| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 12:58 am |
|
Moving this up
Habanero wrote:
How many of you are employees of some entitity, eithier private or government? And how many of your are the entrepeneurs that own their own businesses?
Government employees really have no say in this as they have no knowlege of this. Employees of private businesses do have more knowlege. And without a doubt small business owners know far more than either of the above categories.
As a business owner I expect to pay a certain amount of taxes to the government, however I do not expect to be penalized by that same government if I actually make a go of my business and can afford to hire employees. I can only hire people if I am making money, but if I am making money and the government starts charging me more for my success I won't be able to afford to hire anyone else.
What part of this do you people not understand?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 12:44 am |
|
| The biggest loophole is the mortgage deduction. Now take that away from the average American and where are you? If you check the IRS website you will discover that this is the most costly deduction available to everyone from the lowest income to the highest income.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4056 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 12:42 am |
|
How many of you are employees of some entitity, eithier private or government? And how many of your are the entrepeneurs that own their own businesses?
Government employees really have no say in this as they have no knowlege of this. Employees of private businesses do have more knowlege. And without a doubt small business owners know far more than either of the above categories.
As a business owner I expect to pay a certain amount of taxes to the government, however I do not expect to be penalized by that same government if I actually make a go of my business and can afford to hire employees. I can only hire people if I am making money, but if I am making money and the government starts charging me more for my success I won't be able to afford to hire anyone else.
What part of this do you people not understand?
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 11:41 pm |
|
| There have been so many government handouts to corporations and the wealthy. Look at all the loopholes available in our tax code. If you want to make a case for something, do so honestly.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 11:09 pm |
|
Fred wrote: But it isn't true....for it to be true, the ONLY ones paying taxes would be the 35% percenters.
What is happening is that we have to pay for the government. Some, those making less than 250k, will pay a certain amount. Those making more will pay a greater amount.
Fred, It's a Republican thing. Truth is not required.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4056 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 10:49 pm |
|
Fred wrote:
I DO think those who have been more should give more.
GIVEN?????GIVEN more?
Are you freaking nuts?
These people have not been GIVEN anything, they have worked for it.
Come on Fred, you're better than that.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
Those of us who make under $250,000 pay squat in the scheme of things now.
Fred wrote:
But it isn't true....for it to be true, the ONLY ones paying taxes would be the 35% percenters.
What is happening is that we have to pay for the government. Some, those making less than 250k, will pay a certain amount. Those making more will pay a greater amount.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 07:12 pm |
|
| Why don't you stop trying to be clever?
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 06:58 pm |
|
| I seriously wonder how any individual residing in Delaware or Pennsylvania could even consider voting for Obama. Think about this- before he selected Joe as his running mate- he made his infamous comment in Las Vegas that- "People in Pennsylvania cling to their guns and their religion because they're bitter." Guess he didn't give any thought to the fact that in the near future, Pennsylvania just might become extremely important to him, personally. Then he goes and selects Joe- "I was born and raised in Scranton, PA"- Biden. Never mind that Joe only lived there ten years and has lived in and been an elected official of Delaware for the past fifty five years. Then, on the second debate, Obama goes and says- "Everybody knows if you want to do something shady in the banking industry, You go to Delaware, because Delawares' got loose banking laws." These are the TWO STATES his running mate claims as his own and these are the public comments of a man aspiring to be our national leader in the executive office? And Joe is a GAFFE machine? Really????
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 06:49 pm |
|
But it isn't true....for it to be true, the ONLY ones paying taxes would be the 35% percenters.
What is happening is that we have to pay for the government. Some, those making less than 250k, will pay a certain amount. Those making more will pay a greater amount.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
| What did you like about the Haloween analogy?
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
| I just love that "Halloween" analogy. I would comment further but I'm laughing too hard!
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 06:09 pm |
|
Yes, it is.
There are two issues...whether taxes are too high, and how we should pay for them. The fact is, those who have more money and wealth have much more to lose.
The basic fact remains is if you want a tax break, which for all of your talk about socialism, the question are how much, and for whom. I think Obama's tax break for the middle class paid for in part by an 3% increase on the wealthiest makes more sense right now for our economy. I think tax breaks in an era where we've dropped the kind of money on the wars and the banks is not the right thing to do, but if we are going to do it, at least let's pick the one that is smaller.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 05:31 pm |
|
Sorry, but under a progressive tax system, The one who does the work for the candy only gets 35%, the balance will be distributed based on certain demographics as established by how much you are willing to contribute to my campaign
Toocoolforschool wrote:
Im dressing up as a democrat for Halloween this year. I'll stay home, you go out. We will split your candy 50/50. 
|
Runnerman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 560 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 04:51 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Define "heavy" progressive tax...and I'll be happy to show you countries in the world where that truly exists, and we can compare "heaviness".
