Submitted by meadandale on October 26, 2008 - 9:01am.
PadreBrian wrote:
To be honest, Penn & Teller will vote for Obama. Just sayin.
I hardly think so. They are self-proclaimed Libertarians. No self respecting Libertarian would vote for Obama (Libertarians for Obama not withstanding). Just sayin.
Submitted by urbanrealtor on October 26, 2008 - 9:43am.
I know several libertarians who are voting for him.
Much of the psychology of libertarianism is about critical discourse regarding the economy and support for Obama among some should not be that much of a surprise.
While I do see social issues and regulation moving more to a classically left position, it seems unlikely that total government control of the economy will be as big. For example, the budget will likely reduce.
You heard it here first folks: The US budget will be smaller under Barrack Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress....
Now, if I could just find a napkin to wipe up the coffee I just sprayed all over my keyboard when I read this.
Oh gag me. Even Obama himself doesnt make the claim that he will reduce the budget. He talks about reducing the budget being a necessity, but then goes on to say that the only way to get out of this mess is for the Federal Government to start spending more and more. Last I checked Obamas spending plan will increase the Federal Deficit by 282 billion. McCains was estimated at 211 billion. Those are just estimates, made before they take office, so will both be wrong. But either way, BOTH candidates will make the budget worse, not better.
Submitted by urbanrealtor on October 31, 2008 - 2:55pm.
DWCAP wrote:
urbanrealtor wrote:
For example, the budget will likely reduce.
Oh gag me. Even Obama himself doesnt make the claim that he will reduce the budget. He talks about reducing the budget being a necessity, but then goes on to say that the only way to get out of this mess is for the Federal Government to start spending more and more. Last I checked Obamas spending plan will increase the Federal Deficit by 282 billion. McCains was estimated at 211 billion. Those are just estimates, made before they take office, so will both be wrong. But either way, BOTH candidates will make the budget worse, not better.
Submitted by greekfire on November 1, 2008 - 1:48am.
patientlywaiting wrote:
It's not reducing the size of government that counts.
It's all about Pay Go -- matching spending with revenues.
You can't be serious. Government spending is, at the very least, 1/2 of the deficit equation. You can't honestly (nor mathematically) say that reducing the size of government doesn't count if you are looking for ways in which to reduce the deficit.
Submitted by qwerty007 on November 1, 2008 - 9:49am.
Firstly, anyone who let's Benn and Teller decide the vote for them, best keep their vote. "Bullshit" is hardly an awe inspiring speech on policy matters. Secondly, this was a highly edited youtube video made by someone at home probably using iMovie, so to be taken with a large dose of salt.
CGT at 20%? Are we forgetting AMT, and the effect that gains have on income tax? This is one of the craziest tax laws I've ever seen. Although it was introduced in 1969, it was Regan that expanded it.
Spending? Bush hasn't spent his way into oblivion, with multi-billion dollar bailouts and wars? The Federal balance sheet is already in very serious trouble. It's believed that by 2017 social security surpluses, which have been used to pay for other things, will be in the red, and will eventually be exhausted. Government borrowing to fund current spending, just seems to pass the problem on further down the line. How are the anticipated increases in spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security going to be paid for? My guess is it won't just come from cuts, but also increases in taxes. With a declining manufacturing base, and an economy increasingly dependent on volatile financial services, US debt in foreign hands, where is the future growth going to come from to pay for everything? Didn't this happen in the 70's ...a large spending program, huge war, and fear of raising taxes which led to a run in US money. Is the large trade imbalance a problem? Some say no, because dollars bought are reinvested, but what has happened to savings that the government used to turn to? Is it going to take a long term effect on the economy? Probably. One deficit will hopefully be resolved very soon, that of leadership.
It doesn't matter who is in power, what color, creed, or political persuasion, as long as the very serious problems are firstly acknowledged, and imparted without fear to the voting public, and consensus building starts immediately to find solutions. Part of the problem is that politicians don't want to tell voters the truth, or worry them with complex problems. That's a mistake in my view. Education on matters that concern everyone is the key to finding and implementing solutions without fear of public backlash which inevitably leads to short termism.
Submitted by HiggyBaby on November 1, 2008 - 5:24pm.
As I've said on other posts, I hope that Obama doesn't fall into line with the typical tax and spend liberal stereotype we hear of from republicans all the time.
While no one wants taxes to go up (we'd all like them to go down....) the taxes we currently pay need to have some measurable benefit and tranparency.
Barak, if you win, please manage well the tax burden of the US citizens and don't make things worse!
While the political cartoon is funny, I do not deny that, my point was to the quote about the budget falling.
"Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Obama has never made balancing the budget a priority. He concedes that he would not be able to do it during his first term, and probably not during his second, either."
To be honest, Penn & Teller will vote for Obama. Just sayin.
I hardly think so. They are self-proclaimed Libertarians. No self respecting Libertarian would vote for Obama (Libertarians for Obama not withstanding). Just sayin.
And then there's this:
http://www.zimbio.com/Libertarian/articl...
I know several libertarians who are voting for him.
Much of the psychology of libertarianism is about critical discourse regarding the economy and support for Obama among some should not be that much of a surprise.
While I do see social issues and regulation moving more to a classically left position, it seems unlikely that total government control of the economy will be as big. For example, the budget will likely reduce.
You heard it here first folks: The US budget will be smaller under Barrack Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress....
Now, if I could just find a napkin to wipe up the coffee I just sprayed all over my keyboard when I read this.
Now, if I could just find a napkin to wipe up the coffee I just sprayed all over my keyboard when I read this.
Oh gag me. Even Obama himself doesnt make the claim that he will reduce the budget. He talks about reducing the budget being a necessity, but then goes on to say that the only way to get out of this mess is for the Federal Government to start spending more and more. Last I checked Obamas spending plan will increase the Federal Deficit by 282 billion. McCains was estimated at 211 billion. Those are just estimates, made before they take office, so will both be wrong. But either way, BOTH candidates will make the budget worse, not better.
Waaaassuupppppppppppppp!!!!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24...
Oh gag me. Even Obama himself doesnt make the claim that he will reduce the budget. He talks about reducing the budget being a necessity, but then goes on to say that the only way to get out of this mess is for the Federal Government to start spending more and more. Last I checked Obamas spending plan will increase the Federal Deficit by 282 billion. McCains was estimated at 211 billion. Those are just estimates, made before they take office, so will both be wrong. But either way, BOTH candidates will make the budget worse, not better.
please see the above cartoon.
Its pretty accurate.
Sorry, buddy, I've had my republican friends tell me for the last ten years how much Dems spend and how good Reps are at not spending $$.
When I point the facts out as depicted in the graph above, they fall silent.
What Republicans really mean is that they want to be taxed less, and to hell with whether we run a deficit or not.
I've had it with being lied to by the Republicans. It's payback time.
It's not reducing the size of government that counts.
It's all about Pay Go -- matching spending with revenues.
It's all about Pay Go -- matching spending with revenues.
You can't be serious. Government spending is, at the very least, 1/2 of the deficit equation. You can't honestly (nor mathematically) say that reducing the size of government doesn't count if you are looking for ways in which to reduce the deficit.
Firstly, anyone who let's Benn and Teller decide the vote for them, best keep their vote. "Bullshit" is hardly an awe inspiring speech on policy matters. Secondly, this was a highly edited youtube video made by someone at home probably using iMovie, so to be taken with a large dose of salt.
CGT at 20%? Are we forgetting AMT, and the effect that gains have on income tax? This is one of the craziest tax laws I've ever seen. Although it was introduced in 1969, it was Regan that expanded it.
Spending? Bush hasn't spent his way into oblivion, with multi-billion dollar bailouts and wars? The Federal balance sheet is already in very serious trouble. It's believed that by 2017 social security surpluses, which have been used to pay for other things, will be in the red, and will eventually be exhausted. Government borrowing to fund current spending, just seems to pass the problem on further down the line. How are the anticipated increases in spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security going to be paid for? My guess is it won't just come from cuts, but also increases in taxes. With a declining manufacturing base, and an economy increasingly dependent on volatile financial services, US debt in foreign hands, where is the future growth going to come from to pay for everything? Didn't this happen in the 70's ...a large spending program, huge war, and fear of raising taxes which led to a run in US money. Is the large trade imbalance a problem? Some say no, because dollars bought are reinvested, but what has happened to savings that the government used to turn to? Is it going to take a long term effect on the economy? Probably. One deficit will hopefully be resolved very soon, that of leadership.
It doesn't matter who is in power, what color, creed, or political persuasion, as long as the very serious problems are firstly acknowledged, and imparted without fear to the voting public, and consensus building starts immediately to find solutions. Part of the problem is that politicians don't want to tell voters the truth, or worry them with complex problems. That's a mistake in my view. Education on matters that concern everyone is the key to finding and implementing solutions without fear of public backlash which inevitably leads to short termism.
As I've said on other posts, I hope that Obama doesn't fall into line with the typical tax and spend liberal stereotype we hear of from republicans all the time.
While no one wants taxes to go up (we'd all like them to go down....) the taxes we currently pay need to have some measurable benefit and tranparency.
Barak, if you win, please manage well the tax burden of the US citizens and don't make things worse!
While the political cartoon is funny, I do not deny that, my point was to the quote about the budget falling.
"Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Obama has never made balancing the budget a priority. He concedes that he would not be able to do it during his first term, and probably not during his second, either."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...