DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on September 18, 2008, 01:15:19 AM
-
Larry King....welcomes The Trumpster on his program.
He tells the country that we MUST NOT BE TAXED...bottom line. McCain will not tax the average American.
Is this true?
-
no
-
no
Why?
-
The average american is already taxed. They will continue to be taxed.
It also depends on what kind of congress he has to deal with.
It could be they force a tax increase down his throat.
If they have enough votes.
And it could be the govt needs to postpone middle class tax cuts because it is bleeding money.
These are uncertain times. Not the time to pit one class against another.
-
The average american is already taxed. They will continue to be taxed.
It also depends on what kind of congress he has to deal with.
It could be they force a tax increase down his throat.
If they have enough votes.
And it could be the govt needs to postpone middle class tax cuts because it is bleeding money.
These are uncertain times. Not the time to pit one class against another.
thank you!
AND THAT'S why I consider you to be "spot on" as our board leader, Bill.
I can trust that you will explain the details in a political arena. Details that shine in truth.
WHy? Because that is your business. Your JOB.
I had a feeling that was the stream of thought, the facts as YOU know them to be.
Sincerely, I appreciate your feedback on that. I agree.
-
The Juniorbush taxcuts have already pitted one class against another. Those who benefit the most from our inherently unfair capitalist system pay the least percentage in taxes.
During the Bush years, the wealthy got an increased share of the national income, and the rest got screwed and got less.
Immense gains in productivity were never passed on to the people who did the actual work.
There is no reason why any American who makes less than Trump should pay him the least attention about taxes. Trump is an exploitative lot with an ego the size of Guam.
-
Those who benefit the most from our inherently unfair capitalist system pay the least percentage in taxes.
Many of the poor pay 0% in income taxes. Many of those even get an EIC tax credit, effectively making their tax rate a NEGATIVE percentage (they get back more than they put in).
How do you pay less than that?
-
The Juniorbush taxcuts have already pitted one class against another. Those who benefit the most from our inherently unfair capitalist system pay the least percentage in taxes.
In what reality, would that be? Certainly not this one, Income taxes?? Estate Taxes?? Sales Taxes tax everyone equally. The only place you can go is Payroll taxes. You looking to raise the cap on the amount people pay in payroll taxes?....negatively effecting the middle to lower classes that much more??
-
No, I would LOWER payroll taxes.
Read it again, and ponder, how can this be?
Eventually, you may catch on.
At this juncture, it appears you may not understand the word 'percentage'.
-
I see.....Xo want's to decrease the amount SS takes in. Put an alreadly fractured program into impending failure, that much sooner. Brilliant
-
The Juniorbush taxcuts have already pitted one class against another. Those who benefit the most from our inherently unfair capitalist system pay the least percentage in taxes.
Actually the democrats pit one class against another. Tax cuts are inanimate.
-
The Republicans are in favor of a class war, and are sponsoring one.
Every year, the percentage the wealthiest 2% earns has grown, and the percentage the poorest 50% earns has shrunk.
Increases in productivity are many times higher than increases in wages.
You can tell there is a war by seeing who is winning.
-
Every year, the percentage the wealthiest 2% earns has grown, and the percentage the poorest 50% earns has shrunk.
Did this not happen during the Clinton boom years?
-
what is the pay of the poorest 50%?
meaning at the 50% mark what is the annual income?
-
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
-
thank you
I really got no idea how to find that kind of information.
-
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
And Inflation is running well over that.
First, there's the cost of fuel: gasoline and natural gas.
Then, there is the usual bit with health insurance: the employer has this NEW PLAN, with higher co-pays, fewer benefits and a higher premium, and the employee can take it or leave it: it's all there is.
-
Then, there is the usual bit with health insurance: the employer has this NEW PLAN, with higher co-pays, fewer benefits and a higher premium, and the employee can take it or leave it: it's all there is.
Anybody who isn't at the hospital a few times a year shouldn't ever use that type of insurance plan.
