Who are you voting for?

I'm curious to see what everyone is voting for.

This poll decides the election.

After he announced his VP choice it got me off the fence and probably wasting my vote on Bob Barr..

RichP said:

After he announced his VP choice it got me off the fence and probably wasting my vote on Bob Barr..

Click to expand...

Throw a hotty out in front RichP and he rolls over like a puppy dog. :loveu: Good news BTW

at this point, I'm still on the fence but about to fall to the red side

I think Obama is the best presidential choice we have had since Reagan.

:clap:

I think he will do an even better job at staightening out the economic mess we have than Clinton did. For those of you who keep preaching about the need for fiscal conservativism in Washington, you need to look at the last 60 years of the US budget deficiet, and if you do you will discover that we had one president in that period with a budget surplus, and that was Bill Clinton (and I think JFK had a surplus too). Clinton's budget had a surplus because he reduced corporate welfare, and increased the number of quality, high paying US jobs with the policies he pushed through Congress in the early years of his administration.

Republicans have always been in favor of huge corporate welfare programs while waving the anti-socialistic antisocial welfare flag as the supposed problem with the federal budget!

The Iraq war in reality, is and has been nothing but a huge corporate welfare program for Haliburton at taxpayers (current and future) expense. Your kids in other words will end up paying for it.

One of the comments I have heard Oboma say many times is that it is time to reward corporations that create good paying jobs here in the USA, and stop rewarding corporations that export good jobs overseas while closing down US plants. Said, incentives and rewards being acomplished by making changes in the tax codes for corporations that operate in the US.

Ecomike said:

Clinton's budget had a surplus because he reduced corporate welfare, and increased the number of quality, high paying US jobs with the policies he pushed through Congress in the early years of his administration.

Click to expand...

Please, do a little research before posting nonsense.

Under Bill Clinton, federal spending increased 29.5%. How was this increase offset? By increasing tax revenues by over 85.5%! Much of it was from Clinton's historic tax increase on the rich. Now, to be fair, G. Bush the 1st also raised taxes (remember his "Read my lips" line?), so that contributed as well. Lest you forget, an economic boom was already underway (no credit to Bill C.), which provided more tax revenues. Actually, a much stronger (and factual) case can be made that the Republicans under Newt G. were directly responsible for balancing the budget. After all, Congress is responsible for setting the budget. They laid out a 7-year plan to have the budget balanced and actually did it in 4 years.

Also, yearly surpluses did not start with Clinton. The largest surplus in a single year ($290B) occurred in G. Bush's last year in office. What this means is that Clinton was mostly not responsible for balancing the budget and he certainly did not create any surplus by controlling spending. He happened to be in office when these things occurred. To his credit, he did support applying the surplus to balance the budget rather than use it elsewhere.

As for federal welform reform, Clinton supported the Republican view. This was another key objective of the Republican-led Congress that was successfully enacted.

And don't forget that a significant portion of "savings" came from Clinton stripping the military, essentially producing a hollow force that made it possible for military personnel to carry out their jobs with extreme difficulty.

The spending and tax revenue figures come from the U.S. Government's GPO Web site.

Hmmm, 17% idiots here so far; that's too many.

Bent said:

Hmmm, 73.21% idiots here so far; that's too many.

Click to expand...

There I corrected it for you!

Ecomike said:

There I corrected it for you!

Click to expand...

Why do you hate America?

It should be a COLBERT NATION !!!






He's a natural behind the podium too !!

Tom R. said:

Please, do a little research before posting nonsense.

Click to expand...

Nonsense! Who's talking nonsense. Get your own facts straight. Just what did I post that is nonsense?

Tom R. said:

Under Bill Clinton, federal spending increased 29.5%. How was this increase offset? By increasing tax revenues by over 85.5%! Much of it was from Clinton's historic tax increase on the rich. Now, to be fair, G. Bush the 1st also raised taxes (remember his "Read my lips" line?), so that contributed as well.

Click to expand...

Tom R. said:

Lest you forget, an economic boom was already underway (no credit to Bill C.), which provided more tax revenues. Actually, a much stronger (and factual) case can be made that the Republicans under Newt G. were directly responsible for balancing the budget.

Click to expand...

Get your facts straight, the economy was not in an economic boom when Bush Senior lost the election for his second term, it was in serious trouble. That is why he lost the election. People voted their pocket books, and they remembered his prior broken promise, "Read my Lips" of no new taxes!
I guess he felt that higher old tazes was keeping his promise of no new taxes! :laugh3:

I already said that Bush senior and yes the republicans that folowed his lead nearly balanced the budget, fixing the mistakes of the Reagan era, but Clinton kept it balanced (yes with the help of congress, but it is the Presidents duty to try and control the spending of congress, they can not spend with out the presidents signature, unless they override his veto of spending bills, so the president does have some control over spending, so get YOUR facts correct!) Sorry but you kinda pissed me off with your nonsense comment.:twak: I have no problem being corrected with real proof, admiting if I am wrong about some detail, and no problem defending my statements, just don't call them nonsense and fail to back up your own claims, unless you want me to return the favor, LOL.

Tom R. said:

After all, Congress is responsible for setting the budget. They laid out a 7-year plan to have the budget balanced and actually did it in 4 years.

Click to expand...

Sources, man, sources, links! But like I said, Clinton had to follow along with that plan for the next 8 years, BUT WAIT!, your 7 year plan ended in Clintons 4th year, no?

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the presidential staff, administration draft the intital budget request and submit their wish list to Congress for the administrative section of the government, then the president goes to the news media and pushes for special legislative items they want to force Congress to pass, including budget items if Congress does not go along. That is a rhetorical question.

Seems like I did say Bush senior was probably the best President we had since who knows when.

Tom R. said:

Also, yearly surpluses did not start with Clinton. The largest surplus in a single year ($290B) occurred in G. Bush's last year in office.

Click to expand...

News to me!!! Where is the proof please? $290 bilion surplus is huge, think I would have remembered that, but I was busy as hell at the time and might have missed it, but I sure recall hearing otherwise.

Tom R. said:

What this means is that Clinton was mostly not responsible for balancing the budget and he certainly did not create any surplus by controlling spending.

Tom R. said:

I disagree, he did help control spending. The president has enough power and authority, political clout, to screw the budget over, just look at how successful Reagan and Bush Jrs. were at convincing Congress to pass run away defeceit budgets for year after year.

Tom R. said:

He happened to be in office when these things occurred. To his credit, he did support applying the surplus to balance the budget rather than use it elsewhere.

Click to expand...

My point exactly.

Tom R. said:

And don't forget that a significant portion of "savings" came from Clinton stripping the military, essentially producing a hollow force that made it possible for military personnel to carry out their jobs with extreme difficulty.

Click to expand...

From what I recall, and I was very close to this at the time, Bush Sr. and the Republican Congress started that and initiated most of the downsizing during Bush Sr's term in office in response to reduced tensions with the Soviet Union. It was already on the books by the time Clinton took office. Probably had a lot to do with balancing the budget in Bushes last year.

Of course Bush Sr's strategy of getting the wealthiest nations of the world at the time, like Japan and SA, UAE, to pay for the cost of Desert Storm was also briliant, and no doubt saved his budget. A shame Jr did not learn from his father's successes!

The spending and tax revenue figures come from the U.S. Government's GPO Web site.

Click to expand...

So where is the link to that source?

Click to expand...

One of the comments I have heard Oboma say many times is that it is time to reward corporations that create good paying jobs here in the USA, and stop rewarding corporations that export good jobs overseas while closing down US plants. Said, incentives and rewards being acomplished by making changes in the tax codes for corporations that operate in the US.


Does this mean he is going to tax the crap out of us? The corporations went over seas for less taxes, why would they come back here for.. He has to get a tax base from them or us right?

scottmcneal said:

One of the comments I have heard Oboma say many times is that it is time to reward corporations that create good paying jobs here in the USA, and stop rewarding corporations that export good jobs overseas while closing down US plants. Said, incentives and rewards being acomplished by making changes in the tax codes for corporations that operate in the US.


Does this mean he is going to tax the crap out of us? The corporations went over seas for less taxes, why would they come back here for.. He has to get a tax base from them or us right?

Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much the choice is take it in the ass, or take it in the ass.

Pick one.

Tom R.,
Here is what I just looked up, which backs up my claims, and not yours.

There are different statists floating around, one is budget defecit, the next is Federal Debt, the third is Federal Debt as percentage of GDP. According to what I found the only 4 years that the federal debt was reduced was Clintons last four years. But another sites shows the national debt increasing, and never droping since 1961, which has me wondering how the debt can rise in a surplus year, unless they just save and spend the money the next year with out reducing the debt. One graph shows Bush Jr inheriting a budget surplus in 2001, but the national debt rose that year anyway.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

"George Bush Sr. meekly followed in Reagan’s shadow after his election in 1988, by increasing the debt on average a mere 11.8% a year during his four years as President. In his last year in office he quite responsibly worked with Democrats to raise taxes to help reduce the massive yearly increases in the national debt. This bipartisan plan got the growth down to under 11% in 1992, but it was too little too late and didn’t make much difference in the overall trend. The Neo-Conservatives controlling the Republican Party rewarded him for putting the nation’s future above his party’s ideology by throwing him out of office even though it had hardly been a year since he won the Gulf War.
In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. "

"The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources."
"When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8]. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. "


"Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"

"Since 1961 the United States national debt has never gone down.
It is interesting to note who controlled Congress versus what party was in the presidency during the seven years that the debt was reduced throughout the terms of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Three times the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency (1948, 1951 & 1961). The other four years all had a mix of control, with Republicans in the White House (1956 & 1957), in charge of Congress (1946 & 1947), but never both. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in total charge of both elected branches of government have they reduced spending. They talk about it a lot, but they never deliver."

From:


http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm






THen here"



"When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8]. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. "
From:


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/biggest_deficit_in_history_yes_and_no.html

Ecomike said:

I think Obama is the best presidential choice we have had since Reagan.

Click to expand...

Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.

Your arguments remind me of the democrats accusing Bush Jr. of not supporting the school lunch program. The liberal democrats were acting all huffy and puffy mad in front of the liberal news media saying things such as "President Bush wants your kids to starve" and other outright lies. What they didn't say was that Bush didn't support the dems bill because it didn't provide ENOUGH funding. He actually wanted to give more. You perspective can only be objective when you have all the facts. Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.

I'm voting for the hot VP thats all.

Tom R. said:

Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.

Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.

Click to expand...

Right back at ya on the revised history and half truths comment! But you may be right it may be impossible to discuss this rationally with you since you won't post any published data to back up your own claims, biased or not.

Sorry but you can make that claim of being biased just because my sources prove my point and not yours. As far I am concerned your revised history is the one that is biased!

All right now tell me this is biased data mister!

"In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969." "In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.4 trillion at the end of 2000 and to an estimated $3.2 trillion in 2001. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals, $2.0 trillion in Federal debt held by the public will be retired over the next 10 years—all of the debt that can responsibly be retired."

All found on the whitehouse we site!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html

But I guess it is biased too?

It also says: "By 1992, the deficit reached $290 billion. Budget deficits have gradually declined since that high point, returning to balance in 1998. In 2000, the budget surplus was $236 billion. Why have we been able to move from deficit to balance? The main reason is because strong economic growth has increased tax receipts faster than the growth in Federal spending."

Here is the Congressional Budget office details, but be sure an check out figure 1-3 for of my biased data:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml

Tom R. said:

Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.

Your arguments remind me of the democrats accusing Bush Jr. of not supporting the school lunch program. The liberal democrats were acting all huffy and puffy mad in front of the liberal news media saying things such as "President Bush wants your kids to starve" and other outright lies. What they didn't say was that Bush didn't support the dems bill because it didn't provide ENOUGH funding. He actually wanted to give more. You perspective can only be objective when you have all the facts. Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.

Click to expand...

TomR for president!!!