Cormaster628 wrote:Everyone hated Bush so bad that McCain didn't have a chance in hell of winning this election.
I would probably agree with that in general.
Everyone talks about oh how great the Clinton years were, and oh yeah thats right he let terrorist bomb the WTC and get away with it, he cut the military down to a fraction of its size, and he cheated on his wife and slept with an intern on the side. Yeah great president!
You have his affair on your list of top three things that were bad about Clinton?
Jimmy Carter was also a democrat and regarded as an even worse president than Bush. Putting a democrat in the Whitehouse won't solve anything.
Putting just any Democrat in the Whitehouse might not, I mean, if you just threw my mother in law in their I'm pretty sure it wouldn't accomplish anything, but that shouldn't stand as a condemnation of every Democrat out there.
It's less a matter of 'yay we have a democrat in office' and more a matter of 'yay Obama is in office'.
Although I don't think either party should hold the presidency for very many consecutive terms so long as our country is still roughly 50/50 on its political leanings.
I'll probably say differently though in 8yrs.
The tax bracket system is already flawed...it should be a flat percentage rage regardless of how much money you make. They already have it set up so the "more you make the more we take".
I used to think so too, I mean, that seems like the intuitive approach to taxation, but consider this - As you climb the economic ladder, the ratio of money made to money spent increases.
Every person has to spend money to survive, hypothetically. A person who has $0 income dodges that issue by eating out of trash bins, but I think we can agree that's bad. For individuals not going that route, there's going to be a minimum expenditure for survival, a minimum that rises if you add amenities like health-care, heating, school supplies, etc.
But let's call eating the minimum necessity.
At the bottom end, you have the extremely poor. Hard working Americans that, probably because it is very hard to move out of your SES caste in America, are getting paid crap or have been laid off and can't find a job. The have to spend that minimum amount to eat, and they may or may not make enough to cover that cost.
At the top end, you have the extremely wealthy. The may make millions of times the amount of money the bottom end does, but their survival 'costs' don't increase. They could still get by eating pork and beans if they wanted to. Given, most eat more expensively than that, but I'm sure their food expenditures aren't millions of times higher than those at the bottom end.
Therefore, sales tax, one of our primary taxes, is disproportionately taxing the economically disadvantaged.
You could try to argue that the wealthy spend their money on luxuries and pay the sales tax that way, but if they were spending proportionately as much on luxuries as the poor do on survival, they would be in debt. Most of that money will simply be hoarded away. Otherwise trickle-down economics might suck less hard.
Oh and he obviously knows how to spend money since I saw one McCain ad for every 200 Obama ads.
I saw more McCain ads here in Colorado.
I think America's been duped honestly.
I felt the same way when Bush was elected.
But I'll still give him a chance.
And to be honest that's better than I did with Bush.
Wingspan wrote:Cormaster628 wrote:I really haven't seen many ads for McCain honestly. I've seen a couple of Republican committee ad's thats about it. I live in Indiana, a state that NORMALLY is a red state.
Debunks my ad-placement theory.
I would attribute the observation to Social Psychology theories that support our over-perception of exceptional data. Hypothetically candidate A's ads are going to be less outstanding in the memory of candidate A's supporters, because they aren't going to invoke annoyance and frustration like candidate B's ads, therefore, in retrospect, the supporters will mistakenly believe there were more of B's ads, when in fact numbers were roughly equal.
Shadowman wrote:Cormaster628 wrote:Honestly I don't think Bush did anything worse than Clinton. Everyone talks about oh how great the Clinton years were, and oh yeah thats right he let terrorist bomb the WTC and get away with it, he cut the military down to a fraction of its size, and he cheated on his wife and slept with an intern on the side. Yeah great president!
We had info that the WTC attacks were going to happen weeks before, AFTER Clinton left office.
I assume he was referring to the largely forgotten
bombing of the WTC's basement parking garage.
I fell asleep not knowing who won, but anticipating an Obama victory. I'm glad he won, and looking at Congress, I'm glad the Democrats DID NOT get to 60 in the Senate. I prefer the Democrats to Republicans, but anyone has to agree that absolute control of the government under one party is a bad idea.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
