Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is exactly wrong. The CATO Institue (conservative) ran a study that showed that not paying the bills. (GOP running huge deficits) contributes more to spending. At least Democrats pay their way. They will raise taxes and Americans will feel the pain, thus creating a desire to curtail spending down the road.. GOPers don't pay their way, but continue to spend, and not feel the pain of their spending.
This is exactly wrong. The CATO Institue (conservative) ran a study that showed that not paying the bills. (GOP running huge deficits) contributes more to spending. At least Democrats pay their way. They will raise taxes and Americans will feel the pain, thus creating a desire to curtail spending down the road.. GOPers don't pay their way, but continue to spend, and not feel the pain of their spending.
Just like Americans with their credit cards.
You think the folks spending 100's of millions of $'s are going to suddenly turn conservative or responsible....the key term change is a joke.....and that goes for both parties.
i've kinda swung back and forth on the whole Mccain Obama thing for sometime now and have almost decided on Obama. As a Ron Paul fan i would describe myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and my priorities are in that order. believe me i am not delighted by the choices but i suppose i have to deal the hand i've been dealt.
fiscally i see no difference between the two. they are both going to squander my hard earned dollars, the difference i believe is that obama actually means to do something useful with it(even though he is creating another layer of entitlements which is scary) rather than hand it to haliburton execs, georgia(the russian one who dubya just handed $10 billion to) et al. i also think obama wants to wind down the war. mccain is just being naive if he believes that the temporary easing in fighting means that the surge is working.
so i don't really see much difference fiscally, i have to swing my vote over to social issues. it is here where the dems win my vote. mccain palin want to teach their kids creationism that's fine, i'll teach my kids something else thanks. although i would be more than happy to teach my kids about the birds and the bees i'd be just as happy for the school to do it. evidently palin's little chat fell on deaf ears. i don't really think that the abortion issue has a place on the presidents list of agendas but i am strictly opposed to palin's hardcore stance (this is one area where i disagree with Ron Paul). as for the whole war on drugs. i feel that the dems have a slightly firmer grip on reality where this topic is concerned. personally i'd welcome an outright legalisation but i'm not going to get that with either candidate so i'll choose the dems to be a bit more accommodating. hopefully by selecting a half black half white president we can ease all this racial bitching. also while i don't buy into this whole global warming thing i feel that palin's flagrant dismissal of environmental issues is troubling and highly irresponsible.
another thing i'd like to say is that the only reason we still have some sway with opec is because we still have reserves in dakota, california, the gulf and alaska. if we drill there like there's no tommorrow we'll be in a much weaker position in 20 years time. strategically i think we should use theirs first.
there's my thinking. welcoming some quality debate
i nearly forgot the most important thing, THE PATRIOT ACT! mccain voted for it and Obama against. Habeas corpus has been around for several hundred years and it's inexcusable that in "The Land Of The Free" we no longer subscribe!
You have some great points. Ron Paul supporters have to decide whether they want their money to go to education, infrastructure and health care (and maybe you don't agree with that) or into the pockets of cronies like Halliburton (which you are probably REALLY against). Thanks for posting!
You think the folks spending 100's of millions of $'s are going to suddenly turn conservative or responsible....the key term change is a joke.....and that goes for both parties.
Most of the tax cuts of the Republicans are aimed at the richest - which is not right - and don't say they pay most of the taxes, unless you also mention that they earn most of the income!!! The top 1% of wage earners get 23% of the national income - just ponder that for a moment if you can.
HubbleRules
The top 1% of wage earners also paid 39.89% of the federal personal income tax in 2006.
The EPA was created in 1980, so again I have to wonder how much the environment has improved with the mere act of creating greater government bureaucracy. In the case of environmental issues, I believe Ron Paul wants to address these from a property rights position. I'll try to give an example.
I think the EPA was created before 1980. More like 1970.
i've kinda swung back and forth on the whole Mccain Obama thing for sometime now and have almost decided on Obama. As a Ron Paul fan i would describe myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and my priorities are in that order. believe me i am not delighted by the choices but i suppose i have to deal the hand i've been dealt.
fiscally i see no difference between the two. they are both going to squander my hard earned dollars, the difference i believe is that obama actually means to do something useful with it(even though he is creating another layer of entitlements which is scary) rather than hand it to haliburton execs, georgia(the russian one who dubya just handed $10 billion to) et al. i also think obama wants to wind down the war. mccain is just being naive if he believes that the temporary easing in fighting means that the surge is working.
