Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 12 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 7 of 19 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 19 >
Topic Options
#39528 - 09/05/08 05:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Mike Rawdon]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
 Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
 Originally Posted By: Daniel


Because he's the only remaining candidate who may ask us to take responsibility for our government again.

It seems to me that there's a pervasive attitude that if we just elect the right people, our government will solve our problems for us (whether that's energy independence, lower taxes, health care reform).


Excellent point, Daniel. And a well thought-out post, as always.

Smike, I may not be impressed by Obama's resume, but I'll be god-damned if I'm going to vote for 4 more years of the Republicans that have so thoroughly F'ed up our economy, our military, our environmental progress, our civil liberties, our rule of law vis-a-vis separation of powers, and our international reputation.

If that amounts to punishing the GOP for what I consider the W...P...E (c'mon, you know what that stands for), then so be it. They could put Superman on the ballot and I wouldn't support him.


(Worst. President. Ever.)



yes it's great Obama tax policies and labor union policies are only going to create less jobs in the US and more over seas.

Obama wants to cut taxes but also raise Capital gain taxes and that takes away cash from the small business man. So where is the money going to be for the small business man to hire someone.

Yet Obama wants to cut taxes for middle class but with his spending how in the heck is going to do that. Obama numbers do Not add up.

Obama wants stronger union labor polices so More companies will get up and go to Guatemala where unions are nonexistent.

sure Bush ran everything into a muck but really who will be better to get us out huh.

with Iraq seems like Obama will just pull everyone out. then what will happen you think the US dollar is bad now.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39529 - 09/05/08 06:03 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
truth be told at least on the current financial well being you need to look across the board at the Democrats for approving all the spending (as they have been in control of the congress for quite some time.) So your punishment needs to be a little broader then the just GOP.
...

The years of approval of military spending without any real conditions is what I think amounts to my largest grip I have against the Democrats.


Good points. But since the Democrats have taken over, they've at least tried to adhere to pay-as-you-go rules. When such attempts have been thwarted, such as with the Alternative Minimum Tax patch, it's been at the level of 41+ dissenting votes from Republicans in the Senate (plus the threat of a presidential veto). That's not to say that Democrats will not return to profligate ways if they get larger majorities and an Obama presidency, but unpaid-for tax cuts with increased spending over the prior six years under Republican control doesn't say much for their fiscal responsibility either, and at least the past two years have been an improvement. I wish I could promise that it would continue. We are living beyond our means as a nation, and that trend is not sustainable. (To which I would add: and we in the public need to be asked what we're willing to do about it if we're going to take it seriously.)

As for the military spending, I assume the "conditions" refer to the ongoing mission in Iraq. Again it's a result I disagree with but can understand. The House repeatedly passed military spending bills with conditions. They were, again, blocked in the Senate (I think the votes were pretty close to 50-50, but in any case couldn't clear the 60-vote cloture threshold). And there was the threatened veto to contend with. If they couldn't get something passed with conditions, the only other option was to withhold funds entirely. House Democrats in swing districts saw this as political suicide (next election attack ad: "Congressman So-And-So won't provide the funding to support our brave soldiers!"), so House leadership made a tactical choice to preserve their majority. So even if a majority in the public wanted some kind of restrictions, it was politically tough to hold the line on this one.

Such is life on Capitol Hill. Sometimes you're in the minority. And sometimes you're in the majority but still can't get something passed.

Top
#39530 - 09/05/08 06:12 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
Obama wants to cut taxes but also raise Capital gain taxes and that takes away cash from the small business man. So where is the money going to be for the small business man to hire someone.

Yet Obama wants to cut taxes for middle class but with his spending how in the heck is going to do that. Obama numbers do Not add up.

Obama wants stronger union labor polices so More companies will get up and go to Guatemala where unions are nonexistent.

sure Bush ran everything into a muck but really who will be better to get us out huh.

with Iraq seems like Obama will just pull everyone out. then what will happen you think the US dollar is bad now.


Obama's tax rates would still be lower than they were during the Clinton years. People, as I recall, did fine. And if we're not going to raise taxes, there had better be a plan for massive spending cuts, because we're simply not paying our bills as a nation. Yet McCain promises even more tax cuts. Yes, Obama's numbers do not add up. He's said he thinks it's more important to invest in infrastructure for future growth, which will outweigh the effects of added debt. But McCain's numbers don't add up to a far more severe degree.

As for unions, we've seen the incomes of the wealthy skyrocket over the past seven years while average incomes have dropped (adjusted for inflation). As Warren Buffet said, there is a class war, and his class is winning. Corporate profits are up but workers haven't shared. And that's partly because of the decline of unions. There are lots of businesses that can't just pick up and leave but are squeezing their employees. I think it's hard to blame unions for our nation's economic problems when the percentage of the unionized workforce is so small. And if employees have more money to spend, that's a virtuous economic cycle.

Read Obama's position on Iraq. He's not going to just pull everyone out. His plan has the support of the Iraqi government. And the reason the US dollar is weak has little to do with Iraq but with the fiscal irresponsibility of the present administration (and it will be even worse with more unpaid-for tax cuts).

Top
#39531 - 09/05/08 06:22 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
with Iraq seems like Obama will just pull everyone out. then what will happen you think the US dollar is bad now.


Apologies for the additional post, but...

One reason the dollar is in such bad shape is that we're borrowing all of the money for our military operation in Iraq (among other expenses). If you want a strong dollar back, call your congressman/woman and tell him/her to demand that people like us start picking up the bill instead of borrowing the money from China. And then we can also say that we're finally really supporting the troops instead of just talking about it. Double bonus!

But I don't want to hear: "I want an extended troop presence in Iraq, but I want someone else to pay for it." Things like that are why our fiscal house is in such bad shape. We should have the courage to say we're willing to pay for the things we want, or at least reorder our priorities to do so. (And there again is a bipartisan failure. I don't know what it says about Democratic support for insuring kids (expanding S-CHIP) that they care so strongly that they/we want smokers to pay the tab.)

Top
#39534 - 09/05/08 07:17 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
when Bush stepped in he had to clean up the mess that Clinton caused for small business owners.

and how the heck is Obama going to invest in infrastructure for future growth when all the investing will go somewhere else.

decline of unions. sure but you really have no clue on how a union can affect a business. I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39535 - 09/05/08 07:37 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
"I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now"

Weak dollar = large growth in exports = US business growth.

Some may argue that's the only thing keeping us out of the recession shit can at the moment.

Top
#39536 - 09/05/08 08:11 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: Smike]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
 Originally Posted By: Smike
"I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now"

Weak dollar = large growth in exports = US business growth.

Some may argue that's the only thing keeping us out of the recession shit can at the moment.


duh this has been happening years before the weak dollar, and the export has to out weight the Importing


yup when the guy sweeping the floors and reads the newspaper the rest of the day makes more money then the guy who specializes in plasma welding, just because the floor sweeper has been at the company for 2 yrs longer. yet let's have stronger union policies makes sense then. So Corporate who started the company and or invented the product has to shell more dough for the floor sweeper. So up in goes the company to Mexico where they don't have to deal with Unions and pay lower wages. Yet unemployment is at what 5 year high and will rise with Obama.

oeno they should make VP condoms I can think of some solgans for Palin.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#39538 - 09/05/08 09:48 PM Re: The Candidates [Re: talus]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: talus
you really have no clue on how a union can affect a business. I guess that's why industries are so flourishing in US now.


There are good unions and bad unions. But even non-union wages aren't low enough to keep manufacturing from going abroad, where people will work for a few dollars a day (which is not enough for anyone to bother with in the US). Manufacturing is going abroad with or without unions.

As for Smike's comment, the low dollar has been good for exports and has helped the economy from being worse than it otherwise might be. But I've heard at least one economist say that no nation has ever exported itself out of a recession; I'd suspect it's just not a big enough part of the economy.

Anyway, there are far more issues in this election than Obama's position on unions. Unless one is a one-issue anti-union voter, in which case go ahead and vote against him.

Top
#39543 - 09/06/08 10:39 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
Empicard, in your original post you state

I can't get excited about either one.
What to do?


Almost seventy posts have followed, not counting yours. Has your question been answered?
_________________________

Top
#39544 - 09/06/08 10:40 AM Re: The Candidates [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
yes i'm well aware how export has been good from the weak dollar, but will this help in the future when there is no business to export anything. I agree that there are much greater issues than unions personally i'm not a big fan unions.

one of the bigger issues is who is going to go after the frat like Senate and Lobbyists.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
Page 7 of 19 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 19 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored