# That's it Mitt Romney has my vote



## Tianimalz

If Romney wins, I'm packing up and moving to Canada for the next 4 years. With gas prices though I might end up having to ride there though... :think:


----------



## christabelle

Tianimalz said:


> If Romney wins, I'm packing up and moving to Canada for the next 4 years. With gas prices though I might end up having to ride there though... :think:


Lol, we can carpool and split the cost.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tianimalz

christabelle said:


> Lol, we can carpool and split the cost.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'll buy lunch for us, if you can grab a bag of feed for the horses :rofl:


----------



## dirtroadangel

Tianimalz said:


> I'll buy lunch for us, if you can grab a bag of feed for the horses :rofl:


Good point they are doing well in Canada since they have gone more conservative.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

What exactly is it about Romney that scares people more than Obama? I see a good man with awesome family values and an even more awesome background in business and finance. What scares the crap out of me is that there are still people that are dead set on putting Obama back in office to continue his train wreck of a presidency without giving someone with some real expertise a chance.


----------



## tinyliny

William Shatner is also a horseman, as is Morgan Freeman. Just a little aside there . People you would not expect to be horsemen.

If Romney wins , it wont' be the end of the world. But he will not get my vote. If he becomes president, then I will wish him the cooperation of congress to get some things done.


----------



## Endiku

I don't like Romney _or_ Obama. Maybe I'll just pack up and head to Canada too ;D


----------



## Tianimalz

tinyliny said:


> William Shatner is also a horseman, as is Morgan Freeman. Just a little aside there . People you would not expect to be horsemen.
> 
> If Romney wins , it wont' be the end of the world. But he will not get my vote. If he becomes president, then I will wish him the cooperation of congress to get some things done.


I'd vote for Freeman just so I could listen to that wonderful voice of his give Presidential speeches. :lol:


----------



## tinyliny

Canada! Here we come. Better look out.


----------



## FlyGap

I second a horseman in office, at least someone with horse sense.
I'd take that any day over a "community organizer".

As for Romney as president, we'll see how he debates. If he can hold his own AND stand up for what he's done in the past, defend ACCURATELY without using skewed statistics AND keep a civil demeanor, I'm in. And if there isn't a better candidate that doesn't jump in the ring.


----------



## Sunny

Patrick Swayze(sp?) was also a big Arabian advocate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FlyGap

And 1,000 times better looking than Romney! Or any other candidate in history for that matter!


----------



## Shasta1981

I had no idea Morgan Freeman was a horseman!

Ronald Reagan was an avid equestrian. They had to put together a special section of the secret service with riders so that they could protect him properly, even when he was riding. They also had decoy horses that looked like his favorite horse. Pretty cool!


----------



## Tianimalz

Why does everyone want a horseman in office anyway? I mean c'mon... I say we get creative, lets put a batman in office!!!


----------



## FlyGap

That would be better than a Joker.


----------



## Tianimalz

Yeah.... I'll agree with you on that, FlyGap.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Tianimalz said:


> Yeah.... I'll agree with you on that, FlyGap.


At least Romney has a healthcare in Ma. that works that's where barack got it...
Don't worry folks as of now we have a new czar..
The Ocean Czar to zone and then regulate the oceans.
Off course without congressional approval using presidential directives.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tianimalz

Still leaning towards Batman


----------



## Sunny

I think Keegan the Fresian should be president.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tianimalz

Sunny said:


> I think Keegan the Fresian should be president.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hmm... he could possibly bring about a new carrot abundance in the US, and usher in new horse health and living standards. He might have my vote, guess we'll have to see where he places in the Presidential _race_.


----------



## Sunny

Carrots and Nicker Makers for everyone!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tianimalz

Indie says that Keegan has her vote!

Now I gotta remind her she has to weight another 12 years before she can vote


----------



## NdAppy

On Morgan Freeman... Morgan Freeman talks to C&I about horsemanship, his love of the West, and his newest film - Cowboys & Indians - January 2010


----------



## dirtroadangel

Tianimalz said:


> Why does everyone want a horseman in office anyway? I mean c'mon... I say we get creative, lets put a batman in office!!!



Batman would be a huge improvement over what we have now
Laugh now kids you'll be paying for it for years to come...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tinyliny

We are , and will be for many years, paying for the war in Iraq, that Bush and his cronies got us into.


----------



## Allison Finch

What don't I like about Romney? I see an arrogant businessman who will mostly protect the large corporations at the cost of you and me. Those corps will call in the chips the moment he is elected.

There are so many issues I take exception to that he promotes as well.


----------



## farmpony84

I think I'm leaning more towards Captain America then batman. I like pluck. 

Seriously though... I liked Sarah Palin and she scared the crap out of many many people. Was she ready to be the American President? I don't know, but I would have liked to see it. And not because she was a women, something about her that really had me....

As for President. I miss Ronald Reagan! 

I wish there was someone that really stood out but so far... I just don't know.... I do know that I did not vote for Obama and I won't vote for him. Sorry Tiny... I'm cancelling your vote out!


----------



## Ladytrails

I didn't realize that Romney was a horse owner. Good for him. At least this means that he can recognize a horse's a$$ when he sees one. And there are plenty in DC.....


----------



## farmpony84

Ladytrails said:


> I didn't realize that Romney was a horse owner. Good for him. At least this means that he can recognize a horse's a$$ when he sees one. And there are plenty in DC.....


.........................


----------



## Ladytrails

Now that picture just made me think of several more DC jokes....

LOL!


----------



## PetoftheDay

As a Massachusetts resident (he was our governor), I don't trust him - anyone who can strap a dog in a crate on the top of a car for a long road trip, regardless of how the dog was feeling*, will not get my vote, no matter the party he or she belongs to. And he defended it, and saw nothing wrong with it. 

(*Evidence of gastrointestinal distress, shall we say, was reported ...)


----------



## dirtroadangel

Would it be better if he was in the car with 4kids doing you know what?
How is the Healthcare plan benefiting Ma. residents?
I know it is alot more expensive then first believed.
I feel has Obama crapped all over the American people's
Mitt wouldn't bemy first choice but snything is better then what we have.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

PetoftheDay said:


> As a Massachusetts resident (he was our governor), I don't trust him - anyone who can strap a dog in a crate on the top of a car for a long road trip, regardless of how the dog was feeling*, will not get my vote, no matter the party he or she belongs to. And he defended it, and saw nothing wrong with it.
> 
> (*Evidence of gastrointestinal distress, shall we say, was reported ...)


What's hilarious is that is the most scandalous dirt they could find in his past. THAT in itself should tell you something.


----------



## Faceman

PetoftheDay said:


> As a Massachusetts resident (he was our governor), I don't trust him - anyone who can strap a dog in a crate on the top of a car for a long road trip, regardless of how the dog was feeling*, will not get my vote, no matter the party he or she belongs to. And he defended it, and saw nothing wrong with it.
> 
> (*Evidence of gastrointestinal distress, shall we say, was reported ...)


Well, Obama has eaten dog meat, so you can't vote for him either. Have hope, though...one of these days there will be a candidate you can vote for. Maybe...


----------



## Walkamile

Faceman said:


> Well, Obama has eaten dog meat, so you can't vote for him either. Have hope, though...one of these days there will be a candidate you can vote for. Maybe...


Hope I see it in my lifetime. :wink:


----------



## Tianimalz

Hmm... I don't trust any man who doesn't have dirt in his past. That just means he's **** good at covering his tracks.


----------



## farmpony84

Tianimalz said:


> Hmm... I don't trust any man who doesn't have dirt in his past. That just means he's **** good at covering his tracks.


 That makes me sad to think about... Luckily it's not entirely true... there are good men out there.... just .... not as many as there used to be...


----------



## Whisper22

Tianimalz said:


> Hmm... I don't trust any man who doesn't have dirt in his past. That just means he's **** good at covering his tracks.


I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess you'll always be disappointed then.


----------



## tinyliny

dirtroadangel said:


> Would it be better if he was in the car with 4kids doing you know what?
> How is the Healthcare plan benefiting Ma. residents?
> I know it is alot more expensive then first believed.
> I feel has Obama crapped all over the American people's
> Mitt wouldn't bemy first choice but snything is better then what we have.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
from what I read and heard on the radio, most MA residents weren't too happy with RomneyCare at first, but several years later, they agree (for the most part) that it's better with it than without and do not want to go back.


----------



## SouthernTrails

PetoftheDay said:


> As a Massachusetts resident (he was our governor), I don't trust him - anyone who can strap a dog in a crate on the top of a car for a long road trip, regardless of how the dog was feeling*, will not get my vote, no matter the party he or she belongs to. And he defended it, and saw nothing wrong with it.
> 
> (...)*Evidence of gastrointestinal distress, shall we say, was reported


Well, read Obama's book He ate Dog Meat in Indonesia ... so which person is better?


.


----------



## Tianimalz

farmpony84 said:


> That makes me sad to think about... Luckily it's not entirely true... there are good men out there.... just .... not as many as there used to be...


To be honest, I'm not convinced that there ever used to be very many good people to begin with, people don't really change, just methods. But then that's why I can't bring myself to vote, way too picky and I just can't bring myself to trust anyone who I haven't seen prove themselves first.... hmm... very horsey-like that way :lol:


----------



## PetoftheDay

"Conservatives struck back this week, pulling up an excerpt from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father" in which the future president talks about being fed dog meat as a boy in Indonesia. His take on the taste? "Tough.""

The difference? Obama was fed dog meat as a child. Romney, though, made a conscious decision as an adult to strap the dog's crate to the top of the car, and then defend that action.

If those were the only two factors in the equation, I'd go with the kid who did something distasteful when told to do so, rather than the adult who did something distasteful of his own volition.

Tianimalz - it is better to register and show and cast your vote for "none of the above" if there's no one you can vote for. It shows you DO care about your country, and are NOT happy with the options offered.


----------



## Tianimalz

PetoftheDay said:


> Tianimalz - it is better to register and show and cast your vote for "none of the above" if there's no one you can vote for. It shows you DO care about your country, and are NOT happy with the options offered.


You're right, but unless there is a voting station within riding distance I'm not wasting my gas money just to stick it to the man :rofl: And why would someone have a problem with someone eating dog meat? Meat is meat, as long as it isn't human I could care less... it isn't like they're poaching our pets.


----------



## dirtroadangel

PetoftheDay said:


> "Conservatives struck back this week, pulling up an excerpt from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father" in which the future president talks about being fed dog meat as a boy in Indonesia. His take on the taste? "Tough.""
> 
> The difference? Obama was fed dog meat as a child. Romney, though, made a conscious decision as an adult to strap the dog's crate to the top of the car, and then defend that action.
> 
> 
> Being a Ma. resident couldn't you base your opinion on how he did as a governor?
> If he made healthcarework for Ma. maybe he is the one that can bring heathcareto the nation.
> All Obama did was copy Romney's. At least now Romney will have a betterunderstanding what works and what doesn't of it.
> Never slight your freedom to vote men and women have put their liveso on the line for that oppurtunity
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

PetoftheDay said:


> Romney, though, made a conscious decision as an adult to strap the dog's crate to the top of the car, and then defend that action.


So what? Good grief. How many dogs are transported in crates in the back of a pickup? What the heck is the difference? Assuming the crate is properly secured, is a dog any safer on the roof than inside the car? What about all the evil people that don't put their dog in a seatbelt or let their dog stick its head out the window so its chops flap? Do you restrain YOUR dog in a seatbelt?

No offense intended, but people that base their vote for President on something as irrelevant as how someone transports a dog are abusing their priviledge to vote...no wonder we keep electing unqualified people.

Did it ever occur to you to maybe vote for candidates on the basis of their qualifications, leadership ability, and political philosophy? That is a rhetorical question, of course, as the answer is obvious...


----------



## dirtroadangel

The difference? Obama was fed dog meat as a child.

But he was supposed to be in the USA not Indonesia Hmmm.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Dog meat , Dogs in a carrier, they have nothing to do with anyone being qualified to be President.
I will not vote for Romney but I do not think that he is as conservative as he has portrayed himself in the primaries.
Being the Republican Governor of Mass. he knows how to compromise and move to the center to get things done.
My main concern about voting for the man is his drastic shift to the right.
They all do almost anything to get elected but I am concerned that once in office he will as G W Bush did allow those extremeist in his party to set policy. Shalom


----------



## dirtroadangel

I think we have extremists now in the white house. Come on another czar that's just a way off getting around the democratic process. And how big is their entourage? And who do they answer to other then one person?
So unamerican.....
So now we are going to regulate the oceans?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ripper

Faceman said:


> So what? Good grief. How many dogs are transported in crates in the back of a pickup? What the heck is the difference? Assuming the crate is properly secured, is a dog any safer on the roof than inside the car? What about all the evil people that don't put their dog in a seatbelt or let their dog stick its head out the window so its chops flap? Do you restrain YOUR dog in a seatbelt?
> 
> No offense intended, but people that base their vote for President on something as irrelevant as how someone transports a dog are abusing their priviledge to vote...no wonder we keep electing unqualified people.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you to maybe vote for candidates on the basis of their qualifications, leadership ability, and political philosophy? That is a rhetorical question, of course, as the answer is obvious...











This is how my three boys ride in the warm weather.


----------



## Ripper

I have no idea how that picture posted twice.......sorry.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Ripper said:


> I have no idea how that picture posted twice.......sorry.


Gorgeous Dogs
Ripper
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Dog meat , Dogs in a carrier, they have nothing to do with anyone being qualified to be President.
> I will not vote for Romney but I do not think that he is as conservative as he has portrayed himself in the primaries.
> Being the Republican Governor of Mass. he knows how to compromise and move to the center to get things done.
> My main concern about voting for the man is his drastic shift to the right.
> They all do almost anything to get elected but I am concerned that once in office he will as G W Bush did allow those extremeist in his party to set policy. Shalom


I would hardly say Bush let extremists within the party set policy. Bush was notorious for doing his own thing and pretty much not listening to anyone else - actually that was his biggest downfall...simply wouldn't listen to reason.

As for Romney, yeah, he is not thought of as a conservative by true conservatives. I think I mentioned in another thread a month or two ago that historically he has not been well thought of by the Republican leadership and ranks. You are correct in that he is doing everything he can to make people think he is a conservative..that's a little spooky as it makes him unpredictable. Obama has done exactly what I predicted 4 years ago when nobody listened - he was very predictable. Not so much with Romney.

Romney would be a good choice, at least to me, if the Republicans take back the Senate and keep the House. I have never liked the liberals *or* the conservatives in full control of both houses and the White House - although Obama proved innept when he enjoyed that luxury. After 236 years of putting law after law after law after law on the books, the best legislation is no legislation, which a deadlocked government can lead to. We already have more than enough laws to govern the planet - much less the country. Heck, we don't enforce half the ones we have...we don't need new laws, we need to enforce the ones we have. The federal government doesn't even defend our national borders - you would think that would be its primary function...

On another note, have you noticed the Democrats that are starting to distance themselves from Obamacare? Even Barney Frankfurter has called it a mistake...that's what happens when you don't read a bill before you pass it...


----------



## Faceman

As a sidebar, just to illustrate one of a thousand reasons why I was so anxious to get the heck out of Arkansas and retire back to my home state of Missouri, Little Rock has an ordinance against carrying dogs in pickup beds uncrated (which I support), but no such ordinance about children. Duh...


----------



## SpottedDraftRider

*RomneyCare*

I'm a MA resident and my mother is currently a nurse in MA. The nurses and hospitals are overloaded, the hospitals are sending people (that should stay there) home too early, all of this is also causing doctors to screw up patient's orders, and is expensive. A lot of hospitals are barely making it by on a daily basis and are still trying to figure out what cuts (that is the cause of our under staffed hospitals) they are going to make because they are not getting the money they need. 

So yes, Romney made a healthcare plan for MA. Is it a good one through the eyes of the residents? That answer depends on where you are. Is this a good plan through the eyes of our nurses and doctors? That answer is a no from every doctor and nurse.

I honestly don't like anyone in this election, and I won't vote for a single person even if I had to.


----------



## PetoftheDay

We already do regulate the oceans, at least to some extent. Talk to any of the New England fisherman trying to deal with shifting regulations!

And as I originally said, "If those were the only two factors in the equation, " which obviously they are not. 

He was not an awful governor for us, and not a great one. He has changed his mind so many times in what he has presented to the public, it's hard to know he would do in office.


----------



## Ripper

dirtroadangel said:


> Gorgeous Dogs
> Ripper
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thanks........


----------



## Whisper22

My take on Romney being flip flopper is that I honestly wouldn't want a president who was incapable of changing his mind if it was in the best interest of the country. Unlike Obama who would probably throw his family in front of a train to protect HIS plan and what HE wants. A good example is what people think Romney supports when it comes to abortion. He doesn't agree with or believe in it, but to say he will support the right to choose ONLY means he will not WASTE money on trying to make it illegal when it never will be. He knows there are too many people that support it and there are too many, more important things, to work on that wouldn't be putting us into more debt.


----------



## Faceman

Whisper22 said:


> My take on Romney being flip flopper is that I honestly wouldn't want a president who was incapable of changing his mind if it was in the best interest of the country. Unlike Obama who would probably throw his family in front of a train to protect HIS plan and what HE wants. A good example is what people think Romney supports when it comes to abortion. He doesn't agree with or believe in it, but to say he will support the right to choose ONLY means he will not WASTE money on trying to make it illegal when it never will be. He knows there are too many people that support it and there are too many, more important things, to work on that wouldn't be putting us into more debt.


I think that is probably the majority position right now - most people personally oppose abortion, but grant the right of women to make their own personal choices. Romney and Obama both feel that way, as do I...the difference is Obama supports funding abortions with tax dollars, which I vehemently oppose and will fight. It is our right to fight for how we think our tax dollars should be spent...


----------



## Tianimalz

Faceman said:


> I think that is probably the majority position right now - most people personally oppose abortion, but grant the right of women to make their own personal choices. Romney and Obama both feel that way, as do I...the difference is Obama supports funding abortions with tax dollars, which I vehemently oppose and will fight. It is our right to fight for how we think our tax dollars should be spent...


I dunno... I think I rather pay for an abortion, then pay for raising the fetus into its 18th birthday. :think: Just my opinion though.


----------



## Whisper22

Tianimalz said:


> I dunno... I think I rather pay for an abortion, then pay for raising the fetus into its 18th birthday. :think: Just my opinion though.


That's why there's the option to put the baby up for adoption and why a lot of people look at abortion as being extremely selfish under typical circumstances.


----------



## Tianimalz

Whisper22 said:


> That's why there's the option to put the baby up for adoption and why a lot of people look at abortion as being extremely selfish under typical circumstances.


I find it more selfish to force a child to grow up in those kinds of situations because of the post-"guilt", more then it is to stop it from happening in the first place. Again though, not trying to argue just giving my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Whisper22

Yeah I guess I just can't look at it that way.
I know a family that has 4 adopted children because they couldn't have any of their own. They wouldn't have their family if there was no adoption. These kids have good lives, with horses I might add lol, because their biological parents gave them that chance.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Whisper22 said:


> That's why there's the option to put the baby up for adoption and why a lot of people look at abortion as being extremely selfish under typical circumstances.


Don't think having an abortion doesn't leave a mark on you..
It does..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

SpottedDraftRider said:


> I'm a MA resident and my mother is currently a nurse in MA. The nurses and hospitals are overloaded, the hospitals are sending people (that should stay there) home too early, all of this is also causing doctors to screw up patient's orders, and is expensive. A lot of hospitals are barely making it by on a daily basis and are still trying to figure out what cuts (that is the cause of our under staffed hospitals) they are going to make because they are not getting the money they need.
> 
> So yes, Romney made a healthcare plan for MA. Is it a good one through the eyes of the residents? That answer depends on where you are. Is this a good plan through the eyes of our nurses and doctors? That answer is a no from every doctor and nurse.
> I honestly don't like anyone in this election, and I won't vote for a single person even if I had to.


Thank You for your input... SpottedDraftRider So do you think Obamacare is an improvement¿ Since it does follow Romney's plan pretty closely.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

SpottedDraftRider said:


> I'm a MA resident and my mother is currently a nurse in MA. The nurses and hospitals are overloaded, the hospitals are sending people (that should stay there) home too early, all of this is also causing doctors to screw up patient's orders, and is expensive. A lot of hospitals are barely making it by on a daily basis and are still trying to figure out what cuts (that is the cause of our under staffed hospitals) they are going to make because they are not getting the money they need.
> 
> So yes, Romney made a healthcare plan for MA. Is it a good one through the eyes of the residents? That answer depends on where you are. Is this a good plan through the eyes of our nurses and doctors? That answer is a no from every doctor and nurse.
> I honestly don't like anyone in this election, and I won't vote for a single person even if I had to.


Thank You for your input... SpottedDraftRider So do you think Obamacare is an improvement¿ Since it does follow Romney's plan pretty closely.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tianimalz

Whisper22 said:


> Yeah I guess I just can't look at it that way.
> I know a family that has 4 adopted children because they couldn't have any of their own. They wouldn't have their family if there was no adoption. These kids have good lives, with horses I might add lol, because their biological parents gave them that chance.


And I am very happy that that family can live happily together... but in reality, most parents who can't afford their children don't put them up for adoption, because there IS some kind of connection to them even if they don't like it. They usually just use them to live off the welfare system, in my experience. 

While you're stated situation is ideal and makes me happy, I don't think it's really the norm. And in all honesty, as a young woman still a little unsure of her future, I would rather abort the fetus then put both myself and the future child in a bad situation, as long as I had the chance before the third trimester. And unless there is some plan set in stone for the baby, I'd advise the same thing for any other teen/young single woman.


----------



## SpottedDraftRider

dirtroadangel said:


> Thank You for your input... SpottedDraftRider So do you think Obamacare is an improvement¿ Since it does follow Romney's plan pretty closely.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Honestly I don't. ObamaCare replicates most of the bad points in RomneyCare. If we put ObamaCare into effect, I can only see our nation's healthcare go down the tubes. I also can imagine that our taxes would go up again if ObamaCare is put into effect. Also keep in mind that all the politicians that supported the ObamaCare bill, most of those same politicians were not even going to use that plan.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## midnighthighway

either way... i still dont get to vote for president till next time around. pretty interesting thread though..


----------



## SEAmom

I think Obamacare will end up failing very quickly. Sadly, so many dems are against tax cuts that desperately need to happen to help get the budget on a balancing path. Before there's an argument, I understand that reps have the same problem, but they're far more willing to make the cuts that will hurt. It seems like dems are more concerned with not looking bad with it being an election year. The whole situation in our government is despicable and it's the fault of all those involved. Unfortunately, there's no way to get people in there who truly care and who would truly make a difference and help get the country back to where it needs to be. At this point, it becomes more a matter of stopping the power hungry people on top from bringing the country further down. 

I heard today on NPR that unemployment (national average) is now down to 8.1%. Now, that's good right? Haha. Had to laugh. It's because fewer and fewer of the unemployed are continuing to look. I know in Dayton, OH (small by comparison to Chicago or Detroit, but nonetheless used to be a pretty major industrial area) has watched a LOT of major industry giant move away in search of cheaper labor, cheaper taxes, etc. Ohio has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. NPR, GM, Appleton, and the list continues - all gone. By some miracle (or rather a surely hefty deal), Sam Adams has agreed to stay in Cincinnati rather than going to another state with cheaper taxes and more room for expansion. This is the problem. Taxing the corporations doesn't solve any problems. It pushes them out and forces them to go where they can afford to make a profit while still providing the masses with the goods they so enjoy at a price they're willing to pay. 

So many people tout bringing the industry back to the US. Those same people demand higher taxes on those companies. Well, that's all good and well, but what happens when those companies DO come back? Well, they have to hire union workers ($$$), they have to pay exorbitant corporate taxes ($$$), and they have to make a profit to distribute to themselves and their shareholders (as dividends) (also $$$). This means that $10 shirt now has to be $30+ to compensate for the added expenses that wouldn't have been there if they could manufacture overseas where it's considerably cheaper. There has to be a give and take, but no one wants to do that.

Ugh. Sorry for that rant. Continue the regularly scheduled programming. Btw, I'd vote for Romney any day over Nobama. Heck, if you don't want to vote for either, write yourself in! At least you're voting.


----------



## tinyliny

Taxes are lower now, for just about everyone, than they have been in decades.
Corporations have ways to avoid so many of the taxes put upon them that many of them pay, in effect, zero taxes.

However, I would agree that it's hard to compete when the market is global and you are competing against products maid overseas at a fraction of the labor costs.

However, to say that taxes keep going up is not correct. My parents paid much more of the income in taxes than I do, relative to their total income. ON the other hand, healthcare costs, and housing costs, and energy costs , were porportionately much cheaper when I was a child. Food, on the other hand, is ridiculously cheap in the US. much cheaper now than it was when I was a kid. porportionately.

Most wise economists, from either party, will say that we cannot CUT our way out of the mess. We must also raise revenue, and this usually means higher taxes. Actually COLLECTING higher taxes. bye bye loopholes!


----------



## Whisper22

dirtroadangel said:


> Thank You for your input... SpottedDraftRider So do you think Obamacare is an improvement¿ Since it does follow Romney's plan pretty closely.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I know this question wasn't meant for me but I just had to answer. 
Absolutely not. Romneycare was put into effect at a STATE level, where it was meant to be, not a national level. Google Romneycare vs Obamacare and you will get the specifics of how vastly different they are.


----------



## Faceman

tinyliny said:


> Most wise economists, from either party, will say that we cannot CUT our way out of the mess. We must also raise revenue, and this usually means higher taxes. Actually COLLECTING higher taxes. bye bye loopholes!


That is absolutely not true...unless you are defining "wise" by your own personal economic philosophy. I have no idea where you are getting that kind of misinformation. There are several schools of economic philosophy, and just as many, if not more, economists recognize that cutting taxes stimulates business expansion and job growth. Heck, even Obama has said taxes should not be raised in a recession - that's why he pushed the Democrat congressional leadership to renew the "Bush" tax cuts last year. 

As I have said before, if we would cut government spending to where it should be, we wouldn't have to worry about taxes in the first place. We already collect far more than necessary for the federal government to do its job if it would do it efficiently...


----------



## dbarabians

Faceman I don't care how many programs we cut with our deficit we need to raise revenue. Period.
Cutting taxes has not stimulated the economy by increasing spending.
Trickle down economics does not work,
The rich are doing well off their tax breaks and have been. If tax breaks worked so well then the 8 years of the Bush admionistration would have ushered in another era of prosperity.
When we in the USA borrow money instead of raise taxes that is nonsense.
The American voter has no more faith in the Republicans than they do in the Democrats.
Giving corporations tax breaks while they make record profits is absurd and speaks volumes about the power of lobbyist in DC. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val

I don't like either of them, but to me we had enough of Obama already. BTW, it's not even so much about president as it is about the team he picks. 

P.S. I don't think being a horseman has anything to do with the person being a good politician, or the president.


----------



## LittleZeasel

Unfortunately not every Horse man is automatically a good person. There is a TON of scumbags out in the Equine Industry ... In Germany we have a saying that basically leads to: "You never, ever trust a Horse Trader..".  ... 

I will not post an entire novel leading up to one important conclusion:

It doesn't matter what or who you vote for. But it matters to get informed and vote upon what your conscience dictates you to vote for. If you are happy with none of the choices, pick the one least likely to actually make the top just in order to NOT give the others your vote. Abstaining from voting, is an automatic approval of whatever happens.

History is doomed to repeat itself, it seems. Voter participation in the USA is at a sad, sad low. The majority of people don't care for politics and for the extreme views of some/most of the politicians out there - because people who do care for politics, of those, the majority leans either extreme left or right. Unfortunately, the majority doesn't vote because they don't care for the political landscape and they think that their one vote won't make a difference anyways - 

But this gives those who care just the more power (and mostly, those who do care a lot, lean either extreme right or left) !!! 
Without trying to yell Apocalypse.. But that majorly lacking political enthusiasm, political ignorance, misinformation and quietly concurring with whatever happens gave Extremists way too much power in the past - and it CAN happen again! Anywhere in the world. I could get into the whole history of Europe - during the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the events and political landscape leading up to WWI ... and yes, the horrible failure of Democracy which lead the Weimar Republic to fail in 1933. And what's worse, I can pull up a whole lot of scary parallels to nowaday's happenings all over the world, including the USA. 

We have to learn from our histories and at least attempt to not repeat it... But for that, a majority of people has to care. Every single person makes a difference to turn a minority into a majority. And only if every single one pulls their weight, things can change. Don't give power to a handful of extremists, just due to misinformation, misguidance or ignorance. 

If you have informed yourself, and think Romney is the right choice after weighing all the information and options. Go for it. If you think Ron Paul has the better Program - make a check in his box. You are convinced Obama is the right man again - vote for him. You don't like either one of them: Go to the voting office and write your opinion on your slip, do SOMEthing with it: DE-value your voting slip. I don't know exactly how it is in the USA, but if you show to vote, but then hand in an 'invalid vote' it doesn't count as a "abstained", but as "invalid" and it makes a difference in the counting, afaik - correct me if I am wrong, please.

MAYBE, if they got a voter participation of maybe 80/90% and of those 60% would claim "No valuable choices, give us better options" or something, maybe they'd actually realize, that what politics and the system is doing right now is detrimental to the country, rather than helpful?
(I know those numbers are utopic and it will never happen... but hey, I can dream, can't I?) ...

Freedom is a privilege, not a right (even though, the human right's law state it is a right - even on those human right laws, it was extremely hard fought for and still isn't the right they want it to be...) ... And in order to deal with freedom responsibly, and most of all, in order to keep it, we have to continuously keep fighting for it - and I do not mean by that, we have to invade other countries, but we have to fight for it right on our own doors, rather than knocking on our neighbor's pointing at their trash, without carrying out our own... 

I am done with my political rant now  G'night folks ..


----------



## Horse Poor

Faceman said:


> As I have said before, if we would cut government spending to where it should be, we wouldn't have to worry about taxes in the first place. We already collect far more than necessary for the federal government to do its job if it would do it efficiently...


And herein lies the rub…our problem is MANDATORY spending is out of control…and Mandatory spending is extremely hard to cut!

This is my understanding of how the budget is spent. I am not an economist and if I am in error, please let me know. That said...

The Govt. spends money in 2 ways - Mandatory spending and Discretionary spending.

Mandatory spending means just that - it MUST be spent - and consists of only two things - Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS) and the interest on the national debt. It's called entitlements because citizens are entitled to these benefits BY LAW. 

Discretionary spending is everything else and is allocated annually by 13 appropriations bills. When I say everything else, I mean exactly that! ie. Military, education, housing, intelligence, defense, infrastructure, FBI, IRS, ect.

I cannot find actual figures for recent years…so I will use the GAO's "US Financial Condition & Fiscal Future Briefing" dated 1/17/2008 where 2006 actual figures are represented.

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08446cg.pdf

If you look at the pie charts that show "mandatory, discretionary and net interest" you will see that Mandatory Spending for 2006 was 53% with the interest at 9% - that is 62% of the total budget leaving only 38% for everything else. That's 62 cents of every 1.00 was spent on only 2 things - entitlements and interest.

That's bad…and I can't imagine it's gotten better!


----------



## tinyliny

Faceman said:


> That is absolutely not true...unless you are defining "wise" by your own personal economic philosophy. I have no idea where you are getting that kind of misinformation. There are several schools of economic philosophy, and just as many, if not more, economists recognize that cutting taxes stimulates business expansion and job growth. Heck, even Obama has said taxes should not be raised in a recession - that's why he pushed the Democrat congressional leadership to renew the "Bush" tax cuts last year.
> 
> As I have said before, if we would cut government spending to where it should be, we wouldn't have to worry about taxes in the first place. We already collect far more than necessary for the federal government to do its job if it would do it efficiently...


 
I said, "raise revenue". It often means increasing taxes, or better yet, collecting the taxes that are already in place. It is true, that if the economy can be stimulated, then revenue will increase without increasing the taxes, just collect the ones that are already in place.


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Faceman I don't care how many programs we cut with our deficit we need to raise revenue. Period.
> Cutting taxes has not stimulated the economy by increasing spending.
> Trickle down economics does not work,
> The rich are doing well off their tax breaks and have been. If tax breaks worked so well then the 8 years of the Bush admionistration would have ushered in another era of prosperity.
> When we in the USA borrow money instead of raise taxes that is nonsense.
> The American voter has no more faith in the Republicans than they do in the Democrats.
> Giving corporations tax breaks while they make record profits is absurd and speaks volumes about the power of lobbyist in DC. Shalom


The primary difference between you and Tiny and myself (on this particular topic) is that you are speaking from hearsay, and I am speaking from experience and fact. I don't mean to sound preachy, but I have 24 years experience as a small business consultant and expert, 4 of which were as an Economic Development Director, 15 of which were with SBA, and 5 of which were as the Commercial Lending Manager for a large statewide bank. I know small business, and if you don't know, small businesses make up over 99% of all businesses in the US, employ over 65% of all workers, and are responsible for virtually all the new jobs created in the last 20 years.

I can't tell you how far off base some of your statements are.

You talk as if corporations hardly pay any tax and are fat cats. On what do you base that? Certainly not fact. You have too much snap to fall for the trap of thinking all corporations are like Exxon. Sure, IMO Exxon is making record profits in a recession...don't you think that hacks me off too? I won't even buy Exxon products. But don't think just because a handful of giant coporation are making record profits that that reflects corporation in general. When I retired about 15 months ago, I had about 500 corporate clients. Of that number I don't know a single one that was making record profits - most were hanging on by their toenails, and I was spending most of my time processing bankruptcies, doing loan workouts, foreclosing, and trying to come up with creative ways to prevent foreclosing. And that was in a state in which the recession was very late arriving and has been relatively minor. Both Arkansas and Oklahoma have faired much better than the rest of the country. That is the REAL world - not hearsay and not media spin. I have looked at literally thousands of personal and corporate financial statements and tax returns. I know exactly what profits they do or don't make and how much taxes they do or don't pay.

As to your statement that cutting taxes hasn't stimulated the economy, you are just plain wrong. If you need proof, evaluate what happened when Reagan cut taxes. As I have said before, businesses don't start up, expand, and create jobs without capital. Cutting taxes increases capital. Trickle economics DOES and HAS worked. Perhaps you do not have a very good grasp of just what trickle down econonmics is. It is job creation - virtually of of which is done by small businesses. Lower taxes is proven to increase employment - that is not some big dark secret. Those new jobs generate tax revenues and spinoff jobs which create further tax revenues - both of which return far more money to the treasury than the "lost" original taxes. Simple economics. Simple math. And contrary to Tiny's statement, I personally don't know of a single economist that will argue that decreasing taxes doesn't create jobs. The economists disagree on other things...some feel that increased government spending creates jobs. To increase that government spending you obviously need more revenues. But increasing taxes, and increasing government spending cancel each other out. If you cannot see the logic there, think of it this way - the government taxes businesses more, so jobs are lost, then spends the money creating jobs (and invariably more than are lost)...the result is the government loses a buck and gains a buck - no progress. Now, as I seem to be the factual and objective one in this discussion, I will tell you if the government had some magic job creation bullet that could create jobs with a reasonable investment of taxpayer dollars, I would be the first to kjump on the bandwagon. I have worked with federal and state government loans, grants, incentive programs, job training programs, technical education programs - you name it, and in general government cannot creat jobs cost efficiently. Yes, there are some good programs out there - SBA being one of them, that do a good job of creating jobs with little or no cost to the taxpayer (there is an irony there, as the Republicans have been trying to shut down SBA since Stockman under the Reagan administration - you have never heard me say Republicans are right about everything. But overall, the government's record in job creation is absurd in comparison to the private sector.

As to Bush not ushering in an era of prosperity, that is a sound bite. Why not look to the facts. Bush did not cause the recession and carries no blame. He does carry blame, along with Greenspan, for being blind to what was happening. To be redundant, look at the facts...the recession was caused primarily by the collapse of the housing industry. Why did it collapse? 1. People were stupidly buying houses they could not afford with loans that were not prudent. 2. Those loans that were not prudent were due to changes to the Community Reinvestment Act under the Clinton administration that literally forced banks to make loans to people that did not qualify for them and could not afford to repay. 3. The bubble was bound to burst eventually, as I, most bankers, and most economists, foretold. Bush's mistake was he had no economic expertise, and was too consumed with his holy crusade to give a hoot. The situation was compounded by Greenspan. He has publicly admitted the biggest failure of his career was his failure to foresee the housing collapse. People seem to want to blame banks for the housing crises. While it is true there was some hanky panky, the collapse was not caused by the banks - it was caused by stupid borrowers and by the OCC and FDIC federal bank regulators that pressured banks through the Community Reinvestment Act into making poor loans. There wasn't a darn thing the banks could do about it.

So yes, Obama did inherit a collapsing economy - I don't think anyone questions that. But under his leadership nothing has been accomplished. We have made a smidgeon of progress the last couple of months, but are still in poor shape with high unemployment, bankruptcy, and foreclosure levels. Bush and Obama both failed to resolve the problem. Heck, do you people even know where Obama's original economic advisors came from? Look it up if you want your eyes opened. We do not need the do-nothing policy of Bush, and we do not need the tax and spend policy of Obama. What we need is a competent team of economic advisors that will stimulate investment and expansion by the private sector. We absolutely do not need higher taxes so the government can go out and creat 1 lousy job for every million dollars of tax money...


----------



## Faceman

Horse Poor said:


> And herein lies the rub…our problem is MANDATORY spending is out of control…and Mandatory spending is extremely hard to cut!
> 
> This is my understanding of how the budget is spent. I am not an economist and if I am in error, please let me know. That said...
> 
> The Govt. spends money in 2 ways - Mandatory spending and Discretionary spending.
> 
> Mandatory spending means just that - it MUST be spent - and consists of only two things - Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS) and the interest on the national debt. It's called entitlements because citizens are entitled to these benefits BY LAW.
> 
> Discretionary spending is everything else and is allocated annually by 13 appropriations bills. When I say everything else, I mean exactly that! ie. Military, education, housing, intelligence, defense, infrastructure, FBI, IRS, ect.
> 
> I cannot find actual figures for recent years…so I will use the GAO's "US Financial Condition & Fiscal Future Briefing" dated 1/17/2008 where 2006 actual figures are represented.
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08446cg.pdf
> 
> If you look at the pie charts that show "mandatory, discretionary and net interest" you will see that Mandatory Spending for 2006 was 53% with the interest at 9% - that is 62% of the total budget leaving only 38% for everything else. That's 62 cents of every 1.00 was spent on only 2 things - entitlements and interest.
> 
> That's bad…and I can't imagine it's gotten better!


No, it hasn't gotten any better. But to introduce conservative philosphy, WHY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING MONEY ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MANDATORY? What is mandatory should be the only thing the government spends money on. The government is not there to make money, and is not there to look for new ways to spend money. It is there to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities - nothing more.

And within that mandatory spending, the waste, fraud, and abuse, should be eliminated. I guarantee you - and that is an absolute guaranty, IF I were in charge of the civil service system, and IF I had the power to institute the changes that are needed without being litigated by every union and entitlement minded yahoo, I could run the entire civil service MORE EFFICIENTLY on 60% of its current cost...you could probably do the very same thing, as could anyone that can walk and chew gum and knows what changes the system needs. You don't need to be a genius to figure out having 10 or 15 agencies doing the same job is stupid, or that if you can't hire good employees and fire bad ones, and pay was based upon seniority rather than performance, you would be chasing away good performers and retaining the poor ones. Money/tax problem solved right there in one fell swoop.

As I and many other people have said ad nauseum, we do not have a tax problem...we have a spending problem...


----------



## Faceman

kitten_Val said:


> I don't like either of them, but to me we had enough of Obama already. BTW, it's not even so much about president as it is about the team he picks.
> 
> P.S. I don't think being a horseman has anything to do with the person being a good politician, or the president.


Correctamundo...while all Presidents make a few bum appointments (there are, after all, huindreds and hundreds of them), invariably a good President (party doesn't matter) has made basically good appointments, and a bad President has made poor appointments. Good appointees and advisors are essential.

As to being a horseman, well when it comes to spending money, at least a horseperson has the word "whoa" in his/her vocabulary...:rofl:


----------



## SouthernTrails

Faceman said:


> Correctamundo...while all Presidents make a few bum appointments (there are, after all, huindreds and hundreds of them), invariably a good President (party doesn't matter) has made basically good appointments, and a bad President has made poor appointments. Good appointees and advisors are essential.
> 
> As to being a horseman, well when it comes to spending money, at least a horseperson has the word "whoa" in his/her vocabulary...:rofl:


As I once said 3 years ago "Faceman for President"

I know, same answer as last time... you won't run 

Keep up the good info 



.


----------



## dirtroadangel

tinyliny said:


> Taxes are lower now, for just about everyone, than they have been in decades.
> Corporations have ways to avoid so many of the taxes put upon them that many of them pay, in effect, zero taxes.
> 
> However, I would agree that it's hard to compete when the market is global and you are competing against products maid overseas at a fraction of the labor costs.
> 
> However, to say that taxes keep going up is not correct. My parents paid much more of the income in taxes than I do, relative to their total income. ON the other hand, healthcare costs, and housing costs, and energy costs , were porportionately much cheaper when I was a child. Food, on the other hand, is ridiculously cheap in the US. much cheaper now than it was when I was a kid. porportionately.
> 
> Most wise economists, from either party, will say that we cannot CUT our way out of the mess. We must also raise revenue, and this usually means higher taxes. Actually COLLECTING higher taxes. bye bye loopholes!


Taxes didn' t go up but senior citizens didn't get a cost off living for 2 years. 
Is food cheaper now? No way in thepast 5 years msny items have doubled...
Yes we spent our way into this debt so we must cut our way out of it.not in 10 or 20 years as Pelosi wants.
we shouldn't increase taxes unless we can come up with a reducrd spending budget which obviously them senate doesn't want to do.
proportionaly
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

We have to bend the cost curve down for medicare and medicaid.
We have to furlough the186,000 new federal employees that obama has added. Abolish the board off education and Gsa.
Reduce the foreign aid to 10%. 
Bring 90% back our foreign military bases.
That is just the beginning..
We need someone who is willing to make the hard choices and be capable to carry it out.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

Come On Faceman...We need common sense.
Ride that spotted pony to the White House.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horse Poor

Faceman said:


> No, it hasn't gotten any better. But to introduce conservative philosphy, WHY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING MONEY ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MANDATORY? What is mandatory should be the only thing the government spends money on. The government is not there to make money, and is not there to look for new ways to spend money. It is there to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities - nothing more.


But Mandatory spending does not include "constitutional responsibilities" - Discretionary does. Crazy I know! Constitutional responsibilities should be the ONLY thing taxes pay for - Mandatory Spending should be SELF FUNDED and was initially designed to be so. ie. It is the government's duty constitutionally to protect/defend American citizens. But the Military's budget comes from Discretionary spending - not Mandatory spending - and is appropriated annually. If Dept. of Defense needs X amount of dollars, they have to ask congress for it because it is not Mandatory. By law, citizens have to pay taxes, which is collected by the IRS and deposited in the Treasury. Both the IRS and Treasury are funded by Discretionary spending - not mandatory. If the SS trust had not been treated as a giant govt cookie jar, that fund alone would have more than covered ALL Mandatory spending today and in the future. But is was raided for everything you can imagine, and now we are in deep **** because monies that should have been in the trust isn't.

At least this is my understanding of it…if you find different, please let me know!



> And within that mandatory spending, the waste, fraud, and abuse, should be eliminated. I guarantee you - and that is an absolute guaranty, IF I were in charge of the civil service system, and IF I had the power to institute the changes that are needed without being litigated by every union and entitlement minded yahoo, I could run the entire civil service MORE EFFICIENTLY on 60% of its current cost...you could probably do the very same thing, as could anyone that can walk and chew gum and knows what changes the system needs. You don't need to be a genius to figure out having 10 or 15 agencies doing the same job is stupid, or that if you can't hire good employees and fire bad ones, and pay was based upon seniority rather than performance, you would be chasing away good performers and retaining the poor ones. Money/tax problem solved right there in one fell swoop.
> 
> As I and many other people have said ad nauseum, we do not have a tax problem...we have a spending problem...



I AGREE!


----------



## Faceman

Horse Poor said:


> But Mandatory spending does not include "constitutional responsibilities" - Discretionary does. Crazy I know! Constitutional responsibilities should be the ONLY thing taxes pay for - Mandatory Spending should be SELF FUNDED and was initially designed to be so. ie. It is the government's duty constitutionally to protect/defend American citizens. But the Military's budget comes from Discretionary spending - not Mandatory spending - and is appropriated annually. If Dept. of Defense needs X amount of dollars, they have to ask congress for it because it is not Mandatory. By law, citizens have to pay taxes, which is collected by the IRS and deposited in the Treasury. Both the IRS and Treasury are funded by Discretionary spending - not mandatory. If the SS trust had not been treated as a giant govt cookie jar, that fund alone would have more than covered ALL Mandatory spending today and in the future. But is was raided for everything you can imagine, and now we are in deep **** because monies that should have been in the trust isn't.
> 
> At least this is my understanding of it…if you find different, please let me know!


I wasn't paying any attention directly to what the budget label is - as you say, the labels make no sense - nor do the duplicative services among essentially unrelated agencies. I was just making the point that if we spend money only on what are the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government, we would not have a budget problem...we would have no federal debt plus our taxeswould be lower than they are today...


----------



## kitten_Val

Faceman said:


> at least a* horseperson has the word "whoa" *in his/her vocabulary...:rofl:


Hey, are you really positive about it? In my experience lots of horse people (me including) are real "tackaholic" (or "lessonsholic" depending on person) when it comes to spending. :rofl:


----------



## dbarabians

Faceman you claim that there are no economist that agree with raising taxes is misleading. You may not know any but, the National Association for Business Economics reports that 3/4 of the economist they surveyed agree with the bipartisan committe that Obama out together calling for spending cuts and tax increases.
Remember Reagan raised taxes and GW Bush did also.
I agree with the spending cuts but without a revenue increase the deficit will be reduced. Your grandchildren and mine will be the ones stuck with the bill.
Major corporations have received far too many tax breaks that have increased their profits as they move overseas for cheaper labour.
All the while firing or laying off workers that are now without retirement or healthcare. Who picks up the bill? the Federal Government funded by the american people. That is not heresay that is fact.
On another note i do not know you but you are inteligent and listen to both sides of the arguement. I think I could almost vote for you myself.
they used to use the term compassionate conservative. I would label you a logical conservative. 
Good points that you brought to the table in this debate. Shalom


----------



## dbarabians

OK in the above post I meant to state that without tax increases the deficit WILL NOT be reduced. Sorry Shalom


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Faceman you claim that there are no economist that agree with raising taxes is misleading. You may not know any but, the National Association for Business Economics reports that 3/4 of the economist they surveyed agree with the bipartisan committe that Obama out together calling for spending cuts and tax increases.
> Remember Reagan raised taxes and GW Bush did also.
> I agree with the spending cuts but without a revenue increase the deficit will be reduced. Your grandchildren and mine will be the ones stuck with the bill.
> Major corporations have received far too many tax breaks that have increased their profits as they move overseas for cheaper labour.
> All the while firing or laying off workers that are now without retirement or healthcare. Who picks up the bill? the Federal Government funded by the american people. That is not heresay that is fact.
> On another note i do not know you but you are inteligent and listen to both sides of the arguement. I think I could almost vote for you myself.
> they used to use the term compassionate conservative. I would label you a logical conservative.
> Good points that you brought to the table in this debate. Shalom


Yes, Reagan raised taxes - AFTER HE LOWERED THEM. Don't forget he was saddled with having to virtually rebuild the military and its assets...neither were functional when he took office. But the overall affect was taxes were still lower after Reagan than before. Republicans at that time used the "borrow and spend" philosophy, *** opposed to the Democrats' historical "tax and spend" philosophy...I am not defending either, they are just different ways of generating revenue. While it is true Reagan drove up the debt, it was small potatoes compared to our debt today...although there was certainly some buzz about it at the time, it was not concsidered a major concern because of its size. The problem with the Democrats today is that they are maintaining their tax and spend philosophy, but have also absorbed the Republicans' borrow and spend philosophy. The combination of both is devastating - as you can see today.

What I can't understand is if you are concerned with the deficit and recognize the need to reduce government spending, how can you support Obama? He does just the opposite, and is continuing to do so. The Republican proposals reduce government spending and cut the deficit - as you state you want. The Democrats have come forth with no proposals that do that - Obama's proposal continues to raise the deficit, aw well as proposing increased taxes. It seems to me you are following the wrong horse.

Again, we need to look at history. We have a serious deficit problem right now. When was the last time the deficit was reduced? It was during the high tech boom which happened to be during the Clinton administation - Democrats can feel free to take credit for it, but it really had not much to do with Clinton - look to the Congress at the time, and look to the stock market and high tech jobs created that would have happened no matter who was President (IMO). The bottom line is there was good access to capital for investments during those years and a lot of jobs were created, stimulating the economy and pumping revenues into the federal coffer. THAT is what we need now - not less capital (higher taxes) and more regulations, both of which suppress business formation and expansion...


----------



## dbarabians

I believe that healthcare is a right Faceman and a lot of other democrats that I ttalk to do also. 
I don't think education should be cut and that everyone should have access in order for them to succeed.
I do not believe that abortion, gay marriage, voter ID laws, or tax cuts for the rich are the most important issues that this country faces now.
All those things are espoused by the republican party and are given far too much priority.
That is why I will vote for Obama.
Have the republicans come up with a viable economic recovery plan?
No. The House is playing politics by passing economic reforms that they know have no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the president.
All that posturing does not allow for compromise and certain House members have refused to negotiate. All that time spent could be used to pass legislation that may not be perfect but could help our economy. Instead it was wasted so each party could have a few new sound bites to campain with. Shalom


----------



## Missy May

Well, it will pain me to vote for Romney - horseman or not. When the lesser of the two evils makes Romney a clear "have to case", its a sad day in Dodge. But, I hope he wins and turns out to be a better president than I think he would make.

As for the dogs in the crate thing, seriously? This is what the media and Obama zero in on? It allegedly occured in the 80's on a vacation trip??? Not a church service he attended every sunday for 20 years, or something? And, you never see pictures of Obama's "pre-president" days with a dog of any kind, which explains why he unapologetically reported having eaten dog meat in his own book. But, that aside, Romney's family road trip dog "make shift" carrier is what Obama feels is "pressing"??? This would explain the deficit.

There are_ plenty_ of people that would make outstanding presidents...its just that none of them ever seem to enter the race.


----------



## Samstead

Tianimalz said:


> If Romney wins, I'm packing up and moving to Canada for the next 4 years. With gas prices though I might end up having to ride there though... :think:


We'd love to have you!


----------



## tinyliny

Obama admitted eating dogmeat when he was like 9. at that age, you eat what is put on your plate. AT that time he might not have even known it was dog meat.

I don't get why people are making such a big deal about Romne putting the crate on the care. Who really IS making a big deal of that? Honestly, find something bigger and better than that. If the car was crowded and the dog 'barfy' it makes sense to put him somewhere else. I do agree that this is trivial stuff . I don't like Romney, but I wouldn't hang him for THAT!


----------



## Faceman

tinyliny said:


> Obama admitted eating dogmeat when he was like 9. at that age, you eat what is put on your plate. AT that time he might not have even known it was dog meat.
> 
> I don't get why people are making such a big deal about Romne putting the crate on the care. Who really IS making a big deal of that? Honestly, find something bigger and better than that. If the car was crowded and the dog 'barfy' it makes sense to put him somewhere else. I do agree that this is trivial stuff . I don't like Romney, but I wouldn't hang him for THAT!


Agreed...both incidents are insignificant. There is likely not a person on Earth that hasn't done some trivial thing during their lives that a lot of people would disagree with.


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> I believe that healthcare is a right Faceman and a lot of other democrats that I ttalk to do also. I understand. That is one of our differences in philosophy, but the difference between us is not as great as might appear. I believe that everyone should have access to healthcare, however where we disagree is I believe those that can afford to pay for insurance or the care should pay, and only those that cannot should be taken care of by society. I also disagree with the level of care. It is one thing for society to pay for critical care situations and quite another to pay for treatments of colds and flu and the host of insignificant issues that indigent people now flood emergency rooms with...unless of course someone is elderly or otherwise at a high risk of complications from a relatively minor incident. If I am paying my own way and choose to go to the doctor for the flu or when I stub my toe, that is my choice. But like those situations, much of healthcare is elective rather than necessary, and I do not support that type of tax supported healthcare.
> I don't think education should be cut and that everyone should have access in order for them to succeed. I don't necessarily disagree with cutting education, but I believe using the money to foster a better educational system (which we obviously don't have - ours is down the tubes), not be wasted in the hopeless, albeit noble, objective of providing an education to everyone. The latter use has accoplished little other than bringing our quality level down to the level of the lowest performers, whereas the former would strive to raise the lower performers to a higher level which, in my opinion, is a far more productive objective. Currently our educational system is not competitive with many oother countries - which I find sad. Our current system is absolutely illogical.
> I do not believe that abortion, gay marriage, voter ID laws, or tax cuts for the rich are the most important issues that this country faces now.
> All those things are espoused by the republican party and are given far too much priority. Republicans do not think those are the most important issues this country faces now, any more than Democrats do. While they are issues the Republicans are concerned about, there are far more important things to worry about. Furthermore, I am not aware of any proposals by Republicans to cut taxes for the rich. They want to cut taxes for everyone. It is the Democrats that are discriminating against one socioeconomic class -not the Republicans. You are off base here.
> That is why I will vote for Obama.
> Have the republicans come up with a viable economic recovery plan?
> No. The House is playing politics by passing economic reforms that they know have no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the president. Dead wrong here. The Republicans have come up with several viable economic recovery plans. You need to take your rose colored glasses off - the Republicans have proposed plans - the Democrats are the ones that have not. I have no idea where you have been in the last year. The Democrats are not willing to make sacrifices, but a 5th grader can tell you the only way to eliminate or greatly reduce the deficit is to make spending cuts...we cannot tax our way out of debt - not possible. There seems to be some misunderstanding that Republicans are somehow sadistic and take some kind of pleasure in seeking cuts in governmente spending. Nothing could be farther from the truth. None of us, Democrats or Republicans, want to cut any useful and productive government program, although we certainly want to eliminate unnecessary spending, and waste, fraud and abuse. But if the money isn't there it isn't there. I'm sure that in your personal life you would like to go to fancy restaurants, buy the best designer clothes, own a $100,000 horse, drive a top of the line Mercedes, and so on, but we all have to live within our budget and make some sacrifices. Spending more money than you make to the extent it causes serious issues is insane - whether it is done by people, companies, or the government.
> All that posturing does not allow for compromise and certain House members have refused to negotiate. All that time spent could be used to pass legislation that may not be perfect but could help our economy. Instead it was wasted so each party could have a few new sound bites to campain with. Very true. The parties have become far too polarized, which reflects the polarization of our general population. Far too many radical liberals and radical conservatives are being elected. A few are OK - too many results in what we see now, which is an inability to compromise to arrive at consensus. Both the people and the politicians need to return to sanity and once again realize that compromise is how our system works. I cannot get everything I want, nor can you, and if we insist on trying, we both shoot ourselves in the foot. What is best for the country invariably lies somewhere between what each side wants. I argue my side, you argue your side, and we meet somewhere in the middle. Capitol Hill just doesn't seem to be able to do that any more. Shalom


My responses in red...


----------



## dbarabians

Good morning Faceman.
I understand your points and agree with them. Our views about policiy are different though and at least we can voice them without malice.
The media play those sound bites and control the information we receive.
Yet Santorum , Perry, Cain , and Newt as well as Bachman allplace much emphasis on social issues and only Cain presented an economic plan.
The only one that I see that had the political experience and ability to become President is Newt.
Newt for all his flaws was an effective Speaker of the House and with Clinton developed and passed some very good economic reforms.
The rest are as ready as Palin was to be President.
Romney is the only one that could unite moderates and social conservatives. The only one that could challenge Obama.
In these tough economic times small businesses are deserving of tax breaks if they can prove that they are expanding , hiring, or improving their infrastructure. They are the backbone of the economy and they are at the mercy of fluctuations in our economy.
Missy May, Romney's Republican opponnets are the ones who brought the dog in the crate to the attention of the public. I agree it does not matter.
This is a man who has lived his life without much personal baggae therefore they attack him anyway they can. His family life is beyond reproach. How he made his fortune should be the focus as there are many skeletons in that closet. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Good morning Faceman.
> I understand your points and agree with them. Our views about policiy are different though and at least we can voice them without malice.
> The media play those sound bites and control the information we receive.
> Yet Santorum , Perry, Cain , and Newt as well as Bachman allplace much emphasis on social issues and only Cain presented an economic plan.
> The only one that I see that had the political experience and ability to become President is Newt.
> Newt for all his flaws was an effective Speaker of the House and with Clinton developed and passed some very good economic reforms.
> The rest are as ready as Palin was to be President.
> Romney is the only one that could unite moderates and social conservatives. The only one that could challenge Obama.
> In these tough economic times small businesses are deserving of tax breaks if they can prove that they are expanding , hiring, or improving their infrastructure. They are the backbone of the economy and they are at the mercy of fluctuations in our economy.
> Missy May, Romney's Republican opponnets are the ones who brought the dog in the crate to the attention of the public. I agree it does not matter.
> This is a man who has lived his life without much personal baggae therefore they attack him anyway they can. His family life is beyond reproach. How he made his fortune should be the focus as there are many skeletons in that closet. Shalom


We are pretty much in agreement on those issues. As we discussed earlier, the media is largely responsible for our polarization...I'm not sure what can be done about it. When we just had network television, it didn't seem to be that bad. But with the advent of all the cable/satelite channels, viewership of network TV is way, way down, and I think they are turning to sensationalism to attract viewers. I am clueless what should or could be done about it.

As to those other Republican candidates, well they are just candidates - anyone can run. They aren't going to be nominated, so what they do or don't think is not relevant to anything. You shouldn't use their positions as a benchmark of Republican philosophy - if enough Repblicans felt as one of them does, they would be getting the nomination. To assume they reflect the majority of Republicans is like me assuming Nancy Palosi or barney Frank reflect all Democrats. Santorum is unrealistic and would not compromise, Perry is not in touch with reality, Cain has some good ideas, but would be a disaster, Newt is experienced and generally in tune with mainstream conservative philosophy, but carries too much baggage, and as for Bachman - her candidacy was a total joke. I got so sick of her saying she was a tax lawyer and foster mom it made me want to puke - like either of those are qualifications for President. Even though he may not satisfy the far right of the Republican party, and even though I personally view him as a wimp, Romney is the pick of the litter of candidates. I would say Newt should be the second pick, followed by Santorum. As far as Perry, Cain, and Bachman go, they are just wannabes that have wasted their time and taxpayer dollars. They could have found other and better ways to voice their opinions and influence the party. None of the three are viable candidates for national office...


----------



## dirtroadangel

That is why I will vote for Obama.
Have the republicans come up with a viable economic recovery plan?
No. The House is playing politics by passing economic reforms that they know have no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the president.
All that posturing does not allow for compromise and certain House members have refused to negotiate. All that time spent could be used to pass legislation that may not be perfect but could help our selves

The same could be saidof the Ryan plan it's not perfect but it did pass the House with democratic votes and Harry Reid for 2 years in a row refused to even allowed a vote on the House.
Despite the facts thst statutes require the Senate to produce a budget every year Scary Harry has not even proposed a Senate for 3 years.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

Meant Senate budget. 2 years ago the Senate voted o for and 97 against (truly bipartisan) the president's budget...
The Tea party elected House members all ran on a no new taxes pledge. And untypically they are the way they promised.
Thank God for the Tea Party.... With trillions of dollars of a deficit on the line annually and weak economy.
WE MUST CUT SPENDING...Not increase taxes and weaken our economic growth.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## VT Trail Trotters

I dont bother with politics, its a mess. Its corrupt and well it will get you in a fight most cases.


----------



## natisha

kitten_Val said:


> I don't like either of them, but to me we had enough of Obama already. BTW, it's not even so much about president as it is about the team he picks.
> 
> P.S. I don't think being a horseman has anything to do with the person being a good politician, or the president.


That's true & neither does the color of their skin, how they worship or their genitalia.


----------



## Horse Poor

dbarabians said:


> I believe that healthcare is a right Faceman and a lot of other democrats that I ttalk to do also.
> I don't think education should be cut and that everyone should have access in order for them to succeed.


We have the right to bear arms, but I don't expect the government will be giving away guns to all citizens who want one anytime soon! Oh, and "access" to education is something everyone has - but not everyone can AFFORD it.


----------



## Horse Poor

Missy May said:


> Well, it will pain me to vote for Romney - horseman or not. When the lesser of the two evils makes Romney a clear "have to case", its a sad day in Dodge. But, I hope he wins and turns out to be a better president than I think he would make.


I'll be doing the same thing…and it IS sad!


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> There are several schools of *economic philosophy*, and just as many, if not more, economists recognize that cutting taxes stimulates business expansion and job growth.
> .



Talk about misconception....

The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were made with the *PROMISE* that it would stimulate business growth. Yet they did just the opposite. Growth actually decreased afterward. "Trickle down" economics is considered a joke and a "shell game" by most reputable economists.


----------



## Missy May

Horse Poor said:


> We have the right to bear arms, but I don't expect the government will be giving away guns to all citizens who want one anytime soon! Oh, and "access" to education is something everyone has - but not everyone can AFFORD it.


With respect to k-12 education in the US, everyone is taxed for it - and you're are right, we can't afford it - we are broke. The US spends more per student k-12 than any other comparable country in the world. Spending has done nothing but increase for decades, yet the level of education has done nothing but decline. Which tells us? Funding ain't the problem. The tuition for the vast majority of private schools is considerably less than what is spent per student in public schools, yet they consistently score higher. Which again tells us? Funding ain't the problem.

It really irritates me to hear anyone say we need to spend more on education (k-12). Few politicians will not pander to their "potential voters" on this issue by promising "more funding".

And, the actual amount _spent_ per individual student is not equal. Far from it. 

Sorry for the soap box...but this issue drives me crazy.


----------



## SouthernTrails

Allison Finch said:


> Talk about misconception....
> 
> The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were made with the *PROMISE* that it would stimulate business growth. Yet they did just the opposite. Growth actually decreased afterward. "Trickle down" economics is considered a joke and a "shell game" by most reputable economists.


If the Bush Tax Cuts were so bad as you say, why has Obama made sure they were extended?....lol....



.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> Talk about misconception....
> 
> The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were made with the *PROMISE* that it would stimulate business growth. Yet they did just the opposite. Growth actually decreased afterward. "Trickle down" economics is considered a joke and a "shell game" by most reputable economists.


An isolated situation has absolutely nothing to do with a "misconception". If I have a "misconception" about that theory, than so do most of the economists in the world.

Rarely, if ever, will you find me defending Dubya...as I have said before, he couldn't spell economics. Bush was hit with the housing collapse, which I have pointed out in an earlier post neither he nor Greenspan had enough snap to forsee, and the Wall Street banking fiasco. While those contributed to the ensuing economic collapse, they have absolutely nothing to do with economic philosophies. Your statement is irrelevant to my post. The incompetence of a President has nothing to do with economic theory - that should be self evident in the case of both Bush and Obama, both of whom have been absolute economic failures - one on each side of the issue. On that basis, logic would dictate that neither philosophy works if the competency element of them and their staffs were not considered.

This statement...


> "Trickle down" economics is considered a joke and a "shell game" by most reputable economists


...is your personal opinion.What are your qualifications to determine and judge the reputation and qualifications of economists? There are "reputable" economists on both sides of the tax/spend issue...


----------



## SouthernTrails

dbarabians said:


> I believe that healthcare is a right Faceman and a lot of other democrats that I ttalk to do also.
> I don't think education should be cut and that everyone should have access in order for them to succeed.
> I do not believe that abortion, gay marriage, voter ID laws, or tax cuts for the rich are the most important issues that this country faces now.
> All those things are espoused by the republican party and are given far too much priority.
> That is why I will vote for Obama.
> Have the republicans come up with a viable economic recovery plan?
> No. The House is playing politics by passing economic reforms that they know have no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the president.
> All that posturing does not allow for compromise and certain House members have refused to negotiate. All that time spent could be used to pass legislation that may not be perfect but could help our economy. Instead it was wasted so each party could have a few new sound bites to campain with. Shalom


Obama had full control of House and Senate for two years, where was recovery plan that actually worked ? 

Obama has managed to raise our National Debt by over 50% since taking office

Stimulus was a hoax, I think it averaged 235,000.00 for every supposed job created or saved....

After 3 years we still have no Budget passed, 2 years we had 100% Democratic Control

We lost a point in our Economic rating

Obama last Jobs Plan got ZERO votes even from Democrats

Republicans have come up with 5 Economic plans, everyone of them has been either threatened by a Veto before it got off the ground or never allowed to be brought up in the Senate

Obama shouts bi-partisanship...lol... if that were actually true America would be in a lot better shape

The list could go on for pages and pages

The writing is on the wall................



.


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> An isolated situation has absolutely nothing to do with a "misconception".


If you say so.....



> ...is your personal opinion.*What are your qualifications to determine and judge the reputation and qualifications of economists?* There are "reputable" economists on both sides of the tax/spend issue...



Lots of study, listening to both sides of the story, and learning from some of the most respected economists in the world AND not coming from a strong banking connection. A few interesting sites;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy


----------



## Allison Finch

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> If the Bush Tax Cuts were so bad as you say, why has Obama made sure they were extended?....lol....
> 
> 
> 
> .


Uh....because he was *forced* to extend the upper percentile cuts? :-x


----------



## kitten_Val

dirtroadangel said:


> WE MUST CUT SPENDING...


Agree. Spending should be considered first (and considered wisely). 

Personally I don't believe raising taxes will improve the situation (and some states experience in fact show the opposite). As long as money will disappear in "black hole".


----------



## SouthernTrails

Allison Finch said:


> Uh....because he was *forced* to extend the upper percentile cuts? :-x


Excuse me, Obama had tax cuts in 2009 and an extension of the Bush Tax cuts late in 2010, both of which were when The House and The Senate were Democrats...... Forced? :lol:


.


----------



## Horse Poor

Allison Finch said:


> If you say so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of study, listening to both sides of the story, and learning from some of the most respected economists in the world AND not coming from a strong banking connection. A few interesting sites;
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html
> 
> Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy


I went to the links you provided…the NY Times wanted me to log in, which I am not going to do as I do not want an account with them. And the other site is deeply biased. Here is their Mission Statement, Vision and Goals copied directly from the About section of their website:

"MISSION
UFE raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We support and help build social movements for greater equality.
VISION
Our vision is of a global society where prosperity is better shared, where there is genuine equality of opportunity, where the power of concentrated money and corporations neither dominates the economy nor dictates the content of mass culture. We envision a society in which values, not profits alone, guide economic decisions.
*
GOALS
Our goals are to close the growing wealth divide, to change the rules that tilt tax benefits toward the wealthy, to spotlight the role of race in economic inequality, and to serve as a forum where different races, different cultures, and people with varying degrees of wealth can come together to work for economic justice."
*


----------



## SouthernTrails

kitten_Val said:


> Agree. Spending should be considered first (and considered wisely).
> 
> Personally I don't believe raising taxes will improve the situation (and some states experience in fact show the opposite). As long as money will disappear in "black hole".


 So True, It is a fantasy to think Taxing the Rich is the answer..... 

Kitten, the following is not directed at you, only posted to further expand on my agreement with what you said....

"But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode."

"Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. "

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really. - Forbes

Taxing the Rich is Just a way for the Democrats to Create Wealth Envy and scare the un-educated into voting for them....

If they only realized that most jobs are attributed to small business and most small business owners file under their personal Tax forms, Taxing them more will cost Jobs.

Another fact, rich people buy expensive toys, like boats, planes, all these are created by people needing jobs.

Another fact, Tax big business' like Obama and the Democrats want, will only result in the higher costs being past onto the consumers, do we all need to pay more for food, gas, clothes, etc right now?

Do they still teach economics in school? if they do, who have they been hiring in the last 20 years....agghhhhhhh

You cannot spend your way out of a recession......... it has been tried way too many time and failed, we have tried it and a dozen Countries have tried it.... it does not work.


OK... Rant over 



.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Allison Finch said:


> Uh....because he was *forced* to extend the upper percentile cuts? :-x


I love the way people think Obama can do no wrong.
He is either forced into it or it's still all Bush's fault.
And of course those darn republicans...
Despite the Bush tax cuts then total revenue from taxes has dlightly increased in then past 3years but her has managed spend that plus 5 trillion we didn't hsve.
No president in history has come close to incurring5trillion in deficit spending . 
I know it's Bush.s fault...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> If you say so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of study, listening to both sides of the story, and learning from some of the most respected economists in the world AND not coming from a strong banking connection. A few interesting sites;
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html
> 
> Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy


Hah...this made me chuckle. Well if you want to study objectively, I suggest you study all sides of an issue. The NY Times is a liberal publication, and Robert Frank, who wrote the article, is an extreme leftist. As for the trickle down article, you have to be kidding...the Author is from Iran and specializes in middleeast policies. And this is the mision statement of the publication...



> Mission
> UFE raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We support and help build social movements for greater equality.


 For every article you can post by a liberal, I can post one or more from the conservative side, but neither yours nor mine would prove a thing, other than economists do not agree, which I have mentioned several times.

As for your not so subtle remark about bankers, please be reminded - or please understand if you don't know the difference - a "Wall Street banker" and a community banker are two completely different animals. The term "banker" shouldn't even be applied to both - that is like calling both doctors and lab techs "doctors". This whole discussion has been pretty civil without people making disparaging remarks to one another - it is possible you know, to argue your views and beliefs without getting personal. Honestly, I am rather insulted by the implication. In my 24 or so years in public service and small business banking, I helped over 1,000 small businesses start up and helped to create over 10,000 jobs. I have also served under both Democrat and Republican Administrations, and as a government spokesperson had to learn and "sell" both sides, whether I agreed with them or not. You may disagree with my politics, but there is no need to be insulting - no one else has been that I can recall...


