Are any of the popular candidates pledging to stop spending $$ faster than they can get it off the presses? With the prospect of mushrooming social security and medicare expenditures, along with a stifling defense budget, (thanks for your wonderful "Bush doctrine", GW. That's worked out well!) now we're talking about pledging ever more $$ for universal healthcare. When did "ask not what your country can do for you" get replaced with "As long as I get mine!". I guess I'm going to be forced to vote for McCain as the least objectionable option. A democratic president with a democtratic-controlled congress will be financially devastating for this country as far as I can tell. Maybe even worse than the Republican executive/legislative spendfest we already endured. At least with those two branches of gov't squabbling and trying to impeach one another, their attention is somewhat diverted from figuring out new and creative ways to rob the spending power and savings of our citizens while pretending to lower taxes. Anyone have any ideas here?
I agree that McCain is the best of the three. Still not a good pick but I will hold my nose when I vote for him. The other two Socialists would make this once great nation a third world country in 4 years.
In short, no. I think McCain will cut spending on domestic programs which is needed but he is a warmonger and will make up for any spending cuts with his 100 years in Iraq policy. Basically, six of one half dozen of the other in regards to future spending. The players may change but the game remains the same.
LMAO. You're kidding, right? The only thing voters like better than more government is lots more government. Even the republicans no longer have smaller government as a plank in their platform. There's maybe a few thousand left of us weirdos that believe in limited government. Most everybody has both trotters in the public trough and are squealing for more slops. We've had a growing sense of entitlement for years. People now figure they have a right to healthcare, a nice house, 3 squares a day, and somebody to pay them to raise their kids. Moving to politics.
Why are candidates that promise to attempt to practice fiscal responsibility unelectable??? As a voter, it has become a process, like a previous poster stated, of holding your nose and picking the least objectionable candidate. If you go out on a limb and try voting for some no-name party candidate, you end up feeling like you and the other eighteen guys who did the same, have wasted their votes. For as much as I dislike Bush, at least he did try to do something about social security (and was practically run out of D.C. for even mentioning it). Not sure his solution was any better than what we have, but somebody needs to get the discussion rolling in congress and at least shed more light on the situation.
Thanks for the reply, TGregg, I thought about posting in politics, but on the other hand, consider the issue to be equally important in regard to the economic impact.
Because people are clueless when it comes to money. Look at the income tax, people cheer when they are getting a refund come tax day. It's their @&^* money that they overpaid to the government! It's the exact same thing as some restaurant calling them up 6 months after they ate there and saying "Whoops, we overcharged you. Here's a hundred bucks back." Would they be happy then? No. We've reached a critical mass where most Americans get more from the government than they pay for. Somebody has to pay the tab, and you can bet the average voter will vote for anybody who promises to save them from the tab.
the media makes sure they don't advance. inclusive with the media mafia, you have the military ind complex and the banks. they all benefit from excessive spending and unpayable debt. never ending usury for the banks and windfall profits for the military contractors. war is big business and the media is their apparatus. they will stop at nothing to make sure an honest fiscal conservative is stopped dead in his tracks.
It is very frustrating in that, beyond using your vote to make a statement that won't be heard, by voting for someone other than the two choices fed to us by the two major political machines, what can I do? Send letters and emails to my congressmen? BahHahhah, and become one of the handful of suspicious crackpots who actually doesn't want my elected representative to go out and score more pork-barrel spending on behalf of his/her constituents? Just once I'd love to see a candidate get up and admit that they will do anything to get votes and nothing to help our country.
Mac is a fiscal conservative. Yes, he supports the war, but other than that he is a major hawk on controlling spending. Although we will have troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, I think its obvious that the numbers will decrease over time. Its the entitlement programs that really kill us. Mac also wants to completely eliminate pork. Although not a major expense relatively speaking, the principle of pork spending really pisses me off. Also, for those of you not so versed in econ, lowering taxes actually increases revenue (if done at the proper levels). Its called the Laffer curve, and has been proven time and time again to be valid. Raising taxes increases revenues for the year immediately following, and then actually depresses them. It slows the economy, and gives people big incentive to find ways to avoid paying their taxes. A booming economy trumps all, no matter what the tax rates are. Think of the huge surpluses during the dotcom boom. This was 100% due to a cranking economy.