# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Sold!  My vote to Obama for $1,800

## Pete Hanlin

Just did the tax calculator, and Obama is promising me $1,800 in tax cuts based on my income, kids, debt, etc.  

Of course, he doesn't indicate from where this money will come (a good start would be all the cash he wasted on that 30 minute infomercial last night)- but I assume it will be from "those rich people."  

Somehow, I don't think I'll count on seeing any of that money.  Even if I could, it would have to come in the form of higher deficits- because "those rich people" only have so much money to tax.  

Have fun voting for Sen. Obama on Tuesday- I'm already looking for my _"Don't blame me, I voted for McCain"_ bumper sticker, which will be proudly displayed for the next four years!

----------


## Steve Machol

Isn't that the same as _'Don't Blame me I voted for Kerry or Gore'_?

In all seriousness Bush has done such a thorough job of messing up this country that whoever comes in next is likely not going to be able to help us climb out of the hole Bush dug. This will not be the new President's fault. The fault likes squarely with George W Bush, the Congressional Republicans that went along with him and the Congressional Democrats that didn't have the backbone to fight for their principles.

----------


## Uncle Fester

You know Steve we really should include the man or woman in the mirror on this. Remember BCCI or the Savings and Loan debacles?  We after all keep reelecting the politicians who's main concern with few exceptions is to get reelected to gain and wield power and influence while making lots of $$, the greater good of the country be dam*ed.

Count me guilty as charged!

A viable 3rd party would help but the current pols will obviously unite to prevent this. Ask Ralph Nader.;)

Change to a Parliamentary system? True democracy, but for a country our size I don't think it would work better than what we now have.

No easy answer imo.

----------


## Grubendol

Getting out of Iraq and taxing the the top 5% of income earners...that will do it.

----------


## For-Life

> Just did the tax calculator, and Obama is promising me $1,800 in tax cuts based on my income, kids, debt, etc.  
> 
> Of course, he doesn't indicate from where this money will come (a good start would be all the cash he wasted on that 30 minute infomercial last night)- but I assume it will be from "those rich people."  
> 
> Somehow, I don't think I'll count on seeing any of that money.  Even if I could, it would have to come in the form of higher deficits- because "those rich people" only have so much money to tax.  
> 
> Have fun voting for Sen. Obama on Tuesday- I'm already looking for my _"Don't blame me, I voted for McCain"_ bumper sticker, which will be proudly displayed for the next four years!



Better than McCain saying he will give tax cuts to everyone without mentioning how much or where he will get his money from.  So why did you not make a thread about him?

As for the money he spent last night, that is funding he has received.  It would be illegal to take that money and put it on the federal budget (plus, $3 million will not do much).  He also has the obligation to spend the money he has received.

----------


## Judy Canty

Would it have been better spent on a new wardrobe?

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> Would it have been better spent on a new wardrobe?


Yeah.
Edwards' $400 haircut is a Bad Thing, even if paid by himself. Palin gets 150K from campaign funds for wardrobe and that's a Good Thing?

----------


## hcjilson

> Just did the tax calculator, and Obama is promising me $1,800 in tax cuts based on my income, kids, debt, etc.  
> 
> Of course, he doesn't indicate from where this money will come (a good start would be all the cash he wasted on that 30 minute infomercial last night)- but I assume it will be from "those rich people."  
> 
> Somehow, I don't think I'll count on seeing any of that money.  Even if I could, it would have to come in the form of higher deficits- because "those rich people" only have so much money to tax.  
> 
> Have fun voting for Sen. Obama on Tuesday- I'm already looking for my _"Don't blame me, I voted for McCain"_ bumper sticker, which will be proudly displayed for the next four years!


Pete, you've had it your way for 8 years, what has it gotten you that you would want 4 more of the same? Are you happy with the way our country is viewed around the world today? Do you have any more in the pocket, or bank today? Has your retirement fund grown these past few weeks? Do you like the way the market value of your new home as stayed up? Time to smell the coffee my friend! Its going to take more than 8 years to straighten this mess out and if you don't think its a mess, you are reading the wrong newspapers.

----------


## For-Life

I remember when members of this board were so happy about Bush's tax cuts.  Ones that had no accountability and went to the wrong people.

Now, when it has a way of paying for itself and goes to the right people, we complain?

----------


## Steve Machol

FWIW I've been a fiscal conservative all along and believe that we should pay our own way instead of shackling our kids and grandkids with the debts from our excesses.

In fact for years I have asked every single supporter of Bush's Iraq War if they would still support it if this meant we had to pay for it with higher taxes instead of forcing to burden on future generations. Not one person has ever said yes to that.

That alone tells you more about what is truly important to large numbers of people in this country. It's a very sad commentary.

----------


## For-Life

I always hear how people say that governments are addicted to taxes.  They are not.  They are addicted to tax cuts (and you can toss Obama in there too).  It takes a lot of guts for anyone to say "we are going to raise taxes, but we are going to do it to keep the budget balanced."

I remember when the Premier of Ontario back in 2004 went back on a campaign promise to not raise taxes.  What happened, is that the books left to him by the Conservatives showed a surplus, but when he got in, he realized that he had a $5 billion deficit.  So he introduced a health premium.  The idea was that it would allow him to bring back a surplus and put more money into health care.  Everyone thought it would cost him the next election.  It didn't.  But what it did do is it made significant improvements to our health care facilities.  I am not talking minor things, I am talking noticeable things.


