One simple reason why I will vote for McCain

[AVG-JOE]

Ya know, what I dont get is how you guys can think that by making THE MONSTER BIGGER we can get back control of it. Please splain that to me.

The problem is not necessarily the sheer size of the government - that is but a symptom.

The problem is that your congressman and my congressman are too busy trying to wheel and deal to satisfy lobbyists and PAC's so that they can get enough money to get re-elected. Self preservation just like on "Wild Kingdom" with Marlin Perkins. And the lobbyists don't care if they're DNC loyal or RNC loyal... Their agenda is market place manipulation and money, not political issues or America!

As long as congress doesn't have time for you and me, government in America will suck.

-Joe

 

[AllieBaba]

Individuals over the country. I do believe McCain talked about that in his speech.....

 

[Chris]

Individuals over the country. I do believe McCain talked about that in his speech.....

If McCain cared about the country, he would NEVER have picked Palin for vice president.

 

[LeftOfTheMiddle]

One of the simple reasons I will vote for McCain is that I really do not feel like giving 49% of the money that I earn to the government.

Please feel free to put your thoughts out there on this subject and give one simple reason why you will be casting your vote the way that you do.

I, too, am not looking forward to the possible 49% but I will still vote
Obama in because it is Republican politics, war profiteering, and Republican spending that got us here in the first place. Electing McCain into office will only worsen our economic plight and the next president will be going after 69%. Think about it for a second.

 

[jreeves]

the first 6 years of this president's BUDGET, lead us to the largest deficit/national debt in our recent history....in 6 years his policies along with Congress passing the president's budget, put us in this terrible mess....our deficit will continue to grow at this level unless we can take back some of the tax cuts, revise and reform the Medicare Pill Bill and medicare in general, and cut other unnecessary spending like the waste that has come to our attention in the Defense arena....

We are in big trouble, big, big, big trouble and DRASTIC measures have to be taken or we are going to go belly up...the only thing that can improve this situation is cutting spending waste and a phenominal Economy and bull market combined.....imho.

The President and his policies SETS the Budget, the congress passes it with their minor tweeking....
Care

Tax revenues increased following the supposed 'Bush Tax Cuts'. Congress couldn't contain their joy and spent the extra revenue along with tons of other tax revenue. If you increase taxes now, (letting the tax cuts expire) then the economy will produce less revenue. I agree with you, we must drastically cut government. The President sets the Budget but it receives a little more than minor tweaking. The President's budget doesn't include earmarks, supplementals and a ton of other spending bills. Bush is to fault for not using his veto pen.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The problem is not necessarily the sheer size of the government - that is but a symptom.

The problem is that your congressman and my congressman are too busy trying to wheel and deal to satisfy lobbyists and PAC's so that they can get enough money to get re-elected. Self preservation just like on "Wild Kingdom" with Marlin Perkins. And the lobbyists don't care if they're DNC loyal or RNC loyal... Their agenda is market place manipulation and money, not political issues or America!

As long as congress doesn't have time for you and me, government in America will suck.

-Joe

THe size is the problem. The larger something is, the easier it is for corruption to hide. That is why large corp's have sub corp's,,,divisions. With the govt, the larger it is, the easier it is to hide corruption, pork spending, etc

There is simply no way around it.

Difference with private companies, corp's and govt is with the private sector you have a choice. If I dont like MSFT, I can use a MAC.

