Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 352
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Why are you voting for whoever for President?

  1. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    You answer your own question.
    I will make it clear for you: I am not a victim. You dont get it. The victims of these programs are the people they are trying to help. By telling people they cannot make it without the government's help means they become reliant on the government and not on themselves.

    Said no such thing. Please keep thinking that is what I meant. I give you credit for trying to force the argument into a syllogism.
    So let me make sure I am clear. You do not support having groups given advantages based on their skin color or ethnic background?


  2. #82
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I will make it clear for you: I am not a victim. You dont get it. The victims of these programs are the people they are trying to help. By telling people they cannot make it without the government's help means they become reliant on the government and not on themselves.

    So let me make sure I am clear. You do not support having groups given advantages based on their skin color or ethnic background?
    Not relevant to the topic.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #83
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    The topic is presidential choice. How is it not relevant to the topic?

    Also, you forgot to respond to the previous post regarding the Romney Tax Plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    And when does Obama's plan balance the budget? NEVER! It decreases until 2018 and then starts rising again. He adds 6.7 Trillion over the next 10 years.

    Meanwhile all he wants to do is increase entitlements. How will we pay for Medicare in the future?

  4. #84
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The topic is presidential choice. How is it not relevant to the topic?
    Because it has no bearing on why I'm voting for Obama.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Also, you forgot to respond to the previous post regarding the Romney Tax Plan.
    Romney's plan does nothing to curtail the current deficit or start to pay down the current debt. The numbers just don't add up unless he is willing to find revenue. The only way he can do that is to raise taxes and he won't since both he and VP have signed the hypocritical no tax pledge.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #85
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Romney's plan does nothing to curtail the current deficit or start to pay down the current debt. The numbers just don't add up unless he is willing to find revenue. The only way he can do that is to raise taxes and he won't since both he and VP have signed the hypocritical no tax pledge.
    You believe the only way to generate revenue is to raise taxes. Cutting taxes and closing loopholes is a proven method of raising revenue. The reason policy centers say the Romney plan is not revenue-neutral is because they do not take into account the loopholes he wants to close. They cannot. He has not said specifically what those are.

    Obama's plan of increasing entitlements and raising taxes will never close the deficit and never pay off any debt. Every tax policy center says this, including the CBO and the TPC. Why are you voting for him again?

  6. #86
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    You believe the only way to generate revenue is to raise taxes. Cutting taxes and closing loopholes is a proven method of raising revenue.
    That has yet to work. BTW, closing loopholes is a tax increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The reason policy centers say the Romney plan is not revenue-neutral is because they do not take into account the loopholes he wants to close. They cannot. He has not said specifically what those are.
    And until he is more specific on what loopholes he will close, it is so much hot air.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Obama's plan of increasing entitlements and raising taxes will never close the deficit and never pay off any debt. Every tax policy center says this, including the CBO and the TPC. Why are you voting for him again?
    Conservatives said the same thing when Clinton raised taxes in 1993. Just the opposite happened.

    I'm voting for him because he is far better than the alternative. Neither Romney or Ryan have a history of doing any of the things you claim they will do if elected.
    Last edited by scfire86; 08-18-2012 at 09:47 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #87
    Forum Member Wolfn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    So let me make sure I am clear. You do not support having groups given advantages based on their skin color or ethnic background?
    I don't. I think people should be judged by their abilities and skills. Whenever I fill out a college application or whatever, it always asks for ethnicity. I wish they would just ask for intellectual skills to see who is smart enough to go to their school instead of trying to meet a quota. When I applied for my first job, the application asked for my ethnicity and I remember wondering if they would pick me or someone of color just to say they are diverse enough.

    I think that the most qualified person should be given a job and I think the best way to do that is for employers, colleges, and more to stop asking for ethnicity. In this way, the best people of any ethnicity could advance.
    msalf likes this.
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.

  8. #88
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    That has yet to work.
    Revenue doubled '80-'88 because of this.

    Conservatives said the same thing when Clinton raised taxes in 1993. Just the opposite happened.
    Only because the Republican Congress held him to a balanced budget. Given his budget, spending would have been through the roof. Remember shutting down the government? Clinton would not sign a bill to limit debt even with his tax increases.

    Neither Romney or Ryan have a history of doing any of the things you claim they will do if elected.
    Romney has a history of fixing problems, balancing budgets, and being able to work with one of the most adversarial governing bodies against him. He balanced the budget through spending cuts, tax decreases and closing loopholes. Which part of what I said he will do does he not have a history of?
    Last edited by Spencer534; 08-19-2012 at 02:09 AM.

  9. #89
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Revenue doubled '80-'88 because of this.
    If you're going to embrace Reagan fiscal policy, you need to embrace the part conservatives never discuss. Aside from lowering taxes (to 50%) he also injected massive amounts of capital into the economy via any number of government programs. He incurred massive deficits and effectively tripled the national debt during his administration. It only makes sense that some of that debt would find its way back to the Treasury in the form of tax receipts. History has shown that conservatives only care about debt and deficits when a Dem in in the White House. When one looks at the total debt of the US, most of it has been incurred during GOP administrations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Only because the Republican Congress held him to a balanced budget. Given his budget, spending would have been through the roof. Remember shutting down the government? Clinton would not sign a bill to limit debt even with his tax increases.
    This is laughable. When Clinton passed his fiscal package in 1993, not one GOP legislator voted to support it. Claiming that conservatives did any of the above (though they did shut down the government for other reasons) only continues to show your lack of knowledge on this topic and that you receive talking points from significantly biased sources. In addition to the fiscal policy Clinton passed in 1993, he also submitted balanced budgets to congress. Something that has never been done by any of his GOP successors or predecessors in recent history. There are very good reasons Clinton wouldn't sign a bill to limit debt. He (unlike wingnut conservatives) recognize there are times when debt might be needed to keep the economy afloat or to deal with extraordinary circumstances. You know, little things that occur like wars and natural disasters.

    Neither Romney or Ryan have stated when they plan to submit a balanced budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Romney has a history of fixing problems, balancing budgets, and being able to work with one of the most adversarial governing bodies against him. He balanced the budget through spending cuts, tax decreases and closing loopholes. Which part of what I said he will do does he not have a history of?
    He has done no such thing. He does have a history of taking over companies, saddling them with massive debts and walking away after paying himself significant "management fees." That's pretty much the model for private equity firms like Bain Capital.
    Last edited by scfire86; 08-20-2012 at 06:42 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #90
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    This is laughable. When Clinton passed his fiscal package in 1993, not one GOP legislator voted to support it. Claiming that conservatives did any of the above (though they did shut down the government for other reasons) only continues to show your lack of knowledge on this topic and that you receive talking points from significantly biased sources. In addition to the fiscal policy Clinton passed in 1993, he also submitted balanced budgets to congress. Something that has never been done by any of his GOP successors or predecessors in recent history.
    The dot com boom did more for revenue than anything government did. It outpaced government revenue projections of even the Democrat's most biased experts.

    There are very good reasons Clinton wouldn't sign a bill to limit debt. He (unlike wingnut conservatives) recognize there are times when debt might be needed to keep the economy afloat or to deal with extraordinary circumstances. You know, little things that occur like wars and natural disasters.
    Clinton did propose balanced budgets at first, but those same budgets predicted deficit spending by '96. He was predicting to hold the deficit at almost $200 billion, not balance it. That led to Congress asking for balanced budgets.

    What in your mind was the government shutdown over if not budget cuts? It was over spending cuts the Republicans wanted to balance the budget and to not raise the debt ceiling. It also led to the Balanced Budget Act of '97. WHICH CLINTON SIGNED!

    Im confused. You want a balanced budget, but you dont want a constitutional amendment? They take into consideration wars and natural disasters, etc. and allow deficit spending in those cases. Are you against that?

    Neither Romney or Ryan have stated when they plan to submit a balanced budget.
    Romney - 2040. Obama - NEVER! Deficits will decrease until 2018, then increase after that

    He has done no such thing.
    He didnt balance the Massachusetts budget by decreasing taxes and closing loopholes?

