Who Do you plan to Vote for in the Republican Primary?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Who are you planning to vote for in the Republican Primary?

  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 45 26.2%

  • Rick Perry

    Votes: 8 4.7%

  • Herman Cain

    Votes: 31 18.0%

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 67 39.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 12.2%
  • Total voters
    172
A small few quacks on the far left and far right exist. Both sides have their nut jobs. It still doesn't change the fact that the right wing has a legitimate point of view as does the liberal left. While I may not agree with Socialism some firmly believe it is the best system of government.
Members don't see this ad.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Faith is a personal thing... Which religion is less important that (sic) your search for Faith and that relationship.

Remember it isn't about religion or church; it's about your personal relationship/walk with God.
Click to expand...


BLADEMDA said:
As for which God you should choose the answer is simple:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The only one true God.

Peace,
Blade
Click to expand...

Which one is it?


-pod
 
Members don't see this ad :)
:hijacked::hijacked:

It's a SDN way of life.

Somehow I get this feeling that somewhere on the other side of the world Nahush and Hammad are having this same discussion on Arab SDN and Nahush is saying "Your search will lead you to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Allah Akbar."

Or at least they would be if they lived in a country that enjoyed true freedom of speech thanks to a separation of church and state.

-pod
 
BLADEMDA said:
I'd rather not discuss religion on SDN. That's not the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

The republican party, for many, has become an extension of their religion. The corporate rulers, financial markets, and faux news have long been catering to the self rightous ego of the majority of the republican base. And u sir have been swindled.

They have convinced you that people like Herman Cain are legitimate and viable candidate.....? I'd be willing to bet that if I scrolled through your posts, u were at one time a Trump supporter. It's big business now to just run for president. Look at Cain , palin and huckabee and despite the temporary surge in like Gingrich. They are all catering to a market getting publicity off running and selling a buttload of books and speaking fees.

Only after looking at as many factets of an issue as possible and removing as much bias as possible can one find something closest to truth. It seems u are going into these issues with your mind already decided and only accepting info that affirms your pre-conceived notions....how scientific of you.
 
TheBlend said:
The republican party, for many, has become an extension of their religion. The corporate rulers, financial markets, and faux news have long been catering to the self rightous ego of the majority of the republican base. And u sir have been swindled.

They have convinced you that people like Herman Cain are legitimate and viable candidate.....? I'd be willing to bet that if I scrolled through your posts, u were at one time a Trump supporter. It's big business now to just run for president. Look at Cain , palin and huckabee and despite the temporary surge in like Gingrich. They are all catering to a market getting publicity off running and selling a buttload of books and speaking fees.

Only after looking at as many factets of an issue as possible and removing as much bias as possible can one find something closest to truth. It seems u are going into these issues with your mind already decided and only accepting info that affirms your pre-conceived notions....how scientific of you.
Click to expand...

Slim,

That ain't true. Not at all. I was a Romney supporter then Cain. But, after I realized how little Cain knows about foreign policy (Zilch) and his potential Bill Clinton like issues (Obama's people will make sure the women get paid to tell all) I decided to stick with Romney.

The polls show Newt is gaining ground as number 2. I am not Voting for Newt. He has too much baggage and is the ultimate Washington insider.

I have no idea whether Romney believes in Evolution ( though I doubt it) and don't care. Romney is the GOP's best chance to win the White House and end the reign of Chairman Obama.

The Religion of a candidate is far less important to me than his principles; the principles I value most in my President are limited federal government, low taxes, strong defense and sound foreign policy.

Ron Paul isn't electable in the general election. Obama would crush him in a debate and the Independent voters won't support him.
 
periopdoc said:
:hijacked::hijacked:

It's a SDN way of life.

Somehow I get this feeling that somewhere on the other side of the world Nahush and Hammad are having this same discussion on Arab SDN and Nahush is saying "Your search will lead you to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Allah Akbar."

Or at least they would be if they lived in a country that enjoyed true freedom of speech thanks to a separation of church and state.

-pod
Click to expand...

Yes, our founders believed in separation of Church and State as do I. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and a free, capitalistic economy.

The difference between Judeo-Christian principles (as stated in the bible) is night and day compared to Islam. I urge you to study the Koran and see for yourself.

Religion isn't a Federal law and you are free to both disagree verbally and in writing. Nobody is going to force your conversion at the point of a gun. Only one monotheistic religion teaches that such conversions have any validity at all.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Slim,

That ain't true. Not at all. I was a Romney supporter then Cain. But, after I realized how little Cain knows about foreign policy (Zilch) and his potential Bill Clinton like issues (Obama's people will make sure the women get paid to tell all) I decided to stick with Romney.

The polls show Newt is gaining ground as number 2. I am not Voting for Newt. He has too much baggage and is the ultimate Washington insider.

I have no idea whether Romney believes in Evolution ( though I doubt it) and don't care. Romney is the GOP's best chance to win the White House and end the reign of Chairman Obama.

The Religion of a candidate is far less important to me than his principles; the principles I value most in my President are limited federal government, low taxes, strong defense and sound foreign policy.

