I would like Ron Paul to be elected. Who do you guys want?
Printable View
I would like Ron Paul to be elected. Who do you guys want?
I am of the opinion, that the party of massive deficits should take some time off, to reexamine its supply-side economic theories.
Well, I WANT Jed Bartlett for our next president, but since he's a fictional character, it probably won't happen.
The major party candidates to me do not look too inviting as of yet, maybe a Dark horse will come riding in.
The next Presidential election, in my view, is extremely critical to this country.
Our National debt, last I checked, was over 7 TRILLION. The interest payments alone are staggering. Money wasted, down the drain because of inept politicians.
Congress' approval rating is at an all time low in American history. They make 5 times or more what the average American makes in a year, vote themselves raises, and we are it seems powerless to stop them.
This country is in bad shape.
I'd better stop here before I have a tantrum.
Dan is very close to correct. I was balancing my budget here at home and a thought came to mind. so I took this idea and ran it past an economics professor from UCR. He confirmed my theory as correct (with faults). I don't plan on geting into political debate this has no leanning towards either party. If my rent goes up it effects my family budget in one to two months (normally). If I get a raise same thing. My monthly family budget it not impacted right away unless I win the lottery etc. Now multiply this my 300 million!! A budget can take years to impact this country (outside of certain issues that might cause impact right away which are few) the average budget action takes 3 - 9 years to impact (fully) this country. It has many stops along the way before it reaches you and I. Business, manufactering, retail, jobs etc etc. So one can assume (dangerous word) that when a current President or Congress takes credit for good times or is blamed for bad its likely the former who is to blame. Lets not forget how budgets are altered thrughout the years rather than stay in tact for entire plan time frame! This from an economics Professor after I found my own budget did not impact my family for 1 to 3 months depending on action.
Who is my choice for President I am yet undecided but I will look at several things that I feel are important and which ever canidate I feel will strive to achieve these goals is who I will vote for providing I trust their word and I can say this I don't trust Hilary!
You have a point. But, when has supply-side economics, ever produced massive surpluses?
Even with eight Reagan years and four Bush (the elder) years, it didn't happen.
What we did get was an expanding bureaucracy (i.e. behemoth government), to soak up labor because the economic policies didn't work as advertised; contrary to the limited government, official platform; of the party of massive deficits.
Let me also state that the President "alone" can do nothing! He needs Congress approval for any action so once again you cannot blame nor praise the man in the White House. The current twoparty system is a failure as too much money, specail interest etc is involved and the will of the people is no longer what makes decisions. However the system is what it is. I urge everyone to use common sense when voting not follow party lines or last media poll. Decide for yourself what canidate best represents your personal views and can best benefit you! then decide if that canidate can even do what he/she says! Example no matter who wins they are no going to pull our troops out of Irag the Democrats are already fudging on that. It would be a Political disaster fro anyone who tried and with that political suicide. we all want them home but dont buy into promises that says they are comong home it wont happen we have too much to lose by doing so. A gradual withdraw yes but anyone saying otherwise is lieing. When I cast my ballo tit for the caidate who best represents my views (regardless of party) but I also look at voting records and history s well. can this canidate do what he/she says? Not everything is as black and white as the media an dpoliticain want us to believe
Ok poor wording. However the President must work "with" Congress to run country and where its important (declaration of War) he needs Congressional approval. Point made Aaron however this is not a Dictatorship and a President alone does not run country nor should be held in praise or ridicule alone for what happens during his/her term
I'm fine with praising a President for his accomplishments and ridiculing a President as deserved. Sometimes as an individual, for his unilateral actions. And sometimes in concert with the other people or branches of government which contributed to his success or follies.
Reagan created a large national debt (not as bad as Bush, but still bad) When president Clinton took office he no only eliminated the debt, but created a 5 trillion dollar SURPLUS. Now Dubya has reduced that surplus to a 7 trillion dollar deficit.
Bush almost did to us what Herbert Hoover did in the 30's. He has spent more then any of the previous presidents, and he continues to spend. If this keeps up Japan will be the richest county in 2 years.
