If Not McCain Then Who?

[The Bubba]

If McCain is to liberal for most conservatives, then who should my vote go to? I was thinking Ron Paul, but he stands almost no chance of winning. Any suggestions?

[MrJim]

For those times you're not sure, consider abstinence ;)

[JimfromOhio]

I will be voting for McCain but God makes the final decision of who wins. ;)

[Izdaari]

That McCain will be the Republican nominee is a done deal.

And Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Not totally a done deal, but 95% there.

Bob Barr is running for the Libertarian nomination, but I don't know if he'll get it.

My inclination is to vote McCain if my state is close on election day, Libertarian (whoever it is) if it isn't close and I can't change it.

[The Bubba]

So yall are saying Libertarian is the way to go? Who is going for the Constitutionalist?

[MrJim]

So yall are saying Libertarian is the way to go? Who is going for the Constitutionalist?

...and the splintered conservatives roll on...might be a force if everyone could get together.

[Izdaari]

Bearing in mind that the Electoral College is winner-take-all by state...

I'll go Libertarian IF AND ONLY IF my state is not in play on election day; that is, if it's locked up for one side or the other. If that's the case, there is no downside to voting third party.

But if you can make a difference in your state? Then McCain is the only conservative option.

[ladyt28]

McCain is only giving lip-service to any conservative values. He'll go back to being as liberal as he's always been as soon as he's in office - that's my bet.

[Izdaari]

McCain is only giving lip-service to any conservative values. He'll go back to being as liberal as he's always been as soon as he's in office - that's my bet.
Well, he's not a dependable conservative, that's for sure. He's prone to go his own way whenever it suits him. And I agree past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

But OTOH, he does have a lifetime 82% conservative voting record in the Senate, as rated by the American Conservative Union. So being mostly conservative most of the time IS what he's always done.

http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#AZ

In contrast, Obama and Clinton both have lifetime ACU ratings of 8%. I don't know about you, but 82% conservative looks a LOT more conservative to me than 8% does.

http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#IL

http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#NY

[kasprinkle]

I'm so frustrated by this election! I am a conservative who happens to also be a Republican. There will be no conservative on the ballot come November...now what?
Some of my friends are telling me I must vote for John (Juan) McCain because he is the lesser of the evils, but how does that change anything? The Republican Party will learn nothing if conservatives continue to hold their noses and vote the lesser of evils each election. I think, for the first time, I'm going to have to sit this one out...

[The Bubba]

I have the perfect solution for everyone

ALF For President

[Lel]

If not McCain, then Obama, because by not voting for McCain, you're just as well voting for Obama.

I know McCain can have maverick tendencies but he is more conservative than Obama.

[twistedsketch]

I'm voting for McCain, for three reasons:

- He is the most qualified to be commander-in-chief.

- He does not believe in socialized medicine.

- He will not nominate activist judges.

Now, conservatives who are planning to stay home or vote third party in order to wake up the Republican Party have a very valid point. But they'd be sacrificing our health care and they would be conceding more liberal activist judicial appointments. We must remember that adding to government is very hard to undo, and that the consequences of Carter's administration still haunt us. Obama's just going to make things so much worse, and we won't be able to undo it. Remember, he wants liberal activist judges. He has said that he wanted judges and justices with a social agenda (which is a total bastardization of separation of powers). He wants government health care, and the senator of my district is a Democrat, so I can't too well expect a filibuster from her to stop it. He has supported what he has called "common sense gun laws," but one of the laws he supported in his state was a ban on all semiautomatics.

[Nadiine]

I'm voting for McCain, for three reasons:

- He is the most qualified to be commander-in-chief.

- He does not believe in socialized medicine.

- He will not nominate activist judges.

Now, conservatives who are planning to stay home or vote third party in order to wake up the Republican Party have a very valid point. But they'd be sacrificing our health care and they would be conceding more liberal activist judicial appointments. We must remember that adding to government is very hard to undo, and that the consequences of Carter's administration still haunt us. Obama's just going to make things so much worse, and we won't be able to undo it. Remember, he wants liberal activist judges. He has said that he wanted judges and justices with a social agenda (which is a total bastardization of separation of powers). He wants government health care, and the senator of my district is a Democrat, so I can't too well expect a filibuster from her to stop it. He has supported what he has called "common sense gun laws," but one of the laws he supported in his state was a ban on all semiautomatics.
:thumbsup:
^ WHAT HE SAID

I'm voting McCain becuz I don't want socialized medicine - it doesn't work elsewhere, and why democrats love the idea so much boggles my mind!.
They don't care about GOOD healthcare, just 'give everybody crap healthcare' - but at least they have it. :doh:

And you're right, undoing law is 100 times harder once implimented.

[The Bubba]

How has McCain voted on the rights of christians to worship in different areas? I mean, does he have a positive view of say worshiping in public?

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

I'm so frustrated by this election! I am a conservative who happens to also be a Republican. There will be no conservative on the ballot come November...now what?
Some of my friends are telling me I must vote for John (Juan) McCain because he is the lesser of the evils, but how does that change anything? The Republican Party will learn nothing if conservatives continue to hold their noses and vote the lesser of evils each election. I think, for the first time, I'm going to have to sit this one out...

don't sit it out! Vote your conscience! If you haven't already go check out Ron Paul on the issues, he's someone i can vote for in all good conscience..even if i must write him in! (i will also check out the Libertarian candidate first)

[Vambram]

Well, he's not a dependable conservative, that's for sure. He's prone to go his own way whenever it suits him. And I agree past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

But OTOH, he does have a lifetime 82% conservative voting record in the Senate, as rated by the American Conservative Union. So being mostly conservative most of the time IS what he's always done.

http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#AZ

In contrast, Obama and Clinton both have lifetime ACU ratings of 8%. I don't know about you, but 82% conservative looks a LOT more conservative to me than 8% does.

http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#IL

http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#NY


:amen::thumbsup::amen::preach::thumbsup:

[Nadiine]

don't sit it out! Vote your conscience! If you haven't already go check out Ron Paul on the issues, he's someone i can vote for in all good conscience..even if i must write him in! (i will also check out the Libertarian candidate first)
Ya but Paul isn't going to win... its a throw away vote FOR Obama.
Just figure that if you don't want Obama, a vote for Paul is a vote to help Obama sit in the white house.

They're politicians and I trust none - their hands are tied becuz they aren't a 1 man show - they go thru a system of checks & balances.

I agree w/ Izdari 82% is a whole heck of alot better than 8% or less.

Some of my friends are telling me I must vote for John (Juan) McCain because he is the lesser of the evils, but how does that change anything?
It helps BLOCK Obama from getting in, that's how it changes something.:cool:

And by "evils", we're simply stating that he isn't our first choice for republican, he leans liberal and is more of a follower than leader becuz he tries to appease both sides. (I'm still wondering how he even got the nomination??)
But McCain's being that way helps make him more voteable for the ones who dislike Obama so much and the libertarians.

[Spudgrandma]

I'm voting for McCain, for three reasons:

- He is the most qualified to be commander-in-chief.

- He does not believe in socialized medicine.

- He will not nominate activist judges.

Now, conservatives who are planning to stay home or vote third party in order to wake up the Republican Party have a very valid point. But they'd be sacrificing our health care and they would be conceding more liberal activist judicial appointments. We must remember that adding to government is very hard to undo, and that the consequences of Carter's administration still haunt us. Obama's just going to make things so much worse, and we won't be able to undo it. Remember, he wants liberal activist judges. He has said that he wanted judges and justices with a social agenda (which is a total bastardization of separation of powers). He wants government health care, and the senator of my district is a Democrat, so I can't too well expect a filibuster from her to stop it. He has supported what he has called "common sense gun laws," but one of the laws he supported in his state was a ban on all semiautomatics.


I agree, I am voting for McCain for the same reasons and it is in God's hands.

[kasprinkle]

I have never particularly liked John McCain; I think its always about HIM and nothing else. I disagree with him on global warming, don't trust him on taxes, think he'a nuts to not want drilling in ANWR and believe he will sell me down the river on illegal aliens. Every time he "reached across the aisle", I felt conservatives got hosed. Wish he'd "reach across the aisle" to his own party! :o
I was a Fred Thompson woman and was heart broken that he couldn't make it work. I'm not a sore loser, I just don't trust Juan!
As far as judges, the I'm not sure he'll be ok there either. He said Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve", and remember who was the lead in the "gang of 14" ? None other than McCain. :doh:
I won't vote for Obama or "Billary". I'm just not sure the Repulican Party will ever come around if conservatives keep voting for the lesser of evils...
http://img.christianforums.com/style/misc/progress.gif

[Nadiine]

I have never particularly liked John McCain; I think its always about HIM and nothing else. I disagree with him on global warming, don't trust him on taxes, think he'a nuts to not want drilling in ANWR and believe he will sell me down the river on illegal aliens. Every time he "reached across the aisle", I felt conservatives got hosed. Wish he'd "reach across the aisle" to his own party! :o
I was a Fred Thompson woman and was heart broken that he couldn't make it work. I'm not a sore loser, I just don't trust Juan!
As far as judges, the I'm not sure he'll be ok there either. He said Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve", and remember who was the lead in the "gang of 14" ? None other than McCain. :doh:
I won't vote for Obama or "Billary". I'm just not sure the Repulican Party will ever come around if conservatives keep voting for the lesser of evils...

http://img.christianforums.com/style/misc/progress.gif

I was a Fred Thompson girl too. That man was fit for the job! Why he got ignored I'll never know!
I was also very impressed with his wife in interviews I saw her in. (just the opposite of John Kerry's lovely, softspoken wife) ^_^ROFL.

Yes, as we've said, it's a choice of the lesser of 2 evils - I don't "like" him either - I would of wanted Thompson or Gulliani before McCain.
Huckabee was surprisingly liberal in his political ideals and programs he got started. I learned that when a long list of them were given on Rush Limbaugh's program - at the end they said those things came from Huckabee, not a liberal.
So I knew I didn't want him - and was happy when McCain beat him out in the primary's. I"m not happy this election at all.
But McCain stands the highest chance of winning as a republican at least.
We can pray to God that if he were to take office, that God would get hold of him and lead him into the right policies.

I have alot less 'faith' in Obama! (ie 0)

[The Bubba]

Im in the same boat yall are in. I liked Fred Thompson. He was very hard core. Just cause he wasnt established as a Congressman or anything of that nature, who cares. His ideas were right on.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

well i live in illinois so obama will take this state no matter what i do, so therefore i AM voting for Ron Paul and not McCain as a statement to the Republicans that they should get their act together.

[Nadiine]

well i live in illinois so obama will take this state no matter what i do, so therefore i AM voting for Ron Paul and not McCain as a statement to the Republicans that they should get their act together.
I've asked for a link about Ron Paul somewhere around here :scratch: - I still have no clue what he's about or for & against.

I live in Calif., so my conservative/republican vote rarely counts here either - I know the feeling.

[equal eyes]

I'm voting Obama. I like that he's gonna take away the tax cuts on the rich and give them to people who aren't making as much money. And he's going to try to lower the national debt. I also agree with his thoughts on renewable energy and finding new sources for fuel.

[Zecryphon]

I think Ron Paul's big thing is getting rid of the IRS. Talk to Mont974x4. He used to have something like "Write in Ron Paul in 08" in his sig line.

[Hector Medina]

I am voting for McCain.

Obama is now revealing some of his radical liberal ploys. Give Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba?!? Go figure with his heretical revolutionary pastor for over 20 years.

We U.S. Army recruits can forget about some of the bonuses in our contracts if he takes office. He does not understand the mission of the military effort to protect freedom and democracy. In establishing democracy in the Holy Land, he is against for his own gain along with his crazy preacher and his $10,000,000 mansion.

-Infantry Recruit Medina

[Simon_Templar]

I dunno what I'm going to do.

The only reason I would vote for McCain is essentially in order to vote against Obama

However, I think this election season has made it pretty clear how the republican party really views Christians. Basically we are supposed to shut up and vote for who they tell us to vote for.

right now I'm struggling with wether it would be more productive in the long run to try and get the message across to the republicans that they aren't just going to be supported no matter what they do, because the democrats are worse...
or if having an Obama presidency would be too damaging in the long run to justify it.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm voting Obama. I like that he's gonna take away the tax cuts on the rich and give them to people who aren't making as much money. And he's going to try to lower the national debt. I also agree with his thoughts on renewable energy and finding new sources for fuel.

what I find funny is that democrats think I'm rich, making 20k a year.

[Simon_Templar]

I've asked for a link about Ron Paul somewhere around here :scratch: - I still have no clue what he's about or for & against.

I live in Calif., so my conservative/republican vote rarely counts here either - I know the feeling.


Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, and as such he is against the federal government getting involved in much at all.

For example, he is pro-life, but he doesn't favor federal laws against abortion because its the state's job to make laws like that and making it a federal issue is too much power for the federal government. So he would favor over turning Roe V. Wade and letting individual states make their own laws regarding the issue.

Probably his biggest platform issue is the rediculous levels of government waste and big government spending, including the vast amounts of foreign aid we give. He favors cutting foreign aid down to virtually nothing, and eliminating a massive portion of the US tax burden, including the complete elimination of the IRS and the federal income tax.