Ron Paul isn't electable in the general election. Obama would crush him in a debate and the Independent voters won't support him.
Click to expand...

Baconaise,

I made sure to leave some typos; just in case I was wrong about trump to leave the door open for an ad hoc. But as is typical you ignore all but the only point I clarified as being an assumption.

If small government is important to you Obama has 500,000 less fed employees and less czars than bush had. Meanwhile, the republicans are nullifying elected officials
(google:benton harbor takeover) , changing the rules in one state so that electoral votes are winner take all while in other states amending the constitution to do the opposite, u only get the individual districts.

Your taxes are lower now than they were under bush regardless your bracket.

Defense and foreign policy.....The Obama admin has been incredible and only the people that are contrarian to whatever he does can disagree.

No matter the republican nominee, they will not win. More and more people are realizing where the gop loyalty lies. The Scott walker campaign in wisconsin, the use of super pace thanks to the conservative passed citizens united, the orwellian rhetoric of koch brothers group "americans for Prosperity....and the list goes on.

The current republican party is the Indianapolis Colts. (my hometown btw) They don't have a peyton manning so they are out there going throuh the motions. But at the end of the day, we all know they won't win the big show and we can't be sure if there acting or even really trying because they know it too!
 
BLADEMDA said:
The difference between Judeo-Christian principles (as stated in the bible) is night and day compared to Islam.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the point I was making. You are Nahush and I am Hamad. If you and I were born on the other side of the world, in all likelihood you would be trying to convert me to Islam, not Christianity. I am sure you would be making a more persuasive argument with the tip of a blade. ;)


BLADEMDA said:
Nobody is going to force your conversion at the point of a gun. Only one monotheistic religion teaches that such conversions have any validity at all.
Click to expand...

Should read, "Only one monotheistic religion still teaches that such conversions have any validity at all." Although it appears that, in the 21st century at least, Islam is the primary offender, Christian history is rife with forced conversion of every ilk from torture, to with-holding of humanitarian supplies to institutionalization of non-Christian, to massacre of non-Christians...


BLADEMDA said:
Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles
Click to expand...

What are these "Judeo-Christian Values" that I keep hearing about. Can somebody please list them for me? The only commonality is the Old Testament, a tome filled with absolutely abhorrent morals and dictates mixed in with a few ideas of societal fairness that are hardly unique to either religion or in fact to religion at all.

The constitution is a secular document that appeals to natural law in direct opposition to the religious portions of laws in the countries from which the founding fathers originated. It draws heavily from English common law which predates the arrival of Christianity in England, and it does not refer to a supernatural authority or to supernatural inspiration. The only reference it makes to God or religion is to ensure the separation of church and state.

and then there is the Treaty of Tripoli.


- pod
 
TheBlend said:
Baconaise,

I made sure to leave some typos; just in case I was wrong about trump to leave the door open for an ad hoc. But as is typical you ignore all but the only point I clarified as being an assumption.

If small government is important to you Obama has 500,000 less fed employees and less czars than bush had. Meanwhile, the republicans are nullifying elected officials
(google:benton harbor takeover) , changing the rules in one state so that electoral votes are winner take all while in other states amending the constitution to do the opposite, u only get the individual districts.

Your taxes are lower now than they were under bush regardless your bracket.

Defense and foreign policy.....The Obama admin has been incredible and only the people that are contrarian to whatever he does can disagree.

No matter the republican nominee, they will not win. More and more people are realizing where the gop loyalty lies. The Scott walker campaign in wisconsin, the use of super pace thanks to the conservative passed citizens united, the orwellian rhetoric of koch brothers group "americans for Prosperity....and the list goes on.

The current republican party is the Indianapolis Colts. (my hometown btw) They don't have a peyton manning so they are out there going throuh the motions. But at the end of the day, we all know they won't win the big show and we can't be sure if there acting or even really trying because they know it too!
Click to expand...

Wrong. GOP is going to win in a land slide. You have much to learn Grasshopper. BTW, my handle is BLADE and as a pre-med I'd appreciate you showing the civility I've earned around here.

Bush was a liberal running as a Republican. He was NO fiscal conservative. Obama would have raised my taxes to 45% if the GOP wasn't around to stop him. I'll keep sending the check to the GOP and you keep mouthing off the Liberal, Socialistic rhetoric about Obama.

Ron Paul is 100% correct when it comes to Fiscal policy in this country. His message is resonating with the GOP (FINALLY). The next President and Congress will cut a trillion dollars or more from this bloated government and lower the top bracket to under 30% while eliminating deductions. That's broadening the base and stimulating the economy.

Bush followed by Obama have spent way too much money. The time has come for the real GOP to stand up or many of us will actively seek to start another party.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Obama will call for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire, closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct. The proposal also includes $580 billion in adjustments to health and entitlement programs, including $248 billion to Medicare and $72 billion to Medicaid. Administration officials said that the Medicare cuts would not come from an increase in the Medicare eligibility age.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
New facts released by the office of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., reveal a hidden tax increase in President Obama's budget proposal. Obama's plan would, these facts demonstrate, impose a 20 percent increase in the top income tax rate - a significantly greater increase than the president has admitted.
The news media fancies itself a watchdog, so if the president is going to dramatically hike taxes, one would hope that Americans would hear about it first. But thus far, there has been almost no coverage of these stealth tax hikes. On Monday, Washington Post fact-checker Greg Kessler confirmed the veracity of Ryan's claims. Whether other major media outlets report on them will be the true test.
Congressman Ryan broke down the president's proposed tax hikes into a pair of separate measures that effectively increase the top tax rate. Taken with an existing Medicare payroll tax, the new top tax rate under Obama's plan would be 44.8 percent, not the 39.6 percent the administration claims - and significantly higher than current top tax rates.
 
When you factor in State Taxes that many Americans must pay the Overall Income Tax burden under Obama will become 50%!

Ron Paul calls such taxation by the government "theft."
 
Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rUn-aPvRSY
 
Last edited:
Under Obama many Americans will pay the second highest income tax rate in the world (federal plus state income taxes) at 50%. Those "wealthy" citizens living in California may only be surpassed by Belgium which has a 54% top marginal rate.
But, some in California may have an effective 53% rate under Obama.

(California has a 9.3% income tax rate for most Physicians, It goes to 10.3% for those earning over $1 million annually).


http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/


http://www.tax-rates.org/California/income-tax
 
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
― Margaret Thatcher


 “There are significant differences between the American and European version of capitalism. The American traditiionally emphasizes the need for limited government, light regulations, low taxes and maximum labour-market flexibility. Its success has ben shown above all in the ability to creqte new jobs, in which it is consistently more successful than Europe.”
― Margaret Thatcher, The Path to Powe


“Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.”
― Margaret Thatcher


 
Several quotations from our Founding Fathers will illustrate American Judeo-Christian Values and our separation of church and state, but not the separation of God from state; and provide grounding for the American understanding of social justice.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty."

And also:

"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

President George Washington said this:

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God ..."

Later, Abraham Lincoln spoke these words at the Gettysburg Address:

"That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/110705

 
In Judeo-Christian America one finds the idea of equality before God and the law — not the Big Orwellian lie of government forced economic equality. Modern European culture has stressed the value of economic equality rather than human Liberty, and their governments unjustly enforce this French Revolutionary and Marxist principle. Social engineering of this sort has led to the failed European inventions of Socialism and Communism, and Socialists in America have been lured into this failed European idea of "social justice." Marxist Socialism is un-American because it is a form of elite minority rule — an oligarchy akin to Medieval Feudalism. Most people prefer to be hard-working and creative; by violating the will of the majority to keep their labored-for property, collectivist Socialism becomes unjust as it excessively taxes away the laboring people's property and thereby mutates into government power without the informed consent of the governed. Socialism is a failure in that it unjustly suppresses human creativity by excessively taxing away its rewards; and on the other hand, in return for votes, by foolish redistribution of economic reward to many who, though mentally and physically able, fail to honor their Divine privilege and duty to work creatively. Why work if the reward (your property) is taken by the Marxist/Socialist State; and why work if you don't have to? Socialism is a quadruple insult to the pursuit of happiness: it coerces conformity, it suppresses God-given human creativity and the natural work ethic which leads to economic collapse; and it damages the social fabric by promoting resentment on the one hand (the excessively taxed laboring middle class) and ingratitude on the other (the non-disabled so-called proletariat class which no longer has to labor).
 
periopdoc said:
That has nothing to do with the point I was making. You are Nahush and I am Hamad. If you and I were born on the other side of the world, in all likelihood you would be trying to convert me to Islam, not Christianity. I am sure you would be making a more persuasive argument with the tip of a blade. ;)




Should read, "Only one monotheistic religion still teaches that such conversions have any validity at all." Although it appears that, in the 21st century at least, Islam is the primary offender, Christian history is rife with forced conversion of every ilk from torture, to with-holding of humanitarian supplies to institutionalization of non-Christian, to massacre of non-Christians...




What are these "Judeo-Christian Values" that I keep hearing about. Can somebody please list them for me? The only commonality is the Old Testament, a tome filled with absolutely abhorrent morals and dictates mixed in with a few ideas of societal fairness that are hardly unique to either religion or in fact to religion at all.

The constitution is a secular document that appeals to natural law in direct opposition to the religious portions of laws in the countries from which the founding fathers originated. It draws heavily from English common law which predates the arrival of Christianity in England, and it does not refer to a supernatural authority or to supernatural inspiration. The only reference it makes to God or religion is to ensure the separation of church and state.

and then there is the Treaty of Tripoli.


- pod
Click to expand...


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html




[FONT=times new roman,times]Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism." .

[FONT=times new roman,times]Our Founding Fathers were religious in a new way, the Judeo-Christian way, and they were the liberals of their day by deducing that our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government; but they were conservative to Biblical morality. There was and still is a connection between God and Liberty; He is the author of it. It is ironic that American Conservatives are now the champion of this our most liberal founding principle; and also an irony that most American Conservatives are wholly unaware of their connection with the liberal founding ideas of this great republic. It is also an irony that many American Liberals have turned a blind eye to the required connection between God and Liberty. As Thomas Jefferson and John Adams noted, as you will see below, Liberty cannot survive among men without its Divine connection..
 
http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/john-locke.php


In Locke's conception, a proper government exercises three distinct and separate powers, the "legislative, executive, and federative power of the commonwealth."


As all of the above should make abundantly clear, John Locke was the intellectual founding father of the United States of America, without whose ideas there would have been neither a revolution, nor a revolutionary ideology of political freedom to implement at that revolution's conclusion.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Wrong. GOP is going to win in a land slide. You have much to learn Grasshopper. BTW, my handle is BLADE and as a pre-med I'd appreciate you showing the civility I've earned around here.

Bush was a liberal running as a Republican. He was NO fiscal conservative. Obama would have raised my taxes to 45% if the GOP wasn't around to stop him. I'll keep sending the check to the GOP and you keep mouthing off the Liberal, Socialistic rhetoric about Obama.

Ron Paul is 100% correct when it comes to Fiscal policy in this country. His message is resonating with the GOP (FINALLY). The next President and Congress will cut a trillion dollars or more from this bloated government and lower the top bracket to under 30% while eliminating deductions. That's broadening the base and stimulating the economy.

Bush followed by Obama have spent way too much money. The time has come for the real GOP to stand up or many of us will actively seek to start another party.
Click to expand...

I trust and respect much of the medical info that you have posted. On those issues I am just a premed and as such don't even comment. When it comes to politics religion and policy though, u are terribly misinformed and/or underinformed. Seemingly willfully.

If I'm grasshopper, then u must be Carradine. Well that's fitting as much of your back to back to back replys are not so well planned self pleasuring. If u don't get the joke

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=7763422

Your posts about tax increases are all hypothetical and even use the phrasing "may" or "could" . The tax pundits link does very little to price your point as it lists the US as 2nd lowest in taxes.

All of your wacky font size copy and paste posts are blatently from pro-gop anti-liberal propoganda sites. All opinion no substance.

Ron Paul is a walking contradiction. 30 year career politician who hates all goverment. Riiiight. he had a few good ideas but is just crazy on too many others.

Your non stop Judeo-Christian this and founding fathers that reveals just how much fox news u watch and how succeptible to media manipulation.
 
TheBlend said:
I trust and respect much of the medical info that you have posted. On those issues I am just a premed and as such don't even comment. When it comes to politics religion and policy though, u are terribly misinformed and/or underinformed. Seemingly willfully.

If I'm grasshopper, then u must be Carradine. Well that's fitting as much of your back to back to back replys are not so well planned self pleasuring. If u don't get the joke

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=7763422

Your posts about tax increases are all hypothetical and even use the phrasing "may" or "could" . The tax pundits link does very little to price your point as it lists the US as 2nd lowest in taxes.

All of your wacky font size copy and paste posts are blatently from pro-gop anti-liberal propoganda sites. All opinion no substance.

Ron Paul is a walking contradiction. 30 year career politician who hates all goverment. Riiiight. he had a few good ideas but is just crazy on too many others.

Your non stop Judeo-Christian this and founding fathers that reveals just how much fox news u watch and how succeptible to media manipulation.
Click to expand...


budget-create-deficits-850.jpg
 
blade i really wish sometime you would run for office.... some of the stuff you say is like you read my mind... call me if you need a veep -- i can bring in the women voters :)
 
Here are some FACTS:

1. The Founding Fathers believed in God. That view and belief played a role in our Constitution and our government. They based much of our form of government on John Locke. Like it or not "In God we Trust" is there because that's what our founding Father's believed.

2. The liberal media is a lying, propaganda machine. Obama will raise Taxes until the wealthy are bleeding from the pain. There is nothing theoretical about Obama's "share the wealth program" of government.

3. Ron Paul's view is closest to our founding Father's than any other politician.
But, we are used to Socialism in this country and "freebies" along with entitlements so he isn't electable. Unfortunately, the liberal media won't tell the truth about this nation and her founding principles.

4. Economics- I'm well read on the subject. From Hayek to Milton Friedman the best government is that government which governs least. Government should do as little as possible, tax as little as possible and stay out of the way. We need the rule of law and military defense from our government.

I'll quote Ronald Reagan on the role of government:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObcP69dhCg

Grasshopper watch the video and learn the founding principles of this nation. Put down the liberal Kool Aid and stare the cold, hard truth in the face.



"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan
 
Last edited:
BLADEMDA said:
Here are some FACTS:

1. The Founding Fathers believed in God. That view and belief played a role in our Constitution and our government. They based much of our form of government on John Locke. Like it or not "In God we Trust" is there because that's what our founding Father's believed.

2. The liberal media is a lying, propaganda machine. Obama will raise Taxes until the wealthy are bleeding from the pain. There is nothing theoretical about Obama's "share the wealth program" of government.

3. Ron Paul's view is closest to our founding Father's than any other politician.
But, we are used to Socialism in this country and "freebies" along with entitlements so he isn't electable. Unfortunately, the liberal media won't tell the truth about this nation and her founding principles.

4. Economics- I'm well read on the subject. From Hayek to Milton Friedman the best government is that government which governs least. Government should do as little as possible, tax as little as possible and stay out of the way. We need the rule of law and military defense from our government.

I'll quote Ronald Reagan on the role of government:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObcP69dhCg

Grasshopper watch the video and learn the founding principles of this nation. Put down the liberal Kool Aid and stare the cold, hard truth in the face.



"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

Nope, not facts 4 has a glimmer of truth but the rest......phooey

1."God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord" none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The ONLY exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts.

2. "In god we trust" had nothing to do with the founding fathers. Salmon P. Chase came up with the phrase under Lincoln in 1861. It wasn't put on anything until our 1 cent and 2 cent pieces in 1864. And not our national motto until 1956.The last of the founding fathers died out in the 1820's.

3. Ron Paul's utopia would require us actually holding people guilty for the elaborate white collar crimes of this generation. Just as Paul's supporters are against the Government choosing the winners, it shouldn't through inaction and ignoring the law choose the losers. The playing field has not, and will not ever be level. Government IS or at least could be the solution to many of societies problems if and only if we can get the money and special interests (Citizen's United) out of the way. Republicans cry that government is terrible, unnecessary, and corrupt. Then they get into office and prove it! They have programmed you to use "entitlements". Medicare and SS are paid into, they are not "freebees". AND SS runs a surplus not to mention the overwhelming majority of the country is against reducing these programs.
http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/files/2011/08/SS-Deficit2-2.jpg

4. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of CA, signed into law biggest tax hike ever, and as President raised taxes 11 times, because after his tax cuts of 1981 unemployment shot up to 10.8%.

http://reagan.procon.org/files/1-re...oyment-approval-ratings-1981-1989-picture.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

Reagan increased the size of the federal government by300,000. ( but I bet when he does it it makes him a job creator right?)

I know that you will continue to copy/paste from conservative spin masters or else keep calling me grasshopper and dismissing my arguments with out fact checking or being objective, but that's fine. Maybe some readers will take a few minutes of unbiased research to figure things out for themselves. Ok....go back to calling me a liberal/socialist/koolaid-drinker. My first post on page 4 of this thread remains in-rebutted.
 
TheBlend said:
Nope, not facts 4 has a glimmer of truth but the rest......phooey

1."God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord" none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The ONLY exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts.

2. "In god we trust" had nothing to do with the founding fathers. Salmon P. Chase came up with the phrase under Lincoln in 1861. It wasn't put on anything until our 1 cent and 2 cent pieces in 1864. And not our national motto until 1956.The last of the founding fathers died out in the 1820's.

3. Ron Paul's utopia would require us actually holding people guilty for the elaborate white collar crimes of this generation. Just as Paul's supporters are against the Government choosing the winners, it shouldn't through inaction and ignoring the law choose the losers. The playing field has not, and will not ever be level. Government IS or at least could be the solution to many of societies problems if and only if we can get the money and special interests (Citizen's United) out of the way. Republicans cry that government is terrible, unnecessary, and corrupt. Then they get into office and prove it! They have programmed you to use "entitlements". Medicare and SS are paid into, they are not "freebees". AND SS runs a surplus not to mention the overwhelming majority of the country is against reducing these programs.
http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/files/2011/08/SS-Deficit2-2.jpg

4. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of CA, signed into law biggest tax hike ever, and as President raised taxes 11 times, because after his tax cuts of 1981 unemployment shot up to 10.8%.

http://reagan.procon.org/files/1-re...oyment-approval-ratings-1981-1989-picture.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

Reagan increased the size of the federal government by300,000. ( but I bet when he does it it makes him a job creator right?)

I know that you will continue to copy/paste from conservative spin masters or else keep calling me grasshopper and dismissing my arguments with out fact checking or being objective, but that's fine. Maybe some readers will take a few minutes of unbiased research to figure things out for themselves. Ok....go back to calling me a liberal/socialist/koolaid-drinker. My first post on page 4 of this thread remains in-rebutted.
Click to expand...

Reagan saved the country.

chart-inflation.jpg
 
GypsySongman said:
Reagan saved the country.

chart-inflation.jpg
Click to expand...

It was monetary policy of the Ron Paul hated Fedreal Reserve responsible for inflation control. At the time it was headed by Paul Volcker, who also worked under Obama on the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Although inflation was tamed, these rates also choked off economic growth. Volcker's policy triggered the recession of 1981-1982. Unemployment rose to 10.8%, and stayed above 10% for ten months.
 
GypsySongman said:
Reagan saved the country.

chart-inflation.jpg
Click to expand...


