Get Out and Vote
-
tjamz wrote:
I could also go on and on and on about how this administration has done NOTHING for struggling farmers in ND and SD. Every time a farm bill gets introduced to help deal with drought the Bush administration threatens to veto it and then the house/senate kill the bill. I don't know about you, but I feel MUCH better subsidizing American farmers to grow my food than I would to have to import everything from China, Australia, Mexico, etc.... We already see how relying on oil from other countries is screwing us economically, I REALLY don't want to see that happen with food. What happened to putting America and its citizens first?
It's one thing to help farmers who are actually struggling, it's another to keep subsidizing sugar beet farmers who are multimillionaires when we could be getting sugar cheaper from other countries and in turn help out the American buyer. -
torbs wrote:
Also, on a sidenote...I think that if the sanctions dont work against North Korea we need the U.S. to get together with other countries and invade...and do it soon. However, I dont know how the budget is gonna handle that.
The United States does not need to get involved in North Korea. At this point they are of little threat to us. This is one situation best left to the countries that surroud NK and the UN. The United States shouldn't have to be the international babysitter that we have been.torbs wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure that the market is absolutly BOOMING...and I think we can thank the Bush admin. for that...even after going way down after 9/11 the market is at an all time high. What do you have to say about that Chuck? (I know i dont even have to ask but i'm really curious what negative thing you have to say about a good market:))What evidence do you have of a "booming market?" It seems to me that the economy is still quite unstable. The Feds keep raising interest rates, energy costs are rising and consumers are still not very confident in the economy. I don't think that the Bush administration is responsible for the fall nor the rise of the economy; its the natural order of things. Look into the past trends and you will see that the economy has its ups and downs, there is no way around that.
-
tjamz wrote:
Democrats can suck my left nutFirst you are going to have to prove that you have a pair after me neutering your statements, then I'll let senator Foley take care of that for ya...he likes you young boys....
i just spit soda on my laptop. TJAMZ FOR PRESIDENT.
-
torbs wrote:
Wait wait chuck...are you telling me that you think the world was safe when Sadam was in power and potentially had WMDs???...I dont care if it was tied to 9-11 or not...that's not my concern. My concern is national security, and IMO Iraq was a threat with their (what was) very unstable gov't...Sadam didnt care about anybody or anything besides his own people and was therefore a threat to us.Did I ever say it was a better place? No. Just that there were other places in the world that were of a greater threat than Sadam was at the time. We engaged in a war that we cannot win by "staying the course." I honestly don't think that Iraq was a threat (at this time) to our national security. I think Afghanistan still is and w/o a doubt Al Qaeda is (who is by the way a sworn enemy of Sadam...not trying to make sadam sound like a good guy, he definately wasn't, but he wasn't a fan of Al Qaeda or the Taliban as he saw them as a threat)
Also, on a sidenote...I think that if the sanctions dont work against North Korea we need the U.S. to get together with other countries and invade...and do it soon. However, I dont know how the budget is gonna handle that.
***BAD BAD BAD idea. Kim Jong Il is a crazy mofo, invading his country will w/o a doubt cause him to detonate all of his nukes, taking himself and the rest of korea out with it...including our soldiers if he feels he cannot win. Turn up the sanctions, engage in talks (BILATERAL TALKS) to resolve the issue. I still doubt he will drop his nuclear program, if he did he would be the first country to EVER give up its nukes once it established that they had thme.....India and Pakistan are proof of this.
Besides, with what troops are we going to invade with? N Korea has something like 1,000,000 troops, I'd love to say that we'll just send in aircraft and defeat all of them, but I don't think thats likely. I hope you liked what happened at Iwo Jima and Normandy beach, it could be very similar if we try to attack by storming the beaches.
