You'll probably be voting Democrat/Republican in 2008:

[Stealth Hunter]

Democrat

[Letum]

Neither, I'm not American.

Polls that have no option for me irritate me far more than they should. :doh:

[fatty]

Neither, I'm not American.

Polls that have no option for me irritate me far more than they should. :doh:

Vote anyway Letum, help us destroy the system; anarchy forever!

-rereads poll options-

Oh, damn it.

[Dargo]

Vote anyway Letum, help us destroy the system; anarchy forever!

-rereads poll options-

Oh, damn it.

Anarchist don't vote for people that will decide how they live.
Its the pyramid up side down the masses have control over there president/leaders

[Letum]

Vote anyway Letum, help us destroy the system; anarchy forever!

-rereads poll options-

Oh, damn it.
Anarchist don't vote for people that will decide how they live.
Its the pyramid up side down the masses have control over there president/leaders

As far as democracy is a oligarchy; the pyramid is already upside down.

Come election time, the masses have more control over their leaders than the reverse.

[JALU3]

Democracy is nothing unless it has an educated, well informed, and active electorate . . . and this doesn't mean just voting every other year, or every four years, or whatever the term is . . . it means hold your elected representatives accountable for their votes and their actions.
If only a small portion of the voting population is the above . . . then their views will have a higher chance of being government policy . . . and funds to assist in campaigning also has a way of effecting policy (for better or worse).
This is why Primaries don't reflect the general election. Because usually the most active, and usually most ideologicly extreme members of political parties through their weight behind a candidate . . . this means that during the primaries the views of these groups will be reflected better by the candidates.

So read their websites, read independent observers, match them against your own views, and support the one who most closely matches.

However, to answer the question: I will be voting Republican, unless the Democrat Party some how nominates someone like Senator (http://lieberman.senate.gov/) Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman) . . . and of all those presently running . . . if I was forced to vote Democrat . . . I would most likely support Senator (http://biden.senate.gov/) Biden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden). (meaning he won't be given the nod as the Democrat Candidate)

[Takeda Shingen]

This topic title is correct: I will be voting for either a Democrat or a Republican in 2008.

[Penelope_Grey]

I thought you Americans voted more on the lines of the individual, rather than what Political Party they are representing.

[Letum]

I thought you Americans voted more on the lines of the individual, rather than what Political Party they are representing.

Thats a major factor, althow the 2 political partys also traditionaly reflect the left and right wing. However both would be very far right in British polotics.
There are also very strong geographical trends in America.
Single issue polotics also play a bigger role than they do in the UK.

[JALU3]

I thought you Americans voted more on the lines of the individual, rather than what Political Party they are representing.

We do. However, party platforms, which most members of the party adhere to at one level or another is also an important factor in who you vote for. Although I don't agree with all parts of the Republican Party Platform, I disagree with more of the Democrat Party Platform.

As is on myspace, here is a good picture of my position:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.08.31.PartyDisfavors-X.gif

However . . . it could be worse:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.01.04.MadameSpeak-X.gif
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.07.18.HarshReality-X.gif

But here pretty much sums up the state of US Politics:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.07.03.Fireworks-X.gif

[LtCmdrRat]

Democracy is nothing unless it has an educated, well informed, and active electorate . . . and this doesn't mean just voting every other year, or every four years, or whatever the term is . . . it means hold your elected representatives accountable for their votes and their actions.
If only a small portion of the voting population is the above . . . then their views will have a higher chance of being government policy . . . and funds to assist in campaigning also has a way of effecting policy (for better or worse).:up: :up: :up:
Tottaly agree. IMHO that modern definition of democracy is very floatable in one way and too strict in another. I support Aristotle points of view with implementation of the relativity of democratic values depending on traditions and cultural background of the society. Americans (mainly consevatives) are still between end XVIII and begining of XIX century of their values system, bill of rights etc. and they trying to show the world that democracy in american way is the best stuff money can buy( and forgetting to ask their(ours) customers opinion)-primitivism. Europeans are too deep in relativity phylosophy XIX-XX century and they want to make everyone happy and do not abuse anyone(total uthopism).Fundamental Muslim's values are in our XIV century and we need to wait when they will grow up till at least XIX century ( if we survive).
In Russia people have a famous saying: "Stuff that is good for Russian can be deadly for German"
PS I voted for Rebublicans even if i dont like primitivism in political thinking, I prefer primitivism to any outoftheirminds liberal politicians. Unfortunately we dont have Common Sense Party.
If you re honest you re not politically correct guy; if you politically correct person you re hipocritical by definition.
PPS
Basically I prefer to vote for any guy with common sense dominated mind.

[bradclark1]

I won't vote till I know who's actually running and what they are running on. Blind party loyalty isn't too smart (to me anyway).

[Sailor Steve]

Penny thought right, and I agree with Brad above: I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.

[Subnuts]

I wouldn't want to have to vote for either. :shifty:

[Onkel Neal]

This topic title is correct: I will be voting for either a Democrat or a Republican in 2008.

:lol: Me too! Not sure who yet, but ABC.

[Onkel Neal]

Penny thought right, and I agree with Brad above: I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.

I would say I vote for principles. The candidate with principles that I agree with gets my vote. Lower taxes, no illegal immigration, less govt. and take the fight to Al Queda and terrorists.

[Letum]

Penny thought right, and I agree with Brad above: I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.
I would say I vote for principles. The candidate with principles that I agree with gets my vote. Lower taxes, no illegal immigration, less govt. and take the fight to Al Queda and terrorists.

