Why a Democrat is needed in office.

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by sos37

 

You can't have it both ways. On one hand, you say you don't care what the world thinks (and they should have no opinion about our election), and then you say "this is a GLOBAL economy"?!?!? I think you are giving mixed signals. So, why do you care about the global economy if you don't care about their opinions???


Okay I didn't really understand that reply. It's true, I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of the United States, meaning if they disapprove of us then I say to them "Piss off." Just like if someone came up to me and said "I really don't like you." I would reply with "Okay. Remind me why I should care?"

My opinion doesn't change the fact that this IS in fact now a global economy. We've seen the evidence in this latest economic meltdown. What happened with the U.S. affected banks and markets around the world.

And it's true, I don't care for the process of "offshoring" jobs. Being in the IT field I've seen first hand what the negatives are, as far as jobs that require on-the-phone interaction with customers - customer service and tech skills suffer greatly, the telephone infrastructure is usually horrible, there's a TON of money to be spent on accent "neutralization" because your U.S. clients can't understand much of what the people in the other countries say, and integrating cultural differences into U.S. business practices is usually a long and arduous road.

That being said, there are benefits to offshoring, like the cost savings, which is, sadly, what most companies ONLY look at.

So my original analysis stands. Punish companies who offshore and it's the American middle and blue collar class that will suffer, not the job-creating class.

Originally posted by CreeWolf
I actually do think the Democrat needs elected. Obama's ideas will kill off our economy and his foreign policy inexperience will probably produce some real world dilemmas.

With Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, the House's Democratic Majority, as well as a Democratic President, we'll have nobody to blame BUT the Democrats after Obama's single term as the next generation's "Jimmy Carter".

This will possibly open the door to another 4 terms of Republicans in control again.

Did anyone make the connection yet? Since the Democrats won majorities in the House in 2004, everything's gone to hell (except the Iraqi surge of course!)

Of course, this is just my "opinion".

Its your opinion but its true. Democrats will tell you they dont have Veto proof powers yet so they can't do anything. I havent seen any siginificant contributions or attempts on the democratic side to fix any major issues. What makes people think they will change now? People are blind, ignorant and put to much trust on "hope" to fix the world.

Creewolf....what is it that make's it so hard for the right to take responsibility?

This will possibly open the door to another 4 terms of Republicans in control again.

Did anyone make the connection yet? Since the Democrats won majorities in the House in 2004, everything's gone to hell (except the Iraqi surge of course!)

Sooo, 4 terms "OF REPUBLICANS IN CONTROL" yet, the Democrats completely destroyed everything (that was obviously working perfectly) in under 24 months?!?!?!? I get it now. How could I be so dumb.

And congress......you guys had congress 12 of the last 14 years. That's

85%

of the time !!!

Take a little responsibility. Own up to the policies you have agreed with. Stop blaming Nancy Pelosi for all the problems your party has dumped on America.

When Bush took office our country had a 400 billion dollar Surplus. Then Bush gave the tax breakto the eleitists and turned it into a 200 billion dollar deficit almost overnight.

Go to the GAO website and look up those years Clinton said there was a surplus. GAO couldn't even give an opinion cause there were so many discrepancies.

Offshoring American money Offshoring American money escalated to 66% since the Bush administration took office. Not only does it hurt America (because the funds arent here) but it allows these people that Bush gave the tax break to (Im sure in hopes they would allow it to trickle down) to earn Billions in interest while paying no taxes.

I assume that you talk about a tax break that has been in effect for over a half a century. This tax break allows companies to not pay taxes on profits received outside of the US. The reason jobs are going overseas is because of better tax breaks and cheaper labor. In addition, Americans continue to buy products from the very same companies that have moved offshore.

The next thing he did is to allow unqualified people to make major purchases

Read up on the CRA act to find your answer who allowed or highly demanded this practice.

Then you change the legislation for credit card payback

Senator MBNA palyed a big role in this

Fuel, this puts our country over the edge.

