Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 7 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 6 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#39810 - 09/16/08 08:21 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: MarcC]
MurphysLaw Offline
gumby

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 2308
Loc: Hudson Valley, NY
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
And once again we have flash, smoke, mirrors, and shiny keys distracting us from the important issues. Feign all the outrage you like, but the McCain campaign loves this crap. As long as we talk about this, or lipstick, or the massive distraction that is Palin, we won't be talking about his cluelessness on the economy, staying in Iraq for decades, the infinitesimal energy gains by drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, or his election being the disastrous equivalent of a 3rd Bush term.


x2.

Sheesh, so much ado about NOTHING.

There are plenty of REAL issues that could be getting discussed, but no, we have this ridiculous nonsense.

IF McSame gets elected (which, frankly, I cannot imagine there being even a remote possibility, but yet, somehow, there actually is), then you who vote for him will get exactly what you deserve.

I still don't understand just how electing an old white Republican man who has been in DC for decades, in any way, shape, or form, represents "change".
_________________________
"Flailing?" "Flail on!"

Top
#39812 - 09/16/08 09:29 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: MurphysLaw]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: MurphysLaw
I still don't understand just how electing an old white Republican man who has been in DC for decades, in any way, shape, or form, represents "change".


Well, one could say just about the same about Biden (though he's not at the top of the ticket). I think it's possible to be in DC for decades and be a force for change; it depends on what policies that person has pushed for.

But I really don't know what has happened to McCain. I used to respect him even when I disagreed with him. Now I think he'll say anything to get elected.

I don't see how he could have opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2003 on the grounds that (1) they weren't paid for and (2) they went mainly to the wealthy, and support them in 2008 when (1) they're still not paid for and (2) they still go mainly to the wealthy. As we've discussed above, we're not paying our bills as a nation, and the response is...more tax cuts? I'm not crazed about Obama's fiscal plans, but at least he's willing to have those of us who have benefited over the past seven years to pay what we were paying under Clinton.

On immigration, McCain says he would now no longer vote for his own bill.

And while some amount of distortion is inherent in every campaign, some of the McCain ads have been truly extreme in their sophistry.

I think the McCain of 2000 might have been a force for change. But--and maybe I'm buying too much into the Obama rhetoric here--the McCain of 2008 doesn't seem to offer much in the way of different policies. Earmarks are an easy target, but they're a drop in the federal budget and don't touch on larger issues such as the economy, the budget, health care, or foreign policy. As Biden said, it's hard to come up with one major policy area where McCain offers anything significantly different from what we have now.

So I don't fault McCain for his longtime service in the Senate; I fault him for his policies. One can prefer McCain's policies to Obama's ("change" doesn't necessarily mean change for the better), but for McCain to present himself as representing some significantly different approach seems pretty ludicrous to me.

Top
#39813 - 09/16/08 10:02 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
You are right about McCain backing down from his previous "I've seen the immigration light, no amnesty" vision. He's a total sell out on that point and said as much this weekend.

The rich get the tax cuts because they pay the taxes, poor people don't. The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96% of the federal taxes. The lowest fifth still got a tax REBATE of $250 because people who make 16,000 pay little to no federal tax. I am against raising taxes. The govt. wastes too much money now heaving it's bloated, over employed self through my life.

I am appalled at the lack of media access of both candiadates. I don't want photo ops, staged speeches, or sound bite(sp?) bilge. Where are the press conferences, with Q&A, for the candidates. Where are the debates? It disgusts me what passes for election "dialogue" in 2008. They should call this the campaign of Dumb and Dumber.

Top
#39814 - 09/16/08 10:40 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
They should call this the campaign of Dumb and Dumber.

Nice summation of McBush/Moose-in-the-headlights Palin
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#39815 - 09/16/08 11:40 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
The rich get the tax cuts because they pay the taxes, poor people don't. The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96% of the federal taxes. The lowest fifth still got a tax REBATE of $250 because people who make 16,000 pay little to no federal tax. I am against raising taxes. The govt. wastes too much money now heaving it's bloated, over employed self through my life.


I have to say I think that argument is a canard. First, the top half of wage earners would pay more than half of income taxes even under a "flat" tax. They're in the top half because, well, they make more. (For instance, the top 10% of wage earners make about 40% of the nation's income, so even under a true flat tax they'd pay 40% of income taxes.) Add a little progressivity (few people think poor people should pay any income taxes) and it's no wonder that the top half pay 96% of income taxes. It's not because the system is so terribly progressive; it's because the very wealthy make a lot more than everyone else, and that gap has gotten much bigger over the past 7 years.

Moreover, the stats usually leave out wage taxes, which apply only to the first $100k of income and so are regressive. And when property taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes are figured in, the entire system comes out pretty flat--which strikes some people as unfair, since it's harder for someone making $20,000 to pay, say $4,000 in taxes than for someone making $200,000 to pay $40,000 in taxes.

Believe me, the wealthy have done quite well. And they'll continue to do well if they pay the rates they paid during the Clinton years (when they also did quite well). Some people argue that the H.W. Bush and Clinton tax hikes helped create the investment climate where everyone benefited because less government debt meant lower interest rates.

 Originally Posted By: alicex4
The govt. wastes too much money now heaving it's bloated, over employed self through my life.


Well, one has to look at programs that would be cut. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and debt service constitute about 2/3rds of the budget. There's not much appetite for cutting any of those programs, so any other cuts would have to be extremely deep to make much of a difference. No one has proposed such cuts.

Sure, there's some waste. But as a percentage of the entire budget, it's not very much (given the recent fiscal problems on Wall Street, one might argue that there's just as much waste and fraud in the private sector). We're not going to get to fiscal responsibility by eliminating earmarks. We have to do something to get our fiscal house in order, and I really don't see the problem in requiring those who have benefited the most to pay a little more.

Top
#39816 - 09/16/08 11:45 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Daniel]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
The funny thing is, the Obama campaign has become the campaign for small government in this election... they're going to go a little more towards fixing the budget balance sheet then McCain will. At the end of the day, we'll be less in the red and therefore the Fed will have more headroom to implement economic stimuls if necessary if their hands aren't tied simply buying up Treasury paper.

Top
#39820 - 09/17/08 02:08 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
You are a socialist, admit it

Top
#39821 - 09/17/08 02:28 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: pedestrian]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
The funny thing is, the Obama campaign has become the campaign for small government in this election... they're going to go a little more towards fixing the budget balance sheet then McCain will. At the end of the day, we'll be less in the red and therefore the Fed will have more headroom to implement economic stimuls if necessary ..


Now with the Feds Taking over AIG (hum #1 insurer in the world)the landscape is looking a lot more dim for either of the two village idiots waiting to take office.

Stimulus was news of 6 months ago, now all they or we can hope to do is prevent world economic chaos. God speed America, this is now truly uncharted waters....

Top
#39824 - 09/17/08 03:26 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
You are a socialist, admit it


Did I say anything that indicates that I want government control over private property? It's convenient to throw the term "socialist" around, but you'd better define what it means instead of just using it as an epithet.

If Bill Clinton wasn't a "socialist" regarding his tax policies, I don't see how I can be since I'm not advocating any higher rates than those that existed during his presidency. And, as I recall, those rates were not serious impediments for solid economic growth that benefited all income groups.

I do believe that we should be willing to pay for the programs we say we want. My position is that one shouldn't let Democrats propose programs without making then explain how they'd pay for it, nor should one let Republicans propose tax cuts without making them explain how they'd pay for it.

And I don't see how that's "socialist" in the slightest.

Top
#39827 - 09/17/08 11:30 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: MarcC]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"Nice summation of McBush/Moose-in-the-headlights Palin"

I was referring to McCain and Obama

Top
Page 6 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored