To Democrats:

[IndyHubby]

Yes

Hmm, let me think. Congress is majority democratic correct? How many vetoes has Bush had to override? I can think of 2. Does that mean that the democrats are doing what Bush wants them to do?

Yes. Think about it. Bush's approval ratings are low because: The Democrates will disapprove regardless of what he does simply because he's a Republican. The Republicans don't like him because he has rolled over for the Democrat spending on social programs. The aren't any real differences in either of the major parties. I don't like McCain because he's too liberal. I don't like Obama because he more socialistic than the USSR was. I don't like most of them because they buy votes from the uninformed by promising to steal income from successful people and give it to people who didn't earn it if they vote for them.

 

[RoSquirts]

Ridiculous. Don't you people pay attention to anything that goes on besides what you're told to think?

Congress is NOT a democratic majority. They have a majority in the House, not in the Senate except in name only and that's because they have Joe Lieberman, an independent, considered a Democrat. However, when it comes time to vote on bills in the Senate, without Republican approval nothing gets passed since a 60 vote majority is required to defeat either filibusters or potential vetoes. Republicans consistently vote in lock step as a bloc, sadly they don't vote their consciences. At least some democrats are able to withstand party pressure, though certainly not all. So the Congress has been essentially stalemated unless Dems concede to Republican demands.
I know this is harder to follow than simple good guy/bad guy politics but it's the way it is.

As for Republicans voting for Democratic social program spending, I think not. The social program spending that has occured has been strictly the result of Republican initiatives over the course of the last 8 years. And, as for stealing income, again I think not. Rolling back taxes on the wealthy to levels that we paid in 2000 is hardly 'stealing'. Bush and republican tax and spend policies of the last 8 years have been disastrous for the economy, the budget deficit and for even properly waging wars, necessary and unnecessary ones. It's kind of funny that when Republicans tax and spend, you still blame it on the Democrats,lol.

The sad fact is that once in power, the Republicans abandoned all fiscal responsibility in a vain attempt to retain power at all cost. Hence, the irresponsible tax breaks and spending like drunken sailors. They became the party trying to be all things to all people.

This socialism attack on Obama is getting very old and tired. Saying he's more socialist than the USSR is about as ridiculous a statement as anyone can make. It just displays ignorance of his platform, socialism and the USSR. If you're not going to vote for Obama because you can only vote Republican because of conditioning, tunnel vision, misguided faith that your party will finally live up to it's ideals or any one of several valid reasons then just say so. You don't need to make shit up or label the other guy as a bogeyman, socialist or antichrist, be honest with yourself.

As for me, I'm still not happy with either one and will probably write-in myself as a protest vote. In this state it will be meaningless either way since Obama is sure to win it.

 

[tileman]

If Jesus was voting, wonder who he would vote for?

 

[RoSquirts]

You're right, will, there are a handful of Republicans that do stray from the party line at times. I guess my hyperbole got the best of me,lol.

 

[IndyHubby]

Ridiculous. Don't you people pay attention to anything that goes on besides what you're told to think?

Congress is NOT a democratic majority. They have a majority in the House, not in the Senate except in name only and that's because they have Joe Lieberman, an independent, considered a Democrat. However, when it comes time to vote on bills in the Senate, without Republican approval nothing gets passed since a 60 vote majority is required to defeat either filibusters or potential vetoes. Republicans consistently vote in lock step as a bloc, sadly they don't vote their consciences. At least some democrats are able to withstand party pressure, though certainly not all. So the Congress has been essentially stalemated unless Dems concede to Republican demands.
I know this is harder to follow than simple good guy/bad guy politics but it's the way it is.

Republicans are left and the Democrats are "lefter". I stated that I disagree with both. The reason the Republicans lost in 06 was because they were no different than the Dems. The Democrats have controlled the legislature for something like 42 of the past 50 years. Since the Dems have majority control, they chair and have majority on the committees. Nothing gets out of committee and to the floor unless they let it.

As for Republicans voting for Democratic social program spending, I think not. The social program spending that has occured has been strictly the result of Republican initiatives over the course of the last 8 years. And, as for stealing income, again I think not. Rolling back taxes on the wealthy to levels that we paid in 2000 is hardly 'stealing'. Bush and republican tax and spend policies of the last 8 years have been disastrous for the economy, the budget deficit and for even properly waging wars, necessary and unnecessary ones. It's kind of funny that when Republicans tax and spend, you still blame it on the Democrats,lol.