We are still waiting for the commonsense plan Pelosi promised us in the 2006 election to reduce the price of fuel. Go and look up that promise she made.

On the second part of your post one could easily find connections to Democrats that are equally damaging.

WAY past his prime.

come on. I thought democrats don't discriminate.

Whoever gets into office has no choice but to raise taxes. I dont care if McCain tells you hes going to eleminate taxes. HEs lieing.

so basically your telling me that Obama is lying too.

In congress he is involved in the largest scandal in Us history.

Obama beat him with Fannie Mae...

He forced the passing of one bill and one amendment that has destroyed the financial status of America.

I don't recall Gramm holding a gun to the Democrats head. President Clinton signed it into law. Even Biden voted for it. Look up the vote, it wasn't close at all.

They both were done with little regard for standard procedure.

Clinton administration was working with them to get the wording right. Look up the white house statements they put out.

reply to post by jam321


Here's what I read into the two sided debate here. What we need is a new 'Moderate' party. Every two years, we are left with a choice between liberal or conservative, and that is the problem. Those of us who are Independents are usually moderate and can see good ideas and bad ideas coming out of both parties and are forced to choose 'the lesser of two evils'. Extremes from either side are the wrong choice, IMHO.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I agree. An independent would split things down the middle but most importantly put the people interest first. Would be nice if we could get a good group of independents in Congress as well.

reply to post by sos37


Job creating class? You have to be kidding me. LMFAO, dude do you live in the US?
Granted, Bushes tax cut could have worked. But the reason it didnt is because of the greedy ones at the top didnt put the money back into the country. Most of them sent it offshore into tax shelters.

[edit on 13/10/08 by Douggie]

I agree with the moderate class. But unfortunately, theres only 2 that have the possibility of winning. Our country cant take another 4 more years....or 4 of the same.

I find it difficult to take when I see Republican wannabes defend something thats so defensless. Its cut and dry, Things were crappy as hell when Clinton got into office. He made major cuts, even closed down the goverments several times. Started a welfare to work program. Even worked Nafta right. I remember him holding up shiploads of vehicles from Japan after Nafta was signed. Byt the time he left office things were working good.

Then what happens....we get Bush in office. He cuts the taxes for the Elitists, Allows for the offshoring of the jobs...well pretty much everything in my first post. The GLB act is a Republican contribution, true it was signed during the Clinton administration, but thats just politics. It doesnt work....Im sure 10 years from now theyre going to be writing that off as the most destructive thing that ever happend to the US.

Again, I hate to say it but...the Republicans your mommy and daddy were so fond of havent been in office for decades. The Neocons that are in office now are for BIG business. They are for controlling the populous, stripping Americas freedoms, restricting wealth.
I guess what Im saying is that Obama is right. We definitely our education system revamped. Americans arent too bright.

In the 1930's Hovver, who was an American President at the time, decided to raise taxes on the nation. We had a depression. In the 60's, we had the "Great society" under LBJ where the government set about to create the welfare state and spend unheard of somes of money. In the 1970's we had Jimmy Carter who, began to push for "affordable housing" mush as we have seen under Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Under Clinton, this program blossomed and with the help of cummunity organisers and groups such as ACORN, the Woods Foundation, etc, law suit after lawsuit forced banks to give mortgages to millions of people who could not afford them. Apert from this, and in spite of two wars, a national terrist attack, and a struggling economy left over from Clinton, Bush cut taxes and the economy boomed and boomed. But Under democratic control, the congress refused regulation of the economic lenders, in spite of Republicans calling for them under McCain. Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. said no. Then the bottom finally dropped out and here we are.

If you put another democrat in the whitehouse, we will go immediately into an economic nightmare depression worse than the 1930's. The way to defeat economic troubles is to not speand money you don't have, and cut taxes for all, not some, but all Americans. Therefore, put a Republican in the Whitehous, and in the congress, and eveything will be fine.

Here's my plan that would work...

1. Suspend the 2008 income tax for all wage earners.

2. Suspend the capital gains tax for 2009

3. Encourage banks to re-negotiate mortgage loans to this present economy.

This is simple and this will work, no socialism needed.

YOur sadly deceived and heres why and how. The conspiracy being put upon us is one from in an outside. The inside has been the sellouts who surround the president, corrupt him and then force the hand. I believe that those who had strong presidencies complied with this cabal, those that didnt rebelled in some way, perhaps JFK was one who rebelled. To me theres only service, Ron Paul for instance has done nothing but serve his country and courtieously. While his collegues, slander and slaughter truth and justice.

Its a game of manipulator vs manipulator. And were all in the middle of a sandy dune of lame.

Originally posted by jam321

When Bush took office our country had a 400 billion dollar Surplus. Then Bush gave the tax breakto the eleitists and turned it into a 200 billion dollar deficit almost overnight.

Go to the GAO website and look up those years Clinton said there was a surplus. GAO couldn't even give an opinion cause there were so many discrepancies.

Why would you expect them to have an opinion?

Offshoring American money Offshoring American money escalated to 66% since the Bush administration took office. Not only does it hurt America (because the funds arent here) but it allows these people that Bush gave the tax break to (Im sure in hopes they would allow it to trickle down) to earn Billions in interest while paying no taxes.

I assume that you talk about a tax break that has been in effect for over a half a century. This tax break allows companies to not pay taxes on profits received outside of the US. The reason jobs are going overseas is because of better tax breaks and cheaper labor. In addition, Americans continue to buy products from the very same companies that have moved offshore.

Nope, Im talking about the BIG tax break Bush gave at the begining of his term. If you dont know about it....you should

The next thing he did is to allow unqualified people to make major purchases

Read up on the CRA act to find your answer who allowed or highly demanded this practice.

True, But its was drawn up with good intent and used in good practice until Bush got in office....then it was rape and pillage

Then you change the legislation for credit card payback

Senator MBNA palyed a big role in this

No doubt it was needed to be done...but not while the countries facing financial disaster

Fuel, this puts our country over the edge.

We are still waiting for the commonsense plan Pelosi promised us in the 2006 election to reduce the price of fuel. Go and look up that promise she made.

LMAO, it was part of Bushes campaign platform. Im running out of space.

On the second part of your post one could easily find connections to Democrats that are equally damaging.

WAY past his prime.

come on. I thought democrats don't discriminate.

Well better now then having a dead president to deal with and have *Apaulin take over...eeek.

Whoever gets into office has no choice but to raise taxes. I dont care if McCain tells you hes going to eleminate taxes. HEs lieing.

so basically your telling me that Obama is lying too.

No, I never heard Obama say he was cutting anyones taxes.

In congress he is involved in the largest scandal in Us history.

Obama beat him with Fannie Mae...

You need to explain this better, All they did is contribute to his campaign. McCain is a totally different scenario, costing billions, admittingly so.

He forced the passing of one bill and one amendment that has destroyed the financial status of America.

I don't recall Gramm holding a gun to the Democrats head. President Clinton signed it into law. Even Biden voted for it. Look up the vote, it wasn't close at all.

Yes they did, politics are funny that way...apply enough pressure or get your info from the wrong guy (Gramm) and your screwed. Hes first in line to become the next sec of treasury.

They both were done with little regard for standard procedure.

Clinton administration was working with them to get the wording right. Look up the white house statements they put out.

Well Im glad he was able to change somethings. Im sure the Repubs would have found a way to really make him look bad if he veto'd it.

