Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 352
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Why are you voting for whoever for President?

  1. #41
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDudley View Post
    There are two reasons I will not be voting for the "O" man for president.

    !. He was not born in the U.S. but Kenya. Say all you want but Grandma even said so....
    Ummmm.....okay. Facts don't support you, but it's obvious you don't little things like that get in the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDudley View Post
    2. Can you honestly say we are better off then we were four years ago???? It's not George Bush's fault either.....

    I think not.......
    I disagree. I cited my reasons earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDudley View Post
    This is the main reason Politics should not be discussed in the Fire House......
    Fair enough. Just know that the conservatives you embrace have their sights set on your pay and your benefits. So ask yourself how much your beliefs will you be willing to pay for having those beliefs.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-15-2012 at 08:11 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How are public safety unions to blame for the Great Recession?
    I definitely dont think that and please find where Romney said that with a link to that quote.

    You must have missed the record cloture votes being used by the GOP. It now takes 60 votes to get anything done in a timely manner. The Dems haven't had 60 votes since Kennedy died in Aug. 2009.
    Perhaps I am completely ignorant of the cloture rule. It is to end filibuster or the threat of filibuster for certain bills. Obama's budgets were not subject to cloture, but even so Dems didnt support them. Why wouldnt his own party support his plan? Because he is not a leader.

    I'm good with Obama's plan. Romney's plan has already been tried by Bush and Reagan. It led to record deficits and debt both times.

    Yes. It was Bush's SecTreas who demanded TARP be passed or face a global economic meltdown. The blame lies with Bush and conservatives for not submitting or demanding balanced budgets. Yes the Dems had a bare majority for those two years. So what was passed or not passed that would have made a difference? What's funny is watching conservatives pretend to complain about Bush now that he is out of office. They said nothing while he was approving record deficits and doubling the national debt.
    So you are against Romney because you dont want deficits and debt? Are you familiar with who our president is? Our debt has grown exponentially under Obama. Even if you are right that Bush was the cause of all the troubles of the world, Obama has increased the debt by over a trillion each year. Hell, the largest increase in debt, 1.9 trillion was by Obama.

    Let me see if I understand Obama's message:
    1) He will help the public sector unions. Im sure the guys in Wisconsin felt he really helped there. But he was too busy with Sara Jessica Parker, so it is understandable.
    2) He wants to get stuff done, but those nasty Republicans in congress block everything. Even if your position were true, basically what you are saying is "I want to get stuff done, but I cant." That is a wonderful stance to take!
    3) He will help lower the deficit. Just like he did since he started? No thanks.
    4) He will raise the taxes on the wealthy just slightly to pay for the needed policies to bring the economy around. Even if he passed his tax increase it would only bring in $453 billion over 10 years! He is putting us into debt at over a trillion dollars a year. His "Jobs" bill is $447 billion. You claim to want a balanced budget like Clinton (he was forced to do it by the Republican Congress, but ok), but Obama has no intention of doing that.


    You cited Simpson/Bowles. The GOP leadership is ignoring it like the plague.
    Of course they are ignoring it. You have different republicans in now. Ones that believe spending cuts, not tax increases are the way to financial stability. His window of opportunity passed. He missed it. He does not lead. He only blames.
    Last edited by Spencer534; 06-15-2012 at 08:57 AM.

  3. #43
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I definitely dont think that and please find where Romney said that with a link to that quote.
    Please point me to where I stated Romney made that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Perhaps I am completely ignorant of the cloture rule. It is to end filibuster or the threat of filibuster for certain bills. Obama's budgets were not subject to cloture, but even so Dems didnt support them. Why wouldnt his own party support his plan? Because he is not a leader.
    The president doesn't approve budgets in the Senate. The president submits budgets to the congress who then changes and amends them accordingly. The president has no control over the individuals in the legislature. The Founding Fathers created the legislature as a co-equal branch of government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    So you are against Romney because you dont want deficits and debt? Are you familiar with who our president is? Our debt has grown exponentially under Obama. Even if you are right that Bush was the cause of all the troubles of the world, Obama has increased the debt by over a trillion each year. Hell, the largest increase in debt, 1.9 trillion was by Obama.
    Yes, I am against Romney because the economic plan he has released so far will only include larger deficits. And I am right that Bush and his policies continue to plague the fiscal policy of the current administration.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Let me see if I understand Obama's message:
    1) He will help the public sector unions. Im sure the guys in Wisconsin felt he really helped there. But he was too busy with Sara Jessica Parker, so it is understandable.
    Better than Romney who has stated he wants to end collective bargaining on a national level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    2) He wants to get stuff done, but those nasty Republicans in congress block everything. Even if your position were true, basically what you are saying is "I want to get stuff done, but I cant." That is a wonderful stance to take!

    Which is true given how they have made it their policy to block and slow down everything using procedural rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    3) He will help lower the deficit. Just like he did since he started? No thanks.
    See above response regarding the inheritance of Bush policies that continue to cause deficits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    4) He will raise the taxes on the wealthy just slightly to pay for the needed policies to bring the economy around. Even if he passed his tax increase it would only bring in $453 billion over 10 years! He is putting us into debt at over a trillion dollars a year. His "Jobs" bill is $447 billion. You claim to want a balanced budget like Clinton (he was forced to do it by the Republican Congress, but ok), but Obama has no intention of doing that.
    Yes, they forced Clinton to balance the budget after Clinton raised the marginal tax rate in 1992. Something all of the GOP voted against claiming it would devastate the economy. Of course just the opposite happened. Since it was a GOP congress that enabled Bush to effectively double the national debt during his administration, we can conclude it wasn't because of their being fiscally responsible. Especially given the record deficits those GOP congressional members approved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Of course they are ignoring it. You have different republicans in now. Ones that believe spending cuts, not tax increases are the way to financial stability. His window of opportunity passed. He missed it. He does not lead. He only blames.
    And you believe Romney will do that? Based on what? His track record as governor of MA? More importantly, why do you believe conservatives will do that if the Romney gets elected and they gain control of the legislature? They had ample opportunity to do exactly that during the Bush administration and never even came close. So what should be cut? Romney isn't very specific on that. Your last four statements are opinions that are unsubstantiated by any facts. Which is common of the conservative mindset these days.

    BTW, how much of your pay and benefits are you willing to give up? Because Romney and his supporters are very clear on their desire to go after what they consider "overpaid" public servants. Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh stated that firefighters don't contribute anything to society. So keep embracing that group as you are slowly driven to the poor house.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-15-2012 at 12:21 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #44
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Thank you. Then you should also have no problem with an individual casting their vote based upon an individual's beliefs on collective bargaining and the potential impact to their pay, job prospects, or rights as a worker.
    You are correct. I wish that everyone in this great nation would pick one issue that means the most to them, get to know where the candidates stand on that issue, what they can do about the issus (if anything), and vote accordingly. I absolutely detest that we are now a nation where over half of the voters cast their ballot based on whose commercial influenced them the most rather than what the candidate actually stands for.


    Then you should also have no problem with individuals who do see union issues as a presidential issue and who vote based upon a candidate's views on unions, right?
    Again, absolutely! I applaud you for taking the time to get to know the candidates and their stance on this issue as you feel it is the most important. I have nothing negative to say about that and if something was interpretted that way I do fully apologize.


    I would have no problem were it not for the fact that many (if not all) of those institutions petition that government they want to ignore for non-profit status. Thereby ensuring they receive all the benefits of the government they want to ignore. They want to be able to function independently, they should have no problem giving up their non-profit status.
    My wife works for a branch of the Salvation Army that deals with domestic violence. They are only tax exempt on supplies directly related to their performing that role. They still pay unemployment, social security, medicaid, and all other income based taxes. They are only sales tax exempt for the purchases I described. The same is true of the church I attend other than the allowable purchases being different. Both entities are still paying taxes, just not to the state. They still pay federal taxes and the issue is with federal mandates.

    Not the issue. The issue is there are corporate executives earning millions of dollars per year via the checks you write to the IRS every year. That encompasses individuals other than the stockholders. Especially given the sudden concern conservatives have for deficits and government spending.
    Whether the company sells you an item or the federal government, it is still the company that is paying the executive. The federal government has every right, and the mandate, to limit the amount paid on any item to a competitive value. It is more an oversight on spending issue than a pay issue as the company is still privately held and not government funded. The government is just a customer.

    So you voted for someone other than Bush? I'll be up front. I proudly voted for Kerry.
    I felt that he had not followed through on his promises and was performing deficit spending. He eliminated a positive balance and lead to a record (at the time) deficit. That is not sound economic policy, nor one I supported.

    Who in the conservative movement was making that argument for a candidate other than Bush in 2004?
    No one made a serious contention to Bush, just as no one has seriously contended President Obama's running. Nor would I have expected them to do so under our current system.

    Given that unemployment is 8.2%, that's pretty close.


    I agree, the fact that we continue to lose over 500,000 jobs a month, the Dow Jones is at 8,000, Bin Laden has not been killed or captured, Libya and Egypt are still in the hands of dictators, and there is no exit strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan proves Obama is a failure. Romney will have a lot of work to do if he wins.
    I get the sarcasm, and actually appreciate it, but I also disagree with your numbers as I have been able to find 4 different figure reported by 4 different "independent" agencies.

