Maybe if we all chipped in a few thousand dollars we could reduce the deficit? Actually I believe I heard something that said it would take $17000 from every man, woman and child in the nation to eliminate the deficit.
Who do I make the check out to?
I’d also like to echo the sentiment that you guys have all been great expressing your views… its been informative, reflective and fun discussing all the issues. The “debate” I had with my mom last night was in the same vein, just a good civil exchange of ideas and ideals.
This. I did not support going into Iraq, I did not support going into Afghanistan. Once we were there, lost lives, spent money I supported following it through… otherwise it’d be seriously pointless. In high school… (haha high school sheesh) I did a paper on the Vietnam war… back then it had been the most recent war 
Well what I remember from that paper is we went in and never really fully committed to the effort… i think… there was so much ambivalence… and we lost [size=200]58,000[/size] in that “conflict”! Lets put this into perspective! We lost a paltry (no loss of life is paltry but for the sake of the point I use the word) 4000 in the Iraq “WAR”… we call that a war but Vietnam a “conflict”… Thats a travesty.
But I digress. The WTC attack was unthinkable… 3000 dead, a beautiful iconic American skyline brutally and unmercifully devastated… all unprovoked… unless you believe Obama’s pastor 
Our gov’t reacted to this horrible act. ALL of them, both sides, dems and repubs… they authorized it… in the name of national security. I didn’t like it then, i hate it now but like fone said when is enough enough? Those people still want to harm Americans… they keep trying right up to Benghazi… we bring everyone home, thats great… but if we become complacent they will strike at our heart again. The repercussions of 9/11 go on and on… economically, socially, defensively… it started there didn’t it? It changed everything. We really can’t ever bring everyone home and just go back to what was… ever. Thats a pipe dream. Sure we could do that… but if we are caught unawares again we’ll be right back in the middle east with another war. Seems better to keep a presence there always… not an all out war type thing but boots on the ground, ships in the sea, always keep a watchful eye in their direction. Always.
But maybe the terrorists are winning by bleeding us dry through our military though, making that ‘paper tiger’ ever thinner … so it’s a balancing act. Our deficit should attest to the need for reeling in military spending as much as possible. It’s true that if we hadn’t spend gazillions in the desert over the last decade, we’d not be in shambles. It’s not necessarily true that we’re any safer today.
It’s too bad we can’t be uninvolved altogether - that’d maybe go a long way toward peaceful US - Middle East relations - but since we can’t, why can’t we just get LESS involved?
I think if we can look at cutting funding to folks at home, then we can look at tightening up the war machine a bit is all.
I agree with that. Less involvement seems to be where we are going anyway, pull troops out of Afghanistan… but ready to be present if things go awry… like the Taliban asserting control… or if one of these recent “free” states are taken over by the extremists.
Ok, what I can find is that Obama inherited a deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion when he took office and that this year, according to the official data published by the Treasury Department, the deficit was $1.089 trillion.
I’m basing this on the first few results of a google search where I end up with links to things like this:
nytimes.com/2012/10/13/busin … .html?_r=0
This:
davemanuel.com/history-of-de … states.php
This:
usgovernmentspending.com/fed … chart.html
And, admittedly a very partisan source… but well cited:
maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ … r-low?lite
Am I getting bunk information?
And to answer a few question on social policy…
4 years ago, gays could not serve openly in the military. Now they can. (nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/23military.html)
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) allows states to pass laws forbidding gay marriage. The Obama admin has stopped defending this Act in court, as opposed to the Bush admin that strongly offended it, just as Romney has promised to do. (wbez.org/blogs/achy-obejas/2 … nce-103263)
4 years ago, women could not sue their employers if they were not being paid equally for the same work and same job as a man unless they did it within a short period of being hired, whether or not they became aware of the inequality later in their tenure. The Lilly Ledbetter Act, signed by president Obama and opposed by Romney and Ryan, remedied this and now gives women stronger protection and greater equality in the workplace. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledb … ct_of_2009)
The Dream Act would provide conditional permanent residency to certain undocumented residents of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors by no choice of their own, and have lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment. In June 2012, President Obama announced that his administration would stop deporting young undocumented immigrants who match certain criteria previously proposed under the Dream Act and is willing to sign the act when passed by congress-- something Romney and Ryan have vowed to reverse. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act)
Abortion is legal in the U.S. due to the Supreme Court case known as Roe vs. Wade. It is illegal to prohibit abortion by law. However, states like Mississippi have done a good job of skirting this by passing laws which make it necessary to jump through so many hoops in order to open an abortion clinic that the ONE clinic left in the state is currently struggling to stay open (edition.cnn.com/2012/06/30/us/mi … index.html). This means women in Mississippi who become pregnant and desire an abortion are forced to fly to another state and, if they cannot afford it, they are forced to either seek a “back-alley” abortion or go forward with their pregnancy against their will. Laws like Mississippi’s can easily be passed on a Federal level and to deny that is foolish, IMO.
The Supreme Court needs just 2 more judges that share the philosophy of Scalia and Thomas in order to overturn Roe v. Wade. The next president will likely appoint 1-2 Supreme court judges. Romney and Ryan both support judges that believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that Abortion rights should be left to states like Mississippi.
The Affordable Care Act put in place by Obama requires employers and insurance companies to provide birth-control coverage, free screenings for gestational diabetes, human papillomavirus testing and HIV, along with counseling for STDs, breastfeeding and domestic violence. Romney and Ryan oppose this. (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012 … effect.php)
I know we all don’t agree when it comes to these issues. But I think it’s incorrect to say the president has no part in shaping these policies.
You have to be careful of commercial sites… you know .com… they have no regulation, are for profit, can be posted by anyone. .org sites are non-profit… better info there… .gov are gov’t sanctioned, probably the best sites for info as there is no commercial activity or money to be made etc…
according to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway the debt on November, 4, 2008 was:
10,566,146,196,490.58 …to the penny as it says…
today 10/18/12: 16,198,174,452,215.24
not sure where you’re getting your numbers dooj… i guess we can make up numbers to make us happy though! 
^^Thanks. As stated in the link you provided:
Which is different than the Federal Deficit we are all talking about (again, from your link):
I’m getting my numbers from the actual Federal Deficit. As you can read at the treasury (.gov) website, the current report details a deficit of $1.089 trillion for fiscal year 2012, as opposed to $1.3 trillion in Jan 2009 when Obama took office.
fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.pdf
Which is why the NY Times was able to issue the above linked report without rebuttal. Here’s a chart from Forbes, in case you hate the NY Times:
blogs-images.forbes.com/realspin … -GDP11.jpg
^Well, we actually have less people out of work than in Feb 2009, 10 days after Obama took office:
google.com/publicdata/explor … yment+rate
The unemployment rate has consistently declined since 2010, though perhaps not fast enough.
These numbers come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the numbers I posted above come from the treasury dept. They aren’t fixed. They come from respectable agencies that still include several people from the previous admin.
The problem is… our situation still sucks. Things have improved, but they’re still terrible. So, people say “man, it’s been 4 years… let’s give someone else a chance now!” But the guy they want to give the chance to is promising over 5 trillion dollars in tax cuts and 2 trillion dollars more in military spending without any specifics as to how to do that without increasing the deficit just like every other Republican since Reagan has done. If you simply look at the Republican record-- as Jeff admitted-- they are notorious for increasing deficits by cutting taxes and increasing military spending, just as Romney plans to do.
Though an argument would be “Who cares about the debt?” And really, who does? Do any of us think taxing less will lead to more jobs? No. Will the debt go down if Romney doesn’t do tax cuts? Nope. Will the government spend less under either president?..Maybe some here and some there but will it means the budget balances? Nope. If a miracle happens and they a surplus for a year will they be able to resist themselves and not spend it next year? Nope. Will they find a way to not be sending soldiers to die somewhere for a lost cause? Nope. Will we be here in four years debating about how folks have no jobs and the deficit is increasing? Yup.
None of it ever changes. If there’s one thing the parties agree on, it’s passing on the debt issues to the next generation…who will then pass them to the next and so on.
Fone said abortion, weed and such are dead issues but so is the Debt.
Well, I confidently disagree with that, sorry. It does change, all the time. Constantly. We had a surplus less than two decades ago. The Fed Reserve isn’t even a hundred years old yet I think, so things definitely change, and things have not always been this way.
And I think all issues are relevant issues - economy/jobs, weed, health care, environment/energy, women’s rights, gay rights, hippie rights, right round baby right round rights, … I think these things all do matter. War and terror, corporate influence, massive debt & unbalanced budgets, crap it all matters very much IMO.
Thanks for posting your opinions and I did go back and read. Sorry I was a few days behind and at the time I asked the question I was being lazy/busy and wanted to take the easy way out It’s extremely interesting and also very informative to hear everyone’s opinion’s especially those that differ from mine.
I completely understand where you are all coming from when it concerns the economy and think we need to do something different. My only concern is that Romney might not be the guy for the job. Yes he has had business experience, but does that translate into being an effective president? I’m not sure. I guess for me, it is very hard to base my opinions and voting decisions on something like the economy. Mainly because I hear conflicting reports. Romney says he is going to cut the deficit but then fact checkers say hes actually going to raise it by 5 trillion in 4 years if his “plans” actually are implemented. I’m not sure what the solution is to the economy, honestly I have no idea. I want to believe that things will get better, but I’m not sure that either candidate has the right idea for what might actually help the economy.
Social issues are very important in my opinion because most people can actually understand what they are and how they will effect us. We all have an idea that the economy is terrible, but are any of us really economists that know for certain that Plan X is really going to help us out? Decriminalizing drugs, Gay Marriage and whatever other social issues we want to focus on have very stark contrasts and less gray area. We might sit on the fence with these issues, but we all understand what they mean and what changes to each policy will effect. This is why I look very hard at social policies. I can’t tell you whether or not Romney or Obama will help or hurt the economy, but what I do know is who I side with more socially. Will Obama’s plans kill the economy? I’m not sure, maybe. But even if you really think that it will, is Romney’s idea even going to work?
I think this is why we have to weigh all of the issues and not just focus on one specific one. Maybe giving the top companies/executives tax breaks will stimulate the economy, and maybe it won’t. I can tell you one thing that won’t stimulate it, and thats spending more on the military. After reading all of your opinions and ideas I do have a lot more respect for the other sides opinions on the economy, but I’m still very unsure of the execution of these plans.
I guess to sum this up, I think the economy is a very big issue and needs to be at the forefront of the election, I do not however agree that we have to have a change to make progress. It is almost the lesser of two evils debate in a sense. I can’t vote for Romney mainly due to the idea that, IF he wins, and his ideas for the economy tank, I will not be living in a society that I think is fair/prosperous for the majority of people. I truly believe that Gay marriage should be a right if it is going to be sanctioned by the government. I do not believe that war and military spending are solutions for the problems in foreign policy. I believe that decriminalization of all drugs is the way to move forward to helping the most people. I also believe that women should have the same rights as a man and can’t believe we are still having this debate. I also do not think drilling more is a solution. The solution to many problems economically stems from the Fed Reserve having the power to print money at will without anyone monitoring them. Essentially the dollar is worthless because of this practice and a huge reason why “gas prices are so much higher now.”
I’m glad I have a place to voice my opinion without being seen as a lunatic. Thanks for reading and sorry again for being lazy 
sorry for the confusion, i read through that quick and thought you were talking about the debt… in fact I wasn’t making a distinction between the two … still there is this from the nyt article:
Now I understand the recession was/is a bitch and the public gave Obama and the democrats a shot at turning this around… which, for many, has not met expectations.
here is the unemployment rate under O:
Reagan’s first term:
You could argue the similarities but the difference lies in how quick the recovery. Its a hard sell for Obama… running on asking the public to have patience with his policies.
