This election isn't JUST a choice between McCain and Obama

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
In all likelihood Democrat majority control over the senate and congress will increase even more this year. We all know this.

So it's not just a simple choice between McCain and Obama, it is also a choice between giving the Democrats complete and total control over government, in having at least one check on their power.
 
Ohh, I remember you! You were the one making this same argument in the 02 mid-terms, begging people to remember not to give complete control to the Republicans, right?
 
I used to be of the school of thought that split gov't worked okay, and that it was good to have checks & balances.

Maybe that's true in some circumstances, but I no longer feel that way. Some think it's good when gov't is paralyzed into inaction, but gridlock sucks for a lot of issues. The GOP had a shot for about 4 years there, and blew it; let's give the Dems a chance with full control - let Obama work with a Dem Congress & vice versa, so they can actually pass some meaningful legislation & move forward on issues like education, the economy, energy et al.

We have almost nothing to lose. Can things get worse at this point? Possibly, but it's unlikely. Give the other party a chance to show what they can do when there isn't the threat of veto hanging out there....
 
Onceler said:
I used to be of the school of thought that split gov't worked okay, and that it was good to have checks & balances.

Maybe that's true in some circumstances, but I no longer feel that way. Some think it's good when gov't is paralyzed into inaction, but gridlock sucks for a lot of issues. The GOP had a shot for about 4 years there, and blew it; let's give the Dems a chance with full control - let Obama work with a Dem Congress & vice versa, so they can actually pass some meaningful legislation & move forward on issues like education, the economy, energy et al.

We have almost nothing to lose. Can things get worse at this point? Possibly, but it's unlikely. Give the other party a chance to show what they can do when there isn't the threat of veto hanging out there....
Click to expand...

Definitely. A standoff is fine when things are good, and maybe you don't really want too much to get done. But in the situation this country is in???

We cannot afford to have that.
 
Darla said:
Ohh, I remember you! You were the one making this same argument in the 02 mid-terms, begging people to remember not to give complete control to the Republicans, right?
Click to expand...
No that would be some of the lefties in 04. I would say the finances and the economy went far better after 04 than before it and went worse after the Dems took control in 06.

I don't really care about either party but an economic Conservative majority, but a lot of people in the middle do care about giving one party total power and I would say with Dems rightly so.
The last time they controlled all 3 branches of government we had the largest tax increase in the history of the US in 94, the strongest gun control bill to date in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and giant increases to the federal debt until spending was cut in the 90's largely by Conservative Repubs.
 
"The last time they controlled all 3 branches of government we had the largest tax increase in the history of the US in 94"

Funny how the greatest run of prosperity in our lifetimes ensued.

"the strongest gun control bill to date in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 "

Something which law enforcement across America praised & encouraged, and - shocker! - people were still able to get guns to hunt & defend themselves...
 
I have my trust in the Democrats right now. I see no reason to vote in a way that gives the Republicans the ability to block their legislation, since I'm not especially worried about any legislation they are going to pass, and would really like it if some of the legislation (such as universal healthcare) would pass that I know the Republicans would just veto or filibuster. If that changes in two years (which I'm sure it will) I will, of course, reevaluate that. I am a practical, not dogmatic, partisan.
 
Onceler said:
I used to be of the school of thought that split gov't worked okay, and that it was good to have checks & balances.

Maybe that's true in some circumstances, but I no longer feel that way. Some think it's good when gov't is paralyzed into inaction, but gridlock sucks for a lot of issues. The GOP had a shot for about 4 years there, and blew it; let's give the Dems a chance with full control - let Obama work with a Dem Congress & vice versa, so they can actually pass some meaningful legislation & move forward on issues like education, the economy, energy et al.

We have almost nothing to lose. Can things get worse at this point? Possibly, but it's unlikely. Give the other party a chance to show what they can do when there isn't the threat of veto hanging out there....
Click to expand...

It costs over $800 billion for government health insurance in the form of Medicare and Medicaid (and that is rising fast), how many trillions do you think it will cost to implement Obama and Dems universal healthcare? And what mammoth percent of GDP will that swallow?
800px-Medicare_and_Medicaid_GDP_Chart.png


I hate the Iraq war but that alone makes it seem like chump change.

That is just ONE of the Dems new (old 1994) spending "ideas". Yes it definetely can get worse and you can lose by national bankruptcy.

McCain has his faults but he is unique in that he has never been afraid to piss people off even in his own party. Remember that Bush barely vetoed any spending bills at all (and yes there were plenty of Dem ones even when they were a minority), McCain would do better there. Obama as you yourself are correct in saying would not.
 
KingCondanomation said:
No that would be some of the lefties in 04. I would say the finances and the economy went far better after 04 than before it and went worse after the Dems took control in 06.

I don't really care about either party but an economic Conservative majority, but a lot of people in the middle do care about giving one party total power and I would say with Dems rightly so.
The last time they controlled all 3 branches of government we had the largest tax increase in the history of the US in 94, the strongest gun control bill to date in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and giant increases to the federal debt until spending was cut in the 90's largely by Conservative Repubs.
Click to expand...

The largest tax increase in federal history? Maybe in total dollars, but that's more due to inflation and population growth than anything else. It's disingenuous of you to calculate it that way. Clinton was deliberately trying to raise taxes and cut spending in order to increase unemployment - because he was a neo-liberal economically, and believed that unemployment below 6% was hazardous. He turned out to be proven wrong in that regard, and the tax increases and spending cuts didn't raise unemployment like he had expected anyway.
 
Onceler said:
"the strongest gun control bill to date in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 "

Something which law enforcement across America praised & encouraged, and - shocker! - people were still able to get guns to hunt & defend themselves...
Click to expand...

