Obama shifts stance on offshore oil drilling

[Maniacc]

Obama said Friday that he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper that he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate that these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/373296_obama02.html

[Spektrewing386]

its funny how the only political threads that are started here are always against obama, never mccain and he has plenty to cry about

[allmotoronly]

its funny how the only political threads that are started here are always against obama, never mccain and he has plenty to cry about


thats because obama is a typical politician. He says whatever it takes to try to please people, even if it means changing his stance on different issues when he finds out he is losing support in the polls. If you ever listen to his speeches, you will see that he really contradicts himself a lot. Also, he is really going to fvck a lot of people over if he wins the election. Like all democrats, he wants to raise taxes on people who go out and work hard for their money so he can give more money to the people who are too lazy to go out and work for their money.

I have talked to a lot of my friends and friends of friends in college and it seems to me that most of the college students in favor of obama still live off their parents. They don't care that obama plans to raise taxes on the middle/upper class. They don't realize that in a few years when they graduate and mommy and daddy quit supporting them they will be paying the high taxes that obama will impose. Luckily I have enough forsight to see that soon I will be making $80k plus a year, and voting democrat is only going to cost me more money.

[Spektrewing386]

and you cant say the same for mccain being a typical politician?

anyway, we are wasting $12 billion a month in iraq that we can barley pay for, im sure we will find a way to pay for obama's stuff. and i mean actually pay for it, not borrow it from other countries or pull it out of thin air.

[tony]

Is it a shift or a compromise? Hmm, we know what happens when people refuse to talk things out :coughIRAQcough:

[Maniacc]

Is it a shift or a compromise? Hmm, we know what happens when people refuse to talk things out :coughIRAQcough:
Its a compromise, is all. But how far is he going to have to bend over to get the policy he wants passed?


its funny how the only political threads that are started here are always against obama, never mccain and he has plenty to cry about
I personally don't have anything against Obama. Just thought it was an interesting article, is all.

[Maniacc]

Here is my take on the article. Obama said that if allowing offshore drilling was what it took to get a comprehensive alternative energy plan passed by Congress then he'd be fine with it. I don't see the problem.

[Big J]

I think it's called a compromise. One side backs down a little, the other does too, and then they offer or accept concessions for what they, or other side backed down about.


Main Entry: 2compromise Function:verb Inflected Form(s):compromised; compromis·ingDate:1598 transitive verb1obsolete : to bind by mutual agreement2: to adjust or settle by mutual concessions3 a: to expose to suspicion, discredit, or mischief <his reputation has been compromised> b: to reveal or expose to an unauthorized person and especially to an enemy <confidential information was compromised> c: to cause the impairment of <a compromised immune system> <a seriously compromised patient>intransitive verb1 a: to come to agreement by mutual concession b: to find or follow a way between extremes2: to make a shameful or disreputable concession <wouldn't compromise with their principles>

Main Entry:1com·pro·mise http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?compro01.wav=compromise%27%29)Pronunciati on: \ˈkäm-prə-ˌmīz\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, mutual promise to abide by an arbiter's decision, from Anglo-French compromisse, from Latin compromissum, from neuter of compromissus, past participle of compromittere to promise mutually, from com- + promittere to promise — more at promise (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promise)Date:15th century 1 a: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things2: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

The problem with being stupid is any change in stance away from the norm of ones party is seen or viewed as negative because of the undeniable great success partisan politics has brought this country in the last 30 years [/sarcasm]






Obama said Friday that he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper that he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate that these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.


Only in America are people this stupid. Per capita we have to have the dumbest mother ****ers on the planet, did you even read the article, or better yet, find another source covering the same story if it was really an important issue to you?

We could play, "I have no opinion of my own based or an actual effort to understand the issue, here's an article I breifly scanned and then reposted to prove my point" all day long.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-drilling_n_107872.html

[Maniacc]

*Babbling like a school girl*
Only in America are people this stupid. Per capita we have to have the dumbest mother ****ers on the planet, did you even read the article, or better yet, find another source covering the same story if it was really an important issue to you?
I did read some of the article, not the whole thing. Doesn't make me a dumb motherf*cker though. Like I said before, I thought it was an interesting article, so I decided to post it up. If your reading skills were up to date you would know that I said it was a compromise.

[tony]

I did read some of the article, not the whole thing. Doesn't make me a dumb motherf*cker though. Like I said before, I thought it was an interesting article, so I decided to post it up. If your reading skills were up to date you would know that I said it was a compromise.


Props for getting involved in politics.

[Lucky DAWG]

OMG SHOCKING!

[ash7]

what obama changed his mind again? oh man... didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:

...maybe he needs one of his famous "breathalyzers" or "inhalinators"
-jonathan

[tony]

what obama changed his mind again? oh man... didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:

...maybe he needs one of his famous "breathalyzers" or "inhalinators"
-jonathan

Right.. cause political leaders should never look at the situation at hand and make adjustments accordingly, that would be disastrous. :rolleyes:

[twinj]

he wants to raise taxes on people who go out and work hard for their money so he can give more money to the people who are too lazy to go out and work for their money.

Alot of people aren't born with a china spoon in there mouth. They can't help there current "life situation". You can't call them lazy cause you don't know them personally. Alot of people in that situation it is very hard for them to get the necessities to get a head in life.


I will be making $80k plus a year, and voting democrat is only going to cost me more money.
Who cares???

[Big J]

I did read some of the article, not the whole thing. Doesn't make me a dumb motherf*cker though. Like I said before, I thought it was an interesting article, so I decided to post it up. If your reading skills were up to date you would know that I said it was a compromise.

maybe I spoke too soon and threw you under the bus, sorry, but just sit back and watch this thread go to hell and you'll see why sometimes it's easy to jump too quickly when political threads come up.

[allmotoronly]

Alot of people aren't born with a china spoon in there mouth. They can't help there current "life situation". You can't call them lazy cause you don't know them personally. Alot of people in that situation it is very hard for them to get the necessities to get a head in life.

you're an idiot. I wasn't born with a china spoon in my mouth. I have worked hard to make all my money. People today are lazy. Ask your grandparents what they think about welfare and unemployment. When they were young they got out and worked. If they needed more money, they worked harder. The government makes it easy for anyone to get ahead in life. Anyone can go to college these days. In GA alone we have the hope scholarship, pell grants, and the list goes on forever. The problem is that people today have gotten too lazy to work for anything.



Who cares???

Anyone who is in the same situation as me... i.e. anyone with a college education who puts in a 40 hour workweek.



"life situations"???? I agree that some people may be down on their luck or going through hard times... probably about 5% of people on government assistance. The other 95% are just working the system so they don't have to get a real job. If you disagree, explain to me why so many "disabled" people drive nice cars. Nothing pisses me off more than to see an escalade with 24's parked in a handycapped parking spot, with a handycapped tag, with some 30 something year old guy getting out who looks about as "disabled" as lebron james.

[The12lber]

Luckily I have enough forsight to see that soon I will be making $80k plus a year, and voting democrat is only going to cost me more money.

If you weren't talking out your ass you'd know he only plans to increase taxes for people making more than 250,000k a year.

[Maniacc]

"life situations"???? I agree that some people may be down on their luck or going through hard times... probably about 5% of people on government assistance. The other 95% are just working the system so they don't have to get a real job. If you disagree, explain to me why so many "disabled" people drive nice cars. Nothing pisses me off more than to see an escalade with 24's parked in a handycapped parking spot, with a handycapped tag, with some 30 something year old guy getting out who looks about as "disabled" as lebron james.
Where did you find those statistics? 95% is an extremely high percentage if you ask me. Link to your findings?

Further more, you're moving away from the op and trying to take this thread into the, "Life is not far, I work hard and get pissed when I see other people who don't deserve stuff have better things than me" direction. Does it matter what other people do/have?

