Well, I did it. Voted for divided government.

[Guest032516]

Maybe now we'll get spending under control - somewhat, maybe, please, just a little?.

I voted for a slew of Republicans and Libertarians for Congress and TX legislature.

Then voted Obama for President. The first time in my life I voted for a Democrat for President. And hopefully the last.

I voted Libertarian for president in 2008. Couldn't stomach McCain or Obama.

Here's hoping the GOP will finally get it's head out of its ass in 2016 and start nominating fiscal conservatives who are libertarian on social issues. Candidates that will actually cut spending, including entitlements.

And no more fundamentalist know-nothings. Jesus doesn't care if gays get married. And evolution is fact. Creationism is fantasy.

[markroxny]

Well, no one can accuse you for being in the tank for any party that's for damn sure.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Well, no one can accuse you for being in the tank for any party that's for damn sure.

Don't bet on it.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Maybe now we'll get spending under control - somewhat, maybe, please, just a little?.

I voted for a slew of Republicans and Libertarians for Congress and TX legislature.

Then voted Obama for President. The first time in my life I voted for a Democrat for President. And hopefully the last.

I voted Libertarian for president in 2008. Couldn't stomach McCain or Obama.

Here's hoping the GOP will finally get it's head out of its ass in 2016 and start nominating fiscal conservatives who are libertarian on social issues. Candidates that will actually cut spending, including entitlements.

And no more fundamentalist know-nothings. Jesus doesn't care if gays get married. And evolution is fact. Creationism is fantasy.

So let me get this straight... You are upset that the republicans do not put up what is essentially a libertarian candidate; and you showed that by voting for someone who is maybe 15% libertarian?

Why not vote for Gary Johnson?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

So let me get this straight... You are upset that the republicans do not put up what is essentially a libertarian candidate; and you showed that by voting for someone who is maybe 15% libertarian?

Why not vote for Gary Johnson?

Because I was voting primarily for divided government to restrain spending, not for a Libertarian candidate to restrain spending. Gary Johnson has ZERO chance of winning.

If the GOP gets spanked in the presidential race, I'm hoping they will finally start to push to the margins the Bible thumpers and the Grover Norquist cranks that oppose any tax increase to reduce the deficit, even if it means Bambi's mommy dies!!!

I'm in the top 2% or 4% tax bracket. So, I don't like tax increases any more than the next upper income guy. But I fear increased debt even more. If I can trade a dollar in increased taxes for two dollars in spending cuts, I'll take that any day and twice on Sunday.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Because I was voting primarily for divided government to restrain spending, not for a Libertarian candidate to restrain spending. Gary Johnson has ZERO chance of winning.

If the GOP gets spanked in the presidential race, I'm hoping they will finally start to push to the margins the Bible thumpers and the Grover Norquist cranks that oppose any tax increase to reduce the deficit, even if it means Bambi's mommy dies!!!

I'm in the top 2% or 4% tax bracket. So, I don't like tax increases any more than the next upper income guy. But I fear increased debt even more. If I can trade a dollar in increased taxes for two dollars in spending cuts, I'll take that any day and twice on Sunday.

Refreshing to see a Republican talk sense in terms of compromise. I feel the same way. The Dems have to give on entitlements and the GOP has to give on tax increases. Frankly, I don't know that a Romney win doesn't put us in the same position. I disagree with Romney on almost everything but he is a numbers guy and I think he will give on the tax increase in return for Dem concessions on spending. And with Romney in the White House, I think the house republicans will be much more willing to compromise.

Can't believe I just typed that.....

[Roothead]

Dude. I did pretty much the same thing

[WTF]

Originally Posted by timpage

Refreshing to see a Republican talk sense in terms of compromise. I feel the same way. The Dems have to give on entitlements and the GOP has to give on tax increases. Frankly, I don't know that a Romney win doesn't put us in the same position. I disagree with Romney on almost everything but he is a numbers guy and I think he will give on the tax increase in return for Dem concessions on spending. And with Romney in the White House, I think the house republicans will be much more willing to compromise.

Can't believe I just typed that.....

You typed it because it is the truth. But most folks around here do not understand Amercian politics. Bunch of fucking Ditto heads and are proud of it it. That is like being proud of a 2 inch dick.

[IIFFOFRDB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iQK6L1Rb98

fuckers

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by timpage

The Dems have to give on entitlements and the GOP has to give on tax increases...

Quite right; that ultimately must happen.

I just hope the transition to a "grand bargain" isn't forced by an ugly, painful process following a severe sovereign debt crisis.

But the Democrats also must acknowledge that they have to give on tax increases, not just the Republicans! The former only want to raise rates on those earning more than $250K/year. That would raise additional revenue of only a fraction of one percent of GDP. Both parties have become aggressive tax-cutters; it's just that the Democrats have restricted the cuts to the non-affluent.

The Bush-era tax cuts would have been perfectly OK if we had restrained spending increases since 2001 to inflation plus population growth. But that was not possible without forcing something to give, largely because of increasing health care costs and an aging population. (And that's true even if we hadn't started squandering vast amounts of money on other things about a decade ago.) Now about 11,000 Baby Boomers become newly eligible for Medicare and Social Security every day.

It would obviously be a violent shock to our easy money/deficit-spending-addicted economy to create an abrupt fiscal consolidation involving both taxes and spending, but I think we need to start making plans to phase it in.

Of course, we could just continue borrowing and printing money like there's no tomorrow, and continue to rely on the Fed to do a new iteration of QE a couple of times each year.

What could possibly go wrong with a sound plan like that?

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Because I was voting primarily for divided government to restrain spending, not for a Libertarian candidate to restrain spending. Gary Johnson has ZERO chance of winning.

If the GOP gets spanked in the presidential race, I'm hoping they will finally start to push to the margins the Bible thumpers and the Grover Norquist cranks that oppose any tax increase to reduce the deficit, even if it means Bambi's mommy dies!!!

I'm in the top 2% or 4% tax bracket. So, I don't like tax increases any more than the next upper income guy. But I fear increased debt even more. If I can trade a dollar in increased taxes for two dollars in spending cuts, I'll take that any day and twice on Sunday.

Restrain spending is not something either major party is willing to do. They are more than willing to restrain the other guys spending. I understand your position in the top bracket, which I am not a part of, but fear the same things. While 2 dollars of cuts for 1 dollar of tax increase is a start it is not a solution. That would only slow the tide. I would love to see an across the board 25% cut in all spending with a marginal tax increase coupled with tax code reform to a simpler system.

In addition once that budget is passed congress should limit itself for a period of 6 years to pass no new legislative spending programs. Their efforts should be limited to only review of existing programs for the purpose of deregulation and/ or reform.

6 years is long enough that every member of the house and senate will face a re-election thus allowing their constituents a chance to remove them if they fail in this effort.

[Roothead]

I am a registered Republican 1%er, east coast NYer and I voted for Obama, for the 2nd time.. raise my taxes (in 2011 the SO and I paid over $400k to the feds) and cut spending big time - everybody get a bit of pain and we get off the credit/borrowing drug habit... this shit has got to stop

[gnadfly]

You people are psychotic if you think the Democrats are going to reduce spending if they are able to raise taxes. Simply psychotic. That was the whole reason for the tone deafness by Obama when the Republicans took back the House in 2010.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And evolution is fact. Creationism is fantasy.

I thought I was the only former New Yorker on these boards. 49th Street between 5th and 6th Avenues, and I ask myself everyday when am I going back.

On evolution friend you're dead wrong.

Creationism is a laughable strawman idiotic scientists love to drudge out to make it appear that natural selection and variation can be made to work.

Copius statistical models have tried for decades now to model how variation, mutation and natural selection can be made to explain the presence of any tissue or organ found anywhere, and it can't be made to work.

If you plug in the numbers and allow for an almost infinite number of generations you'll find that eyes and glands and teeth and skin could never have just happened the way the idiot scientists claim.

btw.....

While I was at MIT in 1986 I attended the national convetion of the Society of Plasma Physicists.

It was their "consenus" at that time that by 1996 nuclear fusion would be commercially available and at use in power generation plants.

I'm still waiting.........

Scientists are idiots.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Copius statistical models have tried for decades now to model how variation, mutation and natural selection can be made to explain the presence of any tissue or organ found anywhere, and it can't be made to work.


While I was at MIT in 1986 I attended the national convetion of the Society of Plasma Physicists.

It was their "consenus" at that time that by 1996 nuclear fusion would be commercially available and at use in power generation plants.

I'm still waiting.........

Scientists are idiots.

And you are an idiot if you do not understand the difference between a future prediction and scientific data.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Copius statistical models have tried for decades now to model how variation, mutation and natural selection can be made to explain the presence of any tissue or organ found anywhere, and it can't be made to work.


.

That is exactly wtf science is...it gives you the best known answer and discounts fantasy crap like Creationism . Who do you think ran those statistical models? Scientist maybe? Just maybe...