Regardless of who wins tomorrow, is America the ultimate loser?
I generally try to avoid political discussions as things get heated and awkward but POTUS elections merit it. Regardless whether Romney or Obama sits in the executive office, is 'Merica screwed?
If Obamacare is enacted then yes, america is definitely screwed. Imagine paying 60% of your yearly salary to the government.
It's not incorrect for those who actually produce wealth for society.
If Obama is elected, I'm moving to the Dominican Republic.
No one is going anywhere regardless of whoever gets elected. To be quite frank, very little will actually change either way since they're BOTH going to have to move towards the middle in all of their policies. It's like the South Park episode when they decide between a giant douche and a turd sandwich for their mascot. Both of them suck, and it probably won't have much of an impact on any of your day to day lives either way.
Romney is far from ideal for me. His stance on social issues has shifted far to the right, and I am concerned by his protectionist rhetoric (I really hope he knows better...).
While I will be voting for Johnson, I would ultimately pick Romney if I lived in a swing state. I just want to see PPACA and DF repealed. I am still amazed these laws were passed - they are entirely ineffective, and represent a massive overreach of the federal government.
PPACA is a entitlement time bomb that doesn't address the flaws with America's healthcare system. Best case, it breaks even. But I sincerely doubt it. And DF hurts the competitiveness of US financial institutions and creates more regulatory burden while somehow ignoring the cause of the crisis. I also wouldn't mind the destruction of the CFPB - again, I have no idea why this was created. Nobody was going bankrupt due to debit card transaction fees.
I can also hope (as unlikely as it is) that Romney would push through tax reform. Rolling back the AMT, Capital gains, and estate taxes would be a huge improvement. And I wouldn't necessarily mind the end of even the mortgage interest deduction - it distorts consumer preferences.
It would be a harder choice if Obama had actually followed through with a socially liberal agenda. But continuing the war on drugs, failing to meaningfully back gay marriage, and adhering to (constitutionally questionable) neoconservative FP put him closer to the GOP than his own 2008 platform.
I find it ironic that the Federal Government prevents the private sector from having too high of a concentration of market share, and yet it does have any third or fourth party candidates on the debates stage.
I realize that these candidates may not have a big chance of winning It would at least add new ideas into the presidential debates because the third parties would have to differentiate themselves somehow to pick up market share.
That's because DNC and RNC organize the debates - nothing to do with the federal government. It used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters, but they pulled their sponsorship in 1988 after the Dems and GOP agreed to (1) exclude any third party candidates (2) select the moderator and (3) select the questions. Which is the format you see nowadays: all talking points, nothing else
We've been the ultimate loser since they shot that Irish kid in Dallas.
Saepe ut aut quidem aliquid et. Alias voluptatem sit quis eligendi atque iste eum. Et nulla at molestiae.
Consequuntur ut fugiat modi neque animi corrupti. Accusantium deserunt unde natus qui aut sint temporibus dolor. Et rerum est quod facilis sed sapiente nesciunt.
Voluptates et nihil recusandae ut quis. Maxime non ipsum possimus modi ipsa enim. Itaque ut magnam qui. Laboriosam ad dicta est id delectus voluptatem quis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...