Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama

Post Reply New Topic

I hate the way America is going for the most part. I have that we have had 8%+ of employment for years now (more months of the past 4 years than of the previous 50 years before it). I hate that we still have such a high deficit, even with less money going to wars. I hate that I am going to be forced to get insurance that I can't really afford. I hate that a guy who wins a Nobel Peace Prize starts US military activities in more countries. I hate that he seems to have this cult of personality that defends everything he does. I hate that he appointed a guy who cut the Chicago special education budget by 26.5 million (during a budget surplus mind you) to the highest education post in America (and for that matter I hate the fact that he will probably stay in that post no matter who is elected next week). I hate the fact that Duncan (the aforementioned Chicagoan) hired more executives making 6 figures that same year.

On the flip side, I hate a lot of what Romney is campaigning for, when I can even figure out what exactly it is that he is campaigning for (it is fun to watch him debate himself sometimes). In 2008 he practically was Obama, now he is more conservative than his running mate Ryan. I worry how we are going to close enough loopholes to cover a 250 billion dollar tax cut (the yearly total makes more sense to me than the 10 year total). I worry about education, in particular special education. The Ryan budget called for cuts there, which he has since recalled, but what happens if he becomes President.? So many conservatives want to get rid of the Department of Education for that matter, what happens to special education without anyone to really enforce IDEA? While they are the fringe now, Ryan was 4 years ago, it's amazing how quickly the fringe can become mainstream. Then I hear Romney talk about what he wants to do with autism policy, and it basically amounts to a cure... he didn't mention one thing for those of us who are already born. For someone who still wants to go into special education, I must say that this sucks. Plus he talks about giving so much power back to the states, but I don't exactly trust some of the more lunatic governors (like Perry for example) to accept the block funds that he is promising and spend them right. It isn't a bad idea, except for the fact we have so many crazy governors (and I have one of the craziest... who ironically has a kid with special needs).

It is like our candidates are being pulled in both directions, and right now I can't make up my mind in either the Presidential or Senatorial campaign (outside of that it is 3 Republican votes, 1 Democrats vote, 2 of which will be landslide races that won't really matter what way I vote (one of which will be against me)). Really, it doesn't matter what way I vote I feel. No matter what the next 4 years will be like the past 2 years, or 2006-2008... aka gridlock. Both sides are being pulled to far to their extremes for any compromise, and neither party will ever get a filibuster proof majority and whatever majority they might get will be erased soon. For someone with their B.A. in Political Science I sure am apathetic about this whole thing.

The whole idea that charity is the only solution to problems created by a crazy economic system is just absurd to me. I can see charity for third world countries that lack basic amenities and resources, or for dealing with disaster situations. That's quite different from using charity as an excuse not to fix an economic distribution system that forces hardship on people.


You can vote to change government. Government is supposed to represent a consensus of the people. You can't vote or petition change from a corporation that chooses to ship your job overseas to improve it's bottom line. I'd also say an economic system that repeatedly allows to happen what happened in the early 1930s is inherently violent.


I don't have a negative opinion of people. I have a realistic opinion of people. Also, do you ever wonder what would happen if the people with and the people without were to change places? You are really naive. Of course it's easier to be generous when you HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE in the first place.

God! This is just ridiculous irrational thinking. What will cause unrest is when the plutocracy pushes the envelope too far and makes it so a certain segment of the population can't find shelter or eat like it was 1931. If it wasn't for that commie FDR smoothing things over there probably would have been something sinister afoot. Also, creating chaos to stem revolution isn't a technique unique to the left. Reagan supported this technique to fight communism in Latin America by violently overthrowing democratically elected governments. So much for capitalism not being about force.

Perhaps dictator was a bit too harsh but the executive orders he has signed come damn close. Things like the NDAA 2012, USA PATRIOT Act and Bush's repeal of Posse Comitaitus are helping to set up a legal framework for dictatorship, camps, etc. in the future. As far as insurance goes, if you refuse to buy insurance and refuse to pay the fine, you will be jailed for doing so. Thus, it carries a significant threat against my person as I will refuse to do both. Hopefully I will not be alone and the high level of civil disobedience this law will engender will overwhelm the system and make the law virtually unenforceable.

I can understand why that seems absurd to you because of your last sentence. I view our economic system differently -- the free market provides opportunity and enhances life for everyone involved. As a result of our economic system, the standard of living in the US is incredibly high compared to the rest of the world. What we call "poverty" would be considered luxury in many other countries.

If charity works for third world countries, it can certainly work here.


Yes, you can vote to change government. You are at the whim of the majority, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. You have very limited options to leave.

You vote for corporations with your dollars. If you don't like what corporations are doing, don't buy their products and don't provide them services.

I'm not an expert on the Great Depression, though I've read quite a bit of history on it. How do you conclude that it was "inherently violent"?


No, I don't wonder. I've seen many examples of people going both from wealth to poverty and from poverty to wealth. People who consume wealth tend to be selfish. People who acquire wealth tend to be generous. I don't agree that generosity is a factor of what you currently have.

So your negative opinion of people is realistic while my positive opinion of people is unrealistic? It's naive to have different life experiences than you have had? In a community that craves open-mindedness from the neurotypical world, I'm truly amazed at how closed-minded and hostile many people here are.

You are cluelessness about poverty is intensely insulting. Poverty is poverty and charity does not "work" for third world countries. I also don't consider being threatened with homelessness or forced to sleep on the street out in the cold a "luxury".


Well tough luck. Suck it. The majority don't want to have your cruel system imposed on them.



Bud. Try living for a few months without depending on single corporation and get back to be.


You are hopeless. Go try living on the street for a while and you'll learn.


It's pretty hard to give something away if you have nothing in the first place. If you're starving to death can you afford to be generous with your food? Can you lift someone else out of the water when you are drowning? If you have more wealth than you know what to do with you could easily give half of it away without having to sacrifice anything in real terms


Being open-minded is not having blind faith in the lies our society sells you regarding the "free market". The "free market" has also lead to the starvation of millions in the name of greed and selfishness.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html

Thank You Marshall. Your logic is so spot on.

How is it possible for a person to give if they have nothing to give? Even the airlines say that one must put an oxygen mask on his face first before helping someone else. How can one be use to anyone and help anyone if they have nothing to help with?

Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you." What if a person is in no position to do anything for his country? Why is selfless always noble and selfishness always considered ignoble?

You know, I used to be a libertarian. There were things I couldn't reconcile about it. Because of my issues and people being real s**ts I had to re-look at my position and do an about face.

One of the problems with libertarianism is this. The problem isn't just government it is people as well. How do people behave and think today? A lot trample on those who can't help themselves. Look at the character of the American people. It is awful. Would I depend on the American People being charitable today? Hell no! Even my pastor at my church wanted people to go out and bring homeless people into their homes and lives and uplift them up themselves. Will this happen? I don't think so. This is the main reason I have to reject libertarianism.

Marshall, you don't know anything about me or the challenges I've faced in life. You are attacking me, not my statements.

If you are willing to cool down, I am happy to have a rational discourse about poverty versus wealth from the perspective of someone who has experienced both. However, right now you seem more interested in venting your frustrations than having a pleasant discussion.

I attacked your statements but you choose not to notice. Your accusation that the poor are less generous than the wealthy because they have less to give is pretty insulting to the poor.

I'm not religious but...

Correlation does not imply causation. I'm not saying they are less generous because they have less to give. In my experience, people who consume wealth (not necessarily poor, but on the way there) tend to be more selfish and consequently, give less (both in portion and quantity). It's an observation from interacting with many people on both ends of the spectrum, including my own behavior.


I have to disagree with Jesus on this one. Charity should be measured by the impact on the receipient, not the giver.

If I give you $10 and someone else gives you $1000, who benefitted you more? It seems very selfish for me to try to say I gave more because it's a bigger portion of what I have. My focus when I give is on what the receipient needs, not what I need. Which, interestingly enough, taught me that giving money often hurts people more than it helps.

The group that consumes the most would be the middle class, not the poor. Some poor people may consume too much of their budget on bad habits like alcohol or tobacco, but that's probably because they are unhappy, not because they are greedy and ungenerous.


You completely missed the point. Being generous has more to do with how much you are willing to sacrifice personally for the sake of someone else. Having more to give does not automatically make you more generous. It would depend on how much you actually worked to earn more and how much was due to privilege.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-wealth-reduces-compassion

I'm not talking about amount of consumption, but more the attitude difference between consumption and accumulation.


I would agree that generosity is more about sacrifice, but I really dislike the focus on generosity when it comes to charity. I personally think it's a selfish viewpoint. I really don't think the widowed mother who can't make her house payment cares about the generosity of who helps her. She's more concerned about the impact the resources will have for her.


Thank you for the reference -- it's an interesting article. I'd love to see a more scientific study with a better sample group distribution, though.

Noblese oblige is on the ropes. It's popular amongst this era of the wealthy to believe that simply making alot of money is their social contribution.

Even if this is the direction we're heading, which would be quite disappointing to me, I don't feel that it justifies redistribution.

And why is this wrong? The pursuit of wealth has done wonders for living standards. The relationship between GDP rank and HDI rank is ridiculously high.