008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-16-2008, 09:47 PM
Obama or McCain?
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
2008 U.S. Presidental Election
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 01:05 AM
Listening to an Obama speech right now on CSPAN. Despite what the right says about him never giving specifics, these speech is full policy specifics. If this man doesn't become president given the situation the country is in, I think I can write America off as hopelessly stupid.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 10:35 AM
Neither.
My belief is that Obama is too idealistic and won't be able to deliver on most of his promises because of the current state of the economy, and that the only way to raise funding for his policies is to increase taxes. Also taxing the windfall profits of big oil could be a bad move as well depending on the status of the crude industry.
McCain is too old fashion and is not open to creative thinking or any real change. We're talking about a guy that still prefers to read the newspaper every morning and refuses to use the Internet or anything related to cutting edge technology. That shakes any faith I may have in him being a "maverick" because his personal life speak to the contrary. He'll lead the country the same way he lives his life. He's also too big on privatizing securities which we can all see now, that because of corporate greed, is a horrible idea.
I'm going to write in but I won't say whom.
Edit: Someone asked me why taxing big oil could be a mistake. Simple economics is the reason. Traditionally, when taxing or retro-taxing corporate income the entity in question never pays for it. The cost of being taxed more is historically passed along and defered to three possible sources: a capital commitee of some sort, the employess, the CONSUMER.
If we were to tax Exxon Mobil they practically wouldn't pay a dime of the corporate income tax. They would absorb the taxes by raising prices at the pump, or cutting jobs, or cutting employee benefits (raises/health/bonuses), or perhaps be defered to some capital committee. Capitol Hill would have to negotiate with big oil not to do that and they would most likely get something in return. It's part of the reason why McCain wants to continue to cut corporate income taxes for big oil, because he realizes the less profit they make the more likely they are to increase prices at the pump. Imagine what the prices at the pump would be like if we were taxing their profits.
My belief is that Obama is too idealistic and won't be able to deliver on most of his promises because of the current state of the economy, and that the only way to raise funding for his policies is to increase taxes. Also taxing the windfall profits of big oil could be a bad move as well depending on the status of the crude industry.
McCain is too old fashion and is not open to creative thinking or any real change. We're talking about a guy that still prefers to read the newspaper every morning and refuses to use the Internet or anything related to cutting edge technology. That shakes any faith I may have in him being a "maverick" because his personal life speak to the contrary. He'll lead the country the same way he lives his life. He's also too big on privatizing securities which we can all see now, that because of corporate greed, is a horrible idea.
I'm going to write in but I won't say whom.
Edit: Someone asked me why taxing big oil could be a mistake. Simple economics is the reason. Traditionally, when taxing or retro-taxing corporate income the entity in question never pays for it. The cost of being taxed more is historically passed along and defered to three possible sources: a capital commitee of some sort, the employess, the CONSUMER.
If we were to tax Exxon Mobil they practically wouldn't pay a dime of the corporate income tax. They would absorb the taxes by raising prices at the pump, or cutting jobs, or cutting employee benefits (raises/health/bonuses), or perhaps be defered to some capital committee. Capitol Hill would have to negotiate with big oil not to do that and they would most likely get something in return. It's part of the reason why McCain wants to continue to cut corporate income taxes for big oil, because he realizes the less profit they make the more likely they are to increase prices at the pump. Imagine what the prices at the pump would be like if we were taxing their profits.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 01:27 PM
Wow, in this poll Obama is currently in the lead.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 03:19 PM
Quote: (09-17-2008 10:35 AM)Trotter Wrote:
Neither.
My belief is that Obama is too idealistic and won't be able to deliver on most of his promises because of the current state of the economy, and that the only way to raise funding for his policies is to increase taxes.
Whether you think Obama is too idealistic is a matter of subjective opinion obviously. I think what he says is right on the money and if people had been listening to Obama from day one instead of mindlessly changing "USA! USA!" we wouldn't be in this endless quagmire in Iraq.
Quote:Quote:
Edit: Someone asked me why taxing big oil could be a mistake. Simple economics is the reason. Traditionally, when taxing or retro-taxing corporate income the entity in question never pays for it. The cost of being taxed more is historically passed along and defered to three possible sources: a capital commitee of some sort, the employess, the CONSUMER.
