2008 Elections - America Votes

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by freebird

What I meant by "the party" is the fringe special interest groups & zealots that drive the agenda in both parties. Moderate centerist patriotic are being frozen out.

Have to disagree with you free with regard to the Republican party. They have not been taken over by the far right. McCain is to the right of center, but not that much.

The Dems? They absolutely have been hijacked by the far left. George Soros, moveon.org, The Daily Kos, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, Code Pink, Amnesty International etc will have there say; any Dem that does not embrace their ideology will be attacked and not financially supported. Look at how liberal/left all of their candidates are, especially their top two, Osama and Hillary. Back in '04 it was the very liberal Kerry, before him Gore.

The far right has much less impact and a smaller presence than the far left. Most of the above mentioned left wing extremist groups are household names. I'm sure thare are some far right nuts running around, but not with the same influence.

But you would never know it, not with a liberal mainstream media slanting the coverage.

TO

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Is it me or is it that everyone thats voted for Osama, I mean Obama, is from another country???

thats because they are all scared away

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Maybe they want to get married because it's the right thing to do - did that even cross your mind for a second?

nope not even a nano second

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Is it me or is it that everyone thats voted for Osama, I mean Obama, is from another country???

Yep, that's because a lot of other countries are more to the centre and left than the US citizens. Therefore tend to be more open to left wing politicians. Obama BTW is not extreme left as is claimed, only compared to the rest of the US. Lenin, that was an extreme left and so were the Rote Armee Fraction.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

nope not even a nano second

That's a sad outlook of the world you have my friend.

Originally Posted by Marcel

Yep, that's because a lot of other countries are more to the centre and left than the US citizens. Therefore tend to be more open to left wing politicians. Obama BTW is not extreme left as is claimed, only compared to the rest of the US. Lenin, that was an extreme left and so were the Rote Armee Fraction.

Sen Obama may not be advocating government control of the economy, but he is far left for many Americans' comfort.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Sen Obama may not be advocating government control of the economy, but he is far left for many Americans' comfort.

Food for thought...

Hard facts on Obama's Social Security tax
This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press
Thursday, September 4, 2008.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would raise taxes on the middle class, impose a heavy burden on small business, slow the economy and cost jobs?
Answer: Barack Obama's plan to lift the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4% Social Security tax.

That's what the Heritage Foundation discovered in an analysis of a proposal by the Democratic nominee.

We can't help noticing that thorough, close, objective analyses of Obama's proposals are sadly lacking in the national media.

Granted, the Heritage Foundation is a think tank with a record of opposing taxes, but at least someone's taking a look at how an Obama presidency would affect working Americans - as opposed to how the Obama campaign says an Obama presidency would affect ordinary Americans.

Here's what the researchers found: Presently, only the first $102,000 is subject to tax for Social Security. That's a pretty fair annual salary, but for a sole breadwinner with, say, a family of five, with a house bought in Southern California before the market went bust, that salary hardly puts you in the company of, oh, John Edwards.

According to Heritage, the take home pay of 10.3 million Americans would be reduced by an average of $5,650 in the first year alone. Taxes would be raised on four million workers over age 50.

The analysis finds that taxes would be raised on 97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 postsecondary teachers and 237,000 dentists. The move would also hit small-business owners who file their taxes as individuals.

The point of all this? Tax increases on the "wealthy" sound good to middle-class ears, but often turn out to be a burden on people other than the Rockefeller set.

[mkloby]

Good post Joe - Sen Obama's economic plan does not hold water. Not only that, it is downright harmful to the vast numbers of Americans.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by mkloby

That's a sad outlook of the world you have my friend.

Ain't it though but it still isn't important and for the sake of the teen sacrifices I'll comment no more on the subject

[Bucksnort101]

Does anyone remember President Jimmy Carters economic and energy policies of the 70's? Sound familiar? And look what happened then.

[ToughOmbre]

I try not to remember Carter at all. He was bad as president, and he's getting worse.

TO

[Njaco]

any Dem that does not embrace their ideology will be attacked and not financially supported.

Already started. Joe Lieberman has been put on notice by the DNC that he will not be supported in coming years.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Already started. Joe Lieberman has been put on notice by the DNC that he will not be supported in coming years.

What does he have to lose w/ respect to the dems anyway??? They didn't support him in his last election.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Already started. Joe Lieberman has been put on notice by the DNC that he will not be supported in coming years.

The phrase "Under the Bus" comes to mind...

Originally Posted by mkloby

What does he have to lose w/ respect to the dems anyway??? They didn't support him in his last election.

They needed him to organize Democrat control of the Senate. He got an important chairmanship in exchange {Homeland Security}

He is also on the "wrong side" of almost all of the issues except for the war, he's pro-choice, higher taxes, anti-gun etc

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Is it me or is it that everyone thats voted for Osama, I mean Obama, is from another country???

And {at least} one of the Obama voters is insane...

Actually Les, I count 20 votes for McCain and 8 votes for "other", {which meand Obama}. I wonder how happy all of those Bob Barr voters will be if they get 25,000 votes in Oregon or new Hampshire and Obama wins by 10,000 there....

Originally Posted by mkloby

Are you kidding???

Sen Obama is extremely leftist. Look at how well he did in the primaries. VOTERS that participated in the dem primaries VOTED for him. Were they forced to support Obama? Not at all. Did they have other options that were less extreme - yes.

Sen McCain is not an extreme conservative at all. Yes, in some ways he is, but there are areas such as campaign finance and immigration to name two that he has stood in stark contrast to conservatives. I would say John McCain is not incredibly far from the center.

I agree with you that John McCain is more centerist. My point is that it's not only the voters, but the far-left special interest groups that push the agenda. I thought Biden was a decent guy, but as the only one to condemn Move-on's "Betray us" ad, he never got a dime from them, and they ran ads attacking him. The radical left is driving the agenda, it's almost impossible for a moderate to get elected in the primary.

{But then you have this farce of Kerry or Obama trying to pose as a "patriotic moderate" ROFL}

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Have to disagree with you free with regard to the Republican party. They have not been taken over by the far right. McCain is to the right of center, but not that much.

TO

No, the problem with the Republican party is with special interests.

I'm in favor of a "conservative" government, but in the last 8 years the Republicans have drifted into a high spending "Neo-Con" agenda.

There are large corporate interests that give lots of $$$ to the GOP, and they are opposed to border control because they need a large underclass of cheap labor. The funny thing is that for all of the complaining of "shortage of labor", when Tyson foods or someone gets an INS raid, they always manage to re-open the week after with LEGAL US residents employed....

There is also opposition to any restrictions to predatory trade & monetary practices from China, as the importers are happy to bring in the cheap goods.
There should not be "free trade" but "fair trade"

The NRA is opposed on principle to ANY restriction on gun sales, even opposes the "cash & carry" of private sales at gun shows. Is it unreasonable to take a couple of days to verify that gun buyers are not felons or domestic abusers or insane?

The corparations have gotten some big handouts from the government, as they contribute to the GOP. I try to manage my money carefully, I don't want the govenment to forget the money that they spend is MY MONEY. {remember the "bridge to nowhere"?}

And of course this "nation building" experiment in Iraq will cost the taxpayers something like 2 trillion dollars. I'm as happy to get rid of a thug like Saddam as anyone else, but was the mess there really well planned? Does anyone have faith that an Iraqi government of folks like "Al-Sadr" will last? Does it bother anyone that the US taxpayer is footing the bills while Iraq stuffs it's oil profits into a swiss bank account?

2 Trillion means about $6,000 for every man, woman & child, or about $25,000 for a family of 4. Seeing as that half of the taxpayers pay 95% of the taxes, unless you are on welfare your personal family bill is about $50,000.

Please make your check payable to Uncle Sam and send right away to avoid further penalties....

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by freebird

The phrase "Under the Bus" comes to mind...



They needed him to organize Democrat control of the Senate. He got an important chairmanship in exchange {Homeland Security}

He is also on the "wrong side" of almost all of the issues except for the war, he's pro-choice, higher taxes, anti-gun etc

They needed him more than he needed them. Maybe now all bets will be off. I agree he is generally on the wrong side of the aisle, but I do appreciate his support of the armed services.