Big on the knee-jerk stuff there. ;)

[Onkel Neal]

Penny thought right, and I agree with Brad above: I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.
I would say I vote for principles. The candidate with principles that I agree with gets my vote. Lower taxes, no illegal immigration, less govt. and take the fight to Al Queda and terrorists.

Big on the knee-jerk stuff there. ;)

It's the stuff that counts for me :smug:

[JALU3]

Penny thought right, and I agree with Brad above: I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.

I would say I vote for principles. The candidate with principles that I agree with gets my vote. Lower taxes, no illegal immigration, less govt. and take the fight to Al Queda and terrorists.

My question is, can we find that on the democrat "side of the aisle" who would abide by your policy stances? However . . . I think the catch is in keeping taxes low and having a small government.

As POTUS Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) once said:

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

[Tchocky]

I think taxes have to be looked at from both ends. As in, what you're getting for your tax payments.
Saying that low taxes should be a goal is a little...myopic?

[Sea Demon]

I think taxes have to be looked at from both ends. As in, what you're getting for your tax payments.
Saying that low taxes should be a goal is a little...myopic?

For starters, I don't want my taxes supporting those that should be supporting themselves.

[Sailor Steve]

Myopic? My personal stance is that anyone who is in a position to make taxes should have the attitude that all taxes are evil. A necessary evil, perhaps, but evil nonetheless.

[Letum]

Myopic? My personal stance is that anyone who is in a position to make taxes should have the attitude that all taxes are evil. A necessary evil, perhaps, but evil nonetheless.

I dislike tax on essensial items. (Basic houseing, basic food, water)

I dislike any form of universal or poll tax. (council tax!)

I fully support tax as penalty (alcohol, car, tabacco, pollution etc)

I am still undecided about industrial, and other buisness tax as I don't understand buisness economics as well as I should.

I have no problem with transaction tax (inheritance, import/export etc)

Finaly, I am all for luxery tax (electronics, media and all other non-essensial items)

One should be able live with out paying any tax as long as you lead a spartan life. No one should have to live below that standard because of lack of support.
I don't belive that anyone should earn more than is proportional to the work they do either, but that is wishful thinking.

[geetrue]

I thought you Americans voted more on the lines of the individual, rather than what Political Party they are representing.

It was the correct thing to do in the 1950's and 1960's to vote for the party of your choice ... ever since Nixon and Vietnam things have changed.

Now people vote according to who they would like to have home for supper. If they don't like you ... your not going to be invited home for dinner.

[Iceman]

I vote for the only guy who has a graduate degree from the Hanoi Hilton...the only one with real XP pts...the only one who seems to speak his mind wether or not is is expedient or not.....the only one who seems not to be a puppet.

A Rebel....onboard the Forrestal...POW...dudes got True grit. :up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

You guys from across the waves say what you will...but as the election process progresses...the Republicans will come behind this guy and he will be president.

The rest of the Rebublicans are dorks...and the Dems...wow what a mess over there. lol

[JALU3]

I vote for the only guy who has a graduate degree from the Hanoi Hilton...the only one with real XP pts...the only one who seems to speak his mind wether or not is is expedient or not.....the only one who seems not to be a puppet.

A Rebel....onboard the Forrestal...POW...dudes got True grit. :up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

You guys from across the waves say what you will...but as the election process progresses...the Republicans will come behind this guy and he will be president.

The rest of the Rebublicans are dorks...and the Dems...wow what a mess over there. lol

Back in 2000, I supported McCain during the primaries, based on his military record and his years of experience as a Public Servant.

However, now, with Illegal Immigration being a more important issue this election cycle, I cannot supporty him until he resolves his policy stances. Otherwise, I would return to his "camp".

[The WosMan]

Yes, McCain has no chance, he has done too much to tick off the conservative base. I know the guy is a war hero and all but it doesn't matter when he gave us some of the most terrible legislation that caused a majority of problems we now have when it comes to these elections. McCain / Feingold was garbage, restricted free speech rights, and created the 527 groups like Moveon.org. John McCain has been on the wrong side of too many issues, gun control, immigration, campaign finance reform just to name a few. Therefore, he is not going to be the nominee.

[Sailor Steve]

Myopic? My personal stance is that anyone who is in a position to make taxes should have the attitude that all taxes are evil. A necessary evil, perhaps, but evil nonetheless.

I dislike tax on essensial items. (Basic houseing, basic food, water)

I dislike any form of universal or poll tax. (council tax!)

I fully support tax as penalty (alcohol, car, tabacco, pollution etc)

I am still undecided about industrial, and other buisness tax as I don't understand buisness economics as well as I should.

I have no problem with transaction tax (inheritance, import/export etc)

Finaly, I am all for luxery tax (electronics, media and all other non-essensial items)

One should be able live with out paying any tax as long as you lead a spartan life. No one should have to live below that standard because of lack of support.
I don't belive that anyone should earn more than is proportional to the work they do either, but that is wishful thinking.
It is also personal opinion. What is proportional? What is fair, and who decides? The original purpose of the American form of government was to guarantee maximum personal freedom while also guaranteeing protection from each other. Government has no "rights", and freedoms aren't "allowed", they are natural rights which we create a government to protect.

The only reason for there ever to be a tax under that ideal is that government has no way of supporting itself. Taxes are to provide money so government can operate, and nothing else, including "punishing the rich".

[nikimcbee]

What you don't love this????
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/scary-hillary-clinton.jpg


run for your lives:dead:

[August]

There used to be a special luxury tax on yachts here in the states. It seemed like a good idea, the ones who would be paying the tax would be people who could afford expensive toys right?

The problem was that rich yachtsmen just started buying their toys overseas and as a result many domestic yacht manufacturers, some that had been in business since before the civil war, were driven out of business forcing the lay off hundreds of blue collar workers.

[Sailor Steve]

What you don't love this????
Cheap shot - you can find goofy/scary pictures of almost anyone; witness the celebrity photos on the cover of any supermarket rag.

Still, it's pretty funny.

[The WosMan]

LOL, not only does her face give me nightmares but that shrill voice on her is enough to peel the paint off the wall. No wonder her husband runs out with other woman and cheats on her. I would too if I had to wake up next to that thing every day. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/wuerg/vomit-smiley-011.gif

[Onkel Neal]

I think taxes have to be looked at from both ends. As in, what you're getting for your tax payments.
Saying that low taxes should be a goal is a little...myopic?

Not if you're someone who stives to have minimal need for govt support.

[Spruence M]

I would say I vote for principles. The candidate with principles that I agree with gets my vote. Lower taxes, no illegal immigration, less govt. and take the fight to Al Queda and terrorists.


Could'nt have been said better.

[nikimcbee]

What you don't love this????
Cheap shot - you can find goofy/scary pictures of almost anyone; witness the celebrity photos on the cover of any supermarket rag.

Still, it's pretty funny.

D'oh, you caught me.:rotfl: I race in; launch my torpedoes, then get out of the convoy before the escorts can attack.:arrgh!:

Oh, sorry for any extra trauma.;)

[geetrue]

Now that I think about taxes ... I wonder if we are building that wall between Mexico and the Southwest to keep them out or keep them in ... :hmm:

Where do the dem's and the republican's stand on this? I hope this is not a hi-jacking ... just wondering.
I know Bush and Mccain are firm on allowing the illegals to stay, but from the number emails I get ... a whole lot of people in America are against it.

Should I start another thread or is this one okay?

[bradclark1]

Lower taxes = no money = no border security
Lower taxes = no money = no port security
Lower taxes = no money = sub standard airport security

Or, we can just stack it on top of the multi-trillions we owe, or we can just print more.

[The Avon Lady]

Lower taxes = no money = no border security
Lower taxes = no money = no port security
Lower taxes = no money = sub standard airport security

Or, we can just stack it on top of the multi-trillions we owe, or we can just print more.
Could be but how about holding tax rates at the moment and cutting bloated government bureaucratic inefficiency? I bet that would even improve the US' carbon footprint. :p

[Sea Demon]

Lower taxes = no money = no border security
Lower taxes = no money = no port security
Lower taxes = no money = sub standard airport security

Or, we can just stack it on top of the multi-trillions we owe, or we can just print more.
Actually, we see more money coming in from tax cuts. The problem is that pols see more money coming in for them to spend on assorted pork. Lower taxes equals more private sector growth. Which means more federal revenues.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

[bradclark1]

Lower taxes = no money = no border security
Lower taxes = no money = no port security
Lower taxes = no money = sub standard airport security

Or, we can just stack it on top of the multi-trillions we owe, or we can just print more.
Actually, we see more money coming in from tax cuts. The problem is that pols see more money coming in for them to spend on assorted pork. Lower taxes equals more private sector growth. Which means more federal revenues.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

That was from 1983. Lets jump ahead 18 or 19 years to look at this presidents cuts:
I'll be the first to say I'm far from being an economics wiz and if someone can't dazzle me with brilliance they can probably baffle me with bulls#!t but this doesn't look so great to me.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b34039.html

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debt0907.pdf

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

[geetrue]

The news keeps saying the national debt is coming down ...

Here's a chart that says who's been responcible for the national debt increase:

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

If you can complain about taxes ... your making more than I am anyway. :lol:

[August]

Lower taxes = no money = no border security
Lower taxes = no money = no port security
Lower taxes = no money = sub standard airport security

How about instead of cutting those things we cut all the pork barrel projects and other congressional boondoggles instead? Oh no, but that won't happen because it's easier to scare people into accepting higher taxes when they cut important stuff...

[Onkel Neal]

Lower taxes = no money = no border security


Or, we can just stack it on top of the multi-trillions we owe, or we can just print more.

Come on, Brad, think more creatively. One solution fixes everything: enforce the laws that prohibits hiring illegal aliens.

The govt will raise mucho $$$ by fining the crap out of these greedy businesses that break the law and hire illegals at slave wages (and are also driving down labor wages in the US); when illegals can't get a job in the US, even with fraudulent Social Security docs, they will migrate back to Mexico* (no, they are not eligible for welfare, food stamps, or unemployment, so don't even ask. Illegal, remember? :)) ; implement a flexible guest worker program that tracks every migrant worker into the US and allows them to work and reside under the terms of their visa (they cannot apply for citizenship); require applicants to apply in border towns in MEXICO and pay a small application fee (more $$ for the US govt)--it's cheaper and safer than coyotes; make sure all guest workers are paid and treated fairly--no more ripping off migrant workers, just because they are illegal.


Problem solved, now let's talk about Iran. :hmm:


*Don't tell me the illegals cannot/will not migrate back home, they seemed perfectly capable of migrating north in the first place.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Problem solved, now let's talk about Iran. :hmm:

Like a batch of pre-NFL popcorn - Nuke it! :rotfl:

And hey, dont stop migrant workers applying for citizenship. I need to one day!!

