McCain VP Likely Decision

reply to post by tide88


I can totally see your reaons behind no taxes. You don't want to give our your money like that. I wouldn't too, essentially with this spending. But the thing is, tow things are inevitable: Death and Taxes. We should be able to elect a leader who will not squander out money.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


I dont mind either to some extent. But enough is enough. We are already paying enough. When does it stop. What happens when he raises our taxes and it doesnt do enough. Is he going to keep raising them. And yes, I used all those things you mentioned, public aid, transportation, etc. And I used them all when taxes are what they are now. I mean how much is enough. I think right now we are giving enough. And what is exactly living within ones means. Are you saying everyone should live the same life. That everyone should make the same amount of money. I feel for those who work their asses off and cannot get ahead. THere are plenty of people like that. However, I would be willing to bet there are just as many lazy ass people who can't or refuse to take advantages that this great country gives them.

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

My goal in life is not to make the poor rich...Sorry but that is the truth. If you can't make it, thats life. I include myself in that as well. If something were to happen and I was broke and homeless I have only myself to blame. I put myself through college with no help, lived in a crappy motel while I worked and started in life. I made sure I did not ruin my credit, or spend money I did not have....Then after 15 years of 18 hour days I can now enjoy life. Dont give me some crap that our system does not work. Cowboy up, and work harder.

The lesson we all should have learned from the past eight years is that if you give all the breaks to the rich they end up taking over and our country. All this economic madness and gas prices is no accident... There will be a point when we cannot turn this country back.

reply to post by mental modulator

I am by no way sticking up for the oil companies. They do make a ton of money. However their profit margins are in the middle with other sectors:
Profit Margins By Sectors I have always liked this tax breaks for the rich



[edit on 29-8-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


Much of the current state of affairs has to do with a poor economic policies combined with a war in Iraq, the outsourcing of lots of good paying American jobs. No one deserves everything for free. Our government has been mismanaging money for years and that has something to do with it as well. And right now if we were to raise taxes on the majority of americans it would have serious negative consequences. But as bad as things are right now, do you really thing that raising taxes on the the top 5% is really going to cause a serious negative impact on people earing over $250,000? These are not the people who are having trouble putting gas in their cars, or buying groceries or paying their mortgage.

I'm not saying that everyone should be living the same but if you are making $250,000 per year have 4 kids and you are struggling to feed, clothe, get them to school, pay for medical expenses, etc. Then you are living outside of your means. I cant tell people how to live but if you are struggling to take care of your family and you are making this kind of money, I have a hard time feeling bad for that. There are many people making much, much less than that and they are really stuggling to pay for the basics.

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by '___'eviant

 

It depends where you live. If a family of 4 makes 200000 a year and lives in NYC it is like making 50000/year in other places. And why should I get punished because I make a substantial amount more then you do. This is america. Land of opportunity. Since when was it the land if you are successful you have to give your money to the people who are less so. What about the doctors who have spent 8-10 years of school to and have hundreds of thousands in school loans. Now they are getting punished for making that much. Also take me for example. I am single and have quite a bit of diposable income, which I spend quite freely. It is people like me who buy the expensive products, vehicles, homes, etc that keep the economy moving. Now you want to take away half of my money. What do you think is going to happen. I am going to spend less. By me spending less, companies are going to have to cut back because profits are down. Look I feel for you. But you have to look at the big picture. Taxing the wealthy is not good for the overall economy. So you will get a tax credit and your taxes will be lower. Tell me what is better for the overall economy. Me spending 75000 on items such as the above mentioned or you spending an extra 2000-4000 on gas, groceries, and other everday living expenses. Not sure who you work for or what you do, but there will be many job cuts if he raises taxes on people making just over 200000.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by tide88]

Sorry I took so long to reply, I'm at work (ironic given the thread?)
Naw, man, you don't have to feel for me. I'm totally happy. I have a house, a woman i love (marriage in a year), and enough books and electronics that I'm never bored. I know that luxury items do drive the economy on a fundamental level. I do. I think we just have different attitudes towards consumerism. For instance, I don't think I could bring myself to spend 75k a year on anything that I couldn't live in or fly. And I think that this is where the irreparable schism in this conversation comes in; I submit that rich Americans live in pretty much uncalled-for luxury, and the poor DO starve here. I agree that you should be free to make as much money as you want, but you have to realize that the money is coming from somewhere. Either your workers are being paid less than they're worth, or you're selling goods at hyperinflated prices. I understand that this is capitalism, and that this is the nature of the beast. Do you see why people who make 20k or less a year would be upset, though? It's because it's the fact that they are being paid minimum wage for work that generates enough of a profit that the controllers of the labor can buy things in a year that they will never be able to afford in a lifetime. And the harsh truth is, there's not enough market for everyone. Let's take an example. If everybody wants to have jobs that pay over 200k a year (and most Americans do), how are they to achieve this? Only 5-10% of jobs could even hope to generate that much money, and that's not enough for the probably 80 % of people that want them.

Got to get back, break's over, but in closing;
I make enough money for me. I am not in any way envious of peopole that make more. I applaud your initiative. I just hope that you do see my point about people that support your profits maybe deserving a break.

this countries bast hope is Mcain gets elected and dies with in a few weeks of taking office before palin has been to corupted!

reply to post by '___'eviant


Yea, I see where you are coming from. I live in a very materialistic area and I also love my toys. I guess when you look at it another 5% really isnt that much. Is long as it stops there. My fear is he will keep raising it. And if it help out our fellow americans I also dont mind. However he also plans to redistribute wealth throughout the world. Obamas Plan Hell I already give, as well as many other people do, money to charities.

reply to post by tide88


This example of the rich getting taxed doesnt take into account that there are just basic necessities that make life much easier. If you are poor and get taxed more you may not be able to eat enough or live somewhere. If you are rich and you are taxed more you may not get that extra vacation or that extra car or extra food that you cannot consume. That is the difference. A tax hit on someone in the top 5% has much less of an impact on the quality of their life than it does many on the bottom 95%, especially the bottom 70% who make $50,000 or less.

Basic necessities are essentially a fixed cost. Unless you are being very extravagant, food costs per year are about the same for someone making 1,000,000 per year vs. someone making 50,000 per year. People can only consume so much of the basics no matter how wealthy they are. So if you are wealthy you can cover you food, water, clothing for essentially the same as someone who is poor. If a wealthy person chooses to pay more for higher end products or extravagants that is there own choice but you must keep that in mind.
A larger portion of my income goes towards the basics than someone making $250,000 per year.

reply to post by tide88


The war in Iraq has redistributed about 500 billion of our money overseas and McCain wants war with Iran. What do you think that will cost? Probably much more than any tax increase.

I respect you for being able to see things from the other side. I can also see things from your perpsective. I want to be able to spend my money as i see fit and I dont want the government wasting it. I think we have all taken positives out of this discussion.

reply to post by mental modulator


That fact has been even more clear the past 2 years as gas prices became ridiculous.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


It may cost much. If Obama were to be elected president, he will not willingly go to war. If he will, I propose that we have a draft. It would do good for the generations, and support the cause. Look at the WWII war economy, if Obama were to go to war, it would be like Roosevelt.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Yes I completely see where you are coming from and actually agree with you for the most part (after reading your post.) I just think the government should have less control. Smaller the government the better. Heck if the cut all the pork out of the bills they passed and gave that money to the less fortunate they could lower taxes for everyone. Take Palin for example. The senator wanted to build a bridge to nowhere that was going to cost our tax payers 1.5 billion dollars. Palin made sure this didnt happen because it was a waste to taxpayers money. She also sold the govenment corporate jet that cost the state 2.5 millions dollars. I personally think we need someone like her in washington. Lets cut government spending instead of raising taxes. Also I don't think it is fair to say McCain wants war with Iran.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by mental modulator

 

That fact has been even more clear the past 2 years as gas prices became ridiculous.

Yes with a democratic controlled congress. We cant blame everything on Bush. Although I admit he has also done more than his share of damage.

reply to post by tide88


Gas prices were at record highs long before 2007

or does your narrow mind not allow long term memory?

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Fathom

 

That would be one hell of an ugly attack. If they sink to that level, essentially exploiting her child that is afflicted with Downs Syndrome, I think it would be an absolute disaster for the Dems if they did it. I think they probably know better.

No, they don't. I have been reading a couple of blogs and they are saying "what kind of selfish mother would accept the VP job when she has a Down's Syndrome kid."

One even said something to the effect of she only had that Down's Syndrome kid so she could prove to everybody how she could be a great mother and the Gov. of Alaska.

One said she should have aborted the baby.

So, no, those morons don't know any better.

reply to post by Kesosip


What an absolute horrible thing to say... why not say maybe he will have an illness that precludes him from his duties as President...a little nicer no...?

Anyway I hope neither happens and to wish someone death because you don't agree with their positions or values makes you a very *&($**$% # person...

reply to post by tide88


Congress was controlled by Republicans from 1992 to 2006 and you want to place blame on the 2 1/2 year tenure of the Democratic congress. Who are still fighting against a President who has all of a sudden decided to be extra liberal with the veto pen, since the Democrats gained control. He vetoed one bill from 2001-2006(Stem Cell Research) and he has vetoed 9 since the Democrats have gained control. Not to mention how is a Democratic congress supposed to pass legislation when the president can veto and they do not have a large enough majority to get 2/3 support to override a veto? In the last 28 years there has been a Republican president for 20 of those years. Like it or not, but the state of this country, has a much larger connection to the Republicans than it does the Democrats. Its hard to argue that point. They have been the ones with the majority of control, in the executive brance, the legislative branch and with Bushs' additions to the supreme court, they have control of the judicial branch. Fortunately Bush as made all except the executive branch meaningless posts.

It bothers me when people try to say the Democrats are GOING to do (Fill in the Blank), when we can sit here and look at the state of this Union and say the Republicans HAVE done (Fill in the blank). You can try to use scare tactics for what the Democrats might do but I can use actual fact to say this is what the Republicans have done.

Also your point about McCain not wanting to bomb Iran, maybe you should see this: Youtube Video

And this, granted he was speaking in very vague terms that there "will be more wars", without actually saying who is speaking about.
Raw Story

[edit on 30-8-2008 by iamcamouflage]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by iamcamouflage]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by iamcamouflage]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by tide88

 

Gas prices were at record highs long before 2007

or does your narrow mind not allow long term memory?

Gas prices have risen a 1.60 since the democratic congress has been in office. Democrates partly responsible for gas prices And how am I being narrow minded? I said bush along with the democratic congress are responsible for gas prices. People like you, who just blame Bush, are the ones being narrow minded. People who think the Iraq war is solely to blame for the rise in gas prices are being narrow minded. You are being narrow and closed minded. I understand though. People who hate bush like to blame everything on him. Hell people even blame him for hurricane katrina. Also not sure how Bush is responsible for supply and demand of gas. Are we now blaming him that Asia has raised its full consumption over 70% alone this year. Or the problems in Nigera. Is that Bushes fault.

After two months of nearly continuous debate over how to deal with the soaring price of gasoline, Congress adjourned Friday without doing anything about energy. Many in the Congress recognize that energy is a top issue for the voters this fall and favored staying in session until something was passed. The final vote for adjournment in the house passed 213 to 212. The Senate vote to adjourn was 48 to 40 on what is normally a unanimous vote. After the vote a group of Republicans remained on the floor demanding that the Democrats return to vote on energy legislation

Yea, democrats are really working hard to solve our energy problems!

[edit on 30-8-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Again I am not blaming the democratic controlled congress for high gas prices and I am not blaming Bush for all the problems facing the county. I am saying both parties are responsible for the condition of this country. Is bush more responsible, yes. I want him out tomorrow. However to place the sole blame on him or just republicans is rediculous. All these politicians are corrupt to some extent and all have an agenda. Democrats included. And if one doesnt think there are going to be more wars, then that person is naive. Is Obama promising never to go to war? What would you say the chances of us getting into another war in the next 8 years will be. I would put it at about a 75% chance. So what, McCain was being honest. And by him stating that, it doesnt mean he wants to go to war. He is just saying another war is inevitable. Which probably is true looking at the Global Situation.