McCain will win. Remember, I called it HERE in '04.
#61
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: bay area, Ca
Posts: 376
Car Info: 07 Sti aka Subrina!
[QUOTE=HellaDumb;2377471]
Possibly you need to take a closer look. We are moderately socialist right now.
QUOTE]
under the current "Republican" President Bush has grown government faster than ever and spending has as well. its like we had a republicrat in office this whole time. Bush by definition and his actions has not lived up to the true republican ideals.
Possibly you need to take a closer look. We are moderately socialist right now.
QUOTE]
under the current "Republican" President Bush has grown government faster than ever and spending has as well. its like we had a republicrat in office this whole time. Bush by definition and his actions has not lived up to the true republican ideals.
Last edited by nslow_fast_out; 10-25-2008 at 01:34 PM.
#63
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
#64
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
[QUOTE=HellaDumb;2377471]Yes, at the moment. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. The reason people want something different is because the liberals want people to think that.[?QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? If the "liberals" had this much influence over the American public, how in the **** did Bush manage to get elected, twice? Your GOP fanboism is very unflappable, Fox News appreciates your loyalty.
This is really interesting and it exposes YOUR opinion of his middle name. You do realize his name is actually Mohammed Hussain Obama, right?... ok so I jest on the first name.. but since we know he's already changed it once and he won't provide a valid birth certificate......
So, you have something against liars, how unique. I'm sure there has been no lies on the strait talk machine either. McCain is famous for being the first politician to never lie since George Washington chopped down a cherry tree.
If you had something against liars, then you wouldn't be supporting anyone in Washington.
#65
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: bay area, Ca
Posts: 376
Car Info: 07 Sti aka Subrina!
[QUOTE=Superglue WRX;2377550]Why, did McCain offer you a bonus and a promotion? He didn't make me that offer, that dick![/QUOTE
I work for a small start up company which employ's four not including the owner and his wife. for the past two years that I have been with the company Ive received several bonuses and when your getting bonues your company is doing well and profiting.
basic math tells me the more my company profits the better off its employees will be. under Obama's plan my company will make less in profits which hurts the future growth of the company as a whole and its employees.
I work for a small start up company which employ's four not including the owner and his wife. for the past two years that I have been with the company Ive received several bonuses and when your getting bonues your company is doing well and profiting.
basic math tells me the more my company profits the better off its employees will be. under Obama's plan my company will make less in profits which hurts the future growth of the company as a whole and its employees.
Last edited by nslow_fast_out; 10-25-2008 at 01:58 PM.
#66
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
[QUOTE=nslow_fast_out;2377580]
The economy as a whole is going to the ****ter. I work for a very large company, when things are well, we get semi-annual bonuses. We have all gotten stiffed on the last 3 bonus periods (18 months) because business is down.
Right now it's looking nice to just have a job. As long as things get better, that's all I care about. I don't care which party gets it done.
Why, did McCain offer you a bonus and a promotion? He didn't make me that offer, that dick![/QUOTE
I work for a small start up company which employ's four not including the owner and his wife. for the past two years that I have been with the company Ive received several bonuses and when your getting bonues your company is doing well and profiting.
basic math tells me the more my company profits the better off its employees will be. under Obama's plan my company will make less in profits which hurts the future growth of the company as a whole and its employees.
I work for a small start up company which employ's four not including the owner and his wife. for the past two years that I have been with the company Ive received several bonuses and when your getting bonues your company is doing well and profiting.
basic math tells me the more my company profits the better off its employees will be. under Obama's plan my company will make less in profits which hurts the future growth of the company as a whole and its employees.
Right now it's looking nice to just have a job. As long as things get better, that's all I care about. I don't care which party gets it done.
#67
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Reading stuff like this is why I'm not favoring either candidate. Actual economic analysis of the Obama and McCain proposals.
Analysis: Obama and McCain: Big differences in approach to taxes, deficit
http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local...254223406.html
Analysis: Obama and McCain: Big differences in approach to taxes, deficit
http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local...254223406.html
Differing priorities
And how about the overall goals — McCain's effort to give the country a boost by cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations and Obama's efforts to narrow income inequality?
Economists say there are things to like in both programs. They generally favor reductions in top rates as a way to spur new investment and job creation, so on that point McCain's program gets good marks. However, there are worries that the higher deficits that are expected because of the tax cuts could drive up interest rates, raising the cost of money for businesses and result in less investment, not more.
For Obama, the concern is that all of his new and expanded tax credits, such as his "Making Work Pay" refundable credit which would provide low-income workers with a maximum of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family, will further complicate an already complex tax system and won't make a very big dent in the problems of income inequality.
And neither candidate is talking very much about tackling what all experts see as the biggest budgetary challenge facing the next president — the explosion in the government's big benefit programs for Social Security and Medicare as the baby boomers retire.
Obama has proposed levying a 2 percent to 4 percent tax on payroll earnings above $250,000 a decade from now to deal with Social Security, but experts say that would fix only a small part of the problem with the pension program. And neither campaign has put forward any proposals that experts say would make a meaningful dent in fixing Medicare, the far bigger entitlement problem because of soaring health care costs.
Some experts see tax increases, not cuts, in the country's future regardless of who wins the presidency.
"We are starting out with very big deficits, and the demographics are turning more unfavorable with all the baby boomer retirements," said Nigel Gault, senior economist at Global Insight, a Lexington, Mass., forecasting firm. "The deeper you get into the next presidency, the more likelihood that taxes will have to be raised."
And how about the overall goals — McCain's effort to give the country a boost by cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations and Obama's efforts to narrow income inequality?
Economists say there are things to like in both programs. They generally favor reductions in top rates as a way to spur new investment and job creation, so on that point McCain's program gets good marks. However, there are worries that the higher deficits that are expected because of the tax cuts could drive up interest rates, raising the cost of money for businesses and result in less investment, not more.
For Obama, the concern is that all of his new and expanded tax credits, such as his "Making Work Pay" refundable credit which would provide low-income workers with a maximum of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family, will further complicate an already complex tax system and won't make a very big dent in the problems of income inequality.
And neither candidate is talking very much about tackling what all experts see as the biggest budgetary challenge facing the next president — the explosion in the government's big benefit programs for Social Security and Medicare as the baby boomers retire.
Obama has proposed levying a 2 percent to 4 percent tax on payroll earnings above $250,000 a decade from now to deal with Social Security, but experts say that would fix only a small part of the problem with the pension program. And neither campaign has put forward any proposals that experts say would make a meaningful dent in fixing Medicare, the far bigger entitlement problem because of soaring health care costs.
Some experts see tax increases, not cuts, in the country's future regardless of who wins the presidency.
"We are starting out with very big deficits, and the demographics are turning more unfavorable with all the baby boomer retirements," said Nigel Gault, senior economist at Global Insight, a Lexington, Mass., forecasting firm. "The deeper you get into the next presidency, the more likelihood that taxes will have to be raised."
#69
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Altos, CA
Posts: 185
Car Info: 2008 STi OBP
Clinton actually had to increase taxes to recover from Reagan's policies (Reagan cut taxes by 25% and dramatically increase defense spending) - he didn't 'leave it alone'. 8 years later, Clinton left office with a budget surplus.
So when McCain speaks of extending Bush's now-failed tax breaks to the rich (ie socialism for the wealthy, if you want to go there) AND increasing war efforts in Iraq, Iran and the rest of the middle east, it sounds a lot like Reagan to me. And that's not a compliment.
And to those that moronically call Obama a 'socialist' - please look up what the word actually means. You might find that the recent $700B bailout (the government taking partial ownership of once corporate entities) is the most socialistic move in US history...and yet McCain signed on too. Not only that, but he doubled down by pushing a plan to have the gov't buy up the bad mortgages at their full value - thus passing the losses on to the taxpayers. THAT, my friends, is socialism.
#70
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
First of all, his name is spelled: Reagan. And what policies are you referring to? It couldn't be Reagan's incredible knack for deficit spending - increasing the gap between government revenues vs. spending by a factor of 3 during his term. This, coupled with the (now modest) bailout of the failed S&L's (and McCain's Keating Five, of course) helped lead to the 1990-91 recession.
Clinton actually had to increase taxes to recover from Reagan's policies (Reagan cut taxes by 25% and dramatically increase defense spending) - he didn't 'leave it alone'. 8 years later, Clinton left office with a budget surplus.
So when McCain speaks of extending Bush's now-failed tax breaks to the rich (ie socialism for the wealthy, if you want to go there) AND increasing war efforts in Iraq, Iran and the rest of the middle east, it sounds a lot like Reagan to me. And that's not a compliment.
And to those that moronically call Obama a 'socialist' - please look up what the word actually means. You might find that the recent $700B bailout (the government taking partial ownership of once corporate entities) is the most socialistic move in US history...and yet McCain signed on too. Not only that, but he doubled down by pushing a plan to have the gov't buy up the bad mortgages at their full value - thus passing the losses on to the taxpayers. THAT, my friends, is socialism.
Clinton actually had to increase taxes to recover from Reagan's policies (Reagan cut taxes by 25% and dramatically increase defense spending) - he didn't 'leave it alone'. 8 years later, Clinton left office with a budget surplus.
So when McCain speaks of extending Bush's now-failed tax breaks to the rich (ie socialism for the wealthy, if you want to go there) AND increasing war efforts in Iraq, Iran and the rest of the middle east, it sounds a lot like Reagan to me. And that's not a compliment.
And to those that moronically call Obama a 'socialist' - please look up what the word actually means. You might find that the recent $700B bailout (the government taking partial ownership of once corporate entities) is the most socialistic move in US history...and yet McCain signed on too. Not only that, but he doubled down by pushing a plan to have the gov't buy up the bad mortgages at their full value - thus passing the losses on to the taxpayers. THAT, my friends, is socialism.
now then, since you have no idea what Reagan did in the white house, I'm not going to link everything, just give you the wiki entry so you can read up and understand how he was one of the best presidents we ever had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration
and just a FYI, deficit spending is what got us out of the hole that Carter put the country into.
#71
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 1,828
Car Info: nothing
you're delusional if you don't think obama is a socialist. LOOK AT HIS FRICKEN TAX PLAN, REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, HELLO? Even so obama will end up taxing EVERYONE b/c that is what dems do, they like taxing!(then they act like 10 years old,"we have to, we have to too fix the reps mess ups" yeah BS) I bet he'll wait til 2010 for the bush tax plan to expire then rape us and use the money for his worthless trillion+ dollar plan
last time taxes were raised during a recession guess what? Yes, the great depression.
of course mccain signed on the bailout plan he had no damn choice NOT too.
last time taxes were raised during a recession guess what? Yes, the great depression.
of course mccain signed on the bailout plan he had no damn choice NOT too.
Last edited by Traxamillion; 10-25-2008 at 10:21 PM.
#72
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
you're delusional if you don't think obama is a socialist. LOOK AT HIS FRICKEN TAX PLAN, REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, HELLO? Even so obama will end up taxing EVERYONE b/c that is what dems do, they like taxing!(then they act like 10 years old,"we have to, we have to too fix the reps mess ups" yeah BS) I bet he'll wait til 2010 for the bush tax plan to expire then rape us and use the money for his worthless trillion+ dollar plan
last time taxes were raised during a recession guess what? Yes, the great depression.
of course mccain signed on the bailout plan he had no damn choice NOT too.
last time taxes were raised during a recession guess what? Yes, the great depression.
of course mccain signed on the bailout plan he had no damn choice NOT too.
http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local...254223406.html
There is absolutely nothing new about either candidates plans (except for McCain's healthcare reform which has never been tried). Obama's taxes a strait out of the democratic play book, and McCain's is right out of a GOP pamphlet.
There's nothing new here. It's all the same age old dems vs reps economic pissing match. In stead of repeating what you heard at the last stump speech, it helps to actually read what the tax proposals actually are. It's much more informative then crying "socialist" at every democrat you see. If you want to stretch the definitions like that, you can say that McCain's tax plan is socialism for the wealthy and and capitalism for everyone else.
#73
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Helladumb may be right, especially after Obama put Biden on the ticket. What an idiotic thing to do.
All I'm saying is crazier things have happened. Look at how shocked everyone was when Kerry didn't make it to Camelot in 2004. Major upset that went against the grain of most predictions and polls.
All I'm saying is crazier things have happened. Look at how shocked everyone was when Kerry didn't make it to Camelot in 2004. Major upset that went against the grain of most predictions and polls.
#74
Registered User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yea, you like my JDM backside. Quit staring ^^
Posts: 3,250
Car Info: A crazy ass wagon ! Voltex and 18x9.5 +22 FTW !
^^^ wow are you serious !? you think Biden was a bad choice to put on as his running mate????? But McCain's choice of Sarah " Hockey MOM" Palin aka "Mrs. Foreign Policy master" was a better choice !? ?
#75
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
You are what they call an "idiot."
Core values are those values you and I, and the majority of Americans have. The trouble is that many have been hoodwinked into thinking that Obama or Democrats represent our core values, which they do not.
I.E. Democrats support "choice," but they inact laws that allow school nurses to bring your minor child to get an abortion without parental consent.
Democrats support "womens rights," but only support women when they conform to a left wing ideology.
Democrats support "equality," but their insane focus on "diversity" results in white flight, racism, and oppression.
Democrats support "freedom of speech," yet they support "the fairness doctrine" which would eliminate talk radio. They support only speech they agree with.
Shall I go on?
The people voting for Obama are not bad, just uninformed.
Core values are those values you and I, and the majority of Americans have. The trouble is that many have been hoodwinked into thinking that Obama or Democrats represent our core values, which they do not.
I.E. Democrats support "choice," but they inact laws that allow school nurses to bring your minor child to get an abortion without parental consent.
Democrats support "womens rights," but only support women when they conform to a left wing ideology.
Democrats support "equality," but their insane focus on "diversity" results in white flight, racism, and oppression.
Democrats support "freedom of speech," yet they support "the fairness doctrine" which would eliminate talk radio. They support only speech they agree with.
Shall I go on?
The people voting for Obama are not bad, just uninformed.
wow...