The progressive tax rate makes sense to people like Warren Buffet, who certainly gets hit by it a lot more than I do. I DO think those who have been given more should give more. To those who much has been given, much is expected some philosopher, and it wasn't Marx, once said. So now it's only the degree of "heaviness" on a progressive tax. Is that like being a "little bit pregnant?" And for those who have been given more, who determines how much more one is to give? The government? And now you try to inject a Biblical quote into the tax system. Truly Marxian, I say. Truly Marxian.
|
Toocoolforschool
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 04:38 pm |
|
| Im dressing up as a democrat for Halloween this year. I'll stay home, you go out. We will split your candy 50/50.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
Define "heavy" progressive tax...and I'll be happy to show you countries in the world where that truly exists, and we can compare "heaviness".
The progressive tax rate makes sense to people like Warren Buffet, who certainly gets hit by it a lot more than I do. I DO think those who have been given more should give more. To those who much has been given, much is expected some philosopher, and it wasn't Marx, once said.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 04:11 pm |
|
Peekaboo,
Our system of government, taxes and laws have evolved over the history of our country and we have adopted bits and pieces of many governing philosophies to reach our current status and include as many citizens as possible in the "American Dream". You are correct to say I have been conditioned to accept our form of taxation as well as many other laws and I have also paid my share and will continue to do so at whatever income level I am at. You are wrong to assume it is without reservation. There are laws and taxes I disagree with as is the case with most of us, but we still live in this country because it is far superior to any alternative, if it wasn't, thanks to our system of government we are free to leave or attempt to change them. On Nov. 4th anyone that wants to change them can vote, that is our system at it's best. We will then be governed by a new President because that is the will of the majority which in no way has any similarity to Communism. Personally I will be using my vote to write in a candidate who will have no chance of winning but makes a statement none the less and years down the road may have an effect on future candidates and the current unsatisfactory two party system. Until then I will live and abide by the laws of this country because I am conditioned to and I believe in our system of Government. If the majority votes to have a tax system that is similar to a plank in the Communist Manifesto then that is what we will have because in this Democracy our leaders and laws are voted on. All I can say to you is vote to change what you don't agree with and if you are joined by a majority in this great country you can change it. Try doing that in a Communist governed country.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
| Are you advocating anarchy?
|
Peekaboo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 01:20 pm |
|
counting coup wrote: You may call it anything you like. The facts are that in this country now and for as long as I have been paying taxes the more you earn the higher your tax % is.
Rather than calling it anything you like, let's call it exactly what it is. It is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto; a heavy progressive income tax. Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Thanks to the socialist thinkers of the country we have adopted it. You have been conditioned to accept it without reservation as you indicate in your post above.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 02:32 am |
|
| McCain is an object lesson in be careful what you wish for. He got the nomination. Having said that and watched his self destruction, it is still unclear whether or not he will win the election.
|
joeschulte
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 238 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 02:26 am |
|
| Yes , Joe the Plumber has a problem with taxes . He did not pay them last year and has a $11,000 lien . The plumbing business he considered buying is only $ 100,00 , not $260,000 to $270,000 . He makes $ 40,000 a year and would benefit from Obama's plan more than McCain's . He is a republican , not an independent . And another factoid , he may be related to the son-in-law of Charles Keating , of the Keating Five . Again , John McCain's campaign has let him down . I am now at this moment watching McCain giving a live speach at a Catholic fund raiser . He has Clinton and Obama and a large audience laughing their heads off . This McCain ...............he just wished Obama well and congratulated him..............this McCain could have won . Where has this guy been ?
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 04:32 pm |
|
You may call it anything you like. The facts are that in this country now and for as long as I have been paying taxes the more you earn the higher your tax % is. The Republicans want to keep the tax reduction they gave to the richest people in this country which is a small percentage of the population. The Democrats want to remove that tax break and give a tax break to as much as 95% of the population. Let me see now 5% of possible voters keep their tax break and will probably vote Republican or 95% of possible voters get a new tax break and may vote Democratic. You do the math.
