THE Election 2008 Megathread!

Who are you voting for?

  • McCain

    Votes: 31 26.3%

  • Obama

    Votes: 77 65.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 10 8.5%
  • Total voters
    118
  • Poll closed .
Celvantes said:
Clinton: Created budget surplus by, instead of doing something about our largest government expenditure (social security), raping the defense budget to the point where we're still recovering eight years later. Oh, and shit-ass tax and spend fiscal policy helped set *part* of the stage for the tech bubble that burst at the start of Bush's term. Oh, and let's not forget having bin Laden *literally* in the crosshairs of US Special Forces and refusing to give the kill order. Thanks, Bubba.
Click to expand...

You forgot the best part of all. That budget surplus? It was only on paper, only theorhetical, it never actually materialized.
 
Tax revenue was higher than expenditures. That sounds like a budget surplus to me.
 
Halifirien said:
Tax revenue was higher than expenditures. That sounds like a budget surplus to me.
Click to expand...

You are getting confused. The budget surplus that everyone points to was a projected budget surplus, it never actually materialized. It's a myth. A political Unicorn. It's very easily verified by going to the US Treasury's Web Site (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np).

Fiscal Year |Year Ending |National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


If you look at the numbers, not only was there never a budget surplus, but the national debt increased under Clinton by 1.4 trillion dollars. Only in the 1999/2000 budget did he even get close to balancing. Wanna know the kicker on that year? Due to the dot-com boom and people paying more into Social Security, there was a Social Security surplus, which the government 'borrowed' from itself that year to close the gap and keep the public dept from only growing by 18 billion. So while the public debt increase slowed, the intragovernmental debt increased by the $137 billion that was borrowed from the SS surplus. The projected surplus (notice the continued emphasis on 'projected') was not only all smoke and mirrors in the first place, but never actually materialized once the fiscal year played out.
 
Last edited:
Aaleel said:
You can't fund two wars and keep cutting taxes, I'm sorry, you just can't. And over spending isn't going to stop, if it hasn't by now with the number of Republican presidents we've had it's not going to.

People just must like having a weak dollar, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Soon to be a third. :awesome:

This country is fucked even further financially no matter which of the two major parties wins.

It's a shame people are largely going to be voting based off race or gender this election, which in my opinion should be a federal crime(Not voting based on issues is more or less equal to rigging,) because this is an election an Independent would've had the best chance of winning. Which is a loads better "first" than a person being elected because a good portion of their votes are cast because they aren't white or have a VP that is sans penis.
 
Last edited:
People always say we shouldn't raise taxes or roll back the tax cuts because they don't want their money going to social programs. Always the typical response I get.

I'm not talking about social programs.

Waging two wars is not a social program.
Bailing out lenders and home owners is not a social program.
Giving hundreds of dollars in rebate checks to million of Americans is not a social program
Hurricane relief where you're still housing people is not a social program.
Etc, etc, etc
Its money that's been spent while still running a deficit

And I would ask anyone to name the last time in the history of the country where it was at war (Just one war let alone two) and cutting taxes at the same time. That's if you can find one, because I feel safe in saying that the only president that has done something so fiscally irresponsible is the one running the country right now.
 
Everyone bitches about "social programs" until they need to take advantage of them. I'm glad we have those kinds of safety nets in place. When my no-account brother-in-law left my sister with four children, food stamps and WIC were a great help until she got back on her feet.

As much money as they've spent on this idiotic excursion in Iraq, I'm not going to complain if someone wants a little more of my cash to keep children from going to bed hungry or help pay for college tuition.

Then again, I'm a liberal. My viewpoint is that we're all in this together.
 
Personally, I'm all for having troops fighting off the evils of the world. So long as it's not in a country based off false intel and/or vengeance. If we took all the time, effort, and manpower put towards "liberating" Iraq and the policing thereafter to keep the country from collapsing on itself and put it towards actually finishing what we initially went to the middle east for 7 years ago, I've no doubt that we could have found bin Laden a few years ago.
 
Why would Bush want to catch him? He's too useful as a political boogeyman. He's better than Emmanuel Goldstein for Bush when he needs a rally.
 
Some of the better speeches from the convention that most of you did not see... particularly the one by Jesse Ventura.

Tucker Carlson

Jesse Ventura



Lew Rockwell


Ron Paul







 
Last edited:
What's up with McCain not wearing a flag pin last night? Says he loves America, but...I don't get it...
 
Halifirien said:
What's up with McCain not wearing a flag pin last night? Says he loves America, but...I don't get it...
Click to expand...

You know, after watching McCain last night and Palin the night before, I can't help but wonder if it's really such a bad thing that Palin will be a heartbeat away from the presidency.......
 
We'd have our first P.I.L.F.! Sweet!

And is it just me, or does she look like Tina Fey's older sister?
 
Halifirien said:
What's up with McCain not wearing a flag pin last night? Says he loves America, but...I don't get it...
Click to expand...

Yeah, as if he can get away with it by being in the MILITARY and being a POW for 5 years, sheesh why couldn't he just believe in black liberation and be proud of his COU-oh wait..
 