I say again, the reason the Republicans were voted in was because they promised to be more fiscally responsible. The reason they were voted out was because they broke their promises and spent just like Democrats. I do not blame it just on Democrats. I blame it on both.

The sad fact is that once in power, the Republicans abandoned all fiscal responsibility in a vain attempt to retain power at all cost. Hence, the irresponsible tax breaks and spending like drunken sailors. They became the party trying to be all things to all people.

I disagree with you on the tax breaks but agree with you on the spending. There is something wrong when half the population pays all but 3% of the taxes. I'm a proponent of a flat tax or the Fair Tax proposed by Neil Boortz.

This socialism attack on Obama is getting very old and tired. Saying he's more socialist than the USSR is about as ridiculous a statement as anyone can make. It just displays ignorance of his platform, socialism and the USSR. If you're not going to vote for Obama because you can only vote Republican because of conditioning, tunnel vision, misguided faith that your party will finally live up to it's ideals or any one of several valid reasons then just say so. You don't need to make shit up or label the other guy as a bogeyman, socialist or antichrist, be honest with yourself.

Let see...
Mentor number 1. Frank Marshal Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities. In fact, Davis was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, according to the 1953 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities of the Territory of Hawaii, which labeled him "a bitter opponent of capitalism.

Inspiration No. 1. Sen. Obama was trained by Chicago's Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky's strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote.


Mentor 2. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preaches a militant radicalized version of Black Liberation Theology, which was founded by James H Cone.

Mentor 3. Alice Palmer, was an executive board member of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a communist front group, an affiliate of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front group. In 1995, Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well-known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, former members of the terrorist Weather Underground.


Endorsements: Fidel Castro in the spring wrote in the state newspaper Granma that Obama is "the most progressive candidate for the U.S. presidency."

Mark Solomon, the national co-chair of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, wrote in a virtual endorsement in February that Obama "is an attractive, articulate and talented politician" whose "campaign has sparked a powerful surge." This group, which branched off from the Communist Party USA in 1991, organized the October 2002 rally in which Obama criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq — while still serving as a state senator in Illinois. The ties between Obama and the committees go back years.

Across the Atlantic, the Party of European Socialists also has given its blessing. President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen says that "Obama is the choice for change and renewal. He gives hope to millions of Americans and Europeans for a fairer world. . . . Progressive Europeans are united in hope that Barack Obama will be the new president following the U.S. elections."


Obama also was endorsed in his 1995 election by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist group in the U.S. While the name might sound benign, the DSA has a poisonous agenda. Its goal is to establish "an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics" and is committed to "restructuring society."


Communists, Marxists and socialist groups usually reserve their endorsements and support for fringe candidates, not someone from a major party. That's not the case this time around. They seem to have their man.

As for me, I'm still not happy with either one and will probably write-in myself as a protest vote. In this state it will be meaningless either way since Obama is sure to win it.

I'm not happy with either as well. I am actually a Libertarian. That means fiscally, I'm far to the right and socially, I'm far left. It means I believe people should be free to make their own choices. If you feel you are at a disadvantage, it's your responsibility to pick yourself up. The federal government's primary function is to protect our borders and our rights. Most social programs are simply tools used to buy votes by encouraging class envy and promising to redistribute income.

Obama is one of many who pose dangerous threats to our freedom.

Also, in my past life was I one of the soldiers who performed border patrol on the east/west German border. We rescued those who "made it across". I saw it before the wall came down. I know socialism far more intimately than you could ever imagine. Economic Justice as described by Obama is pure socialism. Socialism is not as benign as our children are being taught.

 

[handigrl]

Nine days till Election day, and mysteriously the US attacks Syria.
I had thought that Bushy would be heating things up before the Election in an effort to help out his buddy John.

 

[RoSquirts]

Republicans are left and the Democrats are "lefter". I stated that I disagree with both. The reason the Republicans lost in 06 was because they were no different than the Dems. The Democrats have controlled the legislature for something like 42 of the past 50 years. Since the Dems have majority control, they chair and have majority on the committees. Nothing gets out of committee and to the floor unless they let it.

I'm perfectly aware of how committees work, but bills that will be filibustered and/or vetoed will not get to a vote if the the Republicans are against it and the 60 vote majority can not be reached. Committees have almost nothing to do with that, lol. But that's OK, just ignore my points and go on spewing.

