Obama or McCain?

[MSOsr]

Originally Posted by User Name

I gotta tell ya, I get a real kick out of this type of statement.

Do you REALLY believe that ANYONE can be any wose than Bush?

Lets look at his record...

1. He inherited a booming economy and a yearly surplus.

2. He (and partly Clinton) flubbed any chance at stopping 9/11.

3. He invaded a Sovereign State based on a lie (WMD).

4. The US continues to hemorrage US taxpayer money in Iraq.

5. He's now losing in Afghanistan.

6. While we're running the biggest deficits in our history, Iraq is running a surplus.

7. 4,000+ dead (brave) soldiers, more than 25,000 wounded Iraq Vets who need full time care (often given to them by their parents since the care for our wounded has been abysmal by in large).

8. He has presided over a catastrophic financial meltdown which has led to a 700 billion dollar (socialist style) bailout of corporate America (remember, welfare is ONLY bad when given too poor people, but it is "necessary" for the wealthy).

9. The taxpayer (you and I) will be paying for 8 years of Bush (through higher taxes) for the next 20-30 years.

10. The next President is already screwed, regardless who it is, because of 8 years of a moron currently sleeping in the white house.

So, what's to be afraid of? 8 years of Bush has killed me yet and while most of us are close to death (on account of 8 years of "conservative" rule), if Obama pushes us over the ledge I can't pin the blame on him since Bush marched me the 200 miles it took to get there.

BTW, Obama really gets it right when he put a spin on the Reagan phrase... "are you better off than you were 4 weeks ago"? Republicans...pfffft.

Sorry to disagree...but economists pointed out the dot.com bubble had burst and Bush inherited a recession. Then 9/11 occurred, which you can't blame on Bush.

Recall that Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) thumbed his nose at 17 or more UN resolutions...and he's dead. Khaddafi, when we entered Baghdad, said "Come get my WMDs". He, like Saddam, thought we were bluffing (based on Clinton responses), and when we did come after Saddam, Khaddafi said, "Oh, s**t!"

Bush's tax cuts raised 20% more tax revenues than Clinton's tax rates.

Obama would trash the effort of those soldiers to make the libs happy that they have $10 B more a month to spend. I think we owe it to those who sacrificed to go ahead and win the war, even if it does cost $10 B/ month.

The financial catastrophe was started by Jimmy Carter (passing the CRA), which was used by Bill Clinton as an "affirmative action" way to give home ownership to those who couldn't afford homes. Bush and McCain tried to tighten the reins on FM and FM, but the Dems on the financial committees wouldn't let the restrictions get to the floor for a vote. Despite the warnings, Barney Frank et al. in 2006 dismissed the complaints, claiming the Republicans "wanted to deny home ownership to the lower class" and were asking for a fix to "something that wasn't broken".

Raines et al. made millions in bonuses and golden parachutes, in spite of being guilty of misconduct that was illegal ("Enroning the books to justify bonuses). Why had they given so much money to Chris Dodd (over a bunch of years) and Obama (over only 2 years)? Is it because of their support to ACORN and those other entities that pushed the banks to make loans they refused to make years ago?

Check history: JFK dropped tax marginal rates and the economy took off. Reagan cut taxes hugely but doubled tax revenues in his 8 years. Bush cut Clinton's rates and tax receipts increased 20% over Clinton's, in spite of the drag on the economy 2 wars cost.

Obama wants to undo the Bush tax cuts. Why? Social engineering and "spreading the wealth"? He told Charlie Gibson, who pointed out that increasing the capital gains tax rate had historically brought in less income to the federal government, that it "wasn't fair that hedge fund managers made so much money"....in other words, "I'll use the tax code to punish those who are smart enough to make the big bucks, even if it results in less money to the US Treasury to provide programs to the American people."

Can you say "Class warfare? Socialism?"

The purpose of the federal income tax is to raise money for the federal government.....not to punish certain people and to take their money and give it to others. That's pure Socialism. Ask Obama why his goal isn't to maximize tax receipts so that there is money to pay down the debt and pay for programs, but is instead to bring down successful people and give their money to others, just like Karl Marx suggested.