    Again, I am thankful that you are willing to look into the issues before voting. I disagree with your numbers and do not feel that the issues most relevant to me are properly addressed by our current President. Also note that as much as I disagree with him, he is still our President and deserves the respect that comes with the position. I do not tolerate people addressing him as the "O man, Obumma, BHO", or anything other than President Obama. It is respect you show for the position, and the country.

    Now that the discussion has lowered to this level (no by SC, Jasper, or some others) including birth issues, name calling, and other childish acts, I will leave. If you would like to continue, please feel free to PM me.

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Just thought I'd throw a toon in.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  6. #46
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    You are correct. I wish that everyone in this great nation would pick one issue that means the most to them, get to know where the candidates stand on that issue, what they can do about the issus (if anything), and vote accordingly. I absolutely detest that we are now a nation where over half of the voters cast their ballot based on whose commercial influenced them the most rather than what the candidate actually stands for.
    I have faith the majority of the electorate does exactly that.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    My wife works for a branch of the Salvation Army that deals with domestic violence. They are only tax exempt on supplies directly related to their performing that role. They still pay unemployment, social security, medicaid, and all other income based taxes. They are only sales tax exempt for the purchases I described. The same is true of the church I attend other than the allowable purchases being different. Both entities are still paying taxes, just not to the state. They still pay federal taxes and the issue is with federal mandates.
    Then I wasn't referring to them. FWIW, I've heard nothing but good things about the Salvation Army as it relates to the services they provide. I live near a "church" that should be an embarrassment to all religious organizations in general and Christians in particular. Google "Trinity Broadcast Network" and you'll see what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    Whether the company sells you an item or the federal government, it is still the company that is paying the executive. The federal government has every right, and the mandate, to limit the amount paid on any item to a competitive value. It is more an oversight on spending issue than a pay issue as the company is still privately held and not government funded. The government is just a customer.
    I agree, however, as I pointed out, the taxpayer is ultimately footing the bill if 100% of that company's revenue is from government contracts. It's not like there is a separate pot of money for contractors and another pot for the rest that funds government programs and services. The same folks who negotiate the contracts for private companies are the same folks who negotiate the contracts for public employees. Which many conservatives believe are too generous.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I felt that he had not followed through on his promises and was performing deficit spending. He eliminated a positive balance and lead to a record (at the time) deficit. That is not sound economic policy, nor one I supported.
    I believe he is doing a good job given the mess he was handed. The GOP has yet to put forth an alternative that has been shown to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I get the sarcasm, and actually appreciate it, but I also disagree with your numbers as I have been able to find 4 different figure reported by 4 different "independent" agencies.
    I use the ones from the BLS that have been used for decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    Again, I am thankful that you are willing to look into the issues before voting. I disagree with your numbers and do not feel that the issues most relevant to me are properly addressed by our current President. Also note that as much as I disagree with him, he is still our President and deserves the respect that comes with the position. I do not tolerate people addressing him as the "O man, Obumma, BHO", or anything other than President Obama. It is respect you show for the position, and the country.
    Again I have to take into consideration the train wreck he was handed and where we are now. That to me has been progress. What do you believe should be case right now as it relates to recovery and economic productivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    Now that the discussion has lowered to this level (no by SC, Jasper, or some others) including birth issues, name calling, and other childish acts, I will leave. If you would like to continue, please feel free to PM me.
    I have no problem keeping this in the open.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-15-2012 at 08:26 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #47
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialed View Post
    Just thought I'd throw a toon in.
    Thought you would appreciate this one.

    Name:  Stealing Pensions.jpg
Views: 158
Size:  75.0 KB
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #48
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Another reason I'm voting for President Obama.
    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz20G3r5HG4

    The Republicans seem to be doing the opposite.
    scfire86 likes this.

  9. #49
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialed View Post
    Another reason I'm voting for President Obama.
    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz20G3r5HG4
    Excellent

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialed View Post
    The Republicans seem to be doing the opposite.
    True.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #50
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Another good read:
    http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/18...campaign-swing

    ...On June 8th in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Romney made comments disparaging Barack Obama for wanting more fireman, policeman and teachers. Romney also opposes both the SAFER Act and the FIRE Act, which provide personnel and equipment for local fire departments across the country. Since 2010, Republicans have cut the federal firefighting budget by more than $200 million, and the Ryan budget would accelerate that process at the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), the United States Forest Service, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)....

  11. #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.

  12. #52
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    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."

  13. #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.

  14. #54
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    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."

  15. #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.

  16. #56
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    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."

  17. #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!

  18. #58
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    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."

  19. #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 didnít ďendĒ 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?

  20. #60
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    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."

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