|
| Posted by: azdbacker
- [13945242] Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 02:54
Well, today we have a Zogby poll coming out showing McCain with a 1 point lead nationally. Guessing this won't help you Obama supporters feel much better about things - it broke while you were sleeping:
You Can't Make this Crap up: Barack's Obama's Aunt is an Illegal Immigrant, You and I Pay for her Housing, yet she has Contributed Illegally to Barack Obama |
| | | 1 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 03:36
|
Actually it's crazier than that.
This is a guy and his wife who can't take two steps without someone handing them a hundred thousand dollar gig doin next to nothing, but...
They've got an aunt living in a slum in Boston and a brother living on a dollar a day in Nigeria...
You and I however are greedy and need to have our wealth redistributed by a socialist government.
And yet I know a poor guy makin minimum wage, had his child stolen by the government because they didn't like him being religious and it was an easy steal. Poor guy didn't have the resourses to fight it and they had some fink call it in so... and yet somehow this poor couple in a daze from all the grief the heavyhanded government has done to them, manage to support one of those charity cases overseas with a dollar a day.
Yeah, if only Barack most benificent would come and teach us compassion.
|
|
| | | 2 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 07:59
|
Oy, I'll live azd...there are numerous polls and the RCP average has Obama up 6.5. I am still anxious though, cos I feel that the only thing that would cos his loss would be fear and bigotry based on minimal innformation and ignorance, like the kind you see in post #2 here.
|
|
| | | 3 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 08:05
|
Zogby
I am a little concerned about the zogby reference. Using their web-site, they have Obama up by 5 points...am I missing something?
|
|
| | | 4 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 11:39
|
NYT/AP on Obama's Aunt
The American people need to know more about Senator Obama's relationship with his aunt. Why did he not know that she was an illegal alien? Why did he accept inappropriate campaign contributions? What does this say about his judgment? These are the pivotal questions that define the character of the president of the U.S.
Trying to take the point of view of the other side. Feels dumb.
|
|
| | | 5 | tastethewaste
ID: 9104419
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 11:48
|
i love how i click on the original link and it links to a blank page.
|
|
| | | 6 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:03
|
You know, it never occured to me, to check into the citizenship status of any of my extended family. I have a hard time recognizing some of my extended relatives, I see them so infrequently. A half-aunt? Yeah, lets blame her illegal immigrant staus on Obama. Its ALL his fault.....suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it is.
|
|
| | | 7 | Rose in Ca
ID: 51546319
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:16
|
Forgive them,, they know not what they're doing? That's what Jesus said after the far left liberals nailed him to the cross to shut him up forever before he took his last breath, but do you really think that Hollywood and the U.S. main stream liberal media doesn't know what they do and we should forgive them for promoting a non-citizen in violation of the laws of the land who professes to be a Christian but is a Muslim according to his long time ex-Muslim friends on video and knowing that America will be silenced forever because the U.S. main stream Press sold us out for a pile of gold and enslaved a nation? The only true American is Robin Williams who has a video I believe on Utube representing the precious U.S. flag that has blood stains so Hollywood could be free and who are now selling out a free nation where they were able to become rich and wealthy and famous because of the American people who put them where they're out. Should the American people forgive them because the well respected politican analysts say that they are very distressed if Obama wins because America will be very sorry after election and talk show hosts will be a thing of the past as well as freedom of speech - so say what you have to say before Tuesday, November 4h if Obama wins!
-Rose in California
|
|
| | | 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:24
|
far left liberals????? roflmao I dont think we can put ancient Roman political leadership into todays modern labels. And if we did? It wouldnt have been liberals practicing the death penalty via a slow and agonizing means. If one were to attempt to apply todays labels to those times, JC would have been THE ultra-left wing liberal of all human history.
|
|
| | | 9 | Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:41
|
RE: 7
So the Pharisees and Romans were liberal, huh? Sheesh...
|
|
| | | 10 | walk
ID: 139332920
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:44
|
Wow. What a streamoconsciousness in #7. After a two reads, I still cannot tell if rose is for or against Obama.
I'd vote for Robin Williams though.
|
|
| | | 11 | bibA
ID: 229262715
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:44
|
It finally comes out.....Obama killed Jesus.
|
|
| | | 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:46
|
lmao bibA
|
|
| | | 13 | Don in Tx
ID: 51546319
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:48
|
Obama's life
Obama' father was a declared Communist.
His mother was a 60's far-leftist who supported Communism.
Obama's childhood mentor Frank was a proud Communist.
The pastor of the church Obama attended for decades is a virulent anti-American racist.
Obama's only executive position was under Bill Ayers on the Annenburg challenge.
Obama is good friends with a spokesman of Hamas.
He says the Constitution is tragically flawed.
He favors re-distribution of income.
He is favorable toward reparations.
He favors judges who rule by their personal fiat.
A plumber who dared ask a question has been driven out of business. Biden and Obama laugh at him.
Newspapers who disagree with Obama are expelled from his campaign plane.
Obama calls Americans selfish.
He says we cling to guns and religion.
There are no records from Obama's undergraduate days or his time as state legislature.
He votes present on controversial issues.
His brother lives in a shack on $1 per day in Nigeria.
His aunt lives on welfare as an illegal immigrant.
He was an Acorn trainer, and gave them $800K to commit voter fraud.
He has raised millions illegally through credit card fraud.
No friend speaks for Obama. Everybody who talks about him is a campaign advisor or politician.
His famous tax cuts stated with a cap at $250K income, but have magically shrunk to $120 this week. Obama himself has voted for tax increases about 100 times, including on peole making $42K annually. Most of the "tax cuts" are welfare payments to people who do not pay taxes.
He will negotiate without pre-conditions with any dictator in the world.
He will unilaterally eliminate the US nuclear weapons.
He will reduce the military by 25% or more, a service he scorns. He has the "strategic" vision, not they.
He will give $180 billion to foreign governments because that is "fair".
But we are to believe that this man loves America and is the savior of the middle class.
|
|
| | | 14 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:49
|
OK, since we don't have enough "conservative" posters at the moment, I thought I'd help their cause with some actual posts from TownHall.
|
|
| | | 15 | Seattle Zen
ID: 358591721
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:51
|
Hey, azdbacker, care to make a prediction in the prediction thread? You think McCain will take the national vote? Win the election? Carry Arizona?
|
|
| | | 17 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 12:58
|
He favors re-distribution of income.
So do Republicans. From my labor, to their stock dividend.
Obama calls Americans selfish.
and he's right too.
He will negotiate without pre-conditions with any dictator in the world.
Well, if we dont negotiate without preconditions, how to relay our conditions for continued negotiation?
His brother lives in a shack on $1 per day in Nigeria.
First, your point? Secondly, whats the annual avg income in Nigeria? (Or perhaps of more relevance would be the median income?)
Just a couple glaring holes in your falsehood right-wingnut soundbites.
|
|
| | | 18 | Charley in Co
ID: 51546319
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 13:07
|
OK, last one, lest I be accused of spamming. These posts are actually fairly representative.
Subject: Add them up....
All those that worship the earth and those that hate America or what it stands for and they seek either no progress or utter destruction for the American way of life. They really do not care about what method does it, but just the end there of.
Just for the record. As one who does not believe in global warming as it is man made. I believe in clean air. That is city clean air and the country does not have a problem. That view in and of itself lends to who should pay for city costs of clean air. The Nation or the City.
When one looks at the true cost of all these alternative fuels and looks at the USA budget. We have no government money to venture into these costly endeavours, except maybe flex fuel.
America is different from many other countries in that we do have an abundance of fossil fuel right here to drill, baby, drill.
Personally I believe when the Americans need alternative energy. The society economic structure will pay for them in the free enterprise without a bump in the road and without government intervention. Just like so many other things of discoveries in the free enterprise.
So spending in these alternatives is a desire to see America dimish by spending wealth to oblivion.
|
|
| | | 19 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 13:13
|
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
|
|
| | | 20 | azdbacker
ID: 13945242
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 13:15
|
Sorry - tastethewaste, it appears my server is hiccupping.
|
|
| | | 21 | azdbacker
ID: 13945242
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 13:16
|
walk - Zogby poll was for Friday-only polling. Drudge had it as his headline last night.
|
|
| | | 22 | azdbacker
ID: 13945242
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 13:45
|
cos I feel that the only thing that would cos his loss would be fear and bigotry based on minimal innformation and ignorance, like the kind you see in post #2 here.
You may not like what he chooses to be knowledgeable about, but you damn well know Boldwin isn't ignorant or uninformed.
|
|
| | | 23 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 14:17
|
illinformed, yes he is. even misinformed. willflly ignorant, I would also agree with.
|
|
| | | 24 | Razor
ID: 529382710
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 14:22
|
From fivethirtyeight.com:
Judging by the response in my inbox, some of you do.
Matt Drudge is touting the results of a one-day sample in a Zogby poll, which apparently showed John McCain ahead by 1 point.
There are a couple of significant problems with this.
Firstly, there is a reason that pollsters include multiple days of interviewing in their tracking polls; a one-day sample is extremely volatile, and have very high margins for error.
Secondly, the Zogby polls have been particularly volatile, because he uses nonsensical party ID weightings, which mean that his weighting process involves making numbers doing naughty things that they usually don't like to do.
