vvicked0471

If you've ever seen any of my posts in the political sections I'm sure you've realized that I don't support Obama. All my other problems with Obama aside, I have one question for you.

If America elects Barack Obama president we will be handing over complete control of the federal government to a single group of people. One party with it's own agenda that will have the strength in numbers to pass ANYTHING they like. Does this not bother any of you voting for Obama?

With the very real possibility of the next president having to lead us through a depression, I shudder to think what the democrats could pass in a time of crisis like that.

The last time we were in a situation like that we saw the beginning of the end of the gold standard, and the institution of the largest social program to date (SS). I think it's worth mentioning that SS is failing miserably, and along with Medicare will consume our entire federal budget in just 12 short years if something isn't done. And I hardly believe implementing more social programs is the answer, but I digress, back to the original question.

Does it bother any Obama supporters that an election win for him means complete control of our federal government by the democrats?

***Before someone goes and says something about McCain, don't waste your time, I don't support him either. Lets try to keep this on topic...***

__________________
Sic Vis Pacem Parabellum

If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

Marvin420

Always look at the bright side.
We had to have 4 years of Jimmy Carter to appreciate what a good leader is, thats why we had 12 years of Republican white house control afterwards.

gange_King88

maybe you don't remember, but the election 8 years ago had the same thing happen, except the republicans were in charge. no we're in a depression and 2 wars...

i do agree with the idea that one party having complete control is a bad thing, but obama is certainly (in my opinion) the better of the two main candidates. isn't that what we should be voting for?

vvicked0471

I do remember, and I didn't like it then. But don't be so quick to blame the republicans, they certainly played a part, but they aren't completely responsible for the current financial crisis.


I would rather have some sort of balance between the congress and the executive branch. At least with *cringing* McCain in office he may be able to veto some of the shit that an all dem congress is going to try and get passed.

When you take into account the massive expansion of government during the last depression, under a democrat president, I am very concerned with what this could do.

Ideally we should vote for who would be the better president, but in this situation I feel that we should not hand over control of the federal government to the democrats, and I felt the same way about the republicans.

Marvin420

For all those that appreciate the right to own guns, this post is for you.

Freedom_User

LOL @ guns comment.

__________________
The feds continually use and twist this simple clause as an excuse to expand their own power - at the expense of our liberty.

"If you shot a ton of pot to the Sun, will it burn up and get everyone high?"

pkster8235

I think the record has shown that a: Democrats have a better budget/investment surplus than replublicans, b: Bush has wasted trillions of dollars.
I don't see how going a different direction would hurt the economy. There are two options, as we all know. McCain doesn't seem to have any real sense.. he makes a point that Obama wants to raise taxes, and then Obama states that he is cutting taxes for those that make under $250,000/year, and it cuts back to McCain who restates that Obama wants to raise taxes. It's ridiculous..
Obama: "The truth is that with my plan those that earn under $250,000 per year will receive a tax cut"
McCain: "My friends, what Mr. Obama isn't telling ya here is that he wants to raise your taxes."
McCain really has no idea what is going on. The debates really just went around in circles.. I don't see how there's really any other option than Obama, and he seems like he would make a good leader for the United States .
Sadly my country's election turned out poorly.. I hope the American one ends up with a better result.

__________________
We treat mishaps like sinking ships and
I know that I don't want to be out to drift..

Murdock

Usually this would be a concern.. The Congress and the White House in the same parties hands isn't the best and I've expressed that in the past. Checks and balances are good.

With that said there are two reasons I am not as concerned about it during this election.

1. Most of the new Democrats that can/will be elected to congress are coming from tradionally conservative areas. Many are "Blue Dog" Democrats which will act as a check. The Republicans on the other hand, can, do and tradionally will have much greater party unity.

2. The Judicial after 8 years of Bush 43 and 4 years of Bush 41 and 8 years of Reagan control hold the majority of judical seats.. the chances are that most Judges that would be seeing any of the legislation passed are Republican apointees.

SpiralArchitect

Obama isn't real change. He's the same type of government we can expect; Big and ineffective.


This is how the 2 parties wants you to think. And it works. They tricked me. I'll be voting for Obama only because he is 'the lesser of two evils', and that is the way most people vote. We are all cogs in an inescapable machine, and the 'Republicrats' want to keep it that way.

__________________
.

Jinn

The current financial problems have little to do with either party or even the housing bubble. That was just the match the fire needed to start.

The fractional reserve banking system we have (a central bank) is inherently inflationary. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 under extremely false pretenses the value of the dollar has declined by 96%. The only way to pay the outstanding debt created by this system is to continuously inject cash into the system. Since the only way to create money is through debt and the only way to keep pace with the debt is to increase the money supply the end result is the same. At a certain point we will see catastrophic failure when the system implodes on itself.

The politicians have little to do with this. It is the banks. It always has been.

One of the reasons for the formation of this country was to escape the central banking system used in Europe. Andrew Jackson destroyed the last bank and under him was the last time the debt was paid off. Shortly after he left office a new central bank (the fed) was created.

Our founding fathers never wanted a central bank. And here we are.

Powerless to change it.

Neither Obama or McCain will bring about great change.

I don't like the idea of a completely democrat controlled government either.

All around very bad choices this time. If only people would elect Ron Paul. He would do little but at least he has an actual head on his shoulders.

He can actually think for himself.

If only...