Thread: General Election Poll

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Because that world only exists in your mind.

lol yeah ok

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Taxes should never go down. Ever.

The whole point of growing your economy is not to get it to the point, where you can magically say, "No more taxes!" We grow, so too do our expenses. It will always be this way. But you don't have to raise taxes to bring in more revenue. So have to get people off unemployment and welfare programs, and working again.

And I can agree with this. I was just pointing out that the idea of pushing people off the tax rolls is a Reagan and trickle-down economic policy. This is a decidedly conservative idea. Did you feel the Bush tax cuts, which were unpaid for, and the subsequent wars that weren't paid for with corresponding tax increases, were bad policy? Honest question.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

What rubs conservatives the wrong way is HOW that money gets spent. Spending half a trillion dollars on the welfare state is where you lose a lot of people. When the Treasury prints money, then buys the bonds the government sells, the value of the dollar plummets. When it does, inflation occurs. Inflation hits the poor harder than anyone else. Driving the need for more and more welfare programs to keep people from living on the streets.

Fair enough.

I think conservatives get too focused on things like welfare. And a strawman version of it, too. They blow it out of proportion and it gives them a reason to attack "undesirables," so to speak. The federal government spends less than half on welfare of what we spend on defense.

I believe strongly in a security net, and I'd prefer to look after our own people at home instead of blowing money on a massively inflated defense budget. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

But in order to grow the economy, you have to get those people OFF of welfare, and in the working sector again. Dems think the best way to do that is to grow the government. More government jobs mean more people employed and in a "secure" job. Republicans go with private sector. But the reason the private sector can't grow is because there is no safety net. They HAVE to take the risks, even if that means going bankrupt. The Fed just prints more money, while the private sector is being levied even more taxes. And the cycle continues.

The private sector is the best way to grow the economy. Period.

I'm an advocate of using the government to spur growth, even if that means growing the government. However, that hasn't happened under Obama. It's actually shrunk, as have the number of people employed by the federal government. My problem is Republicans think the solution to every single problem is "tax cuts." As if it is a magic cure-all that will bring massive growth and pixies and other goodness. The Bush tax cuts, which were massive, proved that tax cuts do not spur growth. What does? Spending. How do you get people to spend in a down economy? You don't. The government has to kick start the spending to get the economic engine running again, otherwise you're just cranking an engine that won't start.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

But then you have to deal with regulations that prevent job growth, and my personal favorite, taxes that threaten to derail the whole process, like Obamacare.

I strongly, strongly disagree that regulations prevent growth. Regulations are meant to prevent catastrophic failures, and we saw what happen in the financial markets after regulations were stripped away and new ones never created.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

But back to my original point, no business should ever reduce the price of it's product unless a competitor comes along and forces that price down. The Federal government is essentially offering a product (defense, education, health, pensions, etc). There should be no reason why the reduce the price of offering those products.

Ergo, taxes stay the same.

But when you get MORE people paying taxes (higher than 25%) then the dollar figure rises. You are in fact, spreading the burden of paying these taxes across a wider group of people.

Everyone wins.

And I think we are all really trying to achieve the same goal, we just see different paths as the correct path to get to that point.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

And I can agree with this. I was just pointing out that the idea of pushing people off the tax rolls is a Reagan and trickle-down economic policy. This is a decidedly conservative idea. Did you feel the Bush tax cuts, which were unpaid for, and the subsequent wars that weren't paid for with corresponding tax increases, were bad policy? Honest question.

Absolutely. Anything you create policy in, yet can't pay for is bad policy. Including tax cuts. Including war. Including Obamacare. There are arugments to be made on both sides, and the reality is, no one in this forum has all the answers to every question or theoretical situation we can come up with.

Imposing tax cuts is a short term solution to a longer problem. A "tax cut" is no different than welfare. It's just that instead of creating a welfare state, we've created a rolling tax break that people get used to. As I said before, taxes should NEVER go down. But they have to be in line with spending.

I think conservatives get too focused on things like welfare. And a strawman version of it, too. They blow it out of proportion and it gives them a reason to attack "undesirables," so to speak. The federal government spends less than half on welfare of what we spend on defense.

Ah, but isn't a large military the same as hiring a bunch of government employees? Everything we spend on defense is either in salary to the soldiers, who turn around and spend it on the economy, or one of three things:

- To keep our soldiers alive longer
- To kill the enemy quicker, and get our troops home sooner
- Or, To remove the soldier from the battle altoghter

And all those things are generally purchased from the private sector. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Colt, or the east coast ship yards.

I would argue that NOT having a large military is detrimental to the economy because of all the jobs it creates.

I believe strongly in a security net, and I'd prefer to look after our own people at home instead of blowing money on a massively inflated defense budget. But that's just me.

But where does that security ultimately derive from? I don't disagree with you. Our military has been used a little too much in the last two decades. But that's not the military's fault. Bush bought a war he couldn't pay for. Obama, while showing some responsibility to remove them, he hasn't exactly shied away from fighting. It's not the defense budget that is the problem, its the fact that we use our huge military a little too quickly.

I'm an advocate of using the government to spur growth, even if that means growing the government. However, that hasn't happened under Obama. It's actually shrunk, as have the number of people employed by the federal government. My problem is Republicans think the solution to every single problem is "tax cuts." As if it is a magic cure-all that will bring massive growth and pixies and other goodness. The Bush tax cuts, which were massive, proved that tax cuts do not spur growth. What does? Spending. How do you get people to spend in a down economy? You don't. The government has to kick start the spending to get the economic engine running again, otherwise you're just cranking an engine that won't start.

The solution is never tax cuts. Never. That's just poor business. And America's business... IS business. It's where all our might, our influence, and our power comes from. Money.

Like it or not, I think Romney understands that better than anyone. Probably better than the last several Presidents combined. The man knows how to make money. If Romney had run for office right after Clinton, I don't think I would have supported him. After Clinton we had a strong economy that could grow even more. Someone like Obama would likely have been a better option then. But after Bush, all that was gone. And while it may suck to really look at, Obama's record on the economy is so poor, that his only recourse in this election is to attack Romney. Romney is a better candidate by far when it comes to the economy. Maybe not so much in other areas, but the others areas aren't nearly as important either.

I strongly, strongly disagree that regulations prevent growth. Regulations are meant to prevent catastrophic failures, and we saw what happen in the financial markets after regulations were stripped away and new ones never created.

Not all regulations do. Of course not. We're not talking about going back to the Wild West. That's silly. Anyone with a drivers license knows that regulations are in place to prevent people from hurting one another. The issue is over-regulation.

We don't want Wall Street taking advantage of it's unique position within our markets to leverage deals for themselves. But we also don't want Wall Street being handcuffed when a good deal comes by, and yet because of bureaucratic red tape, can't take advantage of it. In some places, its a fine line. It others, its a chasm.

And I think we are all really trying to achieve the same goal, we just see different paths as the correct path to get to that point.

I think so too. Which is why, for all the hair pulling I do when I see some of the things you guys type, we're still on the same side. We both want a strong country. I think the difference is, we simply have a different set of priorities on how that should happen, and why.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Absolutely. Anything you create policy in, yet can't pay for is bad policy. Including tax cuts. Including war. Including Obamacare. There are arugments to be made on both sides, and the reality is, no one in this forum has all the answers to every question or theoretical situation we can come up with.

Imposing tax cuts is a short term solution to a longer problem. A "tax cut" is no different than welfare. It's just that instead of creating a welfare state, we've created a rolling tax break that people get used to. As I said before, taxes should NEVER go down. But they have to be in line with spending.

Obamacare is projected to reduce the deficit, which means it's projected to bring in more than it spends, so I'd say it was paid for, whether you like how they paid for it or not. I can agree with you for the most part on the other things.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Ah, but isn't a large military the same as hiring a bunch of government employees? Everything we spend on defense is either in salary to the soldiers, who turn around and spend it on the economy, or one of three things:

- To keep our soldiers alive longer
- To kill the enemy quicker, and get our troops home sooner
- Or, To remove the soldier from the battle altoghter

And all those things are generally purchased from the private sector. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Colt, or the east coast ship yards.

I would argue that NOT having a large military is detrimental to the economy because of all the jobs it creates.

I agree military spending helps boost the economy. It was the final kick that got us out of the Great Depression, too. But when I say I advocate cutting defense spending, I don't advocate completely removing that money, I want to spend it here. I want it to be spent on infrastructure, education, research, etc. That spending will also create jobs while giving the people a real, tangible return on their investment.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

But where does that security ultimately derive from? I don't disagree with you. Our military has been used a little too much in the last two decades. But that's not the military's fault. Bush bought a war he couldn't pay for. Obama, while showing some responsibility to remove them, he hasn't exactly shied away from fighting. It's not the defense budget that is the problem, its the fact that we use our huge military a little too quickly.

I agree that we use our military far too often and too quickly, but I also think that is because we have a huge military.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

The solution is never tax cuts. Never. That's just poor business. And America's business... IS business. It's where all our might, our influence, and our power comes from. Money.

Like it or not, I think Romney understands that better than anyone. Probably better than the last several Presidents combined. The man knows how to make money. If Romney had run for office right after Clinton, I don't think I would have supported him. After Clinton we had a strong economy that could grow even more. Someone like Obama would likely have been a better option then. But after Bush, all that was gone. And while it may suck to really look at, Obama's record on the economy is so poor, that his only recourse in this election is to attack Romney. Romney is a better candidate by far when it comes to the economy. Maybe not so much in other areas, but the others areas aren't nearly as important either.

Romney has been running for President for 6 years and he's at the point where he'll just say anything to get elected. I mean, in the last debate, he basically said everything Obama is doing on foreign policy is correct. He slams Obama for not balancing the budget four years after he got elected, yet says it will take him eight to ten years to balance it. Romney will probably no doubt be better for business, but that doesn't necessarily translate into being better for the people. I'm content with Obama's economic record so far. It's not perfect, none of them ever are, and he has done things I haven't liked and didn't do things I'd like to see, but I'm content to give him another four years. But that's me.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Not all regulations do. Of course not. We're not talking about going back to the Wild West. That's silly. Anyone with a drivers license knows that regulations are in place to prevent people from hurting one another. The issue is over-regulation.

We don't want Wall Street taking advantage of it's unique position within our markets to leverage deals for themselves. But we also don't want Wall Street being handcuffed when a good deal comes by, and yet because of bureaucratic red tape, can't take advantage of it. In some places, its a fine line. It others, its a chasm.

I'm not saying all regulation is good, either, but if I had to choose between over- or under-regulated, I'd choose over every time. That said, I'm never going to support GOP attempts to remove all the environmental regulations they can get their hands on, for example. I believe protecting the environment from people who don't care about it, and only care about profits, is a good thing that has to be done. That's just one example, I feel, of the good regulations I support.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I think so too. Which is why, for all the hair pulling I do when I see some of the things you guys type, we're still on the same side. We both want a strong country. I think the difference is, we simply have a different set of priorities on how that should happen, and why.

Well, maybe if you weren't wrong all the time, you wouldn't have to worry about pulling your hair out! But seriously, I agree with you here and I think this is something that gets lost in the whole debate.