Mike (free market guy)

[mobenzowner]

Originally Posted by MSOsr

Sorry to disagree...but economists pointed out the dot.com bubble had burst and Bush inherited a recession. Then 9/11 occurred, which you can't blame on Bush.

Recall that Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) thumbed his nose at 17 or more UN resolutions...and he's dead. Khaddafi, when we entered Baghdad, said "Come get my WMDs". He, like Saddam, thought we were bluffing (based on Clinton responses), and when we did come after Saddam, Khaddafi said, "Oh, s**t!"

Bush's tax cuts raised 20% more tax revenues than Clinton's tax rates.

Obama would trash the effort of those soldiers to make the libs happy that they have $10 B more a month to spend. I think we owe it to those who sacrificed to go ahead and win the war, even if it does cost $10 B/ month.

The financial catastrophe was started by Jimmy Carter (passing the CRA), which was used by Bill Clinton as an "affirmative action" way to give home ownership to those who couldn't afford homes. Bush and McCain tried to tighten the reins on FM and FM, but the Dems on the financial committees wouldn't let the restrictions get to the floor for a vote. Despite the warnings, Barney Frank et al. in 2006 dismissed the complaints, claiming the Republicans "wanted to deny home ownership to the lower class" and were asking for a fix to "something that wasn't broken".

Raines et al. made millions in bonuses and golden parachutes, in spite of being guilty of misconduct that was illegal ("Enroning the books to justify bonuses). Why had they given so much money to Chris Dodd (over a bunch of years) and Obama (over only 2 years)? Is it because of their support to ACORN and those other entities that pushed the banks to make loans they refused to make years ago?

Check history: JFK dropped tax marginal rates and the economy took off. Reagan cut taxes hugely but doubled tax revenues in his 8 years. Bush cut Clinton's rates and tax receipts increased 20% over Clinton's, in spite of the drag on the economy 2 wars cost.

Obama wants to undo the Bush tax cuts. Why? Social engineering and "spreading the wealth"? He told Charlie Gibson, who pointed out that increasing the capital gains tax rate had historically brought in less income to the federal government, that it "wasn't fair that hedge fund managers made so much money"....in other words, "I'll use the tax code to punish those who are smart enough to make the big bucks, even if it results in less money to the US Treasury to provide programs to the American people."

Can you say "Class warfare? Socialism?"

The purpose of the federal income tax is to raise money for the federal government.....not to punish certain people and to take their money and give it to others. That's pure Socialism. Ask Obama why his goal isn't to maximize tax receipts so that there is money to pay down the debt and pay for programs, but is instead to bring down successful people and give their money to others, just like Karl Marx suggested.

Mike (free market guy)

Well said Mike (the free market guy)

Also an earlier post said something similar to "Palin doesnt even know who Obama is".

Well I gotta ask you, does anybody know who Obama is? Besides his obvious socialist comments such as "spread the wealth" all he evers talks about is "change" which seems pretty vague or his attempts to make McCain into Bush. There is much none of us know about Obama but what I do know, I dont like.

[MSOsr]

Is "Change" let's lose the war in Iraq?

Is "Change" let's punish those that create jobs and instead give their money to those that only consume and never contribute?

Is "Change" giving "tax cuts to 95% of Americans" when only something close to 50% pay taxes (I think the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes)? Are we just giving money, in this time of bailouts, welfare to those that don't pay taxes?

Obama wants to build the economy "from the bottom up". Have you ever been hired by someone who made less money than you?

It's great to say that everyone should enjoy the American dream, but it's more fair to make sure that everyone "shares" in the American dream.

Mike (has gone from "poor" to "the rich", but due to my own effort)

[MSOsr]

Before you talk about my "head start" to the "rich" by being white, I went to college and law school on the GI bill (graduating from law school in just over 2 years), even though my dad went only to the eighth grade and my mother, who didn't work outside the home, only graduated from high school.

Lucky for me that my parents got married and bought a house before they decided to have children (living with grandparents and aunts/uncles until then).

Obama wants to take money from those that have made money due their own
efforts and give it to those that haven't even graduated from high school (free as an American and should be the minimum criterion for any other government assistance), and that have decided that "I'll just sit back and let the government provide for me".

What have the American people gotten for the $ trillions we have spent by giving money to those people?