I support Ron Paul because of his libertarian ideals. He is one of few to vote against the patriot act, and was one of the only republicans to vote against the Iraq war. I admit he's far from perfect, but he's the best we got right now.
How about if pick Aaron Larson for our next president. Thay way the country will get a free lawyer whenever we need one.
and what makes you think Aaron will throw out his fee if elected!
and when is the last time there was a formal declaration of war for the military activity that we undertook?
Our last formal declaration of war was WWII.
we have had 13 Congressionally approved actions that were not formally declared as wars.
the Korean War falls into neither of the 2 catagories above along with several other short term engagements.
Although the current Iraqi situation was approved by Congress in Oct, '02, we had already escalated our aggression to a method much greater than the US imposed constraint of the "no-fly" zones as early as Feb of '01.
along with his (ab)use of the presidential office, Bush has added more signing comment to bills than any other president, often commenting that that particular law is not applicable to himself or the executive branch. Although a signing statement cannot actually be included in the bill/law, its presence does in fact alter how those laws are viewed and even enforced. Many claim that Bush has in effect, placed himself in the position of writing laws. An obvious quash of the Constitution itself.
So, can the president act without Congressional approval and support? You bet. It is a simple matter of claiming something to be of "National Security" or the use of presidential privilege or presidential authority that allows the president to act unilaterally. Although these allowances are not limitless, they do allow the pres to act without the authority of Congress and often place us in a position which Congress must defend, if for no other reason, than to provide a unified front to an enemy of the state.
I vote for Mickey Mouse for pres. We've had a clown in there for the last 2 terms. What can a mouse do worse.
I think this is more a failure of our federal congress, than the president. The president has no war making powers, if not rubberstamped by congress.Quote:
and when is the last time there was a formal declaration of war for the military activity that we undertook?
Consider this analogy to social relationships, our congress claims to abhor booty call relationships (as forms of war); but, is not willing to wait out a cluefull in guy, and get a formal (war) relationship going.
and we can see how well that worked:
Quote:
Upon accepting the Republican nomination for President in 1928, Herbert Hoover predicted that “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us.” Hoover won the presidency that year, but his time in office belied his optimistic assertion. Within eight months of his inauguration, the stock market crashed, signifying the beginning of the Great Depression, the most severe economic crisis the United States had ever known. Rightly or wrongly, Hoover’s efforts to combat the Great Depression have defined his presidency and his place in American history.
For the Ron Paul fans ;)
http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=374554
The problem with anybody outside of the "mainstream" political forces has little (read: no) chance of actually winning and merely acts as a spoiler which can actually cause one of the mainstream candidates to lose when they, in truth, had a real possibility of winning.
I do believe we need a major shake up of the system but by throwing your vote to a person that is all but guaranteed to not win does not, I believe, improve the system.
It does make a statement. The Ross Perot situation made a statement. The Ralph Nader situation makes a statement.
When all is said and done, it actually changes little to nothing. A drastic and rapid change is very difficult to have happen. What needs to be done is to find candidates that are a bit off center (towards the desired direction) but not so far as to not be a realistic candidate. Continual election of such candidates will eventually find the desired changes the voters seek.
So far, we have not been able to elect a woman or a black to either the vice presidency or the presidency. Do you really believe we will be able to elect any person not in the mainstream of either of the two major parties? Hell, Howard Dean was a major contender until his infamous scream at the end of his path to the Whitehouse speach. As it seems that is all it takes to run a major contender off the road, how much strength is there is somebody like Ron Paul's campaign.
I'm still looking for answers but I don;t think voting for Ron Paul is the answer.
Maybe RuPaul, but not Ron Paul.:eek::D
just kidding.
What do you think of the party of massive surpluses, under Obama?
My (foreign) policy consideration is that more focus could be given to the other continent, down under.
With more emphasis, and US leadership, even the Europeans could benefit from less immigration (that is usually only a problem for socialist economies that are less efficient than ours).
I think we were too critical.Quote:
Hell, Howard Dean was a major contender until his infamous scream at the end of his path to the Whitehouse speach.
Quote:
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
You do realize that several of his programs were ruled unconstitutional and he was opposed due to his use of unchecked and over reaching use of federal powers don't you.
As well, I am sure you know that the unemployment rate continued to be unacceptably high until we entered WWII.
I am sure you also know that FDR was a major proponent of the US entering the war, right? This was to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy, which I am sure you already knew, right?
Wait, wait don't tell me... Herbert Hoover was responsible for the Great Depression? The Great Depression of 1929? How about the World Wide Depression of 1930?
Wow! All this time I thought Calvin Coolidge was the 30th President of the United States of America from 1923-1929.
World War I debt policies didn't have anything to with foreign market for American goods?
Congress blocking Hoover didn't have anything to do with the Depression spiraling downward?
Quote:
In 1931 repercussions from Europe deepened the crisis, even though the President presented to Congress a program asking for creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to aid business, additional help for farmers facing mortgage foreclosures, banking reform, a loan to states for feeding the unemployed, expansion of public works, and drastic governmental economy.
At the same time he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.
His opponents in Congress, who he felt were sabotaging his program for their own political gain, unfairly painted him as a callous and cruel President. Hoover became the scapegoat for the depression and was badly defeated in 1932. In the 1930's he became a powerful critic of the New Deal, warning against tendencies toward statism.
first, I never said he was responsible but since his term started in March of 1929, and the "Great Depression" I referred to began in October of 29, that gave Hoover at least 7 months to take action to forestall such a depression. He failed to do so. Along with that, he failed to find an answer for the recovery from the depression as well. Even Bush has found methods to sidestep just about any restriction Congress has attempted to place on him. If W can do it, I would suspect any reasonably competent president would be able to as well.
Obviously, this is too large of a topic to be answered so quickly and simply. That is why my response was simply in response to Daniels claims of grandeur on the part or Hoover or FDR.
You love birds arguing again? haha
What programs?
What history book did you read that said we entered WWII to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment? Huh?
Jk, why don't you come up with an educated statement?
Did you ever hear about the roaring 20's?
Did you know there was a concept of spend to day and pay tomorrow?
Have you ever heard the term buying on margin?
How about the fall of the Knickerbocker Bank 1907?
J. P. Morgan?
Tennessee Coal and Iron Company?
U.S. Steel Corporation?
How about the 1930 draught that devestated our agriculture? Hoover did that?
Did you know the economists of the early 1900's predicted this present economic disaster the US experiences right now in this economy? Our debt followed FDR's spend today and pay tomorrow which the people of the United States LOVE!
The price of gas has never been more expensive and everybody has to drive an SUV?
Seven months? You said he was in office seven months?
Was he responsible for the Federal Reserve's decisions to tighten the belt?
What about the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the nation's first Federal unemployment assistance?
Increased public works spending.
Request of Congress for a $400 million increase in the Federal Building Program.
Directed the Department of Commerce to establish a Division of Public Construction in December 1929
Increased subsidies for ship construction through the Federal Shipping Board.
Urged the state governors to also increase their public works spending, though many failed to take any action.
Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act establishing the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home.
Increased subsidies to the nation's struggling farmers with the Agricultural Marketing Act.
President's Emergency Relief Organization to coordinate local private relief efforts resulting in over 3,000 relief committees across the U.S.
Authorized the repatriation to Mexico of 1-2 million people living in barrios throughout California, Texas and Michigan, 60% of whom were U.S. citizens of Mexican-descent, in an effort to ease unemployment.
Urged bankers to form the National Credit Corporation to assist banks in financial trouble and protect depositors' money.
Encourage business to pay high wages.
Signed the Reconstruction Finance Act for loans to the states for public works and unemployment relief.
House Ways and Means Committee generated more than 20,000 pages of testimony regarding tariff protection, Congress responded with legislation that Hoover signed although opposed to it. That Smoot-Hawley tariff set off a worldwide trade war which only worsened the country's (and the world's) economic ills.
It's politics. Whose in power. How can our politics ruin a presidency of the party in power so we can be in power? no matter what happens to the economy or the people!