Originally posted by dadudemon
Contradiction, virtually, to your first statement.Possibly...but I leaning towards less spending from Obama. The lesser of the two evils.
Are you a registered voter? If you are, then you're voting for Obama, right? There's no way you'd vote for an old school hite guy, right?
I'm serious about this.
It's not a contradiction, i wrote "essentially" the same, which means basically.
You and me both essentially like girls, we probably just like 'em differently. That's not contradictory.
And Obama's the one who'll most likely spend more, actually. Dems are know for raising, and creating new taxes always.
The (only) guy i wanted to vote for this year didn't become the candidate. But It's not about cool Obama or the old school white guy. That doesn't matter to me. I want the right guy. Someone with the granted power to fix the mess we're in.
And the first order of business should have Iraq go dutch with us and pay for some or most or al of the war. C'mon we're (u.s. taxpayers) are sending money overseas that can stay here to heal the u.s. financially with prices, when we're paying what a billion dollars a week to help them as if there aren't any problems here. Their economy's super booming, they're at a surplus, due to us efforts and us blood. While we're in a 10 trillion dollar. debt/deficit.
So, either will have to do, we can only hope they do what best for the economy, which is the #1 most important issue on the table and in this country, right now.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The (only) guy i wanted to vote for this year didn't become the candidate. But It's not about cool Obama or the old school white guy. That doesn't matter to me. I want the right guy. Someone with the granted power to fix the mess we're in.
Who were you going to vote for? Oh, and do you not see any potentials on the 3rd party side? I mean essentially all of them agree on bringing the troops home, ending corruption in the government ect...Of course their chances of winning are near 0, but at least it's better than not voting at all. Plus, recent polling shows that McCain does worse when a third party is present. So it would seem more people joining the third party movement are coming from the. Republican side.
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Who were you going to vote for? Oh, and do you not see any potentials on the 3rd party side? I mean essentially all of them agree on bringing the troops home, ending corruption in the government ect...Of course their chances of winning are near 0, but at least it's better than not voting at all. Plus, recent polling shows that McCain does worse when a third party is present. So it would seem more people joining the third party movement are coming from the. Republican side.
I wanted our Governor Mitt Romney to be the candidate.
And after he regrettably "suspended" his run i was hoping he'd at least complete McCain's ticket. To me, he's was the strongest economic guy on the campaign with the best and most ideal views concerning our economy. And crazy experienced with situations like the crisis were in. He's the CEO of his company he founded, here in Boston, called Bain and Co., a consulting company, as it's leader, he gave rise to the US Olympics after that fiasco about a half decade or more ago, he's done alot for the state, his father was the Gov of Michigan so he's been around that type of atmosphere al his life. And no i'm not being biased just because he's from Mass. (i wasn't even born in this state anyway. Born in NYC)
But he was my pick...
He would've been 100 x's better than McCain and he would've just mopped the floor with Obama had this not been the political version of american idol..
He'd crush 'em both on economic policy issues.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's not a contradiction, i wrote "essentially" the same, which means basically.
So this:
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Both candidates will essentially be and do the same thing.
Does not become contradicted b this?:
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
They'll each just do it differently.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
You and me both essentially like girls, we probably just like 'em differently. That's not contradictory.
That's a false analogy. If your statements weren't contradictory, I'd probably agree.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And Obama's the one who'll most likely spend more, actually. Dems are know for raising, and creating new taxes always.
I disagree, unless Obama gets his way with NHC.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The (only) guy i wanted to vote for this year didn't become the candidate. But It's not about cool Obama or the old school white guy. That doesn't matter to me. I want the right guy. Someone with the granted power to fix the mess we're in.
That's contradictory to past comments from you, but I'm glad you're level headed about this.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And the first order of business should have Iraq go dutch with us and pay for some or most or al of the war. C'mon we're (u.s. taxpayers) are sending money overseas that can stay here to heal the u.s. financially with prices, when we're paying what a billion dollars a week to help them as if there aren't any problems here. Their economy's super booming, they're at a surplus, due to us efforts and us blood. While we're in a 10 trillion dollar. debt/deficit.So, either will have to do, we can only hope they do what best for the economy, which is the #1 most important issue on the table and in this country, right now.
I agree, somewhat. I'd like to pull out of Iraq and other places and focus on home a lot more.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I wanted our Governor Mitt Romney to be the candidate.And after he regrettably "suspended" his run i was hoping he'd at least complete McCain's ticket. To me, he's was the strongest economic guy on the campaign with the best and most ideal views concerning our economy. And crazy experienced with situations like the crisis were in. He's the CEO of his company he founded, here in Boston, called Bain and Co., a consulting company, as it's leader, he gave rise to the US Olympics after that fiasco about a half decade or more ago, he's done alot for the state, his father was the Gov of Michigan so he's been around that type of atmosphere al his life. And no i'm not being biased just because he's from Mass. (i wasn't even born in this state anyway. Born in NYC)
But he was my pick...
He would've been 100 x's better than McCain and he would've just mopped the floor with Obama had this not been the political version of american idol..
He'd crush 'em both on economic policy issues.
Your make up is cracking.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I now grudgingly accept that Obama will probably win...and his economic policies will be the final nail in what's left of the US economy. The race card will be played, anyone questioning his policies will be labled a bigot.
I'm curious as to how his policies will cause what you claim. Please take me through the steps.
No, I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm curious as to how his policies will cause what you claim. Please take me through the steps.No, I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious.
Ok, Obama has stated he wants to raise taxes on anyone making over $250,000 a year. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil companies. He wants to tax capital gains. He wants socialized medicine.
While it might sound appealing to "stick it to the rich guy" now is not the time to be raising taxes..on anybody.
He will be taxing the very segment of the population that controls the most money, that does the most investing that ultimately starts economic growth. Middle class spending can keep the economy moving but for it to get started there has to be investment, and the wealthy do most of that. Taxing them will only discourage investment. A windfall profits tax on oil companies is akin to setting price controls and one need only look at what happened in the 70s when that was tried.
Socialized medicine? While I really whish this was doable it isn't given the level of debt our country has. It would also require much higher taxes which we can't afford now.
Bottom line is a severe recession or even a depression is now inevitable no matter who wins the white house. How fast we get out of it depends on how fast money starts flowing through the system again and higher taxes are detrimental to that.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Socialized medicine? While I really whish this was doable it isn't given the level of debt our country has. It would also require much higher taxes which we can't afford now.
It is doable. 150 billion dollars to provide healthcare for every American doesn't sound so bad when we're giving those people who apparently keep the economy going 700 billion dollars to keep them keeping the economy going.
People who support the republican platform always say that the democrats will raise taxes, but it isn't so. Mr. Obama has said that there's no need to raise taxes if the money we already raise were used more responsibly. Universal healthcare is totally possible if the budget were controlled. On the other hand, the republicans call for lowering taxes while spending more money than we have. We've put a trillion dollar war on our credit card and we aren't even making the minimum payment every month. Besides, even if taxes were raised, why do you think it would need to be done? Maybe to pay off the bills for the last 8 years? Mr. Bush and his party inherited a government surplus and now we're so far in the red that you and I will be paying for it for the rest of our lives. If Clinton had been in office for another year we would have started paying towards our national debt for the first time in 50 years.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Ok, Obama has stated he wants to raise taxes on anyone making over $250,000 a year. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil companies. He wants to tax capital gains. He wants socialized medicine.While it might sound appealing to "stick it to the rich guy" now is not the time to be raising taxes..on anybody.
He will be taxing the very segment of the population that controls the most money, that does the most investing that ultimately starts economic growth. Middle class spending can keep the economy moving but for it to get started there has to be investment, and the wealthy do most of that. Taxing them will only discourage investment. A windfall profits tax on oil companies is akin to setting price controls and one need only look at what happened in the 70s when that was tried.
Socialized medicine? While I really whish this was doable it isn't given the level of debt our country has. It would also require much higher taxes which we can't afford now.
Bottom line is a severe recession or even a depression is now inevitable no matter who wins the white house. How fast we get out of it depends on how fast money starts flowing through the system again and higher taxes are detrimental to that.
We already do stick it to the rich guy, the top 20% of the economy makes 60% of the wages and pays 80% of the tax burden. It is already a socialist redistribution of wealth, raising taxes here would only make matters worse.
I agree, our economic woes are likely going to last well into the next administration, leaving little room for the President to make good on his promises
Originally posted by Devil KingI think on the whole both, used to, want to lower taxes. McCain more than Obama and across the board. But Obama wanted to raise them on the upper percentile.
It is doable. 150 billion dollars to provide healthcare for every American doesn't sound so bad when we're giving those people who apparently keep the economy going 700 billion dollars to keep them keeping the economy going.People who support the republican platform always say that the democrats will raise taxes, but it isn't so. Mr. Obama has said that there's no need to raise taxes if the money we already raise were used more responsibly. Universal healthcare is totally possible if the budget were controlled. On the other hand, the republicans call for lowering taxes while spending more money than we have. We've put a trillion dollar war on our credit card and we aren't even making the minimum payment every month. Besides, even if taxes were raised, why do you think it would need to be done? Maybe to pay off the bills for the last 8 years? Mr. Bush and his party inherited a government surplus and now we're so far in the red that you and I will be paying for it for the rest of our lives. If Clinton had been in office for another year we would have started paying towards our national debt for the first time in 50 years.
Originally posted by Hunkajunk
We already do stick it to the rich guy, the top 20% of the economy makes 60% of the wages and pays 80% of the tax burden. It is already a socialist redistribution of wealth, raising taxes here would only make matters worse.I agree, our economic woes are likely going to last well into the next administration, leaving little room for the President to make good on his promises
I REALLY need to see those stats.