so i don't really see much difference fiscally, i have to swing my vote over to social issues. it is here where the dems win my vote. mccain palin want to teach their kids creationism that's fine, i'll teach my kids something else thanks. although i would be more than happy to teach my kids about the birds and the bees i'd be just as happy for the school to do it. evidently palin's little chat fell on deaf ears. i don't really think that the abortion issue has a place on the presidents list of agendas but i am strictly opposed to palin's hardcore stance (this is one area where i disagree with Ron Paul). as for the whole war on drugs. i feel that the dems have a slightly firmer grip on reality where this topic is concerned. personally i'd welcome an outright legalisation but i'm not going to get that with either candidate so i'll choose the dems to be a bit more accommodating. hopefully by selecting a half black half white president we can ease all this racial bitching. also while i don't buy into this whole global warming thing i feel that palin's flagrant dismissal of environmental issues is troubling and highly irresponsible.
another thing i'd like to say is that the only reason we still have some sway with opec is because we still have reserves in dakota, california, the gulf and alaska. if we drill there like there's no tommorrow we'll be in a much weaker position in 20 years time. strategically i think we should use theirs first.
there's my thinking. welcoming some quality debate
i nearly forgot the most important thing, THE PATRIOT ACT! mccain voted for it and Obama against. Habeas corpus has been around for several hundred years and it's inexcusable that in "The Land Of The Free" we no longer subscribe!
you are busted! i see on your previous posts that you said that ron paul spent a sizable amount of his time whining. (although you misspelled it). you are not a ron paul supporter at all. all of your posts are available to see for everyone. my thinking is that a united kingdom person could care less how much we pay for gas here, but we americans care since we live here year-round and have to pay it.
you are busted! i see on your previous posts that you said that ron paul spent a sizable amount of his time whining. (although you misspelled it). you are not a ron paul supporter at all. all of your posts are available to see for everyone. my thinking is that a united kingdom person could care less how much we pay for gas here, but we americans care since we live here year-round and have to pay it.
apologies for misspelling something. please can you send the post to me so that i can know which word i spelt incorrectly so i don't do it again. i wouldn't want to upset some of the small, insignificant bacteria on this forum who troll from post to post looking for typo's.
i am kinda puzzled as to how you come the conclusion that i'm not a Paul supporter because i criticised an aspect of his campaign strategy. during the early primaries i felt that dr Paul lost a lot of ground by repeatedly going over what the problems were (fed, regs, loss of civil libs etc) and putting forward vague solutions to these problems. having read his economic stimulus plan (a nuts and bolts plan which was on his website and which i endorsed 10000%) i knew that he had concrete plans but not once did he ever TALK about these concrete plans which he intended to bring about. i felt that he wasted valuable airtime whingeing instead of talking about actual policy imo. i feel this lost him support.
i guess if you feel that this minor criticism makes me a "fake" Ron Paul fan then you are entitled to your opinion. i didn't know that there were people in this world who paraded annonymously as fans of one politician only to really support someone else.
as for the gas price thing, i'd prefer it if you responded to me on that thread. i don't want to go off topic on this one
I think these programs are horribly mismanaged but I think they are necessary. Part of the problem is that the President gets to decide who runs these programs and they usually choose people that have no business running them. I can't find any statistics other than this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Educational_attainment.jpg - broken link) which shows a halt in progress around 1979. I'll come up with my own plan soon so you can see how I think it should be handled - it's complex. It could see it handled at the state level but I think it would/could be better handled at a federal level, I'll explain later.
Well it may be handled best at a national level, although I'm not entirely convinced. In any case, I nor Ron Paul would have a problem with such things as long as there is an amendment to the US Constitution that allows for a federally managed dept to do just that.
The Constitution isn't fixed in stone and the amendment process allows for it to change with the times. It isn't easy to change nor should it be, but it is the ultimate words on the bathroom wall in which we turn to and ask, is this ok, is this legal, can they do that?
In more cases than not, when the federal government gets involved with something, the level of overhead and bureaucracy that ends up surrounding even a good idea makes an efficient and simply thing into a bloated overly complex thing that need not be. Maybe it is the way federal organizations are managed, ran, whatever, but they don't have the most stellar record of efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
I think the EPA was created before 1980. More like 1970.
One BIG difference is that Obama will RAISE your taxes and McCain will extend the Bush taxcuts. Any increase in taxes should raise a red flag that this person is a statist and does not believe in fiscal individual freedoms. There's a reason that Paul is a republican, because he fits better with the reps fiscally. If this is your priority, I would suggest that you would be wrong to support Obama.
Not true. Most people will get a tax cut under Obama's plan. The only people who might pay more are the very rich.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
