Avorysuds
Gold Member
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!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Congress still controls spending, right?
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.
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?
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
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
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)