Go vote tomorrow

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me take a stab at this. Because it's worse?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No I don't and I don't think it is wise. My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

    Total debt as percentage of GDP has been higher than now, in the years around WWII, so it's not like this is an unprecedented mess.

    The fact of the matter is, you guys like Romney over Obama, and that is why Obama deficits are worse than say Reagan deficits. It is not logic, but it is what it is.

    Well, it's getting close to the end of the day here in Denmark, and I'm off to pick up the kids, so I'm stopping now.

    Let's get to Sunday fast, so we can enjoy a good beating of the Bills.

    [/QUOTE]

    I UNDERSTAND, YOU LIVE IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.  SO DEBT WAS HIGHER WHEN WE WERE FIGHTING WWII and if it wasn't for the USA you would be speaking GERMAN.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Total debt as percentage of GDP has been higher than now, in the years around WWII, so it's not like this is an unprecedented mess.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ahhh... you're actually going to compare this circumstance to a WORLD WAR and try to justify the deficits on that basis?

    You really got a case of the "spin doctor".... BAD.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't disagree. But, you driving to vote for Johnson is also a waste.  Thst was my point. My vote vs yours aren't any different.

    Address the electoral college flaw and then we can talk, dude.

    [/QUOTE]


    And what is that electoral college flaw junior? Can't wait to hear this one.

    [/QUOTE]

    What is the flaw? Are you kidding me?  If you have a polarization (at its peak right now) of two political parties and the electoral college count trumps the popular vote, all you have to to do is win specific states.

    As PatsEng just said above "my vote doesn't count" and that's because we know Obama coasts in MA, just like we know Romney coasts in the South.

    You're mocking me like I don't know what I am talking about, yet I do.   It's very clear by you challenging me on this concept, you actualy have NO CLUE, so I am glad I can help you learn, old man.

    See, you follow me around, all insecure because I am smarter than you, and you look for ways to try to gain leverage back.

    Well, you didn't here and likely won't anywhere. The electoral college was a concept that was based on poulation of states for proper representation.......populations like 200 years ago!!!

    How and why should that apply in 2012? It's ludicrous. The whole point of voting is to make sure each INDIVIDUAL's vote COUNTS.  Why should 1 or 2 states decide a nationa election?

    We invented Democracy yet we don't have this part right? It's comical and sad at the same time.

    Capiche? I apoligize to the board for my tone, but if anyone knows Babe and me here, they know what he's looking to do with his condescening initiating tone right there. It's impossible for him to believe someone 25 his junior is more intelligent than he is. lol

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Let me explain for you junior.

    The EC is a brilliant system as is the entire structure of our government the founding fathers left us. It helps defend smaller population states from the larger ones. It is the same principle as the 2 senators per state no matter the population (and taken from that directly along with the reps who are assigned based on population).

    If you went by popular vote, circumstances could arise where a total of 9 states could decide the election (the 9 largest states comprise a bit more than half the population). No 9 states could provide the 270 electoral votes to elect a President. Just because that isn't the current circumstance does not mean it could never happen.

    See....

    California has more people than the 21 least populated states combined. Of those 21 states 7 states have 3 EC votes, 5 have 4, 3 have 5, 6 have 6. That's 21 states with 92 total EC votes compared to California's 55 - though combined they have less population.

    Because of this, you will never ever ever get 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment to change to a strictly popular vote. They would be undermining their influence by a considerable degree.

     

    I don't follow you around junior. You just post a lot of incorrect things.

    [/QUOTE]


    +1 well put Babe

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me take a stab at this. Because it's worse?

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not sure I understand your point. The Obama is "the worst ever", worst leader, evil, socialist etc. is based on his deficit being bigger. I'm sorry, that is lame.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    He is saying the defecit is bigger now than ever in history, and we do not have a full blown war economy going on to improve it, as happened with WWII.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    No, this time it was a meltdown of the finansial sector. The alternative to the current deficit would have been no bailout of the financial sector, no stimulus package.

    Somehow you only look at one side of the equation, and say holy cow, the (in)competence of the president is measured in the size of the public deficit, and this deficit is huge. He must be lousy. Do you understand what is has speen spent on? Or is that not important?

    If the government hadn't spend a trillion dollars or whatever it was, the banks would have gone bankrupt, major companies would have gone bankrupt, most small businesses would have gone bankrupt, millions would have lost their insurances, unemployment would have been through the roof.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No, this time it was a meltdown of the finansial sector. The alternative to the current deficit would have been no bailout of the financial sector, no stimulus package.

    Somehow you only look at one side of the equation, and say holy cow, the (in)competence of the president is measured in the size of the public deficit, and this deficit is huge. He must be lousy. Do you understand what is has speen spent on? Or is that not important?

    If the government hadn't spend a trillion dollars or whatever it was, the banks would have gone bankrupt, major companies would have gone bankrupt, most small businesses would have gone bankrupt, millions would have lost their insurances, unemployment would have been through the roof.

    [/QUOTE]

    perhaps. But government should not prop up business's that can't make it on their own. How do we get to the real baseline? This is a phony economy then proeped up by Uncle Sam. Can't be sustained. 

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It was a good night tonight.  My wife and I took our girls to the booths.  My 7 year old filled out my ballot and sent it in the scanner.  Now it's official, 4 more years of moving in the right direction.

     

    YEAH BABY!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Please tell the 12 to 13 percent of people in my state who are unemployed that they were moving in the right direction the last 4 years and that they are going to continue in that direction for the next 4 years.  You just might get beat up.

    [/QUOTE]


    What were they doing when I was getting my BS in Electrical Engineering and my wife was getting her BS in Marketing? 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to thehub's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No, this time it was a meltdown of the finansial sector. The alternative to the current deficit would have been no bailout of the financial sector, no stimulus package.

    Somehow you only look at one side of the equation, and say holy cow, the (in)competence of the president is measured in the size of the public deficit, and this deficit is huge. He must be lousy. Do you understand what is has speen spent on? Or is that not important?

    If the government hadn't spend a trillion dollars or whatever it was, the banks would have gone bankrupt, major companies would have gone bankrupt, most small businesses would have gone bankrupt, millions would have lost their insurances, unemployment would have been through the roof.

    [/QUOTE]

    perhaps. But government should not prop up business's that can't make it on their own. How do we get to the real baseline? This is a phony economy then proeped up by Uncle Sam. Can't be sustained. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I think government should stay away from business that can make it on their own. But one of the roles of government is exactly to stay in business that cannot  make it on an open market. National security, law enforcement, enviromental protection. All areas that government most definately should be in, all areas where it is either not going to yield any profit or going private has detrimental effects.

    The problem with putting things like national security and law enforcement out in the marketplace are obvious, there is little to no private sector demand. I'm sure as h*ll not in the market for buying an aircraftcarrier - are you?

    But that is a little going off your point. In my mind, it is incredibly easy, four years removed from the threat of a complete collapse of the global economy to say: let fall what cannot stand. You are, IMO, operating under the false asumption of everything being equal even if the bailout didn't happen.

    I think it was important that the financiel sector was bailed out, considering the millions and millions who would have lost all they had.

    But of course, when you talk about what could have prevented it - better regulation - conservatives most often speak against it. Bureaucracy and red tape, hampering with business. Yeah well, if a little bureaucracy and red tape can prevent another financiel crisis like this one, you can sign me up.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No I don't and I don't think it is wise. My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

    Total debt as percentage of GDP has been higher than now, in the years around WWII, so it's not like this is an unprecedented mess.

    The fact of the matter is, you guys like Romney over Obama, and that is why Obama deficits are worse than say Reagan deficits. It is not logic, but it is what it is.

    Well, it's getting close to the end of the day here in Denmark, and I'm off to pick up the kids, so I'm stopping now.

    Let's get to Sunday fast, so we can enjoy a good beating of the Bills.

    [/QUOTE]

    I UNDERSTAND, YOU LIVE IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.  SO DEBT WAS HIGHER WHEN WE WERE FIGHTING WWII and if it wasn't for the USA you would be speaking GERMAN.

    [/QUOTE]


    Now, now.  Who cares if Scandanvian people like their way of life? Socialism works for them and the like it, so what's the problem?

    There isn't one.  It's not like it's Communism.

    We won't see a lot of inventions or progressive business come from Socialist countries, but as a one dimensional society like they have in Scandanavial, or Canada for that matter, they seem to like it, so you labeling them or using that term as if it's some kind of a nasty illness is pointless.

    If, over time, their people feel like it does suck and isn't working, they'll change and grow into more of a capitalist society. 

    Running around calling people Socialists hoping it's seen as some nasty term is comical. It's what McCarthy did in the 1950s, hoping to have it scare people and vote Republican, so are you doing it?

    McCarthy was a moron and is now mocked decades later with an embarrassed family, but you want to follow his lead?

    As for answering Danish Pastry's question about the debt  being worse is because of Globalization and our own outsourcing.  Once the the chips started falling and business owners saw the benefits of outsourcing, increasing margins, the more their competitors would jump into it, say, the last 20 years.

    We have more people in this country now with less available jobs which means less atx revenue for this country.   The world bank was moved here after World War I and it's not here anymore, so you can do the math.

    Jobs that would be returned to in other recessions, say from 1979-1982 for example, would have employees getting jobs back while today, those jobs are fewer due to outsourcing/Globalization and its concepts, with the aftereffect felt here.

    If we have less jobs available to be taxed here and more companies not setting up shope here, then there is less revenue coming in to balance a budget. It's pretty simple.

    The context has changed.

     [/QUOTE]


    Well, it's all in the perception of the words. I would never define neither Denmark nor the other Scandinavian countries as Socialist, but I'm probably meaning something different with the term. And I'm not offended by it - LOL. But yes, we do have a big public sector, and thus also high taxes. We do have universal healthcare, free education through university, and a generally well-functioning public sector.

    I'm not sure I agree with the "not so inovative and progressive business"-notion - but maybe thats just me being a little blind to the negatives of my own society.

    I agree with the reasons for the increacing deficit, and that this is a situation that isn't fixed easily. I just don't think it's fair to blame Obama for that - just as it wouldn't have been McCains' fault if he had won in'08. The structural problems in the economy are the same, be it a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.

    And TSWFAN, I am really grateful for the Americans in WWII, no irony no sarcasm. Western Europe was saved by it. I just don't understand why me being a would have been German-speaking Socialist is relevant?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No I don't and I don't think it is wise. My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

    Total debt as percentage of GDP has been higher than now, in the years around WWII, so it's not like this is an unprecedented mess.

    The fact of the matter is, you guys like Romney over Obama, and that is why Obama deficits are worse than say Reagan deficits. It is not logic, but it is what it is.

    Well, it's getting close to the end of the day here in Denmark, and I'm off to pick up the kids, so I'm stopping now.

    Let's get to Sunday fast, so we can enjoy a good beating of the Bills.

    [/QUOTE]

    I UNDERSTAND, YOU LIVE IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.  SO DEBT WAS HIGHER WHEN WE WERE FIGHTING WWII and if it wasn't for the USA you would be speaking GERMAN.

    [/QUOTE]


    Now, now.  Who cares if Scandanvian people like their way of life? Socialism works for them and the like it, so what's the problem?

    There isn't one.  It's not like it's Communism.

    We won't see a lot of inventions or progressive business come from Socialist countries, but as a one dimensional society like they have in Scandanavial, or Canada for that matter, they seem to like it, so you labeling them or using that term as if it's some kind of a nasty illness is pointless.

    If, over time, their people feel like it does suck and isn't working, they'll change and grow into more of a capitalist society. 

    Running around calling people Socialists hoping it's seen as some nasty term is comical. It's what McCarthy did in the 1950s, hoping to have it scare people and vote Republican, so are you doing it?

    McCarthy was a moron and is now mocked decades later with an embarrassed family, but you want to follow his lead?

    As for answering Danish Pastry's question about the debt  being worse is because of Globalization and our own outsourcing.  Once the the chips started falling and business owners saw the benefits of outsourcing, increasing margins, the more their competitors would jump into it, say, the last 20 years.

    We have more people in this country now with less available jobs which means less atx revenue for this country.   The world bank was moved here after World War I and it's not here anymore, so you can do the math.

    Jobs that would be returned to in other recessions, say from 1979-1982 for example, would have employees getting jobs back while today, those jobs are fewer due to outsourcing/Globalization and its concepts, with the aftereffect felt here.

    If we have less jobs available to be taxed here and more companies not setting up shope here, then there is less revenue coming in to balance a budget. It's pretty simple.

    The context has changed.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty.. you are the know it all. REFER back to your comments about Obama foreign policy success and my salient points refuting same. So don't presume to lecture me, boy!!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    to paraphrase all of tswfan's comments: 'we must increase education spending at once!'

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No I don't and I don't think it is wise. My question however remains, why is this deficit worse than previous deficits?

    Total debt as percentage of GDP has been higher than now, in the years around WWII, so it's not like this is an unprecedented mess.

    The fact of the matter is, you guys like Romney over Obama, and that is why Obama deficits are worse than say Reagan deficits. It is not logic, but it is what it is.

    Well, it's getting close to the end of the day here in Denmark, and I'm off to pick up the kids, so I'm stopping now.

    Let's get to Sunday fast, so we can enjoy a good beating of the Bills.

    [/QUOTE]

    I UNDERSTAND, YOU LIVE IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.  SO DEBT WAS HIGHER WHEN WE WERE FIGHTING WWII and if it wasn't for the USA you would be speaking GERMAN.

    [/QUOTE]


    Now, now.  Who cares if Scandanvian people like their way of life? Socialism works for them and the like it, so what's the problem?

    There isn't one.  It's not like it's Communism.

    We won't see a lot of inventions or progressive business come from Socialist countries, but as a one dimensional society like they have in Scandanavial, or Canada for that matter, they seem to like it, so you labeling them or using that term as if it's some kind of a nasty illness is pointless.

    If, over time, their people feel like it does suck and isn't working, they'll change and grow into more of a capitalist society. 

    Running around calling people Socialists hoping it's seen as some nasty term is comical. It's what McCarthy did in the 1950s, hoping to have it scare people and vote Republican, so are you doing it?

    McCarthy was a moron and is now mocked decades later with an embarrassed family, but you want to follow his lead?

    As for answering Danish Pastry's question about the debt  being worse is because of Globalization and our own outsourcing.  Once the the chips started falling and business owners saw the benefits of outsourcing, increasing margins, the more their competitors would jump into it, say, the last 20 years.

    We have more people in this country now with less available jobs which means less atx revenue for this country.   The world bank was moved here after World War I and it's not here anymore, so you can do the math.

    Jobs that would be returned to in other recessions, say from 1979-1982 for example, would have employees getting jobs back while today, those jobs are fewer due to outsourcing/Globalization and its concepts, with the aftereffect felt here.

    If we have less jobs available to be taxed here and more companies not setting up shope here, then there is less revenue coming in to balance a budget. It's pretty simple.

    The context has changed.

     [/QUOTE]


    Well, it's all in the perception of the words. I would never define neither Denmark nor the other Scandinavian countries as Socialist, but I'm probably meaning something different with the term. And I'm not offended by it - LOL. But yes, we do have a big public sector, and thus also high taxes. We do have universal healthcare, free education through university, and a generally well-functioning public sector.

    I'm not sure I agree with the "not so inovative and progressive business"-notion - but maybe thats just me being a little blind to the negatives of my own society.

    I agree with the reasons for the increacing deficit, and that this is a situation that isn't fixed easily. I just don't think it's fair to blame Obama for that - just as it wouldn't have been McCains' fault if he had won in'08. The structural problems in the economy are the same, be it a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.

    And TSWFAN, I am really grateful for the Americans in WWII, no irony no sarcasm. Western Europe was saved by it. I just don't understand why me being a would have been German-speaking Socialist is relevant?

    [/QUOTE]

    It relates to your comment on the debt vs GDP, war vs peacetime, and shows that socialist mindset of spending other peoples money until it runs out. WITNESS the southern European countries.The USA been defending the free world since WWII. The European countries have had a free ride as far as defense is concerned and have put their money into "goodies" for the people.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    An argument that goes "Socialists spend peoples money until it runs out, hence governments who spend money until it runs out are Socialist" is a logical fallacy.

    You may think that by design Socialist countries - whatever you mean by the term - is less fiscally responsible. Since you called Denmark a Socialist country, and Denmark is way more fiscaly responsibel than the US and has been for the past 60 years, your argument falls flat on the ground.

    And again, the "Socialist" country Denmark has had - for its size - considerable involvement in every major conflict the past 20 years. Balkan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There is no freeriding in this "Socialist" country. Why do you think that the NATO secretary general is a Dane?

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to seymonster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    to paraphrase all of tswfan's comments: 'we must increase education spending at once!'

    [/QUOTE]


    heck yes, since 15% of the kids in the 4th grade in Chicago can't read. MORE money is getting poorer results

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    There was a time when people avoided discussing religion or politics in public. I pine for those days. Nowadays, everyone seems comfortable shoving their views in each other's faces. A little humility would go a long way; it starts with the humble belief that we don't have all the answers and that listening is more educational than talking.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share