[quote=hillbillyhunter1;3964307]What ever ax you have to grind about Bush has nothing to do with THE FACT that the tax rates have not changed...so for someone to imply that taxes have been lowered, as firtz did, for any other reason than lower income is just ignorant...which again, of course, is playing right into liberal hands [quote]

The fact that they did in fact give tax breaks to large corporations all the while claiming " The Trickle Down Affect " ( which is the term they used ) would help corporations. Which in turn would trickle down to all.. Did it? Not really because all those dollars saved helped alot of them move abroad..

Do you not recall this so-called trickle down affect?

Exercising your right to vote or not vote is clearly your choice. If you decide not to vote 2 things happen.

1st voting nothing gives the other guy a vote in his favor.

2nd not voting gives the no voter no right to complain about who does or does not get voted in.

So the choice is clearly yours to make.

Now with all the rants you have given do just one thing for us.. Prove this statement on exactly how much dues are actully going into the political campaigns! Do this without any insults please. Some of us have been in messes for insults so let see if you can do this without any..

Has the last ballot been cast and counted for yet? I didn't think so..

Pretty much the response you expect to get from someone who uses strawman arguments and conspiracy theories and has to sit and find out nothing he believes is true.

My true colors? My true colors are that I not only know more than you, but I can adequately put that into words.

Educated dumbarse is an oxymoron. I expect you will have to look up the word oxymoron to figure out what it means. Then again, with your proven track record of self betterment and education, probably not.

to the ones that think this is bad you should reread it or get someone that understands what it says to tell you .
this is just doing what the founding fathers were trying to do,
not let corporations have the same rights a people,but the ones within the big corporations what their corporation to have those rights. if you dont understand that hopefully you will find someone that will enlighten you to the truth.

I don't complain about Obama. I don't think he is a qualified President, but I also don't believe he has a secret laboratory somewhere, where he is secretly trying to resurrect Marx.

Also on your 1st point when you say the "other guy" that's where people are failing to comprehend something. There is no "other guy" to me. There is only an other guy when you have a candidate you want to win.

None of these guys represents me (or the people if you wanted to be honest with yourself). Therefore I will continue to pay my taxes and run my repair shop. As less people can afford new cars and need to repair their old, business is good.

Also, to anyone who thinks I "support" or "side with" Obama:

http://www.isidewith.com/results/61817939

False.

As you can see the person I best match in beliefs is not an option.

I understand this quite well. I realize that the people that run or opporate a big or small business has just as much right to vote as you or I do. No question about it.

I do not feel that big business regardless of union or not should be allowed to pay lobbyists or donate big dollars to try and turn an election to go into thier likings. They have time to lobby over ideas that come up and formed into laws that our elected officials will decide on. Again they should not be allowed to donate coporate or union funds into trying to decide an election for thier favor.

here we go again. i still got my guns.

Guess who!

No but the worst president in history can read the writing on the wall. That's why Obama and the libs keep trying to focus on anything but the economy and unemployment. They are running the dirtiest campaign ever and Obama has stooped to the lowest level of any president in history. The idiot spent spent trillions of dollars to send jobs over seas. His stimulus package was a total failure and did't do ****. Anyone who votes for Obama again, can't read, can't comprehend or wants a socialist, poor society.

After 3 1/2 years of Obamalamadingdong!:happy0157::happy0157:

It will get better after he is gone. Thank god!:party0005:

Is that why large corporations have been lining up behind O'Bama? Because of the statement you mentioned above? I guess they can not comprehend lower taxes that will take away thier bennies. Is that why some have made a statement that if the new tax proposed by the Rep. will help them decide to send more jobs abroad because once the bennies are gone they are gone forever? For as far as taxes go they simpley state that taxes can change from year to year. With none of the bennies there is little reason to believe that thier cost wouldn't go up if they stayed here?

Is it not true that we had lost more jobs abroad under the bushies? I guess when the vote is all counted most of America will not be able to read and wants a poor society..

There could be some changes as of right now or up until the election..

Zogby Poll: Obama Leads in Florida by 6
President Barack Obama has taken a six-point lead in the crucial swing state of Florida while GOP challenger Mitt Romney has a two-point edge in North Carolina, two new polls by pollster John Zogby and JZ Analytics show.
The Florida online poll of 600 likely voters, taken August 15-17, shows Obama ahead 47 to 41 percent. The president’s position is helped by a 51 percent to 39 percent lead among women and a strong showing with younger voters and Hispanics.

Judging by the exceptional spelling skills and the fact that you used an exclamation mark in place of a question mark...they appear to be one in the same person...so you.

Only trolls keep a thread like this going---just sayin!!! No comment at all on another nobrainer from Phil!!!

What was the sampling breakdown?

For fritz1, Phil, and other naysayers, here is the next thing that we have to worry about Obama doing, even though the UN talks on gun control broke down, and you guys keep saying he's nothing to worry about, LOL!


The UN Programme Against Small Arms begins meeting in New York City tomorrow, August 27th. Unlike the “Small Arms Treaty,” the Programme doesn’t require a vote in Congress.
It’s the same radical anti-gun policy, only this can be directly implemented on U.S. citizens. Some of it is already being enforced.
Hillary’s State Department recently bragged that the corrupt “Fast & Furious” and “Gunwalker” operations were implementations of the Programme. They almost sounded proud of the murder and mayhem caused by Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
In the same report, Hillary also revealed that Obama’s ongoing efforts to destroy over one million historic M1 Garands, M1 Carbines and 1911 Colt .45’s is driven by the UN Programme’s global gun grab scheme.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it [gun control],” President Obama promised Sarah Brady in a recent meeting. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
As part of the UN Programme implementation during “Fast & Furious,” Obama worked to shut down gun and ammo sales anywhere near the border. He did it via executive fiat, without any action from Congress whatsoever.
This is EXACTLY the kind of “process” they are going through “under the radar,” only now they want to take it nationwide. Firearms registration is just one of the many anti-gun schemes that is on the table next week at the Programme in New York. And in the wake of the Colorado and Wisconsin tragedies, the left-leaning media is screaming for more.
The “Small Arms Treaty” was just one of the many tools they have in their gun-grabbing tool box. Next up is the UN Programme Against Small Arms, and it’s is a HUGE opportunity to push the UN Gun Ban.
The Programme will meet from August 27th through September 7th at UN Headquarters in New York City to push the very same anti-gun agenda:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
Obama knows he must rally his anti-gun allies for November, and as already stated, he is pushing their defunct schemes “under the radar” to get the job done.

.

Topgun - chances are they will not listen to you on this either. The NRA has mentioned it. Lt. Gen. Boykin has mentioned it. I guess the Obama blinders are in full effect.

As for businesses giving money to Obama, it is not because they like his policies. Many businesses give money to candidates on both sides. This way, not matter who gets in they start calling in with what they want to see regarding polices.

It will be moot in a couple months and some change.
The Country's tired of the socialist agenda Obama has tried to ram down its throat.
Even the misguided souls who voted for him can see "hope and change" = smoke and mirrors.
As soon as the R/R team is elected, the venture capitalists and business owners will let loose and the economy will boom. Our enemies will fear and respect us again as opposed to laugh in snide derision while our "leader" bows and kowtows.
It's been a long four years, and a harsh wake-up call, but there are enough real Americans left to dump the communist crap and start over.

It doesn't matter who is in office, Obama, Romney, Mickey Mouse, the bum who lives in a box down the street, this economy is not going to do an about turn for the better in short time, no matter how much someone wants to believe it, or how amazing any economic policy is.

And while I absolutely despise Obama's weak stance with foreign politics, the world will always despise us and laugh at us, for many reasons not connected to politics at all. However, make no mistake about it, they still fear us, even today.

Reagan did it.

Most economists now agree that Reagan's policies were more harmful than not and drove us to this point. It is of theirs, and mine, opinion that trickle down economics is an utter failure.

Got a link? Names?

Greenspan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GQecQ06xus

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/op...21krugman.html

You can read the author's biography. He is a professor in economics.

lol Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Here's a more accurate angle outlining how Greenspan himself was to blame.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...pan-thinktanks

Greenspan is just as guilty as Regan, if not more so, since Greenspan was more educated on the economy. However, it is what it is.

The flaw in the logic was that the wealthy were a river of money and it would all end in the ocean of people. The reality is that the people are a river of money and the wealthy are the ocean.

The only way to fix this economy is to get cash flowing and get a handle on taxes. A static tax would be a good start. 20 or 25%, everyone pays the same percentage of their income, and no complaining about that tax level, because the debt isn't going to pay itself off.

Next is to come up with a plan to ease the tax burden on companies and corporations and to make it more expensive to manufacture and operate outside of our country.

From there the minimum wage needs to be adjusted for inflation and then indexed. A lot of business owners are actually on board with this. I will provide some reading information on it when I get home.

I concur with a static tax (of 15%), but minimum wage is just another form of entitlement; IMO it has contributed to the economic downgrade.

If we want to get back to "robust", we've got to eradicate all encroachments of socialism on our economy.

It has and will never work, anywhere. Capitalism is the cure.

A minimum wage is needed, not because people are entitled to it, but because companies will never voluntarily pay someone a livable wage. The housing market, both rent and cost of houses, is so far above what people make for a 40 hour work shift at minimum wage that the lack of one just will increase poverty.

Maybe. Or it might increase entry-level salaries for the people who have the incentive to compete for them to purchase items more significant than 300-dollar sneakers or plasma screens.

I would be willing to bet that, that is unlikely. From my own experiences in the automotive industry, companies are more willing to hire the lowest common denominator for insulting wages than pay a little more for the school trained candidates.

I'm sure that's true.

It's a certain fact that the minimum wage, as it stands, doesn't work, so they need to make one change or the other.

Yeah, I know it too!! Phil works for a living and does not set back and type on a computor all day.. I will refrain from making any insults however...

Actually RR I am a control room operator and have recieved high comments from both sides union and salaried. \If you care to know more read the Meet the Political Posters thread.. As My last post was planned then. I did make this one exception..

and then there was prevailing wage... forcing the goverment to pay a guy that is pushing a broom on a construction site $28 dollars an hour, or a guy holding a sign on the side of the road $40 an hour. I agree unions have increase wages in this country but why should the goverment have to pay 25 to 30 percent more to build a building so they can grossly over pay people. That being said a lot of union guys earn there money (carpenters at 26ish dollars an hour, Iron workers at 35ish dollars an hour, entry level police a 45 -50k a year) but some of it is just out of hand, paying unskilled individuals to perform unskilled work $28 an hour is wasted money that puts this county further in debt.

Reminds me of an ancecdote a buddy of mine told me who lost a paystub at the car lot where he's a paint and body man. The lot boy, who does nothing but clean cars and police the lot, found the stub and complained to the manager that he worked more hours that week and got paid less than my buddy.

Libthink

He did??? In my opinion Reagan was one of the WORST!!! Presidents we ever had!!!!

The only way to get a handle on this economy is to get fuel prices down. Guess who runs big oil? The Republicans! Yeah we need to give them more tax breaks so they can drive the price of fuel even higher. The high price of fuel is driving up the price of everything.

How so? Military policy? (wall down) Economic? (most robust economy since the end of WWII)

If you can document to me how Reagan was one of the "worst" presidents in history, I'll vote for a muslim communist this time.