His biggest knock among conservatives is that he is non-interventionist almost to the point of being an isolationist. He believes the US should essentially withdraw immediately from all foreign entanglements, including removing military bases from Saudi Arabia etc.

while he has some good points in that view.. he tends to have the somewhat unrealistic attitude that if we just leave militant islam alone, it will leave us alone.

He doesn't talk much about religion, but he is a Christian.

Often times the people who support him have done him damage publically because he tends to be a favorite among conspiracy theorist types, and other even less desirable groups.

Out of all the candidates, He is probably the only one who has a solid, realistic understanding of the economy and the dire problems facing the US economy specifically.

While many people don't like his foreign policy views, a former CIA official who worked in the middle east and wrote a book about the whole situation there did say in an interview that he thought Ron Paul was about the only one of the candidates who actually understood the situation in the middle east too.

I personally don't really agree with all of his non-interventionist views, but I did vote for him in the Primary. By that time Fred Thompson had already dropped out, or I would have voted for him.

If only Fred hadn't decided to go into hibernation immediately after declaring his candidacy.

[twistedsketch]

He favors cutting foreign aid down to virtually nothing, and eliminating a massive portion of the US tax burden, including the complete elimination of the IRS and the federal income tax.
One thing I never understood about his position - with all the cuts he would want to do, we would still have a military, we would still have infrastructure, and other federal expenses. How would he pay for them?

[Spudgrandma]

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, and as such he is against the federal government getting involved in much at all.

For example, he is pro-life, but he doesn't favor federal laws against abortion because its the state's job to make laws like that and making it a federal issue is too much power for the federal government. So he would favor over turning Roe V. Wade and letting individual states make their own laws regarding the issue.

Probably his biggest platform issue is the rediculous levels of government waste and big government spending, including the vast amounts of foreign aid we give. He favors cutting foreign aid down to virtually nothing, and eliminating a massive portion of the US tax burden, including the complete elimination of the IRS and the federal income tax.

His biggest knock among conservatives is that he is non-interventionist almost to the point of being an isolationist. He believes the US should essentially withdraw immediately from all foreign entanglements, including removing military bases from Saudi Arabia etc.

while he has some good points in that view.. he tends to have the somewhat unrealistic attitude that if we just leave militant islam alone, it will leave us alone.

He doesn't talk much about religion, but he is a Christian.

Often times the people who support him have done him damage publically because he tends to be a favorite among conspiracy theorist types, and other even less desirable groups.

Out of all the candidates, He is probably the only one who has a solid, realistic understanding of the economy and the dire problems facing the US economy specifically.

While many people don't like his foreign policy views, a former CIA official who worked in the middle east and wrote a book about the whole situation there did say in an interview that he thought Ron Paul was about the only one of the candidates who actually understood the situation in the middle east too.

I personally don't really agree with all of his non-interventionist views, but I did vote for him in the Primary. By that time Fred Thompson had already dropped out, or I would have voted for him.

If only Fred hadn't decided to go into hibernation immediately after declaring his candidacy.


Very good discription.

I liked Fred also, but going into hibernation was not his problem, he waited to long to declare and then went into hibernation.

I agree with your assesment of Ron Paul and I totally disagree with his views on national security.

Anyhooo, thank you for the well thought out post.

[Simon_Templar]

One thing I never understood about his position - with all the cuts he would want to do, we would still have a military, we would still have infrastructure, and other federal expenses. How would he pay for them?

Here is a tidbit from one of Ron Paul's speeches on the topic. (not a direct quote mind you).

The federal income tax supplies about 1/3 of the federal government's money. If we completely eliminated the federal income tax, thus eliminating 1/3 of the federal governments spending money right off the top... it would only reduce the federal budget back to the level it was at 8 years ago.

I would say Ron Paul was the only candidate who actually really knew anything about economic policy.

many conservatives / republicans don't realize how much the neo-con's running the Bush administration have increased spending (exactly the opposite of what conservatives are supposed to be about).

Of course a lot of expense has come from the wars, but also there have been big increases in spending in other areas, not to mention the creation of whole new branches of government (balooning the size and power of the government).

The Bush admin. has nearly spent our economy into the ground. They've spent so much that they have had to borrow vast amounts of money from China to finance both war operations, foreign aid increases, and even the economic stimulus package that went out this month.

They've come pretty close to doubling the federal budget (increasing by 1/3).

*edit*
Out of curiosity I went and looked up the numbers regarding the budget increases.

