or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clinton to go "scorched earth" - Page 5

post #161 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Obama? Well we shall see. So far the only flaw I see is that every political opinion he has is woefully wrong, and his polices will damage the country. Other than that, he seems to be a fine fellow.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face without looking at the last 8 years.
post #162 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Hillary is a far more complicated person than Bill, who I think of as a walking DSM (?) reference. More of a hard nosed "insider" who harbored strong and angry views her naturally reactive, defensive personality (and territorial instincts) are not ideal for politics. She the type if you bump in a crowd will turn with a glare...thinking it was on purpose.

However, she also aims to prove she can suceed...do anything. She comes from the "press all the right buttons in life" (degree, approval, etc.) and you earn your status as a person on the top of the heap...on top of others that might bump you in a crowd.

Her emotional plea in NH was based on both artifice and authenticity - she was asking why after she did 'the right things' on the scorecard, the male society was not rewarding her. She was frustrated, and appealing to women who might harbor the same feelings.

She's worked hard to seem warm and yet professional. But there are some things you cannot earn - character comes from within. And she lacks it.

Well said and I agree. What I can't understand is that she chose to "act tough" when she said Shame on Obama and "invited" him to a debate...

I think it is this very thing which will work against her. She is trying too hard to "seem tough" as I see it. If Hillary would just be herself instead of always trying to determine "what version of herself" she needs to be for the day I suspect she could have done much better in these last contests she lost.

It just seems she is constantly trying to reinvent who she is for the day at hand.

Am I wrong?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #163 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Wrong, dead wrong, and I have the facts to prove thay you are dead wrong on this one.

Download the OMB FY 2009 historical data (in PDF format) that I posted earlier in this thread.

BTW, I've imported Table 1.1 into an Excel spreadsheet, so I'm way ahead of you on this one.

An actual downturn in federal revenues has only occurred seven times in the past 50 years (1959 thru 2008 (this last year is an OMB projected estimate), those seven years were (or could be);

1959
1971
1983
2001
2002
2003
2008
(OMB projected)

That's at least three years of revenue losses that will go down in history as having fallen under one administration, your pal, Chimpy MacFlightsuit. In the worst case, 2008 and 2009, could also be added to GWB's list for a total of five revenue loss years.

Oh, and get this OMB is projecting federal outlays for FY 2010 ($3,091 Trillion), less than what Chimpy MacFlightsuit is asking for in FY 2009 ($3,107 Trillion). A downturn in federal expenditures has actually occured only once in the past 50 years, in 1965. Talk about a "cut and run" fiscal policy, GWB will be running out of the WH leaving a building full of broken toys for the next administration to clean up, to fix, and/or replace.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Now, let's see you talk your way out of this one.

Oh, and if the economy has truly stalled, your pal Chimpy MacFlightsuit and those neocon artists deserve the full blame, as it happened on their watch, with their abhorrent fiscal policies, and lack of fiscal responsibility

Why do I get the feeling that GWB is digging an ever deeper hole for himself and his ilk?.

So let me get this straight: You believe that revenue would have continued to grow at its normal pace without any kind of economic stimulus being offered?

In that case, you've proved yourself wrong. First, I never said that revenue had to actually decrease, only that it wouldn't grow at the rate it had been growing. But putting that aside, did you notice that revenue declined during and immediately after recessions? Hmm....why would that be? Could it be because economic growth impacts revenue? Yes, I think so!

In each ease economic growth slowed. However, in three of time periods you referenced, tax cuts were put into place. And guess what? The economy turned around, and so did revenue (despite lower rates) all within a few years. It happened in early 1960s (see your data), the 1980s (see you data) and early to mid 2000s (see your data).

How then are tax cuts not effective? How would revenue have continued to grow, when according to your own FUCKING data...it did not?


Edit: "Bush deserves the blame." That's nice. Assuming we can at least agree that tax cuts do not hurt the economy, what policy did Bush implement that would have caused this hypothetical crash? Moreover, what policy did the previous President implement that helped the economy? Being able to back up giving credit or blame to someone is always helpful.

But of course, the problem is that you (like jimmac and others) cannot distinguish between the overall economy/economic growth vs. government fiscal health/revenue. It's a knee jerk reaction. Someone says "economic growth" and you say "deficit."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #164 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

However, in three of time periods you referenced, tax cuts were put into place. And guess what? The economy turned around, and so did revenue (despite lower rates) all within a few years.

If Obama does in fact raise taxes back up again, that would be the first time in quite a while that taxes were raised at the beginning of a recession - so we will have a comparison point. Looking at his plan further, though, I am thinking that he does not intend to raise extra revenue, just to move taxes from the middle class to the upper class (and reduce the percentage of Americans that pay into the tax system as a result).

side note - this "e-number economic manifesto" that I promised is too much like work, I have lost interest and no longer intend to fulfill my promises made earlier about producing it. 8)
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #165 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If Obama does in fact raise taxes back up again, that would be the first time in quite a while that taxes were raised at the beginning of a recession - so we will have a comparison point. Looking at his plan further, though, I am thinking that he does not intend to raise extra revenue, just to move taxes from the middle class to the upper class (and reduce the percentage of Americans that pay into the tax system as a result).

side note - this "e-number economic manifesto" that I promised is too much like work, I have lost interest and no longer intend to fulfill my promises made earlier about producing it. 8)

Let's assume two things:

1. His plan contains exactly what you said.
2. He will keep his word.


Both are highly questionable assumptions. "Middle class" will suddenly mean those earning less than $30,000 a year, and "rich" will suddenly mean anyone earning over $50,000 a year. Just watch. But even so:

It's not going to work. The "rich" already pay a HUGE portion of the tax burden.



That's right, the top 50% pay 96% of all taxes. The top 1% already pay almost 40% of the taxes! More of the burden on the rich? How much more?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #166 of 255
Two words, SDW: Payroll taxes. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, and that's what Obama's tax cut focuses on. Those IRS numbers do not include payroll taxes, nor do they include sales taxes or any other kinds of taxes, almost all of which fall harder on people with less money. In short, it's misleading to suggest that federal income taxes are the only taxes people pay, and then claim that it proves only the rich pay taxes.
post #167 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Two words, SDW: Payroll taxes. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, and that's what Obama's tax cut focuses on. Those IRS numbers do not include payroll taxes, nor do they include sales taxes or any other kinds of taxes, almost all of which fall harder on people with less money. In short, it's misleading to suggest that federal income taxes are the only taxes people pay, and then claim that it proves only the rich pay taxes.

I'm not saying "only the rich pay taxes." I'm saying they pay the vast majority of income taxes. If Obama wants to reduce payroll taxes on the middle class (and he actually means "middle class") then I'm all for it. I've long advocated repealing payroll taxes and replacing them with a national sales tax. But I'm assuming that's not something you'd go for?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #168 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not saying "only the rich pay taxes." I'm saying they pay the vast majority of income taxes. If Obama wants to reduce payroll taxes on the middle class (and he actually means "middle class") then I'm all for it. I've long advocated repealing payroll taxes and replacing them with a national sales tax. But I'm assuming that's not something you'd go for?

I think that Payroll taxes *are* income taxes, frankly - and it is my great fear that somebody will remove the income cap associated with the payroll taxes. That would suck with such an infinite suckatude. Paris Hilton and I would have to go back to *fake* diamond encrusted iPods.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #169 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think that Payroll taxes *are* income taxes, frankly - and it is my great fear that somebody will remove the income cap associated with the payroll taxes. That would suck with such an infinite suckatude. Paris Hilton and I would have to go back to *fake* diamond encrusted iPods.

That is Obama's position. And to think, you could have saved that $100 you gave him to go towards your new diamond pink iPod.
post #170 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

That is Obama's position. And to think, you could have saved that $100 you gave him to go towards your new diamond pink iPod.

If he does, then the great game starts - played by me and the rest of the rich people. How do you legally minimize your tax burden under the new rules? You can do it by moving to capital gains instead of dividends, by taking advantage of tax treaties with foreign nations, by spending a lot to expand your business (through deductible expenses and capital depreciation), by moving from short term to long term gains, etc.

