Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Why are you voting for whoever for President?

  1. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Sorry I was away on vacation for a while with little internet access.

    I just wanted to respond back to a few things. SC keeps saying the Senate cannot pass bills because the Republicans have enough votes to keep the Cloture Rule from being used against a filibuster and has been able to do so 8 months into Obama's term. The Republicans didnt have that many votes until February of 2010. In fact, he got Obamacare passed after the Republicans gained those seats.

    Why do you think Romney will not cut spending? When did Romney say he wanted to end collective bargaining nationally (maybe I missed that)?

    SC asks how much of my pay and benefits am I willing to give up? For the sake of honesty, I no longer work for the fire department. I think you are missing the bigger point though. You are worried about a cut in pay and benefits when the real issue is a cut in jobs. Local governments faced with decreased revenues will be faced with that decision or they will have to face bankruptcy.

    You say the Republicans are avoiding Simpson/Bowles like the plague. How so?

    You say Romney wants to get rid of firefighters. He does not. A president should have nothing to do with hiring firefighters (except those federal firefighters you and Dialed are discussing which I have no problem with) except to provide an environment where private businesses can thrive so they can pay taxes and more firefighters can be hired.

    Is that where we differ? I dont think the answer to the recovery lies with increasing jobs with the federal government. I think it lies with increasing jobs with private business.
    Last edited by Spencer534; 07-21-2012 at 04:07 PM.

  2. #52
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Is that where we differ? I dont think the answer to the recovery lies with increasing jobs with the federal government. I think it lies with increasing jobs with private business.
    Historical precedent set by FDR, Reagan, and Bush II disagree with this. The private sector has never led the nation out of recession unless it was done with significant government spending through the contracting process.

    As to the rest of your points. Please feel free to Google search any of the topics where you desire a response. I no longer have the patience to debate with another conservative over their philosophy that has effectively bankrupted the nation over the last 30 years.

    What I do know is that public servants are being made the scapegoats by conservative interests whose ultimate goal is to significantly roll back compensation. And being made the scapegoats for problems that were not caused by public servants. You no longer work for a fire department. Therefore, there is no point in further discussion.
    Last edited by scfire86; 07-22-2012 at 01:45 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #53
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Im sorry to hear you dont want to discuss this further. I do find it odd you will discriminate against someone who doesnt work for the fire department. Arent you retired?

    I cant let you off with your statements. Im sure you meant that FDR didnt get us out of the Great Depression with the government contracts of the New Deal, but with those of WWII manufacturing. If so, you are right.

    You could say the recovery of the 80s under Reagan was partially due to government contracts, but the tax decreases also played a significant role.

    Bush was a huge spender and increased our debt tremendously. It was wrong. I think we can both agree on that.

    I didnt need to google the topics. You were wrong about what you said regarding Simpson-Bowles/Romney wanting to get rid of firefighters/Republicans controlling the Senate. The Republicans dont mind increasing revenues through other means outside of tax rate increases. President Obama does not want to discuss that.

    Its funny. Last year when Obama wanted to vote for a continuation of the Bush Tax Rates last year, he said you dont raise taxes when you are trying to recover. What changed?

    Who is making public servants scapegoats and for what?

    You dont want compensation rolled back, but what should local leaders do to keep from bankrupting their communities?. I am not talking about Scranton. That is extreme and done the wrong way.
    msalf likes this.

