Who are you thinking of voting for in 2008?
- Thread starter dmclone
- Start date
Great, just what we need...another lawyer!! Just kidding, man! Give me a call when you win your first big class action suit and I'll help you invest your money!
Well, as I care about things other than guns, war, money, and myself, I'm obviously going to vote for a Democrat. When you've got Republicans like John McCain saying that he won't rest until he kills Osama bin Laden (and then SMILING a rather wicked smile about it)...that's just barbaric. While we can't back down on national security, it is important that we try to understand how other people think of the United States and approach situations with that point-of-view in mind. The major reason that terrorism exists today is because of American/Western arrogance toward the rest of the world. I mean, when Ahmedinijad goes back to his people in Iran and says, "The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons. Now they're telling us that we can't have a single one. Who gives them the right to do that?" This is what makes him a martyr---this is why he has the support that he and others like him have...because of American arrogance.
We have to lead by example, not by tyranny. Otherwise, we're just as bad as our so-called "enemies." Look at Iraq---the people there are revolting against American occupation, because they see us in the same light that they saw Saddam Hussein in---a tyrannical dictator who will never leave. Now, Americans don't think of themselves in this way, but think about the fact that most Iraqis will never see the United States of America for themselves---they have to go by the actions that they see in their own backyards. Who can blame them for their opinion of us? I certainly can't...I feel sorry for them.
As for the '08 elections...I don't really dislike any of the Dems. However, Obama is just uninspiring, bland, and dull, and unlike what most people say, he has no charisma or gravitas in my opinion. I want a president that will inspire me to follow him or her, and Barack Obama certainly wouldn't do that.
I really do like Hillary, and as for you people who don't like her out there (all 48% of Americans), I would like for you to explain to me why you don't. Trust me, for many of you, it's going to take a while to come up with a good, justifiable answer, because most people just dislike her without a real reason.
My favorite candidate is John Edwards. He speaks from the heart, inspires crowds, has compassion for others, but isn't afraid to back down when faced with a challenge. He uses facts, logic, and emotional appeal and is inspiring to listen to. He has better plans than any of the other candidates so far (just go to his website...an 83 page plan on universal healthcare, and it's not fully socialized medicine FOR ALL THE REPUBLICANS READING THIS; you might be intrigued if you read it). Without a doubt, I would like for John Edwards to be our nominee in '08, and right now, he beats ALL of the Republican candidates in 1-on-1 matchups, including Giuliani and McCain.
I also really like Biden, Dodd, and Richardson. I've met all of the people I've mentioned so far (except Biden) and they're all likeable people. However, I can just see Edwards as the next President of the United States.
It's my personal opinion after watching his speech to the Lincoln Club of Orange County that Fred Thompson will end up being the GOP nominee. Giuliani will become plagued by the liberal views on social issues, McCain will be seen as an old, cranky man who only cares about war, Romney will seem plastic and like a flip-flopper (a.k.a. John Kerry...), and if Gingrich gets in, he will just be seen as too polarizing (kind of like Hillary). I respect Mike Huckabee, but he just won't be able to fundraise and get his name out there enough: none of the second-tier candidates will, I'm afraid. And, after seeing Fred Thompson speak, he seemed pleasant, reasonable, and not Washington, which is what, I think, Republicans will want after the cancer that has been the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, 2008 will be another Democratic year (non-partisan groups project 10 more seats gained in the House and 3 or 4 in the Senate...), and Thompson will lose to Edwards by about a 53-47 margin.
That's just my opinion, though, based on what has happened as of May 5th.
We have to lead by example, not by tyranny. Otherwise, we're just as bad as our so-called "enemies." Look at Iraq---the people there are revolting against American occupation, because they see us in the same light that they saw Saddam Hussein in---a tyrannical dictator who will never leave. Now, Americans don't think of themselves in this way, but think about the fact that most Iraqis will never see the United States of America for themselves---they have to go by the actions that they see in their own backyards. Who can blame them for their opinion of us? I certainly can't...I feel sorry for them.
As for the '08 elections...I don't really dislike any of the Dems. However, Obama is just uninspiring, bland, and dull, and unlike what most people say, he has no charisma or gravitas in my opinion. I want a president that will inspire me to follow him or her, and Barack Obama certainly wouldn't do that.
I really do like Hillary, and as for you people who don't like her out there (all 48% of Americans), I would like for you to explain to me why you don't. Trust me, for many of you, it's going to take a while to come up with a good, justifiable answer, because most people just dislike her without a real reason.
My favorite candidate is John Edwards. He speaks from the heart, inspires crowds, has compassion for others, but isn't afraid to back down when faced with a challenge. He uses facts, logic, and emotional appeal and is inspiring to listen to. He has better plans than any of the other candidates so far (just go to his website...an 83 page plan on universal healthcare, and it's not fully socialized medicine FOR ALL THE REPUBLICANS READING THIS; you might be intrigued if you read it). Without a doubt, I would like for John Edwards to be our nominee in '08, and right now, he beats ALL of the Republican candidates in 1-on-1 matchups, including Giuliani and McCain.
I also really like Biden, Dodd, and Richardson. I've met all of the people I've mentioned so far (except Biden) and they're all likeable people. However, I can just see Edwards as the next President of the United States.
It's my personal opinion after watching his speech to the Lincoln Club of Orange County that Fred Thompson will end up being the GOP nominee. Giuliani will become plagued by the liberal views on social issues, McCain will be seen as an old, cranky man who only cares about war, Romney will seem plastic and like a flip-flopper (a.k.a. John Kerry...), and if Gingrich gets in, he will just be seen as too polarizing (kind of like Hillary). I respect Mike Huckabee, but he just won't be able to fundraise and get his name out there enough: none of the second-tier candidates will, I'm afraid. And, after seeing Fred Thompson speak, he seemed pleasant, reasonable, and not Washington, which is what, I think, Republicans will want after the cancer that has been the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, 2008 will be another Democratic year (non-partisan groups project 10 more seats gained in the House and 3 or 4 in the Senate...), and Thompson will lose to Edwards by about a 53-47 margin.
That's just my opinion, though, based on what has happened as of May 5th.
The problem is that the office of the presidency is so far removed from most of us that there is no real impact. I always focus more on local elections when I make choices. Those people can affect my life (pave streets, property taxes, growth and development to improve the value of my home).
We are now seeing the only thing that they can do to affect the common man, and that is send them off to war.
In answer to another post, the problem with the strategy of this particular Viet....I mean Iraq is that there was no forethought to what was going to happen when we created the vacuum of power by getting rid of Sadaam. Then to complicate matters further, we chose sides, culturally, within the country. So basically, after five years, we are now trying to play referee in what is essentially a peasant revolution, to which there is no end in sight. The only break being is when these different sects unite to attack our troops.
I firmly believe that this "president" honestly thought that once we got rid of the ruler, the subjects would be grateful, and live harmoniously. I don't think that he saw five years later, in fact I sure hope that he didn't because he might have actually put some thought into taking the step in the first place.
This president spent his firs 8 months in office floundering, with no message, or ideas, then 9/11 gave him a pulpit, and, I guess, made him think that he was this great foreign policy strategist. So rather than search out the problem (terrorist cells) from the beginning, we took the only logical step, invade Iraq. I think that had we truly gone after the terrorists, immediatly following 9/11, we would have ended up in Iraq anyway, because Sadaam would have harbored the leaders of Al Queida (sp) eventually as a way thumbing his nose at America.
Now we have a war that is draining the economy, and a president who either doesn't understand, or is unwilling to admit that this was a failed effort. Thousands of Americans have died, and thousands more will. Now you have a nation that is so disillusioned with this war, that was created within the White House and Pentagon, we will vote to pull troops as soon as possible which will have even greater catastrophic results. Of course by then, President Bush will be well into his retirement, and book tours.
We are now seeing the only thing that they can do to affect the common man, and that is send them off to war.
In answer to another post, the problem with the strategy of this particular Viet....I mean Iraq is that there was no forethought to what was going to happen when we created the vacuum of power by getting rid of Sadaam. Then to complicate matters further, we chose sides, culturally, within the country. So basically, after five years, we are now trying to play referee in what is essentially a peasant revolution, to which there is no end in sight. The only break being is when these different sects unite to attack our troops.
I firmly believe that this "president" honestly thought that once we got rid of the ruler, the subjects would be grateful, and live harmoniously. I don't think that he saw five years later, in fact I sure hope that he didn't because he might have actually put some thought into taking the step in the first place.
This president spent his firs 8 months in office floundering, with no message, or ideas, then 9/11 gave him a pulpit, and, I guess, made him think that he was this great foreign policy strategist. So rather than search out the problem (terrorist cells) from the beginning, we took the only logical step, invade Iraq. I think that had we truly gone after the terrorists, immediatly following 9/11, we would have ended up in Iraq anyway, because Sadaam would have harbored the leaders of Al Queida (sp) eventually as a way thumbing his nose at America.
Now we have a war that is draining the economy, and a president who either doesn't understand, or is unwilling to admit that this was a failed effort. Thousands of Americans have died, and thousands more will. Now you have a nation that is so disillusioned with this war, that was created within the White House and Pentagon, we will vote to pull troops as soon as possible which will have even greater catastrophic results. Of course by then, President Bush will be well into his retirement, and book tours.
Darts180 I'm no fan of President Bush but your statement that he spent his first eight months floundering, with no message, or ideas couldn't be farther off the mark. The President had a very ambititious economic agenda from the get-go. During the first 100 days the tax cuts were passed which most pundits thought would never happen.
Oh yeah the famous tax cut/refund where the average american received a rebate of like $600, draining the budget surplus. Hey vote for me, and I will give you some money. We were coming off an strong economic cycle, so it bound to turn the other way. Throwing all kinds of liquid money back into the economy was an attempt to sustain, but in the end it was a grain of sand in the Sahara.
And he did have Greenspan lowering interest rates to nothing to get people to buy homes, that they now can't afford as the market corrects itself.
After that I am foggy as to any great economic policies that President Bush introduced. Please remind me, so I know.
And please don't mistake the fact that I think that this is the worst president of my lifetime, and he happens to be Republican, that I am this huge liberal (although there is nothing wrong with being a liberal....IF YOU ARE 19 AND YOUR PARENTS PAY FOR EVERYTHING)
Last edited:
Darts180 I didn't say that the economic policy pursued by Bush was good, bad, or indifferent. I simply said that your statement that Bush spent his first eight months with no message to be blatently inaccurate.
But since you brought up the drain on the budget from the tax cuts let me respond. Tax revenues have far exceeded economic forecasts. The problem with the budget has been that spending has increased under President Bush.
Bush had plans to reform both social security and the federal income tax. Neither of these will ever happen as long as he is President since he has no political capital.
But since you brought up the drain on the budget from the tax cuts let me respond. Tax revenues have far exceeded economic forecasts. The problem with the budget has been that spending has increased under President Bush.
Bush had plans to reform both social security and the federal income tax. Neither of these will ever happen as long as he is President since he has no political capital.
Social Security has no legs, he sees that the majority of people my age (I am 37) have understood for a long time that there will be nothing left, so we plan for our golden years on our own. I don't remember the
OK A.G. I am not trying to fight here. But, every president that has been elected since 1960 has come into office with a grand plan to revamp the american budget. Most of the time they get caught up in something minute that they can get accomplished so they can say that they did something their first 100 days. Tax cuts, and refunds are just Bush's claim to that throne.
The drain on the budget due to the increased spending, that you mentioned, is a direct result of the war. A war that he and his people spent months drumming up support for, then foresaking international, and domestic support to eventually get their objective.
Privatizing Social Security, and reforming tax codes have been bandied about for years by people on both sides of the isle. Much like universal health care, all of it sounds good in theory until you get to the specifics of the matter. Then everybody wants their piece, the only difference is who buys and sells the president at the time. This one was purchased by the oil industry, and previous defense contractors.
Last edited:
It sounds like Darts has bought into everything that the media has told him... :rolleyes5cz:
Vietnam? Korea? Both those wars saw 50,000+ soldiers die, and we FORCED Americans to go there.
Iraq? Just over 3,000 have died (I'm not saying each and every one of those deaths isn't tragic), and since today's army is a volunteer army (you can choose whether you want to be in the Army, and subsequently, whether you want to go to Iraq or not), can we please stop with the overexaggerating that this war is this generation's Vietmam?
Vietnam? Korea? Both those wars saw 50,000+ soldiers die, and we FORCED Americans to go there.
Iraq? Just over 3,000 have died (I'm not saying each and every one of those deaths isn't tragic), and since today's army is a volunteer army (you can choose whether you want to be in the Army, and subsequently, whether you want to go to Iraq or not), can we please stop with the overexaggerating that this war is this generation's Vietmam?
See I don't buy that whole liberal media brainwashes people argument. I just truly believe that there was no thought by the people who made the decision to go into Iraq as to what the consequences were going to be.
I don't buy the Vietnam comparison either. I think that the comparison comes from the fact that both wars were eagerly jumped into by overzealous presidents, and eventually they both bogged down, and will end up stalemates. I don't buy it. But as I see more and more guard units called up, and the tours of duty extended, maybe it has some validity.
I am all for well reasoned logic when making such decisions, and five years later I still don't think that this was a right action. I think that the powers that be, made a bad decision on a shaky premise, and we will be paying the price for a long time to come.
