New York Primary Election Sept 14: Will you vote?

Created by Top Mod2 on Sep 13, 2010

3,715 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#13209 Oct 21, 2012
tbird19482 wrote:
<quoted text> NO The only thing that is under Obamas signatures are appropriations added on to the budget he signed for after he became Pres. Nothing more nothing less.
The majority of the F/Y budget goes to G.W. Bush NOT Obama.
Have a nice night
NO. WRONG.

Every dollar spent by the federal government from 12:00 noon on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 onward was spent under Obama's signature.

Your whole "budget" and "appropriations" line of argument is a transparent dodge.

Spending appropriations merely authorize spending - they don't REQUIRE it.

Obama could have trimmed federal spending by 5% or 10% across the board by Executive Order his first day in office. He didn't.

Obama - and no one else - is responsible for every dime of federal SPENDING since 20th Jan 2009.

Bush and the DEMOCRATIC Pelosi-Reid 110th Congress are responsible for FY2009 BUDGET.

At least we had one then ... and haven't since ...


Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#13210 Oct 21, 2012
really wrote:
<quoted text>
Still not gonna address anything about Romney's plan to add 5-7 trillion in spending vs obama's removing 4-5 trillion from spending?
I see a pattern, you can't win so you just don't talk about it. Got it.
I don't generally respond to patently bullsh!t propaganda trolls. Your nonsense claim has already been refuted by another poster.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-respo...

Your absurd pretension that you believe the demonstrated out-of-control Big Government spendthrift currently in office will cut federal spending more than Romney is noted - with laughter.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#13211 Oct 21, 2012
The report from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ Minority Staff,“A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013,” points to a “slew of job-killing EPA regulations that the Obama-EPA has put on hold until after the election but will be on the ‘to-do’ list for 2013.”
“As the economy has continued to falter over the past year, team Obama has been delaying rule after rule that will eliminate American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production. They don’t want this economic pain to hit American families just before the election because it would cost President Obama votes.”
The report goes on to state:“It’s pretty clear that if President Obama secures a second term, the Obama-EPA will have a very busy next four years, moving full speed ahead to implement numerous major rules and regulations that he has delayed or punted due to the upcoming election.
“The radical environmental left may not need to worry, but what about American families, who are working hard in tough economic times, trying to make ends meet?
“As the nation struggles to recover from a lagging economy in the coming year, Americans could also be grappling with a regulatory onslaught from the Obama-EPA that will strangle economic growth, destroy millions of jobs, and dramatically raise the price of goods, the cost of electricity, and the price of gas at the pump.”
The “punted” regulations include:
Greenhouse gas rules that will “virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation,” and inflict new permitting costs on more than 37,000 farms. New ozone standards that would cost $90 billion a year. Regulations on hydraulic fracturing that will have “serious impacts on domestic energy production.” Expansion of federal control “over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small.” Storm water regulations that could include “mandates on cities to change existing buildings, storm water sewers, and streets.” Reductions in the sulfur content in gasoline that could boost prices by 9 cents a gallon. Clean Water Act rules that “could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths.” Other regulations would affect coal ash, farm dust, oil and gasoline spill prevention, and more.
“This report is a wake-up call on the economic pain that the ‘abusive’ Obama-EPA plans to inflict next year,” said Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member on the committee.
“It reveals a president who is more concerned about saving his own job than the millions of Americans who are looking for one today.”
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#13212 Oct 21, 2012
fairness wrote:
re·pub·lic
noun \ri-&#712;p&#601;-blik \
Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2
: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
Where does it say in the definition,that a republic can't have socialism,or be socialist?
It doesn't. It doesn't have to.

Experience shows Republicanism and Socialism are fundamentally incompatible in practice, that's all.

Socialism depends upon the subjugation of the individual to compulsory economic behaviors dictated by the power of the State - i.e., the sovereignty of the Collective over the individual in society.

Republicanism depends upon the subjugation of the State to the economic behavior of free individuals seeking their own well-being - i.e., the sovereignty of the Free Individual in society over the State and the Collective.

“Communism. It's everywhere!”

