Question

[squishyx]

No it will be spun back around to it's all Bush's fault. Democrats do no wrong esp aslong

as the Queen B remains in her seat with her court jester in the house.

Can we dig Regan up and revive him?

You've got to admit, Bush spending another 700 billion put both McCain and Obama behind the 8-ball when it comes to enacting their economic plans. At least with Obama he has listed where he is getting income from, he may be over stating it, he may be generalizing in other areas but McCain has no real income source. You can't grow wealth, inflation doesn't count. You can't cut 400 billion from the federal budget either. Over the last 5 years since Bush's tax cuts we have been falling through the bottomless well, under McCain, we will just increase the velocity, with Obama at least a chance he can cling to the side and stop the fall so we can slowly climb our way out.

Edited November 5, 2008 by squishyx

[Devilish34]

You've got to admit, Bush spending another 700 billion put both McCain and Obama behind the 8-ball when it comes to enacting their economic plans. At least with Obama he has listed where he is getting income from, he may be over stating it, he may be generalizing in other areas but McCain has no real income source. You can't grow wealth, inflation doesn't count. You can't cut 400 billion from the federal budget either. Over the last 5 years since Bush's tax cuts we have been falling through the bottomless well, under McCain, we will just increase the velocity, with Obama at least a chance he can cling to the side and stop the fall so we can slowly climb our way out.

No I will not admit or agree in any way that it was solely Bush's fault that the pig in a blanket bill was passed/needed.

Which I called both my house and senate rep voicing my opinion on that pos bill. That bill was a result of tax payer,

wall street greed and some a$$holes in the Washington present and past.

Both tax plans are faulty and I'm not reading or reciting either of them again.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Such a huge problem, we have to spend $400billion every year just to keep the debt problem from getting worse. For 40 years we have been mortgaging our children's future, we talk about responsibility and protecting our country, we can't get our debits and credits right. It won't be long before the interest we owe on our debt over takes defense and health care as our biggest expense, maybe then it will get more attention.

Who has been in control the vast majority of those 40 years?

I'll answer for you. The Dems

[Beetlebum]

No matter who lost - Dems or Repubs - the losers (in this case, people like me) have to rise above their dissappointment and do what is best for the Country to move forward. Does it mean I have to agree with everything and blindly follow? No way, but to be dirisive just to be dirisive isn't what's best. Change is needed for this Country, I don't agree Obama was best to lead it but he's there for 4 years and we all as Americans need to support him. Hopefully he'll energize younger America - who feel they should be given an excellent life by default and not have to work for it more now then ever in US history - and restore all of the luster on the USA.

Yeah and the current President elect didn't catch fire and find his way to the top quickly.

I know it was just yesterday but try to learn from history. I can suggest some books if you'd like.

he was known in 04 due to his terrific speech at the democratic convention.

[Devilish34]

linky

[LOULAM1]

You've got to admit, Bush spending another 700 billion put both McCain and Obama behind the 8-ball when it comes to enacting their economic plans. At least with Obama he has listed where he is getting income from, he may be over stating it, he may be generalizing in other areas but McCain has no real income source. You can't grow wealth, inflation doesn't count. You can't cut 400 billion from the federal budget either. Over the last 5 years since Bush's tax cuts we have been falling through the bottomless well, under McCain, we will just increase the velocity, with Obama at least a chance he can cling to the side and stop the fall so we can slowly climb our way out.

The economy is a disaster on both sides of the aisle but it's the liberal media who portrayed Bush as the reason for the economy collapsing.

You're better than this squish.

Time to rip you:

"Over the last 5 years since Bush's tax cuts we have been falling through the bottomless well," You're going to rip the tax cuts when they have essentially saved what is left of the economy? Did you want Bush to increase taxes? When the Lib Dems took over in 2006 (House/Senate) and prevented an economy that was riding along just fine.. no complaints and never mentioned once in this election. You want tax and spend socialism? It's coming. Here's my feelings:

Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.

Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Bad economy.. don't tax! Right Mr. Carter and Mr Dinkens!

"...Under McCain, we will just increase the velocity," Velocity of what, where when and how? You sound like Obama as you sound nice.. but say nothing with no facts to back you up. Huffington Post BS.

"...With Obama at least a chance he can cling to the side and stop the fall so we can slowly climb our way out." We can slowly climb our way out. That is a telling socialist statement that says you're down right now maybe paying student loans and you're looking for entitlements of some kind. Just a hypothetical guess but very telling as that is what many people are hoping for... the rich will bail you out.

Will not happen!

Edited November 6, 2008 by LOULAM1

[squishyx]

No I will not admit or agree in any way that it was solely Bush's fault that the pig in a blanket bill was passed/needed.

Which I called both my house and senate rep voicing my opinion on that pos bill. That bill was a result of tax payer,

wall street greed and some a$$holes in the Washington present and past.

The economy is a disaster on both sides of the aisle but it's the liberal media who portrayed Bush as the reason for the economy collapsing.

You're better than this squish.

Time to rip you:

"Over the last 5 years since Bush's tax cuts we have been falling through the bottomless well," You're going to rip the tax cuts when they have essentially saved what is left of the economy? Did you want Bush to increase taxes? When the Lib Dems took over in 2006 (House/Senate) and prevented an economy that was riding along just fine.. no complaints and never mentioned once in this election. You want tax and spend socialism? It's coming. Here's my feelings:

Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.

Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Bad economy.. don't tax! Right Mr. Carter and Mr Dinkens!

"...Under McCain, we will just increase the velocity," Velocity of what, where when and how? You sound like Obama as you sound nice.. but say nothing with no facts to back you up. Huffington Post BS.

"...With Obama at least a chance he can cling to the side and stop the fall so we can slowly climb our way out." We can slowly climb our way out. That is a telling socialist statement that says you're down right now maybe paying student loans and you're looking for entitlements of some kind. Just a hypothetical guess but very telling as that is what many people are hoping for... the rich will bail you out.

Will not happen!

Well ok I didn't mean "just" Bush. It took 66% of the congressional Democrats as well if it looked like I was singling out Bush here that wasn't really the intent, rather just to mention that both McCain and Obama drafted plans before the 700 billion bail out plan was drafted up so their plans may have to be adjusted in light of that.

As for content, well look you can say I am making stuff up, but the Tax Policy Center has said McCains economic plan will increase the national debt by 5 trillion dollars, they rated Obama's plan as increasing it by 2.5 trillion. So, as Devilish34 pointed out, both plans are sub par. Looking closer though, McCain has no external source of income, he is going to tax health benefits but that will be more than offset by his tax credit. All he has is promised spending cuts, and Im sorry if anyone takes an honest look at our budget, you can't get there from here. I don't think you can cut 400 billion out of the budget. McCain went on and on about earmarks, well they accounted for 18 billion total i mean, sure, cut the pork, fix corruption but you cant take your eye off the ball.

As for Obama, the reason I say chance is, he realizes that he will not only need to do spending cuts, but also raise taxes, albeit just on the top 1 or 2%. He also will end the war in Iraq. Put this all together, Obama needs to cover half as much money as McCain (2.5 trillion instead of 5) and he has two additional major sources to get it from. That's why I believe it's possible to see a balanced budget from his administration.

Will it happen? Idk, I'm not a fortune teller, but I think he has a better chance at doing it. Also, you say I have nothing to back it up, but I do, we have had these discussions before so I didn't think I needed to re-dig everything up, but the figures I used are generally accepted to be true, I don't see any sources for anything you wrote either, not sure why your words are to be taken at face value when mine aren't. I'll try to grab links for you tomorrow if you want.

Edited November 6, 2008 by squishyx

[Devilish34]

As for Obama, the reason I say chance is, he realizes that he will not only need to do spending cuts, but also raise taxes, albeit just on the top 1 or 2%. He also will end the war in Iraq. Put this all together, Obama needs to cover half as much money as McCain (2.5 trillion instead of 5) and he has two additional major sources to get it from. That's why I believe it's possible to see a balanced budget from his administration.

Will it happen? Idk, I'm not a fortune teller, but I think he has a better chance at doing it. Also, you say I have nothing to back it up, but I do, we have had these discussions before so I didn't think I needed to re-dig everything up, but the figures I used are generally accepted to be true, I don't see any sources for anything you wrote either, not sure why your words are to be taken at face value when mine aren't. I'll try to grab links for you tomorrow if you want.

For figures to be accepted you must show your work

[LOULAM1]

Well ok I didn't mean "just" Bush. It took 66% of the congressional Democrats as well if it looked like I was singling out Bush here that wasn't really the intent, rather just to mention that both McCain and Obama drafted plans before the 700 billion bail out plan was drafted up so their plans may have to be adjusted in light of that.

As for content, well look you can say I am making stuff up, but the Tax Policy Center has said McCains economic plan will increase the national debt by 5 trillion dollars, they rated Obama's plan as increasing it by 2.5 trillion.

"As for content, well look you can say I am making stuff up, but the Tax Policy Center has said McCains economic plan will increase the national debt by 5 trillion dollars, they rated Obama's plan as increasing it by 2.5 trillion." Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.

http://www.urban.org/

Brookings:

"As a 501©(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan.[4][16] Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist. The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, and centrist.[17][18][19][20][21][22] The Washington Post sometimes describes Brookings as liberal.[23][24][25] The Los Angeles Times describes Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist.[26][27][28] In 1977, Time Magazine described them as the "nation's pre-eminent liberal think tank."[29] The organization is described as centrist by the progressive media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting."

I quote Reagan and I'm proud. I also admit to my Republican beliefs unlike you and Obama who can't show your true beliefs because we are still a right leaning nation.

The black community knocked down many liberal initiatives today and the Dems should worry because if Obama doesn't come through with better welfare programs there will be backlash.

I liked that dress Mrs. Obama wore last night. She's in touch with the working class...

[squishyx]

Who has been in control the vast majority of those 40 years?

I'll answer for you. The Dems

Dem Senate Majority: 23.5/40 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presi...d_States_Senate

Dem House Majority 30/40 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speak...Representatives

And Presidency 13/40 years

I mean, if you said 50 years the presidency would be slightly more evened out, but even still to say the Dems had the vast majority control over the country is a stretch. You could maybe suggest that it tilts Democrat or make the argument about the House by itself was mostly Dem, not the whjole country.

[LOULAM1]

Dem Senate Majority: 23.5/40 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presi...d_States_Senate

Dem House Majority 30/40 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speak...Representatives

And Presidency 13/40 years

I mean, if you said 50 years the presidency would be slightly more evened out, but even still to say the Dems had the vast majority control over the country is a stretch. You could maybe suggest that it tilts Democrat or make the argument about the House by itself was mostly Dem, not the whjole country.

Name the Top 10 cities with over 25% poverty rates that have not had a Republican mayor since 1965?

#1 is Cleveland with a poverty rate of over 40%

#10 is Philadelphia with a 25% poverty rate

What cities are in between?

Lib banter squish.. fund some more programs yourself because real taxpayers have had enough!

[squishyx]

"As for content, well look you can say I am making stuff up, but the Tax Policy Center has said McCains economic plan will increase the national debt by 5 trillion dollars, they rated Obama's plan as increasing it by 2.5 trillion." Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.

http://www.urban.org/

Brookings:

"As a 501

[squishyx]

Name the Top 10 cities with over 25% poverty rates that have not had a Republican mayor since 1965?

#1 is Cleveland with a poverty rate of over 40%

#10 is Philadelphia with a 25% poverty rate

What cities are in between?

Lib banter squish.. fund some more programs yourself because real taxpayers have had enough!

I don't get to vote in every single city election, in fact just one, I was under the impression JL was talking about National Offices. Obviously I don't have the time to investigate the 40 year history of every city.

And last I checked I am a real taxpayer thank you very much. And so you know 52% of people who make more then $200k voted for Obama as well, are they not real taxpayers? Seems like they have a voice too.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/11/05/why...oted-for-obama/

[Jimmy Leeds]

I don't get to vote in every single city election, in fact just one, I was under the impression JL was talking about National Offices. Obviously I don't have the time to investigate the 40 year history of every city.

And last I checked I am a real taxpayer thank you very much. And so you know 52% of people who make more then $200k voted for Obama as well, are they not real taxpayers? Seems like they have a voice too.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/11/05/why...oted-for-obama/

I was talking National, Senate and House.