View Full Version : BHO "Hope, Change, Future"
I've come to realize exactly what BHO means by this campaign slogan--his hope is to get his hand on all the change in my pocket in the future. :mad:
Have y'all seen the attached sign yet? :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Red Flag 1
10-15-2008, 18:48
I've come to realize exactly what BHO means by this campaign slogan--his hope is to get his hand on all the change in my pocket in the future. :mad:
Have y'all seen the attached sign yet? :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
BHO...everything an American should not be. :mad:
IMHO.
RF 1
I hope the way Obama's getting spanked in the debate doesn't change in the future.
I hope the way Obama's getting spanked in the debate doesn't change in the future.
Seems to have a big smirk when McCain is talking.
Seems to have a big smirk when McCain is talking.
And a lot of sweat! JMcC is not backing off and just doggedly and calmly reciting fact after countering fact. I enjoyed the way he went after BHO and the Ayers/ACORN/$$ issues. :lifter
Bob Schieffer is asking good, pointed questions, too. :p
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I wish McCain would just call BHO underlying socialist agendas out. I feel like McCain's statements about Joe the Plumber/ redistribution of wealth is just dancing around the issue.
McCain's energy dependence sh peel was spot on!
Physical Fitness programs for America's youth! I am so glad McCain hit on that!
"If you wanted to run against Bush, then you should have run four years ago."
I was jumping off the sofa on that one yelling, "NOW THAT is waht I am talking about!" Obama still hasn't recovered from that sting. McCain is really good when he lets the dogs out.
NoRoadtrippin
10-15-2008, 20:26
I have to admit, on the Joe the plumber thing, i'm kinda at a loss. I think Ranger School has left me way out of the loop on all of the political issues.
The way I see it, Obama wants Joe to pay more taxes once he is making over the constantly mentioned 250k. If he isn't making over this as a result of starting his own plumbing business then he wouldn't pay more. If he is, then I agree that just like larger businesses, he can afford to pay more.
Fix me if I'm wrong. Ha.
The point isn't that he can afford, but that government shouldn't take and give your money based on their interests like Russia does. Otherwise, all the people making over 250,000 can work less or stop at 250,000 which will slow, not increase growth.
If he isn't making over this as a result of starting his own plumbing business then he wouldn't pay more. If he is, then I agree that just like larger businesses, he can afford to pay more.
Fix me if I'm wrong. Ha.
The money taken through taxation will fund transfer payments (welfare by other names).
The same money, if not taken through taxation, can be used to reinvest in the business, thus fueling growth and increasing employment. Alternatively, the money can be used for consumption, thus encouraging growth among other businesses.
Which is the more constructive use of the money?
Which is more in accordance with the principles of economic freedom and capitalism?
Which is more in accordance with socialism?
NoRoadtrippin
10-15-2008, 20:42
Ok, I agree with and see the logic in both of these last posts, but hasn't always also been true that the more you make the higher the tax bracket you are in? I mean that just makes sense right?
damn, even foxnews talking heads are giving BHO a big plug for his performance in the debate... and there I was thinking that BHO was getting schooled by McCain.:confused::mad:
"If you wanted to run against Bush, then you should have run four years ago."
One of my favorite lines of the evening...BAM!
It doesn’t make me feel confident when my favorite moment was the “Senator Government” Freudian slip. :mad:
Pat
damn, even foxnews talking heads are giving BHO a big plug for his performance in the debate... and there I was thinking that BHO was getting schooled by McCain.
I think the talking heads on Fox and the other networks are such idiots that even though McCain took it to Obama, they can't see it or say if they did. The only thing McCain could have said differently is that Obama is a liar, which he implied with his comments about his eloquence.
Let's face it, if we as voters can't figure out that Obama is a liar and a socialistic piece of Sh##, then we will get the President we deserve. Obama is a BS artist.
I wish McCain had said, regardless that these other gentlemen were on the board, when do you Mr. Obama say,"I will not be on a board of any kind with a terrorist!". When do you say that sir? Is terrorism of any kind a nuance where 30 years diminishes the crime. How can that POS be a college professor?
We are living in a time of morons. If there was a tax credit for stupidy, there would be a lot less foreclosures.
Ok, I agree with and see the logic in both of these last posts, but hasn't always also been true that the more you make the higher the tax bracket you are in? I mean that just makes sense right?
Does it?
By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time. Form 1040 was introduced as the standard tax reporting form and, though changed in many ways over the years, remains in use today.
LINK (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml)
Ponder for a moment how much money $500,000 was in 1913. Now look at the tax rates. Interesting progression, isn't it?
The tax arrangement you describe is called "progressive taxation", whereas a flat tax rate (equal percentages for all) is called "regressive taxation". Notice the subtle implications of the labels. Perceptions are molded with such labels.
Let us suppose that progressive taxation makes sense. At what level is it "good"? Should we have 98% taxation above the $250M mark? 90%? 70%? Do we even know?
Is a national sales tax better (or, for that matter, worse?)
Notice that none of these issues are discussed in depth. Instead, the debate tends toward divisiveness. In essence, it becomes "Those rich people can afford it. Let's take it to help the poor people." This may be a powerful argument if one sees oneself as being permanently among the poor. I wonder if it illuminates the problem, or guides us toward wise solutions.
The question "why?" is powerful. Applied repeatedly, it can produce interesting results.
So, we might ask: "Is a progressive income tax good?"
We answer: Sure...it's just common sense.
We then ask: "Why is it good? Why is it just common sense?
Perhaps we answer: "We should let the rich help the poor, and spread the wealth around?"
Ask: "Why?"
And so on.
Now, you mention you've just finished ranger school. Please accept my congratulations and compliments. I'm sure you have far more physical agility than do I. So...if there was a pill that would transfer some of your agility to me, would such a transfer be fair? :D
Seems to have a big smirk when McCain is talking.
I agree with quite a few of the above posts, I believe McCain beat Obama by a considerable margin. That being said, Obama can afford it, he has the media in his back pocket. Already the folks at MSNBC, etc., are doing his work for him.
Pete, I believe he has such a large smirk on his face because he genuinely believes he has this one in the bag. He genuinely believes he has America fooled(and he may very well have done so, we shall see), as well as the fact that he's noticably starting to buy into his own ego.:mad:
Being that BHo didn't lose his cool and McCain didn't have a spectacular momemnt.....I'd call this debate a tie.
I am still voting for McCain, but the undecided folks will be deciding factor in who is our next POTUS.
damn, even foxnews talking heads are giving BHO a big plug for his performance in the debate... and there I was thinking that BHO was getting schooled by McCain.:confused::mad:
I am surprised by this as well. What is more surprising to me is what is happening on ABC and NBC. Their pundits said without a doubt McCain won this debate. Obama was too cautious. Although they don't think it was a game changer. With NBC and their undecided voters watching the debate, 3 out of 6 said they will now vote for McCain, 1 of six will now vote for Obama, and 2 are still undecided. The host didn't know what to say.
My opinion McCain's strongest point was when he asked Obama why in this time of economic turmoil you would want to raise the taxes on ANYONE. The last POTUS to increase spending as well as raising taxes in economic turmoil was Hoover and it was disastrous.
I wish McCain would have hit some points harder, but I was pleasantly surprised by his performance tonight.
ZonieDiver
10-15-2008, 21:32
I have to admit, on the Joe the plumber thing, i'm kinda at a loss. I think Ranger School has left me way out of the loop on all of the political issues.
The way I see it, Obama wants Joe to pay more taxes once he is making over the constantly mentioned 250k. If he isn't making over this as a result of starting his own plumbing business then he wouldn't pay more. If he is, then I agree that just like larger businesses, he can afford to pay more.
Fix me if I'm wrong. Ha.
And another problem with Obama's "tax math" is that is just doesn't work. To fund his proposed programs, he would almost have to confiscate all the income of those who make over $250,000. Come to think of it, maybe that IS what he has planned.
I hope enough intelligent voters out there realize that this is the CHANGE we can expect from Obamassiah the First. :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin