close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Romney won the debate - but

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. douggmc

    douggmc

    1,851
    9
    Feb 23, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    :goodpost: I would just add that the "low hanging" fruit you refer to is largely mathematically irrelevant too. It might make us warm and fuzzy ... and sound REALLY good to the aforementioned "low information voters" in a debate ... but it is of no real fiscal consequence. Further .. a lot of the "low hanging fruit" cutting would arguably result in disproportionate "pain".
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  2. Glock30Eric

    Glock30Eric .45 ACP

    3,353
    0
    Feb 3, 2011
    Southern Maryland
    Absolutely right on spot. The legislative branch of US is our weakest link. They could have easily denied/overrun everything that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter have done to America. They didn't and they have allowed it to happen in form as a representative for us.

    Ron Paul as President and to replace majority of people in the legislative branch could make a big different in the path where we are heading to.

    We could slow down Obama or Romney if we appoint right people in the legislative branch. I don't think that would ever happens.
     


  3. wjv

    wjv

    13,800
    1,228
    Jan 17, 2002
    Pacific NW
    Right now only Obama or Romney will be the next President. And that NOT TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION!

    Trashing the Constitution is the Ron Paul supporters who's party:

    - Failed to get a viable campaign organization
    - Failed to get a viable candidate
    - Failed to get any substantial vote in the primary
    - Failed to get a candidate on the ballot

    But now think their guy was somehow cheated and should be on the ballot anyway.

    I would happily vote for a conservative third party candidate who got on the ballot via the CONSTITUTIONAL methods.

    It can be done. Ross Perot almost did it, till he backed out.

    You complain about the Rs and the Ds, but the Ls have their own set of problems that are stopping them from becoming mainstream. Maybe people don't want a foreign policy that says "withdraw from the rest of the world", or a drug policy that says "make it all legal". And what's Paul's view on immigration?

    If you want to place blame, look at the people that the Ls are putting up as THEIR candidates.

    Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually get someone on the ballot. Till then, deal with reality. Obama or Romney will be the next President. Voting for a "snowball in hell chance of winning" candidate doesn't improve the situation, and it doesn't make a statement that anybody will bother listening to.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  4. Hey, no need to apologize, this is the Internet!

    You're probably right that only gradualism will be acceptable to the masses but we can always hope for more, can't we?
    :wavey:
     
  5. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    I dunno...I can't imagine keeping the Department of Education at the expense of the US Military.

    That said, raising the retirement age is certainly a given, and Romney said as much in at least one primary debate. I don't know where we got the idea that when you're 65 you should automatically qualify for a life of leisure at least partially paid from the public dole, but there we go. And there's a valid point about means testing, but even there I see a political problem. In essence, means testing involves even more income redistribution in an already redistributive program. That makes it harder to scale down.

    If it were me, I'd restructure the program thusly:

    1) Stop requiring the SSA to invest collected fund in US Treasuries. This kind of accounting sleight-of-hand is what's complicating everything to begin with.

    2) Come up with an age limit for inclusion in the current system. In other words, tell everyone who is 60+ "hey, you will continue to participate in SS as planned. Create another age tranche (say, 40-59) and offer up a choice: "we will repay to you every penny you've ever paid for Social Security, with which you may make tax-deferred investments in a 401(k) vehicle of your choosing, or just take the money and put it in a savings account." Expensive? Sure, but not as expensive as paying those people benefits for 25 years.

    3) If you're under 40, gradually shift FICA contributions from the SS system to private investment vehicles, percentages weighted by age (younger have a higher % paid into SS, older have higher % into private investments) until the outstanding obligations are all paid off.

    Theoretically we'd get to a point where we'd reimburse the younger folks for money paid into SS and we could end the program. There are certainly issues involved in this, but again at least it's a blueprint for a way out of this mess.

    Inre military spending, the main conversation isn't that we have a large military but what we need it *for*. The reality is that we live in an unstable world where we are a target. I don't think Fortress America is a realistic concept, not any longer.