Should we start holding people responsible for the money they receive from American taxpayers?

Mike (big believer in personal responsibility under the capitalistic system)

[David703]

If you had to help your grandmother move a piece of furniture, wouldn't you take the heavy end? In other words, it makes no difference to you but it sure helps her out.


I worked hard to get myself to where I am and what I have and giving a few hundred extra dollars a month in taxes isn't going to hurt me one bit. I doubt I will even notice.

[MSOsr]

I've never charged anyone for my assistance in moving furniture. Perhaps there is an "entitlement mentality" that thinks you should charge even your family for helping them out.....

The issue isn't "helping someone out"....in your scenario your grandmother was at least carrying one end....

Mike (glad to help....loathe to pay for those that don't deserve it)

[David703]

in my analogy... your grandmother is analogous to the country. You are helping someone out that needs the assistance. Sure My taxes will be increased.. but I don't care. I don't live in a vacuum. I have relationships, family, friends, a business.. etc... If I have to pay more to help the country build more roads, airports, help schools, homeland security, help with disaster assistance.. so be it. Geez.. whats a few hundred bucks in the grand scheme of things.. Its like saying on every detail of $200 you have to give $6 in tax. Big deal. Its not changing the lives of those paying 3% extra.

[David703]

At least Obama is honest about his plans.. Mc Cain says an across the board freeze on all spending!!! Yippie! Next sentence from his debate...... I am going to put Sarah Palin (yippie!) in charge of creating a program to help out mentally challenged children. WOW John... you are creating a program with a spending freeze?? Hmmm i'm glad everything will be done for free.. Anyone thinks that Johnny boy won't increase taxes is crazy.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by MSOsr

Then 9/11 occurred, which you can't blame on Bush.

Actually, since I'm not a "party guy" I blamed it partly on Bush, the sitting President at the time, with intelligence (not his) that told him of a pending attack.

Recall that Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) thumbed his nose at 17 or more UN resolutions...and he's dead.

You might want to call you law school and ask for a refund. Ever study international law, the doctrine of inviolability of borders and the respective for the territorial integrity of sovereign states? The Founding Father's must be rolling in their graves considering "the Bush doctrine"of preemptive attack.

I've studied under probably two of the most recognized international legal scholars on the planet and both (along with the international legal community - in general) would entirely agree with me. This is a nation built by the rule of law and with respect for it. Once we start shirking our legal responsibilities internationally, we undermine our founding priniciples.

Khaddafi, when we entered Baghdad, said "Come get my WMDs". He, like Saddam, thought we were bluffing (based on Clinton responses), and when we did come after Saddam, Khaddafi said, "Oh, s**t!"

Actually, you're wrong again. Clinton, like Bush also started an illegal war and didn't "bluff" anything. Again, because I'm an idealogue, I can easilty criticize both where they are wrong. Read here to see about why Clinton was as wrong as Bush: Kosovo: Another Case of Mass Deception?

Obama would trash the effort of those soldiers to make the libs happy that they have $10 B more a month to spend. I think we owe it to those who sacrificed to go ahead and win the war, even if it does cost $10 B/ month.

The only thing we owe to our troops is to ONLY use them for just causes and the truthful defense of this nation.

The financial catastrophe was started by Jimmy Carter (passing the CRA), which was used by Bill Clinton as an "affirmative action" way to give home ownership to those who couldn't afford homes.

Jimmy Carter???? LOL, be serious.

Clinton... you're 100% right. He started the deregulation bonanza which started this mess. 8 years of Bush and 6 years of a Republican congress ensured Clinton's mess would be a great success.

Bush and McCain tried to tighten the reins on FM and FM, but the Dems on the financial committees wouldn't let the restrictions get to the floor for a vote.

More jokes. Dude, the problem is dergulation, a faulty conservative ideology.

Check history: JFK dropped tax marginal rates and the economy took off. Reagan cut taxes hugely but doubled tax revenues in his 8 years. Bush cut Clinton's rates and tax receipts increased 20% over Clinton's, in spite of the drag on the economy 2 wars cost.

So, I guess when the Oracle of Omaha tells us that by using the various vehicles in the tax code, he pays a lower marginal tax rate than his 75k per year secretary, we should say he is lying? Dude, if you REALLY did go to law school, crack a book, look at section 1031 of the tax code and talk to me about the rich "paying their fair share". I'll put it to you this way, if the top 5% actually paid 35% (the highest federal rate under Bush), I'd tell you we shouldn't touch taxes on them. The problem is, after they use all the vehicles afforded to them, they all pay more like 20-25%.

Obama wants to undo the Bush tax cuts. Why?

Dude, your "conservative" President just begged for 700 billion in corporate welfare and you don't think EITHER Obama or McBush are going to raise taxes? Yo, if you don't think higher taxes are coming, you might want to move to the Bahamas and get yourself a cozy little tax shelter. You're taxes are going up, way up.

Can you say "Class warfare? Socialism?"

Can you say "boogie man" and "I'm not scared"?

The purpose of the federal income tax is to raise money for the federal government.....not to punish certain people and to take their money and give it to others. That's pure Socialism.

A graduated tax is an aspect of having a social conscience. I know you probably have a Ronnie Reagan bath towel and bobble head, but why didn't he abolish the graduated tax system?

If you want a "real" conservative, with real conservative values, at least say you support a guy like Ron Paul, who at least has the intellectual honesty to preach in favor or TRUE conservatism.

Ask Obama why his goal isn't to maximize tax receipts so that there is money to pay down the debt and pay for programs, but is instead to bring down successful people and give their money to others, just like Karl Marx suggested.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Good old McCarthiasm is still alive and well.

Mike (free market guy)

User Name (free thinking guy)

[User Name]

Originally Posted by MSOsr

Is "Change" let's lose the war in Iraq?

What does "win" mean to you? A proxy government in Iraq that further fuels the ire of the Muslim world? More dead Americans? I don't know how you are defining "win"?

Is "Change" let's punish those that create jobs and instead give their money to those that only consume and never contribute?

Trickle down/supply side economics... long debunked as mythology. You need new material.

Is "Change" giving "tax cuts to 95% of Americans" when only something close to 50% pay taxes (I think the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes)? Are we just giving money, in this time of bailouts, welfare to those that don't pay taxes?

No, we should keep giving corporate welfare, I'm much rather my tax dollar go the the AIG execs who can bang hot chicks on a cruise (on my dime) rather than the single Mom, with no healthcare and three kids.

Obama wants to build the economy "from the bottom up". Have you ever been hired by someone who made less money than you?

No, but when the bottom has no money, they don't buy goods, the don't use services and they don't put the fuel in our consumption driven economy. Bring up the bottom and you increase the top.

It's great to say that everyone should enjoy the American dream, but it's more fair to make sure that everyone "shares" in the American dream.

8 years of Bush has insured the American dream is only a fantasy. No need for most to even contemplate it for the next little while.

Mike (has gone from "poor" to "the rich", but due to my own effort)

Dude, when I was born I lived in a house with 16 other family members, out of necessity. We never collected welfare or food stamps but we got a lot of help in a lot of other ways.

I'm not so self-righteous to sit here and tell you I did it all because of my "own effort". I did it because along the way I had great (under paid) teachers, counselors and clergy. I had a "support system" that I knew I could count on in a time of need. I've also gone from poor the rich and would hope my tax dollars would go to helping other make that move.

There are a lot of people who put a lot of their own effort into this land and don't have much to show for it, so spare me the sanctomonious "everyone else must be lazy" story.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by David703

in my analogy... your grandmother is analogous to the country. You are helping someone out that needs the assistance. Sure My taxes will be increased.. but I don't care. I don't live in a vacuum. I have relationships, family, friends, a business.. etc... If I have to pay more to help the country build more roads, airports, help schools, homeland security, help with disaster assistance.. so be it. Geez.. whats a few hundred bucks in the grand scheme of things.. Its like saying on every detail of $200 you have to give $6 in tax. Big deal. Its not changing the lives of those paying 3% extra.

God they make them smart in Northern Jersey... must be in the water!!! (I know you moved South...LOL).

[calgarydetail]

Originally Posted by MSOsr

Is "Change" let's lose the war in Iraq?

you already have... you have lost enough lives and money that it dosent matter how this war turns out. The americain people have lost already