Thirdly, Zogby polls are generally a lagging rather than a leading indicator. This is because he splits his interviewing period over two days; most of the interviews that were conducted in this sample took place on Thursday night, with a few this afternoon. The reason this is significant is because lots of other pollsters were in the field on Thursday night, and most of them evidently showed good numbers for Obama, as he improved his standing in 6 of the 7 non-Zogby trackers.
Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much).
So go out to your Halloween parties and enjoy yourself, and we'll be back to covering the polls for you tomorrow.
|
|
| | | 25 | Perm Dude
ID: 131045118
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 20:49
|
Drudge is practically the definition of cherry picking. A few days ago it was a Strategic Vision poll that showed McCain down by only 4 in Pennsylvania while everyone else showed McCain down 8-12. Nevermind that the previous Strategic Vision poll showed McCain down 2, meaning if you believe SV then you must believe that McCain is actually losing ground in the Keystone State.
|
|
| | | 26 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 22:23
|
Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much). - Razor
And that's really the $64,000 dollar question, isn't it?
I can't post on the prediction thread because I just can't get feel for the answer to this question, sure people find Obama likable, and charismatic, and inspirational if excedingly vague...
...but can they actually pull the lever for someone whose promises are all vapor?
My guess is that charisma goes an awful long way for this particular job and an awful lotta people's first inclination was Obama, but on the otherhand undecided voters I just have this feeling are going to tend to pull back at the last second and hesitate about the lesser known comodity.
I think a lotta people are gonna get cold feet. Problem for McCain is that he needs at the very least 5% of the population who originally leaned Obama to get cold feet and that's a hefty chunk.
|
|
| | | 27 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 03:13
|
Anyone care to guess what the size of the 'undecided block' is in this country and the size in each party that could mnever be swayed is? Because that 5% chunk would have to come out of that already small undecided block.
So what is it? 30%?
|
|
| | | 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 55101729
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 10:31
|
Well, that begs the question: Is McCain's strategy working? McCain's media blitz the last few weeks have been designed to do one thing: Drive down Obama's numbers. But Obama's numbers have proven remarkably strong.
What has happened is that some undecideds have moved toward McCain, causing a tightening in some areas. But don't look just at the national numbers--it is the state numbers that matter. And in the states that will make a difference the numbers look terrible for McCain.
He has to win PA, then hope a few other states fall his way. And none of those states (NC, NV, VA, CO) look good. McCain is hoping for some kind of perfect storm, only the first step of which is that virtually all the undecideds in the tight states will go his way.
McCain also has to hope that states that he previously counted on (like his home state of AZ) don't flip. If any of those states go blue, its all over. If McCain wins PA & OH (unlikely, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility), but loses AZ he is very unlikely to pull it off.
Summing up: Undecideds in the states that are in-play will make the difference only if they all break for McCain in large numbers. I really don't see that happening.
|
|
| | | 29 | bibA
ID: 229262715
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 10:36
|
In a way I find it kind of humorous, that people like Baldwin - and there are of course many, would believe the negative about Obama in every case. That he would bring radical leftists into the government, and that he would basically be a socialist. Or that he was a Moslem mole.
IF he is all lies, the Dems will be voted out in two years, and of course Obama would stand no chance in '12. However, if he were to do a lot of what he says, especially reach across party lines and build a government for more than just his base, he and the Dems would have a chance to be reelected, which is an obvious goal.
He has so much to gain if he is being honest, and so much to lose otherwise.
|
|
| | | 30 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 11:06
|
Anyone who believes that a guy who has surrounded himself with hardcore marxists his whole life, has any intention of reducing taxes for 95% of the public [nevermind that only 60% pay taxes so it's impossible]...
...cannot do the simplest math.
I wonder if the undecideds somewhere in the back of their minds can do math?
|
|
| | | 31 | Mith
ID: 148402816
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 11:30
|
only 60% pay taxes
Never in my life did I ever think I'd see so many conservatives make like income taxes are the only taxes that count.
Instructive to note for whom personal integrity goes only as far as the next opportunity at a cheap shot.
|
|
| | | 32 | bibA
ID: 229262715
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 16:56
|
Boldwin - You make these statements as if you honestly believe Obama would turn out to be a marxist. Like I said, you are not the only one. Personally, I have to agree with others who find this thinking to be ludicrous, unrealistic, and wacky.
He obviously could not get away with it.
|
|
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 19:38
|
bibA
I honestly 100% believe he is a Saul Alinsky/Antonio Gramsci marxist, thru and thru, to the bone and has been from his wee cradle.
Mith
They are the only ones that pertain to his 95% promise.
