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.
Thr problem with all this is the people who have their hand out are supporting Obama in hopes of getting even more than they get now.
I have had people tell me this.
People do not want to talk about it though because it makes them look bad! But it is the truth all the economists have said raising taxes is very very bad in this point in time and will virtually shut everything down as above posters have also indicated.
There will be a severe trickle down affect that these people with their hands out do not understand!
First of all the entire thread is ridiculous, the deal doesn't get closed until the voters walk into the voting booth and push, pull or mark their ballots. As I pointed out Hillary tried to prematurely make the same argument only to discover at the end of voting that the deal had indeed been closed.
Of course, the argument once again puts the double standards raging during this election cycle squarely in the for. Using the current use of "closing the deal,' what deal did Bush close, the Supreme Court?
As for the issue about "playing the race card" anyone who is naive or, just plain ignorant (based upon very clear polling data) race is indeed playing a roll in this election both in support and in opposition to Obama's candidacy. Pointing out that there is a sizable percentage of Americans who won't or are reluctant to support Obama due to his race has to be part of any objective discussion.
This thread is ridiculous but threads with 6+ pages on boobs,ones about working mothers,etc. aren't? There are many of us out here-of all races- who believe that 38% of US households paying no income taxes is what is ridiculous. Having a potential of 50% of US households paying no income taxes is much worse.
I am neither naive nor ignorant. I am also neither a McCain nor an Obama supporter. This article was about taxes not about race. There are people who will vote for Obama because he is black and there will be people who vote against Obama because he is black. I disagree that every "objective" discussion has to include race. There are discussions where it is appropriate but not this one about income taxes. However- I guess the same people who constantly have to interject race into every post-even one about income taxes are doing it for a purpose. That way if Obama loses-it can be blamed on our "racist" society. Is that the reason? I really would like to know. If not then why?
The question should be, if McCain has all this experience, then why isn't he in the lead. I'm going to start a new thread with this question.
Because Obama is another slick willy. Also remember he was a teacher he has learned how to give the right look tone to make what he is saying more important than it really is along with the smirk he has.
Because Obama is another slick willy. Also remember he was a teacher he has learned how to give the right look tone to make what he is saying more important than it really is along with the smirk he has.
"Slick Willy." What is McCain? He's been on the Hill for 150 years. What does that make him? "Rusted Dust"
Status:
"Summer, my time of year"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
9,414 posts, read 20,969,523 times
Reputation: 10085
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorback_06
"Slick Willy." What is McCain? He's been on the Hill for 150 years. What does that make him? "Rusted Dust"
I believe the three oldest and longest serving members of the Senate are Democrats. Two of them (Kennedy and Lautenberg) are to the left of Bernie Sanders, who is a Socialist.
Within this op-ed piece lies the central component to this campaign and all others:
"Mr. Obama has proposed a massive tax increase on investors, business owners, and the "wealthy." At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy.
Moreover, Mr. Obama's tax plans would directly or indirectly harm U.S. investors by raising the capital gains and dividend taxes. More than half of U.S. households are equity owners, so Mr. Obama's proposal risks alienating half the population.
Mr. Obama claims to offer a tax cut to moderate-income families, but a significant portion of Mr. Obama's tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.
How so? He would authorize a hodgepodge of refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.
About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.bold for emphasis
We have been repeatedly told that everyone should pay their fair share. So this sounds grossly unfair and like a return of tax-and-spend liberal economics."
Herein lies the central issue. Forget about Palin being fit to be vice President, always keep focus on 'who gets what'. Money taken from those who earn it and then used to build the government social welfare state robs people of their independence. Democrats love this scenario. They want you to be dependent on government. To do that they need to take your money and use it to grow the federal welfare state. This is why Democrats just love the idea of tax increases.
To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share" resonates well with their voter base. Playing to wealth envy will always earn votes, but nothing earns votes quite like dependence on government. Creating that dependence, though, is an expensive proposition. To cover the tab the Democrats have to drain every penny from your pocket that they can, right up to the point that you decide it's time to revolt. And therein lies why Obama can not close the sale. There is still a sizeable portion of our population that does not want their taxes raised any higher. The Democrats, however, have an ulterior motive, an 'end game', if you will. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts, and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich. Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress. And with Obama buttressing this perspective 110th congress, the sky will be the limit.
Interesting Post mike0421. I have a question.
What time period in US history was the most fiscally sound and created the most growth and jobs, and reduced the welfare rolls the greatest? Does Senator Obama's proposals mirror that of any of one or multiple time periods when this was achieved? I'm curious because the Senator has had high level meetings with some of the Nation's premiere business and economic leaders, and in fact did not finalize his policy position until after those meetings.
Status:
"Summer, my time of year"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
9,414 posts, read 20,969,523 times
Reputation: 10085
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Interesting Post mike0421. I have a question.
What time period in US history was the most fiscally sound and created the most growth and jobs, and reduced the welfare rolls the greatest? Does Senator Obama's proposals mirror that of any of one or multiple time periods when this was achieved? I'm curious because the Senator has had high level meetings with some of the Nation's premiere business and economic leaders, and in fact did not finalize his policy position until after those meetings.
Please let me know if I am off topic.
I can think of three in the last 50 years: 1952-1956, 1983-1987, and 1995-2000.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,568,784 times
Reputation: 2038
[quote=runswithscissors;5109290]Go watch Renee Amoore Dep Chairman of the GOP in PA. She just gave a news conference so you'll find it on Utube.
WOW she's black.
And she's pretty mad. Never mess with a strong proud black woman, especially when shes a REPUBLICAN.
"We're not gonna take it. We will get with you when you keep messin with us" [/QUOTE
Seems the Republicans think that if we don't talk about race at all, well, we will look like the ones who aren't racists since we aren't talking about it. The democrats are.
What twisted logic, again, and it is a top reason why Obama is not exactly handing McCain's ass to him like he should (Obamas race). Anyone who does not believe that at all is just a fool.
Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, Rove talking about McCains "brown child out of wedlock", what party has at least 5 times the racism?
Of course I know there are a few black republicans. Why they would go against a party that treats them like near dirt and appeals to racists is beyond me.
Last edited by beenhereandthere; 09-03-2008 at 02:18 PM..
Reason: additional point
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.
I have a question. or two:)
