Taetsch Z-24 wrote:really ment what?

Chris

That you would mindlessly elect anyone as long as they supported gun rights.

Ahh, Correct.

But I answered the question, on average they do support gun rights more then dem's...

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Ahh, Correct.

But I answered the question, on average they do support gun rights more then dem's...

Chris

On the average, Libertarians support all rights more than either Dem or Rep.

Don't vote for "the average," but rather vote for whomever is actually on the ticket. For most - the (D) or (R) in front of their name does not reflect 100% of their stances on issues(often time they are simply just choosing which "power structure" - aka party - to belong too), and it certainly cannot tell you anything about their intelligence, integrity, or ability.
The other thing when you speak of averages, is that your average Democrat or Republican politician is a poor reflection of your average Democrat or Republican citizen.




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

On average, Libertarians don't get in....Any way you want to dice it, my statement was correct. I answered the question.


But if they had a chance to win.....hell ya!

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

They don't get in because the people who support them don't vote for them. In the words of Jesse Ventura -

Quote:

This ain't a horse race. You don't vote for who you THINK will win. You vote for who you WANT to win. They try to tell you that voting 3rd party is just wasting your vote, but if you don't vote your conscience, you just wasted your vote.

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

Exactly, they know that no one will ever vote for anyone else so they can screw you with impunity.

So its a good thing i voted for Dr. Paul then?

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:So its a good thing i voted for Dr. Paul then?

Chris

Correct. Win or not, at least you didn't waste your vote.

You don't even have 3rd parties at the debates now because Ross Perot scared the @!#$ out of the Dems and Reps alike, and after that they agreed to form a so called "independent organization" to host the debate that is in fact totally controlled by Dems and Reps. They are the different sides of the same dirty coin.

As for Perot, if he didn't quit and rejoin the election so many times, he might have one that thing. 3rd parties CAN do it if people who support them would just freakin vote for them instead of someone they aren't even really that wild about. Granted some elections don't have anyone worth voting for(2000, 2004 etc) but in this election we do.

I'm half surprised really that people consider this election to be between Obama and McCain instead of Obama and Barr. Barr is far superior to McCain in every aspect. If he or Obama won, I'd be quite happy(but they did exclude him from the debates unfortunately). And yes I realize I mentioned specific candidates when I earlier asked someone else to refrain. Guess I'm a hypocrite now LOL.

And now we have Nader in the election too. IMO he is just a self-important moron who only has a following among extreme leftists, but none-the-less I think that since he (like Barr) is running in the election as a candidate, he should also have a spot in the debates. Its a complete sham that all candidates do not have a voice.

Still support who you ACTUALLY SUPPORT, not who you think you have to settle with. And back up that support with a contribution if you can... or at the very least with your freakin vote!!




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

Here is a clip, for those who haven't seen it, of Obama talking to the plumber about his taxes being increased under his plan.





Notice a very important point that Obama makes in this: if your revenue is over $250K, your taxes will increase. 95% of businesses in the US are not below this line. Don't be fooled by his double talk. He will raise the taxes on the majority of businesses, and there will be more lay-offs because of it.

The 40% flat tax argument he makes is complete bullsh!t. That statement basicly says that the average taxes now, which would be replaced by a flat tax, is 40%. He's talking about raising the over $250K bracket to 39%, so how could the average possibly be 40%?

Obama is not change. He is more of the same, and part of the tax-happy Democrats in power, interested in redistributing the wealth from the producers to the non-producers.

It is projected that the Senate will be a Democrat super-majority, and with the House, Senate, and Whitehouse all under Democrat control, they will pass any tax increase they want, to fund any program they want, without reproach. I can not think of a stronger reason to vote Republican than this, because if they get the projected control, our country will be at the mercy of one party.

Quick: Kinda like Bush's first term, huh, where the Republicans used the bill of rights as a doorstop when they had the majority--all under the white elephant of "security"?

Let me spell it out very simply for everyone:

The Democrats will screw you over

The Republicans will screw you over

Both parties have been doing the same business since they came into existance. You're only fooling yourself if you think eith have your best interests at heart.

Want change? Pick up your voter's pamphlet, read up on every other 3rd party candidate there is, pick the one closest to your goals and ideals, and vote for them. Be it Independent, Libertarian, Socialist worker's party, Whig, or whatever. The only route to change is to stop the Democrats or Republicans from running things.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Joe the plumber needs to pay his taxes to begin with. Joe is a lier, the business he wants to buy doesn't make any where close to $250K a year. Joe obviously is an idiot he has been a plumber for 15 years and still doesn't have a license.

Show me some facts to back up your statistic that he will raise taxes on the majority of businesses, what is the exact figure of businesses in the US that make more than $250K. What is the definition of a "small" business? What is the financial cut off to be considered a small business? If that cut off is $250K or less guess what he will be lowering taxes for 95% of small businesses. It is all in how you define a small business.

Obama is closer to change than McCain. Of course that is an opinion. What is wrong with redistributing wealth? We redistribute wealth to rich bankers so why cant we redistribute it to working class people that need it?