Pointing out that creeping socialism and corrupt politicians have taxed every noun in the dictionary does not help your case or make me feel that more wealth redistribution would be a good thing.
|
|
| | | 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 55101729
Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 23:58
|
For years you saw creeping government expansion in the flesh and said nothing. You mocked those who expressed outrage at it, in fact. And now we should take your word that you see it coming in Obama?
I liked you better when you seemed to have a quiet respect for Obama. Nowadays you just seem shrill.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 08:24
|
I didn't like big government even when it came with the 'compassionate conservatism' moniker and I was not shy about saying so.
I've always respected his skill set but it took a long while to find out the real Obama. Thus the thread by that name.
|
|
| | | 36 | Tree
ID: 13714198
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:39
|
Obama killed Jesus.
thank god. now will all you religious crazies please leave my people alone!?!?!?
OK, since we don't have enough "conservative" posters at the moment, I thought I'd help their cause with some actual posts from TownHall.
thanks for posting these PV. for a moment they provided a laugh - then i realized that there are LOTS of crazies out there like Baldwin.
something that strikes me amazing is how much bile and spit the right seems to want to heap on Obama.
even azdbacker, who despite being a bit too much on the scary side of the right - but not as crazy or absurd as baldwin - and who seemed to actually have some interesting things to say when he first started blogging several months back, now comes back out of nowhere with more of the hate and smear tactics tat the right seems to embrace these days.
it's no wonder this is a failing party. it's no wonder they're embracing a total nincompoop like Palin as the future of their party. it is hard to believe that less than 15 years ago, Republican began sweeping into office without even looking back, and now that party is on the edge of the abyss, in real danger of falling in and never regaining its footing.
|
|
| | | 37 | C1-NRB
ID: 588421510
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:17
|
Tree: it is hard to believe that less than 15 years ago, Republican began sweeping into office without even looking back, and now that party is on the edge of the abyss, in real danger of falling in and never regaining its footing.
Richard Nixon, anyone? The shame! The pardon! The horror! The GOP must disband!
Oh, wait. Jimmy Carter? That's the Dem's counterpunch? Nevermind. See you in four. Apply. Rinse. Repeat.
|
|
| | | 38 | Tree
ID: 13714198
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:52
|
i'm not saying the GOP must disband. i'm saying they can do whatever they want, but the path they've been going down the last few years clearly isn't working.
they are LOSING support, not gaining it. in the United States - unless we adopt a more proportional representative government like Israel has - reaching out to the middle is crucial.
Obama, and the democrats, appear to have successfully done that. meanwhile, Bush, McCain, and Palin seem to have had the opposite effect - to the point where they're even driving away people - in droves - from their own party...
|
|
| | | 39 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:17
|
All you had to do was listen to talk radio. I don't think there was a talk radio personality who liked McCain. Blame the money men who wouldn't bankroll Fred Thompson or a real conservative like Tancredo.
What the money men would back...a Mormon with a flip-flop weathervane record. A NYC carpetbagger, not even a real republican. And McCain, the New York Times darling, at least till the party nominating process was over.
Another sign democracy is not all it is cracked up to be.
|
|
| | | 40 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:43
|
tree - how do you mean? unless we adopt a more proportional representative government like Israel has - reaching out to the middle is crucial.
|
|
| | | 41 | Tree
ID: 13714198
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:50
|
unless we adopt a more proportional representative government like Israel has - reaching out to the middle is crucial.
israel has about a zillion political parties, covering vast areas of the political spectrum. many political parties occupy the knesset - currently there are representatives from 12 different parties. and at least two of those parties are unions of even smaller parties, who combined in an effort to have even more say.
|
|
| | | 42 | Razor
ID: 141049220
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:01
|
a real conservative like Tancredo
Well, that says it all. Tancredo is a racist idiot. That's why no one wanted to fund him.
|
|
| | | 43 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:09
|
unless we adopt a more proportional representative government like Israel has - reaching out to the middle is crucial.
israel has about a zillion political parties, covering vast areas of the political spectrum. many political parties occupy the knesset - currently there are representatives from 12 different parties. and at least two of those parties are unions of even smaller parties, who combined in an effort to have even more say.
Ok, so like most countries that have more than two main stream parties, I can totally agree with idea that this is a better model.
|
|
| | | 44 | C1-NRB
ID: 588421510
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:19
|
israel has about a zillion political parties, covering vast areas of the political spectrum... and at least two of those parties are unions of even smaller parties, who combined in an effort to have even more say.
As an interesting historical aside, so did Germany leading up to the Third Reich. (I had to write a paper on Germany this summer).
