R
ReleaseHunter
Guest
Deleted. Sorry for inconvenience I caused anyone.
Whose Middle-class??
- Thread starter turtlshell
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
R
ReleaseHunter
Guest
Deleted. Sorry for inconvenience I caused anyone.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReleaseHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I have read on here and other hunting that Obama wants to take "our" guns away. That is nothing further from the truth. Obama is for us hunters, just as McCain is. That is one thing they agree on. </div></div>
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)
7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)
I copied and pasted to prevent any typing errors. Just so you could do your own research and get <u>your</u> facts straight. McCain is pro-Second Amendment. Obama is anti-Second Amendment have no doubt about it he will take away all guns if given the chance.
I suppose you think Pelosi and Reed are pro-gun as well?
How many times has Obama voted for tax cuts in his politial career?
By the way didn't Obama run for the U.S. Senate saying he was going to fight for middle-class tax cuts?
Remind me again how many pieces of legislation Obama introduced with tax cuts proposed for the middle-class since he has been in the U.S. Senate?
Which presidential candidate said he will not renew Bush's tax cuts? You know the tax cuts that include the child credit increases, capital gains cuts from 38% down to 15%, removed the marriage penalty which saves the average married couple something like $1700.00 in taxes just to name a few.
Which presidential candidate said when asked the question: When should a baby get human rights? Replied- That question is above my pay grade.
I copied and pasted a link for you just in case you wanted to hear THE ONE in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mem_xEcZHVY&feature=related
Which presidential candidate said he is going to increase taxes?
Which presidential candidate has proposed a trillion dollars worth of new spending?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least Clinton had this country in a recovery mode and in the black financially, which is probably the only good thing he done. </div></div>
Who was in control of the Congress during Clinton's Presidency? I think I remember something about a Republican Congress. I also remember legislation called "The Contract with America".
I copied and pasted the Contract with America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia just so you could get your facts straight. See below.
Major policy changes
During the first hundred days of the 104th Congress, the Republicans pledged "to bring to the floor the ten bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection". The text of the proposed bills was included in the Contract, which was released prior to the election. These bills were not governmental reforms, as the previous promises were; rather, they represented significant changes to policy. The main included tax cuts for businesses and individuals, term limits for legislators, social security reform, tort reform, and welfare reform.
[edit] Implementation of the Contract
The Contract had promised 10 bills to implement major reform of the Federal Government. When the 104th Congress assembled in January 1995, the Republican majority sought to implement the Contract.
In some cases (e.g. The National Security Restoration Act and The Personal Responsibility Act), the proposed bills were accomplished by a single act analogous to that which had been proposed in the Contract; in other cases (e.g. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act), a proposed bill's provisions were split up across multiple acts. Most of the bills died in the Senate, except as noted below.
[edit] The Fiscal Responsibility Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, 1/26/95; rejected by the US Senate Roll Call: 65-35, 3/2/95, two-thirds required), and provide the president with a line-item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House Roll Call: 294-134, 2/6/95; conferenced with S. 4 and enacted with substantial changes 4/9/96 [2]).
[edit] The Taking Back Our Streets Act
An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions (H.R.666 Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, passed US House Roll Call 289-142 2/8/95), death penalty provisions (H.R.729 Effective Death Penalty Act, passed US House Roll Call 297-132 2/8/95; similar provisions enacted under S. 735 [3], 4/24/96), funding prison construction (H.R.667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act, passed US House Roll Call 265-156 2/10/95, rc#117) and additional law enforcement (H.R.728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act, passed US House Roll Call 238-192 2/14/95).
[edit] The Personal Responsibility Act
An act to cut spending for welfare programs by means of discouraging illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. This would be achieved by prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age, denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, and enacting a two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. H.R.4, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, included provisions giving food vouchers to unwed mothers under 18 in lieu of cash AFDC benefits, denying cash AFDC benefits for additional children to people on AFDC, requiring recipients to participate in work programs after 2 years on AFDC, complete termination of AFDC payments after five years, and suspending driver and professional licenses of people who fail to pay child support. H.R.4, passed by the US House 234-199, 3/23/95, and passed by the US Senate 87-12, 9/19/95. The Act was vetoed by President Clinton, but the alternative Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which offered many of the same policies was enacted 8/22/96.
[edit] The American Dream Restoration Act
An act to create a $500-per-child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle-class tax relief. H.R.1215, passed 246-188, 4/5/95.
[edit] The National Security Restoration Act
An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary for the purposes of national security, to cut US payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO. H.R.7, passed 241-181, 2/16/95.
[edit] The "Common Sense" Legal Reform Act
An act to institute "Loser pays" laws (H.R.988, passed 232-193, 3/7/95), limits on punitive damages and reform of product-liability laws to prevent what the bill considered frivolous litigation (H.R.956, passed 265-161, 3/10/95; passed Senate 61-37, 5/11/95, vetoed by President Clinton [4]). Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by Clinton.
