Why I'm so disinterested...

[SigArms08a]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Okay, even though I didn't claim Obama's policies would be net neutral, they're still funded better than McCain's

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that Obama's policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center adds that McCain's policies would lead to an even bigger increase in the debt of $5.1 trillion.

McCain's policy proposals would expand our debt 1.5 trillion more than Obama's in 10 years. While I'd like to see ZERO expansion of our debt which is already out of control, I'll take the lower figure any day . . .

Link

From http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...ions/url.cfm?ID=411750
"Neither candidate?s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

McCain did talk about gov't and its out of control spending, but the tax policy center doesn't factor that in. Earmarks have brought a great deal to harm to our out-of-control budget and Bush has done nothing about it. And the Dems having control of the Senate/House have failed to address this as well.

Does anybody here really believe that a Dem Pres and Dem Senate/House won't extend social programs beyond what they've talked about? National Health Care alone could bankrupt the country.....especially if the government is running it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Okay, even though I didn't claim Obama's policies would be net neutral, they're still funded better than McCain's

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that Obama's policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center adds that McCain's policies would lead to an even bigger increase in the debt of $5.1 trillion.

McCain's policy proposals would expand our debt 1.5 trillion more than Obama's in 10 years. While I'd like to see ZERO expansion of our debt which is already out of control, I'll take the lower figure any day . . .

Link

From http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...ions/url.cfm?ID=411750
"Neither candidate?s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

McCain did talk about gov't and its out of control spending, but the tax policy center doesn't factor that in. Earmarks have brought a great deal to harm to our out-of-control budget and Bush has done nothing about it. And the Dems having control of the Senate/House have failed to address this as well.

Does anybody here really believe that a Dem Pres and Dem Senate/House won't extend social programs beyond what they've talked about? National Health Care alone could bankrupt the country.....especially if the government is running it.

While $18 Billion/year in federal earmarks IS a problem, it's a drop in the bucket when compared to other spending. Just as one quick/easy example, the now $700 Billion needed to bail out Wall Street and the roughly $40 Billion needed to bail out our big three automakers.

So let's put earmarks into perspective here, my friends.

:laugh:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
What are we getting with him?

Read the communist manifesto sometime. That is what you are getting, wealth redistribution to a far greater extent than we have it today. That is the agenda of the Democratic Party and that is the populist platform to vote for.

Shaking this money tree is what you need to vote for.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The replies from the lefties are interesting...

"Ooo... he likes sarah... idiot"

Nice duh-version... Nobody even attempts to deny that Obama:

1. Wants to spend MORE (despite even leftie objections to the current level of spending)
2. Has no plan to pay for it other than a token tax raise on the wealthy that they will dodge anyway
3. Has no intentions of an immediate pull out in Iraq despite the call for such...

So where is my contention wrong? Obama is more of the same.... a crippling amount more. More than we can sustain of the same. And he has no real plan to pay for all of this new spending.

Spend more.
Stay in Iraq.
Keep talking about hope. Oh nevermind... I get it. Hope hope hope... Substance? Sorry, here's some hope for ya.

At least McCain is honest. I'll take honesty over 'hoping form something better' any day.

You just got a ton of honesty in this thread but you just shined it on. What you mean is you'll stay within the comfortable confines of your programming rather than open yourself to change. You are hardened cement.

Do you recall what I said recently about conservatives? They're not open to change. It's not their default position. Rather, they cling to tradition, and cling to the status quo. Given that mindset, it's easy to see why they'd vote for McCain. After all, under his leadership, virtually nothing would change from the last eight years.

 

[kage69]

The replies from the lefties are interesting...

But it's the similar responses from non- "lefties" which make your assertions even more interesting. But I digress, you're the one cheering a woman with no earthly business partaking in anything more important than a PTA meeting.

At least McCain is honest.

LOL! I guess that depends on which McCain you're talking about... pre-2000 and I would agree with you. Now, it just seems like you left your Palin earplugs in when listening to McCain.
Just admit it, you dig Palin as she's an Alaskan, like yourself. Nothing wrong with that, but don't get uppidity when others are judge her by her grasp of politics and intellect rather than where she hails from.

Read the communist manifesto sometime. That is what you are getting, wealth redistribution to a far greater extent than we have it today.

Have you been ingesting a lot of lead over the last few years? Someone as informed as you pretend to be should be able to articulate why Obama is wrong on the merits (or lack thereof) of his actual plan - or are you fine with character assassination, in your typical McCarthy-esque style of baseless bullshit?

 

[Throckmorton]

Almost every election you people fall for the "small government" line, and elect a Republican who spends more and more, gives tax cuts for the wealthy, and pays for it all with debt. When we want to spend money on improving education, infrastructure, social services, and science, you call it socialism and start waving little American flags, as if military spending isn't socialist.

 

[mooseracing]

Almost every election is worthless.....Every candidate makes lies or open ended statements that they can somehow blur you into believing.

And I think this election T-shirt Hell says it best....Vote for incompetence or incontinence.

Either way I see Obama being like Bush, he has someone else sticking their hand up his ass and controlling him like a puppet once he is in office. On the other side McCain will be dead and we will have some chick in office that will try to make to large of changes that will bite her in the ass.

It's a lose lose situation, same every year.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You lost me with ""Yeah yeah... I like Palin.""

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Okay, even though I didn't claim Obama's policies would be net neutral, they're still funded better than McCain's

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that Obama's policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center adds that McCain's policies would lead to an even bigger increase in the debt of $5.1 trillion.

McCain's policy proposals would expand our debt 1.5 trillion more than Obama's in 10 years. While I'd like to see ZERO expansion of our debt which is already out of control, I'll take the lower figure any day . . .

Link

From http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...ions/url.cfm?ID=411750
"Neither candidate?s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

McCain did talk about gov't and its out of control spending, but the tax policy center doesn't factor that in. Earmarks have brought a great deal to harm to our out-of-control budget and Bush has done nothing about it. And the Dems having control of the Senate/House have failed to address this as well.

Does anybody here really believe that a Dem Pres and Dem Senate/House won't extend social programs beyond what they've talked about? National Health Care alone could bankrupt the country.....especially if the government is running it.

While $18 Billion/year in federal earmarks IS a problem, it's a drop in the bucket when compared to other spending. Just as one quick/easy example, the now $700 Billion needed to bail out Wall Street and the roughly $40 Billion needed to bail out our big three automakers.

So let's put earmarks into perspective here, my friends.

:laugh:

exactly. so many debates could be settled (yes, settled) if both side agreed to examine at the topic in perspective. McCain and Palin are tying their fiscal responsibility qualifications to their opposition to earmarks while obfuscating the actual impact of earmarks on the budget (not to mention Palin's questionable "objections" to earmarks). it's as if i declared that i budget myself responsibly because i resist the temptation to buy a Starbucks coffee every morning, but I buy the new Hummer H2 every year.

 

[Deeko]

I'm sorry, but this post is absurd. Why would you consider voting for a democrat if your ideal government is small and fiscally conservative? Save your breath and go vote for Chuck.

Obama is NOT more of the same as Bush at all unless you take an EXTREMELY narrow viewpoint.

 

[Eeezee]

Sorry, but McCain's history of fiscal irresponsibility makes Obama look like he's planning to run a small town.

McCain is the one who is more of the same. With Obama at least he's telling you the truth when he tells you his spending plan. With the Republicans you can expect similar deficits to what we see today, with the Democrats you can expect those deficits to decrease.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The replies from the lefties are interesting...

"Ooo... he likes sarah... idiot"

Nice duh-version...

Then why did you bring her up?!

At least McCain is honest.

LOL, you're a very gullible person aren't you?

Having been an Arizona resident for most of my life, I can tell you that honesty is not McCain's strong suit. If you believe a single thing he says, you've been successfully deceived. He has flip-flopped and lied about so many issues that it's difficult to keep track of them.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You lost me with ""Yeah yeah... I like Palin.""

:thumbsup: Seriously.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
And the Republican policy of "Borrow and Spend" is somehow more noble? At least the Democrats are honest enough to tell America that they have to pay for the government they want/get.

No they're not. Where was the fiscal responsibility all those years prior to '94 when the Dems ran Congress? They've proven in the past and will prove again they're happy to borrow and spend as well. The Dems are no better (or worse) than the Republicans; they're the same. This is why it's time to look at 3rd parties.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Okay, even though I didn't claim Obama's policies would be net neutral, they're still funded better than McCain's

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that Obama's policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center adds that McCain's policies would lead to an even bigger increase in the debt of $5.1 trillion.

McCain's policy proposals would expand our debt 1.5 trillion more than Obama's in 10 years. While I'd like to see ZERO expansion of our debt which is already out of control, I'll take the lower figure any day . . .

Link

That's some cold comfort you offer there - both candidates will ruin the country, but my guy will take longer! :roll: Time to abandon both major parties, people. Both parties want to drive the country off a cliff; the only issue is how fast we approach the edge.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Okay, even though I didn't claim Obama's policies would be net neutral, they're still funded better than McCain's

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that Obama's policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center adds that McCain's policies would lead to an even bigger increase in the debt of $5.1 trillion.

McCain's policy proposals would expand our debt 1.5 trillion more than Obama's in 10 years. While I'd like to see ZERO expansion of our debt which is already out of control, I'll take the lower figure any day . . .

Link

That's some cold comfort you offer there - both candidates will ruin the country, but my guy will take longer! :roll: Time to abandon both major parties, people. Both parties want to drive the country off a cliff; the only issue is how fast we approach the edge.

And which third party has an even remote shot at winning anything? At this stage, a vote for a third party is a great protest vote, but not one of them seem very viable in the short term.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Okay, even though I didn't claim Obama's policies would be net neutral, they're still funded better than McCain's

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that Obama's policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center adds that McCain's policies would lead to an even bigger increase in the debt of $5.1 trillion.

McCain's policy proposals would expand our debt 1.5 trillion more than Obama's in 10 years. While I'd like to see ZERO expansion of our debt which is already out of control, I'll take the lower figure any day . . .

Link

That's some cold comfort you offer there - both candidates will ruin the country, but my guy will take longer! :roll: Time to abandon both major parties, people. Both parties want to drive the country off a cliff; the only issue is how fast we approach the edge.

And which third party has an even remote shot at winning anything? At this stage, a vote for a third party is a great protest vote, but not one of them seem very viable in the short term.

True, but that's also a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only when enough people start abandoning the Big 2 will politicians start to pay attention. Besides, I'd rather cast a protest vote than a vote for either Big 2 candidate, neither of whom are of my choosing.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The replies from the lefties are interesting...

"Ooo... he likes sarah... idiot"

Nice duh-version...

<snip>

Um, you're the one who brought her up