I like how you say they will spend money without reproach, kind of like the republicans of the last 8 years right? Is that how they will spend? Blowing the budget surplus that Clinton left and driving the national debt to the moon, is that what you mean? spend money like that?

@!#$ Republicans they are no better than Democrats, and personally I don't think anyone can do a worse job than W. has done. I will vote for Obama and be proud that I did.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

^Sadly that in the end it will end up as a "wasted vote."

Quiklilcav wrote:Here is a clip, for those who haven't seen it, of Obama talking to the plumber about his taxes being increased under his plan.

Notice a very important point that Obama makes in this: if your revenue is over $250K, your taxes will increase. 95% of businesses in the US are not below this line. Don't be fooled by his double talk. He will raise the taxes on the majority of businesses, and there will be more lay-offs because of it.

The 40% flat tax argument he makes is complete bullsh!t. That statement basicly says that the average taxes now, which would be replaced by a flat tax, is 40%. He's talking about raising the over $250K bracket to 39%, so how could the average possibly be 40%?

Obama is not change. He is more of the same, and part of the tax-happy Democrats in power, interested in redistributing the wealth from the producers to the non-producers.

It is projected that the Senate will be a Democrat super-majority, and with the House, Senate, and Whitehouse all under Democrat control, they will pass any tax increase they want, to fund any program they want, without reproach. I can not think of a stronger reason to vote Republican than this, because if they get the projected control, our country will be at the mercy of one party.

The spending freely Republicans for the past 40 years has grown our debt so high that some one has to be mature enough to repay it. The Republicans has been giving socialist style tax welfare, to corporations i.e. oil industry, airplane corp, etc . And since the 80's Republicans has been giving tax breaks if you build outside of the states, which is why almost nothing is "Made in the USA." Now the taxing bracket is higher for for the rich, but it is NOT in proportion to the income, the disparity of lower paying taxes gets lower the more you make; making low income people pay more.
If you wanted low tax Republican you should have Ron Paul on the ticket, but you don't... So what now? Still vote Republican just because for the party affiliation?







THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:The spending freely Republicans for the past 40 years has grown our debt so high that some one has to be mature enough to repay it. The Republicans has been giving socialist style tax welfare, to corporations i.e. oil industry, airplane corp, etc . And since the 80's Republicans has been giving tax breaks if you build outside of the states, which is why almost nothing is "Made in the USA." Now the taxing bracket is higher for for the rich, but it is NOT in proportion to the income, the disparity of lower paying taxes gets lower the more you make; making low income people pay more.
If you wanted low tax Republican you should have Ron Paul on the ticket, but you don't... So what now? Still vote Republican just because for the party affiliation?

The Republicans have not had the majority for the last 40 years. Are you seriously believing that? GHW Bush had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had a Democratic congress until 94. GW Bush had a Democratic congress until 2006. None of these presidents had a supermajority that we are about to see. There has always been some semblance of balance, even when there was a majority. There are always a few respectable senators and representatives that don't simply vote with their party, so even with a majority there is not usually the ability of one party to rule. When you have such a large majority, there aren't enough willing to go against the party to matter.

The notion that someone has to do the mature thing and repay it is true, but it will not be done by increasing tax rates on anyone. It will be done by cutting spending. There are too many programs that just suck up money from the economy in general. There are also too many "feel-good" programs to keep the dependant population more dependant on the producers. This isn't taking care of people, it's enabling and encouraging laziness. Remember the concept of Work-fair? Democrats screamed about this being cruel. How could we possibly suggest that people work for their free money? Outrageous! It caused an uproar because the Democrats claimed that the Republicans didn't care about the poor, and people ate it up.

I'd like to know exactly where you pay taxes that it's lower as you make more, because I can tell you that as long as I have been paying them, my taxes have gone up the more I make. With the Bush cuts a few years ago, I noticed a difference, and I was not making a killing. I noticed a difference when the last increase to the child exemption was raised. However, the current system is still a graduated tax that gets heavier as your income increases. It is absolutely not lighter as you suggest.

I don't agree with tax credits for companies that build out of country, but I certainly do not agree with increasing taxes on businesses in general, which is exactly what Obama is going to do. That is one of the quickest ways to increase unemployment and stifle economic growth.

By the way, I love how the Democrats keep pointing out that Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. They never mention that Clinton tripled it during his 8 years.

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:The spending freely Republicans for the past 40 years has grown our debt so high that some one has to be mature enough to repay it. The Republicans has been giving socialist style tax welfare, to corporations i.e. oil industry, airplane corp, etc . And since the 80's Republicans has been giving tax breaks if you build outside of the states, which is why almost nothing is "Made in the USA." Now the taxing bracket is higher for for the rich, but it is NOT in proportion to the income, the disparity of lower paying taxes gets lower the more you make; making low income people pay more.
If you wanted low tax Republican you should have Ron Paul on the ticket, but you don't... So what now? Still vote Republican just because for the party affiliation?

The Republicans have not had the majority for the last 40 years. Are you seriously believing that? GHW Bush had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had a Democratic congress until 94. GW Bush had a Democratic congress until 2006. None of these presidents had a supermajority that we are about to see. There has always been some semblance of balance, even when there was a majority. There are always a few respectable senators and representatives that don't simply vote with their party, so even with a majority there is not usually the ability of one party to rule. When you have such a large majority, there aren't enough willing to go against the party to matter.

The notion that someone has to do the mature thing and repay it is true, but it will not be done by increasing tax rates on anyone. It will be done by cutting spending. There are too many programs that just suck up money from the economy in general. There are also too many "feel-good" programs to keep the dependant population more dependant on the producers. This isn't taking care of people, it's enabling and encouraging laziness. Remember the concept of Work-fair? Democrats screamed about this being cruel. How could we possibly suggest that people work for their free money? Outrageous! It caused an uproar because the Democrats claimed that the Republicans didn't care about the poor, and people ate it up.

I'd like to know exactly where you pay taxes that it's lower as you make more, because I can tell you that as long as I have been paying them, my taxes have gone up the more I make. With the Bush cuts a few years ago, I noticed a difference, and I was not making a killing. I noticed a difference when the last increase to the child exemption was raised. However, the current system is still a graduated tax that gets heavier as your income increases. It is absolutely not lighter as you suggest.

I don't agree with tax credits for companies that build out of country, but I certainly do not agree with increasing taxes on businesses in general, which is exactly what Obama is going to do. That is one of the quickest ways to increase unemployment and stifle economic growth.

By the way, I love how the Democrats keep pointing out that Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. They never mention that Clinton tripled it during his 8 years.

First off - how is saying that Clinton did this a defense for what Bush has done? (granted I've never actually seen that particular stat to know it its even legit but still...)

Next - Republicans DID have a majority in the senate, house, and a president in the white house from 2000 to 2006. Bush has only had to play ball with the Dems since 2006. With even the votes they has pre-2006, the Dems had no spine to oppose Bush and he always got his way. They STILL don't have much in the way of a spine.

As for taxes - yes the rate goes up as you make more - but if you can afford a tax lawyer then that isn't the case. There are so many tax loopholes to go through that the rich and uber rich effectively pay a much lower percentage of their income. 95% of small businesses don't make MORE than $250,000, 95% of small businesses make LESS than $250,000 - so you have that backwards. In the case of Obama's plan - if you make $260,000, your taxes will be lower for the first $250,000 and higher for the remaining $10,000.

GWB has been redistributing the wealth since he got in office - he just has distributed it upwards instead of to the people who need it. Apparently you don't call it socialism just so long as it benefits the elite of society. And its funny to consider that Palin keeps talking about Obama being a socialist when she is from a state that gets alot more from the federal government than they pay and where the state government owns all the oil - and the people get free money as a result. If that ain't a socialist state, I don't know what is...






Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

Quiklilcav wrote:Here is a clip, for those who haven't seen it, of Obama talking to the plumber about his taxes being increased under his plan.





Notice a very important point that Obama makes in this: if your revenue is over $250K, your taxes will increase. 95% of businesses in the US are not below this line. Don't be fooled by his double talk. He will raise the taxes on the majority of businesses, and there will be more lay-offs because of it.

The 40% flat tax argument he makes is complete bullsh!t. That statement basicly says that the average taxes now, which would be replaced by a flat tax, is 40%. He's talking about raising the over $250K bracket to 39%, so how could the average possibly be 40%?

Obama is not change. He is more of the same, and part of the tax-happy Democrats in power, interested in redistributing the wealth from the producers to the non-producers.

It is projected that the Senate will be a Democrat super-majority, and with the House, Senate, and Whitehouse all under Democrat control, they will pass any tax increase they want, to fund any program they want, without reproach. I can not think of a stronger reason to vote Republican than this, because if they get the projected control, our country will be at the mercy of one party.

Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher related to Charles “the Crook” Keating for those who remember McCain's old Keating 5 scandal.

And of course he has admitted that he isn't gonna make anything near enough to actually be taxed more under Obama(aka he basically admitted to being a lair who was trying to play "gotcha" with Obama). Your average plumber makes much, much less than $250,000 so this isn't surprising.

And no this is not gonna lead to unemployment. Your customers{or your customer's customers} not having much money to spend leads to unemployment - and vice-versa if your average people have more money(aka Obama's tax cuts for lower and middle class), then you do more business, make more money, and need to hire more workers. Even if you are one of the few who would pay additional tax - that is more than offset by taking in alot more money.




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:The spending freely Republicans for the past 40 years has grown our debt so high that some one has to be mature enough to repay it. The Republicans has been giving socialist style tax welfare, to corporations i.e. oil industry, airplane corp, etc . And since the 80's Republicans has been giving tax breaks if you build outside of the states, which is why almost nothing is "Made in the USA." Now the taxing bracket is higher for for the rich, but it is NOT in proportion to the income, the disparity of lower paying taxes gets lower the more you make; making low income people pay more.
If you wanted low tax Republican you should have Ron Paul on the ticket, but you don't... So what now? Still vote Republican just because for the party affiliation?

The Republicans have not had the majority for the last 40 years. Are you seriously believing that? GHW Bush had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had a Democratic congress until 94. GW Bush had a Democratic congress until 2006. None of these presidents had a supermajority that we are about to see. There has always been some semblance of balance, even when there was a majority. There are always a few respectable senators and representatives that don't simply vote with their party, so even with a majority there is not usually the ability of one party to rule. When you have such a large majority, there aren't enough willing to go against the party to matter.

The notion that someone has to do the mature thing and repay it is true, but it will not be done by increasing tax rates on anyone. It will be done by cutting spending. There are too many programs that just suck up money from the economy in general. There are also too many "feel-good" programs to keep the dependant population more dependant on the producers. This isn't taking care of people, it's enabling and encouraging laziness. Remember the concept of Work-fair? Democrats screamed about this being cruel. How could we possibly suggest that people work for their free money? Outrageous! It caused an uproar because the Democrats claimed that the Republicans didn't care about the poor, and people ate it up.

I'd like to know exactly where you pay taxes that it's lower as you make more, because I can tell you that as long as I have been paying them, my taxes have gone up the more I make. With the Bush cuts a few years ago, I noticed a difference, and I was not making a killing. I noticed a difference when the last increase to the child exemption was raised. However, the current system is still a graduated tax that gets heavier as your income increases. It is absolutely not lighter as you suggest.

I don't agree with tax credits for companies that build out of country, but I certainly do not agree with increasing taxes on businesses in general, which is exactly what Obama is going to do. That is one of the quickest ways to increase unemployment and stifle economic growth.

By the way, I love how the Democrats keep pointing out that Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. They never mention that Clinton tripled it during his 8 years.

1. Clinton actually did a surplus in his last years, not "tripled" the deficit.
2. What Obama is going to do is the opposite to WHAT HAS NEVER WORKED... That is the BS of the looser Ronald Reagan of "trickle down economics." Instead of socializing the upper 1% to "trickle" down as it never worked (thank greed for that), instead it will be sent to the working class...you know... the group that moves the economy.
3.You got what I said about the taxes that if it's lower you pay less all backwards there. Read what BastardKing3000 wrote, to explain it for you. Basically the proportion from income to taxed is skewed so that the higher income folks are taxed at a smaller proportion then low income folks.
4. Well if you like cut spending on welfare or "dependent programs," then you've like Clinton's line of work. He cut welfare tremendously and redistributed it into gov't jobs, hence the job employment went up and tax revenue went up and in the end, a surplus to our beautiful national debt that the great Reagan once ballooned.
5. Lastly, you got it all backwards again on who was majority. During the Clinton and W.Bush eras, Republicans held majority during their double 4 year terms. Actually 6 out 8 years.

I hope you realize that I replied you backwards as that's the trend you understand very well.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Bastardking3000 wrote:Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher related to Charles “the Crook” Keating for those who remember McCain's old Keating 5 scandal.

And of course he has admitted that he isn't gonna make anything near enough to actually be taxed more under Obama(aka he basically admitted to being a lair who was trying to play "gotcha" with Obama). Your average plumber makes much, much less than $250,000 so this isn't surprising.

You guys are missing the point. What comes out of Obama's mouth is what's the key here. I don't give a sh!t if Joe made up the crap or not. The bottom line is some key things that come out of the mouth of the candidate in question. He wants to raise the taxes on businesses with revenue over $250K. The average business with $250K in revenue has a net profit of generally $8-10 grand after all taxes and other costs are deducted from the revenue. He is not speaking in this clip about personal income. He is speaking about business. This is part of the package that people keep ignoring.

Bastardking3000 wrote:And no this is not gonna lead to unemployment. Your customers{or your customer's customers} not having much money to spend leads to unemployment - and vice-versa if your average people have more money(aka Obama's tax cuts for lower and middle class), then you do more business, make more money, and need to hire more workers. Even if you are one of the few who would pay additional tax - that is more than offset by taking in alot more money.

With the current state of the economy, the average person has too much debt, and many are having a hard time keeping up with it. If and when their taxes are lowered, they are not going to begin immediately spending it, they are going to catch up. By this time, the businesses that see higher tax rates will have already acted on their increased cost. They will cut payroll. It is the only way to seriously impact the bottom line. It might be layoffs, it might be hours cut back, but it will still result in the decline in income. So even if those people pay less in taxes, this will be offset by the decrease in income, so they will not have more to spend.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:1. Clinton actually did a surplus in his last years, not "tripled" the deficit.
2. What Obama is going to do is the opposite to WHAT HAS NEVER WORKED... That is the BS of the looser Ronald Reagan of "trickle down economics." Instead of socializing the upper 1% to "trickle" down as it never worked (thank greed for that), instead it will be sent to the working class...you know... the group that moves the economy.
3.You got what I said about the taxes that if it's lower you pay less all backwards there. Read what BastardKing3000 wrote, to explain it for you. Basically the proportion from income to taxed is skewed so that the higher income folks are taxed at a smaller proportion then low income folks.
4. Well if you like cut spending on welfare or "dependent programs," then you've like Clinton's line of work. He cut welfare tremendously and redistributed it into gov't jobs, hence the job employment went up and tax revenue went up and in the end, a surplus to our beautiful national debt that the great Reagan once ballooned.
5. Lastly, you got it all backwards again on who was majority. During the Clinton and W.Bush eras, Republicans held majority during their double 4 year terms. Actually 6 out 8 years.

