2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,256
#3,256
jamesthesame said:
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I don't agree with a lot of what Clinton says. I could not vote for Trump ever.

This is the first election sine I've been voting (2002), where I can't find a candidate that I actually have the majority opinion with.

Help me out people!

I could care less about moral issues such as gay marriage, abortions, stem cell research, etc... I suppose you can say I'm a strong supporter of free will.

On the other hand, I care deeply about the economy. Because of this, I could never vote for someone who believes in a straight balanced budget. Also, I could never vote for someone who would waste resources to build something such as a wall along the southern border. Also, I side with democrats more on the issue of government spending as opposed to tax breaks although they accomplish basically the same thing.

I want true government funded healthcare. I don't believe that capitalism is always the best choice on how to govern certain markets. Government healthcare (Medicare) has lower overhead than private market. I am not speaking about Obamacare. Obamacare has been a joke, and I would like the new President to try and persuade Congress to repeal it.

Alright, school me if you must, or give me a link to read more about different candidates. lol. I have been working a lot this year, and I probably need to catch up on some candidates that haven't been too mainstream.
Click to expand...
From your post, I can tell you this much. You are a Democrat. You may say that you care about the economy, but the things that you are for make it harder for the economy to prosper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,257
#3,257
1972 Grad said:
I said "not for me." I recommended Sanders for the guy who was undecided. He wanted free everything, and no balanced budget. It's a match made in heaven.
Click to expand...

Why is a balanced budget a good thing? A balanced budget would work in years where the economy is growing. What about the years we are in a recession?

When a recession happens, the unemployment rate rises. Government spending rises to help pay for unemployment insurance and other forms of aid. Tax revenue decreases because you have more people out of jobs.

Usually the government would increase spending or lower taxes (run the budget in a deficit) to try and fix the recession.

If we balanced the budget during a recession the government would have to either raise taxes or cut spending to meet the budget. This would make the recession worse.

What are your thoughts on why a balanced budget would work? My opinion can be changed. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,258
#3,258
jamesthesame said:
Why is a balanced budget a good thing? A balanced budget would work in years where the economy is growing. What about the years we are in a recession?

When a recession happens, the unemployment rate rises. Government spending rises to help pay for unemployment insurance and other forms of aid. Tax revenue decreases because you have more people out of jobs.

Usually the government would increase spending or lower taxes (run the budget in a deficit) to try and fix the recession.

If we balanced the budget during a recession the government would have to either raise taxes or cut spending to meet the budget. This would make the recession worse.

What are your thoughts on why a balanced budget would work? My opinion can be changed. Lol
Click to expand...

If you lost your job would you spend more money or less money before finding a new one?
 
#3,259
#3,259
volfanhill said:
If you lost your job would you spend more money or less money before finding a new one?
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I don't believe that running the government like I would run my household will work.

What about my above examples? The economy is in a recession and lots of people have lost their jobs. Is it really a good idea to raise taxes or cut spending? If you chose to not raise taxes, where would you cut spending? Would you cut unemployment insurance? Military?
 
#3,260
#3,260
jamesthesame said:
Why is a balanced budget a good thing? A balanced budget would work in years where the economy is growing. What about the years we are in a recession?

When a recession happens, the unemployment rate rises. Government spending rises to help pay for unemployment insurance and other forms of aid. Tax revenue decreases because you have more people out of jobs.

Usually the government would increase spending or lower taxes (run the budget in a deficit) to try and fix the recession.

If we balanced the budget during a recession the government would have to either raise taxes or cut spending to meet the budget. This would make the recession worse.

What are your thoughts on why a balanced budget would work? My opinion can be changed. Lol
Click to expand...

Which shouldn't happen. All employers pay into UE.
 
#3,261
#3,261
jamesthesame said:
I understand your point, but I don't believe that running the government like I would run my household will work.

What about my above examples? The economy is in a recession and lots of people have lost their jobs. Is it really a good idea to raise taxes or cut spending? If you chose to not raise taxes, where would you cut spending? Would you cut unemployment insurance? Military?
Click to expand...

Take out Social Security and Medicare which are 50% of total government spending then start balancing the budget. Regardless, signing the spending bill without reading it is worth impeachment. I will vote against everyone in my district/state that voted for it without any discussion.
 
#3,262
#3,262
jamesthesame said:
Why is a balanced budget a good thing? A balanced budget would work in years where the economy is growing. What about the years we are in a recession?

When a recession happens, the unemployment rate rises. Government spending rises to help pay for unemployment insurance and other forms of aid. Tax revenue decreases because you have more people out of jobs.

Usually the government would increase spending or lower taxes (run the budget in a deficit) to try and fix the recession.

If we balanced the budget during a recession the government would have to either raise taxes or cut spending to meet the budget. This would make the recession worse.

What are your thoughts on why a balanced budget would work? My opinion can be changed. Lol
Click to expand...
Spending more than you take in leads to borrowing money, which leads to having less money to spend in the future because you have to service the debt.
Look at it this way. You need $50,000 this year for expenses, but only make $40,000 at your job, so you put $10,000 on your credit card. Next year, you need $51,500 because you have to pay $1,500 on your credit card interest. After a few years of this, it becomes a real problem.
 
#3,263
#3,263
IPleadInsanity said:
Take out Social Security and Medicare which are 50% of total government spending then start balancing the budget. Regardless, signing the spending bill without reading it is worth impeachment. I will vote against everyone in my district/state that voted for it without any discussion.
Click to expand...

Completely get rid of social security and Medicare, or just the part for the disabled?
 
#3,264
#3,264
1972 Grad said:
Spending more than you take in leads to borrowing money, which leads to having less money to spend in the future because you have to service the debt.
Look at it this way. You need $50,000 this year for expenses, but only make $40,000 at your job, so you put $10,000 on your credit card. Next year, you need $51,500 because you have to pay $1,500 on your credit card interest. After a few years of this, it becomes a real problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your point. I run a household budget, and only have the debt of my mortgage. I pay for everything else with cash.

However, during a recession what spending would you cut? Or would you raise taxes on individuals and corporations to meet budget?
 
#3,265
#3,265
jamesthesame said:
Yes, I understand your point. I run a household budget, and only have the debt of my mortgage. I pay for everything else with cash.

However, during a recession what spending would you cut? Or would you raise taxes on individuals and corporations to meet budget?
Click to expand...

Why not govern efficiently to create a budget surplus. Then it can be tapped during lean years. Much like how I treat my savings account. This isn't that complex. States do it all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,266
#3,266
jamesthesame said:
Yes, I understand your point. I run a household budget, and only have the debt of my mortgage. I pay for everything else with cash.

However, during a recession what spending would you cut? Or would you raise taxes on individuals and corporations to meet budget?
Click to expand...

Forget a recession. If taxes were lowered, EPA, OHSA and other out of control agencies were reigned in or eliminated we wouldn't be vulnerable to recessions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,268
#3,268
Jxn Vol said:
Why not govern efficiently to create a budget surplus. Then it can be tapped during lean years. Much like how I treat my savings account. This isn't that complex. States do it all the time.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, alright this is just an example off the top of my head.

Lets take one major issue that makes the Fed different than states: national security.

Lets say you run a surplus for most years. You have some money saved up. A war starts. You have to drastically increase military spending. Your savings won't cover this.

So what do you do? You either raise taxes or cut spending. Where do you cut the spending?

If this was your personal savings account, it is now depleted. You have no money, but you must balance your budget. Do you cut down to one meal a day for your family? Sell your house? take up three jobs?

I'm just provoking thought. Lol.
 
#3,269
#3,269
jamesthesame said:
Completely get rid of social security and Medicare, or just the part for the disabled?
Click to expand...

NO, I was saying 50% of the budget (SS and Medicare) can't be touched so balancing will need to come from the remaining portion. Shrinking government is the only solution but if its not balanced soon the US dollar will become worthless. Can't spend money you don't have regardless of what the politicians think. Can is just being kicked down the road year after year.
 
#3,272
#3,272
jamesthesame said:
Hmmm, alright this is just an example off the top of my head.

Lets take one major issue that makes the Fed different than states: national security.

Lets say you run a surplus for most years. You have some money saved up. A war starts. You have to drastically increase military spending. Your savings won't cover this.

So what do you do? You either raise taxes or cut spending. Where do you cut the spending?

If this was your personal savings account, it is now depleted. You have no money, but you must balance your budget. Do you cut down to one meal a day for your family? Sell your house? take up three jobs?

I'm just provoking thought. Lol.
Click to expand...

That's easy. Go to war and kill the enemy. Make the conquered country or countries pay for the costs of the war. Right now any war we enter would not take long if we enter it with the goal of winning. Screw this post war nation building crap that we do now.

But to provoke more thought, we have so much waste that if most of it was eliminated our surplus would grow so much that we as a country could wipe with hundred$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,274
#3,274
IPleadInsanity said:
NO, I was saying 50% of the budget (SS and Medicare) can't be touched so balancing will need to come from the remaining portion. Shrinking government is the only solution but if its not balanced soon the US dollar will become worthless. Can't spend money you don't have regardless of what the politicians think. Can is just being kicked down the road year after year.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the misunderstanding. What are your views on cutting military spending?
 
#3,275
#3,275
Jxn Vol said:
That's easy. Go to war and kill the enemy. Make the conquered country or countries pay for the costs of the war. Right now any war we enter would not take long if we enter it with the goal of winning. Screw this post war nation building crap that we do now.

But to provoke more thought, we have so much waste that if most of it was eliminated our surplus would grow so much that we as a country could wipe with hundred$.
Click to expand...

Yes, a good goal when entering a war would be to have a means of victory. Our current wars have no means of victory and in my opinion are just delaying the inevitable.

I agree with you. I have never been in favor of being occupiers. I think we should bomb and use ground force if necessary but leave after the job is done.

Yes, we do have a lot of waste. What could we do to fix this? Set term limits on Congress to prevent corruption?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top