One year I went to register a truck. A few months later they towed it in for lack of reg. I showed the meter maid the tag on the plates. She said it dont matter, its not coming up on the PC.
So, I went to the DMV. Asked them what to do. They said re register it, and fill out these 17 forms in triplicate, and request your $35 dollars back. I asked what about a refund for the impound/towing fees ($135). She said I would have to ask the tow yard. SInce the tow yard was not at fault, they wont refund my money.
It happened again, again I went to the DMV, I noticed on the screen the wrong VIN number was listed, and when I tried to point it out to the girl, she got emensely upset and screamed I wasnt suppose to look at the monitor and if I do it again she will have me removed (while pointing to the sign that it is a felongy to threaten a DMV employee-odd that they would have that up there, must be others who are getting pissed)
Then, it got towed again. I gave up, the truck wasnt worth it. I let them keep it.
Problem is, I have no other DMV to go to. Nor can I just decide not to reg my truck.
And as for the tow yard, (and insurance companies), they pay politicians to pass laws that will make their entire industry benefit (mandatory insurance, laws that impound the vehicle of a person driving without a license for A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS. If they really wanted non licensed drivers off the road, they would put them in county for a few weeks. WHAT the hell is the point of impounding a car for Days? They can still go and drive. But by impounding it, the yard makes big bucks, then the police dept auctions them off and makes money.
Since govt is so big, police depts dont get funded properly and have to resort to this stuff. Big govt, when they are spending money on so many projects you simply cant keep track of it, or who votes for what cuz there are so many bills and programs, makes all this stuff get lost in the woodworks.
If govt were streamlined, we could hold them more responsable for funding police depts. etc.

THE ONLY ANSWER IS SMALLER GOVT.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

the first 6 years of this president's BUDGET, lead us to the largest deficit/national debt in our recent history....in 6 years his policies along with Congress passing the president's budget, put us in this terrible mess....our deficit will continue to grow at this level unless we can take back some of the tax cuts, revise and reform the Medicare Pill Bill and medicare in general, and cut other unnecessary spending like the waste that has come to our attention in the Defense arena....

We are in big trouble, big, big, big trouble and DRASTIC measures have to be taken or we are going to go belly up...the only thing that can improve this situation is cutting spending waste and a phenominal Economy and bull market combined.....imho.

The President and his policies SETS the Budget, the congress passes it with their minor tweeking....
Care

Of course its the largest. We also have the largest GDP ever. You have to use the percentages, find them out and then get back to me.

People in Palos Verdes are much more in debt than me, but they live in million dollar homes and make 5 times as much as I do. Being in debt isnt necessarily bad.

FROM JREEVES ; Tax revenues increased following the supposed 'Bush Tax Cuts'. Congress couldn't contain their joy and spent the extra revenue along with tons of other tax revenue. If you increase taxes now, (letting the tax cuts expire) then the economy will produce less revenue. I agree with you, we must drastically cut government. The President sets the Budget but it receives a little more than minor tweaking. The President's budget doesn't include earmarks, supplementals and a ton of other spending bills. Bush is to fault for not using his veto pen.

Everyone needs to rememmber Pres Bush only won by a slight bit. He had no large majority to back him. This leads to the problem that if the majority of congress opposes him, he will lose the battle, and they all know it. So he can not push an agenda of cutting spending. He has to go along with the Dems when they want to increase it. Kennedy criticized Bush after the prescription drug bill was signed because he didnt spend more.

TAX revenues did increase because of REAL (not supposed) tax cuts because production went up. 20% of a larger number is more than 30% of a smaller number.

Obama wants to end Bush's tax cuts, McCain supports making them permanent.

 

[del]

Meh, i fault both parties for spending like drunken sailors and that might be an insult to drunken sailor(any Navy vets on the forum, not meant as an insult)

you're forgiven. I agree, both parties have been completely irresponsible with not only our money, but our kids' and grandkids' money.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think some people see the monster as ballooning government. Bush ran as a conservative, as a fiscal conservative I believe, yet he delivered something different. SO the credibility of the party in general is a little tattered.

McCain has a decent record on opposing pork though, which is one of the good reasons that he ultimately won the nomination.

But other people see the monster as being that the corporations are being preferntially rewarded while the middle class gets progressively squeezed. In other words the gap beitween wealth and getting by is getting bigger and bigger.

One way to think about it is that socialism lies at one end of the spectrum and capitalism at the othr. A purely socialist society is way wrong, because without capitalism you lose innovation and motivation. On the other hand a purely capitalist society comes with equally bad problems, in that the corporations get bloated and people get trounced underfoot. You need a balance.

Whether you think we've gone too far in one direction or the other is for you to decide, but them's the divisions as I see 'em.

