[quote]100meters wrote:
Uhmmm, yeah it’s not racism, you just made that up. In October 2/3’s of them supported Hillary and blacks have historically been voting for whites for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Your premise is just dead wrong.[/quote]
Why’d black people switch from Hillary, if their policies are very similar?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmmm, yeah it’s not racism, you just made that up. In October 2/3’s of them supported Hillary and blacks have historically been voting for whites for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Your premise is just dead wrong.
Why’d black people switch from Hillary, if their policies are very similar?
[/quote]
Race
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmmm, yeah it’s not racism, you just made that up. In October 2/3’s of them supported Hillary and blacks have historically been voting for whites for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Your premise is just dead wrong.
Why’d black people switch from Hillary, if their policies are very similar?
[/quote]
Presumably the same things that made lots and lots of other folks do the same thing.
I think number one though was the recognition, that he could actually win, which was considered impossible at the end of 2007.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmmm, yeah it’s not racism, you just made that up. In October 2/3’s of them supported Hillary and blacks have historically been voting for whites for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Your premise is just dead wrong.
Why’d black people switch from Hillary, if their policies are very similar?
Race[/quote]
Except, clearly, it wasn’t race.
In Zap’s world a black voter said to himself in January, “what the hell have I been loving about the Clintons all these years? I don’t like whitey. Go Obama!”
Of course this is the same world where global warming ends every winter.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
100meters wrote:
buying a $1000 hammer.
when the hammer is a metaphor for so many things gone wrong over
the past 8 years…
tax cuts for the rich borrowed from china to stimulate the economy is such a hammer,
war in Iraq is such a hammer,
and of course all the hammers literally…
yes accountability of all sorts is needed, hence more and better democrats are needed, ala Obama.
If Obama will indeed have a new approach as he is spouting, I would support that. I would support whomever is willing to clean up the evil empire on the hill so it runs like it should and stops spending money like a drunken sailor. A major overhaul is needed.
However, typically the Dem’s only know how to take more money from hard-working Americans and have no clue to fiscal stewardship. But, maybe Obama is different, I don’t know. But history tells me that if he really was a reformer he would not be getting all the campaign contributions from the rich liberals. So it is doubtful that he will bring anything other than tax and spend to the situation.
Your premise has already been proven out in his limited time in the US Senate. He’s a tax and spend liberal…it’s not really a secret. If elected he’ll be THE most liberal person to ever become President.
It will not just be the rich who will pay more in taxes. Small business will be attacked as well as those making 55-k or better. Obama will be a disaster…as I’ve said…he will be the best thing to ever happen to the Republican party. Does everyone remember Jimmy Carter? After Carter we celebrated 12 years of Republican rule.
[/quote]
At the least with Obama, as a democrat, we’re virtually assured a substantially better economy/stock market/debt reduction/ etc.
So yeah, it’ll be tough…things getting better and all, but hopefully you’ll find a way to get through those better times until we get back to these glorious 8 year rough spots.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
As far as the race issue, I don’t blame black people for wanting to elect one of their own to the highest office in the land. Think about it, if you are in a minority group you feel under represented, no matter how many “special rights” that the government gives you…and blacks get PLENTY.
Nor does it surprise me that many of those who used to support Hillary went over to Obama. There has always been a problem with the Clintons and everyone knew it. It’s just that she was all they thought they had so they supported her. And that’s the same reason that she was the media darling…until Obama came along. Liberals eat their own…it’s always been that way.
What will surprise me however is if Obama actually gets middle class moderate white voters to vote for him as that would be directly against their interests in many ways.
[/quote]
He’s a liberal democrat so the middle class would actually be the biggest benefactors. It would clearly be in their direct interest to vote for him. Hello?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmmm, yeah it’s not racism, you just made that up. In October 2/3’s of them supported Hillary and blacks have historically been voting for whites for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Your premise is just dead wrong.
Why’d black people switch from Hillary, if their policies are very similar?
Race
Except, clearly, it wasn’t race.
In Zap’s world a black voter said to himself in January, “what the hell have I been loving about the Clintons all these years? I don’t like whitey. Go Obama!”
Of course this is the same world where global warming ends every winter.
[/quote]
What are you rambling about? The question was asked why 90% of the black voters dumped Hillary in favor of Obama when their policies are almost identical?
You have not answered the question. The obvious answer appears to be race. Perhaps there is another answer but I have not heard it.
Why don’t you go back to telling us of the glory days of Carter’s economy, how the democratic primary has nothing to do with the democratic party and how “without preconditions” means obvious preconditions.
Don’t forget his cap and trade program as well as his idea to raise taxes on the oil companies. The little guy is going to pay through the nose for both these things.
The costs will be such a drag on the economy it will make the current problems look like boom times.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
As far as the race issue, I don’t blame black people for wanting to elect one of their own to the highest office in the land. Think about it, if you are in a minority group you feel under represented, no matter how many “special rights” that the government gives you…and blacks get PLENTY.
Nor does it surprise me that many of those who used to support Hillary went over to Obama. There has always been a problem with the Clintons and everyone knew it. It’s just that she was all they thought they had so they supported her. And that’s the same reason that she was the media darling…until Obama came along. Liberals eat their own…it’s always been that way.
What will surprise me however is if Obama actually gets middle class moderate white voters to vote for him as that would be directly against their interests in many ways.
He’s a liberal democrat so the middle class would actually be the biggest benefactors. It would clearly be in their direct interest to vote for him. Hello?
Three things about your erroneous assertions.
He defines the “rich” as those making 60-k or better. Now I submit to you if you have a family of even four making 60-k does not make you rich. But in Obamas world of tax and spend…as the most liberal Senator in Washington…60-k makes you a Bill Gates. We also all know that not enough revenue can be raised by simply taxing the real rich. They only comprise about 1% or 2% of the population. He simply expands the definition of rich of that being a figure 25% higher than the median income of a family of four which is 45-k or so. And there you have it…Obama taxes the rich…scum bag.
But for argument sake let’s pretend that Obama really is only going to tax the rich. That means that small business under an “S” corporation will fall into his wild plans. Do you think it is morally right to attack small business in this way? These people may have anywhere between 1 and 100 employees. They struggle every week to make payroll. How does over taxing them help the economy? Does it encourage them to grow their business and hire more people? More people working means a larger tax base and more tax dollars to the government. This does NOT happen with an Obama Presidency.
As for big business and the really wealthy, tell me of one time that big business ever gets taxed where it is not immediately passed on directly to the consumer? The simplistic liberal view is that those who make large amounts of money should pay more. A sort of punishment for doing something good…Anyway in reality who actually pays the tax hike? Those who purchase the goods and services that those “rich” people provide. Therefore, in essence it IS the middle class who will help pay for those tax hikes on the rich even if the rich are the only ones who will be taxed at a higher rate…which they won’t be by the way.
Obama will be a disaster in many, many ways.
[/quote]
Mick28,
We should not be surprised with this mentality coming out of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
Nothing to do with taxes but…doesn’t it bother you guys when an older person is being interviewed on the street and they say, “I’ve never voted before, but now I will! One of us is running!”
I’ve seen this a couple of times and it makes you just want to kick in the TV.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmmm, yeah it’s not racism, you just made that up. In October 2/3’s of them supported Hillary and blacks have historically been voting for whites for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Your premise is just dead wrong.
Why’d black people switch from Hillary, if their policies are very similar?
Race
Except, clearly, it wasn’t race.
In Zap’s world a black voter said to himself in January, “what the hell have I been loving about the Clintons all these years? I don’t like whitey. Go Obama!”
Of course this is the same world where global warming ends every winter.
What are you rambling about? The question was asked why 90% of the black voters dumped Hillary in favor of Obama when their policies are almost identical?
You have not answered the question. The obvious answer appears to be race. Perhaps there is another answer but I have not heard it.
Why don’t you go back to telling us of the glory days of Carter’s economy, how the democratic primary has nothing to do with the democratic party and how “without preconditions” means obvious preconditions.
[/quote]
Were there other democratic presidents? Did all of them (including Carter) do better than Bush?
And factually DNC enforced known and repeated rules on stupid, stupid, stupid, MI and FL state legislators (as you well know).
And yes clearly “preconditions” are still stupid.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
As far as the race issue, I don’t blame black people for wanting to elect one of their own to the highest office in the land. Think about it, if you are in a minority group you feel under represented, no matter how many “special rights” that the government gives you…and blacks get PLENTY.
Nor does it surprise me that many of those who used to support Hillary went over to Obama. There has always been a problem with the Clintons and everyone knew it. It’s just that she was all they thought they had so they supported her. And that’s the same reason that she was the media darling…until Obama came along. Liberals eat their own…it’s always been that way.
What will surprise me however is if Obama actually gets middle class moderate white voters to vote for him as that would be directly against their interests in many ways.
He’s a liberal democrat so the middle class would actually be the biggest benefactors. It would clearly be in their direct interest to vote for him. Hello?
Three things about your erroneous assertions.
He defines the “rich” as those making 60-k or better. Now I submit to you if you have a family of even four making 60-k does not make you rich. But in Obamas world of tax and spend…as the most liberal Senator in Washington…60-k makes you a Bill Gates. We also all know that not enough revenue can be raised by simply taxing the real rich. They only comprise about 1% or 2% of the population. He simply expands the definition of rich of that being a figure 25% higher than the median income of a family of four which is 45-k or so. And there you have it…Obama taxes the rich…scum bag.
But for argument sake let’s pretend that Obama really is only going to tax the rich. That means that small business under an “S” corporation will fall into his wild plans. Do you think it is morally right to attack small business in this way? These people may have anywhere between 1 and 100 employees. They struggle every week to make payroll. How does over taxing them help the economy? Does it encourage them to grow their business and hire more people? More people working means a larger tax base and more tax dollars to the government. This does NOT happen with an Obama Presidency.
As for big business and the really wealthy, tell me of one time that big business ever gets taxed where it is not immediately passed on directly to the consumer? The simplistic liberal view is that those who make large amounts of money should pay more. A sort of punishment for doing something good…Anyway in reality who actually pays the tax hike? Those who purchase the goods and services that those “rich” people provide. Therefore, in essence it IS the middle class who will help pay for those tax hikes on the rich even if the rich are the only ones who will be taxed at a higher rate…which they won’t be by the way.
Obama will be a disaster in many, many ways.
Mick28,
We should not be surprised with this mentality coming out of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
That’s true.
[/quote]
Where oddly we are beating those low tax states in nearly every metric that matters. Weird.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t forget his cap and trade program as well as his idea to raise taxes on the oil companies. The little guy is going to pay through the nose for both these things.
The costs will be such a drag on the economy it will make the current problems look like boom times.[/quote]
yes and Bush’s tax cuts will stimulate the economy all the way to dead last.
Republicans say this stuff all the time and are always wrong, why not just stop saying it?
Also McCain for cap and trade.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
As far as the race issue, I don’t blame black people for wanting to elect one of their own to the highest office in the land. Think about it, if you are in a minority group you feel under represented, no matter how many “special rights” that the government gives you…and blacks get PLENTY.
Nor does it surprise me that many of those who used to support Hillary went over to Obama. There has always been a problem with the Clintons and everyone knew it. It’s just that she was all they thought they had so they supported her. And that’s the same reason that she was the media darling…until Obama came along. Liberals eat their own…it’s always been that way.
What will surprise me however is if Obama actually gets middle class moderate white voters to vote for him as that would be directly against their interests in many ways.
He’s a liberal democrat so the middle class would actually be the biggest benefactors. It would clearly be in their direct interest to vote for him. Hello?
Three things about your erroneous assertions.
He defines the “rich” as those making 60-k or better. Now I submit to you if you have a family of even four making 60-k does not make you rich. But in Obamas world of tax and spend…as the most liberal Senator in Washington…60-k makes you a Bill Gates. We also all know that not enough revenue can be raised by simply taxing the real rich. They only comprise about 1% or 2% of the population. He simply expands the definition of rich of that being a figure 25% higher than the median income of a family of four which is 45-k or so. And there you have it…Obama taxes the rich…scum bag.
But for argument sake let’s pretend that Obama really is only going to tax the rich. That means that small business under an “S” corporation will fall into his wild plans. Do you think it is morally right to attack small business in this way? These people may have anywhere between 1 and 100 employees. They struggle every week to make payroll. How does over taxing them help the economy? Does it encourage them to grow their business and hire more people? More people working means a larger tax base and more tax dollars to the government. This does NOT happen with an Obama Presidency.
As for big business and the really wealthy, tell me of one time that big business ever gets taxed where it is not immediately passed on directly to the consumer? The simplistic liberal view is that those who make large amounts of money should pay more. A sort of punishment for doing something good…Anyway in reality who actually pays the tax hike? Those who purchase the goods and services that those “rich” people provide. Therefore, in essence it IS the middle class who will help pay for those tax hikes on the rich even if the rich are the only ones who will be taxed at a higher rate…which they won’t be by the way.
Obama will be a disaster in many, many ways.
Mick28,
We should not be surprised with this mentality coming out of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
That’s true.
Where oddly we are beating those low tax states in nearly every metric that matters. Weird.
[/quote]
So, what is a metric that “matters”?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t forget his cap and trade program as well as his idea to raise taxes on the oil companies. The little guy is going to pay through the nose for both these things.
The costs will be such a drag on the economy it will make the current problems look like boom times.
yes and Bush’s tax cuts will stimulate the economy all the way to dead last.
Republicans say this stuff all the time and are always wrong, why not just stop saying it?
Also McCain for cap and trade.[/quote]
100meters, I’m curious; in your opinion, where is the point of diminishing return w/r/t taxation? At what point do we as a state have too high of a tax rate.