PDA

View Full Version : Gameday Thread: McCain vs Obama II


revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 06:03 PM
I wish Nashville rhymed with something cool, so it could be like "The Thrilla in Manila" or "The Rumble in the Jangle" (Yeah, I'm an Ali fan), but it is what it is...

Debate debate here...

For me I'm curious to see how the Town Hall forum works for these two. Supposedly McCain is going to attack Obama more, but Town Halls aren't the best forum for that. I hope to Christ the candidates haven't read all the "approved questions" ahead of time...it ruins it...this is definitely a format that McCain is strong in, otherwise he wouldn't have suggested that there were a whole buttload of nothing but Town Hall debates...

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 06:08 PM
"The music city melee?" :noidea:

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 06:17 PM
It's better than my complete blank.

Problem is, you want a really big name for a really big heavyweight event, and nothing from the first debate has me screaming for more...these guys seem like middleweights...

Hopefully this debate is a little meatier...

Hines0wnz
10-07-2008, 07:53 PM
Unless Obama comes out and bashes the US outright while declaring his allegiance to bin Laden, Putin and the crazy little dude in Iran the press will say he won hands down. More sheeple will agree since it seems no one can look beyond hating Bush and Obama's "lead" in the polls will hit double digits before the rooster shouts sunrise in the morning. Call me cynical but that is just how I see it. Obama has to say or do something overtly stupid to lose this election now.

And I'm not saying McCain is any better but at least vote for Obama for a better reason than "not wanting 8 more years of Bush" (because W has been such a conservative during his administration!), McCain is just too old or Palin is too inexperienced/dumb/crazy.

Anyway.....enjoy! :flap:

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 08:01 PM
Again, just as a suggestion, PBS (yes, they have a slight anti-Republican agenda, but there's a reason for that, but it's more about grants for the arts and all that) has the LEAST biased coverage.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 08:01 PM
mccains friends and advisors are worried about him continuing to look like a cranky old man (not my words). if he was to go on the attack, i think theyre advising him otherwise now. its not quite his style to attack in public, and hes a little pissed this campaign has asked him to deviate from who he really is.

shame on fox news for running the same applauseometer as CNN?

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 08:02 PM
Obama denied McCain his wish for ALL Town Hall meetings.

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 08:08 PM
McCain talks TO his audience, not AT them.

I can see why he wanted this format...he's much better at it...

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 08:10 PM
Make no mistake about it: Warren Buffet DOES NOT WANT that job.

Hines0wnz
10-07-2008, 08:20 PM
Obama just played the Clinton surplus card......FAIL.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 08:26 PM
Make no mistake about it: Warren Buffet DOES NOT WANT that job.nope. seems like alot of right wingers are pissed at the suggestion. now john chambers (CEO Cisco) was an interresting mention.

stillers4me
10-07-2008, 08:31 PM
How many freakin' times does Obama have to say "aaaaand"?

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 08:33 PM
How many freakin' times does Obama have to say "aaaaand"?

Obama: "You don't want to hear politicians pointing fingers at each other. You want to hear about how we can fix your problem...., but again, Senator McCain did it."

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 08:46 PM
I'm all for informed and civil discourse about politics with informed and civil participants...

Tonight we ain't there...

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:09 PM
I'm all for informed and civil discourse about politics with informed and civil participants...

Tonight we ain't there...let me call up augustashark then... :toofunny:

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:10 PM
McCain just mentioned my biggest personal reason for securing my vote:

"Senator Obama would bring our troops home in defeat, while I will bring them home in victory and with honor." - John McCain.

Of course Obama comes back with "Al-Queda (sp) is now stronger than ever....." What a load of bullshit!

MACH1
10-07-2008, 09:16 PM
McCain just mentioned my biggest personal reason for securing my vote:

"Senator Obama would bring our troops home in defeat, while I will bring them home in victory and with honor." - John McCain.

Of course Obama comes back with "Al-Queda (sp) is now stronger than ever....." What a load of bullshit!


So we should duck tail and run. :banging:

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:18 PM
wow. mccain promises to get bin laden whenever/however and falls absolutly flat as he talks about joking with an old veteran about iran and never delivers the joke OR the punchline.

:wtf:

i need a translator. :confused:

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:19 PM
So we should duck tail and run. :banging:

Actually, now he's saying that he wants to further commit to the Afghan side of the war. Which is admirable, but listening to him, he clearly has no strategic idea of what's over there first of all, but even less on how to proceed.

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:21 PM
wow. mccain promises to get bin laden whenever/however and falls absolutly flat as he talks about joking with an old veteran about iran and never delivers the joke OR the punchline.

:wtf:

i need a translator. :confused:

It was probably a joke about the the Democratic Presidential Candidate. I know a few if you still feel gipped. :wink02:

HometownGal
10-07-2008, 09:22 PM
Pock-i-stohn. :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

Nothing like showing your hand, Obama. :doh::doh: Now that the Pock-i-stohnis :chuckle: are alerted to Obama's plan way ahead of time should he become President, they have time to plot and plan and Bin Laden now has plenty of time to hi-tail it and bunker down somewhere else. Smart move there, dumb ass.

MACH1
10-07-2008, 09:24 PM
Actually, now he's saying that he wants to further commit to the Afghan side of the war. Which is admirable, but listening to him, he clearly has no idea of what's over there first of all, but even less on how to proceed.


Thats better.

The guy has no more idea of whats going on over there than what I do.

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:26 PM
Thats better.

The guy has no more idea of whats going on over there than what I do.

You're being generous. He knows much less than you do. :chuckle:

MACH1
10-07-2008, 09:27 PM
wow. mccain promises to get bin laden whenever/however

:confused:

Isn't that the same thing Hussein keeps promising?

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:28 PM
When this swung back around to foreign affairs, McCain is KILLING...Obama just can't hang, and how could he?

But, unlike SOME people here, I will give Obama props. He made some good points on domestic policy. Some things he said were right on...

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:29 PM
When this swung back around to foreign affairs, McCain is KILLING...Obama just can't hang, and how could he?

But, unlike SOME people here, I will give Obama props. He made some good points on domestic policy. Some things he said were right on...

Don't be fooled by a smooth talker. That's about all he has to offer.

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 09:30 PM
Now i know how fans of other teams feel about droppping into Steelers game threads here

McCain should have asked for a no walking around rule

That guy is old

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:31 PM
He was like George Foreman...he refused to sit in his corner at the end of the round.

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:32 PM
"What don't you know, and how will you learn it?"

Obama answered the question.....for about 10 seconds....