I hope you realize that I replied you backwards as that's the trend you understand very well.

There you go. Start attacking me now. When all else fails, just start trying to cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence.

1. Clinton never had a budget surplus. That was a numbers game that they played (typical accounting tricks) where they looked at a wider group of numbers, so it looked like they balanced the budget, when in reality they just changed the equasion. The debt was just over $2 trillion when he took office, and just under $6 trillion when he left. I will give you that Bush actually increased it by a higher dollar amount, but the bottom line is look at the ratio of increase.

2. Trickle-down worked, and it worked damned well for a decade. The problems in the economy had absolutely nothing to do with lower taxes. In fact, the total tax revenue during the Reagan years increased dramaticly. The funny thing about you saying Reagan was a loser is that Obama regularly references the Reagan years, because he knows how well this country did during them. If you look back at old headlines, you will see that in 92, the economy was on a big upswing. Clinton took the oath of office in 93, and claimed responsibility for the increase in the economy. In 2000, we were at the beginning of a decline in the economy. Bush took the oath in 2001, and they began immediately blaming him for it. By the way, typing it in all caps doesn't make your statement right.

3. The loopholes are not big enough that the rich pay a lower percentage. They still pay more, and the Democrats pound on the notion over and over that because rich keep dollar amounts that are higher than the average Joe, that it's unfair. Gary's "barstool economics" thread hits the nail on the head. This is the underlying emotion behind class warfares.

4. Clinton did not cut those programs. As a matter of fact, he was one of the ones who was claiming that the Republicans were cruel for suggesting work-fare. And again, he never had a surplus.

5. I don't have anything there backwards. Clinton took office with a Democratic majority congress. part way through his presidency, the Republicans regained the majority, where it stayed until 2006. Regardless, no one has ever had the supermajority that we are about to see. If you don't believe this is dangerous, you are simply allowing yourself to be decieved.

1. Please explain these accounting tricks to me because as far as the government records show there was a surplus of $69.2B in 1998, $122.7B in 1999 and $230B in 2000.

2. Trickle down economics does not work. It makes the rich richer and it widens the gap between the upper and middle classes.

As far as Clinton taking credit for the economy upturn in 93 and Bush being blamed for the downturn in 2001 you can not have it both ways, when talking about presidents it was the person before who was really responsible for the direction of the economy but when you talk about congress that rule does not apply. Kind of like how Republicans blame the crappy economy that started to turn down in 2006 on the Democrats that got control of congress the same year.

3. The underlying emotions of class war fare are based on the fact that the government takes care of rich people and puts the middle class on the back burner. See also: tax credits for big oil companies raping us with unjustly inflated gas prices that the government does nothing about.

4. And again yes he did, show me some facts that prove we did not have a budget surplus.

5. What exactly is a "super" super majority? Got to love those media buzz words. The majority will be no more dangerous that the majority that the Republicans had in the early 2000s, Bush vetoed very few bills so it really didn't matter exactly how big the majority was.

Typical Republican banter "if the Republicans are not in power there will be terrorist attacks, no jobs, a bad economy and it will be the end of the world" Got to love the Republican fear mongering. Republicans have had their fare share of screwing up the U.S. and taking away rights of the citizens of the U.S. all in the name of security. Why not let the Democrats have a shot, really can't get much worse. The economy is on the verge of collapse, the world pretty much sees us war mongering arrogant ass holes and the educational system in this country sucks. If the Democrats can improve on one of those areas I say lets do it, if Republicans stay in power they will drive this country farther and farther into the dirt like they have been doing for the last 8 years.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:1. Please explain these accounting tricks to me because as far as the government records show there was a surplus of $69.2B in 1998, $122.7B in 1999 and $230B in 2000.

The accounting tricks are simply omiting or adding of numbers differently than normal. I'm not even going to try to post it all here, but here are some resources where you can get a good picture of it.

Economic Crisis Awakens Old Myths
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Debunking Four Election-Year Budget Myths

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:As far as Clinton taking credit for the economy upturn in 93 and Bush being blamed for the downturn in 2001 you can not have it both ways, when talking about presidents it was the person before who was really responsible for the direction of the economy...

This is exactly my point. Clinton took credit for the upturn that started in 92, but when he took office in 93, he claimed credit for it. And the downturn in the economy began in the fall of 2000, when Bush hadn't even been elected yet, but he was blamed for it almost immediately. So even by your own statement, the 90's economic boom was from the Reagan/Bush years, but no one wants to hear that, because it also means that the economic downturn that started in 2000 and continued throughout the GWB years was the result of Clinton policies.