Since: May 08

Lockport, NY

#13213 Oct 21, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
NO. WRONG.
Every dollar spent by the federal government from 12:00 noon on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 onward was spent under Obama's signature.
Your whole "budget" and "appropriations" line of argument is a transparent dodge.
Spending appropriations merely authorize spending - they don't REQUIRE it.
Obama could have trimmed federal spending by 5% or 10% across the board by Executive Order his first day in office. He didn't.
Obama - and no one else - is responsible for every dime of federal SPENDING since 20th Jan 2009.
Bush and the DEMOCRATIC Pelosi-Reid 110th Congress are responsible for FY2009 BUDGET.
At least we had one then ... and haven't since ...
Teddy R,

You forgot one important point. The Budget Rescission and Anti-Impoundment Act. The Act was developed in response to President Nixon impounding funds for appropriations that he didn't agree with. From Washington to Nixon, impoundment of funds was an Executive prerogative. So effectively, now once an authorization is made it has to be spent. I know it's a technical point.

I'll agree with the statement about Obama being responsible for every dime spent since 20 Jan 2009 to a point. The budget for FY 2009 which began on 1 Oct 2008 was signed by Bush. So that portion was put in place by Bush. However, any legislation after 20 Jan 2009 is clearly Obama's doing.

What pisses me off is that the nonsensical stimulus spending, clearly an extraordinary item, is included in the baseline for future spending. Until and unless we eliminate baseline budgeting ....... we're financially doomed. That is the reason why the Senate never prepared a budget and we've been existing on a series of continuing resolutions ever since.

The Commie

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#13214 Oct 21, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't generally respond to patently bullsh!t propaganda trolls. Your nonsense claim has already been refuted by another poster.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-respo...
Your absurd pretension that you believe the demonstrated out-of-control Big Government spendthrift currently in office will cut federal spending more than Romney is noted - with laughter.
May I ask WHAT " Out of control Big Government spendthrift"?
If you are talking about OBAMA you really have some research to do because that thread you posted is nothing but political lies.
Again here is some reading for you , you will even see FORBES says Obama has not increased the deficit as much as you are saying.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spend...

Market watch http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/co...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
And there are a lot more of these articles out there to read.
Have a nice afternoon
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#13215 Oct 21, 2012
tbird19482 wrote:
<quoted text>He can't because MITT doesn't even know what he is doing.
He says he is going to cut taxes 20% across the board.
a 5 Trillion dollar tax cut.
Sounds good infact GREAT
BUT he wants to take away all the deductions that the avg. working people take.
Home mortage int.
land taxes
state Income taxes you paid
the list goes on.
and if the avg middle class working person doesn't have these deductions HIS 20% tax cut won't make up for what thoses deductions did and it will be more like a tax hike for any body earning less than 250,000 dollars.
Then he wants to increase the Mill. budget by over 2 trillion dollars.
I have NO idea just where MITT thinks the money to pay for all this is going to come from.
You can cut all the programs for the poor and people that are retired, Medicare, medicade.
Yes I know we have to get the welfare system under control, we need to stop the fraud and cheating, But that will not cut enough to get us even close to what has to be cut to balance the budget.
These people do not understand that the DEMs wanting to take us over the " Cliff" on Jan 1,[ that will take us back to a tax rate before the Bush tax cuts] is really a good thing.
Because it puts the REPS that signed the Norquest pledge in a spot, see now they can go back and redo the tax code and put up a " tax cut" [ seeing the tax rate went up on Jan 1 they can offer a tax cut and still raise taxes at the same time, they don't need to raise them much but 3 or 4 % would help balance the budget] and the REPs that signed that pledge will HAVE to vote for it or break their pledge to Norquest[ because they pledged to vote for all tax cuts]
It is a gotcha, you pledged to vote for any tax cut and this would be a tax cut.
Have a nice night
The answer you guys and the Incompetent-in-Chief you worship are so studiously avoiding recognizing is ECONOMIC GROWTH.

We have only 4 choices:

- Tax our way out of the hole
- Inflate our way out of the hole
- Cut spending
- Grow our way out of the hole.