McCain has a REAL shot here....

GBMelBlount
10-07-2008, 09:32 PM
McCain just mentioned my biggest personal reason for securing my vote:

"Senator Obama would bring our troops home in defeat, while I will bring them home in victory and with honor." - John McCain.



Yep, the liberals were successful in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. I'd prefer not to see that happen again. :thumbsup:

HometownGal
10-07-2008, 09:33 PM
But, unlike SOME people here, I will give Obama props. He made some good points on domestic policy. Some things he said were right on...

Yes, he did make a couple of good points and I will give him that. On foreign policy, however, he is feeling around in the dark.

Nice gesture on Obama's part to not shake the hand of that vet. I'm sure that scored huge points with the vets. :shake02:

stillers4me
10-07-2008, 09:33 PM
Now i know how fans of other teams feel about droppping into Steelers game threads here

McCain should have asked for a no walking around rule

That guy is old

It's a miracle he can walk at all.

stillers4me
10-07-2008, 09:34 PM
Nice job, Obama in answering the question. You were asked what you don't know and you talked about what you do know.

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:34 PM
McCain should have asked for a no walking around rule

That guy is old

He was also tortured for what, 5 years? Heck, FDR was old too but he got the Country out of the depression and 95% through a war from a wheel chair. Age means little.

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:35 PM
And I think he showed his Presidential pedigree right there...

Obviously Tom Brokaw was the big loser....without his teleprompter, he was speechless...

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:37 PM
Don't be fooled by a smooth talker. That's about all he has to offer.well obama certainly smashed the final "zen like" question out of the park. in the meantime mccain was all "over the map" talking about how we will all be talking about countries all over the map that we dont even know where they are.

:huh:

talk about making "sense". (sorry revs :noidea: )

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:37 PM
And I think he showed his Presidential pedigree right there...

Obviously Tom Brokaw was the big loser....without his teleprompter, he was speechless...

Reminds me of.................................

Blitzburgh_Fever
10-07-2008, 09:38 PM
Now i know how fans of other teams feel about droppping into Steelers game threads here

Pretty much. I don't get how liking one candidate means you have to hate the other, but whatever, Obama has a weird name and is a good orator, so clearly he can't be trusted.

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:38 PM
well obama certainly smashed the final "zen like" question out of the park. in the meantime mccain was all "over the map" talking about how we will all be talking about countries all over the map that we dont even know where they are.

:huh:

talk about making "sense". (sorry revs :noidea: )

Seriously?

I thought he ignored the question altogether. He just gave a canned answer...10 seconds.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:38 PM
And I think he showed his Presidential pedigree right there...

Obviously Tom Brokaw was the big loser....without his teleprompter, he was speechless...


lol. does anyone know whats with that triangle flap of skin right under his nose?

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 09:38 PM
It's a miracle he can walk at all.

Always the POW card

I gave him money in 2000 - have you?

2000 was his time - his time has passed

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:39 PM
(sigh)

November 4th can't get here soon enough....

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:41 PM
Seriously?

I thought he ignored the question altogether. He just gave a canned answer...10 seconds.
he didnt belabor it because it was a pretty much loaded question. he answered it swiftly and honestly (nice joke about asking michelle) and then moved on to maximize the rest of his remaining time.

mccain, shouldve either ignored it altogether, or not fumble around with it so much.

stillers4me
10-07-2008, 09:42 PM
Always the POW card

I'm only stating a fact. The man is amazing. If you worked in the medical field like I do, and see people who haven't gone though even a fraction of what he did, barely able to get out of their chairs at his age, you'd be amazed, too.

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:42 PM
well obama certainly smashed the final "zen like" question out of the park. in the meantime mccain was all "over the map" talking about how we will all be talking about countries all over the map that we dont even know where they are.

:huh:

talk about making "sense". (sorry revs :noidea: )

:rofl: You think he "smashed it out of the park???" :laughing: ...okay. I believe he deferred to his wife then, as mentioned before, spoke about what he DID know.

TheWarDen86
10-07-2008, 09:43 PM
Always the POW card



I don't think you can call it "a card." That's a crock right there.

stlrtruck
10-07-2008, 09:45 PM
The winner was Tom Brokaw, attempting to keep them both within the time limit and reminding them both about in the beginning. I think he finally threw in the towel.

Anyway, McCain I feel had the better answers when it came to the foreign policy and regards to the military. As for Obama I think he had some better answers in regards to his energy policy and issues in regards to America but fell flat when it came to foreign policy.

This debate still didn't do anything to sway my vote.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:46 PM
i though mccain gave a good answer on russia.

"maybe"

honestly.... that was a good answer that prevented falling into any traps and he quickly saw that.

(not to say obamas answer was any worse/better though)

Blitzburgh_Fever
10-07-2008, 09:50 PM
Isn't that the same thing Hussein keeps promising?

Is that a snip on Barack Hussein Obama? Could you please explain what his name has to do with anything? I'm seriously not intending to attack you, but this bothers me when people latch onto things that have zero relevance, on both candidates.

This is as absurd as saying Ted Kaczynski is an okay guy because he shares a name with Theodore Roosevelt.

stillers4me
10-07-2008, 09:51 PM
Is that a snip on Barack Hussein Obama? Could you please explain what his name has to do with anything? I'm seriously not intending to attack you, but this bothers me when people latch onto things that have zero relevance, on both candidates.

This is as absurd as saying Ted Kaczynski is an okay guy because he shares a name with Theodore Roosevelt.

Like McCain walks like an old man?

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 09:53 PM
I'm only stating a fact. The man is amazing. If you worked in the medical field like I do, and see people who haven't gone though even a fraction of what he did, barely able to get out of their chairs at his age, you'd be amazed, too.

I think McCain is an American hero and I regard it as one of the great tragedies of modern American history that McCain did not defeat W in 2000.

One of the most incisive exchanges was on the sacrifices this nation is facing - had McCain been President after 9-11 I do not think he would have told us to go shopping and perhaps would have asked for a tax on gasoline to pay for the war that would have reduced the deficits we now face while stepping on the oxygen supply of petro-states such as Russia and Iran.

Unfortunately, to use a football analogy, comparing 2000 McCain to 2008 McCain is like comparing an aging athlete (Unitas with the Chargers/Namath with the Rams) to an athlete in his prime, both due to the ravages of time (what Fortune 50 company would hire a 72 year old CEO?) and the compromises he has made to get the 2008 nomination. I know - the Gipper won, but McCain is not running against an
unpopular incumbent President.

I can honor his service to his country while still deploring his 2008 fall campaign

:drink:

GBMelBlount
10-07-2008, 09:54 PM
And I'm not saying McCain is any better but at least vote for Obama for a better reason than "not wanting 8 more years of Bush"


I agree Hines. I'd prefer to see it focus on issues, positions, qualifications, experience, with regards to the two candidates that are running.

stillers4me
10-07-2008, 09:57 PM
(what Fortune 50 company would hire a 72 year old CEO?)

What Fortune 500 company would hire a CEO with zero experience and zero credentials on his resume and needed someone with more experience than he does to be his assistant to get him through the job? (and the assistant applied for the CEO position and didn't get it?)

MACH1
10-07-2008, 10:00 PM
Is that a snip on Barack Hussein Obama? Could you please explain what his name has to do with anything? I'm seriously not intending to attack you, but this bothers me when people latch onto things that have zero relevance, on both candidates.

This is as absurd as saying Ted Kaczynski is an okay guy because he shares a name with Theodore Roosevelt.

No need to get all touchy.

Why don't you go post what you said in this thread if it bothers you so much.
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27872

stlrtruck
10-07-2008, 10:00 PM
What really disappointed me from both sides is that when given an opportunity to answer a few questions with non-political answers - they both failed miserably!

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 10:04 PM
I think McCain is an American hero and I regard it as one of the great tragedies of modern American history that McCain did not defeat W in 2000.

I can honor his service to his country while still deploring his 2008 fall campaign

:drink:


"SQUAAAAAK- pieces of eight"

:toofunny:

in other words.... :iagree:

GBMelBlount
10-07-2008, 10:12 PM
One of the most incisive exchanges was on the sacrifices this nation is facing - had McCain been President after 9-11 I do not think he would have told us to go shopping and perhaps would have asked for a tax on gasoline to pay for the war that would have reduced the deficits we now face while stepping on the oxygen supply of petro-states such as Russia and Iran.



Your statement comes across as though you think the problem is we don't collect enough taxes to cover our out of control government spending. I feel the exact opposite. Our government takes WAY too much already. Our out of control government spending needs to be reigned in imo. That definitely won't happen with Obama and if he increases taxes by hundreds of billions do you feel that will help our economy and bring us out of recession?

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 10:26 PM
Your statement comes across as though you think the problem is we don't collect enough taxes to cover our out of control government spending. I feel the exact opposite. Our government takes WAY too much already. Our out of control government spending needs to be reigned in imo. That definitely won't happen with Obama and if he increases taxes by hundreds of billions do you feel that will help our economy and bring us out of recession?

Nice try in slipping my point GBMB:drink:

The country is hooked on imported oil - the budget is in deficit - other Administrations have raised taxes (it was before your time but a 10% surtax was imposed to help pay for Vietnam in the Johnson Administration) to pay for wars - not this one.

Why are we so reluctant to tell the nation where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from to quit exporting terrorists - because we need to get Saudi Arabia to keep the oil flowing

If we are fighting a war against terrorism in the Middle East, I assume you would agree we need to pay for it - or would you prefer to just borrow the money as this Administration has done?

If you need to finance the war and need to decrease energy dependence on foreign oil, which is how Russia, the Saudis, and Iran fund their governemnts, wouldn't a gas tax best serve those purposes?

If not, how would you have paid for the war after getting locked into the 2001 personal tax cuts? Or would you simply count on shopping to grow the economy and increase revenues that way?

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 10:28 PM
Your statement comes across as though you think the problem is we don't collect enough taxes to cover our out of control government spending. I feel the exact opposite. Our government takes WAY too much already. Our out of control government spending needs to be reigned in imo. That definitely won't happen with Obama and if he increases taxes by hundreds of billions do you feel that will help our economy and bring us out of recession?

What would you cut?

Blitzburgh_Fever
10-07-2008, 10:29 PM
No need to get all touchy.

Why don't you go post what you said in this thread if it bothers you so much.
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27872

I'm not sure what this really has to do with anything :noidea:, but I'll play ball. An epithet that is embraced by the person is in no way similar to a person's name.

Barack Hussein Obama was given his middle name after the grandson of Muhammad, the Muslim prophet. Wondering how the Hussein's feel about "their" name being used is baseless.

Similarly, asserting because his middle name is identical to a Middle Eastern name, thus negative, is flat out racist, only it's acceptable mainstream because, dammit, they're evil.

If anyone had said McCain was unfit to run for office because he'd spend all day planting potatoes and drinking whiskey, that person would immediately be ostracized and their opinion discarded.

Note I'm not calling you a racist, and I honestly mean no personal slight. Right now it's trendy to go after Barack Obama for his middle name, and seeing your post pushed me to post. Political figures present enough of themselves to not criticize their names.

MACH1
10-07-2008, 10:59 PM
Isn't that the same thing Hussein keeps promising?

Please explain to me how I used HIS name a negative way. Now where did compare him to anybody or anything. It seems to me your the one that has a problem with someone speaking his given name.

cubanstogie
10-07-2008, 10:59 PM
Hussein is a facade for the libs. Tonight proved that. He started out pretty well then fizzled. Everything he said was rehearsed, didn't answer anything directly. The only strategy he has is go after the lower class, and group McCain with Bush while he cries change. Change is great except for changing to socialism. Obama ok with energy but missed the boat on foreign policy. McCain actually sited examples of bipartisan acts, while Obama sited zero examples of anything except trying to get the vote of uninsured and lower class. Job, health care, house, car, driver license etc... are not guaranteed by government. Some people need to get off there ass and get to work. Clean garbage off the side of road if they have to. He is no substance all show. All he does is spew the information other libs feed him. He has done squat and will do squat for anyone other than welfare recipients. If people want healthcare maybe they should sell their Escalade and 24" rims and then they could afford it. God I hope the American people saw through the facade.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 11:20 PM
Some people need to get off there ass and get to work. Clean garbage off the side of road if they have to. He is no substance all show. All he does is spew the information other libs feed him. He has done squat and will do squat for anyone other than welfare recipients. If people want healthcare maybe they should sell their Escalade and 24" rims and then they could afford it. God I hope the American people saw through the facade.whats the unemployment rate in this nation and why are you attacking them? you make it sound as if half this nation (all libs) are unemployed. youre not suggesting all the poor unemployed drive escalades are you? the ones you note are drug dealers.

obama spoke more to the middle class than the types you are stereotyping. the types you stereotype are the ones who mostly belong in the 160,000,000- 180,000,000 NON VOTING public and thats definitely not who obama is pandering to in this election.

cowboykilla
10-07-2008, 11:28 PM
McCain-Palin ticket,thanks for the memories.:wave: The debate tonight just didn't matter. Not after that Palin fiasco last week. Whoa! That's gotta sting. Bottom line,it's not officially over. But the fat lady is standing at the microphone,and the spotlight is on her.:wave:

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 11:30 PM
God I hope the American people saw through the facade.

As Carson Palmer & Marvin Lewis would say, maybe next week:chuckle:

CBS News and Knowledge Networks have, once again, conducted a nationally representative poll of uncommitted voters to get their immediate reaction to tonight's presidential debate.

And this new poll has good news for the Democratic ticket: Just as in the first presidential debate and the vice presidential face off, more uncommitted voters say the Democratic candidate won the debate. (We've updated this post with final numbers.)

Forty percent of the 516 uncommitted voters surveyed identified Barack Obama as tonight's winner; 26 percent said John McCain won, while 34 percent saw the debate as a draw.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/horserace/entry4508356.shtml

Fifty-four percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted after the debate ended said that Obama did the best job in the debate, with 30 percent saying John McCain performed better.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/07/cnn-poll-obama-won-the-night/

On Fox, Frank Luntz just completed his patented focus group, this one made up of "swing voters" from Virginia. Although it wasn't overwhelming, a majority of the group thought Obama won.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/

McCain loses the Fox focus group?:sofunny:

"That One" wins again

Preacher
10-07-2008, 11:51 PM
I find it amazing how the democrats have won every debate since 1984... yet we have only had one democratic president sense then.

augustashark
10-07-2008, 11:55 PM
let me call up augustashark then... :toofunny:

Why, so you can get owned again. This love affair is getting out of control.

tony hipchest
10-08-2008, 12:07 AM
I find it amazing how the democrats have won every debate since 1984... yet we have only had one democratic president sense then.

reagan vs dukakis = easy choice
bush I = flop
clinton = good decision and president (=easy choice) minus a blowjob
bush II = flop
bush II vol. 2 = flop

so youre talkin' 3 presidents vs. 1? might as well be a patriot fan trumpeting their 3 sb's vs the giants 1 since 1992.


sorta rings hollow.....

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 12:08 AM
I find it amazing how the democrats have won every debate since 1984... yet we have only had one democratic president sense then.

Links to support that or wishful thinking?

IMO Dukakis was regarded as having lost at least one debate in 1988 (remember when Bernard Shaw asked The Duke what he would do if Kitty got raped?), W won against Gore in 2000 (Gore sighed and then stalked the stage in the next debate) and W outpointed Kerry in 2004. Those also were GOP years

Usually you "win" the debate if you have the issues - McCain has a tough hand to play and he is past his prime

augustashark
10-08-2008, 12:09 AM
reagan vs dukakis = easy choice
bush I = flop
clinton = good decision and president (=easy choice) minus a blowjob
bush II = flop
bush II vol. 2 = flop

so youre talkin' 3 presidents vs. 1? might as well be a patriot fan trumpeting their 3 sb's vs the giants 1 since 1992.


sorta rings hollow.....

???????????? Please explain.

Preacher
10-08-2008, 12:11 AM
I bow to you oh mighty democrat gods.

Please allow more of your arrogance to reign down upon us.


And AD....

There is no need for another PM about glass houses... You seem to not understand the concept yourself.

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 12:18 AM
I bow to you oh mighty democrat gods.

Please allow more of your arrogance to reign down upon us.


And AD....

There is no need for another PM about glass houses... You seem to not understand the concept yourself.


You and I exchanged PMs and I thought we both let it go

Apparently not - clue me in why you think I would want to PM you:noidea:

augustashark
10-08-2008, 12:24 AM
???????????? Please explain.

HELLO, anyone there?

augustashark
10-08-2008, 12:59 AM
:sweating:<--Tony Hippiechest. Its ok bud, you can reply. :toofunny:

tony hipchest
10-08-2008, 01:03 AM
HELLO, anyone there? sorry, i was busy deleting all the homophobic pm's you keep flooding my "inbox" with.

i was thinking of mondale/ferraro... :

not dukakis. :dang: ( honestly i cant even remember who his running mate was).

either way, i still think reagan at the time (84) was the better (and easy) choice even though i didnt vote at the time. :drink:

Blitzburgh_Fever
10-08-2008, 01:03 AM
I think McCain is an American hero and I regard it as one of the great tragedies of modern American history that McCain did not defeat W in 2000.

One of the most incisive exchanges was on the sacrifices this nation is facing - had McCain been President after 9-11 I do not think he would have told us to go shopping and perhaps would have asked for a tax on gasoline to pay for the war that would have reduced the deficits we now face while stepping on the oxygen supply of petro-states such as Russia and Iran.

Unfortunately, to use a football analogy, comparing 2000 McCain to 2008 McCain is like comparing an aging athlete (Unitas with the Chargers/Namath with the Rams) to an athlete in his prime, both due to the ravages of time (what Fortune 50 company would hire a 72 year old CEO?) and the compromises he has made to get the 2008 nomination. I know - the Gipper won, but McCain is not running against an
unpopular incumbent President.

I can honor his service to his country while still deploring his 2008 fall campaign

:drink:

Pretty much, though I'm a bit more optimistic. I wouldn't be completely against a McCain presidency, as I think he can do a lot of good. Too bad it's not sexy to appreciate both candidates.

As you (more or less) said, I could really get behind a 98-03 McCain. I just don't like that he's been forced to align himself so closely in the recent years. It's not a slight on his character, because if he hadn't he would've gotten as close as he did in 2000. It's unfortunate you have to play to your party to get a nom.

augustashark
10-08-2008, 01:18 AM
sorry, i was busy deleting all the homophobic pm's you keep flooding my "inbox" with.

i was thinking of mondale/ferraro... :

not dukakis. :dang: ( honestly i cant even remember who his running mate was).

either way, i still think reagan at the time (84) was the better (and easy) choice even though i didnt vote at the time. :drink:

What! this is a disscussion about the McCain vs. Slobama and you bring gay porn into this. You are one odd dude. Btw, no problem on your mistake, we here have gotten used to them. Oh yea, Dukakis running mate was Bentsen from Texas.

augustashark
10-08-2008, 01:25 AM
I personally thought that McCain did a very good job tonight. Alot of people thought he would come out guns blazzing with the Ayers thing, but I think McCain did the best thing by staying away from that. It was said earlier in the thread that McCain talks to people not at them, I agree. McCain has alittle less then a month to go and he knows that these polls are cyclical and can change very quickly. I saw where Gore was leading by 11 or 12 points at this very same point in 2000.

Vis
10-08-2008, 05:33 AM
Good morning. I thought "that one" won. He had much better control of the stage. He had better control of the crowd. But it was very close and McCain needed a big win so he loses even by that measure.

stlrtruck
10-08-2008, 07:42 AM
reagan vs dukakis = easy choice
bush I = flop
clinton = good decision and president (=easy choice) minus a blowjob bush II = flop
bush II vol. 2 = flop

so youre talkin' 3 presidents vs. 1? might as well be a patriot fan trumpeting their 3 sb's vs the giants 1 since 1992.


sorta rings hollow.....

Yeah he had great foreign policies and made a mockery of his position. It shouldn't be too hard to remember his acts after the fact of what happened with Monica, the cigar, and the blue dress! What was it he asked, "Define it." Or something similar to that. He's as much of a flop as anyone else on that list!!

GBMelBlount
10-08-2008, 08:12 AM
Nice try in slipping my point GBMB:drink:

If we are fighting a war against terrorism in the Middle East, I assume you would agree we need to pay for it - or would you prefer to just borrow the money as this Administration has done?

If not, how would you have paid for the war after getting locked into the 2001 personal tax cuts? Or would you simply count on shopping to grow the economy and increase revenues that way?

Atlanta Dan

What would you cut? (government spending)

lol. thanks for going easy on me.

Anyway Dan, i don’t know what to cut and that is exactly my point as to why the government scares the hell out of me! When a company or individual hits hard times, they are forced in many cases to make fast and hard cuts in spending and overhead by lowering their expenses, getting rid of things that are too costly and living within their means. The government NEVER operates that way. It doesn’t seem to care because it’s not their money it’s mine. They simply increase taxes and take more of our hard earned money at gunpoint to compensate for their ineptitude. That is wrong and I cannot understand how you don’t seem to think this is the larger problem.

When you complain about our spending on the war (which you are obviously against) yet never seem to acknowledge the larger problems with government overspending on the whole….well, I’m sure you get my point.

Do you honestly believe our deficit problems are more due to the government not collecting enough in taxes as opposed to gross overspending in areas they shouldn’t even be involved in?

Mosca
10-08-2008, 08:36 AM
From the Mosca chair,

Another yawner. Obama was cautious, all style. McCain couldn't attack Obama's character because the numbers show that the character assassination strategy may appeal to his base, but is alienating the undecideds. Both deflected any chance to make a substantive point into verbal sparring and finger pointing.

If there would be a way to call it both losers, that's what I'll call it. Instead, though, I'm going to say that the losers were the American public, especially those who chose to watch this crap instead of the rebroadcast of the 2005 World Poker Tour Championship. Man, when Negreanu got that bad beat; THERE was good television!

cubanstogie
10-08-2008, 11:52 AM
lol. thanks for going easy on me.

Anyway Dan, i don’t know what to cut and that is exactly my point as to why the government scares the hell out of me! When a company or individual hits hard times, they are forced in many cases to make fast and hard cuts in spending and overhead by lowering their expenses, getting rid of things that are too costly and living within their means. The government NEVER operates that way. It doesn’t seem to care because it’s not their money it’s mine. They simply increase taxes and take more of our hard earned money at gunpoint to compensate for their ineptitude. That is wrong and I cannot understand how you don’t seem to think this is the larger problem.

When you complain about our spending on the war (which you are obviously against) yet never seem to acknowledge the larger problems with government overspending on the whole….well, I’m sure you get my point.

Do you honestly believe our deficit problems are more due to the government not collecting enough in taxes as opposed to gross overspending in areas they shouldn’t even be involved in?

I'll tell you what we should cut. Money going to illegals. In CA alone we spend 11 billion a year on illegals. Neither candidate is going to do squat about it though, except amnesty. We need a worker program. I do think we have a need for them. Most americans on wellfare would rather stay on wellfare or unemployment than do the jobs a lot of the illegals do. Some are productive, but a lot of them are in prison and milking our system with healthcare, welfare and other handouts. That is one place to start.

cubanstogie
10-08-2008, 12:09 PM
whats the unemployment rate in this nation and why are you attacking them? you make it sound as if half this nation (all libs) are unemployed. youre not suggesting all the poor unemployed drive escalades are you? the ones you note are drug dealers.

obama spoke more to the middle class than the types you are stereotyping. the types you stereotype are the ones who mostly belong in the 160,000,000- 180,000,000 NON VOTING public and thats definitely not who obama is pandering to in this election.

your right, last p.m I was a little irritated after the boring debate. Not to mention the bottle of wine I consumed with my chicken parmesian. I wanted more from both of them and only ripped on Obama, which wasn't fair.I think they both pander to a certain group. I am tired of only worrying about people who don't help themselves, not can't, don't or won't. I don't think that the way to fix the problem is keep giving them handouts. On a seperate note people just can't be bailed out for the housing. The blame is shared by many. From government to the homebuyer who gambled with the size of home they bought, hoping rates wouldn't go up or maket drop. I really don't blame Obama or McCain, I would just like to hear a solution that is fair. Is that possible I don't know. Now I don't claim to be perfect by any means. I have had to borrow money in my younger years, or miss a payment on something but if I can't afford something I don't buy it. It irritates me that people want everything to be fixed during tough times. It is the epitome of America, we want everything right now.What can you do for me. I am almost to the point where I don't care who is elected. I think I know I will be fine no matter what, but I am still voting for McCain if for none other reason than I get to look at Palin .Plus I think Obama is in over his head with foreign affairs.

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 02:13 PM
Do you honestly believe our deficit problems are more due to the government not collecting enough in taxes as opposed to gross overspending in areas they shouldn’t even be involved in?

My post was not intended to defend all government spending but to contend McCain probably would not have adopted the free lunch approach of this Administration to government spending, which supported cutting taxes at the same time it engaged in an open ended "war on terror" while adding on such other open ended expenditures as Medicare Part D. If you want to take on additional obligations you need to pay for them by increasing revenue sources - if you need to increase revenue, why not do it by means that throw off ancillary benfits such as a gasoline tax that reduces our dependence on petroleum we purchase from nations hostile to the U.S.?

Tom Friedman of The New York Times raises the circumstances under which taxes need to be raised in today's column:

“Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn’t from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?” That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.

Sorry, I grew up in a very middle-class family in a very middle-class suburb of Minneapolis, and my parents taught me that paying taxes, while certainly no fun, was how we paid for the police and the Army, our public universities and local schools, scientific research and Medicare for the elderly. No one said it better than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.”

I can understand someone saying that the government has no business bailing out the financial system, but I can’t understand someone arguing that we should do that but not pay for it with taxes. I can understand someone saying we have no business in Iraq, but I can’t understand someone who advocates staying in Iraq until “victory” declaring that paying taxes to fund that is not patriotic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

:drink:

X-Terminator
10-08-2008, 02:24 PM
Most people may complain about paying taxes, AD, but in the end, most understand why there is a need for them. The primary contention that I and GBMB have is why should we have to pay MORE in taxes just so the government can go on pissing it away like beer after a Steelers game? I know I will not support another tax increase until the government can show me it can operate and run programs effectively within a reasonable budget. Up until this point, it has not. It's a large reason why I find it difficult to support most Democrats - their answer to everything is to raise or create new taxes. I would also like to see more money that gets shipped overseas to prop up countries that could give 2 shits about the US, and that will never be repaid, be kept here to be spent on American citizens. And for the record, before I get accused of supporting Bush's policies just because I don't support tax increases, cutting taxes while not curbing spending does NOT help either. It's the biggest reason why we are running huge deficits right now.

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 02:37 PM
Most people may complain about paying taxes, AD, but in the end, most understand why there is a need for them. The primary contention that I and GBMB have is why should we have to pay MORE in taxes just so the government can go on pissing it away like beer after a Steelers game? I know I will not support another tax increase until the government can show me it can operate and run programs effectively within a reasonable budget. Up until this point, it has not. It's a large reason why I find it difficult to support most Democrats - their answer to everything is to raise or create new taxes. I would also like to see more money that gets shipped overseas to prop up countries that could give 2 shits about the US, and that will never be repaid, be kept here to be spent on American citizens. And for the record, before I get accused of supporting Bush's policies just because I don't support tax increases, cutting taxes while not curbing spending does NOT help either. It's the biggest reason why we are running huge deficits right now.

I agree we need to cut spending and raise taxes; what we currently have is increasing spending and cutting tax rates.

It's going to change; the issue is whether this country controls the change or has the change implemented by its creditors.

GBMelBlount
10-08-2008, 03:38 PM
I guess this is why I am so disappointed with the party offerings at this point Dan. There are some very intelligent people on Steelersfever who hammered the hell out of Romney because of his religion, and position changes on important issues like abortion. And the media made sure Romney was taken out early. But I like him because he is brilliant and has a successful track record in the private sector, turning around failing businesses, as well as the Olympics. I'm not sure McCain has what is needed to deal with this economic crisis and I'm even less certain of an attorney with no real business experience or experience of any kind for that matter imo. It's actually depressing.

Mosca
10-08-2008, 03:42 PM
I'm not sure which is less likely; finding a politician who is willing to dose out the strong medicine, or finding a populace that is willing to take it.

Preacher
10-08-2008, 03:49 PM
The most depressing thing about all of this....

Anyone who probably WOULD make a GOOD and DECENT president probably WONT run, because they care enough about their family, their friends, and their own life not to have every little thing put under a microscope, changed, mutilated, spun, and then something that doesn't represent them put up as the "real person"

So we get sycophants, power hungry egomaniacs, and idealists who can't see through their own rhetoric in positions of power, then they do everything they can to stay there.

I have NEVER been for term limits. But I am starting to develop a desire to see limits for EVERYONE... only 12 years allowed in ALL POLITICAL OFFICES above local.

Maybe that would at least start to help.... though I really doubt it.

(and no, I am not seriously advocating for that... just a thought as to what could fix our govt.)

Preacher
10-08-2008, 03:50 PM
I'm not sure which is less likely; finding a politician who is willing to dose out the strong medicine, or finding a populace that is willing to take it.

About the same... really.

Hines0wnz
10-08-2008, 04:42 PM
Good morning. I thought "that one" won. He had much better control of the stage. He had better control of the crowd. But it was very close and McCain needed a big win so he loses even by that measure.

Tom Brokaw controlled both. :noidea:

Hines0wnz
10-08-2008, 04:47 PM
I think McCain is an American hero and I regard it as one of the great tragedies of modern American history that McCain did not defeat W in 2000.


I couldnt agree more. McCain, while I respect him loads, is a shell of his former self and has eroded into a shadow of what would be a formidable President today. He is going to lose this election and 2 years into Obama's administration, people will regret not putting him in office I think.

X-Terminator
10-08-2008, 04:58 PM
I agree we need to cut spending and raise taxes; what we currently have is increasing spending and cutting tax rates.

It's going to change; the issue is whether this country controls the change or has the change implemented by its creditors.

Good luck selling the American people on raising taxes, especially now when so many people are losing their homes, their livelihoods and businesses are shutting down left and right. I know THIS American will never support it.

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Good luck selling the American people on raising taxes, especially now when so many people are losing their homes, their livelihoods and businesses are shutting down left and right. I know THIS American will never support it.

Well if a person does not adjust his standard of living to live within his means and finances his lifestyle through borrowing, you eventually can no longer increase your line of credit and need to to start selling off assets to keep creditors at bay whether you "support" that or not.

The rest of the world is fast approaching cutting off the spigot on lending here - last spring Citibank, Merrill Lynch, et al. stayed afloat with injections of foreign capital. When Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions went to Korea and elsewhere looking for cash after Labor Day the foreign investors who got burned last spring said no thanks, at which point Lehman went bust and we got the "rescue package." Something is going to give whether Americans want this era to end or not.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2008, 05:48 PM
what Fortune 50 company would hire a 72 year old CEO?

What Fortune 500 company would hire a CEO with zero experience and zero credentials on his resume and needed someone with more experience than he does to be his assistant to get him through the job? (and the assistant applied for the CEO position and didn't get it?)


DING! DING! DING!
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/489111/2/istockphoto_489111_you_win_vector_illustration.jpg

X-Terminator
10-08-2008, 06:09 PM
Well if a person does not adjust his standard of living to live within his means and finances his lifestyle through borrowing, you eventually can no longer increase your line of credit and need to to start selling off assets to keep creditors at bay whether you "support" that or not.

The rest of the world is fast approaching cutting off the spigot on lending here - last spring Citibank, Merrill Lynch, et al. stayed afloat with injections of foreign capital. When Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions went to Korea and elsewhere looking for cash after Labor Day the foreign investors who got burned last spring said no thanks, at which point Lehman went bust and we got the "rescue package." Something is going to give whether Americans want this era to end or not.

It's a little difficult for me to support giving more money to the government in the form of tax increases when it is one of the biggest contributors to this mess, to say nothing of the billions of dollars wasted (this "bailout" is just another example of taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet) and many more billions that aren't even accounted for. I don't understand why you can't keep the rates the same, close loopholes and cut spending. Raising taxes does not have to be the end-all and be-all answer for everything wrong with this country. If everyone else is being asked to do some belt-tightening and live within their means, then why can't the government?

Again, good luck with that. Americans are not going to be receptive to tax increases, whether you "support" them or not.

tony hipchest
10-08-2008, 06:11 PM
What Fortune 500 company would hire a CEO with zero experience and zero credentials on his resume and needed someone with more experience than he does to be his assistant to get him through the job? (and the assistant applied for the CEO position and didn't get it?)

yeah, because the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Paul Allen, Jerry Yang and David Filo all suck as CEO's.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2008, 06:19 PM
yeah, because the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Paul Allen, Jerry Yang and David Filo all suck as CEO's.

Tony, Bill Gates is the founder and an Entreprenuer. I'm not going to pretend I know who all those other guys are, but my first judgement is more apples and oranges.

I'll be glad when this election is over so we can all be friends/Steelers fans again and enjoy celebrating wins and bitching about losses.

tony hipchest
10-08-2008, 06:30 PM
Tony, Bill Gates is the founder and an Entreprenuer. I'm not going to pretend I know who all those other guys are, but my first judgement is more apples and oranges.

I'll be glad when this election is over so we can all be friends/Steelers fans again and enjoy celebrating wins and bitching about losses.theyre all microsoft and yahoo guys.

point is they were young and inexperienced and still capable of developing and running fortune 500 companies.

what they lack in experience they make up with many things. most importantly surrounding oneself with the right people.

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 06:31 PM
It's a little difficult for me to support giving more money to the government in the form of tax increases when it is one of the biggest contributors to this mess, to say nothing of the billions of dollars wasted (this "bailout" is just another example of taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet) and many more billions that aren't even accounted for. I don't understand why you can't keep the rates the same, close loopholes and cut spending. Raising taxes does not have to be the end-all and be-all answer for everything wrong with this country. If everyone else is being asked to do some belt-tightening and live within their means, then why can't the government?

The "national debt clock" literally ran out of numbers this week because who knew it would clear $10 trillion? That is madness.

I am not saying spending does not need to be cut, but the idea that the constant decline in marginal tax rates is some immutable law of fiscal nature that cannot be violated is a concept that is over. If real average wages were going up you could grow revenue that way but real wages for most folks have been flat since the 1970s.

I am not looking forward to my taxes going up but I am not in denial about what is coming. Ben Stein (no raging liberal) puts it starkly:

I don’t like taxing rich people or anyone I like. But our government — run by the people we elected — needs the revenue. Do we pay it or do we make our children pay it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/10every.html?scp=5&sq=&st=nyt

How do you think all these new obligations created in the last several weeks should be paid for (McCain proposed to throw another big one into the fiscal bonfire last night) and what should be cut to get the budget into some semblance of balance? Eliminating all earmarks as a means to get there is like claiming you will pay the mortgage and car payment this month by going through the couch for change.

If you have any rough numbers that show how belt tightening alone is going to get to where we need to go I would be pleased to hear it and hope you are the next Treasury Secretary.

:drink:

TheWarDen86
10-08-2008, 06:39 PM
theyre all microsoft and yahoo guys.

point is they were young and inexperienced and still capable of developing and running fortune 500 companies.

what they lack in experience they make up with many things. most importantly surrounding oneself with the right people.

Well, the new super duper, high speed/low drag CEO this Country elects needs to know how to handle foreign policy and manage the finish of this war. Given the two options, I think the answer is clear as day. McCain is far more qualified. Neither has done much but yap about our financial issues and I really don't have much faith that any promises will be kept there anyway, so I call that a draw between the two.

For once in my lifetime, I'd like to see us finish what we've started. Set a new precedence for those F**ks in the middle east, and finally look forward to some real security. I could go on and on... But the bottom line is we MUST finish our mission over there.

X-Terminator
10-08-2008, 06:53 PM
The "national debt clock" literally ran out of numbers this week because who knew it would clear $10 trillion? That is madness.

I am not saying spending does not need to be cut, but the idea that the constant decline in marginal tax rates is some immutable law of fiscal nature that cannot be violated is a concept that is over. If real average wages were going up you could grow revenue that way but real wages for most folks have been flat since the 1970s.

I am not looking forward to my taxes going up but I am not in denial about what is coming. Ben Stein (no raging liberal) puts it starkly:

I don’t like taxing rich people or anyone I like. But our government — run by the people we elected — needs the revenue. Do we pay it or do we make our children pay it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/10every.html?scp=5&sq=&st=nyt

How do you think all these new obligations created in the last several weeks should be paid for (McCain proposed to throw another big one into the fiscal bonfire last night) and what should be cut to get the budget into some semblance of balance? Eliminating all earmarks as a means to get there is like claiming you will pay the mortgage and car payment this month by going through the couch for change.

If you have any rough numbers that show how belt tightening alone is going to get to where we need to go I would be pleased to hear it and hope you are the next Treasury Secretary.

:drink:

If you notice, I didn't call for cuts in taxes. I said keep the rates as they are, but close many of the loopholes that the rich and big corporations use to get out of paying their fair share, along with spending cuts. That alone will bring more revenue into the government. I support tax cuts, but not in times like these. I understand what's at stake. But raising taxes doesn't have to be the answer either.

Reducing the amount of pork thrown into every spending bill would be a good start as far as spending cuts go; I'll leave the rest up to the experts. But can you honestly tell me that they can't find a way to run the government more efficiently with the money they're already bringing in? In the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth? I just want my tax dollars spent wisely, and not completely wasted. When the government can show it can do that, then maybe I'd be more receptive to giving a little more. Until then, I can't in good conscience support a tax increase.

You did raise a good point about stagnation of wages - that is something that needs to be addressed as well. But that's for another thread...

tony hipchest
10-08-2008, 07:02 PM
If you notice, I didn't call for cuts in taxes. I said keep the rates as they are, but close many of the loopholes that the rich and big corporations use to get out of paying their fair share, along with spending cuts. That alone will bring more revenue into the government. I support tax cuts, but not in times like these. I understand what's at stake. But raising taxes doesn't have to be the answer either.

Reducing the amount of pork thrown into every spending bill would be a good start as far as spending cuts go; I'll leave the rest up to the experts. But can you honestly tell me that they can't find a way to run the government more efficiently with the money they're already bringing in? In the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth? I just want my tax dollars spent wisely, and not completely wasted. When the government can show it can do that, then maybe I'd be more receptive to giving a little more. Until then, I can't in good conscience support a tax increase.but really, is there anything wrong with raising the taxes on these types of people? i dont care if they are "billed" for our problems. they should be lucky theyre not being thrown behind bars.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081008/bs_nm/us_aig_retreat;_ylt=AsrHQUTMYOTGMdxa5xv7n6pv24cA

NEW YORK (Reuters) - American International Group Inc could get nearly $38 billion in fresh cash under a program announced by the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, as the insurer tried to fend off criticism of a lavish event held days after getting an initial $85 billion government loan.

Under the new plan, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will take up to $37.8 billion in investment-grade, fixed-income securities from AIG in exchange for cash.

The securities were previously lent by AIG's insurance company subsidiaries to third parties. The Fed said the new program will allow the company to replenish liquidity used in settling transactions with counterparties.

AIG had drawn fire in Washington on Tuesday for spending $200,000 on hotel rooms and $23,000 on spa services at an event, just days after it got the emergency loan from the government to avoid bankruptcy in the middle of the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression.
As lawmakers grilled former top executives at a hearing, Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, said: "They were getting facials, manicures and massages, while the American people were footing the bill."

On Wednesday, AIG said the "business event," hosted by one of its subsidiaries, was for independent life insurance agents. It said the event was planned "months before" it received the loan last month, and no AIG executives from headquarters attended.


none of these people paid a dime for their little vacation. in fact it was probably a tax write off as a "business trip" that we paid for ON TOP of the 100+ billion "bail out."

GBMelBlount
10-08-2008, 07:06 PM
point is they were young and inexperienced and still capable of developing and running fortune 500 companies.

what they lack in experience they make up with many things. most importantly surrounding oneself with the right people.

Good point but I think the fortune 500 ceo analagy is more relevant. Also, having to rely on the argument of who someone "surrounds" themselves with is a weak argument imo. I'd rather have someone that has experience AND surrounds themselves with the right people. I just couldn't imagine interviewing for a CEO position and admitting I had no previous relevant experience or credientials and expect to get the job by simply promising to surround myself with the best people possible.

X-Terminator
10-08-2008, 07:10 PM
but really, is there anything wrong with raising the taxes on these types of people? i dont care if they are "billed" for our problems. they should be lucky theyre not being thrown behind bars.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081008/bs_nm/us_aig_retreat;_ylt=AsrHQUTMYOTGMdxa5xv7n6pv24cA



none of these people paid a dime for their little vacation. in fact it was probably a tax write off as a "business trip" that we paid for ON TOP of the 100+ billion "bail out."

That story is just another reason why I did not support the bailout, because I knew that the money would simply be pocketed or, in this case, used to throw lavish parties at an exclusive spa. And I call :bs: on AIG's claim that the event was planned months in advance. Even if it was, how can they cry broke and then plan a $223,000 party? Who exactly do they think they're fooling? I may be highly critical of the government, but the corporations are not guiltless in all of this. Not by any means. That's why their loopholes should be closed, so that they can't get away with crap like this. You want a $223,000 party? Fine. But it happens on YOUR dime. But raise their tax rates? No, because it hurts the ones who have some semblance of decency in order to punish the ones who don't.

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 07:16 PM
If you notice, I didn't call for cuts in taxes. I said keep the rates as they are, but close many of the loopholes that the rich and big corporations use to get out of paying their fair share, along with spending cuts. That alone will bring more revenue into the government. I support tax cuts, but not in times like these. I understand what's at stake. But raising taxes doesn't have to be the answer either.

Reducing the amount of pork thrown into every spending bill would be a good start as far as spending cuts go; I'll leave the rest up to the experts. But can you honestly tell me that they can't find a way to run the government more efficiently with the money they're already bringing in? In the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth? I just want my tax dollars spent wisely, and not completely wasted. When the government can show it can do that, then maybe I'd be more receptive to giving a little more. Until then, I can't in good conscience support a tax increase.

Well call it what you want, but closing loopholes while getting "the rich" (defined as?) and corporations (who will pass along the increases in reduced wages and benefits for employees or increased prices) to pay their "fair share" are tax increases - they presumably are as excited as having their taxes increased as you and i are about our taxes going up.

The late Senator Russell Long had our philosophy nailed: "Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree." :chuckle:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/taxes/taxes.greenfield/

I agree the government needs to cut way back. The cuts are going to have to come in entitlements (which is why passing Medicare Part D for short term political gain was particularly galling).

Social Security can be adjusted to move back the retirement age - no fun if you want to retire earlier, but fewer retirees will have sufficient non-SSA benefits for retirement income at an earlier age anyhow

As for Medicare, the fee for service reimbursement system is broken - mandatory enrollment to ration health care in some sort of HMO gatekeeper role for Medicare providers probably is where that is heading

Good times coming, eh? :sofunny:

:drink:

X-Terminator
10-08-2008, 07:29 PM
Well call it what you want, but closing loopholes while getting "the rich" (defined as?) and corporations (who will pass along the increases in reduced wages and benefits for employees or increased prices) to pay their "fair share" are tax increases - they presumably are as excited as having their taxes increased as you and i are about our taxes going up.

The late Senator Russell Long had our philosophy nailed: "Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree." :chuckle:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/taxes/taxes.greenfield/

I agree the government needs to cut way back. The cuts are going to have to come in entitlements (which is why passing Medicare Part D for short term political gain was particularly galling).

Social Security can be adjusted to move back the retirement age - no fun if you want to retire earlier, but fewer retirees will have sufficient non-SSA benefits for retirement income anyhow

As for Medicare, the fee for service reimbursement system is broken - mandatory enrollment to ration health care with some sort of HMO gatekeeper role for Medicare providers probably is where that is heading

Good times coming, eh? :sofunny:

:drink:

Yeah you're right, I guess they are one and the same. I figured closing some of their tax loopholes would be more beneficial (preferable?) than actually raising their rates in the long run because if you raise their rates, they're going to do the same thing anyway - pass the costs on to the consumer. We're already paying more for damn near everything - that wouldn't change under either scenario.

As for where to cut, yes, unfortunately some entitlements would have to be scaled back, slowing their rates of growth over a period of time. That isn't going to go over with the people any better than raising their taxes - it didn't go over well during the mid-90s budget battles as I recall.

But I think we can agree that tough times are ahead, and a lot of people are going to have to suffer in the short-term in order to turn things around.

steelwall
10-08-2008, 07:49 PM
Bill Gates for president!!!!