2k8 election kumite

I think that today, I'm putting it at 70% chance Little Mac wins. The LQ getting thrown under the bus was interesting to watch. I think that a BHO/LQ ticket will give something for everyone to hate and a reason for everyone to vote for Little Mac. R's will hold their nose and vote for Little Mac or stay home. Many D's will scream and vote for Little Mac or stay home. Little Mac wins. This article, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?currentPage=1 written by what I would call a Klinton insider, was a very interesting read on the current state of Klinton, Inc., if it did focus on Uncle Bill.

GlennS, I don't know who owns Halliburton. But look at how HP, Google, Enron, Heinz, Ford, Soros, Hollywood, virtually every major newspaper and many others operate (or operated, in the case of the Clinton's deal making for Enron). These are huge corporations and they all back the D's. Why? Because the D's control the little people and keep them in line. This time, though, Soros controls both sides so he wins regardless.

berkeley you all. I'm one of those whack jobs voting for Bob Barr. Hopefully, by the time this country has fully embraced Socialism (very soon, from the looks of things,) I'll be living on an island getting f'd up and letting coconuts fall on my head all day.

There are plenty of huge corporations on both sides of the fence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN0439743420080604

70% chance for McCain my ass

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Mac is still losing to Obama..

AALLLRRIIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTT!!!!! Death Tax for EVERYONE!!! Double Capital Gains!!! Tax every dollar in my retirement plan that's already been taxed four berkeleying times!!! Why the berkeley should my wife and I be able to afford to have a kid when we can pay for illegal aliens to crank 'em out by the dozen!? WHEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

<---just can't wait.

You are acutaly going to be paying for tax cuts during a period of skyrocketing spending that took place over the last 7 & 1/2 years. Hurray national debt.

kinda remineds me of how Regan screwed "no new taxes" Bush senior.

At least the wealthy got tax cuts.

pore people dont pay taxes so it would be hard to cut them anything.

... or maybe im wrong, im not really pore enough to know.

No, I don't think the really pour even send in tax returns except this year so that the pour people could get there stimulus czech

Wally wrote: No, I don't think the really pour even send in tax returns except this year so that the pour people could get there stimulus czech

I love you.

GlennS wrote: You are acutaly going to be paying for tax cuts during a period of skyrocketing spending that took place over the last 7 & 1/2 years. Hurray national debt. kinda remineds me of how Regan screwed "no new taxes" Bush senior.

Agreed, but humor me for a moment, keeping in mind I'm horrilbe with analogies:

Look at the federal government as a business, (if only Exxon had their numbers!) Pretend GWB is the CEO who has borrowed and borrowed until the company is damned near broke, and is now being replaced. While McCain wouldn't be my first choice, I'm even less likely to bring on the guy who, instead of cutting costs and increasing efficiency, wants to hire an "Army" of employees and give them all top-notch health care.

Then again, as a business owner, I don't have the power to start knocking on customer's doors and saying "Give me more money or I'll have you put in jail." So just like...nevermind.

poopshovel wrote: So just like...nevermind.

Yeah..because that whole analogy didn't make much sense...

I agree that national healthcare could be a big a fiscal disaster. I certainly hope it isnt if its implemented but im not holding my breath.

At the same time Mccain wants to keep an army of employees on long term deployment over seas.

Either way its likely that our guvment will continue to spend more than it has.

Wally! How dare you make fun of my spelling.

Xceler8x wrote:

poopshovel wrote: So just like...nevermind.

Yeah..because that whole analogy didn't make much sense...

Hey, at least it came with a disclaimer.

ignorant wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html Mac is still losing to Obama..

I couldn't find the margin of error in those stats, but most polls would be (+-) 2 percentage points. A 2.2% spread is a statistical tie.

Note the graph in your link. McCain has a huge surge since it became apparant that Obama was the Dem pick. Your graph shows Obama losing significant ground against McCain.

Dr. Hess wrote: Oh, when you wish for more taxes, please realize that YOU are the problem because today, YOU are free to give more of YOUR money to the federal government but YOU are refusing to do that. When you want to give MY money to the government for whatever programs you like, then I have a problem with that. Right now, the governments get somewhere around half of everything we make. How much is enough? 90%? Would that do it for you? 100%? And just exactly where do you think that money goes? It goes to big corporations. Taking more of OUR money will only transfer more of it to big corporations, owned by filthy rich Democratics.

Would you recommend an "a la carte" tax system? And before you answer, I hope can imagine the possible negative consequences of that. How about a consumption tax? How about income taxes with ZERO, NONE, ZILCH deductions. Keep the same exact graduated rate system as we have now, but disallow ANY deductions (mortgage to charitable giving, all of it goes). I'd imagine we'd find a much more equitable system and take care of the deficit and war costs pretty quickly.

I am down for LESS government and have aligned myself with the dems for several years now. Ironically, the GOP has billed themselves as the party of least government and sound conservative financial values when numbers demonstrate the opposite over the last 30 years. The dems have their issues and it's only too bad that the libertarians can't get themselves together enough to field a nationally viable candidate.

I think that a totally flat tax with no graduations, no minimum amount under which you're not taxed, no deductions at all, etc. would be the most fair. It will never happen.

What we have in Congress now is a large collection of thieves with R's and D's after their names in the press. I read an interesting write up the other day. It pointed out that there are 545 people responsible for the problems we face. 100 Senators, 435 House, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices. If the budget isn't ballanced, it's because 545 people don't want it. If foreign nationals making international phone calls are being monitored, it's because 545 people want it. If we have a terrible oppressive tax system, it's because 545 people want it. If Exxon is robbing us blind, it's because 545 people want it. Now, also consider that yesterday I heard on the news that Washington lobbyists spent 3 billion Dollars last year. That's 5.5 Million Dollars on each of those 545 people.

And people wonder why someone will spend millions of their own money to run for a job that pays $400,000 per year.

Dr. Hess wrote: I think that a totally flat tax with no graduations, no minimum amount under which you're not taxed, no deductions at all, etc. would be the most fair. It will never happen. What we have in Congress now is a large collection of thieves with R's and D's after their names in the press. I read an interesting write up the other day. It pointed out that there are 545 people responsible for the problems we face. 100 Senators, 435 House, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices. If the budget isn't ballanced, it's because 545 people don't want it. If foreign nationals making international phone calls are being monitored, it's because 545 people want it. If we have a terrible oppressive tax system, it's because 545 people want it. If Exxon is robbing us blind, it's because 545 people want it. Now, also consider that yesterday I heard on the news that Washington lobbyists spent 3 billion Dollars last year. That's 5.5 Million Dollars on each of those 545 people.

why a balanced budget?

if the government had a surplus, what would it do give bonuses to the pres?

I know that Clinton worked the balanced budget deal, i don't know if I'm a true fan or understand it all that well but, I would have to ask what are they not doing that they could be for us if we had a surplus...

John Brown wrote: And people wonder why someone will spend millions of their own money to run for a job that pays $400,000 per year.

penis envy rimshot

Dr. Hess wrote: I think that today, I'm putting it at 70% chance Little Mac wins. The LQ getting thrown under the bus was interesting to watch.

Remember Doc, I told you months ago Hillary wasn't going to make it. I underestimated how much fight she had in her, but the numbers were never there.

Dr. Hess wrote: It pointed out that there are 545 people responsible for the problems we face. 100 Senators, 435 House, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices... Now, also consider that yesterday I heard on the news that Washington lobbyists spent 3 billion Dollars last year. That's 5.5 Million Dollars on each of those 545 people.

1. You forget the VP/President of the Senate.

Bill Maher explained the parties very succinctly: "The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats are bought by an only slightly less-scary group of special interests."

The last time the VP voted in the Senate that I can remember was Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. voting to disarm us. That vote cost the D's control of both the Senate and the House. So other than tie-breaking, I'd say the VP is a do-nothing position. It wasn't my count of the 545. And I'll say 545 + maybe 1 occasionally.

I disagree with Maher. I'd say (today) that they were equally scary.

Oh, Ignorant, your cap-and-suck-the-life-out-of-the-U.S.-People energy bill went down in flames today. Ha-ha. Try again next year when McCain promises to sign it. The U.S. people are reprieved for 1 year. Think I'll burn some wood and celebrate. Maybe take the Esprit on a high speed run to nowhere so I can free up some more CO2.

Yeah, Tim, she almost had it, but I think the reason the LQ didn't make it are unrelated to "numbers." We're missing a very big behind the scenes picture. Remember that she "won" the popular vote count in the D primary. She just lost the "super delegates" who were set up so that the party leaders can truely do whatever they want. Also, I suspect she'll be back to run against whoever McCain's VP pick is in '12, as Little Mac is a one term Pres. Don't think we're through with the Klintons just yet.

Dr. Hess wrote: Oh, Ignorant, your cap-and-suck-the-life-out-of-the-U.S.-People energy bill went down in flames today. Ha-ha. Try again next year when McCain promises to sign it. The U.S. people are reprieved for 1 year. Think I'll burn some wood and celebrate. Maybe take the Esprit on a high speed run to nowhere so I can free up some more CO2.

funny. It's coming and you know it. Have fun when you are forced by this legislation to write checks to folks like myself to drive your esprit...