who would you vote for and why?

[mdr]

No that number is a hypothetical. During one of my economics classes we came up with a "rate" of which will cover the increasing Social Security costs. That is what SS tax will be in 2029 if nothing in SS changes.

Wolf,

Ok, I can buy that number as a hypothetical. As a representative of the "BOOMER" generation I apologize for the disaster to come, even though I doubt I'll ever get to collect a dime of my SS contributions. Still have 10 quarters to work and 11 years before I'm eligible, at which time I'll get 50 cents on the dollars I put in because I am also part of a retirement plan that was managed properly and balanced revenue and outflow (Civil Service Retirement System).

He's before my generation, but it makes me proud that John McCain has the testicular fortitude to say he'd either cut Social Security benefits or raise the payroll tax. Somebody's got to say it eventually. Somebody's got to DO it eventually. It's the 800 lb gorilla in the room that nobody sees.

 

[wolfc70]

Wolf,

Ok, I can buy that number as a hypothetical. As a representative of the "BOOMER" generation I apologize for the disaster to come, even though I doubt I'll ever get to collect a dime of my SS contributions. Still have 10 quarters to work and 11 years before I'm eligible, at which time I'll get 50 cents on the dollars I put in because I am also part of a retirement plan that was managed properly and balanced revenue and outflow (Civil Service Retirement System).

He's before my generation, but it makes me proud that John McCain has the testicular fortitude to say he'd either cut Social Security benefits or raise the payroll tax. Somebody's got to say it eventually. Somebody's got to DO it eventually. It's the 800 lb gorilla in the room that nobody sees.

I am not blaming the boomers, just their parents!:Flash::justkidding:

I know it has to be fixed, but the longer it is put off, the worse it will be. So time will tell on how this debacle to come will work out. If I knew how to fix it, well I might actually own a Mercedes, instead of reading about them.

 

[mdr]

Wolf,
Here's an interesting site: Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt

As my dad used to say when I bragged "I'm not afraid of anything." - "Son, if you aren't afraid of some things, you just don't understand the situation."

It's not a "dot-gov", but I suspect the budget figures are legit, since it at least points you to the treasury department for backup.

A lot of the conclusions the site jumps to are pure partisan BS but it does bring up some interesting points. What I got from the site was the impression that neither George W Bush nor John McCain (the Maverick who voted for Bush's policy 98% of the time) deserve the title of "fiscal conservative". Your takeaway may be different.

 

[Hondo64d]

McCain.

I have what I call no contest issues. No matter what else a candidate says, I won't vote for a candidate that supports rights to abortion or Gun control.

Furthermore, I don't agree with Obama's views on national defense. As a retired military officer and OIF veteran, I want a Commander in Chief that has served in the armed forces he will command. McCain did so with honor.

John

 

[corekneelius]

i agree with the "voting for whoever sucks the least", i am sure most will remember the South Park episode with the two candidates for mascot...

giant douche VS turd sandwich

nuff said.

 

[mdr]

McCain.

I have what I call no contest issues. No matter what else a candidate says, I won't vote for a candidate that supports rights to abortion or Gun control.

Furthermore, I don't agree with Obama's views on national defense. As a retired military officer and OIF veteran, I want a Commander in Chief that has served in the armed forces he will command. McCain did so with honor.

John

John,
I respect your choice and your priorities but it strikes me that by your criteria we would never have had as president the only man ever elected to 4 terms in the oval office.

Hotei

PS: As an officer you might not need it, but didn't you feel betrayed by McCain's failure to support the latest GI bill sponsored by Sen. Webb? For me (I'm not military BTW) it was bad enough that McCain didn't support it, but it was downright cowardly of him not to even show up in the Senate to vote against it.

 

[FZ6 in Gresham]

I think I could be okay with either man in the White House (I am registered Independent).

However, each could make one incredibly bad choice for a VP, and that will influence my vote completely.
McCain is old, and if his death resulted in a Mormon president, that would be complete disaster; I live in Utah and see how the LDS church controls its politicians.
Obama could pick Hillary, and we've seen for years what happens to former "friends of the Clintons" who stand in their way. Don't put it past her.

If both Romney and Clinton are chosen, I may very well emigrate.

I'm an independent too! I'll vote for Paris Hilton, after seeing her ad. Her energy solution was thought out well.:rof:

My vote will probably also come down to VP picks.

 

[mdr]

Anybody notice that there's a new war in town? Our candidates have certainly been quiet about it...
[EDIT]
Well, nothing contentious so far, both are a bit wary of pi$$ing Russia off so they're both going with "I strongly denounce Russia's attacks and demand they start negotiating immediately." Yeah. That'll make those darn Ruskies think twice. Sorry. Couldn't help it. My apology to our Russian and Georgian members since I don't have a clue what the fighting is about. I do wish you guys could solve it peacefully, but I suspect you're thinking that about US a lot lately.
[/EDIT]

 

[mdr]

McCain.

I have what I call no contest issues. No matter what else a candidate says, I won't vote for a candidate that supports rights to abortion or Gun control.

John

John,
Unfortunately for me I can see both sides to the abortion argument. It's a non-issue for me either way.

As to gun control - to me that means being able to hit the 10 ring. Anyone watching the Olympics shooting? Guy just hit 25/25 in trap. Wow. :thumbup:

Hotei

 

[wolfc70]

Wolf,
Here's an interesting site: Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt

As my dad used to say when I bragged "I'm not afraid of anything." - "Son, if you aren't afraid of some things, you just don't understand the situation."

It's not a "dot-gov", but I suspect the budget figures are legit, since it at least points you to the treasury department for backup.

A lot of the conclusions the site jumps to are pure partisan BS but it does bring up some interesting points. What I got from the site was the impression that neither George W Bush nor John McCain (the Maverick who voted for Bush's policy 98% of the time) deserve the title of "fiscal conservative". Your takeaway may be different.

Thanks for the link, good info!

No, McCain is not a conservative, neither is Bush. That is why I think so many Republicans are disalusioned(sp) with him. Again, McCain is not my ideal choice, just the somewhat "better one". As in I agree more with McCain stuff (the McCain-Feingold bill still leaves a bitter taste though) than the Obama policies. The main thing I have against Obama is his more governement movement. I just think that right now, given our economic times, more governement is not the solution. Neither is the far left push for nanny stateism. If there was a Democrat who was a moderate, he/she would most likely get my vote.

 

[Oscar54]

Yea, but how will it be financed? Oh, taxes, right. I don't need them stealing any more of my money.

There may be good guys and bad guys, but they're all participating in a system that exploits it's current monopoly on force and violence to extract taxes from people to finance their little programs. That's the difference between government and corporate America. Yes, many businesses are tied with the government because of many reasons, but by and large businesses have to earn their own money in the marketplace to finance themselves. The government uses its monopoly on force and violence to finance itself, not by providing a good product or service to the marketplace. And that is impossible to deny.

Whoa! Dako81, The Republican's have done a good job of convincing you to hate your own government! They tell you how corrupt and wasteful your government is (but of course it is not them, though they controlled everything for 6 of the last 8 years) and they are going to fix everything because you can "TRUST" them.

How are you paying for your health insurance now? Is it free? Even if you are lucky enough to have an employer provided health plan, they are moving to make you pay more and provide less coverage. And the insurance companies are always looking for ways to deny coverage.

So, after the last 8 years of Enron and Abramoff scams, secret "Energy Policy" commissions, (gee, I wonder why gas is $4 a gallon), lied us into a quagmire occupation, killed over 4,000 of our troops for a lie, committing treason by outing an undercover CIA Agent for political revenge, corrupting our government institutions like the Justice Department by conjuring up bogus legal rationale for allowing torture, suspending Hebius Corpus, and warrantless wiretapping, (those rights protect you Dako81 from your government, not terrorists), firing US Attorneys because they were unbiasly enforcing the law and not using their position to destroy the administrations political opponents (ie. Democrats), or refusing to testify under oath "because we want to tell you the TRUTH and have nothing to hide", you still think the Republican's can be trusted more then the Democrats?

I guess I can't argue with that!

Ride Safe

Lewis

 

[Oscar54]

McCain

Taxes
Energy
Defense
Experience
Bonafide war hero

That being said I don't like either really. But a Democratic President with a Democratic congress would be DISASTER. Look what happened when we had Republicans controlling both. Clinton (the real one) was able to leave us with a surplus because the Republican congress wouldn't allow him to spend our money, not because he was some genius and great leader. We need the checks and balances of one party controlling congress while the other has the White House. We need someone with the right economic ideas, and McCain is much closer to that than Obama. I think Obama has a great aura but no substance or experience. What exactly are his policies, other than raising taxes all over the place and destroying our economy.