[bradclark1]

Lower taxes = no money = no border security
Lower taxes = no money = no port security
Lower taxes = no money = sub standard airport security

How about instead of cutting those things we cut all the pork barrel projects and other congressional boondoggles instead? Oh no, but that won't happen because it's easier to scare people into accepting higher taxes when they cut important stuff...
I'm in full agreement with you. I'm not an economics wiz but I am a realist. As long as there are politicians there will be pork. Bridges to nowhere, highways to nowhere are good for votes. Alaska has been king of pork for years.
Last year $29 billion was spent on pork.
This year 2,658 projects were stuffed into the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts, at a cost of $13.2 billion. Alaska and Hawaii
were the biggest porkers.

Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2014, the direct costs of the enacted and proposed tax cuts would total $2.8 trillion. From 2005 through 2014, the increased interest payments on the debt that result from the tax cuts would amount to $1.1 trillion. So all told that is going to cost 3.9 trillion dollars.
What cost us more? But killing pork would definetly help.

[Sea Demon]

I'm in full agreement with you. I'm not an economics wiz but I am a realist. As long as there are politicians there will be pork. Bridges to nowhere, highways to nowhere are good for votes. Alaska has been king of pork for years.
Last year $29 billion was spent on pork.
This year 2,658 projects were stuffed into the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts, at a cost of $13.2 billion. Alaska and Hawaii
were the biggest porkers.

Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2014, the direct costs of the enacted and proposed tax cuts would total $2.8 trillion. From 2005 through 2014, the increased interest payments on the debt that result from the tax cuts would amount to $1.1 trillion. So all told that is going to cost 3.9 trillion dollars.
What cost us more? But killing pork would definetly help.

I think you kind of answered the same way I did. It is the pork, and vote buying schemes that are causing the problems. Not tax cuts. It has been proven time and again that revenues are increased when the money is not being horded by government. Including under this President. Actually deficits were largely reduced a couple of years back due to more federal revenues. But the problem remains government spending. I know some of it's necessary. We are in a war after all. But if we cut out the pork and alot of the programs for the social services vultures, we would be alot better off.

[bradclark1]

Come on, Brad, think more creatively. One solution fixes everything: enforce the laws that prohibits hiring illegal aliens.

I'm not talking illegals but they are part of it. I'm talking actual security as in stop baddies crossing the borders. On top of that it would also cut down on drug running. I agree with you on everything you've said.
The southern border is 1952 miles. After 6 years there is a bill that only covers 700 miles. As far as I know the funds haven't even been released yet.

[Onkel Neal]

Come on, Brad, think more creatively. One solution fixes everything: enforce the laws that prohibits hiring illegal aliens.

I'm not talking illegals but they are part of it. I'm talking actual security as in stop baddies crossing the borders. On top of that it would also cut down on drug running. I agree with you on everything you've said.
The southern border is 1952 miles. After 6 years there is a bill that only covers 700 miles. As far as I know the funds haven't even been released yet.

I agree, the govt needs to secure the border, seriously.

[Onkel Neal]

Problem solved, now let's talk about Iran. :hmm:

Like a batch of pre-NFL popcorn - Nuke it! :rotfl:

And hey, dont stop migrant workers applying for citizenship. I need to one day!!

Ok, an exception for you :smug:

[bradclark1]

I'm in full agreement with you. I'm not an economics wiz but I am a realist. As long as there are politicians there will be pork. Bridges to nowhere, highways to nowhere are good for votes. Alaska has been king of pork for years.
Last year $29 billion was spent on pork.
This year 2,658 projects were stuffed into the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts, at a cost of $13.2 billion. Alaska and Hawaii
were the biggest porkers.

Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2014, the direct costs of the enacted and proposed tax cuts would total $2.8 trillion. From 2005 through 2014, the increased interest payments on the debt that result from the tax cuts would amount to $1.1 trillion. So all told that is going to cost 3.9 trillion dollars.
What cost us more? But killing pork would definetly help.

I think you kind of answered the same way I did. It is the pork, and vote buying schemes that are causing the problems. Not tax cuts. It has been proven time and again that revenues are increased when the money is not being horded by government. Including under this President. Actually deficits were largely reduced a couple of years back due to more federal revenues. But the problem remains government spending. I know some of it's necessary. We are in a war after all. But if we cut out the pork and alot of the programs for the social services vultures, we would be alot better off.

Lets be realistic. The cost of pork isn't a pimple on 3.9 trillion dollars. This tax cut actually cost money. As far as war this is the only president in our history that gave a tax cut in time of war. According to Bush we should have a surplus by 2012. I can't say yay or nay. It depends on the following presidents. This one showed you can go from black ink to red ink in record time.

Here is an actual neutral look for this year.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22473.html

This is a look at 2007 slanted medical cuts:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38989.php

Here's a nifty look at things:
http://www.federalbudget.com/

[Sea Demon]

Lets be realistic. The cost of pork isn't a pimple on 3.9 trillion dollars. This tax cut actually cost money. As far as war this is the only president in our history that gave a tax cut in time of war. According to Bush we should have a surplus by 2012. I can't say yay or nay. It depends on the following presidents. This one showed you can go from black ink to red ink in record time.

Here is an actual neutral look for this year.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22473.html

This is a look at 2007 slanted medical cuts:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38989.php

Here's a nifty look at things:
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Tax cuts costs no money whatsoever. The money does not belong to the government to begin with. The government does not create any wealth whatsoever. The people who risk capital do. The people who work do. The people who make investments do. A couple of investments I've made the last four years have grown to some degree. And they have expanded into real growth and real job creation for others. My risk into these ventures would not have happened without the tax cuts. And my gain from them (and subsequent increased tax penalties to the treasury) would not have happened without that economic activity. I have seen real growth from experience. Is it the same around the country? I can't answer that. But in real terms, it has been a boost for myself and a vast number of others who manage their finances wisely. And you can't take that away. Risk capital in the pockets of American citizens is the engine behind American entrepreneurism and economic growth.

[geetrue]

"You have to pay to play"

Have you ever wondered how those pork barrel sums get distributed and to who?

Here's an eye opener: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5wBTQVASIso&refer=home


After Democrats won control of Congress in last year's elections, they moved to require that the names of lawmakers sponsoring such pet projects be disclosed. That hasn't stopped lawmakers from continuing to funnel federal dollars to those who bankroll their campaigns.
In the case of the Samueli Institute, ``this new-age health group has learned to play the game of politics,'' said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington group that tracks government spending. ``They understand that you have to pay to play.''
A spokesman for Visclosky, 58, didn't return repeated telephone and e-mail requests for comment. Neither did representatives of Samueli, 52, whose personal fortune is estimated by Forbes magazine at $2 billion.


Whoops! I left out the first part ... they put this in the defense spending bill for servicemen and women who want alternate health care.

The $2 million earmarked for the Samueli Institute for Information Biology, started by Broadcom Corp. Chairman Henry Samueli and his wife Susan, was inserted into the measure by Democratic Representative Peter Visclosky. The Samueli family has contributed thousands of campaign dollars to Visclosky, whose Indiana district is nowhere near either the Alexandria, Virginia, institute or Broadcom, the Irvine, California-based maker of chips for wireless phones and other devices.

[bradclark1]

It might be a Republican (Alaska) that is King of pork but the Democrats are the champions of pork. They even used pork as bribes during the Legalize Illegals fiasco.

[bradclark1]

Tax cuts costs no money whatsoever.
That is money that would have gone to the budget, deficit and national debt. It costs.

[JALU3]

Not to harpoon the "sacred cow" of politics . . . however . . . the governments largest expenditure right now is on "mandatory" spending on programs that the majority of americans will not see . . . Social Security.
Unless we reform the system, it will grow to be an even larger percentage of the Federal Budget, and will force reductions in other expenditures, increase taxes, increase the national debt, or some or all the previously stated. Reduction in this expenditure over time, will reduce the federal budget and thus reduce the amount of taxes required to fund the federal government.
Also, with increased funding in work training, and worker assistance programs, we can continue to decrease money spent on Welfare and Unemployment.
Furthermore, why is there a Federal Department of Education when the Federal Government only operates DoD schools and Service Acadamies? Would the funding at the federal level be better used where the schools are ran, at the State and Local levels of government? And the current programs run under the Department of Education, do they really need a Cabinet level Department? Or can the operate under a smaller Federal Bureau?

[Sea Demon]

Tax cuts costs no money whatsoever. That is money that would have gone to the budget, deficit and national debt. It costs.
I think this is the fundamental difference. The American people are the ones who decides the level of government funding through their elected reps. The assumption from Democrats is somehow that lower levels, decided by taxpayers, injures government. Of course, they never talk of government spending outlays in comparison. If the congress would reduce tax-rates that results in you paying $2000 less in one year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it??? Or is it the other way around? Is it government taking less from you?

The difference here is that the view is skewed. We don't cost the government money, the government costs me money! When it comes to government costs, they should prioritize, and cut their costs where they can to fund the important things. Pork needs to go. That's the costs they should worry about. Taking money out of the economic engine of America, and reducing capital for economic investments is not the answer. Democrats have it totally bass-ackwards. Tax-payers (through Congress) set the tax-levels. What costs the government is their irresponsible pork and vote-buying projects. Not cuts in tax-rates.

[bradclark1]

Here we go! The Democrat monster thing. When you don't know what to say bring out the old trusty Democrat excuse. :up: So typical.
Who had the surplus, a Democrat or Republican president?
Who spent that surplus plus ran up the largest national debt in American history? That wasn't a Democrat.

[Sea Demon]

Here we go! The Democrat monster thing. When you don't know what to say bring out the old trusty Democrat excuse. :up: So typical.
Who had the surplus, a Democrat or Republican president?
Who spent that surplus plus ran up the largest national debt in American history? That wasn't a Democrat.
Actually no. You typically go into that crazy/combative mode when you've been shown you're wrong. And I think my response was adequate to adress your previous statements. "Democrat monster" never came from me. Saying they are wrong on tax policy is not the same as calling them monsters. What I state is typical of Democrat thinking. That is, the money belongs to the government, and we're just there to feed it all the money it needs for anything it wants. This thread is about Democrat/ Republican, and who you'll vote for. And when it comes to tax policy, the Democrats want to raise your taxes. Republicans want to reduce taxes. Unfortuanately, we have a hard time reducing the government spending. Again, that's where the problem lies. Not tax reductions.

[bradclark1]

Here we go! The Democrat monster thing. When you don't know what to say bring out the old trusty Democrat excuse. :up: So typical.

Actually no. You typically go into that crazy/combative mode when you've been shown you're wrong.
What I state is typical of Democrat thinking.
:doh:

Please show where I'm wrong in anything on this thread.

[Sea Demon]

Here we go! The Democrat monster thing. When you don't know what to say bring out the old trusty Democrat excuse. :up: So typical.
Actually no. You typically go into that crazy/combative mode when you've been shown you're wrong. What I state is typical of Democrat thinking. :doh:

Please show where I'm wrong in anything on this thread.

Please show me where you're right. :doh:;)

[August]

Here we go! The Democrat monster thing. When you don't know what to say bring out the old trusty Democrat excuse. :up: So typical.
Who had the surplus, a Democrat or Republican president?
Who spent that surplus plus ran up the largest national debt in American history? That wasn't a Democrat.

And here we go, blaming everything under the sun including the weather on the evil Republican President. Budgets are decided by Congress, not the President, you ought to know that Brad.

[bradclark1]

Please show where I'm wrong in anything on this thread.

Please show me where you're right. :doh:;)
Originally Posted by Sea Demon
Actually no. You typically go into that crazy/combative mode when you've been shown you're wrong. ;)

[bradclark1]

And here we go, blaming everything under the sun including the weather on the evil Republican President. Budgets are decided by Congress, not the President, you ought to know that Brad.
It takes two to tango. You ought to know that. The President and Congress. Both had been Republican but debt went uncontrolled when Bush took office. And the buck stops where?

1996 $4.9 trillion in federal debt
2001: $4 trillion in federal debt
2007: $9 trillion in federal debt

Or is that just some kind of coincidence?

:) Global warming started under Bush. Didn't you know.

Edit: Just for grins and giggles. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[August]

It takes two to tango. You ought to know that. The President and Congress. Both had been Republican but debt went uncontrolled when Bush took office. And the buck stops where?

1996 $4.9 trillion in federal debt
2001: $4 trillion in federal debt
2007: $9 trillion in federal debt

Or is that just some kind of coincidence?

:) Global warming started under Bush. Didn't you know.

Edit: Just for grins and giggles. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Like a $4.9 Trillion debt is something to be proud of? This sounds like the old Democrat "vote for us because we're not as bad as the republicans" argument. :D

The truth is that each year since 1969, regardless of who is in charge, Congress has spent more money than it "earned". Even when they claim budget surpluses they were still spending more than they were taking in. But you really can't blame the president (Rep or Dem) for this. Without the line item veto he has to approve or disapprove an entire annual spending bill rather than just stripping the unrelated pork from it like most of the governors in this country can do when their legislatures start going hog wild with the people money.

[Sea Demon]

And here we go, blaming everything under the sun including the weather on the evil Republican President. Budgets are decided by Congress, not the President, you ought to know that Brad.
It takes two to tango. You ought to know that. The President and Congress. Both had been Republican but debt went uncontrolled when Bush took office. And the buck stops where?

1996 $4.9 trillion in federal debt
2001: $4 trillion in federal debt
2007: $9 trillion in federal debt

Or is that just some kind of coincidence?

:) Global warming started under Bush. Didn't you know.

Edit: Just for grins and giggles. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

I agree the pork spending is out of control. But if you didn't realize, a war is going on. Are you one of those Democrats who wants to end funding it? And the Democrats control the purse strings now. I think Bush should veto alot of the crap coming in front of him. It's unfortunate that the Democrats have tied almost everything to war funding. And at this point, most people agree that this failed Congress is disappointing to say the least. I think as of this week, they're at a paltry 11% approval. Hanging by a thread.

And by the way, using your logic, terrorism started under Bill Clinton. ;) If he had done his job, maybe this war wouldn't have been so expensive.

[bradclark1]

Like a $4.9 Trillion debt is something to be proud of? This sounds like the old Democrat "vote for us because we're not as bad as the republicans" argument.
No, but it sure as hell beats what it is now. From 1996 to 2001 the federal debt dropped nearly 1 trillion dollars. From 2001 to 2007 the debt rose 5 trillion dollars. This isn't about voting Democrat or Republican it's about fiscal responsibility. It's about paying as you go or as close to it as a goverment can, not "I have a checkbook and I can spend as long as I have checks". It's as I've said countless times and voted countless times it's not the party I'll vote for it's who has the right message be it Republican, Democrat or Independent. But if a thread turns into a Republicans are smart and Democrats are stupid thread I'll do my best to make Republicans look even stupider.
The truth is that each year since 1969, regardless of who is in charge, Congress has spent more money than it "earned". Even when they claim budget surpluses they were still spending more than they were taking in.
I don't see how that would be but even if so that doesn't give reason for mindless spending, being in a war, and then turn around and cut taxes. It doesn't make sense to me. The return isn't there and it was proven it wasn't before it was enacted.
Without the line item veto he has to approve or disapprove an entire annual spending bill rather than just stripping the unrelated pork from it like most of the governors in this country can do when their legislatures start going hog wild with the people money.
To nullify or "cancel" specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations so I would take it that it was open to other uses also.

[Sea Demon]

It's as I've said countless times and voted countless times it's not the party I'll vote for it's who has the right message be it Republican, Democrat or Independent. But if a thread turns into a Republicans are smart and Democrats are stupid thread I'll do my best to make Republicans look even stupider.

That's funny. But there are plenty of "Democrats are smart. Republicans are stupid" threads around here. Can you please point me to one thread where you have defended the Republican in those threads? Just one comment from one thread in the past will suffice. I ain't buying that you're non-partisan.

[Sea Demon]

I don't see how that would be but even if so that doesn't give reason for mindless spending, being in a war, and then turn around and cut taxes. It doesn't make sense to me. The return isn't there and it was proven it wasn't before it was enacted.

The point is, we shouldn't be mindless spending. In a time of war, we should be cutting the federal budget where we can. And that includes alot of the tax-payer giveaways that Democrats love so much. Taking money out of the pocketbooks of hard working Americans will shrink the economy and discourage investments. That's a recipe for slowing growth. Cutting taxes is the best thing Bush could have done. The spending on crap is the problem. August is right. A line item veto would be a good deal in eliminating unneeded federal spending. And it wouldn't allow Democrats the opportunity to threaten our military with defunding in a time of war.

[August]

No, but it sure as hell beats what it is now. From 1996 to 2001 the federal debt dropped nearly 1 trillion dollars. From 2001 to 2007 the debt rose 5 trillion dollars. This isn't about voting Democrat or Republican it's about fiscal responsibility. It's about paying as you go or as close to it as a goverment can, not "I have a checkbook and I can spend as long as I have checks". It's as I've said countless times and voted countless times it's not the party I'll vote for it's who has the right message be it Republican, Democrat or Independent. But if a thread turns into a Republicans are smart and Democrats are stupid thread I'll do my best to make Republicans look even stupider.And they'll return and make Dems look even stupider than that, when the truth is they are both equally stupid in their own ways. Unfortunately it is political one upsmanship just like that from both sides that has gotten us to the state we're in now.

We haven't had a remotely unifyng president since Reagan and even he had problems with it.

I don't see how that would be but even if so that doesn't give reason for mindless spending, being in a war, and then turn around and cut taxes. It doesn't make sense to me. The return isn't there and it was proven it wasn't before it was enacted.
The tax cut is not the source of the problem, governmental spending is. If the Bush tax cuts had never been implemented the budget deficit would be just as big as it is now.

To nullify or "cancel" specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations so I would take it that it was open to other uses also.
Yeah the Supreme Court viewed the LIV as a separation of powers issue. Congress can't give up it's "power of the purse strings" without a constitutional amendment.

[bradclark1]

It's as I've said countless times and voted countless times it's not the party I'll vote for it's who has the right message be it Republican, Democrat or Independent. But if a thread turns into a Republicans are smart and Democrats are stupid thread I'll do my best to make Republicans look even stupider.

That's funny. But there are plenty of "Democrats are smart. Republicans are stupid" threads around here. Can you please point me to one thread where you have defended the Republican in those threads? Just one comment from one thread in the past will suffice. I ain't buying that you're non-partisan.
Above:
But if a thread turns into a Republicans are smart and Democrats are stupid thread I'll do my best to make Republicans look even stupider.
Actually I can't think of a Republicans are dumb and Democrats are smart thread. You'd have to show me. If you look at a couple of comments in this thread before it turned into a smart/dumb thread you will see where I have made comments critical of the Democratic party.
I don't care if you think I'm non-partisan I voted for a Republican governor, an Independent senator and an Democratic congressman last elections. I go by the message not the party.

[bradclark1]

And they'll return and make Dems look even stupider than that, when the truth is they are both equally stupid in their own ways.
I haven't seen that yet.:D Remember I'm talking about smart/dumb threads not parties. Our political system has turned into the payback revenge system that whatever one party is for even if it's a good idea the other party would be against it just because.

The tax cut is not the source of the problem, governmental spending is. If the Bush tax cuts had never been implemented the budget deficit would be just as big as it is now.
We'll just have to disagree on that one.

[Onkel Neal]

And here we go, blaming everything under the sun including the weather on the evil Republican President. Budgets are decided by Congress, not the President, you ought to know that Brad.
It takes two to tango. You ought to know that. The President and Congress. Both had been Republican but debt went uncontrolled when Bush took office. And the buck stops where?

1996 $4.9 trillion in federal debt
2001: $4 trillion in federal debt
2007: $9 trillion in federal debt

Or is that just some kind of coincidence?

:) Global warming started under Bush. Didn't you know.

Edit: Just for grins and giggles. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Truth. The President submits a budget to Congress annually. If one is a conservative, he cannot be happy with Bush's spending binges.

[NiclDoe]

I really do not know becuase im in school but my older sister says Democrat

[JALU3]

I really do not know becuase im in school but my older sister says Democrat

Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because one or a couple of your family members support them. Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because your friends or the in-crowd supports them. Rather, look at all the political parties out there, look at all the individuals running for office which you have an option to vote for, and research what they are about. Find out what they say that the stand for, and what their policy opinions are on various subjects. And then, choose for yourself, the one that matches your opinions on those policy questions.

[August]

I really do not know becuase im in school but my older sister says Democrat
Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because one or a couple of your family members support them. Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because your friends or the in-crowd supports them. Rather, look at all the political parties out there, look at all the individuals running for office which you have an option to vote for, and research what they are about. Find out what they say that the stand for, and what their policy opinions are on various subjects. And then, choose for yourself, the one that matches your opinions on those policy questions.
Unless you like letting someone else do your thinking for you, in which case doing what your family tells you to do is probably your best bet... ;)

[JALU3]

I really do not know becuase im in school but my older sister says Democrat
Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because one or a couple of your family members support them. Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because your friends or the in-crowd supports them. Rather, look at all the political parties out there, look at all the individuals running for office which you have an option to vote for, and research what they are about. Find out what they say that the stand for, and what their policy opinions are on various subjects. And then, choose for yourself, the one that matches your opinions on those policy questions.
Unless you like letting someone else do your thinking for you, in which case doing what your family tells you to do is probably your best bet... ;)

The party bosses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_boss) will be proud of you, if you just listen to exactly what they say, don't do any research of your own, and just vote "strait party ticket." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticket_%28election%29) Why don't you just hand them your ballot when you get to the polling station . . . no better yet . . . why don't you just forward all the ballots there were to be sent to you for the rest of your life to their political office. You don't need to concern yourself regarding the policy decisions of your "elected" government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance) I know I am using hyperbole . . . but isn't that what your basically doing?:nope:

[August]

I really do not know becuase im in school but my older sister says Democrat
Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because one or a couple of your family members support them. Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because your friends or the in-crowd supports them. Rather, look at all the political parties out there, look at all the individuals running for office which you have an option to vote for, and research what they are about. Find out what they say that the stand for, and what their policy opinions are on various subjects. And then, choose for yourself, the one that matches your opinions on those policy questions.
Unless you like letting someone else do your thinking for you, in which case doing what your family tells you to do is probably your best bet... ;)
The party bosses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_boss) will be proud of you, if you just listen to exactly what they say, don't do any research of your own, and just vote "strait party ticket." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticket_%28election%29) Why don't you just hand them your ballot when you get to the polling station . . . no better yet . . . why don't you just forward all the ballots there were to be sent to you for the rest of your life to their political office. You don't need to concern yourself regarding the policy decisions of your "elected" government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance) I know I am using hyperbole . . . but isn't that what your basically doing?:nope:

No, I didn't say any of the things you're trying to accuse me of. "Party bosses" :roll:

I'm just saying that if he can't or won't do his own research into the candidates he votes for then it's probably better to listen to what his family members are telling him rather than some stranger.

You know not everyone has the time, opportunity or ability to do their own reading between the lines, expecially something as convoluted as finding out what a candidate really stands for (aside from him/herself that is).

[JALU3]

I really do not know becuase im in school but my older sister says Democrat
Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because one or a couple of your family members support them. Don't support a political party or an individual running for office only because your friends or the in-crowd supports them. Rather, look at all the political parties out there, look at all the individuals running for office which you have an option to vote for, and research what they are about. Find out what they say that the stand for, and what their policy opinions are on various subjects. And then, choose for yourself, the one that matches your opinions on those policy questions.
Unless you like letting someone else do your thinking for you, in which case doing what your family tells you to do is probably your best bet... ;)
The party bosses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_boss) will be proud of you, if you just listen to exactly what they say, don't do any research of your own, and just vote "strait party ticket." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticket_%28election%29) Why don't you just hand them your ballot when you get to the polling station . . . no better yet . . . why don't you just forward all the ballots there were to be sent to you for the rest of your life to their political office. You don't need to concern yourself regarding the policy decisions of your "elected" government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance) I know I am using hyperbole . . . but isn't that what your basically doing?:nope:

No, I didn't say any of the things you're trying to accuse me of. "Party bosses" :roll:

I'm just saying that if he can't or won't do his own research into the candidates he votes for then it's probably better to listen to what his family members are telling him rather than some stranger.

You know not everyone has the time, opportunity or ability to do their own reading between the lines, expecially something as convoluted as finding out what a candidate really stands for (aside from him/herself that is).

Again hyperbole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole).
Although family members may have similar backgrounds, that doesn't mean that they share the same political views and/or the same policy positions. Therefore, it is best that anyone who has decided to vote, be an informed voter. Otherwise, they maybe supporting, via their vote, something that would negatively effect them or be against one of their policy opinions. Remember Abstaining is always an option.
And it doesn't take that much time to read independent summaries of the candidates stated positions, and their political records. Bet time spent then downloading music from Apple, or voting for the next American Idol.

[August]

Again hyperbole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole).

I am familiar with the term and it still isn't "what your basically doing?:nope:" as you put it.

Although family members may have similar backgrounds, that doesn't mean that they share the same political views and/or the same policy positions. Therefore, it is best that anyone who has decided to vote, be an informed voter. Otherwise, they maybe supporting, via their vote, something that would negatively effect them or be against one of their policy opinions.

So have you never once relied on someones advice when making an important decision? Would not his family being negatively affected also likely impact him?

Remember Abstaining is always an option.

Yes it is an option, but imo a far worse choice than relying on the advice of family or friends. Rights must be exercised or lost and participating in the process is very educational. That is much more important than a single vote one way or another.

[JALU3]

I am exajurating what happens when one losses their ability to decide for themselves who they will vote for. And in doing so . . . vote in a way which would make the party happy that you are listening to these influences.

For voting, although I will listen to other opinions, I have always taken the time to read through non-partisan publications and read the for and against arguements (and the counter arguemenents) on propositions, amendments, and referendums. For individuals running for political positions, I also refer to non-partisan publications and individual research into the candidates campaign literature. So no, I have not relied soley on one persons advice when making a decision regarding how I, that is not to say that it isn't a minor influence.

As for abstaning or blind voting is worse, that would make an interesting debate topic. I myself prefer abstaning when I am undecided on a question on the ballot, rather then just voting for someone who someone else tells me to vote for. That is to say, I have left certain voting questions blank, while filling out others. As for what people should do as a whole, welll that's up to the individual voter.