Jump to content

Dem Debate...Hillary looked personable and friendly and engaging.


Ramen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ramen (1/31/2008)
Now I will go slam my tongue in a door jamb for saying something nice about Hillary.

:crazy:

I think the Democrats might have won the General Election tonight. Those were two REALLY big brains up there. McCain is NOT the "Great Communicator" nor does he have W's . . . (What the **** DID W have? Oh yeah, he had Kerry, Gore, a cowboy hat and Rove)

McCain looked shaky in the Republican debates. Imagine what they guys would do to him?

The question is, do I want Hillary to beat Obama just so I can bump my "Nov. 5 Headline" Thread on . . . November 5th?

NO! GO Barack, GO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
Yes my mb libs. Rejoice over more government and more taxes. :w00t:

Are you in the 1% that would actually be hit?

I listened to talk radio all day today driving around, and I was amazed! Galagher actually said that he's not going to criticize McCain anymore. He's going to "demonize" the "enemy" that was "wrong" and "dangerous" to America . . . and he was SPECIFICALLY talking about "Obama/Clinton"?

That's pretty rough (and incredibly unAmerican) rhetoric towards two people who's only change in the tax structure is to return it to the Clinton level for the top 1% of earners.

That's me, btw. And I ain't complaining?

Is it you?

Or are you just scared of ##### and foreigners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
holymoses (1/31/2008)
Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
Yes my mb libs. Rejoice over more government and more taxes. :w00t:

Are you in the 1% that would actually be hit?

HA! To pay for Hillary's healthcare plan you'd have to tax that top 1% until they were the bottom 1%. Socialism at its best. So ya I'd be worried if I were you.

I prefer Obama's myself . . . but let's take Hillary for a moment: I'm sure you have the numbers to back up your assertion. And if you're so much better with the numbers than Obama, Clinton . . . or even me, why AREN'T you in the top 1 percent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
holymoses (1/31/2008)why AREN'T you in the top 1 percent?

I do very well for myself. I'm a top subject matter expert for a major software company. I'm not sure if I'm in the top 1% or not... Almost definitely top 5-10% though. Would have to look at an income chart to see where I fall.

Good for you. You're a hard working guy and I'm sure you want to pay your fair share and no more, like the rest of us.

But would you like to compare economic grown under Clinton v. Bush . . . and their respective tax rates?

Tax cuts are not the be all and end all.

AND, family values means paying our fair share as we go along rather than screwing the next generation with massive debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
holymoses (1/31/2008)
Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
Yes my mb libs. Rejoice over more government and more taxes. :w00t:

Are you in the 1% that would actually be hit?

HA! To pay for Hillary's healthcare plan you'd have to tax that top 1% until they were the bottom 1%. Socialism at its best. So ya I'd be worried if I were you.

SB, the fear monger that your type has been up to since RR left office is old and useless in todays political climate. "Whaaa, tax and spend liberals, whaaaa, socialism, whaaaaa" is about all that comes out of the mouths of republicans. If you want less government, then stop voting for a party that supports a president who has increased the government size to tremendous proportions. Stop whining about taxes, when you support a president who has only given tax breaks to the people that not only didn't ask for them, but didn't need them. And on top of that, no fiscally responsible party should ever support a concept of tax breaks during war time. If you want tax breaks, then support the ending of a war that will bankrupt this country, ethically and monetarily. Hillary's health care plan will be affordable once Iraq is unoccupied.

Maybe during the 90's, the republicans could have called liberals the "elitists left", but now that title has 100% shifted to republicans. The Democrats are the party that is looking out for the average American. I'm talking about the Americans who are demanding quality public education for their kids, the ones demanding the right to health care without taking out a second mortgage, the ones who are sick of sending our young men and women to die in a pointless war in Iraq that's sole purpose is to stabilize an region rich in a resource that we will not need by the end of the century. Those are the concerns the Democrats are going to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
holymoses (1/31/2008)

AND, family values means paying our fair share as we go along rather than screwing the next generation with massive debt.

I'll pay my fair share as long as the government doesn't try to run and mismanage everything. Bush spent too much. I want someone in office that will tax less and spend a lot less.

I want someone who will tax as little as is necessary to fund what needs to be done. It's a silly debate. My point is that it's a matter of degrees, and really VERY small degrees. To label somone who's off by 4 % of the wealthiest 1% a "socialist" just doesn't help the dialogue. And even Obama recognizes that there are people on the other side of the aisle who are STILL on our team, but just have different ideas on how to best enable Americans to reach their dreams. He is not going to marginalize, ignore, or demonize those people. And I think that kind of attitude is what is desperately needed.

And it's the opposite of what I was hearing today . .. which was a full frontal assault of me personally. I learned all kinds of things about me today listening to Gallagher, Nedved and Ingram: I hate America, I want the terrorists to win, I am a socialist, I want to destroy families and I am anti religious.

HOW do these people know so much about me?

And the appalling thing is, judging by so much of what I read on these boards, MANY people actually subscribe to that sort of thinking.

But the reality is that the PURPOSE of that kind of thinking is to PREVENT ANY kind of thinking: If the folks with different ideas are sufficiently demoinized, then you don't even have to consider that their ideas have ANY merit. So you never even have a dialogue.

That's very sad, and it had a **** of a lot to do with getting W. elected.

Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
holymoses (1/31/2008)why AREN'T you in the top 1 percent?