Bush did not have a majority mandate. He was hamstrung. I dont know what he would have done had he won a clear majority, like 60% of the vote. I am not passing any judgement either way on him for the spending.
I do agree with JREEVES, he should have at least tried using the veto some, earlier on.
Pure capatilism can work because in todays age, you can counter big corps in many ways, media, and unions to name a few. Plus if you dont like what a big company is delivering, you can start your own. Also, the global economy stops big corps from totally dominating. If you dont want a Ford, Chrysler or GM, buy a Honda.
The class warfare created by the so called gap of the rich and poor is baloney. It doesnt matter if the gap gets bigger, as long as my piece of the pie increases, I dont give a rats ass how much bill gates makes. Besides, those super rich who get richer just re invest the money in the open market. They cant spend any more than they already do on personal stuff. They already have the largest home and boat they are going to build. They already fly first class and stay in ten star hotels.
Corps sometimes downsize, but GOVT NEVER DOES. Corps can go out of business, GOVT NEVER DOES. Corps can be sued, and can be forced to respond to public pressure, the GOVT NEVER DOES. The govt might PRETEND they do, but its always bullshit. Since the civil rights of all have pretty much been provided for by law, there really isnt much more for the govt to do anyways, than it already does.
Anytime you try to get govt to solve a problem, they make it worse. Campaign finance reform. HA, that made me laugh so hard. Soooo, they pass it KNOWING FULL WELL it wont work, but the people were being fooled.
Mandatory insurance, another hoodwink. You stil have drivers going around without insurance, it didnt solve the problem, but insurance companies and govt got richer, and instead of having a choice to insure or not, now the govt has taken that choice away from me.

 

[Care4all]

Tax revenues increased following the supposed 'Bush Tax Cuts'. Congress couldn't contain their joy and spent the extra revenue along with tons of other tax revenue. If you increase taxes now, (letting the tax cuts expire) then the economy will produce less revenue. I agree with you, we must drastically cut government. The President sets the Budget but it receives a little more than minor tweaking. The President's budget doesn't include earmarks, supplementals and a ton of other spending bills. Bush is to fault for not using his veto pen.

...by 2005 tax revenues brought in WERE EQUAL to what we were bringing in tax revenues in the year 2000....

surely the natural growth of our gdp would give us an increase in tax revenues each and every year, with or without tax cuts...no?

I'd take a look at those numbers again Reeves.....they do not paint as pretty as a picture as you think, if looked at closely....for it to take until the year 2005 to get to what we were collecting in the year 2000....imo.

granted we had 9/11 inbetween, but still.....

tax revenues rose, but not after the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003

 

[AVG-JOE]

...THE ONLY ANSWER IS SMALLER GOVT.

Don't you think the size of government would shrink naturally if all Americans had fair access?

As you must be aware, you are NOT alone in thinking that government is too big and too bureaucratic... Don't you think that if everyone who felt the same way were to have actual access to the government, that it would help?

I'm telling you man... I agree that government needs to be reduced in size drastically, but if we don't regain access to our representatives, it will be a yo-yo diet at best.

The bloated size is a symptom, not the disease.

-Joe

 

[midcan5]

One of the simple reasons I will vote for McCain is that I really do not feel like giving 49% of the money that I earn to the government.

Please feel free to put your thoughts out there on this subject and give one simple reason why you will be casting your vote the way that you do.

So your only personal values are taxes and not supporting our society? It's starting to show with collapsing bridges and excessive deficits for our children. Thanks

I'm voting for America. Obama/Biden

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

 

[AVG-JOE]

For Bush's terms Republicans, Reagan's presidency was controlled by Democrats. Let me ask you this though, why is it, that the defecit is larger than ever before in US history? With whom in charge?

You guys are still under the impression that either the DNC or the RNC is "in charge"...

The MONEY, which is in competition with itself for influence and power, is pulling the strings behind both parties. Until Obama, it did not matter which party controlled the various branches of government.

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Hillary... The MONEY behind both parties really did not care who won. It still dictated the course of the game. You can tell that the men behind the MONEY weren't all on the same page by the erratic bureaucracy that developed in their wake.

-Joe

 

[DiveCon]

So your only personal values are taxes and not supporting our society? It's starting to show with collapsing bridges and excessive deficits for our children. Thanks

I'm voting for America. Obama/Biden

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

rinse, repeat

 

[Caligirl]

You guys are still under the impression that either the DNC or the RNC is "in charge"...

The MONEY, which is in competition with itself for influence and power, is pulling the strings behind both parties. Until Obama, it did not matter which party controlled the various branches of government.

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Hillary... The MONEY behind both parties really did not care who won. It still dictated the course of the game. You can tell that the men behind the MONEY weren't all on the same page by the erratic bureaucracy that developed in their wake.

-Joe

Since Obama got his money from the grass roots and upset the clinton cart, is his nomination a game changer in the way you view these thigs?

 

[jreeves]

You guys are still under the impression that either the DNC or the RNC is "in charge"...

The MONEY, which is in competition with itself for influence and power, is pulling the strings behind both parties. Until Obama, it did not matter which party controlled the various branches of government. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Hillary... The MONEY behind both parties really did not care who won. It still dictated the course of the game. You can tell that the men behind the MONEY weren't all on the same page by the erratic bureaucracy that developed in their wake.

-Joe

Although earmarking large sums of money to top supporters and fundraisers is a popular practice in both houses of Congress, not many people would expect such questionable activity from a shining star of liberalism and reform like Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Sadly, he is following a pattern of conspicuous allocations of federal funds. Just as he handed a million dollar earmark to his wife’s employers in 2006 (immediately after which her pay shot up from $121,910 a year to $316,962), Sen. Obama is now drastically increasing earmarks that go to his biggest supporters.

In 2006, Sen. Obama requested an earmark $300,000 to replace and update the projector system at the Adler Planetarium. In 2008, he requested $3,000,000 for replacement of the projector system and other equipment in the Sky Theater. For reference, this is three times the amount he earmarked for the HIV/AIDS Policy and Research Institute at Chicago State University.

While the Adler Planetarium earmarks look normal on the surface, there is a catch. The Chairman and two of the Vice Chairman of the Adler Planetarium Board of Trustees raised a total of almost $250,000 for Sen. Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign. The Adler Planetarium was probably pleasantly surprised when they found that their earmark increased by $2.7 million dollars, in other words, by a factor of ten.

The Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Frank Clark, stands out amongst Obama supporters. On Sen. Obama’s website, Mr. Clark is listed as a bundler who raised in excess of $200,000 for the Senator’s Presidential campaign. In 2004, Mr. Clark donated $5,000 to the then State Senator Obama’s U.S. Senate bid. In 2005, Mr. Clark became the Chairman of the Board at Adler Planetarium, and in 2006 Sen. Obama earmarked $300,000 to the Planetarium. Then, in the same year that Mr. Clark’s involvement in the Obama campaign skyrocketed to raising an excess of $200,000, Sen. Obama’s earmark for the Adler Planetarium increased tenfold to $3,000,000. Mr. Clark isn’t the only problematic donor. Two of the Vice Chairmen of the Board, Brian Cressey and Peter Thompson are also significant donors. Between donations from Mr. Thompson and the Cressey household, Sen. Obama received $13,800. The most significant donor here is Mr. Cressey. As a first time donor, Mr. Cressey gave the maximum possible individual donation in essentially one big check. What makes this even more troubling is that Mr. Cressey had never given to Sen. Obama before 2008, the year in which the Adler Planetarium’s earmark increased tenfold.

The fact that three ranking members of the Adler Planetarium’s Board donated huge sums of money (at least $200,000) is interesting by itself. The fact that these enormous contributions came in the same year that Sen. Obama increased their earmark by 900% is truly unsettling.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Since Obama got his money from the grass roots and upset the clinton cart, is his nomination a game changer in the way you view these thigs?

Oh, yeah... Definitely!

This is the election I have been hoping and waiting for for the 36 years I have had the privilege of voting.

If true change in the fundamental way DC does business is going happen, its going to take an outsider who knows the inside. Someone who isn't a politician.

When I ask myself 'why?'... Why would Obama run for president? The answer I keep finding floating in my head is "...the shit that happened when his mom died."

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Although earmarking large sums of money to top supporters and fundraisers is a popular practice in both houses of Congress, not many people would expect such questionable activity from a shining star of liberalism and reform like Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Sadly, he is following a pattern of conspicuous allocations of federal funds. Just as he handed a million dollar earmark to his wife’s employers in 2006 (immediately after which her pay shot up from $121,910 a year to $316,962), Sen. Obama is now drastically increasing earmarks that go to his biggest supporters.

In 2006, Sen. Obama requested an earmark $300,000 to replace and update the projector system at the Adler Planetarium. In 2008, he requested $3,000,000 for replacement of the projector system and other equipment in the Sky Theater. For reference, this is three times the amount he earmarked for the HIV/AIDS Policy and Research Institute at Chicago State University.

While the Adler Planetarium earmarks look normal on the surface, there is a catch. The Chairman and two of the Vice Chairman of the Adler Planetarium Board of Trustees raised a total of almost $250,000 for Sen. Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign. The Adler Planetarium was probably pleasantly surprised when they found that their earmark increased by $2.7 million dollars, in other words, by a factor of ten.

The Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Frank Clark, stands out amongst Obama supporters. On Sen. Obama’s website, Mr. Clark is listed as a bundler who raised in excess of $200,000 for the Senator’s Presidential campaign. In 2004, Mr. Clark donated $5,000 to the then State Senator Obama’s U.S. Senate bid. In 2005, Mr. Clark became the Chairman of the Board at Adler Planetarium, and in 2006 Sen. Obama earmarked $300,000 to the Planetarium. Then, in the same year that Mr. Clark’s involvement in the Obama campaign skyrocketed to raising an excess of $200,000, Sen. Obama’s earmark for the Adler Planetarium increased tenfold to $3,000,000. Mr. Clark isn’t the only problematic donor. Two of the Vice Chairmen of the Board, Brian Cressey and Peter Thompson are also significant donors. Between donations from Mr. Thompson and the Cressey household, Sen. Obama received $13,800. The most significant donor here is Mr. Cressey. As a first time donor, Mr. Cressey gave the maximum possible individual donation in essentially one big check. What makes this even more troubling is that Mr. Cressey had never given to Sen. Obama before 2008, the year in which the Adler Planetarium’s earmark increased tenfold.

The fact that three ranking members of the Adler Planetarium’s Board donated huge sums of money (at least $200,000) is interesting by itself. The fact that these enormous contributions came in the same year that Sen. Obama increased their earmark by 900% is truly unsettling.

You know what? I don't care. I don't doubt what you say enough to try and prove otherwise, I don't even care enough to look it up and see if I can read between the spins or spin it myself back at you.

Obama was unexpected and Hillary was unable to abort him. That makes this election different.

That is the reason I am supporting him. We have all thought and dreamed of it... fixing the stupidity of governing by the highest bidder. He's about to pull it off... and bloodless, from the inside.

-Joe

 

[jreeves]

You know what? I don't care. I don't doubt what you say enough to try and prove otherwise, I don't even care enough to look it up and see if I can read between the spins or spin it myself back at you.Obama was unexpected and Hillary was unable to abort him. That makes this election different.

That is the reason I am supporting him. We have all thought and dreamed of it... fixing the stupidity of governing by the highest bidder. He's about to pull it off... and bloodless, from the inside.

-Joe

In other words, I am intellectually lazy and I will vote for him because the media tells me too....

 

[MartaK]

Unless you are pulling in over $250K jointly with a spouse, that won't be the case.
Comparing The Candidates' Tax Proposals

...and if you are in the middle income bracket, you get a larger tax cut under Obama than McCain ($2100 under Obama, $1400 under McCain)