PDA

View Full Version : When You Get to the Voting Booth



IS27NY
08-05-2008, 11:36 PM
This is not at all a racist thread, and in no way am I rascist I just don't like Obama for his political ideas.

But what I am wondering is do you think when the people start going to the voting booth will the people standing on the fence (as in undecided) on Obama will they really contemplate the race issue.

Don't be ignorant and rascist because I think this is a definite issue for the Democratic voters in the south.

BG7
08-05-2008, 11:41 PM
Given I was able to draw that arrow to Obama during the primaries, I think that I will be able to draw the arrow to Obama, or whatever little fun game they make us play for the general election, to Obama, in November.

yaowowrocket11
08-05-2008, 11:54 PM
It could be an issue for other people, but not me. My father is kind of racist, but that has nothing to do with this thread. I will be voting Obama.

SmthBluCitrus
08-06-2008, 09:17 AM
I can't give an accurate representation of southern undecided voters. I really only know one southerner, my best friend, and she's been living in "Yankee territory" for the better part of a decade.

She's generally a-political. But this cycle, she's fully supporting Obama. She's also motivated because she lost her little sister in Iraq to an IED. Her parents have stated they're not voting. They generally vote Republican, but they just don't want John McCain for his every changing policies.

Race is not an issue for them, they just don't want to be a part of a process that they believed ultimately had an effect on their youngest daughter.

tomno00
08-06-2008, 10:46 AM
i dont care what color obama is, im still not voting for him

Shieldsz
08-06-2008, 11:08 AM
As many people vote against him for the race issue, many people will vote with him because of his race.

BG7
08-06-2008, 06:30 PM
Shouldn't racist voters love Obama? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wSv6mkSXXQ

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-06-2008, 06:36 PM
i dont care what color obama is, im still not voting for him

Same, I am not for entitlements or socialism for that matter. Those are my main reasons for not voting for him.

CubsGirl
08-06-2008, 08:27 PM
This is not at all a racist thread, and in no way am I rascist I just don't like Obama for his political ideas.

But what I am wondering is do you think when the people start going to the voting booth will the people standing on the fence (as in undecided) on Obama will they really contemplate the race issue.

Don't be ignorant and rascist because I think this is a definite issue for the Democratic voters in the south.
I think more people will be voting against him because Obama Sounds Like Osama and His Middle Name Is Hussein. Its the same level of idiocy, but this way the racists have a justification that doesnt make them sound like racists.

b1e9a8r5s
08-06-2008, 09:11 PM
As many people vote against him for the race issue, many people will vote with him because of his race.

I completely agree. There are just as many people who want Obama to be president for what it would mean (first black president) as don't want him because he is black. In a perfect world, everyone would take the time to read up on both candidates and make an informed decision, but we all now that doesn't happen with everyone.

Skippington
08-06-2008, 09:33 PM
This is not at all a racist thread, and in no way am I rascist I just don't like Obama for his political ideas..

Exactly what is wrong with this country today. If you don't agree with a mans politics, you have to precede your statement with a disclaimer of sorts.

The man could be green for all i care. He's a tried and true Marxist. I don't vote for reds.

ari1013
08-06-2008, 10:05 PM
Same, I am not for entitlements or socialism for that matter. Those are my main reasons for not voting for him.
Sucks to be you then. No place to go in the developed world. Entitlements are a fact of life. But there's always Zimbabwe.

ari1013
08-06-2008, 10:06 PM
Exactly what is wrong with this country today. If you don't agree with a mans politics, you have to precede your statement with a disclaimer of sorts.

The man could be green for all i care. He's a tried and true Marxist. I don't vote for reds.
Aside from calling him names, do you have any proof to back that up?

nascar10294
08-06-2008, 10:22 PM
Its natural. Everyone will be biased with that. No one can deny it.

ari1013
08-06-2008, 11:59 PM
Its natural. Everyone will be biased with that. No one can deny it.
When I go vote for him in November it won't have anything to do with him being Black. I believe his economic, health, and education policies will be better than McCain's. And that's what does it for me.