  4. #54
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Im sorry to hear you dont want to discuss this further. I do find it odd you will discriminate against someone who doesnt work for the fire department. Arent you retired?
    Yes. What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I cant let you off with your statements. Im sure you meant that FDR didnt get us out of the Great Depression with the government contracts of the New Deal, but with those of WWII manufacturing. If so, you are right.
    It was a combination of both. The New Deal started the process of pulling the US out of the Great Depression. The massive spending to support the war effort completed the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    You could say the recovery of the 80s under Reagan was partially due to government contracts, but the tax decreases also played a significant role.
    No proof to show the causal effect of his tax decreases. If one believes his tax policy was one of the causes, one also has to embrace the other facets of his fiscal policy. Like the liquidity he injected into the economy that virtually tripled the national debt during his administration. He also raised taxes in other venues to offset the deficits he was incurring as a result of his spending policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Bush was a huge spender and increased our debt tremendously. It was wrong. I think we can both agree on that.
    Funny, how conservatives all say that now. During his administration they supported him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I didnt need to google the topics. You were wrong about what you said regarding Simpson-Bowles/Romney wanting to get rid of firefighters/Republicans controlling the Senate. The Republicans dont mind increasing revenues through other means outside of tax rate increases. President Obama does not want to discuss that.
    Because the Republican solutions have been shown to either not work or be ineffective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Its funny. Last year when Obama wanted to vote for a continuation of the Bush Tax Rates last year, he said you dont raise taxes when you are trying to recover. What changed?
    I have no problem keeping taxes at the current levels for the middle class. The impacted group should indeed have their taxes raised to start offsetting the deficits incurred during the Bush Administration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Who is making public servants scapegoats and for what?
    Conservatives who dislike public servants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    You dont want compensation rolled back, but what should local leaders do to keep from bankrupting their communities?. I am not talking about Scranton. That is extreme and done the wrong way.
    Look for ways to increase revenue. If compensation is to be rolled back, it can be done via collective bargaining. Something conservatives in CA want to see abolished.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    My point was that you no longer work for the fire department.

    FDR's policies never got unemployment below 14% and led to a recession 1938 with unemployment reaching nearly 20%. His. It was WWII that pulled us out.

    Yes Reagan did raise real taxes (gas and cigarettes, etc), but the income tax went from over 50% to 28%. He instituted numerous changes to the tax code, something both the Democrats and Republicans want to do now (see Simpson/Bowles), but Obama will have none of.

    Instead of supporting a change in the tax rate, would you support a change in the tax code which would increase revenues, but leave the middle class with the same or less taxes?

    Please expand on which conservatives are making public servants scapegoats and for what?

    Please tell me how you would increase local revenue specifically? I actually support your statement regarding rolling back compensation although you know my concerns with collective bargaining. Heroic unions which came forward and said if budget cuts need to be made, then cut benefits and salaries across the board instead of firing employees should be the model for others.

    We agree again. Yes conservatives in CA (and elsewhere) want to see collective bargaining abolished.

  6. #56
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    My point was that you no longer work for the fire department.
    I still collect a pension from a public entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    FDR's policies never got unemployment below 14% and led to a recession 1938 with unemployment reaching nearly 20%. His. It was WWII that pulled us out.
    FDR inherited a non-farm unemployment rate of over 40%. Getting unemployment down to 14% was a significant improvement. At least for those of us who utilize a numbering system where the number "14" is less than the number "40." Your numbering system may be different. Most economists without an ideological dogma to reinforce will acknowledge the New Deal was an important part in stopping the bleeding and helping the private sector get on its feet again. It didn’t “end” the Great Depression without the intervention of Lend Lease and World War II but it did four things.:

    1) Helped improve virtually all economic indicators to some degree,

    2) Put a paycheck in the pocket and food on the table for millions who otherwise would have likely perished,

    3) Left lasting public infrastructure improvements that otherwise would never have been built, and

    4)By generating hope in the people who had been hopeless, being told before FDR that they would eat pie in the sky. This was no insignificant measure to preserve democracy .

    As I pointed out earlier. It wasn't the private sector that led the way out of the Great Depression. Or any other recession for that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Yes Reagan did raise real taxes (gas and cigarettes, etc), but the income tax went from over 50% to 28%. He instituted numerous changes to the tax code, something both the Democrats and Republicans want to do now (see Simpson/Bowles), but Obama will have none of.
    There you go again. The highest marginal tax rate in 1981 was close to 70%. He lowered it to 50% where it stayed till 1986. Then it was lowered to 38.5% in 1987 and finally to 28% in 1988. Bush Sr. raised it to 31% and Clinton raised it again to 39%. At which point a balanced budget with a surplus was handed off to Bush Jr. who proceeded to hand off record deficits and a doubling of the national debt to his successor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Instead of supporting a change in the tax rate, would you support a change in the tax code which would increase revenues, but leave the middle class with the same or less taxes?
    Would like to see details before I answer this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Please expand on which conservatives are making public servants scapegoats and for what?
    Public employee compensation is being blamed for municipal bankruptcies. When that is not the entire cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Please tell me how you would increase local revenue specifically? I actually support your statement regarding rolling back compensation although you know my concerns with collective bargaining. Heroic unions which came forward and said if budget cuts need to be made, then cut benefits and salaries across the board instead of firing employees should be the model for others.
    Public private partnerships for one. My old department utilized that process with great success. Which was pushed by the union. It wasn't brought by our managers. The union also pushed a WeFit program that cut workers comp costs by 40%. Those are two of the better examples.
    Last edited by scfire86; 07-23-2012 at 10:01 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #57
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    You say Romney wants to get rid of firefighters. He does not. A president should have nothing to do with hiring firefighters (except those federal firefighters you and Dialed are discussing which I have no problem with) except to provide an environment where private businesses can thrive so they can pay taxes and more firefighters can be hired.

    Is that where we differ? I dont think the answer to the recovery lies with increasing jobs with the federal government. I think it lies with increasing jobs with private business.
    I disagree. I am currently in the process with a City Department that is able to hire a number of new Firefighters because of the SAFER Grant. I have worked for a number of years as a volunteer firefighter and I now have a good chance of getting hired by a full time paid department. I know these grants have also kept some departments from laying off Firefighters. So when someone says it's not the government's job, I disagree. If Romney was president, I would not have this opportunity.
    As far as Private vs. Public sector, how about create jobs in both!

  8. #58
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialed View Post
    I disagree. I am currently in the process with a City Department that is able to hire a number of new Firefighters because of the SAFER Grant. I have worked for a number of years as a volunteer firefighter and I now have a good chance of getting hired by a full time paid department. I know these grants have also kept some departments from laying off Firefighters. So when someone says it's not the government's job, I disagree. If Romney was president, I would not have this opportunity.
    As far as Private vs. Public sector, how about create jobs in both!
    Contrary to the conservative mantra, the government does indeed create jobs. Every day.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    FDR inherited a non-farm unemployment rate of over 40%. Getting unemployment down to 14% was a significant improvement. At least for those of us who utilize a numbering system where the number "14" is less than the number "40." Your numbering system may be different. Most economists without an ideological dogma to reinforce will acknowledge the New Deal was an important part in stopping the bleeding and helping the private sector get on its feet again. It didn’t “end” the Great Depression without the intervention of Lend Lease and World War II but it did four things.:

    1) Helped improve virtually all economic indicators to some degree,

    2) Put a paycheck in the pocket and food on the table for millions who otherwise would have likely perished,

    3) Left lasting public infrastructure improvements that otherwise would never have been built, and

    4)By generating hope in the people who had been hopeless, being told before FDR that they would eat pie in the sky. This was no insignificant measure to preserve democracy .

    As I pointed out earlier. It wasn't the private sector that led the way out of the Great Depression. Or any other recession for that matter.
    I agree with your assessment of the New Deal and its accomplishments and that it helped the country greatly. Some try to say it was what caused the recovery. Do you really think the private sector has not led the way out of recessions? Yes government defense spending played a crucial role in the 80s recovery, but the private sector was just as crucial. There was no massive increase in government spending between elder Bush and Clinton. The cause of the recovery then was the dot-com boom, i.e. private business. If government spending were the key to a healthy economy, we would not have seen the recession of 08.


