He Actually Wants Us to Reelect Him? - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: He Actually Wants Us to Reelect Him?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1
    Ok. Now back to the original topic of this thread...
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,349
    Obviously I didn't take your point too literally. I never said it would only affect 'moochers' and I didn't intend to convey that.

    First of all, there is no correlation to a 10% reduction in the GDP. That's a dramatic oversimplification of a complicated economic process. Entitlement spending accounted for 62% of the 2010 federal budget, so yes we could reduce the deficit by reducing entitlement spending. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out since entitlement spending is a large part of what raised our debt in the first place, that reducing it could help reduce that debt.

    As for discretionary spending that might affect me, go right ahead. There are plenty of Americans like myself that have no problem with that. Apparently your cynical nature blinds you to the fact that everyone else isn't as self centered as you are, or at least as you believe them to be. There have been plenty of budgeted items around here that I would have been happy to have lived without if it would have meant reduced government spending. Are you going to tell me that you've never seen one of those paid for by the Reinvestment and Recovery Act signs on the side of the highway and wished they never would have spent that money? Do you really think that no other drivers on that road ever wished that money had never been spent? That's just one example. There are tons of others.

    And we don't want to eliminate federal debt entirely, as enticing as that may seem on the surface. Federal debt instruments, such as bonds, fund a lot of investment in this country, and a lot of other investments and interest rates are based on federal debt instruments. Ever heard of the prime rate? Removing that influence from the investment market would have a dramatically destabilizing affect. It might be possible to eliminate all debt someday, but not the way the investment market is structured right now. It goes without saying though that well over 95% of our national debt could easily be eliminated.

    As for your assumptions about what I think, you're wrong. I never said it wouldn't affect me. In fact, I hope it will. The debt has doubled in the last few years and my lot in life has not improved. If anything it has gotten worse. To suggest that reversing that would make my life worse defies logic itself. As for paying down the debt overall in a gradual fashion, that's exactly what I envisioned.

    So your cynical attitude is not shared by all. Your draconian vision for paying down the debt won't be necessary. I harbor no illusions about everyone being affected by budget reductions, nor do others who think like me. We welcome it with open arms because we know the overall reward will be far greater than the minor inconveniences. Not everyone thinks as shallow as you think they do. I don't need to rethink my position at all. I'm quite comfortable with it. You might want to get out a bit more though. You need to learn more about some of your fellow Americans.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  4. #23
    "It goes without saying that 95% of our national debt could easily be eliminated." (Or are you referring to annual deficits, that ADD to the National debt?)

    If it "goes without saying", apparently you don't have a "ways and means" either. Then, again, you aren't elected to resolve the problem.

    So MY draconian solution won't be necessary? How, pray tell, then, do we (as a Nation) back off from borrowing 40% of our ever "continuing resolution" budget? I don't have a solution that pleases you, I await your's. That 40% borrowing per annum is NOT going to go away by itself and HAS to be remedied soon.

    Like every generality, not ALL are encompassed within the perameters of the "group" in question. Greedy, self centered, me first, Americans included. There are exceptions to EVERY rule/grouping/what have you. (You know that just as well as I do. Platonic rhetoric technique.)

    If there exist so many self sacrificing, "greater good of the society" citizens in tune with your view of the average american.... why is it that their "Representitives" are completely unable to settle on a way and means of reducing Government spending? I suggest that it is nothing more than individual "Not in my back yard" attitudes transmitted to Congress loud and clear. Everyone just trying to preserve their rice bowl. (Survival IS one of the basest human needs, you know. Thus it is to be expected.)

    Yeah, I know how complex Economics are, I have a Masters in Finance with a strong second in Economics. However, posts being what they are, one tries to keep it simple. But, the short version is a rough and valid statement of trends/facts.

    Lastly, I might observe that if, as you claim, that there are so many solid, righteous Americans existant, just how is it that we have managed to allow this Nation to get into the present state of affairs to begin with? Or are those Americans you refer to so far in the minority that they don't make a difference any more? (That's a rhetorical question. I don't need an answer, I have spent many a year observing my fellow man. My conclusions seem to differ from your's and I resent the implication that your VAST experience in the world qualifies you to question mine.)

    So take your smugness and smoke it! LOL!

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40FAN View Post
    Instead of telling us how to vote next year. Tell me how a republican would have played the same cards dealt over the last four years? Because everybody knows how the last eight before that were played!
    First of all, the Republicans would not have brought all those Socialistic/Communist czars to Washington. He uses them to by-pass Congress by issuing regulations as opposed to going before Congress to include our elected representatives in decision making. That was a sure-fire way to disaster and the Prez is paying dearly for that now. The eight years before that were Utopian in comparison to what the Pied Piper has given us. Bush had his failings but I would much rather have him over Obama. Even the hard-core Liberals have become disenchanted over the direction the country has gone and are abandoning ship and getting away from this failed president. As for voting next year, vote for the one you think is best and hope to hell he turns out to be the best. That is what I am going to do.

  6. #25
    I can't imagine why any intelligent person who really cared and had a plan would want the job in the current climate...and, frankly, do not see any that do.

  7. #26
    One would think that the democrats in office would want Obama to step down and not run again so they might, stand a half a chance to get a different Democrat President elected in 2012. I personaly dont see how he even thinks he has a chance for re-election. He is the worse president in history. I could go on but it's all been said before.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    St. Louis County, MO
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Proctor View Post
    One would think that the democrats in office would want Obama to step down and not run again so they might, stand a half a chance to get a different Democrat President elected in 2012. I personaly dont see how he even thinks he has a chance for re-election. He is the worse president in history. I could go on but it's all been said before.
    Nobody would like to challenge him because if they do, they are challenging Soros. No one will like to annoy Soros now, do they?
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock
    GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    I would be happy to annoy Soros but I'm not a democrat.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    The fact that he seeks reelection does not frighten me. The fact that there are still individuals in this country who would vote for him in the next election cycle after witnessing his performance over the past 3 years, that scares me...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Proctor View Post
    One would think that the democrats in office would want Obama to step down and not run again so they might, stand a half a chance to get a different Democrat President elected in 2012. I personaly dont see how he even thinks he has a chance for re-election. He is the worse president in history. I could go on but it's all been said before.
    Or Stated another way,

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
    You're the worst character ever towlie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Towlie
    Yeah.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast