You really have to congratulate the democratic party.

If it hurts any americans it should be seen as bad. However, the continued reliance on government support breeds indifference in constituants encourages a self fulfilling prophacy in americans below the poverty level.

effthat

Ok well unless your making more than 250k a year, you shouln't be worried about your taxes being raised at a FEDERAL level. As for health care, I am a canadian, our health care system is not what Barack is going for, he is going for something that France has, which is like medicare for everybody which makes the government a cheap insurance company, and by the way France has the number 1 rated health care system in the world. The Mccain camp is comparing Baracks plan to countries like Canada and the U.K which are bad examples. And for the record, our system would be great to if we had more nurses and doctors.

It would be like microsoft taking gamer points and giving them to people who play an hour a week. Achievements don't mean as much, so people aren't driven to complete them like they are. The games like "pretty pony's pansy party" now have zero appeal and xbox developers can't make money.

There is no more motivation to be successful. The more successful you are, the more you're going to get pounded in april and the more motivation you have to work in fast food for pennies, get under the table jobs, and rely on the government to provide. eventually nobody is really driving the economy forward and it collapses.

effthat

[QUOTE="effthat"]

If it hurts any americans it should be seen as bad. However, the continued reliance on government support breeds indifference in constituants encourages a self fulfilling prophacy in americans below the poverty level.

Mr_sprinkles

tax cuts wouldn't be a problem if that was all. Obama's plan isn't a real tax cut, it's a redistribution of wealth. In conjunction with these taxcuts come more government hondouts and deficit spending.

In regards to your previous post, there was no mention of income tax in his post. However, Obama's plan does punish the people who do work hard and succeed in earning 250k or more a year. So you diminish the feeling of success and achievement. This offers much less motivation to be successful. I've seen your posts and know that you are going to be hardheaded about the issue, so I won't bother getting into a real debate.

[QUOTE="effthat"]

It would be like microsoft taking gamer points and giving them to people who play an hour a week. Achievements don't mean as much, so people aren't driven to complete them like they are. The games like "pretty pony's pansy party" now have zero appeal and xbox developers can't make money.

There is no more motivation to be successful.The more successful you are, the more you're going to get pounded in april and the more motivation you have to work in fast food for pennies, get under the table jobs, and rely on the government to provide. eventually nobody is really driving the economy forward and it collapses.

Mr_sprinkles

I beg to differ. I also dislike you approach of zeroing in on hyperbole in order to discredit my opion instead of actually discussing the topic.

tax cuts wouldn't be a problem if that was all. Obama's plan isn't a real tax cut, it's a redistribution of wealth. In conjunction with these taxcuts come more government hondouts and deficit spending.

In regards to your previous post, there was no mention of income tax in his post. However, Obama's plan does punish the people who do work hard and succeed in earning 250k or more a year. So you diminish the feeling of success and achievement. This offers much less motivation to be successful. I've seen your posts and know that you are going to be hardheaded about the issue, so I won't bother getting into a real debate.

effthat

In a country where the richest 1% is wealthier than the bottom 95%, I think there needs to be a redistribution. Also, Thomas Jefferson would agree since he was against large businesses and huge interest groups with all this cash.

Ok well unless your making more than 250k a year, you shouln't be worried about your taxes being raised at a FEDERAL level. As for health care, I am a canadian, our health care system is not what Barack is going for, he is going for something that France has, which is like medicare for everybody which makes the government a cheap insurance company, and by the way France has the number 1 rated health care system in the world. The Mccain camp is comparing Baracks plan to countries like Canada and the U.K which are bad examples. And for the record, our system would be great to if we had more nurses and doctors.

mattttherman3

Barrack would be forcing health care through employment. He's planning on giving tax breaks to the employers that provide it, but this doesn't address the current issues in the insurance industry that are cause employers to cut these benefits. It DOES tie employees to dead end jobs, causes even greater distress to a worker who is laid off (at a time when unemployment is alarmingly high) and increases the cost of operating a business at a time when businesses are desperately seeking ways to cut overhead. This means that we'll lose even more production jobs to cheap overseas labor.

Not to mention the huge amount of deficit spending it will take to fund this sucker. I hardly see that as a positive option.

Both of theirs suck. Did I say I like McCains? Where in that post did I say that?

It's not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

From Obama.... the socialist.

North-North

Well for one, he's not a socialist. Two, what he's referring to is the fact that it's just so hard to get successful these days with all these big businesses and interest groups running the show, and he wants to redistribute the wealth around so our economic status isn't so polarized. I'm not a Commi or pinko or what have you either, but his plan is sound for the most part. It's slightly socialist but so are a lot of things in our government.

[QUOTE="effthat"]

tax cuts wouldn't be a problem if that was all. Obama's plan isn't a real tax cut, it's a redistribution of wealth. In conjunction with these taxcuts come more government hondouts and deficit spending.

In regards to your previous post, there was no mention of income tax in his post. However, Obama's plan does punish the people who do work hard and succeed in earning 250k or more a year. So you diminish the feeling of success and achievement. This offers much less motivation to be successful. I've seen your posts and know that you are going to be hardheaded about the issue, so I won't bother getting into a real debate.

VoodooGamer

In a country where the richest 1% is wealthier than the bottom 95%, I think there needs to be a redistribution. Also, Thomas Jefferson would agree since he was against large businesses and huge interest groups with all this cash.

I don't disagree that we have a large gap in income levels. I also don't think that Obama's plan is the answer. The large majority of the 1% employ the large majority of the 95%. Taking money from the 1% and pushing it downhill isn't going to solve the issue.

Honestly, if it weren't for Obama's socialist stance and his beliefs regarding abortion, I would have no significant issue with him this year. Hell, I may have actually voted for him.

Republicans should have had Mitt Romney, but noooo, he's a Mormon!:roll:

I disagree with everyone saying the republicans were the ones who did this...it was the Media trying to make Bush look as stupid as possible.hoola

Again! bush does not need the media to look stupid. He does a perfect job all by himself!

Honestly, if it weren't for Obama's socialist stance and his beliefs regarding abortion, I would have no significant issue with him this year. Hell, I may have actually voted for him.Theokhoth

Socialism like free school, free firefighters, and social security?

Republicans should have had Mitt Romney, but noooo, he's a Mormon!:roll:

Theo

Republicans should have had Ron Paul, but he's not being supported by big businesses.

Republicans should have had Ron Paul, but he's not being supported by big businesses.

VoodooGamer

Now now, that would never happen. Ron Paul and the GOP are tied together ONLY with rhetoric, the GOP doesn't stick to much of any of it, and while I don't like many of Paul's ideas, I don't doubt the dude would do what he says.

If you vote for someone because they look like you you are a freaking drone.clembo1990

The same's true if you vote for someone simply because he holds your religious beliefs. But I didn't hear many Republicans complaining about that when Bush was elected twice on the strength of such voters.

Barrack would be forcing health care through employment. He's planning on giving tax breaks to the employers that provide it, but this doesn't address the current issues in the insurance industry that are cause employers to cut these benefits. It DOES tie employees to dead end jobs, causes even greater distress to a worker who is laid off (at a time when unemployment is alarmingly high) and increases the cost of operating a business at a time when businesses are desperately seeking ways to cut overhead. This means that we'll lose even more production jobs to cheap overseas labor.

Not to mention the huge amount of deficit spending it will take to fund this sucker. I hardly see that as a positive option.

effthat

If people wouldn't keep crying 'socialism' and 'big government' over it, it would be easy enough to institute laws that curb the use of unskilled foreign labor to the extent necessary to minimize unemployment in the States. But no, we could never do that. Big business would stop giving handouts to the politicians who passed such laws. :roll:

Obama's economic plans go against market forces. McCain's platforms are all hinged on allowing market forces to stabalize the situation.

effthat

They tried that already in the Great Depression. Not surprisingly, doing nothing (the layman's term for allowing the market to stabilize itself) accomplished... nothing. Sometimes the market requires direct intervention to heal in an acceptable time frame. Just like your body - it can fight off a lot of illnesses, but some will kill you if you don't get medical intervention.

[QUOTE="North-North"]

Both of theirs suck. Did I say I like McCains? Where in that post did I say that?

It's not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

From Obama.... the socialist.

VoodooGamer

Well for one, he's not a socialist. Two, what he's referring to is the fact that it's just so hard to get successful these days with all these big businesses and interest groups running the show, and he wants to redistribute the wealth around so our economic status isn't so polarized. I'm not a Commi or pinko or what have you either, but his plan is sound for the most part. It's slightly socialist but so are a lot of things in our government.