[edit] The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act
A package of measures to act as small-business incentives: capital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. Although this was listed as a single bill in the Contract, its provisions ultimately made it to the House Floor as four bills:
H.R.5, requiring federal funding for state spending mandated by Congressional action, and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $50m per year, was passed 360-74, 2/1/95. This bill was conferenced with S. 1 and enacted, 3/22/95[5].
H.R.450 required a moratorium on the implementation of Federal regulations until June 30, 1995, and was passed 276-146, 2/24/95. Companion Senate bill S. 219 passed by voice vote, 5/17/05, but the two bills never emerged from conference[6].
H.R.925 required Federal compensation to be paid to property owners when Federal Government actions reduced the value of the property by 20% or more, and was passed 277-148, 3/3/95.
H.R.926, passed 415-14 on 3/1/95, required Federal agencies to provide a cost-benefit analysis on any regulation costing $50m or more annually, to be signed off on by the Office of Management and Budget, and permitted small businesses to sue that agency if they believed the aforementioned analysis was performed inadequately or incorrectly.
[edit] The Citizen Legislature Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (i.e. six terms for Representatives, two terms for Senators). H.J.Res.73[7] rejected by the U.S. House 227-204 (a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority), 3/29/95; RC #277.
[edit] Other sections of the Contract
Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have yet to see a litterate republican post. All they can do is tell us democrats why we are wrong and why our ticket is worse than theirs. One of these days you people will remove your blinders, get your facts straight, and finally take a step out of your cold, dark, barren rooms. </div></div>
Let me say thank you for your service to our great Country.
I want to also congradulate you on paying for your own college education. Now you can stand right beside myself and the other 95% of college graduates that payed their own way as well. I don't think trying to stand on some high horse because you opted out of using the GI bill will get you very far with everyone else who payed their own way.
Hope this helps you get your facts straight. If I had a Kool-Aid guy he would be posted right here. Maybe someone could post it for me. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)
7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)
I copied and pasted to prevent any typing errors. Just so you could do your own research and get <u>your</u> facts straight. McCain is pro-Second Amendment. Obama is anti-Second Amendment have no doubt about it he will take away all guns if given the chance.
I suppose you think Pelosi and Reed are pro-gun as well?
How many times has Obama voted for tax cuts in his politial career?
By the way didn't Obama run for the U.S. Senate saying he was going to fight for middle-class tax cuts?
Remind me again how many pieces of legislation Obama introduced with tax cuts proposed for the middle-class since he has been in the U.S. Senate?
Which presidential candidate said he will not renew Bush's tax cuts? You know the tax cuts that include the child credit increases, capital gains cuts from 38% down to 15%, removed the marriage penalty which saves the average married couple something like $1700.00 in taxes just to name a few.
Which presidential candidate said when asked the question: When should a baby get human rights? Replied- That question is above my pay grade.
I copied and pasted a link for you just in case you wanted to hear THE ONE in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mem_xEcZHVY&feature=related
Which presidential candidate said he is going to increase taxes?
Which presidential candidate has proposed a trillion dollars worth of new spending?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least Clinton had this country in a recovery mode and in the black financially, which is probably the only good thing he done. </div></div>
Who was in control of the Congress during Clinton's Presidency? I think I remember something about a Republican Congress. I also remember legislation called "The Contract with America".
I copied and pasted the Contract with America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia just so you could get your facts straight. See below.
Major policy changes
During the first hundred days of the 104th Congress, the Republicans pledged "to bring to the floor the ten bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection". The text of the proposed bills was included in the Contract, which was released prior to the election. These bills were not governmental reforms, as the previous promises were; rather, they represented significant changes to policy. The main included tax cuts for businesses and individuals, term limits for legislators, social security reform, tort reform, and welfare reform.
[edit] Implementation of the Contract
The Contract had promised 10 bills to implement major reform of the Federal Government. When the 104th Congress assembled in January 1995, the Republican majority sought to implement the Contract.
In some cases (e.g. The National Security Restoration Act and The Personal Responsibility Act), the proposed bills were accomplished by a single act analogous to that which had been proposed in the Contract; in other cases (e.g. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act), a proposed bill's provisions were split up across multiple acts. Most of the bills died in the Senate, except as noted below.
[edit] The Fiscal Responsibility Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, 1/26/95; rejected by the US Senate Roll Call: 65-35, 3/2/95, two-thirds required), and provide the president with a line-item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House Roll Call: 294-134, 2/6/95; conferenced with S. 4 and enacted with substantial changes 4/9/96 [2]).
[edit] The Taking Back Our Streets Act
An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions (H.R.666 Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, passed US House Roll Call 289-142 2/8/95), death penalty provisions (H.R.729 Effective Death Penalty Act, passed US House Roll Call 297-132 2/8/95; similar provisions enacted under S. 735 [3], 4/24/96), funding prison construction (H.R.667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act, passed US House Roll Call 265-156 2/10/95, rc#117) and additional law enforcement (H.R.728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act, passed US House Roll Call 238-192 2/14/95).
[edit] The Personal Responsibility Act
An act to cut spending for welfare programs by means of discouraging illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. This would be achieved by prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age, denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, and enacting a two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. H.R.4, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, included provisions giving food vouchers to unwed mothers under 18 in lieu of cash AFDC benefits, denying cash AFDC benefits for additional children to people on AFDC, requiring recipients to participate in work programs after 2 years on AFDC, complete termination of AFDC payments after five years, and suspending driver and professional licenses of people who fail to pay child support. H.R.4, passed by the US House 234-199, 3/23/95, and passed by the US Senate 87-12, 9/19/95. The Act was vetoed by President Clinton, but the alternative Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which offered many of the same policies was enacted 8/22/96.
[edit] The American Dream Restoration Act
An act to create a $500-per-child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle-class tax relief. H.R.1215, passed 246-188, 4/5/95.
[edit] The National Security Restoration Act
An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary for the purposes of national security, to cut US payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO. H.R.7, passed 241-181, 2/16/95.
[edit] The "Common Sense" Legal Reform Act
An act to institute "Loser pays" laws (H.R.988, passed 232-193, 3/7/95), limits on punitive damages and reform of product-liability laws to prevent what the bill considered frivolous litigation (H.R.956, passed 265-161, 3/10/95; passed Senate 61-37, 5/11/95, vetoed by President Clinton [4]). Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by Clinton.
[edit] The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act
A package of measures to act as small-business incentives: capital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. Although this was listed as a single bill in the Contract, its provisions ultimately made it to the House Floor as four bills:
H.R.5, requiring federal funding for state spending mandated by Congressional action, and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $50m per year, was passed 360-74, 2/1/95. This bill was conferenced with S. 1 and enacted, 3/22/95[5].
H.R.450 required a moratorium on the implementation of Federal regulations until June 30, 1995, and was passed 276-146, 2/24/95. Companion Senate bill S. 219 passed by voice vote, 5/17/05, but the two bills never emerged from conference[6].
H.R.925 required Federal compensation to be paid to property owners when Federal Government actions reduced the value of the property by 20% or more, and was passed 277-148, 3/3/95.
H.R.926, passed 415-14 on 3/1/95, required Federal agencies to provide a cost-benefit analysis on any regulation costing $50m or more annually, to be signed off on by the Office of Management and Budget, and permitted small businesses to sue that agency if they believed the aforementioned analysis was performed inadequately or incorrectly.
[edit] The Citizen Legislature Act
An amendment to the Constitution that would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (i.e. six terms for Representatives, two terms for Senators). H.J.Res.73[7] rejected by the U.S. House 227-204 (a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority), 3/29/95; RC #277.
[edit] Other sections of the Contract
Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have yet to see a litterate republican post. All they can do is tell us democrats why we are wrong and why our ticket is worse than theirs. One of these days you people will remove your blinders, get your facts straight, and finally take a step out of your cold, dark, barren rooms. </div></div>
Let me say thank you for your service to our great Country.
I want to also congradulate you on paying for your own college education. Now you can stand right beside myself and the other 95% of college graduates that payed their own way as well. I don't think trying to stand on some high horse because you opted out of using the GI bill will get you very far with everyone else who payed their own way.
Hope this helps you get your facts straight. If I had a Kool-Aid guy he would be posted right here. Maybe someone could post it for me. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
DOR
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JNRBRONC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReleaseHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have yet to see a litterate </div></div>
Literate? </div></div>
Randy, I'm glad you weren't my english teacher. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
I'd still be cleaning sh!tters at the state park. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif
Literate? </div></div>
Randy, I'm glad you weren't my english teacher. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
I'd still be cleaning sh!tters at the state park. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif
avidhunter
New Member
Let's not quibble amongst each other with hostilities - that coming from me may sound ironic? /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Turtl, your first couple of paragraphs resonated with me. First kid to go to college, huge student loans, and so on.. Working hard, never looking for a handout and saving whenever I could. You lost me at the Robin Hood part though. I could argue that the Robin Hood comparison necessarily casts McCain as the King John of England lol. How fitting. Robin Hood was also the hero in that age old story, King John was the enemy. But that would then lead people to believe that I agree with you that Obama is the 21st century Robin Hood. I'd hate to create that misperception.
The reason Obama has my vote with regards to the economy as a top issue, is that he understands one very core thing, that the middle class is both the heart and soul of our economy. The middle class in America buys the lions share of the goods and services that we produce and they provide the super majority of the labor that fuels our economy. The rich don't need any help. They made it. Good for them. I would like to count myself amongst their number someday - and I would gladly pay a little more in taxes as a percentage of my rich income to help support the rest of my less fortunate neighbors.
You make a great argument against many entitlement programs, in that they are inefficient, perhaps ineffective and too broad in scope, that they could certainly either be eliminated altogether, as many Republicans have argued, or at least reformed. We've all seen the bad apples that we assume have spoiled the bunch when it comes to entitlement programs. Having worked in the financial industry for nearly eight years, I've probably seen more of it than most. People collecting disability checks that look pretty damn able, welfare recipients using the food stamp cards to buy junk food for their six children... Bad apples that have fallen from the tree... but is the idea of the tree itself, Bad?