----------



## tinyliny

dirtroadangel said:


> I love the way people think Obama can do no wrong.
> He is either forced into it or it's still all Bush's fault.
> And of course those darn republicans...
> Despite the Bush tax cuts then total revenue from taxes has dlightly increased in then past 3years but her has managed spend that plus 5 trillion we didn't hsve.
> No president in history has come close to incurring5trillion in deficit spending .
> I know it's Bush.s fault...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
I do not think Obama can do no wrong. And, I will be honest to say that some folks here have raised some points , critical points , that I think I should look at again. But, as you know, the president is actually responsible for only a fraction of what actually gets passed into law. Waht I liked, and still do abotu Obama, is that he has the willingness to say we must look at the future long term. We cannot continually go backward for solutions to out current problems becuase we are in a whole new world now. We cannot retreat from the rest of the world. We cannot erect walls to keep out undesireables, we cannot burn fossil fuels forever, we cannot ignore the growing disparity of wealth/poverty. The solutions have to be creative and will most likely be painful, but will it be more painful that doing nothing? 

Paramount to me is that most people, scientsts especially, agree that we have limited amount of time to make changes to slow down the current climate trends. At a certain point, it is firmly felt that the global weather mechanisms will be beyond the point where anything we do can change their trajectory. And the trajectory will be really , really ugly.

Someone has to stand up and say, we must do something to preserve a good life for our grand children.
Now, I know that Obama made a lot of promises that he diden't keep. Name me the politician who doesn't/hasnt'. But, he has (or is it had) the courage to at least be willing to say the uncomfortable and has tried, against a tide of feet dragging senators and congressmen, to do what he could. 

I liked the idea that he had a vision. I see NO vision at all with Romney. Just safe , pull in your head, say what they want to hear business as usual.


----------



## Faceman

tinyliny said:


> We cannot continually go backward for solutions to out current problems becuase we are in a whole new world now. We cannot retreat from the rest of the world. We cannot erect walls to keep out undesireables, we cannot burn fossil fuels forever, we cannot ignore the growing disparity of wealth/poverty. The solutions have to be creative and will most likely be painful, but will it be more painful that doing nothing?
> 
> Paramount to me is that most people, scientsts especially, agree that we have limited amount of time to make changes to slow down the current climate trends. At a certain point, it is firmly felt that the global weather mechanisms will be beyond the point where anything we do can change their trajectory. And the trajectory will be really , really ugly.
> 
> Someone has to stand up and say, we must do something to preserve a good life for our grand children.
> Now, I know that Obama made a lot of promises that he diden't keep. Name me the politician who doesn't/hasnt'. But, he has (or is it had) the courage to at least be willing to say the uncomfortable and has tried, against a tide of feet dragging senators and congressmen, to do what he could.
> 
> I liked the idea that he had a vision. I see NO vision at all with Romney. Just safe , pull in your head, say what they want to hear business as usual.


I think we all feel the same way about those issues - at least I hope everyone does. The devil is in the details of how we accomplish it. To reduce it to 25 words or less, conservatives want to do it within the framework of what made our country what it is. Liberals - at least the radical liberals like Obama - want to change our country into something altogether different. There is an old saying...dance with the one that brung you, and there is much to be said about that.

I have been a naturalist and environmentalist at heart since I was a small child. I honestly hate what the term environmentalist has become, because it is now associated with radical bunny lickers and tree huggers. There are indeed things happening to our environment that are very scary and portend disaster in the future if changes aren't made. It is sad that the almighty dollar and yen take precedence over the future of our Earth. I have walked the Gulf Coast beaches in south Texas (outside the parks, which are kept clean), stepping through miles and miles of rubber gloves and other medical waste that has washed ashore. I can only imagine what the ocean bottom must look like offshore. If you want to see first hand what how vast polution is, go to Corpus Christi, drive out to Mustang Island, and drive south along the beach until you are through the state park, get out, and walk the beach. It is apalling and very eye opening. Many people misunderstand the atmosphere. To get a perspective, take a typically sized school globe and hold a piece of paper on it - that is how thick the atmosphere is...outside of that is space. I am not too conceerned about what happens in the US, as we have taken many steps to improve things, and will continue to take more, but countries like China scare me to death...their polution doesn't just stop at their borders, any more than the fallout from Chernoble was only in the (then) Soviet Union.

It concerns me that the radical environmentalists have polarized people so that there are more wackos on both sides. We need to be somewhere in the middle where we use, but don't abuse, our environment. We need to be concerned, but radicalism does nothing more than create a backlash, e.g. PETA and the Audubon Society and the bachlash against animal activists that has transpired. I am old enough to remember when the Audubon Society was a very respected organization well within the mainstream...


----------



## PaintHorseMares

I have no desire to enter political bantering, but since there is so much discussion today about taxes, business investment, jobs, and the relationship between them, I wanted to post some things to think about from my years in the corporate world. I have worked 30 years for 2 high tech corporations in the top 20 of the Fortune 500 involved with the delivery of technical services, including their financial funding and measurements.
Corporations have plenty of money to invest. There are a number of reasons that they choose not to invest in certain projects and markets, but one of the biggest reasons is tied to the ‘pay for performance’ bonuses that have become popular in the last 10 years. If you have a project or idea that requires investment and doesn’t return a positive ROI by the end of the year, you have the fight of your life getting funding for it. Why? Because performance bonuses and ratings (especially executive) are paid based on year end financial measurements, and these (negative ROI) investments would drag down the numbers. Bottom line…companies will prefer quick (1-2 quarter) profits (or savings) over long term (> 1 year) _even if the results from the long term investment are orders of magnitude better_.
Corporations _hate_ hiring people. 25 years ago we factored in qualitative measurements, as imprecise as they are, when looking at staffing and personnel costs, e.g. a person’s experience, training, education, and loyalty had _value_ to the business. In today’s short term, bottom line financial thinking, people are only _liabilities_, and _costly_ liabilities at that (benefits, managing them, etc.). Face it, people are a PITA, and if you can squeeze more work out of your on board staff, or leave a job opening unfilled, you do it; e.g. the typically expectation now of a salaried employee is that they work 15% overtime. You don’t want to know how many funded, un-staffed positions are typically carried on the books and are never posted, advertised, or filled.
I’m off my soapbox and now, back to our feature presentation…..


----------



## Missy May

tinyliny said:


> I do not think Obama can do no wrong. And, I will be honest to say that some folks here have raised some points , critical points , that I think I should look at again. But, *as you know, the president is actually responsible for only a fraction of what actually gets passed into law.* Waht I liked, and still do abotu Obama, is that he has the willingness to say we must look at the future long term. We cannot continually go backward for solutions to out current problems becuase we are in a whole new world now. We cannot retreat from the rest of the world. We cannot erect walls to keep out undesireables, we cannot burn fossil fuels forever, we cannot ignore the growing disparity of wealth/poverty. The solutions have to be creative and will most likely be painful, but will it be more painful that doing nothing?
> 
> Paramount to me is that most people,* scientsts especially, agree that we have limited amount of time to make changes to slow down the current climate trends.* At a certain point, it is firmly felt that the global weather mechanisms will be beyond the point where anything we do can change their trajectory. And the trajectory will be really , really ugly.
> 
> Someone has to stand up and say, we must do something to preserve a good life for our grand children.
> Now, I know that Obama made a lot of promises that he diden't keep. Name me the politician who doesn't/hasnt'. But, he has (or is it had) the courage to at least be willing to say the uncomfortable and has tried, against a tide of feet dragging senators and congressmen, to do what he could.
> 
> I liked the idea that he had a vision. I see NO vision at all with Romney. Just safe , pull in your head, say what they want to hear business as usual.


I realize I am butting in, but you said something I frequently hear people say for one president of their liking, but not the next to their "dis-liking". Specifically, *as you know, the president is actually responsible for only a fraction of what actually gets passed into law.* I am not saying you are one of those people. I am no fan of Bush's, and I have no party, but it just seems Obama got elected in large part b/c people bought into His Campaign rhetoric that Bush was responsible for everything including the weather and Obama knew how change "it" all...and could skip the houses and the court - b/c, what, he would be King?

Your second statement bolded above, specifically, "*scientsts especially, agree that we have limited amount of time to make changes to slow down the current climate trends",* with all due respect, is not true. Scientists rarely ever agree on anything, and this is no exception. I am not saying it does not concern me, personally, I am just saying that well respected scientists have provided well supported arguments for both "sides". Be that what it may, the US President does not control Asia. And, from the looks of the build up of China's military, we aren't going to any time soon. China is exempt from just about all environmental agreements, as is most all of Asia. Preservation of what is left of the planet's habitats is extremely important to me...but I find any US president's "promise for change" in this world's environment nothing more than a guarantee to significanlty increase the debt, w/o any measurable results. Obama is not only not an exception - he is an example.

Just my $2.00 worth (inflation).


----------



## dbarabians

Faceman and Tinyliny you have made very good and valid points about the enviroment.
I have lived in foreign countries and traveled to several developing countries including China. They have very few regulations if any and if they do they are not enforced.
Mexico is not any better.
The damage done to this planet needs to be slowed and then halted for the good of us all.
With the economic indicators that were released this week it does appear that the economy will be less of an issue than expected. It is on the mend.
However with Romney budget proposal education and other programs especially healthcare for the poor will take big hits,
It appears that Romney has declared war on the poor. 
That ought to cost him a few votes. As our friend Faceman posted "dance with the one that brung ya" Shalom


----------



## tinyliny

the behavior of China , with their almost total lack of effort to control the environmental degredation of their industry is really disconcerting, to say the least. It is very angering. We have to ALL get on board. but, we have to start somewhere, and I guarantee you they won't be the first.

We are still far and away the largest consumers of world resources per capita than any of the other nations, at least the developoing nations. We have the largest overall impact on global environmental degredation, when you add up what we create at home and what is created abroad to fill our Walmart stores with consumer goods from China and India.


----------



## Missy May

Tiny, the problem I see with the US having to be the leader in "starting somewhere" is both the deficit, and "how" we "start somewhere". China doesn’t have a deficit, largely thanks to the US. And, they are quickly “catching up” in the area of consumerism. If they had the same regulations, their products would be more expensive than domestic made. The only effective “part” the US can do is increase the import tax to the degree necessary to make the price of imported products equivalent to those manufactured under the same regulations and controls as US products. Any US president or presidential candidate that believes we can solve the “environmental problem” by borrowing tons more money from China to spend on R&D for a _potential _future viable alternative energy source(s) or to pay for the destruction of cars is not what I would call an “environmentally minded” individual. One can’t argue the US can’t “isolate itself”, if they are going to also isolate and blame the US for most all the environmental insults caused by man (I am not saying you do, but _many_ do). 

And, this country has a surplus of natural gas – a massive surplus…and the R&D has already been done…a long time ago – it burns a whole lot clearer than petro and cars can run on it just fine. But, the hugely expensive cash for clunkers program that gave participants $$ for cars that ran on gasoline to put toward cars that run on less gasoline was an "energy/environmental solution”, seriously? 

But, if we do as Obama would like, and go deeper in debt searching for a future viable alternative nrg source to be discovered whilst impeding the use and extraction of all those currently known - our regulations will, in fact, be exactly like China's.....and US regulations will no longer be discussed in the "present" tense.


----------



## tinyliny

The cash for clunkers was not for the environment. It was all about helping out the us auto industry. remember that even foreign cars are frequently manufactured here. The money gained by this by the auto industry off set what the government paid, and then sales taxes were paid on all the new cars sold to replace clunkers, so it comes back to the treasury, at least in part.

I would dearly love to slap huge import duties on all things from China. I really hate the way we are like aphids being milked by ants, for the sugersap we produce (wierd analogy, I know). But, do you know who most hollers when we talk more import duties? US retailers and large corporations, that's who. They make money by having the Chinese products to sell. 
For every person who loses a job by having cheap imports , there's one who gains a job on the back of cheap imports. Its' a hard balance to make.

And yes, we are owned by the Chinese practically, but they know that if we go down, so will they. They literally cannot afford to have us go down.


----------



## PaintHorseMares

Business soapbox on (again)

With all the current talk about China and the environment, keep your eyes on the following geographies as off shoring of American jobs continues. Although you have seen some manufacturing jobs come back, the tide is still going out for high tech jobs. Here is a quick summary of the global migration of US jobs in the companies I work(ed) over the last 10 years..

- Canada. One of the first places US jobs went. No longer business attractive compared to 'third world' countries.
- Brazil. Still attractive, but growing less so comparatively. If you want to see an environmental disaster, go to Brazil.
- Argentina - Political uncertainly has kept this on the low side.
- India. Very business attractive because of huge infrastructure investments that India has made.
- China. Business attractive and growing.
- Warsaw Pact countries (i.e. eastern Europe). Attractive, but more so to European companies.

The good news for all you Aussies out there is that Australia is not considered 'business friendly', so you're safe!

Business soapbox off.


----------



## dbarabians

tinyliny the USA does indeed fuel the worlds economy.
Like you said "if we go down they go down", plus they are making billions off the interest alone.
The cash for clunkers was a very successful program and kept auto workers employed.
Who would have picked up the tab if they had lost their jobs? The USD government.
Now the auto industry is booming and one of the bright spots in our economy. Shalom


----------



## Patriot

dbarabians said:


> tinyliny the USA does indeed fuel the worlds economy.
> Like you said "if we go down they go down", plus they are making billions off the interest alone.
> The cash for clunkers was a very successful program and kept auto workers employed.
> *Who would have picked up the tab if they had lost their jobs? The USD government.*
> Now the auto industry is booming and one of the bright spots in our economy. Shalom


Detroit is hardly a bright spot, who won from that deal...the unions - who lost the taxpayer. The federal government shouldn't have gotten involved. 

Ref C4C, how do you define success?


----------



## kitten_Val

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> "Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. ".


ST, don't get me even start on Maryland. The current governor (elected mostly by 2 poorest but big counties with the very high % of people on welfare) brought the state down quite badly in last several years. 

I remember CA was trying something similar, and businesses just moved to AZ instead taking all money there.


----------



## kitten_Val

tinyliny said:


> For every person who loses a job by having cheap imports , there's one who gains a job on the back of cheap imports. Its' a hard balance to make.


I disagree, tiny. If we look at IT jobs, when they are taken out of country _noone _here in US gain a job.


----------



## NdAppy

And there are some jobs that need to stay within the US... such as medical transcription for the healthcare centers. There are no protections for anyone's medical records if they are sent overseas for transcribing where as in the US we have guidelines and regulations that we have to follow. 

One example is an overseas company publish some medical records to the internet as "examples" Didn't take out the patient's name or anything. His full history, account number, personal information, etc, was all available online. The company that did it saw nothing wrong with doing so. They didn't/don't comply with all the current regulations protecting your healthcare information. 

The reason it gets shipped out? It's cheaper to pay someone over seas to type than it is for them to pay some in country MTs.


----------



## Patriot

dbarabians said:


> However with Romney budget proposal education and other programs especially healthcare for the poor will take big hits,
> *It appears that Romney has declared war on the poor. *


Wow, war...I looked on his website didn't see a declaration of war. So trying to implement some degree of fiscal responsibility in the Federal Government is declaring war? What exactly do you think he's going to do that's got you so spooked?


----------



## Missy May

tinyliny said:


> The cash for clunkers was not for the environment. It was all about helping out the us auto industry. remember that even foreign cars are frequently manufactured here. The money gained by this by the auto industry off set what the government paid, and then sales taxes were paid on all the new cars sold to replace clunkers, so it comes back to the treasury, at least in part.


 
The program's actual stated purposes were to _reduce air pollution_, and, as you said, to help the U.S. auto manufacturers. 

The loss to the environment (total footprint represented by the manufacture of both car 1 and 2, and destruction of car 1) was huge. If its _only_ about the government helping industry - then why have any environmental controls (state, local and federal regulations)? Why stop drilling, etc.,.? This was a horrible program - environmentally speaking - yet it was sold, _in part_, on "reduce pollution". It upsets me no end.


----------



## Horse Poor

tinyliny said:


> The cash for clunkers was not for the environment. It was all about helping out the us auto industry. remember that even foreign cars are frequently manufactured here. The money gained by this by the auto industry off set what the government paid, and then sales taxes were paid on all the new cars sold to replace clunkers, so it comes back to the treasury, at least in part.


Sales taxes do NOT go into the treasury - they go into LOCAL coffers. And no, the auto industry did not off set the 3 BILLION tax payer dollars the program cost. The program also did not help the poor - most poor could not afford a new car even with the rebate/incentive. It was all about the environment, nothing else, and all it did was add to the deficit. 

C4C is just another example of what can happen when the govt. tries to fix a problem they don't understand. 

Just my .02 cents worth, as usual!


----------



## Patriot

Horse Poor said:


> Sales taxes do NOT go into the treasury - they go into LOCAL coffers. And no, the auto industry did not off set the 3 BILLION tax payer dollars the program cost. The program also did not help the poor - most poor could not afford a new car even with the rebate/incentive. *It was all about the environment, nothing else, and all it did was add to the deficit. *
> 
> C4C is just another example of what can happen when the govt. tries to fix a problem they don't understand.
> 
> Just my .02 cents worth, as usual!


If I could add to what you said, I believe that it was all about the "perception" of it being about the environment. I believe that more often than not politicians (both parties) try to paint a picture of trying to help (pick a noble cause) but if you look behind the curtain the truth reveals something completely different.


----------



## Patriot

I deleted my post, don't want to derail the discussion by posting a YouTube video.


----------



## Faceman

Patriot said:


> If I could add to what you said, I believe that it was all about the "perception" of it being about the environment. I believe that more often than not politicians (both parties) try to paint a picture of trying to help (pick a noble cause) but if you look behind the curtain the truth reveals something completely different.