Last edited:
If Clinton wins, you could get the Canadian experience in both taxes and unemployment by staying right here.
Vietnam and Korea were completely different kinds of wars from Iraq. They were both battles in the cold war, as was the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, and the subsequent US support that led to their defeat.
$600 was just the refund of the portion of the year that had already passed. It was a pretty large tax cut overall. I saved thousands every year since then. I have taken that $$ and invested it in 529 plans for the kids, enabling the future generation to pay more $$ in taxes.
People should just elect me as president, first order of business is to cut all federal spending on EVERY program by 50%. It is not that we are not taxed enough, it is that we spend too much!
I agree. We need a limited government president with the power of a line item veto to cut out all the pork.
Entitlements are the real elephant in terms of the government's spending. And the problem is that these programs are growing so much faster than either inflation or the economy. By entitlements, I primarily mean social security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Medicare is close to equaling the entire domestic discretionary slice of the budget. Add in social security and the federal share of state-run Medicaid program for the poor, and these entitlements total $1.1 trillion, or $3 billion per day. This spending is the big issue in the federal budget, not post-Katrina, or even the costly Iraq war. Anybody that doesn't agree with this statement just hasn't analyzed the math behind this nation's budget.
The conservative Citizens Against Government Waste has identified 13,997 earmarked projects costing $27.3 billion. Yet even if every one of these projects was repealed, it would just cut 1/100th of the budget. Meanwhile, spending on the three entitlement programs is set to rise $93 billion in the coming fiscal year.
The rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going to go away; it is only going to get much worse. What is missing is the political will to address the situation. It is going to take some type of presidential leadership to reform entitlements. I don't see Congress ever coming to grips with the problem since the House members are up for election every two years.
To better illustrate the mess we are in a few statistics might help;
social security spending is currently 4.2% of GDP
social security is estimated to rise to 6.4% of GDP in 2050 according to the CBO
medicare and medicaid spending is currently 4.5% of GDP
medicare and medicaid spending is estimated to rise to 22% of GDP in 2050 according to the CBO
The entire federal budget has averaged about 20% of GDP so having medicare and medicaid spending rising to 22% of the GDP is just not reality, even if it is the direction we are headed, something has to break before we reach such an aberrant level of spending
Any solution to the entitlement spending problem is going to have to be endorsed by both parties. This was dramatized by Bush's humiliation on Social Security.
I'm not at all hopeful that this country will find its way out of this problem, and it definitely presents the biggest financial obstacle that this nation faces.
The conservative Citizens Against Government Waste has identified 13,997 earmarked projects costing $27.3 billion. Yet even if every one of these projects was repealed, it would just cut 1/100th of the budget. Meanwhile, spending on the three entitlement programs is set to rise $93 billion in the coming fiscal year.
The rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going to go away; it is only going to get much worse. What is missing is the political will to address the situation. It is going to take some type of presidential leadership to reform entitlements. I don't see Congress ever coming to grips with the problem since the House members are up for election every two years.
To better illustrate the mess we are in a few statistics might help;
social security spending is currently 4.2% of GDP
social security is estimated to rise to 6.4% of GDP in 2050 according to the CBO
medicare and medicaid spending is currently 4.5% of GDP
medicare and medicaid spending is estimated to rise to 22% of GDP in 2050 according to the CBO
The entire federal budget has averaged about 20% of GDP so having medicare and medicaid spending rising to 22% of the GDP is just not reality, even if it is the direction we are headed, something has to break before we reach such an aberrant level of spending
Any solution to the entitlement spending problem is going to have to be endorsed by both parties. This was dramatized by Bush's humiliation on Social Security.
I'm not at all hopeful that this country will find its way out of this problem, and it definitely presents the biggest financial obstacle that this nation faces.
An excerpt from a speech John McCain gave to the Economic Club of New York ....
A tsunami of entitlement spending is threatening our economy, while providing no real security to retirees. We have made promises that we cannot keep. Under moderately optimistic scenarios Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will in the decades to come grow as large as the entire government is today. Someday the government will be forced to make drastic cuts in these programs, or crippling increases in taxes on workers – or both. The longer we wait to make the hard choices necessary to repair these programs, the harder the problem becomes. My children and their children will not receive the benefits we will enjoy. That is an inescapable fact, and any politician who tells you otherwise, Democrat or Republican, is lying....
By my reckoning, any candidate who is not willing to put some version of this paragraph into his or her speeches doesn't pass the test of intellectual seriousness.
By my reckoning, any candidate who is not willing to put some version of this paragraph into his or her speeches doesn't pass the test of intellectual seriousness.
