Descalzo Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 This comes from the heart: May God bless Barack Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solaar Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 YES! And what a win! The scare is over. Intelligence and reason is back in the White House. Go USA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3Dman Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Congrats Obama. Martin Luther King must be happy... But Africa will remain poor and dead... Latin America will remain awash in drug production for your nose and American military dictatorships. The Third World will continue to be poorly paid labor of your empire. +1 I really agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solaar Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 True, the international mafia and the corporate bullies will be keeping their dirty hands on many 'third world' businesses but there's at least a shred of hope now that certain relations could become a bit more equitable. With that ignorant cowboy in front, those kind of things were totally hopeless. One less arse-kissing and corrupt muppet put into power by the US would be already a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Guru Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I certainly do hope that God blesses Barack Hussein Obama, because I have a feeling his socialist policies will wreck havoc on America. If you don't believe me, then look at your paystub a year from now and see the tremendous tax increase. Seriously, how else do you think Barack will fund his pricey programs? Mark my words... Americans will regret ever having voted for this man. Hell, I can see the Arabs dancing in the streets now. Guru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I certainly do hope that God blesses Barack Hussein Obama, because I have a feeling his socialist policies will wreck havoc on America. If you don't believe me, then look at your paystub a year from now and see the tremendous tax increase. Seriously, how else do you think Barack will fund his pricey programs? Mark my words... Americans will regret ever having voted for this man. Hell, I can see the Arabs dancing in the streets now.Guru That was the only reason I didn't vote for him. Everything he claims is needed (or on his agenda) has a very large price sticker. And for an already battered treasury, I don't think funds can be made available. Time will tell I suppose... Oh, and before anyone says anything about my candidate of choice, I really don't have anything against the policies of Obama, I just don't support those policies in our current state affairs. In 4-8 years, my wants could change. Personally, I would have preferred an Administration in favor of aggressive cuts in spending and scaling back taxes. Plus, I don't support a withdrawal from Iraq. It doesn't mean I'm wrong or stupid, I just want different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Guru Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Personally, I would have preferred an Administration in favor of aggressive cuts in spending and scaling back taxes. Plus, I don't support a withdrawal from Iraq. It doesn't mean I'm wrong or stupid, I just want different things. Well said. Guru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I certainly do hope that God blesses Barack Hussein Obama, because I have a feeling his socialist policies will wreck havoc on America. If you don't believe me, then look at your paystub a year from now and see the tremendous tax increase. Seriously, how else do you think Barack will fund his pricey programs? Mark my words... Americans will regret ever having voted for this man. Hell, I can see the Arabs dancing in the streets now. Guru Source?? The vast majority of Americans will see LOWER taxes under Obama. The rich who are seeing increases are really only going back to levels prior to the Bush tax cuts. Withdrawing from Iraq will save us money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhai Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Maybe someone should tell americans what the campaigns abroad cost them. Take the daily cost of iraq and afghanistan for USA, divide that on 300 million, multiply on 365, look at what you pay in tax... and think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justvisiting Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Maybe someone should tell americans what the campaigns abroad cost them. Take the daily cost of iraq and afghanistan for USA, divide that on 300 million, multiply on 365, look at what you pay in tax... and think. ditto. +700 billion bailout (and more) it all adds up. and what about previous generation debts still being paid off. successive governments would have to build on previous governments hard work -- rarely possible in any country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Forgetting of course that 40% of Americans already don't pay taxes.. they receive taxes http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/o...e-who-dont-pay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solaar Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Washington Times. Well known for its conservative bias. Carefully check out the wording in this article, it may have slipped your attention. a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows Too subtle for you? No? then think again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 That's like a $50 mail in rebate for a $50 item. At the end, your situation is the same as when you began And there's nothing wrong with being conservative when it comes to finances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicalUser Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 tax cuts for 95% of american taxpayers, paid for by the top 5% of taxpayers, and corporations. closing corporate tax loopholes seems like it could bring in vast amounts of money to pay for increases in spending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The only thing I do agree with Obama on is taxing domestic born companies (MS, Dell, etc) that outsource to other countries to save money and deny jobs to Americans. To them, I say "Keep them here or pay the price" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solaar Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 What the WT article discreetly omits is that they've assumed in their theory as definite fact what is actually only theoretically possible in terms of IRS deductions. You can only claim deductions on mileage, mortgage, education etc... if you possess a car, a house, kids that go to school etc... Many people in those lower income brackets can't even afford or don't need the items they might be able to deduct, so they do pay taxes. I have a few cases like that in my own in-law family. They had a good laugh when they read the article. "deductions that the Internal Revenue Service allows" . The Washington Times cannot know how much each individual tax payer deducted in reality. They just assumed everybody does. If you think about it, this article is highly cynical. Instead of conservative I should have said 'politically reactionary'. You might want to keep in mind that the Washington Times are one of the preferred quote sources for Fox news.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dies Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 And there's nothing wrong with being conservative when it comes to finances Absolutely... Of course it depends on how you define "conservative". If you define conservative in the twisted, perverted way the republican party seems to define it, where it only serves to impose their views on others while stuffing their friends pockets, then I'd have to disagree. Now if by conservative you mean a smaller, leaner, more efficient government that takes care of it's own before meddling in the affairs of others and allows the people to decide only interfering when it makes sense, then I think we're all for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Absolutely...Now if by conservative you mean a smaller, leaner, more efficient government that takes care of it's own before meddling in the affairs of others and allows the people to decide only interfering when it makes sense, then I think we're all for that. That is EXACTLY what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Smaller government = less salaries to pay. People who are opposed to Obama are just cry babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 smaller gov't = more free market, private sector jobs People that like Obama are just lazy Welfare collectors that think they're entitled to what they haven't earned Yea, I said it O.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 smaller gov't = more free market, private sector jobs Its not the size of government that matters, it is how well it accomplishes the tasks it was elected to do. George Bush was elected to do exactly what happened. He was elected to decrease regulation, decrease the tax "burden" on irresponsible corporations, and push his religious ideology. On all fronts he succeeded wonderfully... were the results what you expected? Where is your evidence that a "smaller gov't = more free market, private sector jobs"? Let me guess... you leave out of the equation any reference to the average salary and geographic location of these jobs, and the net social benefit this increased "free (less regulated) market" has on a country that decided to take a hatchet to its government and regulations without any real forward thought, or historical research. James Madison figured this out long ago when he pushed to put more power in the hands of the free market, entrusting "enlightened statesmen and benevolent philosophers who would devote themselves to the welfare of all".... later only to realize his mistake saying, that business (free market), when given ultimate power, "become tools and tyrants of government...they overwhelm government with their powers and combinations and are bribed by its largesse." Your cry for "smaller government" has been tried time and time again, but seldom with good result. You should be crying for "better" government -- and be specific as to what parts need improvement. Broad strokes will only get you a repeat of the last 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 look at your paystub a year from now and see the tremendous tax increase. So you're claiming to be mystically psychic now? If you knew as much as you think you do then you would be winning the lottery every week how else do you think Barack will fund his pricey programs? Let's get something straight bub, things were a hell of a lot better in this country for the average person when Clinton was president. Then bushy came along and took everything AWAY for the middle and lower class, and gave it all to his rich friends. Now our deficit is sooo high that they had to add another digit to it, and your children, and grand children, and great grand children will all have to pay the tab for it! All Obama is going to do is to return things the way they were before, by helping the middle and lower classes. That is NOT the same as taxing! Your feeble scare tactics are impotent. I agree with clide on this one, people who are opposed to Obama are just whinny little cry babies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Guru Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Let's get something straight bub, things were a hell of a lot better in this country for the average person when Clinton was president. Woah... slow down there buddy... the reason everyone was so well off during his administration was because of the tech boom. If that did not happen, you would be singing a different tune, hmm? http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/05/r...on-economy.html That is a good read. Maybe it will give you some insights. Guru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 So you're claiming to be mystically psychic now? If you knew as much as you think you do then you would be winning the lottery every week Let's get something straight bub, things were a hell of a lot better in this country for the average person when Clinton was president. Then bushy came along and took everything AWAY for the middle and lower class, and gave it all to his rich friends. Now our deficit is sooo high that they had to add another digit to it, and your children, and grand children, and great grand children will all have to pay the tab for it! All Obama is going to do is to return things the way they were before, by helping the middle and lower classes. That is NOT the same as taxing! Your feeble scare tactics are impotent. I agree with clide on this one, people who are opposed to Obama are just whinny little cry babies You're ignoring the fact that the Community Reinvestment Act (pushed by the Clinton Admin and the Congress at the time) is the primary reason for the current housing problems. There were articles out as early as 1998 predicting what would happen, and they were IGNORED. So while Clinton may have seemed like a good thing at the time, we're currently dealing with troubles that originated under his term (as well as Bush's) You can't ignore the pillars of lending just to get poor people into houses. When they can't make any more payments, we get into the exact mess we've gotten into Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dies Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 You're ignoring the fact that the Community Reinvestment Act (pushed by the Clinton Admin and the Congress at the time) is the primary reason for the current housing problems. There were articles out as early as 1998 predicting what would happen, and they were IGNORED. So while Clinton may have seemed like a good thing at the time, we're currently dealing with troubles that originated under his term (as well as Bush's) You can't ignore the pillars of lending just to get poor people into houses. When they can't make any more payments, we get into the exact mess we've gotten into Maybe, but I'm more inclined to believe that the primary cause is the stupidity of the public and their willingness to overpay for goods. . Actual value does not equal "what the market will bear", which is how pricing is usually set. When you have way too many idiots paying way, way more than things are actually worth it creates a vicious cycle, then you get a bubble, and of course it's only a matter of time till bubbles burst. Nope, I don't blame the government as much as I blame all those people who knew damn well they couldn't afford what they wanted but decided to buy it anyway. But then maybe I'm crazy because I also don't agree with "bailing out" private companies, if we have to deal with a complete collapse in certain sectors then let's not postpone it let's get it over with now so we can move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts