Question for republicans

[Avorysuds]

The Neocons see no way round spending more and adding to the deficit... What Neocons do know for sure is if you add to the deficit it better not be a Democrat that does it!

 

[asaratis]

There may be a need for deficit spending (increase in debt) for a short while after Obama is defeated in 2012. It will take a while to pass legislation to decrease the size of government (fire some government employees). We must continue to pay the leeches until they are off the gravy train payroll.

I will not vote for Obama...under ANY circumstances. He has pissed in his whiskey.

 

[Staidhup]

The real question should be are you willing to accept tax increases provided spending (excluding defense) is cut by a 2-1 or 3-1 margin, or are you willing to vote to increase taxes and continue spending at current rates? Second question, will reducing corporate tax rates provide the incentive to hire and relocate manufacturing jobs to the US?

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you vote for a republican who's plan included an increase to debt and deficits?



If you could, make a post explaining your position.



Thanks


(Votes are public, just as an fy)

You didn't give us a 'maybe' or 'other' option so it isn't that cut and dried. If it was absolutely essential to provide the common defense or otherwise secure our rights, such as in actual or immenent threat from another country or whatever, I would expect any American to do whatever was necessary to deal with that.

But just to grow the size and/or scope and/or reach and/or authority of government or increase entitlements? No. As much as I deplored President Bush's plans and/or consensus to do that, at least his economic policies were reducing the deficit and, had the housing bubble not burst, we would have been back to a balanced budget within a year or two. But eveni if that had happened, the size, scope, reach, and authority of big government had still increased and I won't condone that no matter what party a person represents.

The dillemma comes when we are faced with a choice of a Democrat who will hugely increase the deficits and debt versus a Republican who will do that less so. In that case I hold my nose and vote for the Republican because to refuse to do so purely out of principle puts the country in even worse jeopardy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Would you vote for a republican who's plan included an increase to debt and deficits?



If you could, make a post explaining your position.



Thanks


(Votes are public, just as an fy)

You didn't give us a 'maybe' or 'other' option so it isn't that cut and dried. If it was absolutely essential to provide the common defense or otherwise secure our rights, such as in actual or immenent threat from another country or whatever, I would expect any American to do whatever was necessary to deal with that.

But just to grow the size and/or scope and/or reach and/or authority of government or increase entitlements? No. As much as I deplored President Bush's plans and/or consensus to do that, at least his economic policies were reducing the deficit and, had the housing bubble not burst, we would have been back to a balanced budget within a year or two. But eveni if that had happened, the size, scope, reach, and authority of big government had still increased and I won't condone that no matter what party a person represents.

Even in the situations you described debt and deficit increases aren't necessary. Just spending cuts in other areas.

It still is as simple as a yes or no answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you vote for a republican who's plan included an increase to debt and deficits?



If you could, make a post explaining your position.



Thanks


(Votes are public, just as an fy)

You didn't give us a 'maybe' or 'other' option so it isn't that cut and dried. If it was absolutely essential to provide the common defense or otherwise secure our rights, such as in actual or immenent threat from another country or whatever, I would expect any American to do whatever was necessary to deal with that.

But just to grow the size and/or scope and/or reach and/or authority of government or increase entitlements? No. As much as I deplored President Bush's plans and/or consensus to do that, at least his economic policies were reducing the deficit and, had the housing bubble not burst, we would have been back to a balanced budget within a year or two. But eveni if that had happened, the size, scope, reach, and authority of big government had still increased and I won't condone that no matter what party a person represents.

Even in the situations you described debt and deficit increases aren't necessary. Just spending cuts in other areas.

It still is as simple as a yes or no answer.

In some cases I don't think so.

Deficit and debt could absolutely be necessary, even smart, in very specific circumstances for individuals, for families, for cities, for states, for countries. Do you let your loved one suffer for instance? Or do you take out the loan to pay for the necessary operation to remove the suffering? And then implement whatever austerity measures are necessary to repay the loan?

If you take out the loan, spend most of it on yourself, to pay existing debts or for day to day expenses or to pay off favors you owe others, your loved one still suffers and you have accomplished nothing. And if you have no plan to repay the loan other than hopes that you'll win the lottery or Publisher's Clearning House or on projected increased earnings years in the future, you will likely be a candidate for bankruptcy very soon. It is THAT sort of thing I find intlerable in our federal government.

The fact is I have one vote out of 300+ Americans. As much as I wish I was the most brilliant Asmerican of all and had all the answers, I know I don't. I long ago gave up the starry eyed passionate ideological zeal of the absolutist. However much we see utipia, the absolute ideal, we are still encumbered with good but flawed people who sometimes have feet of clay and we have to work with what we have and hope to change hearts and minds of enough people to accomplish great things.

So for a long time now, I have tried to make my contribution to humankind by getting the best possible results out of what is, rather than demand that everybody see perfection as I see it.

And if the choices in November are Barack Obama or any of the GOP hopefuls who won't be perfect, who will still condone deficits and debt but at a lesser rate and scope than what Obama wants, then I have to go with the better of two imperfect choices. And that means I vote for the Republican.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You didn't give us a 'maybe' or 'other' option so it isn't that cut and dried. If it was absolutely essential to provide the common defense or otherwise secure our rights, such as in actual or immenent threat from another country or whatever, I would expect any American to do whatever was necessary to deal with that.

But just to grow the size and/or scope and/or reach and/or authority of government or increase entitlements? No. As much as I deplored President Bush's plans and/or consensus to do that, at least his economic policies were reducing the deficit and, had the housing bubble not burst, we would have been back to a balanced budget within a year or two. But eveni if that had happened, the size, scope, reach, and authority of big government had still increased and I won't condone that no matter what party a person represents.

Even in the situations you described debt and deficit increases aren't necessary. Just spending cuts in other areas.

It still is as simple as a yes or no answer.

In some cases I don't think so.

Deficit and debt could absolutely be necessary, even smart, in very specific circumstances for individuals, for families, for cities, for states, for countries. Do you let your loved one suffer for instance? Or do you take out the loan to pay for the necessary operation to remove the suffering? And then implement whatever austerity measures are necessary to repay the loan?

If you take out the loan, spend most of it on yourself, to pay existing debts or for day to day expenses or to pay off favors you owe others, your loved one still suffers and you have accomplished nothing. And if you have no plan to repay the loan other than hopes that you'll win the lottery or Publisher's Clearning House or on projected increased earnings years in the future, you will likely be a candidate for bankruptcy very soon. It is THAT sort of thing I find intlerable in our federal government.

The fact is I have one vote out of 300+ Americans. As much as I wish I was the most brilliant Asmerican of all and had all the answers, I know I don't. I long ago gave up the starry eyed passionate ideological zeal of the absolutist. However much we see utipia, the absolute ideal, we are still encumbered with good but flawed people who sometimes have feet of clay and we have to work with what we have and hope to change hearts and minds of enough people to accomplish great things.

So for a long time now, I have tried to make my contribution to humankind by getting the best possible results out of what is, rather than demand that everybody see perfection as I see it.

And if the choices in November are Barack Obama or any of the GOP hopefuls who won't be perfect, who will still condone deficits and debt but at a lesser rate and scope than what Obama wants, then I have to go with the better of two imperfect choices. And that means I vote for the Republican.

It's an apples and oranges comparison to me.

Gov't has a rich man's income in terms of tax revenues, so there really is no need for debt. Especially since we all know the debt is only going to be increased, never paid down.

I would counter and say there is a need for a surplus, in the event we ever need more money.

 

[Foxfyre]

Even in the situations you described debt and deficit increases aren't necessary. Just spending cuts in other areas.

It still is as simple as a yes or no answer.

In some cases I don't think so.

Deficit and debt could absolutely be necessary, even smart, in very specific circumstances for individuals, for families, for cities, for states, for countries. Do you let your loved one suffer for instance? Or do you take out the loan to pay for the necessary operation to remove the suffering? And then implement whatever austerity measures are necessary to repay the loan?

If you take out the loan, spend most of it on yourself, to pay existing debts or for day to day expenses or to pay off favors you owe others, your loved one still suffers and you have accomplished nothing. And if you have no plan to repay the loan other than hopes that you'll win the lottery or Publisher's Clearning House or on projected increased earnings years in the future, you will likely be a candidate for bankruptcy very soon. It is THAT sort of thing I find intlerable in our federal government.

The fact is I have one vote out of 300+ Americans. As much as I wish I was the most brilliant Asmerican of all and had all the answers, I know I don't. I long ago gave up the starry eyed passionate ideological zeal of the absolutist. However much we see utipia, the absolute ideal, we are still encumbered with good but flawed people who sometimes have feet of clay and we have to work with what we have and hope to change hearts and minds of enough people to accomplish great things.

So for a long time now, I have tried to make my contribution to humankind by getting the best possible results out of what is, rather than demand that everybody see perfection as I see it.

And if the choices in November are Barack Obama or any of the GOP hopefuls who won't be perfect, who will still condone deficits and debt but at a lesser rate and scope than what Obama wants, then I have to go with the better of two imperfect choices. And that means I vote for the Republican.

It's an apples and oranges comparison to me.

Gov't has a rich man's income in terms of tax revenues, so there really is no need for debt. Especially since we all know the debt is only going to be increased, never paid down.

But the question was not whether I would vote for the candidate who would not have deficits and/or increase the debt or whether I would vote for a Republican who would.

The odds are excellent that the only choice available to us in November will be between:

1) Barack Obama with a proven track record of promoting enormous deficts and who has incrreased the national debt in dollars and in percentage as no other Presifdent even considered and has almost nothing to show for it but unacceptable results.

2) A Republican who will also be obliged to grow the government and increase the debt in order to get anything done, but who will be able to slow that down to a more manageable pace and buy us some time to change the culture of the country and the disastrous course we have been on for some time now.

I wish we could look forward to the perfect candidate who would be the miracle man or woman. But alas, we will elect another imperfect being who will sometimes have feet of clay.

But as to which choice is best for the country? To me it is a no brainer.

 

[Dr.Drock]

In some cases I don't think so.

Deficit and debt could absolutely be necessary, even smart, in very specific circumstances for individuals, for families, for cities, for states, for countries. Do you let your loved one suffer for instance? Or do you take out the loan to pay for the necessary operation to remove the suffering? And then implement whatever austerity measures are necessary to repay the loan?

If you take out the loan, spend most of it on yourself, to pay existing debts or for day to day expenses or to pay off favors you owe others, your loved one still suffers and you have accomplished nothing. And if you have no plan to repay the loan other than hopes that you'll win the lottery or Publisher's Clearning House or on projected increased earnings years in the future, you will likely be a candidate for bankruptcy very soon. It is THAT sort of thing I find intlerable in our federal government.

The fact is I have one vote out of 300+ Americans. As much as I wish I was the most brilliant Asmerican of all and had all the answers, I know I don't. I long ago gave up the starry eyed passionate ideological zeal of the absolutist. However much we see utipia, the absolute ideal, we are still encumbered with good but flawed people who sometimes have feet of clay and we have to work with what we have and hope to change hearts and minds of enough people to accomplish great things.

So for a long time now, I have tried to make my contribution to humankind by getting the best possible results out of what is, rather than demand that everybody see perfection as I see it.

And if the choices in November are Barack Obama or any of the GOP hopefuls who won't be perfect, who will still condone deficits and debt but at a lesser rate and scope than what Obama wants, then I have to go with the better of two imperfect choices. And that means I vote for the Republican.

It's an apples and oranges comparison to me.

Gov't has a rich man's income in terms of tax revenues, so there really is no need for debt. Especially since we all know the debt is only going to be increased, never paid down.

But the question was not whether I would vote for the candidate who would not have deficits and/or increase the debt or whether I would vote for a Republican who would.

The odds are excellent that the only choice available to us in November will be between:

1) Barack Obama with a proven track record of promoting enormous deficts and who has incrreased the national debt in dollars and in percentage as no other Presifdent even considered and has almost nothing to show for it but unacceptable results.

2) A Republican who will also be obliged to grow the government and increase the debt in order to get anything done, but who will be able to slow that down to a more manageable pace and buy us some time to change the culture of the country and the disastrous course we have been on for some time now.

I wish we could look forward to the perfect candidate who would be the miracle man or woman. But alas, we will elect another imperfect being who will sometimes have feet of clay.

But as to which choice is best for the country? To me it is a no brainer.

I see, so to put it more simply, your answer is yes.

 

[PredFan]

Your question, on the face of it, makes me answer"no".

I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. I'm a libertarian Tea Party guy who would prefer not to vote for anyone who will increase spending, increase the debt, or increase the deficit.

That said, I'm not so stuck on that that I wouldn't vote for a guy like that if he runs against obama.

 

[PredFan]

So far this poll does not support what I have seen of Republicans... Most claim they will support Newt/Mitt/Santorum, and as we all know they all will add to the debt deficit. You simply can't attack Iran, kill dictators, start a cold war with Cuba while not cutting anything but the future spending of Obama (if they manage to do that lol) and claim you will balance the budget, it's simply not possible.

Even if I agreed, which I don't, the important thing is to get obama out of office. The republicans can't even dream of increasing our debt and deficit like obama can.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Congress still controls spending, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

So far this poll does not support what I have seen of Republicans... Most claim they will support Newt/Mitt/Santorum, and as we all know they all will add to the debt deficit. You simply can't attack Iran, kill dictators, start a cold war with Cuba while not cutting anything but the future spending of Obama (if they manage to do that lol) and claim you will balance the budget, it's simply not possible.

Even if I agreed, which I don't, the important thing is to get obama out of office. The republicans can't even dream of increasing our debt and deficit like obama can.

That's it in a nutshell. The Republican Party has sucked big time for a long time now. The only virtue it can claim is that the Democratic Party siucked worse. And that is a sad commentary.

What we will have witht the Republicans is that ALL the GOP candidates left standing have Tea Party endorsements,. Some more enthusastically than others. The Tea Party and similar groups will be watching, monitoring, and will hold their feet to the fire if they don't follow through on their campaign promises. That is an advantage no previous Republican President has had.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Congress still controls spending, right?

So you don't put any blame/credit on the current president for the last 3 years in terms of spending?

 

[Foxfyre]

It's an apples and oranges comparison to me.

Gov't has a rich man's income in terms of tax revenues, so there really is no need for debt. Especially since we all know the debt is only going to be increased, never paid down.

But the question was not whether I would vote for the candidate who would not have deficits and/or increase the debt or whether I would vote for a Republican who would.

The odds are excellent that the only choice available to us in November will be between:

1) Barack Obama with a proven track record of promoting enormous deficts and who has incrreased the national debt in dollars and in percentage as no other Presifdent even considered and has almost nothing to show for it but unacceptable results.

2) A Republican who will also be obliged to grow the government and increase the debt in order to get anything done, but who will be able to slow that down to a more manageable pace and buy us some time to change the culture of the country and the disastrous course we have been on for some time now.

I wish we could look forward to the perfect candidate who would be the miracle man or woman. But alas, we will elect another imperfect being who will sometimes have feet of clay.

But as to which choice is best for the country? To me it is a no brainer.

I see, so to put it more simply, your answer is yes.

None of the stated candidates other than Obama have stated plans to increase the deficit and debt however. And yet all of them will. It is just that Obama will do so on purpose and in a more damaging manner.

So I suppose if you look at the way it is in the hard cold light of reality versus the campaign rhetoric, then I will vote for the one I expect to do the least damage in that regard. I would NOT vote for any Republican in the primary who had such a plan, however. That's a whole different ball game. I can't imagine a scenario in which all the Republican hopefuls would be running on an increase int he deficit and debt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Congress still controls spending, right?

So you don't put any blame/credit on the current president for the last 3 years in terms of spending?

Obama's been a fuck up of historic proportions and his "budgets" get voted down by his own party

The Pelosi/Obama/Reid Era will go down as the most fiscally irresponsible, criminal really, in US history

Obama set the tone ahd his one and only concern was getting unlimited refills on his spending crack pipe, so yeah, he's responsible

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress still controls spending, right?

So you don't put any blame/credit on the current president for the last 3 years in terms of spending?

Obama's been a fuck up of historic proportions and his "budgets" get voted down by his own party

The Pelosi/Obama/Reid Era will go down as the most fiscally irresponsible, criminal really, in US history

Obama set the tone ahd his one and only concern was getting unlimited refills on his spending crack pipe, so yeah, he's responsible

If Obama had opposed any of that, he would be at least partially off the hook. But he went along with it all, defended it, justified it, and promoted it. So he is culpable.

And yes, all the Presidential GOP hopefuls, except Ron Paul, supported and/or voted for TARP. They did not, however, vote for TARP as most of it was ultimately used, nor do I think they would have spent it that way if they had been President in 2009. I don't think any of them would have let that first appropriations bill go through larded with pork after promising they would not sign such a bill. (Obama did.) None of them would have pushed Obamacare at the federal level. None of them would have promoted that stimulus package. If any of them had been President we would more likely have a sensible and long range tax policy along with more favorable regulation now so that business could risk turning loose their investment capital again. We would have tightened precautions but would be drilling for oil in all sorts of places that Obama has put off limits. We would have Presidential talks with the oil companies to boost their domestic earnings in return for them keeping more of their products at home and thereby bring consumer prices down. And none of them nor their families would have been throwing lavish parties at the White House or taking exotic first class vacations all over the place while the country was still wallowing in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

All THAT is why the Republican will get my vote no matter who he is.

 

[Immanuel]

The OP of this thread is going to be reported for discriminating against those of us who are not Republicans. I may even file suit! j/k

Hell, the least he could have done is said conservatives!

At least then those of us who are sane <ducks> could reply.

I will say that I have little doubt that I won't be voting for any of the current crop of hopefuls regardless of party. But, despite the fact that I believe we must increase revenue and cut spending significantly it is not because of the fact that I won't vote for anyone who will increase the debt. All of them are going to do that.

I won't vote for them because they are all made of the same cloth.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

The OP of this thread is going to be reported for discriminating against those of us who are not Republicans. I may even file suit! j/k

Hell, the least he could have done is said conservatives!

At least then those of us who are sane <ducks> could reply.

I will say that I have little doubt that I won't be voting for any of the current crop of hopefuls regardless of party. But, despite the fact that I believe we must increase revenue and cut spending significantly it is not because of the fact that I won't vote for anyone who will increase the debt. All of them are going to do that.

I won't vote for them because they are all made of the same cloth.

Immie

And I still say with all due respect and affection for you Immie, to refuse to vote for the best candidate available, even somebody you have to hold your nose to vote for, is a prescription for ensuring that the worst candidate will be elected.

And as I outlined in my previous post, the worst candidate may be made of the same cloth as the others, but in this case, the worst candidate is made of a whole heck of a lot more of it.

And however principled and well intentioned, I can't see how withholding one's vote or voting for somebody who absolutely cannot win is any different than intentionally throwing the country under the bus.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Would you vote for a republican who's plan included an increase to debt and deficits?
If you could, make a post explaining your position.
Thanks
(Votes are public, just as an fy)

This is so darn subjective its hard to answer without the other side of the answer. $15,000,000,000,000+ debt is still 15 trillion+ debt--a world of money that few can imagine in reality. It continues to burden us and will, as all great-(in debt) cultures before us, do us in unless it is plainly stopped and reversed.

So, on the one hand, being conservative, no one wants someone that is going to increase this burden, but no, it's better to have the conservative in there than a lib, no matter what the fiscal event is going to be. It's also going to take a bit of time to reverse the debt trend once we commit to do so.

The main frustration of this entire subject is neither party seems to understand what 15 trillion+ dollars of debt really is.

Robert