Vote for President

[Psai]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/20/new-study-climate-change-made-california-drought-less-likely/

Climate change is vastly over-rated and exaggerated for political reasons. I do think man has a small contribution to the trend but it's not the major component. The science is anything but proven and the left is using this to tax and spend their way to prosperity. fortunately, only a liberal few Americans will actually vote for the President based on this issue. The idea we should tax our citizens and push our economy down in order to fix a problem which technology will solve over time makes absolutely no sense.

I support common sense solutions using our abundant natural resources like natural gas over imported Iranian oil which will decrease Co2 emissions while at the same time spurring American economic growth.

Rather than waste tax dollars on solar and wind power the answer is natural gas with a transition to solar over the next two decades. This way Americans save billions in tax dollars on the solar subsidies while getting abundant, available natural gas today.

The vast majority of the experts who study this agree on what's going on and there are computer models that forecast disaster within the next 100 years and it's anything but proven? Where are you getting this nonsense about tax and spending? This is a scientific issue, not a political one. And your proposed solution is to ignore it as if it weren't happening but it's all okay because someone will figure it out in the future?

By the way, your common solution is currently spilling 1300 metric tons of methane right outside of los angeles at this very moment. It's also a very finite resource, we probably have less than 100 years of recoverable gas at today's usage levels. That's not to mention the insane amount of dangerous chemicals that fracking leaves in the environment such as benzene, toluene and xylene. How can you be so apathetic about such an important issue?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The vast majority of the experts who study this agree on what's going on and there are computer models that forecast disaster within the next 100 years and it's anything but proven? Where are you getting this nonsense about tax and spending? This is a scientific issue, not a political one. And your proposed solution is to ignore it as if it weren't happening but it's all okay because someone will figure it out in the future?

By the way, your common solution is currently spilling 1300 metric tons of methane right outside of los angeles at this very moment. It's also a very finite resource, we probably have less than 100 years of recoverable gas at today's usage levels. That's not to mention the insane amount of dangerous chemicals that fracking leaves in the environment such as benzene, toluene and xylene. How can you be so apathetic about such an important issue?

Technology will improve and solve the issue. I see solar as a real player in the energy market 20 years from now. Until then, we need to use the resources we have abundantly at our disposal.

When Obama first ran for President he recognized the role "bridge fuels" would play in our daily lives until renewable energy became a real solution. Obama backed natural gas as one of those bridge fuels just a few years ago.

https://www.aei.org/publication/oba...sions-from-power-production-to-a-22-year-low/

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...replace-traditional-energy-sources.htm?p=full

Read the article and look at the facts.

 

[Psai]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...replace-traditional-energy-sources.htm?p=full

Read the article and look at the facts.

This is a political piece written by a economics/finance guy. I'm all for nuclear power but it was politically untenable when the fukushima accident happened.

 

[Doctodd]

Based on integrity alone, and her communist/socialist ideas, Hillary is laughable. I bet the new "Benghazi" movie is not going to help her.

Trump is a loud mouth..... who backs it up. The POTUS will not run the country alone.....that is why we have a Congress/Senate.

 

[Planktonmd]

With all the bad people out there trying to kill us or ruin our way of life the imminent threat we face as a nation isn't CO2 emissions.

While I support a clean planet and common sense solutions for a better Earth during our lifetimes these changes can be gradual without destroying our economy.

Your understanding of the current events is shockingly primitive for someone who claims to be educated and advocates evidence based logic. Unfortunately you are not alone, there are many like you and that's why education needs to be number one on any political agenda.
It would be very easy if it was as simple as "bad people trying to kill you because of your way of life", but trust me it's not that simple... try to read a book or two and get your info from sources other than fox news.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Your understanding of the current events is shockingly primitive for someone who claims to be educated and advocates evidence based logic. Unfortunately you are not alone, there are many like you and that's why education needs to be number one on any political agenda.
It would be very easy if it was as simple as "bad people trying to kill you because of your way of life", but trust me it's not that simple... try to read a book or two and get your info from sources other than fox news.

Thanks for the advice but I'm well aware of the Middle East and the conflicts there which have existed for thousands of years.

We disagree on these issues but as usual those that have a different point of view are called stupid and ignorant. Education won't change my opinion on these subjects as I suspect the facts won't change yours.

