Republican candidates for 2012

• gut

  I Wear Pants;1100008 wrote:Okay, take away the debt part and what Quaker said is still false, we have seen a massive increase in defense spending.

  Relative to what? It has gone up a lot, but so has all discretionary spending. I think it illustrates the amount of potential fat to be cut, but I'm not sure it's significantly outpaced other discretionary spending, some of which has shifted to become permanent entitlements. It's gone from @ $500B in 1962 to @ $900B. That seems like a big increase, but over 50 years it's less than double? That's an annual growth rate of less than 2%. Look at the below chart which shows military spending as a % of GDP.
  
  http://blog.heritage.org/2008/03/28/defense-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp-well-below-historical-average/
  
• stlouiedipalma

  Manhattan Buckeye;1099936 wrote:I'm saying it won't get worse. Obama has been a complete disaster. We were ready to hang W in '04 when unemployment in a jobless recovery was at 6.4....why are we giving Obama a pass after 3 years when we're stuck in the 8-9 range?
  
  Is this an affirmative action presidency? Does he get a head start? Why do you support him? The nation is in major suckitude. Housing sucks. Jobs market sucks. Debt (both the nation's and individual's) sucks. What the heck has he done? Why has he earned your vote? Because he went to Harvard Law School (and did nothing afterwards)?
  
  I'm voting for Romney, but I don't care, I just want Obama out. Congrats, we elected a Black POTUS, perhaps the next Black President will be qualified. Obama isn't.

  
  I support him for one simple reason (courtesy of Ronald Reagan): I'm better off now than I was four years ago. My taxes are lower, my portfolio is better and my health insurance provider cannot deny me coverage for a pre-existing condition.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;1100487 wrote:I support him for one simple reason (courtesy of Ronald Reagan): I'm better off now than I was four years ago. My taxes are lower, my portfolio is better and my health insurance provider cannot deny me coverage for a pre-existing condition.

  Makes sense to me. A lot of people vote that way.
  
  I rakr a different approach. Me being better off or not better never be the result of a President. I look at national issues and ideology to make my decision.
• stlouiedipalma

  Con_Alma;1100493 wrote:Makes sense to me. A lot of people vote that way.
  
  I rakr a different approach. Me being better off or not better never be the result of a President. I look at national issues and ideology to make my decision.

  I would guess that pretty high percentage of middle-class voters vote with their pocketbooks. As for whether the President is responsible, I don't know. It's funny, though. When things are going well the R's say the President isn't a factor. When they go in the toilet, they blame him for everything.
  
  Given my economic standing these days, I should be voting for the Republican candidate, as I would expect that person to implement policies which would favor the upper and upper-middle classes. Unfortunately, their insistence on social engineering and religion turns me off. For a party who espouses small government, they sure do want that government to be intruding into my personal affairs.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;1100512 wrote:I would guess that pretty high percentage of middle-class voters vote with their pocketbooks....

  I would probably agree.
  
  As far as Republicans and blame...that may be also. Although I am not a Republican, it's the macro things that I tend to blame on the Oval Office. I need to be able individually to make my way around whatever the current scenario is. If not, shame on me.
• stlouiedipalma

  I neglected to incude the D's on the whole "blame and credit" game. I recall that they aren't without sin either.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;1100487 wrote:I'm better off now than I was four years ago. My taxes are lower, my portfolio is better

  Yeah, but you're not choosing between Bush and Obama. 2008 is a really lousy hurdle to aim for, basically being the peak of the financial crisis. And if Obama gets re-elected, your taxes ain't remaining lower and the market will probably cough up trillion or more. Businesses do not like Obama - everyone is in survival mode until November. Maybe eventually they would get over it, but the end of the year will not be good for the economy and the markets if Obama gets 4 more years.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;1100512 wrote:I should be voting for the Republican candidate, as I would expect that person to implement policies which would favor the upper and upper-middle classes.

  Might depend on your definition of "upper", but in general Dems and Repubs battle over subsidizing the rich and the poor, and both end-up screwing the middle/upper/upper middle class.
• I Wear Pants

  jhay78;1100358 wrote:These lines were added to our founding document long before the 1950's:
  
  
  
  I get what you're saying, just don't pretend like "separation of church and state" and the First Amendment are the same thing.

  Doesn't name a creator, most of the founders were deists.
  
  But again, imagine if we tried to remove the creator parts from the constitution, people would flip shit. Why is it not okay to be upset about adding things like that to the pledge and to money?
• Footwedge

  gut;1100699 wrote:Yeah, but you're not choosing between Bush and Obama. 2008 is a really lousy hurdle to aim for, basically being the peak of the financial crisis. And if Obama gets re-elected, your taxes ain't remaining lower and the market will probably cough up trillion or more. Businesses do not like Obama - everyone is in survival mode until November. Maybe eventually they would get over it, but the end of the year will not be good for the economy and the markets if Obama gets 4 more years.

  I'm sure Wall Street will pony up plenty for Obama and his campaign.
• Footwedge

  I Wear Pants;1100770 wrote:Doesn't name a creator, most of the founders were deists.
  
  But again, imagine if we tried to remove the creator parts from the constitution, people would flip ****. Why is it not okay to be upset about adding things like that to the pledge and to money?

  Not to be picky....isn't the phrase "under God" pretty much all encompassing...kind of how deists view a Supreme Being?
  
  In other words, I could see your point a lot clearer...if the pledge said "under Jesus".
  
  I agree with you that the forefathers en masse denounced any form of theocracy in our government. I think Santorum needs to be very careful in how he chooses his words things when he goes forward.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Footwedge;1100907 wrote:I'm sure Wall Street will pony up plenty for Obama and his campaign.

  Well...wouldn't YOU pony up plenty for the person who gives you billions so you could stay in business without risk? Who doesn't appreciate their Suga Daddy?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  stlouiedipalma;1100487 wrote:I support him for one simple reason (courtesy of Ronald Reagan): I'm better off now than I was four years ago. My taxes are lower, my portfolio is better and my health insurance provider cannot deny me coverage for a pre-existing condition.

  I take it you don't own a house. If every American votes based on your criteria not only will BO lose in a landslide, he would have been impeached already. My wife and I have slightly higher incomes than we did in '08, but not enough to keep up with inflation, and the brutal beatings we've taken on our two homes far exceed any gains in stock.
  
  There are very few Americans better off now than they were four years ago, particularly the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs which won't be coming back that the media underplays.
• IggyPride00

  

  the brutal beatings we've taken on our two homes far exceed any gains in stock.

  You can thank Helicopter Ben and the big Wallstreet banks for that.
  
  No one wants to recognize any losses or writedown mortgages, so we continue to languish in no mans land because half these banks would probably be insolvent if they had to carry these loans on the books at what they're actually worth.
  
  Not to mention that in every corner of the country there is an investor cheering for a "credit event" that kicks in their CDS protection when homes go into foreclosure....which makes it impossible to ever really modify mortgages.
  
  Congress allowed this fiasco to continue on far longer than it had to when they allowed banks to go back to mark to myth accounting to cover up how many banks were essentially broke. Just another fine example of kicking the can down the road hoping this will get better.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1101049 wrote: There are very few Americans better off now than they were four years ago, particularly the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs which won't be coming back that the media underplays.

  And 0% interest rates really have those living on fixed incomes sitting pretty.
• dwccrew

  

  BGFalcons82;1100963 wrote:Well...wouldn't YOU pony up plenty for the person who gives you billions so you could stay in business without risk? Who doesn't appreciate their Suga Daddy?

  I'm pretty sure Bush was the president when the first bailout of Wall St. occured.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
  

  The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;1101049 wrote:I take it you don't own a house. If every American votes based on your criteria not only will BO lose in a landslide, he would have been impeached already. My wife and I have slightly higher incomes than we did in '08, but not enough to keep up with inflation, and the brutal beatings we've taken on our two homes far exceed any gains in stock.
  
  There are very few Americans better off now than they were four years ago, particularly the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs which won't be coming back that the media underplays.

  Housing crisis was started way before Obama took office if I remember correctly.
• I Wear Pants

  Footwedge;1100915 wrote:Not to be picky....isn't the phrase "under God" pretty much all encompassing...kind of how deists view a Supreme Being?
  
  In other words, I could see your point a lot clearer...if the pledge said "under Jesus".
  
  I agree with you that the forefathers en masse denounced any form of theocracy in our government. I think Santorum needs to be very careful in how he chooses his words things when he goes forward.

  I guess you're right in that part.
  
  Still don't get why we're cool with people altering our pledge and motto to fit their religious beliefs though.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I Wear Pants;1101296 wrote:Housing crisis was started way before Obama took office if I remember correctly.

  True, but recovery summer was in '10, wasn't that Smilin' Joe's claim? How is that recovery working for us? If BO is re-elected this year it is practically guaranteed we'll be in '16 looking at a fiscal situation of at least US$20T debt, if we get the same poor results from the debt spending the last 3 years the U.S. will be in a very difficult situation (to state it moderately). We've already seen social unrest from the libertarian/right wing with the Tea Party movement, and from the progressive/left wing with the OWS protests. I think the fringe on each side will grow more angry when it is obvious that retirement is a pipe dream for the Boomers/Gen X, and a livable job is a pipe dream for young people with tens of thousands of dollars in education debt. Yet, Washington DC continues to grow and grow. I have no idea why anyone would vote for Obama again.
• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;1101396 wrote:True, but recovery summer was in '10, wasn't that Smilin' Joe's claim? How is that recovery working for us? If BO is re-elected this year it is practically guaranteed we'll be in '16 looking at a fiscal situation of at least US$20T debt, if we get the same poor results from the debt spending the last 3 years the U.S. will be in a very difficult situation (to state it moderately). We've already seen social unrest from the libertarian/right wing with the Tea Party movement, and from the progressive/left wing with the OWS protests. I think the fringe on each side will grow more angry when it is obvious that retirement is a pipe dream for the Boomers/Gen X, and a livable job is a pipe dream for young people with tens of thousands of dollars in education debt. Yet, Washington DC continues to grow and grow. I have no idea why anyone would vote for Obama again.

  I have no idea why anyone would vote for any of the viable candidates besides Paul then. None of them but him would solve the problems you described.
  
  Also, wasn't the economy improving pretty decently in summer 10 and then slowed unexpectedly (was that when the Eurozone debt stuff started)?
  
  I agree with you that Obama has not done a particularly good job, I simply disagree though that things would be any better had Mccain won or had somehow Bush had 4 more years. 3 years in is a bit long to be still blaming the previous administration for everything but it's also far too short to forget what the situation was prior to this one and it wasn't all roses.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Obama has been a disaster, but he isn't any more responsible for housing prices than any of the other corrupt assholes running the government. If you are worried about the price (in dollars) of your home you should really thank Barack and Dubya and Helicopter Ben. If we were going to price homes based on supply and demand the price has a lot father to fall.
  
  Of course, the dollars your home is priced in will buy you a lot less now than if the nominal price was allowed to collapse. You would be much better off, but many people sure wouldn't understand that.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck;1101552 wrote:Obama has been a disaster, but he isn't any more responsible for housing prices than any of the other corrupt assholes running the government. If you are worried about the price (in dollars) of your home you should really thank Barack and Dubya and Helicopter Ben. If we were going to price homes based on supply and demand the price has a lot father to fall.
  
  Of course, the dollars your home is priced in will buy you a lot less now than if the nominal price was allowed to collapse. You would be much better off, but many people sure wouldn't understand that.

  This is true, we have what 20 million vacant houses in the US?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;1101567 wrote:This is true, we have what 20 million vacant houses in the US?

  When interest rates are 1% it looks really profitable to build a bunch of houses, but even the mighty central planners can't fill them all.
  
  It's like when the Soviets would force people to make concrete and tanks and missiles when their people were starving to death. Maybe the government shouldn't decide what gets produced in the economy.
• sjmvsfscs08

  I Wear Pants;1101567 wrote:This is true, we have what 20 million vacant houses in the US?

  I read an article the other day that said something like 7% of homes are vacant, and .25% of people are homeless. That doesn't add up...
  
  (Yes, I know they're homeless because of addictions, but the point is still pretty crazy)
  
  As a planning student, it's pretty much accepted as fact by our department that the housing situation will never be the same, ever. The housing boom will be the end of the age of the suburbs. My former roommate moved into a house that his wife's uncle was trying to sell for $850,000 in Grove City. He doesn't have a penny to his name, but lived in a mansion because the market was so pathetic. "That shit cray."
• sjmvsfscs08

  Cleveland Buck;1101577 wrote:When interest rates are 1% it looks really profitable to build a bunch of houses, but even the mighty central planners can't fill them all.
  
  It's like when the Soviets would force people to make concrete and tanks and missiles when their people were starving to death. Maybe the government shouldn't decide what gets produced in the economy.

  The government should stop promoting sprawl this instant. It's draining an endless amount of money from our economy.