Caroline Kennedy: A President Like My Father

Socrtease said:
I can't wait for the day that the leftist populist takes over and I pay 50 cents for every dollar I make to the federal government. The ONLY people that look forward to that day have a job where they make a moderate wage, they have no employees that they have to worry about, and have never had to pay their taxes at the end of the year and have the figure have 5 numbers before the decimal AFTER paying quarterlies. I actually believe EVERYONE should have to pay their taxes at the end of the year. No withholding on a monthly basis. Everyone gets to February and starts to figure their taxes and then have to PAY them. Then maybe EVERYONE would understand what the tax system is like and not be so eager to have their taxes raised
Click to expand...

If you don't outsource the jobs, people won't need welfare. See?
 
Socrtease said:
The difference is that most people don't really see how much the government takes. I think that if people actually saw the amount of money they loses to the government at the end of the year and had to put it away and wait for them to come take it then most people would be a bit more sympathetic of the small business owner that still ends up paying more money at the end of the year even AFTER quarterly tax payments.
Click to expand...

Really? Because the chamber of commerce is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in this country, and they don't really pay taxes Soc, so who are you kidding?

Form an S-corp, don't pay taxes for five years. The small business owners I have known have all been crying and voting Republican while having four million dollar homes custom built for them.

What a load of crap.

Meantime, the middle class is disappearing, so if you don't want you and your other "small" business friends to be eaten, or have their heads cut off, which can happen if things get too out of control, you might want to start backing some sensible economic plans, not ones designed to fuck the poor, gut the middle class and make them into the servant class, and furhter enrich the 2%. because in any actual street fight - the 2 percenters lose.

sometimes, they lose their heads.

You really dont want it to get to that, but it doesn't look like anybody has learned much from the Neoliberal/DLC encomic policies we have been treated to. So bring on more of the same, and see what you get. Maybe you are expecting flowers - so was Dick Cheney.
 
Socrtease said:
I can't wait for the day that the leftist populist takes over and I pay 50 cents for every dollar I make to the federal government. The ONLY people that look forward to that day have a job where they make a moderate wage, they have no employees that they have to worry about, and have never had to pay their taxes at the end of the year and have the figure have 5 numbers before the decimal AFTER paying quarterlies. I actually believe EVERYONE should have to pay their taxes at the end of the year. No withholding on a monthly basis. Everyone gets to February and starts to figure their taxes and then have to PAY them. Then maybe EVERYONE would understand what the tax system is like and not be so eager to have their taxes raised
Click to expand...

I can't wait for the day that the leftist populist takes over and I pay 50 cents for every dollar I make to the federal government.


In the days of the New Deal democrats, working americans and small euntrepenuers paid a lower tax rate, than they do in the subsequent 30 years of republican/DLC economics. Because, under reaganomics, the tax burden has been shifted away from the super affluent, to the middle class. That's just a fact, that's not even debateable. Warren Buffet has explicitly stated that he pays a lower tax rate, than does his secretary. And he's challenged all his super wealthy friends to prove him wrong. He didn't get any takers, cause his rich buddies know they pay a lower rate, than working americans.

Reaganomics specifically shifted to tax burden more towards wages and earned income, and away from investment and unearned income. Do you know the only taxes Ronald Reagan showed any willingness to raise? Gasoline taxes, payrolls taxes, excise taxes, etc. That's right - when it came to earned income from wages, Reagan was all about tax increase. Capital gains, dividends, inheritence taxes? All cut. And it's sacrilege in republican circles to mention raising those types of taxes. As Bush said: his base is the haves and the have mores.

The New Deal Democrats taxed wealth more fairly (IMO), and taxed working americans less. And the economy did just fine before Reaganomics. In fact, by virtually every economic metric you can name, the post world war 2 New Deal economy outperformed the Reaganomics economy of the last 30 years, in virtually every category.
 
Oh yaaaay! Another undeclared war in Asia! At least that is what "Another President like my father" means to me when it comes from a Kennedy. Let's see if another couple million will be killed when we choose to abandon them!
 
Damocles said:
Oh yaaaay! Another undeclared war in Asia! At least that is what "Another President like my father" means to me when it comes from a Kennedy. Let's see if another couple million will be killed when we choose to abandon them!
Click to expand...
We already have an undeclared war in Asia. And that is the RIGHT WING observation. We can't leave those poor Iraqi's all alone and to the whims of the islamists. We broke the motherfucker and now we have to stay there until the piece of shit is fixed. Instead of leaving a weakened strong arm secular dictator in place, (who granted was a bad piece of shit but no where near the number of people died randomly under him) we put into power a bunch of people that without us can't hold their government together and will devolve into sectarian fighting. So how long are we going to stay in that UNDECLARED Asian war and why are you pretending that is the REAL concern here if we elect another guy that excite people the way Kennedy did? Lovely strawman. If you get him off his stick you can both go ask the wizard for a brain together.
 
Warren Buffet has explicitly stated that he pays a lower tax rate, than does his secretary. And he's challenged all his super wealthy friends to prove him wrong.
Click to expand...

But Cypress.

That's perfectly fine because he could've just given the government money - what right does he have to say that his taxes are too low whenever he didn't give the government money in response and keep his fucking mouth shut? Nevermind the fact that his secretary didn't have that luxury.
 
Socrtease said:
We already have an undeclared war in Asia. And that is the RIGHT WING observation. We can't leave those poor Iraqi's all alone and to the whims of the islamists. We broke the motherfucker and now we have to stay there until the piece of shit is fixed. Instead of leaving a weakened strong arm secular dictator in place, (who granted was a bad piece of shit but no where near the number of people died randomly under him) we put into power a bunch of people that without us can't hold their government together and will devolve into sectarian fighting. So how long are we going to stay in that UNDECLARED Asian war and why are you pretending that is the REAL concern here if we elect another guy that excite people the way Kennedy did? Lovely strawman. If you get him off his stick you can both go ask the wizard for a brain together.
Click to expand...
I said "Another". Didn't we have one with the President previous to Kennedy? Hmmm....

Seems like there's a pattern here.
 
Socrtease said:
Because there is idealism and there is realpolitik and the reality is Edwards is an also ran again. Those of you that support him and want to vote for him already know his message and know what he stands for. You all are the ONLY ones that are going to vote for him and he is STILL GOING TO LOSE. So do you stay in, not endorce anyone, and let the other two campaigns killing eachother with death by a thousand cuts? So that when they get to the General election you can listen to the Republican nominee hit the dem with whatever fresh attacks have not come out yet? One of Reagans really good ideas what not speaking ill of fellow party members. Clinton and Obama are going to bleed eachother slow and then the repubs will be there to finish it off. Clinton or Obama, one is going to be the dem nominee. YOu have to get over that and start to circle the wagons and look united when you get to denver. Edwards has only a supporting role left in this process so he should get to supporting and leave the real campaigning to the real candidates.
Click to expand...

If Hillary and Obama continue slicing at each other, the Reps should simply sit back and then throw whatever the loser says back at the Dem nominee once it gets to be one on one. Do this in addition to anything fresh they can come up with (assuming Hillary and Obama leave any stone unturned in lashing out at one another).
 
Superfreak said:
If Hillary and Obama continue slicing at each other, the Reps should simply sit back and then throw whatever the loser says back at the Dem nominee once it gets to be one on one. Do this in addition to anything fresh they can come up with (assuming Hillary and Obama leave any stone unturned in lashing out at one another).
Click to expand...

But weren't you complaining that Clinton was lying about Obama? So if a Republican does it, then that will be OK?
 
Darla said:
1) You hate John Edwards and everything he stands for, yet are presenting yourself as an honest broker.

2) Yes Obama and Clinton are tearing each other up...your conclusion is that we must pick one of them...I ask, why? A very rational differing conclusion would be, to hell with all that, I'll go with Edwards, who isn't dividing anybody.

3) The Republican machine, made a coward out of a war hero, and a war hero out of a coward my friend, so I don't plan my vote on what that machine is going to do, because it does not matter who we nominate. It does not matter. Yeah, they want Hillary because they can kill her without a backlash risk, but if they run against Obama they will go racial, and that will force them out of the "who us? we're not racists" closet. But they'll take Obama. Who don't they want? John Edwards. Why? They can't beat him, period.
Click to expand...


Edwards isn't dividing anyone? Perhaps not within the Dem party, but he is just as divisive as Hillary when it comes to the general with all of his class warfare bullshit.

He has ZERO chance at the nominee. So why not find out who his supporters would rather see between Hillary and Obama rather than letting Edwards powerbroker his delegates in Denver?
 
Damocles said:
I said "Another". Didn't we have one with the President previous to Kennedy? Hmmm....

Seems like there's a pattern here.
Click to expand...

Yeah there's a big pattern.

It's called "United States Foreign Policy" and it's a murderous one.

It knows no party.

But don't let the facts get in your way.
 
Superfreak said:
Edwards isn't dividing anyone? Perhaps not within the Dem party, but he is just as divisive as Hillary when it comes to the general with all of his class warfare bullshit.

He has ZERO chance at the nominee. So why not find out who his supporters would rather see between Hillary and Obama rather than letting Edwards powerbroker his delegates in Denver?
Click to expand...

He isn't dividing anyone in the Democratic party, that's right.

And the only people he would "divide" in a general, are conservatives. We don't want them.

Weren't you arguing that Nadar didn't lose the election for Gore, and what did Gore think, that he was "entitled" to those votes?

Why are Obama, or Hillary, "entitled" to Edwards' votes? He got 18% of the Democratic turnout in S Carolina.

Why on earth should he drop out?
 
Darla said:
Yeah there's a big pattern.

It's called "United States Foreign Policy" and it's a murderous one.

It knows no party.

But don't let the facts get in your way.
Click to expand...
When did they? I suggested that "another President like" Kennedy suggests a pattern.

Don't let the facts get in your way.
 
Darla said:
He isn't dividing anyone in the Democratic party, that's right.

And the only people he would "divide" in a general, are conservatives. We don't want them.

Weren't you arguing that Nadar didn't lose the election for Gore, and what did Gore think, that he was "entitled" to those votes?

Why are Obama, or Hillary, "entitled" to Edwards' votes? He got 18% of the Democratic turnout in S Carolina.

Why on earth should he drop out?
Click to expand...
You're right Darla he shouldn't get out. He should stay in the race and keep the decision up in the air until Denver so that the Dems can look disorganized and have lots of infighting so that they can insure another Republican in office for four more years. In the new Lewis Black stand up he asks the democrats how it was they could choose someone in 2004 that couldn't beat Bush. Now the new question will be why the Dems could not get unified enough to beat the republicans in general.
 
Darla said:
But weren't you complaining that Clinton was lying about Obama? So if a Republican does it, then that will be OK?
Click to expand...

If it is a lie, then no, I would not repeat it. But the shots of Obama saying "Clinton is more of the same" or Hillary saying "Obama is too inexperienced".... the OPINION parts... without question I would throw those back at them.
 
Socrtease said:
You're right Darla he shouldn't get out. He should stay in the race and keep the decision up in the air until Denver so that the Dems can look disorganized and have lots of infighting so that they can insure another Republican in office for four more years. In the new Lewis Black stand up he asks the democrats how it was they could choose someone in 2004 that couldn't beat Bush. Now the new question will be why the Dems could not get unified enough to beat the republicans in general.
Click to expand...

You know what Soc...I watched a documentary yesterday about Iraq. From the Gulf war through today. I saw footage of the dying skeletal children from our sanctions, and it made me remember what Madeline albright said about them. They really didn't care.

Maybe Obama, as much as he is a DLC'er on economic policies, would be better on foreign policy. I don't know.

But when I consider what US foreign policy has been under both parties, and the fact that we are headed for an economic disaster that I really don't think can be avoided no matter who is President, I think maybe wht this country needs is four more years of this shit anyway.

I just don't care that much right now. I will probably care more soon. But I can tell you that I will never care enough to give up my vote for John Edwards.

And this idea that the democrats need to unify because the republicans will use the democratic attacks against each other blah blah blah, I heard it all in 04, and I fell for it. We unified, we nominated a freaking war hero, to go up against a draft dodger by the way.

What did it get us? The same thing calculation always gets you Soc, and so this time, I go with my heart. AT least if I lose I can look at myself in the mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top