If we were to tax Exxon Mobil they practically wouldn't pay a dime of the corporate income tax. They would absorb the taxes by raising prices at the pump, or cutting jobs, or cutting employee benefits (raises/health/bonuses), or perhaps be defered to some capital committee. Capitol Hill would have to negotiate with big oil not to do that and they would most likely get something in return. It's part of the reason why McCain wants to continue to cut corporate income taxes for big oil, because he realizes the less profit they make the more likely they are to increase prices at the pump. Imagine what the prices at the pump would be like if we were taxing their profits.
Well that's the usual argument about why you shouldn't raise corporate taxes, because they will pass it on to the consumer. However, I don't buy it. Because prices are set by supply and demand. They can only charge what the market will bear. The airline industry is case in point. Even though their expenses with rising oil were skyrocketing, they had very little leverage to raise airfares because the market simply won't bear it. People will then cut back on vacations if they raised prices and they'd be even more screwed, so they cut back on meals, and amenities to compensate. If they raise taxes on oil companies, and the oil companies start raising prices at the pump, people will react by buying Priuses and other hybrid fuel-sippers and starting taking public transit and in the end, the oil companies will only be cutting their nose to spite their face. The American people have been ripped off badly. Notice that oil prices went up, gas prices were quick to go up. Now gas is now 40% less the price it was a few months ago, yes gas prices haven't been cut by the same percentage. If they went down at the same rate, we'd be paying under $2.50 a gallon right now. We're being screwed and these oil companies are just wallowing in profits.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 05:06 PM
The airline industry is passing along rising fuel cost to travelers. Read about all of these new fees certain airlines are now charging to make up for the rise in fuel cost such as the second bag fee. That's just standard practice to pass the cost along to the consumer and all industry does it and it's actually in the center of many debates right now.
Take cereal companies for an example. Notice that cereal boxes have been shrinking over the past 6 months? It's because they're packaging less and passing the cost of whatever they're trying to pay for to the consumer. There was a article recently on MSNBC that touched on some of this stuff and also noted that some potatoe chip makers are putting more air into the bags. The point is they're passing the cost to the consumer, you pay the same for less product. Or some are being more overt about it like the airline industry where they just flat out say they're charging you more to check in a second bag to help pay for rising fuel costs.
And... Big Oil will do the same. The only thing I question is exactly how much of an impact it'll have at the pumps. If they're quarterly profit of 11 billion is taxed (just one quarter) how much would they have to raise prices at the pump to make up for paying the corporate income tax. Possibly not much at all considering they already make what is it... $1500 per second?
Either way whether or not they were taxed wouldn't change my mind about how I would vote. That's just such a small slice of the pie that needs attention. The $7000 tax credit and additional economic stimulus Obama is proposing is tantalizing, but anything beyond that is unclear as to whether or not it'll come to fruition. And at the very least I don't want my taxes to be increased to help pay for this stuff that probably won't happen. My stance on McCain won't change either because he's an old dog that you can't teach new tricks. Not the type of person I would want to call Commander in Chief.
According to James Carville Obama may very well run away with the campaign now because of a blunder on McCain's part about how he thought the economy was fundamentally sound a month back(he said over and over again). And now the economy took a huge crap and he's back peddling from what he said earlier and explaining that he meant the core of American ingenuity is sound is what he meant or some crap like that. Lots of people have lost faith in him recently and the economic downturn could very well win the election for Obama. I think Obama has gained 8 points on McCain since Lehmans and AIG have failed.
Take cereal companies for an example. Notice that cereal boxes have been shrinking over the past 6 months? It's because they're packaging less and passing the cost of whatever they're trying to pay for to the consumer. There was a article recently on MSNBC that touched on some of this stuff and also noted that some potatoe chip makers are putting more air into the bags. The point is they're passing the cost to the consumer, you pay the same for less product. Or some are being more overt about it like the airline industry where they just flat out say they're charging you more to check in a second bag to help pay for rising fuel costs.
And... Big Oil will do the same. The only thing I question is exactly how much of an impact it'll have at the pumps. If they're quarterly profit of 11 billion is taxed (just one quarter) how much would they have to raise prices at the pump to make up for paying the corporate income tax. Possibly not much at all considering they already make what is it... $1500 per second?
Either way whether or not they were taxed wouldn't change my mind about how I would vote. That's just such a small slice of the pie that needs attention. The $7000 tax credit and additional economic stimulus Obama is proposing is tantalizing, but anything beyond that is unclear as to whether or not it'll come to fruition. And at the very least I don't want my taxes to be increased to help pay for this stuff that probably won't happen. My stance on McCain won't change either because he's an old dog that you can't teach new tricks. Not the type of person I would want to call Commander in Chief.
Quote:Quote:
Wow, in this poll Obama is currently in the lead.
According to James Carville Obama may very well run away with the campaign now because of a blunder on McCain's part about how he thought the economy was fundamentally sound a month back(he said over and over again). And now the economy took a huge crap and he's back peddling from what he said earlier and explaining that he meant the core of American ingenuity is sound is what he meant or some crap like that. Lots of people have lost faith in him recently and the economic downturn could very well win the election for Obama. I think Obama has gained 8 points on McCain since Lehmans and AIG have failed.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 05:42 PM
Trotter, you said you don't want your taxes increased. Just to make sure, you DO realize right that if you make under $250,000 a year, you will be getting a bigger tax cut than McCain is offering? Even people making 250k a year won't be seeing any major increase. It'll mainly be people making over 600k a year. And if you're making that much, well, you're doing pretty damn good.
I just say this because a poll recently shows that half of America thinks Obama is going to raise their taxes, but that's not true for 95% of the population. The republicans have been very adept with propagandizing people fear over tax hikes. I'm not saying you specifically, but a lot of people just seem to be misinformed about Obama's tax plan, even though Obama explains it over and over again. The McCain campaign goes to small towns and convinces the simpletons that Obama is going to tax them into the ground and destroy small business, even though Obama wants to lower capital gains tax for small biz.
I just say this because a poll recently shows that half of America thinks Obama is going to raise their taxes, but that's not true for 95% of the population. The republicans have been very adept with propagandizing people fear over tax hikes. I'm not saying you specifically, but a lot of people just seem to be misinformed about Obama's tax plan, even though Obama explains it over and over again. The McCain campaign goes to small towns and convinces the simpletons that Obama is going to tax them into the ground and destroy small business, even though Obama wants to lower capital gains tax for small biz.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 07:39 PM
Emm... and where does he plan to get the money to fund all of these programs he's talking about? Not just by taxing the wealthy 5-10% of the population. It has nothing to do with party propaganda you just have to be smart enough to read the fine print.
The government does not have a surplus of cash and subsidies lying around collecting interest. If that was the case they wouldn't have to borrow against social security and basically bankrupt the system. Taxing the windfall profits of big oil alone won't collect nearly enough capital to adequately fund a single renewable energy project. And there really are no other corporations left to tax for revenue because of the current economic crisis. So exactly where is this money coming from? Borrow it from China? No because we've already borrowed billions from them.
Here's a quote from the Atlantic.com:
"Under pressure to pay for hurricane recovery, the war in Iraq, a costly transportation bill, tax cuts, and a new prescription drug program, Congress and the president have been unwilling to raise taxes or make deep spending cuts. The only alternative is to borrow."
This money isn't just going to magically appear from nowhere there needs to be a source whether it's from taxing, borrowing, liquidating, or whatever. This country is in debt to China alone by about 250 billion dollars from the borrowing we've done between 2000 and 2005. So no real money exchanges hands in international borrowing and it's merely treasury bonds, the point is it still has to be paid once they've matured.
With the deficit being what it is (no surplus we're currently in the reds) the only way to get the money he's going to need to enact these programs is to raise taxes. We've almost reached the point where we can't borrow anymore, and I doubt too many countries would want to back a loan to the US in its current economic state.
That is how McCain and Obama differ on the issue of renewable energy. Obama wants the government to fund basically every program existing or non existing. Plus he's offering to pay to retool American automotive plants so that they can mass produce hybrid vehicles. That's not cheap and guess who pays for it? The tax payers of course. We're not talking billions but trillions of dollars to do everything he's talking about and that's not just money the government has stuffed in its sock already. Also pay heed to the fact that on the government's current budget they're currently in the reds with paying for all the programs that are out there today.
McCain prefers that the private sector use investment dollars to continue R&D into renewable energy sources. That's because he knows the only way the government can raise revenues to fund such a huge undertaking is to raise taxes. I suppose someone could also argue that he's under the influence of oil lobbyists, but that's simply conjecture at this point. It's his core belief that the US government should not concern itself with such affairs which is basically in line with the original beliefs on which this country was founded.
If Obama is elected taxes will not increase immediately. It will be on a gradual scale, and to be honest, with the current economic situation I doubt he'll be able to kick most of his ideas into motion in a timely manner if at all. You really need to rub the sleep out of your eyes and realize that money does not just fall out of the sky. It will take years of redirecting earmarks and budgets, shutting down programs, closing departments, on top of raising taxes, before they can really get organized to set the ball in motion.
In the end, there are only two other things to say. Obama never said he wouldn't raise taxes and it was actually part of the fine print in his original policy proposals that he would in order to pay for these programs. He's been very good at redirecting the attention at taxing corporation and upper middle class, but he never said he wouldn't raise taxes to middle class. He said he would look for another economic stimulus, but didn't say he wouldn't raise taxes. He's very good about what to say and what not to say.
And even if he says he won't raise taxes remember "No new taxes!"? Don't put it past politicians to tell bold, faced, lies to win votes. The fact of the matter is common sense should prevail about program funding and where that money comes from. And if he wins his first few years in office is going to be really rough because he's not going to be able to procure the funding he needs without raising taxes. Unless, he decides to legalize prostitution and start forcing whores to pay their fair share.![[Image: tongue.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
And as a side note I'll point out I would stand to gain heavily with McCain in office if he extends the capital gains tax cut beyond 2010. But that doesn't concern me, I only want things fixed because it's affecting everyone in the country. So I'm not voting for him either. I want economic stability so my friends can finally not be in fear of working in retail, or worry about not having health care, which I don't think either candidate can ultimately deliver.
The government does not have a surplus of cash and subsidies lying around collecting interest. If that was the case they wouldn't have to borrow against social security and basically bankrupt the system. Taxing the windfall profits of big oil alone won't collect nearly enough capital to adequately fund a single renewable energy project. And there really are no other corporations left to tax for revenue because of the current economic crisis. So exactly where is this money coming from? Borrow it from China? No because we've already borrowed billions from them.
Here's a quote from the Atlantic.com:
"Under pressure to pay for hurricane recovery, the war in Iraq, a costly transportation bill, tax cuts, and a new prescription drug program, Congress and the president have been unwilling to raise taxes or make deep spending cuts. The only alternative is to borrow."
This money isn't just going to magically appear from nowhere there needs to be a source whether it's from taxing, borrowing, liquidating, or whatever. This country is in debt to China alone by about 250 billion dollars from the borrowing we've done between 2000 and 2005. So no real money exchanges hands in international borrowing and it's merely treasury bonds, the point is it still has to be paid once they've matured.
With the deficit being what it is (no surplus we're currently in the reds) the only way to get the money he's going to need to enact these programs is to raise taxes. We've almost reached the point where we can't borrow anymore, and I doubt too many countries would want to back a loan to the US in its current economic state.
That is how McCain and Obama differ on the issue of renewable energy. Obama wants the government to fund basically every program existing or non existing. Plus he's offering to pay to retool American automotive plants so that they can mass produce hybrid vehicles. That's not cheap and guess who pays for it? The tax payers of course. We're not talking billions but trillions of dollars to do everything he's talking about and that's not just money the government has stuffed in its sock already. Also pay heed to the fact that on the government's current budget they're currently in the reds with paying for all the programs that are out there today.
McCain prefers that the private sector use investment dollars to continue R&D into renewable energy sources. That's because he knows the only way the government can raise revenues to fund such a huge undertaking is to raise taxes. I suppose someone could also argue that he's under the influence of oil lobbyists, but that's simply conjecture at this point. It's his core belief that the US government should not concern itself with such affairs which is basically in line with the original beliefs on which this country was founded.
If Obama is elected taxes will not increase immediately. It will be on a gradual scale, and to be honest, with the current economic situation I doubt he'll be able to kick most of his ideas into motion in a timely manner if at all. You really need to rub the sleep out of your eyes and realize that money does not just fall out of the sky. It will take years of redirecting earmarks and budgets, shutting down programs, closing departments, on top of raising taxes, before they can really get organized to set the ball in motion.
In the end, there are only two other things to say. Obama never said he wouldn't raise taxes and it was actually part of the fine print in his original policy proposals that he would in order to pay for these programs. He's been very good at redirecting the attention at taxing corporation and upper middle class, but he never said he wouldn't raise taxes to middle class. He said he would look for another economic stimulus, but didn't say he wouldn't raise taxes. He's very good about what to say and what not to say.
And even if he says he won't raise taxes remember "No new taxes!"? Don't put it past politicians to tell bold, faced, lies to win votes. The fact of the matter is common sense should prevail about program funding and where that money comes from. And if he wins his first few years in office is going to be really rough because he's not going to be able to procure the funding he needs without raising taxes. Unless, he decides to legalize prostitution and start forcing whores to pay their fair share.
And as a side note I'll point out I would stand to gain heavily with McCain in office if he extends the capital gains tax cut beyond 2010. But that doesn't concern me, I only want things fixed because it's affecting everyone in the country. So I'm not voting for him either. I want economic stability so my friends can finally not be in fear of working in retail, or worry about not having health care, which I don't think either candidate can ultimately deliver.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 08:26 PM
I'm voting for obama because i'm literally afraid of mccain/palin
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 10:58 PM
Quote: (09-17-2008 08:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:
I'm voting for obama because i'm literally afraid of mccain/palin
You should be afraid of obama's connections to Ayers; his favors to and the money he received from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac; and his debts to Rezko.
Look at what Obama has done (and not done), not what he claims he will do. Words are easy to spew out. Creating a history of action is not.
I highly recommend Instapundit.com for a good non-partisan read. Glenn Reynolds is a libertarian law professor. He has some excellent links to Obama and McCain history.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-17-2008, 11:13 PM
Quote: (09-17-2008 10:58 PM)Bernie Wrote:
Quote: (09-17-2008 08:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:
I'm voting for obama because i'm literally afraid of mccain/palin
You should be afraid of obama's connections to Ayers; his favors to and the money he received from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac; and his debts to Rezko.
Look at what Obama has done (and not done), not what he claims he will do. Words are easy to spew out. Creating a history of action is not.
I highly recommend Instapundit.com for a good non-partisan read. Glenn Reynolds is a libertarian law professor. He has some excellent links to Obama and McCain history.
Oh come on, the Ayers thing has been sooo debunked. The guilt-by-association connections between Obama and Ayers are so weak. And who really cares anymore who Ayers is. I'd say being connected to The Project for a New American Century is much scarier as these guys have hijacked the nation's foreign policy for an agenda most Americans would not agree to if they truly understood, but using Karl Rove as a mastermind, they were able to brainwash the average American into thinking the war was in their interest when it was in the interest of the few.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-18-2008, 02:33 AM
Quote:Quote:
I highly recommend Instapundit.com for a good non-partisan read
Non-partisan?
![[Image: lol.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/lol.gif)
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-18-2008, 09:51 AM
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-18-2008, 01:36 PM
Quote: (09-17-2008 08:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:
I'm voting for obama because i'm literally afraid of mccain/palin
I always vote for the non-republican.
I do not understand why anyone would have voted for Bush in 2000, and i'm (essentially) from Texas.
As to Obama specifically, i'm generally more about thinking outside of the box than he is. So some of his ideas are just ass-backwards to me, and others don't go far enough.
But compared to any and all Republicans? bwhahaa, it's a no brainer.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-18-2008, 03:55 PM
Eh, I'm voting for Obama.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-18-2008, 03:58 PM
Quote: (09-18-2008 02:33 AM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
I highly recommend Instapundit.com for a good non-partisan read
Non-partisan?
He's not a Republican Roosh. He has no loyalties to either party.
He is what most Americans are: a social liberal, fiscal conservative. He happens to be a registered libertarian who calls things as he sees them.
Broken, your attitude is childish. Because you don't like the word "republican" you will vote for someone else no matter what? Good grief...
Read up on the HISTORY of both candidates. What type of legislation have they written? Campaign promises rarely are fulfilled, don't listen to them. Investigate what they have done in the past, that will be your best predictor of what either will do as president.
And by the way Roosh, 3 years ago McCain tried to introduce legislation to regulate the financial sector because he saw the corruption in the mortgage industry. The legislators who were in the mortgage companies' pockets shot him down. Do you know who is the #2 all time high receiver of $$$ from those companies? Obama.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-19-2008, 08:50 AM
Neither of them. I not advocating REPRESENTATIVE democracy, but direct democracy. Am I a fan of the state(referring to big authoritarian government, not the people and culture)? Nope. I won't vote and will not bother you.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-19-2008, 11:24 PM
I will be voting for the LP candidate, Bob Barr.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-20-2008, 04:32 PM
Quote: (09-18-2008 03:58 PM)Bernie Wrote:
Quote: (09-18-2008 02:33 AM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
I highly recommend Instapundit.com for a good non-partisan read
Non-partisan?
He's not a Republican Roosh. He has no loyalties to either party.
He is what most Americans are: a social liberal, fiscal conservative. He happens to be a registered libertarian who calls things as he sees them.
Broken, your attitude is childish. Because you don't like the word "republican" you will vote for someone else no matter what? Good grief...
Read up on the HISTORY of both candidates. What type of legislation have they written? Campaign promises rarely are fulfilled, don't listen to them. Investigate what they have done in the past, that will be your best predictor of what either will do as president.
And by the way Roosh, 3 years ago McCain tried to introduce legislation to regulate the financial sector because he saw the corruption in the mortgage industry. The legislators who were in the mortgage companies' pockets shot him down. Do you know who is the #2 all time high receiver of $$$ from those companies? Obama.
You sound mad, did I hurt your feelings?
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-21-2008, 05:35 AM
No broken, not mad. Just amazed at how a young college grad would go about selecting who they'll vote for.
I would hope more logic and self education would be involved.
I would hope more logic and self education would be involved.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-22-2008, 12:59 AM
I am voting McCain. I am a one-issue voter: less taxes/spending, smaller government. McCain is far from ideal, but Obama clearly wants government to get bigger and wants even more redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. I want smaller government and less redistribution of wealth.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-22-2008, 09:52 PM
Quote: (09-22-2008 12:59 AM)zorgon Wrote:
I am voting McCain. I am a one-issue voter: less taxes/spending, smaller government. McCain is far from ideal, but Obama clearly wants government to get bigger and wants even more redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. I want smaller government and less redistribution of wealth.
How can people still walk around thinking the republicans equal less spending and smaller government? That's just propaganda, I don't think republicans have stood for that anytime in my generation. They say it, but when do they do it? They cut taxes on the wealthy while growing the government and send the nation into debt. That's worse than having higher taxes.
And if you hate redistribution of wealth, then you should love the 3rd world.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-22-2008, 10:09 PM
I *don't* think Republicans are good at shrinking government. Just that Democrats are good at growing it. We are talking about a lesser of two evils. Obama has promised a number of specific tax hikes on the rich, major new spending programs, and other giveaways (such as "tax credits" for people who don't pay taxes in the first place -- shifting an even more outrageous amount of the tax burden onto the rich, who already pay way too much).
I'm not partisan about it. If the Democrats nominated someone who promised to cut taxes and spending, great. Instead we just get promises of yet more socialism. (From Republicans we get vague mixed promises of a little capitalism here and a little socialism there.) The rest of the world is moving towards capitalism and America is moving towards socialism. Not something to be proud of.
My model government is Hong Kong or Singapore, not the 3rd world.
I'm not partisan about it. If the Democrats nominated someone who promised to cut taxes and spending, great. Instead we just get promises of yet more socialism. (From Republicans we get vague mixed promises of a little capitalism here and a little socialism there.) The rest of the world is moving towards capitalism and America is moving towards socialism. Not something to be proud of.
My model government is Hong Kong or Singapore, not the 3rd world.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-22-2008, 11:39 PM
Socialism tends to be bred from extreme capitalism. When comparative wealth diverges too much, this is the environment in which revolutions(either idealogical or violent) are bred. Socialism is often a reaction to runaway capitalism where the average person felt like the system was moving towards an oligarchy. As for the U.S. moving toward socialism, it seems like it's a Wall St. Socialism where multi-billion dollar corporations get government help, but the little guy at the brink of financial disaster due to medical bills is on his own.
008 U.S. Presidental Election
09-23-2008, 12:21 AM
I don't believe mccain will make government smaller. What legislation or policies in the past 26 years have given you that idea?
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)