Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Phssthpok
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 227

03 Jun 2007, 11:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Actually, both sides are ideologically driven, I just think that Republicans have less of the ever dangerous pessimistic and anti-market biases. New taxes right now would send us into a recession but possibly not later when they might be passed. Economic growth is how we dealt with past deficits. It is called supply-side economics, the term voodoo is used to make fun of it. What you describe is the laffer curve. Inflation has been relatively controlled though, probably because of good monetary management.
Republicans generally come from business backgrounds and have a good understanding of economics and how to run a business which is more then I can say for most democrats. They do have an ideology but it is less extreme and damaging then the socialist one even if the socialist one is morally superior now is very bad time to take drastic measures.



Phssthpok
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 227

04 Jun 2007, 12:12 am

skafather84 wrote:
1. israel shoots to kill with those crossing the fences. 2. palestine does not have nearly the same means of getting over fences and such that mexicans do (mexico is poor but not as poor as palestine). 3. most of the terrorists who have successfully attacked us have come through legitimate means or faked passports...not sneaking in illegally. i think the only example of the border is a failed attempt to bomb a fort in texas and if we enforced border patrol through humans patroling and using force to stop those from entering illegally, that wouldn't be a problem anyways. not that we should be killing everyone who enters illegally...but they'll be less likely to try it if it costs them an arm and a leg and is cheaper to stay in mexico or enter through legal means.

there is somewhat of a bottleneck effect but the most practical move is opening up nuclear power plants, reducing our need for oil and opening up yucca mountain. it'd be cheaper if we pulled out of all our involvement in the middle east and invested that money in transitioning towards electic power and alternative fuel sources for vehicles (trillions have been spent protecting israel and otherwise meddling in the middle east...that money can be much better spent). i agree with us cutting down on our greenhouse gas emissions for the sake of being on the safe side of if global warming is human influenced. if not, we can just dig alaska later (i could care less about nature reserves).

ghouliani won't cut spending. he's been spouting the same rhetoric as bush has. this means that he's of the same idealogical beliefs....and though he's lying about the economy now, he will be just another spend and inflate neo-con. no economic sense....just as much garbage ideology as the dems have on the environment.

people i'd consider leaving the country if they get elected: fred thompson, rudy ghouliani, mit romney, hillary clinton, barak obama, and sam brownbeck.

the country is going down really fast with this group of candidates. there's no quality. only rhetoric without action and without real concern for the country first. they have other interests before ours.

and on that note: i also propose that no dual citizen can hold office. eliminate all the israel/US dual citizens.
Someone needs to do a cost benefit analysis on a border fence. I think it could save us money in the long run since less human patrolling would be necessary with one.

Nuclear power is not something we need right away eventually it will be but the coal reserves in this country are substantial. Nuclear power is under way too much regulation right now. I hate to say it but the French have the right idea about how to certify and run power plants. Most of the energy used in this country is for transportation anyways and although I suppose coal liquefaction oil shale and nuclear reactors would be a viable and completely domestic option the problem is the huge investment in infrastructure would be lost if oil prices went down again which is still possible. Bottom line the market will take care of energy policy and drastic changes are too risky right now.

Maybe Giuliani will be like Bush but I think he has been upfront about his social agenda during the primaries especially when it could alienate his base which indicates to me he is honest about what he believes.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jun 2007, 7:56 am

Phssthpok wrote:
Republicans generally come from business backgrounds and have a good understanding of economics and how to run a business which is more then I can say for most democrats. They do have an ideology but it is less extreme and damaging then the socialist one even if the socialist one is morally superior now is very bad time to take drastic measures.

Many academic economists are democrats though. I would say that republicans have less anti-market bias than democrats, but still, many republicans are such out of ideology or tax cuts.



postpaleo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,134
Location: North Mirage, Pennsyltucky

04 Jun 2007, 9:45 am

Joe Biden, has been looking good to me for a good while now. Even before this run.


_________________
Just enjoy what you do, as best you can, and let the dog out once in a while.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

04 Jun 2007, 8:21 pm

Phssthpok wrote:
Maybe Giuliani will be like Bush but I think he has been upfront about his social agenda during the primaries especially when it could alienate his base which indicates to me he is honest about what he believes.




i guarentee you $300. that ghouliani will be like bush. just because he lies doesn't hide his actions and the similar tone in rhetoric.