    Another question because we are going to have to agree to disagree or go on forever: Do you feel the federal government should be as big as it is? I wont assign a political party to your answer and try to make it about that. Just curious.
    Last edited by Spencer534; 08-23-2012 at 04:46 AM.

  11. #91
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The dot com boom did more for revenue than anything government did. It outpaced government revenue projections of even the Democrat's most biased experts.
    Which is completely unrelated to any fiscal policy proposed by conservatives in that era.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Clinton did propose balanced budgets at first, but those same budgets predicted deficit spending by '96. He was predicting to hold the deficit at almost $200 billion, not balance it. That led to Congress asking for balanced budgets.
    I agree. I didn't say he submitted balanced budgets every year. I stated he submitted balanced budgets. Which was done at the end of his administration. Something that hasn't been done by any of his GOP successors or predecessors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    What in your mind was the government shutdown over if not budget cuts? It was over spending cuts the Republicans wanted to balance the budget and to not raise the debt ceiling. It also led to the Balanced Budget Act of '97. WHICH CLINTON SIGNED!
    Newt Gingrich power play. It blew up in his face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Im confused. You want a balanced budget, but you dont want a constitutional amendment? They take into consideration wars and natural disasters, etc. and allow deficit spending in those cases. Are you against that?
    Yes, you are very confused. I am for balanced budgets. That doesn't necessarily entail needing a constitutional amendment. Since deficit spending would be allowed in any circumstance, the idea is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Romney - 2040. Obama - NEVER! Deficits will decrease until 2018, then increase after that
    So assuming Romney wins and is re-elected, he will balance the budget 22 years after he leaves office. And you actually believe that plan will be kept intact by at least three different presidents? This is a ROFL moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    He didnt balance the Massachusetts budget by decreasing taxes and closing loopholes?
    Until he releases details of his plan, it is all hot air. The record in MA is mixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Another question because we are going to have to agree to disagree or go on forever: Do you feel the federal government should be as big as it is? I wont assign a political party to your answer and try to make it about that. Just curious.
    Government (per capita) is smaller now than it's been in decades.
    Last edited by scfire86; 08-24-2012 at 08:58 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #92
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Yes, you are very confused. I am for balanced budgets. That doesn't necessarily entail needing a constitutional amendment. Since deficit spending would be allowed in any circumstance, the idea is moot.
    That plan has worked horribly so far. Since 1940 (72 years), there have been only 12 years of surplus with 8 of them occurring before 1970. An amendment would mean that we have to balance, but could still account for non-ordinary events such as war or natural disasters. Why would you be against that?


    So assuming Romney wins and is re-elected, he will balance the budget 22 years after he leaves office. And you actually believe that plan will be kept intact by at least three different presidents? This is a ROFL moment.
    That is a ROFL moment. I was cringing when I wrote and saying to myself "SC is going to eat me alive for this!" Romney does not have a budget, but his plan is what I was referring to with the 2040 comment. I wish it were sooner, but that is the reality. The other reality is that Obama has no plan to balance the budget. This seems to be a big issue with you and I both. An amendment would mean that either party that wins would have to balance the budget.

    Government (per capita) is smaller now than it's been in decades.
    If that is true (I couldnt find anything saying it is), that does not answer the question. Do you feel the federal government should be as big as it is?

  13. #93
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    That plan has worked horribly so far. Since 1940 (72 years), there have been only 12 years of surplus with 8 of them occurring before 1970. An amendment would mean that we have to balance, but could still account for non-ordinary events such as war or natural disasters. Why would you be against that?
    I stated my rationale in an earlier post. Feel free to reread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    That is a ROFL moment. I was cringing when I wrote and saying to myself "SC is going to eat me alive for this!" Romney does not have a budget, but his plan is what I was referring to with the 2040 comment. I wish it were sooner, but that is the reality. The other reality is that Obama has no plan to balance the budget. This seems to be a big issue with you and I both. An amendment would mean that either party that wins would have to balance the budget.
    A great soundbite from folks who will never have to deal with the responsibility of what will happen when the policy fails. That methodology has never worked where it's been tried.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    If that is true (I couldnt find anything saying it is), that does not answer the question. Do you feel the federal government should be as big as it is?
    A relative question.

    I have to answer a question with a question. Can you detail for us your vision of government and point to an example of where it has been applied and the citizenry lives better than they do in the US?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #94
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I stated my rationale in an earlier post. Feel free to reread.
    The extent of your rationale was that it is not needed. That rationale is ridiculous based on the current state of our deficits and debt.

    A great soundbite from folks who will never have to deal with the responsibility of what will happen when the policy fails. That methodology has never worked where it's been tried.
    What methodology would that be?

    A relative question.

    I have to answer a question with a question. Can you detail for us your vision of government and point to an example of where it has been applied and the citizenry lives better than they do in the US?
    Aha. An impossible question. How do you measure "better"? There are countries that do better than us in many things, but few that do better than us overall if any, especially considering much of the world lives in peace and without tyranny because of the US military.

    The other problem with your question is that it is not applicable to my question. You can say that is a reason for having a big government, but it still does not answer the question. Do you feel the federal government should be as big as it is? Is it that hard of a question? Are you ashamed of how you feel?

  15. #95
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The extent of your rationale was that it is not needed. That rationale is ridiculous based on the current state of our deficits and debt.
    That's a matter of opinion as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    What methodology would that be?
    The methodology you propose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Aha. An impossible question. How do you measure "better"? There are countries that do better than us in many things, but few that do better than us overall if any, especially considering much of the world lives in peace and without tyranny because of the US military.
    Yet much of the world does live with both, in spite of military presence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The other problem with your question is that it is not applicable to my question. You can say that is a reason for having a big government, but it still does not answer the question. Do you feel the federal government should be as big as it is? Is it that hard of a question? Are you ashamed of how you feel?
    Again, it's all relative. I enjoy what we have in America. So I'll take it in its present form.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #96
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    869

    Default Reduced Government Spending

    I can reduce the Federal Deficet by eliminating two worthless Federal Departments.

    Get rid of the Department of Energy. Was created by Carter to get America energy independent.
    That's really worked out well. We import a much higher percentage of oil than back when this $24 billion dollar monstosity was created. Some of what they do can be handled by the Department of The Interior.

    Get rid of the Department of Education. Has done nothing to improve the education of the nations children. We spend more per capata on education than any other nation and rank, what, 17th in the world ranking of the kids. This function should be handled at the state and local level and not duplicated in Washington.

  17. #97
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donethat View Post
    I can reduce the Federal Deficet by eliminating two worthless Federal Departments.

    Get rid of the Department of Energy. Was created by Carter to get America energy independent.
    That's really worked out well. We import a much higher percentage of oil than back when this $24 billion dollar monstosity was created. Some of what they do can be handled by the Department of The Interior.

    Get rid of the Department of Education. Has done nothing to improve the education of the nations children. We spend more per capata on education than any other nation and rank, what, 17th in the world ranking of the kids. This function should be handled at the state and local level and not duplicated in Washington.
    It may reduce, but wouldn't even come close to eliminating the deficit.

    BTW, oil production is higher in the US than it's been in decades. To the point where US oil companies are exporting oil.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #98
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    869

    Default

    You have to start somewhere and take the first step. These two departments would not be missed.

  19. #99
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So I'll take it in its present form.
    The present form is broken. It is the fault of both parties. We need to fix the tax system and we need to fix entitlements. The tax system is a convoluted mess which rewards some and punishes others and is completely unfair. Entitlements now account for 40% of our spending. This will increase dramatically over the next 20 years with no policy in place to fix it. Cant we agree on those two things or do you want to keep those two parts of our government the way they are?

  20. #100
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The present form is broken. It is the fault of both parties. We need to fix the tax system and we need to fix entitlements. The tax system is a convoluted mess which rewards some and punishes others and is completely unfair. Entitlements now account for 40% of our spending. This will increase dramatically over the next 20 years with no policy in place to fix it. Cant we agree on those two things or do you want to keep those two parts of our government the way they are?
    Sure. Just lift the limit on contribution levels.

    That was easy.
    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