quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo once again history pwns you...and the vast internet conspiracy nuthouse can you tell us when Diebold began participating in the US election system? was Diebold in Florida in 1999?

Correction, 2004. Your interpretation of history makes me vomit...

quote:

who labeled him a traitor?

"Obama would rather lose a war to win an election" -John McCain

If that does not imply Obama as a traitor, let me know..

And the "facts on the ground" are that the Iraq is not a war zone, it's an OCCUPATION zone and has been since Mr. Bush declared "victory" in San Diego Bay. I don't think the McCain campaign got that memo. Obama wants to end the occupation.

quote:

Nice McCain tie in there, Krypton... lol. Who are you talking about with lobbyist friends? Obama’s up to his ears in lobbyists in the ethanol industry.

None of Obama's people had involvement in deregulating the financial industry which ultimately led to the borderline systemic collapse of the entire financial sector. Nice try though..

quote:

I read PKCrailstin's quote from the other day asking you if you are on the Obama train now because you just want to be on a winning team. It made me wonder, and I ask this in all sincerity... why ARE you a huge Obama mark now? If you really are a registered republican, and like me, are disgusted at the way the GOP has changed as of late with all the big spending and expansion, then it's those traditional conservative principles that you stood for that the GOP has disappointed you on. Why, as a reaction to that disappointment, would you go so far to the left with your beliefs and support... even further to the left than the candidates were before Obama on the Democratic side? I would think you would stand fast in your conservative beliefs and principles, because being conservative doesn't equate to being a member of the GOP (more so now than ever). I'm just as let down as you are with the GOP and I think McCain sucks a fat one, but I can't imagine abandoning the ideals that make me conservaive, regardless of what the party was doing. Do ideals and principles so opposite from what you used to stand for make more sense now because the GOP let you down? It does kind of look like you want to be on the winning team... like you want to be a part of history or something. I may be wrong, but I'm asking because I really want to know.

I don't support Obama just because I believe he'll win. I believe he'll win not because of my personal support for him, but because he has such broad support, and looks more like a leader than McCain could ever hope for. I can't see how Obama won't win, of course, IN A FAIR ELECTION, that is.

This is where my politics lie. I am an economic conservative. A believer in free markets. But I also believe that markets should be policed, to avoid systemic market collapsed as a result of a market gone wild. I also believe in social justice. I believe health care is a basic human right. I believe the American leadership should respect the rule of law, and not that of unilateralism. I believe that humans contribute more than any other factor to global climate change and if we are to avert a climate disaster we must change the way we obtain and use energy.

The Democrats, much more than the Republicans represent these ideals. They aren't perfect. No political party is perfect. But the Republican Party has fucked things up so bad, I am in open rebellion to it. Yes, I am a registered Republican, but I will be changing that next election cycle. Or I might stay in just to take away my vote from incumbents. I'll decide my party affiliation when the time is right for me.

McCain the "maverick" is not maverick in my book. He represents the status quo. I believe this country no longer wants or needs the status quo at this point in time. This country wants reform, change, and different policy. Liberalism is the ideal of change, and liberalism is what this country needs right now. Are there times when this country needs to slow it down, and remain conservative? Most certainly, but today, after 7 years of atrocious conservative rule, liberalism is on the rise. Revolution! Thomas Jefferson once said government should be revolutionized every 10 years. Thank god we only have to wait 8 years! And when i think about the Revolution which started this country, I can't help but think that it was the most liberal movement of all! It was the conservative loyalists who wanted to remain subjects of the crown!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't support Obama just because I believe he'll win. I believe he'll win not because of my personal support for him, but because he has such broad support, and looks more like a leader than McCain could ever hope for. I can't see how Obama won't win, of course, IN A FAIR ELECTION, that is. This is where my politics lie. I am an economic conservative. A believer in free markets. But I also believe that markets should be policed, to avoid systemic market collapsed as a result of a market gone wild. I also believe in social justice. I believe health care is a basic human right. I believe the American leadership should respect the rule of law, and not that of unilateralism. I believe that humans contribute more than any other factor to global climate change and if we are to avert a climate disaster we must change the way we obtain and use energy. The Democrats, much more than the Republicans represent these ideals. They aren't perfect. No political party is perfect. But the Republican Party has fucked things up so bad, I am in open rebellion to it. Yes, I am a registered Republican, but I will be changing that next election cycle. Or I might stay in just to take away my vote from incumbents. I'll decide my party affiliation when the time is right for me. McCain the "maverick" is not maverick in my book. He represents the status quo. I believe this country no longer wants or needs the status quo at this point in time. This country wants reform, change, and different policy. Liberalism is the ideal of change, and liberalism is what this country needs right now. Are there times when this country needs to slow it down, and remain conservative? Most certainly, but today, after 7 years of atrocious conservative rule, liberalism is on the rise. Revolution! Thomas Jefferson once said government should be revolutionized every 10 years. Thank god we only have to wait 8 years! And when i think about the Revolution which started this country, I can't help but think that it was the most liberal movement of all! It was the conservative loyalists who wanted to remain subjects of the crown!

Thanks dude. I appreciate the reply to my question and I respect your position. I agree that the country wants reform, but even more spending and government programs and expansion (a la Obama) is not change in the right direction, don't you think? That's what liberalism will bring. I don't see how liberalism is what this country needs. McCain at least wants (or claims to want, who knows) to curtail the earmarking maddness that's going on, and pledges to reform government, which I'm more interested in than reforming the actual country. Liberal policies scare me. I don't know why all the leftists talk about the fear mongering on the right... the left goes bananas with that doom and gloom shit, like we're all going to die tomorrow if we don't do what Al Gore tells us to do.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Thanks dude. I appreciate the reply to my question and I respect your position. I agree that the country wants reform, but even more spending and government programs and expansion (a la Obama) is not change in the right direction, don't you think? That's what liberalism will bring. I don't see how liberalism is what this country needs. McCain at least wants (or claims to want, who knows) to curtail the earmarking maddness that's going on, and pledges to reform government, which I'm more interested in than reforming the actual country. Liberal policies scare me. I don't know why all the leftists talk about the fear mongering on the right... the left goes bananas with that doom and gloom shit, like we're all going to die tomorrow if we don't do what Al Gore tells us to do.

What is our alternative? McCain who wants to continue rampant spending on military adventures, or Obama who wants to curtail our militarism (which I think is reaching dangerous levels)? McCain will not be changing our spending patterns. President Clinton did a wonderful job balancing the government budget, and that was after years of Republican rule in which "Deficits don't matter." Taxes are going to increase for those above $250000/yr income. These are levels during the Clinton years, and how well did the economy do then? VERY WELL. This government needs more economic regulation, curtailed militarism, and a balanced budget. I think liberalism is the current ideal most able to fulfill these objectives.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What is our alternative? McCain who wants to continue rampant spending on military adventures, or Obama who wants to curtail our militarism (which I think is reaching dangerous levels)? McCain will not be changing our spending patterns. President Clinton did a wonderful job balancing the government budget, and that was after years of Republican rule in which "Deficits don't matter." Taxes are going to increase for those above $250000/yr income. These are levels during the Clinton years, and how well did the economy do then? VERY WELL. This government needs more economic regulation, curtailed militarism, and a balanced budget. I think liberalism is the current ideal most able to fulfill these objectives.

I know the alternative (McCain) is nothing to be excited about. I don't know if McCain will be changing our spending habits... I don't think they would get any worse. But I do know Obama is proposing to spend $1 trillion over what the current budget is. The tax cuts remaining permanent is good for the economy... I don't see how that can be debated. With more disposable income for individuals, the economy will simply run better. You are buying into the smoke screen of "We're going to only raise taxes on those who make over $250K."

This is crucial man, please read on. He wants to double the capital gains tax, when 100 million Americans have stocks and/or 401K's... meaning those very people he claims to be helping will be affected. Just ask the people of Michigan, who are run by democrats, how the "soak-the-rich" policies are working out. They have resulted in high unemployment and low investment. Soaking the rich might have some political resonance, but it’s risky to strip investment incentives from those most likely to create jobs. And despite the rhetoric, even with the Bush tax cuts, the top 1 percent of American earners still carry 40% of the tax burden, compared with 31.6% in 1996 under Clinton, according to the IRS. This is what the Dems don't understand man.... it the great unreported truth of tax revenues under the Bush administration. The rich pay more as a percentage of federal revenues now than they did during the Clinton administration, in part BECAUSE of the Bush tax cuts.

The big cut in the capital gains tax rate encouraged more investment and more diversity on the part of major venture capital funds. That allowed more businesses to open, more jobs to be created, and more profit to tax, increasing revenues to the federal government. Instead of following the obvious success of these specific cuts by reducing the corporate tax rates, the highest in the Western world, Obama wants to reverse the very cuts that resulted in the wealth redistribution he seeks. He wants to return the capital-gains tax rates to their pre-Bush levels, which will have two effects. First, venture capitalists will sell off their investments ahead of the rate change to avoid the new rate, and they will find safer investments in the future rather than pay the same level of tax on riskier investments. Both effects will cost jobs in a market that can hardly afford to shed more of them, and in the end it will reduce rather than increase the revenue stream to the federal government.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I know the alternative (McCain) is nothing to be excited about. I don't know if McCain will be changing our spending habits... I don't think they would get any worse. But I do know Obama is proposing to spend $1 trillion over what the current budget is. The tax cuts remaining permanent is good for the economy... I don't see how that can be debated. With more disposable income for individuals, the economy will simply run better. You are buying into the smoke screen of "We're going to only raise taxes on those who make over $250K." This is crucial man, please read on. He wants to double the capital gains tax, when 100 million Americans have stocks and/or 401K's... meaning those very people he claims to be helping will be affected. Just ask the people of Michigan, who are run by democrats, how the "soak-the-rich" policies are working out. They have resulted in high unemployment and low investment. Soaking the rich might have some political resonance, but it’s risky to strip investment incentives from those most likely to create jobs. And despite the rhetoric, even with the Bush tax cuts, the top 1 percent of American earners still carry 40% of the tax burden, compared with 31.6% in 1996 under Clinton, according to the IRS. This is what the Dems don't understand man.... it the great unreported truth of tax revenues under the Bush administration. The rich pay more as a percentage of federal revenues now than they did during the Clinton administration, in part BECAUSE of the Bush tax cuts. The big cut in the capital gains tax rate encouraged more investment and more diversity on the part of major venture capital funds. That allowed more businesses to open, more jobs to be created, and more profit to tax, increasing revenues to the federal government. Instead of following the obvious success of these specific cuts by reducing the corporate tax rates, the highest in the Western world, Obama wants to reverse the very cuts that resulted in the wealth redistribution he seeks. He wants to return the capital-gains tax rates to their pre-Bush levels, which will have two effects. First, venture capitalists will sell off their investments ahead of the rate change to avoid the new rate, and they will find safer investments in the future rather than pay the same level of tax on riskier investments. Both effects will cost jobs in a market that can hardly afford to shed more of them, and in the end it will reduce rather than increase the revenue stream to the federal government.

Here is Obama's fiscal policy...I'm pretty damn satisfied by it...

quote:

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington * Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue. * Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. * Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. * Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices. * End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

As for taxes. Warren Buffet, my role model I might add, has said himself that the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy. And he put forth his own example. He paid 17% of his payroll/income in taxes. The average for his Berkshire Hathaway office which included secretaries and assistants was over 30%! This most certainly needs to be adjusted. The capital gains tax would rise as you said, but the brunt of the rise would be on the wealthy, who can most certainly afford it! Additionally, the wealthy usually keep their investments for YEARS, even decades. They are not always trading stocks back and forth all the time. Therefore, they rarely pay capital gains taxes. Also, if one is to keep their stock investment for more than 1 year, the capital gains tax is decreased, which provides further incentive to keep gain UNREALIZED. Remember, capital gains are only applied with REALIZED gains. This will be of interest to you...