This is what hurts the most imo.
^ Looking at average recessions though isn’t exactly fair to Obama either. This has been the worst turn for the economy since the great depression so the deficit that he has to make up is much greater. If you look at the 2 charts you posted both are ending up in roughly the same place. At least it is going down, not quick enough I agree though.
How long as the Fed Reserve been able to print their own money? The 80’s? Maybe the devaluing of our currency is the reason it is seemingly harder to fix this time? Just hypotheses… 
I’ll vote for that! 
Maybe a Cubs-Rockies game?
Hope you’re doing well buddy!
Hmm…I see your point but suppose I wasn’t referring to how things operated decades ago. Government in the 70’s is almost unrecognizable when compared to how it is now. The corruption is 100 times worse. The selfishness and money at stake is incredibly high. It’s not even close. And once corruption becomes commonplace it’s impossible to get it out. Look at Chicago and Detroit which have been corrupt for 70 years or more. They’re not any better now than they ever were. Once it effects government, it stretches out everywhere. Once it becomes clear that you can do this and get away with it, then even honest people want a piece of the pie.
That is what I mean about it not changing. If there was a wholesale change in how government worked then perhaps but to expect any sort of change while still operating within this form and system of government is folly.
As for the issues…I’m not saying they’re not relevant…just that they’re not relevant when to comes to choosing Romney vs Obama. Weed is getting legalized medically and in a few places non-medically in areas and NONE of it has to do with who is president. Gay rights have been loudly pushed into the hands of the states by both parties and none want a thing to do with it at a federal level (which is laughable but that’s how it is). Govt can’t fix job issues or the economy…only can throw money or tax breaks at those affected which is a band-aid at best. Health care…no one’s getting rid of it and no one’s cleaning it up to work better and be regulated since the health care companies own government.
So what does that leave us. War? Dubya started two wars, Obama vowed to end them then escalated fighting in Afghanistan and has been teasing with Iran and Libya. I guess Dems are a bit less war-happy than the Reps but it’ll always be there. War is now a PR scheme and a way for presidents to prove how tough they are.
Corporate influence? Won’t change. Too much cash in too many pockets. Like I said, once the corruption is there, it can’t get out.
Massive Debt? Too big a problem to be fixed and it’s VERY easily ignored. When you stop spending, people whine and then vote you out so it goes against a govt guy’s natural need to be reelected. They’ll talk about it then do nothing about it. Too many people lose out when they stop spending so they can’t do it. They’re in too deep to stop.
So I guess I misspoke…the issues MATTER…I’m just not sure if voting this guy over that guy will change them…at least not on a Federal level.
Agreed. And it’s because this is a historic point in US economic history. Think of how long the economy of the US has grown. Look at historical numbers since the 50’s. There’s been a few small dips but it’s been great and steady growth for decades now. Well you can’t just grow forever. Eventually growth stops and you fall or taper off. I think that’s what we’ve done. We’ve reached the peak of our amazing growth and this is the new normal. It’s not going to dramatically go up again since there’s nowhere it can go. We saw it happen with Japan when they had this big growth a decade or so ago and they tapered off and I’m sure China will taper off on their big growth they’re having now. It’s natural forces. You can’t grow forever.
Not to mention we’ve replaced so many jobs with technology/internet/etc that it has a big effect and it’s VERY expensive to manufacture here in the US so more jobs are gone…and they’re not coming back. And none of this has to do with government unless they want to get rid of the minimum wage.
10 minutes into the debate and I would say Obama looks petty. All he is doing is pointing out the faults of a person with 0 experience. Anyone who is informed at all knows this. He needs to talk about what HE is going to do not what Romney is incompetent at…ugh, well honestly I think Romney is going to win this election 
Best comment I’ve heard in any debate…
“Governor you say we have less ships, we also have less horses and bayonets…”
