Jump to content

Who do you want to be elected U.S. president?


  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

Poll: 2012 (62 member(s) have cast votes)

Who do you want to be elected U.S. president?

  1. Newt Gingrich (1 votes [1.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.61%

  2. Barack Obama (31 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  3. Ron Paul (19 votes [30.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.65%

  4. Mitt Romney (1 votes [1.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.61%

  5. Rick Santorum (2 votes [3.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.23%

  6. Other (8 votes [12.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.90%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#136
Calpico

Calpico

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,377 posts
  • Supports:Metro, Fulham, April 25 Sports Club

Question: For those who want Ron Paul, if he loses the primaries what will you do on election day? 3rd party? Obama? Not vote? just curious.


3rd party for sure.
"There are no time-out's in soccer? ... Really?" - Coach John McGuirk

http://calpicotime.tumblr.com/

#137
copaantl98

copaantl98

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,651 posts
  • Supports:Metrostars and USNT

3rd party for sure.


Yeah good luck with that
Judge: Mr Griffin, you even tried to bribe me with a subscription to Grape soda today, which I already have!


I'M AN AMERISNOB.

#138
Calpico

Calpico

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,377 posts
  • Supports:Metro, Fulham, April 25 Sports Club

Yeah good luck with that


Hey, better then wasting my vote on some racist warmongers.
"There are no time-out's in soccer? ... Really?" - Coach John McGuirk

http://calpicotime.tumblr.com/

#139
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT
ok, so i finally get to post on here from my computer and not my iphone, so i can elaborate a little more on what i say.

I do consider myself to be a little more socialist than most of you think...sometimes I play the devils advocate, or get people to explain what they mean just to make sure they're not posting from their ass.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I will agree with anyone that makes sense, and he makes the most out all of the potential candidates. I could care less if the issues are left or right, but if the plan as a whole makes sense, that works for me.

Now, I do believe in things such as "National Health Care". I believe we should all have it.
My problem is this: I don't agree with how the left goes about it, and in no way would I ever vote for them even though their ultimate goal is my goal. It's been achieved by different means.

National Healthcare: I believe that a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) should be added to all things. With a 20% VAT added to fast food, tobacco (not alcohol lol), but not added to basic food items such as bread milk and eggs, baby food/formula/products (diapers) and flour. This way no one can complain about "paying for those that don't pay taxes and illegals". Because under this plan, EVERYBODY pays: employed, unemployed (we know they still spend money), legal, illegal. Everybody pays.


Income Tax: I don't believe anybody should be paying income tax. Rich or poor. What they should do, regardless of the item, add a 15% VAT to everything. However, sales tax should be eliminated. This doesn't target any class of people either. Just because you're rich, doesn't mean you have to spend like a drunken sailor, and just because your poor, doesn't mean you have to spend every last penny. In fact, this idea promotes saving money. The biggest problem we have in America is that 49% of the population currently don't pay taxes.

Between the Healthcare VAT and Tax VAT you pay a total of 25% more. So for every $100 you spend, you have to spend $25 in tax (provided that $100 doesn't include milk, eggs, flour, baby food/formula/diapers or bread).


now THAT makes sense.

Vote C'mon US! 2012
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!

#140
vflkirwan

vflkirwan

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,065 posts
  • Location:North Jersey
  • Supports:Metro/VfL Wolfsburg und die US Boys

.....while providing cost-effective universal coverage for essential services (not every good and service) paid for by the people.


What cost-effective services does the Goverment provide? Seems like every one they get involved in, costs go up and are not effective.

Of course, you could make the case that the government doesn't always seem to represent the people, which is another issue. Right now, because of our failed campaign finance laws, a small number of corporations and super-wealthy private citizens have undue influence over public policy. Organizations like Occupy Wall Street exist as an effort to restore government by putting it back in the hands of ordinary citizens of the USA by encouraging government regulation of unscrupulous corporations and encouraging serious campaign finance reform.


Should we pass laws outlawing TV and radio channel ownership too? A small number of corporations (GE) and super-wealthy private citizens (Murdoch) have undue influence over the major news networks and decide what new they want to report and how they want the narrative to be on a story?

The problem with our campaign laws are the hoops and red tape any citizen has to go through to try to become a candidate to run. You need an army of lawyers to make sure you filled out all of the necessary paperwork, which is like the size of two football fields all put together.

#141
Calcio20

Calcio20

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars FC Juve USMNT
O

#142
JayJeeMoNee

JayJeeMoNee

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,015 posts
  • Interests:Metro | USA | USMNT | Dortmund
  • Supports:MetroStars
If you hate Capitalism so much, then just write in lower case. It's that simple.

(Formerly JonnyG)


"In church, they say that suffering is good for the soul. I like to view my love for this team as being a spiritual exercise." - Steve B2


#143
jamison

jamison

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Supports:New York

So you mean an extremly biased article? :)+


WNYC podcast about Media Bias (On the Right, mostly, but covers both sides a bit). Just an FYI for anyone who has a serious interest in that topic.

The Leonard Lopate Show: Slide to the Right - WNYC: http://bit.ly/y5f282

Ditto a Freakonomic podcast about Bias Left & Right, done by a conservative:

http://www.freakonom...-is-your-media/

(His index found that (if 0 is ultra-conservative & 100 is ultra-liberal), NBC nightly news is like 61, Fox is a 39, so, both about equally off center from the 50 which would be down the middle).

If you have a serious, scholarly interest in the news you get, instead of just going along with listening to the news that confirms your own bias (which is covered), it's worth a listen to both podcasts, the Freakonomics one especially. They are both free & in the iTunes store.

So how many years will it be o.k. to "blame Bush"? When does is it officially become Obama's economy?


My favorite Obama economic moment came in the days/weeks after he was elected, and it's mentioned in one of the above podcasts, when he was blamed for the recession, before he took office. I remember listening to Rush doing it, the podcast cites a time when Dick Morris did it. Classy stuff. But, no matter who you root for, politics has become unwatchable, the partisanship is too ridiculous. Though, I do enjoy laughing at the hypocrisy, like the time people openly mentioned rooting for Obama to fail so that he wouldn't get re-elected, and then 3 years later attacked him for being a "decline-ist." Um, okay.

 


#144
Eleazar

Eleazar

    One who helps God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,966 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Metro, the USMNT and Boston College Athletics
  • Supports:METRO

ok, so i finally get to post on here from my computer and not my iphone, so i can elaborate a little more on what i say.

I do consider myself to be a little more socialist than most of you think...sometimes I play the devils advocate, or get people to explain what they mean just to make sure they're not posting from their ass.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I will agree with anyone that makes sense, and he makes the most out all of the potential candidates. I could care less if the issues are left or right, but if the plan as a whole makes sense, that works for me.

Now, I do believe in things such as "National Health Care". I believe we should all have it.
My problem is this: I don't agree with how the left goes about it, and in no way would I ever vote for them even though their ultimate goal is my goal. It's been achieved by different means.

National Healthcare: I believe that a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) should be added to all things. With a 20% VAT added to fast food, tobacco (not alcohol lol), but not added to basic food items such as bread milk and eggs, baby food/formula/products (diapers) and flour. This way no one can complain about "paying for those that don't pay taxes and illegals". Because under this plan, EVERYBODY pays: employed, unemployed (we know they still spend money), legal, illegal. Everybody pays.


Income Tax: I don't believe anybody should be paying income tax. Rich or poor. What they should do, regardless of the item, add a 15% VAT to everything. However, sales tax should be eliminated. This doesn't target any class of people either. Just because you're rich, doesn't mean you have to spend like a drunken sailor, and just because your poor, doesn't mean you have to spend every last penny. In fact, this idea promotes saving money. The biggest problem we have in America is that 49% of the population currently don't pay taxes.

Between the Healthcare VAT and Tax VAT you pay a total of 25% more. So for every $100 you spend, you have to spend $25 in tax (provided that $100 doesn't include milk, eggs, flour, baby food/formula/diapers or bread).


now THAT makes sense.

Vote C'mon US! 2012


VAT. So essentiallly Canada?

RIP Guillermo Romulo, Alexander Francis Orig, Celenio Eleazar, and my Mom, Resurreccion Eleazar.

 

RIP Cesar Castello, Mike Vallo, Glenn Stampiglia, Bob Paquette, and Warren Lee

 

 

 


#145
JBigjake54

JBigjake54

    Amicus Curiae

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,312 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars

National Healthcare: I believe that a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) should be added to all things.

US health care is already 16% of GNP, with >15% of the population not having coverage. Universal coverage could cost 20% of GNP. How do you fund that with a 10% VAT? :unsure:

We are good enough to beat the best teams, and bad enough to lose to the worst teams. 


#146
JayDelight729

JayDelight729

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,017 posts
  • Location:The Old El Pastor Parking Lot
  • Supports:Metro
I'm of the opinion people should be taxed on what they spend as opposed to what they earn.

"Obviously, I want to make a living (in soccer), to say the least," he said. "There's so much you can accomplish in the soccer world, and right now I'm focused on having a good season with the Red Bulls. Ultimately, our goal is to win the MLS Cup, and I see no reason why we can't." - #4 Tyler Adams


#147
aTrayne

aTrayne

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 540 posts
  • Interests:...association football, tennis, skiing, indie music, culturejamming.
  • Supports:RBNY Metros, Celtic FC

I'm of the opinion people should be taxed on what they spend as opposed to what they earn.


that's basically a regressive tax though...is that really what you're in favor of?
RedBull gives you wings...and the wings given to the RBNY marketing/PR team were from a Dodo bird.

RedBull on our chests, Metro in our hearts

#148
jamison

jamison

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Supports:New York

I'm of the opinion people should be taxed on what they spend as opposed to what they earn.


Yeah, problem with a tax only on what you spend is that it is highly favors rich people. Leaving the very poor out for a second, take two people, one earning $ 200,000, one earning $ 75,000. Both spend $70,000 a year, and pay a 20% VAT. Both pay the same $ 14,000 in taxes. But, the guy earning $ 200k has a tax rate of 7%, the guy earning $ 75k has a tax rate of 18.7%.

If anything you want a reverse of that scenario, because the guy at the bottom was doing what he could to stimulate the economy by spending almost all of the money he made, while the guy at the top was just banking that cash. Yes, that guy may turn around & invest it, but, he may not, you'd need a separate tax penalty system or investment incentive to try to guarantee that guy turns that extra cash into bonds or something that ensures it adds to the economy somehow.

I do think our tax system is inefficient & should be reformed. I don't pretend to have the answer. But, income tax has to be a portion of the solution, and it should be progressive (higher earnings, higher taxes) to avoid the above scenario.

 


#149
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

US health care is already 16% of GNP, with >15% of the population not having coverage. Universal coverage could cost 20% of GNP. How do you fund that with a 10% VAT? :unsure:



Because with my idea 270 million people are paying into it (I know the population is 320 mil, about 50 million are under he age of 15, so we're going to say for arguments sake that they don't buy anything - although their parents do).

Look at the total GDP as a number. Now, with people not paying income tax, they would also have higher disposable income. Which means more revenue, and in return more money towards health care.

As well, youre looking at the price of health care at the current rate for private insurance. It's just like anything else, the more that you buy at a time the cheaper it is. As well, prices for surgeries will be regulated, medicine prices will be regulated. Every aspect of it will be cheaper as everybody is paying into it, and all prices will be regulated.


With current healthcare prices, people are paying high amounts cover illegals and others that just walk in and walk out without paying. The hospitals in return charge more for their services to recoup the money lost from those not paying. Thus raising healthcare costs which causes people to struggle paying or not have any at all.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!

#150
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

Yeah, problem with a tax only on what you spend is that it is highly favors rich people. Leaving the very poor out for a second, take two people, one earning $ 200,000, one earning $ 75,000. Both spend $70,000 a year, and pay a 20% VAT. Both pay the same $ 14,000 in taxes. But, the guy earning $ 200k has a tax rate of 7%, the guy earning $ 75k has a tax rate of 18.7%.

If anything you want a reverse of that scenario, because the guy at the bottom was doing what he could to stimulate the economy by spending almost all of the money he made, while the guy at the top was just banking that cash. Yes, that guy may turn around & invest it, but, he may not, you'd need a separate tax penalty system or investment incentive to try to guarantee that guy turns that extra cash into bonds or something that ensures it adds to the economy somehow.

I do think our tax system is inefficient & should be reformed. I don't pretend to have the answer. But, income tax has to be a portion of the solution, and it should be progressive (higher earnings, higher taxes) to avoid the above scenario.



Not really. I'm on 25k a year, in ny, supporting a kid. I'm poor. I don't buy shit. My dad is on 250k a year and he seems to buy a lot. Therefore, he pays more than I do. The more disposable income you have, the more you buy.

I think the problem with a lot of the socialists on here is they want this super high quality rich life on 20k a year, all on the backs of those that more. You can have social programs, without killing off the middle class and upper middle class.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users