POWELL FOR OBAMA: IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE

When I personally get in debt so far, that all I can do is pay the minimum balance on my credit card, I seriously need to change my budget. I, in my personal life do not have the option to increase my income. On a national level that equates to raising taxes. In THEORY that's how you get more money. Raise taxes. I can't tell my employer to up my wage/salary by 10-20% because I need to pay my bills. He's gonna tell me to go pound sand. Who does my government work for? Me. You. Him. Us. He's got bill's to pay. I should tell him to go pound sand. How do I balance my budget when all I can pay is the interest and no principle? I shoot less. I drink less beer. I take my wife out to dinner less. I buy cheaper clothes for my kids to wear. I eat bologna (baloney where I come from) instead of prime rib. I CUT SPENDING. I take the money I saved and put it toward the principle. I pay it off. Does it happen in the next month? Not a chance. Do I get there? Eventually. If this works on a 2 income budget of less than $100,000, why can't it work on a umpteen kabillion dollar budget?

Here's another add-on. If in my dreamy little world where I can tax my employer because I have debts....and I give away part of the increase to my co-worker that does less and get paid less for what he does, does that pay off my debt faster? Nope. Now I work harder, and my goof-off co-worker who doesn't do a thing, essentially get paid the same. Is my productivity going to go up or down? It's human nature...why work any harder than you have to. I wanna get paid the same as "Sleepy" on the other side of the line from me and do a whole lot less for the same amount of money. WHY SHOULD I work harder?

To steal a line from Larry the Cable Guy. "It don't make no sense....it's like wipin' before you poop!"

Redistibution of wealth...for the good of the whole....for the good of the commune.....equals communism.

I too served in the middle east. USMC detachment on a naval vessel in the Persian Gulf in '91 when we should have marched forth and whipped their keesters the first time. I heard then General Powell speak. Sounded pretty impressive to a 19-20 year old farm kid from the upper Midwest. Right now I wouldn't trust either him or Obama to feed my dog. The one thing those two have in common, is an uncanny ability to speak, with charisma no doubt. They are good at it. The problem is, you need to be very careful and LISTEN to what they are saying and HOW they are saying it. I'm not a huge McCain fan.....but I will not lower the standard of freedom in this great nation by voting for Obama. We can only speculate what will happen after the election for what either candidate will do or will not do. My speculation is that everyone's taxes will increase. Unemployment will go up. AR's will be collected and crushed, heck, we're probably talking Remington 7400's and Browning BAR's! More of my paycheck will go to seedy welfare mongers, and the good-talking charismatic nice little boy next door Chicago kid is gonna get run over by every country in the world that wants to take a shot the the US and all its freedoms that I and so many others have tried to protect. Then again, if all the other stuff happens first, we won't have any freedoms to protect, this place will be so far in the crapper that they'll just laugh at us and say "Leave them alone....they are miserable enough already." I sure hate being a pessimist and all...
 
All I can say is that after reading TJ's posts on taxes and income re-distribution, I'm suprised PM has any sponsors left.

This thread has went from playing the race card to trying to convince an Obama supporter that marxisim is bad for America. You guys fel right into his trap.
 
speaking of trap...I gotta check another forum. I'm getting tired of reading all this crap.

On that note....sorry about the long post. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
Stu--You've made many of the economic arguments I would have, +1! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

Tommy's heart is in the right place, he's, IMO, just missing an understanding of history. At 44, the high tax Carter years vs the low tax Reagan years are still clear in my mind. With Carter's high taxes we had high inflation, unemployment and the 'misery index.' With Reagan's tax cuts we had the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history. If we'd had a Republican Congress back in '81, we'd have done even BETTER.

Also, Tommy, your guy never mentions cutting government spending as a possibility--in fact, he wants to expand spending dramatically! Why?! He is going to rob me, to take from my family, so he can give out more welfare checks to lazy people who do not pay taxes (yet he is calling these welfare checks "middle class tax cuts," lol /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif).

That's a failed European idea--wealth redistribution--not what we in American have ever believed in. Giving my hard-earned money to the lazy and unproductive isn't what made us a great nation.

BTW, you are just factually wrong, Tommy: Big companies like Walmart, Exxon, etc. already pay BILLIONS and BILIONS in taxes. For you to suggest that they don't 'pay their fair share' lacks any factual support.

Anyone who votes for Obama lacks a grasp on history and economics. Increasing taxes and growing government has NEVER done anything but depress the economy.

Tommy, you've suggested Obama will "fix" our economy. Since raising taxes and increasing government regulation has, historically NEVER done anything but HARM the economy, how will doing these things "fix" it this time around?

If we vote in Obama we, as a nation, are just as foolish as Charlie Brown thinking Lucy will, this time, let him kick the football and not yank it away at the last second, causing us to fall on our butts.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." ~Benjamin Franklin
 
Quote:
If we'd had a Republican Congress back in '81, we'd have done even BETTER.



Java, We tried that during the first 6 yrs of bushs presidency and look what that got us. They had complete control. What did they bother to appeal?

Quote:
Giving my hard-earned money to the lazy and unproductive isn't what made us a great nation.



Lazy and unproductive, hmmm, are you referring to Corporate welfare? I can promise the minuscule offerings to individuals is nothing to that of what is squandered in the form of tax relief and bail outs to big $$ business and CEO's alike.

Quote:
growing government has NEVER done anything but depress the economy.



Now this question is for extra credit, what president do we all know that has grown Govt and the debt unlike any before his time?

Quote:
If we vote in Obama we, as a nation, are just as foolish as Charlie Brown thinking Lucy will, this time, let him kick the football and not yank it away at the last second, causing us to fall on our butts.



Java, here is where it gets slightly ambiguous in that unknowingly the masses that voted for bush had no idea that in fact they would be paving the way for Obama's almost certain election due to bush's dismal failures as a president.
 
Quote:
Quote:
If we'd had a Republican Congress back in '81, we'd have done even BETTER.



Java, We tried that during the first 6 yrs of bushs presidency and look what that got us. They had complete control. What did they bother to appeal?

Bush has NOT governed as a Reagan Conservative. Reagan would have vetoed big-spending bills Bush let through. A Reagan Congress would have resembled a '94 Congress

Quote:
Giving my hard-earned money to the lazy and unproductive isn't what made us a great nation.



Lazy and unproductive, hmmm, are you referring to Corporate welfare? I can promise the minuscule offerings to individuals is nothing to that of what is squandered in the form of tax relief and bail outs to big $$ business and CEO's alike.

I don't know what "corporate welfare" means. Are you saying corporations get direct wealth-transfer payments from the Federal government? I wasn't aware of that. I don't see government 'allowing' corporations' shareholders to keep profits they earned through their risk as "welfare." Such a statement would assume the wealth is the government's in the first place, and that is just untrue. The government creates NO wealth. It can only immorally confiscate the fruits of others' risk and toil. It then, mostly, wastes and squanders what it confiscates since all governments, by their very nature, are economically inefficient. Like lots of the guys here, I was steadfast in opposition to Socialistic bailouts. Inefficient companies, including those who overpay CEO's deserve to perish. Such is the market system and tampering with that is a foolish idea. I agree with you on that part of your argument.

Quote:
growing government has NEVER done anything but depress the economy.



Now this question is for extra credit, what president do we all know that has grown Govt and the debt unlike any before his time?

You have a partial point here, admittedly. He gets a pass on some of that for 9/11-related spending, but, I have to be honest, he should have vetoed lots of pre-'96 Republican Congress spending.

Quote:
If we vote in Obama we, as a nation, are just as foolish as Charlie Brown thinking Lucy will, this time, let him kick the football and not yank it away at the last second, causing us to fall on our butts.



Java, here is where it gets slightly ambiguous in that unknowingly the masses that voted for bush had no idea that in fact they would be paving the way for Obama's almost certain election due to bush's dismal failures as a president.

Maybe, but a Gore or Kerry administration would have been lots worse, IMO. Especially for those of us who value the 2d Amendment
 
I dunno. We ran big deficits in the 80 because the democrat congresses passed budgets with them & reagan didn't veto those. So I don't see any way to think that he would have vetoed them if the gop had been writing them either.

I don't think we're ever going to be able to count on balanced budgets, short of an amendment requiring them. And maybe not even then, congresses have remarkable slippery properties when it comes to ignoring the constitution.
 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If we'd had a Republican Congress back in '81, we'd have done even BETTER.



Java, We tried that during the first 6 yrs of bushs presidency and look what that got us. They had complete control. What did they bother to appeal?

Bush has NOT governed as a Reagan Conservative. Reagan would have vetoed big-spending bills Bush let through. A Reagan Congress would have resembled a '94 Congress

Quote:
Giving my hard-earned money to the lazy and unproductive isn't what made us a great nation.






