I answered all this on a previous post, you did not resond. I really don't like answering posts that you call people names. If Obama proves me wrong and does a good job for the american people and I hope he does, I will vote for him next time. I already voted for McCain/Palin but I split my vote 60/40 rep./dem. I doubt you would vote for a republican if they stood for exactly what you do, which questions every argument you make as probably being biased.
Presidential Race - Cast Your Vote
- Thread starter 68droptop
- Start date
I answered all this on a previous post, you did not resond. I really don't like answering posts that you call people names. If Obama proves me wrong and does a good job for the american people and I hope he does, I will vote for him next time. I already voted for McCain/Palin but I split my vote 60/40 rep./dem. I doubt you would vote for a republican if they stood for exactly what you do, which questions every argument you make as probably being biased.
dirt hound
Registered User
hey I was wrong about cnbc here is qoute from kudlow and co MR OBAMA COULD BECOME PRESIDENT AND DERAIL EVERYTHING BECAUSE HIS UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS IS 100 PERCENT WRONG, BEN STEIN SAID THIS http://www.gop.com/Print/?Guid=10752...764937&pg=news
kingeddy
Mean Old Ignorant Bastard
Bopper, I did respond. Here is the post. You've lost your mind if you think you answered my question. Socialism because he gives a tax credit? (as I asked in the post below, please show me where you derrived this "don't pay taxes/get a credit" crap from). Even so, that is not turning our country into a socialistic nation which is what you, "caribou barbie and the gerbil" want us to believe. Again, please show me where you got this from.
Redistribution of wealth thru taxation? You are kidding right? We've been paying taxes for how many years now? We've been taxing the wealthiest a higher rate for how many of those years? We've had welfare programs for how many years? Now you want to call it socialism or redistributing the wealth because it serves your purpose to smear a candidate???????
And if you don't like my posts because "I call a spade a spade", then don't answer. Because she is a dingbat, and he is a way out of touch old geezer. I guess it gives you an easy out though doesn't it.
And there are three Democrats on my ballot that I will not be voting for, but instead their republican opponent. so
Redistribution of wealth thru taxation? You are kidding right? We've been paying taxes for how many years now? We've been taxing the wealthiest a higher rate for how many of those years? We've had welfare programs for how many years? Now you want to call it socialism or redistributing the wealth because it serves your purpose to smear a candidate???????
And if you don't like my posts because "I call a spade a spade", then don't answer. Because she is a dingbat, and he is a way out of touch old geezer. I guess it gives you an easy out though doesn't it.
And there are three Democrats on my ballot that I will not be voting for, but instead their republican opponent. so
kingeddy
Mean Old Ignorant Bastard
I can only imagine what he is saying. But let me guess....He hasn't answered the question either, has he? He's in that 75% I mentioned.
mike44
Member
bingo!!!!!
t.nie
Patience Tester
WOW, now Hound goes straight to the RNC to get his opinion. Good dog! Good boy! (McCain: "Sarah, get the dog a biscuit.")
Ten years ago (barring OK City) terrorism was something that for the majority happened exclusively overseas, now that has changed. Personally I believe it would have been different if they would have targeted a military installation, but we all know that that isn't the case. So now terrorism is a global problem which we all must live in, part of the progressing times; weather it’s positive or negative, time dictates movement. One person does not dictate if we fight as a Nation or not, but a Congress does dictate spending.
Many people in America do not realize nor appreciate the comfort in which they live in; nor do they comprehend the actions in which provide them the liberty to live as they do. John McCain spent over two years; seven hundred twenty days behind physically abusive bars that in which that experience alone would have resulted in any US prisoner…… a multi-million dollar settlement. He did that is service to his country as every US Navy person states in their oath…..Yes I am a Navy veteran, but I personally did not fly off any Aircraft carrier, my job was to ensure that they could do so. If America needed a hero to guide them at any time; I believe now is it and John McCain’s military experience rates him as such. He is no further out of touch than the candidate that didn’t know that his own Aunt was in the country illegally, nor that his half brother lives in squalor in Africa. That is how he treats his own blood, he is the Chicago political machine personified……and we know what a great state the State of Illinois is in….broke and busted…….and for a brief Social Security education here you go…..
Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Insert by Vincent Pete r Render,
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress.
From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Many people in America do not realize nor appreciate the comfort in which they live in; nor do they comprehend the actions in which provide them the liberty to live as they do. John McCain spent over two years; seven hundred twenty days behind physically abusive bars that in which that experience alone would have resulted in any US prisoner…… a multi-million dollar settlement. He did that is service to his country as every US Navy person states in their oath…..Yes I am a Navy veteran, but I personally did not fly off any Aircraft carrier, my job was to ensure that they could do so. If America needed a hero to guide them at any time; I believe now is it and John McCain’s military experience rates him as such. He is no further out of touch than the candidate that didn’t know that his own Aunt was in the country illegally, nor that his half brother lives in squalor in Africa. That is how he treats his own blood, he is the Chicago political machine personified……and we know what a great state the State of Illinois is in….broke and busted…….and for a brief Social Security education here you go…..
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961
Insert by Vincent Pete r Render,
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress.
From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction or Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
3rd President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have..'
aceracing
aceracing
let assume your information is correct. how many republicans voted for with this things mention above ? Yes social security should be left alone and if it was used for what it was intended for their would not be a problem for it. now recent history tells that 3 trillion dollar was taken out of social security and some of it used for the bridge to no where, and ear mark by a now convected senator from Alaska. , now I not say the dems or rep are not right every time but till we have campaign reform and do away with lobbyist and corporation giving money to our senators and congressmen we will not be represented in the way that we should...........
one more thing remember some year back we were told that the sale of the lottery tickets that that money would go to the schools in mo, but we know how that turned out. I believe that all lottery and casino money should go directly to the schools. now were ask to vote for prop A to help our school but the catch is no limit on the loses you can lose in a casino . boy what nice gesture from the casinos . break gambling addict to get money for the schools , only to cost buy people losing everything and costing more money to fix it so where is the benefit for us .
one more thing remember some year back we were told that the sale of the lottery tickets that that money would go to the schools in mo, but we know how that turned out. I believe that all lottery and casino money should go directly to the schools. now were ask to vote for prop A to help our school but the catch is no limit on the loses you can lose in a casino . boy what nice gesture from the casinos . break gambling addict to get money for the schools , only to cost buy people losing everything and costing more money to fix it so where is the benefit for us .
Bopper, I did respond. Here is the post. You've lost your mind if you think you answered my question. Socialism because he gives a tax credit? (as I asked in the post below, please show me where you derrived this "don't pay taxes/get a credit" crap from). Even so, that is not turning our country into a socialistic nation which is what you, "caribou barbie and the gerbil" want us to believe. Again, please show me where you got this from.
Redistribution of wealth thru taxation? You are kidding right? We've been paying taxes for how many years now? We've been taxing the wealthiest a higher rate for how many of those years? We've had welfare programs for how many years? Now you want to call it socialism or redistributing the wealth because it serves your purpose to smear a candidate???????
And if you don't like my posts because "I call a spade a spade", then don't answer. Because she is a dingbat, and he is a way out of touch old geezer. I guess it gives you an easy out though doesn't it.
And there are three Democrats on my ballot that I will not be voting for, but instead their republican opponent. so
When you punitive tax and give it in the form of welfare to people who don't pay taxes it is redistribution of wealth, yes it has been going on for years to the detriment of the USA. Demonizing business and punitive taxes are a means to get to socialism. It is the mechanism to eliminate the business owner and let the workers take over the business and reap the profits. That is as simple as I can put it, especially with my limited understanding of how it could possibly work. I can't keep my employees from bickering at each other working for me let alone if they were trying to run the business together.
Regardless of any past mistakes, the question before us today is:
Who has the intellect, the background, the skills to lead this country in the right direction today.
We have to choose between a man that has a history of working for the average man or one that has used his family's connections and his wifes wealth to acheive for himself a nice life, while that same man has over a 26 year history of living the good life voted against every bill that would assist anyone less fortunate than himself a chance at a better life. He has consistently voted aganist minimum wage and veterns benefits while voting for tax reductions for the already well off.
If the fact that this economy has been driven over the cliff and John Mccain has supported and continues to support the same old failed policy's that have cause so much pain and grief to so many is not reason enough to vote for a new approach then you must have your head in the sand.
Who has the intellect, the background, the skills to lead this country in the right direction today.
We have to choose between a man that has a history of working for the average man or one that has used his family's connections and his wifes wealth to acheive for himself a nice life, while that same man has over a 26 year history of living the good life voted against every bill that would assist anyone less fortunate than himself a chance at a better life. He has consistently voted aganist minimum wage and veterns benefits while voting for tax reductions for the already well off.
If the fact that this economy has been driven over the cliff and John Mccain has supported and continues to support the same old failed policy's that have cause so much pain and grief to so many is not reason enough to vote for a new approach then you must have your head in the sand.
dirt hound
Registered User
king eddy is just a liberal
.............MISTAKES!!!!!!!!!!????????????!!!!! Them aint mistakes that is the democrats way. Steal from the hardworking smarter people and give to whoever will buy their vote. Obama has no history. How about taxes to "adjust" the we live our life? Minimum wage raises taxes and nothing else. Get rid of the illegals and wages will go up. Tax loopholes should be closed, Obama won't do it. Obama has taken huge amounts of money from the banking industry or do you turn a blind eye to that just as liberals have done when the democrats raided social security?
Price signals....aka more taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2008
Obama: Spike energy costs to make people go 'green'
2007 interview: Proposes government create 'price signals' to control behavior
Posted: November 01, 2008
JOHNSTON, Iowa – In a recently publicized video from the Democratic primaries, Sen. Barack Obama said the government should drive energy bills up though "price signals" in order to force Americans into more environmentally friendly choices.
In the Nov. 9, 2007, interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press," Obama said Americans like driving SUVs and leaving the lights on, but since "it is undisputable that the climate is getting warmer," consumers would have to change their habits.
When asked what would make consumers change, Obama said government-created "price signals" would make people more mindful of energy costs and compel them to start changing light bulbs and turning off light switches.
Associated Press reporter Mike Glover asked, "How do you convince people to change their lifestyle, to live differently?"
Obama's answer, viewable in a video, was, "I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior. You know, if electricity goes up, people start becoming more mindful of their electricity bill."
When Des Moines Register reporter David Yepsen asked Obama what part of his campaign Americans may not like to hear, the candidate returned to the theme of price signals.
"Number one, we're going to have to start doing a better job of conserving on energy," Obama said. "Americans like to drive their big SUVs. They like to leave all the lights on in their house. We're going to have to change our habits."
He then clarified how the government could implement the kind price signals that change consumer habits.
"We're going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gases," Obama said. "That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power. They will pass on those costs to consumers. … A lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we're going to have to change our light bulbs, we're going to have to shut the lights off in our houses."
Internet bloggers that began circulating the video earlier today also lent their opinion on Obama's plan for consumer change.
"Is that the function of government — to fix prices as a punitive measure to change consumer behavior?" asked the Hot Air Blog. "It will be in an Obama administration. He and a few elites will decide which consumer behaviors are bad and penalize it with price signals."
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, however, commented in a May editorial on the issue of government-created price signals, arguing that a federal gasoline tax would be just the kind of energy "price signal" that would finally persuade Americans to give up their SUVs.
"We need to make a structural shift in our energy economy," Friedman wrote. "The only way to get from here to there is to start now with a price signal that will force the change.
"Barack Obama had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud. Wouldn't it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn't that just be amazing?" Friedman wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2008
Obama: Spike energy costs to make people go 'green'
2007 interview: Proposes government create 'price signals' to control behavior
Posted: November 01, 2008
JOHNSTON, Iowa – In a recently publicized video from the Democratic primaries, Sen. Barack Obama said the government should drive energy bills up though "price signals" in order to force Americans into more environmentally friendly choices.
In the Nov. 9, 2007, interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press," Obama said Americans like driving SUVs and leaving the lights on, but since "it is undisputable that the climate is getting warmer," consumers would have to change their habits.
When asked what would make consumers change, Obama said government-created "price signals" would make people more mindful of energy costs and compel them to start changing light bulbs and turning off light switches.
Associated Press reporter Mike Glover asked, "How do you convince people to change their lifestyle, to live differently?"
Obama's answer, viewable in a video, was, "I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior. You know, if electricity goes up, people start becoming more mindful of their electricity bill."
When Des Moines Register reporter David Yepsen asked Obama what part of his campaign Americans may not like to hear, the candidate returned to the theme of price signals.
"Number one, we're going to have to start doing a better job of conserving on energy," Obama said. "Americans like to drive their big SUVs. They like to leave all the lights on in their house. We're going to have to change our habits."
He then clarified how the government could implement the kind price signals that change consumer habits.
"We're going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gases," Obama said. "That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power. They will pass on those costs to consumers. … A lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we're going to have to change our light bulbs, we're going to have to shut the lights off in our houses."
Internet bloggers that began circulating the video earlier today also lent their opinion on Obama's plan for consumer change.
"Is that the function of government — to fix prices as a punitive measure to change consumer behavior?" asked the Hot Air Blog. "It will be in an Obama administration. He and a few elites will decide which consumer behaviors are bad and penalize it with price signals."
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, however, commented in a May editorial on the issue of government-created price signals, arguing that a federal gasoline tax would be just the kind of energy "price signal" that would finally persuade Americans to give up their SUVs.
"We need to make a structural shift in our energy economy," Friedman wrote. "The only way to get from here to there is to start now with a price signal that will force the change.
"Barack Obama had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud. Wouldn't it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn't that just be amazing?" Friedman wrote.
.......................Suerly somehow this was Bush's fault...............maybe a couple republicans voted along with it, yeah that would make it the republicans fault, whew liberals got out of that one
dirt hound
Registered User
mr obama could become president and reaileverythingbecause his undertandings of economics is 100 % wrong a qoute from ben stein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
Bopper is locked and loaded behind the barricaded door because he is afraid someone is going to take his money from him and Dirthound sends along pasted comments from Ben Stien as support for a failed policy.
Maybe you two wish to delude yourselves, but the country can't afford to support rich people anymore at the determent to the rest of the country.
Maybe you two wish to delude yourselves, but the country can't afford to support rich people anymore at the determent to the rest of the country.
dirt hound
Registered User
your right hey bammer pay up I need anew car/house and food and and ,banking account is running low
kingeddy
Mean Old Ignorant Bastard
But your still not answering the question: How are any of the issues on Obama's platform socialistic? As you admitted taxation and welfare have been going on for years (they cannot be attributed to Obama). We are talking specifically about Obama. What issues on "HIS" platform are a redistribution of wealth and socialism. I am still waiting for you to give me the evidence of a "don't pay taxes/get a tax credit" plan from Obama. Please, I'm begging, show me where you got this information that I cannot find anywhere.
Demonizing business a tool for socialism how so? And which ones? The ones who have price gouged at the pumps. The ones who have robbed from us and got bailed out with our own money. The Haliburtons who gouged our military. Don't those companies also employ the wealthiest? They should pay the most, afterall, they are the ones who benefitted the most from the demise of our country. They should help rebuild it, just as we, as a country, are helping rebuild a sovereign nation we destroyed 6 years ago for no reason at all. But I guess its ok if a republican makes us give a handout. eh?
Are you also saying workers taking over a business is socialism? Not quite sure I follow that one.
As you admitted having a limited understanding of how Obama's so called socialism would work, how can you call him a socialist. You were one of the most vocal on these threads calling him one. Like I said, 75% of the people have no idea what socialism is.
I guess I have proved my point.
