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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Calculate your Obama Tax Cut
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 401 - 425 of 525, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/12/2008 03:48:54 PM · #401
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Obama is big on reminding voters that McCain voted in support of Bush policies 90% of the time, something McCain said of himself during the primaries in an attempt to garner those on the right while still demonstrating his willingness to break ranks. Obama on the other hand - voted 97% with the democrats and Pelosi. Doesn't sound like much evidence to think he will break ranks from the liberal record he has extablished and certainly disengenious of him to paint McCain as a go along kind of politician. I seem to remember a pot and kettle discussion.


Obama is not portraying himself as a "maverick" apart from his party. McCain is. Nothing disengenuous there.


This reads to me as though your stance is that Obama will tow the party line if elected as he is not running as a maverick. His "Change" is in reality only a change from a conservative agenda to a liberal one. Complete with a million dollars a day in earmark spending - insuring they capitalize on the theme of income redistribution.

I think I'll stick with the maverick - even if he does get his butt kicked by the View.

09/12/2008 03:51:13 PM · #402
Originally posted by coronamv:
Yeah a few of these pots have broken handles though. I guess that happens when you become indocrinated and dependant on big government to provide you with the means to live.


...because the government has shrunk so much in the last 8 years? Oh wait, just the means to pay for it has shrunk.
 09/12/2008 03:52:03 PM · #403
Do you see or hear Obama out thumping his chest, saying "Vote for me 'cos I'm black!"? Of course not.

Unless you've microwaved your head, you can't help but hear McCain's, "I'm a maverick! Vote for me." battle cries.

Originally posted by coronamv:
So you are saying that he is not running partially on the fact that he is the first Black man to win the nomination of any party for the presidency? Would that alone not make him a maverick? See personally speaking I could care less about a persons color. I think Collin Powell Would have made a better cadidate for the republican nomination than McCain.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Currently running on the radio;
âIn three short years in the Senate, Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarksâ¦thatâs over a million dollars for each day heâs been in Washington, D.C.â


Palin herself admitted back in July that "both" presidential candidates would pursue earmark reform in office.


Yet McCain has a 100% refusal rating while his opponent can't make that claim at a million dollars per day. Kind of at least shows some difference on attitude between the 2 candidates.

Obama is big on reminding voters that McCain voted in support of Bush policies 90% of the time, something McCain said of himself during the primaries in an attempt to garner those on the right while still demonstrating his willingness to break ranks. Obama on the other hand - voted 97% with the democrats and Pelosi. Doesn't sound like much evidence to think he will break ranks from the liberal record he has extablished and certainly disengenious of him to paint McCain as a go along kind of politician. I seem to remember a pot and kettle discussion.


Obama is not portraying himself as a "maverick" apart from his party. McCain is. Nothing disengenuous there.


09/12/2008 04:00:02 PM · #404
In 2006, voters showed that they wanted more democrats ⦠they wanted "change". They were sick of a secretive Republican administration that didn't seem to care about them or the fact that things were falling apart and they weren't even acknowledging it.

Now McCain is running for "change". He's trying to run on the very premise because he knows people need it. In fact, if the candidates appear the same (both moderates wanting change), and the lines are blurred with flip-flops and non-issues, he knows he'll win, for reasons we mentioned earlier.

So keep your stocks in big oil if you're betting on McCain. Personally, I pulled mine out.

Originally posted by Flash:

This reads to me as though your stance is that Obama will tow the party line if elected as he is not running as a maverick. His "Change" is in reality only a change from a conservative agenda to a liberal one. Complete with a million dollars a day in earmark spending - insuring they capitalize on the theme of income redistribution.

I think I'll stick with the maverick - even if he does get his butt kicked by the View.
09/12/2008 04:02:23 PM · #405
That makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by coronamv:
So you are saying that he is not running partially on the fact that he is the first Black man to win the nomination of any party for the presidency? Would that alone make him a maverick?
09/12/2008 04:07:01 PM · #406
For those of you prone to using "Tow the line", please read.
 09/12/2008 04:13:05 PM · #407
Originally posted by metatate:
In 2006, voters showed that they wanted more democrats ⦠they wanted "change". They were sick of a secretive Republican administration that didn't seem to care about them or the fact that things were falling apart and they weren't even acknowledging it.


Hmmm. The last ABC/Washington Post survey before the Democrats took the majority in both houses ( December 7-11, 2006 ) gave Congress a 37% approval rating. Nearly two years later, the latest ABC/Washington Post Survey ( July 10-13, 2008 ) gives Congress a 23% approval rating.

Looks like the voters got what they wanted. 14% worth of change ----- only they didn't think that it would be in a downward spiral.
 09/12/2008 04:23:14 PM · #408
Well, I said they wanted change ⦠not that they got it ;P
 09/12/2008 06:53:42 PM · #409
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 â 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 â 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?


I wasn't referring here to Obama's tax cut plan. I was referring to the Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, from whence came our "rebate" checks.
 09/12/2008 07:14:22 PM · #410
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
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 â 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 â are far more effective as stimulus."

From this article at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.


Didn't take long to find THIS

"According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. The other two are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP and the other two Democracy Alliance-sponsored think tanks attended the May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance at the Barton Creek Resort near Austin, Texas. Their role was to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future.""

And THAT assessment is from someone at the NY Times.


As an aside, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is considered one of the most unbiased, non-partisan think tanks in Washington and is frequently asked by both political parties for advice on economic matters.

In any event, the Congressional Budget Office came to the same conclusions as did the CBPP with regard to a stimulus package in this report, and the CBO can hardly be considered a left-wing think tank.

Excerpts from the CBO report:

Principles for an Effective Fiscal Stimulus
The most effective fiscal stimulus policies share two common features:
1. They focus on the time period when stimulus is most likely to be needed, and
2. They are designed to increase economic activity as much as possible for a given budgetary cost.

"Lower-income households are more likely to be credit constrained and more likely to be among those with the highest propensity to spend. Therefore, policies aimed at lower-income households tend to have greater stimulative effects."
 09/12/2008 07:34:52 PM · #411
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time.
 09/12/2008 10:01:49 PM · #412
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
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 â 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 â 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?


I wasn't referring here to Obama's tax cut plan. I was referring to the Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, from whence came our "rebate" checks.


But Obama's tax cut for 95% of americans IS the $500-1200 goverment checks in the mail box. The same plan that Democrats derided when Bush proposed it as an economic stimulus package. The same plan that is a "rebate" for some and a "gift" for others.
 09/12/2008 10:08:37 PM · #413
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time.


I'll wait for the truth version on factcheck.org.

The smear from the left is comical. Like the replaying over and over of Sarah being for the bridge before she was against it and the fact that she took the earmark money. But they fail to mention that Obama and Biden voted to give the earmark money for the Bridge to nowhere instead of to Katrina victims. I think it was you who posted earlier "Please spare me." Well - please spare me.
 09/12/2008 10:21:23 PM · #414
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Actually I've heard many wish he would get elected to eliminate what is perceived as the continual "victim" claim by minorities - to finally be removed from the discussion. But that is just my exposure.

Sounds like you are exposed to the kind of people metatate mentioned: those who are unconciously racist.


Well I'm not exposed to folks like Whoppi who portray constitutionalists as those wanting to return her to salvery. That was one of the most ignorant inappropriate comments to come from TV. Although there have been some doozies from the lefties as of late.

Do those from the left actually think this way? I mean I understand arguing a position and even mis-characterizing your opponent. But some of this is pretty pathetic.
 09/12/2008 10:26:08 PM · #415
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time.

Then this should really make you sick - but I wonder, does it?.
09/12/2008 10:26:47 PM · #416
Originally posted by Flash:


Do those from the left actually think this way? I mean I understand arguing a position and even mis-characterizing your opponent. But some of this is pretty pathetic.


I would tend to think that I might stand a tad to the right of Attila the Hun, but can assure you that those "doozies" you refer too is not the exclusive domain of "Lefties"

Ray
 09/12/2008 10:37:19 PM · #417
How could something like this even be legal? I suspect it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed. Part of me wonders if the campaign managers are seeing just how far they can stretch the truth before the other side snaps with a lawsuit or similar action, and then that becomes the issue du jour. Though popular wisdom says 'they all do it,' note this from Factcheck.org- "We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin." I hold out hope that the gullibility of Americans is overstated.

Message edited by author 2008-09-13 01:13:42.
 09/13/2008 12:42:06 AM · #418
Even though I'm woman, just can't vote for Caribou Barbie...but waiting to see what Saturday Night Live brings!
 09/13/2008 09:44:25 AM · #419
Why is McCain going negative? Because the media ignored him when he was only positive.
 09/13/2008 10:39:29 AM · #420
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time.