Incidentally, your 42 out of 50 is quite wrong especially since Republicans had control of Congress from 1994 until 2006 and that's 12 years out of the last 14 by itself.

I say again, the reason the Republicans were voted in was because they promised to be more fiscally responsible. The reason they were voted out was because they broke their promises and spent just like Democrats. I do not blame it just on Democrats. I blame it on both.

It's funny that when the Republicans follow a policy of don't tax and spend then they're spending 'like Democrats'. Unfortunately the fact remains that they irresponsibly increased spending dramatically, reduced taxes dramatically and increased the size of government dramatically.

They did this as republicans not 'like democrats'.

I disagree with you on the tax breaks but agree with you on the spending. There is something wrong when half the population pays all but 3% of the taxes. I'm a proponent of a flat tax or the Fair Tax proposed by Neil Boortz.

Well, you might disagree with one but not the other, fine. However, you can't properly budget without considering both. So if you want tax break, you have to cut spending, simple math. Something this administration and the party in power dicided against to buy votes.

Flat tax is a non-starter. To ask the 50% of the population that makes 32k or less a year to pay 17 -25% in taxes is irresponsible and would radically increase their taxes. I'm sure you're against Obama raising taxes on the wealthy but you're OK with raising them on the poor ?? There's something wrong with that picture. I will admit that I don't know much about the 'Fair Tx' but it sure sounds like a national sales tax to me. Again that would be raising the effective tax rate of the not so fortunate and decreasing it radically for the wealthy. Another non-starter.

Let see...
Mentor number 1. etc etc.

Not one mention of platforms, statements, quotes anything actually said or done by Obama that indicates he's a socialist just more guilt by association, a weak argument at best.
Is McCain a communist because his former captors and chief interogator spoke with him about politics for most of McCain's captivity? I think not. Is McCain a radical liberal lefty because Kennedy is one of his good friends in the senate or because he worked with him on joint legislation?

Still no mention of facts that back up any assertion that Obama is a socialist or plans to have government take over private business.

I'm not happy with either as well. I am actually a Libertarian. That means fiscally, I'm far to the right and socially, I'm far left. It means I believe people should be free to make their own choices. If you feel you are at a disadvantage, it's your responsibility to pick yourself up. The federal government's primary function is to protect our borders and our rights. Most social programs are simply tools used to buy votes by encouraging class envy and promising to redistribute income.

It's funny how all the so-called 'libertarians' and 'strict' constitutionalists seem to have a shorter constitution than the one I read and was signed by the founding fathers.

MIne reads "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

Promoting the general welfare just never seems to enter the Libertarian play book. That book always ends at the word 'defense'

Also, in my past life was I one of the soldiers who performed border patrol on the east/west German border. We rescued those who "made it across". I saw it before the wall came down. I know socialism far more intimately than you could ever imagine. Economic Justice as described by Obama is pure socialism. Socialism is not as benign as our children are being taught

LOL, your service on the German border is as relevant to understanding socialism as McCain being a fighter pilot during the Cuban Missile Crisis makes him suited to handle a major crisis as President. Do the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan understand terrorism or Islam because they're fighting Islamic radicals?

The economic justice of Obama that you call 'pure socialism' is not even close to being pure socialism. Do you consider it unfair or really believe in supply-side economics? I could buy those arguments although disagree with them.

But you apparently have NO understanding of socialism, pure or not. If you did, you wouldn't make such a patently false inflammatory statement.

 

[incher]

So another kool-aid drinker shows up to support obamy LMMFAO

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

forget the probs for a bit

lol...in the meantime the starter of this thread won't forget what's really important in life....
Syria lol

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

So another kool-aid drinker shows up to support obamy LMMFAO

oh that's right go racial.... that'll fix things

 

[IndyHubby]

Finally had time to address this..

Incidentally, your 42 out of 50 is quite wrong especially since Republicans had control of Congress from 1994 until 2006 and that's 12 years out of the last 14 by itself.

Oops.. 42 of 54 and during 4 of those years the houses were divided. Point stands.

It's funny that when the Republicans follow a policy of don't tax and spend then they're spending 'like Democrats'. Unfortunately the fact remains that they irresponsibly increased spending dramatically, reduced taxes dramatically and increased the size of government dramatically.

They did this as republicans not 'like democrats'.