It's worth noting that "official" inflation figures have progressively and systematically the influence of trivialities like food and fuel, and introduced silliness like hedonic adjustments. Inflation has been deliberately understated for quite some time.




http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts


In ~1980 when Volcker could raise the fed funds rate past 15%, the US wasn't sitting on over $14 trillion in debt. We're watching Greece implode, and Italian and Spanish bond rates are creeping past/toward 7% as they approach their own financial end games. Rising interest rates here would be a bloodbath. There's no way we'll ever be able to afford 5-7%+ of $14 trillion in interest per year. (I realize that all $14 trillion doesn't reset immediately.)
 
pgg said:
It's worth noting that "official" inflation figures have progressively and systematically the influence of trivialities like food and fuel, and introduced silliness like hedonic adjustments. Inflation has been deliberately understated for quite some time.




http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts


In ~1980 when Volcker could raise the fed funds rate past 15%, the US wasn't sitting on over $14 trillion in debt. We're watching Greece implode, and Italian and Spanish bond rates are creeping past/toward 7% as they approach their own financial end games. Rising interest rates here would be a bloodbath. There's no way we'll ever be able to afford 5-7%+ of $14 trillion in interest per year. (I realize that all $14 trillion doesn't reset immediately.)
Click to expand...

That's correct PGG. We need a President and Congress to slash spending and raise revenue across all tax bases (broaden the base). Obama is a disaster and another 4 years spells doom for the stock the market and this economy as a whole.

The reason one should read up on our founders is to understand the type of federal government they envisioned. What was the USA supposed to be? A liberal, Socialistic Democracy or a Capitalist, Republic with limited Federal powers? The answer is clear to anyone willing to research the topic.
 
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
 
A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And 63 percent of all federal spending this year will consist of checks written to individuals for which the government receives currently no services, the White House budget office estimates. That’s up from 46 percent in 1975 and 18 percent in 1940.
Those figures will climb in coming years. The 75 million baby boomers have only begun their long march into retirement, while President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul will extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million additional people.
“The more households that are benefiting from the programs, the more difficult it is to rein in their costs,” said Bob Bixby, head of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia- based group that promotes balanced budgets. “It’s a troubling phenomenon” and “it explains why it’s politically difficult to deal with these things.”
The increasing reliance on the federal safety net comes as a congressional supercommittee -- charged with coming up with a plan by Thanksgiving to find $1.5 trillion in savings in the U.S. budget -- faces mounting pressure to pare back spending. If the panel fails to meet its goal, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board domestic and defense spending cuts will be triggered.
It’s the Economy
Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who sits on the 12- member supercommittee, said the swelling number of beneficiaries is “very distressing” because it means much of the population is “hooked on government” and will oppose any cuts.
The census figure showing 49 percent of Americans, or about 147 million people, live in households where someone gets a federal benefit, is from the first quarter of 2010, the most recent numbers available, according to the bureau.
A confluence of elements is helping drive up the number of beneficiaries. The biggest is the economy. With the unemployment rate stuck at about 9 percent for 30 consecutive months, demand for unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicaid has soared.
The number of Americans receiving food stamps alone is up 72 percent over the past five years, to a record 45.3 million. Their annual cost, projected this year to reach $80 billion, tops the yearly budgets of most federal agencies.
Another cost-driver is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even with the Iraq conflict winding down -- Obama said last week all U.S. troops will be home by the end of the year -- the more than 2 million Americans who have served in one of the theaters have begun claiming promised health-care and education benefits.
Good, Bad News
Those medical bills could reach $55 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The number claiming education benefits is up almost 60 percent since 2009, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
“The good news is their survival rate, but the bad news is their survival rate,” said Bill Hoagland, a former staff director of the Senate Budget Committee.
Demographics also play a major role. The eldest baby boomers became eligible this year for Medicare, three years after beginning to receive Social Security checks. Though much of the debate over the programs’ finances has focused on what to do about spiraling health-care costs, the CBO said the main challenge over the next 25 years will be the number of people claiming benefits.
“Of the two factors, aging is the more important,” the CBO said in a June report. With 10,000 Americans turning 62 every day, the ranks of Social Security recipients are projected to almost double to 97 million by 2035.
Expanding Benefits
Congress also has repeatedly expanded benefits in recent years, adding to the ranks of potential losers in any deficit- reduction deal.
A 2010 law eased eligibility standards for Pell college tuition grants, one reason the number of recipients is up about 70 percent in five years to a projected 9.4 million this year. The increase in veterans claiming education benefits is partly driven by a 2008 “Post-9/11 G.I. Bill” that expanded assistance to cover the entire cost of a college education, including tuition, housing and books.
Even in the face of calls to cut the deficit, Congress came up with a new entitlement program.
Last year, as lawmakers prepared to leave for the Christmas recess, they agreed to create a program for emergency responders to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, promising medical care for conditions ranging from panic disorders to sleep apnea.
More than 60,000 people have enrolled since the program opened for business in July.
‘Helping Everybody’
“You’ve got to be seen helping everybody,” said Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican who was criticized when he temporarily blocked creation of the program. Coburn had complained that the government had already appropriated money for responders’ care, and Congress shouldn’t be developing additional entitlements amid so much concern over financing existing ones.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, complained that opinion polls show the public neither wants benefits cut nor taxes raised.
A Bloomberg News-Washington Post poll earlier this month found more than four-fifths of Americans opposed reducing Social Security or Medicare benefits. A similar share said they didn’t want taxes increased on the middle class either, although they favored raising them on wealthier people.
“None of this adds up,” said Conrad. “One of the biggest obstacles to doing what has to be done is public opinion.”
--Editors: Mark McQuillan, Jim Rubin.
 
Last edited:
pgg said:
It's worth noting that "official" inflation figures have progressively and systematically the influence of trivialities like food and fuel, and introduced silliness like hedonic adjustments. Inflation has been deliberately understated for quite some time.




http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts


In ~1980 when Volcker could raise the fed funds rate past 15%, the US wasn't sitting on over $14 trillion in debt. We're watching Greece implode, and Italian and Spanish bond rates are creeping past/toward 7% as they approach their own financial end games. Rising interest rates here would be a bloodbath. There's no way we'll ever be able to afford 5-7%+ of $14 trillion in interest per year. (I realize that all $14 trillion doesn't reset immediately.)
Click to expand...

Thats wrong. You're misunderstanding the purpose of tight monetary policy. The US economy would need to be exceptionally strong to support an interest rate like that. With growth on that scale the debt would be the last thing to worry about. Tax receipts would be so massive (not to mention federal reserve profits) that we wouldn't need to issue another note for 10 years. In other words, new debt would rarely be issued so the current trading price of treasuries would be irrelevant.

Also, that graph is pure nonsense. All items, not seasonally adjusted. Seasonal adjustments (by the way) have been made since the 50s.

fredgraph.png


No one really cares about what the rate is now compared to one year ago. If there was an aberration one year you would see the mirror image of that aberration one year later. Most people want to know the change from the last measuring period.

Change from the last quarter:
fredgraph.png
 
Last edited:
The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.
Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” 2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.
It is instructive to compare the American response in this period to that of Japan. In 1920, the Japanese government introduced the fundamentals of a planned economy, with the aim of keeping prices artificially high. According to economist Benjamin Anderson, “The great banks, the concentrated industries, and the government got together, destroyed the freedom of the markets, arrested the decline in commodity prices, and held the Japanese price level high above the receding world level for seven years. During these years Japan endured chronic industrial stagnation and at the end, in 1927, she had a banking crisis of such severity that many great branch bank systems went down, as well as many industries. It was a stupid policy. In the effort to avert losses on inventory representing one year’s production, Japan lost seven years.”3
The U.S., by contrast, allowed its economy to readjust. “In 1920–21,” writes Anderson, “we took our losses, we readjusted our financial structure, we endured our depression, and in August 1921 we started up again. . . . The rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921 was soundly based on a drastic cleaning up of credit weakness, a drastic reduction in the costs of production, and on the free play of private enterprise. It was not based on governmental policy designed to make business good.” The federal government did not do what Keynesian economists ever since have urged it to do: run unbalanced budgets and prime the pump through increased expenditures. Rather, there prevailed the old-fashioned view that government should keep spending and taxation low and reduce the public debt.
(…)
The experience of 1920–21 reinforces the contention of genuine free-market economists that government intervention is a hindrance to economic recovery. It is not in spite of the absence of fiscal and monetary stimulus that the economy recovered from the 1920–21 depression. It is because those things were avoided that recovery came. The next time we are solemnly warned to recall the lessons of history lest our economy deteriorate still further, we ought to refer to this episode—and observe how hastily our interrogators try to change the subject.
​
 
BLADEMDA said:
http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/11/06/a-lesson-on-the-laffer-curve-for-barack-obama/


We don’t know the revenue-maximizing point of the Laffer Curve, but Obama seems determined to push tax rates so high that the government collects less revenue. Not that we should be surprised. During the 2008 campaign, he actually said he would like higher tax rates even if the government collected less revenue.
Click to expand...

As predicted...Daniel j Mitchell is a senior fellow at koch brothers founded Cato institute.
One of the few honest things this man has dine can be seen here.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/defending-obama-again/
 
matt30 said:
Thats wrong. You're misunderstanding the purpose of tight monetary policy. The US economy would need to be exceptionally strong to support an interest rate like that. With growth on that scale the debt would be the last thing to worry about. Tax receipts would be so massive (not to mention federal reserve profits) that we wouldn't need to issue another note for 10 years. In other words, new debt would rarely be issued so the current trading price of treasuries would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Interesting points, I'll have to think about that ...


matt30 said:
Also, that graph is pure nonsense. All items, not seasonally adjusted. Seasonal adjustments (by the way) have been made since the 50s.
Click to expand...

But the CPI isn't calculated the same today is it was before the major revisions to it were made in the 90s. I'm not talking about seasonal adjustments ... I mean the invention of hedonics and geometric weighting, things done to deliberately understate inflation, so the cost of Social Security wouldn't rise as quickly.
 
TheBlend said:
As predicted...Daniel j Mitchell is a senior fellow at koch brothers founded Cato institute.
One of the few honest things this man has dine can be seen here.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/defending-obama-again/
Click to expand...

Look,

Here is the COLD HARD TRUTH:

Democrats and Republicans are BOTH GUILTY of creating this mess. Usually, Democrats are much worse (or better at it from your point of view) due to constant entitlements, programs, taxes, etc. That said, Bush was worse than Clinton in terms of fiscal responsibility.