On the other side, when the Conservative Party replaced the Liberal Party federally, they inherited a $15 billion surplus.  So what they did is they lowered the federal sales tax by 2 points.  They argued that this would provide relief to Canadian families.  Two and a half years later, that surplus is now $2 billion, and is expected to go into a deficit, which means program cuts and will slow down the paying down of the national debt.  Now that we are in tough economy times, they do not have the mechanisms to help us out.  And as for that tax cut, so far every Canadian I have talked to feels that they are no better off with that tax cut than before.

It is about fiscal responsibility.  Expenses should not out spend revenues.  And I have a message for my Liberal and Conservative friends, cutting back on spending and raising taxes alone will not solve the problem.  Both have to be worked on.


And I am sorry for those of you who believe the rich should not face the brunt of it, but it is a lot easier to raise the funds from the rich and they can handle the raise far more than taking it from the poor.  I know that sucks and I know you do not think it is fair.  But it is about being responsible, and not about some inefficient/ineffective/impractical principal.

----------


## Jubilee

I thought you might enjoy this political cartoon!

----------


## Johns

> I always hear how people say that governments are addicted to taxes. They are not. They are addicted to tax cuts (and you can toss Obama in there too). It takes a lot of guts for anyone to say "we are going to raise taxes, but we are going to do it to keep the budget balanced."


Couldn't agree more! (Did I really just say that?)

What I tire of is the use of promised programs to garner votes.  They've all done it from the beginning of time, but it still doesn't make it right.  

I don't mind paying taxes, so long as the money is accounted for, and it is going for the intended purpose.  Of course, the "purpose" is often cause for disputes, but most of us agree that we need to care for the poor, the aged, and the infirmed.

----------


## For-Life

> Couldn't agree more! (Did I really just say that?)
> 
> What I tire of is the use of promised programs to garner votes.  They've all done it from the beginning of time, but it still doesn't make it right.  
> 
> I don't mind paying taxes, so long as the money is accounted for, and it is going for the intended purpose.  Of course, the "purpose" is often cause for disputes, but most of us agree that we need to care for the poor, the aged, and the infirmed.


I agree.  The pork barrel spending has to be minimized.  Politicians spending on ridiculous stuff where the government should not be involved.  

I also agree about the accountability.  Government has to be extremely transparent.

----------


## Spexvet

> Just did the tax calculator, and Obama is promising me $1,800 in tax cuts based on my income, kids, debt, etc. 
> 
> Of course, he doesn't indicate from where this money will come (a good start would be all the cash he wasted on that 30 minute infomercial last night)- but I assume it will be from "those rich people." 
> 
> Somehow, I don't think I'll count on seeing any of that money. Even if I could, it would have to come in the form of higher deficits- because "those rich people" only have so much money to tax. 
> 
> Have fun voting for Sen. Obama on Tuesday- I'm already looking for my _"Don't blame me, I voted for McCain"_ bumper sticker, which will be proudly displayed for the next four years!


_Pre_-election sour grapes??

Bwahahahahaha! :p 





> ...
> 
> What I tire of is the use of promised programs to garner votes.


Even if it's a program that you support? How about if the government promised to drill off shore for oil?




> ...I don't mind paying taxes, so long as the money is accounted for, and it is going for the intended purpose...


And I see a return on my investment.

----------


## GOS_Queen

> I thought you might enjoy this political cartoon!


 
That is awesome!  :cheers:

----------


## GOS_Queen

> I agree. The pork barrel spending has to be minimized. Politicians spending on ridiculous stuff where the government should not be involved. 
> 
> *I also agree about the accountability. Government has to be extremely transparent*.


 
I agree -  I think THE PEOPLE need to keep their elected officials accountable.  And, WE, THE PEOPLE, need to do our best to instill fear into them.  

I know someone running for Congress against a long time incumbent.  She asked to debate the incumbent.  She was told by his staff that he didn't need to prove anything to the people;  he had the support of the unions and the lobbyists    :Eek: 


We keep electing these mutants to Congress.  If we stopped DOING that ... I think it would be a good thing.  


BTW,  the gal running for office ... she knows it is highly unlikely she will win.  But, she is going to run against him in 2 years.  She is awesome and I'm proud to have worked on her campaign.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

In all seriousness Bush has done such a thorough job of messing up this country that whoever comes in next is likely not going to be able to help us climb out of the hole Bush dug.
Come on, Steve.  I know you have had a dim view of this administration, but you've really become jaded if you think the Bush administration has single-handedly "messed up the country."  Just my opinion, but there just seems to be a lot of people who have lost all objectivity out there.  A lot of the things President Clinton did annoyed the bejeezsus out of me, but I never resorted to calling him a traitor, dictator, or incompetent (because he wasn't- and neither is Bush).  We're both old enough to know that Presidents are pretty much a figurehead.  You really don't like this particular one, and I get that- but 8 years of having him called everything from an "idiotic-moron" to a "dictator" has been a bit wearisome.  I voted for George Bush- twice.  Given the people the Democrats put up against him, I'd do it all over again.  Were there better people for the job?  Yeah- but none of them were nominated by either of the two parties capable of seating a Presidential candidate.

Which brings me to...
Pete, you've had it your way for 8 years, what has it gotten you that you would want 4 more of the same? Are you happy with the way our country is viewed around the world today? Do you have any more in the pocket, or bank today? Has your retirement fund grown these past few weeks? Do you like the way the market value of your new home as stayed up? Time to smell the coffee my friend! Its going to take more than 8 years to straighten this mess out and if you don't think its a mess, you are reading the wrong newspapers. 
I haven't "had it my own way" for 8 years.  If it were MY way, we would have pulled out of Iraq for fiscal reasons, made the tax cuts permanent, never have added a "prescription coverage" to Medicare, instituted some preliminary fixes to the scam that is Social Security, and I would have made the GOP congress- that we used to have- tow the line.  No question, this administration has missed a lot of opportunities.  Still, do I think we ended up better than we would have under a Gore or Kerry administration?  Absolutely.
Since you asked, yes- I'm quite content with the past 8 years.  How our country is viewed around the world?  Come on, Harry- you know I go to Paris at least once a year (so I get to hear earfuls of how our country is viewed abroad).  Personally, I'd be a bit concerned if our country's leadership was selected based on the opinions of people in other countries.  On a financial front, my earnings have gone up every single one of the past 8 years.  The two homes I've owned over the past 8 years have appreciated in value.  I've made contributions to my retirement plan which are going through the floor right now- but they'll rise in value eventually.  Socially, my children have had to pass examinations to progress from one grade to the next- which I appreciate as a parent.

None of those things were determined by which president was in office- the same fortune would hopefully (or not) have occurred under a Gore or Kerry administration.  That's because life is partly made of chance, partly determined by one's own efforts and decisions, and mainly determined by the will of God (or fate, if you don't believe in a higher being).  BTW, I in no way believe success indicates that success means one is blessed or good... after all, it rains on the just and the unjust.  Anyone who seriously believes their good- or bad- fortune is determined by who wins a Presidential election has serious issues with self-determination and personal accountability (not suggesting either of you personally suffer from this delusion, but I've met many- Dems and Reps alike- who do).

How about YOU?  The Democrats have had it "their own way" for the past two years- with a Democrat-controlled congress.  How's that working out for us?  Last I checked, the only political body with an approval rating worse than the Bush admin was the Democrat congress.

When will any of you get where I'm coming from?  The federal government needs to spend less money- both on the national defense front and on social schemes.  

When I first saw Sen. Obama, I bought into the "he's a new kind of politician" hype.  His campaigns have shown me he's just more of the same- with the exception that he's perhaps the most liberal Democrat candidate in recent memory.  I'm not an ardent McCain fan, but I'll happily vote for him on Tuesday (heck, if it were between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama at this point in time, I'd vote Clinton... and that's saying a LOT).

Never fear, Harry & Steve... you'll get your wish.  Sen. Obama will bring a "whole new perspective" to the White House.  Of course, when his administration gets bogged down you'll both claim its somehow Bush's fault (even though it wasn't Clinton's fault when the .com bubble burst soon after Bush's election).  Maybe three or four elections cycles from now, the statute of limitations will be up on the Bush admin.  Until then, feel free to luxuriate and stew in your vitriolic disdain for this administration.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Come on, Steve.  I know you have had a dim view of this administration, but you've really become jaded if you think the Bush administration has single-handedly "messed up the country."


I made no such claim. What I said was:




> The fault likes squarely with George W Bush, the Congressional Republicans that went along with him and the Congressional Democrats that didn't have the backbone to fight for their principles.





> Just my opinion, but there just seems to be a lot of people who have lost all objectivity out there.  A lot of the things President Clinton did annoyed the bejeezsus out of me, but I never resorted to calling him a traitor, dictator, or incompetent (because he wasn't- and neither is Bush)


When have I called him any of those names? Although I do firmly believe he is incompetent, at least in managing primary government functions. He was very competent at dividing the nation though.

And please note that many Republicans did, in fact, call Clinton a 'traitor', 'murderer' and many other things during his time in office. 

I also notice that you too are not willing to say that you would still support the Iraq War if this means we had to pay for it with higher taxes instead of forcing future generations to fit the bill. To date not one single supporter of this war has the courage of their convictions to state firmly that they believe this war is so important that they would be willing to pay for it with higher taxes. Not one.

----------


## LilKim

I'd like to make a salient point that hasn't been raised as of yet. McCain and Palin have been touting the latest anti-Obama catchphrase, "Obama the Wealth Spreader". Yet, she set things up in Alaska so that every state citizen receives a hefty check in the mail from oil profits made that year from the state pipelines.

HOW IS THAT NOT SOCIALISM??? 

How convenient that people will look the other way when they benefit from something they're supposed to be fundamentally opposed to, yet blather on about it and make it a huge issue when it comes to the healthcare and tax plans being pushed by their opposing candidate?

There's even a name for it, it's called HYPOCRISY.

----------


## Spexvet

> How about YOU? The Democrats have had it "their own way" for the past two years- with a Democrat-controlled congress...


Wrong. To "have had it "their own way" for the past two years- with a Democrat-controlled congress", there would have had to be a Democratic president, too. 




> ...
> When will any of you get where I'm coming from?


Oh, we get where you're coming from, we just disagree with you. Notice I didn't say that we think you're crazy/stupid/evil.




> The federal government needs to spend less money- ... on social schemes.


If those who control wealth would compensate those who create wealth more fairly, there would be no need for a social safety net. You can pay your employees more, or you can pay more taxes: you choose.

A:



> .. .
> None of those things were determined by which president was in office- the same fortune would hopefully (or not) have occurred under a Gore or Kerry administration. That's because life is partly made of chance, partly determined by one's own efforts and decisions, and mainly determined by the will of God (or fate, if you don't believe in a higher being)...


B:



> ... I'm not an ardent McCain fan, but I'll happily vote for him on Tuesday (heck, if it were between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama at this point in time, I'd vote Clinton... and that's saying a LOT)....


If A, why do you feel so strongly about B?

----------


## Leo Hadley Jr

> I'd like to make a salient point that hasn't been raised as of yet. McCain and Palin have been touting the latest anti-Obama catchphrase, "Obama the Wealth Spreader". Yet, she set things up in Alaska so that every state citizen receives a hefty check in the mail from oil profits made that year from the state pipelines.
> 
> HOW IS THAT NOT SOCIALISM??? 
> 
> How convenient that people will look the other way when they benefit from something they're supposed to be fundamentally opposed to, yet blather on about it and make it a huge issue when it comes to the healthcare and tax plans being pushed by their opposing candidate?
> 
> There's even a name for it, it's called HYPOCRISY.


 
I am not a Palin fan for VP, but I must point out that Palin did not "set up" Alaska that way. It has been that way for many many years. Long before Palin had any political thoughts.

This is a major misconception that has been spreading lately.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

To date not one single supporter of this war has the courage of their convictions to state firmly that they believe this war is so important that they would be willing to pay for it with higher taxes. 
On the assumption that Iraq did have WMDs, invasion was completely worth the cost. Yeah, I know- Bush deliberately decieved the entire nation (including both sides of Congress) into thinking there were WMDs when he knew there were none... whatever. I completely agree that the current mission in Iraq isn't worth the money. I wouldn't even say the mission is without merit- I just don't want to pay for it (which I've consistently said). We should pull out because it just costs too much.

When have I called him any of those names? Although I do firmly believe he is incompetent, at least in managing primary government functions. He was very competent at dividing the nation though.
Unless I've completely misunderstood your posts re: the Patriot Act, you certainly seem to be strongly implying that the President is acting like a dictator- in fact, I'm almost positive that inference was directly made at least once. If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken.

And please note that many Republicans did, in fact, call Clinton a 'traitor', 'murderer' and many other things during his time in office. 
Absolutely- which I think is just as ludicrous as people who call Bush names (which was my point).

Wrong. To "have had it "their own way" for the past two years- with a Democrat-controlled congress", there would have had to be a Democratic president, too.
Well, my friend- if that's the definition, then Democrats had it their own way on many more occasions over the past 30 years than Republicans. Neither side has managed anything substantive when they've held both the legislative and executive branches simultaneously. In fact, perhaps the most successful years occurred when Reagan had a Democrat-controlled Congress and Clinton had a Republican-controlled Congress.

Oh, we get where you're coming from, we just disagree with you. Notice I didn't say that we think you're crazy/stupid/evil.
Well, congratulations on learning to show restraint.

If those who control wealth would compensate those who create wealth more fairly, there would be no need for a social safety net. You can pay your employees more, or you can pay more taxes: you choose.
Wow. I'm guessing you are VERY enthusiastic about Sen. Obama's candidacy. Since I do not "control wealth," I suppose I'm just a victim, like you. Those evil, evil rich people will get what's coming to them- curses on them for investing and profiting- and power to the proletariat!

If A, why do you feel so strongly about B? 
As I've said previously, the country will always survive a President (because the office just isn't powerful enough- by design- to sink the nation). That said, this individual has been quite open (if you read his own writings) in stating that he is pretty much diametric to my own socio- and economic philosophy. Therefore, I oppose his candidacy. I imagine he is aligned quite well with your own thinking- which is why you support him.

All I ask is that we stop all this ridiculous posturing regarding _"If Obama fails, it will be because of the horrible leadership of Bush- if he succeeds, well- obviously it is a credit to his character."_

If Sen. Obama wins- which one would have to assume will be the case (after all, he's had TONS more money than McCain- partly because he got people to privately donate with the idea he would not accept public money- then decided to go for the public funds as well)- let him stand or fall on his own merits. I see a man who has NEVER attempted to work with anyone from the other side of the aisle who is far to the left of the political landscape, and I suspect he'll (thankfully) accomplish next to nothing. 

So, on one hand I'll be happy to suffer through 4 SOTUs from the "Personality-in-Chief." On the other hand, I'm going to tire quickly of his socialistic message (and I use that term accurately- it is clear from his own writings that he is a socialist).

----------


## LilKim

> I am not a Palin fan for VP, but I must point out that Palin did not "set up" Alaska that way. It has been that way for many many years. Long before Palin had any political thoughts.
> 
> This is a major misconception that has been spreading lately.


That may be the case, but she certainly didn't feel the need to end the practice, which makes her guilty of complicity.

----------


## Steve Machol

> On the assumption that Iraq did have WMDs, *invasion was completely worth the cost*. Yeah, I know- Bush deliberately decieved the entire nation (including both sides of Congress) into thinking there were WMDs when he knew there were none... whatever. I completely agree that the current mission in Iraq isn't worth the money. I wouldn't even say the mission is without merit- *I just don't want to pay for it* (which I've consistently said).


'Worth the cost'- but not enough to actually pay for it with tax increases.

And that is the crux of the point I was trying to make. The people that wanted this war and who have supported it do not want to pay for it. They would rather let future generations pay for it.

Honestly Pete, don't you see a bit of inconsistency in this?  If this war was justified, then why shouldn't we have the courage to pay for it? Why should future generations bear the cost when they had no say in this decision? And how is that different from 'taxation without representation'?




> Unless I've completely misunderstood your posts re: the Patriot Act, you certainly seem to be strongly implying that the President is acting like a dictator- in fact, I'm almost positive that inference was directly made at least once. If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken.


Actually it's more the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that is troublesome. It essentially removed Habeas Corpus and many of the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. However to my knowledge I have never called Bush a 'traitor' or 'dictator'. I do believe that he has failed to 'uphold and defend the Constitution of the Unites States' as he swore to do.  I do not believe he has done this out of malice. I just believe he was wrong, and dangerously so for the future of freedom in this country.

As for the 'Socialist' argument against Obama that is utter nonsense. After all it was Theodore Roosevelt (McCain's espoused 'hero') that introduced the progressive income tax and we have had this in place for almost a century now. To my knowledge McCain has never voted or supported any move to remove or replace the progressive income tax. 

Please read the quote in my sig from that famous 'socialist' Adam Smith.

----------


## Chris Bowers

Most of the world has never paid the USA for World War 2. As such that would mean that my generation is footing that bill. Im proud to do so.

----------


## Steve Machol

First time I've heard of that. Where is the data to back up that contention? And are you comparing the Iraq War to WWII?

----------


## Chris Bowers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations 

Steve
Actually still waiting for payments of WW1
The war is in Iraq not with Iraq's people. The USA are liberators
Evil is evil and knows no nationality

----------


## Steve Machol

Actually I misread your original post. I thought you meant that the American taxpayers of that generation did not pay for their share of the cost of this war. 

Still don't see any comparision to Iraq War supporters agreeing that this War was needed yet refusing to pay for it themselves. A few words come to mind about this kind of behavor, but I have purposely not gone there. I've been asking about this for several years and I just would like to hear one rationale explanation for this.

----------


## Leo Hadley Jr

> That may be the case, but she certainly didn't feel the need to end the practice, which makes her guilty of complicity.


Why would they want to end it?
Its not Socialism, its a massive surplus. This is not even close to what Obama is proposing. If your state had a surplus of tax, it belongs to the taxpayers. Which means you.

Alaska is lucky to have those oil revenues to pay for everything with money left over. There is no state tax, and the people get dividends of the leftover cash.

Back when I was a kid I had dreamed of moving to Alaska and staking claim to the free land available at the time.

----------


## KStraker

> Getting out of Iraq and taxing the the top 5% of income earners...that will do it.


:cheers::cheers: We have a winner!

----------


## fvc2020

> I also notice that you too are not willing to say that you would still support the Iraq War if this means we had to pay for it with higher taxes instead of forcing future generations to fit the bill. To date not one single supporter of this war has the courage of their convictions to state firmly that they believe this war is so important that they would be willing to pay for it with higher taxes. Not one.


Actually Steve, if my taxes had to be higher to pay for the war and the war only, I would be willing to pay more.  I think that when it comes to taxes most people are willing to pay if its for the right thing.  I don't want to spend on pork projects(either side), growing government(outside what our federal government was orginially designed for), or other unnecessary spending(bailouts, rebates etc).

I also was curious why do think republicans hate people(earlier posting)?I don't hate any one, and I doubt any other republicans here do either..what gives :Rolleyes: 

christina

----------


## For-Life

> I agree -  I think THE PEOPLE need to keep their elected officials accountable.  And, WE, THE PEOPLE, need to do our best to instill fear into them.  
> 
> I know someone running for Congress against a long time incumbent.  She asked to debate the incumbent.  She was told by his staff that he didn't need to prove anything to the people;  he had the support of the unions and the lobbyists   
> 
> 
> We keep electing these mutants to Congress.  If we stopped DOING that ... I think it would be a good thing.  
> 
> 
> BTW,  the gal running for office ... she knows it is highly unlikely she will win.  But, she is going to run against him in 2 years.  She is awesome and I'm proud to have worked on her campaign.


Big part about that is that the whole campaign finance system needs an overhaul.  I suggestion zero private dollars and only $1000 per individuals to the party, a year.

----------


## For-Life

> In all seriousness Bush has done such a thorough job of messing up this country that whoever comes in next is likely not going to be able to help us climb out of the hole Bush dug.
> Come on, Steve.  I know you have had a dim view of this administration, but you've really become jaded if you think the Bush administration has single-handedly "messed up the country."  Just my opinion, but there just seems to be a lot of people who have lost all objectivity out there.  A lot of the things President Clinton did annoyed the bejeezsus out of me, but I never resorted to calling him a traitor, dictator, or incompetent (because he wasn't- and neither is Bush).  We're both old enough to know that Presidents are pretty much a figurehead.  You really don't like this particular one, and I get that- but 8 years of having him called everything from an "idiotic-moron" to a "dictator" has been a bit wearisome.  I voted for George Bush- twice.  Given the people the Democrats put up against him, I'd do it all over again.  Were there better people for the job?  Yeah- but none of them were nominated by either of the two parties capable of seating a Presidential candidate.
> 
> Which brings me to...
> Pete, you've had it your way for 8 years, what has it gotten you that you would want 4 more of the same? Are you happy with the way our country is viewed around the world today? Do you have any more in the pocket, or bank today? Has your retirement fund grown these past few weeks? Do you like the way the market value of your new home as stayed up? Time to smell the coffee my friend! Its going to take more than 8 years to straighten this mess out and if you don't think its a mess, you are reading the wrong newspapers. 
> I haven't "had it my own way" for 8 years.  If it were MY way, we would have pulled out of Iraq for fiscal reasons, made the tax cuts permanent, never have added a "prescription coverage" to Medicare, instituted some preliminary fixes to the scam that is Social Security, and I would have made the GOP congress- that we used to have- tow the line.  No question, this administration has missed a lot of opportunities.  Still, do I think we ended up better than we would have under a Gore or Kerry administration?  Absolutely.
> Since you asked, yes- I'm quite content with the past 8 years.  How our country is viewed around the world?  Come on, Harry- you know I go to Paris at least once a year (so I get to hear earfuls of how our country is viewed abroad).  Personally, I'd be a bit concerned if our country's leadership was selected based on the opinions of people in other countries.  On a financial front, my earnings have gone up every single one of the past 8 years.  The two homes I've owned over the past 8 years have appreciated in value.  I've made contributions to my retirement plan which are going through the floor right now- but they'll rise in value eventually.  Socially, my children have had to pass examinations to progress from one grade to the next- which I appreciate as a parent.
> 
> None of those things were determined by which president was in office- the same fortune would hopefully (or not) have occurred under a Gore or Kerry administration.  That's because life is partly made of chance, partly determined by one's own efforts and decisions, and mainly determined by the will of God (or fate, if you don't believe in a higher being).  BTW, I in no way believe success indicates that success means one is blessed or good... after all, it rains on the just and the unjust.  Anyone who seriously believes their good- or bad- fortune is determined by who wins a Presidential election has serious issues with self-determination and personal accountability (not suggesting either of you personally suffer from this delusion, but I've met many- Dems and Reps alike- who do).
> ...


