Printable View
[QUOTE=Esten;425246]Ryan wants the poor and middle class to make most of the sacrifice, which is basically class warfare.[/QUOTE]Once again, only in liberal la-la land does not giving somebody free money constitute a sacrifice on the part of the recipient.
" I've never seen a vice president that has made as many mistakes, said as many stupid things. I mean, there's a real fear if, God forbid, he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it. I mean, this guy just isn't bright. He's never been bright. He isn't bright. And people think, 'Well, he just talks a little too much. ' Actually he's just not very smart. "
It just keeps getting better and better. And of these two knuckleheads, Obama and Biden, Biden is considered to be the smart one. A moron IQ compared to Obama's idiot IQ
By the way, the Obama camp is already stating that they are not worried that Ryan is going to clean Biden's clock in the upcoming VP debate. This without anyone asking them. The Obama camp must be terrified of the VP debate. Probably why Obama is looking to replace Biden.
Esten, please read the post you quoted. The Democrats are calling the Ryan budget "slash and burn" while it is nothing of the kind. At least Ryan put something on paper that attempts to address the problems rather than the pie in the sky budget Obama put forward which even his OWN PARTY did not support.
Romney and Ryan have not publicly presented their plan as of this date, I am sure it is due to wishing to refine it further before releasing it.
Esten, I don't know what your problem is here; Obama commissioned the Bowels blue ribbon panel for recommendations for debt reduction and promptly ignored the findings once they were presented. Ryan's plan embraces many of their recommendations.
While we are on the topic of commissioning panels and commissions, what about the Jobs group Obama cranked up but never interacts with or acknowledges its existence since its formation.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;425179]Your statement about the decline in the standard of living going as far back as Roosevelt is intriguing. You also alluded to the possiblity of "utopia" had Jeffersonian governments continued. Please elaborate given human nature's tendency to self-destruct.[/QUOTE]Utopia is either a strip joint or a privado, I forget.
Smaller government is better government. The self destruct you talk about happens when government becomes large and government employees believe that the citizens are there to serve the government. The self destruction goes hand-in-hand with fiat currency. Most of the world is being run this way now and the end will be same as it has 100% of the time in history.
The US thrived long before social security, medicare, welfare, and a large military. And aside from Lincoln, there was no income tax until 1913. Yet as technology improved, so did our standards of living. The majority of taxes should be collected at the local level and spent as determined by those citizens. There would still be some corruption, waste and fraud. But there wouldn't be a federal reserve handing out trillions of dollars to the banks. We wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq. We wouldn't have generations of people growing up dependent upon government.
With government, less is more. Of course that is the same thing I tell the chicas.
[QUOTE=Toymann;425209]Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. Toymann[/QUOTE]Toymann, I was at the real clear politics web site the other day and it has an area where you can choose which swing states go to each candidate. I put in my choices and it was a tie at 269 each. You and Esten need to clarify what happens in that eventuality. I am sure there is a tie breaker, but I would call that a tie for betting purposes.
Move another state over to the Obama win column. Good thing he didn't let GM and Chrysler fail like that Wall Street Weasel Romney would have done.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/michigan-begs-for-100-000-engineers-after-auto-rebound.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Dccpa;425253]Toymann, I was at the real clear politics web site the other day and it has an area where you can choose which swing states go to each candidate. I put in my choices and it was a tie at 269 each. You and Esten need to clarify what happens in that eventuality. I am sure there is a tie breaker, but I would call that a tie for betting purposes.[/QUOTE]There will be NO ties in our bet. Whoever becomes the next president determines the winner. I actually don't know how the tie is broken, or if a tie is actually possible. Maybe someone else can chime in. Monger On Dude. Toymann
If there is a 269-269 electoral vote tie, and all the electors actually vote for the candidate they are pledged to, the President will be elected by the new Congress in the beginning of January. Each state's House of Representative delegation gets 1 (one) vote, which is to say that Rhode Island has the same voting power as Texas, etc etc. In this were to occur, it is highly likely that Romney would be chosen as the new POTUS because there are more (in terms of pure quantity, irregardless of population)"red" states than "blue" states assuming recent voting trends continue.
[QUOTE=Dccpa; 425252]Utopia is either a strip joint or a privado, I forget.
Smaller government is better government. The self destruct you talk about happens when government becomes large and government employees believe that the citizens are there to serve the government. The self destruction goes hand-in-hand with fiat currency. Most of the world is being run this way now and the end will be same as it has 100% of the time in history.
The US thrived long before social security, medicare, welfare, and a large military. And aside from Lincoln, there was no income tax until 1913. Yet as technology improved, so did our standards of living. The majority of taxes should be collected at the local level and spent as determined by those citizens. There would still be some corruption, waste and fraud. But there wouldn't be a federal reserve handing out trillions of dollars to the banks. We wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq. We wouldn't have generations of people growing up dependent upon government.
With government, less is more. Of course that is the same thing I tell the chicas.[/QUOTE]Is the toilet where I sit and read the papers w coffee every morning!
I agree with you on smaller governments, but small governments does not always translate into good governments. More crucial is the quality of the people in government and the culture of the eras. You are harking back to eras where populations were smaller and urbanization is not as dense as it is now. Let's just say, things were more simple then. Is the wild, wild West more to your liking?
So America is not the America of yesterday anymore. Can we go back? Really? What defines American culture today will give a better picture of why we are where we are. Not so difficult, just turn on your mainstream tv for a few hours and you will get the picture. Reality comes to your living room, but what is amazing, it sells! Are you surprised government can be dysfunctional, too? Also, just see where the college football landscape is heading and perhaps, you will know what I mean.
We need to look in the mirror and ask of ourselves, "what do you see?"
Ok, I have conducted a poll on what younger women are thinking about this election. As a sugar daddy who has one or two 18-22 year old visitors a week, and an occasional 25-30 year old I have had the opportunity to ask them what they think of the upcoming election.
The 18-22 year group: Half are air heads and don't know we have an election this year. The common thread with the ones with an opinion is "whoever voted Obama into office should be lined up and shot."
The 25-30 age group which consists of one person who is with me now: Quote "I hate republicans more than you can ever imagine. However Obama is like someone trying to play baseball or football without knowing the rules. And this Ryan guy is way better than Romney. Anyway, Obama is a disaster and I am not voting for Obama"
There you have it. The CGWNF (college graduates with no future) have definitely abandoned Obama. I expect this to show up in polling data soon.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;425259]There you have it. The CGWNF (college graduates with no future) have definitely abandoned Obama. I expect this to show up in polling data soon.[/QUOTE]I just spoke with Dennis Miller, and he thinks his protege El Alamo's latest joke fell flat. He's very disappointed.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;425248]I understand what Donnie Box means when he correctly describes Obama as a jerk, a lightlight and a blowhard. However, Donnie Box also describes Obama as a pantywaist. What is a pantywaist?[/QUOTE]Let me know if this video answers your question:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=414qXn66t3I[/url]
[QUOTE=Jackson;425249]Once again, only in liberal la-la land does not giving somebody free money constitute a sacrifice on the part of the recipient.[/QUOTE]It's not all "free money".
And when that money is part of a safety net that people depend on, people like Donnie Box who've been left in the dust by free market capitalism, you bet it's a sacrifice.
These days, banks are covering themselves in glory.
Once upon a time, as you walked down Main St, you were comforted by the solid brownstone facades of banks. They gave off soothing and assuring vibes that here, someone would take care of your money in a responsible manner and would reward you if you were a good saver. What happen? You tell me. And the banking lobby in AP say we need more de-regulation.
I get the sense that big government lovers are worried. The mule train team of Obama / biden is running against a couple of racehorses. The Obama / biden logo of hope and change has been removed and the Obama/Biden mule wagon is now sporting a logo of anger and hatred.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;425252]The majority of taxes should be collected at the local level and spent as determined by those citizens.[/QUOTE]Dccpa, Thanks for a thought provoking post. I always realized that the only countries with economies and standards of living that historically have outperformed the USA are small. Singapore, Hong Kong, Cayman Islands, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, certain Gulf States and Luxembourg for example. I'd attributed that primarily to low rates of taxation, efficient / intelligent government, and / or oil production. I hadn't thought about taxes being collected and spent locally. That's probably just as important as anything else. And explains why, in my community at least, we get good value for our taxes from local and state government, while much of the money that we send to Washington is squandered.
To Black Shirt, who initiated this, I'd ask what's wrong with returning to what the founders of the country envisioned, where the federal government just provides for what the states cannot, like common defense. I realize that will never happen though, so I guess it's a moot point.