Two new polls show a dead heat in Colorado Senate race (voters, Democrats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's pretty amazing... I always thought Colorado was a Big Blue State... but to be tied? The dems must be hurting pretty bad over there... Dems always "allege" something with an election... do we need another "hanging chad"? Please... move on, stop being sore losers... I would be amaze if the Dems kept quiet and stop whining...
That's pretty amazing... I always thought Colorado was a Big Blue State... but to be tied? The dems must be hurting pretty bad over there... Dems always "allege" something with an election... do we need another "hanging chad"? Please... move on, stop being sore losers... I would be amaze if the Dems kept quiet and stop whining...
Colorado is "purple", leans conservative. Since I moved here in 1980, I think Obama, maybe Clinton one time, won the presidential race. Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Dole, Bush II, Bush II. We also have a very independent electorate. Are campaign finance laws not to be enforced if the Repubs violate them?
That's pretty amazing... I always thought Colorado was a Big Blue State... but to be tied? The dems must be hurting pretty bad over there... Dems always "allege" something with an election... do we need another "hanging chad"? Please... move on, stop being sore losers... I would be amaze if the Dems kept quiet and stop whining...
Colorado actually for the most part was a GOP leaning state, it has become more of a swing state recently because of the Denver suburbs trending Democratic. The GOP was actually leading in the polls in Colorado pretty much since the Spring if not before, not anymore.
Rasmussen showing Buck up, 48-44. Rasmussen does not release cross tabs to the public, so no way of knowing the party breakdown. Poll was conduced on 10/25
CNN Time, Buck up 47-46, doesn't list Party ID, but shows breakout, seems almost even doing the math. Bennett is up 49-44 among RV. Poll conducted 10/20-10/26
Buck will probably take it. the negative adds on the radio especally here in SW CO have had a real impact on people with brains and has backfired big time.they are trying to make the fair tax look like an added tax instead of getting rid of the IRS and replacing it. people in CO are not stupid and are not buying it
Buck will probably take it. the negative adds on the radio especally here in SW CO have had a real impact on people with brains and has backfired big time.they are trying to make the fair tax look like an added tax instead of getting rid of the IRS and replacing it. people in CO are not stupid and are not buying it
you know I can't understand why so many don't understand or don't want to understand both the "fair tax" and the partial contribution of workers SS into private investments? Both are ideas to be dealt with and studied.
you know I can't understand why so many don't understand or don't want to understand both the "fair tax" and the partial contribution of workers SS into private investments? Both are ideas to be dealt with and studied.
Nita
The "fair" tax would be a MASSIVE tax increase on the working class and the middle class, especially those with families.
as far as partial private investments in social security, that kind of takes out the security portion doesn't it??
The "fair" tax would be a MASSIVE tax increase on the working class and the middle class, especially those with families.
as far as partial private investments in social security, that kind of takes out the security portion doesn't it??
But it does give people choices on how to invest and most are not saying "take all your SS insurance contibutions and invest" they are saying more like 2 to 5%. Right now we all know with the baby boomers now entering the retirement stage and fewer people continueing to contribute, something has to be done, plus I wish I would have had the option. I don't think this should be forced on anyone, but I do think it should be an alternative, just like 401Ks.
As for the flat tax, I know what you are saying, but you know as well as I do there would be some that would be given rebates at the end of the year or in some form not pay exactly as much, plus the more money one makes, normally the more they spend, whether it be on food, gadgets, vacations, cars whatever or it should be that way. Maybe people would be a little more frugel if they were paying higher taxes on everything they purchase. Just a thought and I think it should be researched and investigated. I am not saying I agree with the policy, but I do think it merits consideration. I completely agree with the SS investment idea.
But it does give people choices on how to invest and most are not saying "take all your SS insurance contibutions and invest" they are saying more like 2 to 5%. Right now we all know with the baby boomers now entering the retirement stage and fewer people continueing to contribute, something has to be done, plus I wish I would have had the option. I don't think this should be forced on anyone, but I do think it should be an alternative, just like 401Ks.
As for the flat tax, I know what you are saying, but you know as well as I do there would be some that would be given rebates at the end of the year or in some form not pay exactly as much, plus the more money one makes, normally the more they spend, whether it be on food, gadgets, vacations, cars whatever or it should be that way. Maybe people would be a little more frugel if they were paying higher taxes on everything they purchase. Just a thought and I think it should be researched and investigated. I am not saying I agree with the policy, but I do think it merits consideration. I completely agree with the SS investment idea.
Nita
Those who would be not paying as much would be the wealthy. The middle class and working class would pay more.
As someone who has worked in the financial markets (dealt with the Pricing side of Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds) having private investment of social security funds is a poor idea. The system does need to be re-worked, but you shouldn't take the security out of social security or take the safety out of the safety net.
Those who would be not paying as much would be the wealthy. The middle class and working class would pay more.
As someone who has worked in the financial markets (dealt with the Pricing side of Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds) having private investment of social security funds is a poor idea. The system does need to be re-worked, but you shouldn't take the security out of social security or take the safety out of the safety net.
And our son in law, with a masters degree in finance would argue with you on this. Obviously there are people on both sides of the fence. You have your ideas and others disagree.
NIta
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