Tax our way out? You Big Government statist boneheads have finally succeeded in spending the nation into a fiscal hole so deep it's impossible to tax our way out of it any more. There is not enough private wealth left to confiscate to run the US federal government for even a year. Take it ALL - every dime of private wealth from even the richest of the rich - and we'll be right back in the hole a year from now with NOTHING left to tax:

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/9582

Inflate our way out? The Obama administration and Bennie Bernanke have been trying their best, running the printing presses down at the Fed cranking out their monetary crack cocaine by the bushel - but this is just another tax - a tax on people's cash assets - the most regressive tax there is, and one that Congress doesn't vote on. Say NO to drugs, kids.

Cut federal government Spending. Obviously the correct, and ESSENTIAL solution.



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

And finally, ECONOMIC GROWTH. The other obviously correct and ESSENTIAL part of the solution. But you guys hate economic growth and the people and conditions that promote it. You don't understand how to promote economic growth because you're too obsessed with TAKING and SPENDING the fruits of economic production. You CAN'T admit the truth that greatly increased economic growth plus federal government spending cuts are the ONLY hope left for righting the fiscal ship - or that Romney's proposals are aimed at this and Obama's, obsessed as they are with tax tax tax, are recipes for continued disaster.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#13216 Oct 21, 2012
thenycommie wrote:
<quoted text>
Teddy R,
You forgot one important point. The Budget Rescission and Anti-Impoundment Act. The Act was developed in response to President Nixon impounding funds for appropriations that he didn't agree with. From Washington to Nixon, impoundment of funds was an Executive prerogative. So effectively, now once an authorization is made it has to be spent. I know it's a technical point.
I'll agree with the statement about Obama being responsible for every dime spent since 20 Jan 2009 to a point. The budget for FY 2009 which began on 1 Oct 2008 was signed by Bush. So that portion was put in place by Bush. However, any legislation after 20 Jan 2009 is clearly Obama's doing.
What pisses me off is that the nonsensical stimulus spending, clearly an extraordinary item, is included in the baseline for future spending. Until and unless we eliminate baseline budgeting ....... we're financially doomed. That is the reason why the Senate never prepared a budget and we've been existing on a series of continuing resolutions ever since.
The Commie
I think I said that in post #13195.
G.W. is responsible for the budget for F/Y 2008/09 and OBAMA is responsible for any appropriations after Jan 20.
Have a nice day
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#13217 Oct 21, 2012
thenycommie wrote:
<quoted text>
Teddy R,
You forgot one important point. The Budget Rescission and Anti-Impoundment Act. The Act was developed in response to President Nixon impounding funds for appropriations that he didn't agree with. From Washington to Nixon, impoundment of funds was an Executive prerogative. So effectively, now once an authorization is made it has to be spent. I know it's a technical point.
I'll agree with the statement about Obama being responsible for every dime spent since 20 Jan 2009 to a point. The budget for FY 2009 which began on 1 Oct 2008 was signed by Bush. So that portion was put in place by Bush. However, any legislation after 20 Jan 2009 is clearly Obama's doing.
What pisses me off is that the nonsensical stimulus spending, clearly an extraordinary item, is included in the baseline for future spending. Until and unless we eliminate baseline budgeting ....... we're financially doomed. That is the reason why the Senate never prepared a budget and we've been existing on a series of continuing resolutions ever since.
The Commie
An excellent post - thank you.

I'm unfamiliar with the Nixon-era legislation you've cited & will look into it. What a horribly bad idea! It's high time a President with a pair took it on to test it in a Constitutional challenge to see if it can be broken. Now's the time, certainly.

I fully agree with you re: baseline budgeting. The whole fiction of a "structural deficit" needs to be destroyed permanently if there is to be any hope. A 'zero base' budget should be the rule every year, by Statute.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#13218 Oct 21, 2012
tbird19482 wrote:
<quoted text>May I ask WHAT " Out of control Big Government spendthrift"?
If you are talking about OBAMA you really have some research to do because that thread you posted is nothing but political lies.
Again here is some reading for you , you will even see FORBES says Obama has not increased the deficit as much as you are saying.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spend...
Market watch http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/co...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
And there are a lot more of these articles out there to read.
Have a nice afternoon
Stuff the spin, and your partisan Bush OCD.

The numbers don't lie:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_...

It's very simple. Historical post-war norm for fed spending is 18% of GDP.

Obama's spending record is this:

FY Spend %GDP
2008 20.76
2009 25.24
2010 23.79
2011 23.87

Forecast in FY 2013 budget:

2012 24.33
2013 23.28
2014 22.63
2015 22.33
2016 22.47

WAY above the sustainable norm.

Obama isn't getting it done. Time to fire him and put someone else in who will. If Romney doesn't get federal spending back down to 18% of GDP, I'll fire his azz too, rinse and repeat until Washington and the permanent professional political class there gets the message.
really

Burbank, CA

#13219 Oct 21, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't generally respond to patently bullsh!t propaganda trolls. Your nonsense claim has already been refuted by another poster.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-respo...
Your absurd pretension that you believe the demonstrated out-of-control Big Government spendthrift currently in office will cut federal spending more than Romney is noted - with laughter.
You know theres not one figure on that page right? You're prescribing to the "Trust me, itll work" mentality.

Now if you look at the same site,

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

You'll see he only supports less than 500 billion in cuts, He wants to cut taxes by 20% across the board,(except for people below 200,000 he wants to remove all taxing on interest, dividends, and capital gains) which will cost, 5 trillion.

On top of that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to defense spending
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

That brings his costs up to around 7 trillion.

So yea if you want to believe in your magic world that an article that pretty much says "trust him, itll work" is better than looking at his figures and seeing that he will cost 7 trillion, enjoy your fictional world while the adults handle this election.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#13221 Oct 21, 2012
really wrote:
<quoted text>
You know theres not one figure on that page right? You're prescribing to the "Trust me, itll work" mentality.
Now if you look at the same site,
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending
You'll see he only supports less than 500 billion in cuts, He wants to cut taxes by 20% across the board,(except for people below 200,000 he wants to remove all taxing on interest, dividends, and capital gains) which will cost, 5 trillion.
On top of that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to defense spending
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
That brings his costs up to around 7 trillion.
So yea if you want to believe in your magic world that an article that pretty much says "trust him, itll work" is better than looking at his figures and seeing that he will cost 7 trillion, enjoy your fictional world while the adults handle this election.
Don't worry they will just cut everything for people that earn less than 250,000 dollars and then MITT will do what he did in Mass. start charging people "FEEs" for this and that and when he finds out all these cuts have driven the people that use to be in the middle class down to working poor and the rich get richer he will be happy.
it is a fact that the Big corps. are sitting on over 4 trillion dollars and not reinvesting it into their plants and co. here and sending jobs over seas.
They have to take away any and all tax breaks these co.s get and give COs that bring jobs back and build new plants and reinvest in this country the tax breaks your will see a big turn around.
But the Big money in this country will buy the best government money can buy and they will keep this from happening.
Have a nice day
Whining Repukes

Corinth, NY

#13222 Oct 21, 2012
tbird19482 wrote:
<quoted text>May I ask WHAT " Out of control Big Government spending"?
The ONLY "out of control spending' is the money spent on the defense budget....

10 to 20 times what any other nation spends on their defense budgets.

The USA whines that China is increasing spending on their defense budget by 20-30 percent.....yet even WITH China raising their defense budget, and considering that they have approxamately the same land mass, and 4 TIMES the population..... their spending on defense is STILL less than one TENTH of the USA's !

It's fuggin' OBSCENE !

Talk about 'out of control spending" !

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#13223 Oct 21, 2012
really wrote:
<quoted text>
You know theres not one figure on that page right? You're prescribing to the "Trust me, itll work" mentality.
Now if you look at the same site,
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending
You'll see he only supports less than 500 billion in cuts, He wants to cut taxes by 20% across the board,(except for people below 200,000 he wants to remove all taxing on interest, dividends, and capital gains) which will cost, 5 trillion.
On top of that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to defense spending
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
That brings his costs up to around 7 trillion.
So yea if you want to believe in your magic world that an article that pretty much says "trust him, itll work" is better than looking at his figures and seeing that he will cost 7 trillion, enjoy your fictional world while the adults handle this election.
If people out here didn't notice it is the people that earn less than $250,000 that are taking all the cuts where are the cuts on the rich?
OH I forgot Mitt doesn't care about 47% of the people in this country only the top 1%.
Yes take everything away fro the working class and the retirees and give it to the top 1%
Have a nice afternoon
JesseSharptonWri ght

