WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   If people really want the gov to cut spending... (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=790863)

fly135 11-14-2011 11:56 AM

If people really want the gov to cut spending...
 
Then why don't they vote for a candidate that wants to downsize the govt? And RP is the only one saying that.

ttrigo 11-14-2011 12:10 PM

Because too many people feel like a write in vote for him is a waste. I have been pushing ron paul for several years, and everyone just tells me he is a wasted vote. If the millions of lemmings out there would stop listening to the media for a half second, they would see that ron paul has some very good ideas. Check out the debates, and see who gets all the air time. It sucks. The media are the ones who decide who goes head to head in the end.

Laker1234 11-14-2011 12:22 PM

Too many voters want something for nothing.

brettw 11-14-2011 1:05 PM

I wish Ron Paul was being taken more seriously and was a viable candidate. I'd likely vote for him.

cadunkle 11-14-2011 1:28 PM

Ron Paul has my vote. If he doesn't win the primary, I will vote my principles, be it with Paul as an independent, Paul as a write in, or the Libertarian or Constitution party candidate.

Anyone who votes for a neocon or a socialist is wasting their vote. They complain about high taxes, government deficit spending, and perhaps government intruding every aspect of their life and violating their constitutional rights... But most accept it as "something that can't be changed" then those same people split their votes between two men who may as well belong to the same party and are preaching the same things, trample your rights, tax you more, spend more. It's insanity. If people continue to be that stupid I welcome the coming collapse of our nation. Maybe that will be enough of a wake up call to the masses that socialism and fascism do not work.

ttrigo 11-14-2011 1:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettw (Post 1718109)
I wish Ron Paul was being taken more seriously and was a viable candidate. I'd likely vote for him.

does this mean you wont vote for him as a write in, or other party candidate? he wont win the primary, but that does not mean you cant vote for him.
I am sick and tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils", just to vote for one of the 2 candidates. its time everyone votes with their heart and conscience. thats what I did the last 2 major elections, and I have had zero regrets about my votes. wish I could say that about all the previous elections....

psudy 11-14-2011 1:48 PM

Because he is a nutjob. To bad he appears more sane than what the right is putting forward.

jason_ssr 11-14-2011 2:20 PM

Quote:

Then why don't they vote for a candidate that wants to downsize the govt? And RP is the only one saying that.
So, your saying we should vote on a president based on the expectation that they will do what they say while campaigning? What in the past couple decades has given you any indication that a politician can get into office and actually do anything close to what they promise to accomplish?

We dont vote FOR anything. Our politics is a disaster on both sides of the aisle. We simply vote AGAINST the disaster that impacts us the most. You either vote against socialistic squander, or against capitalistic greed. Therefore the "person" in office matters very little. When voting AGAINST something it is more important to be unified than it is to put the better figurehead in place. Splitting your votes as a point of conscience only empowers the other side.

Sucks, but its the truth of the current gridlock we face.

ttrigo 11-14-2011 2:29 PM

what is "capitalistic greed"? dont people get into business to make money? dont consumers have a choice whether or not to utilize whichever company they want? when businesses fail, they should actually fail. I dont believe in govt bailout, I believe that if a company fails, another one will come along and provide the consumers with whatever product they need. less govt intrusion would mean less bailouts for failing companies. I dont see how this is a bad thing. capitalism is a good thing, if the govt stays out of the way.

fly135 11-14-2011 3:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_ssr (Post 1718120)
So, your saying we should vote on a president based on the expectation that they will do what they say while campaigning? What in the past couple decades has given you any indication that a politician can get into office and actually do anything close to what they promise to accomplish?

To be fair RP is pretty specific when everyone else is afraid to say anything. So if your complaint is that politicians don't do what they say, then RP is probably your best bet.

I think the problem is that most people who say they want the govt to balance the budget just mean stop giving out welfare, medicaid, SS, medicare, and helping kids through college. They still want the govt to protect them from all the fake fears they have from the puppet mastering. And they still want all the deductions on their taxes for mortgage, healthcare, and pensions.

Of course SS and medicare have nothing to do with the budget except that SS bonds are payable on demand and if you cut SS then the demand goes down. IOW the govt still owes the SS trust fund but if you can reduce demand then you can pretend the debt is lower. Basically it's a backhanded way to default on the govt's debt and reduce the annual budget.

wake77 11-14-2011 4:27 PM

I was cool with most of what RP said, but after the last debate and the comments about student loans, he lost me.

jason_ssr 11-14-2011 5:10 PM

Capitalistic greed is when businessmen manipulate our political system to protect their investments to the detriment of the nation (ie.bailouts). That is what liberal dems accuse conservative reps from doing. As someone who is generally pro capitalism and more conservative than liberal, I have a hard time arguing.

Socialistic squander is the basic ruin that all socialism ends in. Its what conservative reps accuse liberal dems of doing. I also feel its hard to argue against this accusation.

However, my point is, who is the last president who actually had the ability to affectively change ANYTHING!! I was initially scared to death of an Obama presidency. Fortunately\unfortunately he has been just as hamstrung as his predecessors. I've decided the same system that prevents epic progress also prevents epic failure. It frustrates you when your guy is in office, and you are thankful for it when the opposition is.

As long as the president is unable to enact his will, which we as a people have elected him to, what does it matter who we elect? If our system worked as it should, we should be in socialistic hell right now. We voted for that kind of change. The fact that we are not tells me that voting for someone based on the expectation of them emplimenting their ideas is a waste.

Shooter 11-14-2011 8:08 PM

^^^^ well said

fly135 11-15-2011 7:00 AM

I believe that a President that can effectively convey his message to the people has a lot of power. OTOH, the message we need to hear to deal with a declining economy is not a message the public wants to hear. As long as the public isn't willing to face the truth we will have to wait until the truth is so in our face it can't be ignored. Then the inherent selfishness of humans will kick into high gear and it will be a bloody fight.

cadunkle 11-15-2011 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wake77 (Post 1718149)
I was cool with most of what RP said, but after the last debate and the comments about student loans, he lost me.

So you like rapidly increasing tuition costs and rampant loans to unemployed kids with no assets and not backed by anything? You think it is good for college students to spend $60k-$200k to get a degree? You think it's good to remove competition among schools? You think it's good to have lackluster classes and bring the material and content down to the dumbest common denominator and not even teach useful real world material for that high and rapidly increasing cost of admission? That seems to be what the other republican candidates want, and also what Obama wants.

TerryR 11-15-2011 1:34 PM

John I don't understand your issues with pensions. I didn't pay taxes on the money when I paid into the system, but I pay taxes on it now.

fly135 11-15-2011 2:11 PM

Pensions are welfare for Wall Street. Your money is in locked into accounts that frequently give you little options and often high management fees. It's creates a false economy in the investment world where people are getting rich without producing any new wealth. And it can crash in an instant. That's for starters.

Next is the pensions that are defined benefits and frequently underfunded. These pensions put the burden on someone down the road who didn't get the benefit of the services. That's why the USPS is in trouble because the pensions are underfunded. Pensions should be in the name of the person and should be funded in the year they worked. Pensions that cover groups can be raided by upper management to enrich themselves. Defined benefit plans literally make no sense from a sound fiscal policy standpoint.

If Wall Street wasn't receiving the pension welfare you can bet these CEOs wouldn't have huge salaries and golden parachutes.

cadunkle 11-16-2011 7:30 AM

Ron Paul is polling second in Iowa and New Hampshire, and first in San Diego. He is the only candidate, on either side, who understands economics and individual liberties and will actually lay out his plan in specifics. He has a winning plan, the only one I've heard thus far that can save this economy. People are waking up and seeing that.

wakecumberland 11-16-2011 7:49 AM

My other favorite argument about Ron Paul....

http://cdn1.diggstatic.com/story/i_l...n_policy/o.png

fly135 11-16-2011 8:27 AM

I like Jesus. Except that part in Acts about selling all your possessions and giving it to the poor. And the part about God killing you if you hold back.

wake77 11-16-2011 8:46 AM

"So you like rapidly increasing tuition costs and rampant loans to unemployed kids with no assets and not backed by anything? You think it is good for college students to spend $60k-$200k to get a degree? You think it's good to remove competition among schools? You think it's good to have lackluster classes and bring the material and content down to the dumbest common denominator and not even teach useful real world material for that high and rapidly increasing cost of admission? That seems to be what the other republican candidates want, and also what Obama wants."

