McCain Trusted More Than Obama on Economy, Iraq, National Security

[chri'stina 190]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

Thats the wrong question, the right question to ask, would it be fair for a poor or middle income family to pay most of thier income in taxes?

When I made a lower income, I hardly had to pay much taxes. I don't think people who make more money than I did should be punished for it.

Your missing the point.

No, I don't agree with the point.

So if you dont think the poor people or rich people should pay taxes, how do you propose we pay for goverment then?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but where did I say that?? I think we are having a communication problem, LOL. I misread your question maybe. I thought you meant something else. Were you agreeing that it's not fair for the rich to pay such a high tax or were you saying something else? I'm confused now.

Edited May 30, 2008 by stina&suj

[Dan J 277]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

Thats the wrong question, the right question to ask, would it be fair for a poor or middle income family to pay most of thier income in taxes?

When I made a lower income, I hardly had to pay much taxes. I don't think people who make more money than I did should be punished for it.

Your missing the point.

No, I don't agree with the point.

So if you dont think the poor people or rich people should pay taxes, how do you propose we pay for goverment then?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but where did I say that?? I think we are having a communication problem, LOL. I misread your question maybe. I thought you meant something else. Were you agreeing that it's not fair for the rich so pay such a high tax or were you saying something else? I'm confused now.

I think it is fair to make rich people pay higher taxes, as poor people can not afford an fair share.

If we don't keep it that way, our country will become a place were only the wealthy really have freedoms.

[chri'stina 190]

Ok...but in that case I meant I don't agree that it's fair.

[Peikko 1,575]

Dog, that simply doesn't fly. Barack will win or lose on his own merits.

No candidate has ever won without a major party being united behind him. If Hillary sabotages him - and I've said for awhile now that she might just do that in order to secure her last hope run in 2012 - then he'd have a hard time making the finish line. He can win with the party behind him - quite easily to be honest. Without it, I don't see how he could. The only candidates that run on their own merits (without a large party apparatus behind them) are the types of Nader, Perot, Barr, etc.

What constitutes sabotage in your head then? If she did as Troll suggested and ran as an independant, would that be sabotage? (I don't see this as a very likely scenario, but I don't know enough about it to say it coudn't) Or, is sabotage her continuing to campaign until the nomination is actually finished as per Democratic party rules?

I am guessing the latter, but to me that says much, much more about the Democratic party than it does about Hillary. If they can't get themselves together after the convention then that's just sucks. Too bad.

However, my guess again is, that the voters who will make or break this election are not going to be Dem party members, in which case, how can it possibly be Hillary that sabotages Barack's chances in the election?

Edited May 30, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

Right - because that's what happened in 2004.

A lot has happened in 4 years.

Like what? What has Bush done since 2004 that's so bad?

Have you seen his approval ratings? There's way too much to list or explain in a post of what Bush and Co. has done or hasn't done, but as leader of the Republican Party the perception out there is that he's done a piss poor job and people want change. The Republican Party can't simply divorce itself from Dubbya....that's the reality of it.

[GaryC 7]

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

Right - because that's what happened in 2004.

A lot has happened in 4 years.

We can all relax I said! Steven has called the election! Lets just swear in Obama now.

[Dan J 277]

Ok...but in that case I meant I don't agree that it's fair.

How would you change that?

[chri'stina 190]

Ok...but in that case I meant I don't agree that it's fair.

How would you change that?

How would I change the tax system to make it more fair? I'm sure there are ways but I don't claim to be a tax expert. It just doesn't look fair to me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dog, that simply doesn't fly. Barack will win or lose on his own merits.

No candidate has ever won without a major party being united behind him. If Hillary sabotages him - and I've said for awhile now that she might just do that in order to secure her last hope run in 2012 - then he'd have a hard time making the finish line. He can win with the party behind him - quite easily to be honest. Without it, I don't see how he could. The only candidates that run on their own merits (without a large party apparatus behind them) are the types of Nader, Perot, Barr, etc.

What constitutes sabotage in your head then? If she did as Troll suggested and ran as an independant, would that be sabotage? (I don't see this as a very likely scenario, but I don't know enough about it to say it coudn't) Or, is sabotage her continuing to campaign until the nomination is actually finished as per Democratic party rules?

I am guessing the latter, but to me that says much, much more about the Democratic party than it does about Hillary. If they can't get themselves together after the convention then that's just sucks. Too bad.

However, my guess again is, that the voters who will make or break this election are not going to be Dem party members, in which case, how can it possibly be Hillary that sabotages Barack's chances in the election?

Sabotage is non-support of the nominee. Yes, it will be the independents that will swing the election. But as McCain will have the GOP as a voting base, Obama will need the Democrats. Not just a part of them but all of them. Just as Romney and Giuliani respected the results of the primary and throw their support behind McCain, just as Edwrds has thrown his support behind the nominee, Hillary needs to do the same once this thing wraps up next week. Anything less is sabotaging the Democratic Nominee and, by extension, the Democratis Party.

Ok...but in that case I meant I don't agree that it's fair.

How would you change that?

How would I change the tax system to make it more fair? I'm sure there are ways but I don't claim to be a tax expert. It just doesn't look fair to me.

Stina, it's the system those with wealth and power created. It's the system of the rich. They don't want a flat tax system. That would be fair but would be a disadvantage to what they have today.

[SaadBell 0]

i have noticed that's a popular theme amongst the food stamp crowd.

Discover the top 10 myths about Food Stamps

Myth #1 – Food stamps are welfare.

False: Food stamps help keep people off welfare . The Food Stamps Program is known in public policy as a “work support,” meaning it is used by people looking for a job, or employed but not making enough to make ends meet. Because food stamps allow these people to maintain their low-wage employment, food stamps actually help people get off and keep off the welfare rolls.

Myth #2 – The Food Stamps Program costs NYC taxpayers too much.

False: The Food Stamps Program is a federal program – all the benefits are paid for by the federal government. New York City only picks up a small part of the cost of administering the program, while the federal and state government picks up the rest.

Myth #3 – Ok, the Food Stamps Program costs American taxpayers too much.

False: The benefits of food stamps far outweigh their costs. Currently, paying for the Food Stamps Program takes about 1 cent of every federal budget dollar . In addition to lifting people out of poverty, the USDA has concluded that every dollar of emergency money spent on food stamps during a recession sparks $1.82 in local economic activity, leading to more jobs and productivity . As if that weren’t enough, food stamps help keep working families fed.

Myth #4 – Food stamps are easy to obtain.

False: Nationally, only 66 percent of people who are income-eligible for food stamps receive them . In New York City, roughly 700,000 people are eligible to receive food stamps but don’t, costing NYC businesses roughly $1 billion in lost sales. Studies conclude that the main reason eligible people don’t participate is the complex bureaucracy involved in applying, which is frustrating and humiliating .

Myth #5 – Most people who don’t receive food stamps simply don’t want help from the government.

False: National opinion surveys conducted by the USDA have found that just 17 percent of eligible but non-participating families don’t participate in the program because they don’t want the help. Most are either unaware they are eligible, or don’t want to go through the onerous process of applying .

Myth #6 – The Food Stamps Program is a wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy.

False: The Food Stamps Program has been praised by the Government Accountability Office and the current White House administration as a model of government efficiency. In 2002, the nationwide administration of the Food Stamps program amounted to only 11% of its program costs .

Myth #7 – The Food Stamps Program is rife with fraud and abuse.

False: Since the introduction of the EBT card system, fraud in the Food Stamps Program has reached an all-time low. Ninety-eight percent of food stamp benefits now go to households that are found eligible under very strict rules. At last count (2005), only 4.56 percent of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down more than a third from six years earlier . At the same time, 1.28 percent were found to be underpaid! Two thirds of all improper payments were found to be the fault of the caseworker, not the individual .

Myth #8 – Fingerprinting applicants prevents fraud and abuse.

False: There in no evidence that fingerprinting food stamps applicants reduces fraud. However, it does increase the cost of the program’s administration and is known to humiliate applicants, which is why only four states still have this regressive policy: California, Arizona, Texas and New York.

Myth #9 – Food stamps benefits go to illegal immigrants.

False: Illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive food stamps, and never have been; there are stringent processes to determine citizenship in the program. Legal immigrants are also not allowed to receive food stamps until they have been in the country for five years (with the exception of asylum cases and some other situations). Immigrants generally are far less likely than other groups to apply for food stamps, both because they fear jeopardizing their immigration status, and because the complex application process is doubly hard for those who do not speak English well.

Myth #10 – Food stamps cause obesity and unhealthy eating habits.

False: National studies of food stamps users have found that program participation has no significant effect, positive or negative, on the consumption of healthy foods. Several years of studies have produced no clear evidence that food stamps affect overeating or weight gain in either direction.

[Peikko 1,575]

Dog, that simply doesn't fly. Barack will win or lose on his own merits.

No candidate has ever won without a major party being united behind him. If Hillary sabotages him - and I've said for awhile now that she might just do that in order to secure her last hope run in 2012 - then he'd have a hard time making the finish line. He can win with the party behind him - quite easily to be honest. Without it, I don't see how he could. The only candidates that run on their own merits (without a large party apparatus behind them) are the types of Nader, Perot, Barr, etc.

What constitutes sabotage in your head then? If she did as Troll suggested and ran as an independant, would that be sabotage? (I don't see this as a very likely scenario, but I don't know enough about it to say it coudn't) Or, is sabotage her continuing to campaign until the nomination is actually finished as per Democratic party rules?

I am guessing the latter, but to me that says much, much more about the Democratic party than it does about Hillary. If they can't get themselves together after the convention then that's just sucks. Too bad.

However, my guess again is, that the voters who will make or break this election are not going to be Dem party members, in which case, how can it possibly be Hillary that sabotages Barack's chances in the election?

Sabotage is non-support of the nominee. Yes, it will be the independents that will swing the election. But as McCain will have the GOP as a voting base, Obama will need the Democrats. Not just a part of them but all of them. Just as Romney and Giuliani respected the results of the primary and throw their support behind McCain, just as Edwrds has thrown his support behind the nominee, Hillary needs to do the same once this thing wraps up next week. Anything less is sabotaging the Democratic Nominee and, by extension, the Democratis Party.

So, when does non support of the nominee start? I can't imagine her not supporting Barack if/when he finally becomes the nominee, and if she doesn't then yes, that would be incredibly 'cut off one's nose to spite one's facish' of her and I think it is probably fair to describe that as sabotage.

However, I will also say, it does say something about Barack that he wasn't able to sew this nomination up sooner. You can blame that on Hillary, or blame that on Barack or you can simply say that this is the result of puttinf forward two candidates who had mass appeal to the Democrats. Is that bad timing? Perhaps but it's hardly the fault of either candidate now is it?

Edited May 30, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

Right - because that's what happened in 2004.

A lot has happened in 4 years.

We can all relax I said! Steven has called the election! Lets just swear in Obama now.

The writings on the wall, Gary. I'm sorry that your boy Dubbya ended up a miserable failure of a President but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dog, that simply doesn't fly. Barack will win or lose on his own merits.

No candidate has ever won without a major party being united behind him. If Hillary sabotages him - and I've said for awhile now that she might just do that in order to secure her last hope run in 2012 - then he'd have a hard time making the finish line. He can win with the party behind him - quite easily to be honest. Without it, I don't see how he could. The only candidates that run on their own merits (without a large party apparatus behind them) are the types of Nader, Perot, Barr, etc.

What constitutes sabotage in your head then? If she did as Troll suggested and ran as an independant, would that be sabotage? (I don't see this as a very likely scenario, but I don't know enough about it to say it coudn't) Or, is sabotage her continuing to campaign until the nomination is actually finished as per Democratic party rules?

I am guessing the latter, but to me that says much, much more about the Democratic party than it does about Hillary. If they can't get themselves together after the convention then that's just sucks. Too bad.

However, my guess again is, that the voters who will make or break this election are not going to be Dem party members, in which case, how can it possibly be Hillary that sabotages Barack's chances in the election?

Sabotage is non-support of the nominee. Yes, it will be the independents that will swing the election. But as McCain will have the GOP as a voting base, Obama will need the Democrats. Not just a part of them but all of them. Just as Romney and Giuliani respected the results of the primary and throw their support behind McCain, just as Edwrds has thrown his support behind the nominee, Hillary needs to do the same once this thing wraps up next week. Anything less is sabotaging the Democratic Nominee and, by extension, the Democratis Party.

So, when does non support of the nominee start? I can't imagine her not supporting Barack if/when he finally becomes the nominee, and if she doesn't then yes, that would be incredibly 'cut off one's nose to spite one's facish' of her and I think it is probably fair to describe that as sabotage.

There will very likely be a nominee next week and there will most certainly be one at the end of June. More likely the former than the latter. Either way, once there is, Hillary needs to start supporting that nominee. I think she will but there's a bit of doubt left with me. I hope she erases that doubt quickly.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

catching up is hard to do when u've been gone for a wk. dang.

[GaryC 7]

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

Right - because that's what happened in 2004.

A lot has happened in 4 years.

We can all relax I said! Steven has called the election! Lets just swear in Obama now.

The writings on the wall, Gary. I'm sorry that your boy Dubbya ended up a miserable failure of a President but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Your also counting on McCain = Bush. That isn't the case. He is very different and people see that. Instead of running Obama on the issues (where he is losing on many counts) your just hoping the Bush's lack of popularity will somehow rub off on McCain. It shows the lack of depth of your candidate.