Then this should really make you sick - but I wonder, does it?.


Yes, that's sickening, but the article is misleading (no surprise there!). If such practices were taking place in that hospital, then the hospital personnel were breaking the law. According to Obama's website: "BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

"Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should âProvide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.â The Chicago Tribune reported, ââFor more than 20 years (emphasis added), Illinois law has required that when âthere is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,â an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes âit is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.â And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique âmost likely to preserve the life and health of the fetusâ and perform the abortion in the presence of âa physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.ââ [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

"Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]"

The legislation that Obama opposed was apparently an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. His votes against that legislation did not change the existing law in any respect.
 09/13/2008 11:01:39 AM · #421
Obama on abortion. If abortion issues are a deciding factor for you, your choice is pretty obvious. But don't try to paint him as for live birth abortion. That's a distortion of the worst kind.
 09/13/2008 12:02:46 PM · #422
Originally posted by scalvert:
How could something like this even be legal? I suspect it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed. Part of me wonders if the campaign managers are seeing just how far they can stretch the truth before the other side snaps with a lawsuit or similar action, and then that becomes the issue du jour. Though popular wisdom says 'they all do it,' note this from Factcheck.org- "We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin." I hold out hope that the gullibility of Americans is overstated.


Isn't it a shame how this Republican party treats its members. We all know that many people do not read anything concerning their candidates and their campaign promises and I think the Repubs are latching on to this by trying to educate their members with misquotes and out of context quotes. It only shows that this party does not believe in its members at all and wants to dictate, through TV ads how to think and what to believe about the other side. I think they're underestimating their member's intelligence and I hope it'll backfire in a huge way.
 09/13/2008 12:31:12 PM · #423
Originally posted by Flash:

Well I'm not exposed to folks like Whoppi who portray constitutionalists as those wanting to return her to salvery. That was one of the most ignorant inappropriate comments to come from TV. Although there have been some doozies from the lefties as of late.

Do those from the left actually think this way? I mean I understand arguing a position and even mis-characterizing your opponent. But some of this is pretty pathetic.


Actually, McCain opened the door on the issue when he stated that he wanted people who interpret the constitution the way our founding fathers envisioned.

Our founding fathers wrote racism and slavery into the Constitution (see Article 1).
It was not until about 100 years later than an amendment was added to abolish slavery.

So, the way our founding fathers envisioned the constitution, allowing slavery and racism (and to some extent sexism by allowing states to decide who gets to vote) is not the way I want the constitution read.
 09/13/2008 03:27:38 PM · #424
Originally posted by Flash:
Why is McCain going negative? Because the media ignored him when he was only positive.


So?

All that shows is that no one is interested in a lipstick wearing pig. All he'd done is take Bush's policies (the pig) and put his spin on them (the lipstick). Nothing made his candidacy even remotely interesting until he picked his running mate.
 09/13/2008 04:19:18 PM · #425
Originally posted by dahkota:
Our founding fathers wrote racism and slavery into the Constitution (see Article 1).
It was not until about 100 years later than an amendment was added to abolish slavery.

So, the way our founding fathers envisioned the constitution, allowing slavery and racism (and to some extent sexism by allowing states to decide who gets to vote) is not the way I want the constitution read.


Actually you are mischaracterizing what the founding fathers envisioned or at least what they actually wrote. They didn't write anything to the effect that slavery is legal in fact they didn't use the words like "slavery", "slaves" or even referred to a specific group of people at all (i.e. blacks, people of color, etc). What they did write was a document that could change over time and by that I mean it used terms that were generic such as "persons" and "free persons" when describing certain restrictions. It is how those terms were and are interpreted that allow or disallow slavery or a woman's right to vote. So it's not fair to say the Constitution is a racist or sexist document. Today we use the same document to restrict voting to people under the age of 18, those who have been convicted of crimes and non-citizens. Perhaps in the future if as a society we deem these people should also have the right to vote then we'll pass another amendment that further clarifies the voting group in this country thanks largely to that original document that didn't explicitly forbid this.

Message edited by author 2008-09-13 16:38:48.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:05:30 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: 08/27/2025 10:05:30 AM EDT.