Young Voters vs. Old Overs

[myshtern]

Facebook users voted on who did the best in the Republican debate and Fox News had a very similar vote on their website. Facebook is almost entirely composed of people from 18-25. Fox news ranges, but I think it's fair to guess that Fox News gets a much older demographic averaging in their 40s. Look at the difference of results:

http://xs123.xs.to/xs123/08010/11111.jpg

http://xs123.xs.to/xs123/08010/111112.jpg

Why don't older folks support Ron Paul?

Since this will expand onto a larger arena about the whole republican primaries, I do want to say this. McCain said, "Give me the pen, and I'll veto every single pork-barrel bill Congress sends me, and if they keep sending them to me, I'll use the bully pulpit to make the people who are wasting your money famous," he said." I think I'm going to vote for him because I align with him on most topics and this tips him over all other Republicans.

[Weston]

FOX News... LOL. I'll wait to see actual votes, rather than letting a neo-con propaganda machine tell me who's winning. First they said it was just Internet spammers supporting Ron Paul and that he had no money to do anything, then he made history with his fund-raising and they said he couldn't turn it into votes because he was polling around 1-2%, so then he got 10% of the vote in Iowa, beating one of the so-called "front runners", Giuliani, which was about as good as we could expect in that state. He has a good amount of support in New Hampshire, and FOX News is now trying to censor him there by excluding him from the debate, which has caused the NH GOP to withdraw it's sponsorship of the debate.

So, in conclusion, FOX News = bold and ballsy, but still the most worthless, biased, propaganda machine in American media

Ron Paul may not win, but he still deserves my vote more than any of the other Republican candidates, and the more support he gets, the wider it opens the door for better choices in future elections. I'd much rather vote for him than who the media says can win, because if I limit myself to voting for "the lesser of two evils", that's no good because it's still voting for evil.

[myshtern]

The question wasnt what news channel weston likes to watch.
Here is a CNN poll which shows Ron Paul at 6% with a +/- 5% accuracy:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/pdfs/rel12a.pdf

Still not exactly the 45% facebook users voted for Ron Paul.
The question is, why don't older Americans like Ron Paul?

[stu]

Because Ron Paul has ideas like getting rid of the IRS and federal income tax. Older people think that is too crazy of an idea, and that he is way out there. I think a lot of the reason, is because they watch the news, and get sucked into the media propaganda, and don't see the stuff that's posted on the internet.

[Kickass_d16z6]

I hate to say it, because I do support ron paul. But I think a lot of it is bandwagon. He's like the sc61 equivalent of a presidential candidate.

[myshtern]

Because Ron Paul has ideas like getting rid of the IRS and federal income tax. Older people think that is too crazy of an idea, and that he is way out there. I think a lot of the reason, is because they watch the news, and get sucked into the media propaganda, and don't see the stuff that's posted on the internet.
I dont know Stu, he's gotten a lot of attention lately and has been given the chance to explain his positions on every news channel.


I hate to say it, because I do support ron paul. But I think a lot of it is bandwagon. He's like the sc61 equivalent of a presidential candidate.
I definitely know a lot of people who had never watched the news or cared about politics in their life, then they watched zeitgeist or whatever it was and became Ron Paul fanaticals.

[Weston]

The question wasnt what news channel weston likes to watch.
Here is a CNN poll which shows Ron Paul at 6% with a +/- 5% accuracy:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/pdfs/rel12a.pdf

Still not exactly the 45% facebook users voted for Ron Paul.
The question is, why don't older Americans like Ron Paul?

Like I said, I'll still wait to see actual votes. As for the facebook poll, that's a very specific and limited group, which excludes far more than just older people. At the end of the day, the only polls that matter are the actual election results. He's taking a big hit being a Republican though... much of his support comes from people who are sick of what's going on in this country, so they're not likely to be registered as Republican voters, and they will therefore be excluded from voting in the primaries.

[Weston]

Because Ron Paul has ideas like getting rid of the IRS and federal income tax. Older people think that is too crazy of an idea, and that he is way out there. I think a lot of the reason, is because they watch the news, and get sucked into the media propaganda, and don't see the stuff that's posted on the internet.

Yeah... If you hear a 5 second sound bite of his ideas, it's reasonable to think that he's nuts, but if you give him 5 minutes to speak, he makes a lot of sense. If you hear "I will abolish the IRS!", that sounds pretty wild and impractical, but if you take the time to listen to his reasoning for it, you'll know that the IRS is against the very foundation of this country and we had done very well without it for a heck of a long time. His ideas are not new ideas that have never been tested, they are extremely well supported by our own history and the founding fathers of this country.

The problem is that much of the media coverage and "debates" don't give the candidates enough time or opportunity to articulate their positions... if you're full of crap, then 5 seconds to kiss ass is all you really need or want, but if you're going to make a real change then you need more like 5 minutes to explain what you want to do and why it's a good idea. In order for Ron Paul to be successful, he has to educate a lot of people on our own history, because most don't have a clue.

[myshtern]

At the end of the day, the only polls that matter are the actual election results. He's taking a big hit being a Republican though... much of his support comes from people who are sick of what's going on in this country, so they're not likely to be registered as Republican voters, and they will therefore be excluded from voting in the primaries.

That makes sense but it doesnt help him become the president. He will lose the primaries and won't be in the election unless he then chooses to run as an independent. If he does that, he essentially puts a Democrat in for president.

[stu]

Are you saying that unless you are registered a certain way, you can't vote for a certain person?

[Weston]

Are you saying that unless you are registered a certain way, you can't vote for a certain person?

