Triumph 675 Forums banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
I almost wish we had someone else to choose from but I'm not sure that would make a difference.
Bill, I do completely agree with you. McCain is out of his time and Obama is a lightweight politician. What worries me more is crazy woman Palin. She is so mentally deranged as to believe to have God on her side (as against everyone that don't agree with her). It scares the shit out of me that such a person could have control over atomic weapons. Especially because she seems to believe that she could start and win a war against Russia (a small country with a 1.5 million soldiers army and over 5000 nukes). American voters have a very high responsability. Not just to choose their government but also to avoid that the children of their European allies get nuked.

The last time that a mentally derranged person was elected to govern a superpower, the results were catastrophic (Hitler in Germany). We trust the common sense of our American brothers as to do not allow that such a catastrophe may happen again!:thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Fast4fun, do you think that voting in this election will make any difference? Does your vote a)Count; and if does b)that one candidate would make a positive change to you or I? If so, how?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,110 Posts
You can vote for any candidate in any state, they may not be on the ballot and you may have to "write in" but you can and should vote for them.

The reason you should is that if you like a "third" party (Green, Libertarian, Constitution, Social Workers, Communist, etc.) you need to cast a vote for that party (even if you dont like the candidate) without the intention to win that years election, its more of a long term goal. If a solid quardinated effort is made and 5-25% (but you only need 5) of the natinal vote is tallied for that party it will be eligable for "minor party" public campain dollars in the next election. I am not sure how that would work in the case of a declared independent, they may be eligable for "new party" funds.

Another long tem effect of voting "third" party is that it will change the stance of the major partys. If a more liberal or mor conservitive "third" party is taking a noticable percentage of votes the the major party will change to persue those voters. This also perpetuates the "two party system". That voter may also become more satisfied with one of the big two and go back to them but if they really want a change they will vote their conscious.
I dispute this: if you had preferential voting then what you say would be true. E.g. you give them a rank, if there's no clear winner they cancel the first preference of the lowest result and look at their #2 choice and see if you get a clear winner. Continue until you have a clear winner or else a tie.

But without that: the only time this will work is if your primary candidate has no chance of winning and your secondary candidate has no chance of winning either. Otherwise you are actually wasting a vote. Worse: you might be helping your least favourite candidate to get in.

The US system is broken and only allows for 2 parties for the foreseeable future. That's why you have had (for instance) republicans sponsoring 3rd party candidates who are going to take away votes from democrats.

So if it looks like it's a 2 horse race with a bunch of "3rd party options" that really have no hope of getting near winning: you have to pick your favourite of the two.

I agree you need to send a message, but at what cost: 4 years of your least favourite of democrat or republican. Not really the sort of message that makes sense.

So it's either obama or palin (given mccain will more likely than not be dead within his term).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,110 Posts
Bill, I do completely agree with you. McCain is out of his time and Obama is a lightweight politician. What worries me more is crazy woman Palin. She is so mentally deranged as to believe to have God on her side (as against everyone that don't agree with her). It scares the shit out of me that such a person could have control over atomic weapons. Especially because she seems to believe that she could start and win a war against Russia (a small country with a 1.5 million soldiers army and over 5000 nukes). American voters have a very high responsability. Not just to choose their government but also to avoid that the children of their European allies get nuked.

The last time that a mentally derranged person was elected to govern a superpower, the results were catastrophic (George Bush in the USA). We trust the common sense of our American brothers as to do not allow that such a catastrophe may happen again!:thumbup:
Fixed it for you..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,230 Posts
He is the worst thing that can happen to this country and not just for his bogus tax cuts.
Obviously Bill you have a reason for this... Why? I won't kid myself and even attempt to say that I'm well versed in politics, but such a statement should be backed up with some evidence. I am merely curious (not inciting an argument) :coolgleamA:.

Fixed it for you..
Hah... you must be trippin balls to equate Bush to Hitler...

Or wait a second, are you one of those that don't think the holocaust ever happened either?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
Fast4fun, do you think that voting in this election will make any difference? Does your vote a)Count; and if does b)that one candidate would make a positive change to you or I? If so, how?
If you look at who has held the white house for the last 8 years that should be agood indicator of how important our "vote" is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
Cutter, I'm very skeptical of both parties. I can't help but note the huge gap between marketing spin and reality on both sides. Without taking sides, in my opinion one party claims to be the champion of fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and deregulation. But, only one in three republican presidents made any attempt to lower gov't spending. In fact, the other two blew away federal budgets. And the current taxation clearly favors the concentration of wealth, which is a re-distribution of the wealth. I'm with Warren Buffett on this one. There is no reason for him to pay a lower tax rate, significantly lower, like half, than his secretary.

On the other hand, the dems claim to be for the people, and are decried by their opponents for being protectionist, taxing, and fiscally irresponsible. Yet, Bill supported NAFTA (not popular with the dem union base), cut capital gains tax, revamped entitlement spending, and balanced the budget. He was an opportunist of a politician, no matter how charismatic he is. Sound familiar?

I have varying interests in each issue but FIRMLY believe that the federal gov't is a game of power with a three TRILLION dollar budget. With every piece of legislation there are winners and losers. Both parties try to align their marketing to your beliefs, and once they win they continue to rape and pillage the country.

Picking sides is pointless. I'm surrounded by college educated idiots that have a strong emotional basis for their political beliefs. They refuse to open their eyes to any rational look at their affiliation, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on. One co-worker has an MBA from a well known institution and when we spoke about taxes she had no idea of what her marginal tax rate was or how FICA impacted her differently than our CEO. But she firmly believed that I was wrong because it didn't align with her party affiliation.

To answer your question more directly, i think there needs to be a balanced tension within the legislative branch or between the legislative and executive branches. They keep each other in check. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So yes, your vote counts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,110 Posts
Obviously Bill you have a reason for this... Why? I won't kid myself and even attempt to say that I'm well versed in politics, but such a statement should be backed up with some evidence. I am merely curious (not inciting an argument) :coolgleamA:.
Maybe it's because Palin and he share a common belief. :grin: Both probably give their kids the following colouring in book:


Good old palin.. Old dave said it right: crazy woman.


Hah... you must be trippin balls to equate Bush to Hitler...

Or wait a second, are you one of those that don't think the holocaust ever happened either?
No, the comparison was a president who thinks they are divinely blessed, control over nuclear (or is that nucular? Palin says it the same dumb way) weapons, who thinks they can take on anyone and win.. etc etc..

As for Bush being like Hitler, I don't do godwin's law generally.. It's too much of an internet cliché. :smile:
I could say that there are similar elements in the way things have gone:
* 911 WTC planes vs burning of the reichstag
* terrorists vs communist terrorists
* promotion of identifying radical muslims a threat to way of life vs "dirty jews" threat to way of life
* "patriot act" vs "enabling act"
* expanded executive power overriding senate vs expaneded executive power overriding parliament
* declared a mandate for invasion of other countries vs declared a mandate for invasion of other countries
* says stuff like "you're either with us or you're against us" to further crush dissent vs exact same thing
* introduced powers allowing imprisonment, torture without trial indefinitely vs same thing

etc etc
Could go all day, but it's nothing specific to hitler there. Just the tried and tested techniques of those in power to manipulate the public to back either losing rights or doing something dodgy like invading other countries.

Real scary figures are the ones pulling the strings of the economy via international control of currency via central banks I think. Those fuckers have more power than governments and absolutely no checks and balances to keep them in line.

There's something broken in the system, think people are a bit too attached to admit that things need some major change. I'll settle for some change (obama), rather than more of the same bullshit (mccain or not even god can help us: palin)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,110 Posts
PS bill: sorry mate, couldn't resist.. Palin's just too easy a target and that dinosaur thing still amuses me since you're a (reasonably it seems) with it guy.. :grin: I wouldn't really like to compare you to Palin as she's an airhead and you aren't. :grouphug2:
 

·
BOTM Marshall
Joined
·
3,511 Posts
George Bush must be able to fuck up dictatorship too, being as how he has not enacted firearm consfiscation policies. and we all know any dictator worth his salt would not dare allow his subjects access to firearms, because you don't need weapons--the government will protect you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,110 Posts
George Bush must be able to fuck up dictatorship too, being as how he has not enacted firearm consfiscation policies. and we all know any dictator worth his salt would not dare allow his subjects access to firearms, because you don't need weapons--the government will protect you
*cough*bullshit *cough*
Here's an easy one: Iraq had widespread access to guns while saddam was in power. There are plenty of countries with dictators that have no real gun laws. Holding a dictatorship doesn't need citizens without guns. Guns are useless when you have armies/police who have more men/guns/armour than you do. You can have all the guns you want and they just have to send one tank or drop one bomb. They're only useful for killing other citizens, family members, school kids etc. Even if you spent all your money buying an extensive array of machine guns, the army just fires in one RPG or rattles off a mini-gun from a helicopter at a nice safe distance.

Where were the people with guns protesting against waterboarding, widespread wiretapping, unconstitutional declaration of war etc etc?
Answer: doing sweet fuck all.
Unless you live in a banana republic somewhere or a "might is right" political system, guns are not part of the process.

The broad base of gun types are exactly the same people who put him in power in the first place. I've yet to hear of ANY political pressure being exerted by gun groups except when it comes to protecting their "right" to own guns. I dispute that guns have any use in the political process whatsoever, in fact they're standing in the way of improving the constitution by clamping down on them (e.g. the NRA's thinly veiled threats of "blood on the streets" if they try to take away their guns). By improving the constitution: I mean like everywhere else in the developed world who have realised access to guns are causing higher homicide rates and that you make life safer if you take them out of the equation.

But hey, keep repeating your NRA mantra and say that they're preventing dictatorship as your rights disappear one by one. Bush has already got the right to lock you up indefinitely, without trial, without normal process and for whatever reason he comes up with. But maybe your gun has some force field that protects you from this? :rofl2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
Cutter,
I was merely pointing out the difference between how the parties market themselves and how they act. Ultimately, the populous decides the outcome of the election and the direction of the nation. Unfortunately, since voters are not very well educated on the issues, they usually find themselves reacting to current conditions, as we see today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Your statement only provides backing for my thinking. I say, you don't have a choice. Even if you did, it's a bad one and therefore no choice at all (Arsenic or Cyanide?). You say, there are too many people "voting" based on whim or "conditions" or spin (based on large dollar political marketing) instead of a candidate doing what they say they'll do.

Our system is corrupt and busted. Nothing you've said counters that. Do you have anything that would make anyone believe A)your vote is counted (they throw it away if you don't pick one if their few and even if you don't have yours literally thrown away the electoral college does what they want anyway... see last election) and B) There's a good choice among the few? If you do, why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Obama's grand plan to re-distribute wealth amongst the masses described in detail.
If this guy gets elected and this type of tax "change" happens, it's going to hurt right in the pocket, as usual.
Ken
Obama's 95% Illusion

  • OCTOBER 13, 2008
Obama's 95% Illusion

It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.


  • Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
AP

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:


  • A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
  • A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
  • A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
  • A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
  • An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
  • A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
  • A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles. Here personal tax advisor near me company Your Books On Time in Virginia.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Taxes are always a difficult question!
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top