Irony!
|
|
| | | 45 | Tree
ID: 13714198
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 15:31
|
i'm not really commenting on which form of government is better. rather, i was commenting that here in the US, the left seems to be reaching to the middle; while the right seems to be reaching further right, and alienating anyone who might be considered even remotely moderate by trying to force a radical agenda on anyone in the middle...
|
|
| | | 46 | Boldwin
ID: 2962619
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:21
|
Only in Tree's head could the Republicans reaching out and tapping the New York Times' favorite candidate be pursuing a radical agenda. Can you imagine his fulminations if they had picked a Republican and not someone flirting with the NYT?
|
|
| | | 47 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:32
|
i'm not really commenting on which form of government is better. rather, i was commenting that here in the US, the left seems to be reaching to the middle; while the right seems to be reaching further right, and alienating anyone who might be considered even remotely moderate by trying to force a radical agenda on anyone in the middle...
Earth to Tree....come in please.
What planet are you living on?
The facts are that the Democratic party is lurching further and further left with each election.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until the Democrats left their somewhat centrist views.
JFK advocated a strong military and was for cutting taxes.
These views today are labeled a extreme right.
And now we have a socialist candidate who wants to redistrubute the wealth.
The Democratic party is already clammoring to have the government be the arbitor of what is balanced with their so called fairness doctrine.
If Obama is elected we will be one small step from crossing that line to all out Communism.
|
|
| | | 48 | walk
ID: 181472714
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:35
|
I think Tree is correct. The whole country has moved over a bit, and the republicans moved too far over with the neocons and with the poor performance of Bush/Cheney and 6 of 8 years of republican dominance, there is still a backlash. First in 2006, and now in 2008. What's radical for republicans is the in-fighting, the Palin vs. McCain branches of republicansism and the endorsements of select key republican figures for Obama (e.g. Hagel, Colin Powell, Fried, Pressler, Buckley, others).
|
|
| | | 49 | Perm Dude
ID: 161040312
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:37
|
So you have to go back 50 years for examples to show this? Clinton was an economic centrist who favored the death penalty. Obama says that people can't depend upon the government to solve their problems--that they have to take personal responsibility for their children's education, their own workplaces, and their communities.
And these are examples of lurching to the left?
Do you even hear yourself?
|
|
| | | 50 | walk
ID: 181472714
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:37
|
Please. "Socialist candidate who wants to redistribute wealth." Are you weykool or son-of-Palin? He wants to roll back my tax cuts to pre-Bush levels...that's socialist? The CURRENT bank bailout, the PALIN Alaskan oil revenue sharing, THAT'S socialist. Whatever.
|
|
| | | 51 | Tree
ID: 13714198
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:43
|
Only in Tree's head could the Republicans reaching out and tapping the New York Times' favorite candidate be pursuing a radical agenda. Can you imagine his fulminations if they had picked a Republican and not someone flirting with the NYT?
the John McCain of November 3, 2008 is not the same John McCain of November 3, 2007.
it's sad that a man once considered a moderate has turned his back on his own ideals in the name of a few votes and attempt at power. it's a shame he's given into the radical right who put Palin on a podium as if she is some MILF goddess savior of the Right.
The facts are that the Democratic party is lurching further and further left with each election.
which would explain why moderates and undecideds seem poised to carry Obama to a landslide victory?
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until the Democrats left their somewhat centrist views.
Ronald Reagan supported The New Deal, for pete's sake. he began drifting the right, and two years after switching supported Barry Goldwater, who's basically the founder of the whole conservative movement - dems hardly shifted their policies - it was obvious Reagan going more right.
it should also be noted that as a politician, Reagan was always a Republican. he never ran for office as a Democrat.
JFK advocated a strong military and was for cutting taxes.
These views today are labeled a extreme right.
um, no.
i believe the US needs a strong military. i also believe we should use that military with extreme caution, and not go into countries guns-a-blazing, without a damned good reason.
Obama wants to cut taxes for 80 percent of americans - so he's on the extreme right?
And now we have a socialist candidate who wants to redistrubute the wealth.
i wont even address the silliness of your "Socialist" comment, but the fact of the matter is that TAXES are re-distributing the wealth.
If Obama is elected we will be one small step from crossing that line to all out Communism.
really? do you honestly believe that? oy...
|
|
| | | 52 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 18:45
|
What the money men would back...a Mormon
Nice to see you think being a Mormon is a disqualifier along with a carpetbagger and a NY Times darling.
I'm sure Reagan had that in mind when he suggested no enemies on the right, a principle you abandoned right along with the religious test.
You don't really understand what Reagan was all about after all.
|
|
| | | 53 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 19:36
|
the one Reagan comment, lost entirely by the Republicans today...
(paraphrasing because I dont recall the exact wording)
"I hope I motivate you by a sense of hope, and not by a sense of fear."
The rightwing today, is fear-mongering of the worst kind:
"Fight them over there before we have to fight them here..."
"You're either with us, or you're against us..."
"I'd rather feel safe from terrorism than have my civil liberties in tact..."
and on and on and on. The rightwing today, would seem perfectly content to institute a police state. We have Republicans, acting like McCarthy, calling for investigations into Senators and Representatives to determine "who is a REAL American"...
we have a candidate for VP, proclaiming certain pockets of red, as "true Americans"...
Folks, lets be brutally honest for a moment. Regardless of party affiliation, a TRUE American, is one who questions the governments motives.
|
|
| | | 54 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 20:00
|
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
|
| | | 55 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 20:07
|
true still today. And one reason, to not put the Republicans back in power. Their entire mantra, is fear, fear, fear right now. They harp on it, they preach it, they rally around it.
|
|
| | | 56 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 09:57
|
Post 54: I fear a government under Obama. I fear to know how in the hell I'm going to pay for my house and food and taxes and clothes for my 3 kids.
With McCain I believe it will be difficult but doable. With Obama I don't think I'll be able to because I'll be too busy paying for somebody else's kids.
|
|
| | | 57 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:06
|
Apparently then Khahan, you fear an increase in your taxes. That would mean, under the obama Tax Plan, you must make in excess fo $250,000/yr, or better than $20,000/m. In that scenario, I dont see where putting clothes on your families backs and food into your pantry, should pose any difficulty at all for you.
|
|
| | | 58 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:07
|
Khahan, do you make more than $200K? Even if you do, your taxes will only increase to where they were pre-Bush. What is your specific worry about concern about "paying for someone else's kids"?
|
|
| | | 59 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:18
|
Ok first, nothing in Obama's histories indicate he will honestly be at that $250,000 level. Nothing in the collected statements from his camp suggest that. He and Biden don't even agree on the number. Campaigning in PA, Obama stated it was $200,000 (not the famous $250,000) and Joe Biden stated it was FIFTY THOUSAND. Yes $50,000.
Even in this thread on these boards where I tend to believe people are more informed than the general public, the Obama supporters cannot agree on what Obama's tax threshold is.
Second, a part of Obama's plan for the economy is the generate money by taxing 'excess' profits of large companies. Now, please define excess. Then, tell me what those companies are going to do. I'll give you a multiple choice:
Will they say:
a) Look these taxes hit us and our profits are down from last year. But thats ok because the government programs are getting the money they need.
or
b) Look, these taxes are hitting us hard and our profits are down. What can we do to compensate and show a better bottom line? Layoffs? Raise prices? Reduce quantities but keep prices the same?
No my friends. I am very worried and very scared of the prospect of living under an Obama regime (note this not a republican vs democrat issue this is an Obama's way vs other ways issue).
|
|
| | | 60 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:22
|
Thanks Khahan. Don't know about the Biden threshold you cite. I think you are entitled to your concerns about taxing excessive corp profits. I am thinking some corps like Exxon-Mobil can afford those taxes.
|
|
| | | 61 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:35
|
Walk its no a matter of if the big companies can afford them. Yes, you and I and every other American knows they can afford them. Its a matter of 'how will the corporations respond to them?'
As for Obama's threshold, doesn't it make you stop and think for even a moment when people cannot agree on what he said it is? Forget Biden's comment. Just look at Obama's comments for the inconsistency. And then ask what that inconsistency truly means.
|
|
| | | 62 | Seattle Zen
ID: 358591721
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:35
|
I am very worried and very scared of the prospect of living under an Obama regime
Then go climb into a bunker, you little pansy, and leave the work to the men.
You probably wet yourself when you watched Pooh's Heffalump Movie at the thought of hunting heffalumps. I don't think there's much we can do for you, Khahan. I feel for your family.
|
|
| | | 63 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:39
|
and leave the work to the men
So you won't be doing anything either, then, SZ?
sorry, I don't usually snipe like this but that was about as immature and uncalled for as they get. And to direct it at somebody who has zero history of coming on here and name calling and taking cheap shots at individuals on a personal level. But then again if you cannot honestly attack the information to discredit it I guess you're only left with attacking the source.
|
|
| | | 64 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 10:45
|
I see what you are saying, Khahan, regarding the corp's potential response to taxation. I guess it's a wait and see, what extent the taxation is, and what the response is. Something has to be done though...it is not working the way it is currently set up.
Regarding the Obama/Biden tax limit. I have heard $200k and $250k. I am not worried though. At some point, we have to pay the visa bill on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., no? I mean, how do we pay off these bills? We have to cut spending and raise taxes. Someone has to be the bad guy.
|
|
| | | 65 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:01
|
walk - at least we agree something has to be done. What exactly needs done and how to go about doing it, though...
Personally I think the changes need to come about at the government level.
Term limits for all (and they don't go away just because you change from local to state to national) in order to get rid of the career politicians.
Flat tax across the board. All these people talking about 'fair' and spreading the wealth, a flat tax based on a set % is the only truly fair way.
There are a myriad other changes. Obama seems to want to change the skin on the structure, not change the nature of the structure itself
|
|
| | | 66 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:02
|
As for Obama's threshold, doesn't it make you stop and think for even a moment when people cannot agree on what he said it is? Forget Biden's comment. Just look at Obama's comments for the inconsistency. And then ask what that inconsistency truly means.
Doesn't it make you stop and think that the biggest part of Sarah Palin's 'reform' was a corporate increase in taxes spread around to the citiof Alaska? Isn't that inconsistent with McCain's pledge to keep corporate taxes at existing levels.
Both candidates are being disingenuous about taxes. The only way to avoid further meltdown of our financial system is to increase revenue while cutting spending at the same time.
You may argue that Obama's plans to increase spending on social programs, while current programs are in danger of default such as SS and Medicare, are inconsistent with fiscal sanity, but McCain excludes defense spending from sectors needing to be cut, as well as promoting a need for "victory" in Iraq without laying out a budget to accomplish the task, or even describing what that task entails.
It may turn out that Obama is an excellent manager who surrounds himself with top notch advisers and cabinet members.
But both of these candidates will have to find a way to increase revenues just to continue to fund existing programs, much less expanded ones, be they social or defense oriented.
|
|
| | | 67 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:05
|
according to the Obama Tax Plan...
if you make 200k or less, your federal income tax will go down
if you make 200k to 250k, there would be no change
if you make more than 250k, your federal income tax will go up
Now, if I make 20k/m, I should damn well be able to feed/house/clothe my family and live in apretty damn comfortable lifestyle. If I cant, then like so many others, I'd be grossly negligent in living within my means.
|
|
| | | 68 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:43
|
What Obama claims to do about taxes to get elected, and what the Democrat Congress and Obama actually do are two different matters. My guess is they will raise taxes.
|
|
| | | 69 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:52
|
Well, we'll see. One can extend that argument to other campaign promises or lackthereof. However, if taxes increased proportionately, then I am okay with that. We need fiscal responsibility, again.
|
|
| | | 70 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 12:59
|
Lets put that to the test sarge.
$200,000 for a family of 5.
After federal and local taxes the take home is about $130,000
3 kids in day care because both parents work is about $18,000 grand (for a church day care, not even one of the expensive franchises)
$112,000 left
Property taxes:
$100,000 left
Mortgage payment:
$74,000 left
Car payment:
$70,000 left
(and for families w/ 2 car payments) $66,000 left
(we'll split and work at $68,000 left)
Home and auto insurance and life insurance:
$64,000
Utilities (electric, gas, heat, water, cable phone)
$61,000
Groceries:
$58,000
Gas for the car ($45/fill up x 2cars x 3 time/month x 12 months):
$55,000
Retirement savings:
$30,000
Health care benefits:
$22000
We're at $22000 left and we have not even covered a lot of normal every day expenses like eating out, buying holiday gifts, birthday gifts, unexpected repair bills for home and/or auto. Buying things to furnish your home. New clothes for growing kids etc.
Lets not forget on those wonderful health careplans that we pay thousands for each year there is still a big chunk of OOP expenses for checkups, prescriptions etc in the form of co-pays and deductibles.
How far do you think that $22,000 is going to stretch for all that among 5 people?
So your assertion that any fiscally responsible people should have no problems putting clothes on their own kids backs?
And I don't carry any debt outside of a single car payment and my mortgage. Credit card bills are paid off in full monthly. We live on a tight budget with no room for a lot of the frills of life. And no, my wife and I do not make the $200,000 suggested above. We make less than that.
But under Obama and a democratic house I'll get hit with higher taxes and a higher cost of goods. They won't stop at people making less than $200,000. When it comes time to get money to pay for their grand ideals they'll go as far down the income brackets as they have to.
|
|
| | | 71 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:01
|
I raised a family of 6, on an income < 30k gross in the late 80s.
Yes, it can easily be done.
|
|
| | | 72 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:12
|
The cost of living has gone up significantly more than the average income Sarge. I don't think anything listed above is very outlandish. In fact I think a lot of the numbers are a bit on the conservative side.
Still, $30k for a family of 6 in any decade is beyond difficult. Its not something most average Americans can do. I'd say your situation was an extraordinary one.
|
|
| | | 73 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:17
|
No Khahan...you just drive a car for longer than 26 months.
