• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another Presidential Quiz

Texan

Well-known member
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Duncan Hunter is still at the top of the heap for me. Followed by:

McCain :)oops: :x)

Thompson

Romney

Giuliani

Huckabee

Tancredo
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mine came out this way- which Biden is a surprise :roll: - but not really when you figure that 3 or 4 of the key issues that many Republicans think are important (abortion, death penalty, marriage definition, stem cell research) I believe are not Federal government decisions and should be left to the States-or in the case of stem cell research to the scientific community-- so put little or no importance to them....
I definitely oppose trifling with the US Constitution over the gay issue...

Joe Biden

Bill Richardson

Mitt Romney

Tom Tancredo

Duncan Hunter

Barack Obama

John Edwards

Hillary Clinton

Mike Huckabee

Fred Thompson

Chris Dodd

Dennis Kucinich

Mike Gravel

John McCain

Rudy Giuliani
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Fred Thompson
Score: 55

Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

Disagree
Immigration
Energy

*************

John McCain
Score: 55

Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty

Disagree
Immigration
Marriage

**************
Duncan Hunter
Score: 55

Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

Disagree
Immigration
Energy

**************

Tom Tancredo
Score: 50

Agree
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage

Disagree
Iraq
Energy
Death Penalty

****************

Mitt Romney
Score: 47

Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

Disagree
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Social Security
Energy

***************

Mike Huckabee
Score: 43

Agree
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Energy

************

Ron Paul
Score: 36

Agree
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Energy

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

**************

Rudy Giuliani
Score: 33

Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Social Security
Death Penalty

Disagree
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage

************

Joe Biden
Score: 21

Agree
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Death Penalty

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy
Marriage

*************

Bill Richardson
Score: 14

Agree
Line-Item Veto
Death Penalty

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Energy
Marriage

************

Barack Obama
Score: 7

Agree
Death Penalty

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage

****************

John Edwards
Score: 7

Agree
Death Penalty

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage

***********

Hillary Clinton
Score: 7

Agree
Death Penalty

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
 

Steve

Well-known member
OT what happened to Ron Paul on your list???

Hunter... but he needs to toughen his stance on Immigration.. :wink:


Romney

Thompson
McCain
Guiliani
Tancredo

Biden??? how did he get up here????

Huckabee,.. Not sure why he was down so far... :???:

Edwards
Obama
Clinton
Richardson

Paul..... he was way down..on the list... but given a choice between him and any of the dems,,, I would vote for Paul...

Dodd
Kookinich..... :shock:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mine came out this way- which Biden is a surprise :roll: - but not really when you figure that 3 or 4 of the key issues that many Republicans think are important (abortion, death penalty, marriage definition, stem cell research) I believe are not Federal government decisions and should be left to the States-or in the case of stem cell research to the scientific community-- so put little or no importance to them....
I definitely oppose trifling with the US Constitution over the gay issue...

Joe Biden

Bill Richardson

Mitt Romney

Tom Tancredo

Duncan Hunter

Barack Obama

John Edwards

Hillary Clinton

Mike Huckabee

Fred Thompson

Chris Dodd

Dennis Kucinich

Mike Gravel

John McCain

Rudy Giuliani

You know you were under no obligation to post your results? I swear, it's getting harder and harder to keep from putting the L label on you. Maybe you can tell everybody it stands for Lesbian, though. :lol:

Is that going to make you look at Biden a little harder?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Mine came out this way- which Biden is a surprise :roll: - but not really when you figure that 3 or 4 of the key issues that many Republicans think are important (abortion, death penalty, marriage definition, stem cell research) I believe are not Federal government decisions and should be left to the States-or in the case of stem cell research to the scientific community-- so put little or no importance to them....
I definitely oppose trifling with the US Constitution over the gay issue...

Joe Biden

Bill Richardson

Mitt Romney

Tom Tancredo

Duncan Hunter

Barack Obama

John Edwards

Hillary Clinton

Mike Huckabee

Fred Thompson

Chris Dodd

Dennis Kucinich

Mike Gravel

John McCain

Rudy Giuliani

You know you were under no obligation to post your results? I swear, it's getting harder and harder to keep from putting the L label on you. Maybe you can tell everybody it stands for Lesbian, though. :lol:

Is that going to make you look at Biden a little harder?

Nope-- Like I said-- 4 of the questions did not have my answer--which I think throws everything askew--but that said-- I also don't truly follow the drumbeat of any Repub or any Dem that is running...Maybe thats the reason I've always chosen to stay Independent and follow my own beliefs- and not those of the cults...

Montana has already voted against same sex marriage- and to me thats who should be making the decision- the states.....Personally- I could care less if California votes to allow Gay marriages-- maybe all the gays and lesbians would move there :clap: Same way with the death penalty-- If California wants to outlaw it-- OK- no skin off my butt- maybe all the murders will move to California to commit their crimes...