High deductible with an associated HSA is the way to go. I have a $5,000 deductible, then 100% up to $5,000,000. Costs like $400 a month with much of that paid by my employer. My contributions to the HSA are pre-tax, the amount rolls over from year to year, and when I go to the doctor, they file the claim, then the insurance company takes it out of my HSA so I don't need to take any money with me to the doctor. A modest monthly contribution to my HSA (less than $50) covers all of my normal expenses for the year.
Also, a BTW: I have never worked for an employer that had only one insurance plan. Ever. Must be a "union shop" thing.
-
Also, a BTW: I have never worked for an employer that had only one insurance plan. Ever. Must be a "union shop" thing.
Where I taught, they offered several plans. Every time they changed companies, however, the new plans all cost more and provided fewer benefits than the old plan. Everyone has this same problem, no matter what the plan they have is. And that was my point. Inflation at around 6% and wage increases at 1.5% means that one more years has passed in which you are paid LESS in real dollars. This has been going on for a long time now. Productivity has increased a huge amount, but most employees have not benefited from it to any meaningful degree.
=================================================
I have never worked in any union plan. Years ago, when fate gave us a dolt for a college president that fired the entire science department a month before the fall term, my colleagues and I tried to form a union, and worked at getting a union contract for 11 long years. Reagan (though the goons he appointed to the NLRB) and his courts made it impossible to form a union at any private college or university with what is called the Yeshiva decision.
You have not seen the worst human scum until you have sat across the table from a goddamned unionbusting lawyer pretending to negotiate.
There is no right to organize in private higher education in the USA. It is possible only in theory.
====================================================
A high deductible means that you pay out of pocket up to the amount of the deductible, PLUS the $400 a month paid by you and your employer, doesn't it?
-
A high deductible means that you pay out of pocket up to the amount of the deductible, PLUS the $400 a month paid by you and your employer, doesn't it?
Yes, but that's the point of the HSA. However, unless you USE the insurance frequently, the difference in monthly premiums plus costs builds up to the deductible in under 2 years. After that period of time, you're saving money. And if anything catastrophic happens, you are completely covered (the HSA funds the deductible, then the insurance pays 100%). That's why they're frequently called "catastrophic policies". Also, many have one time premium payments for a decreasing term policy to cover the deductible while you're building up your HSA. The one I just signed up for earlier this year had one of those - it was a one time payment of $30, and if you had to go into the hospital the first month, they covered 100% of the deductible. If it was the second month, they covered a bit less, a bit less the third month, etc.
It's definitely the way to go if you're healthy. If you're in the hospital every year at least once or twice, you probably are better off with a more traditional policy (because you don't have the time to save up the deductible in the HSA). Plus, the HSA is completely portable - if you switch plans, you take your HSA with you to the new plan.
-
The Juniorbush taxcuts have already pitted one class against another. Those who benefit the most from our inherently unfair capitalist system pay the least percentage in taxes.
A lot of the Poor pay no income tax, is that who you mean?
-
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
Of course it did.The 2007 census reflected 2006 numbers before the effect of the Bushidiots incompetence took hold. The rich got richer dragging the median up. Since then things have gotten rastically worse:
http://povertyblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/us-property-prices-come-down-poverty-goes-up/
-
The Juniorbush taxcuts have already pitted one class against another. Those who benefit the most from our inherently unfair capitalist system pay the least percentage in taxes.
A lot of the Poor pay no income tax, is that who you mean?
=================================================
No. Duh. And of course not.
I mean the poor pay a higher percentage in TAXES of ALL KINDS.
If you spend most of your income on surviving, you pay sales taxes in nearly every state. There are no sales taxes on investments.
If you rent, you do nto get any 'homestead exemption', and you pay your landlord's much higher property taxes, included in your rent.
If you are employed, Social Security is slightly less than 14% of your wages.
If you drive, you pay gasoline taxes, license plate taxes and such.
The net result is that the poor make a tiny fraction of what the rich make, but pay a higher percent of what they earn in taxes.
-
Every year, the percentage the wealthiest 2% earns has grown, and the percentage the poorest 50% earns has shrunk.
Did this not happen during the Clinton boom years?
Arent you tired of blaming everything on Bill even after almost 8 years of RW rule?
-
Arent you tired of blaming everything on Bill even after almost 8 years of RW rule?
Who is blaming Clinton?
I'm trying to quantify a trend.
If it pleases you, was this happening all the way back to the Eisenhower admin?
-
The Juniorbush taxcuts have already pitted one class against another. Those who benefit the most from our inherently unfair capitalist system pay the least percentage in taxes.
A lot of the Poor pay no income tax, is that who you mean?
=================================================
No. Duh. And of course not.
I mean the poor pay a higher percentage in TAXES of ALL KINDS.
If you spend most of your income on surviving, you pay sales taxes in nearly every state. There are no sales taxes on investments.
If you rent, you do nto get any 'homestead exemption', and you pay your landlord's much higher property taxes, included in your rent.
If you are employed, Social Security is slightly less than 14% of your wages.
If you drive, you pay gasoline taxes, license plate taxes and such.
The net result is that the poor make a tiny fraction of what the rich make, but pay a higher percent of what they earn in taxes.
Which of these things did Bush increase?
-
Which of these things did Bush increase?
This was unnecessary, as real wages under Junior Bush went DOWN.
Prices for rent, food and fuel went up precipitously, and wages either did not go up, went up more slowly than the cost of living, or, in the case of people who lost their good jobs and had to take crappier, lower paying jobs, the percentage of their incomes paid in taxes went UP, and their standard of living went DOWN
The wealthy got large tax breaks, and their incomes went up much faster, so the percentage of their income paid in taxes went DOWN.
This means that taxes, as a percentage of wages went DOWN and their standard of living went UP.
-
Which of these things did Bush increase?
This was unnecessary, as real wages under Junior Bush went DOWN.
Prices for rent, food and fuel went up precipitously, and wages either did not go up, went up more slowly than the cost of living, or, in the case of people who lost their good jobs and had to take crappier, lower paying jobs, the percentage of their incomes paid in taxes went UP, and their standard of living went DOWN
The wealthy got large tax breaks, and their incomes went up much faster, so the percentage of their income paid in taxes went DOWN.
This means that taxes, as a percentage of wages went DOWN and their standard of living went UP.
That seems kinda complicated , you don't mean that for most of the Bush Presidency most of us did very well , but not as well as you would have liked?
Untill quite recently buying power was increaseing across the board , but quite recently unemployment has gone up , the Dollar has gone down .
Is there any regret that so much whineing during the years that unemployment was down and the Dollar was up has robbed the complaint of strength now that it has become more legitimate?
I think we have had a slow economy for five months , and unwarranted complaining during a good economy for the previous five years.
If the economy continues to slow it may slide into what used to be called a "soft landing".
-
Untill quite recently buying power was increaseing across the board , but quite recently unemployment has gone up , the Dollar has gone down .
++++++++++++++++++++
This isn;t true.
______________________________________________
Is there any regret that so much whineing during the years that unemployment was down and the Dollar was up has robbed the complaint of strength now that it has become more legitimate?
What?
_________________________________________________
I think we have had a slow economy for five months , and unwarranted complaining during a good economy for the previous five years.
I bet that IS what you think. But it's not actually true. Why would people complain if they were not worse off?
---------------------------------------------------------
If the economy continues to slow it may slide into what used to be called a "soft landing".
That sounds like somewhat wishful thinking. I doubt you can describe a "soft landing". The economy never lands, it is a dynamic phenomena. It never slows down to a speed of zero, and it it did, that would be disasterous.
____________________________________________________
Electing Obama would signal a major change in the world attitude about the world's economy being on a new track, and will tend to boost the economy. If troops leave Iraq, that would cause another boost.
McCain might cause a minor boost in the US, but not abroad, where he is seen as an elderly version of Juniorbush.
-
Untill quite recently buying power was increaseing across the board , but quite recently unemployment has gone up , the Dollar has gone down .
++++++++++++++++++++
This isn;t true.
______________________________________________
Is there any regret that so much whineing during the years that unemployment was down and the Dollar was up has robbed the complaint of strength now that it has become more legitimate?
What?
_________________________________________________
I think we have had a slow economy for five months , and unwarranted complaining during a good economy for the previous five years.
I bet that IS what you think. But it's not actually true. Why would people complain if they were not worse off?
---------------------------------------------------------
If the economy continues to slow it may slide into what used to be called a "soft landing".
That sounds like somewhat wishful thinking. I doubt you can describe a "soft landing". The economy never lands, it is a dynamic phenomena. It never slows down to a speed of zero, and it it did, that would be disasterous.
____________________________________________________
Electing Obama would signal a major change in the world attitude about the world's economy being on a new track, and will tend to boost the economy. If troops leave Iraq, that would cause another boost.
McCain might cause a minor boost in the US, but not abroad, where he is seen as an elderly version of Juniorbush.
Growth can slow , and it can reverse but the very sudden changes are the most upsetting .
Takeing a longer view , there is a lot of potential for recovering , even though things are slideing into reverse right now.
I just heard that Georgias unemployment has hit a 15 year high , this is quite sudden , we were doing quite well two months ago.
-
Growth can slow , and it can reverse but the very sudden changes are the most upsetting .
Even a decrease in growth is not a reversal. A true reversal would have you going to the store, returning the merchandise and getting a refund more than once for each purchase. It is therefore not possible.
-
Growth can slow , and it can reverse but the very sudden changes are the most upsetting. Takeing a longer view , there is a lot of potential for recovering , even though things are slideing into reverse right now.
Even a decrease in growth is not a reversal.
Yea, didn't you get the memo Plane. Kinda like a decrease in what one wants in their budget, and even with an increase in said budget, if it's not what was originally demanded, it's called a "cut"
-
Yea, didn't you get the memo Plane. Kinda like a decrease in what one wants in their budget, and even with an increase in said budget, if it's not what was originally demanded, it's called a "cut"
--------------------------------------------------------
If you grew an extra nose, but they cut off one of your ears, that would still be a 'cut', even if you had a greater facial area. When they removed you ear, it would be painful unless you were under anesthesia. Bloody, too, despite your new extra nose.
--------------------------------------------------------
People who read budgets should be prepared for this sort of thing. If they are not, then they should prepare themselves, and stop whining about the terminology.
-
Yea, that makes.....*sarcasm alert*......so much more sense. Thanks Xo
-
How does this not make more sense?
=================================
Budgets are important, but dull. To cause people to recognize their importance, they must be presented in an interesting manner. Think of them in the same way you do womens makeup. Even Angelina Jolie looks better in makeup.
If you use words like "slashed", "cut", "reduced" in a budget story, it causes people to pay some attention to an important, but boring item.
Just as Angelina's optician ignores her mascara, so must we ignore such words when analyzing a budget.
One should not whine "but those are FAKE eyelashes!" when regarding a picture of the lovely Angelina, one should disregard words like "slash' and 'cut' when analyzing a budget, unless one is a whiny fool.
If one whines foolishly, then one will be regarded as a whiny fool rather than anyone to be taken seriously.
-
You should have stopped with your prior post Xo. Your thrashing now, in the deep end
-
I merely told you how to read and understand an article on a story about the budget.
Can it be possible that you STILL do not understand?
-
Can it possibly be you're STILL thrashing?
-
Could we have discovered a body of greater density than a white dwarf?
-
Xo has now moved on to a...... better place 8)
-
Growth can slow , and it can reverse but the very sudden changes are the most upsetting .
Even a decrease in growth is not a reversal. A true reversal would have you going to the store, returning the merchandise and getting a refund more than once for each purchase. It is therefore not possible.
The store that opened last year can close this year , that is a reverse for that store , closeing a lot of stores at once is what we have to worry about.
If AIG had been allowed to fail , would there still be enough service from AIG's competitors to carry our need for insurance?
I think probly so , but just one failure isn't what was threatening..
-
Xo has now moved on to a...... better place 8)
Sirs, with all due RESPECT....I have read these past posts and YOU are the one who is tilting in the direction of lighting the fire of a flame.
Can't you answer a post without the sarcasm alerts?
I am curious as to how you really feel / think about XO'S reply.
with
all
due
respect, Sirs PC
-
Xo has now moved on to a...... better place 8)
Sirs, with all due RESPECT....I have read these past posts and YOU are the one who is tilting in the direction of lighting the fire of a flame. Can't you answer a post without the sarcasm alerts?
Don't let Prince catch you requesting such
I am curious as to how you really feel / think about XO'S reply.
And with all due respect Miss Cynthia, I can only deduce, that your support of Xo's position as a teacher & critic of NCLB tends to cloud your judgement on the predominance of the rest of Xo's posts. HAD you been following the various threads, and HAD you grasped the point being made, is that the left often uses a lack of expected increase (though still an increase) as some form of "cut". Uses "reverse" as if it was bad, when the point is reversals to prevent an utter collapse, are sometimes necessary for survival.
I enjoy pointing these transparent misrepresentations & false premises the left falls hand over fist in trying perpetuate. And if you HAD been noting the plethora of responses Xo provides me with, you might catch a theme of how so little people apparently pay attention to anything I say, according to Xo. Funny how I have yet to see you take issue with him on that. You wouldn't by chance be able to shed some light, would you?
And to answer your query, I don't "feel" anything towards Xo's most recent reply in this thread. It was bordering on gibberish, IMHO, which prompted the above response you're taking issue with
-
Xo has now moved on to a...... better place 8)
Sirs, with all due RESPECT....I have read these past posts and YOU are the one who is tilting in the direction of lighting the fire of a flame. Can't you answer a post without the sarcasm alerts?
Don't let Prince catch you requesting such
I am curious as to how you really feel / think about XO'S reply.
And with all due respect Miss Cynthia, I can only deduce, that your support of Xo's position as a teacher & critic of NCLB tends to cloud your judgement on the predominance of the rest of Xo's posts. HAD you been following the various threads, and HAD you grasped the point being made, is that the left often uses a lack of expected increase (though still an increase) as some form of "cut". Uses "reverse" as if it was bad, when the point is reversals to prevent an utter collapse, are sometimes necessary for survival.
I enjoy pointing these transparent misrepresentations & false premises the left falls hand over fist in trying perpetuate. And if you HAD been noting the plethora of responses Xo provides me with, you might catch a theme of how so little people apparently pay attention to anything I say, according to Xo. Funny how I have yet to see you take issue with him on that. You wouldn't by chance be able to shed some light, would you?
And to answer your query, I don't "feel" anything towards Xo's most recent reply in this thread. It was bordering on gibberish, IMHO, which prompted the above response you're taking issue with
Buzzzz ..no!
I asked you what you think about XO's response....I did NOT BRING up THE NCLB act...
Try again, Sirs.
I knew you would reply in this fashion...
I'll let you try again.
-
Xo has now moved on to a...... better place 8)
Sirs, with all due RESPECT....I have read these past posts and YOU are the one who is tilting in the direction of lighting the fire of a flame. Can't you answer a post without the sarcasm alerts?
Don't let Prince catch you requesting such
I am curious as to how you really feel / think about XO'S reply.
And with all due respect Miss Cynthia, I can only deduce, that your support of Xo's position as a teacher & critic of NCLB tends to cloud your judgement on the predominance of the rest of Xo's posts. HAD you been following the various threads, and HAD you grasped the point being made, is that the left often uses a lack of expected increase (though still an increase) as some form of "cut". Uses "reverse" as if it was bad, when the point is reversals to prevent an utter collapse, are sometimes necessary for survival.
I enjoy pointing these transparent misrepresentations & false premises the left falls hand over fist in trying perpetuate. And if you HAD been noting the plethora of responses Xo provides me with, you might catch a theme of how so little people apparently pay attention to anything I say, according to Xo. Funny how I have yet to see you take issue with him on that. You wouldn't by chance be able to shed some light, would you?
And to answer your query, I don't "feel" anything towards Xo's most recent reply in this thread. It was bordering on gibberish, IMHO, which prompted the above response you're taking issue with
Buzzzz ..no! I asked you what you think about XO's response....I did NOT BRING up THE NCLB act...
Focus Miss Cynthia. Take a breath too, I would suggest. "I" brought up NCLB, because it was within those threads your common support of Xo manifested itself very clearly. Which is no big deal in any way. It's good to have folks you can garner support on various issues with. H and I are practically twins, as it relates to the 2nd amendment. Point being, that support of Xo, was so clear in fact, that you managed to take umbridge, in this thread, at how I show the left misrepresenting various issues, and give a complete pass when Xo is basically stating my opinion means nothing, to anyone, in numerous other threads. No one apparently reads them, according to Xo, it changes no minds, according to Xo. That gets a pass by you, but my taking issue with how the left will contort topics, to fit some false premise, and how I do it.....that gets you all dandered.
But to answer your query, again, I ended with what I "thought" of Xo's last response. It went downhill very fast, as soon as I referenced the false premise. Once he began applying completely convoluted analogies, the book had closed on the substance of position
-
I bet you can't even say which position of mine you are talking about here. I know I have no idea what you are blathering about.
-
H and I are practically twins, as it relates to the 2nd amendment.
Maybe, maybe not. Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't quite parrot all their positions.
That should not, BTW, be taken as saying that you do; simply that I don't.
-
H and I are practically twins, as it relates to the 2nd amendment.
Maybe, maybe not. Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't quite parrot all their positions.
Neither do I. See?, practically twins ;)
-
So, what is your take.....on the issue ...not on XAVIER, or ME?
-
What issue specifically? In other words, ask me a question, and not one I've already answered, please
-
What issue specifically? In other words, ask me a question, and not one I've already answered, please
Frankly, you have been running off at the mouth against XO for several posts now.....what is your point on the issue at hand--or have you forgotten?
-
I don't think he knows. But he's against it >:(, whatever it is! ::)
-
Can I expect a specific question, that hasn't already been asked & answered?
-
Can I expect a specific question, that hasn't already been asked & answered?
Can WE expect anything from you here? Just focus on the issue, Sirs.
When I read your posts here....I get lost in your biting remarks..and yet, XO maintains the mark just fine.
You do this a lot btw.
Focus, Sirs.
-
I can only assume at this point, no question is coming. Just making sure
-
I can only assume at this point, no question is coming. Just making sure
Hold your breath. Here it comes......
-
Didn't think so
-
You took a breath!
I'm not playing with you anymore. You won't follow the rules!
-
You took a breath!
Never said I wouldn't
-
You took a breath!
Never said I wouldn't
You are like a kid, Sirs.
Time out for you!
Why do you believe that McCain is the best candidate for president?
Can you at least speak to that?
OR----
Is it true that the recent economy "issues" are because of PRes. Bush? Why or why not?
Can McCain bail us out of the current mess we are in?
WHy or why not?
Time to put up or shut up....and I am referring to the next administration...not you... ;)
-
*snip*
Why do you believe that McCain is the best candidate for president?
Ahh, finally, a question. Because the alternative for President would be FAR worse for this country, IMHO. The exponential increase in the size & scope of Government, the increased unfairness in the tax code, and for those who pay the greatest amount in taxes already, the sheer naivete in all forms of experience, especially on both Foreign affairs and Economics. But I digress....that's why not to vote for Obama, not why one should vote for McCain. McCain provides the leadership the country will sorely need. As much as I disagree with McCain on a whole host of issues, he's at least tried to work with Democrats & Republicans, in a compromising format, vs one of 97% polar partisanship. He finally understands the true unfairness of the tax code, and lastly, chose a VP candidate that mirrors his desire of true reform and CHANGE, and is young enough to push a similar agenda once he leaves office
Is it true that the recent economy "issues" are because of PRes. Bush? Why or why not?
No. They're because of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, the GOP led Congress, the Democrat led Congress, lack of stringent SEC oversight, application of Federal regulations that caused Lending institutions to stop being so strict on who did receive mortgages, and Lending Institutions that felt no compulsion what-so-ever in granting highly questionable mortgages, knowing the Fed would come bail them out.
And lastly, these issues were brought about by eager wanna-be homeowners, who would sign for homes WAY out of their budget, take out multiple mortages, then turn around and do home remodeling, only to then decry how they can no longer make the payments, as their rate went up.
