Posted by chapelhillne on 10/27/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm all for term limits on the house and senate. I don't think the founders envisioned career politicians like we have today. I wish we could throw all of the bums out of office and start over. I am voting for Romney though because I don't think this country can stand adding more debt. If you look at how much our country has declined in the last 4 years it is scary. I wish a 3rd party would start too. I think the government is WAY too big. So much of what it does, it was never intended to do. For example, one of the stimulus projects was spending $100,000 (may have been a million) to construct a tunnel for turtles to go under a highway in Florida. The senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years, which they are required to do by law. It's out of control. I think at least Romney will have some inclination to bring the budget into balance, since he has done it in the past in private business. I definitely do not want to see more of what we have had for the last 4 years, or the eight years before it. Bush spent way too much too, but Obama has put the spending on steroids. Seeing the US credit rating decline was a big wake up call. We just can't continue down this path.
i agree man, im scared of obama. but, i do want to encourage you to look into one thing. government spending under obama really HAS NOT went up as much as people think. the deficit has skyrocket, yes - but its so much to do with less money coming in. i am not even slightly an advocate for obama, he has totally not lived up to his promise of being "different" - he plays politics just as bad as the rest of em. but, i do think its important to be fair in the criticisms, and the republicans really try to push him as the big spender, and romney as the fiscally responsible guy, and im just not buying what they are selling (i dont buy what obama is selling either, for what its worth). romney is backed by the same big business/social elite backed republican party machine as bush/cheney, and bush is probably the BIGGEST offender to fiscal conservatives in 30 years, including obama. i just dont believe romney is going to be that different - thats why ive finally decided the only thing i can do this election is hope romney loses (a very unfortunate side effect being obama winning), because the only fiscal conservatives in the country are fighting to take back the republican party, and the republican establishment just keeps shitting on them - i mean who do they hate more than ron paul? well, obama, obviously - but i mean within their party. i think losing to obama again might force them to, you know, listen... and if fiscal conservatives could take over EITHER party, id be all over that ****. but i dont think there is a democratic equivalent to the libertarian movement within the republican party.
check that out - its a graph of debt increase by president in the last 30 years. obviously, its a little misleading, because some of those guys had 8 years, some 4, and obama is only counted for like 3. but it has been rated by snopes as accurate (albeit somewhat misleading), and there is something to take away there. id vote republican if they were fiscally conservative, but in the last 30 years, they are worse than the democrats (which is scary, given the democrats. the only guy who even came close to being fiscally conservative was clinton, who did more to reform welfare and scale back social programs than probably every other president on that list put together. however, he also got lucky, to preside over the internet boom - but you have to give him props for not taking all that extra money, and spending it - instead putting out balanced budgets i think 4 of his 8 years, with at least a surplus or two). anyway, obama of course has increased the deficit pretty much per year - but he also got a huge deficit and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. thats at least a half-way decent excuse - id vote him out still, if the other guy didn't seem likely to follow the bush path, and bush has worse numbers than obama without nearly as good an excuse.
anyway, this one is a little more important, although its still skewed. its a good thing they call that an opinion piece because its definitely not fact, and there is some dodgy work with the assignment of stimulus packages and the 2008 budget. but the fact you can even make such an argument says something. to me, what it really says is the fiscal policies under GW were a mess - some of the highest spending increases, combined with tax cuts, its no WONDER he towers on that debt increase list (except reagan, but GDP really went up under him too, his debt to gdp numbers are better). and GW got a basically balanced budget from clinton. obama got a huge deficit and the income dropped out under him - i agree, hes bad, but the fiscal policies under bush are about as bad as i have ever seen - and i just dont think romney is different enough. otherwise, why would he propose ANOTHER 5 trillion dollar tax cut, most of which goes to the wealthy? only about 1 trillion will to go families making 200K or less a year (which is a lot), and some goes to businesses, but the lion's share goes to the wealthy, and that just does not make sense to me when you consider how big our deficit is already. also, im afraid of a candidate that people spent teh entire primary trying NOT to nominate, while the same party machine that gave us Bush pushed Romney the whole way. again, i dont disagree with you re: obama in general, but i think its only fair to point out he hasnt increased spending on steroids like the republicans paint him to do - that would be G W bush, my least favorite president of all time (which is a shame, i respect his dad quite a bit). well, i dont know, if i lived longer id probably say its jimmy carter, but having lived through GW, i have to give it to him. with a * that says, wow, jimmy carter could even be worse, but its too scary to think of an even worse president regarding the economy, so i try not to look.
10/27/2012 4:05 PM (edited)