TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- F-ing amazing. McCain in the lead now, 5 pts ahead
Pages (7): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »

F-ing amazing. McCain in the lead now, 5 pts ahead

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820...oll_politics_dc

quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday. McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll. The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip. The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.

Ask Mr. Dewey! when Truman woke up and realized he won. everyone thought he would lose because of all the polls.
Whether you are for or against a party, never look at polls.

They mean nothing.....

Zogby.

I'm still wondering just who the fuck they're polling because they haven't asked me shit.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I'm still wondering just who the fuck they're polling because they haven't asked me shit.

In all of my life I have never been called for a poll, NEVER!

Yeah I see them focks at the mall and shit, but not once has any fucking presidential election pollster called me at home.

I don't even have a landline I think only old people who are probably going to vote for McCain anyway have landlines and actually answer them when someone they don't know calls instead of letting it to go voicemail like the rest of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I don't even have a landline I think only old people who are probably going to vote for McCain anyway have landlines and actually answer them when someone they don't know calls instead of letting it to go voicemail like the rest of us.

This is true, my folks, Die Hard GOP, have been called many a time....

Polls are like the lottery, only Old People and Immigrants win!

Its time to save and start investing in nuclear bunkers.

I really hope McCain wins.... just to prove to myself that there are countless amount of idiots in this country.

Haha... true true. I hate polls though. Mostly media creations to influence voters. I don't pay attention to them until the week of the election. I remember when Mondale was up on Regan by 18 points in the polls...lol.

I've seen a ton of his ads during the olympics. He is spending big on them. In 2 hours I saw about 5 of those "Obama is gonna raise yer taxes" ads. Utter BS, but sadly it is working.

Personally I am not that surprised at all, especially after the Georgia crisis. I was never really a fan of Obama to begin with. He just seemed to me like a person who says whatever he thinks people want to hear. Not that I'm a big McCain fan either, but his personal beliefs are easier to see. Too bad Hillary was thrown out of the race, she was my fav...

He must be the freemason candidate , all others who wernt FM's (kennedy,nixon)disposed

Were doomed!!!!!

The media polls are a bloody joke. They want a close race and the ratings that go along with a close race.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I've seen a ton of his ads during the olympics. He is spending big on them. In 2 hours I saw about 5 of those "Obama is gonna raise yer taxes" ads. Utter BS, but sadly it is working.

He's not going to raise taxes????

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss He's not going to raise taxes????

For people making under $250,000 a year, no..

McCain said we're gonna defeat evil...why would anyone NOT vote for such a fucking genius?




BOOYAKASHA


TAKE THAT EVIL!

Obama will raise taxes for those earning $250k or more per year. And will be offering a $1000 tax cut for middle and low income people.

It's blatant wealth redistribution and I don't like it much on a philosophical level, but even I recognize that Obama will NOT be raising taxes on the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans will in fact be getting a tax CUT under Obama. It's Robin Hood economics, and you can certainly argue against it from that point, but it is simply wrong to imply he wants to raise taxes on the middle class as Mccain is suggesting.

I hate that rebate idea, combined with his horrible windfall profit tax plan. The most obvious point of all is that the rebates will only give us a one-time relief for the high gas prices, while the new tax will raise the cost of production and delivery for years. Does Obama believe that consumers don�t pay the price for taxation at the pump? And even if that didn�t happen, the 10% margin for the oil industry supports the shareholder price for these companies, in which millions of Americans have money invested through retirement accounts and other investments. Draining the worth of the stock will cost retirement accounts much more than a thousand dollars over the length of the investment.

And what about the capital gains tax increase? That will affect the majority of middle America that put its future into the markets. Over 70% of Americans now invest in stocks and bonds, and therefore have exposure to capital gains tax changes. And he wants to do this out of "fairness"... which translates to massive redistribution of wealth through the least efficient channel... government bureaucracy.

I also consider allwing the Bush tax cuts to expire as a tax raise. I read (cant' find the source at the moment) that Obama promised to reverse Bush�s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget he'd be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,000 and couples earning I think $63,000 or more.

I think under Obama, the rich will pay what they are meant to pay. The middle class actually pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the upper class.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think under Obama, the rich will pay what they are meant to pay. The middle class actually pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the upper class.

Dammit Krypton... you're making me have to do this again Last month's new IRS data:

"we're told the rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That's true. "The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income." In other words, the tax code's already steeply progressive. Yes, even at 35, 36%. And what this proves is the old adage that when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue. Listen to these numbers.


"In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation's income. They paid 25% of all taxes. In 2000, they paid 37%. In 2005, they paid 39%; and 2006, 40%." So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes. The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%. In 2000, they paid 56%; in 2005, paid 60%. The top 10% now pay 71%. But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes.

It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates, and the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition. But, nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich and it's a figment of their imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003." What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! "No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts.

If you earned at or above $388,000 in 2007, you're in the top 1% of earners. In 2006, you paid 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The top 10% in income, that's income above $108,904, paid 71% of all income taxes. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom. But that's going to be a challenge, because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low of 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1% of all taxes."

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I also consider allwing the Bush tax cuts to expire as a tax raise.

They were never meant to be permanent - the Republicans simply advocate making them permanent after the fact because it's politically popular, not because it's economically sound or solvent.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Dammit Krypton... you're making me have to do this again Last month's new IRS data: "we're told the rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That's true. "The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income." In other words, the tax code's already steeply progressive. Yes, even at 35, 36%. And what this proves is the old adage that when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue. Listen to these numbers. "In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation's income. They paid 25% of all taxes. In 2000, they paid 37%. In 2005, they paid 39%; and 2006, 40%." So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes. The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%. In 2000, they paid 56%; in 2005, paid 60%. The top 10% now pay 71%. But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes. It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates, and the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition. But, nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich and it's a figment of their imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003." What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! "No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. If you earned at or above $388,000 in 2007, you're in the top 1% of earners. In 2006, you paid 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The top 10% in income, that's income above $108,904, paid 71% of all income taxes. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom. But that's going to be a challenge, because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low of 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1% of all taxes."

I'm not saying the richest percentage don't pay the largest block of taxes to the government. I'm saying the middle class pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the upper class. The 35% tax bracket really is a farce because it does not mention the fact that the wealthiest 1% of country makes the majority of their income from unrealized capital gains. They also have numerous tax breaks they take advantage of, of which the middle class can't take advantage of, because the majority of their income is derived from simple salary/wage work..

How do you explain this...?

quote:

Originally posted by adi_hanson He must be the freemason candidate , all others who wernt FM's (kennedy,nixon)disposed Were doomed!!!!!

Obama's supposedly a 32nd degree Prince Hall Freemason, but the source I got that from is a member of irregular Freemasonry (i.e. not under jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in England), so I'm a bit skeptical of the claim. Obama's economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is a member of Skull n' Bones though: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21789

Obama and McCain are both on the Council of Foreign Relations though (check their website), go figure. Make sure your tin foil hat's on really tight.

EDIT: Masonry is kinda dead now though and isn't really a big deal or what it used to be. Anyone can join now, all you have to do is go to your local lodge.

1. this early in the race, this result means nothing
2. as al gore could tell you, the candidate that garners the most votes in the election may not be necessarily be the winner (it's the electoral college that matters)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.