Ironically, back in September 2007, if I had to rank the candidates in terms of their policies that I care about, it would have looked like this:

1. Romney
2. Dodd
3. Edwards
4. Richardson
5. Obama
6. McCain
7. Clinton
8. Biden


After all the flip-flopping during the start of the primaries:
1. Obama
2. Dodd
3. Edwards
4. Romney -- still hoping he'd revert back to his Mass gov past.
5. McCain

But now that the third round of flip-flopping has arrived, it's pretty clear to me that John McCain wouldn't be able to do a lick of good for the economy, so there's really no question, Obama's the only candidate I could see myself voting for in November.

DenButsu
08-07-2008, 12:09 AM
He's a tried and true Marxist. I don't vote for reds.

Have you ever read a book by Karl Marx?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-07-2008, 10:37 AM
Exactly what is wrong with this country today. If you don't agree with a mans politics, you have to precede your statement with a disclaimer of sorts.

The man could be green for all i care. He's a tried and true Marxist. I don't vote for reds.

please educate your self on civics and political philosophy before making ignorant statements like this

b1e9a8r5s
08-07-2008, 10:43 AM
When I go vote for him in November it won't have anything to do with him being Black. I believe his economic, health, and education policies will be better than McCain's. And that's what does it for me.

Ironically, back in September 2007, if I had to rank the candidates in terms of their policies that I care about, it would have looked like this:

1. Romney
2. Dodd
3. Edwards
4. Richardson
5. Obama
6. McCain
7. Clinton
8. Biden


After all the flip-flopping during the start of the primaries:
1. Obama
2. Dodd
3. Edwards
4. Romney -- still hoping he'd revert back to his Mass gov past.
5. McCain

But now that the third round of flip-flopping has arrived, it's pretty clear to me that John McCain wouldn't be able to do a lick of good for the economy, so there's really no question, Obama's the only candidate I could see myself voting for in November.

I was wondering if you'd elaborate on why you like Obama's economic plan and not McCain's? I must admit, I'm not blown away by either and everything I've read has basically said that neither will have a significant impact (short term) on the economy.

ari1013
08-07-2008, 02:51 PM
I was wondering if you'd elaborate on why you like Obama's economic plan and not McCain's? I must admit, I'm not blown away by either and everything I've read has basically said that neither will have a significant impact (short term) on the economy.
Sure. Just to give you the basics:

1. Obama supports a reinvigoration of the economy via job creation at the federal level. He recognizes that our infrastructure needs help and that it would be a good source of employment for many of the structurally unemployed manufacturing workers in our economy.

2. Both candidates support tax cuts, though the type of the cuts differ. Obama's cuts primarily benefit the bottom 80%, while McCain's cuts primarily benefit the top 20%. As far as increasing GDP, a tax cut MUST be followed by an increase in consumption. Since the bottom 80% have a much higher propensity to consume than the top 20%, more consumption will follow from Obama's plan.

3. Both support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Columbian agreement.

4. Both support alternative energy development and the start of drilling. Obama supports the "Gang of 10" proposal which calls for opening up areas for new drilling as well as increased federal spending for alternative fuels -- the costs of which would be met by repealing several of the tax waivers that oil companies receive. Due to that last stanza, McCain is against it.

5. Obama supports increases in TAP and voted for an increase in GI education benefits. McCain voted against those measures.

All in all, with the economy on the down-swing (the most favorable projections have us barely avoiding a recession), I feel safer with Obama's fiscal policy.

tomno00
08-07-2008, 03:26 PM
democrat economic plans may be good in the short run, but they fail in the long run..

if 75% of the people in the country work for small type businesses and the government decides that it would be best to increase the taxes on these companies to create funding for these short-term federal jobs, then explain to me how this would be beneficial in the long-run... Throw in the fact that 1 out of 10 businesses fail in the first six months, then where is the incentive for people to go out on a limb and try to succeed on their own?

And obama, who doesnt like even paying taxes himself (most of his money in tax-free municipal bonds), writes a book and makes 5 million on it. MAKE him pay more tax... What has he done to stimulate the economy? Meanwhile the manufacturer down the street who has supplied his/her local communinty with 30-50 jobs has to reach even further into the checkbook to supply funding to the brillant-minded politicans in washington. Its messed up.

ari1013
08-07-2008, 06:43 PM
democrat economic plans may be good in the short run, but they fail in the long run..

if 75% of the people in the country work for small type businesses and the government decides that it would be best to increase the taxes on these companies to create funding for these short-term federal jobs, then explain to me how this would be beneficial in the long-run... Throw in the fact that 1 out of 10 businesses fail in the first six months, then where is the incentive for people to go out on a limb and try to succeed on their own?