If he just adds new tax rebates and exclusions (adding extra tax laws instead of wiping the slate clean and starting over with a new progressive income tax law) then that game is fairly easy. I actually hope, though, that he follows the recommendations of the tax commission and gets rid of all the complexity of tax law while maintaining the same level of progressive tax burden.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #171 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Well said and I agree. What I can't understand is that she chose to "act tough" when she said Shame on Obama and "invited" him to a debate...

I think it is this very thing which will work against her. She is trying too hard to "seem tough" as I see it. If Hillary would just be herself instead of always trying to determine "what version of herself" she needs to be for the day I suspect she could have done much better in these last contests she lost.

It just seems she is constantly trying to reinvent who she is for the day at hand.

Am I wrong?

Fellows

No...but what else can she do? If she returned to the old angry Hillary, and let it all hang out her campaign would collapse. The "I'm sick and tired" ranting was santized by her handlers a long time ago (for good reason). Or more to the point, the personality she uses against Republicans work for feeding the Democrats when aimed at the right; but when fellow Democrats get an ounce of the same personal style treatment they are horrified, defend Obama and suddenly "wake up" to her personality and character. Her savaging would be effective running against "evil" Bush, and perhaps McCain, but not against Obama.


Will the mocking work as well as the tears? I don't think so. Obama has a bit of the Ronnie Reagan in him, and people are likely to resent attacking an optomistic romantic.
post #172 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's assume two things:

1. His plan contains exactly what you said.
2. He will keep his word.


Both are highly questionable assumptions. "Middle class" will suddenly mean those earning less than $30,000 a year, and "rich" will suddenly mean anyone earning over $50,000 a year. Just watch. But even so:

It's not going to work. The "rich" already pay a HUGE portion of the tax burden.



That's right, the top 50% pay 96% of all taxes. The top 1% already pay almost 40% of the taxes! More of the burden on the rich? How much more?

Please cite the origin of this chart, as usual you post some "data" and don't link the image/data to the underlying source. Figures. \ EDIT: Never mind, I found it myself, from the usual "suspects."

Also if you want to discuss this some more, then start a new thread, you started this thread as a Clinton to go "scorcher earth", and I don't want to derail this thread from it's initial "intended" purpose.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #173 of 255
Doesn't look like any of her new tactics are working.

Obama up 4 points in TX in CNN poll.
post #174 of 255
Quote:
Personally I think that if Obama is somehow deprived of the nomination (either by super delegates or faithless delegates), the party will implode. There may literally be riots. Despite disagreeing with Obama on numerous (if not all) issues, I would hate to see the man deprived of the nomination if he's legitimately won. I think that Clinton would be sealing the party's doom in the general election (and her own, of course) by taking the nom with these kinds of tactics.



The superdelegates are jumping over now. But Hillary will fight like a cat to keep going. I think she's all out of options.

Riots in the streets? Super delegates will not be the start of that, outright cheating or only the unthinkable could. You know what I mean. Doesn't mean the riots are out of the question though with the way things are going. But the last one was the L.A. riots. We've become pretty lazy people, or too occupied with the everyday non-stop schedules of our lives.

<tin foil>

North American Army created without OK by Congress

Quote:
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.



Shoppers warned bigger bills on way

Quote:

By Javier Blas

Published: February 24 2008 22:02 | Last updated: February 24 2008 22:02

When William Lapp, of US-based consultancy Advanced Economic Solutions, took the podium at the annual US Department of Agriculture conference, the sentiment was already bullish for agricultural commodities boosted by demand from the biofuels industry and emerging countries.

He added a twist – that rising agricultural raw material prices would translate this year into sharply higher food inflation.



Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Quote:
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."



Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers

Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight

Quote:
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."



</tin foil>

Whew. Well, we'll have to see won't we?
post #175 of 255
Quote:
Personally I think that if Obama is somehow deprived of the nomination (either by super delegates or faithless delegates), the party will implode. There may literally be riots. Despite disagreeing with Obama on numerous (if not all) issues, I would hate to see the man deprived of the nomination if he's legitimately won. I think that Clinton would be sealing the party's doom in the general election (and her own, of course) by taking the nom with these kinds of tactics.



The superdelegates are jumping over now. But Hillary will fight like a cat to keep going. I think she's all out of options.

