As a black male Democrat, I just made a decision that hurts my heart.


Really, McCain's budget according to the non partisan tax policy center will add more to our defecit then Obama's. Heres some quotes against McCain from his own party.

Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

"John McCain's ambition overrode his basic character," says Rita Hauser, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2004.

"John has made a pact with the devil," says Lincoln Chafee, the former GOP senator,

"He's going to be Bush on steroids," says Johns, the retired brigadier general who has known McCain since their days at the National War College. "His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun."
 
Really, McCain's budget according to the non partisan tax policy center will add more to our defecit then Obama's. Heres some quotes against McCain from his own party.

Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

"John McCain's ambition overrode his basic character," says Rita Hauser, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2004.

"John has made a pact with the devil," says Lincoln Chafee, the former GOP senator,

"He's going to be Bush on steroids," says Johns, the retired brigadier general who has known McCain since their days at the National War College. "His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun."

Link to the non partisan tax policy center.
 
Really, McCain's budget according to the non partisan tax policy center will add more to our defecit then Obama's. Heres some quotes against McCain from his own party.

Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

"John McCain's ambition overrode his basic character," says Rita Hauser, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2004.

"John has made a pact with the devil," says Lincoln Chafee, the former GOP senator,

"He's going to be Bush on steroids," says Johns, the retired brigadier general who has known McCain since their days at the National War College. "His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun."

Good. Bush could have used steroids.
 
Link to the non partisan tax policy center.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.
How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a "current policy" baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $300 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $1.0 trillion (if fully phased-in and permanent), a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan. As noted, both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes-Obama probably more than McCain.
A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)

anything else?
 
Here is what the Tax Policy Center said about the Bush tax cuts back in 2004:

"When the requisite spending cuts or other tax increases needed to pay for the tax cuts are included, the net effect will be to transfer resources away from low-income households and toward high-income households. The result will make most households worse off, even if the tax cuts generate economic growth (which itself becomes increasingly less likely the longer the tax cuts are not offset by other policy changes, as discussed further below).

Link here

Correct me if I'm wrong but the above conclusions were wrong as follows:

More people paid no tax
The middle class got a big tax cut
Tax Revenues went up

So I'm not so sure the folks at the Tax Policy Center have a good record at predicting the effects of tax policy.

But I am not expert and will be interested in what others know about the effects of the Bush tax cuts.
 
Anti-Obama site. Next spin please.
Can I give you a bit of advice Bob? May I call you "Bob"? When someone posts something that cannot be immediately proven as false, you must assume it to be true and then make an observation based on that. For example if I were a Barack fan I would respond like this:
"Hmm. Well it may be true that some Blacks won't vote for Obama, it seems that with 95% of the black vote sewn up, a few here or there roaming off the reservation really won't matter will it?"
You see? With that post you would have done two things: Acknowleged the original post to be factually true, which makes the poster feel good and doesn't put him/her on the defensive. AND you've made a good point about solidarity among black voters, which is true and makes you seem intelligent to the people who read this thread.
Hope this helps. :D
 
John McCain's intolerance for out-of-control spending and earmarks? :rofl:

Have we forgotten the $850 billion that John McCain recently voted for? Did we forget that John McCain intends to increase federal spending by $92 billion per year?
 
Can I give you a bit of advice Bob? May I call you "Bob"? When someone posts something that cannot be immediately proven as false, you must assume it to be true and then make an observation based on that. For example if I were a Barack fan I would respond like this:
"Hmm. Well it may be true that some Blacks won't vote for Obama, it seems that with 95% of the black vote sewn up, a few here or there roaming off the reservation really won't matter will it?"
You see? With that post you would have done two things: Acknowleged the original post to be factually true, which makes the poster feel good and doesn't put him/her on the defensive. AND you've made a good point about solidarity among black voters, which is true and makes you seem intelligent to the people who read this thread.
Hope this helps. :D

Bob will have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But it was a nice attempt.
 
laughing.jpg

stoned one, you look just like i pictured you. :lol:
 
Can I give you a bit of advice Bob? May I call you "Bob"? When someone posts something that cannot be immediately proven as false, you must assume it to be true and then make an observation based on that. For example if I were a Barack fan I would respond like this:
"Hmm. Well it may be true that some Blacks won't vote for Obama, it seems that with 95% of the black vote sewn up, a few here or there roaming off the reservation really won't matter will it?"
You see? With that post you would have done two things: Acknowleged the original post to be factually true, which makes the poster feel good and doesn't put him/her on the defensive. AND you've made a good point about solidarity among black voters, which is true and makes you seem intelligent to the people who read this thread.
Hope this helps. :D

I'm sure Robert appreciates the "advice", but he does just fine. And, no... you don't have to assume the truth of something because it is posted. In fact, I'd say that would be pure nuttiness... although it woulod explain why the wingnuts believe the smears that the mccain campaign has been tossing around.

you betcha!
 
Witches tits, Witches tits. we got witches tits.



obamaland coming unglued?
 

Forum List

Back
Top