Obama: Four more years of economic decay.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by truthquest

 

That's an absolutely ludicrous statement. While one vote may not decide many elections, the mindset of voting does. If I had cast my vote for any other candidate, it would have been wasted because realistically they had no chance.

However, realistically Obama and McCain had a chance. Now if others voted for candidates besides Obama and McCain, then we could have a conversation.

I like Ron Paul at the beginning of the election - by the way.

How does it matter if they have no chance? It is ludicrous to go to the polling booth and then not vote for the best candidate. You are just shooting yourself in the foot! You can vote for a .00001% chance of changing the outcome, or you can vote for a 100% chance to state who the best candidate is. So, I fail to see why it matters if a person does not have a chance of election. I thought McCain had no chance to win from at least a month ago. So I should have done what then, vote for Obama by your logic, the only person who had a chance to win? That is far more ludicrous.

In the end, there was 99% support for the Democrats and Republicans combined. That is what is ludicrous. People everywhere will tell me what a lousy job they do. Then the fools go out and vote for those very people. That is what I call ludicrous.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

Ok so it doesn't matter if we have a Deficit or not we need to pay down the debt. Because it's good right? How are we going to pay back the debt, if we keep on adding to it.
I just want to get that straight.
Because right now, thanks to our debt, we have to pay 260 billion dollars interest.
So hows this, we force the DOD to put the Iraq war on our books and not appropriations(straight to our debt). So that's $144 billion dollars added to the already 515.4 Billion, 659.4 Billion. O but what we're spending $145.2 billion on the Global War on Terror, ok so that's 804.6 billion. Crap then there's $37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security and $4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers, so that 846.9 billion spent on Defense alone. Crap then there's veterans affairs, $44.8 billion, 891.7. So that's a quarter of our budget right there.

We're gonna cut one quarter of r schip, social security, medicaire and medicaide. That's 319 billion for all those things. Plus a quater of everything I just mentioned in my last paragraph, 214 billion. There I balanced the budget and gave a surplus of 143 Billion dollars. O but wait, Obamas tax plan will add 200 billion a year to the federal budget. That's 343 Billion to pay of the debt.

Now if we did like you said and paid off the with a strictly balanced budget. Then where are we gonna get the money to pay off the debt? Because guess what, thanks to the economic bailout and all this other stuff Bush and the Fed have been throwing around. Our deficit is now closer to 1.5 trillion(heard it on fox news and it's true). So start giving some substantive suggestions, here's the federal budget numbers for you to play with.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by truthquest


Your logic[sic] knows no bounds my friend. Hmm maybe if the third party candidates got elected to the house or senate and actually built a party so they could get on the national stage then there chances wouldn't be a long shot.
He was simply pointing out that for 3rd party candidates, those not Democrat or Republican, have no shot of winning and is essentially throwing away there vote. The only parties that have a chance are Democrat and Republican. There has only been 2 times in history where third party candidates had a shot that was the 1992 elections with Ross Perot, and 1912 with Theodore Roosevelt opposing his own parties leader Taft giving Woodrow Wilson the vote.

reply to post by truthquest


I disagree. I would never throw my vote away voting for someone who had no chance. If I did that, and others did also, then it could possibly help elect a candidate who shouldn't be in office.

(Often the most uneducated vote based solely off of party, so they'd be the ones choosing who wins)

Originally posted by djpaec
Ok so it doesn't matter if we have a Deficit or not we need to pay down the debt. Because it's good right? How are we going to pay back the debt, if we keep on adding to it.
I just want to get that straight.
Because right now, thanks to our debt, we have to pay 260 billion dollars interest.
So hows this, we force the DOD to put the Iraq war on our books and not appropriations(straight to our debt). So that's $144 billion dollars added to the already 515.4 Billion, 659.4 Billion. O but what we're spending $145.2 billion on the Global War on Terror, ok so that's 804.6 billion. Crap then there's $37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security and $4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers, so that 846.9 billion spent on Defense alone. Crap then there's veterans affairs, $44.8 billion, 891.7. So that's a quarter of our budget right there.

We're gonna cut one quarter of r schip, social security, medicaire and medicaide. That's 319 billion for all those things. Plus a quater of everything I just mentioned in my last paragraph, 214 billion. There I balanced the budget and gave a surplus of 143 Billion dollars. O but wait, Obamas tax plan will add 200 billion a year to the federal budget. That's 343 Billion to pay of the debt.