Riots in the streets? Super delegates will not be the start of that, outright cheating or only the unthinkable could. You know what I mean. Doesn't mean the riots are out of the question though with the way things are going. But the last one was the L.A. riots. We've become pretty lazy people, or too occupied with the everyday non-stop schedules of our lives.

<tin foil>

North American Army created without OK by Congress

Quote:
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.



Shoppers warned bigger bills on way

Quote:

By Javier Blas

Published: February 24 2008 22:02 | Last updated: February 24 2008 22:02

When William Lapp, of US-based consultancy Advanced Economic Solutions, took the podium at the annual US Department of Agriculture conference, the sentiment was already bullish for agricultural commodities boosted by demand from the biofuels industry and emerging countries.

He added a twist – that rising agricultural raw material prices would translate this year into sharply higher food inflation.



Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Quote:
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."



Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers

Quote:
Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."



</tin foil>

Whew. Well, we'll have to see won't we?
post #176 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Please cite the origin of this chart, as usual you post some "data" and don't link the image/data to the underlying source. Figures. \ EDIT: Never mind, I found it myself, from the usual "suspects."

Also if you want to discuss this some more, then start a new thread, you started this thread as a Clinton to go "scorcher earth", and I don't want to derail this thread from it's initial "intended" purpose.

I don't even recall. The data is from the IRS. What is the problem? Oh, and don't tell me where to post.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #177 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



The superdelegates are jumping over now. But Hillary will fight like a cat to keep going. I think she's all out of options.

I agree.

Quote:

Riots in the streets? Super delegates will not be the start of that, outright cheating or only the unthinkable could. You know what I mean. Doesn't mean the riots are out of the question though with the way things are going. But the last one was the L.A. riots. We've become pretty lazy people, or too occupied with the everyday non-stop schedules of our lives.

I think riots might well break out though, if for some reason the nom was stolen from him.


Yawn. Why does this concern you?


Going to focus on the second one here: This is not news. The bill certainly does not "encourage" the President to declare martial law. Please take a look at it. It's really not that concerning if you read it.

Quote:





Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers





</tin foil>

Whew. Well, we'll have to see won't we?

I don't really have a problem with the last one either. Did you read the article?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #178 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't even recall. The data is from the IRS. What is the problem? Oh, and don't tell me where to post.

The data is from the Tax Foundation, which in turn "claims" the IRS is the source (no link to data source(s)).

Quote:
Like many think tanks around the world that annually calculate Tax Freedom Day, the Tax Foundation's annual study in the United States has been criticised by various other think tanks, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Tax Foundation (Wikipedia)

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Tax Foundation Figures Produce Misleading and Inaccurate Impressions of Middle Class Tax Burdens

Quote:
Some groups who oppose the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities's policy positions accuse the group of producing misleading studies.

Like the aforementioned Tax Foundation and the Heritage Foundation. Figures.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Wikipedia)

I "suggested" a new thread since I'm about to drop a boatload of OMB graphs on you, I guess I'll start the new thread myself, once I''ve completed the graphs. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #179 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

No...but what else can she do? If she returned to the old angry Hillary, and let it all hang out her campaign would collapse. The "I'm sick and tired" ranting was santized by her handlers a long time ago (for good reason). Or more to the point, the personality she uses against Republicans work for feeding the Democrats when aimed at the right; but when fellow Democrats get an ounce of the same personal style treatment they are horrified, defend Obama and suddenly "wake up" to her personality and character. Her savaging would be effective running against "evil" Bush, and perhaps McCain, but not against Obama.


Will the mocking work as well as the tears? I don't think so. Obama has a bit of the Ronnie Reagan in him, and people are likely to resent attacking an optomistic romantic.

Max I know we don't always agree but "gosh darn it" you seem to have nailed this... It is refreshing when people can speak with straight talk!

And you know I am not talking about McCain here... I have to hand it to you..

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #180 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Doesn't look like any of her new tactics are working.

Obama up 4 points in TX in CNN poll.

OBAMA 2008

Hey Shawn are you voting in your state primary?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #181 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think riots might well break out though, if for some reason the nom was stolen from him.

Yawn. Why does this concern you?

Why do riots concern you? Are you afraid that blacks, the overall poor, disenfranchised and hippies will rape, loot and pillage West Chester?

Quote:
Going to focus on the second one here: This is not news. The bill certainly does not "encourage" the President to declare martial law. Please take a look at it. It's really not that concerning if you read it.

Not encourage, but certainly can declare it if the need arises.

Quote:
I don't really have a problem with the last one either. Did you read the article?

Dude, the <tin foil></tin foil> was there for a reason. It's World Net Daily. I not afraid of the consequences or decisions that may be made concerning rioting or anarchy. It's out of my hands. Let fate decide.

Until then I'm stocking up on guns, duct tape, canned goods, bottled water and Ramen noodles for the coming apocalypse.



...and exercising.
post #182 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

OBAMA 2008

Hey Shawn are you voting in your state primary?

Fellows

As long as the race is still going!

(I hope not.)
post #183 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Max I know we don't always agree but "gosh darn it" you seem to have nailed this... It is refreshing when people can speak with straight talk!

And you know I am not talking about McCain here... I have to hand it to you..

Fellows

Thanks. No we don't always agree, but quite aside from policy I've always liked to 'get in the head' of politicians AND how that plays with mass appeal. I've never had much of a problem understanding the Clintons, or Bush, or Kerry (etc.). At the moment though, I'm still trying to get a fix on Obama the man.

The biographer's of Reagan always had a tough time finding "the man" behind the President - it took them along time to discover that his public man was identical to the private one. He was motivated by a set of attitudes that was laid out in his daily comments, letters, and addresses.

I suspect Obama is a bit like that EXCEPT that his views are not as ideologically integrated or developed. With only a few exceptions, I imagine most of his personality is also expressed plainly in his comments and book(s). The only character flaw I see is that he seems to be comfortable with rhetorical stylings that doesn't say much. He's enjoying the process of public speaking as mutual fun (complete with fainting women being rescued and fatherly reassurances to followers that he is not afraid of someone doing him in) at the expense of content.

NOW, Hillary would have one small chance to turn it around...she needs a sudden national security crisis. She needs something "serious" on the minds of infatuated romantics...a bit of cold water and fear. Her 'toughness' would suddenly contrast with Obama. She needs what McCain will need, the perception that raw youth and naiveté' is to risky in a world of terrorists and WMD.
post #184 of 255
I hope the era of fear is over.

One thing I think that really works for Obama is that he is not a Bush or a Clinton by name.

I realize that McCain is not a Bush or a Clinton either but the man is just like Bush when it comes to the war in Iraq which most Americans view as a mistake. McCain seems like more of the same and most Americans are sick of where this country is now in terms of international opinion of America (cowboy diplomacy), our economic situation where the middle class is under attack, health care problems etc. McCain does not seem to discuss the economy much and he is on the wrong side of this war issue. These two issues are most important and he is without a clue so it seems...

This country likes the idea of a candidate who did not vote for this war.

Ohh and btw Max, I hope you get a nice long 8 years to get to know and study Barack Obama

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #185 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

McCain seems like more of the same and most Americans are sick of where this country is now in terms of international opinion of America

The window for McCain is gone - he should have won the 2000 election and been our president, things would have gone much better.

However, I won't be horrified if he gets to be our president - there are a lot of things that will go well.

- I still strongly believe that our only real energy option for the next 50 years involves lots of Plutonium (breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing). If this is so, then we cannot suffer small countries to live - they need to merge into larger countries, and the best way to get this to happen is for them to unite against us.

If we try to control the world, it will cause places like South America to merge into large trading/defense blocs that are effectively single countries (like the EU). We really need this to happen, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

- I will be happy that taxes are not raised, the national debt will go up but it is still at a manageable level (60% of GDP, compare that to 200% of GDP for Japan - they are in big trouble).

- I am pretty sure he will do a good job on immigration and border security, without tinging it with racism or pandering to unions.

- Free trade = National security. Countries with a lot of trade ties tend not to attack each other, for example we will never go to war with China. We need that kind of relationship with the large blocs that will form in South America and Africa.

- If he really does ends pork barrel spending and other government waste, then he will probably end up in the top "10 presidents of all time" list.

- They won't take our guns away (well, I don't own a gun, but they won't take my neighbor's guns away).

My worries about McCain

- What about the gay folks - will he kick them around like all the other Repubs do?
- Will he continue to suck up to the horrible Christians after he gets elected
- killing Roe v Wade = doubled murder rate in 20 years.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #186 of 255
I predict HRC fails to win as she would need to March 4th.

If this is the case I have a simple question. How can she go across the country with a theme of "Solutions for America" when she seemingly has not a single viable "solution" for saving her own campaign?

If she has all this "experience" why has it done her seemingly little good WRT her own campaign?

I think that is a very good question...

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #187 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I predict HRC fails to win as she would need to March 4th.

If this is the case I have a simple question. How can she go across the country with a theme of "Solutions for America" when she seemingly has not a single viable "solution" for saving her own campaign?

If she has all this "experience" why has it done her seemingly little good WRT her own campaign?

I think that is a very good question...

Fellows

She's clearly not a good manager or decision-maker. On her one big policy that she tried to implement - health care in 1994 - it was a total flop. On the one big foreign policy decision she had to make when she was senator - to go to war with Iraq - she made the wrong choice. And in her campaign to be president, she took a sure thing and frittered it away. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence on what's supposed to be her strongest traits, policy and management and getting things done.
post #188 of 255
If HRC does indeed go toes up, under the house...

Clinton for President 2012/2016?

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #189 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

She's clearly not a good manager or decision-maker. On her one big policy that she tried to implement - health care in 1994 - it was a total flop. On the one big foreign policy decision she had to make when she was senator - to go to war with Iraq - she made the wrong choice. And in her campaign to be president, she took a sure thing and frittered it away. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence on what's supposed to be her strongest traits, policy and management and getting things done.

Correct on all accounts.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #190 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If HRC does indeed go toes up, under the house...

Clinton for President 2012/2016?


2016: Chelsea Clinton vs. Tagg Romney.
post #191 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

2016: Chelsea Clinton vs. Tagg Romney.



Well, she won't be 45 until 2025.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #192 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The data is from the Tax Foundation, which in turn "claims" the IRS is the source (no link to data source(s)).



Tax Foundation (Wikipedia)

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Tax Foundation Figures Produce Misleading and Inaccurate Impressions of Middle Class Tax Burdens



Like the aforementioned Tax Foundation and the Heritage Foundation. Figures.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Wikipedia)

I "suggested" a new thread since I'm about to drop a boatload of OMB graphs on you, I guess I'll start the new thread myself, once I''ve completed the graphs. \

Wait...are you claiming the table I posted is inaccurate? You can attack the original source, which I did not recall...but that does not automatically invalidate the figures.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #193 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I hope the era of fear is over.

Yeah, if we could all just forget that AQ has declared war on us. It would be so much nicer if we could all back to 9/10/2001.

Quote:

One thing I think that really works for Obama is that he is not a Bush or a Clinton by name.

True.

Quote:

I realize that McCain is not a Bush or a Clinton either but the man is just like Bush when it comes to the war in Iraq which most Americans view as a mistake.

Factually true for the most part. I don't know about "just like."

Quote:

McCain seems like more of the same and most Americans are sick of where this country is now in terms of international opinion of America (cowboy diplomacy),

Ahh yes, the all important international opinion. What would Obama do differently? Meet with President Tom and Castro II? There's no reason to think he'd be better than McCain.

Quote:

our economic situation where the middle class is under attack,

Under attack by whom?

Quote:
health care problems etc.

OK, but do you like Obama's plan for that?

Quote:
McCain does not seem to discuss the economy much

He does so with more specificity than Obama.

Quote:

and he is on the wrong side of this war issue. These two issues are most important and he is without a clue so it seems...

Without a clue? I think you mean you disagree with him.

Quote:

This country likes the idea of a candidate who did not vote for this war.

That's true, but most people would also like to know if the person is qualified to lead the military in the future. "Not voting for the war" is not a qualification to be President. It's a slogan.

Quote:

Ohh and btw Max, I hope you get a nice long 8 years to get to know and study Barack Obama

Fellows

Well, I'd say the same for McCain, but in four years he'll be 75 and probably appearing with Bob Dole in Viagra commericals.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #194 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post



Well, she won't be 45 until 2025.

Is Obama even 45?
post #195 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Is Obama even 45?

I think he confused 45 with 35, the age required to be President.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #196 of 255
Thread Starter 
<BUMP!>

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780

I was going to start another thread, but it all plays into Clinton, so I decided to live by the motto "Don't be a mojo."

I am interested in what people make of this battle within the Democratic Party. I can only recall the thread about Republicans: "The Republican Party is on Fire and it's Raining Gasoline." Shoe on the other foot much?

The Left is now going berserk on Hillary. Yet, she vows to fight on to the convention. Is there any way she could take the nomination without destroying the party at this point? To overtake Obama in the popular vote and/or delegate count, she'd need HUGE wins in PA, NC, etc. If she doesn't accomplish that, should she get out?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #197 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

<BUMP!>

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780

I was going to start another thread, but it all plays into Clinton, so I decided to live by the motto "Don't be a mojo."

I am interested in what people make of this battle within the Democratic Party. I can only recall the thread about Republicans: "The Republican Party is on Fire and it's Raining Gasoline." Shoe on the other foot much?

The Left is now going berserk on Hillary. Yet, she vows to fight on to the convention. Is there any way she could take the nomination without destroying the party at this point? To overtake Obama in the popular vote and/or delegate count, she'd need HUGE wins in PA, NC, etc. If she doesn't accomplish that, should she get out?

I was of the mind that she should leave the race... but... you know what, McCain may be campaigning but he is being virtually ignored by the press, AND the Democrats are pulling off one of the most democratic primaries in history... let her have her cake, I don't believe she will be eating it, though...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #198 of 255
franksargent - you do realise that the chart you just posted really has very little to do with the numbers you are objecting to, don't you? Rich people pay almost all of the income taxes, SDWs numbers are right - if you want to prove him wrong you really have to find your own numbers, not just some unrelated graph.

Here is the latest report from the cbo - it includes payroll taxes, btw:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...TaxRates.shtml
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #199 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Rich people pay almost all of the income taxes, SDWs numbers are right...

Of course Rich people pay most of the income taxes. Rich people have most of the income!

When the top 10% of wage earners earn 90% of all wages paid, they should pay at least 90% of all the wage taxes. It will be more than 90% when you take into consideration allowances and standard deductions even with a flat tax system that includes any sort of allowances. Duh.

Republicans and certain right-wing Libertarians like saying it's not fair that the rich pay the most taxes because it's a very simple point of conjecture to stupid people with no economic understanding. Of course rich people pay the majority of taxes! They earn most of the income!

You also have to admit that those 10% of top wage earners also have an inordinate share of non-wage related income, which because of investment related incentives, is generally taxed far less than straight wages. So their tax burden as a percentage of their total income when you take into consideration wage income as well as other income, is often less than that of their lowest level employees. This was exactly the point Warren Buffet made when he objected to the Bush Tax cut plan. After the proposed Bush tax cuts, he's be paying less than 20% of his total income in taxes, while his secretary would be paying over 30%. Please tell me how that was fair. Warren Buffet didn't think it was fair either.

Of course the problem with the US, Brazil, Hong Kong and any other nation with a FUCKING RIDICULOUS wealth gap is that the top 10% of the wage earners have the lion's share of power, as well, and in faithful self-interest mode, tend to make decisions that favor their own economic positions, often to the detriment of others. This is exactly why we need corrective systems (like a minimum wage and forced corporate pension systems) in place. Otherwise we'd end up with a bunch of Waltons lording over hordes of staff living below the poverty line, "because they can".
post #200 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When the top 10% of wage earners earn 90% of all wages paid, they should pay at least 90% of all the wage taxes.

Please read link before spouting BS - it has percentage of income and percentages of tax paid.

top 10% earn 40.9% of income, pay 54.7% of taxes. Top 1% earns 18% of the income and pays 38% of the tax. That is actual tax paid vs actual income, straight from the government.

It is right there in the link I posted that you didn't bother to read.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"