Lakewood, NJ

#13224 Oct 21, 2012
tbird19482 wrote:
<quoted text>If people out here didn't notice it is the people that earn less than $250,000 that are taking all the cuts where are the cuts on the rich?
OH I forgot Mitt doesn't care about 47% of the people in this country only the top 1%.
Yes take everything away fro the working class and the retirees and give it to the top 1%
Have a nice afternoon
Pray to Obama for magic hopey-changey.
JesseSharptonWri ght

Lakewood, NJ

#13225 Oct 21, 2012
Whining Repukes wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY "out of control spending' is the money spent on the defense budget....
10 to 20 times what any other nation spends on their defense budgets.
The USA whines that China is increasing spending on their defense budget by 20-30 percent.....yet even WITH China raising their defense budget, and considering that they have approxamately the same land mass, and 4 TIMES the population..... their spending on defense is STILL less than one TENTH of the USA's !
It's fuggin' OBSCENE !
Talk about 'out of control spending" !
Pray to obama for magic hopey-changey.
JesseSharptonWri ght

Lakewood, NJ

#13226 Oct 21, 2012
really wrote:
<quoted text>
You know theres not one figure on that page right? You're prescribing to the "Trust me, itll work" mentality.
Now if you look at the same site,
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending
You'll see he only supports less than 500 billion in cuts, He wants to cut taxes by 20% across the board,(except for people below 200,000 he wants to remove all taxing on interest, dividends, and capital gains) which will cost, 5 trillion.
On top of that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to defense spending
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
That brings his costs up to around 7 trillion.
So yea if you want to believe in your magic world that an article that pretty much says "trust him, itll work" is better than looking at his figures and seeing that he will cost 7 trillion, enjoy your fictional world while the adults handle this election.
Pray to Obama for magic hopey-changey.
Really

Los Angeles, CA

#13227 Oct 21, 2012
JesseSharptonWright wrote:
<quoted text> Pray to Obama for magic hopey-changey.
Id rather trust someone with positive numbers than someone with negative numbers, a promise, and magic underpants
Whining Repukes

Corinth, NY

#13228 Oct 21, 2012
JesseSharptonWright wrote:
<quoted text> Pray to obama for magic hopey-changey.
I think I'd rather pray to the wh_0re you refer to as 'mom' for some sucky -sucky !

RRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLL !
JesseSharptonWri ght

Lakewood, NJ

#13229 Oct 21, 2012
Really wrote:
<quoted text>
Id rather trust someone with positive numbers than someone with negative numbers, a promise, and magic underpants
What you are saying, is that you would rather trust someone with negative numbers, false promises of voodoo hopey-changey hokus pokus that hasn't materialized in 4 years, and no magic underpants, or Obama would have worn them and done something to fix the economy and fulfill the silly promises he fed to hopeless disasters such as you who are still falling for the Obama snakeoil. Pray to Obama for magic hopey-changey and some Mormon underwear that will work better than his 4 year depends.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Melville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Snow storm 11 hr Hornymonkey 1
Swift Named Principal at Our Lady of Lourdes (Aug '09) 20 hr Bruser 2,387
LIE road rage arrest (May '07) Sun Moral Man 278
Cutting of pastor's role called 'vindictive' (Oct '08) Jan 24 Bruser 7,954
What happened to RObert MAyer? (Aug '13) Jan 24 Sambee 2,053
Freeport Trio Arrested for Seaford Burglary Jan 23 Freeportgirl 1
Garbage pail scavengers in levittown Jan 21 Sambee 13

Coastal Flood Statement for Suffolk County was issued at January 27 at 5:30AM EST

Melville News Video

Melville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Melville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:24 am PST

Yahoo! Sports11:24AM
New Browns OC unfazed by QB uncertainty
Bleacher Report11:36 AM
Ex-QB: Equipment Staff Fixes Brady's Balls
Bleacher Report 7:29 PM
How the Jets Can Make Most of Each Draft Pick
Bleacher Report 8:01 PM
5 2nd Round Prospects Jets Should Target
NBC Sports 7:09 AM
Perry Fewell to interview for position coach job with 49ers