What people don't realize is that we already live in a highly socialized society, corporate socialism. While the majority of us do get some socialized benefits (police/fire, education, etc) corporations are and have been the targets for massive amounts of government handouts and tax breaks. Just look at what has recently transpired. A huge corporation tanks due to its own incompetence and they get bailed out by the government while the middle and lower classes are forced to fend for themselves.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="North-North"][QUOTE="muffincakes87"]

[QUOTE="clembo1990"]If you vote for someone because they look like you you are a freaking drone.The_Mac_Daddy

*Looks at Bush*

I remeber people saying he going to be a good president cause he's the kinda guy you can have a beer with. :lol:

How does Obama's economic plan exactly suck? Just curious but the vast majority of economist as a consensus have agreed that Obama's plan is much better then McCain's.. Is McCain's plan just dismal as well?

Because just today during his speech, Obama said: If you make less than 250k a year, you will not see 1 penny more in taxes. And the middle class will get tax breaks. How are we going to afford this? We are going to make the people making over 250k pay for it.

That is absoluetly rediculous. Making other people pay for other people. Spreading the wealth around. Obama also said "by asking the people who make over 250k to pay for the less wealthy benefits everybody". First of all, he is not asking.. he is demanding and forcing. Secondly, it will not benefit everybody. It will indirectly hurt everybody.

The rich have always got taxed more, your point is bankrupt on that because you make it sound like they are getting a equal tax.. It has nothing to do with being fair, taxes were never about that, if you want to be fair perhapes you should live in candy land.. The point being is the Middle and poor classes are floundering, and they control spending power.. The past 8years has shown that the trickle down effect hasn't worked what so ever.. While the gap has widdened further.. It seems far more logical to give more spending power to the classes (and the majority of the population) who are floundering to start being able to spend again.. Further more, they are far more likely to actually spend that cash then to pocket it which the upper classes seemed to have done..

Yet again some one earlier posted a link that gave a consensus that the majority of economist agreed with Obama's plan far more then McCains.. McCain's plan is 90% similar to Bush's make no mistake about it..

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="North-North"][QUOTE="muffincakes87"]

[QUOTE="clembo1990"]If you vote for someone because they look like you you are a freaking drone.effthat

*Looks at Bush*

I remeber people saying he going to be a good president cause he's the kinda guy you can have a beer with. :lol:

How does Obama's economic plan exactly suck? Just curious but the vast majority of economist as a consensus have agreed that Obama's plan is much better then McCain's.. Is McCain's plan just dismal as well?

Because just today during his speech, Obama said: If you make less than 250k a year, you will not see 1 penny more in taxes. And the middle class will get tax breaks. How are we going to afford this? We are going to make the people making over 250k pay for it.

That is absoluetly rediculous. Making other people pay for other people. Spreading the wealth around. Obama also said "by asking the people who make over 250k to pay for the less wealthy benefits everybody". First of all, he is not asking.. he is demanding and forcing. Secondly, it will not benefit everybody. It will indirectly hurt everybody.

It would be like microsoft taking gamer points and giving them to people who play an hour a week. Achievements don't mean as much, so people aren't driven to complete them like they are. The games like "pretty pony's pansy party" now have zero appeal and xbox developers can't make money.

There is no more motivation to be successful. The more successful you are, the more you're going to get pounded in april and the more motivation you have to work in fast food for pennies, get under the table jobs, and rely on the government to provide. eventually nobody is really driving the economy forward and it collapses.

Yes because a 3% to 10% increase in tax rate would stop you from driving to make 300k instead of 100k.. You have no idea what your talking about.

[QUOTE="effthat"]

tax cuts wouldn't be a problem if that was all. Obama's plan isn't a real tax cut, it's a redistribution of wealth. In conjunction with these taxcuts come more government hondouts and deficit spending.

In regards to your previous post, there was no mention of income tax in his post. However, Obama's plan does punish the people who do work hard and succeed in earning 250k or more a year. So you diminish the feeling of success and achievement. This offers much less motivation to be successful. I've seen your posts and know that you are going to be hardheaded about the issue, so I won't bother getting into a real debate.

VoodooGamer

In a country where the richest 1% is wealthier than the bottom 95%, I think there needs to be a redistribution. Also, Thomas Jefferson would agree since he was against large businesses and huge interest groups with all this cash.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="effthat"]

tax cuts wouldn't be a problem if that was all. Obama's plan isn't a real tax cut, it's a redistribution of wealth. In conjunction with these taxcuts come more government hondouts and deficit spending.

In regards to your previous post, there was no mention of income tax in his post. However, Obama's plan does punish the people who do work hard and succeed in earning 250k or more a year. So you diminish the feeling of success and achievement. This offers much less motivation to be successful. I've seen your posts and know that you are going to be hardheaded about the issue, so I won't bother getting into a real debate.

peaceful_anger

In a country where the richest 1% is wealthier than the bottom 95%, I think there needs to be a redistribution. Also, Thomas Jefferson would agree since he was against large businesses and huge interest groups with all this cash.

And yet the republican party has made the government larger than ever.

Are you being sarcastic? You sound like it.

Obama/Biden '08! We win!

[QUOTE="effthat"]

tax cuts wouldn't be a problem if that was all. Obama's plan isn't a real tax cut, it's a redistribution of wealth. In conjunction with these taxcuts come more government hondouts and deficit spending.

In regards to your previous post, there was no mention of income tax in his post. However, Obama's plan does punish the people who do work hard and succeed in earning 250k or more a year. So you diminish the feeling of success and achievement. This offers much less motivation to be successful. I've seen your posts and know that you are going to be hardheaded about the issue, so I won't bother getting into a real debate.

VoodooGamer

In a country where the richest 1% is wealthier than the bottom 95%, I think there needs to be a redistribution. Also, Thomas Jefferson would agree since he was against large businesses and huge interest groups with all this cash.

I don't think anyone can relate the Founding Fathers' wishes to today's standards. I'm majoring in U.S. History, and it seems to me that you can't compare the Federalists vs. Anti-Feds to the conflict between Dems and Repubs today.

Anti-Federalists (early Democrats) - small military, small gov., no corporations, individual freedoms (basically a proto-Libertarian stance)

Federalists (Whigs) - large gov. which helps out business (much like today), large military, segregation against immigrants;

there are many other factors, but you can't compare those parties to the parties of today. Jefferson knew nothing about economics (we DID need to help businesses grow when we were first starting out as a country), but Hamilton did not care for the poor and working class (he advocated a 'trickle-down' effect, much like Reaganomics).

Both parties were at fault, and we can only conclude that one cannot say that a Founding Father 'would have or would not have' supported drilling in ANWR, for example. Times have changed, and people can't keep relying on the Constitution and the 'old ways' when we obviously need more gov. oversight and public works programs in this post-Depression country.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"][QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="effthat"]

tax cuts wouldn't be a problem if that was all. Obama's plan isn't a real tax cut, it's a redistribution of wealth. In conjunction with these taxcuts come more government hondouts and deficit spending.

In regards to your previous post, there was no mention of income tax in his post. However, Obama's plan does punish the people who do work hard and succeed in earning 250k or more a year. So you diminish the feeling of success and achievement. This offers much less motivation to be successful. I've seen your posts and know that you are going to be hardheaded about the issue, so I won't bother getting into a real debate.

gobo212

In a country where the richest 1% is wealthier than the bottom 95%, I think there needs to be a redistribution. Also, Thomas Jefferson would agree since he was against large businesses and huge interest groups with all this cash.

And yet the republican party has made the government larger than ever.

They really did a good job, for making their leader a black younger person, every person who is slightly non white will vote for obama, then there's the fact that he's young, so he's gonna win allot of young votes. then there's the whole "i hate bush" thing with so many switching to democratic just cause they hate bush, I really have to applaud the democratic party for choosing a young black Representative.Snooky_McGoo

Well, some credit has to go to their followers for shutting their eyes and eating up all the pandering propaganda. They blame Bush for the economic mess when it was actually dems and their housing policies. That allowed them to use it against McCain as a platform when it was actually their fault and their followers believe it! At Obama rallies, they should hand out walking canes since the supporters have blinded themselves.

At Obama rallies, they should hand out walking canes since the supporters have blinded themselves.

Trashface

If the democratic party doesn't win this election they should quit.. Everything has gone their way.. From the economy to Bush.. McCain has only made their job easier by having LITTLE difference between his policies and Bush's while at the same time choosing a nut that is even crazier then Bush to run with.. Bush at this time is at historical lows, below the worse presidents such as Nixon.. sSubZerOo

Please don't say that, the democratic party might take it as a challenge.

They really did a good job, for making their leader a black younger person, every person who is slightly non white will vote for obama, then there's the fact that he's young, so he's gonna win allot of young votes. then there's the whole "i hate bush" thing with so many switching to democratic just cause they hate bush, I really have to applaud the democratic party for choosing a young black Representative.Snooky_McGoo

Applaud them for lying, cheating and stealing their way to power? Forcing people who criticize obama out of the party? Getting sweetheart mortgage deals from failing companies and covering it up? Blaming republicans for something they didn't do? Using racism and sexism to gain power? Ignoring the will of the american people? Controlling the media and kissing their own butts and treating republicans like crap?

Bravo Dems for being the WORST party in american history, good job. :roll: