Why I'm so disinterested...

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Druidx

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.

Not really, they are claiming someone else will pay your way.

They are still being honest. That beats what the Repubs are doing. Face it. There will always be different people paying different amounts in taxes and not all of the taxes you pay are going to be used for you. That is just something you are going to have to deal with the rest of your life.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

So you don't think "universal health care" will bankrupt us? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? The universal health care BS panders to the poor who do not add anything to the tax base. Now they will be taking even more money. Where exactly does he plan on getting this money to pay for his health care plan? Oh wait he doesn't know or care because once he (if) get's into office he'll say well we just don't have the money, but if you vote for me next time I'll make it my #1 priority.

You're worried about UHC bankrupting this nation? It is already bankrupt.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

So you don't think "universal health care" will bankrupt us? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? The universal health care BS panders to the poor who do not add anything to the tax base. Now they will be taking even more money. Where exactly does he plan on getting this money to pay for his health care plan? Oh wait he doesn't know or care because once he (if) get's into office he'll say well we just don't have the money, but if you vote for me next time I'll make it my #1 priority.

I agree, there is and will be no $ for the universal health care package if Obama wins. But I doubt he will do something stupid like request another 2 trillion for it. He will probably have to fix the economy and then make a proposal on how to pay for it. Right now, universal health care is the least of anyone's concern.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

So you don't think "universal health care" will bankrupt us? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? The universal health care BS panders to the poor who do not add anything to the tax base. Now they will be taking even more money. Where exactly does he plan on getting this money to pay for his health care plan? Oh wait he doesn't know or care because once he (if) get's into office he'll say well we just don't have the money, but if you vote for me next time I'll make it my #1 priority.

If a trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar bailout aren't going to bankrupt us, what are you worried about? His plans seem like a pittance compared to the bullshit we've had to deal with. I don't know what history/reality you've been looking at, but it doesn't look anything remotely like what I see.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy


What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

That is the biggest reason I am voting for McCain even though he will lose. I seen what happens when 1 party control washington and it is not pretty. I want to go back to the way it was with a split government. Force them to compromise or gridlock either way I win. If Obama wins he will just rubber stamp what ever Pelosi can come up with. Obama has never shown he will go against his party.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy


What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

That is the biggest reason I am voting for McCain even though he will lose. I seen what happens when 1 party control washington and it is not pretty. I want to go back to the way it was with a split government. Force them to compromise or gridlock either way I win. If Obama wins he will just rubber stamp what ever Pelosi can come up with. Obama has never shown he will go against his party.

imo that is the only reason anyone would want to vote for McCain. Can't say I blame you for going down this road.

Pelosi scares me.

 

[robphelan]

"spend spend spend" - what in the hell do you think is happening right now in Iraq??!??!?!

almost a half a Trillion (Trillion with a "T") has been thrown out the damn window. who do you think is responsible for that?

How do you think we're bailing out these financial institutions that have failed miserable under the de-regulation initiatives of Graham et al?

You people can be so disingenuous.

Can you imagine what we could do for education here in America with all that money? Oh no, screw the kids who are not fortunate enough to have parents to afford private school, we need to spend all that money on bombing people instead.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

So you don't think "universal health care" will bankrupt us? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? The universal health care BS panders to the poor who do not add anything to the tax base. Now they will be taking even more money. Where exactly does he plan on getting this money to pay for his health care plan? Oh wait he doesn't know or care because once he (if) get's into office he'll say well we just don't have the money, but if you vote for me next time I'll make it my #1 priority.

If a trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar bailout aren't going to bankrupt us, what are you worried about? His plans seem like a pittance compared to the bullshit we've had to deal with. I don't know what history/reality you've been looking at, but it doesn't look anything remotely like what I see.

Exactly. :thumbsup:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

So you don't think "universal health care" will bankrupt us? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? The universal health care BS panders to the poor who do not add anything to the tax base. Now they will be taking even more money. Where exactly does he plan on getting this money to pay for his health care plan? Oh wait he doesn't know or care because once he (if) get's into office he'll say well we just don't have the money, but if you vote for me next time I'll make it my #1 priority.

If a trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar bailout aren't going to bankrupt us, what are you worried about? His plans seem like a pittance compared to the bullshit we've had to deal with. I don't know what history/reality you've been looking at, but it doesn't look anything remotely like what I see.

Medicare spends half a trillion dollars a year to cover a small segment of the population. Imagine covering another 200 million people at that rate.