The "something else", of course, is the unions and the union vote, as someone mentined earlier.

The cash for clunker program was one of the stupidest things done by government in my memory. The short term gain was OK, but the long term net gain was nothing. It was under the guise of polution, of course, but was a gesture to the environmentalists and unions in an off year with the mid term election coming the following year. The Republicans tried to kill it in the Senate, but were overridden by the Democrat majority.

Bottom line: $3 billion of your tax dollars to buy votes. It wasn't the first time, and won't be the last...both parties do it...


----------



## dbarabians

Patriot to escape poverty people need an education and skills that employers are looking for. In the long run cutting education assures us of an unprepared segment of our soceity. It is one of the programs that IMO should never be cut.
We need to improve the way we do it.
Also cutting student loans means less access to collge educations for those that can least afford them.
Cutting healthcare especially for the poor will limit access to preventive healcare that can and does save lives.
If you make less than a certain amount of money is your life worth less than say Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?
Hardly.
It is interesting to note that both these billionares support raising taxes and many democratic causes.
In the longterm health of this country education and healthcare are invaluable. Funding these programs not only makes sense it is morally justified. Shalom


----------



## Patriot

Hmmm, I don't believe that it's the roll of the federal government to provide them. People CAN ESCAPE poverty (if they have the will) without the help of the federal government. Our current president is a valid example of this, so is Gates. 

Ref college and healthcare, again, not the role of the feds. Completely agree that something is seriously screwed up with the healthcare situation BUT uncle sugar ain't gonna fix it. 

I hate mixing apples and oranges but the fact that this country is dead broke is another reason NOT to continue OR increase these or other entitlement programs.


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Patriot to escape poverty people need an education and skills that employers are looking for. In the long run cutting education assures us of an unprepared segment of our soceity. It is one of the programs that IMO should never be cut.
> We need to improve the way we do it.
> Also cutting student loans means less access to collge educations for those that can least afford them.
> Cutting healthcare especially for the poor will limit access to preventive healcare that can and does save lives.
> If you make less than a certain amount of money is your life worth less than say Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?
> Hardly.
> It is interesting to note that both these billionares support raising taxes and many democratic causes.
> In the longterm health of this country education and healthcare are invaluable. Funding these programs not only makes sense it is morally justified. Shalom


As to escaping poverty, the first step is not education, it is assimilating the desire to WANT to escape from poverty, and putting forth the effort to do so. While that may sound silly to some, I have worked in "underserved" communities long enough to know there is a very large segment of the "poor" who will assimilate neither.

As to "cutting" healthcare, if we properly manage the government subsidized healthcare we have now, we can cut the cost substantially without cutting services. The first step is limiting welfare, food stamps, and medicaid to those that really need them. The second step is to eliminate the fraud and abuse associated with all welfare programs. Should that not generaste sufficient money, which it would of course, then look to other alternatives. But the first sdtep should always be to fix what is wrong with the existing system - not throw the baby out with the bathwater and burden taxpayers further than they already are.

As to education, I agree - every viable economic development plan recoognizes the imortance of education and how it should be addressed in a community. Education is extremely important. But when it comes to education, quality should take precedence over quantity. Extraplolated to the extreme, 1 college graduate that can write his name is more valuable than 100 graduates that can't. We are not a socialist country. It is not the government's responisbility to provide a higher education to everyone. I went to college without being subsidized by family or the government. If I can do it, so can anyone. It does take ambition and effort, though. But if you don't have the ambition and are too lazy to put forth the effort, an education is going to do you little good anyway. There is more to education than book learning - that is only a foundation. Work ethic is far more important than education. I have known hundreds of college graduates that were underemployed - even in "good times". I have also know hundreds of college graduates that are not as well educated as the average high school graduate 40 years ago. It is not necessary for everyone to go to college, and frankly I feel there are many that do go that would be better served following another path. Easy access to tuition money, easy passing grades, and guaranteed diplomas as long as your tuition is paid, do not instill work ethic. There was a time when a degree meant something - it demonstrated a person had the drive to potentially make a good employee. Today a degree means very little, at least from the majority of schools, and an employer has to look much deeper than the degree and grades to determine the potential of an applicant. As I have said countless times, our education system is broken.

As to Bill Gates, I don't understand your point. Like most Republicans, he has a social conscience and will support some programs which might be interpreted as liberal, and will oppose others. The same applies to me, or just about anyone else unless they are way to the radical right. The same can be said about liberals...with the excpetion of the radicals, most liberals support some conservative values - particularly on fiscal issues. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be stereotyped based upon the wackos...


----------



## SouthernTrails

Faceman said:


> It is not the government's responisbility to provide a higher education to everyone.


Exactly.....

What ever happened to Personal Responsibility?

What ever happened to Pride?

What ever happened to Sacrifice and Hard Work?

Why should the Government provide everything? This includes Healthcare, Housing, Housing, Food, etc. What is next a Free Car? Free Vacations?

I do agree that it is our duty as humans to help the Sick and Elderly, also those that have fallen on hard times from no choice of their own.

Like Faceman, I worked 2 jobs to put myself through College, I did not expect, want or Demand someone else do it for me.

Over the years I have met many people who lived in a nicer apartment than I could ever afford, drove a nicer car and had more spending money, why? Section 8 housing and Welfare.... Every one of these people were able bodied, strong and had no physical or mental handicaps, only problem most of them had had was knowing how to work the system and a lack of personal responsibility.

So if Romney or any other Politician wants to put the brakes on Socializing America then more power to them.

It is very tiring to see Americans becoming the Gimme Gimme Society and I Deserve everything Free......


.


----------



## SouthernTrails

*Welfare Pays Better Than Work, Study Finds*

.

This is not the article I read a few weeks ago, but it tells the same story..

Welfare Pays Better Than Work, Study Finds

I wonder why Romney wants to cut some Social Programs? ....lol.....



.


----------



## Patriot

Faceman said:


> Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be stereotyped based upon the wackos...


Just curious, who do you considered the right wing wacko's...Teaparty? 

I've seen the distinctions between the two parties slowly dissolve and back-fill with a progressive agenda, so from my perspective neither stand for what they did in the past. 

To me I'd stick the left wing wacko label on the OWS core because they tend to represent a Marxist, Communist, Anarchist agenda but not sure who I'd hand the right wing "wacko" label on. Who knows maybe I am one, :shock: I believe that a small, fiscally responsible federal government based upon our Constitution is a pretty good thing.


----------



## Faceman

Patriot said:


> Just curious, who do you considered the right wing wacko's...Teaparty?
> 
> I've seen the distinctions between the two parties slowly dissolve and back-fill with a progressive agenda, so from my perspective neither stand for what they did in the past.
> 
> To me I'd stick the left wing wacko label on the OWS core because they tend to represent a Marxist, Communist, Anarchist agenda but not sure who I'd hand the right wing "wacko" label on. Who knows maybe I am one, :shock: I believe that a small, fiscally responsible federal government based upon our Constitution is a pretty good thing.


Depends upon your definition of wacko...:rofl:

To me, a wacko is someone that is irrational and incapable of thinking logically. Both parties have them.

An example of a right wing wacko would be someone that believes in doing away with all welfare or all taxes...neither is a viable option and the person is obviously from Wackovania. Another example would be a person that hates those not exactly like him/her to the extent he/she would effect a negative influence on someone's life. Prejudice is one thing...to act on that prejudice is quite another. 

Examples of left wing wackos are.....Obama and Pelosi...people that want to change the country to something it isn't and doesn't want to become. They believe 1% of the population should support the remaining 99%...they believe we should abandon our family and cultural values...they believe we should give up our position as a world leader and become just another knight sitting at the round table...they believe people are born entitled to be taken care of and provided for whether they make a contribution to society or not...


----------



## Patriot

Faceman said:


> Depends upon your definition of wacko...:rofl:
> 
> To me, a wacko is someone that is *irrational* and *incapable* of thinking logically. Both parties have them.


and or *unwilling* too....

Agree, thanks. 

Would be nice to see critical thinking, and objective analysis exercised a bit more, we're in a time when it getting very difficult to find the truth and not spin - it takes time and effort.


----------



## Faceman

Patriot said:


> Would be nice to see critical thinking, and objective analysis exercised a bit more, we're in a time when it getting very difficult to find the truth and not spin - it takes time and effort.


I know...that's why threads/discussions like this are good as long as they can stay civil - they contain far more than just sound bites and help to get people thinking that otherwise might not have the time or inclination to do more than listen to talking heads or chatter with their friends on their break at the water cooler.

This is arguably the most important election most of us will see in our lifetime. We can salvage the last 4 years with a little effort, but 8 is another matter. This election will determine if our country is going to remain what it has always been or take a completely different path and become something else. I wish more people understood this - I get really annoyed by apathy. That's what scares me about Romney - will the conservatives come out and vote for him or will they throw up their hands because he isn't consrvastive enough and sit at home, giving Obama a walk back into the White House...


----------



## Patriot

Salvaging what we know and love is a three legged stool.



The nominee must have a clear and concise message
Folks have got to get behind whoever the nominee is, even if it's not "there guy". I'm luke warm on him but it doesn't matter.
Benjamin Franklin said this on June 27, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, State House Philadelphia



> In this situation of the Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto one thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?
> 
> In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind of providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.
> 
> And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?
> 
> I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proff I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without his aid? ....


----------



## Faceman

Benjamin Franklin obviously wasn't a modern day liberal...:lol:


----------



## tinyliny

no, he was into swimming nude in the river in Paris, and hanging out with "ladies" of all kinds.


----------



## Faceman

tinyliny said:


> no, he was into swimming nude in the river in Paris, and hanging out with "ladies" of all kinds.


Yup...he was a bit obsessed with the ladies, er...women...certainly not an upstanding and monogamous kind of guy like, say, a Bill Clinton or John Edwards, or John F. Kennedy...:shock:


----------



## dbarabians

Faceman, Wackovania? I'm still laughing. Hope you don't mind if I use that one occassionally.
Those in both parties that have a very narrow agenda and refuse to compromise for the good of this nation.
Education is the key to success. I do not think that the government should fund everyones higher eduction.
The GI Bill that was implemented after WW2 lifted many people into the middle class. Millions usd skills learned to open new businesses and get better jobs. Programs like this worked and have the potential to do the same today.
People who start from nothing are often hindered by the very need to survive. Everyone does not make wise choices in their youth .
Educating our population will decrease dependence on the government for the basic needs of many.
This will ensure the financial health of our country and reduce the deficit in the long run.
Both parties need to stop thinking about the next election and govern for the long term.
The solutions must involve everyone and it will not be painless. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Faceman, Wackovania? I'm still laughing. Hope you don't mind if I use that one occassionally.
> Those in both parties that have a very narrow agenda and refuse to compromise for the good of this nation.
> Education is the key to success. I do not think that the government should fund everyones higher eduction.
> The GI Bill that was implemented after WW2 lifted many people into the middle class. Millions usd skills learned to open new businesses and get better jobs. Programs like this worked and have the potential to do the same today.
> People who start from nothing are often hindered by the very need to survive. Everyone does not make wise choices in their youth .
> Educating our population will decrease dependence on the government for the basic needs of many.
> This will ensure the financial health of our country and reduce the deficit in the long run.
> Both parties need to stop thinking about the next election and govern for the long term.
> The solutions must involve everyone and it will not be painless. Shalom


Again, I am a great proponent of education. But we still disagree on a couple of thing...

First, the GI bill is/was a benefit provided to people that worked, sacrificed, and served their country. Your comments don't offend me, but please keep in mind that providing a benefit to people that serve is a far cry from providing a benefit to people that won't get up off their butts and provide for themselves. To compare the two groups and assume that education would benefit the latter as much as it did the former is an invalid comparison. The parameters describing the two universes are quite dissimilar.

Second, education will not necessarily reduce dependency on government welfare and subsidies. I fully agree that it will lift a particular segment of society to a higher level, but I would also suggest that that particular segment has the drive and ambition to achieve independence without the education. I also suggest that the segment of society that is too lazy or unmotivated to achieve, will not in the long run make the transition from dependency to independence. I believe in an earlier post here or in another thread I alluded to the Welfare to Work program that proved such a failure because so many people simply wouldn't work even when given the opportunity and position. That is not to say, of course, that there were not individual successes within the Welfare to Work program or that there would not be successes if education were provided to the dependent segment of society - of course there were and would be some. However it is prudent to be realistic and set the political correctness aside and understand that the results would be less than most people would expect, and in the long run the costs would likely exceed the benefits.

I don't know what areas of life your counseling covers, but after many years in public service I experienced ups and downs that probably all those who work with people in need experience. The elation you feel when you help a person or family achieve one of those success stories is hard to describe to the average person. But the flip side is the frustration of investing your time and effort and compassion only to have the person backslide into the dependent lifestyle. Some people are going to take the path of least resistance, no matter how much you lower the hurdles on the path to rewards. When it comes to education - or any other assistance for that matter - I certainly subscribe to making the assistance available - that is the social conscience in me, but I also believe that prudence should be exercised and an early determination should be made as to the character and motivation of the individual to ascertain if the assistance will accomplish its objective or prove fruitless - that is the conservative in me. Strip away the fluff, and it really all boils down to one size does not fit all, you can lead a horse to water, etc...


----------



## kitten_Val

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> .Welfare Pays Better Than Work, Study Finds


Unbelievable...

I know people in MD and MA, who didn't put $.01 into US economy still have section 8 housing, medicaid, medicare (some), house assistant (someone coming to cook and clean the apartment), etc. And some even manage to make cash (unofficially of course) to be able "to go for vacation in Europe". It just freaks me out how people are using the system, and how the system supports such people, but not those falling on bad times who truly need help. Some time I just have no words....


----------



## kitten_Val

dbarabians said:


> Educating our population will decrease dependence on the government for the basic needs of many.


I have to somewhat disagree. It depends on what you mean by "educating". I'm all for the assistance and support when the person indeed wants to continue education, serious, and working hard on it. However for some it's just a way to spend another 4 years of life without carrying a responsibility for anything (or anyone for that matter). The fact that you sit in class for 4 years (if you even sit) doesn't make you an educated person or someone who can do the job.


----------



## Bearkiller

It's my belief that "moderates" are truely people with out core moral convictions. I have more respect for a someone on the far other side of the spectrum from me then I do for someone without a core understanding of what they believe and why they believe it. It's ironic that both political parties and the media pander to these mindless sheep. I grew up as a "conservative" (I hate labels) in one of the most liberal states in the country (Washington). I know what I believe and exactly why I believe it. If an issue is new to me or I don't understand it, I'll study it and draw my own conclusions. To be labeled an extremist now days is to really say that a person knows what they believe. I believe that the federal government is in place primarily to defend the United States and to facilitate commerce between the states. All of this welfare, Obamacare, department of education, bailouts, social insecurity and any other big government programs are unconstitutional. But I guess that makes me an extremist.......


----------



## FlyGap

You get out of an education what you put into it.

Saying we need assisted higher education to improve our society is not exactly accurate. Actually we get a stronger group of younger people if they have to strive and WORK for their education. Then it is appreciated, you get stronger individuals with an actual work ethic.

For example:

Me, I had very little money to go to school with because I couldn't qualify for most scholarships due to my parents high income. Bummer right? My ACT/SAT scores, grades, and accomplishments where MUCH better than most of my friends yet due to their parents lower incomes they qualified for far more grants and scholarships. They went to high dollar universities and about 90% of them dropped out or got kicked out within two years. I got a partial to a large school went there for a while but I didn't want to further saddle myself with debt so I went to a local community college and worked my way through school. I took at least 23 hours a semester, had two part time jobs and graduated in three years.
What is wrong with having to do that? Why EXACTLY can't we expect everyone to do the same? I made it just fine.

My friend did the same as me, same school, same degree and she purchased her first home two years before she graduated. That's not exceptional, it should be par. She is now running a major vendor office 7 years later making bank. Was it easy, no, rewarding for her, yes.

Several friends that dropped out of college went to work for different companies and most that I know are now running them. You don't need a piece of paper to be a successful contributing tax payer.

My mother, abandoned by her husband. Two kids, no child support, no education, factory worker goes on to become super successful and now her hardest daily decision is which sports car to drive. No piece of paper, just hard work.

There is absolutely no reason for the Fed or the taxpayer to hand people higher educations. They can go get them for themselves, if not there are millions of jobs that don't require a piece of paper or higher training. If a person won't work one of those then to heck with them. If we didn't feed them they would actually have to do something with themselves, right?
Assistance for the elderly, the handicapped, the disabled, and abused/abandoned children should be our only social responsibility. The rest need to go get a JOB.


----------



## Bearkiller

Isn't the main issue cookie cutter education? Why aren't they teaching trades or vocations at younger ages? Education should be state and local only, with school CHOICE. Whether it be charter schools or vouchers. If they offered trade schools, I would already have my son in a technology based school. 

I am a high school drop out who by 25 was making more money than anyone else in my family. Not because I inherited something or "fell into" something. Because I was willing to work 100 hours per week to provide a good living for my family. I heard on the radio about a study just done that says 50% of college graduates with a 4 year degree are unemployed. There is something seriously wrong with that.........


----------



## kitten_Val

^^ Bear, I'm a believer that education does help in carrier (in fact for my last 2 jobs I wouldn't get an offer if I wouldn't have a degree), but (again) only if you are serious and not using it as an excuse to be a "kid" for several more years. 

I find it appalling that someone with the low score, no knowledge, and no will to study get all those scholarships only because you are low-income or minority (BTW, I have a degree in field where woman is considered to be a minority and would get a preference). I don't think the pick should be done based on income, gender, or race. It should be based on scores and overall level of the (potential) student.


----------



## Bearkiller

Degree's aren't completely useless. I wasn't even making that case. I hope my kids both go to some sort of advanced education. But, I'm certainly not going to fund them to "find themselves". If they don't know what they want to do, they can work until they figure it out. All of that said, alot of degrees are useless. I know of someone who went to college for almost 5 years and ended up with an associates in medical billing. She just kept changing what she was studying and never really went anywhere. It all goes back to what we are teaching in our public "education" system. We need to be more focused on how our kids are being taught and quit assuming it's being taken care of by someone else. Which is why I spend 600 dollars a month on private education.


----------



## kitten_Val

Bearkiller said:


> All of that said, alot of degrees are useless.


Oh, yes, I'm not even going to argue on this one.  My former university has one called "Government politics (and something)". I can't imagine where can you go after getting such a degree. FBI? Even students call it completely useless.


----------



## Faceman

Yeah, degrees are sort of funny. I have 3 of them. Appropriate degrees were required to enter my first profession, which was highly technical, but my degrees had nothing to do with my other 2 careers. I will say though that the underlying education made it much easier to excel, even with unrelated degrees.

I have always said, with the exception of technical disciplines, the keys to success are the ability to think logically and the ability to communicate...where you assimilate those skills doesn't really matter...


----------



## SEAmom

The 50% unemployed college graduates start would have to depend on the degree earned. I honestly nerve that there are "easy" and "hard" degrees. Easy degrees being liberal arts, philosophy, history, etc. not that there isn't some degree of difficulty, but most college students could earn those degrees. Hard degrees, to me, are the science and math based degrees - chemistry, engineering, law, etc. Being an electrical engineer myself, I don't know a single person who has a "hard" degree who didn't get a job almost immediately after graduation - I was offered jobs before I had even graduated. I do, however, know a few people with "easy" degrees who are unemployed or are working somewhere for less than half what I make and with no relation to their degrees. 

It's not so much about having any degree, but the quality of the degree you have. No, I don't think everyone should go to college. Someone has to work in the factories, flip burgers, and do cable tv installations. there has to be a manual labor force as well as the degreed labor for the country to run.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Education is essential to a productive and flexible workforce. 
I am not advocating that everyone needs a college degree. Those that have them though do enjoy greater access to healthcare, financial independce, and acces to better employment.
Cutting funding to education is at best a short term solution. In the long run the uneducated place a larger drain on our economy .
I have had the honor of working with people that are infected with HIV.
There are many that have become ill and access assistance programs.
Most would like to return to work once their health is regained.
However, with cost of medicine and treatment they are hindered from doing so. Why? Once they return to work they are in jeopardy of losing their healthcare. The medicines that keep them alive. since most have been unemployed for long periods of time they have large gaps in their work histories.
Those with advanced skill or higher education can gain employment tht offers benefits that include healthcare.
I also have clients that have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, refered to me by the Veterans Hopitals becuase of the distance that we are from Dallas. They too face the same difficulties and limitations.
Yes there are some who have accepted the role of victims and they will not succeed, This is very frustrating as Faceman has posted.
Yet, I know many more who are willing to return to the work force yet are unable to becuase of healthcare issues.
However they are linked to those who embrace the role of victims and feel that they are entitled to receive all that they can. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val

Faceman said:


> I have 3 of them.


What kind of degree? (just curious)

I was always wondering, say if you have BA and MA (or BA, MA, and PhD), but all in same field, is it considered to be one degree or 2 (3)?


----------



## Faceman

kitten_Val said:


> What kind of degree? (just curious)
> 
> I was always wondering, say if you have BA and MA (or BA, MA, and PhD), but all in same field, is it considered to be one degree or 2 (3)?


BS in Biology, BS in Geology, and MS in Physics...


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Education is essential to a productive and flexible workforce.
> I am not advocating that everyone needs a college degree. Those that have them though do enjoy greater access to healthcare, financial independce, and acces to better employment.
> Cutting funding to education is at best a short term solution. In the long run the uneducated place a larger drain on our economy .
> I have had the honor of working with people that are infected with HIV.
> There are many that have become ill and access assistance programs.
> Most would like to return to work once their health is regained.
> However, with cost of medicine and treatment they are hindered from doing so. Why? Once they return to work they are in jeopardy of losing their healthcare. The medicines that keep them alive. since most have been unemployed for long periods of time they have large gaps in their work histories.
> Those with advanced skill or higher education can gain employment tht offers benefits that include healthcare.
> I also have clients that have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, refered to me by the Veterans Hopitals becuase of the distance that we are from Dallas. They too face the same difficulties and limitations.
> Yes there are some who have accepted the role of victims and they will not succeed, This is very frustrating as Faceman has posted.
> Yet, I know many more who are willing to return to the work force yet are unable to becuase of healthcare issues.
> However they are linked to those who embrace the role of victims and feel that they are entitled to receive all that they can. Shalom


Well, the PTSD folks don't have the same issue, as they are qualified for VA healthcare regardless of income. PTSD results from "boots on the ground", which is the primary eligibility factor. They should also be eligible for some sort of education benefits from the VA (although I am not up to date on current VA education benefits).

I understand the general issue though, and it does point out a weakness in the system...our welfare system should never place a person in a position to be better off not working than working. You just view the glass as half full, and I view the glass as half empty...


----------



## dbarabians

Faceman thanks for reading and understanding my point of view.
The biggest hindrance to people geting benefits via the VA system is that there are over 900,000 active claims waiting to be processed.
Since the benefits you are eligilbe for are determined by your VA rating, people are having to access SSDI, welfare, and other programs to survive.
Many wind up homeless 4 out of 10 homeless people are veterans. Sad but true.
Funding will be cut. Many deserving of help will suffer.
If the poor are asked to do with less should all of us not have to sacrifice more? Shalom


----------



## Patriot

dbarabians said:


> If the poor are asked to do with less should all of us not have to sacrifice *more*? Shalom


How much is enough? Seriously.


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Faceman thanks for reading and understanding my point of view.
> The biggest hindrance to people geting benefits via the VA system is that there are over 900,000 active claims waiting to be processed.
> Since the benefits you are eligilbe for are determined by your VA rating, people are having to access SSDI, welfare, and other programs to survive.
> Many wind up homeless 4 out of 10 homeless people are veterans. Sad but true.
> Funding will be cut. Many deserving of help will suffer.
> *If the poor are asked to do with less should all of us not have to sacrifice more? *Shalom


In reference to the sentence I bolded, that is an interesting and very pertinent question, to which I would like to provide an answer from the conservative perspective for your conisderation.

To begin with, there is a finite amount of money and resources available. That is not to say we are at the limit, although some would disagree, but the resources are finite nonetheless.

Now, working with that finite pot o' money, would those who are* truly* deserving and in need have to do with less if they were the only ones receiving assistance? Does anyone in their right mind actually feel that the number of people receiving food stamps and WIC assistance is justified? What if the fraud involved with these programs were eliminated? How many welfare recipients are perfectly capable of supporting themselves but choose not to do so? How many welfare recipients squander what money they have on drugs? As a conservative, I feel it necessary to help those that cannot help themselves. But I also feel if assisdtance was limited to those who truly need it and if that welfare were administered efficiently, there would be more than enough money to provide necessary assistance without raising taxes, and in fact taxes could be lowered.

What I fail to understand about liberals is they are shooting themselves in the foot by providing assistance to far more than those who are truly in need. This effects two results - less money to those truly in need and a tax burden so high it causes a backlash reaction from the general public. So ironically, when you look at your question (the one I bolded), it is the liberal philosophy that creates the situation where the question even comes up. If it were up to conservatives, those that truly deserve the assistance would receive it, and those that don't wouldn't...as it should be...


----------



## dbarabians

Hw much is enough Patriot? I wish someone knew.
Faceman in principle we agree. We see the problems and the need for reform.
The conservatiove arguement has been to cut funding and not increase taxes.
I beleive however that ALL options must be considered.
The answer IMO will involve cutting funding to certain programs. Increasing fundiing to programs that empower those that are willing to elevate themselves.
Raise taxes on corporations and individuals.
This may not be viable but why start the negotiations by keeping certain solutions off the table?
Good debate. Shalom Donald


----------



## Faceman

With proper cutting, taxes would not have to be incfreased for anyone. Of course cutting isn't easy, as more radical conservatives would have you believe. For every "program" there is a following made up of recipients and unrealistic do gooders. And no congressperson wants to get up in front of a Cspan audience and throw grandma under the bus. As you probably know, most programs are never killed - Congress just ceases to fund them...we have more "programs" on the books than you can possibly imagine - most of which have not been funded in years, if not generations. So you have a political situation, plus no one wants "their" program cut. It's not easy, but in theory that should be the job of Congress and the President - doing what is needed and what is best for the country - instead of the bull hocky sucking up to every yahoo with a vote that they do. I am very savvy politicvally, but as you can tell I have a love-hate relationship with politics and politicians...


----------



## Horsecrazy4ever

*=)*

Amen!! 

In reply to Tianimalz(page 1-comment) "If Romney wins, I'm packing up and moving to Canada for the next 4 years. With gas prices though I might end up having to ride there though..."


----------



## Horsecrazy4ever

People!!!!! You want a president???? Check RON PAUL out!!!!! Holy smokes, he will blow your mind!!! 

RON PAUL 2012!!


----------



## SouthernTrails

Horsecrazy4ever said:


> Amen!!
> 
> In reply to Tianimalz(page 1-comment) "If Romney wins, I'm packing up and moving to Canada for the next 4 years. With gas prices though I might end up having to ride there though..."


Well, if Obama wins we may all have to learn Chinese 



.


----------



## Horsecrazy4ever

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> Well, if Obama wins we may all have to learn Chinese
> 
> 
> 
> .


Amen to that too! RON PAUL 2012.... check him out... you might be surprised


----------



## SouthernTrails

Horsecrazy4ever said:


> Amen to that too! RON PAUL 2012.... check him out... you might be surprised


I have, both times he ran... no offense but he is still the same..... 



.


----------



## northwesten

I have been living in the US for 4 years now. I only see one person who doesn't change like the wind and that's Ron Paul. 

Yes he think out of the boxs because well I put it this way I don't see the difference between Obama or any other guys. Though I found the people in general don't think for them self but Follow what the media says etc. Like how Foxs call Ron Paul supporter hippies and drug user etc. When it came to it they tried hard to put dirt on the guy and they couldn't. Also he will not take a pension from congress. Every single person I see in Government is a Political Elite. 

Though I am not American so I can't Vote so there for I just support and spread the word. BTW Ron Paul been doing VERY well in the polls but hardly gets media coverage like other folks. 

I think Mitt Romney is a puppet and a joke. He is a Corporate puppet at best. Also A Rich guy who lives in a Life of how many houses? mm Doesn't know what real life is like for the middle class. Hell he not for middle class just for the corporations. 

BTW I am a middle guy not right or left views.


----------



## northwesten

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I have, both times he ran... no offense but he is still the same.....
> 
> 
> 
> .


That's a good thing...


----------



## Horsecrazy4ever

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I have, both times he ran... no offense but he is still the same.....
> 
> 
> 
> .


That is what makes him good!!! He doesn't CHANGE his beliefs every day/year!!!! When you vote for RON PAUL you know WHO you voted for! Not like Mitt or Obama that tell you what you want to hear then do something else! 

RON PAUL!!


----------



## Horsecrazy4ever

northwesten said:


> I have been living in the US for 4 years now. I only see one person who doesn't change like the wind and that's Ron Paul.
> 
> Yes he think out of the boxs because well I put it this way I don't see the difference between Obama or any other guys. Though I found the people in general don't think for them self but Follow what the media says etc. Like how Foxs call Ron Paul supporter hippies and drug user etc. When it came to it they tried hard to put dirt on the guy and they couldn't. Also he will not take a pension from congress. Every single person I see in Government is a Political Elite.
> 
> Though I am not American so I can't Vote so there for I just support and spread the word. BTW Ron Paul been doing VERY well in the polls but hardly gets media coverage like other folks.
> 
> I think Mitt Romney is a puppet and a joke. He is a Corporate puppet at best. Also A Rich guy who lives in a Life of how many houses? mm Doesn't know what real life is like for the middle class. Hell he not for middle class just for the corporations.
> 
> BTW I am a middle guy not right or left views.


keep fighting for Paul.... don't give up!


----------



## SouthernTrails

northwesten said:


> I have been living in the US for 4 years now. Though I found the people in general don't think for them self but Follow what the media says etc.
> BTW I am a middle guy not right or left views.


Welcome to the USA and The Horse Forum...

Sadly, for 20 years it has seemed to be vote for the lesser of two evils.

If I had my way, Presidents would only have 1 Term, Congress would only be allowed the serve for 10 years maximum, no matter if they flipped from the House to the Senate or Senate to House.

Career Politicians have hurt this Country very deeply. 

Then we have lobbyists...aghhhh Tar and Feathers? :lol:

The Media is way too influential and one sided.... people need to do their own research and vote with a brain and not what the News Flashes on the TV .......


.


----------



## SEAmom

Far too many people are too ignorant to think on their own and probably just as many who aren't smart enough to understand how their state - let alone the country or even the world - works on the simplest economic, social, political, etc levels.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

Horsecrazy4ever said:


> That is what makes him good!!! He doesn't CHANGE his beliefs every day/year!!!! When you vote for RON PAUL you know WHO you voted for! Not like Mitt or Obama that tell you what you want to hear then do something else!
> 
> RON PAUL!!


Only a fool resists change.

When you vote for Ron Paul, you do nothing more than waste your vote. He is not, never has been, and never will be, a viable national or statewide cnadidate. While I admire his supporters, I would much rather see that energy directed constructively.

To repeat what I said in another thread, I supported Ron Paul when he first ran for public office around 35 years ago, as I lived in his district outside of Houston. He has never been able to do squat with a larger constituency than a congressional district. He has some good libertarian positions, but because he is unbending, he will never challenge for a statewide or nationwide election. Honestly, as a supporter in his early years, I am saddened to see what he has become - a perennial joke.

We desperately need Obama out of office, and that is where people's energy should be directed - not on a Ron Paul or Mickey Mouse campaign. If you must campaign for Ron Paul, do it next time around...


----------



## Horsecrazy4ever

Reply to faceman: "I would much rather see that energy directed constructively."

Rebuilding America isn't constructive? If anyone can rebuild America Ron Paul can... What do YOU call constructive?


----------



## Faceman

Horsecrazy4ever said:


> Reply to faceman: "I would much rather see that energy directed constructively."
> 
> Rebuilding America isn't constructive? If anyone can rebuild America Ron Paul can... What do YOU call constructive?


I call constructive doing something positive...an exercise in futility is not constructive. If you are in a road race with a Vette and a Cobra, is it constructive to race them with a kid's tricycle?

Politics is a game, and you have to play it right. The time to support Paul is early in the race to garner enough votes that his voice can be heard at the convention and hopefully incoroporate some of his ideas into the party platform...THAT is constructive. But that time is now past, and if he continues to make a fool out of himself it will accomplish nothing other than angering the party, which now needs to unite against Obama, and render him powerless at the convention. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Paul - some of his ideas NEED to be incoroporated in our future. But he and his followers either don't know how to play the game - or won't - which renders both his and their voices unheeded. Paul is not a viable candidate - anyone that thinks he is is living in a fantasy world. But he can be used as a voice to influence the party, and that is his highest and best use. Look to Herman Cain if you want to see what Paul should be doing. Cain garnered enough votes to establish credibility within the party, dropped out at the proper time, has been supporting the party ever since, and as a result will have far more influence at the convention than Paul. The bottom line is Paul is a horrible politician. In reality, if you gave all Americans a blind test, you would find the vast majority of them would align more closely with Libertarian philosophy, which is Paul's philosophy, than with either Republican or Democrat philosophy. But he is a constistent failure. That should tell you something. He should be used as a person of influence - not as a bona fide Presidential candidate. For Heaven sakes, how many times does a horse have to finish last in a race before you finally recognize he is not a racehorse?


----------



## Horsecrazy4ever

Faceman said:


> I call constructive doing something positive...an exercise in futility is not constructive. If you are in a road race with a Vette and a Cobra, is it constructive to race them with a kid's tricycle?
> 
> Politics is a game, and you have to play it right. The time to support Paul is early in the race to garner enough votes that his voice can be heard at the convention and hopefully incoroporate some of his ideas into the party platform...THAT is constructive. But that time is now past, and if he continues to make a fool out of himself it will accomplish nothing other than angering the party, which now needs to unite against Obama, and render him powerless at the convention. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Paul - some of his ideas NEED to be incoroporated in our future. But he and his followers either don't know how to play the game - or won't - which renders both his and their voices unheeded. Paul is not a viable candidate - anyone that thinks he is is living in a fantasy world. But he can be used as a voice to influence the party, and that is his highest and best use. Look to Herman Cain if you want to see what Paul should be doing. Cain garnered enough votes to establish credibility within the party, dropped out at the proper time, has been supporting the party ever since, and as a result will have far more influence at the convention than Paul. The bottom line is Paul is a horrible politician. In reality, if you gave all Americans a blind test, you would find the vast majority of them would align more closely with Libertarian philosophy, which is Paul's philosophy, than with either Republican or Democrat philosophy. But he is a constistent failure. That should tell you something. He should be used as a person of influence - not as a bona fide Presidential candidate. For Heaven sakes, how many times does a horse have to finish last in a race before you finally recognize he is not a racehorse?


Ron Paul doesn't finish last in every race... he has actually WON a few states but the media/tv doesn't tell you that... go online and check out the polls.. you may be surprised...


----------



## Faceman

Horsecrazy4ever said:


> Ron Paul doesn't finish last in every race... he has actually WON a few states but the media/tv doesn't tell you that... go online and check out the polls.. you may be surprised...


