Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Wonder what the die-hard leftist think of...

A Peach Supreme





Posts: 2986
(2987 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 08:46 PM
Wonder what the die-hard leftist think of...

moderate Dem. Lieberman speaking at the moderate Rep. McCain's convention ?

 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 08:55 PM
quote:
Wonder what the die-hard leftist think of...

moderate Dem. Lieberman speaking at the moderate Rep. McCain's convention ?


Lieberman isnt a Dem. He is registered Independent. Beyond that, he sucks.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2986
(2987 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 09:03 PM
Oh My God Squatch...Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You couldn't have made my point more eloquently !!!!!


[Edited on 9/4/2008 by Peachstatedawg]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 09:56 PM
Well, looking at your post, I see where you called McCain a moderate. He has one of the most Conservative voting records in the Senate, and approximately 90% alongside of Bush and his specific issues.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2986
(2987 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:02 PM
quote:
Well, looking at your post, I see where you called McCain a moderate. He has one of the most Conservative voting records in the Senate, and approximately 90% alongside of Bush and his specific issues.




If he is so conservative why did the moderate/ independent Lieberman speak at his convention ?


[Edited on 9/4/2008 by Peachstatedawg]

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5007
(5042 all sites)
Registered: 1/5/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:16 PM
Because they are both very pro-war and pro-Israel.

Lieberman is a hawk, and as a politician, he knows that hitching his star to John McCain is his best bet.

Obviously McCain knew exactly what he was doing in getting Lieberman - McCain is going for the swing votes, as was made obvious by his choice of Sarah Palin also.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:20 PM
quote:
Well, looking at your post, I see where you called McCain a moderate. He has one of the most Conservative voting records in the Senate, and approximately 90% alongside of Bush and his specific issues.


How misleading. How often did Barack Obama vote with President Bush? What was the ten percent he voted opposite on? What is the percentage that other Republicans vote with President Bush. Lets have some specifics here for once instead of your talking points.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67007
(67524 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:20 PM
Wott's next?



Buddy up to Rev. Al with a cabinet promise to deliver the Afro-American vote?

Grasping for straws.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2986
(2987 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:39 PM
quote:
Because they are both very pro-war and pro-Israel.

Lieberman is a hawk, and as a politician, he knows that hitching his star to John McCain is his best bet.

Obviously McCain knew exactly what he was doing in getting Lieberman - McCain is going for the swing votes, as was made obvious by his choice of Sarah Palin also.





I'll always be pro-Israel after the The holocausst in Euposte in the 30's and 40's won't you?


[Edited on 9/4/2008 by Peachstatedawg]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 26309
(26320 all sites)
Registered: 8/12/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:42 PM
quote:
quote:
Because they are both very pro-war and pro-Israel.

Lieberman is a hawk, and as a politician, he knows that hitching his star to John McCain is his best bet.

Obviously McCain knew exactly what he was doing in getting Lieberman - McCain is going for the swing votes, as was made obvious by his choice of Sarah Palin also.





I'll always be pro-Israel after the The holocausts in Europe in the 30's and 40's won't you?



Israel has a right to exist but the United States needs to reevaluate it's relationship with Israel.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5007
(5042 all sites)
Registered: 1/5/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:46 PM
No bait'n'switch please, peachdawg! Your question was why LIEBERMAN was backing McCain, not why you or me would support Israel.

And sure, I support Israel's right to exist - though they need to be held to the same standards we want to apply to everyone else.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:50 PM
quote:
quote:
Well, looking at your post, I see where you called McCain a moderate. He has one of the most Conservative voting records in the Senate, and approximately 90% alongside of Bush and his specific issues.




If he is so conservative why did the moderate/ independent Lieberman speak at his convention ?


[Edited on 9/4/2008 by Peachstatedawg]


A better question would be why he will speak at the Republican convention.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46218
(46219 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:54 PM
quote:
Wonder what the die-hard leftist think of...

moderate Dem. Lieberman speaking at the moderate Rep. McCain's convention ?