US federal budget in 2000 $1.8 Trillian
US federal budget just submitted for FY 2009 $3.1 Trillion

Here is a dose of Irony for you.. in the 8 years of the Clinton presidency, federal spending increased something like $0.5 Trillion
In 8 years of the Bush presidency federal spending has increased $1.3 Trillion.

In other words, the Bush admin has increased spending 3 times as much as the dems did, and when the new budget is figured in, Bush has very nearly doubled the federal budget in 8 years.

[Izdaari]

I'm with Ron Paul on the full range of domestic issues. But I can't swallow his radically non-interventionist foreign policy.

[Nadiine]

Here is a tidbit from one of Ron Paul's speeches on the topic. (not a direct quote mind you).

The federal income tax supplies about 1/3 of the federal government's money. If we completely eliminated the federal income tax, thus eliminating 1/3 of the federal governments spending money right off the top... it would only reduce the federal budget back to the level it was at 8 years ago.

I would say Ron Paul was the only candidate who actually really knew anything about economic policy.

many conservatives / republicans don't realize how much the neo-con's running the Bush administration have increased spending (exactly the opposite of what conservatives are supposed to be about).

Of course a lot of expense has come from the wars, but also there have been big increases in spending in other areas, not to mention the creation of whole new branches of government (balooning the size and power of the government).

The Bush admin. has nearly spent our economy into the ground. They've spent so much that they have had to borrow vast amounts of money from China to finance both war operations, foreign aid increases, and even the economic stimulus package that went out this month.

They've come pretty close to doubling the federal budget (increasing by 1/3).

*edit*
Out of curiosity I went and looked up the numbers regarding the budget increases.

US federal budget in 2000 $1.8 Trillian
US federal budget just submitted for FY 2009 $3.1 Trillion

Here is a dose of Irony for you.. in the 8 years of the Clinton presidency, federal spending increased something like $0.5 Trillion
In 8 years of the Bush presidency federal spending has increased $1.3 Trillion.

In other words, the Bush admin has increased spending 3 times as much as the dems did, and when the new budget is figured in, Bush has very nearly doubled the federal budget in 8 years.
K, Let's not ignore some of the reasons for those increases...
:idea:
natural disasters happened repeatedly during Bush's 2 terms & they still continue

Clinton shrunk our military & closed down bases and didn't build it up... Bush came in & decided to build military back up

Costs rising (things are just alot more expensive now than they were)

How about the BIG culprit: 9/11 & stepping up counter-terrorism efforts which costs heavily.

I won't deny there could be extra spending, I'm just saying BE FAIR in your analysis as to what it's being spent on as well.
It's not like it ALL went into pork - there are legits here that cost more so I'd expect more to be spent than Clinton's era.

(& don't forget those pay raises congress kept voting for itself) lol:doh:

[Nadiine]

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, and as such he is against the federal government getting involved in much at all.

For example, he is pro-life, but he doesn't favor federal laws against abortion because its the state's job to make laws like that and making it a federal issue is too much power for the federal government. So he would favor over turning Roe V. Wade and letting individual states make their own laws regarding the issue.

Probably his biggest platform issue is the rediculous levels of government waste and big government spending, including the vast amounts of foreign aid we give. He favors cutting foreign aid down to virtually nothing, and eliminating a massive portion of the US tax burden, including the complete elimination of the IRS and the federal income tax.

His biggest knock among conservatives is that he is non-interventionist almost to the point of being an isolationist. He believes the US should essentially withdraw immediately from all foreign entanglements, including removing military bases from Saudi Arabia etc.

while he has some good points in that view.. he tends to have the somewhat unrealistic attitude that if we just leave militant islam alone, it will leave us alone.

He doesn't talk much about religion, but he is a Christian.

Often times the people who support him have done him damage publically because he tends to be a favorite among conspiracy theorist types, and other even less desirable groups.

Out of all the candidates, He is probably the only one who has a solid, realistic understanding of the economy and the dire problems facing the US economy specifically.

While many people don't like his foreign policy views, a former CIA official who worked in the middle east and wrote a book about the whole situation there did say in an interview that he thought Ron Paul was about the only one of the candidates who actually understood the situation in the middle east too.

I personally don't really agree with all of his non-interventionist views, but I did vote for him in the Primary. By that time Fred Thompson had already dropped out, or I would have voted for him.

If only Fred hadn't decided to go into hibernation immediately after declaring his candidacy.
thanks for this information & the time it took to write out.

Now that you mention the 'undesirables' who were following him, I remember now... aren't they the ones that verbally accosted Sean Hannity in the street at one of the primary's he was covering someplace?

