United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Because if people who currently don't have enough money to spend on things, because they're struggling to simply scrape by, get a tax decrease, they will then have money to spend, and they will spend it and it will give a boost to the economy.

It's completely fair to disagree with this philosophy, I was just correcting the idea that he's going to go around giving money to bums and people who pay NO taxes (I.E. people who don't work), that's not his plan, that's not what would actually happen.

And what do you mean contribute nothing? They don't contribute more because they can't, they can't afford to. They don't have the money to contribute, give them a tax decrease, which would put more money in their pocket, and they'll be able to contribute.

What's the current sales tax on crack? 10%? 15%?

Originally posted by BackFire
Because if people who currently don't have enough money to spend on things, because they're struggling to simply scrape by, get a tax decrease, they will then have money to spend, and they will spend it and it will give a boost to the economy.

It's completely fair to disagree with this philosophy, I was just correcting the idea that he's going to go around giving money to bums and people who pay NO taxes (I.E. people who don't work), that's not his plan, that's not what would actually happen.

And what do you mean contribute nothing? They don't contribute more because they can't, they can't afford to. They don't have the money to contribute, give them a tax decrease, which would put more money in their pocket, and they'll be able to contribute.

Saving the Banks is also important,, sorry vital, lets not forget that!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Saving the Banks is also important,, sorry vital, lets not forget that!

We hear a lot about the middle class, but what about the poor? The people that don't even qualify to be included in the middle class? We hear a lot about the banks who feed off the middle class, but any mention of the poor as though they're supposed to be looked at with the same concern is like calling Obama a socialist: it's concerning ourselves with people who do nothing but feed off the system. Even Obama doesn't mention the poor.

As Roosevelt said: "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little."

That is apparently called socialism by those who have no daily exposure to those people who have so much. Sitting in my mother's house and condemning everyone who has less than they do is supposedly a libertarian, realistic view. But it's not. It's a total and intentional perspective held by people who aren't accosted by the real world on their way to work everyday; simply because the real world doesn't happen to invade their world when they light their cigarette or buy their case of beer.

People who "have much" look down on those who "have little" as a means of justifying their dedication to hard work and a willingness to pull themselves up by the boot straps they have always known they have. Socialism is called a bad word, but it seems to have worked, in part, for the rest of the civilized world. Sadly, those boot strapes are not there for most Americans. People who tell themselves that their college education or their parent's wealth, like mine, wasn't a simple accident of birth and a most-welcome matter of happenstance implies that others should be just as grateful for their lot in life should be ashamed of themselves for thinking they can open their face and speak for anyone not fortunate enough to be born into that same situation. All poor, black or hispanic or white trash citizens should be as content with their lot in life as are the people born into that position that affords them the chance to succeed? But they honestly aren't in a position to do what you can! It isn't a matter of being born white or black, it's a matter of being born to parents that can afford to send you to the schools that allow you to become a Washington lobbyist or a political insider. That must be the "American Dream" at work.

Sorry to drag on, but your comment inspired me to do as much.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sorry to drag on, but your comment inspired me to do as much.

Robin Hood (John Cleese): The poor are going to be absolutely thrilled. Have you met them at all?

Randall: Who?

Robin Hood: The poor.

Randall: The poor?

Robin Hood: Oh, you must meet them. I just know you'll like them. Charming people. Of course, they haven't got two pennies to rub together, but then, that's because they're poor.

Sorry, but your post made me flash-back to Time Bandits.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, but your post made me flash-back to Time Bandits.

That's cool; as long as the point has been made.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's completely fair to disagree with this philosophy, I was just correcting the idea that he's going to go around giving money to bums and people who pay NO taxes (I.E. people who don't work), that's not his plan, that's not what would actually happen.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's cool; as long as the point has been made.

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Originally posted by Devil King
What's the current sales tax on crack? 10%? 15%?

Apparently it goes up all the time, that's why me dealer keeps charging more every time I go back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TT7gt5F0w

LOL city. Joe?

I saw the Obama Clinton rally in Florida.

"They show clips of me sharing my lunch in the fourth grade, saying 'Oh look, he's a socialist'." -- Obama

That made me laugh.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He's right.

Originally posted by Devil King
And kind of ironic, since he could barely use his.