You want him, you can have him.

Here's the GOP, originators of equating a "flip-flopper" to the ultimate loser, embracing a guy that "flip-flopped" on just about everything he stood for his entire career, changing with the political winds in order to stay in office (which, as I just got done watching the RNC speeches, apparently is the ultimate in "Washington elite insider" which is all of the sudden so dangerous). The GOP can have him.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/3/2008 at 10:59 PM
quote:
How misleading.


Bullshiat. Whats misleading is painting McCain as any kind of maverick...the man is a staunch conservative and has voted with them the vast majority of time. On matters directly involving Bush, its approximately 90%.

quote:
How often did Barack Obama vote with President Bush?


Not very often I would imagine.

quote:
What was the ten percent he voted opposite on? What is the percentage that other Republicans vote with President Bush. Lets have some specifics here for once instead of your talking points.


Of all the people here, I don't think you can say that I only spout talking points. I'm more than happy and capable of backing up my claims.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index.html

Feel free to use the handy-dandy site to check all your questions. Ill save you some time and post the Obama score as far as how much his votes were alongside Bush: 40%

Sounds almost downright bipartisan.


 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2055
(2055 all sites)
Registered: 12/1/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 07:39 AM
I don't mind Joe supporting McCain, but I do mind that he lies about Obama's record to garner points with the GOP. I will be awaiting factcheck.org findings on Sarah's speech before I make commentary on it's truthfulness.

factcheck.org

GOP Convention Spin

September 3, 2008

Lieberman and Thompson make misleading claims about Obama on Day Two of the party in St. Paul.
Summary
Joe Lieberman and his former Senate colleague Fred Thompson both made misleading claims about Obama in their prime time GOP convention speeches on Tuesday. We've heard two of them before – many times.

Lieberman said Obama hadn't "reached across party lines" to accomplish "anything significant," though Obama has teamed with GOP Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Lugar to pass laws enhancing government transparency and curtailing the proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons.


Thompson repeated misleading claims about Obama's tax program, saying it would bring "one of the largest tax increases in American history." But as increases go, Obama's package is hardly a history-maker. It would raise taxes for families with incomes above $250,000. Most people would see a cut.


Lieberman also accused Obama of "voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." But Obama's only vote against a war-funding bill came after Bush vetoed a version of the bill Obama had supported – and McCain urged the veto.
Analysis
We found a few factual issues in Tuesday night's big-name speeches at the convention in Minnesota's Twin Cities.


Obama on Your Side


Sen. Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat (now Independent) who supports McCain, accused Obama of not reaching out to the other side:

Lieberman: In the Senate, during the three-and-a-half years that Senator Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to get accomplish anything significant. ...

We don't know what Lieberman considers "significant." But Obama has co-sponsored bills with members of the other party, some of which have been noteworthy. Obama and Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, for instance, teamed up on an initiative to lock down and secure both nuclear and conventional weapons worldwide, such as the shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles that have been proliferating in recent years. According to a report on the bill by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the legislation "enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world; and (2) the United States' ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction." Lugar hasn't objected to Obama's characterization of their partnership or the bill, which became law in 2007, in his ads.

Another example: Obama worked with Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, to write the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which created a searchable database the public can use to look up details on federal grants and contracts. (McCain was also among the original co-sponsors of that bill, so Lieberman may have been tarring his own candidate when he disparaged Obama's legislative accomplishments). Obama and Coburn also got together on a bill to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from issuing open-ended, no-bid contracts for emergency response activities after abuses were found in post-Katrina contracting.


The Truth on Taxes (Again)


Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who was in the race himself earlier this year, banged the now-familiar tax drum in his denunciation of Obama when he said, "You don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history."

We've been here before (repeatedly), but we're happy to reiterate: What Obama is proposing is indeed a substantial tax increase for some, but not for most. Overall, Obama says he would raise income, capital gains and dividend taxes only for taxpayers with family income above $250,000 or singles making more than $200,000. He would also raise corporate taxes through selective “loophole closings.”