Ya, Fred would of been GREAT! That's a vote I'd easily make.:thumbsup:

One thing I'd want to mention here about Paul's good feature about economy... you know as I've noticed, the President is pretty powerless unless the system of checks & balances around him votes for his policies.

I highly doubt Paul would be granted enough votes to even dismantle what he wants to dismantle. We just live in a state of perpetual gridlock and I think it's due to a split country - 1/2 voting in opposite directions .
& this is where I openly RANT in anger at our own Republican party WHO BLEW IT when they had power thru majority to get things done and got stupid.
They had the football and sacked it.
:mad::(:help:

[Simon_Templar]

Some of the increases in spending can be accounted for by legitimate necessity, however, we're talking about doubling the budget in 8 years. That is a MASSIVE increase.

If you look at the breakdown of the budget, Clinton did slash a lot of military spending. By the time he left office, national defense spending comprised 16.4% of the budget. Which was cut down from a peak of 28% at the end of the Reagan Administration. So Clinton cut defense spending almost in half.

However, if you look at G.W.'s administration defense spending still only averages probably around 18% of the budget outlays, with a peak at 19.6% in '04 and the current levels being at about 17.1% From what I can tell, this figure does not include spending which has gone into creating the homeland security branch of government, if that is included it raises the figure tou around 22%. However, in my opinion, creating an entire new branch of government with a whole new list of powers is not a good thing, its a very bad thing.

So GW, really only slightly increased defense spending in terms of the over all percentage of the budget. Combined with this, the percentage devoted to paying interest on the national debt has gone down, from around 14% during most of the clinton years, to around 8% for most of the bush years. However, this decrease did begin before the end of Clinton's admin.

This is also a big issue because within 30-40 years, the interest payments alone on the national debt are going to outstrip the federal budget if we don't start doing something about it.

So by the numbers, there has been a small increase in defense spending (not counting the creation of the homeland security department which essentially added a huge new beaurocracy to the government)
a decrease in interest payments on the debt, and most of the rest of the spending has stayed the same in terms of percentage of the national budget.

[kasprinkle]

Simon, thank you for your informative posts. I hope you will not be offended when I say more people would seriously look at Ron Paul if more of his followers were like you. Most of the Paulbots I've met in person and online have been so zealous as to turn clear thinking people off. You represent your man well...

[Nadiine]

Some of the increases in spending can be accounted for by legitimate necessity, however, we're talking about doubling the budget in 8 years. That is a MASSIVE increase.

If you look at the breakdown of the budget, Clinton did slash a lot of military spending. By the time he left office, national defense spending comprised 16.4% of the budget. Which was cut down from a peak of 28% at the end of the Reagan Administration. So Clinton cut defense spending almost in half.

However, if you look at G.W.'s administration defense spending still only averages probably around 18% of the budget outlays, with a peak at 19.6% in '04 and the current levels being at about 17.1% From what I can tell, this figure does not include spending which has gone into creating the homeland security branch of government, if that is included it raises the figure tou around 22%. However, in my opinion, creating an entire new branch of government with a whole new list of powers is not a good thing, its a very bad thing.

So GW, really only slightly increased defense spending in terms of the over all percentage of the budget. Combined with this, the percentage devoted to paying interest on the national debt has gone down, from around 14% during most of the clinton years, to around 8% for most of the bush years. However, this decrease did begin before the end of Clinton's admin.

This is also a big issue because within 30-40 years, the interest payments alone on the national debt are going to outstrip the federal budget if we don't start doing something about it.

So by the numbers, there has been a small increase in defense spending (not counting the creation of the homeland security department which essentially added a huge new beaurocracy to the government)
a decrease in interest payments on the debt, and most of the rest of the spending has stayed the same in terms of percentage of the national budget.
:)
Well I have no specific information on amounts or percentages... I don't know where you got yours from, but I do know things have changed in this world for the worse in weather disaster, terrorism, cost of living incl. gas spikes & defense/military increases.... that Clinton didn't have to deal with or pay for.

That aside, I wasn't claiming that Pres. Bush wasn't spending more on whatever else - I agree he is and alot of other Republicans report negatively on that fact. I'm just being fair where I believe it's warrented and should be noted.
=0)

[twistedsketch]

K, Let's not ignore some of the reasons for those increases...
:idea:
natural disasters happened repeatedly during Bush's 2 terms & they still continue

Clinton shrunk our military & closed down bases and didn't build it up... Bush came in & decided to build military back up

Costs rising (things are just alot more expensive now than they were)

How about the BIG culprit: 9/11 & stepping up counter-terrorism efforts which costs heavily.