Cuba, pass me your coolaid!:rof:

Lewis

 

[dako81]

Whoa! Dako81, The Republican's have done a good job of convincing you to hate your own government! They tell you how corrupt and wasteful your government is (but of course it is not them, though they controlled everything for 6 of the last 8 years) and they are going to fix everything because you can "TRUST" them.

How are you paying for your health insurance now? Is it free? Even if you are lucky enough to have an employer provided health plan, they are moving to make you pay more and provide less coverage. And the insurance companies are always looking for ways to deny coverage.

So, after the last 8 years of Enron and Abramoff scams, secret "Energy Policy" commissions, (gee, I wonder why gas is $4 a gallon), lied us into a quagmire occupation, killed over 4,000 of our troops for a lie, committing treason by outing an undercover CIA Agent for political revenge, corrupting our government institutions like the Justice Department by conjuring up bogus legal rationale for allowing torture, suspending Hebius Corpus, and warrantless wiretapping, (those rights protect you Dako81 from your government, not terrorists), firing US Attorneys because they were unbiasly enforcing the law and not using their position to destroy the administrations political opponents (ie. Democrats), or refusing to testify under oath "because we want to tell you the TRUTH and have nothing to hide", you still think the Republican's can be trusted more then the Democrats?

I guess I can't argue with that!

Ride Safe

Lewis

I confused ...K, I'm really not sure where all of that came from... Like, I'm not sure how you came from what I had said, to everything you said. And I really can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I wouldn't say that the republicans (of today) have convinced me of anything other than they're all on the same team as the democrats, just trying to appeal to the older generations because really the republicans today are the democrats of yesteryear. If that makes any sense.

I don't trust anyone who will willingly and purposely use force against me and my neighbors to achieve their goals if we do not comply with them and their demands. (sounds like the government huh?)

My health coverage comes from my employer and out of my paycheck. Everything has a cost. If my employer didn't have anything to do with my health coverage, I'd likely be paid a higher wage and the employer would make more profit since they wouldn't have that expense. And if it was gov't subsidized, taxes would be paying for it. It's not free. Nothing is free other than sunlight, air, and rainwater.

The nature of business is to make a profit. By doing this, you provide a better product or service, reduce your costs, and sell as much as you can. If your business is insurance, one way to reduce costs are to deny claims. That's just the nature of the beast.

I've said it before, and I'll say it time and time again. Gas is relatively the same value as it has been for the past 30 or more years. The reason why the "price" is higher is because our money is worth less. Yes, it is true the people selling the oil set the price, so when the money they are getting for their product is worth less, they have to demand more of it for the same amount of product. It is plain and simple. Now, yes, usually over time products become cheaper, but with the nature of oil as a finite commodity, and taxes, this has not been the case. But, gold and silver are also a limited commodity, and they are something that holds value, unlike our dollar, which we can use to compare.
This can be done in different ways. I did it like this:

...I became interested in the price of a gallon of regular gasoline vs. the price of silver vs. USD ($ dollars) over the past 20 years or so. I went to doe.gov and kitco.com where I got information about the price of fuel and silver since 1990. ...

Here's what I came up with:

1990 gas $1.15 a gal silver $5.00 oz ratio: .23 oz of silver for 1 gallon gas
1995 gas $1.08 a gal silver $5.30 oz ratio: .204 oz of silver for 1 gallon gas
2000 gas $1.50 a gal silver $5.00 oz ratio: .3 oz of silver for 1 gallon gas
2005 gas $2.45 a gal silver $7.50 oz ratio: .327 oz of silver for 1 gallon gas
current $4.10 a gal silver $17.87 oz ratio: .229 oz of silver for 1 gallon gas

As you can see, gasoline has stayed in a range of about 30%+- what it has been worth since 1990 in terms of silver. .....

So from what I've found, the decrease in the value of our currency is why it is costing more at the pump, not oil companies jacking up prices.

...

(current was when I posted this I don't remember when probably more than a month ago)

I don't think people should be worrying about gas prices as much as they should be worrying that silver went from ~$7.50 oz. in 2005 to ~$18.00 oz. now. Gas prices are just something that they see that is affected more immediately than other products and services. All of this means our money is worth less. You can figure out who to thank for that.

Yea, I saw the latest and even Iraq now is demanding a timetable for the US troops to be out. Probably because all of the fighting is caused by people getting pissed off that the US gov't has troops over there. (Notice I don't say our troops, or we have troops over there. That's because they're the governments troops and they have them over there. Not we or us, I've been trying to stay away from those terms lately.)

And yea about all the other stuff. But "I still believe the Republicans can be more trusted than the Democrats?" I wouldn't say that really. I don't trust any of them. They're all on the same team. Oh and they don't even do their job. Project Vote Smart - Voting Records - Officials you can type in Obama or McCain on the left there and check out what they've voted for. You'll find since the last time they voted on a Budget, Spending, or Taxes bill in July of '07, till the last time they voted in July '08, Obama has only actually voted 9 times out of if I counted right 54 bills. That's him doing his job just shy of 17% of the time. McCain voted 7 times out of 54. The two times they both voted on the same thing, one was the same, and the other they were against each other.
And for McCain being an ex POW, he didn't even vote on plenty of bills to help troops...

It's really interesting to check out what they didn't vote for so try it. Obama didn't even for one way or another for the economic stimulus package.

But anyways, I still can't decide if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Maybe you were confused on where I stood, so I'll make it clear. I don't support either party, they're both just a spectacle for the american people to watch.

 

[wolfc70]

So, after the last 8 years of Enron and Abramoff scams, secret "Energy Policy" commissions, (gee, I wonder why gas is $4 a gallon),
Lewis

Um, crude oil is traded on the stock market based on futures prices. You buy oil at the price you think it will be a month from now. Oil specualtors drove up the price, as oil was a good hedge against the falling Dollar value. Now that the Dollar is on an upward swing, one Dollar buys more oil, so speculative prices are falling.

If the Dollar had held it's value against the Euro, crude would have only been $92 per barrel, not the $147 that we had a month ago. Many factors play in to the prices of commodities.

 

[mdr]

Dako/Wolf,
Ever ponder that maybe the fact that Bush43 wrote a $700,000,000,000 bad check for a war that wasn't necessary to begin with is part of the reason our currency isn't worth what it was 7 years ago...? My only gripe with the Dem's is that they've had the opportunity to stop him from writing more bad checks since 2006 and haven't had the courage/honesty to vote against the war budget and stick to it. In that sense I'll agree that both parties are to blame.

Hotei

 

[dako81]

Dako/Wolf,
Ever ponder that maybe the fact that Bush43 wrote a $700,000,000,000 bad check for a war that wasn't necessary to begin with is part of the reason our currency isn't worth what it was 7 years ago...? My only gripe with the Dem's is that they've had the opportunity to stop him from writing more bad checks since 2006 and haven't had the courage/honesty to vote against the war budget and stick to it. In that sense I'll agree that both parties are to blame.

Hotei

Being president = being able to write multi-billion dollar checks? I've got to figure out that routing number and get in on some of that...

I'm no fan of any (dictator)president, but I think that you're misled believing that one person acting as the president can do so much. It's all of them (elected officials, or people with fancy hats). For some reason it seems like you don't want to believe it.

Look at the big picture, not individual snippets. I can't make you or show you. But don't think for one minute that, whether it be a D or an R, that they're not out there for themselves. Once you get past local town politics, where the money isn't enough so you still work your job and are still a member of the community you live in, not long once you get past that, everything you ever believed in changes, and you're in it for youself.

 

[mdr]

Being president = being able to write multi-billion dollar checks? I've got to figure out that routing number and get in on some of that...

I'm no fan of any (dictator)president, but I think that you're misled believing that one person acting as the president can do so much. It's all of them (elected officials, or people with fancy hats). For some reason it seems like you don't want to believe it.

Look at the big picture, not individual snippets. I can't make you or show you. But don't think for one minute that, whether it be a D or an R, that they're not out there for themselves. Once you get past local town politics, where the money isn't enough so you still work your job and are still a member of the community you live in, not long once you get past that, everything you ever believed in changes, and you're in it for youself.

Dako,
Sorry, but you're wrong and here's why. The president may get advice from others, but he/she can as a lone individual, personally order the country to war. That's a lot of power. The War Powers Act of 1973 tried to limit that power, but (to date) the so called limit has been "a distinction without a difference". In other words, the WPA requires the President to get authorization for war from congress within 60 days. 60 days is a long time in modern warfare. In 1967 the IDF destroyed multiple Arab armies in 6 days. And can you imagine that after fighting in country-X for 59 days congress is NOT going to approve the war?

EDIT: Iraq War II started on 20 March 2003. Baghdad fell on 9 April 2003. The invasion took less than 3 weeks. Unfortunately the war is still going on 5 plus years later. Even if Bush43 had not faked evidence, OOPS, I mean "successfully promoted the war" congress would still have had no say since their decision would have occurred after 90% of the damage to Iraq had been done. Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam was an evil SOB, but it wasn't our job to fix their political system. But now that I think about it, the US did put Saddam in power - but that was Bush41's fault... Maybe the son was trying to atone for the sins of the father... [/EDIT]

I know you're young but you've shown a pretty good grasp of history. Can you find the document that shows congress formally declaring war on Vietnam? I know you won't bother looking cause there isn't one. Vietnam was officially a "police action" initiated by a president, not congress. You've heard about draft numbers - mine was 252. That's what kept me from getting an involuntary opportunity 40 years ago to join the 58,256 names from my generation on the wall of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial. The president has a lot of power, more than you apparently are aware of. That's why it's so important to choose the right one.

Hotei

 

[dako81]

Dako,
Sorry, but you're wrong and here's why. The president may get advice from others, but he/she can as a lone individual, personally order the country to war. That's a lot of power. The War Powers Act of 1973 tried to limit that power, but (to date) the so called limit has been "a distinction without a difference". In other words, the WPA requires the President to get authorization for war from congress within 60 days. 60 days is a long time in modern warfare. In 1967 the IDF destroyed multiple Arab armies in 6 days. And can you imagine that after fighting in country-X for 59 days congress is NOT going to approve the war?

EDIT: Iraq War II started on 20 March 2003. Baghdad fell on 9 April 2003. The invasion took less than 3 weeks. Unfortunately the war is still going on 5 plus years later. Even if Bush43 had not faked evidence, OOPS, I mean "successfully promoted the war" congress would still have had no say since their decision would have occurred after 90% of the damage to Iraq had been done. Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam was an evil SOB, but it wasn't our job to fix their political system. But now that I think about it, the US did put Saddam in power - but that was Bush41's fault... Maybe the son was trying to atone for the sins of the father... [/EDIT]

I know you're young but you've shown a pretty good grasp of history. Can you find the document that shows congress formally declaring war on Vietnam? I know you won't bother looking cause there isn't one. Vietnam was officially a "police action" initiated by a president, not congress. You've heard about draft numbers - mine was 252. That's what kept me from getting an involuntary opportunity 40 years ago to join the 58,256 names from my generation on the wall of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial. The president has a lot of power, more than you apparently are aware of. That's why it's so important to choose the right one.

Hotei

This country hasn't declared war for awhile. Iraq is not a war. It's an authoization of use of military force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

"The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

The courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter -- examples being Holmes v. United States and United States v. O'Brien -- and in practice presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war."


You're right, in effect a president can "war" with a different territory or country, but not have a true War by themselves. The president by themselves can only legally "Authorize The Use of Military Force". But we all know they don't play by their own rules anyways. So who are we trying to kid with all of this?? lol

So, based on this, they can do whatever they want whenever they want, without our "representatives" input. So what do we really have here? And why aren't we trying to add in some accountability to the office of the president? "Choosing the right person" would be great. But there is no right person for this office.

 

[Cuba]

Cuba, pass me your coolaid!:rof:

Lewis

Are you arguing that having a Republican congress and White House was good for the economy, or that raising taxes will be a good solution to our current stagnation?

I notice that McCain is enjoying a strong lead in our poll here...

 

[mdr]

This country hasn't declared war for awhile. Iraq is not a war. It's an authoization of use of military force.
<snip>

Dako,
Nice try. :thumbup: I think Iraq passes the "walks like a duck" test. It's a war.

But there is no right person for this office.

So I've been successful at getting you to NOT vote for McCain? Can I do the victory dance now...??? :cheer:

Hotei