Just pointing out the goofy flag pin double standard. Sorta like all the people who jump on Michelle Obama's "proud of my country line" and go nuts that she seems to be implying there was a time she wasn't proud of her country while ignoring McCain's lines about how he didn't love his country until he was a POW at 31.
 
OMG... this completely confirms it: keep putting John McCain in front of a green background.

 
The liberal reaction to Palin reminds me why I'm a registered Republican. Republicans couldn't care less about Obama being black, yet a female on the Republican ticket is an affront to humanity to them. The progessive ego on the entire establishment can't take it that the Republicans are the ones with the woman on the ticket and not them, maybe Obama should counter by dropping Biden and getting himself a Hindu lesbian or something.

Reminds me what Democrats say about black Republicans, calling them race traitors and insinuating they're like slaves.

It's too bad because Obama personally isn't such a bad guy. Still liked Clinton better though.
 
It's not that she's a woman. It's that she's a right-wing anti-feminist darling-of-the-religious-right nutjob who's had been popping off lie after lie on the campaign trail. Alan Keyes would get the same reaction. The Democrats put a woman on the ticket more than 20 years ago and almost did it this year; the Republicans, if nothing else, are just playing cultural catch-up.

It would've been nice if they'd picked a different woman for McCain's running mate, though. I mean, if all the military and foreign policy stuff is so important to him, why pick her? She's got zero history with it. It boggles the mind. Clearly, he doesn't think those things are as important as he wanted everyone to believe. It's a reckless gamble on his part.

Not that it mattered, since I was never going to vote for him. Whoever chose her probably did him a favor, since the conservatives were never that enthusiastic about McCain (he pretty much won the nomination by default) and now they have a poster child. From what I've read, they seem to like her a lot more than him.

I'm just amused that after months and months of hearing pundits say "America is still learning who Obama is," now we really do have a candidate on the ticket that nobody knows jack shit about.
 
Last edited:
Halifirien said:
It's not that she's a woman. It's that she's a right-wing anti-feminist darling-of-the-religious-right nutjob who's had been popping off lie after lie on the campaign trail. Alan Keyes would get the same reaction. The Democrats put a woman on the ticket more than 20 years ago and almost did it this year; the Republicans, if nothing else, are just playing cultural catch-up.

It would've been nice if they'd picked a different woman for McCain's running mate, though. I mean, if all the military and foreign policy stuff is so important to him, why pick her? She's got zero history with it. It boggles the mind. Clearly, he doesn't think those things are as important as he wanted everyone to believe. It's a reckless gamble on his part.

Not that it mattered, since I was never going to vote for him. Whoever chose her probably did him a favor, since the conservatives were never that enthusiastic about McCain (he pretty much won the nomination by default) and now they have a poster child. From what I've read, they seem to like her a lot more than him.

I'm just amused that after months and months of hearing pundits say "America is still learning who Obama is," now we really do have a candidate on the ticket that nobody knows jack shit about.
Click to expand...

Few points here.

Sure, Mondale picked a woman as his running mate, against freaking Reagan. It feels like it was more than a symbolic gesture than anything - trying to score some PR points for the party on an election they were obviously going down on. All his VP considerations were either women or minorities: Dianne Feinstein, Martha Layne Collins, Tom Bradley Henry Cisneros. Congrats on that one, Democrats. Feels like Ventura wanting to bow out a month before his time ran out, and appointing his Lt. governor so she could be the "first female governor" of his state. Very stupid and pointless.

McCain was never determined to get a female or minority, which gives her as a choice less of a... well, pathetic feel. Not to mention, he can actually win, unlike Mondale, so he's actually risking something with her.

Another thing, despite positioning himself as the kind of guy who will "reach across the aisles" Obama is by far more off center than McCain and Palin are put together. Obama is the most liberal member on the senate, period.

And on the question of feminist issues and an actual female vice president... well, I look at it like this.

Not all women self identify themselves as feminists. Not all feminists are pro-choice. If women see appointing a liberal woman over a liberal man as progressive, then the gender of the candidate and their position on gender issues are independant points.

And seriously, when Obama started his campaign, he was... how experienced? 2 years in the senate? Palin at least has executive experience. She's also running for vice president, not president. Yes, the vice president might be president, however the actual president... for sure WILL be a president, and the vice president will at least get time in the white house before potentially taking over.

As far as McCain... no, he was not the default nominee, and moderate Republicans like myself, love him. It's the far leaning right wingers who don't like the fact he's not all that moderate. It makes Obama's campaign pretty silly when you think about it, trying to paint him as John McCain Bush the third, considering he's vastly different.

Since it's 50% of Obama's campaign, and the other 50% is him talking about "change" as some vague concept while running his campaign anyway he can to win just like everyone else before him... he really deserves to lose.

The sad thing about it is that racism is the only reason Obama is the democratic candidate in the first place. If Obama wasn't black, Clinton would be the nominee, and she would make a 10 X more competant president than Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top