I won't deny there could be extra spending, I'm just saying BE FAIR in your analysis as to what it's being spent on as well.
It's not like it ALL went into pork - there are legits here that cost more so I'd expect more to be spent than Clinton's era.

(& don't forget those pay raises congress kept voting for itself) lol:doh:
In his first term, Bush beat out Johnson in non-entitlement domestic spending easily. This was before Katrina. Source (PDF warning) (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf)

[twistedsketch]

The federal income tax supplies about 1/3 of the federal government's money. If we completely eliminated the federal income tax, thus eliminating 1/3 of the federal governments spending money right off the top... it would only reduce the federal budget back to the level it was at 8 years ago.
Where do we get the other 2/3 of our federal money?

[Simon_Templar]

Where do we get the other 2/3 of our federal money?

What I posted previously about the 1/3 was from a Ron Paul speech, and it was probably a bit older. In the most recent budget info I looked up after that it said income tax accounted for 43%, which is obviously about 10% more than 1/3.

In any case, the rest of the federal money is made up of corperate taxation, social security tax, excise taxes and stuff like that. Of course one of the common ideas for those who want to get rid of income tax is to add a national sales tax. Keeping in mind that if we could get our spending under control, we wouldn't have to replace all of the 43%, but sales tax could replace a lot of it.

Of course, if we eliminate a large portion of the tax burden which is weighing down the people, it would provide a lot of economic growth, which would increase the money coming in from corperate taxes, and sales tax (if we implemented something like that).

Heavier taxation, in the long run, won't help our government's money flow. We'd be much better served to focus on growing the GDP and the economy because that will provide increased revenue.
Having a heavy tax burden will produce more money in the short run, but it'll also strangle growth and in the long run it'll be worse.

I'm still pretty much a novice on economic issues, but from my current understanding, I'd say all this is moot unless we can get the government and spending under control very soon. The debt is going to spiral out of countrol within the next 30 years just from interest alone. Once that happens, we have passed the point of no return and it will only be a matter of time till the government is effectively bankrupt. At that point the only option would be a complete economic restructuring and probably a new currency.

[JPPT1974]

Well I support pro-life, supporting the troops
As well as trying to find a way to end the Iraq war
While putting new jobs and housing
Shrinking no new taxes and low gas as much as possible.

[Teh0bb3s]

17/50 Well probably RON PAUL, however after considering no one actually wants this country to survive.. he won't get elected.

Soon to see in the news -

America - Rise and fall.

[WannaWitness]

I have the perfect solution for everyone

ALF For President

Or Snoopy! :D

[WannaWitness]

I'm probably going to end up doing the third party thing, maybe "indy", in November. Even though I know they'll never make it.

And remember that God has complete control over who will make it in no matter what we mark on our ballots, and to always hold up the winner in prayer. All politicians deserve our prayers, no matter what party they're from.

[JustAsIam77]

I'm so frustrated by this election! I am a conservative who happens to also be a Republican. There will be no conservative on the ballot come November...now what?
Some of my friends are telling me I must vote for John (Juan) McCain because he is the lesser of the evils, but how does that change anything? The Republican Party will learn nothing if conservatives continue to hold their noses and vote the lesser of evils each election. I think, for the first time, I'm going to have to sit this one out...

My sentiments until I realized the importance of upcoming supreme court justice appointees. More and more the courts have the final say in our land. I'll vote for McCain based on this alone. Don't even want to get into why I'd not vote for Obama. It would fill several pages.

[Izdaari]

My sentiments until I realized the importance of upcoming supreme court justice appointees. More and more the courts have the final say in our land. I'll vote for McCain based on this alone. Don't even want to get into why I'd not vote for Obama. It would fill several pages.
I understand. :cool:

Bearing in mind that the Electoral College is winner-take-all by state, I'll be watching the polls closely as we approach election day. If my state (WA) isn't in play, I can vote third party (in my case, Libertarian) without contributing to electing the greater of two evils, and if so, that's probably what I'll do.

But if my state is in play, than I'll feel obligated to support the lesser evil, which for me would probably be McCain. Probably... I do have some misgivings about McCain, and I like Obama except for disagreeing with him on most of the issues. I'll listen to the candidates and let them make their cases.

[MrJim]

My sentiments until I realized the importance of upcoming supreme court justice appointees. More and more the courts have the final say in our land. I'll vote for McCain based on this alone. Don't even want to get into why I'd not vote for Obama. It would fill several pages.