Buffet challenged $1 million to the CEO of any Fortune 500 company who can prove they pay a higher tax rate than their secretary's. Guess what? NO TAKERS!!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Correction, 2004.

yeah, i'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one. you meant 2000 i'm sure but i can't prove it.

quote:

"Obama would rather lose a war to win an election" -John McCain If that does not imply Obama as a traitor, let me know..

what makes McCain's statement factually correct was Obama's position prior to clinching X amount of delegates for the Democrat primary.

you don't think the war was just and i don't think youre a traitor, you just hold a position. same with Obama.

but if you want to talk about having a posistion, for the longest time Obama touted this war was wrong in every sense of the word. he won the nomination on those core beliefs. his voting record reflected that then. now, i honestly don't know what he believes but whatever it is, it's done so out of political ambition and not what it was that got him there in the first place.

i wouldn't call that traitorous though.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah, i'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one. you meant 2000 i'm sure but i can't prove it.

lol, you sure are trying hard to nail me on insignificant mistakes..

quote:

what makes McCain's statement factually correct was Obama's position prior to clinching X amount of delegates for the Democrat primary. you don't think the war was just and i don't think youre a traitor, you just hold a position. same with Obama. but if you want to talk about having a posistion, for the longest time Obama touted this war was wrong in every sense of the word. he won the nomination on those core beliefs. his voting record reflected that then. now, i honestly don't know what he believes but whatever it is, it's done so out of political ambition and not what it was that got him there in the first place. i wouldn't call that traitorous though.

Has Obama flip-flopped like John McCain so often has (on other issues), on the Iraq issue? By all accounts, he still advocates a 16 month draw down. You must know something I don't. He's been consistent all along, even when the "war fever" was sweeping through Congress. So to call his position, a consistent position, one which he takes only for political purposes, is BLATANTLY false, and really disappointing. The fact that McCain campaign supporters feel the need to attack Mr. Obama personally on such an issue just demonstrates to me that they can't focus on the discussion, which is when to end this stupifying occupation. You believe Obama's Iraq position is done out of political ambition (just as McCain campaign propagated to you), but yet old John McCain's positions are oh so authentic! He has no ambitions huh!? What a joke..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton lol, you sure are trying hard to nail me on insignificant mistakes..

not that hard. like i said, i can't prove it.

what would be interesting though would be for you to back up your assertions about 2004 if, in fact, you meant 2004 and not 2000...but whatever. i don't really care.

Kerry lost because he's Kerry. anything else is just hearsay. /story.

quote:

By all accounts, he still advocates a 16 month draw down.

"still" is debatable, but since when exactly has he advocated a 16 month draw down? thats the question.

...and what was his position prior to that?

anyway, about "still". this is from yesterday:

quote:

Wolfe In Iraq, it’s not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country. But there’s always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders’ saying he’s not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them? Obama Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they’re going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We’re going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We’re going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We’re going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective. Wolfe You’ve been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you’d need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions? Obama I do think that’s entirely conditions-based. It’s hard to anticipate where we may be six months from >LINK<

like everything else this man asserts, it's "entirely conditions based" now.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jul-28-2008 at 02:58

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Here is Obama's fiscal policy...I'm pretty damn satisfied by it... As for taxes. Warren Buffet, my role model I might add, has said himself that the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy. And he put forth his own example. He paid 17% of his payroll/income in taxes. The average for his Berkshire Hathaway office which included secretaries and assistants was over 30%! This most certainly needs to be adjusted. The capital gains tax would rise as you said, but the brunt of the rise would be on the wealthy, who can most certainly afford it! Additionally, the wealthy usually keep their investments for YEARS, even decades. They are not always trading stocks back and forth all the time. Therefore, they rarely pay capital gains taxes. Also, if one is to keep their stock investment for more than 1 year, the capital gains tax is decreased, which provides further incentive to keep gain UNREALIZED. Remember, capital gains are only applied with REALIZED gains. This will be of interest to you...

Forget what Warren Buffet said. Here are the unadulterated, updated IRS tax FACTS that came out last week, clearly showing the "rich" pay a higher percentage of the taxes (I guess you didn't see my response to the other guy about the same issue) Read on:

quote:

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. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 when it was 3.5% in 2003.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...=googlenews_wsj

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo like everything else this man asserts, it's "entirely conditions based" now.

I'd like to add this quote to that statement as backup--->

quote:

Obama advisors as saying this could mean leaving as many as 50,000 troops in place. According to a recent essay by Colin Kahl, who runs Obama’s working group on Iraq, in the “near term” they might keep as many as 12 brigades there for “overwatch,” i.e. support, duties. If Obama’s top priority really is withdrawal, his Iraq policy should begin by setting the number of troops he’s comfortable leaving in the field and then asking for recommendations on which missions are feasible given that number. The fact that he’s going about it the other way, starting with the missions and then building any drawdown around them, is a decidedly McCain-esque (i.e. conditions-based, i.e. responsible) approach. He tweaked McCain this morning for having lately come around to so many of his own positions, but in light of this, he and Maverick are almost mirror images on Iraq now: McCain thinks troop levels should depend on conditions but concedes that 16 months is a “pretty good timetable” whereas Obama thinks 16 months is a pretty good timetable but concedes that, er, troop levels should depend on conditions.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "still" is debatable, but since when? thats the question. anyway, about "still". this is from yesterday: like everything else this man asserts, it's "entirely conditions based" now.

He's damned if he wants a withdrawal, damned if he wants a "responsible withdrawal". Whatever Obama does, McCain supporters will oppose. If Obama wanted a Hillary-style withdrawal, they'de scream "PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL/SURRENDER!" If he wants a responsible phased withdrawal in the direction of military commanders on the ground, McCainites such as yourself, say he's not authentic on his withdrawal position. Here is his position as his campaign states:

quote:

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began. Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Forget what Warren Buffet said. Here are the unadulterated, updated IRS tax FACTS that came out last week, clearly showing the "rich" pay a higher percentage of the taxes (I guess you didn't see my response to the other guy about the same issue) Read on: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...=googlenews_wsj

That does not negate the fact that the wealthiest still pay a LESSER percentage of their income in taxes than do the middle class. It doesn't matter what percentage of all taxes paid to the government are from the wealthy. They still pay less of their income in taxes than do the middle class.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'd like to add this quote to that statement as backup--->

I searched for this essay and here is what I found. I completely agree with the proposed strategy. It is NOT flip flop. The Obama campaign has always stated they will initiate a drawdown, but NOT a precipitous withdrawal. It's probably better to look at the essay itself instead of an aol message board...

quote:

When the new administration takes office in January 2009, it must follow up on this approach by initiating a down payment on redeployment. Starting from the roughly 15 combat brigades (a total of 130,000-140,000 troops) it is likely to inherit, the new administration should signal its intention to transition to a "support," or "overwatch," role by announcing the near-term reduction of U.S. forces to perhaps 12 brigades. The new administration should also immediately sign a formal pledge with the Iraqi government stating unequivocally that it will not seek, accept, or under any conditions establish permanent or "enduring" military bases in Iraq. Taken together, these actions would signal to the Iraqi government that the U.S. commitment is no longer open-ended while still maintaining enough forces in the near term to prevent a major reversal of progress on security. These steps would also signal to groups inside the Iraqi parliament that strongly oppose the occupation (especially the Sadrists), as well as to the organizations representing the nationalist wing of the Sunni insurgency, that the United States does not intend to stay forever. This might open up additional avenues for bringing those Sunnis into formal and informal negotiations.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080...leave-iraq.html

___________________