And yes, I'm a conservative GOP voter and proud of it. The problem is that the leadership doesn't stand for conservative values any longer:

1. Smaller government based on the Constitution
2. Judeo-Christian values
3. Right to own firearms
4. Limited government intrusion
5. State sovereignty on many issues.
6. Strong national defense (but limited military overseas)

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Thanks for the advice but I'm well aware of the Middle East and the conflicts there which have existed for thousands of years.

We disagree on these issues but as usual those that have a different point of view are called stupid and ignorant. Education won't change my opinion on these subjects as I suspect the facts won't change yours.

And yes, I'm a conservative GOP voter and proud of it. The problem is that the leadership doesn't stand for conservative values any longer:

1. Smaller government based on the Constitution
2. Judeo-Christian values
3. Right to own firearms
4. Limited government intrusion
5. State sovereignty on many issues.
6. Strong national defense (but limited military overseas)

I think it's interesting that people who disagree with liberal points of view are ultimately called stupid. No respectful disagreement, it's here is my view point if you don't buy in then it must be because your to dumb to see it my way.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I think it's interesting that people who disagree with liberal points of view are ultimately called stupid. No respectful disagreement, it's here is my view point if you don't buy in then it must be because your to dumb to see it my way.

It didn't used to be that way. Both sides could disagree without name calling and libel. The days of civil discussion are over. Instead, conservatives are called fools for believing in God, family and country. The concept of being responsible for one's self and actions instead of looking to Uncle Sam to do it for you.

Anyway, the country is divided and eventually the liberals will win; but, the country will never be the same. I expect even more liberal politicians on the left to run for and win the presidency.
Hillary Clinton may be the most conservative President I ever see in the White House again.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

It didn't used to be that way. Both sides could disagree without name calling and libel. The days of civil discussion are over. Instead, conservatives are called fools for believing in God, family and country. The concept of being responsible for one's self and actions instead of looking to Uncle Sam to do it for you.

Anyway, the country is divided and eventually the liberals will win; but, the country will never be the same. I expect even more liberal politicians on the left to run for and win the presidency.
Hillary Clinton may be the most conservative President I ever see in the White House again.

I wonder if all those super genius liberals who claim that Fox news has conservatives brainwashed ever considered that maybe CNN/MSMBC has them brainwashed?

We need more independent thinkers.

 

[Planktonmd]

I wonder if all those super genius liberals who claim that Fox news has conservatives brainwashed ever considered that maybe CNN/MSMBC has them brainwashed?

We need more independent thinkers.

Independant thinkers???
The first step toward independent thinking is to try to seek the truth on your own, not inside a 2000 year old book of fairy tales!
Denying basic science and opposing progress can not be evidence of independent thinking, or any kind of thinking!

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Independant thinkers???
The first step toward independent thinking is to try to seek the truth on your own, not inside a 2000 year old book of fairy tales!
Denying basic science and opposing progress can not be evidence of independent thinking, or any kind of thinking!

I don't take it personal but you really are coming across as arrogant.

For all I know you may be the smartest person on this forum, but don't automatically assume others are idiots.

Wow.

 

[ED50]

Realistically, I see Hillary win and eventually Rubio will secure the nomination. However, I feel that Trump will drive the party so far to the right that the damage will be done to the republicans. They will have alienated too many in the primary to win the public. That is unless there is a major scandal for the Hillary campaign. I don't mind Hillary, there was a time in American when Hillary' s views were considered moderate among moderates. Also, I can't in good conscience vote for anyone who endorses trickle down economics and trillon dollar tax cuts, its garbage.

 

[A Witty Fool]

Having the Clintons in the White House for another 4 to 8 years indirectly violates the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution in my book. She shouldn't even be a consideration.

 

[drmwvr]

Independant thinkers???
The first step toward independent thinking is to try to seek the truth on your own, not inside a 2000 year old book of fairy tales!
Denying basic science and opposing progress can not be evidence of independent thinking, or any kind of thinking!

Technically, it's only about 1600 years old, but it contains books over 3000 years old. The institution responsible for putting it together in the first place was the source of the concept of the hospital, the university and several heavy weight members of the scientific community, including the person that articulated the Big Bang theory. That's just for starters. And if you try and play the Galileo/Copernicus card, you'll just expose yourself as a low information atheist. So there.

