Yes, we can.

[3894]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

His stance on taxes. He has said he will raise taxes

Is borrowing money from China the better way to pay for our spending?

[Moonliner]

Dear Hillary supporters:

When If Obama officially receives the Democratic nomination for President, will you then toss your support over to him? Vote McCain? Stay Home?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Dear Hillary supporters:

When If Obama officially receives the Democratic nomination for President, will you then toss your support over to him? Vote McCain? Stay Home?

I will, without hesitation, toss my support to Obama. This crap about, "if my candidate doesn't win, I'll vote for McCain or just not vote" peeves me to no end.

There are two Supreme Court Justices that are not likely to last for another four years. If they were to be replaced by the types of judges that McCain has pledged to support, we are royally screwed. I urge anyone who is contemplating following through on their professed threat to vote for McCain if they candidate doesn't win the nomination to carefully consider the ramifications of a judicial branch that is completely lopsided before making that decision.

Hell, I even know of a few conservatives who shudder at that prospect and have cited it as the number one reason they will not vote for McCain.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Hell, I even know of a few conservatives who shudder at that prospect and have cited it as the number one reason they will not vote for McCain.

Different worlds....justice openings are one of the only reasons I would vote FOR McCain.

If Obama wins, I'm going to find it amusing should his nominations be filibustered in the same way Bush's were, listening to the left side of the aisle screech about how unfair that is.

Does it make it right? No, just like WB alluded to with the open primaries. I hate open primaries. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the turmoil. Maybe no both sides will finally agree that open primaries are a bad idea.

BY the way....as far as counting all votes....if Florida and Michigan were counter, wouldn't Hillary have the popular vote lead? I thoought I heard that. What the dems choose to do is their own business. They wouldn't be in this mess if they hadn't set up their primaries as porportionally awarded so that super delegates could make the decision. They've gotten just what they have asked for.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

BY the way....as far as counting all votes....if Florida and Michigan were counter, wouldn't Hillary have the popular vote lead?

That was true yesterday (and then only if Michigan was counted, which is most universally agreed to not be at all reasonable since Obama wasn't on the ballot) but now even that is not the case. Add both in and Obama still has the lead. Plus there would be the fact that his "vote counts" from most caucus states (which he mostly won decisively) are just estimates and most likely understated.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Dear Hillary supporters:

When If Obama officially receives the Democratic nomination for President, will you then toss your support over to him? Vote McCain? Stay Home?

I'm an Obama supporter, so the question does not apply to me. However... If Clinton should manage to win the nomination, I will vote for her without hesitation in November – albeit with a firm grasp on my nose. She would be the lesser of two evils.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by 3894

Is borrowing money from China the better way to pay for our spending?

The premise of your question is flawed on two counts.

First is that raising taxes will result in raised revenue, far from a certainty, and I would argue the opposite takes place.

Secondly, the government should spend less money if money is tight.

Borrowing money from China is only for the Clinton's campaign coffers.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First is that raising taxes will result in raised revenue, far from a certainty, and I would argue the opposite takes place.

And you'd be wrong. (or rather, you'd be just as likely to be wrong as right since all the evidence has shown that far too many economic factors are at play for incremental changes, up or down, in taxation to produce any sort of predictable, measurable effect on overall revenue due to economic growth or shrinkage).

By the same token, ignoring the last clause of the sentence, I agree that raising taxes is not a certain path towards revenue increase (see above). But the reality is that our spending is growing and that's not going to change no matter who is in office. The only thing that is going to have an effect at this point is military spending and McCain will certainly continue the trend of blowing the budget out of the water on that. From the standpoint of economic stability, while my druthers would be to make large cuts in all areas where there is waste, that's simply not going to happen in the short term so the next best thing is to stop the bleeding via un-budgeted military spending and continue to ensure there is enough revenue to cover the current levels of approved waste. When we had a budget surplus, moves were being made to begin cutting intelligently because Congress could look at the budget rationally instead of in panic mode. It'd be nice to be there again.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by 3894

Is borrowing money from China the better way to pay for our spending?

I owe you mojo.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, does the government military spending fuss you at all? Just wondering. Also, if not- where the hell do you think they get the money to do so?