Our own little Timmy?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12115.html

Looks like Obama really, really, wants to carry Virginia. He should have chosen Mark Warner.

I wouldn't put money on that. While Kaine is a reasonable choice, he has no foreign policy or military experience and Obama needs one or the other. Sam Nunn counters anything that McCain brings to the table without coming across as a doddering old man.

Mike Sorce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldn't put money on that. While Kaine is a
> reasonable choice, he has no foreign policy or
> military experience and Obama needs one or the
> other. Sam Nunn counters anything that McCain
> brings to the table without coming across as a
> doddering old man.

It won't be Sam Nunn. He can't bring in any state.

Bill Richardson is a good choice as he becomes more and more Hispanic looking. He would bring NM.

Kathleen Sebelius might be a good choice except Hillary supporter would go even more crazy than they already are.

I know Obama doesn't want to choose Hillary but that choice would earn him the most votes.

I hear people saying Obama needs a VP with "foreign affairs or military experience". If Obama needs that, what then is his strong suit? He doesn't have any real financial or economic expertise, ie never ran a business or corporation or had a bottom line to worry about as most governors or those with executive experience do. Obama is a lawyer by trade and a career politician who in my opinion will destroy the Democratic Party because he couldnt wait until 2012 or 16 to run. Mark Warner, if he ran for president, would have had a very easy go given his executive experience and fiscal discipline, while all Obama can stand on is a few inner city projects he funded through your tax dollars.

As ready for change most of us are, the stupid people got behind an unqualified hype and the Party and country will pay regardless of the elections winner..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072802464.html

How about the world-class campaign organization that Obama put together that managed to beat the most connected establishment politician in the race as well as a dozen others, makes McCain's organization look like a high school president campaign, has raised more money than any campaign ever, and secured the endorsements of a majority of the party establishment?

The republican party continues to support George W. Bush, another politician with a thin resume and no foreign policy experience. I keep hearing you guys say how afraid you are of what Obama will do--how could it be worse than what shrub has done? Four trillion dollars of new debt, a half trillion dollar deficit next year alone, war as far as the eye can see, an anemic economy, vast new unfunded obligations, etc. etc. etc. Obama looks supremely more qualified to me than what we have now.

I hope he chooses Timmy. Then we will be rid of him for a while at least.

Al Gore would be a great one! Tother they will stop global warming, and all
other natural desasters.

I think the first thing they should take care of is the education system. What do you think of that Mr. "desaster"?

I heard he already asked Webb and Webb turned him down.

Hillary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about the world-class campaign organization
> that Obama put together that managed to beat the
> most connected establishment politician in the
> race as well as a dozen others, makes McCain's
> organization look like a high school president
> campaign, has raised more money than any campaign
> ever, and secured the endorsements of a majority
> of the party establishment?
>
> The republican party continues to support George
> W. Bush, another politician with a thin resume and
> no foreign policy experience. I keep hearing you
> guys say how afraid you are of what Obama will
> do--how could it be worse than what shrub has
> done? Four trillion dollars of new debt, a half
> trillion dollar deficit next year alone, war as
> far as the eye can see, an anemic economy, vast
> new unfunded obligations, etc. etc. etc. Obama
> looks supremely more qualified to me than what we
> have now.

The deficit could nave been controlled by the Democrat majority (since 06) but they have shown no restraint..

Don't BS yourself into thinking Obamas campaign is something new or grassroots. He gets loads of Hollywood, George Soros and corporate money from the usual suspects..

Obama will raise taxes, particularly capital gains and also promote a form of protectionism, never a good idea for a country in a down economic time...

Obama can give a hell of a speech- thats about all

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard he already asked Webb and Webb turned him
> down.


I don't understand the fascination with Kaine or Webb. Kaine has less experience than Obama, plus he is pro-life and really used Mark Warner's network to get elected. Webb has no network in the state and his experience as Reagan's Navy Secretary is Kerry-esque with problems.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:13PM by Alias.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hear people saying Obama needs a VP with
> "foreign affairs or military experience". If Obama
> needs that, what then is his strong suit? He
> doesn't have any real financial or economic
> expertise, ie never ran a business or corporation
> or had a bottom line to worry about as most
> governors or those with executive experience do.
> Obama is a lawyer by trade and a career politician
> who in my opinion will destroy the Democratic
> Party because he couldnt wait until 2012 or 16 to
> run. Mark Warner, if he ran for president, would
> have had a very easy go given his executive
> experience and fiscal discipline, while all Obama
> can stand on is a few inner city projects he
> funded through your tax dollars.
>
> As ready for change most of us are, the stupid
> people got behind an unqualified hype and the
> Party and country will pay regardless of the
> elections winner..