Lazy and unproductive, hmmm, are you referring to Corporate welfare? I can promise the minuscule offerings to individuals is nothing to that of what is squandered in the form of tax relief and bail outs to big $$ business and CEO's alike.

I don't know what "corporate welfare" means. Are you saying corporations get direct wealth-transfer payments from the Federal government? I wasn't aware of that. I don't see government 'allowing' corporations' shareholders to keep profits they earned through their risk as "welfare." Such a statement would assume the wealth is the government's in the first place, and that is just untrue. The government creates NO wealth. It can only immorally confiscate the fruits of others' risk and toil. It then, mostly, wastes and squanders what it confiscates since all governments, by their very nature, are economically inefficient. Like lots of the guys here, I was steadfast in opposition to Socialistic bailouts. Inefficient companies, including those who overpay CEO's deserve to perish. Such is the market system and tampering with that is a foolish idea. I agree with you on that part of your argument.

Quote:
growing government has NEVER done anything but depress the economy.



Now this question is for extra credit, what president do we all know that has grown Govt and the debt unlike any before his time?

You have a partial point here, admittedly. He gets a pass on some of that for 9/11-related spending, but, I have to be honest, he should have vetoed lots of pre-'96 Republican Congress spending.

Quote:
If we vote in Obama we, as a nation, are just as foolish as Charlie Brown thinking Lucy will, this time, let him kick the football and not yank it away at the last second, causing us to fall on our butts.



Java, here is where it gets slightly ambiguous in that unknowingly the masses that voted for bush had no idea that in fact they would be paving the way for Obama's almost certain election due to bush's dismal failures as a president.

Maybe, but a Gore or Kerry administration would have been lots worse, IMO. Especially for those of us who value the 2d Amendment










You've been OWNED Wabbit. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Mr. Johnson,

Like many others here I greatly appreciate your service to our nation. That said, I completely disagree with your economic positions. Now, do you REALLY want this "guy" as the Obasm's mouthpiece on economic policy in the House?






That's what you'll get if this Marxist is elected President. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
Quote:
I dunno. We ran big deficits in the 80 because the democrat congresses passed budgets with them & reagan didn't veto those. So I don't see any way to think that he would have vetoed them if the gop had been writing them either.

I don't think we're ever going to be able to count on balanced budgets, short of an amendment requiring them. And maybe not even then, congresses have remarkable slippery properties when it comes to ignoring the constitution.



That's a great point, Stu, but here is the Reagan/Bush difference: During his first few years Reagan had to make deals with then Speaker Tip O'Neill in order to get ANY of his agenda through a then strong Democrat Congress. Reagan knew to cut tax rates to fix our economy, but he also had to, if you remember, rebuild the military that Jimmy Carter had squandered (Recall the image of the burning, wrecked helicopters sitting in the Iranian desert--crashed, killing US troops who were never able to attempt their hostage rescue mission, because of a lack of spare parts?). Reagan knew we HAD to have a strong military to win the Cold War, in which he also led us to victory after ~40 years.

Bush is no Reagan philosophically. Where Reagan struggled to cut the growth of government, Bush has grown it intentionally. Again, not all of that is Bush's fault, such as spending related to 9/11, but much of it is--like the massive new 'prescription drug benefit' entitlement, for example.

This is why Palin energizes the base, she is the most Reagan-like Republican we've had on the scene for quite some time.
 
obosheep.jpg
 
Quote:
... Do we hold politicians to unfair expectations? I think we do. I think until we start looking at hiring saints for politicians we will never be satisfied. I for one dont support hiring only saints so therefore I expect imperfections.



I don't know... I don't think it's unfair to expect a politician to represent the people who elected them to office. To expect them to do their job in a way that puts the interests of the general population of this country above their own. To expect them to understand that "change" is what is pushing this great nation down the hill at light speed, and what we truly need is reform, we need the government that this country was founded on ~232 years ago.
 
Please accept my appology specializedcc, I couldnt address all that was flying at me.

Discriminate? Its forged in our tax system. Its called brackets. I support increasing the taxes on those who ship jobs overseas. And offering tax incentives for those who choose to employ Americans in America and operate under our tax system.
 
Now there's a thought I can agree with...

Penalize those who are shipping jobs overseas, and reward those who keep Americans employed.

Unfortunately, I don't believe EITHER current candidate will push for that.
 
Back
Top