- Congress has a very low approval rating, but each Dem congressperson has a very high rating.  Plus, the Dems are expected to gain seats in the House, not lose some.

- You want the tax cuts to stay permanent, even without any way of paying for them, but you are against Obama's tax cuts that have a payment method?  You kidding me?  Lets give the tax cuts to people who will actually generate the economy.  Why is it that the companies who are moving their operations off shore (even with tax cuts, and they would do it with zero taxes) get tax cuts.  Or why is it that Exxon, who took record profits in a struggling economy by raising prices on the backs of Bob the Optician deserve these tax cuts?  Lets put the money into the consumers so they can determine where it can go, and create jobs through it.  Not big business who has been jerking around Bob the Optician (and yes, I am a capitialist and am very pro-business.  But I am also pro-smart economy).

----------


## Steve Machol

> Actually Steve, if my taxes had to be higher to pay for the war and the war only, I would be willing to pay more.  I think that when it comes to taxes most people are willing to pay if its for the right thing.  I don't want to spend on pork projects(either side), growing government(outside what our federal government was orginially designed for), or other unnecessary spending(bailouts, rebates etc).


That's a false choice. We have the option to pay for everything the Government spends or not, including the War. There are many thing we *ALL* don't want our tax dollars spent on. If we go by that criteria alone, the Government would never spend a dime.

 One way of getting around this would be to have a special 'war tax' which would raise revenues for this war only. Are you really saying you would be in favor of being taxed for this war specifically?




> I also was curious why do think republicans hate people(earlier posting)?I don't hate any one, and I doubt any other republicans here do either..what gives


I looked and I do not recall saying the all Republicans 'hate'. I believe there's hate on both sides of the political spectrum, but I do not believe that is indicative of the overall majorities on either side.

What concerns me the most is the inability to have rational discussions on policy differences without resorting to the name-calling and demonizing of the other side.

----------


## Spexvet

> ...I also was curious why do think republicans hate people(earlier posting)?I don't hate any one, and I doubt any other republicans here do either..what gives
> 
> christina


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the conservative attitude seems to be "you made your bed, now lie in it, or pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and fix it yourself". This is not a compassionate or generous philosophy. IMHO, conservatives also want to impose their opinions on others (can't make your own decision regarding abortion, can't marry any gender you want, etc.) - a behavior that I find objectionable. They are also more likely to support war/killing, also not a compassionate position. Economically, they care about getting and keeping "what's theirs", and they would have no problem annihilating beautiful landscapes and cuddly animals to put up a factory and make a quick buck, even if it means the neighbors downstream drink toxic waste with lunch.

But I could be mistaken.

----------


## Johns

> ... and they would have no problem annihilating beautiful landscapes and cuddly animals to put up a factory and make a quick buck, even if it means the neighbors downstream drink toxic waste with lunch.


 

You've got it all wrong.  There's no way I'd let the neighbors downstream drink MY waste water!  I'd bottle it and sell it at a huge profit to the home for handicapped children.

Drink up kiddies!  I've got mine!:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

As for the animals, I'm trying to figure out to use puppy, kitty, and seal pup skins to wallpaper my posh offices overlooking main street. At least I could make a nice cover for my king-sized leather exacutive chair! I like to be comfortable while I look out the window at the pathetic peasants below.

----------


## Spexvet

> You've got it all wrong. There's no way I'd let the neighbors downstream drink MY waste water! I'd bottle it and sell it at a huge profit to the home for handicapped children.
> 
> Drink up kiddies! I've got mine!:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:
> 
> As for the animals, I'm trying to figure out to use puppy, kitty, and seal pup skins to wallpaper my posh offices overlooking main street. At least I could make a nice cover for my king-sized leather exacutive chair! I like to be comfortable while I look out the window at the pathetic peasants below.


 YOU are SOOOOOO lovable!

----------


## LilKim

I think that's why I'm so comfortable in the Libertarian camp. I can't label myself as either Conservative or Liberal, so I label per issue. For instance, on illegal immigration, I'm Conservative. On abortion, I'm moderately Liberal (should be available to all, but limited to first trimester). On death penalty, Conservative. Animal rights, moderately Liberal (I don't support the extremities that groups like PETA and Greenpeace stoop to, in my mind they're just as bad as abortion doctor killers, but I'm 110% for humane treatment of animals and conservation). Gay marriage, Liberal. Gun rights, firmly Conservative. Religion in schools, whatever category "Absolutely NOT" falls in (that's what private schools are for). Helping out the homeless and disabled should be strictly up to charities (there are thousands of them), the government should not be involved in giving hand outs like welfare checks to people who persist in not holding down a job. Food stamps, yes, I think, but that's as far as it should go.  Healthcare, moderate Liberal, but we should be able to choose our providers and coverage, and it should not put undue strain on the budgets of companies to provide this for their employees.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> You've got it all wrong.  There's no way I'd let the neighbors downstream drink MY waste water!  I'd bottle it and sell it at a huge profit to the home for handicapped children.
> 
> Drink up kiddies!  I've got mine!:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:
> 
> As for the animals, I'm trying to figure out to use puppy, kitty, and seal pup skins to wallpaper my posh offices overlooking main street. At least I could make a nice cover for my king-sized leather exacutive chair! I like to be comfortable while I look out the window at the pathetic peasants below.



Pay him no mind folks, he's a character, bless his heart. 
But he beats puppies - he beats puppies with kittens!
:D

<Jon Reep mode off>

----------


## Leo Hadley Jr

> I think that's why I'm so comfortable in the Libertarian camp. I can't label myself as either Conservative or Liberal, so I label per issue. For instance, on illegal immigration, I'm Conservative. On abortion, I'm moderately Liberal (should be available to all, but limited to first trimester). On death penalty, Conservative. Animal rights, moderately Liberal (I don't support the extremities that groups like PETA and Greenpeace stoop to, in my mind they're just as bad as abortion doctor killers, but I'm 110% for humane treatment of animals and conservation). Gay marriage, Liberal. Gun rights, firmly Conservative. Religion in schools, whatever category "Absolutely NOT" falls in (that's what private schools are for). Helping out the homeless and disabled should be strictly up to charities (there are thousands of them), the government should not be involved in giving hand outs like welfare checks to people who persist in not holding down a job. Food stamps, yes, I think, but that's as far as it should go. Healthcare, moderate Liberal, but we should be able to choose our providers and coverage, and it should not put undue strain on the budgets of companies to provide this for their employees.


This is exactly why I am registered non partisan. The two party system we have is long outdated and under media control. Until we have other options I am afraid we will never have real change.
For now I will just label myself a left wing conservative:D

----------


## Pete Hanlin

You want the tax cuts to stay permanent, even without any way of paying for them, but you are against Obama's tax cuts that have a payment method? 
I believe the current level of taxation is sufficient to cover the expenses of a reasonably scoped federal government.

Obama's tax cuts have a payment method?  Perhaps you'd like to educate me on that one (based on previous posts, I believe you have to be too intelligent to believe he can get that money by increasing taxation of the top 5% of earners- or even through increases in corporate taxation).  My original point was- given my current income and the amount Sen. Obama is "promising" me in tax cuts, there is absolutely no way he can fund his promises without absolutely ballooning the deficit.  Just like any other politician, Obama is trying to "buy" votes with promised tax cuts which have absolutely 0% chance of occurring.  I think McCain's proposals have me paying about the same in taxes- which is perfectly fine by me.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the conservative attitude seems to be "you made your bed, now lie in it, or pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and fix it yourself". This is not a compassionate or generous philosophy. IMHO, conservatives also want to impose their opinions on others (can't make your own decision regarding abortion, can't marry any gender you want, etc.) - a behavior that I find objectionable. They are also more likely to support war/killing, also not a compassionate position. Economically, they care about getting and keeping "what's theirs", and they would have no problem annihilating beautiful landscapes and cuddly animals to put up a factory and make a quick buck, even if it means the neighbors downstream drink toxic waste with lunch.  But I could be mistaken. 
You are wrong (you asked for correction in that event).  Thank you for once again demonstrating how sanctimonious and incapable of rational perspective liberals can be (although the last sentence in your diatribe makes me wonder if you are truly a liberal- perhaps there is hope for you yet :^).

Most of the world has never paid the USA for World War 2. As such that would mean that my generation is footing that bill. Im proud to do so. 
If I recall correctly, Sweden is the only nation to completely repay their WWII debt to the US.  One could argue, however, that the US financing of WWII was truly done out of self-interest (especially given our reluctance to enter that conflict).
As I recall (although it seems conveniently forgotten), a lot of Democrats voted in favor of the war in Iraq- don't seem to recall ANYONE making a motion to increase taxation to pay the bill (which isn't an entirely bad idea).

Please read the quote in my sig from that famous 'socialist' Adam Smith. 
Fine- even if I concede that taxation should be progressive, it ALREADY IS!  The top 5% of earners pay about 5% of total taxes- so it would seem to be in pretty good proportion already.  Contrary to what everyone seems to want to believe, rich people do pay taxes.  Like everyone else in this country, they seek to pay as few taxes as possible.

As for the 'Socialist' argument against Obama that is utter nonsense.
Not buying the "utter nonsense."  Sen. Obama himself has uttered too many statements that indicate he is somewhat aligned from a philosophical perspective with the idea of socialism.  I do believe it is nonsense to apply this term to Sen. Clinton (she is a capitalist- she just wants to use the profits of capitalism to fund a few socialistic ends).  Obama, however, seems to buy into the means of socialism as well.
Even if we disagree on the terminology, I would hope everyone is objective enough to agree that Sen. Obama is far further left than he has been allowed to portray himself.

Anyway, we'll get a chance to see him- and a Democrat controlled congress- in action for at least 2 years.  When you start blaming his failures on "Bush screwing up the country," (talk about nonsense) I'll be right here to be a reality check.

Go vote tomorrow (even you, Spexvet)!

----------


## Spexvet

Pete, do you believe that the country benefits from having a strong middle class?

----------


## Spexvet

> ...You are wrong ...


Cite.

----------


## Spexvet

Almost forgot.... repubicans want to allow employers to pay women less than they pay men for doing the same work.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> As for the animals, I'm trying to figure out to use puppy, kitty, and seal pup skins to wallpaper my posh offices overlooking main street. At least I could make a nice cover for my king-sized leather exacutive chair! I like to be comfortable while I look out the window at the pathetic peasants below.


Johns, is this one of yours?

----------


## For-Life

> You want the tax cuts to stay permanent, even without any way of paying for them, but you are against Obama's tax cuts that have a payment method? 
> I believe the current level of taxation is sufficient to cover the expenses of a reasonably scoped federal government.


Using the following link, I have found the percentage break of income distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

Now, I am going to do some playing around with numbers here.  So if there is something that you do not think is fair, let me know.  Some are fact, some are assumptive.  

There are 166,011,000 households in the US.

1,325,000 make between $200k to $249k
1,699,000 make over $250k

The rest (112,987,000) make less than $200k.


So, we can use that to make our basis.  The problem, the assumptive part, is out of those who make above $250k, how many make millions and how many make billions?  So I took a very weak assumption that lets say 20,000 make exactly $1 million, 5000 make exactly $500 million, and 500 people make exactly $1 billion.  I will also assume that exactly 1,325,000 people make exactly $200k and 1,673,500 (1,699,000 - 20,000 - 5000- 250) make $250k.  Now lets do the math:

1,325,000 * 200,000 * 0.03 = $7.95 million
1,673,500 * 250,000 * 0.03 = $12.5 million
20,000 * 1,000,000 * 0.03 = $600 million
5000 * 500,000,000 * 0.03 = $75 billion
500 * 1,000,000,000 * 0.03 = $15 billion

total = $111 billion.  

Take that $111 billion and spread it among the remaining 112,987,000 households, and you get around $980 a household.


So you see, this plan really can pay for itself.

----------


## For-Life

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/29/news...ion=2008110316

Nice little article comparing tax breaks.

It shows that with McCain's plan, the higher the income, the higher the income tax break (and with no way to pay for it).  Yes folks, that means Bob the Optician will receive a smaller percent tax break than Paris Hilton.  I guess she earned her money harder than all of us.

----------


## LilKim

Hey now, it's hard work opening up fashion boutiques and attending movie premiers!  lol

----------


## Bill West

> I'd like to make a salient point that hasn't been raised as of yet. McCain and Palin have been touting the latest anti-Obama catchphrase, "Obama the Wealth Spreader". Yet, she set things up in Alaska so that every state citizen receives a hefty check in the mail from oil profits made that year from the state pipelines.
> 
> HOW IS THAT NOT SOCIALISM??? 
> 
> How convenient that people will look the other way when they benefit from something they're supposed to be fundamentally opposed to, yet blather on about it and make it a huge issue when it comes to the healthcare and tax plans being pushed by their opposing candidate?
> 
> There's even a name for it, it's called HYPOCRISY.


Gov. Palin DID NOT start dividing the oil money. My son was in Alaska four years with the Air Force in the early nineties and they were recieving it then, about $ 1100 to $ 1500 per person. He loved it.
Always know the facts.:finger:

----------


## Johns

> So you see, this plan really can pay for itself.


\

Sorry, it won't work.

I'm not working to supoprt it.

I'll be home sitting on the couch, drinking Old Style beer, waiting for my check to come!

----------


## Happylady

> Fine- even if I concede that taxation should be progressive, it ALREADY IS! The top 5% of earners pay about 5% of total taxes- so it would seem to be in pretty good proportion already. Contrary to what everyone seems to want to believe, rich people do pay taxes.


Actually, the top 5% pay about 60% of the federal taxes.

----------


## Spexvet

> Actually, the top 5% pay about 60% of the federal taxes.


 What percent of their own income do they really end up paying?

----------


## Grubendol

The 700 richest individuals increased their net worth by $798 BILLION over the last 8 years.  They now have over $1 TRILLION in income annually.  ANNUALLY.

  Do they really need the tax cuts?

----------


## For-Life

> \
> 
> Sorry, it won't work.
> 
> I'm not working to supoprt it.
> 
> I'll be home sitting on the couch, drinking Old Style beer, waiting for my check to come!


why would you give up $40k to $60k for a few hundred dollars?

----------


## Johns

> why would you give up $40k to $60k for a few hundred dollars?


Don't even try resorting to logic with me.  I'm trying to go with the program!:bbg:

----------


## For-Life

> Don't even try resorting to logic with me.  I'm trying to go with the program!:bbg:



ok

----------


## Grubendol

and on the non-economic front, the Active Military has been donating to the Obama campaign at a rate of 6 to 1 vs. McCain.

Speaks volumes.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> The 700 richest individuals increased their net worth by $798 BILLION over the last 8 years. They now have over $1 TRILLION in income annually. ANNUALLY.
> 
> Do they really need the tax cuts?


Should that 1 trillion be net worth, not income?

----------


## Grubendol

I wish, but no.  It's income.

EDIT:
I apologize, I got it wrong...Remembered the facts BACKWARDS:




> * 	  	 Richest 400 people in U.S. increased their wealth by $670 billion under GWB 	     * 
> 
>        	          	       I took this whole section (below) from Senator Sanders's article in the Huffington Post. I can't even add anything - the numbers are so shocking, I'm just speechless:
> 
> The middle class has really been under assault. Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over $9.7 trillion dollars.
> While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.
> Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied about our situation by continually insisting, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," the Bush administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on a bailout. The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush's policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> I wish, but no. It's income.


Must be a few plumbers in that mix.;)

----------


## For-Life

> Should that 1 trillion be net worth, not income?


$30 billion extra to pay for Bob the Optician's must deserved tax cut.

----------


## bob_f_aboc

I agree completely!!












I am Bob the optician and I approve this message!

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> I agree completely!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You should have a TV show. You could call it The Bob Factor.:D

----------


## bob_f_aboc

> You should have a TV show. You could call it The Bob Factor.:D


You know that puns are the lowest form of humor.






I LOVE IT!!!!

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> You know that puns are the lowest form of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I LOVE IT!!!!


I personally like the 2/3 pun - just the P U part.

----------