Agree. He's a terrible choice. He should have waited until more that 2 years experience in the Senate.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mofo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I heard he already asked Webb and Webb turned
> him
> > down.
>
>
> I don't understand the fascination with Kaine or
> Webb. Kaine has less experience than Obama, plus
> he is pro-life and really used Mark Warner's
> network to get elected. Webb has no network in the
> state and his experience as Reagan's Navy
> Secretary is Kerry-esque with problems.

You are so right.

Webb is definitely a weird guy, one who doesn't play well with others and quits any job when the boss disagrees with him. Of course he doesn't want to be vice President, he can't stand anyone being his boss. Plus, he readily admits he would rather be writing books because he most enjoys being solitary. What did he think politics was all about? And the Senate? I don't imagine that he will run again since he has now learned that he can't run the Senate and that the job requires a fair amount of interaction with people.

Tim Kaine is a bit of weirdo too, pro life, but not really. Against the death penalty, but not really. Against tax increases, but not really. Claims to be a conservative democrat, but not really. He never votes as a conservative anything. Then there's the weird eyebrow that floats up to his hairline. Other than thinking Kaine would help carry Virginia, what does he bring to the ticket? Certainly not any conservatives.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The deficit could nave been controlled by the
> Democrat majority (since 06) but they have shown
> no restraint..
>
> Don't BS yourself into thinking Obamas campaign is
> something new or grassroots. He gets loads of
> Hollywood, George Soros and corporate money from
> the usual suspects..
>
> Obama will raise taxes, particularly capital gains
> and also promote a form of protectionism, never a
> good idea for a country in a down economic
> time...
>
> Obama can give a hell of a speech- thats about all

Yes, his speeches sound like rousing sermons. You WANT to BE-LIEVE. Like sermons, you've forgotten about everything he said by the next day, because he never actually said anything. But it felt good anyway.

Neen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > The deficit could nave been controlled by the
> > Democrat majority (since 06) but they have
> shown
> > no restraint..
> >
> > Don't BS yourself into thinking Obamas campaign
> is
> > something new or grassroots. He gets loads of
> > Hollywood, George Soros and corporate money
> from
> > the usual suspects..
> >
> > Obama will raise taxes, particularly capital
> gains
> > and also promote a form of protectionism, never
> a
> > good idea for a country in a down economic
> > time...
> >
> > Obama can give a hell of a speech- thats about
> all
>
> Yes, his speeches sound like rousing sermons. You
> WANT to BE-LIEVE. Like sermons, you've forgotten
> about everything he said by the next day, because
> he never actually said anything. But it felt good
> anyway.

Unlike Bush, who I can't understand anything while he's saying it. You Rightards have lost your privileges for the next 8 years. Thanks for playing.

RR

RightardRicky Wrote:

> Unlike Bush, who I can't understand anything while
> he's saying it. You Rightards have lost your
> privileges for the next 8 years. Thanks for
> playing.
>
> RR

Bush isn't on the ballot though is he?

Obama gives such great speeches, we should all forget that he's never done anything courageous in the Senate ( or probably his life for that matter) We should forget he hangs out with racists and anti-AMerican traitors. We should forget he's never ran a business or made executive decisions..

America is in a bad place, we REALLY NEED a lawyer/community organizer to lead us.

Perhaps we should all be thanking god that Cheney decided not to run though I don't think he'd ever get elected.

You know what, Wingnut? Until you can learn not to say things like "He's never ran a business" I don't think your opinion should count for much. Presidents don't run anything, anyway. They set the tone, direction, and priorities, and make decisions. They appoint people who do run things. Obama started with nothing in life and managed to get an Ivy league education, get elected as a United States Senator, and secure the nomination of the Democratic party for President. Not too shabby. Shrub had everything handed to him, had his daddy's rolodex, and still managed to fuck everything up.

Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know what, Wingnut? Until you can learn not
> to say things like "He's never ran a business" I
> don't think your opinion should count for much.
> Presidents don't run anything, anyway. They set
> the tone, direction, and priorities, and make
> decisions. They appoint people who do run things.
> Obama started with nothing in life and managed to
> get an Ivy league education, get elected as a
> United States Senator, and secure the nomination
> of the Democratic party for President. Not too
> shabby. Shrub had everything handed to him, had
> his daddy's rolodex, and still managed to fuck
> everything up.

Ed Rendell. Street smart. Was a Philadelphia DA and mayor, Pennsylvania governor. Bigger stuff and harder jobs than Kaine. None of the glamour of the NY pols.

First hand knowledge on the loss of light and heavy industrial jobs as well as vast aging-decaying areas of cities. Liked by rural, suburban, and urban Pennsylvanians. Also by the elderly. Has areas that know pain and send a lot to the army.

I believe Jeff Foxworthy might have called that state - Philly and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.

recent chats about hilary with friends now bring up why didn't she divorce the hubby? a poser and other than money and power why were NY staters so starstruck? what did she do all day as first lady? google and read bernstein's book - lots of time frittered away with courtiers, flex time for work.

