Look at his plans.....All the recent presidents governed in the center. Its that damn legacy thing you know..... So he got his more liberal stuff through and now needs more moderates on either side to get the rest. He doesn't want amnesty like last time, that's why the swamplords gotta go. I mean the guy did want to drill baby drill on the east coast until BP screwed up. Did you miss that one? [quote]When Obama was a senator, his voting record was
Smoothseas
[quote]Which came first - the chicken or the egg. I do not hold congress guiltless, but they do not run the Justice Department[/quote] This is true but its a sensitive complicated issue. If they just start throwing people out it will light a powder keg so their policy right now seems to be focused on the drug trafficking and more violent crimes. Add to that the fact that Fox just suggested to Calderon to legalize trafficking on the Mexican side which could possibly change the s
[quote]Once the task is initiated, then it is the "bi-partisan" committee. Which is a bit of a misnomer. It is 100% staffed by the ruling class.[/quote] Yes so that gets you back to why those 2. Harlem and LA. My guess is they know they will keep Dems. there but need either less caustic voices or specific votes for specific legislation which will come after the next election. Immigration maybe. I know these two are WAY to the left and quite loud when it comes to that iss
[quote]yes, maybe you do. If you're trying to say it was a Bush, think again. [/quote] No I know exactly who it is was and still is. I'd actually vote for him for Senate if I lived there. [quote]I say, kick the whole bunch out, and start over.[/quote] So would I. But put blame where it falls. If you want to put blame on Obama atleast use something that he's directly involved in. There is plenty of stuff out there this just isn't one of them.
[quote]Given your list (and I have not seen it before), it does beg the question why the Democrat Controlled house only appears to be going after black congress people.[/quote] You will have to ask the the members of the bipartisan committee that decide these things. After all they are ALL in bed together just singing a different tune to attract their flock. What do you think they mean when they say "Clean up the swamps" ? I don't
[quote]They are not looking for a war (they never were up to the task), but they are looking to benefit from the dissension that the current administration (not Mexico, although they came dangerously close to it) is sowing within the borders of the US.[/quote] I agree with this except for who you think is sowing the dissension. Looks to me like congress not the executive branch. Congress lit the match just in time for election season and the media circus is pouring on the gasoline.</p
[quote]My short version of the Mexican-American war goes like this:[/quote] Is it in fact your short version or cut, paste, and then doctored from Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War
[quote]I didn't put in that email going around that snopes is speaking of. So what's your point?[/quote] That if you follow the links from that post you will realize that what the original poster (YOU) claim as "Obama's Phone's" are actually a Florida State implementation of an FCC fund set up through a law that was passed in 1996. So who's phones are they? Let me ask you what your point is? Why are you bashing Obama for a program which for all intensive purpose has nothing t
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
[quote]correction - took money from tax payers. [/quote] No from corps. as I stated. If you reread the reply and use your noggin this time you might realize that I was hinting towards the term campaign contributions. [quote]Please do your research instead of just spouting talking points[/quote] Me? By pointing out that some corporations help pay for certain people to get elected to congress and/or pay for lobbying then get parts of legislation written which throws busi
So you demonize the stereotypical welfare recipient who I'm pretty sure never lobbied for or expected a free cell phone in the first place. Maybe you ought to demonize the person in congress instead who wrote this into the bill, who took money from the corporations and threw them a bone by giving them the contracts that provide the cellphone and telecom services for this particular part of the bill. So really now whos taking your tax dollars? Is it the welfare recipient, the dirtb
[quote]Glenn Beck Unveils His Plan to Me[/quote] You didn't figure it out before you saw him in person? I'm guessing his "PLAN" is to improve Glenn Beck's and Mercury Radio Arts' bottom line.
[quote]It basically is an enforcement method for existing laws. As such, the state of Arizona went around its wrist to get to its elbow in order for it not to violate any civil rights.[/quote] Really? Maybe you should read SB1070 and the USA v Arizona case filing and ruling Do you want to give government another way to do warrantless searches of your property? [quote]If the US (Feds) are not going to do anything about it, why have a law on the books in
[quote]I thought it was the Karl ROve type[/quote] Its tha same thing.....Karl Rove is basically a student of Atwater.
[quote]"laissez faire policies" aren't going to demand I pay the government more money.[/quote] No however laissez faire policy has everything to do with the implosion of the economy and the implosion of the replublican party. If the executive branch didn't allow the SEC to overthrottle the economy by allowing extremly high leverage, and not only turn a blind eye to predetory lending but also block states from trying to deal with it, then we would not be in the situation we are today.
[quote]It can be argued, and strongly, that Wal-Mart has done more to raise the standard of living for lower income citizens than any other company in history, and certainly more than government.[/quote] How? When I look at Wal-Mart I see a company that has FORCED its suppliers out of businees or into setting up shop overseas. Its business model has destroyed much of the US manufacturing base. It would be unfair of me to blame it all on Wal-Mart, I think most of the problem ac
[quote]Damned if he does and damned it he doesn't, right?[/quote] Not reallly. I think the country is tired of Lee Atwater style political campaigns. There are more and more independents, many who are tired of divisive politics, and many young voters who see how it is affecting their future.
[quote]Reaganomics deliberately set out to dismantle the New Deal[/quote] Not really. Heres the basics of Reganomics. (1) reduce the growth of government spending, (2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital, (3) reduce regulation (4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply. The goal of these objectives was to
[quote]you may find out real quick after the election how wrong you were when the pink slips start coming around and the small businesses fold up because they can't keep up with the tax burden. [/quote] It doesn't matter who is elected....Its almost guarateed that the economy will suffer for almost 2 more years regardless of changes in tax policy.
[quote]OR extend 30 yr. mortgage to 40 yr.[/quote] This is actually one of the provisions set forth in the GSE reform bill passed over the summer. It applies to FHA loans and is part of the overall plan to refinance some problem loans in order to help stabilize the housing market.
[quote]Maybe it has more to do with where you live.....my gas has dropped quite a bit recently.[/quote] It does but the article is about average cost which takes into account regional differences.
[quote]What exactly does raising taxes on business owners have to do with the deficit? Raising taxes will not do anything to the deficit, especially when you have candidates who are proposing incredible spending increases in the social area.[/quote] That is correct and why neither is getting my vote. They are both proposing changes to statutory tax rates but the problem with tax revenues are the special interest tax breaks that are on the books. Just take a look at what they did to g
[quote]Even now, because Obama is likely to win, the accountants and I are lowering the budget to hire new people for next year because there won't be as much capital available to pay salaries.[/quote] You might want to actually blame the laissez faire policies of Bush on that one. Paulson is just now figuring out that the first step is to recapitalize the banks, and there is no telling how long it will take to get the confidence of foreign investors back. After all it has been the fo
[quote]Sure but an easy place to start is to get everyone..invested in the system. [/quote] I agree, but its tough to get everyone invested in the system when its rife with corruption.....and seriously broken. And that includes both our economic and political systems. I've personally done well economically, but I did it by trying to stay one step ahead of the liars and thieves on Wall. St.
[quote]I pay 35% in federal taxes[/quote] Its difficult if you are paying the statutory rate. But that just shows the unfairness of the system because many businesses' effective rate is much lower than 35%.