And obama, who doesnt like even paying taxes himself (most of his money in tax-free municipal bonds), writes a book and makes 5 million on it. MAKE him pay more tax... What has he done to stimulate the economy? Meanwhile the manufacturer down the street who has supplied his/her local communinty with 30-50 jobs has to reach even further into the checkbook to supply funding to the brillant-minded politicans in washington. Its messed up.
????

Was that a reply to my post? It really made no sense.

Fiscal policy works in two ways. One is that you can spend money which, as you said, tends to have positive shortrun effects, but can choke out investment if it's used as a longrun solution. Two is you can cut taxes to increase disposable income. That has positive shortun effects, but it can lead to problems in the longrun when deficits get out of control and the currency depreciates.

All in all, fiscal policy is PURELY a shortrun deal.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-07-2008, 09:15 PM
Sucks to be you then. No place to go in the developed world. Entitlements are a fact of life. But there's always Zimbabwe.

You can't possibly believe entitlements are correct, and no are country isn't nearly as bad with entitlements when a Republican is in office. Entitlements is what brings our country down, people sitting on their *** sucking up money that they don't even work for. Steal from the rich and give to the poor is no way to run a country. The reason people go to school and try to become successful is because they want to be rich and have a great life. If thats not there then why would people bother trying hard at any point in there life.

DenButsu
08-07-2008, 09:26 PM
Steal from the rich and give to the poor is no way to run a country.

Maybe I'm just a fan of Robin Hood style justice, but I like it a lot better than steal from the majority and give to the rich, which is basically the Republican way - "trickle down".

Lady's Man
08-07-2008, 09:48 PM
Maybe I'm just a fan of Robin Hood style justice, but I like it a lot better than steal from the majority and give to the rich, which is basically the Republican way - "trickle down".

and wow you couldnt be any more wrong

Lady's Man
08-07-2008, 09:49 PM
democrat economic plans may be good in the short run, but they fail in the long run..

if 75% of the people in the country work for small type businesses and the government decides that it would be best to increase the taxes on these companies to create funding for these short-term federal jobs, then explain to me how this would be beneficial in the long-run... Throw in the fact that 1 out of 10 businesses fail in the first six months, then where is the incentive for people to go out on a limb and try to succeed on their own?

And obama, who doesnt like even paying taxes himself (most of his money in tax-free municipal bonds), writes a book and makes 5 million on it. MAKE him pay more tax... What has he done to stimulate the economy? Meanwhile the manufacturer down the street who has supplied his/her local communinty with 30-50 jobs has to reach even further into the checkbook to supply funding to the brillant-minded politicans in washington. Its messed up.

:clap:

DenButsu
08-07-2008, 10:08 PM
and wow you couldnt be any more wrong

That trickle down isn't stealing from the majority and giving to the rich?

No, that's right.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-07-2008, 10:25 PM
That trickle down isn't stealing from the majority and giving to the rich?

No, that's right.

Whats wrong with stealing from the majority? Isn't that the most fair way to do it? I don't know just wondering.

ari1013
08-07-2008, 10:27 PM
You can't possibly believe entitlements are correct, and no are country isn't nearly as bad with entitlements when a Republican is in office. Entitlements is what brings our country down, people sitting on their *** sucking up money that they don't even work for. Steal from the rich and give to the poor is no way to run a country. The reason people go to school and try to become successful is because they want to be rich and have a great life. If thats not there then why would people bother trying hard at any point in there life.
Sucks to be you then because the only time we've ever really had a decrease in entitlement spending was under a Democrat. The United States has the weakest unemployment benefit system in the entire developed world, but that's clearly still too much for you.

So how about when you lose your job you voluntarily give back your UI benefits. That way you won't be hurting the rich.

Or you could face facts and realize that in 99% of the world, there is some sort of an entitlement system in place so there's no escaping it.

ari1013
08-07-2008, 10:29 PM
:clap:
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-07-2008, 11:48 PM
Sucks to be you then because the only time we've ever really had a decrease in entitlement spending was under a Democrat. The United States has the weakest unemployment benefit system in the entire developed world, but that's clearly still too much for you.

So how about when you lose your job you voluntarily give back your UI benefits. That way you won't be hurting the rich.

Or you could face facts and realize that in 99% of the world, there is some sort of an entitlement system in place so there's no escaping it.

Grow up man..

No really there are going to be entitlement. The problem is though democrats think its alright to take advantage of them and stretch them past a point where they aren't correct.

DenButsu
08-08-2008, 12:35 AM
Grow up man..

No really there are going to be entitlement. The problem is though democrats think its alright to take advantage of them and stretch them past a point where they aren't correct.

Right. Like providing too many food stamps to people who can't afford food every week so that they end up with (gasp!) more of the cheapest possible groceries than they can eat.

What a terrible thing, compared to the bankrupting of our national treasury into the bank accounts of Halliburton, Exxon and Blackwater. Not that's some entitlements for ya! :clap:

ari1013
08-08-2008, 09:44 AM
Grow up man..

No really there are going to be entitlement. The problem is though democrats think its alright to take advantage of them and stretch them past a point where they aren't correct.
Sorry to be your dream crusher, but you know, reality does exist out there. Might want to turn off the Talk Radio and actually look around for yourself.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-08-2008, 12:23 PM
Sorry to be your dream crusher, but you know, reality does exist out there. Might want to turn off the Talk Radio and actually look around for yourself.

ahh! I recognized those talking points from my idols Rush and Hannity as well. Those guys are geniuses!:rolleyes: at least from a brainwashing perspective

KaiserZr
08-08-2008, 08:58 PM
I personally don't believe in giving out free money if you don't work for it. I know what it is like to struggle with finances when my dad died and my mom was not able to work at the time. Instead of my mom looking for a bunch of hand outs or blame the government for the lack of finances she went back to school got her nursing degree and now makes quite abit more money.

My philosophy is instead of crying about the lack of money or how the rich people keep getting more, I better myself in my own abilities and earn the high paying jobs that are out there.

So you know I am voting McCain, though I don't like either one of them, I will take the guy who I can agree with a tad bit more. Also I don't listen to talk radio, not my type of thing I rather be listening to my zune.

Drucifer
08-08-2008, 09:39 PM
This is not at all a racist thread, and in no way am I rascist I just don't like Obama for his political ideas.

But what I am wondering is do you think when the people start going to the voting booth will the people standing on the fence (as in undecided) on Obama will they really contemplate the race issue.

Don't be ignorant and rascist because I think this is a definite issue for the Democratic voters in the south.They are pretty far apart in their political views, so if a person is still undecided, I'm pretty sure they're brain dead to begin with -- so yes, there will be 'many' on both sides that will choose over the candidate race.

ari1013
08-08-2008, 09:42 PM
I personally don't believe in giving out free money if you don't work for it. I know what it is like to struggle with finances when my dad died and my mom was not able to work at the time. Instead of my mom looking for a bunch of hand outs or blame the government for the lack of finances she went back to school got her nursing degree and now makes quite abit more money.

My philosophy is instead of crying about the lack of money or how the rich people keep getting more, I better myself in my own abilities and earn the high paying jobs that are out there.

So you know I am voting McCain, though I don't like either one of them, I will take the guy who I can agree with a tad bit more. Also I don't listen to talk radio, not my type of thing I rather be listening to my zune.
Two dreams in two days...

Almost all night classes are subsidized by the state.

Sorry!

KaiserZr
08-08-2008, 09:59 PM
what are you talking about...if your talking about my mom going back to school she went during the day as you could only take clinicals during the day. Also the government didn't pay for it...so sorry!

SmthBluCitrus
08-08-2008, 10:12 PM
So, you mean to tell us that your mom went to daytime nursing classes and completely paid for it by herself with zero government funding (i.e. hardship scholarships for a widowed single mother)?

I highly doubt that, considering your families self-proclaimed "financial struggles."

Do I think that it's great that your mom went back to school and better educated herself to allow herself to succeed in the workplace? Sure do! But, I guarantee that she had some sort of government "free money hand out."

ari1013
08-09-2008, 09:40 AM
So, you mean to tell us that your mom went to daytime nursing classes and completely paid for it by herself with zero government funding (i.e. hardship scholarships for a widowed single mother)?

I highly doubt that, considering your families self-proclaimed "financial struggles."

Do I think that it's great that your mom went back to school and better educated herself to allow herself to succeed in the workplace? Sure do! But, I guarantee that she had some sort of government "free money hand out."
Even if she didn't get any scholarships, if she went to a state school, the government picked up the bulk of the tab. If she was in a continuing ed program in a private school, the state picked up a share of the tab.

Out here Washington University (top 15 private school) offers continuing ed at 1/3 the cost of regular tuition. The other 2/3s is covered by their endowment and the taxpayers of the state of Missouri.

Bobby Cox
08-09-2008, 08:30 PM
or you could live in georgia, where the lottery pays for eveyone's tuition, if you have a "B" average or better

Bobby Cox
08-09-2008, 08:36 PM
I personally don't believe in giving out free money if you don't work for it. I know what it is like to struggle with finances when my dad died and my mom was not able to work at the time. Instead of my mom looking for a bunch of hand outs or blame the government for the lack of finances she went back to school got her nursing degree and now makes quite abit more money.

My philosophy is instead of crying about the lack of money or how the rich people keep getting more, I better myself in my own abilities and earn the high paying jobs that are out there.

So you know I am voting McCain, though I don't like either one of them, I will take the guy who I can agree with a tad bit more. Also I don't listen to talk radio, not my type of thing I rather be listening to my zune.

i feel the same way. Obama is a socialist, there is no other way to put it. He wants to punish those who find success in this country with hefty taxes. What else would you call it?
And quite frankly, what has obama accomplished in his life that allows him to make such rediculous statments? Has he ever runned a buisness? All he has done so far is collect his own money from the government. He has no expierence in corporate america and has absoultely no idea how a successful business should be runned. This is why i wanted romney or even bloomberg.

DenButsu
08-09-2008, 08:51 PM
Obama is a socialist, there is no other way to put it.

Actually, there is. The way that's not lying:

Obama is NOT a socialist.



Who's pushing this "socialist" label, anyways? Rush? I see it pop up all the time here, and all it makes me wonder is a) whose lies are these posters repeating and b) don't they know they're making themselves look foolish by advertising the fact that they apparently have no understanding of socialism or democracy?


Go to your local bookstore, people, and pick up something like "Political Science 101" if you want to be able to understand the labels you're slapping around so casually as if they were indisputably true.


Pretty soon here I'm going to have to say something painfully honest and then give myself an infraction for it and edit my own post.

ari1013
08-09-2008, 10:52 PM
or you could live in georgia, where the lottery pays for eveyone's tuition, if you have a "B" average or better
And who runs the lottery? The state.

ari1013
08-09-2008, 10:53 PM
i feel the same way. Obama is a socialist, there is no other way to put it. He wants to punish those who find success in this country with hefty taxes. What else would you call it?
And quite frankly, what has obama accomplished in his life that allows him to make such rediculous statments? Has he ever runned a buisness? All he has done so far is collect his own money from the government. He has no expierence in corporate america and has absoultely no idea how a successful business should be runned. This is why i wanted romney or even bloomberg.
Has McCain ever "runned a business?"

George W. Bush "runned" a few into the ground before he was president, does that count?

ink
08-09-2008, 10:56 PM
Pretty soon here I'm going to have to say something painfully honest and then give myself an infraction for it and edit my own post.

:laugh2: Yep. Me too.

Bobby Cox
08-10-2008, 11:23 AM
Has McCain ever "runned a business?"

George W. Bush "runned" a few into the ground before he was president, does that count?

which is why i said i preferred romney or bloomberg..... and daddy bush is the one that gave george all those businesses, so no i dont consider bush a successful business owner

Bobby Cox
08-10-2008, 11:25 AM
Actually, there is. The way that's not lying:

Obama is NOT a socialist.



Who's pushing this "socialist" label, anyways? Rush? I see it pop up all the time here, and all it makes me wonder is a) whose lies are these posters repeating and b) don't they know they're making themselves look foolish by advertising the fact that they apparently have no understanding of socialism or democracy?


Go to your local bookstore, people, and pick up something like "Political Science 101" if you want to be able to understand the labels you're slapping around so casually as if they were indisputably true.


Pretty soon here I'm going to have to say something painfully honest and then give myself an infraction for it and edit my own post.

dude i study this all day. i am getting my major in political science and international affairs, so i know more about politics that most people do in this country. Obama may not be a full blown socialist, but he practices socialist ideas... Taking from those who are successful and giving to those who arent is a socialist idea.

Bobby Cox
08-10-2008, 11:32 AM
And who runs the lottery? The state.

and the people... cant have a lottery if no one buys the tickets... right?

such an incredible simplistic idea and yet we are the only state that does it..

Lady's Man
08-10-2008, 12:56 PM
Actually, there is. The way that's not lying:

Obama is NOT a socialist.



Who's pushing this "socialist" label, anyways? Rush? I see it pop up all the time here, and all it makes me wonder is a) whose lies are these posters repeating and b) don't they know they're making themselves look foolish by advertising the fact that they apparently have no understanding of socialism or democracy?


Go to your local bookstore, people, and pick up something like "Political Science 101" if you want to be able to understand the labels you're slapping around so casually as if they were indisputably true.


Pretty soon here I'm going to have to say something painfully honest and then give myself an infraction for it and edit my own post.

haha come on man, what else would you call his agenda?

How about government interference into private corporations and taking windfall profits from oil companies or re-distribution of the wealth? I believe these things qualify.

Government run health care IS a socialistic program, and it does not work for social security as it is going bankrupt.

The fact that he wants to grow a big government to have big control and regulation in our lives is also a factor in socialism

Obama aspires to hold some or all of the basic industries of our society, ( ie; oil, construction, communications and medicine, etc.) should be under government ownership or authority

ink
08-10-2008, 01:39 PM
haha come on man, what else would you call his agenda?

Civilized.

But it's not socialist.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-10-2008, 01:51 PM
Everyone having the same health care is pretty socialist if you ask me.

People who work hard for their money and are rich are the ones that will be hurting with a lot of Obama's ideas.

Its not fair that some people are poor, but its just as unfair to take money from people who worked hard for it.

ink
08-10-2008, 01:56 PM
Everyone having the same health care is pretty socialist if you ask me.

People who work hard for their money and are rich are the ones that will be hurting with a lot of Obama's ideas.

Its not fair that some people are poor, but its just as unfair to take money from people who worked hard for it.

But that's not socialism. And taxes are paid in conservative countries around the world. Sharing wealth isn't unfair, in fact it's one of the great tenets of world religions ... it's certainly a judeo-christian ideal:


"Be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land" (Deut. 15:11)

There's nothing radical, evil or new about the idea of sharing wealth.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-10-2008, 02:08 PM
But that's not socialism. And taxes are paid in conservative countries around the world. Sharing wealth isn't unfair, in fact it's one of the great tenets of world religions ... it's certainly a judeo-christian ideal. There's nothing radical, evil or new about the idea of sharing wealth.

It's not right though. It just isn't what our country is made of, we should strive to become rich to become successful to say the least. If we tax the big business and if we tax the family with more money why would we want to work hard to get there. Instead you can work half of what that person works and still make relatively the same salary. That doesn't make sense if you ask me, no matter what you say to that it's not right period.

ink
08-10-2008, 02:14 PM
It's not right though. It just isn't what our country is made of, we should strive to become rich to become successful to say the least. If we tax the big business and if we tax the family with more money why would we want to work hard to get there. Instead you can work half of what that person works and still make relatively the same salary. That doesn't make sense if you ask me, no matter what you say to that it's not right period.

What Obama is proposing is hardly earth-shattering. There's nothing unjust at all about it. Quite the opposite. There is so much fear of improvement and change in the USA. It's really surprising.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-10-2008, 02:20 PM
What Obama is proposing is hardly earth-shattering. There's nothing unjust at all about it. Quite the opposite. There is so much fear of improvement and change in the USA. It's really surprising.

His economic plan of helping small business isn't that good. Big business is what runs this country.

ink
08-10-2008, 02:24 PM
His economic plan of helping small business isn't that good. Big business is what runs this country.

Again, not a radical concept to help small businesses. Nothing very threatening there. But definitely beneficial for the US citizens that run those businesses.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-10-2008, 02:27 PM
Again, not a radical concept to help small businesses run by US citizens. Nothing very threatening there.

Actually it is because a lot of the big business will just continue to go over seas, because the tax on big business. We can't run on small businesses just doesn't make a big enough impact on the economy.

ink
08-10-2008, 02:40 PM
Actually it is because a lot of the big business will just continue to go over seas, because the tax on big business. We can't run on small businesses just doesn't make a big enough impact on the economy.

Again, fear. The Republicans thrive on it.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-10-2008, 02:54 PM
Again, fear. The Republicans thrive on it.

It's logic though, you up the tax on big business what do you think you would do? Move to a country with hardly any tax, you still can sell your product in the U.S.

ink
08-10-2008, 03:09 PM
It's logic though, you up the tax on big business what do you think you would do? Move to a country with hardly any tax, you still can sell your product in the U.S.

I think the point is that the USA has so much wealth, it can afford to find fairer ways to share that wealth without any real risk to the economy. DenButsu started a thread with a good cartoon that showed the deficits created by all the recent Republican administrations, matched up with the surpluses created in the Clinton Democratic years. Help me out Den, I can't find the thread. Despite the fear-mongering approach the right always stoops to, it would appear that it's much more dangerous to have a Republican run economy than a Dem run economy.

Obama's ideas are still capitalist ideas. Both the Democrats and Republicans are capitalist parties. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is bluffing or worse. The benefits of some of these ideas would far outweigh the relatively small adjustments needed. And if big business has such poor social and patriotic values that they would abandon their own country, that is really what has to be questioned.

ink
08-10-2008, 03:20 PM
When I go vote for him in November it won't have anything to do with him being Black. I believe his economic, health, and education policies will be better than McCain's. And that's what does it for me.

Ironically, back in September 2007, if I had to rank the candidates in terms of their policies that I care about, it would have looked like this:

1. Romney
2. Dodd
3. Edwards
4. Richardson
5. Obama
6. McCain
7. Clinton
8. Biden


After all the flip-flopping during the start of the primaries:
1. Obama
2. Dodd
3. Edwards
4. Romney -- still hoping he'd revert back to his Mass gov past.
5. McCain

But now that the third round of flip-flopping has arrived, it's pretty clear to me that John McCain wouldn't be able to do a lick of good for the economy, so there's really no question, Obama's the only candidate I could see myself voting for in November.

:clap:

IS27NY
08-10-2008, 04:41 PM
Its socialism and lets not try and cover it up and say its not. He is trying to spread the wealth and take away from the rich. If you have a pretty good share of cash why would you want to give it to someone who became poor because it was their fault (drinking, gambling, school, etc.) giving to the low class is an option not a responsibilty. Mr. Obama wants to take money from people who work there tails off and give to people who are basically poor by choice. Even if your a democrat and you have some money you must be pissed about this.

ink
08-10-2008, 04:53 PM
Its socialism and lets not try and cover it up and say its not. He is trying to spread the wealth and take away from the rich. If you have a pretty good share of cash why would you want to give it to someone who became poor because it was their fault (drinking, gambling, school, etc.) giving to the low class is an option not a responsibilty. Mr. Obama wants to take money from people who work there tails off and give to people who are basically poor by choice. Even if your a democrat and you have some money you must be pissed about this.

:pity: You obviously haven't heard of "the working poor". What a ridiculous generalization, that the poor drink and gamble their way into poverty. Pure stereotyping, and those are not the people these policy initiatives are aimed at.

And then to lump school debt in with that makes the post even less credible. If a person incurs debt by going to school, it's because they are trying to better themselves. So your example contradicts your point.

There are some really jumbled ideas in that post. Who says that there aren't a majority of people who work their tails off and still barely make ends meet? It's extremely common.

IS27NY
08-10-2008, 06:15 PM
:pity: You obviously haven't heard of "the working poor". What a ridiculous generalization, that the poor drink and gamble their way into poverty. Pure stereotyping, and those are not the people these policy initiatives are aimed at.

And then to lump school debt in with that makes the post even less credible. If a person incurs debt by going to school, it's because they are trying to better themselves. So your example contradicts your point.

There are some really jumbled ideas in that post. Who says that there aren't a majority of people who work their tails off and still barely make ends meet? It's extremely common.

No I think you just cant't understand I was using school as in a lazy kid who drops out and wonders why they cant make ends meet. Let me ask you. Do you want your money taken away basically without your consent given to Mr and Mrs _______ because you make to much money and they sit home all day without jobs??

ari1013
08-10-2008, 06:18 PM
and the people... cant have a lottery if no one buys the tickets... right?

such an incredible simplistic idea and yet we are the only state that does it..
Almost every state's lottery goes to their education! Georgia's not the only state that does it. Though clearly, Georgia isn't financing their primary and secondary institutions all that well. I guess that's how they ensure that they don't have to pick up too many tabs at the college level.

ari1013
08-10-2008, 06:21 PM
It's not right though. It just isn't what our country is made of, we should strive to become rich to become successful to say the least. If we tax the big business and if we tax the family with more money why would we want to work hard to get there. Instead you can work half of what that person works and still make relatively the same salary. That doesn't make sense if you ask me, no matter what you say to that it's not right period.
And then who's going to buy the products that the wealthy corporations offer?

If the poor are gradually starved out of the system, everyone suffers. Consumption makes up the bulk of our GDP. The top 5% who are going to find their taxes increasing rely on the bottom 95% to fuel this economy.

tomno00
08-10-2008, 07:02 PM
Almost every state's lottery goes to their education! Georgia's not the only state that does it. Though clearly, Georgia isn't financing their primary and secondary institutions all that well. I guess that's how they ensure that they don't have to pick up too many tabs at the college level.

actually you dont know what your talking about... Georgia is among one of the best managed states in the country, ranking 4th in the PEW Center Rankings that came out in March of this year. The county i attending high school in has the second higest SAT scores in the country and my College (UGA) is considered a public IVY.... and its ALL FREE thanks to the lottery... Got to love that HOPE Scholarship...

Any state COULD do it (an incentive based program designed to keep smart, educated people in the state), they just arent managed as well.

Lady's Man
08-10-2008, 07:09 PM
i will be on the hope scholarship too. My family in NY and NJ are so jealous haha. When they ask how, I just tell them its the lottery and they freak out. And its really done wonders for the state, especially Atlanta. Atlanta will be the new york of the south in due time.

ink
08-10-2008, 07:27 PM
No I think you just cant't understand I was using school as in a lazy kid who drops out and wonders why they cant make ends meet. Let me ask you. Do you want your money taken away basically without your consent given to Mr and Mrs _______ because you make to much money and they sit home all day without jobs??

Neither candidate is talking about handing out money in this way, so your example isn't really relevant. Same goes for your example of the drop out. These are stereotypes man. A far greater majority work their tails off only to break even.

ari1013
08-11-2008, 10:16 AM
No I think you just cant't understand I was using school as in a lazy kid who drops out and wonders why they cant make ends meet. Let me ask you. Do you want your money taken away basically without your consent given to Mr and Mrs _______ because you make to much money and they sit home all day without jobs??
UI lasts for no more than 6 months. Our welfare-to-work program that we have in this country is just that -- a work program.

The bulk of people who are sitting home and not working are either disabled, or people collecting short-term unemployment. There might be a small percentage of leeches, but overall the system seems to work. And bear in mind that it was a Republican Legislature working with a Democratic President that got it to work so well in the 1990s.

ari1013
08-11-2008, 10:18 AM
actually you dont know what your talking about... Georgia is among one of the best managed states in the country, ranking 4th in the PEW Center Rankings that came out in March of this year. The county i attending high school in has the second higest SAT scores in the country and my College (UGA) is considered a public IVY.... and its ALL FREE thanks to the lottery... Got to love that HOPE Scholarship...

Any state COULD do it (an incentive based program designed to keep smart, educated people in the state), they just arent managed as well.
I was pointing out the stupidity in the argument more than attacking Georgia's education. I have a few cousins who have gone through the Georgia system.

One thing though, what is a "public IVY?" I find it funny that most state schools consider themselves to be a "public IVY."

Regardless, you just keep proving my point with the scholarships and state funding you're getting. According to you that's 100% socialist. Enjoy!

ari1013
08-11-2008, 10:20 AM
i will be on the hope scholarship too. My family in NY and NJ are so jealous haha. When they ask how, I just tell them its the lottery and they freak out. And its really done wonders for the state, especially Atlanta. Atlanta will be the new york of the south in due time.
Probably why more people are voting Democratic down there than ever before...

tomno00
08-11-2008, 11:03 AM
actually its the opposite. The lottery has nothing to do with paying taxes..
It has everything to do with managing the state well and cutting back on unnecessary spending.

The reason more people will be voting democratic in georgia is because of the large african american community and the young college students who will actually vote. Still Mccain is expected to win.