| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2008 04:45:03 PM · #326 |
As far as the Stimulus check, Ron is right...technically. The point is that you could still make a level of income that would mean you didn't pay ANY taxes and still receive a $300 check.
But I digress.
The point of my post is really to point out that Obama has more experience at national level politics at this point than Abraham Lincoln did before he was elected. Lincoln is usually rated as one of the best leaders our country has had and was able to pull it through its most dire period. Experience is overrated. I think most people are just sick of the double-faced attacks where Obama lacks experience but somehow Palin has it in spades. Frankly they BOTH lack the experience of either McCain or Biden, but does it matter?
If experience as measured by time counts, then both Palin and Obama lack.
If experience as measured by "executive experience" counts, then really EVERYBODY lacks. Palin would be in the lead with 18 months as governor. Obama, McCain, and Biden are all senators and have never had such executive experience.
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 16:46:47. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 10:43:48 PM · #327 |
| It is simple, vote for the candidate that is going to do what you feel is better for you. If you need a handout or government to step in and run your life by providing Healthcare and welfare and say no guns allowed then by all means you should vote for the candidate that supports those ideals. If you feel free trade is not fair and socialistic programs are better for you then please go vote for the candidate that supports those ways of life. If you want to Be Free to live the American Dream. Where anyone can be anything starting with nothing then vote for the candidate that will protect your freedom. Remember Freedom comes with a price attached.Personally I do not need government provided healthcare, welfare or any other handouts since I educated myself to a level that allows me to seek out a job that has those benefits. I did not get a refund either. I do however love my guns, believe in the second amendment and will not support anyone who does not support the second amendment. I do not listen to the media. Too many actors playing reporters these day. "actor= a person who is payed to make you believe the lie they are telling" I do have a BA in Political Science and do not understand why people don't just go look at the voting records of the officials running for office and make a sound judgement based on what they actually did. So how about this no more Wiki's. No more News sites. Just go look at their records. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 10:52:05 PM · #328 |
I do not feel you can judge a president on just a few actions they made. Lincoln and Kennedy in my studies of history prove to be more of a failure than a success. They call Lincoln the great emancipator but he only free the slaves in the Southern Confederacy. Second point he had no athority under the laws of this nation to wage a war on any state that suceeded from the union. Kennedy technically lost the 1964 debate to Nixon but was young and handsome compaired to Nixon the Old washington Crony with the five oclock shadow 8 am in the morning.He basically won on looks. Second all sitting presidents would have followed the Monroe Doctrine that says we are the only Super power in the western Hemisphere. Beyond that both were assasinated and we can only imagine what could,would but did not be.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as the Stimulus check, Ron is right...technically. The point is that you could still make a level of income that would mean you didn't pay ANY taxes and still receive a $300 check.
But I digress.
The point of my post is really to point out that Obama has more experience at national level politics at this point than Abraham Lincoln did before he was elected. Lincoln is usually rated as one of the best leaders our country has had and was able to pull it through its most dire period. Experience is overrated. I think most people are just sick of the double-faced attacks where Obama lacks experience but somehow Palin has it in spades. Frankly they BOTH lack the experience of either McCain or Biden, but does it matter?
If experience as measured by time counts, then both Palin and Obama lack.
If experience as measured by "executive experience" counts, then really EVERYBODY lacks. Palin would be in the lead with 18 months as governor. Obama, McCain, and Biden are all senators and have never had such executive experience. |
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 11:00:35 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
I do not feel you can judge a president on just a few actions they made. Lincoln and Kennedy in my studies of history prove to be more of a failure than a success. They call Lincoln the great emancipator but he only free the slaves in the Southern Confederacy. Second point he had no athority under the laws of this nation to wage a war on any state that suceeded from the union. Kennedy technically lost the 1964 debate to Nixon but was young and handsome compaired to Nixon the Old washington Crony with the five oclock shadow 8 am in the morning.He basically won on looks. Second all sitting presidents would have followed the Monroe Doctrine that says we are the only Super power in the western Hemisphere. Beyond that both were assasinated and we can only imagine what could,would but did not be.