In order to vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries or caucuses, most states require you to be affiliated with that party. Like many people, I got so disgusted with the Republican party that I changed my affiliation to Independent when I last updated my voter registration. The Republican base has really shrunk a lot over the past few years. In order for me to vote for Ron Paul in the Colorado primary, I would need to change back to Republican, but unfortunately I missed the deadline for that by a day. It turns out that a new voter can still register as a Republican and vote in the primary, but we're already beyond the deadline for an existing voter to simply change parties. :rolleyes:

[HondasTrail]

FOX News... LOL. I'll wait to see actual votes, rather than letting a neo-con propaganda machine tell me who's winning. First they said it was just Internet spammers supporting Ron Paul and that he had no money to do anything, then he made history with his fund-raising and they said he couldn't turn it into votes because he was polling around 1-2%, so then he got 10% of the vote in Iowa, beating one of the so-called "front runners", Giuliani, which was about as good as we could expect in that state. He has a good amount of support in New Hampshire, and FOX News is now trying to censor him there by excluding him from the debate, which has caused the NH GOP to withdraw it's sponsorship of the debate.

So, in conclusion, FOX News = bold and ballsy, but still the most worthless, biased, propaganda machine in American media

Ron Paul may not win, but he still deserves my vote more than any of the other Republican candidates, and the more support he gets, the wider it opens the door for better choices in future elections. I'd much rather vote for him than who the media says can win, because if I limit myself to voting for "the lesser of two evils", that's no good because it's still voting for evil.

Mother fucking


:werd:

[john]

My wife and I are 'older' and we are voting for Paul. I officially left the republican party, but he's got my vote as he's not the status quo republican.

[Kickass_d16z6]

My parents like Ron Paul

[stu]

In order to vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries or caucuses, most states require you to be affiliated with that party. Like many people, I got so disgusted with the Republican party that I changed my affiliation to Independent when I last updated my voter registration. The Republican base has really shrunk a lot over the past few years. In order for me to vote for Ron Paul in the Colorado primary, I would need to change back to Republican, but unfortunately I missed the deadline for that by a day. It turns out that a new voter can still register as a Republican and vote in the primary, but we're already beyond the deadline for an existing voter to simply change parties. :rolleyes:

So when you vote in the primaries, is that like a pre-vote or something?

[myshtern]

So when you vote in the primaries, is that like a pre-vote or something?
The primaries decide who your party nominates to run for president. The parties give each state based on how many people that state has a certain number of delegates. Each delegate gets to vote once. Back in the day almost all states had closed caucuses where there was no voting involved. Party heads for that state would decide who they would nominate and they themselves would be the delegates. Now, the parties allow voting but they still choose who will be the delegate. All of the delegates get sent to the national convention where I think they all vote. They have to vote in accordance to state law though. Some states give the winner all of their delegates whereas others break it down by popularity. Thats why primaries are very strategic.

[Martian]

Presidential elections are very much like a drag racing event. There are several rounds, the winner of which goes to the next one. Now it is of course, more complex then that, but thats the gist of it. I like Paul's ideas but havn't seen his track record yet. I am undecided at this juncture.

[myshtern]

Ron Pauls track record is perfect

[DrJones]

I like Paul's ideas but havn't seen his track record yet. I am undecided at this juncture.

Watch this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMYJ_vmwRDc) from the ABC debate on Saturday.

Just scroll to about 8 minutes and 45 seconds in. It's basically them responding to a question from Bush about where their policies come from, ie, what are their principals.

It get's interesting at 8:45, where the moderator interrupts to go down the list mentioning what each candidate has 'changed' about himself to run for president.

I think his response to Ron Paul will answer your question.

[Martian]

Although that was interesting, it is not enough to sway me one way or the other. I do not watch debates and such because action speak louder then words. I will research him more on my own and see exactly what he has done in the past. Thanks though.

[Conrad]

I didnt read all the other posts but I would say older people wont vote for him because his ideas are too radical for them.

Seems like a no BS guy.... I can respect that. Just dont believe in all his views.

[stu]

Which views don't you believe in?

[Conrad]

Which views don't you believe in?

Getting rid of the IRS is retarded....

I still support the War.... (not for all the media fed reasons its wrong)

I support Net Neutrality, and he thinks it is wrong...

I dont agree with his ballet access views... If you dont speak english GTFO and no you cant vote!


His seperation of state and federal powers and laws is about the only thing of his I agree with.

[stu]

I support Net Neutrality, and he thinks it is wrong...



I pointed that out as well, and I was told that he just doesn't think that the Federal Government should have any say in it, not necessarily that he is against it.

[Conrad]

I pointed that out as well, and I was told that he just doesn't think that the Federal Government should have any say in it, not necessarily that he is against it.

The federal govt.... HAS to be in it for it to not become defacto from big business...

[stu]

I actually agree with you on that one. Not having net neutrality really scares me.

[myshtern]

The federal govt.... HAS to be in it for it to not become defacto from big business...

That's a problem with a lot of what Ron Paul says. Today's America is a bit more globalized than it was 230 years ago. State powers are important and like Paul or Stu said a bit ago - these are the United States. However, if states stray in policy from one another so far - how long will they be United? Could it be that you have such a strong differentiation that you have, for example, slavery legal in some states and illegal in others? History shows that slavery already caused us a civil war but abortion would be an easy example for today.

What if a state like Utah decides that Abortion is illegal and will incarcerate anyone who has aborted a baby charging them for murder? One day a group of women is traveling to California from Colorado and cross Utah and are all arrested for murder because it's been verified that they have had abortions.

How many times would that have to happen until their families from California and Colorado assemble militias to free them from Prison? Next step - civil war?

When the constitution was written, people didnt travel farther than 20 miles from their home in their life times. Today, I can jump in a car and cross 10 states within 24 hours.

[DrJones]

Getting rid of the IRS is retarded....

I still support the War.... (not for all the media fed reasons its wrong)

I support Net Neutrality, and he thinks it is wrong...

I dont agree with his ballet access views... If you dont speak english GTFO and no you cant vote!


His seperation of state and federal powers and laws is about the only thing of his I agree with.

Getting rid of the IRS isn't retarded. Keeping our current, broken, unfair tax system is retarded. Want proof?

I challenge you to find one candidate that has run for president in the past, lets say, 20 years, who hasn't wanted to change the tax system in some way.

Everyone knows it's broken, and whoever is in power applies their own fix. That isn't the way you fix things. Eventually, you have to realize that you missed the mark, scrap the system, and start over.

Our current tax system is a joke. We end up paying out the ass and getting very little benefit from it. One of the most wealthy and honest people in the world (Warren Buffet) paid a lower tax percentage last year than his secretary. That was without trying to take advantage of any 'loopholes' that he easily could of.

If you think our tax system is working, or that it is just a few minor tweaks away from being a good system, you are in denial.

Supporting the war is fine. I think helping other people is a great idea. However, I have a big problem with this war.

We can't afford it.

It's that simple. Yes, it would be nice to be the super heroes of the world where we can do the moral equivilant of saving babies from burning buildings. However, in this case, we just can't afford it. Our debt is HUGE. We spend almost 10x on our military that the next largest country does, and more than every other country combined. That is grossly unnecessary to defend our soil. We don't need to be aggressors, starting wars. We can't afford to.

Do you know what our debt currently is? Do you realize how hard it will be to get out of this mess with the value of our dollar dropping?

We owe 9.2 trillion dollars right now in debt. Thats $9,200,000,000,000. Assuming ~300 million people in the US, that leaves your share as $30,666.

Can you comprehend that? Almost $31,000 per person. A family of 5 would owe $153,000. If everyone in America doubled the amount of income tax they pay, it would take us over 8 years to pay off the debt.

That number isn't shrinking. We are spending billions just to keep up with the interest it is generating, and our current budgets have us borrowing more.

Aren't you worried by that? We are spending too much, we are borrowing too much and we are printing too much. This is a much larger threat to us than the 'terrorism' that we are fighting in Iraq.

We are destroying ourselves to fight this 'threat' to us of 'islamic-extremists'

Yes, there might be a risk of them 'destroying' us with some kind of attack here if we let them live. However, if we keep going the way we are going, we will destroy ourselves, with certainty.

We could defend ourselves here, where it counts, for a fraction of the price that we are spending overseas. Yes, we might get attacked, but we might anyway.

Besides, if our goal is truly saving lives of Americans, we could do far better for our $$$ by attacking other causes like murder and obesity.

Ron Paul is against net neutrality because if you give the government the ability to regulate the internet, you are giving them the ability to tax it.

Given the choice between the two, I'll gamble with the lack of regulation. Yes, it might get bumpy for a little while, but if anything that will just give us more competition and a better product. If someone like Google gets into the game I don't think it's something we have to worry about.

I've not heard anything about his views on ballot access (do you have a link?). But I don't think requiring people to learn enough English so they can read and understand a ballot is that big of a deal. That is, it's not for immigrants who come here because they want to actually be an American, and not simply a citizen of another country who lives and works here.

[Conrad]

debt schmebt... It sounds like a lot...

But break it down from trillions..

We owe 9 dollars and 20 cents..

We make about 5 dollars a year... Unless a democrat gets elected then it will be closer to 6 dollars a year...

So roughly we are in debt of what our income in a year is twice...

MOST OF AMERICA IS LIKE THAT!!!

My house is roughly 2x's my yearly salary.. And I think I went with a cheap house...

Take all my debt and its probably close to 3 years salary..

And I am far from broke or poor. I find myself just fine monetarily. Could I be better? Yes! But Im not in any kind of financial emergency.

Yes the debt is a problem and can be fixed. But there are a million fucking social programs that can be cut or tuned to save money way faster than cutting defence spending.

[Conrad]

Cutting the IRS and going to "FAIR TAX" is fucking retarded.... The same people are bitching about the economy... errr lets just make it harder for people to spend money. Lets take back all the benefits like deducting your house interest, and educational tax breaks. Poor cant afford shit now when they barely pay taxes as it is... lets just make it a bit harder and give them the 20 bucks a month in taxes that they pay to make up for it.

[myshtern]

debt schmebt... It sounds like a lot...

But break it down from trillions..

We owe 9 dollars and 20 cents..

We make about 5 dollars a year... Unless a democrat gets elected then it will be closer to 6 dollars a year...

So roughly we are in debt of what our income in a year is twice...

MOST OF AMERICA IS LIKE THAT!!!

My house is roughly 2x's my yearly salary.. And I think I went with a cheap house...

Take all my debt and its probably close to 3 years salary..

And I am far from broke or poor. I find myself just fine monetarily. Could I be better? Yes! But Im not in any kind of financial emergency.

I think you're confusing consumer debt with national debt so none of this makes sense.



Yes the debt is a problem and can be fixed. But there are a million fucking social programs that can be cut or tuned to save money way faster than cutting defence spending.
This is the only part that made sense and you're right to a certain degree. However if you look at the budget thread we have going, the war is costing far more than most social programs.

[Jerkmode9316]

debt schmebt... It sounds like a lot...

But break it down from trillions..

We owe 9 dollars and 20 cents..

We make about 5 dollars a year... Unless a democrat gets elected then it will be closer to 6 dollars a year...

So roughly we are in debt of what our income in a year is twice...

MOST OF AMERICA IS LIKE THAT!!!



Interesting. I never really looked at it like that.

[DrJones]

debt schmebt... It sounds like a lot...

But break it down from trillions..

We owe 9 dollars and 20 cents..

We make about 5 dollars a year... Unless a democrat gets elected then it will be closer to 6 dollars a year...

So roughly we are in debt of what our income in a year is twice...

MOST OF AMERICA IS LIKE THAT!!!

My house is roughly 2x's my yearly salary.. And I think I went with a cheap house...

Take all my debt and its probably close to 3 years salary..

And I am far from broke or poor. I find myself just fine monetarily. Could I be better? Yes! But Im not in any kind of financial emergency.

Yes the debt is a problem and can be fixed. But there are a million fucking social programs that can be cut or tuned to save money way faster than cutting defence spending.

You should take some time to look around this (http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/poster/).

It is a map that breaks down how we spend our money. The left half is defense...

Your analogy is wrong.

A lot of America might be in debt that much. They are the ones that lose their houses when their interest rates rise. Just because many people live beyond their means doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Also, with your house, you have a plan. You pay some of it off every month. The amount you owe is getting smaller. Plus, your house has value. It's worth something. If you needed to you could sell it, and more than likely (except in todays markets without a lot of principal built up) you can recoup most if not all of your losses. Yes, you owe money for the house, but you have collateral to pay for it.

Finally, there is inflation. Inflation is good when you are borrowing money from American companies. Inflation means that when you pay off your house, years from now you are paying it off with dollars that are worth less. This is good for you.

America doesn't have that benefit. Our debt doesn't work that way. We have no collateral. We can't liquidate the war and pay off the debt if we got into trouble. We don't own a $9.2 trillion house. We owe a $9.2 trillion car that lost almost all it's resale value.

Plus, with that much money (a lot owed to foreign interests) we don't have the benefit of inflation. It works against us. If our dollars are worth less, it's harder for us to pay it back.

This is a much bigger problem than you think it is. It will fuck us over. Your type of thinking is exactly why we are in this mess.

Do you think the debt is magically going to fix itself? 5 years from now when we owe $15 trillion we are going to find some buried treasure that we can pawn and pay it off? Do you think everyone in America is going to get a 200% raise? Are we all going to win those international lotteries that I keep getting emails about?

Or do you think we can just keep growing it bigger and bigger and bigger and just ignore it completely?

Our current situation is fucked. The debt isn't going to fix itself in the future. In fact, what does the future look like? Lets see...

Borrowing too much? Check
Spending too much? Check
Printing too much? Check

So it looks like we'll see some nice devaluation of the dollar. Making everything (ie oil) cost more.

What else? More war, possibly going into Iran. That's more defense spending we can't afford. We also have a shit ton of baby boomers about to hit social security age who are going to be looking for their benefits. Ohh yea, those people will also be living longer and taking buckets full of expensive drugs while doing so.

So, our dollar is fucked, we will be spending more money on defense and social security (two things that currently account for well more than 1/2 our spending). Our debt will grow bigger and bigger and we have no collateral to pay it off, nor are we making payments to shrink it.

To sum it up, we are going to dig ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole we already are going to have trouble getting out of. And it's all because of wrong thinking like yours.

[DrJones]

Cutting the IRS and going to "FAIR TAX" is fucking retarded.... The same people are bitching about the economy... errr lets just make it harder for people to spend money. Lets take back all the benefits like deducting your house interest, and educational tax breaks. Poor cant afford shit now when they barely pay taxes as it is... lets just make it a bit harder and give them the 20 bucks a month in taxes that they pay to make up for it.

It's not perfect, but it's better than the current system I think.

Don't get me wrong, a fair tax system still has it's problems, but some things aren't bad.

Yes, you'll end up paying a lot more for everything you buy, but think of how much more money you'll have when you actually get the full amount of your paycheck.

Right now, a lot of people who are really wealthy don't pay much income tax, because they have little income. They just have a bunch of money they got from their parents that they are sitting on. They don't pay much in taxes. However, they do spend money, and the fair tax would tax them for doing so.

The income tax is beyond retarded. The government taxes a father on every dime he makes. He takes what's left to buy a house. He leaves the house to his son when he dies and then the government comes back and takes another big chunk out? Fuck that.

[DrJones]

Interesting. I never really looked at it like that.

If you are a rational thinker, you wouldn't look at it like that.

[DrJones]

This is the only part that made sense and you're right to a certain degree. However if you look at the budget thread we have going, the war is costing far more than most social programs.

Exactly. Cut programs to reduce the debt? People seem to think that the situation is as easy as canceling a few simple programs that we fund and the debt will go away.

The amount of interest we currently pay on the debt is more than we spend on the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, the National Science foundation, NASA, the FBI, the ATF, the United States Marshals and the Department of Agriculture combined.

[Conrad]

I didnt say our debt wasnt a problem.... It is.. Yes half the budget goes to defence but the defence dept also employs more than half of the government.

All I was using that analogy for was to show it in a more realistic financial situation... And by using my example.... I AM DEFINITELY NOT LIVING ABOVE MY MEANS...

Yes we need to start balancing our budget but i dont believe the priority needs to be cutting defence spending.

[DrJones]

I didnt say our debt wasnt a problem.... It is.. Yes half the budget goes to defence but the defence dept also employs more than half of the government.

All I was using that analogy for was to show it in a more realistic financial situation... And by using my example.... I AM DEFINITELY NOT LIVING ABOVE MY MEANS...

Yes we need to start balancing our budget but i dont believe the priority needs to be cutting defence spending.

So you acknowledge that we need to do something, so what you propose we do?

IMO the options are:

1) Cut defense spending (which you said not to do)
2) Cut everything else (which employs the rest of the people in the Government and provides MANY different types of services)
3) Raise taxes to the point where we are paying ~50% or more

If we aren't going to cut defense, and in all likelihood just increase what we are spending there, then there isn't really an easy way out.

It would be nice to have this amazing military force that could crush everyone (if needed) but frankly, we can't afford it.

Realistically, I don't see the debt problem going away unless we drastically cut defense spending, reorganizing the funds so that we spend them here, on actual defense, not offense, or maintaining our "global empire" as Dr. Paul puts it. In addition to that, we'd also have to reform social security and Medicare/Medicaid in large ways.

Then, in addition to all that, he'd have to control the rest of our spending, and (as much as I hate to say it) keep paying the same taxes we are currently for the next decade or so.

I'd love to see a lot more money going into research for renewable energies and other scientific/research interests, but we might have to rely on private funds for that kind of thing if we really want to tackle the debt. IMO that's possible with a few changes. For instance, last year, American companies spent more money fighting lawsuits than they did on research and development.

[stu]

Couldn't we just cut down on some of our large spending for a few years to get our debt under better control? We don't even have to completely eliminate it right?

What are other country's national debt levels at? I can't imagine that there are a few countries out there just raking in the dough.

Also, you know how we could help pay off the national debt without effecting our defense spending as much? Tax churches. Churches are the richest organizations in the world, and what the hell are they doing with that money?

[DrJones]

Couldn't we just cut down on some of our large spending for a few years to get our debt under better control? We don't even have to completely eliminate it right?

What are other country's national debt levels at? I can't imagine that there are a few countries out there just raking in the dough.

Also, you know how we could help pay off the national debt without effecting our defense spending as much? Tax churches. Churches are the richest organizations in the world, and what the hell are they doing with that money?

We could do that, but that's the problem.

Because right now, it isn't going to happen.

Both Republicans and Democrats are talking about how to make government bigger. Republicans want to spend more on defense, democrats want to spend more on social programs.

Right now, with the money we are taking in and spending, we are at a loss, and forced to borrow the difference. That is why the debt is getting bigger. The money we could be using to pay off the debt, is going towards interest for the debt, then on top of that, we are being forced to borrow more.

If we did stop spending, and cutting programs, then we'd break even. The amount we pay on interest is about what our current deficit would be. Thus, if we cut all the stuff I listed above (NASA, dept of education, etc), that would just get us to break even paying what we are now. We'd have to make lots more cuts to start reducing the debt.

However, for that, we have multiple things working against us. The first being the dropping value of the dollar (meaning it's going to 'cost' us more to pay off the debt) and the extra money we will be paying in social security.

That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. The problem is very large. We can't make a few small changes and fix it.

Personally, I'd love to see churches taxed, but I don't think it'll happen.

[Weston]

Also, you know how we could help pay off the national debt without effecting our defense spending as much? Tax churches. Churches are the richest organizations in the world, and what the hell are they doing with that money?

Although I do see a problem with churches being so wealthy (since it's pointless and just invites corruption), you'll never get support in Congress to tax them... it would piss off far too many voters, and then you have the Freedom of Religion legal issues too.

[stu]

Oh I think we'd cut military spending WAY before ever taxing churches. But I feel like the churches are just sitting back on their billions of dollars, waiting for the rest of the country to screw itself, so they can come to a glorious rescue or something. I think rescuing the country might be a great way to boost church participation.

[Weston]

Oh I think we'd cut military spending WAY before ever taxing churches. But I feel like the churches are just sitting back on their billions of dollars, waiting for the rest of the country to screw itself, so they can come to a glorious rescue or something. I think rescuing the country might be a great way to boost church participation.

I really don't think they're conspiring to do that, and there are plenty of churches who spend their money right away to do good things for people in need (regardless of that person's religious affiliation). There are just some that are rather extravagant with their own possessions and I don't think it would be a bad thing if they were taxed on their non-charitable expenditures.

[stu]

Like the God Complex?

[Conrad]

Dr Jones I dont know where you get your numbers from...

It is entirely possible to balance the budget without cutting tons of stuff and creating more taxes...

For example we spent along the lines of billions in medical assistance for illegals last year.. just one example... http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

We have also created a whole society of people who have several generation who live off of welfare... Which is estimated in several billion a year... I say drug test these people before handing them a check. Also give them a timeline for benefits... 1 year?

Other than the war on "terror" a majority of defence spending benefits the economy.. as in goes directly back into it... Yeah there are some major companies that abuse govt funds but its the same with any big business. So regulate that shit.

Do a blanket 5 percent cut across the board...

[Conrad]

And you dislike the IRS for letting rich people get away with paying less taxes

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

They already pay most of it! Distribution of wealth is a really tricky subject. I mean Pres Hoover thought taxing people everything they make over a million dollars at 100 percent was a good idea... hello socialists...

[DrJones]

Dr Jones I dont know where you get your numbers from...

It is entirely possible to balance the budget without cutting tons of stuff and creating more taxes...

For example we spent along the lines of billions in medical assistance for illegals last year.. just one example... http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

We have also created a whole society of people who have several generation who live off of welfare... Which is estimated in several billion a year... I say drug test these people before handing them a check. Also give them a timeline for benefits... 1 year?

Other than the war on "terror" a majority of defence spending benefits the economy.. as in goes directly back into it... Yeah there are some major companies that abuse govt funds but its the same with any big business. So regulate that shit.

Do a blanket 5 percent cut across the board...

I get my numbers from the link I posted earlier that you (obviously) didn't look at.

There is a $9 trillion debt. Even saving "several billion" won't even put a dent in that. All the programs I listed above:

EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, the National Science foundation, NASA, the FBI, the ATF, the United States Marshals and the Department of Agriculture

We can cut every single one of those programs. Every dime of every one. And that saves us around ~$250 billion. Not that much at all when you put it in context.

Where do you get your numbers from?

Lets look at welfare since you bring it up. In 2003 (most recent data I could find) we spent $26.3 billion on "welfare" (it's actually several programs). (source: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport7/chapter00/chap00.pdf).

Forget drug testing. Lets scrap the entire program. Every dime. Cancel it all.

So, we save ~$26,300,000,000. That's nice, but the fucking interest we pay on the debt is $261,000,000,000. Almost ten times as much.

See? We can cut welfare, which according to you is a huge pile of money, and it only pays 10% of the interest we owe on the debt.

Medical assistance for illegals? Let's see. According to data from 2000 (again most recent I could find) it cost taxpayers $1.1 billion to provide healthcare for undocumented workers (source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56809.php). Now, it's likely to be a little higher 7 years later with more illegals and higher costs of health care, but even if it went up by a factor of 10, it's still hardly significant.

So lets see. We can cut all the programs I listed above, plus get rid of welfare and health care for illegals in all forms, and we've saved ourselves just under $300 million. So lets put that towards the debt!

Ohh wait, we can't yet. Because our budget for next year has $239 billion. We'll have to put that money saved towards that first.

Ok, so after that, we have $60 billion we can put towards the debt! Nice!

Now we just have to do that for the next 154 years and we'll have that debt paid off!

Conrad, I don't know where you get your numbers from.

[Weston]

This country has the mentality of an 18 year old with his first credit card... living far beyond our means because of spending on stupid crap, so as a result we're now being forced to live below our means because of a huge debt. We're in debt to fucking China of all people... that's one of the sources essentially funding our war!

[Martian]

The IRS is fine, get rid of the Federal Reserve and return those powers to congress where they belong.

[Conrad]

I get my numbers from the link I posted earlier that you (obviously) didn't look at.

There is a $9 trillion debt. Even saving "several billion" won't even put a dent in that. All the programs I listed above:

EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, the National Science foundation, NASA, the FBI, the ATF, the United States Marshals and the Department of Agriculture

We can cut every single one of those programs. Every dime of every one. And that saves us around ~$250 billion. Not that much at all when you put it in context.

Where do you get your numbers from?

Lets look at welfare since you bring it up. In 2003 (most recent data I could find) we spent $26.3 billion on "welfare" (it's actually several programs). (source: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport7/chapter00/chap00.pdf).

Forget drug testing. Lets scrap the entire program. Every dime. Cancel it all.

So, we save ~$26,300,000,000. That's nice, but the fucking interest we pay on the debt is $261,000,000,000. Almost ten times as much.

See? We can cut welfare, which according to you is a huge pile of money, and it only pays 10% of the interest we owe on the debt.

Medical assistance for illegals? Let's see. According to data from 2000 (again most recent I could find) it cost taxpayers $1.1 billion to provide healthcare for undocumented workers (source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56809.php). Now, it's likely to be a little higher 7 years later with more illegals and higher costs of health care, but even if it went up by a factor of 10, it's still hardly significant.

So lets see. We can cut all the programs I listed above, plus get rid of welfare and health care for illegals in all forms, and we've saved ourselves just under $300 million. So lets put that towards the debt!

Ohh wait, we can't yet. Because our budget for next year has $239 billion. We'll have to put that money saved towards that first.

Ok, so after that, we have $60 billion we can put towards the debt! Nice!

Now we just have to do that for the next 154 years and we'll have that debt paid off!

Conrad, I don't know where you get your numbers from.


Nice to forget about 5 percent I said cut across the board. Eitherway I understand what you are saying. But both of us know that isnt going to happen over night. Going back to the comment I made earlier.

Living with 3 times the debt your yearly salary isnt bad!!! I am guessing the average yearly salary for us old folk on the board is around 45K.... Not that I really believe that but thats about the average salary around colorado. How many people live in a 135K house???? Can you even buy a house in colorado for that much that isnt a modular or a 2 bedroom? Just as we pay interest on a mortgage we pay interest on the debt... I am no where anywhere saying that isnt a problem and if we pulled out of iraq tomorrow we could easily balance the budget, and start saving. That debt isnt going to be paid straight up with tax cash... Just like most in a financial situation invest and earn, so does the government.

You bring up the ever decreasing value of a dollar.... Being that this "value" is determined by its equivelent to buy goods and services, vs other nations...

China.. it costs them 1 china dollar to build a widget...

US... it costs us 5 us dollars to build same widget...

Because they can rape their labor force into building said widget they esentially get more bang for their buck... This is why the federal reserve went to the United Nations and the World Banks to say this is BS!!! And this is where trade sanctions need to be put in place... There is no reason we should have a trade deficit with China... shit they outnumber us like 12 to 1. We should have 3 billion consumers that we can sell product to... This is where I see our biggest problem, is with trade relations other nations..

Hell and if we wanted to be hard asses to pay off the debt we have...

Increase gas tax by 25 cents and the debt will be paid off in one year! If we are so hard up to get rid of it.

[DrJones]

Nice to forget about 5 percent I said cut across the board. Eitherway I understand what you are saying. But both of us know that isnt going to happen over night. Going back to the comment I made earlier.

Living with 3 times the debt your yearly salary isnt bad!!! I am guessing the average yearly salary for us old folk on the board is around 45K.... Not that I really believe that but thats about the average salary around colorado. How many people live in a 135K house???? Can you even buy a house in colorado for that much that isnt a modular or a 2 bedroom? Just as we pay interest on a mortgage we pay interest on the debt... I am no where anywhere saying that isnt a problem and if we pulled out of iraq tomorrow we could easily balance the budget, and start saving. That debt isnt going to be paid straight up with tax cash... Just like most in a financial situation invest and earn, so does the government.

You bring up the ever decreasing value of a dollar.... Being that this "value" is determined by its equivelent to buy goods and services, vs other nations...

China.. it costs them 1 china dollar to build a widget...

US... it costs us 5 us dollars to build same widget...

Because they can rape their labor force into building said widget they esentially get more bang for their buck... This is why the federal reserve went to the United Nations and the World Banks to say this is BS!!! And this is where trade sanctions need to be put in place... There is no reason we should have a trade deficit with China... shit they outnumber us like 12 to 1. We should have 3 billion consumers that we can sell product to... This is where I see our biggest problem, is with trade relations other nations..

Hell and if we wanted to be hard asses to pay off the debt we have...

Increase gas tax by 25 cents and the debt will be paid off in one year! If we are so hard up to get rid of it.

Conrad, you are making it pretty obvious that you have little knowledge in this area, and more so, are putting even less effort into learning about it.

I did leave out your part about 'cutting 5% across the board', but I did you a favor by including the list of programs that total ~$250 billion. 5% cuts across the board would save about $150 billion.

Thus, if we do follow your post, of cutting welfare, medical care for illegals, and a 5% cut, we would end up not even being able to cover the deficit. Thus, our debt would be getting bigger. Did you even look up or calculate any numbers before you posted? Or did you simply write what you thought would work that you heard from someone else who didn't have any facts to back it up?

Second, as I already said, you can't compare our debt to owing money on a house. Once again, here is why.

A house usually grows in value over time. Thus, the banks are safe lending money out (unless they help a lot of people get houses that they can't afford, which backfires on them because that causes a drop in market prices so they can't recover their losses, as is happening now). If you still owe $200,000 on your house, the bank doesn't care. They can get that money back if they need to by selling your house. That is a HUGE difference.

In fact, you could make a very strong arguement that your house isn't 'debt.' It's an investment. When you get your credit score one of the factors that they account is debt to income ratio. In that number, they don't factor in your house. After you pay off your house, you own it. It has value. You could sell it for (likely) more than you originally bought it for. It's not debt, it's an investment. That's why it's ok for people to buy one even if it does cost 2.5-3x their annual salary. The actual amount of debt that is allowed (according to where it starts to really ding you on your credit score) is around 25%. One fourth your income, not three times it.

The other factor you are ignoring in your comparison, is the terms of a loan on a house. For a house loan, you are forced to pay it back (with a standard 30 year fixed). There is a plan you follow, where you are constantly decreasing what you owe on the loan. That is not the situation we have. Those are (again) two factors that are differences between a home loan, and our national debt that you can't ignore.

Know, you might be saying, "well, there are interest only loans that people are paying, and some people get loans where they don't pay the principal of their house debt right away!" Yes, there are. However, those are also the people ending up on the street right now because they can't afford their debt! That alone should tell you something.

Yes, a lot of people in America have more debt than their yearly income. But that is because the largest part of it is their house, which as I pointed out (twice) you can't compare.

If you want a better comparison. America someone making $45k/yr who has $135k (it's actually a bit more than that) in credit card debt from shit they bought at the mall. Take just a minute and think about that. Think about people you know, who are over their heads in credit card debt. Now think of how fucked they would be if they had 3x their income in credit card debt. In a debt that they are only paying interest on (albeit our interest rate is lower than most credit cards) that they can't back up with anything (like you could with a house debt).

In addition, not only do we have all that credit card debt, but we aren't paying off any of it, we are putting another few thousand onto it every year, without any plan of paying it off, while we know with certainty that our expenses are going to increase.

Finally, once again you have shown your poor logic and refusing to look up facts.

I stated above, each person's (man, woman and child) share of the current debt is $33k. If a $0.25 gas tax would make the problem go away "in a year," that would mean that every person would pay $33,000 more on gas this year than they did last year in order for that to happen. Parents would also have to pay that money for their kids. If you think that we could magically pull that money out of our ass and afford that, you are wrong.

Not only would a $0.25 tax not do that. Do you know how much gas you'd have to buy for a $0.25 tax to add up to $33,000? In 2007 the average American family would spend $2,442 (at $2.72/gallon in 2007) on gas (source:http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Releases/05.24.07%20Cafe%20Report%20Release.pdf)
if you are assuming a family size of 4, that family would owe $132k to the debt to pay it off in one year. That means that in order for your 'gas tax' to work to pay off the debt in one year, it wouldn't be $0.25 per gallon (you didn't specify but i assume per gallon). It would have to be more like $145 per gallon.

I seriously hope your last point was sarcasm, because it is to blatantly wrong and shows such an utter lack of understanding, that while I'm typing all this I'm wondering if you aren't making such ignorant statements on purpose simply to get me to further explain my points.

In fact, all of your points have been pretty along the same lines.

Ha Ha you got me. Nice job. At least these posts will hopefully fix the thoughts of those like JackMode who see yours and think "wow, I haven't thought of it that way"

[Conrad]

So totally to balance the budget we have to save 239,000,000,000.01

Hmmm I gave several ideas on that... But nothing is good enough for you on that. Sorry ever so smart Ron Paul bandwagoner... Hmmm

So every penny goes into the green after 239 billion... hmmm doesnt seem to hard to do...

Sooo if we tank Social Security(Bush wanted to do minus those who are over 45) and save our selves we just saved... 608 Billion wow that sticks us 369 Billion in the green...

We tell China to suck our cocks and we stop buying goods from them... wow... they fold and we suddenly dont look so bad.

But being that I am not all that National economic savy...

9.6/.369

around 27 years...

Wow it kinda gets paid off like a mortgage... hmmm

Now I am really done with the sarcasm. I understand it is a huge problem. I think most understand that. But its not going to effect the fact that any elected official isnt going to tell the public that they are going to lose all these benefits to pay for our debt. They just wont be elected again, seems pretty common sence. So a balanced budget is what we shoot for and start to chip away at the debt.

[Conrad]

Please understand that I really dont think tanking SS is the total answer... but it truly isnt that hard to balance the budget and start putting money back in. Its just going to take a while.

[myshtern]

Your comparison of government debt to consumer debt is very bad, you should drop it overall.

[DrJones]

Please understand that I really dont think tanking SS is the total answer... but it truly isnt that hard to balance the budget and start putting money back in. Its just going to take a while.

I think it is hard. As you suggest, we could just cut social security, and that would do the trick, but in reality, we can't do that.

That's the problem, it's easy to find solutions, but very hard to find solutions we can actually use. If it was easy, politicians would of figured out how to do it.

IMO more people are beginning to realize how big of a problem this is. If we are going to fix it and not dig ourselves into a hole that goes so deep we end up in China (literally) then the first step is for people to understand just how big of a problem it is, and how hard it will be to fix.

Once that happens, we can start electing people who will do something about it (such as Ron Paul). Even if they do have unpopular beliefs, like cutting certain benefits.

[Conrad]

I think it is hard. As you suggest, we could just cut social security, and that would do the trick, but in reality, we can't do that.

That's the problem, it's easy to find solutions, but very hard to find solutions we can actually use. If it was easy, politicians would of figured out how to do it.

IMO more people are beginning to realize how big of a problem this is. If we are going to fix it and not dig ourselves into a hole that goes so deep we end up in China (literally) then the first step is for people to understand just how big of a problem it is, and how hard it will be to fix.

Once that happens, we can start electing people who will do something about it (such as Ron Paul). Even if they do have unpopular beliefs, like cutting certain benefits.


agreed.... The problem with SS is the fact that how can you cut it fairly. I would more than happy give up what I have in SS to have that money to invest myself for retirement. But tell that to someone in their 50s...

All I am saying is start balancing... than worry about decreasing the debt. Because it surely isnt going to happen in a year or two no matter what. Unless we nuke China and erase that debt. ;)

[Conrad]

Your comparison of government debt to consumer debt is very bad, you should drop it overall.

money owed is money owed.... the security of that debt is all that changes.

[myshtern]

money owed is money owed.... the security of that debt is all that changes.
The debt in nature is completely different. The way it is built is different, the way it is assessed is different, the way it is paid is different, and the consequences it has are far different. Your analogy doesnt work.

[DrJones]

agreed.... The problem with SS is the fact that how can you cut it fairly. I would more than happy give up what I have in SS to have that money to invest myself for retirement. But tell that to someone in their 50s...

Ron Paul has said several times that he wants to do just that.


Q: What do you think of Social Security?

A: It's a mess. And it proves that the government is not very good at central economic planning, even for retirement. The money was taken from the people with good intention. We should do our best to return it to those that have taken it. But we need to allow the young people to just flat out get out of the system. Because, if you have the government managing these accounts, it's not going to work. (Source: http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm)

There is a lot more behind Ron Paul than the "bandwagon" effect.

Earlier you said:

"His seperation of state and federal powers and laws is about the only thing of his I agree with"

I bet there is a lot more you agree with him on than you think.

[Conrad]

Ron Paul has said several times that he wants to do just that.

So did Bush!

[Conrad]

The debt in nature is completely different. The way it is built is different, the way it is assessed is different, the way it is paid is different, and the consequences it has are far different. Your analogy doesnt work.

I stick with debt is debt.

I understand the difference that DrJones said between a house that the bank can always sell and credit card debt.

But both are consumer debt. Call it nationalistic consumerism debt or what have you... Eitherway debt can be paid numerous ways.

[DrJones]

I stick with debt is debt.

I understand the difference that DrJones said between a house that the bank can always sell and credit card debt.

But both are consumer debt. Call it nationalistic consumerism debt or what have you... Eitherway debt can be paid numerous ways.

Actually, no, both are not consumer debt.

By definition, "consumer debt" is "debt used to fund consumption rather than to fund investment"

You are wrong. Debt is not debt in this case.

Have you ever taken a class in economics?

There is a huge difference between consumption debt and investment debt. You can't lump them togeather in the way that you are. It is illogical and invalidates all your arguments. If you don't see why, then you don't have the background required for the proper level of understanding on this topic, and anything you have to say can be dismissed.

Debt can be paid in various ways, but that doesn't mean there isn't a HUGE difference between consumption and investment debt.

The US national debt is a consumption debt. A home is an investment debt. A US citizen who has 3x their annual income in consumption debt is royally fucked and not fiscally responsible by any sense of the word.

As much as you seem to like to be able to, you can't compare apples to oranges.

[Conrad]

But either way that debt has to be paid.... Yes I understand the difference.

Hopefully the 150K house you bought is gaining equity during your stay there. And that is an investment because you can sell it for more than you paid for it. IF YOU SELL IT!!!

IF YOU DIE IN YOUR PLACE AND YOU HAVE NO HEIR TO PASS IT.... ITS THE SAME AS A 150K credit card... you are still going to pay back the entire amount.... but probably have a better rate than a credit card at least I would hope.

Is it fiscally responsible to have that much debt no.... But lets say you have a house thats paid for so thats no worry, but you get diabetes without health insurance, you can pretty easily go into debt. You just dont not get treatment because you dont have money. Same as the govt spending.... The president or congress decided there was a necessary project or program that money needed to be spent on, and allocated the US's responsibilty to payback the money it used to pay for said program or project.

That decision may or may not be IYO a necessity but eitherway it was spent, and is a debt, granted it was for something that will benefit "us" hopefully but wont see a return on investment so its comsumer debt.

Cant say I have had a class on economics, but I did stay at a holiday in express last night.

[DrJones]

Here is a good video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE) with someone who can clearly be labeled an expert telling us how fucked we are.

He makes the point that if you look at all the money that the government has promised to pay (current debt, + social security + medicare benefits) that comes out to $52 trillion dollars. That's $52,000,000,000,000. That comes out to $125k per person and $400k per household.

You know anyone with that kind of money lying around?

[DrJones]

Screw all his political ads that have started appearing on the radio here.

Dr. Paul needs to air this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk) instead.

If he put that on the air, where real republicans saw it, he'd either win the nomination hands down, or America would realize that the Republican party no longer truly exists.

[FTNguyen]

America would realize that the Republican party no longer truly exists.

Ron Paul is far to liberal for most people who call them selfs "real" republicans,

In my eyes the entire party system as it's known today is just a way to make it so people don't have to think when they vote, take your pill the red one or the blue one, it's no more then that... imo for most of America

[DrJones]

Ron Paul is far to liberal for most people who call them selfs "real" republicans,

In my eyes the entire party system as it's known today is just a way to make it so people don't have to think when they vote, take your pill the red one or the blue one, it's no more then that... imo for most of America

No, he is more conservative then people today who call themselves republicans.

Look at the republican platform from 2000 and before. That is what Ron Paul stands for. That is the true conservative platform.