I've heard some people on here make some pretty callous remarks about welfare and disability, insinuating that no one deserves assistance. My oldest brother is severely mentally disabled. His disease is schizophrenia. He is heavily medicated at all times, and cannot possibly join the ranks of the employed. I'd hope that no one would argue that he should be shut off from assistance, that he needs to also join the ranks of the homeless - many of whom also suffer from mental disease. My brother gets barely enough to survive, and family takes care of the rest. His standard of living is meager, in part facilitated by his condition. Where does he fit into the Free Market? The private sector does little to accommodate the compassionate fiber of morality, at least not on any significant scale, there's no profit to be made.
The people that argue that entitlement programs (like disability subsidies) should be eliminated obviously do not have any afflicted family members. These are probably the same people that complain about the number of homeless people living on the streets in the cities where they live. The irony is amazing.
I believe it was Ben Franklin that said something akin to: "rather that 100 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be imprisoned". The same principle applies here. When you cut spending or overhaul programs that assist people like my brother you cannot help but increase the number of people that will also fall through the cracks, ending up on the streets. I'm all for doing what we can to cut down on the abuse of these programs, doing a better job identifying people that truly need assistance from those that seek a free ride, but it will take an abundance of caution and a healthy realization that no matter how much we fine tune there will always be those that take advantage of the system.
As far as taxation is concerned, here's an excerpt from an article written by Ben Stein, after an interview with the Sage of Omaha:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By BEN STEIN
Published: November 26, 2006
NOT long ago, I had the pleasure of a lengthy meeting with one of the smartest men on the planet, Warren E. Buffett, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, in his unpretentious offices in Omaha. We talked of many things that, I hope, will inspire me for years to come. But one of the main subjects was taxes. Mr. Buffett, who probably does not feel sick when he sees his MasterCard bill in his mailbox the way I do, is at least as exercised about the tax system as I am.
Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.
Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”</div></div>
Turtl, your first couple of paragraphs resonated with me. First kid to go to college, huge student loans, and so on.. Working hard, never looking for a handout and saving whenever I could. You lost me at the Robin Hood part though. I could argue that the Robin Hood comparison necessarily casts McCain as the King John of England lol. How fitting. Robin Hood was also the hero in that age old story, King John was the enemy. But that would then lead people to believe that I agree with you that Obama is the 21st century Robin Hood. I'd hate to create that misperception.
The reason Obama has my vote with regards to the economy as a top issue, is that he understands one very core thing, that the middle class is both the heart and soul of our economy. The middle class in America buys the lions share of the goods and services that we produce and they provide the super majority of the labor that fuels our economy. The rich don't need any help. They made it. Good for them. I would like to count myself amongst their number someday - and I would gladly pay a little more in taxes as a percentage of my rich income to help support the rest of my less fortunate neighbors.
You make a great argument against many entitlement programs, in that they are inefficient, perhaps ineffective and too broad in scope, that they could certainly either be eliminated altogether, as many Republicans have argued, or at least reformed. We've all seen the bad apples that we assume have spoiled the bunch when it comes to entitlement programs. Having worked in the financial industry for nearly eight years, I've probably seen more of it than most. People collecting disability checks that look pretty damn able, welfare recipients using the food stamp cards to buy junk food for their six children... Bad apples that have fallen from the tree... but is the idea of the tree itself, Bad?
I've heard some people on here make some pretty callous remarks about welfare and disability, insinuating that no one deserves assistance. My oldest brother is severely mentally disabled. His disease is schizophrenia. He is heavily medicated at all times, and cannot possibly join the ranks of the employed. I'd hope that no one would argue that he should be shut off from assistance, that he needs to also join the ranks of the homeless - many of whom also suffer from mental disease. My brother gets barely enough to survive, and family takes care of the rest. His standard of living is meager, in part facilitated by his condition. Where does he fit into the Free Market? The private sector does little to accommodate the compassionate fiber of morality, at least not on any significant scale, there's no profit to be made.
The people that argue that entitlement programs (like disability subsidies) should be eliminated obviously do not have any afflicted family members. These are probably the same people that complain about the number of homeless people living on the streets in the cities where they live. The irony is amazing.
I believe it was Ben Franklin that said something akin to: "rather that 100 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be imprisoned". The same principle applies here. When you cut spending or overhaul programs that assist people like my brother you cannot help but increase the number of people that will also fall through the cracks, ending up on the streets. I'm all for doing what we can to cut down on the abuse of these programs, doing a better job identifying people that truly need assistance from those that seek a free ride, but it will take an abundance of caution and a healthy realization that no matter how much we fine tune there will always be those that take advantage of the system.
As far as taxation is concerned, here's an excerpt from an article written by Ben Stein, after an interview with the Sage of Omaha:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By BEN STEIN
Published: November 26, 2006
NOT long ago, I had the pleasure of a lengthy meeting with one of the smartest men on the planet, Warren E. Buffett, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, in his unpretentious offices in Omaha. We talked of many things that, I hope, will inspire me for years to come. But one of the main subjects was taxes. Mr. Buffett, who probably does not feel sick when he sees his MasterCard bill in his mailbox the way I do, is at least as exercised about the tax system as I am.
Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.
Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”</div></div>
DOR
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: madplotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My random rambling thoughts...
Release Hunter and Boacephus,
Perhaps I could suggest some places to find facts. First, I have a news flash, THE FREE MARKET WORKS!!! (see 18th and 19th century economic history, not good!) When you punish the top 20% of wage earners, you remove the incentive to succeed and consequently erode the free market. This has a contrary effect in that it builds a minute ruling upper class and a huge lower class, virtually eliminating the midle class. The middle class is built and sustained by the drive to reach the top tax bracket, not by cuting lower brackets and increasing the higher brackets. Perhaps you do not feel these are facts, in my opinion they are and at the very least, it is crital thinking.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the like are threatening our very way of life. I am a traditional democrat who has worked for the party for several years and I can tell you, these are bad people. I have met them all. I quit working for the party about 8 years ago because it was hijacked by the very wealthy radical liberals. Their agenda is simple, gay marriage, income redistribution, gun control, and the advancement of their wealthy allies. I quickly learned, if I did not agree, they did not care.
As far as Barry Obama, Robin Hood's the name and income redistribution is the game. Barry and his peeps are not taking any prisoners. If you feel you are going to benefit, I can suggest you should research the tax plans of other countries. Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK for starters. His "plans" are nothing new. We are the most prosperous country in the world for a reason. For further economic research, you can check into Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Boacephus, I can fix you up with a very solid insurance plan for much less than you are paying now. My sister is a very user friendly agent and she knows her stuff. I would be more than happy to send you her name if you wish.
I travl a bit and work for a European company, I can tell you, this is the most wonderful place in the world. My employer has been a manufacturer and distributor in different areas of the US for 55 years. Our senior management is impressed with the midwest work ethic. They have been in the same depressed areas Barry claims to champion and they were not able to get people to work, let alone get any work out of them. I guess the my dads old addage fits, "I fight poverty, I work!" You need to ask yourself a question; If Barry reduces the incentive to work, why should any of us work?
I think McCain is a bit of a tool but in my opinion,he is the only option. As far as demanding facts from people, go research your own, don't hide behind that statement. </div></div>
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Thanks for saving me some additional peck typing!
Release Hunter and Boacephus,
Perhaps I could suggest some places to find facts. First, I have a news flash, THE FREE MARKET WORKS!!! (see 18th and 19th century economic history, not good!) When you punish the top 20% of wage earners, you remove the incentive to succeed and consequently erode the free market. This has a contrary effect in that it builds a minute ruling upper class and a huge lower class, virtually eliminating the midle class. The middle class is built and sustained by the drive to reach the top tax bracket, not by cuting lower brackets and increasing the higher brackets. Perhaps you do not feel these are facts, in my opinion they are and at the very least, it is crital thinking.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the like are threatening our very way of life. I am a traditional democrat who has worked for the party for several years and I can tell you, these are bad people. I have met them all. I quit working for the party about 8 years ago because it was hijacked by the very wealthy radical liberals. Their agenda is simple, gay marriage, income redistribution, gun control, and the advancement of their wealthy allies. I quickly learned, if I did not agree, they did not care.
As far as Barry Obama, Robin Hood's the name and income redistribution is the game. Barry and his peeps are not taking any prisoners. If you feel you are going to benefit, I can suggest you should research the tax plans of other countries. Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK for starters. His "plans" are nothing new. We are the most prosperous country in the world for a reason. For further economic research, you can check into Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Boacephus, I can fix you up with a very solid insurance plan for much less than you are paying now. My sister is a very user friendly agent and she knows her stuff. I would be more than happy to send you her name if you wish.
I travl a bit and work for a European company, I can tell you, this is the most wonderful place in the world. My employer has been a manufacturer and distributor in different areas of the US for 55 years. Our senior management is impressed with the midwest work ethic. They have been in the same depressed areas Barry claims to champion and they were not able to get people to work, let alone get any work out of them. I guess the my dads old addage fits, "I fight poverty, I work!" You need to ask yourself a question; If Barry reduces the incentive to work, why should any of us work?
I think McCain is a bit of a tool but in my opinion,he is the only option. As far as demanding facts from people, go research your own, don't hide behind that statement. </div></div>
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Thanks for saving me some additional peck typing!
R
ReleaseHunter
Guest
Deleted. Sorry for inconvenience I caused anyone.
teeroy
Life Member
i think you should research obamma's history with gun-related votes
http://www.nraila.org/obama
october's american rifleman has an informative colum from john c. sigler
http://www.nraila.org/obama
october's american rifleman has an informative colum from john c. sigler
DOR
Life Member
"To DOR and the rest of the Republicans on here, if I have said anything to upset you, I apologize. This is one reason why I should have kept quiet in the first place because I hate talking about politics and religion, especially on a public forum. Sorry fellas, I just want to talk about hunting! I'm out."
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
First of all, I'm an Independent who happens to be forced into voting for Republicans more times then not. Like you I find myself voting for the lesser of two evils. We have to prioritize our issues when voting, b/c if you agree with everything that either party says, you are a sheep more then likely. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
As to getting my upset, far from it! I appreciate the banter and unlike many here I rather enjoy a clean debate of ideas.
If we all agreed it would be a pretty boring country and if we couldn't openly debate our disagreements like in old NAZI Germany....I'd probably be a lamp-shade by now. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
First of all, I'm an Independent who happens to be forced into voting for Republicans more times then not. Like you I find myself voting for the lesser of two evils. We have to prioritize our issues when voting, b/c if you agree with everything that either party says, you are a sheep more then likely. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
As to getting my upset, far from it! I appreciate the banter and unlike many here I rather enjoy a clean debate of ideas.
If we all agreed it would be a pretty boring country and if we couldn't openly debate our disagreements like in old NAZI Germany....I'd probably be a lamp-shade by now. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
avidhunter
New Member
The NRA Targets Obama
Gun Owners of America Rate McCain: F
Bob Barr Packs Heat
Ron Paul's Gun Record
If you're voting for Gun Rights, Bob Barr or Ron Paul DESERVE your vote /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Gun Owners of America Rate McCain: F
Bob Barr Packs Heat
Ron Paul's Gun Record
If you're voting for Gun Rights, Bob Barr or Ron Paul DESERVE your vote /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Where oh where is Ross Perotte when we really need him? If I am really honest I don't like either candidate. Having been in the retail business, auto business, for almost all of my adult life I have formed some thoughts. I would like to point out a couple things about the so called tax break for the "middle class" making less than $250,000 per year. On the surface that sounds real fair, but look at it a little closer. It has been said that 98% of small business makes less that that $250,000 but I would really have to question that stat. What do they mean by "make" that much? Does that mean net or gross income? What can be expensed? I know that all of the auto dealerships I have worked in over the years have been small stores with 15 to 25 employees and all of them have grossed well over the $250,000 mark. The net income after cost of merchandise, wages, benefits, insurance and all the other fixed and variable expenses is usually over that. You need to realize that to make that the owners have an investment of several million dollars, most of it financed or floor planed. So is a 10% or 12% return for them out of line considering that they support 25 families that live in their community, buy goods from other small business, send their children to school, and pay all their own taxes? How many farmers that you hunt on their land make over that magic $250,000 a year? This tax increase on the rich, over $250,000, will not only effect Exon or Mobile or ATT. It will effect every one of us. Please don't think for a minute these corporations aren't just going to pass along any increased tax cost to their end consumers, you and I. As for the small business like my dealership I can see certain costs passed along, but more importantly, I can see cut backs to help make up the extra burden. Maybe a non-income producing job cut back or eliminated, such as maybe a shuttle driver or custodian. Maybe an increase in the employee payment portion of the health insurance, or elimination of sick days, or no performance bonuses. One way or another it will impact every employee and every business and family in the whole community negatively to a greater extent than any mythical middle class tax cut will. I have never heard any answer to the question " How much of a tax cut will I get". If my house hold makes $60,000 a year how much less will my tax bill be, $100, $400, or even $1,000 a year. If this tax cut saves me $500 a year, but costs me $900 in increased costs at the grocery store or insurance office or the doctor's office, so that they can pay their tax increase, how has it benefited me?
Another thing that really bugs me is when both sides talk about how a candidate has voted for or against something. With the way bills are proposed and with all the inane amendments and additions to them, how can anyone tell who is voting for what or against what. If a bill starts out trying to increase funding for abused children by the time it reaches a vote it may also include a section that would approve funds for research on honey bees, or new military equipment, a bridge to nowhere, or welfare benefits for sex offenders. You can never tell if the vote is for child abuse funding or against welfare benefits for sex offenders. The only thing for sure to me is that a vote of "Present" means that the voter either didn't know what the bill was or just plain didn't care. I think we need to get back to basics and hold people accountable and replace those who don't get it right, and not just vote for some one because we recognize their name or they are a member of the Republican or Democratic party!
Another thing that really bugs me is when both sides talk about how a candidate has voted for or against something. With the way bills are proposed and with all the inane amendments and additions to them, how can anyone tell who is voting for what or against what. If a bill starts out trying to increase funding for abused children by the time it reaches a vote it may also include a section that would approve funds for research on honey bees, or new military equipment, a bridge to nowhere, or welfare benefits for sex offenders. You can never tell if the vote is for child abuse funding or against welfare benefits for sex offenders. The only thing for sure to me is that a vote of "Present" means that the voter either didn't know what the bill was or just plain didn't care. I think we need to get back to basics and hold people accountable and replace those who don't get it right, and not just vote for some one because we recognize their name or they are a member of the Republican or Democratic party!
loneranger
Well-Known Member
Another thot to consider. A presidential Candidate can say he will do this and that, but he has to answer to alot of congressman,Senators,and a whole load of Interest Groups. These grand proposals are just that. The Pres is the Commander and Cheif of the Armed Forces. That is his job. He does not run the Economy, Health Insurance System,Energy System. There is alot more than his imput on these matters, before anything is changed.
boacephus
New Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: madplotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My random rambling thoughts...
Release Hunter and Boacephus,
Perhaps I could suggest some places to find facts. First, I have a news flash, THE FREE MARKET WORKS!!! (see 18th and 19th century economic history, not good!) When you punish the top 20% of wage earners, you remove the incentive to succeed and consequently erode the free market. This has a contrary effect in that it builds a minute ruling upper class and a huge lower class, virtually eliminating the midle class. The middle class is built and sustained by the drive to reach the top tax bracket, not by cuting lower brackets and increasing the higher brackets. Perhaps you do not feel these are facts, in my opinion they are and at the very least, it is crital thinking.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the like are threatening our very way of life. I am a traditional democrat who has worked for the party for several years and I can tell you, these are bad people. I have met them all. I quit working for the party about 8 years ago because it was hijacked by the very wealthy radical liberals. Their agenda is simple, gay marriage, income redistribution, gun control, and the advancement of their wealthy allies. I quickly learned, if I did not agree, they did not care.
As far as Barry Obama, Robin Hood's the name and income redistribution is the game. Barry and his peeps are not taking any prisoners. If you feel you are going to benefit, I can suggest you should research the tax plans of other countries. Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK for starters. His "plans" are nothing new. We are the most prosperous country in the world for a reason. For further economic research, you can check into Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Boacephus, I can fix you up with a very solid insurance plan for much less than you are paying now. My sister is a very user friendly agent and she knows her stuff. I would be more than happy to send you her name if you wish.
I travl a bit and work for a European company, I can tell you, this is the most wonderful place in the world. My employer has been a manufacturer and distributor in different areas of the US for 55 years. Our senior management is impressed with the midwest work ethic. They have been in the same depressed areas Barry claims to champion and they were not able to get people to work, let alone get any work out of them. I guess the my dads old addage fits, "I fight poverty, I work!" You need to ask yourself a question; If Barry reduces the incentive to work, why should any of us work?
I think McCain is a bit of a tool but in my opinion,he is the only option. As far as demanding facts from people, go research your own, don't hide behind that statement. </div></div>
Do you really think that a bigger tax increase will take away the incentive, lol, no way. I admit that for a small percentage it would, but not for the majority.
If you could IM me your sisters contact info that would be great. I can't promise that I would use it, my wife is a county worker and should go full time in Jan. There aren't many plans that will be able to top that one though.
Speaking of incentives, which candidate is working on incentives for people to start earning their own instead of living off the tax payers. It's more economically sound for them to pop out a another kid than it is to get a job.
I wasn't demanding the facts, I was asking for the facts. Any time I do a search I simply come up with mostly slander against the opposite party.
I appreciate the FACTS however, I still don't see any problem with half of them. Sure they are fun to shot, but were do you need an AR-15 to hunt with. Who needs large capacity magazines. Okay I'm on the fence with certain rounds. Some of them can be beneficial to a quick clean kill, but there are others that can do the same that won't penetrate light body armor. What's wrong with one purchase a month, alittle prior planning and it won't effect a collector. Cheap handguns, who cares, they are cheap because they are poorly made and inaccurate, okay maybe for home protection and scare the assailant.
Bar none this is a wonderful country, why else would everyone want to come here. Some may go to other countries for economic benefit, but they usually end up coming back.
Where do we begin, how do we get back to the basics of an honest days wages for an honest days work. It starts at home with the parents I suppose. Many if not all sportsman have it, kids learn either the right way or the wrong way from their parents.
I appreciate everyones input, I like many others that have posted, didn't intend on any hard feeling from either side, it's just hard politics that are being discussed. I feel I'm already sorta a black sheep, but I hope I'm not alienated further, lol.
Release Hunter and Boacephus,
Perhaps I could suggest some places to find facts. First, I have a news flash, THE FREE MARKET WORKS!!! (see 18th and 19th century economic history, not good!) When you punish the top 20% of wage earners, you remove the incentive to succeed and consequently erode the free market. This has a contrary effect in that it builds a minute ruling upper class and a huge lower class, virtually eliminating the midle class. The middle class is built and sustained by the drive to reach the top tax bracket, not by cuting lower brackets and increasing the higher brackets. Perhaps you do not feel these are facts, in my opinion they are and at the very least, it is crital thinking.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the like are threatening our very way of life. I am a traditional democrat who has worked for the party for several years and I can tell you, these are bad people. I have met them all. I quit working for the party about 8 years ago because it was hijacked by the very wealthy radical liberals. Their agenda is simple, gay marriage, income redistribution, gun control, and the advancement of their wealthy allies. I quickly learned, if I did not agree, they did not care.
