But look at my man Richardson. What a patriot! Or that woman shaped like a Perrier bottle. Now there is an American.
I'm being facetious, old boy. You folks ragged Hillary and Richardson for not measuring up as patriots in the primaries. Now they are your standard! :grin:
At least the members of this forum can argue their reasons for voting for one or against the other candidate. This weekend during the local election here in BR there were people pissed off and complaining because they could not find that Obama fellow’s name on the ballet. Clarence Buggs (local talk show) made fun of those people all day Monday for complaining to the election people. I am not saying a large section of obama’s supporters are dumb just ill informed.
You're spinning now. I said Obama is proposing $1 trillion in new spending and you said that was a lie. I used your own source as evidence to back up my claim. I'm not ignoring the fact. If Mccain's plan is implemented he will face deficits too. However, how will his plan be implemented? How will he get the Bush tax cuts for the rich extended when the Democratic congress must approve? I've asked you variations of this question 3 times and you you have yet to answer it. I wonder why? How will Mccain get his health care plan through the Democratically controlled congress along with other more conservative oriented plans? See above. The burden is on Obama to prove that he's going to cut spending and spending cut proposals described as "Implemented Unspecified Cuts to Slow Spending $50 billion" doesn't cut it. You could easily replace that $50 billion with $500 billion and still not be able to dispute the cut because it's a hollow promise that has no details whatsoever of how or what is being cut. It's laughable that your source would even include this in it's analysis. The fact is Obama has proposed $1 trillion in spending increases. It was as recently as the mid 80's that the entire US budget was $1 trillion and now Obama is proposing spending increases of 1 trillion in just 4 short years. That's unbelievable. You only need to look at history to know that proposed government spending cuts never materialize unless the cuts involve the military.
Don't be dense. Proposed spending minus proposed cuts = true deficit spending. I'm not going to explain this to you again. Repeating arguments that I've already answered is a wast of our time. My time is valuable. OK, one more time, for the dense among us. McCain likely won't get his plans approved. So why should I care? I'm voting for the guy who may get his plans approved. By your logic, one shouldn't vote for McCain. It's a wasted vote. I agree. What else can I say? The burden is on BOTH candidates to prove that they are going to spend and cut what they promise. It has always been that way.
The US economy is currently driven by a much higher percentage of service jobs than in the past. The areas of the economy that I mentioned are all physical product oriented. I.E... You cut the defense budgets, how many hardware jobs will be killed? How many additional raw material jobs will be cut as a residual result of a slow down? The Healthcare industry is vulnerable because it also supports a large number of technical equipment manufacturing jobs. You start hedging crops for bio-fuels, and we will all be paying much more for our basic food budget. So.... In all the areas that I mentioned, a bottom-up cash market does not increase the infrastructure necessary for innovation and new product development. No new products + No new sales = No new job creation! (Marketing-Advertising-Sales Force-Construction of Distribution Facilities-All the aftercare/repair service jobs-etc.etc.etc.) None of the above positions are created when you don't have money being directed to build infrastructure. And will the government help out? Obama has said that defense cuts are absolutely coming!
In theory, yes. However, don't be naive. Obama's proposed spending along with a Democratic congress = complete passage. Obama's proposed vague spending cuts along with a Democratic congress = little to no cuts. I'm glad you finally agree. Voters should evaluate both candidates plans but they should also consider the likelihood of a gridlock scenario with a Mccain presidency when choosing their candidate. That's my point. I think it's shortsighted to evaluate each candidate solely on their plans and not also take into account which plan will more likely become a reality. Some voters don't like either candidates plans. They think both plans are irresponsible. Those voters may prefer gridlock over major spending increases and tax cuts.