Let me address specific parts of your post. Do I think it is good for students to spend "60k-200k to get a degree"? Do you think it is good people have to spend 60k-200k to have a life-saving operation or procedure?

Why do you think there is no competition among schools? Is it not true that some schools are harder to get in to as opposed to others?

As far as lackluster classes. This is your opinion and you do not speak for every college student. As far as bringing the material down, this again is your opinion and I don't feel that I had any material "dumbed down".

As far as cost of admission, let's say we get rid of govt-backed student loans. Do you think Harvard is going to drop the price of admission? What about Yale? Vanderbilt? Stanford? etc? So where's the drop in the level of education going to occur?

As far as teaching "real world material". I will leave you with something from Winston Churchill;

"During the Second World War, Winston Churchill’s finance minister said Britain should cut arts funding to support the war effort. Churchill’s response: “Then what are we fighting for?"

cadunkle 11-16-2011 2:17 PM

Some additional Ron Paul poll results from earlier this year:

2nd – New Hampshire GOP 2012 Straw Poll – (1/22/11)
1st – DC CPAC Straw Poll – (2/10-12/11)
1st – Online Phoenix Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll – (2/27/11)
1st – Combined Phoenix Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll – (2/27/11)
3rd – Onsite Phoenix Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll – (2/27/11)
1st – Republican Liberty Caucus of California Presidential Straw Poll – (3/20/11)
1st – New Orleans Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll – (6/16-18/11)
1st – Clay County Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll – (6/19/11)
2nd – Ames Iowa Straw Poll – (8/13/11)
1st – New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll – (8/20/11)
2nd – Georgia State GOP Straw Poll – (8/27/11)
3rd – Maryland GOP Straw Poll – (9/9/11)
1st – Pre-Debate Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll – (9/12/11)
1st – Post-Debate Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll – (9/12/11)
1st – California GOP Straw Poll – (9/17/11)
1st – DC Values Voter Straw Poll – (10/7/11-10/9/11)
1st – LA County RPLAC Straw Poll – (10/13/11)
1st – Charleston County Republican Party – (10/18/11)
1st – Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll – (10/22/11)
1st – Des Moines Iowa Voters NFRA Presidential Straw Poll – (10/29/11)
1st -Des Moines Non-Iowa Voters NFRA Presidential Straw Poll – (10/29/11)
2nd – West Alabama Straw Poll – (10/29/11)
1st – Illinois GOP Straw Poll – (11/5/11)

fly135 11-16-2011 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttrigo (Post 1718094)
Because too many people feel like a write in vote for him is a waste. I have been pushing ron paul for several years, and everyone just tells me he is a wasted vote.

I have no reservations about wasting my vote this time around. Simply because...

The next election is a lose/lose situation. If Obama wins then it'll be another 4 years of slow decline and the right wingers blaming it on Obama. If the GOP wins it'll be 4 years of fast decline and people thinking that maybe the Dems weren't so bad. Rinse,repeat,rinse,repeat... ad infinitum. Eventually if we want a job we'll all have to work for the govt like in a 3rd world nation.

brettw 11-16-2011 5:40 PM

1 Attachment(s)
At least Obama is doing what he can to help relations with China:

fly135 11-16-2011 6:45 PM

The Ho gets around...
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slides...7551_large.jpg

lowieboy2009 03-05-2013 2:00 AM

Well 74% of the voting populace in the last election wanted new tax revenue generated by raising taxes on wealthiest 1 percent to coincide with sensible spending cut, and Boehner's Republican House majority and GOP Senate minority absolutely refused to listen to the American people.
And another recession is coming! and it is all due to the GOP wanting only spending cuts and austerity on the backs of the poor, the working poor, the middle class, and FDR's New Deal/social safety net for over 300 million American Citizens.

bigdtx 03-05-2013 6:01 AM

Ron Paul is a crackpot who is not a serious candidate on any level. He looks good in a 2 minute youtube video but when you take a closer look at him his ideas do not hold up. He's like the Ralph Nader of the right. Just take a look at his son Rand - he's on record as being for institutional racism / segregation if a private business want to do it because "it's their business, and the government shouldn't tell a private company how to operate their business." OK Rand (backing away slowly now).

I agree that neither party wants to cut spending - there are too many lobbyist paying them off to keep the gravy train rolling.

What I do have a problem with is somebody who tells me it's raining while they p*ss down my back. The Republican party has a history (since Reagan anyway) of running on smaller government, reduced taxes, and reduced spending but when they are in power they *never* reduce spending. Reagan created the Department of Veterans Affairs on his way out the door of his second term (way to go Ronnie on reducing the size of government). GWB created the Department of Homeland Security - and doubled the defense budget.

We've spent roughly 4 trillion on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan over the last 10 years - what do have to show for it? We spend 5 billion a month in Afghanistan right now - that looks like a *great* investment.

Luckily McCain did not get elected or we would probably be involved in wars in Syria, Egypt, and Iran too.

psudy 03-05-2013 7:10 AM

You forgot Lybia. Oh wait........

fly135 03-05-2013 9:09 AM

How many boots do we have on the ground in Libya Paul?

ord27 03-05-2013 9:11 AM

that's not really fair BIGD

Regan etal, didn't have Dennis Rodman helping them with foreign affairs..............

pesos 03-05-2013 9:13 AM

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-c...rGraphic-2.png

psudy 03-05-2013 9:52 AM

It appears to be around four, and I believe a few of them lost their lives.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...agon-confirms/

wakeworld 03-05-2013 11:59 AM

You know you've got your partisan hat on straight when your party has controlled 100% of the government for 2 of the last 4 years and 2/3 of the government for the other two years, yet you are still able to blame everything on the party that has had a whopping 1/6 (1/3x1/2) control of the government over that time period. I guess by using that logic, you should probably vote Republican. If you can get Republican's in charge of 2/3 or even 100% of the government, then the Dems will be able to experience the "iron grip" on the course of the country that the Rebublicans currently enjoy! (not enough eyeroll and headbang emoticons to related frustration). :rolleyes::banghead:

skiboarder 03-05-2013 12:11 PM

My wife was in Ron Paul's district for her young voting life and was always impressed. He is a kind man that has the guts to deliver the bad news. He is often portrayed as looney or heartless, but he is really the opposite. Sometimes the truth hurts...

norcalrider 03-05-2013 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowieboy2009 (Post 1809787)
Well 74% of the voting populace in the last election wanted new tax revenue generated by raising taxes on wealthiest 1 percent to coincide with sensible spending cut, and Boehner's Republican House majority and GOP Senate minority absolutely refused to listen to the American people.
And another recession is coming! and it is all due to the GOP wanting only spending cuts and austerity on the backs of the poor, the working poor, the middle class, and FDR's New Deal/social safety net for over 300 million American Citizens.

1st or 2nd post with a link to some personal money blog...

Where did the 74% number come from?

norcalrider 03-05-2013 12:22 PM

What about the hundreds of thousands of aerospace employees that work for these companies shifting their business models to account for sequestration and the need to focus on civilian aviation markets? Where does your graphic account for those middle class manufacturing jobs that are endangered in this country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesos (Post 1809834)


ottog1979 03-05-2013 12:39 PM

I just don't think the rich pay their fair share yet. If only they did, we'd probably have no deficit. (NOT)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100518058

wake77 03-05-2013 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakeworld (Post 1809884)
You know you've got your partisan hat on straight when your party has controlled 100% of the government for 2 of the last 4 years and 2/3 of the government for the other two years, yet you are still able to blame everything on the party that has had a whopping 1/6 (1/3x1/2) control of the government over that time period. I guess by using that logic, you should probably vote Republican. If you can get Republican's in charge of 2/3 or even 100% of the government, then the Dems will be able to experience the "iron grip" on the course of the country that the Rebublicans currently enjoy! (not enough eyeroll and headbang emoticons to related frustration). :rolleyes::banghead:

David, you act as though the GOP didn't have a majority in recent years. They controlled both houses and the presidency from 2003 up until 2006.

wakeworld 03-05-2013 5:07 PM

Not sure how you got that out of my statement, which didn't comment on previous years at all, but if it makes you feel better, this is me acting like "the GOP had a majority in recent years" (if you consider 5 years ago recent). I was commenting on the following statement above...

Quote:

And another recession is coming! and it is all due to the GOP wanting only spending cuts and austerity on the backs of the poor, the working poor, the middle class, and FDR's New Deal/social safety net for over 300 million American Citizens.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:32 PM.