Obama candidacy stirs racist/white supremacist web sites

#29
#29
myrobbins7 said:
I can't wait for my taxes to go up and to pay for everyones health care, how about you?
Click to expand...

I forgot. The cost of the war isn't driving our enormous budget and this deficit isn't really going to cause raised taxes. It easy to see that running a massive budget deficit (i.e. thinking you can have guns and butter) is nothing more than passing off the cost to a future time/generation. Just try to remember that when taxes go up for everyone in a few years and not place the blame squarely on who is office at the time. This administration has passed enormous future tax raises -- it's just interesting no one ever sees this. Everyone is so short sighted.
 
#30
#30
VolByBirth said:
I forgot. The cost of the war isn't driving our enormous budget and this deficit isn't really going to cause raised taxes. It easy to see that running a massive budget deficit (i.e. thinking you can have guns and butter) is nothing more than passing off the cost to a future time/generation. Just try to remember that when taxes go up for everyone in a few years and not place the blame squarely on who is office at the time. This administration has passed enormous future tax raises -- it's just interesting no one ever sees this. Everyone is so short sighted.
Click to expand...
how's that work when tax increases have always resulted in lower long term receipts for the gov't?

It's interesting how those already making weak ass excuses for the coming hikes don't freaking understand the inverse relationship between taxes and governmental income.
 
#31
#31
BigPapaVol said:
how's that work when tax increases have always resulted in lower long term receipts for the gov't?

It's interesting how those already making weak ass excuses for the coming hikes don't freaking understand the inverse relationship between taxes and governmental income.
Click to expand...

When all else fails, blame Bush, the war etc.
 
#32
#32
BigPapaVol said:
how's that work when tax increases have always resulted in lower long term receipts for the gov't?

It's interesting how those already making weak ass excuses for the coming hikes don't freaking understand the inverse relationship between taxes and governmental income.
Click to expand...

If raising taxes resulted in lower long-term receipts, why wouldn't we eliminate taxes altogether? Why would it ever make sense to raise taxes? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying that raising taxes are short-term solutions to serious budgetary issues. If you don't think this war won't cripple government spending and taxes won't have to be increased in the future because of it -- you're delusional. It will happen -- but like I said, it will be passed on to another generation so any tax hikes from the next POTUS will not be because of the war. Just remember -- tax hikes come in many forms so try to look at the bigger picture instead of how to blame those you don't agree with.
 
#33
#33
VolByBirth said:
If raising taxes resulted in lower long-term receipts, why wouldn't we eliminate taxes altogether? Why would it ever make sense to raise taxes? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying that raising taxes are short-term solutions to serious budgetary issues. If you don't think this war won't cripple government spending and taxes won't have to be increased in the future because of it -- you're delusional. It will happen -- but like I said, it will be passed on to another generation so any tax hikes from the next POTUS will not be because of the war. Just remember -- tax hikes come in many forms so try to look at the bigger picture instead of how to blame those you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Or how about lower taxes to increase revenue and eliminate earmarks and out of control spending? I know it's a wild idea, but I'm willing to give it a try.
 
#34
#34
volsforever27 said:
When all else fails, blame Bush, the war etc.
Click to expand...

It's just so easy. He's already being written off as the worst President in US history and this war is already characterized as a complete debacle. I still haven't figured out what we have accomplished over there. Please, enlighten me. In fact, please defend him.
 
#35
#35
volsforever27 said:
Or how about lower taxes to increase revenue and eliminate earmarks and out of control spending? I know it's a wild idea, but I'm willing to give it a try.
Click to expand...

You mean like spending on the war? I'm all for it. Lower taxes across the board, increase long-term revenue. The issue is we'd have huge "growing pains" until we filtered out our past excesses and no one in the US could handle that. It's all about today.
 
#36
#36
VolByBirth said:
If raising taxes resulted in lower long-term receipts, why wouldn't we eliminate taxes altogether? Why would it ever make sense to raise taxes? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying that raising taxes are short-term solutions to serious budgetary issues. If you don't think this war won't cripple government spending and taxes won't have to be increased in the future because of it -- you're delusional. It will happen -- but like I said, it will be passed on to another generation so any tax hikes from the next POTUS will not be because of the war. Just remember -- tax hikes come in many forms so try to look at the bigger picture instead of how to blame those you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

you're the one assessing blame, not me. Please try to keep up with your own posts.

As to the econ lesson, please spare me.
 
#37
#37
VolByBirth said:
I forgot. The cost of the war isn't driving our enormous budget and this deficit isn't really going to cause raised taxes. It easy to see that running a massive budget deficit (i.e. thinking you can have guns and butter) is nothing more than passing off the cost to a future time/generation. Just try to remember that when taxes go up for everyone in a few years and not place the blame squarely on who is office at the time. This administration has passed enormous future tax raises -- it's just interesting no one ever sees this. Everyone is so short sighted.
Click to expand...

By the same token, don't deficits completely on things that are happening in the current administration. In part, this is your Great Society and New Deal at work.
 
#38
#38
VolByBirth said:
It's just so easy. He's already being written off as the worst President in US history and this war is already characterized as a complete debacle. I still haven't figured out what we have accomplished over there. Please, enlighten me. In fact, please defend him.
Click to expand...

VolByBirth said:
You mean like spending on the war? I'm all for it. Lower taxes across the board, increase long-term revenue. The issue is we'd have huge "growing pains" until we filtered out our past excesses and no one in the US could handle that. It's all about today.
Click to expand...

No, certain people that have leanings to the left may be writing him off as that, but not everyone. I have a problem with his spending as well, but to suggest we're not doing anything productive over there is sad. Bush has said it's all about the long term over there, and why don't yuu give credit to the success we've had lately?

I have an idea, let's pull out of Iraq (I'm sure nothing bad will happen if we do), and spend it on UHC. I'm sure that won't get out of control.
 
#39
#39
VolByBirth said:
It's just so easy. He's already being written off as the worst President in US history and this war is already characterized as a complete debacle. I still haven't figured out what we have accomplished over there. Please, enlighten me. In fact, please defend him.
Click to expand...
If I wanted a recap of the Bill Maher, NYT looney tunes view of the world, I would take the time to read them.

We have an operating military base with forward military presence in the Middle East. Startegically it matters and was no doubt part of the decision to invade. Your debacle isn't quite what you've been reading in your daily Pravda.
 
#40
#40
GAVol said:
By the same token, don't deficits completely on things that are happening in the current administration. In part, this is your Great Society and New Deal at work.
Click to expand...
he was sure to rail on that next. Then he was going to get to Johnson's and Carter's giveaways. Then he was going to lean on Carter's reign over inflation that destroyed more national wealth in this country than any event aside from the great depression. Maybe he was going to point at that and then let us know that our deficit has remained relatively steady as a % of GDP, even though GWB has spent like a frickin' drunk on dollar night.
 
#41
#41
volsforever27 said:
No, certain people that have leanings to the left may be writing him off as that, but not everyone. I have a problem with his spending as well, but to suggest we're not doing anything productive over there is sad. Bush has said it's all about the long term over there, and why don't yuu give credit to the success we've had lately?

I have an idea, let's pull out of Iraq (I'm sure nothing bad will happen if we do), and spend it on UHC. I'm sure that won't get out of control.
Click to expand...

OK, OK. Certainly there will always be those that approve of Bush and things he has done, but given he has had the lowest approval rating of any measured President (Poll: More disapprove of Bush than any other president - CNN.com) that has to lend that he may very well go down as the worst President in US history -- for now. That being said, we always disagree with that is more recent in our minds. Said another way, as time passes the "favorability rating" or Presidents increase. At least it's nice to know that as time passes we forgive (or forget) -- either way is better than harboring hate. Regardless, superlatives aren't important -- but this administration has not been without it's most serious issues.

As for pulling out of Iraq -- I'm 100% against it. Should we have gone in? No, I haven't found an argument yet that makes it seem sensible to me -- hence the frustration. However, it's twice as bad to go in, pull out the existing goverment (I use that term loosely), and then leave before something stable is in place. I'm in no need of having an unstable Iraq combined with an aggressive Iran. The last thing we need is more instability in the ME. My question is: What exactly are we accomplishing? I'm actually looking for a serious response -- I'm not being sarcastic or rhetorical.
 
#42
#42
emainvol said:
I in no way condone what William Ayers did years ago, but can people not change?

As for TennNC's list, lighten up folks, I think he was joking.
Click to expand...

Well if you read about or listen to things he said as little as a year or two ago it would be safe to say he has not changed that much.
 
#43
#43
VolByBirth said:
I forgot. The cost of the war isn't driving our enormous budget and this deficit isn't really going to cause raised taxes. It easy to see that running a massive budget deficit (i.e. thinking you can have guns and butter) is nothing more than passing off the cost to a future time/generation. Just try to remember that when taxes go up for everyone in a few years and not place the blame squarely on who is office at the time. This administration has passed enormous future tax raises -- it's just interesting no one ever sees this. Everyone is so short sighted.
Click to expand...

The only effective option to pay off the deficit is to cut spending. That will be terribly hard to do if we have socialized health care.
 
#44
#44
VolByBirth said:
It's just so easy. He's already being written off as the worst President in US history and this war is already characterized as a complete debacle. I still haven't figured out what we have accomplished over there. Please, enlighten me. In fact, please defend him.
Click to expand...

Worst president in history? Only time will tell. It does seem to me that I heard the same thing about Reagan many years ago from the left but history seems to have been pretty kind to him. Point is Clinton was considered by many on the right to have made himself a lame duck president and failure but the left held him up as a beacon. It's all about perspective.
 
#45
#45
BigPapaVol said:
he was sure to rail on that next. Then he was going to get to Johnson's and Carter's giveaways. Then he was going to lean on Carter's reign over inflation that destroyed more national wealth in this country than any event aside from the great depression. Maybe he was going to point at that and then let us know that our deficit has remained relatively steady as a % of GDP, even though GWB has spent like a frickin' drunk on dollar night.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the tactic of spouting off on Democrats while quoting statistics to sound as though you are well-informed. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Keep it up though -- it sounds spectacular. As for me and what I was going to say -- I don't think you can know enough about me off my mere 70 some-odd posts on VN to start speaking for me. But you are welcome to try -- free nation and all.

As for destroying national wealth -- I'm going to place my bet this housing bubble (and all the compounding effects in the financial markets) will be the second to the Great Depression (though I'm not placing this issue on any administration). And to be fair, the way the Democrats are handling this is reckless. However, the housing bubble and financial markets are an entirely different issue -- but you seem to like tangents.
 
#46
#46
KB5252 said:
The only effective option to pay off the deficit is to cut spending. That will be terribly hard to do if we have socialized health care.
Click to expand...

I feel I need to clarify. Just because I have a distaste for the current administration does not mean I blindly follow Democrats or their policies. Social medicine is not the answer. The key to cutting healthcare costs is the reform of litigious ways. Medical malpractice insurance combined with liability-limiting policies and procedures are 40-60% of all medical costs (different sources cite different numbers). If we limited the ability of our people to sue for any reason, then costs would drop and healthcare would be more affordable for all. So why don't we do this? Do a check on how many current and past politicians are lawyers by trade -- they'd never touch that cash-cow for their industry.

And to complete what you all will feel is a 180 from my previous tirades on Bush, the war, and his spending -- I'm in no way convinced on voting for Obama. If McCain steps up and gets aggressive like he used and voted bi-partisan and broke with the norms -- I'm all for him. 100%.
 
#47
#47
VolByBirth said:
I'm familiar with the tactic of spouting off on Democrats while quoting statistics to sound as though you are well-informed. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Keep it up though -- it sounds spectacular. As for me and what I was going to say -- I don't think you can know enough about me off my mere 70 some-odd posts on VN to start speaking for me. But you are welcome to try -- free nation and all.

As for destroying national wealth -- I'm going to place my bet this housing bubble (and all the compounding effects in the financial markets) will be the second to the Great Depression (though I'm not placing this issue on any administration). And to be fair, the way the Democrats are handling this is reckless. However, the housing bubble and financial markets are an entirely different issue -- but you seem to like tangents.
Click to expand...
I'm not spouting stats to do anything. In fact, I used no stats. I simply told you what I know to be the case. I'm telling you that obscene inflation from the Carter years destroyed more wealth than anything in our history, aside from the Great Depression. Prolonged high inflation destroys wealth as fast as depression will. You're welcome to assume forever that I'm uninformed vis a vis the economy, but I'm telling you that you'll forever be wrong on that front. I don't know jack about much else, but am relatively versed on econ.

This housing bubble has done nothing but destroy the artificial wealth built into the market by absurdly cheap money being available to that market. That cheap money drove unrealistic demand and fancy financing techniques allowed people to pay prices they should never have been paying. Housing price is forever going to be a function of per capita income levels and the ability to make note payments. Any growth in housing that outpaces income growth is destined to adjust itself at some point. That rule hasn't changed and won't change.

I have no problems with tangents if they help point out the that you're meddling in an economic conversation when it appears you're unqualified to do so.
 
#48
#48
I would school you both on housing bubbles and prolonged high inflation but the arcade is calling my name.
 
#49
#49
VolByBirth said:
OK, OK. Certainly there will always be those that approve of Bush and things he has done, but given he has had the lowest approval rating of any measured President (Poll: More disapprove of Bush than any other president - CNN.com) that has to lend that he may very well go down as the worst President in US history -- for now. That being said, we always disagree with that is more recent in our minds. Said another way, as time passes the "favorability rating" or Presidents increase. At least it's nice to know that as time passes we forgive (or forget) -- either way is better than harboring hate. Regardless, superlatives aren't important -- but this administration has not been without it's most serious issues.

As for pulling out of Iraq -- I'm 100% against it. Should we have gone in? No, I haven't found an argument yet that makes it seem sensible to me -- hence the frustration. However, it's twice as bad to go in, pull out the existing goverment (I use that term loosely), and then leave before something stable is in place. I'm in no need of having an unstable Iraq combined with an aggressive Iran. The last thing we need is more instability in the ME. My question is: What exactly are we accomplishing? I'm actually looking for a serious response -- I'm not being sarcastic or rhetorical.
Click to expand...


We removed a dictator from power (I know what some will say, but you asked), and we now having a lasting presence in the middle east. Not to sound redundant, but 20 years from now I think the Iraq move will be looked upon more favorably. We will not pull out of Irqa, and we will have bases there etc for the forseeable future.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top