Oh, by the way I didn't here any complaints from the peon 95% about "redistribution of wealth" when the wealthiest 5% of this nation got their taxes reduced. I am way more concerned about the "redistribution of wealth" to the oil producing and cheap labor companies of the world, than I am about the richest 5% of fat cats in this country that own the companies that are redistributing the wealth out of this country.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 03:48 pm |
|
"One can argue that while you don't pay income taxes, you are paying Social Security payroll taxes and this is a tax cut against that. It depends on whether you consider [the taxpayers'] income tax liability or their total federal tax liability." (Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center) Mr. Williams did not necessarily dispute critics of Obama's tax plan who maintain that his refundable tax plan is a form of income redistribution from wealthier taxpayers in the top tax bracket who would see their taxes raised to pay for tax relief for middle- and lower-income taxpayers. Asked whether the transfer of taxes from high earners to middle- and low-income earners was a way of redistributing the nation's income, Mr. Williams said, "You could certainly view it that way because both [tax] proposals are in the same tax plan. There's no question that's one way to perceive the tax plan." And that’s not socialism?
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 03:17 pm |
|
McCain's mortgage plan would benefit the mortgage holders. Under McCain's plan they would be paid 100% of the existing mortgage amount.
Obama is the one who specifically mentioned holding those who were making predatory loans accountable.
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
| Fred- I was frankly, disapointed in McCains' performance last night. I feel that he missed several opportunities to really shine. I knew he would not broach the Jeremiah Wright scandel. This is a controversial "hot bed" of ill repute, which I feel must be avoided by McCain at all costs. Let the others below him fault Obamas' very poor judgement there. However, to remain "in the game" McCain did well on "planting a seed" with regards to two points- Taxes & Spending. With help from Joe the plumber, he managed to (inarticulately) lay the doubt regarding Obamas' tax & spend- "redistribute the wealth" policies. Two other things I wish he had driven home more forcefully are- government, government, government (and more of it) he did touch on this- Senator Government and the idea that he will "bring the bad guys to justice." That attitude of enforcer works well for him and middle america, right now, really wants punitive action and accountability of those involved in the mortgage debacle and ensuing Wall Street Fiasco. Folks want to know whose responsible and where's my money going? He didn't speak to this at all, from what I saw. If he wants to remain viable at this stage, he must NOW take a strong stance against taxes and spending. It's the fork in the road for him.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 01:55 pm |
|
I am voting FOR Obama, and not AGAINST McCain. I get the feeling that most people here are exactly the reverse, or, at best, voting for McCain-Palin.
I've detailed the reasons why I like his proposals, and I think they are better than McCain's. I don't think tax cuts are the answer with the deficit and all the other money we have and will spend, but if you are going to do it I would rather see it spread among more people, so I like Obama's plan. Personally, it doesn't affect me; I am one of those in the middle where the difference is minimal between the two plans.
Obama said it best last night when he mentioned the areas where McCain has stood apart from the administration and his fellow Republicans (torture being one), but the core policies are still extremely similiar to President Bush's, so the comparisions ARE fair. It is a great tactic, and the only way that McCain can really combat that is to run even more against the President...which he is loathe to do.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 02:48 pm |
|
counting coup wrote: My gut instinct tells me the last person in the world that I should hire for this position is someone that is 72 years old and would continue the Bush Cheney reign of terror policies but worse than that would be if something did happen to him I would be saddled even worse with Sarah (gosh darn) Palin. Yea brother that worries me big time. Like matt damon said its like a bad disney movie the hockey mom from Alaska becomes a maverik President
|
obamadaman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 01:59 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Fight, fight, niggah, white................You all amaze me. Personally I am voting for the President of the United States, not the cool one, but the one who will express my best thoughts for this country. If you only knew...................
Playinthegame i knew you was a racist. what makes you think you can use the word nigga. you have no idea what that word really mean. you should be ban from this site.i would like to see you take that tone down on kirkwood street.
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 03:02 am |
|
| With any luck, someday YOU will be 72 and with the way things are going, you might well find yourself needing to be employed. Here's hoping that the personnel are blind (or you hide your age incredibly well) and you get that job, Counting Coup. Ha, Ha..... Last edited on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 01:07 pm by countrynow
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 02:56 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: If the first section asked his age, they would be in violation of every employment standard currently applicable in the United States.
Oh, gosh employers would never do that and employers would never hire illegal aliens either. Let's see, a 72 year old gray haired man or woman goes to a place of business and fills out an application with no place to fill in his date of birth and since the employer is an equal opportunity employer the personnel person is blind and maybe they do hire the 72 year old. Give me a Break!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 02:42 am |
|
| My gut instinct tells me the last person in the world that I should hire for this position is someone that is 72 years old and would continue the Bush Cheney reign of terror policies but worse than that would be if something did happen to him I would be saddled even worse with Sarah (gosh darn) Palin. Last edited on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 02:43 am by counting coup
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 01:31 am |
|
| Correct. People often provide birth dates on resumes, but just like religious or sexual orientation, it is not permissable to ask nor have I seen an area provided on any application I've reviewed in many years for a birth date. Chew on this- Many years ago, as a supervisor for First National Bank of Md, I unknowingly hired (what turned out to be) a very pregnant female. Because it was winter time, the applicant wore a large coat (which was not removed). I suspected nothing and even if I had, I could not have asked that question. So, company money was spent to train someone who was gone in a matter of weeks, worse a position had to be held for 12 weeks, in which time I had to hire someone else- again, a monetary loss. From a business standpoint, it just plain becomes expensive as well as time consuming. My point is though, that the circumstance surrounding this employees' hiring and her ability to do the job I hired her for was in fact, hidden from me. Once I made the decision to hire, I had no recourse and had to live with the consequences of that decision. Is Barak hiding from us his true agenda & intentions? Once he is "hired" will we have to live with the consequences of our actions as a nation and a society? Why can we not get straight answers from him regarding his past speech, actions and associations? Over time, just as many people, I have learned to trust my gut instinct (not first impression) of individuals. My gut instinct tells me that many things are "hidden from view" with Barak. What does your "gut instinct" tell you?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 12:55 am |
|
| Fight, fight, niggah, white................You all amaze me. Personally I am voting for the President of the United States, not the cool one, but the one who will express my best thoughts for this country. If you only knew...................
|
joeschulte
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 238 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 12:51 am |
|
| Wednesday night , John McCain will probably make his final fatal mistake . He is behind with less than three weeks to go , the outcome is predictable . In the first debate he could not look at Obama . During the last debate he pointed at him and said " that one ." In the south it is heard as " that un ." A racial slur . When Tom Brokaw asked him the names of future nominees for a gov. position McCain said " Not you Tom ." With all the pressure of a final race slipping away I predict John McCain will seal his future on what he will say , live , on TV , before America .
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 12:44 am |
|
| If the first section asked his age, they would be in violation of every employment standard currently applicable in the United States.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 11:56 pm |
|
Countrynow, I agree with your simplistic analogy as it pertains to the hiring of B.O. but you left out one important thing.
If Mr. McCain at age 72 was even allowed to submit a job application to you or 99% of the rest of the companies in this country with the possible exception of Walmart, the personnel person would never read past the first section that asked his age.
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 08:51 pm |
|
Tell me how he plans on doing that.
What I am arguing is the policies he has said he will try to get passed. I have no doubt that BOTH candidates will have their plans radically changed if they even see the light of day, based on Congress and the economic reality.
What I don't want to hear is the circular argument...Well, he is a Democrat, so he supports things that are in other countries, other countries are more socialist than we are, therefore, he is a socialist.
Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods, and the creation of a more equal society. Are we more "socialist" than we were 200 years ago? Well, we certainly are more equal than we were back then, but economically, we have gone backwards over the past 20 years.
I suspect that if you asked most Americans today they would agree that power and wealth is concentrated within a small percentage of our society. I would further bet that most Americans would say that this power and money have been misused by those who have it, and the banking crisis is an example of that.
This is about as socialist as a belief as you can get; what we do and how we correct it will be important in the direction our country takes. Giving tax breaks to the Middle Class and increasing taxes on the wealthy by 2% isn't Marxism, but if you don't correct this inequity the people WILL get angry and may make even more drastic changes.
What I suggest is that rather than blathering about any changes you don't like being Socialist (and realize that every social change, be it equal rights for women, civil rights, or basically any change tio the established order was blamed on them) you provide better plans on how we can get this country right again. Socialism might not be the way I want to go, but if the American people start to be convinced, as they were during the Depression, that it is the path forward because there is not a good alternative, none of us will like what happens.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 03:42 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Jurisprudence wrote: The constant call for "change" is overlooked as a buz-word but it is what lies beneath that matters. The skeletonized outline distinguished by the mantra chanted by Obama gives us some idea of his general objectives and methods and I say note the many similarities with the initial steps taken in establishing FDR's New Deal. I think we need no argument to prove that some reform is necessary, or even imperative. To deny reform is to suggest the absurdity that perfection has already been attained. But I caution, reform must, however, be distinguished from revolution.
His "skeletonized" outline still has more details than McCain's.
Have we all forgotten the tax cut discussion? How we agreed that the non-biased sources said that BOTH were offering tax cuts? That McCain's was larger, but that Obama's is going to a broader group of people, namely the middle class?
What about the health care plans? Do you really like McCain's plan of taxing health care as a benefit? I can almost see individual plans like car insurance, but it is certainly problematic and a focus on employer--based care seems to me like a better idea.
What is so socialized about his tax cuts, or his health care plan? You may not agree with his strategy for Iraq and/or Afghanistan, but it certainly isn't a "socialized" plan.
I am convinced that many of you simply take everything you don't like, wrap it up, put a bow on it, and call it "socialism" or "liberalism" regardless if it makes sense or not. You know you don't like socialism, so anything you don't like must be it. Dear Fred. I am not comparing one tax plan against another, or even one candidate against another. I am simply illustrating that Barack Obama is poised, along with certain liberal Democrats, to advance socialism into more of America's fabric than already exists. Beware of the call for constant change, as I said above. I warned that reform must be distinguished from revolution.
Reform is the correction of abuses, the prevention of their recurrence, the adaptation of the existing State to changed conditions; it is not the discarding of the existing order and the substituting of a different system.
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 12:46 pm |
|
| Fred- here's a very simplistic approach to this. Although my company presently has a "hiring freeze" in effect, I look at applications all the time. Barak Obama has, in fact, applied for a job. The first thing I notice, after the name, is the address. Where is the applicant from? Residency and how you came to be residing there, depending on education or previous employment, does matter. You well know Barak Obamas' homestate. The next section are his credentials. What is his job experience, previous employment, to date? Who has he worked for? Who supervised him and for how long? Am I, as a prospective employer, authorized by him to contact that individual for reference? There oughta be a red flag next to this section for Barak. The next section on my application refers to attendance. This is a simple question. Does the applicant understand what constitutes acceptable attendance and that chronic or habitual tardiness in our company is not tolerated? Since Obama voted "present" thirty-some percent of his first term as a junior senator, I suppose some will view it as acceptable attendance. Myself, I think NOT. The next section is for education history and background. This is where I gain some valuable insight into where individuals have not only geographically been, but also what their underlying belief system, behaviour and mentality may form from. We are, after all, in large part, products of the environment from where we were raised to where we have studied. Doubtless, I'd find Baraks' education impressive, particularly if he disclosed Columbia University. The next area is provided for references. Three are necessary in my company. Who will attest to this individuals' merits as a potential employee of our company? Will Barak list his mother & grandmother (Rick Warrens' question from Saddleback- "who are the three wisest people you've ever known) and the half dozen or so democrats he additionally mentioned? Or perhaps Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohren, Tony Rezko, Raila Odinga, Rasheed Kahlidi, Saul Alinsky, Franklin Reines....oh, sorry- that's also more than three. The last section is- Have you ever been charged with or convicted of criminal activity? (some apps require you to disclose only felony convictions). Well, you can sort that out for yourself with regards to Barak. And, following the interview (provided you got past the application) you then must ask yourself- Am I satisfied that this individual posesses integrity and will have at his core the best interests of my company (country) at heart? Will he comprehend, acknowledge and uphold the policies already in place? And, finally- Is he the best qualified applicant available to fill this position? What would be YOUR determination, Fred?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 03:55 am |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: The constant call for "change" is overlooked as a buz-word but it is what lies beneath that matters. The skeletonized outline distinguished by the mantra chanted by Obama gives us some idea of his general objectives and methods and I say note the many similarities with the initial steps taken in establishing FDR's New Deal. I think we need no argument to prove that some reform is necessary, or even imperative. To deny reform is to suggest the absurdity that perfection has already been attained. But I caution, reform must, however, be distinguished from revolution.
His "skeletonized" outline still has more details than McCain's.
Have we all forgotten the tax cut discussion? How we agreed that the non-biased sources said that BOTH were offering tax cuts? That McCain's was larger, but that Obama's is going to a broader group of people, namely the middle class?
What about the health care plans? Do you really like McCain's plan of taxing health care as a benefit? I can almost see individual plans like car insurance, but it is certainly problematic and a focus on employer--based care seems to me like a better idea.
What is so socialized about his tax cuts, or his health care plan? You may not agree with his strategy for Iraq and/or Afghanistan, but it certainly isn't a "socialized" plan.
I am convinced that many of you simply take everything you don't like, wrap it up, put a bow on it, and call it "socialism" or "liberalism" regardless if it makes sense or not. You know you don't like socialism, so anything you don't like must be it.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 03:47 am |
|
Helen here wrote: In the next few days there will be a report that Obama may have funneled some of America's tax payer money to sponsor terrorism in his father's native country.
Now I'm not sure how this will affect this election , but surely with the knowledge that is out there about his ring of friends and band of political thieves this country's undecided voters will lean to wards Uncle John and Aunt Sarah
Think of it this way , if something happens to
Obama McCain
Biden Palin
_____________________________________________________________________
Pelosi Pelosi do you really want her running this country ?
_______________________________________________________________________
Obama needs to reveal all his supporters , all of his tax records for the past 20 years.
I wouldn't count to much on the undecided voters if I were you, they had knowledge of King George and little Dickey's ring of friends and band of political thieves and worse and they elected them twice anyway.
It might be nice to see all of the McCain's tax records including Cindy's, but I won't hold my breath.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 207 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 03:38 am |
|
Habanero wrote: countrynow wrote: While Arbys' has successfully marketed the "different is better" ploy, I personally feel that when it comes to Barak Obama, Nancy Reagans' "JUST SAY NO" would be far more beneficial to us as Americans.
As much as I admired Ronald Reagan, I never did care for Nancy Reagan and that "Just Say No" campaign annoyed the crapola out of me, I have to say you're totaly correct in regard to Obama.
Watching a group of 7-12 year olds this morning chanting "NO-BA-MA NO-BA-MA" was pretty cool.
And before all the Obama supporters around here gang up on me and claim it was a staged thing, let me state the facts. My daughter was one of those children and they were pretty much engaged in playing something on their Nintendo DS's. My daughter didn't know any of these kids and many of them didn't know each other either. The kids, and thus parents, all seemed to gravitate together in one area. Every time they heard the name Obama, even from within the crowd, they started chanting -- and they were all sitting on the floor and couldn't see anything.
Have the Republicans tried to register them yet? Their gonna need them to win this thing.
I prefer Mrs. Clinton's: No how, No way, No McCain.
Last edited on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 03:48 am by counting coup
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 03:29 am |
|
The constant call for "change" is overlooked as a buz-word but it is what lies beneath that matters. The skeletonized outline distinguished by the mantra chanted by Obama gives us some idea of his general objectives and methods and I say note the many similarities with the initial steps taken in establishing FDR's New Deal. I think we need no argument to prove that some reform is necessary, or even imperative. To deny reform is to suggest the absurdity that perfection has already been attained. But I caution, reform must, however, be distinguished from revolution.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4056 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
countrynow wrote: While Arbys' has successfully marketed the "different is better" ploy, I personally feel that when it comes to Barak Obama, Nancy Reagans' "JUST SAY NO" would be far more beneficial to us as Americans.
As much as I admired Ronald Reagan, I never did care for Nancy Reagan and that "Just Say No" campaign annoyed the crapola out of me, I have to say you're totaly correct in regard to Obama.
Watching a group of 7-12 year olds this morning chanting "NO-BA-MA NO-BA-MA" was pretty cool.
And before all the Obama supporters around here gang up on me and claim it was a staged thing, let me state the facts. My daughter was one of those children and they were pretty much engaged in playing something on their Nintendo DS's. My daughter didn't know any of these kids and many of them didn't know each other either. The kids, and thus parents, all seemed to gravitate together in one area. Every time they heard the name Obama, even from within the crowd, they started chanting -- and they were all sitting on the floor and couldn't see anything.
|
BugsMe
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 12:03 am |
|
Conformity is best?
|
countrynow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
| While Arbys' has successfully marketed the "different is better" ploy, I personally feel that when it comes to Barak Obama, Nancy Reagans' "JUST SAY NO" would be far more beneficial to us as Americans.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 11:45 pm |
|
| TErrance has a new venue............................................... Ignore the troll.
|