Are we confident he is going to appoint good ones?

[JustAsIam77]

Are we confident he is going to appoint good ones?

MrJim Good question. No guarantees. This election season is the worst quandry I can remember. No way I'm voting for Obama (no experience, great charisma and speaker, Marxist, socialist, perhaps racist, blame America first anti-patriot, Hamas loving, flip flopper on support for Israel etc. etc.

Don't know what to do. Perhaps I'll sit this one out. McCain is no friend of conservatives. (How on earth did McCain get the Republican nomination for POTUS with his voting record)? Good grief.

[Izdaari]

MrJim Good question. No guarantees. This election season is the worst quandry I can remember. No way I'm voting for Obama (no experience, great charisma and speaker, Marxist, socialist, perhaps racist, blame America first anti-patriot, Hamas loving, flip flopper on support for Israel etc. etc.

Don't know what to do. Perhaps I'll sit this one out. McCain is no friend of conservatives. (How on earth did McCain get the Republican nomination for POTUS with his voting record)? Good grief.
His voting record? It's 82% conservative (ACU, lifetime). You were maybe holding out for 100%? :P

[Nadiine]

MrJim Good question. No guarantees. This election season is the worst quandry I can remember. No way I'm voting for Obama (no experience, great charisma and speaker, Marxist, socialist, perhaps racist, blame America first anti-patriot, Hamas loving, flip flopper on support for Israel etc. etc.

Don't know what to do. Perhaps I'll sit this one out. McCain is no friend of conservatives. (How on earth did McCain get the Republican nomination for POTUS with his voting record)? Good grief.
Many of us have NO earthly idea how that man got past the primaries. I'm SO baffled, that I think it was just God's hand.
That's the problem, Obama is 100 times WORSE than McCain could ever be.
Since McCain's a hawk on military issues, I"m voting for him - he's basically so moderate that he actually has a chance of winning this election. I'd still rather see him in office than Obama!
:doh: :swoon:

[JimfromOhio]

MrJim Good question. No guarantees. This election season is the worst quandry I can remember. No way I'm voting for Obama (no experience, great charisma and speaker, Marxist, socialist, perhaps racist, blame America first anti-patriot, Hamas loving, flip flopper on support for Israel etc. etc.

Don't know what to do. Perhaps I'll sit this one out. McCain is no friend of conservatives. (How on earth did McCain get the Republican nomination for POTUS with his voting record)? Good grief.
Governments are God's ordained. God governs (controls) the world (Isa. 40:22-24), the nations (Isa. 40:15-17), and us (Proverbs 16:9). I cannot and will NOT dispute God's word how He manages this world. I just have to remember that God is the have the complete control of everything. I don't worry about the "results" but I do worry about the politicans' and president's behaviors which determines my choices of parties and persons in the future.

[JustAsIam77]

Many of us have NO earthly idea how that man got past the primaries. I'm SO baffled, that I think it was just God's hand.
That's the problem, Obama is 100 times WORSE than McCain could ever be.
Since McCain's a hawk on military issues, I"m voting for him - he's basically so moderate that he actually has a chance of winning this election. I'd still rather see him in office than Obama!
:doh: :swoon:

Word.

Guilty of venting my displeasure for McCain but push come to shove I'll hold my nose and give him my vote come November.

The alternative would be grave for our country.

[WannaWitness]

I think our country is in trouble no matter who gets in. That's why we need to do some hard, strong praying.

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

I think our country is in trouble no matter who gets in. That's why we need to do some hard, strong praying.
Agree - prayer is all that can protect us.

A country gets the leaders it deserves.

[MrJim]

Many of us have NO earthly idea how that man got past the primaries.

He was running against a Mormon, a Baptist preacher and a liberal NY Mayor~The GOP heavies like Limbaugh didn't endorse anyone early and the base couldn't make a decision for any of them due to either their religion or politics, and McCain is what floated to the top...

[CaDan]

He was running against a Mormon, a Baptist preacher and a liberal NY Mayor~The GOP heavies like Limbaugh didn't endorse anyone early and the base couldn't make a decision for any of them due to either their religion or politics, and McCain is what floated to the top...

Not a conservative, so I'm not arguing. :)

The GOP ran a weird assortment of candidates in the primaries. They all managed to beat each other up and no one appealed to the entire base. McCain is the closest to having broad appeal, but it is mostly a matter of not being horribly offensive to any of the base constituencies.

[JPPT1974]

Let's just say I find McCain the lesser of the two evils
End of story!