Whenever government gets involved, costs go up and up. If you think Obamacare will save money, you're flat out wrong. Not to mention he conned people with his costing of it, factoring in 10 years of cuts with 6 years of spending and claiming it will save money. The second 10 years will see costs go up.
And you make a good point. He pushed through obamacare and the republicans are punishing him for it. And the reality is that the majority don't want Obama care which will count against him in the election, and if Romney wins (which I think he will if he doesn't get beaten up tonight) he will repeal it and Obama will have literally nothing to show for his 4 years.
As for Bain capital, I haven't read extensively about it but I think its being spun very negatively by the pro-democrat media.
You been watching that Fox News again? Only Fox would have the gall to cry out bloody murder with blood on their own hands. The right is convinced that there's liberal media bias. But actually, the truth is that not everyone shares what are actually your extreme-right views. Your party isn't center-right anymore. It's funny that the conservative party being so opposed to change seems to undergo it to the point where I can't even keep track of what the platform is or which issues Mitt actually stands for.
FFS, Fox News is more likely to run a story on virgin births in nature over anything pertaining to climate science and evolution. I'm sorry, but a few studies on climate science that say that it doesn't exist (and funded by the oil industry) doesn't negate the vast body of research that already exists. Even simple trends like having consecutive record-breaking summers don't mean anything. My point here is that if there is a refusal to believe in peer-reviewed SCIENCE, then that party is in the same boat as the people that denied the earth revolved around the sun.
As much as you attack Obama and critique him for things that he hasn't even done, what do you have to offer on Romney's proposed plan to fix the economy? Be specific. Is he or is he not going to add government jobs, through new teachers, policemen and firemen?
Back to Obamacare... are you talking about his $716 billion in savings? The same $716 that Ryan had in his plan?
Read
this, then tell me what you think. Besides, the deficit hawks keep calling for cuts, so why complain when you get them?
Overall, Obamacare will save money. This is a long-term approach, so it will take a few years to reap the benefits. However, repealing Obamacare will
cost money.
When I think about it, I can understand why healthcare would need to be tackled to help control the deficit. Right now, it's an extremely bloated system with massive looming costs in the next 10-20 years. What Obamacare wants to do is make that system more efficient and at the same time expanding who is eligible before costs go spiraling out of hand. Because more people participate, insurance premiums go down. With looming costs of Medicare threatening to o Of course, I would have preferred single-payer because other countries that do have much lower healthcare costs.
As for Obamacare approval, it's no surprise to me that because the right is constantly running attack ads (most of them singling out Obamacare because it has such a negative reputation despite all the good it does), they are changing the views of voters because in the summer, approval for Obamacare was higher than opposition to it. Obama needed to convince the people more fervently about how much good this legislation does, but it is crippled by the fact that it had to be watered down. Democrats seem capable of compromise, why can't Republicans do the same? That's right, because fixing the nation's problems would make the president look good, and no one wants that guy to look good.
You should read up on Bain. It was an investment firm, and its purpose was not to create jobs, but to make companies run more efficiently (and weighing them down with loads of debt), then selling them on a profit, and ultimately providing investors with a return. So yes, Bain itself made lots of money, but it wasn't a job factory. There was no investment in no new industries creating whole new jobs, but instead just shifting or displacing jobs.
Really, with the internet and large conservative news networks, there's a lot of misinformation out there. Data and facts are very valuable, but there can only be one truth when it comes to numbers. How is it that there is another alternate reality with its own set of facts? A choice to believe some other doctored set of statistics is self-imposed ignorance. Be a bit more cynical about ALL journalists, not just ones from "the other side".
Any number can be massaged to make it mean whatever you want it to, and often-times is so misleading but is still what their constituents want to hear. Chances are Mitt doesn't give a brick about you, unless you make over $250k. He said it himself, and I understand the setting and context in which he said it which only proves that many wealthy Americans don't give a brick about the bottom half of the country. They see three lazy people and think the rest are lazy. And don't get me wrong, there's plenty of lazy people out there, but it's such a small percentage that fixing that problem isn't actually the priority.
