The tough questions!

[Panache]

Where did you answer my question?

In the other thread where you asked it:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/29221-obama-blasts-mccain-tax-stance-6.html

Are you going to answer mine?

 

[Iriemon]

In the other thread where you asked it:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/29221-obama-blasts-mccain-tax-stance-6.html

Are you going to answer mine?

This was your answer?

I think that is actually a fair question. Evil Conservative that I am, my general inclination of course would be to raise taxes on the poor.

I had though you were joking!

My question did not distiguish whose taxes would be raised just as those on cutting spending generally don't say what to cut.

So we will put you voting for raise taxes over more debt, until spending is cut.

Good for you. You were the first and so far only conservative to have the guts to even answer, *and* you provide you are a true conservative by putting fiscal responsibility over personal expediency.

 

[Iriemon]

Suppose you are heavily invested in a company, but the people selected to run the company are ******* away the money you invested in it and are accumulating huge debt.

In this scenario, obviously it would be ideal for the people running your company to not act like irresponsible idiots, but until that happens, would you choose to:

1: Invest more money in this company so that they can piss that away too

2. Let a company that you are heavily invested in go even further into debt

Since I am heavily invested in the company, and my kids are going to inherit my investment inthe company, and my future and kids' future depend upon how the company does, I'd choose one while I tried to convince everyone to change the management.

Because if I choose number 2, the company is likely to become even less likely to prosper in the future, and if it goes down, not only will my heavy investment decrease in value, but so will my kids and all my neighbors who are heavily invested in the company also.

It's the only logical answer.

 

[Panache]

This was your answer?

I think that is actually a fair question. Evil Conservative that I am, my general inclination of course would be to raise taxes on the poor.

I had though you were joking!

Well, I like to flavour my posts with humour, and apply a liberal use of hyperbole, but it was still and answer.

My question did not distiguish whose taxes would be raised just as those on cutting spending generally don't say what to cut.

I just specified taxing the poor so that I wouldn't get kicked out of the Evil Conservative parties.

So we will put you voting for raise taxes over more debt, until spending is cut.

That is a fair assement. If the choice were really only between taxes and debt I would choose taxes.

Good for you. You were the first and so far only conservative to have the guts to even answer, *and* you provide you are a true conservative by putting fiscal responsibility over personal expediency.

Conservative? Ha! Everyone knows that I am Navy Pride's left wing friend.

 

[Panache]

Since I am heavily invested in the company, and my kids are going to inherit my investment inthe company, and my future and kids' future depend upon how the company does, I'd choose one while I tried to convince everyone to change the management.

Because if I choose number 2, the company is likely to become even less likely to prosper in the future, and if it goes down, not only will my heavy investment decrease in value, but so will my kids and all my neighbors who are heavily invested in the company also.

It's the only logical answer.

That was rather my reasoning as well. Now here is the big question:

If your company is finally getting rid of the CEO and getting a new one, who do you vote for?

1. The one who has a plan to reduce the wasteful overspending, and get the company out of debt on the current budget

2. The one who promises to get investors like yourself to invest more in the company so that they can spend even more money than they did last year

 

[Iriemon]

That was rather my reasoning as well. Now here is the big question:

If your company is finally getting rid of the CEO and getting a new one, who do you vote for?

1. The one who has a plan to reduce the wasteful overspending, and get the company out of debt on the current budget

2. The one who promises to get investors like yourself to invest more in the company so that they can spend even more money than they did last year

The way you phrased the question, probably #1, depending if after looking at the books I agreed that they were overspending wastefully, and whether it was really a problem. If they can induce other investors to invest, that will increase the value of my stock, and my future, and my kids future, and maybe the spending is not that wasteful, and it is in fact a factor for the company's business plan which is why it can attrack new investors. Number 1 may be penny wise pound foolish kind of thinking.

But to put your analogy into political perspective (which requires a fairly large leap) I would certainly support a candidate who proposed a balanced budget plan that included cutting spending, if the cutting included a wasteful overspending like the military and Warren Buffet getting SS checks.

 

[Panache]

I would certainly support a candidate who proposed a balanced budget plan that included cutting spending, if the cutting included a wasteful overspending like the military and Warren Buffet getting SS checks.

You support Ron Paul too? Awesome.

 

[Iriemon]

You support Ron Paul too? Awesome.

I am not quite a "one issue" guy, but if RP was a viable candidate and put forward a realistic plan for balancing the budget and the other candidate did not, that would weight very heavily in my decision to vote for him.

I did like some of RP's policies. I thought some were just whack.