Obama's wife had a real job for most of her life where you have to show up daily and work.

Maybe we will all get lucky and at the nominating conventions they will actually choose someone else :)

Obama is like the messiah, and I thought the Dems were anti-religion.

McCain is already 1 foot in the grave. While I think anyone over the age of 70 that doesn't have Alzheimer's should be revered, I don't necessarily want them running the Country...

Obama is certainly charismatic, I will give him that - but when you look under the cover it is like he is a paper cutout of a real person. There is nothing behind the facade. I always thought the Dems were about putting up folks that were incredibly intelligent and fast on their feet, who surrounded themselves with sycophants in the cabinet. Republicans were all about management, and having someone that could make decisions at the top, but not necessarily the guy that knows everything. In Obama's case it seems like his wife is more of the hard-core decision maker in the family. Maybe he should make her his VP? :)

If Huckabee didn't have such a funny name I think he would have gotten more serious consideration. Romney was too much in the money, and Ron Paul - well he comes across like the Professor's character in Back to the Future. Really smart guy, but no real concept of what is going on within 5 feet of himself.

I think we are pretty much screwed no matter who gets elected this time.

Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know what, Wingnut? Until you can learn not
> to say things like "He's never ran a business" I
> don't think your opinion should count for much.
> Presidents don't run anything, anyway. They set
> the tone, direction, and priorities, and make
> decisions. They appoint people who do run things.
> Obama started with nothing in life and managed to
> get an Ivy league education, get elected as a
> United States Senator, and secure the nomination
> of the Democratic party for President. Not too
> shabby. Shrub had everything handed to him, had
> his daddy's rolodex, and still managed to fuck
> everything up.

Again, Bush isn't running for office and I'm not herre to defend Bush.BUsh is a lackluster leader who was forced to make tough choices based on 9/11, unfortunately many of them bad..

Obama didn't start with "nothing" - he had enough $ to attend exclusive private schools in Hawaii, his fathers side had resources, his grandparents who raised him were not poor. Obama impressed me in the beginning with his message, but thats all it is and I don't trust his judgement on the people he would pick because his inner circle are a bunch of leftist cliches like Jeremiah Wright,William Ayers and the son of Communists David Axelrod.He has neither atriculated a coherent foreign policy ( except that we'll "work with our allies!"- something BUsh surely tried) and his knowlede of the economy is a joke if he thinks he can beat our economic lull with higher taxes on capital gains etc. Now he may be BSing everyone with this populist bilge just to get elected, but if he is serious we are in deep crap...

I was ready to vote Demo this year, (barring it wasn't Hillary). Mark Warner would have been a sure win but instead the party ran far left with a candidate who is hardly qualified to run an inner city Boys and Girls Club.All he has ever sdone is be a LAWYER and hardly a noteworthy one. If speeches and charisma are your thing, he's your man- I just hope you don;t have any assetts or a small biz to run because if so- UR F'd....

Let's think outside the box here. Obama has run a successful business and that business is his career. His brand identity has continued to produce results that have led to a life of high achievement and continuous upward mobility, no matter what he's accomplished.

Let's dispel the myth regarding taxes. Obama's proposed tax increases are as result of (1) cleaning up behind the current administration in order to bring us to a more fiscally responsible world superpower that we used to be and (2) by economic standards, will equal less than $200 per taxpayer per annum with a majority of this weighted to income earners over $250k.

That said, this will negate the economic stimulus payment, in part, to the average taxpayer (of which a good deal of taxpayers in Fairfax Co. and surrounding jurisdictions did NOT receive as most exceed the income cap) although it's debatable that such payment should not have been made in the first place as there was no material change in the economy by its issuance.

The U.S. budget and trade deficit will not balance itself, nor will we thwart the declining value of our currency unless every has a nominal tax hit until we are "business-as-usual". If this means that the average family in America saves $200 per year for this purpose, then why not raise taxes? I have no problem paying it and my liability will be greater than the average taxpayer if I know that it will help restore economic balance.

All aboard? -§

All Obama has done is run is mouth and people are catching on. He's going down in flames.

Right. So we have essentially a no name Senator from Illinois who hardly ever championed serious legislation, and in many cases voted "present" (why would you do that other than to remove yourself from controversy?) - who gets funded by some very powerful RICH liberals (See George Soros amongst others) to then come and tell other rich people they have to pay more in taxes. Now lets see - Soros I believe has a large amount of his money out of the US, as does a few of the other rich Obama donors. So they would not be affected much at all by this change in tax policy since their money is not in the US at the moment. Right now people in the top 10% of income pay over 50% (isn't it something like 70%?) of the revenue the feds take in already. Also, the federal government makes like 30 cents a gallon in taxes, while the oil companies make 7 to 9 cents a gallon? Does anyone get the picture that our government spends money like there is no tomorrow, and yet we are all supposed to just pony up more money because they can't seem to get a grip?

