Many people in this thread are saying that they don't know whom to vote for, since they dislike both Obama and Romney.

It would be great if there were a third option, wouldn't it? Somebody on the ballot in every state. Somebody with a good chance of getting into the debates. Somebody who actually pledges to cut spending and not just slow its increase.

^That is a hyperlink. Click it.

It's much more than that according to this http://www.usdebtclock.org/

What none violent people don't seem to get is that a country needs the military so that once things hit the very freaking bottom it could attack another country and take its gold, in the worst case scenario possible. So the US do have the economy in mind when they protect the military.

Gotta be cognisant of the global realities here. The vast majority of Western countries are running budget deficits at the moment. When your unemployment rate goes from 4-5% up to 8-10%, and corporate profits drop by a substantial amount that's a huge amount of revenue taken out of the tax base and govt expenses increase substantially (if you have an unemployment benefit). It's basically impossible to cut govt expenditure to break even or to run surplusses.

So the question is do you keep spending at a level which helps to keep the economy ticking over, or do you slash and burn as much as possible to reduce budget deficits to as close to zero as you can?

Some countries were smart in the 10 years leading up to 2008 and maitained healthy budgetr surplusses so that their govt debt:GDP was low when the shit hit the fan, which gfave them a lot more breathing room with deficit spending. The USA ran budget deficits for almost all of Bush Jr's reign, which meant the US debt:GDP was relatively high. Obama was on a hiding to nothing going in. And the fact he's even competitive in the presidential race, with an economy that's still rather stagnant is surprising, but it's probably less surprising if you give credit to the American voter that they know the reason the economy is in this mess is due to what happened between 2000-2008.

The problem is... this has never worked.  BECAUSE said jobs are temporary.

The last 4 years have show that.  (As well as... pretty much every stimulus ever done.)

Buisnesses know said demand is temporary and as such won't expand due to it... because well...  they aren't stupid.

All it ever does, is temporarily boost GDP numbers for as long as spending goes, until something else completely increases demand and fixes the economy.

That's what's weird about all the calls of a "New New Deal."   If you ask Economists... 9 out of 10 will tell you the New New Deal failed... and the 10th will likely tell you it mostly failed until WW2 came along.

He would of had some chance, if he was on TV doing interviews or even a Libertarian conference, but most ordinary americans will probably never hear about him. It's sad, but is easily there own fault too, as they don't care about politics enough. But, If he stuck to his word on all policies, he could make a great president. If I was American, I would vote for him, I know that much

I've got a better vote.

So you're saying we should nuke China

Shrewd...

"Well guys we hit the borrowing cap again, what should we do?"

"I highly suggest you increase the gap!"

"GENIUS!"

This was what a bum said to the President.

16 trillion.

16 000 000 000 000

(I'm not sure of this, numerical nomenclature in the US is different from europe)