The time has come to save this nation. Restore fiscal sense to our country and avert the Greece/Italy crisis we are facing in ten years.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Look,

Here is the COLD HARD TRUTH:

Democrats and Republicans are BOTH GUILTY of creating this mess. Usually, Democrats are much worse (or better at it from your point of view) due to constant entitlements, programs, taxes, etc. That said, Bush was worse than Clinton in terms of fiscal responsibility.

The time has come to save this nation. Restore fiscal sense to our country and avert the Greece/Italy crisis we are facing in ten years.
Click to expand...

All of the "save this nation" and "take back our country" stuff is a joke anyway. Very much like trying to have a serious conversation with a religious right dogmatist. If u think people paying equal proportions of their income AFTER sales tax and cost of living is bad; then we must just agree to disagree.

If u think the entitlement programs are the real cause of financial issues in this country, then u haven't been paying attention.

Some people believe that thier personal wealth is a direct result of your own hard work and NOTHING else. The rest of us realise that money us a pretend idea we humans made up to allow our society to function easier. the rest of us realise that while there are lazy and even complete wastes of space, there are many more people on foodstamps, welfare, SS, Medicare...that actually need and deserve a little help.

I genuinely understand the libertarian perspective. And its very survival of the fittest for a biggroup of evolution deniers. The main problem with libertarians and the new style republicans is a refusal to admit responsibility to your fellow human being. If you agree with outlawing birth control, policing what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, cheer for executions, support endless wars and worldwide occupation, and tell poor people they don't deserve medical care because the rich deserve their money; you're not a Christian, you're a tea partier. And the majority of this country disagrees with you, hence yhe current president, and he will get 4 more years. Just tell urself god works in mysterious ways or whatever.

Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
 
TheBlend said:
All of the "save this nation" and "take back our country" stuff is a joke anyway. Very much like trying to have a serious conversation with a religious right dogmatist. If u think people paying equal proportions of their income AFTER sales tax and cost of living is bad; then we must just agree to disagree.

If u think the entitlement programs are the real cause of financial issues in this country, then u haven't been paying attention.

Some people believe that thier personal wealth is a direct result of your own hard work and NOTHING else. The rest of us realise that money us a pretend idea we humans made up to allow our society to function easier. the rest of us realise that while there are lazy and even complete wastes of space, there are many more people on foodstamps, welfare, SS, Medicare...that actually need and deserve a little help.

I genuinely understand the libertarian perspective. And its very survival of the fittest for a biggroup of evolution deniers. The main problem with libertarians and the new style republicans is a refusal to admit responsibility to your fellow human being. If you agree with outlawing birth control, policing what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, cheer for executions, support endless wars and worldwide occupation, and tell poor people they don't deserve medical care because the rich deserve their money; you're not a Christian, you're a tea partier. And the majority of this country disagrees with you, hence yhe current president, and he will get 4 more years. Just tell urself god works in mysterious ways or whatever.

Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Click to expand...


No need to quote the bible to me. I'm quite familiar with it.;)
As for not paying my "fair share" what do you call fair? Is 1/3 of my wage enough? How about half? I'm not including all the usual stuff everyone gets deducted from their check like payroll taxes, etc. I'm just counting FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Anyone who thinks a 1/3 of a man's wage isn't enough for govt. is mad or a fool. Either way I won't be going over the cliff with him.
Clearly, the govt. must learn to get by on 1/3 of a man's wage. Eliminate all deductions but cap the income tax at 33% and reduce spending.

Why is it you can't understand we no longer have the money to be all things to all the people? We simply don't have enough money to support 49% of the country. If Obama gets his way 60% of this nation will be getting entitlements.
It must stop. It must end.

The govt. must be capped at 20% of GDP. That's it.


Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
 
Last edited:
The dotted line is at 19% of GDP which is widely thought to be the maximum amount of revenues that can be extracted from the economy and still have us be the strongly growing free-enterprise economy that we have traditionally been. Even at the height of World War II, in 1944, tax receipts did not exceed 20% of GDP. Beyond 19%, we get onto the unfavorable part of the Laffer Curve where higher tax rates result in lower tax revenues.
What has happened during the Obama administration? Take a look at Chart II:
spending%20solution%20-%20chart%202.jpg

Oops! Spending as a percentage of GDP has exploded on President Obama's watch (the vertical orange line is at 2009, the first year of the Obama administration).
The important thing about this spending, running this year, the last point on Chart II, at about 25.4% of GDP, is that the administration has no plans to bring it down by a substantial amount. This is not "crisis spending" but in the mind of the president, just the "new norm."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

nimbus
Cedars Union Vote
Replies
39
Views
3K
anbuitachi
A
B
Question for DO students who applied with Step 2 score only, No Step 1
Replies
1
Views
542
Anesthesia_Guy
A
S
Anesthesia residents that are planning on doing a pain fellowship, what made you want to?
Replies
11
Views
2K
nimbus
nimbus
P
Voting rights in your dept.
Replies
22
Views
3K
Bertelman
Bertelman
B
Minimum age to contribute to defined benefits plan?
Replies
31
Views
2K
DrMDAware
DrMDAware
Top