Now if we did like you said and paid off the with a strictly balanced budget. Then where are we gonna get the money to pay off the debt? Because guess what, thanks to the economic bailout and all this other stuff Bush and the Fed have been throwing around. Our deficit is now closer to 1.5 trillion(heard it on fox news and it's true). So start giving some substantive suggestions, here's the federal budget numbers for you to play with.
en.wikipedia.org...

What you are doing is fine. You are looking at the government's income statement and that is fine. Income statements are a good measure of financial performance. However, what I'm doing is better. I'm looking at the balance sheet. The balance sheet is a great measure of financial performance. So take your pick. Either look at the income statement, which can be cooked(manipulated) or look at the balance sheet which isn't as easy to manipulate. If stockholders were looking at GM's balance sheet they would pretty well know the company was doomed years ago. I've been waiting for it to belly up for years. So fine look at the very manipulated numbers at your own risk.

Personally, I'm not quite that concerned with how skilled the government is at accounting. I'd like them to do better at that, especially in the Pentagon. But what concerns me is how skilled the government is at paying off their debts. This is measured by the federal debt. And mind you I would gladly bet everything I have that the federal government could pay down the debt during a period of deficit. It does not even require shady accounting to do that! Granted it could not be sustained, but that is not my point.

My point is that you need to stop looking at the surplus(on the income statement) and start looking at the debt (on the balance sheet). By doing so you will realize that Clinton actually performed terribly at managing this countries finances. So has every president in virtually all of American history. Pathetic, really. But you could argue that its really the people's fault for not caring enough about it, and if the people don't care then the President should not care either. But go on and celebrate any Obama surpluses... while you are out celebrating I'll be busy wondering whether he is drowning our country in debt so far it will bankrupt us.

PS - To answer the question, a perfectly balanced budget actually would pay down the debt as the debt payments are including in the budget. The US would be debt free in 30 years if it took on no more debt and followed a strictly balanced budget during that time.

PS2 - I don't see a point to suggesting which programs should be cut, because that would be my personal opinion and nothing more. Furthermore, any letters written to politicians who are in control the federal budget would no doubt be left unread by the politician in control. So I won't let them know either, unless they have some explicit guarantee that my words would actually be read.

At my company what we do with suggestions is we thank the customer, tell them how much we will review their suggestions and base future improvements on them. Then we file it away where nobody ever reads the suggestions. They are good suggestions but the hell if our company would actually read them and act on them. Kind of mystifying since doing so would be profitable, just like in government. But then again, politicians, like managers, have a nearly universal "I know better" attitude.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest


You can mostly blame Congress for that, actually.

I am willing to work for my future. I am willing to pay for it. Are you?

Is that working and paying for your future

Yes, because it's impossible to work for anyone but yourself. Even slaves work for themselves, ultimately.

or working and paying for the debt and expense of the future that a bunch of self-righteous thieves and totalitarians have created for you?

No, I'm not working for anyone's future but my own, because it's impossible for me to work for anyone but myself. Slavery doesn't exist. No work that I do can be - in the end - of any benefit (or harm) to anyone but me.

I have to say illusions nailed it, because Uh, it's working for my future, and willing to pay for it.

It would be nice to work and pay for my future for once.

You're already doing that, with every keystroke, with every thought, with every action that is the product of that thought.

I was born into government servitude ...

Everyone is born free. If being born free is not an illusion, then there is no end to that freedom.

If you're so special you can somehow work and live free of the guns and jails and property theft of government I would like to know what your secret is.

Yeah, illusionsaregrander is kinda special, i you mean denying the ignorance of blame in a blame-addicted world is special. There's no secret. You are under the illusion that you aren't free, that's all.

If it's just looking the other way, pretending it isnt happening, rationalizing it all as "good for you" or just simple compliance then dont bother sharing. Just know that you're delusional when you say you are working for your future.

I think there's far more evidence that no-one can do anything to anybody, least of all enslave them, but anyone is free to assert their belief in the possibility of slavery, for themselves, or, if given the opportunity, of being under the illusion of being a slave owner.



[edit on 9-11-2008 by undermind]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by truthquest

 

You can mostly blame Congress for that, actually.

I don't blame congress the slightest bit. I blame we the people, since we the people reward the congress-people who give us more debt by re-electing them just about every f-ing time. Pathetic. I don't know what us Americans are doing these days but one of those things does not consist of paying attention to what our leaders are doing and voting based on what our leaders are doing.

I blame everyday Americans. It really upsets me how this happens when we are somewhat democratic country. I know we are not a true democracy but dammit we do elect our leaders and the opinion polls asking people who they will vote for strongly support this notion that we the people really do get to say which person will be elected.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest


I agree. Every day Americans continuously vote without having any understand of who they are voting for or what the actual process is.

I am one of those who thinks the R and D should be removed from election ballots.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


This is absurd.

Americans don't vote based on "Eenie miney mo", the not so intelligent vote for their party they prefer and the candidate that they can mostly relate to or favour. Ultimately the reason people vote individually is none of our business and that's why your vote is cast with a certain degree of privacy.

reply to post by IceColdPro


I disagree. I would say there is a large base of people who have no actual idea who they are voting for or against. For instance: there was a large portion of people who continued to believe Obama was a Muslim. Some, to this day, still call him a socialist.

That is a basic mis-characterization of one of the candidates, and many based their votes off of it.

Then there are the others who vote based off of the same thing - both democrats and republicans. They base it off of religion, guns, abortion, gay marriage, and other "hot button" issues that the federal government has no real business sticking their nose into anyway.

Out of the large percentage of voters, how many do you think actually knew either of the candidates policies? How many do you think researched them?

Moreover, how many do you think voted based off of McCain wandering around the stage, Palin's misstatements, or Obama's lack of lapel pin?

The thought of people like that voting makes me ill. In fact, just use the content of this website as a guide for what people really care about, and what they vote about.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Then maybe the Republicans should not have increased the size of our government, weakened our Constitution with the Patriot act, and run up the deficit the way they did.

You are quite right we are in for four more hard years. Not even a magician could turn that mess around instantly.

Blaming it on Obama before he even takes office is ridiculous.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but the democrats voted for the same war funding bills that Republicans did. As well as voting for both wars. The democrats have been in charge of congress for 2 years and haven't changed anything.

reply to post by djpaec

 

Your logic[sic] knows no bounds my friend. Hmm maybe if the third party candidates got elected to the house or senate and actually built a party so they could get on the national stage then there chances wouldn't be a long shot.
He was simply pointing out that for 3rd party candidates, those not Democrat or Republican, have no shot of winning and is essentially throwing away there vote. The only parties that have a chance are Democrat and Republican. There has only been 2 times in history where third party candidates had a shot that was the 1992 elections with Ross Perot, and 1912 with Theodore Roosevelt opposing his own parties leader Taft giving Woodrow Wilson the vote.

I understand what you are saying, and your intelligence[sic] and morals(sic!) are simply confused, my very best friend[sick], in the whole wide world. Don't insult me with "logic[sic]" and then delude yourself into thinking you are my friend. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I hope you can write future posts in a civilized manner by refraining from commenting on my intelligence, logic skills, or education.

You are throwing away your vote if you fail to vote for who your believe the best candidate is, assuming you took time to research the candidates. If you think the candidate won't result in a better system, then not only are you throwing away your vote, but you are subverting democracy. Now if you think that NLP Master Obama will result in mostly positive change US, then fine. If you think McCain will, then fine. But to vote for either one, if you believe they make America a worse place, is making a joke of democracy.

Anyone who fails to place their vote for the best candidate after an educated analysis, and instead places their vote with someone who they view as a lesser evil, is an enemy of democracy. They fail as a citizen, because they fail to make make the world a better place.

McCain had no chance to win as far as I was concerned at least 30 days before the election. So lets see... by your logic I would be better off doing what? Voting for Obama, because he was the only candidate who could win? That is obviously not good. Why people can't see that voting for one of two bad candidates just because they can win is almost just as bad, and I fail to understand in any form whatsoever how doing anything but voting for the best candidate is throwing away your vote! If there are no worthy candidates, don't vote for any of them.

Look, this is not my logic, this is mathematics. You have a .000001% of changing the outcome of the election, and you have a 100% chance of expressing who the best candidate is. So if you want to pretend that is isn't good logic to go the the polls to express who the best candidate is, then go ahead and make America a worse place and vote for the purpose of changing the outcome. Go ahead and vote to make America a worse place.

I'm not saying this would extend down to if there were 100 candidates without a run-off system in place, but clearly when their are only a handful of candidates, picking the best one is very logical. My "strange" logic of picking the best candidate while voting is required if we ever hope to break free from the two-party monopoly.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Though, 0bama voted for the extension of the Patriot Act, funding for the war (back and forth, of course), and voted in favor of the bailout. To think this is some sort of partisan issue, I'd have to tell you to "get real."

I know that concept is very outside the box'ish.