Last update: 6:40 p.m. EDT Oct. 30, 2008
WASHINGTON, Oct 30, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- After nearly two years of campaigning, Americans are finally learning about the real Barack Obama. In an interview with a Chicago public radio station, Obama complained that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." Recently, Obama surrogate and U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), warmed up a crowd for Obama by telling them that America needed a "second Bill of Rights" that gives all Americans guaranteed welfare from the state.
"It is clear that Barack Obama will not seek to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,'" said ATI-News president Brad O'Leary. "Rather, he will change the Constitution to suit his ideology -- an ideology that is far different from the one held by our Founding Fathers."
O'Leary points out that a second Bill of Rights, one that gives welfare guarantees from the state, is something that Obama's long-time and current Constitutional advisor, Cass Sunstein, has advocated. In his book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it Now More Than Ever, Sunstein writes that "all legal rights are, or aspire to be, welfare rights." Sunstein also believes that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
According to a recent ATI-News/Zogby poll, undecided and Independent voters reject Obama's redistribution philosophy. (The poll surveyed 1,214 likely voters nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.)
ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: "John McCain and other critics say Barack Obama is heavily influenced by people and organizations which seek social justice through redistribution of wealth in America. Do you agree or disagree with efforts to bring social justice by the redistribution of wealth?"
By a more than 2-1 margin, undecided voters disagree with such efforts to redistribute wealth. In total, 57 percent of undecided voters said they disagreed, while only 24 percent said they agreed (19 percent are not sure).
A majority (52 percent) of self-identified Independent voters also disagree with efforts to bring social justice through wealth redistribution. Only 39 percent of Independents agree (10 percent are not sure).
For an example of how welfare rights "migrate" into a Constitution, one need only look at Venezuela and examine the handy work of Dictator Hugo Chavez.
Chavez's socialist revolution depended upon the organization of the poor into powerful institutions, which Chavez called the "tools for building socialism."
When Obama served as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he and Bill Ayers helped fund and develop what they called "Local School Councils." These Local School Councils are very similar to the program Chavez implemented to control teachers and education in Venezuela and create an authoritarian regime.
Just two years ago, Ayers (who formerly served as Obama's boss) stood next to Chavez at the World Education Forum in Caracas and praised "the political educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez." Ayers continued: "I look forward to seeing how ... all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new."
O'Leary notes that Ayers and Obama tried to undo this "capitalist education" in Chicago, and now, Obama is taking their crusade to America's national stage.
"The Constitution of our Founding Fathers guarantees God-given rights, but Obama's new Constitution would create state guarantees to welfare," said O'Leary. "In Obama's new society, citizens would no longer look to God and the Constitution for their freedom, but rather, would look to paternal government for their rations of bread, clothing and housing."
Brad O'Leary serves as President of ATI-News and is the former President of the American Association of Political Consultants. From 1993 to 1997, Brad hosted a talk show program on NBC Westwood One that boasted two million listeners a day. For complete poll results, go to http://www.barackobamatest.com. To interview Brad O'Leary, call Peyton Knight at 202-828-1202.
SOURCE ATI-News/Zogby

"Final" Predictions from Larry Sabato, Professor at the University of Virginia and founder of The Crystal Ball

These states will be revisited Monday: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia.

Originally posted by Devil King
We hear a lot about the middle class, but what about the poor? The people that don't even qualify to be included in the middle class? We hear a lot about the banks who feed off the middle class, but any mention of the poor as though they're supposed to be looked at with the same concern is like calling Obama a socialist: it's concerning ourselves with people who do nothing but feed off the system. Even Obama doesn't mention the poor.

As Roosevelt said: "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little."

That is apparently called socialism by those who have no daily exposure to those people who have so much. Sitting in my mother's house and condemning everyone who has less than they do is supposedly a libertarian, realistic view. But it's not. It's a total and intentional perspective held by people who aren't accosted by the real world on their way to work everyday; simply because the real world doesn't happen to invade their world when they light their cigarette or buy their case of beer.

People who "have much" look down on those who "have little" as a means of justifying their dedication to hard work and a willingness to pull themselves up by the boot straps they have always known they have. Socialism is called a bad word, but it seems to have worked, in part, for the rest of the civilized world. Sadly, those boot strapes are not there for most Americans. People who tell themselves that their college education or their parent's wealth, like mine, wasn't a simple accident of birth and a most-welcome matter of happenstance implies that others should be just as grateful for their lot in life should be ashamed of themselves for thinking they can open their face and speak for anyone not fortunate enough to be born into that same situation. All poor, black or hispanic or white trash citizens should be as content with their lot in life as are the people born into that position that affords them the chance to succeed? But they honestly aren't in a position to do what you can! It isn't a matter of being born white or black, it's a matter of being born to parents that can afford to send you to the schools that allow you to become a Washington lobbyist or a political insider. That must be the "American Dream" at work.

Sorry to drag on, but your comment inspired me to do as much.

Poor people have been voting for Democrats for 50 years and guess what, they're still poor.

Charles Barkley

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Obama's tax plan is fair, not socialist- fair.

Why? Because you say so?

Originally posted by inimalist
how does everyone feel about giving 700b to the richest people in the country...

or is it only "wealth redistribution" when it goes rich to poor?

Couldn't agree more. Socialism for the rich should never happen. The bailout never should have happened. Ironic that more Democrats than Republicans supported it.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Poor people have been voting for Democrats for 50 years and guess what, they're still poor.

Did you seriously just counter a Roosevelt quote with a Charles Barkley quote?

YouTube video

[QUOTE=11237396]Originally posted by Devil King
[B]Did you seriously just counter a Roosevelt quote with a Charles Barkley quote?

Be what it may the truth is the truth. The New Deal extended the Great Depression far longer than it had to last.