|
I've heard some revisionist history in my time, but THAT is amazing. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 11:16:59 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
If you need ... government ... providing Healthcare and welfare and say no guns allowed then by all means you should vote for the candidate that supports those ideals. If you feel free trade is not fair and socialistic programs are better for you then please go vote for the candidate that supports those ways of life. |
I wish I had this choice. Neither candidate fits the bill. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 11:18:53 PM · #331 |
The world could be a very different place and other people may not have been up to the task (it's impossible to say). What can be said is that two leaders with little experience carried us through to where we are today. Frankly we could be two countries right now; the Northern States of America and the Southern States of America (which happened to be devestated in 1962 by three nuclear missiles from Cuba).
Palin's interview on ABC was interesting. She did well enough that the faithful will cheer her and the opposition will jeer her. She clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was (at least by name) and she also clearly had talking points she was not comfortable getting off of. "We cannot second guess Israel." etc... |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 11:28:50 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - paying tax was not a requirement to receiving an economic stimulus check, only filing a return. |
Since I didn't START this DETOUR, I'm assuming that I can join in without being subjected to your "red herring" red herring.
In regards to the Economic Stimulus Check - you are wrong.
Filing a return didn't entitle you to a stimulus check. As David pointed out, he filed a return and didn't get one. I filed a return and didn't get one. My daughter filed a return and didn't get one.
The fact is that even if you filed, if you made either too MUCH money or too LITTLE money, you didn't qualify for a stimulus check. |
Oddly enough, I filed NO return (not enough income), and I have received TWO mailings from IRS encouraging me to file a short form and get my check. Though I could use the money (it's nearly 50% of my monthly income) I refuse on basic principles to file for it. I think the whole thing is bogus.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 11:54:10 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - paying tax was not a requirement to receiving an economic stimulus check, only filing a return. |
Since I didn't START this DETOUR, I'm assuming that I can join in without being subjected to your "red herring" red herring.
In regards to the Economic Stimulus Check - you are wrong.
Filing a return didn't entitle you to a stimulus check. As David pointed out, he filed a return and didn't get one. I filed a return and didn't get one. My daughter filed a return and didn't get one.
The fact is that even if you filed, if you made either too MUCH money or too LITTLE money, you didn't qualify for a stimulus check. |
Oddly enough, I filed NO return (not enough income), and I have received TWO mailings from IRS encouraging me to file a short form and get my check. Though I could use the money (it's nearly 50% of my monthly income) I refuse on basic principles to file for it. I think the whole thing is bogus.
R.
|
I commend you, seriously. While I cashed my govt 'rebate', knowing that the money to support it was borrowed from China(presumably) gave me more than a moment of frustration. I, along with my children, will be paying for all the bogus rebates for years to come. :(
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:39:54 AM · #334 |
Well lets look at the facts. The Emancipation proclamation only free slaves in states not under the control of Licoln at the time or if you wish the confederacy. The 13th amendment was ratified December 6, 1865. Lincoln died 7:22 A.M. on the morning of April 15, 1865. So he died before all slaves were free in the U.S. Second no where in the laws of this Nation has it ever said a state could not suceed from the union. Third if you have studied politics you would know that the 1964 Kennedy Nixon debate was the turning point in American politics. It was the first time a presidential debate was broadcast over Television. People before had to listen to the debate. I always listen to debated so your not persuaded by manurisism or crowd jerring. Fourth The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (added during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism. Any sitting president could have envoked this. The love of Kennedy is purely Camelot. In other words make believe.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by coronamv:
I do not feel you can judge a president on just a few actions they made. Lincoln and Kennedy in my studies of history prove to be more of a failure than a success. They call Lincoln the great emancipator but he only free the slaves in the Southern Confederacy. Second point he had no athority under the laws of this nation to wage a war on any state that suceeded from the union. Kennedy technically lost the 1964 debate to Nixon but was young and handsome compaired to Nixon the Old washington Crony with the five oclock shadow 8 am in the morning.He basically won on looks. Second all sitting presidents would have followed the Monroe Doctrine that says we are the only Super power in the western Hemisphere. Beyond that both were assasinated and we can only imagine what could,would but did not be.