 

[Planktonmd]

Technically, it's only about 1600 years old, but it contains books over 3000 years old. The institution responsible for putting it together in the first place was the source of the concept of the hospital, the university and several heavy weight members of the scientific community, including the person that articulated the Big Bang theory. That's just for starters. And if you try and play the Galileo/Copernicus card, you'll just expose yourself as a low information atheist. So there.

You forgot to mention the crusades, the inquisition, the witch-hunt and countless disasters that came as a direct result of this fine piece of literature!
But to be fair it's not really the book that caused these atrocities it is people using it to advance their own political agendas and to recruit the uneducated and simple minded masses, which is exactly what we are witnessing now.

 

[ED50]

I read/watch both right- and left-leaning media. I try to walk the golden middle path in my beliefs, although I am not a voter and I try not to be political (it's the best way to alienate or be alienated by friends and family).

As much as I usually disagree with Blade, I think he has a pretty balanced view of our situation and future. There is a huge wind of populism and demagoguery blowing in America (just look at the success of political correctness, and various methods of positive discrimination, or that national shame called Trump). All a democracy needs to fail is more beggars than givers, and we are getting dangerously close, when 47% of the population is downright subsidized by the other 53.

By the way, I think that intelligent people don't have convictions, they have doubts. Descartes was right.

Disagree, a strong America is one where there is a strong middle class. I fear we are dangerously close to having a plutocracy. Inequality is at an all time high. It's perverse to me when people say that the problem is in the poor and not in the ultra rich. Every single society has moochers. Not every one has billionaires paying 25- 50% less tax rate then working Americans. I feel if you look at where the parties have been historically you see that all the right wing headliners are extremely right of center. Like Obama or hate him I'm hesitant to call him anything other then a moderate democrat.

 

[drmwvr]

Disagree, a strong America is one where there is a strong middle class. I fear we are dangerously close to having a plutocracy. Inequality is at an all time high. It's perverse to me when people say that the problem is in the poor and not in the ultra rich. Every single society has moochers. Not every one has billionaires paying 25- 50% less tax rate then working Americans. I feel if you look at where the parties have been historically you see that all the right wing headliners are extremely right of center. Like Obama or hate him I'm hesitant to call him anything other then a moderate democrat.

If you ever get the chance, read Charles Murray's "Coming Apart". He unpacks this phenomenon of rapidly diverging economic classes. He demonstrates that if you finish high school, have children after you get married and stay married, you will become part of a large and stable middle class, if you don't, you spiral into poverty and so do your kids. That the wealthy are able to avoid the spiral is because they can buy their way out of the trouble that comes along with not accomplishing those 3 'ifs'.

The point is that if the social and cultural bias toward school, marriage, kids in that order breaks down, the middle class disappears. But talking about those biases has become very dangerous politically.

 

[drmwvr]

You forgot to mention the crusades, the inquisition, the witch-hunt and countless disasters that came as a direct result of this fine piece of literature!
But to be fair it's not really the book that caused these atrocities it is people using it to advance their own political agendas and to recruit the uneducated and simple minded masses, which is exactly what we are witnessing now.

Thanks for the concessions. You are of course correct, and t'was ever thus, bible or no bible.

 

[ED50]

It is somewhat comical to me whenever I state that certain people need to pay more in taxes the term socialism gets thrown around. I'm definitely not advocating for socialism, in fact quite the opposite. I am a capitalist, however I feel that capitalism without check and balances will turn into an oligopoly which will then turn into a monopoly. To me the taker and giver analogy is too simplistic and makes too many assumptions about human nature. I feel that given proper incentive - good wages and reasonable hours most people will choose to work and contribute - not all - but most.

I do feel that we are in agreement about the taxes. As someone who plans on being in the 1% of incomes and who worked his butt off to get there I don't think people who show up 9-5 should have a tax increase. Extraordianary wage earners should not be paying 17% on their earning.

 

[ED50]

@drmwrv I have read something similar. Interesting concept. I'll have to check it out

 

[deleted171991]

@ED50: I just want to apologize for deleting my post while you were writing an answer, but I find that politics is never good for friendship, especially online.

My mouth is my greatest enemy.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

It is somewhat comical to me whenever I state that certain people need to pay more in taxes the term socialism gets thrown around. I'm definitely not advocating for socialism, in fact quite the opposite. I am a capitalist, however I feel that capitalism without check and balances will turn into an oligopoly which will then turn into a monopoly. To me the taker and giver analogy is too simplistic and makes too many assumptions about human nature. I feel that given proper incentive - good wages and reasonable hours most people will choose to work and contribute - not all - but most.