Any of you folks ever work for the federal government? It is fascinating to see how much work these folks do on a regular basis. Sure, there are some agencies where people are good, but for the most part, these folks waste money so badly it isn't even funny.

Trade deficit? The only way we get out of the trade deficit is to stop sending our manufacturing sectors overseas and out of the country. SO sure, lets put some measures in place to make it less advantageous to move manufacturing and other jobs out of the US. That will help a bit. Also development of new products that folks overseas want to buy from us. Right now there is very little that is made in the USA that isn't made better somewhere else in the world, and for a lot less money. And in many cases by our own companies that shipped jobs out of the country. One thing that helped with the trade deficit was the devaluation of the dollar - the only reason the deficit went up was due to the price of oil, otherwise it would have seen a huge drop. If the oil prices drop enough you may see a very large drop - but we still need to make more things in America that people want to buy. Fuel efficient cars would be a start - why Toyota and Honda have a corner on the hybrid market is beyond me. You would think Ford, GM and Chrysler would have gotten on that bandwagon a long time ago. So if they fail and have to reconstitute in some other form that is probably something that should have happened 25 years ago.

Tell the folks that live in places like NY City, and similar areas why it is that they are getting taxed more on their $250K per year salary which is what it takes just to live in a reasonable apartment in the city with room for your family - unless you are living in a rat hole somewhere. He wants to put in a "windfall" profit tax on oil companies??? That might work if he could tax the Saudis and the Iranians and the Venezuelans of the world. How does that help here? Taxing money from the same source (the American people) is not really going to change the fact that the American people are still paying the additional taxes. How about universal health care? Think that won't be a huge sinkhole of tax money? Wait until we have a Democratic Congress and President - you might get your wish. Where is that money supposed to come from? We already have payroll taxes with 12.4% for social security and what, another 4 or 5 percent for medicare (or is it 7)? So now we get to add on the "pay for universal (substandard) healthcare" - and there will still be a "rich folks" medical center for the folks that can pay for more. Sounds equitable to me.

Believe all the pipe dreams you want, it doesn't change reality. The "balanced" budget years under Clinton came at the cost of our military, and a huge amount of money in the tech sector for dot coms, and Y2K. So should we just scale back the military again and save lots of money? And where will all the laid off military folks work? How about the shipyard folks, the supply people, etc. It is never as black and white as people want to make it sound is it.

Registered Voter Wrote:
> Believe all the pipe dreams you want, it doesn't
> change reality. The "balanced" budget years under
> Clinton came at the cost of our military, and a
> huge amount of money in the tech sector for dot
> coms, and Y2K. So should we just scale back the
> military again and save lots of money? And where
> will all the laid off military folks work? How
> about the shipyard folks, the supply people, etc.
> It is never as black and white as people want to
> make it sound is it.



"You go to war with the army you have, not the Army you want" - Donnald Rumsfeld.

The same Mr. Rumsfeld who called Ronald Reagan to thank him for his handling of the military durring his administration. Even though George the First was in office for the Gulf War it was "Reagans Military".

So under this logic, and it is Donald Rumsfeld Republican NeoCon logic (how much more patriotic can you get?), we went to war TWICE with Clinton's army. I did not hear Donald rumsfeld once bitch about our unprepared, under manned, under funded army before he went to war with Afganistan or Iraq - and the NeoCons blame Clinton for a lot - just not that issue.

They made the decisssion to go to war TWICE with "Clintons's Army" and the Clinton's Army was good enough to take on the task...

If you are suggesting the Army was unprepared, then you must first look at the ones who made the decission to send them in harms way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2008 06:07PM by Radiophile.

Yes. We should be scaling back on our military and defense-related expenditures. While this would hurt the local economy with our glut gov't contractors, there is no reason that we should expand beyond what we currently have in place, particularly when the consensus is that we will likely withdraw troops and focus on what's going on domestically. Laid off troops? Cry me a bloody river. A majority troops enlist because they don't have the confidence, discipline and education to hack in the private sector. Hopefully they've gained these skills during their service and can apply these three characteristics academically rather than by extending their adolescent dreams of playing G.I. JOE in the sandbox at taxpayer expense. More money should go toward higher education and individual fiscal responsibility rather than world domination by force. The world would be a much better place. -§

McCain is all over that ass son.

Am I the only only royally pissed at fratboy Bush? In 8 years he has dismantled decades of GOP gains.

This Obama character wouldn't have a snowball's chance if not for the fratboy and his goddamned wars.

McCain is a hothead, who I believe will self destruct if his buttons get pushed right.

I have a few bucks (worth half what they were a few years ago) so I'll vote for McCain. I sure hope the "racist" vote will be enough to save us from Obama, but I'm scared to death it won't be.

I'm checking out countries to emigrate to as we speak. I like British Columbia a lot, and I'd rather give my money to the Canadian government than to welfare niggers here.

Coffin,

Please go, let me know if you need help with travel arrangements...

Neen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > The deficit could nave been controlled by the
> > Democrat majority (since 06) but they have
> shown
> > no restraint..
> >
> > Don't BS yourself into thinking Obamas campaign
> is
> > something new or grassroots. He gets loads of
> > Hollywood, George Soros and corporate money
> from
> > the usual suspects..
> >
> > Obama will raise taxes, particularly capital
> gains
> > and also promote a form of protectionism, never
> a
> > good idea for a country in a down economic
> > time...
> >
> > Obama can give a hell of a speech- thats about
> all
>
> Yes, his speeches sound like rousing sermons. You
> WANT to BE-LIEVE. Like sermons, you've forgotten
> about everything he said by the next day, because
> he never actually said anything. But it felt good
> anyway.


hmmm, just like Chinese food.

Freddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope he chooses Timmy. Then we will be rid of
> him for a while at least.

AND, republicans take over the state house, for years to come. If Timmy leaves, Bill Bolling becomes Governor and runs for re election next year. Virginians won't want a third Governor in a year so they will re elect Bolling and McDonnell as Lt.Governor.

Timmy's leaving is the best thing that could happen to VA republicans.

hop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Obama has done is run is mouth and people are
> catching on. He's going down in flames.

Nope. White guilt will force democrats to vote for him even though they know he will be a terrible President.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. We should be scaling back on our military
> and defense-related expenditures. While this
> would hurt the local economy with our glut gov't
> contractors, there is no reason that we should
> expand beyond what we currently have in place,
> particularly when the consensus is that we will
> likely withdraw troops and focus on what's going
> on domestically. Laid off troops? Cry me a
> bloody river. A majority troops enlist because
> they don't have the confidence, discipline and
> education to hack in the private sector.
> Hopefully they've gained these skills during their
> service and can apply these three characteristics
> academically rather than by extending their
> adolescent dreams of playing G.I. JOE in the
> sandbox at taxpayer expense. More money should go
> toward higher education and individual fiscal
> responsibility rather than world domination by
> force. The world would be a much better place. -§

What are you smoking? Cut back on our miliary... Didn't the Clinton's do enough to reduce our military? And you want more? If anything, we need to increase oour budget to rebuild, to give our troops the equipment that they need, the incentives to remain in service, and as well as enlist. I'm proud of my spouse and my children who intend to enlist.

Every four years, Republicans make frightening claims that the nominee from the Democratic Party, if elected, will raise your taxes and ruin the economy. And every four years people seem to buy into it. Back in the early 90’s, Rush Limbaugh even went so far as to put his money, sort of, where his mouth was.

From Time Magazine “Working the Crowd” in 1993:
Radio blowtorch Rush Limbaugh bet the Democratic National Committee $1 million that by Jan. 1, 1995, inflation, unemployment, interest rates and the federal deficit will all be higher and that Clinton's approval rating in the polls will be 45% or less. David Wilhelm of the D.N.C. replied with a counteroffer: If the Clinton plan works, Limbaugh will have to give his microphone to the D.N.C. for a year.

Inflation was 5.65% when Clinton took office in 1991. By 1995 it had dropped to 2.8% and 3.39% when he left office. It stayed below 3% for most of his two terms. By contrast, inflation has risen to 5.02% under Bush, and is likely to be even higher by the time he leaves office. Clinton’s job approval rating in 1995 was 51% and he left office with it at 65%--substantially better than Bush’s dismal ratings in the high 20’s. The federal budget deficit had fallen to $163 billion dollars in 1995 and by the time Clinton left office had turned into a $236 billion dollar surplus. Recent estimates from the Bush administration show that the deficit will set a new record and top half a trillion dollars when the next president takes office.

I recall vividly listening to Limbaugh make his bold bet on the radio back then. I don’t recall him talking about it ever again since then. I certainly don’t remember him writing any million dollar checks.

Who should we be afraid of?

Rush isn't so legitimate as an analyst/commentator, when he's right he's right, when not he is a spotlight hungry provocateur who deserves little attention.


90's economics under Clinton: Repubs in COngress like (love em or hate em) Newt Gingrich were very good about controlling spending and constantly battled CLinton over budget. We were also in the great days of the tech boom then the dot com boom. The bust happened soon before W was elected, then of course 9/11...

The deficit is a worthless stat unless compared as a % of the GDP which hints at the nations ability to pay. ME being in debt $10 million is very different as for example Michael Jackson with the same debt as he has more assetts and marketable skills to repay than I could or would.


People worry legitimately about Obamas tax policy. He WILL raise capital gains and the marginal tax rates on higher income Americans, this will effect discretionary spending that supports travel,entertainment,restaurants etc. Also when wealthy Americans don't buy new cars/boats manufacturing slows and jobs slow.

Obama won't have the power to raise capital gains taxes. It just isn't part of his job. He will probably ask Congress to raise the rate, and they probably will do it. But Obama is much more moderate than people seem to think. The 28% figure that's been thrown around is a starting point for discussion. I think that's too high, and I don't think they'll raise it that high. It'll probably go back to the 20% it was at during the Clinton years--a time when people did plenty of investing and spending. By the way, it was raised to 28% during the Reagan administration--a time when people also did plenty of investing and spending. The people whose taxes *might* go up will still spend and invest if they do. They always have.

And, by the way, Warren Buffet--the most successful investor ever--believes the current system of taxation, where people like him pay very low taxes as a percentage of their income because of the low capital gains tax, is unfair.

For every over-40 white woman who'd go with Obama for picking Hillary, there'd be two under 35 men and women just staying home as Obama proves 100% beyond a doubt that he is more of the same.

I know I'd be voting for Barr in that case.

Hillary represents four more years of 51-49 politics with a Democratic version of Karl Rove running the show. McCain has a small chance of moving past that; Obama a larger one.

Most of the conservatives (Neen, WingNut, Registered Voter, etc.) here haven't really given serious thought to voting for Obama. I don't get the 'ZOMG I'm really undecided but Obama hasn't sold me' shtick.

On the other hand, they (and McCain) can't really run on the sterling accomplishments of the past eight years. Blaming two years of a Democratic Congress (while trying to forget they had ALL the marbles for six years) can only get so far.

You can try and explain away the Clinton boom years to the dot-com bubble. The Bush years were the result of a real estate bubble. What happened when the dot-com bubble burst? The markets went down, but was there a crisis of confidence in the very banking system the way there is now?

My belief in Republican economics was shaken in 1993 when Clinton's tax hikes did not ruin the economy. The various Bush tax cuts have been followed with perhaps 5 million jobs. Not bad, but compare that with the TWENTY million jobs created under Clinton. That shattered my belief that Republican economics can work.

Simply repeating the 'ZOMG a Democrat will ruin us' lines from 1992 will not get McCain elected. Things are not working, and parroting the lines of 1930s plutocrats will not appeal to people worried about their jobs, their homes, and their livelihoods.

Long story short. If you vote for McCain, you're voting for a continuation of Bush policies under a (presumably) more competent leader.

My predictions, absent a 'Poland isn't dominated by the Soviet Union' class of gaffe:
Fairfax goes 60-40 for Obama and carries Loudoun and Prince William.
Virginia goes to Obama 52-48.
Obama wins with over 300 electoral votes.
Connelly wins 2-1 over Fimian.
Warner wins 60-40 over Gilmore as local media outlets call the race at 6:59:58 p.m.

Am open to wagers. PM if interested. FWIW, I made $150 in 2004 when Kerry lost and I made $20 in 2006 when the Democrats re-took Congress.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, by the way, Warren Buffet--the most
> successful investor ever--believes the current
> system of taxation, where people like him pay very
> low taxes as a percentage of their income because
> of the low capital gains tax, is unfair.

Right, and he has most of his money overseas, not even in the US, so you can guess how much he pays in taxes on his REAL income.....

He may be a successful investor, but he is not invested in the US.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama won't have the power to raise capital gains
> taxes. It just isn't part of his job. He will
> probably ask Congress to raise the rate, and they
> probably will do it. But Obama is much more
> moderate than people seem to think. The 28%
> figure that's been thrown around is a starting
> point for discussion. I think that's too high,
> and I don't think they'll raise it that high.
> It'll probably go back to the 20% it was at during
> the Clinton years--a time when people did plenty
> of investing and spending. By the way, it was
> raised to 28% during the Reagan administration--a
> time when people also did plenty of investing and
> spending. The people whose taxes *might* go up
> will still spend and invest if they do. They
> always have.

The same Congress that passed the tax laws rescinding tax shelters with no grandfather clause. Effectively making the price of Commercial Real Estate lose 50% of its value in a year, and destroying almost every S&L in the US that had helped fund their loans. We are seeing that now in a repeat with the housing market, although this one is more due to speculators then it is people just trying to buy a home. Well that and a severe over production of new McMansions. Once you glut the market in new homes like we have, it is hard to sustain demand, especially when you start running illegal immigrants out of the country that actually have paying jobs.

At least use real facts. Warren Buffet is not mostly invested overseas, and it wouldn't make any difference anyway. If you live in the United States and have a capital gain--even in foreign stocks--you still pay capital gains tax.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every four years, Republicans make frightening
> claims that the nominee from the Democratic Party,
> if elected, will raise your taxes and ruin the
> economy. And every four years people seem to buy
> into it. Back in the early 90’s, Rush Limbaugh
> even went so far as to put his money, sort of,
> where his mouth was.
>
> From Time Magazine “Working the Crowd” in 1993:
> Radio blowtorch Rush Limbaugh bet the Democratic
> National Committee $1 million that by Jan. 1,
> 1995, inflation, unemployment, interest rates and
> the federal deficit will all be higher and that
> Clinton's approval rating in the polls will be 45%
> or less. David Wilhelm of the D.N.C. replied with
> a counteroffer: If the Clinton plan works,
> Limbaugh will have to give his microphone to the
> D.N.C. for a year.
>
> Inflation was 5.65% when Clinton took office in
> 1991. By 1995 it had dropped to 2.8% and 3.39%
> when he left office. It stayed below 3% for most
> of his two terms. By contrast, inflation has
> risen to 5.02% under Bush, and is likely to be
> even higher by the time he leaves office.
> Clinton’s job approval rating in 1995 was 51% and
> he left office with it at 65%--substantially
> better than Bush’s dismal ratings in the high
> 20’s. The federal budget deficit had fallen to
> $163 billion dollars in 1995 and by the time
> Clinton left office had turned into a $236 billion
> dollar surplus. Recent estimates from the Bush
> administration show that the deficit will set a
> new record and top half a trillion dollars when
> the next president takes office.
>
> I recall vividly listening to Limbaugh make his
> bold bet on the radio back then. I don’t recall
> him talking about it ever again since then. I
> certainly don’t remember him writing any million
> dollar checks.
>
> Who should we be afraid of?

The growth of the economy under Bill Clinton had nothing to do with him. It had everything to do with the Republican Congress, the growth of dot coms (and their bust) and Y2K (a huge investment of money in the tech sector to battle a potentially non-existent, but well hyped flaw). It seems maybe that is where we need to be - a Republican Congress and a Democrat for President. I could live with that. When Democrats start running the whole show, watch for BIG NEW Government programs that will become a way to create a lot of new jobs - in the Federal Government, and in every State to support local versions for managing distribution of funds. And big new taxes to support them.

BillG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least use real facts. Warren Buffet is not
> mostly invested overseas, and it wouldn't make any
> difference anyway. If you live in the United
> States and have a capital gain--even in foreign
> stocks--you still pay capital gains tax.

Let me restate that - while Berkshire Hathaway may be invested in the US, I doubt that all of Warren Buffet's money is in the US. SO he may pay taxes on what he makes on US investments and his stocks, but any money he has put away (other than what he donated to the Gates Foundation) is probably not on US tax radar. I say probably - do I have facts on that, no. DO you? :)

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me restate that - while Berkshire Hathaway may
> be invested in the US, I doubt that all of Warren
> Buffet's money is in the US. SO he may pay taxes
> on what he makes on US investments and his stocks,
> but any money he has put away (other than what he
> donated to the Gates Foundation) is probably not
> on US tax radar. I say probably - do I have facts
> on that, no. DO you? :)

Pretty smooth move, making an assertion, getting debunked, and now making a second assertion and forcing the debunker to prove a negative.

> When Democrats start running the whole show, watch for BIG NEW Government
> programs that will become a way to create a lot of new jobs

Well, given the failure of BIG BIZ to create jobs, do you really blame people for looking elsewhere?

You had all the reins between 2001 and 2006. ALL of them. What did you do with them?

Read the following from the IRS. Do you really believe that Warren Buffet is HIDING income from the IRS? He has stated that he doesn't even use legal tax shelters let alone illegal ones. If you can prove that he is dodging his taxes, I am more than sure that the IRS would love to hear from you--probably even give you a nice reward.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=108276,00.html

formerhick76 Wrote:

>
> Pretty smooth move, making an assertion, getting
> debunked, and now making a second assertion and
> forcing the debunker to prove a negative.
>
> > When Democrats start running the whole show,
> watch for BIG NEW Government
> > programs that will become a way to create a lot
> of new jobs
>
> Well, given the failure of BIG BIZ to create jobs,
> do you really blame people for looking elsewhere?
>
> You had all the reins between 2001 and 2006. ALL
> of them. What did you do with them?

Well, I never said I was fond of how the Republican Congress ran things for the last few years did I? :) Between them and Bush, they have certainly raised the bar for ham handed tactics in passing ever larger funding bills. And deservedly they lost their majorities.

Regarding getting debunked or not - I was not debunked. I made an assertion, someone else made one, and I refined my assertion based on the fact that I slightly was misinterpreted :). I also stated that I had no facts to back it up - it is just an assertion on my part. I put him a in a league with George Soros, although Buffet is certainly more pro-America then Soros is.... Also I never said that Buffet was "illegally" hiding his money. I am sure there are quite legitimate ways to put your funds overseas and keep them from all being taxed by the US government.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2008 01:24PM by Registered Voter.

Sen. O needs a good solid Veep. I suggest Ann Coulter or Diane Feinstein.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
>
> >
> > Pretty smooth move, making an assertion,
> getting
> > debunked, and now making a second assertion and
> > forcing the debunker to prove a negative.
> >
> > > When Democrats start running the whole show,
> > watch for BIG NEW Government
> > > programs that will become a way to create a
> lot
> > of new jobs
> >
> > Well, given the failure of BIG BIZ to create
> jobs,
> > do you really blame people for looking
> elsewhere?
> >
> > You had all the reins between 2001 and 2006.
> ALL
> > of them. What did you do with them?
>
> Well, I never said I was fond of how the
> Republican Congress ran things for the last few
> years did I? :) Between them and Bush, they have
> certainly raised the bar for ham handed tactics in
> passing ever larger funding bills. And deservedly
> they lost their majorities.
>
> Regarding getting debunked or not - I was not
> debunked. I made an assertion, someone else made
> one, and I refined my assertion based on the fact
> that I slightly was misinterpreted :). I also
> stated that I had no facts to back it up - it is
> just an assertion on my part. I put him a in a
> league with George Soros, although Buffet is
> certainly more pro-America then Soros is.... Also
> I never said that Buffet was "illegally" hiding
> his money. I am sure there are quite legitimate
> ways to put your funds overseas and keep them from
> all being taxed by the US government.

Sorry, somethin screwed up there. Dude, read the article from the IRS I posted. The U.S. taxes worldwide income. There is no legitimate way to shelter your income by investing in foreign assets...

Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > formerhick76 Wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Pretty smooth move, making an assertion,
> > getting
> > > debunked, and now making a second assertion
> and
> > > forcing the debunker to prove a negative.
> > >
> > > > When Democrats start running the whole
> show,
> > > watch for BIG NEW Government
> > > > programs that will become a way to create a
> > lot
> > > of new jobs
> > >
> > > Well, given the failure of BIG BIZ to create
> > jobs,
> > > do you really blame people for looking
> > elsewhere?
> > >
> > > You had all the reins between 2001 and 2006.
> > ALL
> > > of them. What did you do with them?
> >
> > Well, I never said I was fond of how the
> > Republican Congress ran things for the last few
> > years did I? :) Between them and Bush, they
> have
> > certainly raised the bar for ham handed tactics
> in
> > passing ever larger funding bills. And
> deservedly
> > they lost their majorities.
> >
> > Regarding getting debunked or not - I was not
> > debunked. I made an assertion, someone else
> made
> > one, and I refined my assertion based on the
> fact
> > that I slightly was misinterpreted :). I also
> > stated that I had no facts to back it up - it
> is
> > just an assertion on my part. I put him a in a
> > league with George Soros, although Buffet is
> > certainly more pro-America then Soros is....
> Also
> > I never said that Buffet was "illegally" hiding
> > his money. I am sure there are quite legitimate
> > ways to put your funds overseas and keep them
> from
> > all being taxed by the US government.

Colonel West Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sen. O needs a good solid Veep. I suggest Ann
> Coulter or Diane Feinstein.

Lol

Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, somethin screwed up there. Dude, read the
> article from the IRS I posted. The U.S. taxes
> worldwide income. There is no legitimate way to
> shelter your income by investing in foreign
> assets...

Yes, well the Swiss have been hiding US money since WWII. I am not arguing legality and if I had that much money I would put some over there too :)

All the account I think that UBS has are coded so it is pretty hard to figure out who the owners are other than through wire intercepts or other clandestine methods since the Swiss do not generally acknowledge those kind of requests without a realllllly good reason. If ever.

It is obvious that Senator O. is an amateur. He needs all the help he can
get: Oprah, Chris/Kid Rock or all of Hollywood's best talent. The bottom
line is, Mr. O is an empty candidate!

Tip O'Neill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is obvious that Senator O. is an amateur. He
> needs all the help he can
> get: Oprah, Chris/Kid Rock or all of Hollywood's
> best talent. The bottom
> line is, Mr. O is an empty candidate!


John McCain is a professional fraud. He crashed five Navy jets, gave aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, divorced the wife who stood by him as a POW for a rich trophy wife, carries the water for every lobbyist in DC and tries to brand himself as "a maverick" because he is such an asshole as a human being nobody wants to work with him.

I prefer "an empty suit" to a guy who calls his wife a "cunt" because of his PTSD.

White Buffalo says: be weary of the false prophet; for he comes as a friend
and savior. The devil you know is better than the one you don't know!

Chief Two Spirit