It's because of EVERYONE
Can McCain bail us out of the current mess we are in? WHy or why not?
I'll be honest.....probably not. Federal intervention is not the answer. Socializing the Housing Industry is not the answer. McCain is not the answer, though his rhetoric of reform of Wall Street does ring a bell of potential. Stronger oversight, and allowing Capatalism & the Free market to work they way its designed to, would
Time to put up or shut up....and I am referring to the next administration...not you... ;)
*whew* dodged a bullet there
-
chose a VP candidate that mirrors his desire of true reform and CHANGE, and is young enough to push a similar agenda once he leaves office
Oh come on. Palin doesn't know squat. And she is unlikely to know squat in four or eight years. She is a female Quayle. If she is elected, watch her be the failed female Quayle.
-
No worse than Obama
-
Far, far worse than Obama in every conceivable way, other than the possible ability to bear children.
A BA is not the same an a postgraduate degree.
You are talking about someone who never even applied for a PASSPORT until she needed one to visit Canada.
-
You are talking about someone who never even applied for a PASSPORT until she needed one to visit Canada.
Up until a few years ago, there were a number of countries you could visit without a passport, all that was required was a birth certificate to get back into the US. Canada was one of those - I've gone to Canada at least three times without a passport.
-
Ami for President 8)
-
Up until a few years ago, there were a number of countries you could visit without a passport, all that was required was a birth certificate to get back into the US. Canada was one of those - I've gone to Canada at least three times without a passport.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly true, and that is why Palin did not need the passport UNTIL recently, which was when Congress decided all Americans needed a passport to visit anywhere outside of the US and Puerto Rico.
That made it necessary for her to have one. Juneau is very close to Canada, and I imagine you would find more moose to hunt in the Yukon.
I have visited Canada many times and never shown a passport to anyone. Mexico and the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas as well.
But I can't do it now.
-
*snip*
Why do you believe that McCain is the best candidate for president?
Ahh, finally, a question. Because the alternative for President would be FAR worse for this country, IMHO. The exponential increase in the size & scope of Government, the increased unfairness in the tax code, and for those who pay the greatest amount in taxes already, the sheer naivete in all forms of experience, especially on both Foreign affairs and Economics. But I digress....that's why not to vote for Obama, not why one should vote for McCain. McCain provides the leadership the country will sorely need. As much as I disagree with McCain on a whole host of issues, he's at least tried to work with Democrats & Republicans, in a compromising format, vs one of 97% polar partisanship. He finally understands the true unfairness of the tax code, and lastly, chose a VP candidate that mirrors his desire of true reform and CHANGE, and is young enough to push a similar agenda once he leaves office
Is it true that the recent economy "issues" are because of PRes. Bush? Why or why not?
No. They're because of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, the GOP led Congress, the Democrat led Congress, lack of stringent SEC oversight, application of Federal regulations that caused Lending institutions to stop being so strict on who did receive mortgages, and Lending Institutions that felt no compulsion what-so-ever in granting highly questionable mortgages, knowing the Fed would come bail them out.
And lastly, these issues were brought about by eager wanna-be homeowners, who would sign for homes WAY out of their budget, take out multiple mortages, then turn around and do home remodeling, only to then decry how they can no longer make the payments, as their rate went up.
It's because of EVERYONE
Can McCain bail us out of the current mess we are in? WHy or why not?
I'll be honest.....probably not. Federal intervention is not the answer. Socializing the Housing Industry is not the answer. McCain is not the answer, though his rhetoric of reform of Wall Street does ring a bell of potential. Stronger oversight, and allowing Capatalism & the Free market to work they way its designed to, would
Time to put up or shut up....and I am referring to the next administration...not you... ;)
*whew* dodged a bullet there
ahh, finally an answer.....That's better.
Thanks, Sirs.
Let the debates begin....the one on the tube as I type. What an exciting year to be involved in politics ...and even my students are involved. This is going to be quite an election/sadly also a horrid time in terms of the economy.
Tim Russert..God bless you, man. I hope you are listening to all up in heaven.