I do feel that we are in agreement about the taxes. As someone who plans on being in the 1% of incomes and who worked his butt off to get there I don't think people who show up 9-5 should have a tax increase. Extraordianary wage earners should not be paying 17% on their earning.

The point of taxes should be to fund the government not to ensure that the rich don't get too rich. Saying that people need to pay a higher %of taxes simply because doesn't even make since.

Do you realize how much money is wasted by government?

How come no one wants to address excess spending and waste?

Why is the solution always to give the government more money, or rather to take more money from the group who already pay the majority of taxes?

 

[ED50]

The point of taxes should be to fund the government not to ensure that the rich don't get too rich. Saying that people need to pay a higher %of taxes simply because doesn't even make since.

Do you realize how much money is wasted by government?

How come no one wants to address excess spending and waste?

Why is the solution always to give the government more money, or rather to take more money from the group who already pay the majority of taxes?

Respectfully, there is quite a bit of hyperbole in these statements. The entire republican field is running on the platform attempting to address the 'excess spending and waste in govt' The concept of how much money should we give the govt is a complex one and filled with many variables. I'm sure we disagree on that point, however my original point was that the tax structure is bent towards the ultra wealthy and that doesn't benefit America. Even under a flat tax scheme the group that makes the most money will still pay the most in taxes. In my mind under no scenario should a millionaire pay a lower percent on their taxes then someone making 65K a year.

Taxes pay for things like roads, schools, and our society's safety net. Circa 1970's and 80's these things were better funded and taxes were dramatically higher then they are now. I never advocated for taxes simply because.

In the end I am adamantly against increasing our nation's debt and every republican running is offering dramatic tax cuts which are paid for by trickle down economics which I don't believe in.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Respectfully, there is quite a bit of hyperbole in these statements. The entire republican field is running on the platform attempting to address the 'excess spending and waste in govt' The concept of how much money should we give the govt is a complex one and filled with many variables. I'm sure we disagree on that point, however my original point was that the tax structure is bent towards the ultra wealthy and that doesn't benefit America. Even under a flat tax scheme the group that makes the most money will still pay the most in taxes. In my mind under no scenario should a millionaire pay a lower percent on their taxes then someone making 65K a year.

Taxes pay for things like roads, schools, and our society's safety net. Circa 1970's and 80's these things were better funded and taxes were dramatically higher then they are now. I never advocated for taxes simply because.

In the end I am adamantly against increasing our nation's debt and every republican running is offering dramatic tax cuts which are paid for by trickle down economics which I don't believe in.

I get your drift but the low tax rate you claim the rich pay I assume is the capital gains tax. If you want to raise it then fine just say that. Making blanket statements like the above just perpetuates class warefare.

Do you know why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than personal income tax rates?

 

[Spinach Dip]

Hilary might win, which would essentially be the same as electing Obama a 3rd (and maybe 4th) time.

Trump cannot win because anyone who is a)hispanic, b)black, c)asian, d)poor, e)female, f) economically liberal, or, g) sexually liberal will not vote for him. He has alienated the vast majority of voting blocks in this country, and only remains atop of the republican polls because he has gotten so much face time on news that practically nobody knows who the other options are.



So I'm mentally preparing for Hilary, though I will probably be casting my ballot for Daffy Duck.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Eliminate the income tax except on the very wealthy then tax them at 10% flat rate.

Sales tax on all items except food and basic necessities. This levels the playing field so the "savers" don't get penalized but the guy buying the Ferrari pays his "fair share."

We need everyone to have skin in the game and the politicians must control spending. A sales tax puts the drug dealer, prostitute and small businessman hiding his income in the same playing field as everyone else. If you want the item you must pay the tax.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Eliminate the income tax except on the very wealthy then tax them at 10% flat rate.

Sales tax on all items except food and basic necessities. This levels the playing field so the "savers" don't get penalized but the guy buying the Ferrari pays his "fair share."

We need everyone to have skin in the game and the politicians must control spending. A sales tax puts the drug dealer, prostitute and small businessman hiding his income in the same playing field as everyone else. If you want the item you must pay the tax.

Fairtax

Best plan I have heard yet. It wouldnt disproportionately burden the poorest as some argue because you could make things like food tax free.

The problem is it takes away too much power from congress. I can't see them ever willing give up that much control.

 

[PainDrain]

My feeling is we are slowly becoming a plutocracy and unless we change our tax structure it risks to completely undermine our political system. Our founding fathers (mainly Madison) even warned of this concentration of wealth and argued for the estate tax. If you look at the Forbes list of wealthiest individuals in the US the majority are heirs. The main issue isn't only taxation of capital gains compared to what other top earners make, it's the various tax loopholes that extremely wealthy individuals are able to use to pay even less. I read a figure that using certain loopholes some pay as low as 10%. While spending certainly needs to be reigned in, the majority of what we are paying for are the sins of our fathers.

I argue that we, in the top 10- 1%, will soon become the new middle class. The vast majority below will have far less access to capital and thereby far less political power. Our country will degrade further into a plutocracy and there will be little difference between the US and Russia. If you look at decisions like Citiznes United and the removal of the ability to pursue class action suits so much has been done in the last 5-10 years to degrade individual power against corporations and the wealthy it is amazing.

 

[deleted162650]

So I'm mentally preparing for Hilary, though I will probably be casting my ballot for Daffy Duck.

I can't vote for Daffy simply because of his stance on gun control.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Hilary might win, which would essentially be the same as electing Obama a 3rd (and maybe 4th) time.

Trump cannot win because anyone who is a)hispanic, b)black, c)asian, d)poor, e)female, f) economically liberal, or, g) sexually liberal will not vote for him. He has alienated the vast majority of voting blocks in this country, and only remains atop of the republican polls because he has gotten so much face time on news that practically nobody knows who the other options are.



So I'm mentally preparing for Hilary, though I will probably be casting my ballot for Daffy Duck.

Just had this conversation yesterday. I'll be voting Rand, and if he goes nowhere then I'll write in. I would love to vote for a libertarian candidate, but Gary Johnson has become a joke and Austin peterson is a ginormous dingus.

 

[kaioukenx]

Eliminate the income tax except on the very wealthy then tax them at 10% flat rate.

Sales tax on all items except food and basic necessities. This levels the playing field so the "savers" don't get penalized but the guy buying the Ferrari pays his "fair share."

We need everyone to have skin in the game and the politicians must control spending. A sales tax puts the drug dealer, prostitute and small businessman hiding his income in the same playing field as everyone else. If you want the item you must pay the tax.

Elementary. It's the kind of plan you discuss at the dinner table with Uncle Ben or, appropriately I guess, in random forums on the Internet. Do you really believe no one has tried to work out the numbers or logistics of such a plan (or thousands like it)? How did you arrive at a 10% flat rate? Who is the very wealthy? Is that you? Or the guy just a bit richer than you? What is your projected revenue shortfall and how do you plan to deal with it? The governmental revenue from personal income taxes is around $1.45 trillion, or about half of all annual revenue. I'd love to see how the numbers would work out.

I mean, really. Anyone can just throw out a bunch of nice sounding numbers.

What if, with your new sales tax, the guy has to pay $1 million for his Ferrari? I don't know if that would be true, but neither do you.

A sales tax does not put the drug dealer, prostitute, and the businessman in a level playing field unless you're planning on legalizing drug dealing and prostitution. That seems at odds with those Judeo-Christian values.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Elementary. It's the kind of plan you discuss at the dinner table with Uncle Ben or, appropriately I guess, in random forums on the Internet. Do you really believe no one has tried to work out the numbers or logistics of such a plan (or thousands like it)? How did you arrive at a 10% flat rate? Who is the very wealthy? Is that you? Or the guy just a bit richer than you? What is your projected revenue shortfall and how do you plan to deal with it? The governmental revenue from personal income taxes is around $1.45 trillion, or about half of all annual revenue. I'd love to see how the numbers would work out.

I mean, really. Anyone can just throw out a bunch of nice sounding numbers.

What if, with your new sales tax, the guy has to pay $1 million for his Ferrari? I don't know if that would be true, but neither do you.

A sales tax does not put the drug dealer, prostitute, and the businessman in a level playing field unless you're planning on legalizing drug dealing and prostitution. That seems at odds with those Judeo-Christian values.

Judeo-Christian values doesn't mean I live on Mars. Those who pay NOTHING into the system are part of the problem. A National sales tax goes a long way into making sure those who don't even file an income tax return pay something into the system.

As for who pays 10% I'll leave that up to the liberals to decide so they can keep spending like drunken sailors. And yes, there have been many excellent proposals to reform our broken tax system but none go anywhere because the lobbyists and most politicians from both parties prefer the status quo.

https://www.randpaul.com/rand-pauls-fair-and-flat-tax-op-ed (flat tax)

 

[BLADEMDA]

The “my way or the highway” mentality benefits only the Left — and the politicians, accountants, lawyers, lobbyists, and redistributionists who want to strangle tax reform altogether. — Stephen Moore

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426885/flat-tax-benefits

 

[pgg]

Just had this conversation yesterday. I'll be voting Rand, and if he goes nowhere then I'll write in. I would love to vote for a libertarian candidate, but Gary Johnson has become a joke and Austin peterson is a ginormous dingus.

What happened to Gary Johnson? I liked him in 2012 but haven't heard anything since.

 

[deleted171991]

What happened to Gary Johnson? I liked him in 2012 but haven't heard anything since.

I find it interesting that libertarian candidates don't do well in the "land of the free". We love to "export" freedom and free market capitalism to other countries, we just don't really like them in ours.

It might come from some media brainwashing, where people think libertarian = anarchist/fringe.

 

[Spinach Dip]

I can't vote for Daffy simply because of his stance on gun control.

I suppose you support Elmer Fudd?

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

What happened to Gary Johnson? I liked him in 2012 but haven't heard anything since.

He got really big into marijuana legalization and opened up a medical marijuana distribution company. He's a great renaissance man and I admire him for that but when you show up to network interviews about potential presidency run wearing a pot-leaf t-shirt, it sends a message of not giving a ****.

I'm not against legalization, I just hate when people play into stereotypes.

 

[pgg]

Yeah, he said a lot of things that didn't help him get elected. Doesn't make him wrong. The only way he was going to win in 2012 was if a family of rabid squirrels took out Romney at the exact same moment Obama choked to death on a presidential pretzel.

I'll vote for the least bad person I think can get elected. But it's nice to think someday a guy like him could win.


I think medical marijuana is absolutely ******ed. I favor complete legalization of all drugs for purely recreational purposes, because free people ought to be able to hurt themselves any way they choose, and the only way drugs hurt me is via this stupid War On Drugs. And while I sort of admire the gall of the medical marijuana people (it's a clever end-run to get around the prohibition laws) as a doctor and scientist the very notion of applying the label of "medicine" to the inhalation of aliquots of smoke from burning plants sourced from random unregulated botanical entrepreneurs ... is just nuts.

 

[Planktonmd]

Elementary. It's the kind of plan you discuss at the dinner table with Uncle Ben or, appropriately I guess, in random forums on the Internet. Do you really believe no one has tried to work out the numbers or logistics of such a plan (or thousands like it)? How did you arrive at a 10% flat rate? Who is the very wealthy? Is that you? Or the guy just a bit richer than you? What is your projected revenue shortfall and how do you plan to deal with it? The governmental revenue from personal income taxes is around $1.45 trillion, or about half of all annual revenue. I'd love to see how the numbers would work out.

I mean, really. Anyone can just throw out a bunch of nice sounding numbers.

What if, with your new sales tax, the guy has to pay $1 million for his Ferrari? I don't know if that would be true, but neither do you.

A sales tax does not put the drug dealer, prostitute, and the businessman in a level playing field unless you're planning on legalizing drug dealing and prostitution. That seems at odds with those Judeo-Christian values.

Some of those self proclaimed conservatives are unable to see beyond their own bank accounts, and this is why they think they are entitled to pay little or no taxes and shrink the government, but at the same time they are the first ones to start crying when they are not offered the type of public services they think they deserve for free like: roads, bridges, airports, police, fire fighters... and countless other services.
They want the services but they don't want to pay for them!

 

[Spinach Dip]

They want the services but they don't want to pay for them!

NEWSFLASH: Everyone wants free stuff. No one wants to pay for it. Details at 11.

 

[pgg]

roads, bridges, airports, police, fire fighters

Those aren't the things causing the budget overruns. Medicare, DOD, and SS are 2/3 of the federal budget and more like 3/4 of federal receipts.

Those things can be cut without touching infrastructure or even taking one single black armored Humvee away from the local police department.

It won't happen of course; so much easier to pay for things with debt now and let inflation "pay" for it a decade or two down the road.