When have health care entitlements ever cost what politicians said they would?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
If a trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar bailout aren't going to bankrupt us, what are you worried about? His plans seem like a pittance compared to the bullshit we've had to deal with. I don't know what history/reality you've been looking at, but it doesn't look anything remotely like what I see.

Medicare spends half a trillion dollars a year to cover a small segment of the population. Imagine covering another 200 million people at that rate.

When have health care entitlements ever cost what politicians said they would?

There are few things I would rather see my taxes go towards. That's just me though.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

Bwahaha..... The only way he will even come close to balancing the budget is if he is a flat out liar. Not that McCain will either but don't kid yourself by saying Obama intends to balance the budget.

Have you looked at the differences of where the US deficit goes from Clinton to Bush? Under Clinton's administration the deficit would have been gone by 2012. Having McSame in charge already spells disaster; he already plans to use more "borrow and spend" budgeting, except there is one problem - the credit is starting to dry up.

When George Dubya Bush came into office, it was the equivalent of giving your wife the credit card so she can blow all your nicely earned credit on shopping for crap you didn't need, then expecting you to foot the bill. It's the same thing here, McCain's policies already spell disaster before they are even in place, it's like he wasn't even aware of what was going on in Wallstreet right now. McSame in office = disaster for our economy, right when it's at it's weakest.

Who in the hell said anything about Clinton?

Tell ya what. Go read Obama's own web site. Read about all the new spending he intends to introduce and then reenter this debate. His tax increases (and decreases) might break us even with the CURRENT federal budget. Guess where his billions of new spending comes from?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Juddog
If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

Bwahaha..... The only way he will even come close to balancing the budget is if he is a flat out liar. Not that McCain will either but don't kid yourself by saying Obama intends to balance the budget.

Completely balance? I doubt it.

Set us on the right track so that we have a better shot at balancing it than we did with Bush or would with McCain? You betcha.

HOW????

Lets assume that raising the tax on the rich while lowering everyone elses taxes will finally get us a balanced budget. How in the hell will he be able to afford universal health care? How about the billions upon billions in other new spending he is promising? I like a lot of his proposed spending increases too but the fact is we simply can not afford it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

All you have to do is ask yourself this: How is the country doing over the last 8 years? Do you want more of that, or do you want someone better? If you like what direction the country has headed over the last 8 years, then vote McSame. If McSame wins though after you voted for him, expect another war (bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran), expect more "borrow and spend" GOP budgeting, and expect even looser regulations on Wall Street and the financial market.

If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

I would like to see say, 3 issues where McCain would be the same as Bush Co., AND the current congress, and how Obama would be different in those same 3 areas, and his plan (which he has none) to sway Congress to...uh..."change". Like, with voting records to back it up even though we really dont know how Obamarama would vote.

It comes down to what Who said: Its not a republican.

Im listening.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Who in the hell said anything about Clinton?

Tell ya what. Go read Obama's own web site. Read about all the new spending he intends to introduce and then reenter this debate. His tax increases (and decreases) might break us even with the CURRENT federal budget. Guess where his billions of new spending comes from?

(A) Obama's tax plans are revenue neutral, whereas McCain's are not.
(B) Most, if not all, of Obama's spending is offset somewhere else. PAYGO is very much in effect.

 

[tfcmasta97]

Ha 15,000 posts in 3 years, likes palin, cant understand why you cant just stop and say 'bring the boys home' when you go invading other countries.

Time is better spent explaining this stuff to a duck

You're not disinterested, you're just another moron

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism.

Stopped reading your nonsense there.

Second that. What a tool!

 

[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.

 

[heyheybooboo]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ d-i-s-i-n-g-e-n-u-o-u-s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

 

[Juddog]

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.

McCain is honest? He lied throughout the debate several times. You mention Obama spending more, look at the administration over the last 8 years and how much they have spent. Now McSame wants to follow the same policies. Do the math. Obama would spend less than McSame, and your taxes would decrease if you make less than $111,000, giving more hands into the working base of America.chart

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I'm so disinterested...

It seems you suffer from the same affliction as Sarah Palin, lack of intellectual curiosity.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

"More of the same" is following GWB's policies. Of the two candidates, who do you think will more likely follow GWB's policies?

 

[GroundedSailor]

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

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

Nice duh-version...

Hey genius. You're the one who started this thread with Palin. A real duh-version.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Do you guys really think that after we blow about 700B to 1 T in the next few months that we'll still have enough money for what these candidates promise? I'm sorry, but whoever wins this one is going to have to raise taxes ALOT or is going to have to CUT spending ALOT. Which basically nullifies Obama's big government promises and McCain's tax cuts. That's why as a voter, this election has me disinterested.

 

[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

 

[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.