Law enforcement as a whole did not like this bill or the so called assault weapons ban for what they did as far as limiting people's ability to get a particular weapon. They liked them for the earmarked law enforcement funds they received. I say give law enforcement the funds and take away the restrictions.

I don't believe we'll ever see Roe v. Wade overturned even if Sarah Palin were president.

I don't believe we'll ever see the middle class truly taken care of no matter who is president.

I don't care about civil unions.

That leaves one thing as an important issue for me. I will never vote for a candidate who is for any further restrictions on a law abiding citizen's ability to purchase a weapon.

This remains another reason I am not going to vote for either candidate. John McCain's less than enthusiastic support for the second ammendment.
 
This whole fallacy of tax increases meaning a better life and finances I have disproved way too many times:

In the first 2 years of Clinton where the Democrats had the presidency, house and senate the debt went up by
$628,129,254,491.66 ($4,692,749,910,013.32 at end of 1994 minus 4,064,620,655,521.66 at end of 1992) or $314,064,627,245.83 per year.

In the next 6 years of Clinton's terms, Republicans controlled the house and senate and the debt went up by $981,428,299,873.54 ($5,674,178,209,886.86 at end of 2000 minus 4,692,749,910,013.32 at end of 1994) or
$163,571,383,312.26 per year
We know this was because they cut welfare, government and subsidies.


So, again when the Republicans controlled the house and senate in the 90's, the debt went up by only $163,571,383,312.26 per year, while when the Democrats controlled everything in the 90's, the debt went up by almost double at $314,064,627,245.83 per year.

All figures shown here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
 
KingCondanomation said:
This whole fallacy of tax increases meaning a better life and finances I have disproved way too many times:

In the first 2 years of Clinton where the Democrats had the presidency, house and senate the debt went up by
$628,129,254,491.66 ($4,692,749,910,013.32 at end of 1994 minus 4,064,620,655,521.66 at end of 1992) or $314,064,627,245.83 per year.

In the next 6 years of Clinton's terms, Republicans controlled the house and senate and the debt went up by $981,428,299,873.54 ($5,674,178,209,886.86 at end of 2000 minus 4,692,749,910,013.32 at end of 1994) or
$163,571,383,312.26 per year
We know this was because they cut welfare, government and subsidies.


So, again when the Republicans controlled the house and senate in the 90's, the debt went up by only $163,571,383,312.26 per year, while when the Democrats controlled everything in the 90's, the debt went up by almost double at $314,064,627,245.83 per year.

All figures shown here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
Click to expand...


Sure; and the insane prosperity of the mid-late '90's had no effect on revenues whatsoever.

I really miss how you ignore any other factors aside from those which support your conclusion. No one else does that.
 
leaningright said:
Law enforcement as a whole did not like this bill or the so called assault weapons ban for what they did as far as limiting people's ability to get a particular weapon. They liked them for the earmarked law enforcement funds they received. I say give law enforcement the funds and take away the restrictions.

I don't believe we'll ever see Roe v. Wade overturned even if Sarah Palin were president.

I don't believe we'll ever see the middle class truly taken care of no matter who is president.

I don't care about civil unions.

That leaves one thing as an important issue for me. I will never vote for a candidate who is for any further restrictions on a law abiding citizen's ability to purchase a weapon.

This remains another reason I am not going to vote for either candidate. John McCain's less than enthusiastic support for the second ammendment.
Click to expand...
Hey Leaning, how's the new Oklahoma NBA team! You going to see them?

I think you are referring to that sole incident in 2001, aside from that McCain has opposed restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans.

He isn't perfect and I have my beefs with him over his leftwing stance on climate change and CFR, but on guns he's been fairly reliably Conservative, I think you're being a bit unfair there.
 
Onceler said:
Sure; and the insane prosperity of the mid-late '90's had no effect on revenues whatsoever.

I really miss how you ignore any other factors aside from those which support your conclusion. No one else does that.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring them, no question there was a boom economy, but did it come from tax increases? Did job-creating businesses want to come and stay in America just so they could pay higher taxes? Did the joyful prospect of getting to pay more for whatever they receive in any inventions or innovations tech founders came out with influence them to get innovating more?

The real credit for the Dems should go to them having the courage to reduce the military machine and spending in the 90's. Like a lot of Repubs they are cowardly there now and have voted for military spending increases, same as Repubs. Don't fall into this trap that so many have of thinking that because enough Repubs have lacked the guts to make any cuts means the Dems are still going to stick to their presumed areas to cut either.
Both parties lack balls to cut much of anything, it just so happens that the spending areas the Repubs advocate are less than those of the Dems, as evidenced by my numbers presented above.
 
Tax cuts does not necessarily = good. That's ridiculous.

Clinton RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING, at the same time. Both Keynesians and supply siders despised this. And it made the economy boom. Why was this? Because your simple logic that the only thing that matters when voting for someone is whether or not they will cut taxes is absolute bullshit.
 
Watermark said:
Tax cuts does not necessarily = good. That's ridiculous.

Clinton RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING, at the same time. Both Keynesians and supply siders despised this. And it made the economy boom. Why was this? Because your simple logic that the only thing that matters when voting for someone is whether or not they will cut taxes is absolute bullshit.
Click to expand...

After the Republicans took control of Congress Clinton proceeded to cut taxes including the capital gains tax in 1997.
 
cawacko said:
After the Republicans took control of Congress Clinton proceeded to cut taxes including the capital gains tax in 1997.
Click to expand...

What happened in between 1993 and 1997, think hard?

Why did Bush Sr raise taxes, and Clinton raise them again, think hard?

what had changed in the intervening years, due to two Presidents doing the responsible thing, think hard?

Where am I? How did I get here? Do you know me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top