Originally Posted by freebird

I agree with you that John McCain is more centerist. My point is that it's not only the voters, but the far-left special interest groups that push the agenda. I thought Biden was a decent guy, but as the only one to condemn Move-on's "Betray us" ad, he never got a dime from them, and they ran ads attacking him. The radical left is driving the agenda, it's almost impossible for a moderate to get elected in the primary.

The dem party is driven by extreme left interests because the party IS EXTREME LEFT (as far as US politics are concerned, Marcel )!!!! That seems to be the part you are not understanding.

Originally Posted by freebird

No, the problem with the Republican party is with special interests.

I'm in favor of a "conservative" government, but in the last 8 years the Republicans have drifted into a high spending "Neo-Con" agenda.

There are large corporate interests that give lots of $$$ to the GOP, and they are opposed to border control because they need a large underclass of cheap labor. The funny thing is that for all of the complaining of "shortage of labor", when Tyson foods or someone gets an INS raid, they always manage to re-open the week after with LEGAL US residents employed....

The GOP did not stay true to several core beliefs... two big items are small government and fiscal responsibility. There's no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by freebird

There is also opposition to any restrictions to predatory trade & monetary practices from China, as the importers are happy to bring in the cheap goods.
There should not be "free trade" but "fair trade"

Fair trade is a buzzword and is meaningless. What is fair? Erecting trade barriers to sidestep the market to artificially promote American manufacturing will hurt the American economy. Consumers will pay more for goods, and their purchasing power will be diminished. I hear this a lot in reference to Wal-Mart. Millions of Americans save a lot of money by shopping at Wal-Mart, thereby increasing their purchasing power. To hurt these Americans so that some Americans can have their manufacturing job (for example) is not only foolish, but wrong. The US economy has changed. Americans do not have a God given right to work at an automobile assembly plant. If they do not change with the economy, they are going to be left behind.

That said, there are dangers from imports that do not follow US law - Chinese made toys being one example. Companies that import these goods need to be held accountable and harshly fined. If the bottom line is affected, these corporations will either ensure imported goods meet US standards, or they will switch to a more reliable production of goods, possibly US made. However, this is usually not the focus of what individuals mean when they use the catch phrase fair trade.

Originally Posted by freebird

The NRA is opposed on principle to ANY restriction on gun sales, even opposes the "cash & carry" of private sales at gun shows. Is it unreasonable to take a couple of days to verify that gun buyers are not felons or domestic abusers or insane?

It can be done MUCH more quickly than a couple days. I bought a 1911 in VA and waited about 3 hours for my background check to be completed.

Originally Posted by freebird

And of course this "nation building" experiment in Iraq will cost the taxpayers something like 2 trillion dollars. I'm as happy to get rid of a thug like Saddam as anyone else, but was the mess there really well planned? Does anyone have faith that an Iraqi government of folks like "Al-Sadr" will last? Does it bother anyone that the US taxpayer is footing the bills while Iraq stuffs it's oil profits into a swiss bank account?

2 Trillion means about $6,000 for every man, woman & child, or about $25,000 for a family of 4. Seeing as that half of the taxpayers pay 95% of the taxes, unless you are on welfare your personal family bill is about $50,000.

Please make your check payable to Uncle Sam and send right away to avoid further penalties....

I believe anyone that thinks that they could have planned OIF to go well is extremely arrogant and foolish. It was and is an extremely complex operation with many problems.

Iraq has made much progress, and is much more safe and stable than anyone imagined a year ago. It is a good thing for Iraq to have a surplus. This money will be a good buffer as troop levels are drawn down, both for security and stability as well as economic re-investment for their fledgling economy.

By the way, your tax figures might be correct, but they are presented in a misleading fashion.

Some other rough figures - the top 1% of income earners pay 30% of taxes, the top 5% pay 50%, and the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes. That should put the tax burden in a more accurate perspective.

Also, having children/dependents reduces your tax burden - it does not increase it.

When I file for 2008, with 2 children, my tax liability will be 0. Granted, I do have some non-taxable income from being deployed. Even with that added back in, I would be in a very low tax bracket.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by mkloby

The dem party is driven by extreme left interests because the party IS EXTREME LEFT (as far as US politics are concerned, Marcel )!!!!

Thanks