A reason to Vote!!

[Navy1960]

My fellow USMB members, first let me say how proud I am of all of you for the display of passion that you all display for the candidates and issues you support. This election comming very soon will show the world that no matter how much we disagree ultimately the peaceful transition of power is a message that the entire world stands up and takes notice of. Everyone that is involved that takes the time to vote do one thing, no matter what your views , you validate the 200 plus year history of this wonderful nation. You define what it means to be an American and no matter who you vote for and why, each of us has reason to be proud that we stand like those who came before us in the finest traditions of this nation and move this nation ever forward. As a a retired Military Aviator on a further note, let me say that I am proud of each and everyone of you for your passion and deep love of this country that you take the time to involve yourself in it's traditions. Just remember, when you don't vote you lay your voice upon the table for others to speak for you. So in order to have a voice, vote! if you need motivation to vote, think of the millions of Americans that have come before you that have given you that right. Your vote validates their existance and creates a country for the next generation to validate yours.

 

[Charles_Main]

I need no reason to vote, I feel it is my duty, and Always will.

 

[Paulie]

I need no reason to vote, I feel it is my duty, and Always will.

I could agree, but it's certainly NOT your duty to vote for someone you don't actually like. If you don't see a choice you can agree with, then you shouldn't feel compelled to vote.

 

[Navy1960]

I need no reason to vote, I feel it is my duty, and Always will.

Thats great Charles, btw on a different subject, I happened to notice your from Mi. and here in the local news we had a little blurb on the news about GM and Chrysler talking about merging? I wonder if by chance being closer to this what the chances of this happening are?

 

[Charles_Main]

Thats great Charles, btw on a different subject, I happened to notice your from Mi. and here in the local news we had a little blurb on the news about GM and Chrysler talking about merging? I wonder if by chance being closer to this what the chances of this happening are?

Not sure, but since Chrysler was bought by Daimler a few years back, I can't say I like the Idea, It would mean 2 of the bug three owned by a German company.

 

[Navy1960]

I could agree, but it's certainly NOT your duty to vote for someone you don't actually like. If you don't see a choice you can agree with, then you shouldn't feel compelled to vote.

Well notice Paul I am not hawking a candidate, here and I'm not voting for Obama or McCain but am voting. If had no choice for president which in this case I don't believe I do then I tend to concenrate more on the house races and local races, I will however write in a candidate.

 

[Charles_Main]

I could agree, but it's certainly NOT your duty to vote for someone you don't actually like. If you don't see a choice you can agree with, then you shouldn't feel compelled to vote.

It's that lesser evil thing again. Kicking me in the ass.

 

[Navy1960]

It's that lesser evil thing again. Kicking me in the ass.

I can't honestly say this for many Charles, but know a few people that are doing the lesser of two evils vote this year.

 

[Charles_Main]

I actually thought about, and Talked about voting 3rd party for awhile, but as I learn more about Obama, I think more and more. Despite his many flaws, McCain has to get my vote.

After all we all know one of the 2 is going to win. Might as well be the one I think will do less damage.

Either way I think we are fucked for some time to come.

 

[xsited1]

After my recent frontal lobotomy, I have decided that Obama is the right man for the job of President.

 

[Navy1960]

I have honestly come to the conclusion that no matter how much these men talk about what the want to do, when they get to the White House they won't have the money to do it. I honestly believe whoever wins is going to be spending a whole lot of time paying bills and pretty much nothing else.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Even if it were only for the lesser of two evils, I would still vote.

In this case, however, I think Obama is the better candidate.

I can't understand how anyone could rate two candidates so identical that they can't vote for one of them.

I only threw away my vote once. I was till in the Corps and voted for Reagan.

But only once. I saw too many middle class my tax deduction taken away.

 

[ReillyT]

I have honestly come to the conclusion that no matter how much these men talk about what the want to do, when they get to the White House they won't have the money to do it. I honestly believe whoever wins is going to be spending a whole lot of time paying bills and pretty much nothing else.

There will be spending as stimulus by either candidate. You can pretty much forget about balancing the budget. Where the spending goes and what kinds of attempts are made to pay for it (insufficient as these attempts may be) are still important issues.

 

[Missourian]

After my recent frontal lobotomy, I have decided that Obama is the right man for the job of President.

I have, thru rationalization and self-delusion, convinced myself that I am not really voting for John McCain, I am only voting against Barack Obama.

I'm hoping to stave off the actuality that I am indeed voting for John McCain until November 5th.

So far so good.

 

[Navy1960]

Even if it were only for the lesser of two evils, I would still vote.

In this case, however, I think Obama is the better candidate.

I can't understand how anyone could rate two candidates so identical that they can't vote for one of them.

I only threw away my vote once. I was till in the Corps and voted for Reagan.

But only once. I saw too many middle class my tax deduction taken away.

No worries Ray I won't tell anyone your a closet Reaganite. lol j/k. I don't rate them identical ray. I see them both as polar opposites of a vast spectrum that ignores the middle. I am not willing to vote for such vast views on both ends of the spectrum. I honestly feel that are vastly superior candidates in both parties that run circles around both of these men. However as this election has more to do with style points IMO rather than leadership and issues I will as my earlier post mentioned write in my own choice.

 

[Navy1960]

There will be spending as stimulus by either candidate. You can pretty much forget about balancing the budget. Where the spending goes and what kinds of attempts are made to pay for it (insufficient as these attempts may be) are still important issues.

Reilly I can assure you I am under no grand illusions under a McCain or Obama Administration that the budget will be anywhere close to being balanced. I do however see them both as wanting to spend much more money , when we are already in a massive hole. It is one of the reasons I mentioned that the next president will be a very busy man paying bills.

 

[ReillyT]

Reilly I can assure you I am under no grand illusions under a McCain or Obama Administration that the budget will be anywhere close to being balanced. I do however see them both as wanting to spend much more money , when we are already in a massive hole. It is one of the reasons I mentioned that the next president will be a very busy man paying bills.

The point is that I don't see either candidate even trying to balance the budget in the next few years. They won't be too worried about paying bills at all.

More to the point, I don't think they should try to balance the budget immediately. The country will be in a recession and greater spending is needed to bring us out of it. In 4 or 6 years they can worry about bringing the budget under control. Now is not the time.

 

[Navy1960]

The point is that I don't see either candidate even trying to balance the budget in the next few years. They won't be too worried about paying bills at all.

More to the point, I don't think they should try to balance the budget immediately. The country will be in a recession and greater spending is needed to bring us out of it. In 4 or 6 years they can worry about bringing the budget under control. Now is not the time.

While I agree with you that the country will be in a recession and greater spending is needed but that spending must come from the market place and not from the government. The Fed. Govt. must cut spending, and at the same time keep taxes low on everyone. I would not agree with any premise that says the govt. should go on a wild spending spree and dig the country into deeper debt. Especially since most of that debt is borrowed debt now that costs a massive amount of interest each and everyday.

 

[ReillyT]

While I agree with you that the country will be in a recession and greater spending is needed but that spending must come from the market place and not from the government. The Fed. Govt. must cut spending, and at the same time keep taxes low on everyone. I would not agree with any premise that says the govt. should go on a wild spending spree and dig the country into deeper debt. Especially since most of that debt is borrowed debt now that costs a massive amount of interest each and everyday.

If adequate spending were available in the market place, we wouldn't be in a recession. A reduction in government spending would reduce economic activity. Higher government spending is necessary to put money in peoples' pockets to spur domestic consumption and take us out of the recession. Low taxes and interest rates will help but likely will be insufficient to quickly pull us out.

If the economy is growing, then the debt can be handled in the future when taxes can be raised and spending can be decreased (because it will no longer be necessary).

 

[Care4all]

Thats great Charles, btw on a different subject, I happened to notice your from Mi. and here in the local news we had a little blurb on the news about GM and Chrysler talking about merging? I wonder if by chance being closer to this what the chances of this happening are?

This sparked a thought....
navy,
Don't you think it is becoming a little "dangerous" for the "us" of the future, to allow all of these mergers, that make these companies "Too big to fail" as was said about the fannie maes and the freddie macs and the bear sterns and maybe now the gm/Chrysler...not that i deny that such might be beneficial right now... it sets us on a track of the government having to always be there to bail them out because as said by our own treasury secretary, "they were too big to fail".....?

What frightens me is that now the financial institutions will boil down to just 3 or 4, acquiring the others in this mess and leaving us with mega, mega, mega banks that are too big to fail...

if there was some legislation that required them to break up 10 years from now....start selling pieces off of the business so that there is more competition in the field...i would feel a little more comfortable with it...

gm/chrysler is not necessarily my main concern because they really do have legitimate foreign competition here in the usa, but the banks....uh, i just don't know....?

care