*** Also, I'm pretty sure that the market is absolutly BOOMING...and I think we can thank the Bush admin. for that...even after going way down after 9/11 the market is at an all time high. What do you have to say about that Chuck? (I know i dont even have to ask but i'm really curious what negative thing you have to say about a good market:))
Easy, I was making WAY higher APR's and dividends when Clinton (btw, I don't think Clinton was a great Pres either) was in office. The Dow is a completely worthless tool for gauging the economy. Lets look instead at the NASDAQ and S&P 500. They are nowhere near the highs that they were when Bush took office. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The NASDAQ's all time high was 5048 currently it is at 2363. It is a MUCH broader market index than is the DJIA. The S&P 500 is at 1369, its high was 1527 back in 2000. It has a ways to go before it will fully recover. But you are right, a war is a great way to spur the economy but I would say it is FAR from booming and is NOT a bull market yet.
Then there is the matter of National Deficit. We owe a shit-ton of money to China and other countries that will have to be paid back at some point in time if we want to stay a leader in the global economy. If my memory is correct, we borrowed 83% of all money that was borrowed between countries TOTAL....Australia was a close 2nd with 7% of the total money borrowed. What is your solution to this? Me, I'd rather roll back tax cuts on the wealthiest people in this country (who were given this break under the bush administration) and make them pay their fair share, rather than borrow it from a communist country such as China. Bush is like a 18 year old with their first credit card. He has no plan on how to pay the money back, but that doesn't stop him from running up the bill to the point where all we'll ever do is pay and pay and pay some other country interest thereby building up a country that I could have sworn was Communist and everything that republicans hate...maybe they flip-flopped
Try again Junior
-
StangerBanger96 wrote:
It's one thing to help farmers who are actually struggling, it's another to keep subsidizing sugar beet farmers who are multimillionaires when we could be getting sugar cheaper from other countries and in turn help out the American buyer.So, you'd rather they go bankrupt? I'd rather subsidize an industry so that WE HAVE CONTROL (to some extent) over the prices that get charged. Would you rather we stopped growing sugar in the Valley and instead just imported all of it from a foreign country? What happens when the sugar cane crop in South America is a disaster some year and then all of the sudden there is a HUGE world wide shortage? I'd rather pay a little bit per acre/ton now than pay a fortune later.
-
MisterCMK wrote:
The United States does not need to get involved in North Korea. At this point they are of little threat to us. This is one situation best left to the countries that surroud NK and the UN. The United States shouldn't have to be the international babysitter that we have been.
i usually fall asleep during politic threads now.but im goin to go out on a limb and say the UN is absolutely worthless and to never listen to what they have to say.
United Nations doesnt do shit.
-
tjamz wrote:
Then there is the matter of National Deficit. We owe a shit-ton of money to China and other countries that will have to be paid back at some point in time if we want to stay a leader in the global economy. If my memory is correct, we borrowed 83% of all money that was borrowed between countries TOTAL....Australia was a close 2nd with 7% of the total money borrowed. What is your solution to this? Me, I'd rather roll back tax cuts on the wealthiest people in this country (who were given this break under the bush administration) and make them pay their fair share, rather than borrow it from a communist country such as China. Bush is like a 18 year old with their first credit card. He has no plan on how to pay the money back, but that doesn't stop him from running up the bill to the point where all we'll ever do is pay and pay and pay some other country interest thereby building up a country that I could have sworn was Communist and everything that republicans hate...maybe they flip-floppedi do believe they recently passed another 70 billion dollar budget for the war.
i agree. trickle down economics DOESNT WORK. give the low and middle classes the breaks. theyre the ones that actually need the money. youll get way more money by increasing taxes on the rich than by taxing everyone else even more than they already are.
-
MisterCMK wrote:
The United States does not need to get involved in North Korea. At this point they are of little threat to us. This is one situation best left to the countries that surroud NK and the UN. The United States shouldn't have to be the international babysitter that we have been.normally id agree completely, but north korea also said that they would sell nuclear weapons to anyone who wanted them, including any and all terrorist organizations.
-
amicheze wrote:
i agree. trickle down economics DOESNT WORK. give the low and middle classes the breaks. theyre the ones that actually need the money. youll get way more money by increasing taxes on the rich than by taxing everyone else even more than they already are.Middle/lower class not only NEED the money, they spend the money at local businesses who in turn pay their employees, who in turn spend the money at more local businesses, who in turn pay their employees. I'm pretty sure a $20k tax break to someone that has $10million in liquid assets doesn't mean as much as a $200 tax break does to me and my family.
Having said that....flat tax is my best answer with ZERO deductions other than children and medical expenses. I'd be willing to bet that a FLAT 5 to 10% would take us out of debt FAST (haven't crunched the numbers on this yet)
-
Oh, and have we actually confirmed that N Korea actually detonated a nuke? The last reports I've heard (and its been a while since I paid attention) is that there was virtually no radio-active activity at the site of the detonation and that it may have been a hoax intended to bring us back to the bargaining table?
-
STiSchucky wrote:
i usually fall asleep during politic threads now.but im goin to go out on a limb and say the UN is absolutely worthless and to never listen to what they have to say.
United Nations doesnt do shit.
The UN itself is pretty much a joke, except for the fact that it brings the world together to discuss issues. A UN peace keeping program or oil for food program is a 100% joke, it never works like its supposed to.
-
tjamz wrote:
Oh, and have we actually confirmed that N Korea actually detonated a nuke? The last reports I've heard (and its been a while since I paid attention) is that there was virtually no radio-active activity at the site of the detonation and that it may have been a hoax intended to bring us back to the bargaining table?unfortunately today i heard it really was a nuclear blast.
-
Ok, fair enough...I hadn't heard in a while.
BTW, Torbs, you really haven't addressed any of my points yet.
-
I think at this point both parties suck...but because one party is for abortion overall and the other isn't, my vote is for republican. I personally think Bush is at least trying to fix the problems even though he is making mistakes along the way. Dems want to just have power and ignore all the problems. The economy has little to do with who is in office...it just so happens that the market like the republicans in office since they are "pro-business". The economy goes in cycles and that's a fact of life, whether dems or repubs are in office. One way to fix 99% of all the problems is to have term limits in place and then they'll both actually get something done!! My sig says the rest.
-
Ill buy that bumper sticker!!!
-
fallguy wrote:
I think at this point both parties suck...but because one party is for abortion overall and the other isn't, my vote is for republican. I personally think Bush is at least trying to fix the problems even though he is making mistakes along the way. Dems want to just have power and ignore all the problems. The economy has little to do with who is in office...it just so happens that the market like the republicans in office since they are "pro-business". The economy goes in cycles and that's a fact of life, whether dems or repubs are in office. One way to fix 99% of all the problems is to have term limits in place and then they'll both actually get something done!! My sig says the rest.I agree, neither party is worth a shit right now. I am not pro-choice, but I am not 100% anti-abortion either. I just think it is WAY to easy to have an abortion and that more limits should be put on it. To be honest, this is the #1 thing I disagree with Dems on. East Coast Democrats do not meet my criteria of what I'm looking for in a political party, they are generally way to far to the left. My problem with Bush is that I don't see him making changes along the way, its always "Stay the course" with everything. As for term limits.....HELL YEAH! Lets get rid of career politicians. HOWEVER, this only works if this is universal throughout the country as we still have to deal with the seniority issue if (for example) one state has term limits and 49 do not. You are correct though about the economy, it does tend to cycle (as it should) but things that the presidents say and/or do can and does influence the market. As for having power and ignoring problems, which problems do you speak of? Terrorism? Its foolish to think that terrorism will ever end, there will always be a group of people who hate the USA and what it stands for and killing terrorists does nothing to stop terrorism (in fact it may strengthen the resolve of other terrorists.) Why are we so afraid to talk with leaders of countries/organizations that are different from us? I was always taught that it takes a bigger man to talk out their issues than it does to just start fighting right away. Will it work all the time? ABSOLUTELY NOT! And if it doesn't, then by all means, bring out the big guns. But what if we were able to prevent a few wars by talking instead of bombing? Wouldn't that be worth it? We talk about a world economy, well its kind of hard to have one if some of the countries are being left out...so what do they do? They act like children and throw a temper tantrum and break some stuff to try and draw attention to themselves hoping that we'll sit down and try to talk with them about what they can do to get their way instead of us just giving them a spanking. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that spanking won't solve all the problems with children and should only be done in extreme cases of misbehaviour...same principle applies to war.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login