I do very well for myself. I'm a top subject matter expert for a major software company. I'm not sure if I'm in the top 1% or not... Almost definitely top 5-10% though. Would have to look at an income chart to see where I fall.

Good for you, SB. Your hard work combined with high intelligence has allowed you such success and wealth.

Since you are already financially secure, why do you want to get more money? Most people in this country want more money, but why do you, someone with enough of a salary to not have to worry about money, want more? You can afford health care, retirement, vacations, and have many other luxuries that on average 19 out of 20 people you see daily don't have. Do you feel that you are more deserving of a new BMW, then a poor family is deserving of quality health care? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in your motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

charlestonchad (1/31/2008)
Steve_Bartkowski (1/31/2008)
holymoses (1/31/2008)why AREN'T you in the top 1 percent?

I do very well for myself. I'm a top subject matter expert for a major software company. I'm not sure if I'm in the top 1% or not... Almost definitely top 5-10% though. Would have to look at an income chart to see where I fall.

Good for you, SB. Your hard work combined with high intelligence has allowed you such success and wealth.

Since you are already financially secure, why do you want to get more money? Most people in this country want more money, but why do you, someone with enough of a salary to not have to worry about money, want more? You can afford health care, retirement, vacations, and have many other luxuries that on average 19 out of 20 people you see daily don't have. Do you feel that you are more deserving of a new BMW, then a poor family is deserving of quality health care? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in your motives.

Yes, he is and so am I. Because we've earned. The value of our labor is sufficient to generate the kind of wealth to purchase a higher quality of life. But here's the thing: When someone making 30k pays $500 a year in taxes (who the **** knows what it is?) That's $500 that is not going into his kids college fund. You know what? I pay the same $500 off the FIRST 30k I make every year. But with the other $170,000 (should be more this year, plus my wife earns six figures working 30 hours a week) my kids both are set for their college education, I have TONS in the stock market, two pretty nifty houses, three cars and about 20 bicycles. Sure, the LAST 30k I'm making would have been taxed more under Clinton than it is under W, but that money is not going to college fund . .. it's going for really fun, frivolous stuff or more investment. (But please, let's not get into a trickle down analysis here)

Sure, I'm taxed heavier on the stuff I want, but that's because I'm free and clear on the stuff I need. The current Clinton system gives me the incentive to buy plenty of fun stuff with my disposable income while also avoiding the folks without the cushy stuff be COMPLETELY strapped from buying the essentials. I'm cool with the balance.

This is American, we are free and we should be rewarded for our skills and efforts in a market economy, so talking about what is "deserved" is sort of a socialist argument.

That's not what this country is about. It's not what I'm about, and it's NOT what the Democrats are about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

judas yeast (2/1/2008)
Have any figures been released that detail how much of a tax % increase these health care plans would require?

Has anyone estimated the tax difference per year for someone who makes 30/50/80k per year under the current tax system and under a tax system with universal health care?

Yes. For folks earning the amounts you listed, the increase would be zero percent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

judas yeast (2/1/2008)
Well ****... if people making 80k aren't getting taxed extra, where is it coming from? I mean obviously it'll come from bigger earners but what kind of hike are they looking at? Are you sure that an 80k earner wouldn't see increased taxes? If that's true, it's pretty incredible

It's been a while since I've read up on it, but last I checked, I'm pretty sure Hillary's (which is more expensive) would be covered by "efficencies" and rolling back the W tax cuts for folks earning more than $200,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

capologist (2/1/2008)
DomeGnome (1/31/2008)
What a contrast.

Two people with a vision for the future vs. four guys reminiscing about 1980.

Pretty crappy vision IMO but then again I'm not a socialist...

the fear mongering that your type has been up to since RR left office is old and useless in todays political climate. "Whaaa, tax and spend liberals, whaaaa, socialism, whaaaaa" is about all that comes out of the mouths of republicans when they are actually the ones who are keeping taxes high and spending higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

capologist (2/1/2008)
DomeGnome (1/31/2008)
What a contrast.

Two people with a vision for the future vs. four guys reminiscing about 1980.

Pretty crappy vision IMO but then again I'm not a socialist...

That's so old, it's already been responded to IN THIS THREAD!!!

I want someone who will tax as little as is necessary to fund what needs to be done. It's a silly debate. My point is that it's a matter of degrees, and really VERY small degrees. To label somone who's off by 4 % of the wealthiest 1% a "socialist" just doesn't help the dialogue. And even Obama recognizes that there are people on the other side of the aisle who are STILL on our team, but just have different ideas on how to best enable Americans to reach their dreams. He is not going to marginalize, ignore, or demonize those people. And I think that kind of attitude is what is desperately needed.

And it's the opposite of what I was hearing today . .. which was a full frontal assault of me personally. I learned all kinds of things about me today listening to Gallagher, Nedved and Ingram: I hate America, I want the terrorists to win, I am a socialist, I want to destroy families and I am anti religious.

HOW do these people know so much about me?

And the appalling thing is, judging by so much of what I read on these boards, MANY people actually subscribe to that sort of thinking.

But the reality is that the PURPOSE of that kind of thinking is to PREVENT ANY kind of thinking: If the folks with different ideas are sufficiently demoinized, then you don't even have to consider that their ideas have ANY merit. So you never even have a dialogue.

That's very sad, and it had a **** of a lot to do with getting W. elected.

Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...