Jump to content

THIS MAN SHUOLD BE PRESIDENT


jjooee
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really like this guy. He has a show on WSB, and he fills in for Boortz alot. He is a successful business man and on many board of directors. Conservative, but not in the Hannity area.

If he was the Republican candidate the ticket would be much stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like this guy. He has a show on WSB, and he fills in for Boortz alot. He is a successful business man and on many board of directors. Conservative, but not in the Hannity area.

If he was the Republican candidate the ticket would be much stronger.

I can't think of one living person I'd rather have in the White House than this guy.

He would be awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That signature is pretty fallacious.

Taxes on people who make less than 150,000 dollars (Most Americans), under Obama's plan, would pay significantly less taxes than they do now. Those who make 250,000 or more, will see significant increases.

Obama himself would pay considerably more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That signature is pretty fallacious.

Taxes on people who make less than 150,000 dollars (Most Americans), under Obama's plan, would pay significantly less taxes than they do now. Those who make 250,000 or more, will see significant increases.

Obama himself would pay considerably more.

You don't cofiscate capital in a capitalistic society......you free it up...that's what makes capitalism strong

Instead Obama just demonizes those with capital so He can steal it and give it to the incompetent Government.

NO THANKS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That signature is pretty fallacious.

Taxes on people who make less than 150,000 dollars (Most Americans), under Obama's plan, would pay significantly less taxes than they do now. Those who make 250,000 or more, will see significant increases.

Obama himself would pay considerably more.

because it is certainly fair to take more money from people because they have committed the sin of being successful instead of demanding that our government stop wasting taxpayer money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't cofiscate capital in a capitalistic society......you free it up...that's what makes capitalism strong

Instead Obama just demonizes those with capital so He can steal it and give it to the incompetent Government.

NO THANKS

Obama, as FDR and many democrats, is for a little injection of socialism into economy and government. He's not against capitalism, he just wants more of a mixed economy. Capitalism would still be the predominant system.

FDR is the best US president in my perspective.

I, for one, agree with him. If you think government is incompetent, then that's because of Bush's fiscally liberal policies. He's been spending money with no way to pay for it but go into debt to other nations. We need more government income right now, and one effective method to obtain that is higher overall taxes.

Those who are rich will be responsible for the overall increase in government revenue from taxes, but those who are in the middle class and below will spend less money. They'll be able to afford a better living. The rich will already live in the lifestyle in which they're accustomed.

The only issue on which Obama and I disagree is the windfall profits tax. On the rest, he's spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, as FDR and many democrats, is for a little injection of socialism into economy and government. He's not against capitalism, he just wants more of a mixed economy. Capitalism would still be the predominant system.

FDR is the best US president in my perspective.

I, for one, agree with him. If you think government is incompetent, then that's because of Bush's fiscally liberal policies. He's been spending money with no way to pay for it but go into debt to other nations. We need more government income right now, and one effective method to obtain that is higher overall taxes.

The only issue on which Obama and I disagree is the windfall profits tax. On the rest, he's spot on.

Those who are rich will be responsible for the overall increase in government revenue from taxes, but those who are in the middle class and below will spend less money. They'll be able to afford a better living. The rich will already live in the lifestyle in which they're accustomed.

FDR was good. His handling of the war was great. He did have an uncomparable domestic catastrophe, but as one who opposes the social security system, I have a hard time forgiving that he was the one who started this whole entitlement system we now have. That said he had to do something, maybe there were other options. If your handing out money anyways, do it, but have the program expire. He should never have saddled future generations with these programs. Every politician should consider that what they do today future Americans have to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, as FDR and many democrats, is for a little injection of socialism into economy and government. He's not against capitalism, he just wants more of a mixed economy. Capitalism would still be the predominant system.

FDR is the best US president in my perspective.

I, for one, agree with him. If you think government is incompetent, then that's because of Bush's fiscally liberal policies. He's been spending money with no way to pay for it but go into debt to other nations. We need more government income right now, and one effective method to obtain that is higher overall taxes.

The only issue on which Obama and I disagree is the windfall profits tax. On the rest, he's spot on.