And also the tax question probably moved me toward the liberal side too-- because I think the tax cuts should be repealed, as they were made during a "peacetime" economy (as GW used as his selling point at the time) -- and we definitely are at war now....Someday- somebody has to stop saying "Charge It" and take the fiscal responsibility to pay the bills....
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And also the tax question probably moved me toward the liberal side too-- because I think the tax cuts should be repealed, as they were made during a "peacetime" economy (as GW used as his selling point at the time) -- and we definitely are at war now....Someday- somebody has to stop saying "Charge It" and take the fiscal responsibility to pay the bills....

Tax cuts make money for the country, they don't "take" money from the country. You need to look at the full forest instead of scrutinizing individual trees.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
And also the tax question probably moved me toward the liberal side too-- because I think the tax cuts should be repealed, as they were made during a "peacetime" economy (as GW used as his selling point at the time) -- and we definitely are at war now....Someday- somebody has to stop saying "Charge It" and take the fiscal responsibility to pay the bills....

Tax cuts make money for the country, they don't "take" money from the country. You need to look at the full forest instead of scrutinizing individual trees.

Who pays for the Trillions $ worth of money GW has borrowed-- from all the foreign countries-- from our Social Security fund that will go broke if unpaid-- from our kids futures :???:

As is being shown in this huge mortgage fraud--altho you may get by for sometime, eventually when you don't pay the debts it comes back to bite you in the butt.....

GW's and the Republican Congress's lack of "fiscal responsibility" and drunken sailer spending is the reason D.C. will be controlled by the Democrats for the next decade or two-- and taxes will be increased- and many social policies not liked by many on here will be passed....
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
And also the tax question probably moved me toward the liberal side too-- because I think the tax cuts should be repealed, as they were made during a "peacetime" economy (as GW used as his selling point at the time) -- and we definitely are at war now....Someday- somebody has to stop saying "Charge It" and take the fiscal responsibility to pay the bills....

Tax cuts make money for the country, they don't "take" money from the country. You need to look at the full forest instead of scrutinizing individual trees.

Who pays for the Trillions $ worth of money GW has borrowed-- from all the foreign countries-- from our Social Security fund that will go broke if unpaid-- from our kids futures :???: As is being shown in this huge mortgage fraud--altho you may get by for sometime, eventually when you don't pay the debts it comes back to bite you in the butt.....

If businesses are allowed to prosper instead of being taxed to death, they are in a position to help the economy along. When the economy is in a positive mode, everyone benefits. With high taxes, the heart and soul of the country is in a dour mood, and nobody prospers.

It should be realized that you can't sue your way to success, and you can't tax your way to success. There are too many leeches sucking the lifeblood out of either of these methods.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That sounds like a Hillary type answer Soap :shock:

Who pays off our debt with China- and Venezuela- and all the other countries.... :???: Where does the money come from to repay the Social Security fund-- money that was paid in by workers as a safety net for their latter years (money that wasn't supposed to be touched for any other reason)-- many of which are already drawing on these funds-but will be broke if we (our government) breaks our promise to them... :???:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
That sounds like a Hillary type answer Soap :shock:

Who pays off our debt with China- and Venezuela- and all the other countries.... :???: Where does the money come from to repay the Social Security fund-- money that was paid in by workers as a safety net for their latter years (money that wasn't supposed to be touched for any other reason)-- many of which are already drawing on these funds-but will be broke if we (our government) breaks our promise to them... :???:

If taxes are raised, the politicians just spend until it is gone anyway. Allow businesses to prosper without the threat of higher percentage taxes, and more tax money will be made in the long run with lower percentage taxes. For example, a twenty percent tax on a hundred dollar income would be twenty dollars. A fifteen percent tax on two hundred dollars would be thirty dollars. A lower tax percentage rate results in more income, which in the long run actually puts more money into Uncle Sam's till. When the Liberals break all the productive businesses because of too much taxes, nobody gets ahead. If a business can prosper, they hire extra labor. The extra labor is earning wages, and the labor then pays taxes. Otherwise, often times the people that could be earning money, if they can't find a job, go on welfare instead. This results in a lose-lose situation. The Liberals can't seem to figure this out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
That sounds like a Hillary type answer Soap :shock:

Who pays off our debt with China- and Venezuela- and all the other countries.... :???: Where does the money come from to repay the Social Security fund-- money that was paid in by workers as a safety net for their latter years (money that wasn't supposed to be touched for any other reason)-- many of which are already drawing on these funds-but will be broke if we (our government) breaks our promise to them... :???:

If taxes are raised, the politicians just spend until it is gone anyway. Allow businesses to prosper without the threat of higher percentage taxes, and more tax money will be made in the long run with lower percentage taxes. For example, a twenty percent tax on a hundred dollar income would be twenty dollars. A fifteen percent tax on two hundred dollars would be thirty dollars. A lower tax percentage rate results in more income, which in the long run actually puts more money into Uncle Sam's till. When the Liberals break all the productive businesses because of too much taxes, nobody gets ahead. If a business can prosper, they hire extra labor. The extra labor is earning wages, and the labor then pays taxes. Otherwise, often times the people that could be earning money, if they can't find a job, go on welfare instead. This results in a lose-lose situation. The Liberals can't seem to figure this out.

Thats fine if you are fiscally conservative-- but that won't work if you keep spending more than is coming in-- and especially with SS which was needing a big input even before GW decided to blow the rest of it....

And it doesn't work when you ship more and more higher paying jobs and industry overseas- and allow unlimited immigration of cheap labor (much of it illegal) to even lower US wages.....

The threat that the Republicans (GW style) are going to back out of their agreement with millions of seniors is the reason you have a large yuppie population now voting for the Democrats...

Soapweed--what if you had had to pay for your ranch- and had put in a monthly payment for 40 years- and just when you had it all paid for- you were told that you don't get the ranch and all the money you paid in had been squandered and was gone.....Piss you off- I'll bet eh :???: ....
Well thats about what GW is currently proposing- and what will happen if someone doesn't make a drastic move to revitalize the fund within the next couple years.... At current levels--just full employment won't hack it....

And the Republicans had control of Congress for 12 years and total control of D.C. for 6 years and did nothing to fix the problem- just contributed by spending the money...

As I said before--GW's and the Republican Congress's lack of "fiscal responsibility" and drunken sailer spending is the reason D.C. will be controlled by the Democrats for the next decade or two-- and taxes will be increased- and many social policies not liked by many on here will be passed....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Thats fine if you are fiscally conservative-- but that won't work if you keep spending more than is coming in-- and especially with SS which was needing a big input even before GW decided to blow the rest of it....

..

Government spending and Tax Revenue are separate issues. Soapweed pointed out how to bring more money into Washington. If the politicians choose to spend more than comes in that does not change the fact that lower taxes help generate more money.

I do not have the statistics at hand but was sure that more revenue has came into the IRS since the tax breaks than in the history of the Tax system.

Making money and spending money are two separate issues. Bush might be spending more money than others in past but he is also making more money than past presidents.

What we need is someone to continue the Tax breaks and then also spend less money!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
As I said before--GW's and the Republican Congress's lack of "fiscal responsibility" and drunken sailer spending is the reason D.C. will be controlled by the Democrats for the next decade or two-- and taxes will be increased- and many social policies not liked by many on here will be passed....

I would be interested in seeing how Bush's spending breaks down. Has he spent more money than past presidents if you take away the two wars and the war on terror? National debt has always risen during war time. Is his spending really that outlandish when compared to others that have not had to handle the obstacles that he has? 911, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, Katrina, spending for changes to deal with the terrorist threat.

I am not saying he has not spent to much, just wondering how the figures would really pan out if you compared apples to apples.

Also how much spending is being done under the Bush administration that is a direct relationship to past pork projects. Just like private debt, generally you are paying for past purchases not current ones. Much of the debt was inherited due to past pork projects sold 10-20 years ago for votes of the times and a debt to be paid later.

Political economics are a complicated thing that is not always as simple as it seems on the surface. Just look at how Clinton claimed a balanced budget all the while the debt ceiling was raising each year.
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Thats fine if you are fiscally conservative-- but that won't work if you keep spending more than is coming in-- and especially with SS which was needing a big input even before GW decided to blow the rest of it....

..

Government spending and Tax Revenue are separate issues. Soapweed pointed out how to bring more money into Washington. If the politicians choose to spend more than comes in that does not change the fact that lower taxes help generate more money.

I do not have the statistics at hand but was sure that more revenue has came into the IRS since the tax breaks than in the history of the Tax system.

Making money and spending money are two separate issues. Bush might be spending more money than others in past but he is also making more money than past presidents.

What we need is someone to continue the Tax breaks and then also spend less money!

aplus, I have pointed this out before:

When you have a high capital gains tax rate that is only paid when you sell your stocks, people will tend to hold onto those stocks. If you then put on a low tax rate, you will get more tax dollars, but it is only because people didn't have to pay capital gains as they were realized, they only had to pay them when they sold. This makes it look like capital gains tax reductions do bring in more money, but it is only a trick.

The real answer is to have less government and let the private economy have more of the money. Of course the govt. still has to collect taxes to pay for roads, schools, security, and the such. What is necessary is government efficiency.

Lower tax rates without lower spending does nothing but spring the rubberband.

We are now at the point that it looks like the rubber band might snap.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Thats fine if you are fiscally conservative-- but that won't work if you keep spending more than is coming in-- and especially with SS which was needing a big input even before GW decided to blow the rest of it....

..

Government spending and Tax Revenue are separate issues. Soapweed pointed out how to bring more money into Washington. If the politicians choose to spend more than comes in that does not change the fact that lower taxes help generate more money.

I do not have the statistics at hand but was sure that more revenue has came into the IRS since the tax breaks than in the history of the Tax system.

Making money and spending money are two separate issues. Bush might be spending more money than others in past but he is also making more money than past presidents.

What we need is someone to continue the Tax breaks and then also spend less money!

Thats just what I said A+-- but it seems like Soap and the new Republican party feel that money borrowed will never have to be repaid-- and that definitely isn't the ethics or economics I was brought up under...

Some time--some one has to start repaying this borrowed money-- and so far it doesn't appear that the Republican Party (or anyone currently in D.C.) is capable of that....And it appears the new government policy is borrow and defraud all you can-then just declare insolvency and let them foreclose on you- and run with what you can that you stuffed in your pockets.....This does not give workers who paid a lifetime into SS confidence... :shock: :(

And from the shakiness of the US economy--and the US dollar-- it doesn't appear that GW's spend what you don't have policy is working- and the confidence in it is not there worldwide.... :???:

This is because instead of raising the US economy-- much of the tax cuts money was spent outside the US- not only by consumers for imported goods purchased from foreign countries- but also invested by companies in foreign business's, rather than putting it back into the US manufacturing/production.....Which has created our huge trade imbalances and is now costing us with a currency value crisis, budgetary crisis, and will impact us painfully for years with the readjustments we will have to take to come out of it.... :(

So if its all spent/invested overseas--the tax cut does nothing to pay off the US debt- or fill the coffers of the US government...

We've went from being a world leader- to having to develop our policies around keeping everyone happy, so they don't foreclose on us... :(
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
We've went from being a world leader- to having to develop our policies around keeping everyone happy, so they don't foreclose on us... :(

You make it out as if all of the national debt is to foreigners. The majority of debt is not abroad it is within the system here in America. Sure a percentage of it is to foreigners but they are not the source of the majority of the debt.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
That sounds like a Hillary type answer Soap :shock:

Who pays off our debt with China- and Venezuela- and all the other countries.... :???: Where does the money come from to repay the Social Security fund-- money that was paid in by workers as a safety net for their latter years (money that wasn't supposed to be touched for any other reason)-- many of which are already drawing on these funds-but will be broke if we (our government) breaks our promise to them... :???:

If taxes are raised, the politicians just spend until it is gone anyway. Allow businesses to prosper without the threat of higher percentage taxes, and more tax money will be made in the long run with lower percentage taxes. For example, a twenty percent tax on a hundred dollar income would be twenty dollars. A fifteen percent tax on two hundred dollars would be thirty dollars. A lower tax percentage rate results in more income, which in the long run actually puts more money into Uncle Sam's till. When the Liberals break all the productive businesses because of too much taxes, nobody gets ahead. If a business can prosper, they hire extra labor. The extra labor is earning wages, and the labor then pays taxes. Otherwise, often times the people that could be earning money, if they can't find a job, go on welfare instead. This results in a lose-lose situation. The Liberals can't seem to figure this out.

Thats fine if you are fiscally conservative-- but that won't work if you keep spending more than is coming in-- and especially with SS which was needing a big input even before GW decided to blow the rest of it....

And it doesn't work when you ship more and more higher paying jobs and industry overseas- and allow unlimited immigration of cheap labor (much of it illegal) to even lower US wages.....

The threat that the Republicans (GW style) are going to back out of their agreement with millions of seniors is the reason you have a large yuppie population now voting for the Democrats...

Soapweed--what if you had had to pay for your ranch- and had put in a monthly payment for 40 years- and just when you had it all paid for- you were told that you don't get the ranch and all the money you paid in had been squandered and was gone.....p*** you off- I'll bet eh :???: ....
Well thats about what GW is currently proposing- and what will happen if someone doesn't make a drastic move to revitalize the fund within the next couple years.... At current levels--just full employment won't hack it....

And the Republicans had control of Congress for 12 years and total control of D.C. for 6 years and did nothing to fix the problem- just contributed by spending the money...

As I said before--GW's and the Republican Congress's lack of "fiscal responsibility" and drunken sailer spending is the reason D.C. will be controlled by the Democrats for the next decade or two-- and taxes will be increased- and many social policies not liked by many on here will be passed....
That's a bunch of hogwash oldwhiner. I'll sit buy and let you berate the president all you want but to fabricate out and out lies and blame Bush for a failed SS program is stupid. It was a sorry program from the onset. You've stood by while they aborted over 40 million contributors to the program. There has never been a SS savings account to my knowledge. Somehow you arrive to the brilliant conclusion that all this is GW's fault. Get real.
 
Top