|
I've heard some revisionist history in my time, but THAT is amazing. |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 02:28:09 AM · #335 |
You're just plain wrong on so many levels, but I will concede that you're creative with history and spelling.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well lets look at the facts. The Emancipation proclamation only free slaves in states not under the control of Licoln at the time or if you wish the confederacy. The 13th amendment was ratified December 6, 1865. Lincoln died 7:22 A.M. on the morning of April 15, 1865. So he died before all slaves were free in the U.S. Second no where in the laws of this Nation has it ever said a state could not suceed from the union. Third if you have studied politics you would know that the 1964 Kennedy Nixon debate was the turning point in American politics. It was the first time a presidential debate was broadcast over Television. People before had to listen to the debate. I always listen to debated so your not persuaded by manurisism or crowd jerring. Fourth The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (added during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism. Any sitting president could have envoked this. The love of Kennedy is purely Camelot. In other words make believe.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by coronamv:
I do not feel you can judge a president on just a few actions they made. Lincoln and Kennedy in my studies of history prove to be more of a failure than a success. They call Lincoln the great emancipator but he only free the slaves in the Southern Confederacy. Second point he had no athority under the laws of this nation to wage a war on any state that suceeded from the union. Kennedy technically lost the 1964 debate to Nixon but was young and handsome compaired to Nixon the Old washington Crony with the five oclock shadow 8 am in the morning.He basically won on looks. Second all sitting presidents would have followed the Monroe Doctrine that says we are the only Super power in the western Hemisphere. Beyond that both were assasinated and we can only imagine what could,would but did not be.
|
I've heard some revisionist history in my time, but THAT is amazing. |
|
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 02:28:40. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 08:32:33 AM · #336 |
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmhgwxNh75o
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 08:35:05.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 08:55:16 AM · #337 |
| Somewhere in this thread, someone suggested that the candidates should stay on the issues - but this article has me scratching my head. I understand the message but it doesn't sound like an issues ad to me. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 09:04:12 AM · #338 |
For those that are Obama supporters primarily due to his anti-war stance, they must have been a bit uncomfortable last night hearing his latest positions on the Military in the "Service Forum" discussions and I suspect that many in his camp were agast when he stated that the ROTC should be returned to Campus (Columbia).
Obama campaigned in the primaries from the left (some would say the far left). In this general election campaign he is trying to present himself as a centrist - even though he is really a liberal. McCain in the primaries tried to campaign to the right which he really isn't and in the general is campaigning as a centrist which he really is. I have examples of McCain bucking his own party to get legislation passed and even have evidence of his own party refusing to support him in the primaries. I have yet to find any evidence of Obama willing to make those same kinds of stands. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 09:05:57 AM · #339 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Somewhere in this thread, someone suggested that the candidates should stay on the issues - but this article has me scratching my head. I understand the message but it doesn't sound like an issues ad to me. |
I think the idea that, in this day and age, our President could be someone who is computer illiterate is an issue. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 09:10:16 AM · #340 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I understand the message but it doesn't sound like an issues ad to me. |
The intent is to demonstrate that McCain is woefully out of touch with 21st century America. "The ad is being coupled with another positive spot that highlights Obama's change message, arguing he will provide better health care and tax breaks and bring people together.
McCain... accused Obama of maligning her when he said putting lipstick on a pig is still a pig. In fact, Obama had not been talking about Palin when he made the statement, but heated accusations between the two campaigns over the flap dominated national coverage of his trip to the battleground state of Virginia this week.
