Obama's Tax Plan Uncovered

[Ken]

I was doing fine in 80's, 90's and this decade. I don't listen to the ads, I do homework and research on line, but between what I see in the economy today with a republican administration and house and senate (for at least 4 of the last 6 yrs if not 6 of the last

You are aware, that the Democrats have been in complete control of the House and Senate for 6 of the last 8 years? The Republicans have not controlled either since...2002. BTW...since Nancy Pelosi has taken the chair, it has been roundly criticized as the most do-nothing congress in decades.

A WHOLE bunch of democrats have to agree with a specific Bush policy, to pass it. Just thought I'd point that out.

Personally I don't see how anyone would even vote republican after the last 8 yrs but I guess that is why everyone has an opinion and they all stink.

Well let's see.

Democrats are AGAINST Off roading and a DEMOCRATIC USFS Chief is behind the route closures. You do realize...the biggest supporter of OHV recreation in the state are two Republicans? James Doolittle and his current replacement, who's name escapes me as I type. Without their support, the Tahoe side of the Rubicon would be closed. Period. They supported converting it from USFS road to County. Now it's safe.

Democrats are for big government, handouts....higher taxation. I'm for private enterprise....as I said...this was Bush's biggest failure. Clinton, BTW....was a very conservative, Democrat. Obama..is an ultra liberal democrat. They are about as far apart as you can get on Business/Taxes and Government's role.

Democrats are pro-abortion. It's a touchy subject...but I'm against it for religious reasons.

Bush has been a horrible, Republican principle president...except for Taxation. He's lowered many taxes, which cause our economy to grow so much between 2003 - 2007. What he did wrong, was allow the too much freedom in loans and not enough monitoring.

[FishaHallic]

"You are aware, that the Democrats have been in complete control of the House and Senate for 6 of the last 8 years? The Republicans have not controlled either since...2002. BTW...since Nancy Pelosi has taken the chair, it has been roundly criticized as the most do-nothing congress in decades. "


I think your wrong on this, but I will do some research. If someone knows a website to find this let me know.

[FishaHallic]

Here ya go http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html , scroll down to the bottom to see 2001-2007 info. The republicans controlled both houses until 2007, in the senate it was split at 49 and 49 with Cheney as the tie breaker. Hence this is part of my argument that the republicans controlled congress from 1995 thru 2007 and with control of the White house I don't see how we can blame anyone but republicans for this mess.

With all this mess aside, there are other reasons besides this that I will vote democrat this yr. Our record deficits are also a big issue with me, why should we pass our bill on to future generations? I am also pro choice, I don't think we should force someone elses religious agenda onto other people. If a woman does not want to have an abortion then that is fine but she should have that right.

Last but not least is the republican party itself. Since the Clinton yrs I believe the republicans have been the party of hate. There hatred of Clinton started to divide this country and now there attacks on Obama are doing the same thing. The republicans start throwing out a bunch of crap to see what sticks and it's a disgusting way to try and hold power.

Go and look at some of the stuff Bush said about McCain in 2000. They accused him of fathering a child with a black prostitute (which is really the one he adapted in Bangladesh I believe). They accused him of being a traitor while being held captive, of being a communist sympathizer, the manchurian candidate and of being gay and many other disgusting things, and they were accusing someone from there own party. Now, we see McCain campaign turning to the same dirty tricks that were used on him and he actually hired some of the same people that said those things about him to work in his campaign of smear against Obama. Is this the type of people we need running this country, I don't believe it is and I am not in the minority here.

The time has come for major changes and in my opinion we have only one choice and that is Barack Obama. Will he turn things around in a yr or so, I doubt it, I just hope things are better by the end of his "first term" because it will take that long to get this boat to float again.

[Ken]

Here ya go http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html , scroll down to the bottom to see 2001-2007 info. The republicans controlled both houses until 2007, in the senate it was split at 49 and 49 with Cheney as the tie breaker. Hence this is part of my argument that the republicans controlled congress from 1995 thru 2007 and with control of the White house I don't see how we can blame anyone but republicans for this mess.

Good job. It wasn't a stat from an Obama ad.

So...what that means...since the economy went into retraction in 2007...the Dems took complete control...SWEET!

[FishaHallic]

Here ya go http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html , scroll down to the bottom to see 2001-2007 info. The republicans controlled both houses until 2007, in the senate it was split at 49 and 49 with Cheney as the tie breaker. Hence this is part of my argument that the republicans controlled congress from 1995 thru 2007 and with control of the White house I don't see how we can blame anyone but republicans for this mess.

Good job. It wasn't a stat from an Obama ad.

So...what that means...since the economy went into retraction in 2007...the Dems took complete control...SWEET!

[Kendo]

PWNED!

[traildad]

LET’S NOT FORGET THE 4,000+ DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS

I can not prove what if any benefit this will be to our country. You also can not prove that it was a waste. Let me offer this for you to consider. I think it is a fact that a lot of radical people went to Iraq to fight us. These are the same people that are already terrorists or likely to become terrorists. It is possible that if left alone some of the terrorists killed in Iraq would have been the leaders of a terrorist plot to use a nuclear bomb in the United States. Now they are dead and we are safer. We will never know if this is true or not. I think it is reasonable to say that some terrorist plots will never take place because the terrorists were killed in Iraq. The 4000+ soldiers dead is nothing to take lightly. However they are volunteers and soldiers are there to risk their lives protecting us. Which would you choose if you had a crystal ball, 4000+ dead soldiers or 400,000+ dead men women and children? I say Bush made the right choice.

[FishaHallic]

LET’S NOT FORGET THE 4,000+ DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS

I can not prove what if any benefit this will be to our country. You also can not prove that it was a waste. Let me offer this for you to consider. I think it is a fact that a lot of radical people went to Iraq to fight us. These are the same people that are already terrorists or likely to become terrorists. It is possible that if left alone some of the terrorists killed in Iraq would have been the leaders of a terrorist plot to use a nuclear bomb in the United States. Now they are dead and we are safer. We will never know if this is true or not. I think it is reasonable to say that some terrorist plots will never take place because the terrorists were killed in Iraq. The 4000+ soldiers dead is nothing to take lightly. However they are volunteers and soldiers are there to risk their lives protecting us. Which would you choose if you had a crystal ball, 4000+ dead soldiers or 400,000+ dead men women and children? I say Bush made the right choice.

I never said those 4000+ lives were a waste, far from it.

[traildad]

I never said those 4000+ lives were a waste, far from it.

So you agree that it was a good move on Bush's part?

[FishaHallic]

I never said those 4000+ lives were a waste, far from it.

So you agree that it was a good move on Bush's part?

Hey I was for the war before I was against it. I was for going in removing Saddaam and leaving. But evidently your president went to war on the cheap, did not have enough troops to handle the situation which in turn created kaos. Which is where we are today.

If for some reason you think this war is winnable your kidding yourself. These people are so ignorant they are fighting over things that happened thousands of yrs ago. They hold grudges until the end of time, they are cave dwellers basically not all of them of course but as a whole the middle eastern people are screwed up. The only reason the surge is now working is because we are paying tribal leaders not to fight us, what do you think will happen when the money dries up. BTW, this is money we don't have unless you think we should go into debt another trillion.

[traildad]

It is very possible that what you say about fighting the war on the cheap is true. Consider this...

If we had gone into Iraq with everything we had. Lets say we could put a ring of troops around the country and keep out every bad guy that wanted to come into the country and kill Americans. Then lets say we put overwhelming force into the country to methodically clear the country city by city, until every one willing to fight us was dead. What would have happened? These are terrorists remember. They would have scurried to every cave or hole they could find. They would have blended into the civilian population or stayed home and just waited. They would wait while we were thinking, "hey we won!" Then when we turned the country over to the new democracy and left, they would all come pouring out of their hiding spots like roaches when the lights go out. Now I can't prove that it was intentional, but the way we fought the war allowed the terrorists to think they had a chance of winning. That caused them to keep fighting and keep getting killed. By appearing weak, we were able to kill many more that if we had gone in with overwhelming force in the beginning. Now that Bush's term is nearly over, he has gone in with the force needed to finish the job as best as we can. Now that he has killed as many as he has time for, he finally sent a team into Syria to kill the leader in charge of smuggling terrorists into Iraq. Now is this an overly optimistic, rose colored glasses view of the war, or is yours a overly pessimistic, cynical view of the war. I guess only history will tell.

I never said those 4000+ lives were a waste, far from it.

So you agree that it was a good move on Bush's part?

Hey I was for the war before I was against it. I was for going in removing Saddaam and leaving. But evidently your president went to war on the cheap, did not have enough troops to handle the situation which in turn created kaos. Which is where we are today.

If for some reason you think this war is winnable your kidding yourself. These people are so ignorant they are fighting over things that happened thousands of yrs ago. They hold grudges until the end of time, they are cave dwellers basically not all of them of course but as a whole the middle eastern people are screwed up. The only reason the surge is now working is because we are paying tribal leaders not to fight us, what do you think will happen when the money dries up. BTW, this is money we don't have unless you think we should go into debt another trillion.

[Kendo]

Unfortunately, you are probably right and I don't know that we will ever know the full impact of our efforts over there. Did we fight it exactly to the letter correctly? Who knows? Is there really a "correct" way to fight a war?

So everyone is pissed off about Iraq and the economy. Bush has blackened the eye of the Republican party and I don't think it matters WHO is running under that umbrella, they don't stand a chance.

I can only hope that when Obama is elected that he actually DOES something to change - for the better. My gut tells me it won't happen though and people are going to be pissed off at another politician.

[FishaHallic]

I can only hope that when Obama is elected that he actually DOES something to change - for the better. My gut tells me it won't happen though and people are going to be pissed off at another politician.

Your right, we don't know but we do know or we should know that the way things have been run for the last 8 yrs are not good for this country (just look at the near doubling of our national debt). If you have someone not making wise decisions why would you put someone back in that agreed with the first guy 90% of the time, to me it sounds like 90% of his decisions were WRONG.

Who knows how Obama will do but I sure don't see how he could do any worse then what we have now.

[Kendo]

The only thing I find wrong with your statement is the national debt thing. Maybe I'm being naive or ignorant, but I hear about the national debt, have for as long as I can remember and yet I see no direct influence in my life. It's just numbers. And who is this 'debt' owed to?? What will they do to us if we don't pay?

Yeah yeah, I know, it all ties into the strength of the dollar and the economy as a whole, but I truly see no difference in my life since the debt has 'doubled'. As a matter of fact, the past 8 years have been good for me, I have probably increased my take home pay by 50%. The last couple of months has been the most damaging, and that happens before EVERY election. Maybe not to this extent, but this is the election of the century afterall.

[FishaHallic]

This might help

If you look at the bottom item on the main graph, "which includes interest on the national debt". I will look for something else that might break it out a little better but if you see, payment on the national debt rates 3rd or 4th most out of our budget.

And your right it may not affect you but I bet it will affect your children and grandchildren and there kids.


After further research I found where 15.5 cents per dollar raised in taxes goes to just paying the interest (no princible) on national debt.