DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Presidential Debate on CNN
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 84, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/22/2008 03:25:20 PM · #26
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Is Obama for or against making the Bush tax cuts permanent?

Both...keep the cuts for the little guys...reverse the cuts for the big guys (according to his website).


What is the line between big guys and little guys?

Don't know. All I know is, at my current pace, I shouldn't have to worry about being a big guy anytime soon!
 02/22/2008 03:27:35 PM · #27
The problem is that, once elected, politicians (on both sides of the aisle) rarely, if ever, actually follow through on many of promises they made to get elected.
 02/22/2008 03:30:23 PM · #28
So if you make 40-70 thousand a yr, where do we stand on that tax??? I aint poor but I aint rich!

Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Is Obama for or against making the Bush tax cuts permanent?

Both...keep the cuts for the little guys...reverse the cuts for the big guys (according to his website).
02/22/2008 03:35:13 PM · #29
i would guess you are middle class with 40-70K
 02/22/2008 03:46:58 PM · #30
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Is Obama for or against making the Bush tax cuts permanent?

Both...keep the cuts for the little guys...reverse the cuts for the big guys (according to his website).


What is the line between big guys and little guys?


I believe the Bush Tax cuts benefit those who make $250000 a year and more. But no tax cut or hike should EVER be permanent. It's just egotistical of Bush to want to leave a legacy other than war.
 02/22/2008 03:51:41 PM · #31
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
What will make him a better President than anyone running (besides his passionate speeches)?

Actually, given recent (1963-Present) experience, a President whose main function is to deliver inspirational speeches would probably be preferable to one who imposes policies ...
 02/22/2008 03:51:54 PM · #32
This year I think there are cynics that are coming back and actually have some hope ... Hillary wants to tell you that this hope should be replaced by feisty compromise. Maybe it's time to give someone a shot who hasn't already given up. We have a Dem congress so maybe we could reverse some of the travesties of the past 8 years.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem is that, once elected, politicians (on both sides of the aisle) rarely, if ever, actually follow through on many of promises they made to get elected.


Message edited by author 2008-02-22 15:52:40.
 02/22/2008 03:52:06 PM · #33
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Is Obama for or against making the Bush tax cuts permanent?

Both...keep the cuts for the little guys...reverse the cuts for the big guys (according to his website).


What is the line between big guys and little guys?


I believe the Bush Tax cuts benefit those who make $250000 a year and more. But no tax cut or hike should EVER be permanent. It's just egotistical of Bush to want to leave a legacy other than war.


From the Heritage Foundation

The central provisions of these landmark tax bills are scheduled to expire over the next five years, which means that taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers. Between now and January 1, 2011 (five short years away),

Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points;
Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;
Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009;
Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and
Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010
 02/22/2008 03:55:33 PM · #34
Every election year, I am cautiously optimistic.

In every administration that follows, I have been let down in nearly every way.

It's no wonder so many people are apathetic about their government.

Originally posted by metatate:
This year I think there are cynics that are coming back and actually have some hope ... Hillary wants to tell you that this hope should be replaced by feisty compromise. Maybe it's time to give someone a shot who hasn't already given up. We have a Dem congress so maybe we could reverse some of the travesties of the past 8 years.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem is that, once elected, politicians (on both sides of the aisle) rarely, if ever, actually follow through on many of promises they made to get elected.
02/22/2008 04:01:41 PM · #35
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Is Obama for or against making the Bush tax cuts permanent?

Both...keep the cuts for the little guys...reverse the cuts for the big guys (according to his website).


What is the line between big guys and little guys?


I believe the Bush Tax cuts benefit those who make $250000 a year and more. But no tax cut or hike should EVER be permanent. It's just egotistical of Bush to want to leave a legacy other than war.


From the Heritage Foundation

The central provisions of these landmark tax bills are scheduled to expire over the next five years, which means that taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers. Between now and January 1, 2011 (five short years away),

Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points;
Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;
Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009;
Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and
Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010


But its better to spend money we have, rather than borrow money from every other country in the world so we can be taxed less. Compare any money you've saved in tax cuts (which do not directly translate int $$, they just lower the total amount the government taxes you on, so a $100 tax cut will equate to 10 dollars directly) to the amount extra you pay for gas, tuition, and most every day products. I remember paying less than a dollar per gallon of gas before Bush took office, now it's 3. The solution to all problems is NOT war and tax cuts and rebate checks.
 02/22/2008 04:05:49 PM · #36
Originally posted by cloudsme:
From the Heritage Foundation

Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009;

Please explain the moral and/or logical rationale for considering the lending of money more deserving than actual work performed.
 02/22/2008 04:09:03 PM · #37
Hope you don't mind an outsiders comments, but the whole thing is interesting on this side of that wet stuff!

We had a woman Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher...although there are many who would like to forget her term as PM, she proved to be a strong and well respected politician worldwide.

You guys in the US are in a unique position, perhaps the first woman President or the first black president? I have seen quite a few of the primaries and feel that the Clinton era will not result in a First Man as a companion to the President. Get ready to welcome your first black President:))

Just my thoughts.
 02/22/2008 04:13:36 PM · #38
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Hope you don't mind an outsiders comments, but the whole thing is interesting on this side of that wet stuff!

We had a woman Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher...although there are many who would like to forget her term as PM, she proved to be a strong and well respected politician worldwide.

You guys in the US are in a unique position, perhaps the first woman President or the first black president? I have seen quite a few of the primaries and feel that the Clinton era will not result in a First Man as a companion to the President. Get ready to welcome your first black President:))

Just my thoughts.


Thank you very much. Given the worlds low opinion of us in the US I am very interested in Opinions from all over the globe. It's amazing to me how the whole world is watching our primaries. I think it's the anticipation of the end of the worst 8 years in our short history.
 02/22/2008 04:23:01 PM · #39
Originally posted by metatate:
This year I think there are cynics that are coming back and actually have some hope ... Hillary wants to tell you that this hope should be replaced by feisty compromise. Maybe it's time to give someone a shot who hasn't already given up. We have a Dem congress so maybe we could reverse some of the travesties of the past 8 years.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem is that, once elected, politicians (on both sides of the aisle) rarely, if ever, actually follow through on many of promises they made to get elected.


Obama does come across as someone who is sincere and wants to actually make change and certainly inspires the masses, but for you why do you believe that he can back up his words? Just curious. I'm very skeptical that he's a little more interested in covering himself rather than taking a stand and his voting record seems to reflect that. He still hasn't really answered why he doesn't vote much. Instead he just passes the buck. Is it because he just doesn't want to have a record to be attacked on? That doesn't seem like someone who is hellbent for change to me but I could be wrong.

Message edited by author 2008-02-22 16:25:20.
 02/22/2008 04:28:36 PM · #40
The type of government we get is the one that we vote for.

There was a time in Ontario where the Premier, Mike Harris, did exactly what he said he was going to do and he promptly got thrown out in the next election. The electorate is fickle.

Maybe the US will get the change that is promised. It may not be what you want.

Message edited by author 2008-02-22 16:30:02.
 02/22/2008 04:46:48 PM · #41
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
I believe the Bush Tax cuts benefit those who make $250000 a year and more. But no tax cut or hike should EVER be permanent. It's just egotistical of Bush to want to leave a legacy other than war.


Common misconception. EVERYONE pays less taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts and because of the new 10% tax bracket, millions of low income families do not pay any taxes (their deductions out number their tax burden).
 02/22/2008 04:51:03 PM · #42
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
i would guess you are middle class with 40-70K


HA, tell someone on the west coast that over 70K makes them a big dog!!!
02/22/2008 04:55:26 PM · #43
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
I think it's the anticipation of the end of the worst 8 years in our short history.

I think it will be interesting to see what the next generation's history books will say. When they read about George W. Bush in 7th grade...what will it say? I think it was a line from "Friends" that said it best, "I would give anything to be unappreciated in my own time!"
 02/22/2008 04:59:17 PM · #44
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
I think it's the anticipation of the end of the worst 8 years in our short history.

I think it will be interesting to see what the next generation's history books will say. When they read about George W. Bush in 7th grade...what will it say? I think it was a line from "Friends" that said it best, "I would give anything to be unappreciated in my own time!"


I'd say GW Bush will rate between Warren G. Harding and Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon.

Message edited by author 2008-02-22 17:01:55.
 02/22/2008 05:00:07 PM · #45
Interesting thought - I wonder if maybe he didn't want to get caught in the trap that Kucinich and Kerry were caught in. Kerry was called "the most liberal Senator" because of his voting record. They are called "too left" and "extreme" in their own ways. Obama might have been aiming at the presidency the whole time - wanting to keep a relatively low controversy record.

Originally posted by yanko:
That doesn't seem like someone who is hellbent for change to me but I could be wrong.
02/22/2008 05:00:57 PM · #46
70K in MD doesnt make you a big dog either. This place is expensive. Now if me and my BF had a combined income, then yeh, we'd be living good. I'm thinking about getting pregnant before I get married so I can get free tuition. With all the sluts who can't keep their legs closed and are abusing the system. I think i'll start.

Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
i would guess you are middle class with 40-70K


HA, tell someone on the west coast that over 70K makes them a big dog!!!
02/22/2008 05:10:45 PM · #47
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
I believe the Bush Tax cuts benefit those who make $250000 a year and more. But no tax cut or hike should EVER be permanent. It's just egotistical of Bush to want to leave a legacy other than war.


Common misconception. EVERYONE pays less taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts and because of the new 10% tax bracket, millions of low income families do not pay any taxes (their deductions out number their tax burden).


I'll repeat, compare any money you've saved vs. the extra money you pay for living (i.e. gas, medical expenses, food, tuition) and you will find that the bush tax cuts mean NOTHING! It's just a way so people won't complain about all of the poor fiscal responsibility of this administration.
 02/22/2008 05:13:46 PM · #48
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The same way the current president financed his War in Iraq; the national credit card.

He's counting on our kids to finance his party.

I guess I'm just disappointed in the system. It seems that everybody running thinks that more governmental control is the key to "success".
I say if the federal government has screwed things up this badly in the past...why put them in control of more things? Why not give more power to the states and local governments?


Not "everybody", just everybody available via the corporate media.

There is still one candidate who wants to eliminate big government and give the power back to the people. Sadly, "the people" don't seem to be interested in getting back their power.

BTW, this candidate is flush, with more money than any of the other Republican candidates and not one penny of debt.

02/22/2008 05:22:17 PM · #49
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The same way the current president financed his War in Iraq; the national credit card.

He's counting on our kids to finance his party.

I guess I'm just disappointed in the system. It seems that everybody running thinks that more governmental control is the key to "success".
I say if the federal government has screwed things up this badly in the past...why put them in control of more things? Why not give more power to the states and local governments?


Not "everybody", just everybody available via the corporate media.

There is still one candidate who wants to eliminate big government and give the power back to the people. Sadly, "the people" don't seem to be interested in getting back their power.

BTW, this candidate is flush, with more money than any of the other Republican candidates and not one penny of debt.


Actually I wouldn't even say the people are not interested it's that the vast majority of people form their opinions from big media and the candidate you are referring to (Ron Paul, I assume) as well as Kucinich get shut out in the coverage so it's like they are not even running.

Message edited by author 2008-02-22 17:24:16.
 02/22/2008 05:25:32 PM · #50
I've said it before in these forums - the party system is one of the biggest government conspiracies there is. I'm not even sure why Ron Paul ran as a republican instead of a third party (ie Libertarian)

Originally posted by rox_rox:

BTW, this candidate is flush, with more money than any of the other Republican candidates and not one penny of debt.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 08:48:31 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 08:48:31 AM EDT.