LOGIN | REGISTER

View Poll Results: Who are you planning on voting for in the 2012 presidential election?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Barack Obama

    25 36.76%
  • Mitt Romney

    5 7.35%
  • Ron Paul

    26 38.24%
  • Michele Bachmann

    1 1.47%
  • Herman Cain

    4 5.88%
  • Newt Gingrich

    1 1.47%
  • Tim Pawlenty

    2 2.94%
  • Rudi Giulliani

    1 1.47%
  • Rick Perry

    0 0%
  • Sarah Palin

    3 4.41%
Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 212
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by beachbreak View Post
    isn't the saying 'yankee go home?'
    Isn't the saying, "Then that can do, them that can't teach...?"

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by ripturbo View Post
    yankees suck
    So do the Sox.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post
    Yankee, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!
    It's ok, kook, prance, er, run, down the beach. We get it.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    2,358
    Fiscal disasters are everywhere, here & abroad. The debt problem won't disappear regardless of the social unrest whether it's in California or Athens.

    Looking longer term, without fiscal discipline, it's going to be either inflation or restructuring.

    To date, the govts here & Europe have absolutely picked loose monetary policy. Results? Currency debasement, which in & of itself could spell high inflation. In the past 5 years, the USD has declined 31% vs the SWF. The Euro has fallen 22% vs the SWF in the same period. Here in the USA, we're borrowing 40% of our annual spending & overall debt is approaching 100% of GDP (incredible). In a somewhat ironic turn, Swiss officials have complained of late that their currency is hurting their economy (exports). I guess that's the odd effect of running the sole fiscally responsible government entity on the planet.

    China's due for a hiccup. They're heavily dependent upon unsustainable infrastructure & construction investment.

    JohnnyboyUtah, don't try to understand any of this.
    Your local ER is already swamped with people complaining of headaches.

  5. Monitary policy is a big problem to be sure. The American Dollar has lost over 50% of its value since 2001. Mainly due to the Federal Reserve printing more and more money.

    China is risking a huge bubble becuase they are growing at an unsustainable rate.

    The next major problem looming right after this debt ceiling debate, is Washington wants to pass trade deals with Columbia, South Korea and Panama. We do not need any more trade agreements unless the United State benefits FIRST from the agreement. Exporting more jobs to poorer countries that we cannot compete with is idiotic in the extreme.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachCruiser01 View Post
    One of the Democrats plans was to cut 4 trillion out of the budget while raising 1.4 trillion in revenues by tax code changes. Closing loopholes, lowering overall tax rates but limiting deductions.

    We have a revenue problem because Bush cut taxes while spending like a drunken liberal sailor on shore leave. Cutting taxes is reducing revenue. That is the single biggest revenue problem in this equation at 1.8 trillion. The other problems, in order, are The 2 wars 1.4 trillion, 2008 stimulus 708b, Non defence discretionary spedning (creation of Dept. of Homeland Security, etc) 608 billion. Tarp bailout 224b, Medicare part D expansion 180b. totalling 5 trillion

    Obama has spent 1.44 trillion, 711b simulus, 278 non defence discretionary spending, 425b, tax cuts in stimulus, 15b healthcare reform entitlement changes.

    We are in this mess because politicians failed to reduce spending while they were reducing taxes. The politicians in charge at the time where Republicans, who cut revenues while spending. Republicans were also the party that told us that deficits don't matter and voted repeatedly to raise the debt ceiling without much debate. And Boehner and McConnell, the republican leaders in this debate where there going along with it.

    We have never cut taxes during a time of war until now. If you don't know why now, you never will.

    On another note, I don't know how education got on this thread, education is, for the most part, a local issue, not a federal issue. And union/tenured teachers fair no better or worse than right to work states when you look at state rankings on education.
    Two other major expansions in costs between 2003 and 2008 were Medicare Advantage (the Feds pay a subsidy to private insurance plans to cover medicare) and the unfunded prescription drug benefit. Notably, one of the things that the Health Care Reform Act modifies is the unfunded Medicare Advantage program (this program costs more for the government than Medicare but cost less to the consumer), the so called $500 billion Medicare cut in the Health Care Reform Act that Republican are so opposed to.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by eatswell View Post
    deal on deficit reduction? obama wants to tax the wealthy which is like not even 2 % of the population. it's not that i hate that idea, but i don't think that taxing them a couple more percent is gonna put a dent in this deficit. it just isn't. there just isn't enough rich people there isn't. you'd have to tax them 90 % percent which is absurd.
    The top 1 percent hold somewhere between 35 and 50 percent of the wealth. Go crunch the numbers. It would make a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by eatswell View Post
    my grandfather is like 84 years old. we had this conversation more than once. luckily he, and my grandmother don't need their COLA raise from social security to live good, but obama, and his administration have not given social security a raise since he's been in office. don't gimme that ''it's a set law he can't do it if the cost of living hasn't gone up'' the cost of living has gone up,
    Social Security recipients have not received COLAs the past couple of years because aggregate price inflation has not increased above the level it was a few years ago. COLA adjustments are made once a year. In Jan 2009, SS recipients received a COLA increase of around 5 percent due to the overall increase in the aggregate price level (CPI) between late 2007 and late 2008, e.g., the CPI increased from 100 to 105 during that time (the large increase was largely due to the huge increase in petroleum). During the past two pricing periods, the CPI had decreased (due again to general decreases in petroleum prices AND the general deflation of prices in the economy like housing), so no COLA adjustments were made (SS checks are not decreased due to decreases in the CPI). This year the CPI is forecast to be around 108 (relative to my 100 and 105 examples), so SS recipients would receive a COLA of around 3 percent. This process is established by law.

    One of the proposals floating around in many of the debt reduction plans is changing the CPI used for calculating the COLAs. The CPI being proposed is called the chained-CPI. In recent times the chained-CPI results in a smaller COLA than the CPI set by law -- for this year it would result in something more like a 2 percent increase rather than a 3 percent increase. The chained-CPI, it is argued, more accurately reflects the costs for consumers (and applies "substitution" in the basket of goods purchased by consumers, i.e., consumers will buy more ground chuck than ground sirloin when they have less money or prices increase, so therefor they need less of a COLA [one could also argue that if you provide less of a CPI then you socially engineering SS recipients to buy ground chuck rather than ground sirloin]).

    There are plenty of other examples where assertions are not buttressed by the facts, e.g., on unemployment levels stability, "bail outs" (of the financial and automotive sectors), recovery act stimulus money (most of it was in the form of one-time reduced taxes), so on. You are correct that many of these actions were initiated during the prior administration.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by yankee View Post
    So do the Sox.
    My Orioles suck but they are my team and I am sticking with them. The Yankees and Bosox are simply what makes major league baseball disgusting these days.

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachCruiser01 View Post
    Monitary policy is a big problem to be sure. The American Dollar has lost over 50% of its value since 2001. Mainly due to the Federal Reserve printing more and more money.

    China is risking a huge bubble becuase they are growing at an unsustainable rate.

    The next major problem looming right after this debt ceiling debate, is Washington wants to pass trade deals with Columbia, South Korea and Panama. We do not need any more trade agreements unless the United State benefits FIRST from the agreement. Exporting more jobs to poorer countries that we cannot compete with is idiotic in the extreme.
    Currency adjustments are how free markets operate. China has a rather fixed currency, it does not fluctuate, rather it is at a State-mandated rate. Our currency has been declining and in a sense that is good -- makes the USA more competitive in the export market which means more manufacturing jobs here in the USA -- it also means that jobs have been returning to the USA. Better trade agreements would help on that account as well.

    On the other hand, trade agreements are good for markets when they expand markets, i.e., make the pie larger for all to share in.

  10. Declining dollar also makes imports more expensive, such as Oil.

    There is no such thing as a free market. Every country engages in protectionism with tarrifs and limits on goods and services allowed in/out of their country. The problem is we do not negotiate our trade deals in good faith for the American people but for American business'. China pays 2% tarrif to export into the US. We pay 20% tarrif to export there. Hardly free and hardly fair to us in being competitive. Our current trade agreement with South Korea allows S. Korea to ship 200,000 automobiles here a year. We get to ship them 20,000. That is not a free market. That is South Korea setting limits in the intrest of protecting their own economy. Something we here in the United states should consider.


    Even with a declining dollar to make exports easier to sell abroad, we can still not compete with manufacturing in countries that pay $1.00 a day and are exporting to the same countries we are trying to sell to.