    There you go again. The highest marginal tax rate in 1981 was close to 70%. He lowered it to 50% where it stayed till 1986. Then it was lowered to 38.5% in 1987 and finally to 28% in 1988. Bush Sr. raised it to 31% and Clinton raised it again to 39%. At which point a balanced budget with a surplus was handed off to Bush Jr. who proceeded to hand off record deficits and a doubling of the national debt to his successor.
    Yes as long as we are not saying Clinton did not raise the national debt. During his term it grew by 1.4 Trillion.


    Would like to see details before I answer this.
    Eliminate all tax deductions except mortgage interest, employer sponsored health insurance and retirement saving which would be decreased incrementally over several years by 50%.

    Change the current six tax brackets to 9, 15 and 24%.

    Eliminate all tax deductions for corporations and lower the corporate rate to 27%.

    Public employee compensation is being blamed for municipal bankruptcies. When that is not the entire cause.
    Agreed.

    Public private partnerships for one. My old department utilized that process with great success. Which was pushed by the union. It wasn't brought by our managers. The union also pushed a WeFit program that cut workers comp costs by 40%. Those are two of the better examples.
    Sound like great ideas.

    I disagree. I am currently in the process with a City Department that is able to hire a number of new Firefighters because of the SAFER Grant. I have worked for a number of years as a volunteer firefighter and I now have a good chance of getting hired by a full time paid department. I know these grants have also kept some departments from laying off Firefighters. So when someone says it's not the government's job, I disagree. If Romney was president, I would not have this opportunity.
    As far as Private vs. Public sector, how about create jobs in both!
    Best of luck with the process. I hope you get it.

    With that said, I agree with SCFire. Government does create jobs. That is the issue and one of the areas we disagree on. Should the federal government create local jobs? Why should the guy in BFE, Insert State pay for a firefighter on the opposite side of the country when that locality doesnt see the need to place a priority on hiring that firefighter?

  10. #60
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I agree with your assessment of the New Deal and its accomplishments and that it helped the country greatly. Some try to say it was what caused the recovery. Do you really think the private sector has not led the way out of recessions? Yes government defense spending played a crucial role in the 80s recovery, but the private sector was just as crucial. There was no massive increase in government spending between elder Bush and Clinton. The cause of the recovery then was the dot-com boom, i.e. private business. If government spending were the key to a healthy economy, we would not have seen the recession of 08.
    The private sector played a part after the federal government started spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Yes as long as we are not saying Clinton did not raise the national debt. During his term it grew by 1.4 Trillion.
    And I didn't say that. I did say that he handed off balanced budgets and a budget surplus. He did not have to borrow the last two years of his administration.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Eliminate all tax deductions except mortgage interest, employer sponsored health insurance and retirement saving which would be decreased incrementally over several years by 50%.

    Change the current six tax brackets to 9, 15 and 24%.

    Eliminate all tax deductions for corporations and lower the corporate rate to 27%.
    Would like to see that plan analyzed by someone other than an individual on an obscure message board.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Best of luck with the process. I hope you get it.

    With that said, I agree with SCFire. Government does create jobs. That is the issue and one of the areas we disagree on. Should the federal government create local jobs? Why should the guy in BFE, Insert State pay for a firefighter on the opposite side of the country when that locality doesnt see the need to place a priority on hiring that firefighter?
    What you describe is happening now. CA is a donor state to the federal government. Why should taxes generated in CA go to an oil company in the form of subsidies? There are lots of thing the feds do that I don't support. But I pay my taxes knowing the alternative (that I've seen in many foreign countries) could be much worse.

    Also, it's why I'll be voting for Obama. I was glad to see the IAFF has endorsed the President.
    Last edited by scfire86; 07-26-2012 at 08:02 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #61
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The private sector played a part after the federal government started spending.
    Not true. Federal spending increased at a slower pace than in the Carter administration the first four years of Reagan's term, yet the growth rate had increased to 8% and stayed near that mark for a year and around 4% the second term. Growth, not higher or lower taxes, is the key to recovery and a good economy.

    And I didn't say that. I did say that he handed off balanced budgets and a budget surplus. He did not have to borrow the last two years of his administration.
    Agreed

    Would like to see that plan analyzed by someone other than an individual on an obscure message board.
    C'mon, on the side I am a Nobel winning economist.

    Those were the main revenue points of President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. It received bipartisan support, yet President Obama didnt do anything with it.

    What you describe is happening now. CA is a donor state to the federal government. Why should taxes generated in CA go to an oil company in the form of subsidies? There are lots of thing the feds do that I don't support. But I pay my taxes knowing the alternative (that I've seen in many foreign countries) could be much worse.
    I agree. We should not be subsidizing any company. I know Romney is for that. I also agree that there will always be things we disagree with in our government and it is our responsibility to pay taxes and try to change the government peacefully through the election process. We are fortunate to be able to state our grievances with the government and not worry about whether our life is in danger like in some other countries.

    I was glad to see the IAFF has endorsed the President.
    Was there any question that they wouldnt?

  12. #62
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Not true. Federal spending increased at a slower pace than in the Carter administration the first four years of Reagan's term, yet the growth rate had increased to 8% and stayed near that mark for a year and around 4% the second term. Growth, not higher or lower taxes, is the key to recovery and a good economy.
    Lower interest rates might have helped. Along with enough capital infusion that effectively tripled the national debt. I already cited the lowering of taxes to higher than they are now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    C'mon, on the side I am a Nobel winning economist.
    So am I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Those were the main revenue points of President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. It received bipartisan support, yet President Obama didnt do anything with it.
    Neither has the other side of the aisle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I agree. We should not be subsidizing any company. I know Romney is for that. I also agree that there will always be things we disagree with in our government and it is our responsibility to pay taxes and try to change the government peacefully through the election process. We are fortunate to be able to state our grievances with the government and not worry about whether our life is in danger like in some other countries.
    But will Romney do anything about it? There is nothing in the history of conservative presidents to indicate he will be any different.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Was there any question that they wouldnt?
    Dunno. You'll have to ask them. But I'm glad they did.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #63
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Not appropriate for the General Forum, but I hope people see this. Havent seen this discussion recently and wanted to hear how others think. Would like the discussion to be about issues, but this is such a "hot" topic, I know that will be difficult.

    I am voting for Romney for President because of the reasons below. I do not think that Romney is the next Washington or Lincoln, but he is the person electable who most closely reflects the values that I have.

    1 - I believe America is the greatest country in the history of the world and its values should be furthered.

    And how does Romney support this? By outsourcing jobs to Mexico and China, and by sending HIS money to offshore banks. I am sure he believes the United States is the greatest country in the world. It has made him wealthy an allowed him to shelter that money from being taxed fairly in this country.

    2 - I believe the free market system is not only the best economic system based on economic reasons, but moral reasons as well. I am not stupid, however. There does need to be some regulation, but it should be minimal.

    For the most part we have not had a TRUE free market economy in quite a long time. The immense difference between the rules the little guys have to play buy and the rules the mega-corporations play by unfairlytilt the scales to big business. Subsidies abound thorugh all facets of our economy from industry all the way to farming.

    3 - I believe the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect our nation from foreign threats and our military must be strong.

    I don't disagree with this premise. But I believe that the government has a responsible to care for itscitizens before the rest of the world. We supply foreign aid in the hundreds of billions dollars all over the world while our very own citizens live in poverty, suffer from lack of medical care, substandard housing, and unemployment.

    4 - I believe everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. There should be a set percentage rate for everyone with no loopholes. The tax system is too unwieldy and needs to be fixed.

    I believe in a straight percentage tax, no matter what your income is. No deductions, no loopholes. If the rate is 10%, you pay 10% if you make $20K or $200 billion.

    5 - I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman as outlined in the bible. I dont believe this is a federal issue.

    Frankly, it is a none of your businss issue. Why do YOU or anyone feel they have the right to tell people who they can or can't fall in love with and marry. Many claim it is a religious issue, and for some ultra right wing "Christians" I am sure it is, but to me the greater issue is financial. Look at how many more people would have to be covered by spousal benefits by companies out there. Frankly, with the scandals continuously rocking religions over and over maybe they need to spend some time cleaning their own house before judging others. And NO, I am not gay. I just believe fair is fair.

    Discrimination is a dirty, ugly thing not to be condoned for any reason and homophobia is discrimination.


    6 - I believe abortion is wrong except in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. I dont believe this is a federal issue.

    Again, this is a none of your business issue. Unless you are the father or the mother why do you fel you have the right to tell a woman what she can or can'tdo with her body?

    Frankly, I have stated for years, if all you anti-abortionists would set up a registry saying you would adopt all of these to be aborted children then I would believe your convictions were anything more than being busybodies with nothing better to do with your time.


    7 - I believe in a safety net to keep people from devastating poverty, but I dont believe in a system which allows people to receive benefits indefinitely. I believe such a system should be administered by the states, not the federal government.

    I believe that if the greater incentive was to wean people off from welfare than to keep them on the system would work on its own.

    The odds of having anything close to equitable systems in all 50 states if assistance was run by the individual states is almost nil.


    There are other issues to be discussed, but it is time for work.
    Funny how the right always talks about getting government out of your life, well, unless you are gay or want an abortion...
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  14. #64
    Forum Member
    Wolfn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    132

    Default

    I'm voting for Ron Paul because I agree with alot of his policies and he seems to know what's wrong with the government and how to fix it. Unlike Romney or Obama, he knows government spending is a major factor why the country is in debt and seems to realize it while Obama and Romney can't. Yes, Bush ruined the economy, but I don't think Obama made any attempt to fix it at all. With Romney, he does have some good idea but ultimately I think he'll end up being another Bush.

    I voted for Obama in 2008 to keep Sarah Palin out of the White House and I'm not proud of the fact I voted for Obama. I should have voted for Ron Paul back in 2008. Yes, he lost the election and people said that I would throw away my vote if I voted for Ron Paul. However, I now believe that it's not truly voting if you vote for someone because they have the better chance of winning. You should vote for someone who you think will do the best job. Hopefully I won't make the same mistake twice.
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.

  15. #65
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Funny how the right always talks about getting government out of your life, well, unless you are gay or want an abortion...
    The right always talks about getting government out of their lives unless they are benefitting from said government. Then, they are all about the government.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfn View Post
    I'm voting for Ron Paul because I agree with alot of his policies and he seems to know what's wrong with the government and how to fix it. Unlike Romney or Obama, he knows government spending is a major factor why the country is in debt and seems to realize it while Obama and Romney can't. Yes, Bush ruined the economy, but I don't think Obama made any attempt to fix it at all. With Romney, he does have some good idea but ultimately I think he'll end up being another Bush.
    I disagree. Economic indicators have improved since Obama took office. The economy was shedding 500K jobs per month in Jan. 2009. It's now adding them. Albeit slowly.

    The GOP has shown they have no interest in aiding the recovery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfn View Post
    I voted for Obama in 2008 to keep Sarah Palin out of the White House and I'm not proud of the fact I voted for Obama. I should have voted for Ron Paul back in 2008. Yes, he lost the election and people said that I would throw away my vote if I voted for Ron Paul. However, I now believe that it's not truly voting if you vote for someone because they have the better chance of winning. You should vote for someone who you think will do the best job. Hopefully I won't make the same mistake twice.
    I voted for Obama and am indeed proud of that fact.

    The GOP or anyone else has yet to put forth a viable alternative. You are certainly allowed your opinion of Ron Paul. And I have to say he is treated badly by his own party.

    Personally I see he and his son and just another conservative hypocrite who rail against government but live on it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #67
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The GOP has shown they have no interest in aiding the recovery.
    This is sad but true. The Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act from even being debated on the floor. Not to mention the record number of filibusters by the Republicans.

  18. #68
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialed View Post
    This is sad but true. The Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act from even being debated on the floor. Not to mention the record number of filibusters by the Republicans.
    The American Jobs act was not supported by Harry Reid and almost all of the centrist Democrats in the Senate.

    The JOBS act was passed with huge bi-partisan support, but the president will not talk about that.
    Last edited by Spencer534; 08-04-2012 at 02:14 AM.
    msalf likes this.

  19. #69
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And how does Romney support this? By outsourcing jobs to Mexico and China, and by sending HIS money to offshore banks. I am sure he believes the United States is the greatest country in the world. It has made him wealthy an allowed him to shelter that money from being taxed fairly in this country.
    So companies that have to compete in a global economy should not be able to send jobs overseas if it is beneficial to the company? That is suicide. Yes, if a company can have American workers, that is preferred, but if the alternative is the failure of the company, that is not good.

    Why cant someone who has already paid income tax on his money keep his money somewhere to keep from paying extra taxes? Lets change the tax code so people will keep their money here.

    For the most part we have not had a TRUE free market economy in quite a long time. The immense difference between the rules the little guys have to play buy and the rules the mega-corporations play by unfairlytilt the scales to big business. Subsidies abound thorugh all facets of our economy from industry all the way to farming.
    Agreed. Both Dems and Reps are responsible.

    I don't disagree with this premise. But I believe that the government has a responsible to care for itscitizens before the rest of the world. We supply foreign aid in the hundreds of billions dollars all over the world while our very own citizens live in poverty, suffer from lack of medical care, substandard housing, and unemployment.
    I agree with you on spending too much on other countries, but am not for money going to establish new Federal entitlements.

    I believe in a straight percentage tax, no matter what your income is. No deductions, no loopholes. If the rate is 10%, you pay 10% if you make $20K or $200 billion.
    Agreed. Romney's tax plan is much closer to this than Obama's.

    Frankly, it is a none of your businss issue. Why do YOU or anyone feel they have the right to tell people who they can or can't fall in love with and marry. Many claim it is a religious issue, and for some ultra right wing "Christians" I am sure it is, but to me the greater issue is financial. Look at how many more people would have to be covered by spousal benefits by companies out there. Frankly, with the scandals continuously rocking religions over and over maybe they need to spend some time cleaning their own house before judging others. And NO, I am not gay. I just believe fair is fair.
    I have no issue with gay people having civil unions or another means to secure the same benefits that married people have. Marriage is a religious rite. I dont believe the government should have anything to do with marriage either. I think two people who love each other should have a ceremony performed by an official (pastor, justice of the peace, etc) and then apply to the state to have that union recognized for benefits.

    Discrimination is a dirty, ugly thing not to be condoned for any reason and homophobia is discrimination.
    I dont have homophobia and agree that discrimination based on issues like race, sex, religion, etc is wrong. I dont have a problem discriminating against people who make poor choices such as the druggie that wants a job in the FD.

    Again, this is a none of your business issue. Unless you are the father or the mother why do you fel you have the right to tell a woman what she can or can'tdo with her body?

    Frankly, I have stated for years, if all you anti-abortionists would set up a registry saying you would adopt all of these to be aborted children then I would believe your convictions were anything more than being busybodies with nothing better to do with your time.
    I think abortion after more than a few weeks of gestation is murder. I feel I have the right to tell others that it is wrong to commit murder. How come those who are for abortion arent standing up for those murderers who kill a pregnant women when that murderer is charged with two murders?

    There are plenty of religious organizations and people who adopt children, but your analogy of having someone else take an extreme, life-altering responsibility for 18 or more years because someone else made poor choices is silly. That is like saying that people who want legalized abortion should have to bury the body of the child that is aborted.

