Draft Al Gore for President in 2008

Tags:
2008 Al Gore Assault Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Democratic Draft Earth For Live On President Primary Reason

Please wait while the video loads.
You will need Adobe's Flash Player plugin to view this page propertly.

 
crisnolan
  • Affiliate Submitter:
    crisnolan
  • International International
  • Comments: 0
  • Views: 32
  • Added: 03-Jun-07

Draft Al Gore

  1. Categories: News & Events
Comments on

Draft Al Gore for President in 2008

25 Comments | Add Comment
  • i guess we just ...

    i guess we just fundamentally disagree on the use of taxation. i realize taxation is necessary for some things but it should not be a cop out for the government. i think it's also possible to balance the budget without raising taxes, but i also think government is way too large so i think ther'es tons of things we could cut (whole deparments) that you would probably disagree with. but also you cant just blame the president. its actually 100 times more congress' fault than the president.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181600475 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • This is true. ...

    This is true. We're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending to balance the budget. That's what I've been saying.

    By MThop [Affiliate User] 1181598673 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • that's where you're ...

    that's where you're wrong. the 1/3rd total increase in spending since 2000 is an easy example. you don't think we had any wasteful spending before 2000 because pretty much all the spending since 2000 has been wasteful. the point is, you're going to have to cut spending to make ANY kind of impact on the current deficit, and i know the dems arent going to cut spending. even if you raise taxes, you'll still have a deficit if you dont cut spending.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181598150 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • Yes...exactly... ...

    Yes...exactly...when the budget is balanced, you cut spending and taxes in equal amounts to balance it. When the budget is UNbalanced, you raise taxes to balance it. Or you could just drastically cut spending, but we've cut taxes and raised spending too much since 2000 to be able to make up the gap that way.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181596793 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • the reason these ...

    the reason these presidents couldn't balance the budget is because they LOWERED TAXES and RAISED SPENDING. to balance the budget while lowering taxes, you have to REDUCE SPENDING. there's a huge difference.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181596476 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • Hm...how did they ...

    Hm...how did they ever balance the budget with a Republican President...oh right, the budget wasn't balanced during the Reagan years or the presidencies of either Bush. In 1993, Clinton raised taxes...and they balanced the budget. Then Bush cut taxes...and the budget became unbalanced.

    By MThop [Affiliate User] 1181575002 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • NICE...

    NICE...

    By boygenis [Affiliate User] 1181249658 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • you really think ...

    you really think raising taxes is the ONLY way to increase revenue? how did ever balance the budget with a republican president? i personally dont think raising taxes is the answer, it is only a temporary fix of the real problem. if we cut spending, the deficit would not be near the problem it is and we probably wouldnt even need to have this conversation.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181162042 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • You increase ...

    You increase revenue by raising taxes. Ron Paul says he won't do that.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181155014 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • you really think it ...

    you really think it would be that hard to increase revenue? if we let our economy function as an actual free market i guarantee it would not be difficult.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181153759 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • The argument still ...

    The argument still makes no sense. In order to get the budget to be balanced, the government has to take in as much money as it spends. Since 2000, spending has increased AND revenue has decreased. Decreasing spending to the levels it was at in 2000 without increasing revenue back to that levels won't balance the budget.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181136053 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • because spending is ...

    because spending is the root cause of the defecit, raising taxes doesn't honestly do anything but help us KEEP UP with the out of control spending. if we were saving $1 trillion more a year, there would be no need to raise taxes because we would already be gaining on the defecit very quickly without raising taxes. its not really that complicated lol.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181090341 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • Your math doesn't ...

    Your math doesn't make sense. If we cut spending to what it was in 2000 without raising taxes back to the level they were at in 2000, how can the budget be balanced?

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181090074 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • if we're saving $1 ...

    if we're saving $1 trillion a year, thats more than enough to cover the deficit and the entire spending of the iraq war in just a couple or a few years.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181089888 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • My math comes from ...

    My math comes from the fact that spending has gone up since 2000 even without the Iraq war (which is not calculated in the budget deficit) AND we've been giving huge tax cuts like nobody's business. And that the budget was balanced in 2000.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181088646 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • i don't know where ...

    i don't know where you're getting this math from, but from my calculations if we got rid of the spending increases alone we would be able to do away with the defecit totally without raising taxes. our spending is just less than $3 trillion annually right now, if we cut back to $1.8 trillion thats almost $1 trilion a year.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181088125 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • In order to balance ...

    In order to balance the budget again, we would have to do away with all spending increases since 2000 AND undo George Bush's tax cuts (which would amount to quite a large tax increase). President Ron Paul would either have to raise taxes or accept an unbalanced budget.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181075425 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • it sounds hard but ...

    it sounds hard but really it wouldn't be that much of a challenge for a true conservative like ron paul. consider this:

    we could cut spending a full 1/3rd from the 2007 budget and we would STILL be spending more than $1.8 TRILLION, more than we were spending just 7 years ago in 2000. consider that, and the deficit doesnt seem near as much of a task.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181069776 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • Not counting the ...

    Not counting the Iraq war spending, we have a deficit of about 500 billion per year. You come up with that just to BALANCE the budget, THEN you have to worry about finding more things to cut in order to reduce spending.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181068871 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • i think you ...

    i think you enormously underestimate how wasteful our government really is. the congress has given out money off the books on many occasions, billions. just getting an accounting of money we lose track of would do wonders for our defecit and dont even get me started on legalizing competition to the federal reserve. we dont even have enough space here.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181053996 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • No, you can only ...

    No, you can only cut spending so much. We're so far down in terms of the deficit that I think that whoever is elected will HAVE to raise taxes to balance the budget.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181053066 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • at it's currents ...

    at it's currents state.. absolutely not. but if we're talking about a hypothetical situation where ron paul was to get elected, he would use the entire power of the presidency to mininize the scope of government and government spending especially so it would become A LOT more likely.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181052486 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • The federal ...

    The federal government cannot afford to get rid of the income tax. It's that simple.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181052220 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • it's not as ...

    it's not as unpopular as you'd think. you think all the people who were so quick to get behind the fairtax would reject the idea of no tax? i highly doubt it if it was actually presented to them as a viable option, which it is if government was at the scope it's SUPPOSED to be. ron paul knows and has studied economics more than all the candidates combined i guarantee.

    By rapsody [Affiliate User] 1181051778 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
  • And that is wildly ...

    And that is wildly unpopular. Plus, given today's economy, it would never work.

    By TheMyrkat [Affiliate User] 1181051342 Reply Spam Moderate Up Moderate Down
25 Comments | Add Comment
 
Family Filter Off