richardMdBorn wrote:McCain-Feingold shows that he doesn't believe in the First Amendment. He's weak on the border (pathetic may be the better word). He used class warfare terms in voting against the Bush tax cuts. Other than that, I like him. :)
Interesting Mitt gets beat for flip flopping. But what about McCain? He voted against the Bush tax cuts now wants to make them permenant. He pushed an immigration bill that was amanesty now he says it was not and says he is against amnesty. He has been pretty middle of the road and now he is a conservative????
Every politician does a flip flop and that is how it should be. Human beings are constantly in a state of change intellectually. I would be more concerned if a politician did not flip flop from time to time. Not to flip flop basically means not to learn.
McCain is getting a freebee from the media. Romney isn't.
Romney is a pawn. I couldn't hold my nose and ever vote for such a tool.
Huckabee, what we need a Creationist in the White House. The US has enough issues when it comes to science.
The writing is on the wall. The GOP is coming back to it's roots:
Abe Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
As for the McCain-Feingold bill, about time. Otherwise the government of the US, described by the British paper "The Economist", is "the best money can and has bought", or something like that. Allowing unfettered money into the system and having ever increasing amounts needed to be spent to win only leads to a government of the wealthy by the wealthy.
Knowledge is Power
Power Corrupts
Study Hard and
Become EVIL!
McCain supported the latest round of tax cuts. He is also decidedly against pork spending and has never earmarked a bill. He does, however, believe that tax cuts should aid the poor rather than the very rich. This is not "class warfare"; it's humanitarianism. In any case, the trickle-down approach to economics doesn't work, because the rich generally don't spend. If you give a tax cut to the poor, they buy stuff and that money gets infused into the economy rather than into Uncle Scrooge's money bin.
Trickle down does work. Savings stimulates the economy by providing money to put into business and infrastructure. The poor pay very little if any tax now. Income earners over $100k pay the bulk of the tax in the US already.
Uh, no. Even if the point is true, if the top 10% paid 50.1% of the taxes but accounted for 75% of the total income, then they are under taxed.
Warren Buffet showed that the people who work for him paid 30-35% of their total take home pay in taxes. He opened up his tax forms and showed he paid 12%.
As for "trickle down", as a former plumber, I can tell you what "trickles down".
Knowledge is Power
Power Corrupts
Study Hard and
Become EVIL!
McCain supported the latest round of tax cuts. He is also decidedly against pork spending and has never earmarked a bill. He does, however, believe that tax cuts should aid the poor rather than the very rich. This is not "class warfare"; it's humanitarianism. In any case, the trickle-down approach to economics doesn't work, because the rich generally don't spend. If you give a tax cut to the poor, they buy stuff and that money gets infused into the economy rather than into Uncle Scrooge's money bin.
Trickle down does work. Savings stimulates the economy by providing money to put into business and infrastructure. The poor pay very little if any tax now. Income earners over $100k pay the bulk of the tax in the US already.
Uh, no.
Uh Yes. They do pay the bulk of the tax.
Even if the point is true, if the top 10% paid 50.1% of the taxes but accounted for 75% of the total income, then they are under taxed.
I did not say they were over taxed, though they may be. Rather I said they pay the bulk of the tax. If you want tax cuts to stimulate the economy you have to give it to those who pay the tax unless you want to use refundable credits like the EIC which is a give back to low income earners.
W
arren Buffet showed that the people who work for him paid 30-35% of their total take home pay in taxes. He opened up his tax forms and showed he paid 12%.
This ploy is crap. Buffet may have a lower rate in his income because it is primarily made up of dividends and captial gains that are taxed at 15% (not 12%). And keep in mind dividends are double taxed since they are paid with after tax earnings of a company and are not deductible when paid. As for his secretary paying 35% that is bull as well unless she/he makes over about 300k per year. But even so, the secs salary may be taxed at a higher rate then 15%. So what? Buffet pays 15% on a Billion so he pays more tax. The sec pays, maybe 25% on wages. She does not pay more tax. Nor is this unfair considering the fact that capital gains and dividends are a different type of income. This is such aploy and because most do not understand tax law they fall for it hook line and sinker........just like you did.
Pokatator wrote:I am of the "anybody but Hillary" crowd.
That woman just opens her mouth and in 30 seconds all I can see is my ex-wife nagging.
Sorry for the sexist and narrow minded remark but I can't help it, I would vote for the wicked witch of the west before I would vote for Hillary.
I'm trying to find something positive about any of the candidates...my fall back position is "anybody but Hillary".
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Pokatator wrote:I am of the "anybody but Hillary" crowd.
That woman just opens her mouth and in 30 seconds all I can see is my ex-wife nagging.
Sorry for the sexist and narrow minded remark but I can't help it, I would vote for the wicked witch of the west before I would vote for Hillary.
I agree with you. I can't stand her and Bill. Too hungry for power and she is a turn off.
Both of you exemplify what is wrong with Mormon prejudice and intelligence. Yes, both of you are hostile to the Church but outsiders would see you both as Mormons if they visited your home on Sundays, I imagine. You probably live in Mormon communities and if you don't your families probably attend church. How can you justify judging a person for her gender -- the "nagging" "ex-wife?" And, nobody on this Board calls you into account for that?
Hillary Clinton is the most experienced person to lead this country. She is probably, as well, the most intelligent. McCain is an idiot compared to her. Romney is not experienced.
Hillary will likely have the most reasoned approach to immigration, the most reasoned approach to the war and civil rights.
rcrocket wrote:Both of you exemplify what is wrong with Mormon prejudice and intelligence. Yes, both of you are hostile to the Church but outsiders would see you both as Mormons if they visited your home on Sundays, I imagine.
Why me is hostile to the church? When did that happen?
You probably live in Mormon communities and if you don't your families probably attend church. How can you justify judging a person for her gender -- the "nagging" "ex-wife?" And, nobody on this Board calls you into account for that?
Mitt Romney reminds me of this guy from my mission who was smug and arrogant. Is anyone going to call me into account for that?
Hillary Clinton is the most experienced person to lead this country. She is probably, as well, the most intelligent. McCain is an idiot compared to her. Romney is not experienced.
Hillary will likely have the most reasoned approach to immigration, the most reasoned approach to the war and civil rights.
rcrocket
I like you much better when you stick to actual arguments and ideas instead of attacking people's character. It's much more becoming.
As far as John W accusing me of somebody attacking character -- my goodness, it is a massive character flaw to characterize somebody as an untrustworthy person because of that person's gender and voice tenor. And, you -- you don't see anything wrong with that either? What is wrong with you? Yes, I am attacking the character of the posters -- people who disregard Clinton merely because she is a woman?
And, your only comeback is to condemn Romney because he reminds you of somebody on your mission? Really, now, are Mormons that shallow -- they care only about appearances in judging other people? I think Romney would be an adequate President but he lacks the experience and does not have an adequate position on the core issues, but I don't disregard him for his appearance.