• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Official American Election 2008 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigLutz

Banned
As in he never had cancer, or it will never come back?

As in from the last test he had of this year, he has absolutely no cancer. I mean it isn't going to be as if he is going to just suddenly die from cancer at the drop of a hat, it is a long process.

And this helped him in the presidency... how? I don't see what you're getting at.

Actually it happened during his first term, and even though his body had been so damage, and he had gone through such shock. He went on through his first term, ran for reelection and went all the way through his second term. The tremendous amount of stress placed on his body coupled with his age, as well as the every day stress the Presidency brings, could easily be considered a Life Threatning situation. Yet he ended up doing just fine.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Well one thing that will be put on the news in the next day or so is the 20 year old Girl who was working as a McCain Volunteer in Pittsburgh, she was beaten and the mutilated, having a "B" cut into her cheek by a Obama supporter. Although with out any video of the attack i do remain skeptical.

Also one thing that really REALLY scares me, is the return of the Fairness Doctrine, Obama says he doesn't support it, but Pelosi and Reed do, and if you believe the word of a Nevada * I believe * Senator, it will be the first thing done if Obama is in office. And trust me guys, I am not kidding when I say the Fairness Doctrine is one of the biggest flip off to Free Speech seen since the days of McCarthyism.
 
Last edited:

ironknight42

Well-Known Member
"Fairness Doctrine"
Please explain what this is Biglutz?
"Well one thing that will be put on the news in the next day or so is the 20 year old Girl who was working as a McCain Volunteer in Pittsburgh, she was beaten and the mutilated, having a "B" cut into her cheek by a Obama supporter. Although with out any video of the attack i do remain skeptical."
Well, if this did happan it is a shame that he is so extreme, now I have tried to explain this to people that this election is not a race issue. I have been told that I am racist for defending some of McCain's policies and not saying that Obama is the best in every area. I talked about this with my dad who is a rather conservative republican who supports McCain, were was your source just to see if we got it from the same radio talk show, or if every conservative republican talk show is talking about it...it probably won't show up on the news...at least that's what I think.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Please explain what this is Biglutz?

It was a law that was brought up in like the 1950s, in which any Radio Station that aired one point of view, had to give equal time to another point of view. Nice in Practice, Stupid in Reality. It was finally shot down by Reagan in the 80s and has been gone ever since.

The problem is that radio stations run on profits, they are ran to make money. So they run shows that can make them money. In the Political Talk Radio World that is shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, etc. Liberal slanted shows just do not make money, which is why Air America has failed many many times.

So with the return of the Fairness Doctrine, any station airing Rush or Sean or what ever, would have to give equal time to a Liberal show. Since Liberal shows tend not to make money, especially on stations who's audience is right slanted. The stations would have to run one crappy show, for one show that makes money. Thus causing the radio stations to just say "Screw it, it's not worth losing money on half of our schedule" and just drop Political Talk Radio all together.

Democrats know this, and they know that Liberal talk radio tends to fail horribly, while Conservative talk radio flourishes. So after years of failing shows there has been major talk of the fairness doctrine being returned. Thus stifling free speech because one side cannot get a few good shows going.

Now, what should really scare Democrats, is that who ever controls the FCC, determines the Fairness Doctrine. During a Obama Administration it would be a Democrat, thus a attack on talk radio. During a Republican Administration it would be a Republican. Now during the last run of the fairness doctrine, TV News was a little less political and Cable didn't really existed. So while a Democrat may go after Fox News and Talk Radio. A Republican may go after MSNBC, CNN, Normal News, Comedy Central. Basically any station that airs a show that has any left leaning political slant.
 

ironknight42

Well-Known Member
"It was a law that was brought up in like the 1950s, in which any Radio Station that aired one point of view, had to give equal time to another point of view. Nice in Practice, Stupid in Reality. It was finally shot down by Reagan in the 80s and has been gone ever since.

The problem is that radio stations run on profits, they are ran to make money. So they run shows that can make them money. In the Political Talk Radio World that is shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, etc. Liberal slanted shows just do not make money, which is why Air America has failed many many times.

So with the return of the Fairness Doctrine, any station airing Rush or Sean or what ever, would have to give equal time to a Liberal show. Since Liberal shows tend not to make money, especially on stations who's audience is right slanted. The stations would have to run one crappy show, for one show that makes money. Thus causing the radio stations to just say "Screw it, it's not worth losing money on half of our schedule" and just drop Political Talk Radio all together.

Democrats know this, and they know that Liberal talk radio tends to fail horribly, while Conservative talk radio flourishes. So after years of failing shows there has been major talk of the fairness doctrine being returned. Thus stifling free speech because one side cannot get a few good shows going.

Now, what should really scare Democrats, is that who ever controls the FCC, determines the Fairness Doctrine. During a Obama Administration it would be a Democrat, thus a attack on talk radio. During a Republican Administration it would be a Republican. Now during the last run of the fairness doctrine, TV News was a little less political and Cable didn't really existed. So while a Democrat may go after Fox News and Talk Radio. A Republican may go after MSNBC, CNN, Normal News, Comedy Central. Basically any station that airs a show that has any left leaning political slant."
Thank you for that explaination of the Fainess Doctrine.
With the election drawing so close I think that we go back to the issues and briefly debate them before the conclusion of the political contest.
 

BigLutz

Banned
With the election drawing so close I think that we go back to the issues and briefly debate them before the conclusion of the political contest.

Fair enough, since we were talking a variety of issues from Taxes to Health Care, I figure I'll post a article from a Professor of Economics at Carnegie Mellon University. Which talks about Obama's tax plan, and as several are now saying, and almost none are listening. It's kind of scary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html?mod=todays_us_opinion_

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
While you have a point, don't forget that the economy (in the US and the world) is already well on its way into recession. It's important in these times to make sure that wealth is distributed evenly. I'm not suggesting communism but taking more money from wealthy people seems fair to me.

For all the fuss you make about encouraging growth by letting rich people become richer - I doubt there will be any demand for growth in the current economic climate, besides if no one has any disposable income anymore then what use is owning lots of businesses?
 

BigLutz

Banned
While you have a point, don't forget that the economy (in the US and the world) is already well on its way into recession. It's important in these times to make sure that wealth is distributed evenly. I'm not suggesting communism but taking more money from wealthy people seems fair to me.

For one, no it isn't. Infact this is the time when we should be encouraging the Wealthy to create jobs, to create more work, not tax them to the point they continue to fire and hide their taxes in off shore accounts. The only people this seems fair to are those in Korea and India, because in the end their countries will benefit the most as more American Jobs are shipped over there.

For all the fuss you make about encouraging growth by letting rich people become richer - I doubt there will be any demand for growth in the current economic climate, besides if no one has any disposable income anymore then what use is owning lots of businesses?

See that kind of logic "Lets give more Disposable income" to the Middle Class was tried once, the first economic stimulus. It failed miserably. Like it or not, giving a 1,000 dollars or 2,000 dollars, or 10,000 dollars to people amounts to jack **** if we do not have the job creators creating jobs.

You say "if no one has any disposable income anymore then what use is it owning lots of business"

The real question you should be asking is.

"What use is a small amount of disposable income given to you by Socialist Stupidity, when you cannot find a job?"

You think that small tax rebate you get is going to create the same amount of jobs that the High Taxes will take away? If you do then you are kidding yourself.

Right now people can't find jobs and companies are doing massive layoffs, they cant find jobs they can't get money, they can't get money they have to start using Charge Cards to start buying stuff. You want to tax the rich to give to the poor? Why bother, just send the money right to Master Card, VISA, and American Express.
 
Last edited:

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
For one, no it isn't. Infact this is the time when we should be encouraging the Wealthy to create jobs, to create more work, not tax them to the point they continue to fire and hide their taxes in off shore accounts. The only people this seems fair to are those in Korea and India, because in the end their countries will benefit the most as more American Jobs are shipped over there.
If you let business owners keep some of their money, rather than give it to the government, I highly doubt they would spend it on pay rises for all their employees. I doubt it very much.

They fire employees when it becomes uneconomical to continue hiring them. It isn't always because they're being taxed <_< If you'll take a look in world news, demand for everything is slowing at the moment. Surplus workers have to get layed off. Sucks but its true.

See that kind of logic "Lets give more Disposable income" to the Middle Class was tried once, the first economic stimulus. It failed miserably. Like it or not, giving a 1,000 dollars or 2,000 dollars, or 10,000 dollars to people amounts to jack **** if we do not have the job creators creating jobs.
When did I suggest giving people money? I said if the government needs money it should be getting most of it from people who actually have cash to spare <_<

You say "if no one has any disposable income anymore then what use is it owning lots of business"

The real question you should be asking is.

"What use is a small amount of disposable income given to you by Socialist Stupidity, when you cannot find a job?"

You think that small tax rebate you get is going to create the same amount of jobs that the High Taxes will take away? If you do then you are kidding yourself.
High taxes do not take away jobs. Whether there were taxes or not, in times like these people are getting the sack anyway. No one has faith in the economy any more and people are bailing out. Production material is increasing in price, everything is increasing in price. You can blame it on taxes but at the end of the day that's a very minimal slice of the expenditure sheet. You can't get rid of taxes or the prices of stock, but you can trim off the workforce. Simple business theory really...

If America is truely a country that offers opportunities to everyone then it seems backward that they would allow middle class to live on the streets while Mercedes-driving businessmen sip port in their McMansions.
 

BigLutz

Banned
If you let business owners keep some of their money, rather than give it to the government, I highly doubt they would spend it on pay rises for all their employees. I doubt it very much.

No they would spend it by buying things for their house and themselves, which by the way benefits others as other people do make and sell those goods, they would spend it by investing in companies on wall street. And most of all they would spend it by expanding their business which means more hiring.

By the way are you arguing that the Government knows how to spend money better?! I mean seriously are you trying to argue that view point? Just wanna know before I start laughing.

They fire employees when it becomes uneconomical to continue hiring them.

And if they are losing money through taxes they will find ways to save money. That means jacking up the price of products, and GASP! Firing employees!

It isn't always because they're being taxed <_< If you'll take a look in world news, demand for everything is slowing at the moment. Surplus workers have to get layed off. Sucks but its true.

Never said it was because they were always being taxed. But by adding in higher taxes you are pretty much pro longing the suffering.

When did I suggest giving people money? I said if the government needs money it should be getting most of it from people who actually have cash to spare <_<

Where do you think Obama is going to do with the money? Tax Cuts and Rebate Checks, and alot of them are going to people that do not even pay taxes.

You know how about this as a idea, if the Government needs money. How about they first start looking to where they can cut back before they start asking for more money from Business? We don't need to be spending billion in ear marks or Ethonal Subsides, or a myriad of other very stupid things.

If the Government truly needs more money, then they should start looking at what crap they can cut before asking for more. Instead of just ratcheting up the spending on even more crap.

High taxes do not take away jobs.

Yes High Taxes take away jobs, wanna know why? Because no one likes to pay high taxes, even the Rich do not like paying High Taxes, that is why they hide them away in a wide variety of off shore accounts. So you know what happens when you up their taxes? They start looking at where they can cut back, and they start racheting up the prices.

You know who in the end pays for the High Taxes for the rich? YOU!

You do by higher prices, you do by less jobs. In the end the Rich find a way to pass the buck onto you. Economics 101

Whether there were taxes or not, in times like these people are getting the sack anyway.

So instead of trying to fix the problem, we compound it by adding more job losses and higher prices on products through High Taxes. GOOD IDEA!

Where have I heard it before... Oh yes, in the articles that have come out in how FDR's Socialist Polices actually Prolonged the Great Depression. FDR added 7 years onto the Great Depression. How much will Obama add on to this one?

No one has faith in the economy any more and people are bailing out. Production material is increasing in price, everything is increasing in price. You can blame it on taxes but at the end of the day that's a very minimal slice of the expenditure sheet. You can't get rid of taxes or the prices of stock, but you can trim off the workforce. Simple business theory really...

Where, where did I say the problems right now are based on High Taxes? No where. But all you are going to do from Obama's tax plan is compound it, you're going to do even more damage to the American Economy. If you have a problem with this fundamental fact, go and take it up with the Professor of Economics at Carnegie Mellon University.

If America is truely a country that offers opportunities to everyone then it seems backward that they would allow middle class to live on the streets while Mercedes-driving businessmen sip port in their McMansions.

Being the Land of Opportunity, does not mean it is the land of free hand outs. You gain that opportunity, you gain those Mercedes, you gain those McMansions by hard work, self determination, and a lot of sweat and tears. Taking from one and giving to the other who didn't work as hard, who havn't devoted so much time and sweat into their product, goes completely against the American Dream.

Or to put it to something you can understand, You're 16, probably work hard in your class right? And you probably have some dumbass that goofs off and never does his homework and is flunking one of your classes. To make life fair, how about your teacher takes 1/4th of what ever grade you get on a test you studied for, and gives it to the goof off. So if you make a 100 on a test, and he makes a 50. Both of you make a 75. It's fair right? It gives him opportunity right?
 
Last edited:

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
No they would spend it by buying things for their house and themselves, which by the way benefits others as other people do make and sell those goods, they would spend it by investing in companies on wall street. And most of all they would spend it by expanding their business which means more hiring.
BigLutz, we're about to go into recession. Noone is expanding their business. Everywhere you look people are being laid off. No amount of government policy can stop it happening.

By the way are you arguing that the Government knows how to spend money better?! I mean seriously are you trying to argue that view point? Just wanna know before I start laughing.
How did you infer that? =S

And if they are losing money through taxes they will find ways to save money. That means jacking up the price of products, and GASP! Firing employees!
Name for me ONE industry where taxes comprise the main portion of the expenditure sheet. Just one, and I'll believe that.

Never said it was because they were always being taxed. But by adding in higher taxes you are pretty much pro longing the suffering.
Government needs to spend money -> They get most of it from their rich citizens.

The only reason that prolongs suffering is because ALL rich people in America, according to you, are selfish and greedy and would rather store their money in an offshore account while their country goes to ruins than pay 20000 dollars to the government in exchange for the protection it affords.

Where do you think Obama is going to do with the money? Tax Cuts and Rebate Checks, and alot of them are going to people that do not even pay taxes.
You are accusing me being a socialist communist again. I have only said that the majority of tax income should come from the rich, not the people who can barely afford to live anymore. But nope, that's a bad idea <_<
You know how about this as a idea, if the Government needs money. How about they first start looking to where they can cut back before they start asking for more money from Business? We don't need to be spending billion in ear marks or Ethonal Subsides, or a myriad of other very stupid things.
Out of interest, do you believe that billions that went on the Iraq war were well spent?
If the Government truly needs more money, then they should start looking at what crap they can cut before asking for more. Instead of just ratcheting up the spending on even more crap.
Is that really what you believe? That the whole America should suffer from a tiny budget, because some snobby rich as*holes just couldn't be bothered paying their contribution to the country?

Yes High Taxes take away jobs, wanna know why? Because no one likes to pay high taxes, even the Rich do not like paying High Taxes, that is why they hide them away in a wide variety of off shore accounts. So you know what happens when you up their taxes? They start looking at where they can cut back, and they start racheting up the prices.
That's true, no one likes to pay taxes. But you have to, no matter where you live. Rather than giving these rich criminals a break why don't you think they should be prosecuted for tax evasion? Is it because you are a rich person yourself? Because tax evasion IS a punishable crime. And it hurts countries more than higher taxes for the rich ever will.

You know who in the end pays for the High Taxes for the rich? YOU!
You'd think it'd be the rich people who would pay for it, but I guess not...they would rather families that are on the streets looking for a home to stay pay for it because they don't want to part with their hard-earned cash.

By the way, prices to do not get 'upped' for taxes. Income tax is based on what you make so you can't really adjust your prices to make more, or the government will just take more of your money. Or at least, thats how it works in Australia.

You do by higher prices, you do by less jobs. In the end the Rich find a way to pass the buck onto you. Economics 101
You still haven't really proven that raising taxes on rich people is causing more jobs to go out the window than what would already be happening anyway.

So instead of trying to fix the problem, we compound it by adding more job losses and higher prices on products through High Taxes. GOOD IDEA!
You can't stop a recession from happening once it gets past a certain point. And for some reason, you seem to think every rich person in America owns a local corner store. That, obviously, is not true. Most rich people work in high-skill environments that are in turn run by even richer people, and in almost all these cases, we're talking luxury products.

Where have I heard it before... Oh yes, in the articles that have come out in how FDR's Socialist Polices actually Prolonged the Great Depression. FDR added 7 years onto the Great Depression. How much will Obama add on to this one?
Who knows, but I'd rather be a poor person in Obama's America than a poor person in McCain's. And, contrary to popular belief, not all poor people are lazy scum who mooch off the government. A lot of them just didn't get a fair go.

Where, where did I say the problems right now are based on High Taxes? No where. But all you are going to do from Obama's tax plan is compound it, you're going to do even more damage to the American Economy. If you have a problem with this fundamental fact, go and take it up with the Professor of Economics at Carnegie Mellon University.
Your chain of events sounds lovely - but once again I'm pointing out the fault isn't of the government asking for money, it's of the rich people who hide their money in offshore accounts.

For some reason that doesn't seem to pertube you - it's almost like you think these people should be allowed to dodge contributing their share if the government is asking too much. Prosecute that tax dodgers! Don't say 'okay, if you don't want to pay that's alright, keep your money and we'll get it from these stuggling blue-collar workers instead, they should have gone to university".

Being the Land of Opportunity, does not mean it is the land of free hand outs. You gain that opportunity, you gain those Mercedes, you gain those McMansions by hard work, self determination, and a lot of sweat and tears. Taking from one and giving to the other who didn't work as hard, who havn't devoted so much time and sweat into their product, goes completely against the American Dream.
In a perfect world, where police and roads and firefighters don't cost anything, and all rich people became rich legitimately, and all poor people are lazy scumbags who should be exterminated.

Or to put it to something you can understand, You're 16, probably work hard in your class right? And you probably have some dumbass that goofs off and never does his homework and is flunking one of your classes. To make life fair, how about your teacher takes 1/4th of what ever grade you get on a test you studied for, and gives it to the goof off. So if you make a 100 on a test, and he makes a 50. Both of you make a 75. It's fair right? It gives him opportunity right?
In a highly simplified scenario. If I was really smart I would be happy to sacrifice marks to help someone who was truly struggling.

There is more than smart people and dumb people, just like there's more than rich and poor. There's smart people who work hard, and smart people who do minimal work but still beat everyone, there's average students, there's students who have a negative effect on the class, there's students with learning difficulties.

Part of your problem I think is that you bundle people into groups and then say ALL people in this group behave in a way which describes only some of them.
 

Kyogre35

First avy..no touchy
BigLutz, we're about to go into recession. Noone is expanding their business. Everywhere you look people are being laid off. No amount of government policy can stop it happening.

Acually there are buisnisess. Bank of America bought up one of the bad banks and I've heard there doing great. THe companies that planned for this are acually growing so just raising taxes would not help that at all.

chuboy said:
How did you infer that? =S

Name one thing other than the military the gov. did right?

chuboy said:
Name for me ONE industry where taxes comprise the main portion of the expenditure sheet. Just one, and I'll believe that.

Oil? Come on there being taxed like mad. ANd our prices are up because of it. I know there making profits but our prices would be drastically lower if they wern't taxed as much.

chuboy said:
Government needs to spend money -> They get most of it from their rich citizens.

The only reason that prolongs suffering is because ALL rich people in America, according to you, are selfish and greedy and would rather store their money in an offshore account while their country goes to ruins than pay 20000 dollars to the government in exchange for the protection it affords.

No not all rich people are greedy, in fact Obama thought Joe was rich just because he made a little over 250,000 dollars. So why should we take his money and give it to someone who obviously can't get on there feet? Remember under Obama's plan he would be giving 40% of Americans a check. Not good. And Socialism.

chuboy said:
You are accusing me being a socialist communist again. I have only said that the majority of tax income should come from the rich, not the people who can barely afford to live anymore. But nope, that's a bad idea <_<
Out of interest, do you believe that billions that went on the Iraq war were well spent?
Is that really what you believe? That the whole America should suffer from a tiny budget, because some snobby rich as*holes just couldn't be bothered paying their contribution to the country?

Now it's a contribution?? Joe Biden said it was patriotic?? WTF! I would rather spend no taxes. But do you know the story of Robin Hood??? Do you know he was Socialist?? YEah. Spreading the wealth. You can't seem to get that this would hurt more than just rich people.

When rich people get taxed. Some if not most own buisnisess. So they want to have MONEY! So they need more profit out of there buisness. So to get that they either have to raise there prices (Inflation) or cut people off.

IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!!

Ah and did you now wealthy and rich people pay 40% of Americans taxes?? So raise it to like 60%?? I don't think so.
chuboy said:
That's true, no one likes to pay taxes. But you have to, no matter where you live. Rather than giving these rich criminals a break why don't you think they should be prosecuted for tax evasion? Is it because you are a rich person yourself? Because tax evasion IS a punishable crime. And it hurts countries more than higher taxes for the rich ever will.

I agree with you there. The rich people that move there wealth overseas should be looked into because it's a crime...but if you raise the taxes they'll just move overseas altogether.
chuboy said:
You'd think it'd be the rich people who would pay for it, but I guess not...they would rather families that are on the streets looking for a home to stay pay for it because they don't want to part with their hard-earned cash.

By the way, prices to do not get 'upped' for taxes. Income tax is based on what you make so you can't really adjust your prices to make more, or the government will just take more of your money. Or at least, thats how it works in Australia.

Again from what I earlier wrote....

"When rich people get taxed. Some if not most own buisnisess. So they want to have MONEY! So they need more profit out of there buisness. So to get that they either have to raise there prices (Inflation) or cut people off."

So yeah Income tax is one that doesn't get affected but that's not the only tax. So we would be paying the bulk of the taxes.

chuboy said:
You still haven't really proven that raising taxes on rich people is causing more jobs to go out the window than what would already be happening anyway.

Again what I earlier wrote...

"When rich people get taxed. Some if not most own buisnisess. So they want to have MONEY! So they need more profit out of there buisness. So to get that they either have to raise there prices (Inflation) or cut people off."

It is that simple, it is Economics 101

chuboy said:
You can't stop a recession from happening once it gets past a certain point. And for some reason, you seem to think every rich person in America owns a local corner store. That, obviously, is not true. Most rich people work in high-skill environments that are in turn run by even richer people, and in almost all these cases, we're talking luxury products.

Yeah past a certain point it's going to happen. But you could slow down and diminiss the suffering. ANd higher taxes on ANYONE in this time is ubsurd.

chuboy said:
Who knows, but I'd rather be a poor person in Obama's America than a poor person in McCain's. And, contrary to popular belief, not all poor people are lazy scum who mooch off the government. A lot of them just didn't get a fair go.

But why are they down there?? THey could go to college and work hard outside it to get a degree?? I've heard plenty of stories like that. I mean they did SOMETHING to get down there. But there are some people that just got it bad and it wasn't there fault....guess what that's life...ITS NOT F***** FAIR!!! Democrat's and Republicans alike want it to be fair. It's like the efforts to end poverty around the world..THERE WILL ALWAYS BE POVERTY!!!

chuboy said:
Your chain of events sounds lovely - but once again I'm pointing out the fault isn't of the government asking for money, it's of the rich people who hide their money in offshore accounts.

For some reason that doesn't seem to pertube you - it's almost like you think these people should be allowed to dodge contributing their share if the government is asking too much. Prosecute that tax dodgers! Don't say 'okay, if you don't want to pay that's alright, keep your money and we'll get it from these stuggling blue-collar workers instead, they should have gone to university".

Acctually it was a two-part chain so it was lovely.

And I agree it's a crime and should be investigated. So htere.

chuboy said:
In a perfect world, where police and roads and firefighters don't cost anything, and all rich people became rich legitimately, and all poor people are lazy scumbags who should be exterminated.

But it's not a perfect world and people are doing it as we speak there is someone in college at this moment busing tables to pay for tuition. There is someone working 3 jobs to pay for food and such for her family. I mean it's happening not in a perfect world.

chuboy said:
In a highly simplified scenario. If I was really smart I would be happy to sacrifice marks to help someone who was truly struggling.

There is more than smart people and dumb people, just like there's more than rich and poor. There's smart people who work hard, and smart people who do minimal work but still beat everyone, there's average students, there's students who have a negative effect on the class, there's students with learning difficulties.

Part of your problem I think is that you bundle people into groups and then say ALL people in this group behave in a way which describes only some of them.

Acutally Biglutz said the goof offs get your grade. And yeah there are people with difficulties. I agree but still under McCain's plan they get a tax cut. It sounds like to me you think he won't do that...but he will. So your also saying you would give a grade you worked your but off to someone who spit paper wads across the room? And yeah there a kids that have trouble. ASK THE TEACHER FOR HELP OTHER THAN GETTING SOMETHING THAT REALLY ISNT THERE'S!!
 
Last edited:

Kyogre35

First avy..no touchy
I support chuck baldwin, the contitution party candidate

Um okay...I like that party but you could've explained it....oh and I'm bringing back what I earlier said to see if someone sees it again.

Kyogre35's insightment said:
Anyone here about Pennsylvannia??

Well there's a story. That as you see in this Average poll done by Realclearpolitics...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-244.html

...that Obama is up big. But an internal poll for the Obama campaign has it 2% Obama-McCain.

It's interesting to say the least. Also the Governer and Rep's are saying for Obama to come back to Penn and campaign. It looks like this race it kinda deciving. And I don't trust the pollers.

In fact right now I looked at the Ohio polls in which Obama on RCP is up by 6. But the polls that have Obama up 14 and 9 have the MoE 4 and 4.2% so that really says nothing if the MoE is that much. In fact some of the polls that have 3% MoE have McCain up.

If you don't believe me look on RCP.

So I think voters are a bit to a lot sceptical about electing someone with little experiance. And I don't blame them.
 

BigLutz

Banned
BigLutz, we're about to go into recession. Noone is expanding their business. Everywhere you look people are being laid off. No amount of government policy can stop it happening.

Yes we are, so why further deapen it? Why add more fuel to the fire by higher taxes and wealth redistribution?

Name for me ONE industry where taxes comprise the main portion of the expenditure sheet. Just one, and I'll believe that.

Never said they did but look at this from a Rich Man's point of view, if he is going to lose more of his money, he is going to find ways to cut back on that buisness to save his own money. That key compnent is something you seem unable to grasp.

Government needs to spend money -> They get most of it from their rich citizens.

If Government needs to spend more, they need to look at cutting down their own waste first, and not look at taxing first.

The only reason that prolongs suffering is because ALL rich people in America, according to you, are selfish and greedy and would rather store their money in an offshore account while their country goes to ruins than pay 20000 dollars to the government in exchange for the protection it affords.

Woah never said that, I mean we are the most giving country in the world, but like anyone else the Rich want to decide where and when to give their money. Not to have it lifted directly out of their pocket books by a Government that THINKS it can spend it better but in reality cannot.

You are accusing me being a socialist communist again. I have only said that the majority of tax income should come from the rich, not the people who can barely afford to live anymore. But nope, that's a bad idea <_<

You do realize the top 5% of this country already pays 60% of taxes. Compared to only 37% in 1980. The majority of tax income already comes from the Rich! The more you take from then and eventually they will say Screw This.

Out of interest, do you believe that billions that went on the Iraq war were well spent?

Yes, although I believe much could be trimmed from the Iraqi Budget, including waste, and the billions in Pork that gets attached every time.

Is that really what you believe? That the whole America should suffer from a tiny budget, because some snobby rich as*holes just couldn't be bothered paying their contribution to the country?

I believe 60% for only 5% of the Rich is already more than enough contribution to this country. If we are going to cut the budget, and make it a "Tiny Budget" then lets cut spending. We have Senators like Obama spending nearly a Billion in 4 years! On things the state budget of Illinois should cover, or private investiors should cover. If you really believe we need more Government policies, then lets start trimming the budget.

That's true, no one likes to pay taxes. But you have to, no matter where you live.

You do know 40% of this country does not pay taxes.

Rather than giving these rich criminals a break why don't you think they should be prosecuted for tax evasion? Is it because you are a rich person yourself? Because tax evasion IS a punishable crime. And it hurts countries more than higher taxes for the rich ever will.

For one I am middle class, second the taxes here are already insanely high on the rich. I do not blame them for finding ways to avoid through offshore accounts. Because of the already high and unfair amount they are paying in taxes.

You'd think it'd be the rich people who would pay for it, but I guess not...they would rather families that are on the streets looking for a home to stay pay for it because they don't want to part with their hard-earned cash.

See this is just silly because you act as if the Rich do not donate to charity, or if the even more obseen amount of money they would pay would actually be devoted to helping those people. Who in reality should be helped by state and local Government.

By the way, prices to do not get 'upped' for taxes. Income tax is based on what you make so you can't really adjust your prices to make more, or the government will just take more of your money. Or at least, thats how it works in Australia.

It's by how much you make, but they will up their prices to take in more, to level out the high amount that they pay in taxes.

You still haven't really proven that raising taxes on rich people is causing more jobs to go out the window than what would already be happening anyway.

Higher Taxes = Less Cash to spend on Improving Company/Buying stuff = Less Job Creation

Cannot follow that then you really have a problem.

You can't stop a recession from happening once it gets past a certain point. And for some reason, you seem to think every rich person in America owns a local corner store. That, obviously, is not true.

Never said it was, but you seem to be putting words in my mouth

Most rich people work in high-skill environments that are in turn run by even richer people, and in almost all these cases, we're talking luxury products.

No Most Rich work in places like the Stock Market or Medium Sized Buisness. Both of which would be hurt under Obama's tax plan.

Who knows, but I'd rather be a poor person in Obama's America than a poor person in McCain's.

I wouldn't because in McCain's America atleast I would be able to get a job.

And, contrary to popular belief, not all poor people are lazy scum who mooch off the government. A lot of them just didn't get a fair go.

No but a Good Amount are. And good shake or not, we have people who cannot even speak the language come over, get a residence, and support not only their family but their familes back home.

And they cannot even speak the language or have documentation!

Your chain of events sounds lovely - but once again I'm pointing out the fault isn't of the government asking for money, it's of the rich people who hide their money in offshore accounts.

Yeah it is the Government asking for the money, because they are the ones that are bringing about more taxes which starts the chain of events, it is the Government who refuses to trim their own budget. And it is the Government who does a horrible job allocating money.

For some reason that doesn't seem to pertube you - it's almost like you think these people should be allowed to dodge contributing their share if the government is asking too much.

They already pay 60% of all taxes, and unholy amounts to charity, how much more should they pay? 70%? 80%? 90%?

In a perfect world, where police and roads and firefighters don't cost anything, and all rich people became rich legitimately, and all poor people are lazy scumbags who should be exterminated.

Police and Fire are paid for by State and City Taxes not Federal.

In a highly simplified scenario. If I was really smart I would be happy to sacrifice marks to help someone who was truly struggling.

So you wouldn't mind ending up with a 75 for a Submester grade even though you earned a 100? Some how I doubt that.

Part of your problem I think is that you bundle people into groups and then say ALL people in this group behave in a way which describes only some of them.

Never said All, the only person that is bundling people together in a "All" bracket is in your own mind when you read my post.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Name one thing other than the military the gov. did right?

How come the military is the one thing the government does right? How is everything else accused of at worst, being useless, and at best, bloated, besides the military?

Of course, anyone who decides to cut the fat out of the military can then be said that they voted AGAINST R TROOPS.

In fact, that's what happened in 2000 and 2004, particularly in Congressional elections. In the post Cold War world, everyone in Congress and Clinton in the Executive Branch, agreed that the military needed to be scaled back. But those very votes were used in attack ads as not supporting the troops.

I really don't buy this from fiscal conservatives that have a double standard for the DOD. It has fat, just like every other government organization. And it should be scaled back, and politicians shouldn't be accused of being anti-troops if they vote against some military pet project.



Oil? Come on there being taxed like mad. ANd our prices are up because of it. I know there making profits but our prices would be drastically lower if they wern't taxed as much.

Not really. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, and it's one of the better taxes. Motorists pay the tax, and that goes back into highways and other federal transportation stuff.

If you think it's high, I'd like to hear of the alternate way of paying for highways.

No not all rich people are greedy, in fact Obama thought Joe was rich just because he made a little over 250,000 dollars.

Joe doesn't make 250,000. He says it's not even close to that much.

When rich people get taxed. Some if not most own buisnisess. So they want to have MONEY! So they need more profit out of there buisness. So to get that they either have to raise there prices (Inflation) or cut people off.

Yes, we're all familiar with supply-side economics. But the reaosn it's a theory is because it's not a sound fact. Nor is Laissez-faire or any other economic theory.

Ah and did you now wealthy and rich people pay 40% of Americans taxes?? So raise it to like 60%?? I don't think so.

Is 40% too much? It makes sense. But what shoud really be asked is what the median taxpayer is, and see what their paying. Average doesn't work, since the very rich and very poor will throw off the average.

But why are they down there?? THey could go to college and work hard outside it to get a degree?? I've heard plenty of stories like that. I mean they did SOMETHING to get down there. But there are some people that just got it bad and it wasn't there fault....guess what that's life...ITS NOT F***** FAIR!!! Democrat's and Republicans alike want it to be fair. It's like the efforts to end poverty around the world..THERE WILL ALWAYS BE POVERTY!!!

You're right there is always going to be poverty. It's even kind of supported in economics, since it's unhealthy to have 0% unemployment. And rather, aim for 2-5% unemployment (where exactly one wants it depends on what economic theory they allign with).

BUT you're making college sound as easy as "They could go." And it's simply not that easy. Young, high school graduates are able to handle more debt because they don't have to pay for it until they drop out or graduate (loans), but anyone who has real world responsibilities is much harder to commit to getting a degree in 4 years, or enhancing their education due to...well, real world responsibilities. And while the very rich will be able to pay, and the very unfortunate (those young people who've been completely cut off from their parents and are "independent") are able to get a variety of federal grants, everyone else is stuck with limited federal loans. Yes,scholarships and financial aid exist, but not in the amount that it's a reliable way to pay for college.
 

Kyogre35

First avy..no touchy
How come the military is the one thing the government does right? How is everything else accused of at worst, being useless, and at best, bloated, besides the military?

Of course, anyone who decides to cut the fat out of the military can then be said that they voted AGAINST R TROOPS.

In fact, that's what happened in 2000 and 2004, particularly in Congressional elections. In the post Cold War world, everyone in Congress and Clinton in the Executive Branch, agreed that the military needed to be scaled back. But those very votes were used in attack ads as not supporting the troops.

I'm not saying that it has it's flaws like so much fat as you say. But other than 9/11 which was a tragic event...we have been safe right?? That and fighting wars is the job of the government so they have done a good job there. And we would have to look into the inerworkings of the bill to see why they voted against it. So really they shouldn't be attacked for that...but if there really wasn't that much pork then it's an issue...though everything has the stupid pork.

randomspot555 said:
I really don't buy this from fiscal conservatives that have a double standard for the DOD. It has fat, just like every other government organization. And it should be scaled back, and politicians shouldn't be accused of being anti-troops if they vote against some military pet project.

Yeah I know there MIGHT of been other reasons they voted against it. BUT with polititians being so corrupt and dishonest. WE may never dnow why they did something that is questioned.



randomspot555 said:
Not really. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, and it's one of the better taxes. Motorists pay the tax, and that goes back into highways and other federal transportation stuff.

Well IIRC doesn't the state charge taxes on the gas to?? I'm pretty sure it does. ANd so why is California's prices above $3 but here in Missouri it's $2.19?

randomspot555 said:
If you think it's high, I'd like to hear of the alternate way of paying for highways.

Cut the stupid Gov. Spending that's going on. It's getting to were the gov. get's taxpayers money and spends it that day...KEEP THE DAMN MONEY!! DONT SPEND IT ON STUFF THAT ISNT IMPORTANT>.<.....jeez.

randomspot555 said:
Joe doesn't make 250,000. He says it's not even close to that much.

Not NOW. He said when he bought the buisness he would be making a little over 250,000 so he will be taxed more for doing what the economy promotes?? WHY!!



randomspot555 said:
Yes, we're all familiar with supply-side economics. But the reaosn it's a theory is because it's not a sound fact. Nor is Laissez-faire or any other economic theory.

But you've seen it happen. Carter. Come on it's pretty close and it's pretty proven In my book. How else will they try to make money if there taxes are so high?


randomspot555 said:
Is 40% too much? It makes sense. But what shoud really be asked is what the median taxpayer is, and see what their paying. Average doesn't work, since the very rich and very poor will throw off the average.

Well if your going to raise taxes why to them?? I know you want to punish the wrong doers....but what about Joe the Plumber?? He's not even close to rich. He probalby would still own a normal house??? ANd then the gov. will turn around and give it to someone who hasn't properly used it in the past?? I just say give tax cuts to EVERYONE!!!


randomspot555 said:
You're right there is always going to be poverty. It's even kind of supported in economics, since it's unhealthy to have 0% unemployment. And rather, aim for 2-5% unemployment (where exactly one wants it depends on what economic theory they allign with).

BUT you're making college sound as easy as "They could go." And it's simply not that easy. Young, high school graduates are able to handle more debt because they don't have to pay for it until they drop out or graduate (loans), but anyone who has real world responsibilities is much harder to commit to getting a degree in 4 years, or enhancing their education due to...well, real world responsibilities. And while the very rich will be able to pay, and the very unfortunate (those young people who've been completely cut off from their parents and are "independent") are able to get a variety of federal grants, everyone else is stuck with limited federal loans. Yes,scholarships and financial aid exist, but not in the amount that it's a reliable way to pay for college.


Okay here's another thing for them to do...don't go right after college...get a job that doesn't need a degree. Get enough money to start and work your way through. Also there is the less exspensive community college. Now I really don't know the inner-outs of college because I'm not even out of Middle School...but I think that it would be better for Biglutz to answer seeing she's been or is in college.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Well IIRC doesn't the state charge taxes on the gas to?? I'm pretty sure it does. ANd so why is California's prices above $3 but here in Missouri it's $2.19?

Some do, some don't. But just because state also charge tax on gas doesn't make it too high, nor does it make it a bad tax. Again, that money (I don't know for California, but I'm pretty sure) go to roads infrastructure and related stuff.

Also, why is it higher:

California has a very high cost of living. Missouri has a much lower one.



Cut the stupid Gov. Spending that's going on. It's getting to were the gov. get's taxpayers money and spends it that day...KEEP THE DAMN MONEY!! DONT SPEND IT ON STUFF THAT ISNT IMPORTANT>.<.....jeez.

"Cut spending" is a vague answer. It makes sense that motorists pay a portion of road infrastructure. Hence, tax gasoline.

"Isn't important" is debatable, and also vague.

Not NOW. He said when he bought the buisness he would be making a little over 250,000 so he will be taxed more for doing what the economy promotes?? WHY!!

He must've mispoke or misunderstood business. There are a million different ways to file for a small business owner and a million different ways to get taxed. However, since the vast majority of small business owners don't make $250,000 and instead, pour it back into the business..he'd either be doing REALLY, REALLY well (and thus, that's what happens when you succeed, you move to a higher tax bracket) or his accountant ripped him off.


But you've seen it happen. Carter. Come on it's pretty close and it's pretty proven In my book. How else will they try to make money if there taxes are so high?

Just because you like it doesn't make it sound fact. Sorry. "Because I said so" is a pretty crappy argument. Rather, you should measure supply side on ADVOCATES of supply side, like Bush, Bush SR, and Reagan, not someone who DIDN'T operate under it.

Well if your going to raise taxes why to them?? I know you want to punish the wrong doers....but what about Joe the Plumber??


JOE THE PLUMBER IS A PURELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUTATION AND HE DOESN'T OWN THE BUSINESS.

He's not even close to rich.

And he isn't being taxed as rich.

Okay here's another thing for them to do...don't go right after college...get a job that doesn't need a degree. Get enough money to start and work your way through.

College costs soar every year. It's really not feasible to save up that amount of money without some great investing skills/luck.

Community colleges are a good resource, but they aren't a replacement for a 4 year university. To start a college career or earn your GED, they're perfectly suitable for, but can't really advance beyond that. Even some 4 year degrees. But for the most part, they're limited in resources and, no matter how hard the administration tries to make it, it's not a replacement for a 4 year university.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
i'll have to agree with the conservatives when it comes to handling taxes in the very least. i'm voting republican for governor of this state soon and quite frankly, i see why taxes are such a big deal to them. the democratic opponent is simply throwing more money at our problems with horrible solutions that will essentially get us nowhere new.

however i'm much more skeptical of voting republicans federally... though i agree with the logic you have BigLutz, i'd just personally like to know when it has actually succeeded *noticeably*. i'm not really a believer of trickle-down economics just yet. ive seen so much going against it for so long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top