Originally posted by Fromabove
In the 1930's Hovver, who was an American President at the time, decided to raise taxes on the nation. We had a depression. In the 60's, we had the "Great society" under LBJ where the government set about to create the welfare state and spend unheard of somes of money. In the 1970's we had Jimmy Carter who, began to push for "affordable housing" mush as we have seen under Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Under Clinton, this program blossomed and with the help of cummunity organisers and groups such as ACORN, the Woods Foundation, etc, law suit after lawsuit forced banks to give mortgages to millions of people who could not afford them. Apert from this, and in spite of two wars, a national terrist attack, and a struggling economy left over from Clinton, Bush cut taxes and the economy boomed and boomed. But Under democratic control, the congress refused regulation of the economic lenders, in spite of Republicans calling for them under McCain. Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. said no. Then the bottom finally dropped out and here we are.

If you put another democrat in the whitehouse, we will go immediately into an economic nightmare depression worse than the 1930's. The way to defeat economic troubles is to not speand money you don't have, and cut taxes for all, not some, but all Americans. Therefore, put a Republican in the Whitehous, and in the congress, and eveything will be fine.

Here's my plan that would work...

1. Suspend the 2008 income tax for all wage earners.

2. Suspend the capital gains tax for 2009

3. Encourage banks to re-negotiate mortgage loans to this present economy.

This is simple and this will work, no socialism needed.

I dont mean this in a bad way....but how old are you? Dont you notice every time theres a republican in office we are screwed? Theyve sucked the money from the bottom and middle.....it can only be at the top right?
Time for these guys to give a little back.
HEHE this is the best part of my plan. Fat chance but worth talking about. All these Elitists and big business owners and families that made money off of the war. Would have to pay it back. Every penny.

That may work. If fuel was down to a 1.00 a gallon would make it more-so. I had an elaborate plan drawn up that would have counteracted all of this. But then again, I have been writing about the way the economy is heading for the last 4 years.

My suggestion was (this was before the big fallout) to have all banks set up a renegotiating office. Al that would have been needed is one in every state. I knew we were being taken to where we are now.
My plan called for, Offsetting the principal for one year. Goverment pay the interest for the year. The offset principal would be tacked at the end of the loan.
Instead what do they do? Act like everythings fine. "Stay the course", wait until its major.....then act surprised.

They would have had to reverse the BIG tax break that was given to the elitists, fine the corporations that offshored the jobs and kept there headquarters here.
Reduce fuel prices....1.00 a gallon
Rebuild the countries infrastructure...stimulate jobs.
6 mo time, offer small business loans like never before.
offset mortgages.
If they would have done this way back when....well when I first wrote about it...we wouldnt have had the problem.
You do know what the unemployment numbers are crap right? I would be willing to bet the true unemployment figures are well above 20%, I would even be willing to bet there closer to 30%.



[edit on 13/10/08 by Douggie]

Originally posted by Douggie
It is theorized that he start the fire aboard a ship by stoking his engine in hopes of frightening a friend. This caused the death of 167 crew members.

Oh really? And your source is???????

Sorry, gonna have to throw the bullsh*t flag over this one. This has been proven to be BS since day one.

Thanks, but try again.

reply to post by jerico65


controversial maybe, bull cr*p???
Of course he isnt going to admit it, its been brushed under the rug. But will try to source my info. Its been a while since Ive read the article. Yes, it was by a sailor that survived that day.

Originally posted by Douggie
controversial maybe, bull cr*p???
Of course he isnt going to admit it, its been brushed under the rug. But will try to source my info. Its been a while since Ive read the article. Yes, it was by a sailor that survived that day.

Right. It was an electrical surge from a Zuni rocket being loaded onto an F4. It fired and struck a drop tank on either McCain's A4 or the A4 next to him. Fire started from the spilled fuel and set off the ordenance on deck.

Originally posted by Douggie
Educational Background:

Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

Where are Biden's standings in College? And you do know he was busted for plagiarizing 5 of 15 pages of a law review article at Syracuse. And he sucked up five, count 'em, five deferments to avoid getting drafted for Vietnam.

Obama went to Columbia and Harvard. Great. Just goes to show you he has no connection to the "common man" and is just an elitist. Wonder how much the arugula is going for down at Whole Foods about now???

reply to post by jerico65

Where are Biden's standings in College? And you do know he was busted for plagiarizing 5 of 15 pages of a law review article at Syracuse. And he sucked up five, count 'em, five deferments to avoid getting drafted for Vietnam.

I don't think republicans want to get into a who got deferments for what argument....(you gonna go see W. when it's out tomorrow??) Things sure took a turn for the worse when the right had to resort to "swiftboating" Kerry...who DID go to Nam. People don't forget THAT fast.

Obama went to Columbia and Harvard. Great. Just goes to show you he has no connection to the "common man" and is just an elitist. Wonder how much the arugula is going for down at Whole Foods about now???

I wonder if they serve ALL the kids that are on discount lunch and food stamps arugula?? I never got any.
(Bush went to Yale...yet he's described as a "guy you want to have a beer with.)

Double standards and Hypocrisy. The right-wing M.O. (sorry for the Latin....I know it's elitist).
Edit to add:

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Grafilthy]

reply to post by Douggie

Why would you expect them to have an opinion?

cause the GAO is the one who audits the government. It is called accountability.

Nope, Im talking about the BIG tax break Bush gave at the begining of his term. If you dont know about it....you should

I know it, do you? Why don't you tell me exacty which tax break Bush and Congress passed that has caused people to earn billions in interest?

True, But its was drawn up with good intent and used in good practice until Bush got in office....then it was rape and pillage

How is it written up with good intent when your basically telling fannie mae and banks that they have to lend money to people who can't pay no matter what?

No doubt it was needed to be done...but not while the countries facing financial disaster

The country wasn't in a financial disaster when Senator MBNA helped pass the new bankruptcy law. It was a give me to credit card companies. A disaster to Americans filing for bankruptcy.

LMAO, it was part of Bushes campaign platform. Im running out of space.

go look up Pelosi campaign promise for the democrats in 2006 and you will see she promised a common sense plan to lower gas prices and it never materialized. Unless she meant the crisis was the common sense plan. Cause evr since this crisis took off gas prices have dropped quite a bit. I would have never known that a crisis was a common sense plan.

Well better now then having a dead president to deal with and have *Apaulin take over...eeek.

Discrimination comes in all forms, shapes, and sizes and it is wrong all the way around. Talking about McCain age has no merit. He may even outlive you. Life is short.

No, I never heard Obama say he was cutting anyones taxes.

He says it all the time.

You need to explain this better, All they did is contribute to his campaign. McCain is a totally different scenario, costing billions, admittingly so.

Do you really think Fannie Mae contributed to Obama out of the kindness of their heart? They expected things in return.

reply to post by Douggie

4 of the same

your theory is just so wrong. It is projected that Democrats will be in charge of both houses of Congress. Unless the Democrats are planning to roll over and play Republicans, there is no way in hell it will be 4 of the same. The President and Congress will have to fight or agree with every issue. Now electing Obama would Constitute 4 of the same. Because then the President and Congress control everything and it is a no hold bar. They can pass anything regardless whether republicans or taxpayers agree.

Wow, Jam321 is kicking this thread square in the jimmy. Here's some more info to consider:


1999 NY Times Article Predicts the Fannie collapse and pinpoints the exact cause

Let's not be mistaken I dislike the NY Times due to their lack of objectivity but seriously they called this one like they had Nostradamus on their staff.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Also Barack Obama is the 2nd highest receiver of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions (behind the biggest hypocrite Chris Dodd).
$126,349 in 3 yrs but he's going to take on corporations and doesn't take money from lobbyist or special interest.



And lastly John McCain in 2006 saw Fannie Mae cooking the books and cosponsored "Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005" along with two other Republicans John E. Sununu and Elizabeth Dole. Of course Congress never let that see the light of day. He should have brought this up in every single debate.