• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McCain advisor - We would have deficits too

Zyphlin said:
So today we learn that McCain/Republicans would've spent a lot of money too, but not as much money as Obama.
Click to expand...

No, more like the economy was going to suck either way and deficit spending was going to be inevitable.
 
Navy Pride said:
The one I got on January 1 where my mitiary pension went down $50. dollars a month and all my retired shipmates got the same raise in taxes..........
Click to expand...

Have they raised your tax on your military pension or have they simply reduced the amount of pension you get?

While having the same affect, one would not be a "tax". Much the same way Obama shouldn't refer to a tax credit as a "tax cut"
 
Navy Pride said:
And Obama has increased the debt 10 fold more then all the presidents combined in the history of our country and he has done this in 1 shsort year.......
Click to expand...

10 fold in one year? Complete bull****.
 
misterman said:
No, more like the economy was going to suck either way and deficit spending was going to be inevitable.
Click to expand...

Correct, however the article...which is not surprisingly coming from the HuffPo...is trying to give the implication that the deficit spending would be the same under McCain as it would Obama.

That's not what Obama's people said at all.

They said it'd still likely end up being a record deficit compared to the past, but are also saying that they wouldn't be doing the same amount of spending that Obama did. This leads one to reasonably conclude that while they'd run a record deficit it'd be a lower one than Obama.

Thus going back to my previous statement. Wonderful, you're telling us McCain would spend a lot, just not as much as Obama. whoop ti do. Anyone with a bit of political know how should've been able to figure that out during the election by looking at McCain's record of "bipartisanship/capitulation" and republicans control the past decade, along with what Obama did in his short time in congress mixed with his views.

Basically did you want a kick in the crotch, or a punch in the face followed by a kick in the crotch.
 
Zyphlin said:
Correct, however the article...which is not surprisingly coming from the HuffPo...is trying to give the implication that the deficit spending would be the same under McCain as it would Obama.

That's not what Obama's people said at all.

They said it'd still likely end up being a record deficit compared to the past, but are also saying that they wouldn't be doing the same amount of spending that Obama did. This leads one to reasonably conclude that while they'd run a record deficit it'd be a lower one than Obama.
Click to expand...

So if McCain had been elected and ran record deficits, we could say "wow, those are the largest deficits in the history of the U.S., but at least they are a little smaller than the ones Obama would have given us."

Great.

Thus going back to my previous statement. Wonderful, you're telling us McCain would spend a lot, just not as much as Obama. whoop ti do. Anyone with a bit of political know how should've been able to figure that out during the election by looking at McCain's record of "bipartisanship/capitulation" and republicans control the past decade, along with what Obama did in his short time in congress mixed with his views.

Basically did you want a kick in the crotch, or a punch in the face followed by a kick in the crotch.
Click to expand...

No, the difference is a punch in the face and a hard kick in the crotch or a punch in the face and a slightly less hard kick in the crotch. And maybe that hard kick will end with a kiss, if Keynes was right.
 
Zyphlin said:
Do you disagree that many of the issues that Obama is dealing with have either became worse based on the things he's done, or in the end is simply following the Bush model and plan for how to fix them?
Click to expand...
I do disagree, I think the stimulus has helped, for instance.

(I figure I'll just use what is apparently now The Makeout Hobo's standard method of posting, which is to not actually answer anything or address anything but just ask questions.)
Click to expand...
I don't like to assume what people are thinking, so I ask questions to further my understanding of their thoughts and positions. Not making assumptions apparently offends you, so I'll try to do it more.

Do you disagree that in part much of the spending under Bush prior to 2006 was for military expenditures that came about because of his stance on the War on Terror which occured due to 9/11 which was in part inherited by extremely flawed policies and decisions of the prior administration?
Click to expand...
The military spending in large part came from his war in Iraq, which was not needed or necessary. If he had just focused on Afghanistan, that would have saved a lot of money from the deficeit.

(lets see just how far we can use the "lets not answer anything and ask questions and blame the one before" to go back in time. Here, you get to now not bother to answer anything and tie it Bush I. I wonder how far back we'll get with the blame game)
Click to expand...

I get what you're trying to do here, and you'd think a mod would be more mature, but I digress. The point is, we're facing the worst economic times since the great depression, and these were all problems that happened under Bush's watch. Bush had years to see problems like the housing bubble pop, and he did damn little about them. Yes, congress didn't help, but remind me where the buck stops again? Give Obama more time for things to work, it's petty and partisan how people have been trying to blame Obama for how things are since the day he took office.
 
misterman said:
So if McCain had been elected and ran record deficits, we could say "wow, those are the largest deficits in the history of the U.S., but at least they are a little smaller than the ones Obama would have given us."

Great.
Click to expand...

That's kind of my point. Its not telling us anything new. Its just telling us the ****ty reality we're in. Last election we basically had the political equivilent of a Jim Carrey / Jeff Daniels movie.

No, the difference is a punch in the face and a hard kick in the crotch or a punch in the face and a slightly less hard kick in the crotch. And maybe that hard kick will end with a kiss, if Keynes was right.
Click to expand...

And maybe the hard kick will end with testicles needing to be surgically removed if he's wrong or if other economists are right. yay for speculation.

I guess my point is...

This isn't really shocking news, nor an endorsement for what Obama is doing, nor even a statement that "it would be the same under McCain" which is what the HuffPo article tries to be implying. Its saying things would be bad under McCain, but not as bad as Obama, in regards to spending. I dare say many people on this forum figured that'd be the case the moment we found out McCain was the one running for Republicans.
 
Zyphlin said:
That's kind of my point. Its not telling us anything new. Its just telling us the ****ty reality we're in.
Click to expand...

Maybe not new to you, but look around on this forum and you'll find plenty of people who think Obama is the devil incarnate and there would be peace and harmony and no deficits at all if McCain had won instead.

And maybe the hard kick will end with testicles needing to be surgically removed if he's wrong or if other economists are right. yay for speculation.
Click to expand...

Economics is pretty much speculation. McCain would have done a stimulus too, just not as big. Wow, huge difference.

Its saying things would be bad under McCain, but not as bad as Obama, in regards to spending. I dare say many people on this forum figured that'd be the case the moment we found out McCain was the one running for Republicans.
Click to expand...

And I'd dare say you're putting way too much stock in the ability of some people to figure that out. Just look around.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I do disagree, I think the stimulus has helped, for instance.
Click to expand...

I see, and yet it appears you feel Bush made things horrible?

Care to enlighten us as to what government indicators and factors you use to determine "Bush bad / Obama good"?

I don't like to assume what people are thinking, so I ask questions to further my understanding of their thoughts and positions. Not making assumptions apparently offends you, so I'll try to do it more.
Click to expand...

Not that it offends me, but I see a once good poster who generally had engaging and interesting things to read, albiet ones I often disagreed with, become the love child of American and "The Riddler" that just pops into threads with no purpose but to completely ignore someones entire post and post a one liner question as if its some profound point he's making. Its not offensive, its just kind of sad.

The military spending in large part came from his war in Iraq, which was not needed or necessary. If he had just focused on Afghanistan, that would have saved a lot of money from the deficeit.
Click to expand...

The military spending came in large part from Iraq, which was directly related to the philosophy behind the War on Terror (not the war on those specifically who attacked us on 9/11), which came about due to 9/11 and the belief that state sponsored terrorism was a growing threat, not just Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan terrorism.

You want to complain about partisans down below, and yet you go out of your way to excuse Obama for any part if anything, blame bush for every part of everything, and yet conviently find ways to complain when someone uses your same style to do similar for Bush. Your complaints about people being partisan is somewhat laughable in the face of it.

I get what you're trying to do here, and you'd think a mod would be more mature, but I digress. The point is, we're facing the worst economic times since the great depression, and these were all problems that happened under Bush's watch. Bush had years to see problems like the housing bubble pop, and he did damn little about them. Yes, congress didn't help, but remind me where the buck stops again? Give Obama more time for things to work, it's petty and partisan how people have been trying to blame Obama for how things are since the day he took office.
Click to expand...

I like sarcasm and exaggeration to make a point at times. If that makes me "immature" so be it. I'll take it over constant one-liner questions as my main content I bring to the board. And you're incorrect, these are problems that started under Bush's watch (actually some seeds of it started under Clinton's watch, and some even before that) and have CONTINUED on through Obama's watch.

And I am all for fancy bumper stickers and great little tag lines, but no I don't think the buck stops completely and utterly with the President. And before you try to get some bull**** "partisan, hypocrite" line on me, go back to older posts of mine and try to tell me I wasn't critical of the Republican congress for their actions at times. Yes, the President has a great deal of blame but congress as a whole has a pretty damn equal hand in the situation as well. Go look at things between 2001 to 2005 and then 2006 to 2010 and we'll see how spending goes. I've never been one to give a pass to Bush or the Republican congress for spending, indeed I've been lambasted by republicans on this forum for not being a loyal party line marcher for doing it as routinely as I had.

I didn't start droning on about Obama right off the bat. I gave him a bit of time on things that were going to need time. At the same time we're a year into this. At some point he has to be looked at and his actions have to be looked at and measured and its not 4 years after he's out of office. You can't campaign about having people in Iraq for far to long and how failed of a policy it is that they're not out and blame Bush, and then pull them out right on schedule essentially with that policy and not be called on it. You can't complain and campaign about how wrong it is to detain people indefinitely and blame Bush, and then turn around and end up saying you're gonig to still detain some people indefinitely and expect not to be called on it. And you can't complain about Bush and the deficiets he ran up and saying all the deficiet problem is his fault and then sit there and pass the "stimulus" plan that was filled with pay off pork and support the health care bill filled with stuff in it that had no reason but to "buy" votes and expect not to be called on it.

Should we deny Bush, AND the republican congress's, hands in what the current makeup of the economy is and the state of the nation? Absolutely not. Those that complete act like NO blame should be given on him at all are ludicrous. At the same time to completely ignore Obama's own actions or excuse them all without any thought or actual intellectually honest examination simply because "well Bush put us in a bad spot" is ALSO ludicrous. And moreso, for a president who has stressed so much to the point where it was a focal campaign point about being post partisan, being a CHANGE from politics as usual, as being someone to unite the country one would think that he'd focus more on how to fix things when speaking nd less on blaming anything and everything under the sun on his predecessor as loud and as often as possible.

Or, to take your bumper sticker...

For him to remember where the Buck Stops
 
misterman said:
Maybe not new to you, but look around on this forum and you'll find plenty of people who think Obama is the devil incarnate and there would be peace and harmony and no deficits at all if McCain had won instead.
Click to expand...

Great, if they're that plenty mind giving me some quotes and links to some of them? I'd love to see whose saying it as it'd be interesting to ask them some questions about it. I'll look forward to the quotes since they're apparently plentiful.
 
The military spending came in large part from Iraq, which was directly related to the philosophy behind the War on Terror (not the war on those specifically who attacked us on 9/11), which came about due to 9/11 and the belief that state sponsored terrorism was a growing threat, not just Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan terrorism.
Click to expand...

The existence of a guiding principle or belief is implied in any behavior, political or otherwise. Elucidating the process can be constructive, but it requires an implied value judgment. Saying George Bush had a philosophy is not a refutation of make-out Hobo's assertion that his policies were bad; it points out George Bush's reasoning wasn't occurring in a vacuum or randomness generator. You seem to be implying the reverse of his assertion, but the connection is not strong and the merit of such a viewpoint is not obvious based on this sparse description.

The Bush Administration's strategy was contingent on dubious information and practices and has produced or exasperated many of the evils it sought to prevent or reduce and at a high expense. In retrospection, it appears a more reserved response to 9/11 would have resulted in a more positive net effect. Questionable methods and less than optimal results are a magnet for legitimate criticism.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
The existence of a guiding principle or belief is implied in any behavior, political or otherwise. Elucidating the process can be constructive, but it requires an implied value judgment. Saying George Bush had a philosophy is not a refutation of make-out Hobo's assertion that his policies were bad; it points out George Bush's reasoning wasn't occurring in a vacuum or randomness generator. You seem to be implying the reverse of his assertion, but the merit of such a viewpoint is not obvious based on this sparse description.

The Bush Administration's strategy was contingent on dubious information and practices and has produced or exasperated many of the evils it sought to prevent or reduce and at a high expense. In retrospection, it appears a more reserved response to 9/11 would have resulted in a more positive net effect.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the policies he did were bad. I think many of the things Bush did in response to 9/11 were bad (I think some were wonderful). Just like I think much of what Obama is doing in response to the economy is bad.

Obama's excusing his bad by stating that its Bush's fault that he's having to do the bad in the first place.

Similarly...

Bush did his bad due to the events of 9/11 which, one could argue, were in part blamed on the policies and actions taken by the Clinton administration. And therefore, to excuse Obama of his bad simply because the problem that spurred him to do it came from the former president one could also concievably excuse all of Bush's mistakes.

But we don't.

And we shouldn't.

You SHOULD take into account the situations that led up to where we are, you should definitely not suddenly forget everything that happened before and over react. At the same time, once you are in the here and now, the present, it matters less WHY you are there and more HOW you're going to get out of there. And if you fail at getting out of there or you do things to make it worse then it doesn't matter that its the other guys fault you were there to start with. Yes, he may've helped put you in the position and he has to own that, but you've done nothing to help your position or you've worsed it, and you have to own that.

So I'm not saying what Bush did policy wise in reaction to 9/11 was CORRECT. But to say that Iraq was not part of the War on Terror, as outlined by the Bush Administration in its creation of said "war", and that said War came about because of 9/11 would simply be untrue. You can say it was a poor choice and a costly one or even an unneeded one...but that doesn't change the fact it came about due to the War on Terror.
 
Zyphlin said:
Have they raised your tax on your military pension or have they simply reduced the amount of pension you get?

While having the same affect, one would not be a "tax". Much the same way Obama shouldn't refer to a tax credit as a "tax cut"
Click to expand...

They raised my witholding by $50. To me that is a tax increase............
 
Navy Pride said:
The one I got on January 1 where my mitiary pension went down $50. dollars a month and all my retired shipmates got the same raise in taxes..........
Click to expand...
what withholding?
 
Zyphlin said:
Great, if they're that plenty mind giving me some quotes and links to some of them? I'd love to see whose saying it as it'd be interesting to ask them some questions about it. I'll look forward to the quotes since they're apparently plentiful.
Click to expand...

Dude, I was just sayin'. It's not a formal proposition.
 
misterman said:
:rofl

Come on, we're being serious here.

In any event, all you have to do is fill out this form and roll that back:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf
Click to expand...

You are clueless my friend...sure I could tell the Navy Finance Office not to withhold anything every month then I would owe it all when my income tax became due.........

Surely you know that much..........
 
Navy Pride said:
try 17% if you count people who have given up looking, and I will play the Obama card, Reagan's was all Carters fault with his 21% interest rates..............
Click to expand...

You have facts to back up the 17% RATE? Not opinion but facts please. Carter??? LMAO you do know Nixon/Ford handed him a stinkeroo....Carter had a better unemployment rate as well as job creation his 4 yrs then Reagan did his first 4 yrs...Carter..lol You are clearly a listener of the Far Reich Propaganda..
 
Navy Pride said:
The withholding they take out of my navy pension check every month......

its called FICA....don't you pay it?
Click to expand...

Oh, they raised FICA on you. You should have said so.
 
Navy Pride said:
The withholding they take out of my navy pension check every month......

its called FICA....don't you pay it?
Click to expand...

A pension??? I thought Conservatives hated Socialism, which is basically what a Pension and Govt provided Healthcare is to them...Did you get a GI Bill and VA Housing as well? All provided by Joe taxpayer. As your pension is 100% tax payer money you have little room to salnder social programs or such.
 
Navy Pride said:
You are clueless my friend...sure I could tell the Navy Finance Office not to withhold anything every month then I would owe it all when my income tax became due.........

Surely you know that much..........
Click to expand...

I didn't say don't withhold anything, I said set it back $50 again. You can do that, you know. You can decide how much to withhold yourself, at least civilians can. Or were you clueless about that?
 
pugetsoundwa said:
A pension??? I thought Conservatives hated Socialism, which is basically what a Pension and Govt provided Healthcare is to them...Did you get a GI Bill and VA Housing as well? All provided by Joe taxpayer. As your pension is 100% tax payer money you have little room to salnder social programs or such.
Click to expand...

And you my far out left wing friend drink the koolaid of the dumbest 2 senators in the U.S. Senate Cantwell and Murray.......
 
Navy Pride said:
try 17% if you count people who have given up looking, and I will play the Obama card, Reagan's was all Carters fault with his 21% interest rates..............
Click to expand...

Okay, So unemployment during Reagan is Carter's fault...but unemployment during Obama is not Bush's fault....

Somebody is being dishonest.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
A pension??? I thought Conservatives hated Socialism, which is basically what a Pension and Govt provided Healthcare is to them...Did you get a GI Bill and VA Housing as well? All provided by Joe taxpayer. As your pension is 100% tax payer money you have little room to salnder social programs or such.
Click to expand...

I got news for you my left wing friend..........I spent 21 years of my life in the Navy deploying on 6 ships, being away from my family for sometimes up to a year......You can bash me but there are a lot of good men who get a retirement for their sacrafices to keep your ass safe so I would be care about bashing anyone in the military for getting a pension they deserve unlike you who are probably one of the free loaders in this country on welfare or food stamps......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom