Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trae

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

Next United States President  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick One

    • Barack Obama
      54
    • John McCain
      46
    • Other
      7


Recommended Posts

Not saying that at all. We are talking about preemptive defense, and defense spending. Reagan had 8 years of record defense spending without any war. Bush may or may not have avoided a war, but the shells and tanks and humvees are being used and spent, so NEW ammo and vehicles have to be built, do they not ? Don't necessarily need a war to have to spend on defense, but if we had a huge surplus going into this war, would these "war profiteering" people still have jobs ? There are alot more people than just those working in the "wra profiteers" plants. You have independant truckers, you got contractors that have to build more space to house and build for defense. You have people working at the Mickey D's across the street to feed those in the factories. You have to buy gas for the war machines, and on, and on, and on.

You say "needless war" , I say necessary to remove an evil dictator who was gonna have to be dealt with at one point or another.

Why not put that money into something that most might consider more beneficial to society, like jump starting the alternative energy industry, improving access and quality of education in our country? I'm not saying we don't need defense spending, but maybe not the high levels you suggest. It seems like a lot of defense spending goes to dead-end projects and over-priced military equipment. There are other ways to improve our strength as a country than just dumping billions into military defense.

Edited by barracuda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are other ways to improve our strength as a country than just dumping billions into military defense.

I agree that the money could have been much better spent elsewhere if a war hadn't broken out. Hind sight is always 20/20. I also won't get into a debate about whether it is the Govt's. responsibility to find alternative fuels, when there is nothing wrong with the fuels we have currently, there already exists several threads for this. I agree that mine and your children DESERVE the best education possible, hence one of my solutions in an earlier post. I would love to live in your Utopian society of building strength in other ways, but I just don't think that Iran or North Korea is gonna want to have an Academic Decathalon to determine if Israel should be "wiped off the face of the Earth." You don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight when dealing with these fanatical crazies.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and Red, say "war profiteers" like they are the ones building the guns and bullets by hand themselves. These "war profiteers" keep whole communities alive. Go tell the folks, working at the old Stewart and Stevenson plant where they make the mine sweeping troop transports over in Sealy, that they are all warmongers and profiteers, and see if you can make it out the door. Preemptive defense is what brought the wall down, Preemptive defense is what keeps most other radical countries at bay when they know we are allies with their intended target. Preemptive defense does work, as eveident to your being able to type your feeble minded statements on that little Dell sitting in front of you.

Don't try to justify unnecessary wars with necessary ones, preemptive defense may work, but not slippery slope preemptive wars, which this one is pretty obviously, except to the clueless. To throw money to empty jobs and projects that does nothing productive for the US is welfare. And you are right that even without the war, we would still be throwing money at 'defense', which is also welfare considering that our military budget encompasses what other countries use combined. You can e-imitate me cowardly behind the computer all you want, I can handle myself pretty well, even with welfare war profiteers.

The 'keeps other countries at bay' and 'remove dictator' argument is as as slippery slope as can be, and very reckless and irresponsible, by this line of reasoning, we can also justify nuking 50% of the world, because then, we will be 50% safer.

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'keeps other countries at bay' and 'remove dictator' argument is as as slippery slope as it can be, and very reckless and irresponsible, by this line of reasoning, we can also justify nuking 50% of the world, because then, we will be 50% safer.

Glad to see you are finally starting to come around. ;)

So, you are trying to deny that our arsenal DOESN'T keep others at bay ? If we nuked 50% of the world, we would be 100% safer. I think actually only nuking about 20% of the world, that the others would get it together and fly right, but I would never advocate nuking !

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord! I'm gone for only a day and you guys chatted up THIS storm?

I'm sure Ed is enjoying the hits on the system.

While I would have more pleased with Romney or Hucklebee, I'm quite content with this selection overall.

My main problem with the current McCain Campaign is that they seem to have no real energy plan (amazingly enough. Paris Hilton's plan made more sense than either sides) and opening up Alaska My main issue with Palin is her wanting creationism taught in schools along with no sex education except for abstinence. The fact that she strongly opposes abortion is another thing that worries me, but I don't think either president will be able to touch R v. W without committing political suicide.

The NRA thing isn't an issue for me, give me full registration and keep the guns out of criminals' hands and I'll be content. The other so called issues are something I'm going to have to look into more before I could make a reasonable comment on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good lord! I'm gone for only a day and you guys chatted up THIS storm?

I'm sure Ed is enjoying the hits on the system.

While I would have more pleased with Romney or Hucklebee, I'm quite content with this selection overall.

My main problem with the current McCain Campaign is that they seem to have no real energy plan (amazingly enough. Paris Hilton's plan made more sense than either sides) and opening up Alaska My main issue with Palin is her wanting creationism taught in schools along with no sex education except for abstinence. The fact that she strongly opposes abortion is another thing that worries me, but I don't think either president will be able to touch R v. W without committing political suicide.

The NRA thing isn't an issue for me, give me full registration and keep the guns out of criminals' hands and I'll be content. The other so called issues are something I'm going to have to look into more before I could make a reasonable comment on it.

Ricco, there is absolutely NO WAY that she could, with a straight face, advocate abstinence. What, with 5 kiddos and a knocked-up 17 year old. What kind of message does that send ? "I can't teach my own daughter to stay away until she is married, so why should your kids listen to me ?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricco, there is absolutely NO WAY that she could, with a straight face, advocate abstinence. What, with 5 kiddos and a knocked-up 17 year old. What kind of message does that send ? "I can't teach my own daughter to stay away until she is married, so why should your kids listen to me ?"

Then I believe she has a problem. Teaching abstinence is living in a fantasy land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricco, there is absolutely NO WAY that she could, with a straight face, advocate abstinence. What, with 5 kiddos and a knocked-up 17 year old. What kind of message does that send ? "I can't teach my own daughter to stay away until she is married, so why should your kids listen to me ?"

Of course she can! She does, and she will. That's what's killing me about this. She opposes sex education other than abstinence, and she certainly opposes birth control. And you know that that doesn't mean she opposes it just for her family. It means she will work hard to make those the rules as far as her power allows her to.

Which is why I will not accept that her daughter's situation is a private matter. She won't allow others the privacy to make personal decisions with their bodies, so why should we respect her family's privacy?

Sorry, I am really having trouble getting off this particular soapbox today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad to see you are finally starting to come around. ;)

So, you are trying to deny that our arsenal DOESN'T keep others at bay ? If we nuked 50% of the world, we would be 100% safer. I think actually only nuking about 20% of the world, that the others would get it together and fly right, but I would never advocate nuking !

You are actually trying to pass these slippery slope reasons as valid? How about this one, if we expand our domestic social programs, ppl won't be stuck in a rut, and therefore they won't cooperate with outside terrorists for money and we will end up being safer, therefore let's expand our social programs to keep America safe from bombings.

Of course she can! She does, and she will. That's what's killing me about this. She opposes sex education other than abstinence, and she certainly opposes birth control. And you know that that doesn't mean she opposes it just for her family. It means she will work hard to make those the rules as far as her power allows her to.

Which is why I will not accept that her daughter's situation is a private matter. She won't allow others the privacy to make personal decisions with their bodies, so why should we respect her family's privacy?

Sorry, I am really having trouble getting off this particular soapbox today.

Hypocrisy is a necessary virtue for republican nomination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course she can! She does, and she will. That's what's killing me about this. She opposes sex education other than abstinence, and she certainly opposes birth control. And you know that that doesn't mean she opposes it just for her family. It means she will work hard to make those the rules as far as her power allows her to.

Which is why I will not accept that her daughter's situation is a private matter. She won't allow others the privacy to make personal decisions with their bodies, so why should we respect her family's privacy?

Sorry, I am really having trouble getting off this particular soapbox today.

Sara, Palin CAN'T enforce the rule in her own home, how the Hell can she expect the rest of the country to get on board with it ???

You are actually trying to pass these slippery slope reasons as valid? How about this one, if we expand our domestic social programs, ppl won't be stuck in a rut, and therefore they won't cooperate with outside terrorists for money and we will end up being safer, therefore let's expand our social programs to keep America safe from bombings.

So that's your big plan? Become the welfare department for the whole friggin' world ? Sure, that will go over like a fart in church.

FYI, people get "stuck in rut" when they know the welfare dept is gonna send that Govt. check on the first and fifthteenth. They have no motivation to go get a job. So, take away their checks and they either get motivated to get a job, or they can get motivated to go live in a van.....down by the river !

Oh, and as soon as I see the video of Bin Laden saying that he bombed the WTC and Pentagon because he didn't get his Govt. cheese, I will agree with you about "expanding our domestic social programs". You obviously haven't the faintest clue why terrorists try to "martyr" themselves. I'll let you in on a little secret though, it ain't about money.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sara, Palin CAN'T enforce the rule in her own home, how the Hell can she expect the rest of the country to abstain ???

So that's your big plan? Become the welfare department for the whole friggin' world ? Sure, that will go over like a fart in church.

FYI, people get "stuck in rut" when they know the welfare dept is gonna send that Govt. check on the first and fifthteenth. They have no motivation to go get a job. So, take away their checks and they either get motivated to get a job, or they can get motivated to go live in a van.....down by the river !

Well, its kind of your plan based on your reasoning, keep america safe, all slippery slope ways to protect our country are valid. War welfare programs are valid, so are domestic welfare programs.

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypocrisy is a necessary virtue for republican nomination

Don't even try to act like the Republicans and Democrats are different in this regard. Al Gore and his 15 houses burning power day and night while he preaches his crock of ... same damn thing.

I can't figure out why people cling to their party like it is their alma mater's football team or something. Nothing but excuses for their own side when they are in the wrong, but their school's biggest rival can't even read, is responsible for world hunger, and is wrong on everything, ever.

I hate that the parties get in the way of the issues. We should be able to vote on issues and not candidates, since they are nothing but talking heads for the most useless organizations in our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, its kind of your plan based on your reasoning, keep america safe, all slippery slope ways to protect our country are valid. War welfare programs are valid, so are domestic welfare programs.

Then using your Non-Slip Slopes, how is it that we haven't had another attack in 7 years ? Are we just that lucky ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricco, there is absolutely NO WAY that she could, with a straight face, advocate abstinence. What, with 5 kiddos and a knocked-up 17 year old. What kind of message does that send ? "I can't teach my own daughter to stay away until she is married, so why should your kids listen to me ?"

Ever go against your parents advice?

Also, how does her having five kids prevent her from teaching abstinence? I'm pretty sure she's teaching it before marriage.

Don't even try to act like the Republicans and Democrats are different in this regard. Al Gore and his 15 houses burning power day and night while he preaches his crock of ... same damn thing.

I can't figure out why people cling to their party like it is their alma mater's football team or something. Nothing but excuses for their own side when they are in the wrong, but their school's biggest rival can't even read, is responsible for world hunger, and is wrong on everything, ever.

I hate that the parties get in the way of the issues. We should be able to vote on issues and not candidates, since they are nothing but talking heads for the most useless organizations in our country.

This is pretty much true for the most part.

I think part of the reason people do this is b/c someone makes one mistake, they jump all over them. People don't allow for mistakes and gray areas. I don't know if anyone completely lives by their views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not saying that at all. We are talking about preemptive defense, and defense spending.

"Preemptive defense" is a euphemism for unprovoked attack. It means starting wars with countries because we like how the wind is blowing.

You say "needless war" , I say necessary to remove an evil dictator who was gonna have to be dealt with at one point or another.

Say whatever you want. Saddam was no threat to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Preemptive defense" is a euphemism for unprovoked attack. It means starting wars with countries because we like how the wind is blowing.

Say whatever you want. Saddam was no threat to us.

Preemptive Defense, as it pertains to Nuclear Weapons, means having an arsenal before needing one. Preemptive Defense means getting them before they get you.

Tojo was no threat to us until he attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler was no threat to Russia, until he invaded Poland. What's your point ? So, using your logic, was Tojo using a "preemptive defense" ?

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preemptive Defense, as it pertains to Nuclear Weapons, means having an arsenal before needing one. Preemptive Defense means getting them before they get you.

Tojo was no threat to us until he attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler was no threat to Russia, until he invaded Poland. What's your point ? So, using your logic, was Tojo using a "preemptive defense" ?

Ah, using World War II as justification for invading Iraq unprovoked. Reliving 2003. Good times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then using your Non-Slip Slopes, how is it that we haven't had another attack in 7 years ? Are we just that lucky ?

I think I said it before, it was my constant farting that save America. Easy huh, No evidence needed to supported it.

But seriously, seems one attack did a pretty good job of turning our surplus into deficit, made us attack another country that had no connection, loss of civil liberties, etc. Maybe they saw that we did a better job at making things worse for ourselves. Maybe that's why there is no need to do another one for a long time. There could be a thousand reasons. Or it could be my constant farting, or Bush's.

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, using World War II as justification for invading Iraq unprovoked. Reliving 2003. Good times.

Well, let's see we gave Hitler 8 or so chances to prove that he was really a "good guy" and he just wanted a little more land to broaden Germany's horizons, after all their tiny little country was growing and they just needed the room to build the future Autobahn, right ?

Sure, Saddam had nothing to hide, especially after the 13th time your beloved U.N. inspectors were booted out of the country because they were getting to close for comfort. Your right Red, Saddam wasn't trying to take over Kuwait this time, so hey, why not just leave the poor Dictator alone. I'll quote Paul Mooney, "How did Bush and his administration KNOW Saddam had WMDs ? Bush had the recipt in his hands." You guys can claim, "POOR SADDAM!" all you want, it just goes to prove how twisted your thinking is sometimes.

BTW, Red, yes, you are my brother, and you can still come on over for Thanksgiving, even though there will be no Tofu or Arugula, nor will there be any beanpies to eat, you damn hippie you.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya right, our defense spending benefits a lot of ppl, like mostly war profiteers, war equipment manufacturers, and the military folks. Only few clueless still buy that slippery slope preemptive 'defense' approach is really helping us, as they continue dishing out the biggest welfare program in history.

You and Red, say "war profiteers" like they are the ones building the guns and bullets by hand themselves. These "war profiteers" keep whole communities alive. Go tell the folks, working at the old Stewart and Stevenson plant where they make the mine sweeping troop transports over in Sealy, that they are all warmongers and profiteers, and see if you can make it out the door. Preemptive defense is what brought the wall down, Preemptive defense is what keeps most other radical countries at bay when they know we are allies with their intended target. Preemptive defense does work, as eveident to your being able to type your feeble minded statements on that little Dell sitting in front of you.

Well answered. I would rather be taxed and the government spend billions on war which employs millions of people from start to finish, than be taxed and the government spend billions trying to win over the hearts of the lazy whom most when given more, will be less likely to return to work. One is more a losing battle than the other.

Are you arguing that we should keep fighting needless wars because they create jobs? You can't think of any other way to create jobs, maybe something that doesn't kill people and waste resources?

Building defense supplies seems to be the only thing we are still required to build domestically - which keeps jobs at home. Perhaps if a certain Democrat hadn't been so insistent on signing the NAFTA bill in 1994, there would still be more domestic industry jobs than those found in Mexico now. Two wrongs don't make a right, but at least one wrong is keeping more people employed, and off welfare.

You are actually trying to pass these slippery slope reasons as valid? How about this one, if we expand our domestic social programs, ppl won't be stuck in a rut, and therefore they won't cooperate with outside terrorists for money and we will end up being safer, therefore let's expand our social programs to keep America safe from bombings.

WAIT, wait wait... are you saying that if we increase the amount of the welfare checks that fewer people will be likely to commit acts of terrorism? This makes no sense. Especially the part where you want to give people on welfare more money, which will make them less likely to return to work. Oh yeah, and the part about buying patriotism with a beefed up welfare check.

Hypocrisy is a necessary virtue for republican nomination

Don't even try to act like the Republicans and Democrats are different in this regard. Al Gore and his 15 houses burning power day and night while he preaches his crock of ... same damn thing.

I can't figure out why people cling to their party like it is their alma mater's football team or something. Nothing but excuses for their own side when they are in the wrong, but their school's biggest rival can't even read, is responsible for world hunger, and is wrong on everything, ever.

I hate that the parties get in the way of the issues. We should be able to vote on issues and not candidates, since they are nothing but talking heads for the most useless organizations in our country.

Thank you. Excellent reply. I have to give Obama credit for his very public respect for other candidates privacy. He's running a clean campaign (notice I said him and not his party/followers) and I admire that. Hard to hate the nice guy..

Say whatever you want. Saddam was no threat to us.

To say that is very foolish and naive. Don't be fooled by the might of the U.S. Military when we invaded Iraq and made Saddam & the Republican Guard look like chumps. They were never brave enough to fight a square fight on their soil, but don't think for a second they would dirty bomb us domestically if the opportunity struck. You forgot what he did to the Kuwaitis and his own people with his SCUD missiles almost 20 years ago?

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preemptive Defense, as it pertains to Nuclear Weapons, means having an arsenal before needing one. Preemptive Defense means getting them before they get you.

Right, starting wars.

Tojo was no threat to us until he attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler was no threat to Russia, until he invaded Poland. What's your point ? So, using your logic, was Tojo using a "preemptive defense" ?

Absolutely. And it isn't my logic, it's the Bush Doctrine. Or the Tojo Doctrine, take your pick.

To say that is very foolish and naive. Don't be fooled by the might of the U.S. Military when we invaded Iraq and made Saddam & the Republican Guard look like chumps. They were never brave enough to fight a square fight on their soil, but don't think for a second they would dirty bomb us domestically if the opportunity struck. You forgot what he did to the Kuwaitis and his own people with his SCUD missiles almost 20 years ago?

Saddam had no plans to "dirty bomb" us. He had no WMDs. He wasn't funding terrorism against the US. Don't call me foolish or naive while repeating these lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, let's see we gave Hitler 8 or so chances to prove that he was really a "good guy" and he just wanted a little more land to broaden Germany's horizons, after all their tiny little country was growing and they just needed the room to build the future Autobahn, right ?

Sure, Saddam had nothing to hide, especially after the 13th time your beloved U.N. inspectors were booted out of the country because they were getting to close for comfort. Your right Red, Saddam wasn't trying to take over Kuwait this time, so hey, why not just leave the poor Dictator alone. I'll quote Paul Mooney, "How did Bush and his administration KNOW Saddam had WMDs ? Bush had the recipt in his hands." You guys can claim, "POOR SADDAM!" all you want, it just goes to prove how twisted your thinking is sometimes.

BTW, Red, yes, you are my brother, and you can still come on over for Thanksgiving, even though there will be no Tofu or Arugula, nor will there be any beanpies to eat, you damn hippie you.

You compare Hitler and Nazi Germany to Saddam Hussein and 2003 Iraq, and actually call OUR thinking twisted...and do it with a straight face?

I guess that is good practice for claiming Obama has no foreign policy experience, then claiming Sarah Palin is a fresh face. I used to think that the P in GOP was Party. Now, I realize it is Polyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saddam had no plans to "dirty bomb" us. He had no WMDs. He wasn't funding terrorism against the US. Don't call me foolish or naive while repeating these lies.

Here's something worth reading. There are dozens more of examples if you just try looking. Even if Saddam physically didn't have WMD's, do you really think he would not go so far as to have someone else supply them if he provided a trained carrier?

Face it, we're never leaving Iraq. Not until we've neutralized the terroristic threat to the Middle East. I think after 2000 years, with the last 50 being in the nuclear age, it is now impossible to turn a blind eye to that region. Especially as long as we're allies with Israel.

You can believe Obama all you want - but you know the troops are staying. I'm not voting for him because of his social welfare policies and taxation plans though - and not because of Iraq. If he'd make the promise that not another penny would go to welfare, and it would be reformed - then I would cheat and vote twice for him.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You compare Hitler and Nazi Germany to Saddam Hussein and 2003 Iraq, and actually call OUR thinking twisted...and do it with a straight face?

I guess that is good practice for claiming Obama has no foreign policy experience, then claiming Sarah Palin is a fresh face. I used to think that the P in GOP was Party. Now, I realize it is Polyanna.

I CHALLENGE you to show me where in this forum, or any other, that I support Palin. I will buy your drinks ALL NIGHT, and topshelf stuff even, if you show me where I said she is a "fresh face" for my party.

I am comparing Saddam's actions as a Meglomaniacal Dictator to that of Hitler's, you bet. The difference is we got to stop Saddam before he was really able to get started with his genocide of the Kurds. Perhaps we wouldn't know what to compare Saddam to, if we had done something about Hitler before he got started ?

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was called "preemptive war" which is a totally new concept. That's some Minority Report stuff there.

What happened regarding terrorism in the US between 1993 and 2001? (Besides the militia nutjobs like McVeigh.)

Edited by westguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can believe Obama all you want - but you know the troops are staying. I'm not voting for him because of his social welfare policies and taxation plans though - and not because of Iraq. If he'd make the promise that not another penny would go to welfare, and it would be reformed - then I would cheat and vote twice for him.

I suppose this means that you are extremely wealthy, since that is the only group that pays less taxes underMcCain in a study of Obama and McCain tax plans.

I've brought this up before, but you have ignored it, so I'll do it again. Do you know when welfare was reformed? Do you know who did it? Do you know what welfare is? Do you know what effect welfare reform has had? Of course not. It is the nature of Republican apologists to use the vague label of "welfare" without knowing anything about it, its function, its size or the effect of reforms. Since you do not know anything about it, and refuse to even google the first thing about it, I will just point out your complete lack of knowledge about it every time you base your argument...or your vote on it.

There's no voter like an uninformed voter. Congratulations, and welcome to the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to follow this, but I am lost. I actually thought that people could only collect welfare payments for two years?? Didn't Bill Clinton establish this. I remember that he was very proud of getting people off of welfare and into job training. Did something happen to reverse this???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I CHALLENGE you to show me where in this forum, or any other, that I support Palin. I will by your drinks ALL NIGHT, and topshelf stuff even, if you show me where I said she is a "fresh face" for my party.

I am comparing Saddam's actions as a Meglomaniacal Dictator to that of Hitler's, you bet. The difference is we got to stop Saddam before he was really able to get started with his genocide of the Kurds. Perhaps we wouldn't know what to compare Saddam to, if we had done something about Hitler before he got started ?

Given your disgust with both McCain and Palin, one must really question why you are the most ardent supporter of the GOP then, TJ. Look through this thread. NO ONE fights harder and throws more mud than you do. It boggles the mind. I've been where you are. In 2004, I trashed Bush, but I was no fan of Kerry. But, your attack dog stance on this thread belies your stated animosity toward McCain and Palin.

I have been trying to follow this, but I am lost. I actually thought that people could only collect welfare payments for two years?? Didn't Bill Clinton establish this. I remember that he was very proud of getting people off of welfare and into job training. Did something happen to reverse this???

I don't know. Perhaps the welfare expert Jeebus can answer these and other interesting questions.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose this means that you are extremely wealthy, since that is the only group that pays less taxes underMcCain in a study of Obama and McCain tax plans.

I've brought this up before, but you have ignored it, so I'll do it again. Do you know when welfare was reformed? Do you know who did it? Do you know what welfare is? Do you know what effect welfare reform has had? Of course not. It is the nature of Republican apologists to use the vague label of "welfare" without knowing anything about it, its function, its size or the effect of reforms. Since you do not know anything about it, and refuse to even google the first thing about it, I will just point out your complete lack of knowledge about it every time you base your argument...or your vote on it.

There's no voter like an uninformed voter. Congratulations, and welcome to the GOP.

Welfare was created by the Democratic FDR administration as part of the "New Deal" after the stock market collapse in 1929 that lead to the great depression where unemployment rates soared as high as 85% in some regions.

EDIT: I typed that out as fast as I could from memory. I'm cross-checking my numbers now. I'm pretty sure though, that I'm not quite the uniformed voter you think I am.

Welfare was created by the Democratic FDR administration as part of the "New Deal" after the stock market collapse in 1929 that lead to the great depression where unemployment rates soared as high as 85% in some regions.

I had read this before, but can't find it now (in the last five minutes of "googling"), so consider that number editorial - but the rest I still stand by.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been trying to follow this, but I am lost. I actually thought that people could only collect welfare payments for two years?? Didn't Bill Clinton establish this. I remember that he was very proud of getting people off of welfare and into job training. Did something happen to reverse this???

There's only a limit on unemployment which is set by each state, but there's no limit on food-stamps, or Medicaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose this means that you are extremely wealthy, since that is the only group that pays less taxes under McCain in a study of Obama and McCain tax plans.

McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gift that keeps on giving:

The Palin Meltdown in Slo-Mo

By Greg Sargent

September 1, 2008, 6:20PM

On the same day that the Republicans were forced to dramatically cut back their convention activities, the Palin Meltdown unfolded with extraordinary speed. It's worth pondering the totality of what happened today, in a mere half day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest welfare system is our slippery slope preemptive wars. It gives money away to empty projects and military jobs does nothing beneficial to the US.

And Jeebus. read in context: If we are to believe that getting dictators will end up protecting us, then we can also believe that social programs will end up protecting us.

I won't be voting for McBush for his neocon confrontational stance on foreign policies, which ends up being one big welfare program for overseas contractors, war profiteers and military.

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

FYI: There is no registration for Independents in Texas. Not sure what you signed up for, but it wasn't political independency.

I'll talk about your other points later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The biggest welfare system is our slippery slope preemptive wars. It gives money away to projects and military jobs does nothing beneficial to the US.

And Jeebus. read in context: If we are to believe that getting dictators will end up protecting us, then we can also believe that social programs will end up protecting us.

Welfare is when you give money away to those who have none. How is paying millions of Americans a salary to work a job a type of welfare?

Answer this in context: Social programs will protect us from what? Ourselves?

FYI: There is no registration for Independents in Texas. Not sure what you signed up for, but it wasn't political independency.

You are 100% correct. I guess I've just been doing so in spririt. I was first eligble to vote in Louisiana, where you can register you party affilation.

See Box 9..

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welfare is when you give money away to those who have none. How is paying millions of Americans a salary to work a job a type of welfare?

Answer this in context: Social programs will protect us from what? Ourselves?

You are talking about empty jobs and projects that does nothing productive for the US. That's a type of welfare.

Since you are thinking of doing business. That's would be like you hiring a bunch of ppl to do a job like staring at the desk, or basically anything tasks that doesn't bring productivity to your business. Would you be so nice as to give away your money like that unless its to provide some sort of welfare for his or her family?

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are talking about empty jobs that does nothing productive for the US. That's a type of welfare.
How do any of the jobs created and sustained by defense, the military, or war not benefit the U.S.?

Are those jobs not being sent south of the border or across the Pacific? The money is staying domestically, which is the same as welfare would, except all the people are productively working, instead of sitting at home collecting a check. Also, how many people do you know use their welfare check to create a product that the civilian sector will purchase also, creating new sources of revenue.

"Defense welfare" as you may call it, makes money and bolsters the economy far more that the unemployed ever could spending their checks on food & electronics.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How any of the jobs created and sustained by defense, the military, or war no benefit the U.S.?

Are those jobs not being sent south of the border or across the Pacific? The money is staying domestically, which is the same as welfare would, except all the people are productively working, instead of sitting at home collecting a check.

And just like your business example, your employees will be productively working on staring at their desks, but it doesn't do anything overall for your company.

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the electoral college graph. It takes out the "leaning" states (less than 5% margins that are statistical ties):

ec_graph-2008-solid.png

For comparison, here's 2004:

ec_graph-2004-solid.png

This year is pretty stable. Out of CO, NV, MT, SD, ND, NH, OH, VA, NC, and FL, Obama needs 9 electoral votes to win (too close right now). That's pretty impressive. John McCain would need 94 more votes to win.

That's where the race basically stands at right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And just like your business example, your employees will be productively working on staring at their desks, but it doesn't do anything overall for your company.

No, your example of my business would be akin to giving welfare checks to those who do no work (i.e. sitting at a desk staring at a wall).

You keep saying that defense contracts etc etc are "empty jobs" that are basically the same as paying people to sit at home. I disagree with you because I can almost guarantee that no one is sitting at home using their welfare check to create a product that can also be sold to the civilian sector, outside of just being used or consumed by the military.

Sporting rifles, clothing, tactical gear for law enforcement, etc etc are all funded via our tax dollars. The difference, again, is that when the government gives these people (in the forms of corporate redistribution via employment compensation) money, they're encouraging economic growth through private sector sales.

Tell me again how giving people on welfare their checks helps to create any new economic development? Them spending their check on good and services doesn't count as they are simple replacing the same taxed amount of money back into the economy, where the war contract companies create new revenue streams by using the money the government gives them to create ways for more money to be injected into the economy through private sales of the same goods they've been paid to create for the war effort.

They then take that money that the private sector spends on their excess goods and create more good, which means buying more supply from more distributers, and hiring more people to build said good. It means that the retailers who sale their goods will make more money and do the same - hire more people.

So tell me again how giving someone a welfare a check is going to cause more money to be spent that what has been given to them, as well as create more jobs? Furthermore, where do you propose the thousands if not millions of people who are somehow involved in the war effort, would work if there was no war? You watch.. if Obama ends this war, unemployment will go up, and tax cuts will go down.

Please someone, debunk this one for me. Ethical arguments about war being good, bad, needed, or unnecessary need not apply - this is strictly economics right now.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's something worth reading.

That's from the same fella who said the US provoked the Georgia crisis. That's the best source you've got?

There are dozens more of examples if you just try looking. Even if Saddam physically didn't have WMD's, do you really think he would not go so far as to have someone else supply them if he provided a trained carrier?

It doesn't matter what I think he might have done. He didn't start the war. We did. That's not the US I grew up with, and it's not the US I want.

Face it, we're never leaving Iraq. Not until we've neutralized the terroristic threat to the Middle East.

You can never "neutralize" the "terroristic threat" to anything. Terrorism is a fact of life, and will be with us as long as one person sees violence as the only way to effect change. Keeping troops in Iraq won't make us any safer from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

You should check out Obama's small business plan. It looks like the plan will help small business by eliminating capital gains, cutting taxes, and helping out with providing health care. So it may actually make your plans to start a small business easier than it is right now or under McCain.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should check out Obama's small business plan. It looks like the plan will help small business by eliminating capital gains, cutting taxes, and helping out with providing health care. So it may actually make your plans to start a small business easier than it is right now or under McCain.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

so when the current tax breaks aren't extended capital gains taxes will go up for big businesses and anyone investing in these businesses, including retirees.

Edited by musicman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else seen this? On the Eagle Forum Alaska Blog, they gave the gubernatorial candidates a questionnaire. One of the questions was:

11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Ms. Palin's response:

Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

I can't stop laughing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given your disgust with both McCain and Palin, one must really question why you are the most ardent supporter of the GOP then, TJ. Look through this thread. NO ONE fights harder and throws more mud than you do. It boggles the mind. I've been where you are. In 2004, I trashed Bush, but I was no fan of Kerry. But, your attack dog stance on this thread belies your stated animosity toward McCain and Palin.

I have no real "disgust" with McCain, except for the fact that he DOES NOT truly represent me as a Republican. If I have to choose between an olddog of the faded Republican guard, that may still hold onto some Bush policies OR some no talent, no experience(143 days in Washington), wanna-be celebutant Socialist who's never had a real job a day in his life ? I will go with the olddog.

Palin, 3 words, WORST PICK EVER !

Absolutely no thought went into this pick, it is as if McCain's camp scrambled and the conversation probably went like this last Sunday night, "Ok, Obama didn't pick Hillary, who is a woman with the highest political office that is younger than Obama to show America that we have a pulse on the younger generation and we can swipe all the Hillary votes ? Who, Palin, oh.....that chick with the Librarian hairdo, get her on the horn !!! ", "Ummm, didn't she say a few weeks ago that she had NO CLUE what a VP does ?", " Yeah, we'll play that off, we'll say she was joking, besides, nobody has youtubed that clip yet, we'll probably be alright.", "My God... this is gonna be beautiful !!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are talking about empty jobs and projects that does nothing productive for the US. That's a type of welfare.

Since you are thinking of doing business. That's would be like you hiring a bunch of ppl to do a job like staring at the desk, or basically anything tasks that doesn't bring productivity to your business. Would you be so nice as to give away your money like that unless its to provide some sort of welfare for his or her family?

Psssstt.......webdude.........Umm, the people building the Mine Sweeping Troop Transports in Sealy. You know, the same warmongering ones I dare you to go tell how disgusting they are to you, to their faces. They are all Civilians like you and me. They are your next door neighbors, they buy groceries with you at HEB, they fill up at the same gas stations you do. Some of them probably even wear the same brand "Hemp clothes" you do. These people are productive members of society, they aren't sitting on their front porches waiting for a check to come, they are earning their keep in this country to build a quality product to help protect all the men and women who volunteered to protect you and me from all enemies, foreign and domestic. These people are building an actual product on an assembly line, they aren't "staring at desks." There is no "welfare" going on there, but I would like you to add the whole part about how "they are on welfare" to your little speech to those workers if you could. Thanks Chief !

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In watching CNN, MSNBC, etc... when Republican strategists are asked:

"Is Palin the best, most qualified VP pick?"

Republican Answer: "She is the best pick for John McCain."

That was not the question. That is not an answer.

Is she, out of the hundreds of Republicans out there that could be VP (e.g. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, airhead Kay Bailey, etc.)... is she the best pick? That is a yes or no question.

Compared to others out there... the answer is no. And people know it.

And this dangerously unqualified person... could be President of the United States in as little as six months. Think about that.

Here she was, back in her sports news caster days (from Americablog):

President of the United States? God help us all.

...and then the typical Republican tort: "Obama doesn't have experience either." ... Again, not the question, not the issue. You have a person, that is an embarrassment on your ticket, that has a thin candy skull filled with right-wing, knee-jerk talking points, and is a hypocrite on top of that. Regardless of her PTA activism, is this person the best you could come up with? Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sporting rifles, clothing, tactical gear for law enforcement, etc etc are all funded via our tax dollars. The difference, again, is that when the government gives these people (in the forms of corporate redistribution via employment compensation) money, they're encouraging economic growth through private sector sales.

Tell me again how giving people on welfare their checks helps to create any new economic development? Them spending their check on good and services doesn't count as they are simple replacing the same taxed amount of money back into the economy, where the war contract companies create new revenue streams by using the money the government gives them to create ways for more money to be injected into the economy through private sales of the same goods they've been paid to create for the war effort.

They then take that money that the private sector spends on their excess goods and create more good, which means buying more supply from more distributers, and hiring more people to build said good. It means that the retailers who sale their goods will make more money and do the same - hire more people.

So tell me again how giving someone a welfare a check is going to cause more money to be spent that what has been given to them, as well as create more jobs? Furthermore, where do you propose the thousands if not millions of people who are somehow involved in the war effort, would work if there was no war? You watch.. if Obama ends this war, unemployment will go up, and tax cuts will go down.

Psssstt.......webdude.........Umm, the people building the Mine Sweeping Troop Transports in Sealy. You know, the same warmongering ones I dare you to go tell how disgusting they are to you, to their faces. They are all Civilians like you and me. They are your next door neighbors, they buy groceries with you at HEB, they fill up at the same gas stations you do. Some of them probably even wear the same brand "Hemp clothes" you do. These people are productive members of society, they aren't sitting on their front porches waiting for a check to come, they are earning their keep in this country to build a quality product to help protect all the men and women who volunteered to protect you and me from all enemies, foreign and domestic. These people are building an actual product on an assembly line, they aren't "staring at desks." There is no "welfare" going on there, but I would like you to add the whole part about how "they are on welfare" to your little speech to those workers if you could. Thanks Chief !

Jeebus and also Ummm, mr not getting it,

First, don't try and lie again saying that their job is for protecting me from my enemies, that's what they sign up to do, but definitely not deployed to do.

And sure, they are creating a product, but for an artificial demand, made possible by wars, created courtesy of the government so they can have jobs. Still, welfare, just special blend.

And how sick is this. To continue the war so folks have jobs. Especially the bolded words of Jeebus.

Both of you know which other government in history professes the same love you have for military keynesianism?

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain doesn't want to rape the wealthy like Obama. That gives me hope to being wealthy one day. If Obama wins, passes his tax plan, and taxes the wealthy - then I will officially lose all desire to start my business my wife and I have been discussing for the past two years. McCain wants to give corporations tax cuts, which will spur far more economical development as they won't have to lay off people like they will if they were under Obama's tax plan.

Either way, we all stand to save money with either candidate. I just feel that McCain's tax plan and his stance on social program reform is better for the true middle class - the working class - in this county. McCain's tax plan give those who aspire to make more money (the same people who turn their mom & pop garage businesses into multi-million dollar corporations) the opportunity to do so without being taxed so heavily that they never get their business off the ground.

I'd rather live in a capitalist republic filled with entrepenural hope, than a socialist republic filled with no entrepenural aspirations.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not a GOP Republican. I'm a registered Independent - and have been for all 12 eligible years now.

If the top tax rate on income is critical to whether you and your wife start a business, you really do not belong in business. I have spent 15 years in self-employment. During that time, I have started and run at least 6 different businesses, including solo law firms, partnerships, two restaurant/bars and a boat/jetski rental business. Never have I looked to the top tax rates when deciding whether to open these businesses. NEVER. Not once. Ever. I was FAR too worried about startup capital, business plans, costs of business, marketing, and all of the other issues involved in starting and running a business to be concerned with the tax rate involved IF my business became SO successful that I am in the top tax bracket. Anyone that claims that as a reason not to go into business has no interest in self-employment. Period. That includes Niche, who used this lame excuse previously. Those of us that have done it just flat don't think about it.

I also must wonder about the fortitude required to start a business from someone who would quit because the top tax rate increased to 39.6%. Throughout the 20th Century, America's greatest economic century, the top tax rates were 70% to 90%. Entreprenuers did not let that stop them, and economic studies show that tax rates did not inhibit the economy, despite the myth propagated by Republicans. Even during Reagan's presidency, the top rate was 50%. For you to quit before you start, simply because Obama would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, returning the top rate to 20% LESS than Reagan's, suggest that you do not have the mental toughness needed to succeed at self-employment. Take it from one who has been there. Don't do it. It is only for the tough.

It might interest you to know why I am no longer self-employed. It had nothing to do with the top tax rate, which under Bush is now only 33%. In fact, it was some of Bush/McCain's OTHER policies that drove me out. The cost of health insurance quadrupled in just 5 years, not only for me, but for the employees I was trying to insure. Obama's plans for universal health care would actually HELP entreprenuers, by reducing their insurance costs. The cost of insurance and the need for a secure retirement plan put me OUT of the self-employment business, not in it. These are issues that Democratic policies help small businesses on, and Republicans frankly, cost small business on. Why people think otherwise is beyond me.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should check out Obama's small business plan. It looks like the plan will help small business by eliminating capital gains, cutting taxes, and helping out with providing health care. So it may actually make your plans to start a small business easier than it is right now or under McCain.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

Thanks for posting that.

And sure, they are creating a product, but for an artificial demand, made possible by wars, created courtesy of the government so they can have jobs. Still, welfare, just special blend.

I'll address your "artificial demand" comment, in that there is no such thing. The demand for the same products the war department is paying these contractors to make is real in the private sector - whether we are at war or not.

And welfare is SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. Paying contractors to provide a service is not welfare. It might be pork barrel waste, but its not welfare.

This goes back to my original statement of how I'd rather spend billions of tax dollars on defense and/or a volunteer war, than one tenth same amount on welfare checks for people to sit on their porches. Of course, if I could have things my way, I would have to pay for neither, and get to keep the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...