Those who are rich will be responsible for the overall increase in government revenue from taxes, but those who are in the middle class and below will spend less money. They'll be able to afford a better living. The rich will already live in the lifestyle in which they're accustomed.

you have got to be kidding me. You think our government only started being wasteful and inefficient 8 years ago? That pork barrell spending was only invented that recently? That is pure idiocy. Sure Bush has sucked at spending...he may be the worst in a long time but this is a long tradition of our government.

Want to hear a good example of Clinton's idea of budgeting for education? Back when he was in office, our government would not fully fund the Pell budget. Instead, the administration would borrow against the following year to pay off the then current year which created a huge deficit as well as caused the amount of Pell Grant available to individuals to be stagnate while the cost of education was increasing. The Bush administration has paid that deficit off two years ago and only since then has the maximum Pell Award increased from its stagnant amount of around $4000 that had been virtually unchanged since Clinton was in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, as FDR and many democrats, is for a little injection of socialism into economy and government. He's not against capitalism, he just wants more of a mixed economy. Capitalism would still be the predominant system.

FDR is the best US president in my perspective.

I, for one, agree with him. If you think government is incompetent, then that's because of Bush's fiscally liberal policies. He's been spending money with no way to pay for it but go into debt to other nations. We need more government income right now, and one effective method to obtain that is higher overall taxes.

Those who are rich will be responsible for the overall increase in government revenue from taxes, but those who are in the middle class and below will spend less money. They'll be able to afford a better living. The rich will already live in the lifestyle in which they're accustomed.

The only issue on which Obama and I disagree is the windfall profits tax. On the rest, he's spot on.

Government's been incompetent since it was initially created several thousands years ago. The smaller government is kept, and the freer individuals are, the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, as FDR and many democrats, is for a little injection of socialism into economy and government. He's not against capitalism, he just wants more of a mixed economy. Capitalism would still be the predominant system.

FDR is the best US president in my perspective.

I, for one, agree with him. If you think government is incompetent, then that's because of Bush's fiscally liberal policies. He's been spending money with no way to pay for it but go into debt to other nations. We need more government income right now, and one effective method to obtain that is higher overall taxes.

Those who are rich will be responsible for the overall increase in government revenue from taxes, but those who are in the middle class and below will spend less money. They'll be able to afford a better living. The rich will already live in the lifestyle in which they're accustomed.

The only issue on which Obama and I disagree is the windfall profits tax. On the rest, he's spot on.

The Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House.

Wealth produces wealth unless you put that wealth in the hands of Government. That is our problem, we confiscate capital from where

it can be productive and put it where it is wasted (in Government).

YOU NEED CAPITAL IN A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY MORE THAN YOU NEED POLITICIANS CONFISCATING CAPITAL FROM A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY.

The truth is Obama loves capitalism about as much as He claims to love America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House.

Wealth produces wealth unless you put that wealth in the hands of Government. That is our problem, we confiscate capital from where

it can be productive and put it where it is wasted (in Government).

YOU NEED CAPITAL IN A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY MORE THAN YOU NEED POLITICIANS CONFISCATING CAPITAL FROM A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY.

The truth is Obama loves capitalism about as much as He claims to love America.

Do you even know why you like capitalism so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, as FDR and many democrats, is for a little injection of socialism into economy and government. He's not against capitalism, he just wants more of a mixed economy. Capitalism would still be the predominant system.

FDR is the best US president in my perspective.

I, for one, agree with him. If you think government is incompetent, then that's because of Bush's fiscally liberal policies. He's been spending money with no way to pay for it but go into debt to other nations. We need more government income right now, and one effective method to obtain that is higher overall taxes.

Those who are rich will be responsible for the overall increase in government revenue from taxes, but those who are in the middle class and below will spend less money. They'll be able to afford a better living. The rich will already live in the lifestyle in which they're accustomed.

The only issue on which Obama and I disagree is the windfall profits tax. On the rest, he's spot on.

Changes to monetary policy and the advent of a war time economy are what ultimately pulled us out of the depression, not the socialistic policies enacted by FDR. If anything, it is believed they prolonged the depression, as evidenced by the recession of 1937 that saw unemployment balloon back up to 25%. Fortunately that served as a reality check on some of FDR's initiatives, and we pulled back and allowed more traditional free market solutions to create employment and capital within the market, and then saw tremendous growth as Europe marched towards war and our exports grew exponentially from '39-late '41 (Pearl Harbor).

Our economy is already highly regulated, and capital already has a high price placed upon it by taxes. What we don't need is more of both, along with a protectionist ideal on free trade. This is why an Obama Presidency is dangerous, especially with a stacked Democratic House and Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate him. He doesn't strike me as a good host at all.

The fundamental premise of his show is what gets me. He has already stated he doesn't like Obama and is going to vote for McCain. Which would be fine, if he was running a commentary show (just like I see no problem with John Stewart and the Daily Show because his show is comedy and commentary more than news). But he treats his show as both a news source and a place of "education".

Why would you take news and be "educated" by a person who has already told you flat out he has a partisan bias? It doesn't take a genius to tell you that he is going to present his news in a way that is going to sound beneficial to his beliefs. You are just asking to be conned. I also don't see how he has any expertise to "teach" me about economic matters. He is supposedly has been a fairly successful businessman, but after looking holds no degrees in anything government/economic related. If anything from that it seems like the only angle he is educated in is the big business angle and is prone to advocate for them above all other. I'll take the word of someone with a degree in economics over his any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate him. He doesn't strike me as a good host at all.

The fundamental premise of his show is what gets me. He has already stated he doesn't like Obama and is going to vote for McCain. Which would be fine, if he was running a commentary show (just like I see no problem with John Stewart and the Daily Show because his show is comedy and commentary more than news). But he treats his show as both a news source and a place of "education".

Why would you take news and be "educated" by a person who has already told you flat out he has a partisan bias? It doesn't take a genius to tell you that he is going to present his news in a way that is going to sound beneficial to his beliefs. You are just asking to be conned. I also don't see how he has any expertise to "teach" me about economic matters. He is supposedly has been a fairly successful businessman, but after looking holds no degrees in anything government/economic related. If anything from that it seems like the only angle he is educated in is the big business angle and is prone to advocate for them above all other. I'll take the word of someone with a degree in economics over his any day.

Exactly right.

No need to talk to someone who has lived and done it his whole life when you can have someone who spent 4 of his/her formative years thinking about it and pontificating instead :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changes to monetary policy and the advent of a war time economy are what ultimately pulled us out of the depression, not the socialistic policies enacted by FDR. If anything, it is believed they prolonged the depression, as evidenced by the recession of 1937 that saw unemployment balloon back up to 25%. Fortunately that served as a reality check on some of FDR's initiatives, and we pulled back and allowed more traditional free market solutions to create employment and capital within the market, and then saw tremendous growth as Europe marched towards war and our exports grew exponentially from '39-late '41 (Pearl Harbor).

Our economy is already highly regulated, and capital already has a high price placed upon it by taxes. What we don't need is more of both, along with a protectionist ideal on free trade. This is why an Obama Presidency is dangerous, especially with a stacked Democratic House and Senate.

Yes. WWII did ultimately end The Great Depression, but I also believe Roosevelt's New Deal sustained the US until that time. There are many areas in the US economy that aren't as regulated as they should be, and there are areas that need to be loosened up a bit.

McCain with a democratic congress will keep this ongoing virtual stalemate in Washington. Congress will become more democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He spent his life managing a business, not being an economist. Big difference.

You don't have to be an economist to understand how the economy works (particularly if we're talking about PARTICIPATION in the economy, as Cain does). Plus, the vast majority of his economic commentary is regarding how the government strangles the economy through overregulation and overtaxation, subjects he is imminently familiar with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to be an economist to understand how the economy works (particularly if we're talking about PARTICIPATION in the economy, as Cain does). Plus, the vast majority of his economic commentary is regarding how the government strangles the economy through overregulation and overtaxation, subjects he is imminently familiar with.

Amen brother.

This country doesn't deserve Herman Cain as President, we probably deserve someone like John McCain....I pray to God we aren't deserving of Barack Hussein Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to be an economist to understand how the economy works (particularly if we're talking about PARTICIPATION in the economy, as Cain does). Plus, the vast majority of his economic commentary is regarding how the government strangles the economy through overregulation and overtaxation, subjects he is imminently familiar with.

I'm not saying he is stupid or anything, he has enough experience to provide COMMENTARY. Still like I mentioned he isn't exactly the ideal source for "education" or news. I'll go to somewhere that at least tries to be unbiased for news and someone without an agenda and with formal education to teach me about the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...