Apparently you're not that big of an Obama fan, so here, enjoy this read. http://www.newsweek.com/id/148960/output/print

[The12lber]

thats because obama is a typical politician. He says whatever it takes to try to please people, even if it means changing his stance on different issues when he finds out he is losing support in the polls.
He's definitely a politician, but this is definitely what I'd call one of those crazy compromise thingmajiggers that seem completely foreign to all the nimrods in this country after 8 years of "with us or against us" politics.

If you're going to point out something that he did for obviously political reasons, you should have brought his FISA vote up.

Oh, and what was McCain's much touted proposed Gas Tax Holiday? That was legitimate and effective economic policy and not pure political pandering, right? haha, haha, hahahaha, hah

Or the time he visited Baghdad, came back and told everyone that the capital city was peaceful. So peaceful, he visited a market unescorted and that General Petraeus regularly made trips in an unarmed Humvee.

In reality, he had visited that Baghdad market with over 100 infantry, 4 Humvees (and no matter what bull**** the old man might try to tell you, these almost always have either M2 .50 caliber machine guns or Mark 19 Auto 40mm grenade launchers mounted on the top) and 2 Apache Gunships/4 Blackhawk helicopters circling overhead. When reporters asked infantry in Iraq about the unarmed Humvee comment, the soldiers laughed at the notion of there being an unarmed Humvee in Iraq.

That wasn't purely political motivated lying, was it?

If you ever listen to his speeches, you will see that he really contradicts himself a lot.
Anecdotal

If you ever listened to McCain's speeches, you'd realize he's an incompetent and senile fool. He constantly mentions Czechoslovakia in the present tense, even though the country ceased to exist in 1993. He serves up fiery hot rhetoric on Iran, yet doesn't even know who the country's top executive is. More over, when a reporter corrected him, he insisted that the reporter was wrong. He wants to bomb a country... and he doesn't even know who the leader of that nation is?

Also, he is really going to fvck a lot of people over if he wins the election. Like all democrats, he wants to raise taxes on people who go out and work hard for their money so he can give more money to the people who are too lazy to go out and work for their money.
I had some fantastic teachers in high school. They probably all made about 50,000 dollars a year. I live in a part of the country that's rich in coal veins. People labor there all day, under and above ground in **** conditions, and are definitely making less than my teachers. You seriously think that everyone who isn't in the highest tax bracket is lazy? Because those are the only people who are going to get higher taxes. I think raising the capital gains tax as Obama has suggested is a foolish idea, but making it out to seem like everyone but people living off the welfare state are going to be totally shafted is completely idiotic.

The first thing you should do before you form a strong opinion is have a firm grasp of the facts. You don't.

[Maniacc]

The first thing you should do before you form a strong opinion is have a firm grasp of the facts. You don't.
By just reading this guys first post in this thread, I came up with the conclusion that he excels at useless babble.

[The12lber]

Nothing pisses me off more than to see an escalade with 24's parked in a handycapped parking spot, with a handycapped tag, with some 30 something year old guy getting out who looks about as "disabled" as lebron james.
Alright, I felt like this really needed addressing.

HANDICAPPED PEOPLE WORK TOO YOU DUMB ****.

[Spektrewing386]

but lebron james isnt handicapped.

[Maniacc]

So, has anyone read this yet? http://www.newsweek.com/id/148960/output/print Comes to show that McCain is just as big of an idiot as our current President. Not saying that Obama isn't one too, just saying that these two are both equal when it come's to who will be the better choice.

[tony]

You've advocated for lifting a ban on offshore drilling. Why is drilling there preferable to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Because the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I believe that offshore drilling is clearly called for. I think we need to do it, and we have to do it.

Wow, this dude is running for president.

[Spektrewing386]

he cant get the words from his brain to his mouth lol. he could have said "a national wildlife refuge is a protected environment free from major human intervention, therefore drilling there will put at risk the habitat in which is being protected."


i dont like taxes, i dont like stupid unneccessary war, i dont like the spread of the american empire (US missile bases and radar in eastern europe and permanent bases in iraq). therefore i hate mccains stance on foreign policy. plus he has said himself he knows nothing about economics.

[tony]

Who the hell wants to be stationed in Iraq? Want to make the job hard for recruiters.. put bases there in Iraq.

[Spektrewing386]

id like to go to Iraq as a traveler. its the location of the first great civilization, so much ancient history is there.

[The12lber]

id like to go to Iraq as a traveler. its the location of the first great civilization, so much ancient history is there.
I'd love to visit, but I'm not overly enthused about the prospect of having my head sawed off.

[allmotoronly]

Alright, I felt like this really needed addressing.

HANDICAPPED PEOPLE WORK TOO YOU DUMB ****.


lol you are missing the point. I realize that most people who are truely handicapped work just like you or I. They overcome their problems and make the best out of it. I was referring to the people who are not truely handicapped, but just working the system.

[allmotoronly]

The first thing you should do before you form a strong opinion is have a firm grasp of the facts. You don't.

I have a firm grasp on the facts. You are assuming that I dislike obama and like mccain. I don't really like either of them. I just dislike obama and his political standings more. The only reason I vote republican is because republicans don't crucify someone who works hard and makes more money.

In the US people are forgiven for murder, rape, robbery, etc. One thing that is not forgiven is making more money. The more money you make (which usually correlates to how much/hard you work) the more you are taxed. Why should someone who works a 60 hour week to try to further himself be punished by having 30% of his paycheck go to the federal government???

[eViLMunkey]

who cares we need to drill in our own territories so we don't rely so much on outside sources anyway.. people change their minds over subjects all the time what makes it different if they are running for president, they are still human and full of errors

[allmotoronly]

If you weren't talking out your ass you'd know he only plans to increase taxes for people making more than 250,000k a year.

I'm not talking out of my ass. Why is it fair for taxes to be raised on anyone? They are already rediculously high. Republicans lower taxes on everyone. During bush's 8 years tax rates have been lowered in every bracket. Bush's administration even created a new 1st level tax bracket for people who make less than $8k a year (10%). They also lowered federal income tax rates by 3% in all brackets except the lowest bracket. Obama will probably start with those who make over $250k a year (although I don't see how he would do this since that number is in the middle of a tax bracket. The bracket system would have to be reworked in order for that to be possible). Then, like all democrats he will suggest that taxes be raised on all the brackets but the lowest.

I'm not saying I like bush at all. I'm just saying that some good things have come from his time in office. I don't think we should have gotten involved with iraq, and that if we had not people would have a different attitude towards republicans.

[Uscregal]

I'm not talking out of my ass. Why is it fair for taxes to be raised on anyone? They are already rediculously high. Republicans lower taxes on everyone. During bush's 8 years tax rates have been lowered in every bracket. Bush's administration even created a new 1st level tax bracket for people who make less than $8k a year (10%). They also lowered federal income tax rates by 3% in all brackets except the lowest bracket. Obama will probably start with those who make over $250k a year (although I don't see how he would do this since that number is in the middle of a tax bracket. The bracket system would have to be reworked in order for that to be possible). Then, like all democrats he will suggest that taxes be raised on all the brackets but the lowest.

I'm not saying I like bush at all. I'm just saying that some good things have come from his time in office. I don't think we should have gotten involved with iraq, and that if we had not people would have a different attitude towards republicans.


Props for the response. And you guys thought he was just full of mindless babble haha

[japan4racing]

I'm not talking out of my ass. Why is it fair for taxes to be raised on anyone? They are already rediculously high. Republicans lower taxes on everyone. During bush's 8 years tax rates have been lowered in every bracket. Bush's administration even created a new 1st level tax bracket for people who make less than $8k a year (10%). They also lowered federal income tax rates by 3% in all brackets except the lowest bracket. Obama will probably start with those who make over $250k a year (although I don't see how he would do this since that number is in the middle of a tax bracket. The bracket system would have to be reworked in order for that to be possible). Then, like all democrats he will suggest that taxes be raised on all the brackets but the lowest.