Mandatory spending comprises 58% of the federal budget and has grown 759% since 1965. Discretionary spending comprises 42% of the budget and has grown 152% since 1965. The bulk of the growth in federal spending has be due to social programs which run on autopilot. The war in Iraq increased military expendatures from 3% of GDP to 4%. Expendatures have increased uniformly under both dems and reps. The spending increases have accerlerated during the past 2 years but that's not an issue. I stand by Republicans spent like Democrats. That infers "social" spending.

Well, you might disagree with one but not the other, fine. However, you can't properly budget without considering both. So if you want tax break, you have to cut spending, simple math. Something this administration and the party in power dicided against to buy votes.

Revenue as a percent of GDP has remained a constant regardless of tax rates. Top rate in 1960 was 91%. Revenue as pct of GDP was 7.9%. Top tax rate dropped to 28% in 1998, rev as pct of GDP was 8%. Increased to 39.6% during Clinton, rev as pct of GDP 8%. Drop to 35% in 2003, rev as pct of GDP 7.7% and in 2007 it was 8.5%. Tax revenue in dollars was declining and began increasing following tax cuts in 2003, peaked in 2006 and is off slightly but up over 25% since 2003. TAX CUTS DO NOT REDUCE FEDERAL REVENUE AND TAX INCREASES DO NOT INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUE. Social spending by BOTH parties is our problem.

Flat tax is a non-starter. To ask the 50% of the population that makes 32k or less a year to pay 17 -25% in taxes is irresponsible and would radically increase their taxes. I'm sure you're against Obama raising taxes on the wealthy but you're OK with raising them on the poor ?? There's something wrong with that picture. I will admit that I don't know much about the 'Fair Tx' but it sure sounds like a national sales tax to me. Again that would be raising the effective tax rate of the not so fortunate and decreasing it radically for the wealthy. Another non-starter.

Believing that one person should pay a geater percent of income because he or she earns more is socialism. Either you think that's OK or you don't. The more OK you think it is, the more freedom to improve you financial condition you are willing to sacrifice. If people pay no income tax and get "earned income credit" that's unfair redistribution of income.
Read "The Fair Tax".

Not one mention of platforms, statements, quotes anything actually said or done by Obama that indicates he's a socialist just more guilt by association, a weak argument at best.
Is McCain a communist because his former captors and chief interogator spoke with him about politics for most of McCain's captivity? I think not. Is McCain a radical liberal lefty because Kennedy is one of his good friends in the senate or because he worked with him on joint legislation?

Still no mention of facts that back up any assertion that Obama is a socialist or plans to have government take over private business.

I gave you enough names and information to get the rest of the facts if you wanted them. Obviously you would rather pretend it doesn't matter. I don't have any friends who belonged to terrorist organizations and place bombs in my country. I don't have any friends who belonged to a socialist group funded by the USSR. I didn't work for a Saul Alinsky group or teach his socialistic theories in college. I never taught people how to disrupt businesses to force them to make unsound loans. I would not sit in a church for 500 sermans from someone who expoused the vile garbage of Rev Wright. If all of that is OK with you, then I cannot appeal to your values because they are foreign to all that I cherish.

It's funny how all the so-called 'libertarians' and 'strict' constitutionalists seem to have a shorter constitution than the one I read and was signed by the founding fathers.

MIne reads "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

Promoting the general welfare just never seems to enter the Libertarian play book. That book always ends at the word 'defense'

And I don't see anything in there about redistribution of income. "Promoting the general welfare" is not referring to redistribution of income. Reading the federalist papers might help you and many others understand all of this better. It's equal opportunity, not equal results.

LOL, your service on the German border is as relevant to understanding socialism as McCain being a fighter pilot during the Cuban Missile Crisis makes him suited to handle a major crisis as President. Do the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan understand terrorism or Islam because they're fighting Islamic radicals?

The economic justice of Obama that you call 'pure socialism' is not even close to being pure socialism. Do you consider it unfair or really believe in supply-side economics? I could buy those arguments although disagree with them.

But you apparently have NO understanding of socialism, pure or not. If you did, you wouldn't make such a patently false inflammatory statement.

This statement acutally made me angry until I considered the limits of your knowledge and experience. You see, living, working, talking with, the people enables you to understand the effects of socialism. Seeing both sides of the border, ours with open fields and theirs with machine guns, razor wire, minefields, anti-vehicle ditches etc. all built to prevent escape is an education you'll never get.

And I've not been to Iraq but I have friend who have, and I'm sure they "get it" much more that what you learn from our liberal press. My friend who served as a civilian advisor to the Afgan army relates how the press is clueless and how poorly they are regarded.


I know socialism. I've witnessed it. You can insult, or take a haughty attitude all you want, but I get it. Apparently you, like many others don't. But you will... It's a slippery slope.

 

[missouri_hubby]

If Jesus was voting, wonder who he would vote for?

Not this guy!=p

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4997/evilniggervc8.jpg

And you thought Halloween was spooky! Just wait till February!

By the way, on the subject of Republicans "cheating," lets not forget the thousands of ballots cast by our men and women in uniform, who vote primarily Republican, by the way, that were thrown out in the last election on a technicality. And CNN reports they're doing it again this time. Wonder if that "technicality" would exist if they voted primarily Democratic? There's enough shit to spread around on both parties.

 

[Thanatos_dh]

The idea that tax rates are irrelevant is incorrect. We do need to decrease spending, but claiming you can arbitrarily set taxes rates is ludicrous.
Greg Mankiw's Blog: Personal Taxes as a Percent of GDP

 

[RoSquirts]

Oops.. 42 of 54 and during 4 of those years the houses were divided. Point stands.

Actually for the second time you ignore my point. You state that democrats have control of congress, we both know that's not true without a 60 vote filibuster or veto proof majority in the senate.

Mandatory spending comprises 58% of the federal budget and has grown 759% since 1965. Discretionary spending comprises 42% of the budget and has grown 152% since 1965. The bulk of the growth in federal spending has be due to social programs which run on autopilot. The war in Iraq increased military expendatures from 3% of GDP to 4%. Expendatures have increased uniformly under both dems and reps. The spending increases have accerlerated during the past 2 years but that's not an issue. I stand by Republicans spent like Democrats. That infers "social" spending.

The growth of 759% of "mandatory spending" since 1965 is a meaningless stat. Choosing 1965 as a start year, the first year of medicaid, is highly selective and designed to skew the rate of growth numbers by its' selection. In addition the 58% of the budget figure reflects interest payments on the national debt which are approximately 8% of the budget.

Growth of discretionary spending of only 152% since 1965 is an interesting fictitious number . Bush and the Republican congress increased discretionary spending in his FIRST TERM ALONE by 40% and at an annualized rate of 8.8% for defense and 7.1% domestic. Entitlements in that same time period (Bush's first term) annualized growth was 4.7% - hardly close to the growth in discretionary spending. At the same time taxes were cut and deficits soared.

Since you like GDP for the defense budget, let's look at deficits as a percentage of GDP. Exorbitant deficits , as expressed as a a percentage of GDP, are almost exclusively a Republican phenomena if the actual figures are read dispassionately - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/b79.xls
My point remains that republicans were and are fiscally irresponsible. As you state, mandatory budget increases are happening, a war is happening, cutting taxes is stupid economics, period.

Revenue as a percent of GDP has remained a constant regardless of tax rates. Top rate in 1960 was 91%. Revenue as pct of GDP was 7.9%. Top tax rate dropped to 28% in 1998, rev as pct of GDP was 8%. Increased to 39.6% during Clinton, rev as pct of GDP 8%. Drop to 35% in 2003, rev as pct of GDP 7.7% and in 2007 it was 8.5%. Tax revenue in dollars was declining and began increasing following tax cuts in 2003, peaked in 2006 and is off slightly but up over 25% since 2003. TAX CUTS DO NOT REDUCE FEDERAL REVENUE AND TAX INCREASES DO NOT INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUE. Social spending by BOTH parties is our problem.

Tax revenue during Reagan's term increased approximately 67% and he supposedly cut taxes and reduced spending, correct?(although , in fact, he reversed his tax cuts in the latter years of his administration in order to raise revenue,lol) During Clinton's term , tax revenue increase by 67% and he raised taxes and balanced the budget at the same time, correct?
Tax revenue increased by only 34.2% during Bush's term, as of 2007, the last year accurate figures are available for and we have a huge deficit and incredible economic problems to show for it. Correct.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

The reverse is also true - TAX CUTS DO NOT INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUE AND TAX INCREASES DO NOT REDUCE FEDERAL REVENUE - of course, the rule of diminishing returns applies. And anytime you radically increase the budget deficit via excessive tax cuts and/or excessive spending, you threaten our economic stability.

Believing that one person should pay a geater percent of income because he or she earns more is socialism. Either you think that's OK or you don't. The more OK you think it is, the more freedom to improve you financial condition you are willing to sacrifice. If people pay no income tax and get "earned income credit" that's unfair redistribution of income.
Read "The Fair Tax".

My financial condition is just fine, thanks,lol
You believe that the progressive tax system that we've used for the past 95 years (since McCain's hero Teddy Roosevelt) is socialism ?? And you believe that Ronald Reagan, who substantially increased the EITA was a socialist also?

And you beleive that a national sales tax is a Fair Tax system?? LOL

I gave you enough names and information to get the rest of the facts if you wanted them. Obviously you would rather pretend it doesn't matter. I don't have any friends who belonged to terrorist organizations and place bombs in my country. I don't have any friends who belonged to a socialist group funded by the USSR. I didn't work for a Saul Alinsky group or teach his socialistic theories in college. I never taught people how to disrupt businesses to force them to make unsound loans. I would not sit in a church for 500 sermans from someone who expoused the vile garbage of Rev Wright. If all of that is OK with you, then I cannot appeal to your values because they are foreign to all that I cherish.

I've read both sides of the stories. You may not beleive this, but I am quite well informed. I guess my acquaintances, business and political associates aren't limited to ones I agree with so I don't think associations define me nor anyone else for that matter. Both candidates have associations that I find distasteful. I mean Cheney just endorsed McCain,lol.

I can't possibly be that judgemental or prejudicial in my opinions of individuals. Should we total up all of a candidates past associations to determine their fitness for office? Should we count McCain's post-war trips to Vietnam as cavorting with socialists and aiding the enemy? It's ridiculous, isn't it? Selective judgement of a candidates qualities based on past associations are ridiculous.
Unless you have evidence that Obama endorses terrorism, hates, America himself, is in fact leading us to socialism, or wants to surrender to Iran, these past associations are just meaningless drivel and scare tactics.

I'm still not voting for either one, but bullshit is still bullshit.

And I don't see anything in there about redistribution of income. "Promoting the general welfare" is not referring to redistribution of income. Reading the federalist papers might help you and many others understand all of this better. It's equal opportunity, not equal results.

Spare me the 'redistribution of income' crap, please. We've been redistributing income in this country for the past century. It's not a new concept initialized by Obama,lol.

And my point remains that so-called Libertarians and strict constitutionalist alway miss the phrase "Promoting the general welfare" when reading the Constitution. I've read much of the Federalist papers and so has the Supreme Court for the past 230 years. I'll go with their interpretation, not one that wants to pretend the less fortunate are all lazy, deserve their fate and as a country or a human being we don't have responsibility to them.

This statement acutally made me angry until I considered the limits of your knowledge and experience. You see, living, working, talking with, the people enables you to understand the effects of socialism. Seeing both sides of the border, ours with open fields and theirs with machine guns, razor wire, minefields, anti-vehicle ditches etc. all built to prevent escape is an education you'll never get.

And I've not been to Iraq but I have friend who have, and I'm sure they "get it" much more that what you learn from our liberal press. My friend who served as a civilian advisor to the Afgan army relates how the press is clueless and how poorly they are regarded.


I know socialism. I've witnessed it. You can insult, or take a haughty attitude all you want, but I get it. Apparently you, like many others don't. But you will... It's a slippery slope.

You have no knowledge of my experiences , travels or whom I know and have gained knowledge from You may have a friend that has been to Iraq, I have sons who have been there. You may have a seen the border of East and West berlin. I have friends that lived on both sides of that wall, in the USSR, and in Poland during the times of communist tyranny. This has no relevance to the presidential campaign,lol.

You didn't witness socialism, you witnessed communist tyranny. Believe me, that doesn't mean I support socialism. I didn't reach my financial status by being a socialist. My point remains that your experience in Berlin has no relevance to the presidential campaign or your ability to spot creeping socialism whether it angers you or not,lol.

I know the diffference between communist tyranny, socialism and the 'slippery slope' threat of a tax cut expiring that McCain vociferously opposed in the first place. I suggest instead of lecturing me on matters you know little of and assuming my life experiences, that you learn the difference between the three.

 

[dough2roll]

choice point? 9 11 wealth redistribution marxist leanings? what the heck has happened to the democratic party ? oh it doesnt exist anymore its been replaced by the national socialist democratic party just like 1930s germany. i am more than ready to elect a black man president just not this black man

 

[RoSquirts]

If there is anything that is deeply troubling about this election it's how little genuine difference there is between McCain and Obama on the "mega" issues of economics....it's much more style and details than it is fundamental differences.

They do have a few fundamental differences, but almost none of that is economic.

It's kinda sad we don't actually have a real choice in what will be done in terms of economic policy (and neither of them are that far from Bush either - tax cuts are not the sum total of economic policy)

It is troubling , Will. Neither one is addressing our short or long term economic problems with anything but pandering for votes. This has to be addressed with spending and tax discipline that require sacrifices of ideology and prioritization of goals. We really need a statesman not a politician for these times and neither candidate offers us anything but more political gamesmanship, just different styles unfortunately. I never have been a big fan of Reagan's but in studying his fiscal policies I learned in practice he was a pragmatist not an ideologue economically and we could use that and his 'great communicator' skills today.

 

[RoSquirts]

BTW, Will I just happened across this article from Business Week (really, I wasn't looking for it, I swear,lol)that addresses the need for an economic strategy. I don't agree with all the details within it but do agree with its' overall theme. You may find it interesting reading - Why America needs an economic strategy - Stocks & economy

 

[handigrl]

choice point? 9 11 wealth redistribution marxist leanings? what the heck has happened to the democratic party ? oh it doesnt exist anymore its been replaced by the national socialist democratic party just like 1930s germany. i am more than ready to elect a black man president just not this black man

If Jesus Christ were walking the earth today he would be labeled a "socialist", "marxist", and because of the people he had associations with and were his followers a "terrorist"!

The simple fact is counter to what all the "kool-aid" drinking talk radio, and fox news network listeners hear/see and then repeat.

The taxation system by its very nature is a wealth redistribution! It redistributes the wealth from the individual to the government who interns then determines where to spend it and who will receive the benefits derived from said confiscated monies.

This process is as old as time itself. Again referring to Jesus Christ: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

So how in the hell did Obama get labeled with the "wealth redistribution" rap?

McCain supports continuing giving more tax breaks to business and corporations rather than the individuals but this is not "wealth redistribution"? Give me a break.

The US Govt just passed legislation with John McCains vote to bail out banks, insurance companies and anyone else along the way.

This is to be accomplished with the tax collections. Yet those same institutions that get our tax dollars will continue with outrageous pensions, golden parachutes and at the end of this year big bonuses to the very executive responsible for the institutions failures.

When the steel industries were in great trouble and the steel workers went to congress seeking assistance they were told no! They lost their pensions! As the government said it was not their place to get involved.

Several banking and financial institutions, namely Washington Mutual and Leahman Brothers were ****** into bankruptcy and sale at fire market prices by the FDIC and Republican Treasury Secretary while everyone else was allowed to be bailed out. This caused the innocent stock holders of WaMu and Leahman, not to mention tens of thousands of employees, and investors for pension funds to loose great sums of money (some their entire pensions); but this is not "wealth redistribution"?

The US Government determining which businesses will be allowed to stay in business and which businesses will be ****** to fail and then ****** to sell their assets for pennies on the dollar, followed by the US Government providing funds and investments in those same institutions is socialist!

Get off Obama and the Democratic party and focus on YOUR government which is run and operated by both the Democratic and Republican partys!

Your last sentence where as usual an "Obama" trash talker has to ultimately insert the color of the candidate speaks business as usual.

Funny how the old "why some of my best friends are black" has evolved.

 

[SentientDog]

Quit defending these two whoring parties. They are both in the tank for special interests
and both equally rotten to the core. It's past time for a strong third party that actually represents the American People.

 

[RoSquirts]

An interesting op-ed in today's Times. A discussion by 2 respected economists regarding how we should plan a comprehensive economic policy. If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, here's an excerpt.

After discussing various economic issues, the writers conclude -"False choices, grounded in ideology, have kept us from effectively addressing all these issues. The next president must do his utmost to avoid being drawn into these Potemkin battles. At this critical juncture, we face both the most significant economic upheaval since the Depression and the long-term challenge of successfully competing in the global economy. We have no choice but to move beyond such false dichotomies and toward a balanced pragmatism whose goal is broadly shared prosperity and increased economic security. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03rubin.html?pagewanted=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Elizabeth T]

Why is it that all we hear of is more taxes? People of this country have a choice. Why tax the middle class or the wealthy. They worked for what they have. The wealthy become just that for following a dream that got them in that class. They didn't sit in a project and have their hand out waiting for the government to give them a check or provide assistance for them. Anybody can become successful, you have to dream and when you do you must dream big. I am tired of giving our hard earned money to people who choose to sit around and wait for the next government check. Redistribute the wealth, it has been getting redistributed for many years. Like I said before the government and states do not owe anyone money who choose to sit around and do nothing. Make the fathers of all these kids pay the support. I am taxed out and I hope that McCain wins big.

 

[LapDaddy]

Oh for the love of god. Is there anyone who cannot tell that Obama is the chosen one? You people have a lot to learn about how this country really runs huh? I'll probably be banned for my views, but you folks are screwed no matter who wins. WOW!!!! What great choices we have this election. A damn Marxist or a damn Facist. I really wish some one could tell me what either one of these idiots is going to do, that the Bush administration isn't already doing. Do you really think either one of these idiots is going to change any thing? Hmmmm..... Weren't the Democrats giving both houses of Congress 2 years ago to change things? Yes! Did they do any thing different? No! Obama is a done deal and we are going to see social anarchy. GOT AMMO? Mark my words. The crap will hit the fan right after the election and into next year. They just rigged things enough to get one final imperial coronation for Obama. Once that is done, LOOK OUT BELOW. People need to move beyond the election and start to think seriously about living in OBAMASTAN and what the practical results of that will be. Think of Obama as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, only we have guns. Should make for some interesting confrontations over immigration, guns and ammo and cultural issues. Go ahead vote for whomever you feel is the lesser of the 2 evils. Me? I'll vote once again for the Constitution Party in hopes that somehow they can win and change this country back to how it is supposed to be run.

 

[blowme23]

What are the chances that the republicans will cheat again and win just the same way they did back in 2000?

BOTH SIDES CHEAT!

The democrats bus in homeless to register and vote by giving them food and try to get people to vote more then once

The republicans try to invalidate as many democratic voters as they can.

Its a game they have been playing since before anyone here was born. It has always been this way and it will continue to be this way.

To say one side cheats more then the other is complete bull shit and you would have to be incredibly naive to think so.

 

[blowme23]

Good post but off the mark. A pig is still a pig even with lipstick on.

Taxation is income redistribution. PERIOD! Don't matter if the Government gives it back to the poor and they spend it back into the economy or if the Government gives it back to the Rich or Corporations who may or may not create more jobs or may just stockpile it?

Obama's statement was just an honest statement to "hoe" the plumber that has been spun and misconstrued.

Everyone knows that Obama voted for the bailout bill, but the point is McCain and all his conservative republican assholes (you included), and by the way when I take the shit out of my ears I'll put in on bread and you can eat a shit sandwich cracker boy, are the same redistributionists only they are not honest about it!

Who ever gets elected is screwed! It will take 50 years of perfect government to get this country out of the mess that 8 years of Bush in office has done!

I listened to Rush and Niel Bortz today. And, it looks like a win for Obama is guaranteed!

To hell with the polls! When those boys get worked up and spew their bullshit higher than Sara Palins nipples, you know the Republicans have lost!

roflmfao

So you like the idea of Obama's Civilian National Security force?

also its not over till Wednesday. This is just like any basketball game the only thing that matters is what happens in the last 10 secs.

Of course if you remember the 2000 election it wasn't over till a month latter, thats when we found out who won the election.

 

[missouri_hubby]

A pig is still a pig even with lipstick on.

Geez! What a sexist!

...McCain and all his conservative republican assholes (you included)...

And so full of HATE!

you can eat a shit sandwich cracker boy,

Cracker Boy? And there you have it. A perfect example of what we can expect for the next four years. Pure, unadulterated racism.

Who ever gets elected is screwed! It will take 50 years of perfect government to get this country out of the mess that 8 years of Bush in office has done!

And finally the truth. You see, we both think things are screwed. I just don't think you can undo a fucking by sticking in a bigger dick. Despite what you think you think, I am not a fan of George W. I don't believe he is a Conservative. I think he is a liar that lied his way into office to promote his own, totally un-American agenda. he is an Internationalist and his goal is the destruction of the United States and the creation of a North American Union.

I listened to Rush and Niel Bortz today. And, it looks like a win for Obama is guaranteed!

And an assumption. I havn't listened to Rush Limpdick since Clinton was in office and I've never listened to Niel Bortz. I learned to think for myself a long time ago and honestly don't give a crap what they say. You're right. Obama probably will win, and we're fucked. But I'm not sure it will take fifty years to undo the damage. How long was the first American Revolution?