For most taxpayers rates would go down. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has described his plan this way:

Tax Policy Center: The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers. ... By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase — a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

It’s true that Obama’s tax proposals overall would raise federal revenues by $627 billion over 10 years. Is that “one of the largest tax increases in American history” as Thompson claimed? And would it be a drag on the economy as he says?

When it comes to assessing the effect that a tax change will have on the economy, the single most relevant figure is the size of the increase or cut in relation to the size of the overall economy. And by that yardstick, Obama’s increase is hardly a history-maker. The largest was the 1942 increase enacted as the U.S. plunged into World War II, and it amounted to 5.2 percent of the entire economy in its first year.

President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase, which Republicans regularly and misleadingly call the largest in history, was actually about one-tenth as large, amounting to 0.5 percent of the economy over its first two years. The TPC calculates that Obama’s overall tax increase, as described by his aides and on his Web site, would be roughly 0.1 percent in its first year, and 0.3 percent on average over 10 years, compared with what people are paying now.

And how would that affect the economy? Not much. The TPC says, “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.” The tax plans of both Obama and McCain would leave the federal government wallowing in huge deficits for years to come, and compared with the economic drag created by deficit spending, the effects of either man’s tax plan is negligible.


Troop Funding Foul Play


Lieberman also said that "colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." That's a highly misleading claim that McCain also touted in an ad this summer. Obama has voted in favor of war-funding bills at least 10 times since becoming a senator. The McCain camp and Republicans cite one vote Obama cast against a funding bill as justification for their claim – but that vote came after President Bush had vetoed a version of the bill that included a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

In fact, most Republicans voted against that 2007 war-funding bill Obama and the Democrats supported. McCain was absent for the vote, but he urged the president to veto the bill. As we said about this subject previously, "Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that ‘McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.’ But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading." And the same goes for Lieberman’s claim at the convention.

 

____________________
Copying from a single source is called plagiarism, copying from multiple source is called research.....

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6276
(6294 all sites)
Registered: 7/6/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 10:50 AM


moderate Dem. Lieberman speaking at the moderate Rep. McCain's convention [/img]

Lieberman is a WORM. Can't win your Democratic primary, go solo, to salvage your political career. When/if Obama wins in November he'll disappear. Good riddance I say.

[Edited on 9/4/2008 by CowboyNeil]

 

____________________
Life is too short! Your either a brother or another

 
E-Mail User

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 10:54 AM
quote:


Lieberman is a WORM. Can't win your Democratic primary, go solo, to salvage your political career. When/if Obama wins in November he'll disappear. Good riddance I say.


Bitter, are we? Perhaps one might consider the reasons why Leiberman, like Zell Miller before him, abandoned the party he's been in all his life.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6276
(6294 all sites)
Registered: 7/6/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 11:44 AM
quote:
Bitter, are we? Perhaps one might consider the reasons why Leiberman, like Zell Miller before him, abandoned the party he's been in all his life.


Not bitter at all, just answering what I thought of Lieberman.

............and I believe he abandoned the party because he lost the Primary the last time Conneticut held an election.

If ya don't want to hear what folks think then don't ask a question.

 

____________________
Life is too short! Your either a brother or another

 
E-Mail User

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 11:52 AM
quote:
quote:
Bitter, are we? Perhaps one might consider the reasons why Leiberman, like Zell Miller before him, abandoned the party he's been in all his life.


Not bitter at all, just answering what I thought of Lieberman.

............and I believe he abandoned the party because he lost the Primary the last time Conneticut held an election.

If ya don't want to hear what folks think then don't ask a question.




I didn't ask. BTW, Lieberman lost the primary and still won the election.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6276
(6294 all sites)
Registered: 7/6/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 11:56 AM
I was responding to the title of the thread.

Democracy is wonderful, however he is a WORM in my opinion. Enuff time wasted on him, enjoy the day!

 

____________________
Life is too short! Your either a brother or another

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 11:59 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Bitter, are we? Perhaps one might consider the reasons why Leiberman, like Zell Miller before him, abandoned the party he's been in all his life.


Not bitter at all, just answering what I thought of Lieberman.

............and I believe he abandoned the party because he lost the Primary the last time Conneticut held an election.

If ya don't want to hear what folks think then don't ask a question.




I didn't ask. BTW, Lieberman lost the primary and still won the election.


so he is a loser than still won

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18593
(18594 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 12:11 PM
quote:
Wonder what the die-hard leftist think of...moderate Dem. Lieberman speaking at the moderate Rep. McCain's convention ?

Probably something similar to the die-hard right wingers thoughts on Republicans like U.S. Rep. Jim Leach or U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel (long time McCain friend and supporter) or Jim Whitaker (Fairbanks, AK mayor and former McCain supporter) coming out and supporting BARACK Obama I would guess.

 

____________________
"Come on down to the Mermaid Cafe and I will buy you a bottle of wine, and we'll laugh and toast to nothing and smash our empty glasses down..."

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8375
(8376 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 12:53 PM
Patty: I find this portion of your post interesting, and a bit misleading. I know these are not your words, so my retort is not directed to what you said, just the data you posted -

quote:
The Truth on Taxes (Again)


Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who was in the race himself earlier this year, banged the now-familiar tax drum in his denunciation of Obama when he said, "You don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history."

We've been here before (repeatedly), but we're happy to reiterate: What Obama is proposing is indeed a substantial tax increase for some, but not for most. Overall, Obama says he would raise income, capital gains and dividend taxes only for taxpayers with family income above $250,000 or singles making more than $200,000. He would also raise corporate taxes through selective “loophole closings.”

For most taxpayers rates would go down. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has described his plan this way:

Tax Policy Center: The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers. ... By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase — a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

It’s true that Obama’s tax proposals overall would raise federal revenues by $627 billion over 10 years. Is that “one of the largest tax increases in American history” as Thompson claimed? And would it be a drag on the economy as he says?

When it comes to assessing the effect that a tax change will have on the economy, the single most relevant figure is the size of the increase or cut in relation to the size of the overall economy. And by that yardstick, Obama’s increase is hardly a history-maker. The largest was the 1942 increase enacted as the U.S. plunged into World War II, and it amounted to 5.2 percent of the entire economy in its first year.

President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase, which Republicans regularly and misleadingly call the largest in history, was actually about one-tenth as large, amounting to 0.5 percent of the economy over its first two years. The TPC calculates that Obama’s overall tax increase, as described by his aides and on his Web site, would be roughly 0.1 percent in its first year, and 0.3 percent on average over 10 years, compared with what people are paying now.

And how would that affect the economy? Not much. The TPC says, “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.” The tax plans of both Obama and McCain would leave the federal government wallowing in huge deficits for years to come, and compared with the economic drag created by deficit spending, the effects of either man’s tax plan is negligible.



This accounts on for the subject of Federal income tax only. In that regard, I have little doubt its accurate. But like Paul Harvey used to say; "and now for the rest of the story"

We are not only taxed directly on our income, but indirectly, with taxes and fees that are buried in the prices of everything we buy. This route is a favorite with politicians, because just like they are doing now, they can claim to lower taxes on individuals while at the same time raising the cost of living for almost everyone through these actions. They can further count on the ignorance of most citizens in understanding this, and more; they can play on class envy sympathies by talking of raising taxes on business to the cheers of the ignorant who do not realize these actions will cost each of them.

Obama is following exactly this path with his discussions of raising business taxes and going after windfall profits. This is typical populist rhetoric that is many decades old. So much for change and new ideas.

It's estimated that at least 20% of the cost of all the goods and services we all buy go to funding these hidden taxes and fees. One of the beauties of the Fair Tax is that it removes all taxes on business and brings these hidden costs where they belong: in the open light of day as an all-inclusive sales tax.

So before we start toasting Obama for being the better tax-cutter, lets understand the issue in its fullest sense.



 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46218
(46219 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 12:59 PM
quote:
Patty: I find this portion of your post interesting, and a bit misleading. I know these are not your words, so my retort is not directed to what you said, just the data you posted -

quote:
The Truth on Taxes (Again)


Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who was in the race himself earlier this year, banged the now-familiar tax drum in his denunciation of Obama when he said, "You don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history."

We've been here before (repeatedly), but we're happy to reiterate: What Obama is proposing is indeed a substantial tax increase for some, but not for most. Overall, Obama says he would raise income, capital gains and dividend taxes only for taxpayers with family income above $250,000 or singles making more than $200,000. He would also raise corporate taxes through selective “loophole closings.”

For most taxpayers rates would go down. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has described his plan this way:

Tax Policy Center: The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers. ... By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase — a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

It’s true that Obama’s tax proposals overall would raise federal revenues by $627 billion over 10 years. Is that “one of the largest tax increases in American history” as Thompson claimed? And would it be a drag on the economy as he says?

When it comes to assessing the effect that a tax change will have on the economy, the single most relevant figure is the size of the increase or cut in relation to the size of the overall economy. And by that yardstick, Obama’s increase is hardly a history-maker. The largest was the 1942 increase enacted as the U.S. plunged into World War II, and it amounted to 5.2 percent of the entire economy in its first year.

President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase, which Republicans regularly and misleadingly call the largest in history, was actually about one-tenth as large, amounting to 0.5 percent of the economy over its first two years. The TPC calculates that Obama’s overall tax increase, as described by his aides and on his Web site, would be roughly 0.1 percent in its first year, and 0.3 percent on average over 10 years, compared with what people are paying now.

And how would that affect the economy? Not much. The TPC says, “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.” The tax plans of both Obama and McCain would leave the federal government wallowing in huge deficits for years to come, and compared with the economic drag created by deficit spending, the effects of either man’s tax plan is negligible.



This accounts on for the subject of Federal income tax only. In that regard, I have little doubt its accurate. But like Paul Harvey used to say; "and now for the rest of the story"

We are not only taxed directly on our income, but indirectly, with taxes and fees that are buried in the prices of everything we buy. This route is a favorite with politicians, because just like they are doing now, they can claim to lower taxes on individuals while at the same time raising the cost of living for almost everyone through these actions. They can further count on the ignorance of most citizens in understanding this, and more; they can play on class envy sympathies by talking of raising taxes on business to the cheers of the ignorant who do not realize these actions will cost each of them.

Obama is following exactly this path with his discussions of raising business taxes and going after windfall profits. This is typical populist rhetoric that is many decades old. So much for change and new ideas.

It's estimated that at least 20% of the cost of all the goods and services we all buy go to funding these hidden taxes and fees. One of the beauties of the Fair Tax is that it removes all taxes on business and brings these hidden costs where they belong: in the open light of day as an all-inclusive sales tax.

So before we start toasting Obama for being the better tax-cutter, lets understand the issue in its fullest sense.






You know, Rich, I don't care about McCain, Obama or anyone else...politicians can talk about tax cuts all they want. Until someone (anyone?) gets serious about cutting spending, it's all a wash.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3636
(3636 all sites)
Registered: 5/1/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/4/2008 at 01:10 PM
Hawk and Rich - you guys are dead on, and I'll add two more things.

First, we, the whole country, have to accept that the defict and the debt are too high and must be reduced. With that acceptance comes an understanding that we've borrowed long enough and now have a commitment to repay.

Second, repayment: No one thing is going to be the fix. We have to EVERYTHING. Higher taxes, lower spending across the board. We're all going to have to pay higher taxes. As far as spending, nothing can be spared. No entitlement is too sacred.

 

____________________
Walk down on the street and leave, my blues at home

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com