    There are also some big problems with military cuts. Say for instance we decide we aren't going to buy any more tanks. Leaving aside the implications of shutting those factories down (unemployment, etc), what happens when we suddenly *need* a bunch of tanks? Our defense industry is full of brilliant people but it still takes a significant amount of time to spin up production of a tank. Specialized tooling needs to be put into place, qualified people need to be hired and trained, materials need to be procured, etc etc. And no contractor is going to let all of that capital sit idle.

    Another factor is that of innovation. Continued spending into R&D feeds innovation that won't happen if we just continue a maintenance level of spending.

    So yeah, military spending can be wasteful, and indeed I think it's inherently so (you were in the military and you've probably seen this firsthand). My suggestion is to look at the implications on the other side of the ledger...what risks do we face if we do not have a ready force with at least a somewhat active industry behind it?

    Inre tax brackets, a 39% bracket is not a pro-growth tax rate. Clintonistas like to tout mid-90s tax rates as evidence of some kind of economic necessity, but I don't believe that's a valid argument. Remember, Clinton's tax rates were elevated from Reagan's tax rates and were also retroactive. If the goal is to gain revenue to help pay for Obama's spending spree, to me it seems far better to structure the tax code to encourage growth, which means lowering rates and removing deductions from the IRC. Increasing economic activity has the side effect of increasing tax revenue since the tax base has expanded. I don't think the tax base will expand with a 39% top marginal rate.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  6. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,459
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    To those who are going to whine and blame libertarians and blame just about everybody else in the world on November 6, I would like to say this:

    Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually win a presidential election. Till then, deal with reality.
     
  7. marchboom

    marchboom

    2,715
    60
    Aug 18, 2006
    Idaho
    By not voting for Romney, you are supporting obama, whether you believe it or not. This election is not a game and it's not about who wins a debate. Its about whether or not we, as a nation, survive the way our founding fathers wanted it to.

    We are down to 2 candidates and there just is no logical reason not to vote for Romney. obama will destroy this country.
     
  8. kensb2

    kensb2 pistol n00b

    1,464
    0
    Mar 19, 2012
    Apache, OK
    Uh, uh, my dad can beat up your dad!! :faint:
    Or better yet, 'I'm rubber and you're glue. Things bounce off of me and stick to you".

    How are you going to just regurgitate the exact same info? You'd likely gain more credibility here if you actually attempted to defend your side of the ball in an intelligent manner, rather than do what you did.
     
  9. JMag

    JMag

    6,924
    951
    Feb 7, 2001
    USA:Love it or leave!
    What Romney showed last night was that he was not (nor Obama) the caricature the MSM has created and he has the tools to get the job done. Anyone refusing to recognize that is simply not wanting to admit the obvious or simply incapable of it.
     
  10. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,459
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    [​IMG]
     
  11. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    I assume, when Romney wins you will have the grace to get lost?

    I am really tired of the delusiions on the part of the Paulbots and their ilk. There was simply no way he was electable. His followers live in a fishbowl surrounded, politically, by each other and they think they are a big school of fish. Ron Paul had an opportunity to make changes in the Republican party by actually taking part in the primary system by using the votes and support he had at one time as leverage. He could have offered them to another candidate for inclusion of some of the principles he was running on. But his ego was inflated like a balloon and he refused to let go of his run when it would have done some good. IMO he was pumped up by false followers who were trying to split the Republican vote for the benefit of Obama. I can see no rational person who could think that Paul really could have been elected, but he COULD have made a change it's his fault he didn't.

    As to the other third party candidates, well they are obviously too little, too late. They should have tried to change the Republican party from the inside.

    If, they don't think they have what it take to change one party, how in the heck do they have the ego to think they can change the whole Country?
     
  12. whoflungdo

    whoflungdo

    8,412
    134
    Jul 15, 2008
    MS

    You've obviously never dug yourself out from under a lot of debt. One of the principle Dave Ramsey teaches is the start off attacking the smaller bills, then using that money to attack the larger ones. It has nothing to do with making us warm and fuzzy. It has to do with spending within your means and cutting back wherever and whenever you can. Learning spending discipline.
     
  13. ModGlock17

    ModGlock17

    4,163
    1,127
    Dec 18, 2010
    DisneyWorld
    Well said !
     
  14. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,459
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    Not likely. Dozens of country guns have come and gone in the time I've been here.

    I see you missed the point too, so it could be my fault for not being clear.

    For those who say the libertarians, the Libertarians, the "Paulbots", etc, have nobody to blame but themselves for the predicament of their candidates or their party, please remember those exact words when "your" candidate loses next month, because I'm certain I will see a lot of outward finger pointing at that time. Look at what you're saying now to those who didn't win what they wanted, and apply it to yourself when you don't win what you want.

    That is all. Clear now?
     
  15. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    The Libertarians were rejected by the Country as a whole and the Republican party specifically. The Primary numbers show it.

    Most mature adults learn to handle rejection well, some, on the other hand, follow those who have rejected them around saying things like,

    "You never gave me a fair chance"

    "I can give you what you really want"

    "You know I am really the one for you"

    and my favorite

    "You'll never be happy with anyone else"


    We call those people who deal with rejection in that manner,

    "Stalkers"
     
  16. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,459
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    Again, there's only a little more than a month to go until we see how maturely the election results will be handled by the mature adults in this forum. I will be happy to revisit the topic then.
     
  17. kensb2

    kensb2 pistol n00b

    1,464
    0
    Mar 19, 2012
    Apache, OK
    If Romney loses, that'll defintely suck. The conservative middle, that could throw their support to Romney and possibly turn the tide to the right (but stick with 3rd party anyways to make whatever statement they think they're making), will most certainly be culpable in the loss. Whether or not they'll admit it. Beyond that, if we lose, then ourselves and are party shoulder a great majority of the rest of the blame.
     
  18. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,459
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    What luck, it looks like we don't even have to wait a month.

    Why would those who stuck with a 3rd party be responsible at all? Why should they vote for somebody they dislike, when somebody they like is on the same ballot?

    Why doesn't the party shoulder 100% of the blame, for not being able to win enough votes to elect Romney? After all, they know the third parties are out there. They need to be able to win in the real world, not in some fantasy world where there are no third parties. If they can't win in a real world that includes third parties, it's 100% their fault, not the fault of those third parties or anybody who votes for them.

    That's what you're saying to those RP and GJ supporters, right? You need to accept reality and accept full responsibility for your performance in that reality.

    Well, it applies to you too.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  19. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    You know, the heck of it is here, I am a believer in quite a bit of this "Third party"s ideals but I have watched how this Country has changed, and it didn't happen overnight. My Grandfather talked to me about how he had seen the changes before he died in 1979. I watched a many of the changes he predicted were slowly implimented and I fought against them. I am just practical enough to know that pinning any hopes on just winning one office, and especially the POTUS to change things for the better is pure foolishness.

    This Country got screwed up one progressive, City Councilman, County Commisioner, State Representative, Senator, POTUS and SCOTUS member at a time. Every liberal/progressive teacher in the schools, every professor in the colleges that preaches the progressive agenda.

    It has to be unravelled the same way. There is NO way any POTUS without support of Congress can unravel the mess. At best it will be an excuse for neither party to cooperate and but the brakes on, in which case, over the cliff we go and both parties will be able to point at the third party POTUS who "wouldn't work with them".

    It is childish at best to contemplate grabbing the big brass ring of the White House without laying the groundwork to make it effective. It will take much more than one office to change anything in a maor way. I keep hearing about the Founders from these folks. That is nice, I am a big fan too, but we would have never heard of them, we wouldn't still be talking about them if it weren't for the individual, largely unremembered sacrifices of the people who's names we don't know, in the history of our Country since the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence. The hard work and small victories carried out by unknown people built the Country, one battle at a time. To take the Country back we have to start winning the little battles. We have to change the minds of the people. We cannot do that merely seeking the instant gratification of the White House. That is winning a flashy battle at the cost of the war.

    Forget about the Presidency for major change. Vote to get the twit out and campaign for change at every level, those are the steps that lead to a successful POTUS.