  It also drew the best workers in the country to the Ford plant and increased profits substantially.  This had a ripple effect throughout the industry, forcing other auto manufacturers to raise wages or risk losing their best workers.  No need for the government to interfere, just another example of the free market at it's best.

And "pay people enough so they can buy your products"...again, Ford's motives in increasing wages was largely self-serving but having employees buy company products only increases company profits.  Ford was also vehemently opposed to unions, believing they did far more harm than good.

So in Ford we see that capitalism is a great economic system, allowing the son of a poor immigrant family the opportunity to become an entrepreneur, take risks, innovate and eventually become one of the wealthiest people in the country...and then pass that wealth on to thousands of others through his products, business and philanthropy.  All without the interference of a nanny-state or corrupt unions.

That is good.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 10-28-2012 - 2:24am

  Tri yes there is a disconnect but it is with all the parties and the "isms".  Most people want to make a comfortable living and to be left alone.  But it seems that some are not happy with that unless they are forcing others to behave as they think other people should behave.   Not everybody has grand ambitions.  But to hear some of the politicians speak that is the Holy Grail. 

   The idea that one is to be free is interesting but those who talk of freedom and choice are the very ones who legislate less choice freedom and liberty.   Personal freedom?  Pleeze!  That is only if it bends to the will of those in power. 

" what it means to be free and make your own choices on how you do things" 

 Sounds good what about Abortion then?  Freedom over your own body or is the state the ruler and you the individual only a slave.  Oppression comes on little cat's feet.  Some where there must be a power that stands for the individual.  Liberty is for the individual.  

   " To even suggest that people should be made to walk more than they want to is completely foreign from the personal freedoms that this country was founded on. "

   I also agree.  Yet notice that the same voices using those high sounding words are legislating the exact opposite.  In reality they impose their form of "ism" on the individual. 

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 10-28-2012 - 2:08am

  Romney would make women brood mares for the new generation of wage slaves.  One fear the corporations have is lower population which equals less customers and less people they can exploit.  If you check back to about 1970 you will find articles in business magazines about the effect a stable population would mean.  Then is also why we have an illegal immigration problem.  Greed destroys our society.  A lowering of the birth rate will force the government to be more honest because the otherwise illegal(illegal for you and me but legal for government) money schemes will not work.  Yes it is good to have free birth control and when men's birth control is available then that too will be free! 

   The stock market is gambling.  Yet Ryan wants people to use that to fund their retirement.  FAIL.  Actually we need a better pension system(s) so people can retire at an age where they can enjoy it.  Say at 50-55.   Guarenteed pensions not gambling.

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 10-28-2012 - 1:58am

  Pure capitalism is a fail.  It concentrates too much economic power in too few.  We do not need to be a Banana Republic with a class of rich and then everybody else.  The West proved that at Courtai.  Then We in the Colonies had Bacon's rebellion.  Henry Ford was right.  Pay people enough so they can buy your products.  Low wages are the death knell for a consumer economy.  Yes we have game players who make their money by dismantling companies.  That is what Bain does.  Because the parts are more valuable(to them) than the whole.  But that puts millions put of work.   So how can you say that is good?

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 10-27-2012 - 7:34pm

There are different kinds of rape.  The FBI website specifically distinguishes between "forcible rape" and "statuatory rape."  It was "forcible rape" that Akins was referring to, unfortunately using the term "legitimate" in his effort to proffer the distinction.  Liberals, of course, feigned shock and ignorance, in order to gin up their uninformed base.

And unlike Obama, Romney and Ryan believe in the sanctity of life...which may be why Obama was comfortable letting our Ambassador and security people die in Libya without raising a finger.  Romney's point of view allows for abortion exceptions for "life of the mother" and "rape" while Ryan, who's point of view is more profound, only allows abortion when the mother's life is threatened...meaning one has to make a choice between saving an existing life and a developing one...a distinction that doesn't exist in cases of pregnancy by rape.

Obama shows how much he cares about women by passing legislation allowing women a longer time to sue employers in cases of alleged discrimination...Yay!...and by paying for their birth contnrol and abortions...Yay!...and giving them food stamps to help get them through the horrible economy he's devastated...Yay!

Romney, on the other hand, has policies that will increase economic growth allowing women to get jobs...YAY!...and lowering taxes that will allow women to keep more of their own money, so they have more to spend and support their families...YAY!

Which do you think shows a greater respect and support for women?  If you're a nanny-stater, who likes handouts and keeping women in poverty, you'd probably say Obama.  But if you actually respect women and believe that they should be strong and self-sufficient then you'd probably say Romney.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Sat, 10-27-2012 - 9:34am

anthony60 wrote:
<p>Now I see the latest Obama ad comparing voting for the first time to having sex for the first time, aimed at women. Not, men. With men, it's issues, integrity, foreign policy, etc...</p><p>But with women, it's sex, birth control, abortion, etc... Because that's the way Obama sees women. Not intelligent people that care about the issues aimed at men. No, in Obama's eyes, women just care about sex, having babies (or aborting them), and if the candidate really cares about them.</p><p>Good grief, they try to claim that Obama is the guy that cares about women, yet treats them like idiots that are incapable of understanding the big, important issues that men care about. He is insulting to women.</p>

Huh.....That sound just like something Rush Baby would say.   We all know he hates Women.   I saw the ad.  Nothing to get all in a tizzy over.     Oh and somehow men thinking this ad is insulting to women?   No, what is insulting to women is a greay haired old man telling women that there are different kinds of RAPE.   That a woman's body can reject a rapist sperm.  That's about as insulting as it gets.    R&R want women to have one choice.   Bare foot and pregnant.    Take away their choices.  

Pages