Oh I know the polls and the races - I have been following Paul for 37 years, and am quite active in the Republican party. And the media gives the results in ALL states, by the way.

Oh, and the delegate count...

Romney - 847

Santorum - 259

Gingrich - 137

Paul - 80

Huntsman - 1

As I said, last, unless you want to count the one leftover delegate from Huntsman that is legally committed. The reason the media doesn't talk about Paul much is he is not significant...he has become the modern day Harold Stassen, who ran for President 12 times. As I said earlier, I think what he has become is very sad. He could accomplish much more from within the party, but doesn't have the savvy to play the game. If he had played his cards right, he could have been a force within the party - particularly in this election where there are a lot of radical backlash voters. But it is hard to play baseball without a baseball, glove, and bat...


----------



## northwesten

Faceman said:


> Only a fool resists change.
> 
> When you vote for Ron Paul, you do nothing more than waste your vote. He is not, never has been, and never will be, a viable national or statewide cnadidate. While I admire his supporters, I would much rather see that energy directed constructively.
> 
> To repeat what I said in another thread, I supported Ron Paul when he first ran for public office around 35 years ago, as I lived in his district outside of Houston. He has never been able to do squat with a larger constituency than a congressional district. He has some good libertarian positions, but because he is unbending, he will never challenge for a statewide or nationwide election. Honestly, as a supporter in his early years, I am saddened to see what he has become - a perennial joke.
> 
> We desperately need Obama out of office, and that is where people's energy should be directed - not on a Ron Paul or Mickey Mouse campaign. If you must campaign for Ron Paul, do it next time around...


One thing! there never such a wasted vote. Though sadly Ron paul come late to get attention now. Wasted vote when your a sheep following them to what the media says and voting on mis information. 

Though if we have someone to step in Ron Paul shoes after this election and keep fighting what he been fighting. Over time people will be more aware what he stands for. He stands for his Ideas and that alone not a wasted vote. 

Look at the UKIP in the UK? BBC and other media tried there hardest to make them out a racist party like BNP. They tired to put people heads UKIP is the wasted Vote and a single issue party. Over the past ten years they kept on fighting and now they managed to get past some of the harsh media coverage and now showing good signs to be the 3 or 4th largest party. 

It will be very interesting how UKIP will do but one thing for sure over time they will get bigger and bigger. If they can force the government hand or force the other party's to go what they fighting for then they have won the battle or war. Like having the vote on the EU membership which we all brits want. 

Anyhow I do not agree he is a failure as a politician because he stuck at it over the years. The biggest problem is the US is the Media and the corporation that have freedom of speech to treated like a individual. 

Also the internet is such a threat to the corporate ways in controlling the election they pretty much want control the internet which will effect flow of information. I feel this why younger and younger people becoming more aware because of the internet. That's why when I got into a debates with older folks they so was unaware of misinformation that goes around.


----------



## northwesten

BTW I just want to say how I am impressed how level headed and mature these forms are for a healthy debate.


----------



## dbarabians

Northwestern, I must disagree about the media being a big problem in the USA.
Yes it can be slanted and biased.

The freedom of the press when used correctly has ensured the american people enjoy the highest levels of freedom in the world.
The press has restrained and even toppled the most powerful elected politicains in the world.
Watergate is the best example in recent history to cite.
Those of us that can reason on our own can see bias and make our own decisions.
Ron Paul wopuld be a very ineffective President.
No matter who is elected they must cooperate with congress to pass any legislation. 
Carter's presidency was doomed even though his own party controlled congress. Shalom


----------



## northwesten

dbarabians said:


> Northwestern, I must disagree about the media being a big problem in the USA.
> Yes it can be slanted and biased.
> 
> The freedom of the press when used correctly has ensured the american people enjoy the highest levels of freedom in the world.
> The press has restrained and even toppled the most powerful elected politicains in the world.
> Watergate is the best example in recent history to cite.
> Those of us that can reason on our own can see bias and make our own decisions.
> Ron Paul wopuld be a very ineffective President.
> No matter who is elected they must cooperate with congress to pass any legislation.
> Carter's presidency was doomed even though his own party controlled congress. Shalom


Not talking about The freedom of the press. I talking about Corporation that slam the TV with Crap ads and slur etc about other people. Then again Media is the very problem of issues. Yes they should have freedom but should not push for miss information and ignore some other folks. 

I mean Foxs... Oh man Youtube has a field day with them on the daily bases on what they not telling what it is than most networks but there should be a ethical grounds when it comes to sharing news in the professional manner. There will be a degree in biased news but some networks just go way to far in doing so. I mean one thing for sure in the UK All part has a fair balance in ads when it comes to elections. Same time you can only advertise what is true and factual (sp?)


----------



## Faceman

northwesten said:


> Not talking about The freedom of the press. I talking about Corporation that slam the TV with Crap ads and slur etc about other people. Then again Media is the very problem of issues. Yes they should have freedom but should not push for miss information and ignore some other folks.
> 
> I mean Foxs... Oh man Youtube has a field day with them on the daily bases on what they not telling what it is than most networks but there should be a ethical grounds when it comes to sharing news in the professional manner. There will be a degree in biased news but some networks just go way to far in doing so. I mean one thing for sure in the UK All part has a fair balance in ads when it comes to elections. Same time you can only advertise what is true and factual (sp?)


As to the first paragraph, the media has no control over political ads...they are required to air them and don't have any editorial control over them.

As to the second paragraph, Fox clearly makes a distinction between its news programs and op/ed programs. If you are not aware of that, you are not watching very closely. On the other side of the fence, the primary broadcast networks do not make that distinction. All of their news programs are actually op/ed programming. Sometimes they tell both sides, sometimes they don't, but when they do it is always with a slant. 

If you want to get the whole story you honestly have to watch both and try to monitor the bias and draw your own conclusions. Before television, newspapers wielded great power with their endorsements of candidates. Broadcast media has taken their place. Political opinions and bias have been a right of the press since before we kicked your ancestors to the curb, and I don't see it changing anytime soon...


----------



## Patriot

I suggest GBTV, good detailed analysis of the problems at hand, not sound bites found on all of the networks and cable TV. I've found the shows very informative because of the level of detail and research put into the product. 

They have a new documentary called "Rumors of War III" it's a very insightful historical overview of the Muslim Brotherhood, from past of present and who they influence now.


----------



## Faceman

Yeah, but one cannot consider Glenn Beck as an independent news source. He is a conservative/libertarian through and through, so that has to be kept in mind. Personally I'm not sure he is playing with a full deck, and certainly is far too empathetic to provide objective commentary. As you say, though, he does go into detail rather than dance around sound bites, so you at least get some meat, albeit biased meat...


----------



## Elky

Actually, Ron Paul Is Secretly Winning A Lot More Delegates Than You Think ​ 
Actually, Ron Paul Is Secretly Winning A Lot More Delegates Than You Think - Business Insider


What Would Really Happen If Ron Paul Were To Be Elected President? 

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-would-really-happen-if-ron-paul.html


----------



## Patriot

True enough, No attempt to hide his world view and or perspective on the issues. Ref him playing with a full deck, all I can say is he really hasn't been wrong about much that has happened over the past couple of years. What I find very appealing is that he is historically focused, spends a lot of time discussing what's happened in the past and how we are repeating the same mistakes, over and over. 


He presents information that others can't or wont present due to time or programing constraints or restrictions -(I'm not speaking about his time on CNN or Fox) I'm talking about his program now. Have you watched his current show or are you basing your opinion on what you've seen on the network?


----------



## SouthernTrails

Elky said:


> What Would Really Happen If Ron Paul Were To Be Elected President?
> 
> http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-would-really-happen-if-ron-paul.html


Big IF

Utopia, Science Fiction?

The fact is (imo) until we get rid of the Career Politicians not much of anything in the article will ever happen.

Sorry but if more than a few people believed in Ron Paul, he would have placed a lot higher in the Polls this time and last time he ran for President.

A few good ideas will get you nowhere in Washington, you must have the backing of people Congress to get your ideas in play, I have yet to see very many in Washington aligned with Mr. Paul.

Get rid of deadweight in Congress 1st, elect Senators and Representatives who care more for America than the Power the Office gives them and then maybe Mr. Paul would have a chance.



.


----------



## Elky

Ron Paul is the only candidate that I will vote for because he actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution of the United States, unlike the Romney or Obama.
Does anyone wonder why people support Ron Paul, and his truths... It's called patriotism. Defend the constitution and restore our republic. Do you think that Romney or Obama stand for these Principles? 
A vote for Romney or Obama is a vote to continue the destruction of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, a vote for government to control the people, a vote for economic disaster, a vote for unconstitutional wars, a vote for the destruction of this great Republic, a vote to slit the wrists of Lady Liberty.


----------



## Whisper22

Elky said:


> Ron Paul is the only candidate that I will vote for because he actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution of the United States, unlike the Romney or Obama.
> Does anyone wonder why people support Ron Paul, and his truths... It's called patriotism. Defend the constitution and restore our republic. Do you think that Romney or Obama stand for these Principles?
> A vote for Romney or Obama is a vote to continue the destruction of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, a vote for government to control the people, a vote for economic disaster, a vote for unconstitutional wars, a vote for the destruction of this great Republic, a vote to slit the wrists of Lady Liberty.


I completely understand you saying that Obama doesn't care about this country or our constitution. We've all seen that with our own eyes. But what in the world would make you say that Romney doesn't care about this country or our constitution? I'm not getting that from him at all, actually I'm getting the exact opposite. Ron Paul scares me because he's so unwilling to change. People like to bash Romney for changing his mind. Well that's what I call actually caring about this country and doing what needs to be done, even if it isn't ideally what HE wanted, but what WE needed. That's what's wrong with Obama, his agenda is the only thing that matters to HIM. I would hate to see another Obama get elected.


----------



## Elky

Romney scares me greatly. If nothing more than his stance on NDAA and his stance on the so called Patriot Act. These 2 alone should give grave concern to every American Citizen. Have you ever read FM 3-39.41, 
The Internment and Resettlement Operations? This is what Romney & Obama both belive in. By him stating that he would not change anything about the Patriot Act or NDAA, Romney and Obama are both the biggest threat to this country, our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. We are headed down a slippery slope and going down fast.

Also maybe take a look at the Army Civilian Labor Inmate Program AR 210-35

Please note, this is my opinion and this is really about saving our country and our citizens.


----------



## tinyliny

here is a clip from "The Colbert Report" featuring Bill Moyers as the guest. Mr. Moyers is one of the most intelligent , knowledgeable and civil journalists out there. He has his own TV show called "Moyers and Company" , where you can get a varied view of current events, without emotional hyperbole.

watch this clip to the end (6 minutes) and get a laugh.

Bill Moyers - The Colbert Report - 2012-10-01 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## Faceman

Patriot said:


> True enough, No attempt to hide his world view and or perspective on the issues. Ref him playing with a full deck, all I can say is he really hasn't been wrong about much that has happened over the past couple of years. What I find very appealing is that he is historically focused, spends a lot of time discussing what's happened in the past and how we are repeating the same mistakes, over and over.
> 
> 
> He presents information that others can't or wont present due to time or programing constraints or restrictions -(I'm not speaking about his time on CNN or Fox) I'm talking about his program now. Have you watched his current show or are you basing your opinion on what you've seen on the network?


I base my judgment on observation of his obvioiusly OCD. While I don't disagree with most of his philosophy I believe his OCD clouds his objectivity and causes him to takes things to such an extreme that he is unbelievable to many people...almost similar to a PETA in that respect (in approach, not philosophy)...


----------



## Faceman

Elky said:


> Romney scares me greatly. If nothing more than his stance on NDAA and his stance on the so called Patriot Act. These 2 alone should give grave concern to every American Citizen. Have you ever read FM 3-39.41,
> The Internment and Resettlement Operations? This is what Romney & Obama both belive in. By him stating that he would not change anything about the Patriot Act or NDAA, Romney and Obama are both the biggest threat to this country, our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. We are headed down a slippery slope and going down fast.
> 
> Also maybe take a look at the Army Civilian Labor Inmate Program AR 210-35
> 
> Please note, this is my opinion and this is really about saving our country and our citizens.


You are solidly espousing ACLU doctrine...don't know if that is on purpose or just a coincidence...


----------



## Patriot

Elky said:


> Romney scares me greatly. If nothing more than his stance on NDAA and his stance on the so called Patriot Act. These 2 alone should give grave concern to every American Citizen. Have you ever read FM 3-39.41,
> The Internment and Resettlement Operations? This is what Romney & Obama both belive in. By him stating that he would not change anything about the Patriot Act or NDAA, Romney and Obama are both the biggest threat to this country, our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. We are headed down a slippery slope and going down fast.
> 
> Also maybe take a look at the Army Civilian Labor Inmate Program AR 210-35
> 
> Please note, this is my opinion and this is really about saving our country and our citizens.


This is why is important to pay attention to those (others) you vote for in Nov. We need to flush the toilet in DC and elect (in some occasions re-elect) some new faces who will represent the will of people, and respect the Constitution.


----------



## Faceman

tinyliny said:


> here is a clip from "The Colbert Report" featuring Bill Moyers as the guest. Mr. Moyers is one of the most intelligent , knowledgeable and civil journalists out there. He has his own TV show called "Moyers and Company" , where you can get a varied view of current events, without emotional hyperbole.
> 
> watch this clip to the end (6 minutes) and get a laugh.
> 
> Bill Moyers - The Colbert Report - 2012-10-01 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


Oh my - Moyers is as liberally biased as they come....:shock:


----------



## Patriot

Faceman said:


> I base my judgment on observation of his obvioiusly OCD. While I don't disagree with most of his philosophy I believe his OCD clouds his objectivity and causes him to takes things to such an extreme that he is unbelievable to many people...almost similar to a PETA in that respect (in approach, not philosophy)...


Roger that, one source of data isn't good no matter where it's coming from.


----------



## northwesten

Faceman said:


> Oh my - Moyers is as liberally biased as they come....:shock:


Here one thing I agree when he says about corporation treated as people. Corporation has too much hand in government. Hell I just going to throw this in here I supported Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. Two different people but dam they make sense of all this crap compared to others.


----------



## tinyliny

I disagree. He has had guests on his show that are not liberals. Having an opinon as a liberal is not a crime. As long as as a journalist, you explore both sides and he does this better than any Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## northwesten

tinyliny said:


> I disagree. He has had guests on his show that are not liberals. Having an opinon as a liberal is not a crime. As long as as a journalist, you explore both sides and he does this better than any Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.


Glenn Beck *vomits* that guy is a nutcase... omg him and his black board... I mean really?


----------



## Mdawn




----------



## Faceman

tinyliny said:


> I disagree. He has had guests on his show that are not liberals. Having an opinon as a liberal is not a crime. As long as as a journalist, you explore both sides and he does this better than any Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.


Moyer's resume reads like a liberal's dream - worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, PBS, CBS...you name it.

Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being liberal - but you will not get an unbiased point of view from Bill Moyers, any more than you would from Hannity. The difference is Hannity doesn't try to disguise it like Moyers, who follows the covert bias tradition of Walter Cronkite...


----------



## Patriot

For some reason the liberal news outlets appear to wear the mask of being moderate and unbiased, if would really be refreshing if they all would just represent themselves for what they are. I believe the conservative sources have got a better handle on it. Now while I'm leaving a fantasy multiply that times 100, wouldn't it be great if politicians actually spoke what they mean. Ron Paul has been the closest thing to that in recent times.


----------



## Faceman

Patriot said:


> For some reason the liberal news outlets appear to wear the mask of being moderate and unbiased, if would really be refreshing if they all would just represent themselves for what they are. I believe the conservative sources have got a better handle on it. Now while I'm leaving a fantasy multiply that times 100, wouldn't it be great if politicians actually spoke what they mean. Ron Paul has been the closest thing to that in recent times.


Yeah, don't you find it rather ironic that the politicians that actually say what they believe, like Ron Paul and Herman Cain can't get off of first base? It's almost as if lying is a requirement to get elected. I think I have a pretty good handle on why, but the explanation is long and I'm not in the mood...maybe in another thread some time...


----------



## Blondehorselover

Buck Brannaman for president!


----------



## possumhollow

How about putting oh say a single parent in office that knows how to make a budget work, how to take care of family, how to stop fights, how to help run a bake sale to raise money for extra-curricular needs, how to see that you don't need $400 hammers or $150 cups of coffee? Someone that will make the bad guys wish that they hadn't picked on the meek, someone that will do what needs to be done and not beat around the bushes to do it?

Okay enough of my rant, it's my b-day and it's sucked so far and politics just irritates the crap out of me.


----------



## ChristineNJ

No no no no nooooooo Mitt......He is for the rich people....he will give them tax breaks and tax the middle class....also he outsourced jobs out of the US just so he could make more $$$. He is sooo out of touch with ordinary people!! It would be a bigggg mistake to put him in the white house just because he rides horses!!! Obama is trying to balance the budget and get rid of the millionaire tax.....I'm voting for Obama......don't forget he found Osama when Bush couldn't and he is the only one trying to help everyone have health insurance....he did away with the pre-exhisting condition on health care and raised the age that kids could stay on their parents insurance to 26....both of these are good things...... trouble was he inherited a mess from Bush.....so much money spent on Iraq....don't get me started!!!


----------



## FlyGap

Watch this, I'm sure many of you have.
Obama - 'If you

QUESTION??!! If there were no extra hard working, innovative, uber intelligent people... Who would be paying the majority of the taxes for all the infrastructure WE ALL UTILIZE? I could go on and on and on about this, but if you believe in what this man is saying YOU are the problem. YOU are a sheep or even better a small insignificant lemming joining the rest of the rodents jumping off the cliff.


----------