As far as Barry Obama, Robin Hood's the name and income redistribution is the game. Barry and his peeps are not taking any prisoners. If you feel you are going to benefit, I can suggest you should research the tax plans of other countries. Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK for starters. His "plans" are nothing new. We are the most prosperous country in the world for a reason. For further economic research, you can check into Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Boacephus, I can fix you up with a very solid insurance plan for much less than you are paying now. My sister is a very user friendly agent and she knows her stuff. I would be more than happy to send you her name if you wish.
I travl a bit and work for a European company, I can tell you, this is the most wonderful place in the world. My employer has been a manufacturer and distributor in different areas of the US for 55 years. Our senior management is impressed with the midwest work ethic. They have been in the same depressed areas Barry claims to champion and they were not able to get people to work, let alone get any work out of them. I guess the my dads old addage fits, "I fight poverty, I work!" You need to ask yourself a question; If Barry reduces the incentive to work, why should any of us work?
I think McCain is a bit of a tool but in my opinion,he is the only option. As far as demanding facts from people, go research your own, don't hide behind that statement. </div></div>
Do you really think that a bigger tax increase will take away the incentive, lol, no way. I admit that for a small percentage it would, but not for the majority.
If you could IM me your sisters contact info that would be great. I can't promise that I would use it, my wife is a county worker and should go full time in Jan. There aren't many plans that will be able to top that one though.
Speaking of incentives, which candidate is working on incentives for people to start earning their own instead of living off the tax payers. It's more economically sound for them to pop out a another kid than it is to get a job.
I wasn't demanding the facts, I was asking for the facts. Any time I do a search I simply come up with mostly slander against the opposite party.
I appreciate the FACTS however, I still don't see any problem with half of them. Sure they are fun to shot, but were do you need an AR-15 to hunt with. Who needs large capacity magazines. Okay I'm on the fence with certain rounds. Some of them can be beneficial to a quick clean kill, but there are others that can do the same that won't penetrate light body armor. What's wrong with one purchase a month, alittle prior planning and it won't effect a collector. Cheap handguns, who cares, they are cheap because they are poorly made and inaccurate, okay maybe for home protection and scare the assailant.
Bar none this is a wonderful country, why else would everyone want to come here. Some may go to other countries for economic benefit, but they usually end up coming back.
Where do we begin, how do we get back to the basics of an honest days wages for an honest days work. It starts at home with the parents I suppose. Many if not all sportsman have it, kids learn either the right way or the wrong way from their parents.
I appreciate everyones input, I like many others that have posted, didn't intend on any hard feeling from either side, it's just hard politics that are being discussed. I feel I'm already sorta a black sheep, but I hope I'm not alienated further, lol.
avidhunter
New Member
I know that it's been said probably many times on here, that at this point it's probably unlikely that any of us are going to change our minds on the candidate we support. I think a healthy political debate is always a good thing, as long as the posts are respectful - and I think it's been pretty good overall in that regard /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Let's get this much straight... neither McCain nor Obama are "evil" in any sense of the word. Everyone keeps referring to either of them as the lesser of two, and I understand that it's just a saying. I know that the world will not come to an end if McCain and Palin ( /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif ) manage to make a miraculous comeback in the swing states and win this election. I just hope the Republican party doesn't cast their shadow of disenfranchisement over this election with thousands of provisional ballots... we don't need another 2000 debacle. I don't understand why they can't fix the voting machines and registration process during the four years in between presidential elections. EVERYONE deserves to be able to cast a vote, no matter how radical you might think their views. As long as it's just ONE vote.
The dead horse just got...deader? That being the case I will remove myself from this debate - hold the applause /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Let's get this much straight... neither McCain nor Obama are "evil" in any sense of the word. Everyone keeps referring to either of them as the lesser of two, and I understand that it's just a saying. I know that the world will not come to an end if McCain and Palin ( /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif ) manage to make a miraculous comeback in the swing states and win this election. I just hope the Republican party doesn't cast their shadow of disenfranchisement over this election with thousands of provisional ballots... we don't need another 2000 debacle. I don't understand why they can't fix the voting machines and registration process during the four years in between presidential elections. EVERYONE deserves to be able to cast a vote, no matter how radical you might think their views. As long as it's just ONE vote.
The dead horse just got...deader? That being the case I will remove myself from this debate - hold the applause /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
moosehunter
PMA Member
It sure would be nice if it were a requirement that any of our elected officials on the Federal level had to have served in the armed forces. I bet there wouldn't be the corruption and "me first" attitude there is now.....
R
ReleaseHunter
Guest
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moosehunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It sure would be nice if it were a requirement that any of our elected officials on the Federal level had to have served in the armed forces. I bet there wouldn't be the corruption and "me first" attitude there is now.....
</div></div>
I would agree with you on that!
I would agree with you on that!