COL Gene

TEN Conservative Candidates

▼

TEN Conservative Candidates

from JoeUser Forums


I decided to tape the Republican Presidential debate so I would be able to watch it at my leisure. It was clear each of the candidates did their best to show how they supported what they believe were the conservative principals of Reagan. They moved from issue to issue and expressed a position that generally is the foundation of the conservative Republican agenda.

If these10 men were attempting to become the head of the Republican National Committee I believe they would represent some very creditable candidates for RNC Chairmen. The problem is they are attempting to secure the nomination to run for President of the United States. To select any one of these men as the next president would be to select a person that has ideas and policy objectives that IGNORE about 70% of the American People.

I appreciate the unity of policy expressed by these men on most of the important issues facing our country. However, the policies expressed by these men DO NOT fit with what the majority of Americans express as what they want from their leader. The positions taken by these 10 men are at odds with most moderates, independents and liberals. To select ANY of these men as the 44th President will insure a continuation of the political polarization we have seen for the past 6 years and defy the direction that the majority want this nation to move toward.


We need candidates that are not just solid conservatives or liberals. We need candidates for the leader of our country that can lead with policies that reflect a composite of the thinking not just follow the desires of the conservatives or the liberals who each represent 25-30% of Americans. To make my point, today we have more Americans registered as independents then either republican or democrat. We need candidates from BOTH parties to come forward who are willing to govern from the center not the right or the left!
politics
13,797 views 61 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiler

“Fool. I can and DO live on 30K AND I own a house.”

If you earn 30K and support Bush you are truly the FOOL. On 30K you can not purchase the average priced home today in MOST areas. I do not know where you live or what type of home you own or how you got your home but if you think most people can live on 30K today you are an idiot as well as a FOOL!
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just as soon as my annual income is in the top 10% and your income is below the federal poverty line


i get 600 a month i am one of the dead beats

and according to the democrats if you make 200,000 a year your rich

and i knew you would come up with some excuse as to why it wasn't going to be your money

you want to redistribute wealth as long as it isn't your wealth

just like any other democrat all words no action

and bush can't make my tax cuts permanent


and again it is the congress that pays ie votes on spending not the president

the president only proposes a budget

and if we really wanted to balance the budget and pay off the debt we would stop spending more and more on intitledments

you said you owned business how many of those went under becouse you were just giving money away to your employies for doing nothing
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
“And according to the democrats if you make 200,000 a year you’re rich

And I knew you would come up with some excuse as to why it wasn't going to be your money.”

The REASON is I am not among the RICH!!!!

“and if we really wanted to balance the budget and pay off the debt we would stop spending more and more on entitlements”

If you ONLY get $600 per month someone or some government program must be providing you help. Section 8, Medicaid, Food Stamps or help from some non governmental agency or person. NO one can pay ALL their living expenses on $600 a month!
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
“And again it is the congress that pays i.e. votes on spending not the president”


You are incorrect.

The President sends a budget to Congress.
Congress passes both a budget and actual spending appropriations.
The President approves the spending Congress passes.

Thus it is BOTH the Congress and the President that approve the spending. The only way spending would be approved ONLY by Congress is if Congress passed a spending bill, the president vetoed the bill and Congress passed the spending bill OVER the President's VETO!
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thus it is BOTH the Congress and the President that approve the spending. The only way spending would be approved ONLY by Congress is if Congress passed a spending bill, the president vetoed the bill and Congress passed the spending bill OVER the President's VETO!


isn't checks and balances such a great thing

and the only way this could get any better is if the president had line item veto

that way a 10 million dollar relief bill doesn't become 100 million dollar pork bill
which is what happened when reagan was in office
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you ONLY get $600 per month someone or some government program must be providing you help. Section 8, Medicaid, Food Stamps or help from some non governmental agency or person. NO one can pay ALL their living expenses on $600 a month!


i live with and help my father

he wants me available to do what he wants at the drop of a hat

and the 600 is ssi

my medical is through the va

and he gets about 1200 social and va benefits

i give him 400 a month for rent

and use some of that for food
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
“isn't checks and balances such a great thing”

Only when they work. There were NO effective checks on Bush for the first 6 years because the GOP gave him everything he wanted. There was also no oversight by Congress. They just allowed Bush to do as he pleased!

“and the only way this could get any better is if the president had line item veto”

NOT ON YOUR LIFE. I would NEVER give a President that power seeing how Bush acted. We need a Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment!
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
as far as the money i asked you for i didn't/don't want it i didn't earn it

i was making a point and that is no one is going to reach into their own pocket to redistribute wealth. they want someone else to pay in your case you want drenginal to do it

and i do know of one person who gives/or at least gave 300 million a year to charity. but your buddy bill thought he was to rich and tried to take away his company. now that he has retired i don't know if he is still giving that much money.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
danielost

My point is that we need to balance the budget. People like dregional would do that by cutting all help to people that need help and not keeping the promises made to workers and need their Social Security and Medicare benefits. I say let's restore the Tax rates for the wealthy to the pre Bush rates because they who can afford to pay a little more they are the BIG WINNERS from the Bush tax cut. That added tax revenue from the top 10% would be used not to fund NEW benefits but to help pay for what we are currently spending!
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
and i say if you tax the rich all you do is increase the price of things

that is called inflation i am sure you have heard of that
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
By not balancing the budget and allowing the interest we must fund to increase the way Bush has done will bankrupt this country. This can not continue. The higher tax rates during the 1990's did not increase the price of things more then today. Your rational is just an excuse to justify a fiscal policy that will risk our future and is a guise to mask what is simply GREED on the part of the wealthy. The rich got a tax cut under Bush that was not justified and has added Trillions to the national debt. The fact that only 1/2 of the lost tax revenue from the tax cut is made up by the added revenue from growth is like selling something for $50 that has costs of $100. In the end result is a disaster!! The Comptroller General has documented this fact concerning the Bush tax Cuts! The experience from Reagan proved the same thing!!!!