    I believe that if the greater incentive was to wean people off from welfare than to keep them on the system would work on its own.

    The odds of having anything close to equitable systems in all 50 states if assistance was run by the individual states is almost nil.
    I agree except about the second part. Who says it has to be equitable throughout the country? It is not now. If I want to live in a state that has higher tax rates, but also has a huge welfare system, I can do that. If I want to live in a state that wants to get its people off the welfare rolls and back to work, I can do that. Perhaps in 50 different ways, the best way can be found.

    Funny how the right always talks about getting government out of your life, well, unless you are gay or want an abortion...
    I am all for getting the government out of a gay person's life.
    Last edited by Spencer534; 08-04-2012 at 02:25 AM.

  20. #70
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Why cant someone who has already paid income tax on his money keep his money somewhere to keep from paying extra taxes? Lets change the tax code so people will keep their money here.
    Because they benefit from all the things they get living in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Agreed. Romney's tax plan is much closer to this than Obama's.
    Romney's plan is the usual nonsense that has led to record deficits and debt.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #71
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because they benefit from all the things they get living in America.
    There are so many people that receive those benefits that have paid nothing for them, whereas his income was already taxed. These are savings accounts for investments. There is no one (except Harry Reid who quickly withdrew it) saying he committed tax evasion.


    Romney's plan is the usual nonsense that has led to record deficits and debt.
    When has eliminating tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code led to record deficits and debt?

    Here is a question for you: Why has President Obama started a White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for African-Americans? For Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.? Didnt we fight not so long ago to end separate-but-equal education? Shouldnt we improve education outcomes for all Americans without seeing the color of their skin?

  22. #72
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    There are so many people that receive those benefits that have paid nothing for them, whereas his income was already taxed. These are savings accounts for investments. There is no one (except Harry Reid who quickly withdrew it) saying he committed tax evasion.
    Not the point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    When has eliminating tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code led to record deficits and debt?
    There is more to Romney's tax plan than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Here is a question for you: Why has President Obama started a White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for African-Americans? For Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.? Didnt we fight not so long ago to end separate-but-equal education? Shouldnt we improve education outcomes for all Americans without seeing the color of their skin?
    What's your point? Are you saying that non-ethnic groups are being denied access to educational excellence?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #73
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    There is more to Romney's tax plan than that.
    Yes there are other smaller points, but those, by far, are the "meat" of the plan.

    What's your point? Are you saying that non-ethnic groups are being denied access to educational excellence?
    I dont think that, just like I do not think ethnic groups are being denied access. My point is twofold. When will the government stop institutionalizing racism and why is the federal government still involved in education?

  24. #74
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Yes there are other smaller points, but those, by far, are the "meat" of the plan.
    Every analysis of Romney's plan shows that his budget only continues to bleed red ink. Tax cuts and defense spending hikes are proven recipes for increased debt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I dont think that, just like I do not think ethnic groups are being denied access. My point is twofold. When will the government stop institutionalizing racism and why is the federal government still involved in education?
    I don't see them institutionalizing racism. That's a great Limbaugh soundbite and not much else.

    I always enjoy reading conservatives who are claiming some type of victimhood.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #75
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    I always enjoy reading liberals who dont know how to read. Where have I said I (or anyone else) am claiming "victimhood". In fact, I stated that no one is being denied access. My point about racism comes from the fact that different races/ethnic groups are treated differently. We fought to abolish that thinking and the government perpetrates it by doing stuff like this.

    So let me make sure I am clear. You support having groups given advantages based on their skin color or ethnic background? Really?
    msalf likes this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. membership voting
    By FF7679 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 03:00 PM
  2. Voting compromise
    By fyrmed in forum Career/Paid Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 04:00 PM
  3. Even though Im voting for....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 09:19 AM
  4. Voting for Officers
    By thoskin in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 10:29 AM
  5. Juniors Voting
    By HF&R_H28 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register