I'm not saying I like bush at all. I'm just saying that some good things have come from his time in office. I don't think we should have gotten involved with iraq, and that if we had not people would have a different attitude towards republicans.

well put! reps to you!

i would like to post a question to maybe spice this up a bit....of the ppl that think that raising taxes wont be such a big deal, how many of you:

A: are settled into your career job (the job you may retire from..not the oil change place you work part time at)
B: have purchased a home (not renting an apartment or living with mom and dad)
3: pay more in taxes than alot of ppl make in a whole year

the reason i ask is because if you fit into those scenarios raising taxes will greatly hurt you....maybe its just my opinion...maybe some of you agree with me..we will find out soon!

[JITB]

Has anyone mentioned that both McCain And Obama were against off shore drilling? But McCain changed his views on it and or "comprimised"

[Ran]

Alot of people aren't born with a china spoon in there mouth. They can't help there current "life situation". You can't call them lazy cause you don't know them personally. Alot of people in that situation it is very hard for them to get the necessities to get a head in life.Do you really support the "distribution of wealth" plan that this proposes? You would seriously take from those that have earned it and give it to those in the lower bracket, in turn punishing work ethic? I think the USSR tried that once. It didn't work out so well. :lmao:

[BanginJimmy]

If you weren't talking out your ass you'd know he only plans to increase taxes for people making more than 250,000k a year.


Look up the evolution of the 16th amendment and the income tax. Yea, that was only for the rich people too.

[tony]

I'm not talking out of my ass. Why is it fair for taxes to be raised on anyone? They are already rediculously high. Republicans lower taxes on everyone. During bush's 8 years tax rates have been lowered in every bracket. Bush's administration even created a new 1st level tax bracket for people who make less than $8k a year (10%). They also lowered federal income tax rates by 3% in all brackets except the lowest bracket. Obama will probably start with those who make over $250k a year (although I don't see how he would do this since that number is in the middle of a tax bracket. The bracket system would have to be reworked in order for that to be possible). Then, like all democrats he will suggest that taxes be raised on all the brackets but the lowest.

I'm not saying I like bush at all. I'm just saying that some good things have come from his time in office. I don't think we should have gotten involved with iraq, and that if we had not people would have a different attitude towards republicans.


The first Bush raised taxes which resulted in a balanced budget, care to comment? Oh yeah he's republican in case you forgot..

[Big J]

the in coming candidate has to deal with what the outgoing person left. G.W. Bush inherited a budget surplus, and rapidly flushed it down the toilet, so yes, to bring things back in balance, there probably will have to be a tax raise.

[EJ25RUN]

OMG SHOCKING!

exactly. Reading some of the replies is funny. Especially about Iraq. He said the surge was unnecessary but it was proven it was. Obama is a terrible politician.
Makes me so happy seeing that McCain is ahead in the polls today.

[tony]

exactly. Reading some of the replies is funny. Especially about Iraq. He said the surge was unnecessary but it was proven it was. Obama is a terrible politician.
Makes me so happy seeing that McCain is ahead in the polls today.

False hope, let me make it clear for you. McCain is going to lose, and thats nothing to do with my stance on Obama its just the plain truth.

[EJ25RUN]

I'm not talking out of my ass. Why is it fair for taxes to be raised on anyone? They are already rediculously high. Republicans lower taxes on everyone. During bush's 8 years tax rates have been lowered in every bracket. Bush's administration even created a new 1st level tax bracket for people who make less than $8k a year (10%). They also lowered federal income tax rates by 3% in all brackets except the lowest bracket. Obama will probably start with those who make over $250k a year (although I don't see how he would do this since that number is in the middle of a tax bracket. The bracket system would have to be reworked in order for that to be possible). Then, like all democrats he will suggest that taxes be raised on all the brackets but the lowest.

I'm not saying I like bush at all. I'm just saying that some good things have come from his time in office. I don't think we should have gotten involved with iraq, and that if we had not people would have a different attitude towards republicans.

Very well said.

These people cant get it that what "The Wealthy" are is people making over 25k and not 125K. I was making that at 16. Anyways. Prepare for a great depression if world if Obama has his way.

[cornercarver78]

Very well said.

These people cant get it that what "The Wealthy" are is people making over 25k and not 125K. I was making that at 16. Anyways. Prepare for a great depression if world if Obama has his way.

X2

The thing that gets me is that every election year, politicians make all these new promises when the only way to improve our country is to cut spending and stop raising taxes. WE DON"T NEED ANY NEW PROGRAMS!

[allmotoronly]

The first Bush raised taxes which resulted in a balanced budget, care to comment? Oh yeah he's republican in case you forgot..

the first bush raised taxes only by a few percent. This was to make up for the fact that reagan cut tax levels by more than 40% in some brackets. All the first bush did was raise the taxes marginally to balance the economy. At the time people were quite happy with this considering that just 10 years earlier tax rates were double what they were at the time.

Care to comment?

[allmotoronly]

Maybe some of you should look at this chart. This was before reagan came into office. After reagan the tax brackets were more along the lines of that they are today.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

[The12lber]

lol you are missing the point. I realize that most people who are truely handicapped work just like you or I. They overcome their problems and make the best out of it. I was referring to the people who are not truely handicapped, but just working the system.
I didn't miss the point at all. All kinds of people have handicapped license plates and can therefore park in the handicapped spots for all kinds of conditions. Its not just being unable to walk.

[The12lber]

the first bush raised taxes only by a few percent. This was to make up for the fact that reagan cut tax levels by more than 40% in some brackets. All the first bush did was raise the taxes marginally to balance the economy. At the time people were quite happy with this considering that just 10 years earlier tax rates were double what they were at the time.

Care to comment?
Raising taxes is all about balancing the budget, not "balancing the economy". Wtf is that? There's no way to quantify whether or not the economy is in "balance".

[The12lber]

Look up the evolution of the 16th amendment and the income tax. Yea, that was only for the rich people too.
You should just stop posting now like you did in that other thread because you're a retard who has no clue what they're talking about. Drawing a parallel between the 16th amendment and Obama's plan to tax the wealthiest people doesn't really produce a meaningful example of anything except a logical fallacy.

Oh, and why raise taxes on anyone?

Because we're running a record deficit, that's why. Also, lol @ whoever said a lot of good things came out of Bush's term. Weak dollar, dead soldiers, greater mideast instability, economic mediocrity (its not all his fault by any means, but he didn't help)... I'm trying to think of something good. I'm trying really hard.

[tony]

the first bush raised taxes only by a few percent. This was to make up for the fact that reagan cut tax levels by more than 40% in some brackets. All the first bush did was raise the taxes marginally to balance the economy. At the time people were quite happy with this considering that just 10 years earlier tax rates were double what they were at the time.

Care to comment?

Sure, that 40% cut caused a $220 Billion budget deficit which FORCED H.W Bush to increase taxes. Furthermore are you THAT simple to think a "maginal" tax increase balances a budget over $200 Billion in debt????

Regardless, it was a REPUBLICAN that increased TAXES and guess what? It actually worked.

It's pretty simple really.. if you're doing a lot of government spending (as republicans seem to love as much as democrats these days) and taxes are the only way to cover these expenditures I don't think the solution is LOWER taxes. But I guess a simpleton only sees it through their own microscope rather than the big picture. Nobody cares if you have a house and nice car if the economy crumbles.

[The12lber]

Do you really support the "distribution of wealth" plan that this proposes? You would seriously take from those that have earned it and give it to those in the lower bracket, in turn punishing work ethic? I think the USSR tried that once. It didn't work out so well. :lmao:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Indulge yourself. Really, so there's one less person too dumb to know the difference.

[4dmin]

gotta love obama h8ters - thats all they got; not like they can actually give points why mccain is better :lmao:

[JITB]

gotta love obama h8ters - thats all they got; not like they can actually give points why mccain is better :lmao:


whats even worse.. everything that obama does that they complain about, McCain does as well.... mainly the topic of this thread..

Luda was right... :lmfao:

[The12lber]

---

[The12lber]

I'm not talking out of my ass. Why is it fair for taxes to be raised on anyone? They are already rediculously high. Republicans lower taxes on everyone.
The richer you get, the the smaller the proportion of your income you spend on necessities.

Then, like all democrats he will suggest that taxes be raised on all the brackets but the lowest.
People who apply logic to their thinking call this type of speculation crap.


That first part I explained is very tough stuff. You might want to sleep on it to get it to really sink in there bud.

[allmotoronly]

That first part I explained is very tough stuff. You might want to sleep on it to get it to really sink in there bud.


thanks for making 12 different replies to each sentence I typed. Necessities to some are different to others. Why should it matter what you spend your money on. That doesn't make it right for the government to tax those who work hard to give to those who are looking for handouts.

How do you not understand that taxes have an impact on the budget as well as the ecomony. If taxes are reduced, people have more money to spend, therefore strengthening the economy.

Again, I understand that handicapped applies to other things than being able to walk. My point was that there are people who abuse the "system" and get these handicapped tags as well as disability and other government assistance when they don't really need it.

And tony, yes a marginal tax increase would balance a $200 billion deficit pretty easily. There's 300 million people in the US. Even if only 50 million people contribute to the workforce and pay taxes, it would only cost those 50 million people $4k... Thats not that much considering that the government already takes tens of thousands of dollars from people each year in income taxes. Spread it out over 4 years, and there you have it. I'm not saying taxes should be lowered any more. I'm fine with taxes how they are now. I don't like the idea of taxes being raised though. The problem is that the government has too many programs that waste money. If the government would revise these programs, as well as reducing the amount of money spent on "protecting" our allies and delivering "freedom" to other countries, there would probably be room for some tax cuts.

[allmotoronly]

That first part I explained is very tough stuff. You might want to sleep on it to get it to really sink in there bud.
you know... you talk really big for a 19 year old. Do you OWN your own house? Do you have a college education? Do you have a real job and work in the career field that you plan on working in for the rest of your life?

If you can answer no to any of these questions your opinion in this matter is not needed.

Until the government is taking 30% of your paychech each week on top of social security, medicare, state income tax, etc you will not understand what my problem with taxes is.

[tony]

thanks for making 12 different replies to each sentence I typed. Necessities to some are different to others. Why should it matter what you spend your money on. That doesn't make it right for the government to tax those who work hard to give to those who are looking for handouts.

How do you not understand that taxes have an impact on the budget as well as the ecomony. If taxes are reduced, people have more money to spend, therefore strengthening the economy.

Again, I understand that handicapped applies to other things than being able to walk. My point was that there are people who abuse the "system" and get these handicapped tags as well as disability and other government assistance when they don't really need it.

And tony, yes a marginal tax increase would balance a $200 billion deficit pretty easily. There's 300 million people in the US. Even if only 50 million people contribute to the workforce and pay taxes, it would only cost those 50 million people $4k... Thats not that much considering that the government already takes tens of thousands of dollars from people each year in income taxes. Spread it out over 4 years, and there you have it. I'm not saying taxes should be lowered any more. I'm fine with taxes how they are now. I don't like the idea of taxes being raised though. The problem is that the government has too many programs that waste money. If the government would revise these programs, as well as reducing the amount of money spent on "protecting" our allies and delivering "freedom" to other countries, there would probably be room for some tax cuts.

If the marginal increase worked and it was "marginal" what is wrong with an increase now?

[allmotoronly]

If the marginal increase worked and it was "marginal" what is wrong with an increase now?

Before the idea of raising taxes is considered the government needs to get rid of things that require a lot of wasteful spending. Being a large country like we are, it is probably a good idea to keep a fairly large defense system in place. However, using that large defense system to help "liberate" other countries from opressors or dictators is really none of our business.

[allmotoronly]

Our government system was not designed to include political parties. Over the past 200 years parties have started as a way for people with common interests to group together to support those interests. Now it is to the point where people are forced to choose whether they want to be a democrat or republican. Why can't there be a mixture of the two? I'm sure we could all find a common ground for most issues. Its the far right and far left extremists that make it so hard for both sides to agree. Its like when you go out with a group of friends. There's always that one person who wants to go to a certain restaurant and will not give in, therefore forcing everyone else to go there. Politicians like that are the reason why the parties have become so divided.

[Maniacc]

exactly. Reading some of the replies is funny. Especially about Iraq. He said the surge was unnecessary but it was proven it was. Obama is a terrible politician.
Makes me so happy seeing that McCain is ahead in the polls today.
How can you call Obama a terrible politician when McCain is just as if not worse? The fact the McCain sounds like a complete buffoon when he speaks brings chills through my body. It would be a sad day if McCain were to win. I personally think he's too old to handle all the responsibilities that come with being the President.

[The12lber]

thanks for making 12 different replies to each sentence I typed.
All I read was "waa, waa, you're smarter than me so I'll ***** about everything I can, waa"
Necessities to some are different to others. Why should it matter what you spend your money on. That doesn't make it right for the government to tax those who work hard to give to those who are looking for handouts.

No, necessities are the same for everyone. Food, shelter, health care. You're not slick, so don't try to be and weasel your way out of a decent rebuttal with bull****.

I'm gonna let you in on a big secret. There are tons of people who work hard and make- what is basically- **** money. Teachers. Blue collar workers. Pretty much everyone in the armed forces, especially enlisted personnel. Etc. Working hard does not necessarily corelate with high income.

And here's the really big shocker. HIGH INCOME IS NOT NECESSARILY A RESULT OF WORKING HARD.

Am I totally blowing your mind yet? zzzz

Regardless, there's no reason to tax the people making a relatively low income the same amount as people making hundreds of thousands or more over, millions of dollars a year (this is actually a better example considering that the very top tiers of income earners hold an incredibly disproportionate amount of wealth). I'm sure they really need all their money for an extra yacht in black instead of white rather than the afforementioned people deserve adequate healthcare.

How do you not understand that taxes have an impact on the budget as well as the ecomony. If taxes are reduced, people have more money to spend, therefore strengthening the economy.
I never said they didn't, you were talking about tax rates as if all they did was impact the economy. And guess what... the budget has an effect on the economy too! Ever wonder why the dollar is sliding in international exchange value? Bet it has noooooottthiiing to do with all the borrowing we've had to for deficit spending necessitated by those low low taxes of your boy George.

lol @ you assuming you have a firmer grasp than myself on economics

Again, I understand that handicapped applies to other things than being able to walk. My point was that there are people who abuse the "system" and get these handicapped tags as well as disability and other government assistance when they don't really need it.

And you went about making that point quite clumsily, instead insinuating all handicapped people are worthless invalids.

The problem is that the government has too many programs that waste money. If the government would revise these programs, as well as reducing the amount of money spent on "protecting" our allies and delivering "freedom" to other countries, there would probably be room for some tax cuts.

That last part was about the only reasonable thing you've said, except for the "more tax cuts". Defense spending and other bull**** spending similiar to that is a pretty hefty chunk of the budget but not big enough to cut taxes left and right like a nut.

[The12lber]

you know... you talk really big for a 19 year old. Do you OWN your own house? Do you have a college education? Do you have a real job and work in the career field that you plan on working in for the rest of your life?
You realize the exact same page that has my age listed as 19 has my gender listed as "Tranny". A sharp one, are we?

If you can answer no to any of these questions your opinion in this matter is not needed.

Until the government is taking 30% of your paychech each week on top of social security, medicare, state income tax, etc you will not understand what my problem with taxes is.
Regardless of the fact that I just pointed out your logical ineptitude and in doing so demonstrated that you really have no idea which of those questions I say yes or no to (or for that matter, whether or not I am one of these people over 250,000/yr destined to take an Obama-related tax hit), whether or not the government is taking <x> amount of my paycheck has nothing to do with my understanding of this.

This is economics and what is sound economic policy has no relation to your or my personal situation.

If you are bitching about 30% a year, why are you also bitching about NOBODY deserving a tax hike? There's a national budget, it allows the national government to perform essential functions. Its (ideally) got to be balanced and (definitely) someone's gotta pay for it.

You said you're making 80k a year. Not high enough to be on Obama's tax-hike radar. Maybe you should consider that with revisions in tax structure, YOU, a person with a moderate income, would benefit and the people who are already rolling in money will pick up some of your burden that is more straining on you than he/she.

If you had an elementary understanding of economics, you'd know that's the only way your "30% weekly cut" would be reduced.

Again, however, the capital gains tax increase is unnecessary, stupid and effects everyone (including you). Maybe you should bring that up instead?

[Maniacc]

The12lber introduced allmotoronly to some straight pwnography. Wow, lmao.

[EJ25RUN]

False hope, let me make it clear for you. McCain is going to lose, and thats nothing to do with my stance on Obama its just the plain truth.

Tony....week by week Obama's campaigns are alienating more and more white people. Especially this latest string of the race card being thrown out at every possibility. And what has that accomplished? It put McCain ahead. Im not a republican or democrat. I stand by what makes sense and Obama just seems as if he is all talk.

McCain is gonna lose you say? We will find that out in Nov.


The12lber introduced allmotoronly to some straight pwnography. Wow, lmao.

Your not very bright are you?

[allmotoronly]

If you are bitching about 30% a year, why are you also bitching about NOBODY deserving a tax hike? There's a national budget, it allows the national government to perform essential functions. Its (ideally) got to be balanced and (definitely) someone's gotta pay for it.

You said you're making 80k a year. Not high enough to be on Obama's tax-hike radar. Maybe you should consider that with revisions in tax structure, YOU, a person with a moderate income, would benefit and the people who are already rolling in money will pick up some of your burden that is more straining on you than he/she.

If you had an elementary understanding of economics, you'd know that's the only way your "30% weekly cut" would be reduced.

Again, however, the capital gains tax increase is unnecessary, stupid and effects everyone (including you). Maybe you should bring that up instead?

I said I make more than $80k per year, as in between $78,851 and $164,550 (the 4th tax bracket). I didn't say how much I make, and it's none of your business. My point about obama's plan is that within the next 4 years I will be making close to, if not more than $250k/yr. I'm just looking ahead into the future.

I never said I had a firmer grasp than economics than you, I just have a much different perspective since more of my money is paying for all this bullshyt spending than a lot of other people.



Regardless, there's no reason to tax the people making a relatively low income the same amount as people making hundreds of thousands or more over, millions of dollars a year (this is actually a better example considering that the very top tiers of income earners hold an incredibly disproportionate amount of wealth). I'm sure they really need all their money for an extra yacht in black instead of white rather than the afforementioned people deserve adequate healthcare.

Why do you feel that it is the responsibility of people who make more money to pay for all the government programs that support people who make less money? Why should it be my responsibility to make sure that everyone has "adequate healthcare"? I'm not sure if you know this or not, but there are nonprofit hospitals all over the country that offfer services for free or at a reduced cost to the indigent. Just because someone doesn't have money doesn't mean that the hospital will turn them away. I know, since I work at one of these hospitals. I would say that around 80% of the patients who come into the emergency room have no form of insurance, and no money. The hospital covers the cost of all the bills. Most people do not understand that even the poorest person with no insurance and no money can go to a non-profit hospital and be treated. Hell they even treat illegal aliens with absolutely no supplemental insurance (medicare/medicaid) or no money. They will refuse treatment noone. The government only gives minimal funding to these hospitals. Most of these hospitals offer free clinics as well. Every county has health departments which offer a wide range of services.

My point is that there is already an adequate healthcare system in place that is avaliable to anyone who needs it, especially in GA. We have a better system in place that a lot of states. Thats why the states should be in charge of organizing their healthcare systems, not the federal government.

[tony]

Tony....week by week Obama's campaigns are alienating more and more white people. Especially this latest string of the race card being thrown out at every possibility. And what has that accomplished? It put McCain ahead. Im not a republican or democrat. I stand by what makes sense and Obama just seems as if he is all talk.

McCain is gonna lose you say? We will find that out in Nov.



Your not very bright are you?


What race card? Please point me to it

[The12lber]

I said I make more than $80k per year,
Actually, you said you will "soon be making 80k a year" a few pages back.
as in between $78,851 and $164,550 (the 4th tax bracket). I didn't say how much I make, and it's none of your business. My point about obama's plan is that within the next 4 years I will be making close to, if not more than $250k/yr. I'm just looking ahead into the future.

I never said I had a firmer grasp than economics than you, I just have a much different perspective since more of my money is paying for all this bullshyt spending than a lot of other people.

Oh, and how do you know that? I thought we determined you couldn't possibly know that unless I explicitly told you.

Why do you feel that it is the responsibility of people who make more money to pay for all the government programs that support people who make less money? Why should it be my responsibility to make sure that everyone has "adequate healthcare"?

I was actually pointing my finger at the "top tiers of income earners who hold a disproprortionate amount of wealth". You know, people
making millions/hundreds of millions/billions a year. Especially considering these people and similarly wealthy corporate interests shape government policy to suit their needs.

And why tax them more? Because, you know, they don't need all that money. For example, Oprah makes 385 million dollars a year. I'm sure she needs all that to cover her, as you defined them, completely ambiguous necessities?

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but there are nonprofit hospitals all over the country that offfer services for free or at a reduced cost to the indigent.

Yeah, I am. I'm also aware this isn't exactly what I'd call
comprehensive healthcare.

Just because someone doesn't have money doesn't mean that the hospital will turn them away. I know, since I work at one of these hospitals. I would say that around 80% of the patients who come into the emergency room have no form of insurance, and no money. The hospital covers the cost of all the bills. Most people do not understand that even the poorest person with no insurance and no money can go to a non-profit hospital and be treated. Hell they even treat illegal aliens with absolutely no supplemental insurance (medicare/medicaid) or no money. They will refuse treatment noone. The government only gives minimal funding to these hospitals. Most of these hospitals offer free clinics as well. Every county has health departments which offer a wide range of services.

My point is that there is already an adequate healthcare system in place that is avaliable to anyone who needs it, especially in GA. We have a better system in place that a lot of states. Thats why the states should be in charge of organizing their healthcare systems, not the federal government.

The problem is, you're only talking about Georgia and we're talking about what to do with the national budget and health care is a whole. Georgia isn't the whole nation, and leaving it up to the states isn't going to produce an adequate solution in each. The national government is simply an inherently better place to organize certain programs. That's why we live in a federation and not a confederation (we tried that, didn't work, short history lesson).



I think its interesting that you mainly pin your tax burden on people that you apparently think are leaching off you (and don't get me wrong, there's undoubtedly people leaching off the government in some way/shape form be it local etc). The military industrial complex gets nearly a third of our budget every year, maybe you should look at the big picture? More over, maybe you should consider that not just the "poor and lazy" leach off the government, but the rich and powerful as well?

I'm gonna cut you in on the bottom line here. The stuff that you could actually cut from the budget isn't going to make a big enough impact on the overall size of the budget to allow for an overall decrease in necessary tax revenue and therefore in overall taxation. We had tax cuts just recently and we're running a deficit now. If anything, overall tax revenue needs to go up (and as stated before, overall taxation by association). The only way you're going to see your rates go down is if some seriously rich people and corporations are taxed a fair rate and not the Government's I <3 Big Business and rich white people rates.

[The12lber]

Your not very bright are you?
You're not very bright, are you?

[Maniacc]

Your not very bright are you?
You're the genius who thinks McCain is going to win over Obama. Shows how intelligent you are and how little you know about what's going on in the country you live in. Anyone with a perfectly good set of eyes can see that come McCain will never be President, just because of his lack of speech and horrible ideas for this country.

So please save your assumptions of me and worry about what's in front of you. Contribute to this thread. Show all of us how "bright" you really are.

[4dmin]

Tony....week by week Obama's campaigns are alienating more and more white people. Especially this latest string of the race card being thrown out at every possibility. And what has that accomplished? It put McCain ahead. Im not a republican or democrat. I stand by what makes sense and Obama just seems as if he is all talk.

McCain is gonna lose you say? We will find that out in Nov.



Your not very bright are you?

if mccain wins our economy isn't going to change one bit and after 4 years the US won't have a choice but to put a Democrat in office. atleast if obama gets in i think we will see major changes over the course of the next 4 years.

[The12lber]

I stand by what makes sense and Obama just seems as if he is all talk.


Alright, let's talk about McCain and sensibility. I'll relate some major policy positions championed by McCain to the appropriate logic.

1)Offshore drilling will help us become more energy independent immediately - a position now held by both candidates, it will certainly be helpful but not appreciably. It will take a long time to put the offshore rigs up and the amount of petroleum they produce isn't going to be anything to get overly excited about. That and a strong hurricane could easily render the rigs inoperable or destroy them. There's also a good chance of an accidental yet disastrous oil spill which will damage already vulnerable ecosystem. The short version: it will definitely allow us to produce more oil domestically, but not nearly enough to make an appreciable difference - especially when one considers increasing foreign demand in the coming years before additional rigs even become operational. When you couple that with the risk of environmental damage, its not anything to get all that excited about.

Offshore drilling has more to do with allowing oil companies to find more revenue and making voters think you're going to make a difference than actually impacting energy prices in any significant way.

2)Gas-tax holiday - would have saved $.18 on every gallon of gas for a short period of time, would have cost the national government, already in a deficit, nearly 10 billion dollars. Pure political pandering and nothing more.

3) Iran - bomb it, maybe invade it and maybe bomb it some more. There's really no need for elaboration here.

4)Taxes - tax cuts (we're already in a deficit).

5)Veteran's affairs/Military affairs -

9/07 Voted against Webb Amendment calling for adequate troop rest time between deployments

05/06 Voted against providing $20,000,000 to the Department of Veteran's Affairs for health care facilities.

04/06 Voted against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran's Affairs for outpatient care and treatment of veterans

03/06 Voted against increasing Veteran's medical service funding by $1.5 billion, to be paid for in full by closing corporate tax loopholes.

03/04 Voted against $1.8 billion dollar increase for Veterans' medical care, to be paid for in full by the closing of corporate tax loopholes.
10/03 Voted to table (basically, kill before bringing to a general vote) a funding bill that would have provided $322,000,000 in safety equipment for U.S. forces in Iraq.

4/03 Compelled other Senators to table a vote to provide $1 billion to the National Guard to make up for a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts and tactical vests.

8/01 Voted against increasing the amount available for Veteran's Health Care by $650,000,000.

Remember, these are the same troops fighting the awesome war he voted for. I guess life is too easy as an Admiral's son (who, if I'm not mistaken, was also an Admiral's son) for him to care what the veterans without the silver spoons in their mouths have to deal with after the war.

[4dmin]

^ EJ25RUN your butts gotta hurt now :eek:

[Maniacc]

^ ouch your butts gotta hurt now :eek:
Haha, he introduced him to some pwnography too. Can't wait to see what he responds with. Thanks for the name change btw.

[Dr.G35]

its funny how the only political threads that are started here are always against obama, never mccain and he has plenty to cry about

then go start one

[The12lber]

then go start one
No need, scroll up a few posts and read my long one. I think I forgot to mention that the country he has a boner for bombing is a nation who's leader is unknown to him, despite the information being widely available in all forms of media.

As a side note
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

"The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand (now) two decades from now."

Related to previous post

[EJ25RUN]

^ EJ25RUN your butts gotta hurt now :eek:

Not at all. When i concern myself with the future of this country i could care less about who owns somebody on a forum. I could make a list like that on Obama as well. Anyways, i have considered what Obama, Hilary, and McCain have said and McCain is the best choice for me. If you feel different it's your vote.

To Tony: Have you seen the latest McCain ad with Paris and Britney? It is a satire of Obama's celebrity but allot of people are saying it is racist because it shows a black male in front of girls that are a disgrace.

(I wont respond to anyone that talks about anything derogatory, if i can keep it civil, so can you)

[The12lber]

I could make a list like that on Obama as well. Anyways, i have considered what Obama, Hilary, and McCain have said and McCain is the best choice for me. If you feel different it's your vote.

Then do it, rather than saying "I could do it" as if that was proof positive of an argument.

[tony]

To Tony: Have you seen the latest McCain ad with Paris and Britney? It is a satire of Obama's celebrity but allot of people are saying it is racist because it shows a black male in front of girls that are a disgrace.

(I wont respond to anyone that talks about anything derogatory, if i can keep it civil, so can you)

Heres what I don't understand, PEOPLE say something about race and suddenly Obama is playing the race card. Since when is Obama's campaign responsible for every cry out against race?

Again when did OBAMA play the race card? Not people but the man himself.

[The12lber]

Again when did OBAMA play the race card? Not people but the man himself.
He played the race card when he was born half black born 47 years ago.

[EJ25RUN]

Then do it, rather than saying "I could do it" as if that was proof positive of an argument.

Look, i'm at work and i can check the site periodically. So im not gonna write an essay. If the only way you can get self assurance is to win an argument on a forum. Then good for you but i'm not that concerned about it. :rolleyes:


Heres what I don't understand, PEOPLE say something about race and suddenly Obama is playing the race card. Since when is Obama's campaign responsible for every cry out against race?

Again when did OBAMA play the race card? Not people but the man himself.

That's not what i meant. I cant remember his name but a character on msnbc was the one that brought this up. I hope through the times me and you have debated on this that race is a secondary thing to me and i brought that up because it was fresh on my mind cause i saw it yesterday.

[The12lber]

Look, i'm at work and i can check the site periodically. So im not gonna write an essay. If the only way you can get self assurance is to win an argument on a forum. Then good for you but i'm not that concerned about it. :rolleyes:

The point was that if you're not going to even produce a sentence or two's worth of explanation, its not worth saying.



Lol @ the petty insult by the way, I'll respond in kind: you're addressing your own insecurities about your perception of your own intelligence by intimating something negative about me.

[EJ25RUN]

Lol @ the petty insult by the way, I'll respond in kind: you're addressing your own insecurities about your perception of your own intelligence by intimating something negative about me.

If that makes you feel better, think what you want. :goodjob:

[The12lber]

If that makes you feel better, think what you want. :goodjob:
If I'm not mistaken you're the one who introduced baseless insults into the dialogue champ.

[EJ25RUN]

If I'm not mistaken you're the one who introduced baseless insults into the dialogue champ.

Ok. Im done. "Dialogue Champ" lol

[Alan®]

If you weren't talking out your ass you'd know he only plans to increase taxes for people making more than 250,000k a year.
And maybe if you pulled your head out of yours you'd realize that he's going to raise them on just about everyone except those just barely making ends meet.

Also those making $250-$1,000,000 a year are typically small business owners and last I checked that's what was helping out a lot with our economy.

It's amazing to me that people still to this day continue to say "TAX THE RICH THEY HAVE TO MUCH :blah: :blah: :blah: " Most of the people in this country who Obama would consider "rich" are people that are supposedly just like him. Grew up with nothing worked their ass off to get to where they are now but yet he and the rest of the government want to take almost half if not more when you add in state taxes.

[allmotoronly]

And maybe if you pulled your head out of yours you'd realize that he's going to raise them on just about everyone except those just barely making ends meet.

Also those making $250-$1,000,000 a year are typically small business owners and last I checked that's what was helping out a lot with our economy.

It's amazing to me that people still to this day continue to say "TAX THE RICH THEY HAVE TO MUCH :blah: :blah: :blah: " Most of the people in this country who Obama would consider "rich" are people that are supposedly just like him. Grew up with nothing worked their ass off to get to where they are now but yet he and the rest of the government want to take almost half if not more when you add in state taxes.

I've been trying to explain the same thing redGT... Some people (those who don't make enough money to care whether taxes are raised) will never get it.\


btw the12lber, what exactly do you do for a living? Apparently you don't make much money... If you did you would care if a presidential candidate was proposing to raise taxes... Since you have nitpicked everything I've said about how much money I make (i've been trying to be discrete about it and not give an exact number) I guess I'll tell you. By march I should be making about $84k. As soon as I'm done with my masters degree I should be making close to $85/hr. Considering I work at least 48 hours a week, that should put me in at around $230k. My wife will be making the same. Thats why I care so much about tax rates. 2 years or so after I complete my masters I should be making closer to $100/hr, which equates to $270k/yr. Supposing that my wife and I only work 35-40 hours a week, we should be making around $350k together. That means that the government will be getting at least $90k of out yearly income... Thats more than most middle class families make in a year!!!

I'm really tired of talking about this. Nothing you can say will make me feel better letting the government take that much of my hard earned money. I see your points, I just do not agree.

[Roadster]

Lol @ the petty insult by the way, I'll respond in kind: you're addressing your own insecurities about your perception of your own intelligence by intimating something negative about me.

And you're doing your damndest to use big words to make your arguments seem legitimate and intimidating. Nice job. And when you scanned the trusty thesaurus for a synonym for "saying"; "intimating" was probably the least appropriate choice. :goodjob:

I agree wholeheartedly with Allmotoronly and all of those in this thread that wish to keep the government out of their lives and pockets. McCain is my choice.

[Alan®]

I've been trying to explain the same thing redGT... Some people (those who don't make enough money to care whether taxes are raised) will never get it.\


btw the12lber, what exactly do you do for a living? Apparently you don't make much money... If you did you would care if a presidential candidate was proposing to raise taxes... Since you have nitpicked everything I've said about how much money I make (i've been trying to be discrete about it and not give an exact number) I guess I'll tell you. By march I should be making about $84k. As soon as I'm done with my masters degree I should be making close to $85/hr. Considering I work at least 48 hours a week, that should put me in at around $230k. My wife will be making the same. Thats why I care so much about tax rates. 2 years or so after I complete my masters I should be making closer to $100/hr, which equates to $270k/yr. Supposing that my wife and I only work 35-40 hours a week, we should be making around $350k together. That means that the government will be getting at least $90k of out yearly income... Thats more than most middle class families make in a year!!!

I'm really tired of talking about this. Nothing you can say will make me feel better letting the government take that much of my hard earned money. I see your points, I just do not agree.
If not more if Obama gets what he wants if/when he gets in and removes or raises the social security cap.

[Alan®]

I will say this though.

Romney>McCain>Obama

In that order.

[tony]

What you guys who support McSame are referring to is Supply Side Economics, it is theoretical that tax cuts for the wealthy will trickle down to the common man and benefit all. I looked up this data but this theory was pursued during the Reagan administration, the result:

1. It is true that the economy grew quite fast from 1983 to 1989 but such a pickup in growth was a standard recovery of growth and fall of unemployment from the depths of the severe recession of 1981-1982 (the unemployment rate went above 10% in 1982).

2. The private saving rate continued to decline slowly in the 1980s. In the 1973-1980, private saving averaged 7.8 percent of the economy, and dropped to 6.9% in 1986 and 4.8% in 1989. In other words, the saving rate was significantly lower after the 1981 tax cut than before it.

3. The labor force grew at an average rate of 1.6% over the 1982-89 period, about the same as during the previous four years.

4. Overall labor productivity grew rapidly before 1973 and much less rapidly since then. In the entire period after 1973, the annual growth rate of productivity has been very close to 1.1 percent. It average around 1.1 percent also in the 1980s.

5. Budget deficits that were equal to 40b US$ in 1979 (-1.7% of GDP) and 74b US $ in 1980 (-2.7% of GDP) increased to 221b US $ by 1986 (5.2% of GDP).

6. The public debt to GDP ratio increased from 26.1% in 1979 to 41.2% in 1986.

And we now see the result with the Bush tax cuts as well. Lets face it, countries that Tax but take care of their citizens are thriving while the great U.S doesn't even function off of its own supply of oil, it borrows from the nation whose economic policy you frown upon to fund a war against a faction that we not only support but remains wealthy due to our dependence on foreign oil.

Sorry, the state of the economy is proof in the pudding that Republicans have lost their identity and don't know what the hell they're doing. We tried tax cuts and we got f.ucked, so I don't care any more... tax everyone and let them whine. (Including the muthaf.ucking rich)

[BanginJimmy]

tax everyone and let them whine. (Including the muthaf.ucking rich)

I agree. Everyone pays 15% of their income in taxes. No deductions, no shelters, no nothing. This alone would eliminate 80% of the tax code.

The rich pay their 15% on 1 million, and the poor pay 15% on their 15k.

[NevrNufTorq]

I agree. Everyone pays 15% of their income in taxes. No deductions, no shelters, no nothing. This alone would eliminate 80% of the tax code.

The rich pay their 15% on 1 million, and the poor pay 15% on their 15k.
if that were true, i'd be shout ing for joy!!! but i personally believe below 20k you shouldnt have to pay taxes or get a greatly cut rate :2cents:

only prob i have with taxing corporate profits is that we'll all end up paying for it in the end, not them...i know, b/c my company does the same as most big corporations, taxes are equated into a cost, if they go up, so does my price!!! and since most, if not all larger companies follow this same plan, my price wouldnt put me out of the market b/c the other companies are getting taxed also...now if any of the candidates would investigate market manipulation i'd be all for that!!! that way no set of corporations or group could just go up on prices and make record profits just b/c they can and we have no choice in the matter!! but i'm sorry for those that think tax the corporation will work, it wont, sorry to bust your bubble...at least in the sense that it will make corporations or companies be more responsible about setting their prices.

my take and my :2cents: as always fellas...always enjoy these sort of posts to get the feel of other people...funny when you talk face to face alot of people wont rock the boat but on a forum you can get a deeper conversation going on a topic

[BanginJimmy]

if that were true, i'd be shout ing for joy!!! but i personally believe below 20k you shouldnt have to pay taxes or get a greatly cut rate :2cents:



nope, no breaks for anyone. Everyone pays their fair share of the taxes. In fact, if you receive welfare, your chare of the taxes goes up. If you drive multiple vehicles, your share goes up. I think you get the point.

[allmotoronly]

Yea the fair tax would be awesome, but it will probably never happen.

[Spektrewing386]

from a CNN poll in response to Paris Hilton's video against the new McCain ad:


Whose energy plan shows the most promise?
John McCain's 27% 25027
Barack Obama's 33% 30556
Paris Hilton's 39% 35845
Total Votes: 91428

[BanginJimmy]

from a CNN poll in response to Paris Hilton's video against the new McCain ad:


Whose energy plan shows the most promise?
John McCain's 27% 25027
Barack Obama's 33% 30556
Paris Hilton's 39% 35845
Total Votes: 91428


I think this is proof positive that neither canidate has a clue how to deal with the energy issues without upsetting the lobbiests that own them.

[EJ25RUN]

I think this is proof positive that neither canidate has a clue how to deal with the energy issues without upsetting the lobbiests that own them.

Yeah, i for one don't think Nuclear power is the answer. Not because i'm scared of a melt down but it takes allot of money and i don't believe they are great for the environment.

[Spektrewing386]

nuclear power only admits steam into the atmosphere, and the harmful stuff can be safely contained. todays reactors are very safe.

[tony]

Yeah, i for one don't think Nuclear power is the answer. Not because i'm scared of a melt down but it takes allot of money and i don't believe they are great for the environment.

Aside from Nuclear waste, Nuclear energy is extremely efficient. With technologies today, after the initial investment the costs are minimal and the effects on environment are nil.

[EJ25RUN]

Aside from Nuclear waste, Nuclear energy is extremely efficient. With technologies today, after the initial investment the costs are minimal and the effects on environment are nil.

I see. I need to do more homework on it.

[alpine_aw11]

Nuclear power is definitely going to be put in place much more in the near future, the public is just too scared of it right now. Once everyone is educated on the facts that it's pretty much exclusively benefitial it will be used much more. We just need to find a place for that ****in toxic waste...

[BanginJimmy]

There are ways that it is being re-used in a way that drasticly lowers the half life of the material.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

[The12lber]

And you're doing your damndest to use big words to make your arguments seem legitimate and intimidating. Nice job. And when you scanned the trusty thesaurus for a synonym for "saying"; "intimating" was probably the least appropriate choice. :goodjob:

That's probably because they're not synonyms smart guy.

Intimating
verb (used with object), -mat·ed, -mat·ing. 1.to indicate or make known indirectly; hint; imply; suggest.



I'd like for someone to actual provide legitimate counterpoints to my argument, rather than sophomoric and unfounded crap like

YOU MUST NOT MAKE A LOT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT AS GREEDY AS ME LOL

YOU JUST USE BIG WORDS LOL

OBAMA IS GONNA TAX EVERYONE MORE... HE NEVER SAID HE WOULD, BUT I KNOW HE IS BECAUSE I JUST KNWO THIS ****

etc

Until someone can do that, don't post in reply to me with baseless crap. Oh, and you especially should stop posting because apparently you're a pretty dumb mother****er.

[The12lber]

I think this is proof positive that neither canidate has a clue how to deal with the energy issues without upsetting the lobbiests that own them.
You realize polls aren't actually evidence of anything except that <X> number of <Y> replies were received, right? You can really only cite polling data as evidence of something in certain situations. Polling doctors regarding medical procedures. Lawyers specializing in Constitutional Law about the constitutionality of a certain public policy. Economists about the economy. Not a bunch of people who are in regards to the topic at hand, mostly ignorant fools.

[The12lber]

What you guys who support McSame are referring to is Supply Side Economics, it is theoretical that tax cuts for the wealthy will trickle down to the common man and benefit all.
As an economist, I can confidently say the vast majority of us agree that the policies to come out of Supply Side economic theory is were ineffective.

As an unrelated side note, roughly 80% of United States economists support redistrubition in some way/shape/form. To all the rtards bitching about higher taxes on the wealthy.

[Maniacc]

I will say this though.

Romney>McCain>Obama

In that order.
And I will say this.

Obama > Romney > McCain. In that order. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/topless-women-kid-rock-bi_n_116632.html lol @ McCain. I'd have more respect for your choice if you told me you were voting for McCain because you flipped a coin. Just sayin'

[The12lber]

And I will say this.

Obama > Romney > McCain. In that order. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/topless-women-kid-rock-bi_n_116632.html lol @ McCain. I'd have more respect for your choice if you told me you were voting for McCain because you flipped a coin. Just sayin'

Romney, in the debates, validated his support for the Iraq war by relating it to 9/11.

That's right. There's still people who think Iraq was in on 9/11. And probably the assassination of JFK, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and the crucifixition of Jesus, too.

As a side note and further reply to the person who said I used a thesaurus to make my replies rich in complex vocabulary but lacking in substance, some people like myself went and got an education and are therefore able to reach into our brains for information (such as the words you declared "big") rather than simply being ignorant.

lol @ you for being insecure when it became apparent to you that your intellect, in comparison to mine, is feeble and thus went out of your way to say that I must not actually be as intelligent as I seem in order to comfort yourself.

[NevrNufTorq]

Aside from Nuclear waste, Nuclear energy is extremely efficient. With technologies today, after the initial investment the costs are minimal and the effects on environment are nil.
not to mention that we are practically the only country not using it to ots potential also...practically all of eastern europe is using it!!! and using it safely and just the cut in gases emitted the atmosphere should make all those greenpeace guys jump for joy!! :goodjob:

[Maniacc]

Romney, in the debates, validated his support for the Iraq war by relating it to 9/11.

That's right. There's still people who think Iraq was in on 9/11. And probably the assassination of JFK, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and the crucifixition of Jesus, too.
I personally know nothing about Romney. RedGT put him after McCain so I just decided to turn it around. I don't support anything that man does so I'd rather ignore anything he has to say. If he's one of the people who thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11 then he and his supporters are a bunch of buffoons.

For McCain lovers take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

His style of speech rivals that of my 10 year old nephew. Why would anyone with any common sense vote for this dipsh*t? I just don't understand what everyone sees in him to think he'll be a better president than Obama.

[Alan®]

I personally know nothing about Romney. RedGT put him after McCain so I just decided to turn it around. I don't support anything that man does so I'd rather ignore anything he has to say. If he's one of the people who thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11 then he and his supporters are a bunch of buffoons.

For McCain lovers take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

His style of speech rivals that of my 10 year old nephew. Why would anyone with any common sense vote for this dipsh*t? I just don't understand what everyone sees in him to think he'll be a better president than Obama.

Wow you know what. I was actually willing to give you a shot on this board but by calling people who agree with a canidate a "buffons" is uncalled for.

And BTW I put Romney ahead of McCain AND OBAMA.

[Maniacc]

Wow you know what. I was actually willing to give you a shot on this board but by calling people who agree with a canidate a "buffons" is uncalled for.

And BTW I put Romney ahead of McCain AND OBAMA.
Excuse me? Give me a shot? Hah, hilarious, simply hilarious. What makes you think I care what you have to say in this matter? I called Romney supporters buffoons because anyone who still thinks terrorist were the cause of what happened on 9/11 are just that, buffoons, imbeciles, morons. You get the point.

So you put Romney infront of McCain. Uh, k. I put Obama infront of them, so what? That doesn't change the fact that you're a buffoon.

[Alan®]

Excuse me? Give me a shot? Hah, hilarious, simply hilarious. What makes you think I care what you have to say in this matter? I called Romney supporters buffoons because anyone who still thinks terrorist were the cause of what happened on 9/11 are just that, buffoons, imbeciles, morons. You get the point.

So you put Romney infront of McCain. Uh, k. I put Obama infront of them, so what? That doesn't change the fact that you're a buffoon.
Your posts continue to show just how much of a buffon you are. It's amazing to me how just about everyone else on here can have a civilized discussion on candates and politics WITHOUT calling others names for their views yet you come on here and immediately start insulting people.

Ad hominem. Look it up. You'll find it's one of the worst ways to make your point. Hence why it makes the list of Logical Fallacies

[Maniacc]

*Crying pretty hard over it*
Hey, that's sweet and all. But I don't really care to discuss politics with you.

[The12lber]

Wow you know what. I was actually willing to give you a shot on this board but by calling people who agree with a canidate a "buffons" is uncalled for.

And BTW I put Romney ahead of McCain AND OBAMA.

Romney's a pretty remarkable candidate actually. Until you get to his foreign policy. At that point I thought to myself "holy ****, this man is a ****ing idiot". It was a real buzzkill for me.

I did some fairly thorough research on candidates in my down time, and probably my largest disappointment was in McCain.

The least surprising was probably Giuliani. A loud mouthed, arrogant, aggressive, ignorant mayor with presidential aspirations. He's truly the white version of Ahmadinejad (the Iranian president who was formerly mayor of Tehran).