 

[Planktonmd]

Those aren't the things causing the budget overruns. Medicare, DOD, and SS are 2/3 of the federal budget and more like 3/4 of federal receipts.

Those things can be cut without touching infrastructure or even taking one single black armored Humvee away from the local police department.

It won't happen of course; so much easier to pay for things with debt now and let inflation "pay" for it a decade or two down the road.

So you think that this country will have a better future if we deprive the poor and the old of social protection and eliminate the military?
Would you have felt the same way if you were closer to retirement and you had paid all your life for Social security and Medicare benefits?
A society does not progress or become more civilized by eliminating social services offered to the poor and the elderly.
You want to save money and halt inflation? Then you need to lower the astronomical cost of health care, and to do that you need to do a few things:
1- Create a system that monitors and regulates health insurance carriers
2- End the absolute dominance of the pharmaceutical companies over U.S. congress and their immunity to any law or regulation
3- Create a system that monitors health care administrators closely and discourages the current corrupt behavior and the outrageous billing practices
Once the cost of health care is under control then Medicare and Social security can become more affordable and we won't have to dump the poor and the elderly on the streets of this great country, and we won't have to eliminate the military which is by the way the only guarantee that the rest of the world won't fu** with us!

 

[deleted162650]

I suppose you support Elmer Fudd?

No, between Bush and Obama we've had enough Fudds in the White House. I support Wile E. Coyote. Such ingenuity. Such determination.

 

[Planktonmd]

On a side note I find it disturbing that more than 50% on this forum don't see bigotry and racism as a problem that would preclude someone from becoming the president of the united states!

 

[bashwell]

Maybe it's time for a third party?

Not sure how viable a third party would be, but for the sake of all we hold dear in our republic! Also because I'm with @SaltyDog and the Looney Tunes demographic and really want to see Daffy Duck or Wile E. Coyote or at least Marvin the Martian elected. Although in Marvin's case his natural born US citizenship status may be in question.

 

[pgg]

So you think that this country will have a better future if we deprive the poor and the old of social protection and eliminate the military?

Halloween was two months ago, put away the strawmen.

The military ABSOLUTELY could stand significant cuts. And I say that as an active duty member of the military, whose job and pay would likely be on the chopping block.

Social Security was supposed to be for the poor and the old. Instead, it's been treated like a government-run retirement account for everyone, which is stupid. It'll be called a "failure" by most people if they don't get out what they put in, plus interest. That's the wrong way to view it. It should be viewed as a TAX to support the sick, disabled, orphaned, and elderly poor ... not an INVESTMENT for the rest of us. It's not there for you, not for me, not even for the majority of the middle class. It should be there so old people don't have to choose between food and heat in the winter. If we just cut the benefit or limited payments to the upper half of the country, it'd be well funded and the TAX that it is would be easily manageable.

That would be unpopular, since there's a huge cohort of able-bodied, well-employed people who bought jet skis and Cancun vacations instead of saving for retirement, expecting to get their "due" out of SS. We couldn't make the change abruptly, but we could make the change gradually. Maybe start by telling all Americans under 40 or so that they won't get squat from SS unless they're disabled or have earned less than 2x poverty for most of their lives.

I wouldn't make cuts to Medicare. It could use some rational change to how it's spent, particularly futile end-of-life care. People, nations, and civilizations are rightly and best judged by how they treat their weakest and most vulnerable members, and that usually comes down to the sick and old. We don't need to abandon them ... we just need to tell the not-sick and not-old to pull some more of their own weight.

 

[pgg]

The problem with third parties is twofold -

One, our voting system that doesn't do instant runoffs. 3rd party votes are rightly viewed as wasted.

Two, the parties themselves shoot for the moon and chase the presidency ... because they're more interested in publicity than winning. If they want to be relevant, then need to spend 10 or 20 years winning local and state elections, and federal seats in Congress and the Senate. And when they have a credible history of doing good things nationwide, and candidates with experience, they can start reaching for the presidency. I mean, WTF did Ralph Nader ever do, except lose 4 or 6 presidential elections while promoting his books?

 

[Ipassgas]

Screw it. I'll just move to Costa Rica and eat bananas on the beach.

 

[deleted162650]

Screw it. I'll just move to Costa Rica and eat bananas on the beach.

This is something that stays stashed in the back of my mind. Little hesitation to make it happen if/when needed. I work on my Spanishtesia a little every day.