The campaign was heartened that Virginia media focused instead on Obama's planned message of reforming schools and drawing contrasts with McCain over education policy. Aides say Obama will continue to highlight differences on issues ΓΆ€” like tax policy during a visit to New Hampshire Friday ΓΆ€” with the constant theme that Obama will bring change while McCain is no different than Bush."
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:13:13 AM · #341 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - paying tax was not a requirement to receiving an economic stimulus check, only filing a return. |
Since I didn't START this DETOUR, I'm assuming that I can join in without being subjected to your "red herring" red herring.
In regards to the Economic Stimulus Check - you are wrong.
Filing a return didn't entitle you to a stimulus check. As David pointed out, he filed a return and didn't get one. I filed a return and didn't get one. My daughter filed a return and didn't get one.
The fact is that even if you filed, if you made either too MUCH money or too LITTLE money, you didn't qualify for a stimulus check. |
Oddly enough, I filed NO return (not enough income), and I have received TWO mailings from IRS encouraging me to file a short form and get my check. Though I could use the money (it's nearly 50% of my monthly income) I refuse on basic principles to file for it. I think the whole thing is bogus.
R. |
I also know someone who lives in government-subsidized housing and has an income of about $9,000/yr. who hasn't filed a return in 10 years and received a $300 check.
There is some sound economic policy behind the idea of a stimulus package that includes "rebates" or direct payments:
"Targeted measures are those aimed at individuals and entities that will spend quickly the bulk of any new resources they receive. Tax cuts that mainly benefit high-income individuals are poorly targeted to provide stimulus, because those individuals are more likely to save a large share of any increase in disposable income they receive than are people of more modest means. Government-funded construction projects that take many months or even several years to get underway are poorly targeted as well. In contrast, tax cuts and increases in government spending aimed at low- and moderate-income consumers and unemployed workers ΓΆ€” such as tax cuts that provide a flat refund to all tax filers, additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have been unable to find a new job, and increases in food stamp benefits ΓΆ€” are far more effective as stimulus."
From this article at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:19:40 AM · #342 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I understand the message but it doesn't sound like an issues ad to me. |
The intent is to demonstrate that McCain is woefully out of touch with 21st century America. |
I understand the intent. However "to me" - it reads like "more of the same" from Obama's campaign and exactly the very problem that they keep charging McCain with. I relate it to simply politics. The same political process that both camps are using. The crys of foul should be for the smell, as both are guilty and will continue to be. I do find amusement in the attempts to claim the high road whilst continueing the mudslinging. I doubt we have reached the depths of the gutter yet. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:26:29 AM · #343 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
"Targeted measures are those aimed at individuals and entities that will spend quickly the bulk of any new resources they receive. Tax cuts that mainly benefit high-income individuals are poorly targeted to provide stimulus, because those individuals are more likely to save a large share of any increase in disposable income they receive than are people of more modest means. Government-funded construction projects that take many months or even several years to get underway are poorly targeted as well. In contrast, tax cuts and increases in government spending aimed at low- and moderate-income consumers and unemployed workers ΓΆ€” such as tax cuts that provide a flat refund to all tax filers, additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have been unable to find a new job, and increases in food stamp benefits ΓΆ€” are far more effective as stimulus." |
That may very well be economically true - it doesn't change the deception of Obama calling it a tax cut for 95% of americans when it isn't. For 40% it can't qualify as a tax cut as they paid no Federal tax to begin with. Thus we are left with Obama's mis-representation. My point, is if you are defining the other side as liars, then you probably shouldn't be promoting the same disengenious dialogue. All we are really left with is that both sides skew the delivery. So whats new? |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:33:10 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
"Targeted measures are those aimed at individuals and entities that will spend quickly the bulk of any new resources they receive. Tax cuts that mainly benefit high-income individuals are poorly targeted to provide stimulus, because those individuals are more likely to save a large share of any increase in disposable income they receive than are people of more modest means. Government-funded construction projects that take many months or even several years to get underway are poorly targeted as well. In contrast, tax cuts and increases in government spending aimed at low- and moderate-income consumers and unemployed workers ΓΆ€” such as tax cuts that provide a flat refund to all tax filers, additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have been unable to find a new job, and increases in food stamp benefits ΓΆ€” are far more effective as stimulus." |
That may very well be economically true - it doesn't change the deception of Obama calling it a tax cut for 95% of americans when it isn't. For 40% it can't qualify as a tax cut as they paid no Federal tax to begin with. Thus we are left with Obama's mis-representation. My point, is if you are defining the other side as liars, then you probably shouldn't be promoting the same disengenious dialogue. All we are really left with is that both sides skew the delivery. So whats new? |
What does McCain call it in his tax plan? |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:35:49 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think the idea that, in this day and age, our President could be someone who is computer illiterate is an issue. |
I don't find this a problem at all. As a matter of fact it would probably be a waste of time. I know it would be for me. I don't develop spread sheets, I read them, and make decisions, then tell others what to do. You actually think he should sit in front of a computer and read e-mail?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:37:10 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
"Targeted measures are those aimed at individuals and entities that will spend quickly the bulk of any new resources they receive. Tax cuts that mainly benefit high-income individuals are poorly targeted to provide stimulus, because those individuals are more likely to save a large share of any increase in disposable income they receive than are people of more modest means. Government-funded construction projects that take many months or even several years to get underway are poorly targeted as well. In contrast, tax cuts and increases in government spending aimed at low- and moderate-income consumers and unemployed workers ΓΆ€” such as tax cuts that provide a flat refund to all tax filers, additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have been unable to find a new job, and increases in food stamp benefits ΓΆ€” are far more effective as stimulus." |
That may very well be economically true - it doesn't change the deception of Obama calling it a tax cut for 95% of americans when it isn't. For 40% it can't qualify as a tax cut as they paid no Federal tax to begin with. Thus we are left with Obama's mis-representation. My point, is if you are defining the other side as liars, then you probably shouldn't be promoting the same disengenious dialogue. All we are really left with is that both sides skew the delivery. So whats new? |
What does McCain call it in his tax plan? |
Yes, he is too liberal isn't he?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:41:09 AM · #347 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think the idea that, in this day and age, our President could be someone who is computer illiterate is an issue. |
I don't find this a problem at all. As a matter of fact it would probably be a waste of time. I know it would be for me. I don't develop spread sheets, I read them, and make decisions, then tell others what to do. You actually think he should sit in front of a computer and read e-mail? |
In some instances, yes, there are emails that the POTUS should read.
The bigger issue is that computers are an integral part of the world today and someone who is ignorant of computers lacks the capacity to make intelligent decisions that affect critical part of today's infrastructure. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:45:16 AM · #348 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The bigger issue is that computers are an integral part of the world today and someone who is ignorant of computers lacks the capacity to make intelligent decisions that affect critical part of today's infrastructure. |
Absolutely; if you're gonna lead IN the digital age, you better be OF the digital age, is my attitude.
R. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:46:43 AM · #349 |
But does he realize how important the internet is?
Does he care about privacy issues?
What about data transfer laws?
Being illiterate on the computer could represent being out of touch with more than half of the US population. Right now, the internet is relatively "free" and it can't get too much better - but it could get a whole lot worse.
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think the idea that, in this day and age, our President could be someone who is computer illiterate is an issue. |
I don't find this a problem at all. As a matter of fact it would probably be a waste of time. I know it would be for me. I don't develop spread sheets, I read them, and make decisions, then tell others what to do. You actually think he should sit in front of a computer and read e-mail? |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:04:13 AM · #350 |
| Although I doubt the following article on Sarah Palin will sway any who are opposed to her political positions, it is illustrative of my earlier points on how campaigns are disengenious in their representations of their opponents. Additionally, some may actually find clarification on a few untruths. |
|