Why is this important to remember now? Because I can guarantee you that when Obama is in the Whitehouse, and the economy starts turning, as it will regardless of who is there, the Democrats will be claiming that he did it, even if he has not enacted a single policy yet.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:5. What exactly is a "super" super majority? Got to love those media buzz words. The majority will be no more dangerous that the majority that the Republicans had in the early 2000s, Bush vetoed very few bills so it really didn't matter exactly how big the majority was.

A super-majority ( not sure where you got the double use of super, but it was not from my statement) is when the majority is far beyond a normal majority of say, 60/40. When it gets to having control over 2/3 or higher, because it becomes pretty much a given that anything they propose will pass. This is not a buzz-word, it's an actual term that refers to this lack of balance. As I said before, when a majority is held by a smaller margin, there are usually enough people on either side that don't simply side with their party, so it still keeps a good balance.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:Typical Republican banter "if the Republicans are not in power there will be terrorist attacks, no jobs, a bad economy and it will be the end of the world" Got to love the Republican fear mongering.

The Democrats never use fear mongering.

"Republicans want to take away your [fill in the blank]"

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:1. Clinton actually did a surplus in his last years, not "tripled" the deficit.
2. What Obama is going to do is the opposite to WHAT HAS NEVER WORKED... That is the BS of the looser Ronald Reagan of "trickle down economics." Instead of socializing the upper 1% to "trickle" down as it never worked (thank greed for that), instead it will be sent to the working class...you know... the group that moves the economy.
3.You got what I said about the taxes that if it's lower you pay less all backwards there. Read what BastardKing3000 wrote, to explain it for you. Basically the proportion from income to taxed is skewed so that the higher income folks are taxed at a smaller proportion then low income folks.
4. Well if you like cut spending on welfare or "dependent programs," then you've like Clinton's line of work. He cut welfare tremendously and redistributed it into gov't jobs, hence the job employment went up and tax revenue went up and in the end, a surplus to our beautiful national debt that the great Reagan once ballooned.
5. Lastly, you got it all backwards again on who was majority. During the Clinton and W.Bush eras, Republicans held majority during their double 4 year terms. Actually 6 out 8 years.

I hope you realize that I replied you backwards as that's the trend you understand very well.

There you go. Start attacking me now. When all else fails, just start trying to cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence.

1. Clinton never had a budget surplus. That was a numbers game that they played (typical accounting tricks) where they looked at a wider group of numbers, so it looked like they balanced the budget, when in reality they just changed the equasion. The debt was just over $2 trillion when he took office, and just under $6 trillion when he left. I will give you that Bush actually increased it by a higher dollar amount, but the bottom line is look at the ratio of increase.

2. Trickle-down worked, and it worked damned well for a decade. The problems in the economy had absolutely nothing to do with lower taxes. In fact, the total tax revenue during the Reagan years increased dramaticly. The funny thing about you saying Reagan was a loser is that Obama regularly references the Reagan years, because he knows how well this country did during them. If you look back at old headlines, you will see that in 92, the economy was on a big upswing. Clinton took the oath of office in 93, and claimed responsibility for the increase in the economy. In 2000, we were at the beginning of a decline in the economy. Bush took the oath in 2001, and they began immediately blaming him for it. By the way, typing it in all caps doesn't make your statement right.

3. The loopholes are not big enough that the rich pay a lower percentage. They still pay more, and the Democrats pound on the notion over and over that because rich keep dollar amounts that are higher than the average Joe, that it's unfair. Gary's "barstool economics" thread hits the nail on the head. This is the underlying emotion behind class warfares.

4. Clinton did not cut those programs. As a matter of fact, he was one of the ones who was claiming that the Republicans were cruel for suggesting work-fare. And again, he never had a surplus.

5. I don't have anything there backwards. Clinton took office with a Democratic majority congress. part way through his presidency, the Republicans regained the majority, where it stayed until 2006. Regardless, no one has ever had the supermajority that we are about to see. If you don't believe this is dangerous, you are simply allowing yourself to be decieved.

Who is attacking? It was clear your info is indeed backwards. Lastly, I don't "cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence," again it is clear you're lost.
Now stop with the pussy and touchy attitude and focus on the topic in hand.

1.No Clinton budget surplus? Really? Lost or just ignorant or oblivious to the notion, or to stupid to admit a tribute?
I'll use reputable independent sources not a right wing propaganda for your teachings.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E7DF1F3AF930A35751C0A96E958260
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/380217.stm

2.ROFLOL Trickle down worked? Where? The upper 1%? Money never "Trickled Down," hence a lousy 80's economy. ROFLOL x2 on your great 80's economy? Unemployment peaked at 10.8%, stock market crash of 1987, the expensive "Star wars," raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, cut in social security, and welfare for the incapacitated.

3. I don't know how to spell it out for you. I feel like I am talking to a 6 year old, here are pictures and data to show how low the income to taxed ratio is. If you STILL don't get it, the person making $366K a year to $45 billion gets taxed 35%, while a person making low wage is only be taxed a minuscule 15- 20% less.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

4.Read Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. He signed it, not VETO it. Either way people went to work and not leach the system's money. Hey I guess to you, to give our tax money to wealthy in order to supposedly "trickle down" is just fine, right? As for Surplus.. read #1.

