McCain wins Florida

#58
#58
jkell24 said:
Sorry, I am at work and filing reports so i can't type out a page full of stuff right now. I will be more than happy to be more specific this evening.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it...I just found it funny. Which policies do you support. And...your answer seems like it is "all of them." Actually , if you really do support him and all those policies - it is a pretty funny answer.
 
#60
#60
jkell24 said:
Who do you support and why? Don't be too broad now. Bravo. Sorry, some of us are busy during the weekdays, you know, working.
Click to expand...
It must be tough having a 9-5 job. Really, my heart bleeds for you.

As of now, I support absolutely nobody. I feel that Obama is all rhetoric and his brilliant Blue Print for America is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read (almost all of his "initiatives" are outside the realm of Federal Government.) Either Obama produced that little pamphlet simply to take the focus away from his lack of a voting record in the Senate or he truly feels he can expand the Federal Government even more than it already is. I am not comfortable with either of those.

I haven't stated anywhere that I endorse any candidates. You, sir, have. So, I am again asking for specifics on which policies that Obama plans to bring to the Executive desk you support?
 
#61
#61
therealUT said:
It must be tough having a 9-5 job. Really, my heart bleeds for you.

As of now, I support absolutely nobody. I feel that Obama is all rhetoric and his brilliant Blue Print for America is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read (almost all of his "initiatives" are outside the realm of Federal Government.) Either Obama produced that little pamphlet simply to take the focus away from his lack of a voting record in the Senate or he truly feels he can expand the Federal Government even more than it already is. I am not comfortable with either of those.

I haven't stated anywhere that I endorse any candidates. You, sir, have. So, I am again asking for specifics on which policies that Obama plans to bring to the Executive desk you support?
Click to expand...

Hey bro, I didn't mean to offend you by saying I was working. I just meant that it's hard for me to stay on here as much as I would like to. I want to be reasonable with everyone on here and I like the fact that it is pretty civil in here compared to say the Tennessean's website where people just start name calling. To be more specific as to why I support Obama is because he lines up more with my views. I am against school vouchers, against privitizing social security, don't put much stock into social issues, prefer immagration reform that simplifies the legal process of getting into the country, prefer a tax plan opposite of trickle down economics, favor joining the rest of the world in signing the Kyoto Protocol for climate control and global warming, I'm against drilling for oil in Alaska, reduce overall spending, make government accountable for money spent (reduce pork barrel), allow churches to provide welfare and campaign finance reform are some of the things to be more specific. To be clear, I don't agree with everything he stands for.
 
#62
#62
jkell24 said:
To be more specific as to why I support Obama is because he lines up more with my views. I am against school vouchers, against privitizing social security, don't put much stock into social issues, prefer immagration reform that simplifies the legal process of getting into the country, prefer a tax plan opposite of trickle down economics, favor joining the rest of the world in signing the Kyoto Protocol for climate control and global warming, I'm against drilling for oil in Alaska, reduce overall spending, make government accountable for money spent (reduce pork barrel), allow churches to provide welfare and campaign finance reform are some of the things to be more specific. To be clear, I don't agree with everything he stands for.
Click to expand...
So, you are against personal choice and personal responsibility, along with the option to spend your own money how you wish in favor of forfeiting your pay to the federal government. You are in favor of sacrificing the autonomy of the United States in order to appease the rest of the world on an issue that is junk science at best. You are against drilling in ANWR, a region that was initially protected for the sole use of drilling for oil, and which would allow the US to be less dependent upon OPEC.

The only view that you seem to hold that is in any way in line with the Constitution is your outlook on illegal immigration.
 
#65
#65
therealUT said:
So, you are against personal choice and personal responsibility, along with the option to spend your own money how you wish in favor of forfeiting your pay to the federal government. You are in favor of sacrificing the autonomy of the United States in order to appease the rest of the world on an issue that is junk science at best. You are against drilling in ANWR, a region that was initially protected for the sole use of drilling for oil, and which would allow the US to be less dependent upon OPEC.

The only view that you seem to hold that is in any way in line with the Constitution is your outlook on illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

What are you rambling about? You couldn't be further from the truth but then again, you probably take Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as the gospel. Against personal choice? I just wrote that I don't get involved in social issues. Forfeiting pay to the federal government? What because tax cuts for people who actually spend money in the economy is forfeiting it? Trickle down only tax breaks the rich, the problem is it doesn't trickle down like it should. Autonomy of the United States? I was talking about protecting a world we all share, it doesn't belong solely to the United States. Junk Science? Open your eyes, I assume you're going to tell me it's a fluke weather pattern that we have no control over. The ice caps will freeze back to normal in a few years huh? :eek:lol: Initially protected? Look up the definition of Initially. The indians initiallycontrolled the U.S., I guess we should leave and give the land back. Things change, information changes. Did you think about alternative energy as a form of being less dependent upon OPEC?
 
#68
#68
jkell24 said:
What are you rambling about? You couldn't be further from the truth but then again, you probably take Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as the gospel. Against personal choice? I just wrote that I don't get involved in social issues. Forfeiting pay to the federal government? What because tax cuts for people who actually spend money in the economy is forfeiting it? Trickle down only tax breaks the rich, the problem is it doesn't trickle down like it should. Autonomy of the United States? I was talking about protecting a world we all share, it doesn't belong solely to the United States. Junk Science? Open your eyes, I assume you're going to tell me it's a fluke weather pattern that we have no control over. The ice caps will freeze back to normal in a few years huh? :eek:lol: Initially protected? Look up the definition of Initially. The indians initiallycontrolled the U.S., I guess we should leave and give the land back. Things change, information changes. Did you think about alternative energy as a form of being less dependent upon OPEC?
Click to expand...
At least your economic analysis is solid. So let's take discretionary / growth capital away from the business owners because that's the only sure way to know what happens to it.
 
#69
#69
jkell24 said:
Against personal choice? I just wrote that I don't get involved in social issues. Forfeiting pay to the federal government? What because tax cuts for people who actually spend money in the economy is forfeiting it? Trickle down only tax breaks the rich, the problem is it doesn't trickle down like it should. Autonomy of the United States? I was talking about protecting a world we all share, it doesn't belong solely to the United States. Junk Science? Open your eyes, I assume you're going to tell me it's a fluke weather pattern that we have no control over. The ice caps will freeze back to normal in a few years huh? :eek:lol: Initially protected? Look up the definition of Initially. The indians initiallycontrolled the U.S., I guess we should leave and give the land back. Things change, information changes. Did you think about alternative energy as a form of being less dependent upon OPEC?
Click to expand...
There is more to personal choice and responsibility than simply the social issues. School choice and privatization of social security are certainly personal choice issues. Any income tax is a forfeiture of your hard earned money to a very cumbersome bureaucratic institution. A "fair income tax" would most likely be represented by levying the same percentage against everyone's earned income for the government to seize (or steal). The paranoia over man made global warming is certainly caused by junk science. Is global warming happening? On a very minute scale, yes. Is this simply a recurring cycle since the earth is a dynamic planet? Yes. The indians never initially controlled the US. There was a slight attempt made by certain Indian nations to consolidate in the early 19th and mid 19th centuries, in an effort to curb the US expansion. However, Native American purists will tell you to this day that their tribes never controlled nor possessed any amount of land, because their philosophy preached a lack of ownership and materialization. So, your point is absolutely dead wrong, on that issue. Finally, a truly more efficient alternative energy source would most definitely make us less dependent upon OPEC nations. However, all the alternative energy sources (aside from nuclear) are significantly less efficient. Hence, they are not a viable option.
 
#70
#70
therealUT said:
There is more to personal choice and responsibility than simply the social issues. School choice and privatization of social security are certainly personal choice issues. Any income tax is a forfeiture of your hard earned money to a very cumbersome bureaucratic institution. A "fair income tax" would most likely be represented by levying the same percentage against everyone's earned income for the government to seize (or steal). The paranoia over man made global warming is certainly caused by junk science. Is global warming happening? On a very minute scale, yes. Is this simply a recurring cycle since the earth is a dynamic planet? Yes. The indians never initially controlled the US. There was a slight attempt made by certain Indian nations to consolidate in the early 19th and mid 19th centuries, in an effort to curb the US expansion. However, Native American purists will tell you to this day that their tribes never controlled nor possessed any amount of land, because their philosophy preached a lack of ownership and materialization. So, your point is absolutely dead wrong, on that issue. Finally, a truly more efficient alternative energy source would most definitely make us less dependent upon OPEC nations. However, all the alternative energy sources (aside from nuclear) are significantly less efficient. Hence, they are not a viable option.
Click to expand...

OK, well I appreciate your input.
 
#71
#71
BigPapaVol said:
At least your economic analysis is solid. So let's take discretionary / growth capital away from the business owners because that's the only sure way to know what happens to it.
Click to expand...

I just feel that giving money to the spenders rather than the savers would stimulate the economy better.
 
#72
#72
Yes, God forbid money is invested so that companies can research and development newer and less expensive products...
 
#73
#73
therealUT said:
Yes, God forbid money is invested so that companies can research and development newer and less expensive products...
Click to expand...

You know, I was trying to be nice and just let this go but you won't let it. I could say God forbid that companies take the tax break and invest it overseas also. Maybe those companies would make a little more money if the consumer has a little more to buy their product too.
 
#74
#74
jkell24 said:
I just feel that giving money to the spenders rather than the savers would stimulate the economy better.
Click to expand...
but the trickle down effect is based upon the wealthy investing the money to grow / maintain their businesses or business investments. That capital is the type that makes it all work. Individual savings is seen as a big issue because it historically provided the majority of the capital, via bank lending, that small shops used for financing. While it still holds true to some degree, the availability of differing types of funding is enormous and businesses have access many different ways. This market has limited much of that style of funding, so businesses have to lean upon their own earnings and capital base to function. That is exactly the wrong time to ask the owners / partners to choke up more tax money. It is the one sure way to generate unemployment beyond what we can manage.
 
#75
#75
I agree, which is why I am staunchly against any income tax.


This was a response to jkwell24.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top