You realize, that owning 3 homes, isnt necessary.
You accept that steaks for dinner, is a luxury and not an entitlement.
You entertain the family, with games and playing together outside. Not with trips to Disneyland and stays in $250/n hotels.
You figure out, that vacations can be spent at home, with the family, vs on the road or in an airport.
Still, on 200k, I could easily raise a family of 8 today, let alone your hypothetical one of 5.
|
|
| | | 74 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 14:36
|
Yes Sarge we do a lot of those things you mentioned. But that family of 5 is not as hypothetical as you may think. I based many of those figures off what we actually pay.
|
|
| | | 75 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 14:43
|
I'll admit geography has a play in it. Housing in some parts of the country, is quite simply absolutely ridiculously expensive. And as a major component of the cost of living, it creates problems for some regions. 200k in SF for ex, is not the same thing as 200k in Des Moines, IA.
There are reasons certain geographies are not even ones I would consider living/working. In the midwest for the most part, "fly over country" to many coasties, 200k is more than sufficient to live very comfortably, unless you are trying to provide for a double-digit nr of people. So take what I say re family costs, and keep it relative to my experiences.
Late 80s, we bought a 1500 sq ft, 4 bedroom, 80 year old 2-story home on a dble lot, for 34k. No, it wasnt a fixer-upper. It was move-in ready.
|
|
| | | 76 | holt
ID: 25923117
Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 20:46
|
"We have to cut spending and raise taxes."
I would agree with the cut spending part, but focus the cuts on the dollars that are leaving our country, not the dollars that are circulating back into our economy. Don't put federal employees out of work, don't close military bases, etc. Look to cut the spending that doesn't directly funnel money back through our own country.
Raising taxes (especially in the current state of our economy) can be very reckless. Especially when you're talking about driving a stake through the upper middle-class. All of that cash is currently doing something in our economy. What happens when you remove it? Just leave that money where it is so it can circulate through businesses and workers' hands in a normal fashion. That's my two cents anyway.
|
|
| | | 77 | holt
ID: 25923117
Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 20:57
|
sarge, if our middle-class/upper middle-class enter a new age of frugality, our economy will be up a creek without a paddle. sure, there are plenty of people who need to be frugal as a way of life, but if our economy gets to the point where everyone but the millionaires has to watch every penny... I don't even want to think about that.
|
|
| | | 78 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 21:22
|
the middle class, is dying off. Fewer and fewer are middle-class with each passing month. Some become upper middle class, and more become lower middle class, then lower class (economically).
Taxes in this country, are lower than in most industrialized nations, yet we feel somehow entitled to even lower taxes. I dont have hard data and I doubt any exists. But if we as a citizenry would QUIT cheating on our taxes, I have no doubt it would make a HUGE difference.
Virtually every "small businessman" I know, drives a company car. Ostensibly, it is used for work and it gets wwritten off the company expenses. But what is it REALLY used for? Driving to and from work? Not deductible. Getting groceries? Not deductible. Going hunting? Not deductible. Yet 100% of the operating expense, gets deducted. I know of more than a few, who bought their HOMES in their business name, using a company check to make the mortgage payment every month. That too, gets written off. (Ostensibly, its listed as a second business location.) Allowing for the deducting of the cost to sink a new well. "Bills Used Cars", the indpendent used car guy on the corner...sells a car for 8k, takes 8k, but papers it showing 5k. Saves the customer tax money when they go to the courthouse to register the car (defrauds the state), and his books show 3k less income for every car. Thats state income tax evasion and federal income tax evasion as well state tax fraud from the "sales tax" on the vehicle. I KNOW, of 4 such lots in ONE city doing this. They told me they do it. These are not isolated occurances. I've seen it, in every city I've worked/lived in as a civilian adult. Shall we extrapolate, and ascertain some idea, of how many billions of tax dollars are fraudulently not paid?
I dont like taxes anymore than the next guy, but we cant have a government without them. We cant have Police Departments, Fire Departments, a military, DOT, etc etc etc. Taxes are a necessity, plain and simple. Some self-discipline in spending would be a very pleasant change from Washington, I'll quickly agree. And FWIW, I think we can start by bringing home 1/2 the military from Iraq (saving $5,000,000,000/m) and sending the other half to Afghanistan/Pakistan where AQ is hiding out.
|
|
| | | 79 | holt
ID: 25923117
Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 00:28
|
I think your point about people cheating on their taxes is a good case for massively overhauling the federal tax system, not for raising tax rates. I think it's insane that an employer has to consider the tax implications of every business decision they make. There has to be a better way.
Just noticed the title of this thread. Why are we talking taxes here? :D
|
|
|
|