5. Yes you finally got it, Clinton took office with majority Democrats, but the remaining 6 it was Republicans. I don't worry one bit by having the democrats as a supermajority, since I don't stand no where near the upper 1%, nor do I make military weapons, nor own a oil industry, nor own a religious establishment, etc. And in recent history, Republicans just prove that they are anchor to this country.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Who is attacking? It was clear your info is indeed backwards. Lastly, I don't "cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence," again it is clear you're lost.
Now stop with the pussy and touchy attitude and focus on the topic in hand.

I'm far from lost, buddy. And there is no pussy attitude. My point was that it's a typical "tactic", if you can actually call it that, of liberals, when confronted with plenty of solid facts, to start resorting to a more personal attack. I take nothing personal, and quite frankly, the more rediculous arguments you post, the less I can take you seriously, so why would I even be upset and touchy over it?

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:1.No Clinton budget surplus? Really? Lost or just ignorant or oblivious to the notion, or to stupid to admit a tribute?
I'll use reputable independent sources not a right wing propaganda for your teachings.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E7DF1F3AF930A35751C0A96E958260
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/380217.stm

Not lost, not ignorant. Fully aware of the truth, which it is clear you are not. Again, there you go trying to call me stupid. You have no substance, so redirect your argument to be a personal attack. It is only you who loses credibility when you do so.

The reputable independant sources you linked are merely quotes of Clinton himself making the claims. There are absolutely zero facts in them. The first one is directly quoting Clinton, and stating as such. They are not even making an argument, simply reporting the statements made. So, although CNN is a reputable source, it's not the source of the fact to back up your claim, Clinton himself is. Are you claiming he is an independant reputable source?
The second one is simply a report issued by the Clinton administration. Again, are you quoting him as the source?

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:3. I don't know how to spell it out for you. I feel like I am talking to a 6 year old, here are pictures and data to show how low the income to taxed ratio is. If you STILL don't get it, the person making $366K a year to $45 billion gets taxed 35%, while a person making low wage is only be taxed a minuscule 15- 20% less.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

Once again, you make my argument for me. How is it unfairly balanced toward the rich when you can clearly see that the percentage of income paid increases with wealth? I highlighted in red one of the most important arguments on the liberal side that really shows the true class warfare mentality, which is that somehow the percentage should be far heavier on those who make more. The bottom line is that even if everyone paid the same percentage (true flat tax), the rich would still pay far more than the poor in real dollars. The problem with this whole thought process of taking more of someone's money because they are successful is a punitive attitude, not that of fairness. This can not be argued. It's as black and white as you can get.

Now I'm sure that your basis for using the link to moneychimp (which is a great tool, but simply doesn't make your argument) is that it shows how the actual tax paid doesn't equate to the bracket that someone is in, but if you do a few theoretical exercises, you will see that no matter what amount you put in there, the more money you make, the higher percentage you pay. To put it simply for you, the more money someone in the top bracket makes, the higher percentage of their income is in that 35% bracket, so it brings up the actual percentage. It's a simple law of averages. So easy, a caveman can do it.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:5. Yes you finally got it, Clinton took office with majority Democrats, but the remaining 6 it was Republicans.

I finally got it? Seriously, you are most definitely delusional. That is exactly what I stated yesterday, in response to your claim that the Republicans have had control for 40 years. I spelled it out by year, and somehow you missed it entirely.

I have been following this stuff closely for longer than I have been able to vote, and I'm well informed by multiple sources, both liberal, conservative, and the few true non-biased ones that exist, and I look at what actually goes on in the country and to the people around me when changes are made. Anyone who really knows me will tell you that I'm very well informed and aware of what's going on, and I don't take a stand based on something I heard, but on something I have researched.

As for this debate, I'm done even trying to get through to you, because you are simply too ignorant and arrogant to look at the facts. You are missing the points in even your own links, while claiming that I am lost, ignorant, and oblivous. I fully enjoy a good debate with anyone that can make an argument with good solid facts, particularly ones that make me think, but I will not waste my time further with your childishness.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:...What exactly is a "super" super majority? Got to love those media buzz words. The majority will be no more dangerous that the majority that the Republicans had in the early 2000s, Bush vetoed very few bills so it really didn't matter exactly how big the majority was...

I wanted to post this, so you can clearly see what I'm talking about, and what the true threat is.

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933

Really read the part about the health care system. If you think that fully government controlled health care is a good thing, talk to some of the guys on here from Canada who have needed, or know someone who has needed, any kind of major surgery. Ask them how they feel about the Canadian system vs. the US system.

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Who is attacking? It was clear your info is indeed backwards. Lastly, I don't "cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence," again it is clear you're lost.
Now stop with the pussy and touchy attitude and focus on the topic in hand.

I'm far from lost, buddy. And there is no pussy attitude. My point was that it's a typical "tactic", if you can actually call it that, of liberals, when confronted with plenty of solid facts, to start resorting to a more personal attack. I take nothing personal, and quite frankly, the more rediculous arguments you post, the less I can take you seriously, so why would I even be upset and touchy over it?

First, don't call me buddy. In the beginning, I did not resort to name calling, just reiterating your backwards gibberish. If you "take me less seriously the more I post" then why result in responding? Quite frankly I don't give a F if you do or don't it is just funny how contradicting you are as you're now mostly defending your self.
Yet here you are again, talking about your self as a victim and straying from the topic.

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:1.No Clinton budget surplus? Really? Lost or just ignorant or oblivious to the notion, or to stupid to admit a tribute?
I'll use reputable independent sources not a right wing propaganda for your teachings.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E7DF1F3AF930A35751C0A96E958260
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/380217.stm

Not lost, not ignorant. Fully aware of the truth, which it is clear you are not. Again, there you go trying to call me stupid. You have no substance, so redirect your argument to be a personal attack. It is only you who loses credibility when you do so.
The reputable independant sources you linked are merely quotes of Clinton himself making the claims. There are absolutely zero facts in them. The first one is directly quoting Clinton, and stating as such. They are not even making an argument, simply reporting the statements made. So, although CNN is a reputable source, it's not the source of the fact to back up your claim, Clinton himself is. Are you claiming he is an independant reputable source?
The second one is simply a report issued by the Clinton administration. Again, are you quoting him as the source?

For your information being ignorant is NOT being stupid, big difference. If you get to learn to comprehend what you read you will understand that I didn't label you stupid, just a attitude to admit a fact. And now the links are no good to you huh, let me guess just because they don't support your bull $hit. Zero facts huh? WOW! Looks like your platform runs on excuses now. Throw me a Rush Limbah or Ann Coulter article, I always need a good laugh.

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:3. I don't know how to spell it out for you. I feel like I am talking to a 6 year old, here are pictures and data to show how low the income to taxed ratio is. If you STILL don't get it, the person making $366K a year to $45 billion gets taxed 35%, while a person making low wage is only be taxed a minuscule 15- 20% less.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

Once again, you make my argument for me. How is it unfairly balanced toward the rich when you can clearly see that the percentage of income paid increases with wealth? I highlighted in red one of the most important arguments on the liberal side that really shows the true class warfare mentality, which is that somehow the percentage should be far heavier on those who make more. The bottom line is that even if everyone paid the same percentage (true flat tax), the rich would still pay far more than the poor in real dollars. The problem with this whole thought process of taking more of someone's money because they are successful is a punitive attitude, not that of fairness. This can not be argued. It's as black and white as you can get.
Now I'm sure that your basis for using the link to moneychimp (which is a great tool, but simply doesn't make your argument) is that it shows how the actual tax paid doesn't equate to the bracket that someone is in, but if you do a few theoretical exercises, you will see that no matter what amount you put in there, the more money you make, the higher percentage you pay. To put it simply for you, the more money someone in the top bracket makes, the higher percentage of their income is in that 35% bracket, so it brings up the actual percentage. It's a simple law of averages. So easy, a caveman can do it.

OMG dude, I read your response and shake my head in disbelief and ask why respond? For the 4th time no body here said that the rich are taxed less. Point blank if you are making $20,000,000,000 (that's billion if you don't understand numbers) a year, you are only taxed 35%, while a person making $20,000 (thats thousands) gets taxed 15%, that is only difference of 20% extra taxed for a multi billionaire. You don't see something wrong here as for whom the ratio is favorable for ?

Quiklilcav wrote:[

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:5. Yes you finally got it, Clinton took office with majority Democrats, but the remaining 6 it was Republicans.

I finally got it? Seriously, you are most definitely delusional. That is exactly what I stated yesterday, in response to your claim that the Republicans have had control for 40 years. I spelled it out by year, and somehow you missed it entirely.

I have been following this stuff closely for longer than I have been able to vote, and I'm well informed by multiple sources, both liberal, conservative, and the few true non-biased ones that exist, and I look at what actually goes on in the country and to the people around me when changes are made. Anyone who really knows me will tell you that I'm very well informed and aware of what's going on, and I don't take a stand based on something I heard, but on something I have researched.

As for this debate, I'm done even trying to get through to you, because you are simply too ignorant and arrogant to look at the facts. You are missing the points in even your own links, while claiming that I am lost, ignorant, and oblivous. I fully enjoy a good debate with anyone that can make an argument with good solid facts, particularly ones that make me think, but I will not waste my time further with your childishness.

The 40 years I meant was the lousy Republican presidents since the Nixon era all the way to W Bush. I didn't know I had to spell it out for ya. Sorry dude.
As for how informed you are, yet here you are arguing to me on how Clinton didn't have a surplus. By definition, you're not an example of "informed."
As for not to continue, I understand that your platform is weak and that your beloved party is as good for the US as nail through your tire. If I were you I would give up too. Lastly, I applaud to the original "why vote republican" and all you could respond was with you being a victim of attacks. lol

Have a good one "buddy."



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

this whole thread is hilarious.

Quick, don't worry, "gt" is just mad.

More people agree with you then you know, hell they made a movie of it,LOL, American Carrol was great. maybe he was fed some @!#$ in "school" and kept the blinders on seance.

Chris


"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry