What you need to understand is that the majority of people, even in the hallowed upper income brackets, are broke. They are living from paycheck to paycheck. Many of those people who get a lot of income waded through a whole lot of debt to get to that point, either to pay for college or otherwise. These people take more money in, sure, but it sure as hell does not stay with them.
That's certainly true for many people. Whether or not it's the "majority" of people I would question.
I certainly know duel-income families making ~$200,000/year that are basically living paycheck to paycheck, and it's not because they are irresponsible with their money. But it is partly because they choose to spend their money in a certain way. They have nice houses (with large morgages) in nice neighborhoods, and nice cars (I'm talking about Camry's not Lexus'). They've got their kids in private schools (where the public schools aren't really up to par), and credit card debit (from "stuff," which could be annual vacations, clothes, eating out, etc.) They do have debt from school, and they are also trying to put something away for retirement and/or saving for their kid's college educations. None of that is extravagent and I don't criticize anyone in that kind of situation.
They sure aren't hurting though.
But no, the Democrats say, a person making 230,000 dollars a year steeped in debt is rich as hell, while a person who takes a year off from his job is destitute. And after watching 4 seasons of LOST, I can understand why: Democrats are the sexy party, and everyone loves sexy conmen. It's human nature.
No one I hear is saying that - except Republicans who are saying that Democrats are saying it - except the Democrats are not saying it.
To measure a person's wealth by how much money they take in in a given year is absurdity.
Not absurd. Not the be all and end all of personal wealth, but far from absurd. In fact, I think it's quite a good indicator most of the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
On another matter, my friend decided to look up the bills that McCain and Obama have been involved in. McCain has 38. Obama has 129.
That's just this past Congress, I'm sure you realize? The one that is currently under liberal domination? Your statistics are misleading at best, because of the nature of how Congress works.
For christsake... Debt and Deficit are completely different animals.
China owns alot of US Treasury Securties. Yes, that is a form of debt for the US government... but anyone can buy these things. In fact, they are probably the most trusted type of bond in the world.
It isn't as sinister or as disastrous as you make it out to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
For christsake... Debt and Deficit are completely different animals.
China owns alot of US Treasury Securties. Yes, that is a form of debt for the US government... but anyone can buy these things. In fact, they are probably the most trusted type of bond in the world.
It isn't as sinister or as disastrous as you make it out to be.
Problem is that interest on our debt is currently 9% of our national budget, and I consider that pretty sinister =/
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
That's just this past Congress, I'm sure you realize? The one that is currently under liberal domination? Your statistics are misleading at best, because of the nature of how Congress works.
Well, I could have shown all the bills Obama wrote that will never see the light of day because they were reported to committee...but that would be misleading.
Other congresses in the search show Obama being involved in more bills. Here is the link for that, I am watching Mccain's speech.
Props for his responding to that protestor. I wonder what her(?) sign said.
To the bottom poster: especially when the '51st Democratic Senator' is Joe Lieberman...
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
Well, I missed the first part of McCain's speech. But the part I did hear kicked the **** out of Palin's speech. She was snarky, whereas he was extremely genuine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
I'd say McCain just hit a Grand Slam with that speech, right after Sarah hit one.
I'd go as far as saying it was as good, if not better, than Sarah's.
Not at all, to me =/ Sarah came off as more personable and energetic - McCain said what needed to be said, but I'd have liked a little bit of his good ol' self shining through. I hope he DOES elaborate on the issues a bit more in the first debate - that will stick a potato in the dem's tailpipe
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
Not at all, to me =/ Sarah came off as more personable and energetic - McCain said what needed to be said, but I'd have liked a little bit of his good ol' self shining through. I hope he DOES elaborate on the issues a bit more in the first debate - that will stick a potato in the dem's tailpipe
Yeah.
In other news, I now support McCain. It wasn't the speech though. It was some careful, careful reading:
Not at all, to me =/ Sarah came off as more personable and energetic - McCain said what needed to be said, but I'd have liked a little bit of his good ol' self shining through. I hope he DOES elaborate on the issues a bit more in the first debate - that will stick a potato in the dem's tailpipe
What I liked about Mccain's speech, compared to Sarah's, was the emotional appeal. I literally had to dry my eyes when it was over, so I suppose my emotions are a driving force behind it.
Don't get me wrong, Sarah's speech was a Grand Slam too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
I am not able to watch it however. i will have to catch the transcript. I am hoping that mccain really breaks out on the issues tonight. Some of the issues such as energy and tax policies and other things were addressed yes.
however mccain needs to really address issues with the economy with iraq and other things that the voters are looking for. if he can then it will really bump him in the polls.
the only other time to do that is in the debates.
What i want to understand is exactly what change obama is talking about. It seems to me he wants to change things back to the 70's. I know people that lived during that time. they hated it. they depised it. some would rather die than go back. i know dem's and rep's alike that just cringe when the 70's are mentioned.
Obama still has yet to expalin who is going to pay for his 800+ billion dollar budget on top of that pay for his universal healthcare. they are not going to be taxed together it is going to be separate.
Obama is fiscally irresponsible. look at his 730 million dollars in earmarks. how is that change? that isn't change. that is the same crap they have been doing in washington for years.
I do hope that most people here realize that most of the people that make over 250K a year are small business owners. That you are talking about dramatically increasing their taxes when it is small business owners that are the number one employeer for the country right now.
as for socail programs if they are used correctly then they work however someone mentioned about feeling sorry for them and helping them out.
yes we should help them out to a certain extinct. however if i choose to help someone it should be up to me i should not be forced by the government. I work to clothe and feed my family what i have left over if anything i can give.
as someone mentioned better education is how you fight poverty. not free hand outs. no one gets ahead by free hand outs. all you do is create slaves to a miserable quagmire of rot and death. if you think poor people are happy living like that they are not. however in the system we have as soon as they try to get ahead it slaps them back down.
people that have jobs trying to get out quit because the government cuts their help back so much they have to fully go back on the system. that is not freedom or the american dream. that is enslavement.
we push our kids and ourselves to be as successful as possible. we tell our kids work hard get good grades study be the best you can be.
Then you have someone like obama come along and say well because you are successfull you have to pay more. am i the only one that see's the logical fallacy in that? Someone else isn't as successful as you so we have to punish you steal what you work for and give it to someone else. that makes sense.
That is telling the straight A student she gets a C because it isn't fair to the other kids who didn't get A's. it is logically insane.
Meh, I guess...but seriously LFR, he's been doing it for years and it's been alright. So I think it's not going to make a big impact...or even a small one.
so now you'll I'll try to prove me wrong. Go for it. But I suggest you all read the Wall Street Journal article, which, IMO, is the most worthwile.
EDIT: Obviously I don't agree with everything said in the above articles. But I do agree with enough of it.
Can you tell me what in here was particularly enlightening? These are a lot of heavy and obvious biased articles. WSJ is especially biased, the article basically said McCain has some magical tax plan, only they neglect to say its just the Bush plan++.
Can you tell me what in here was particularly enlightening? These are a lot of heavy and obvious biased articles. WSJ is especially biased, the article basically said McCain has some magical tax plan, only they neglect to say its just the Bush plan++.
Basically the main criticism of the McCain tax plan is that it doesn't cut taxes for most people. Well ****, I didn't even know that these credits exist, which in effect massively cuts taxes for most middle class people, while forcing health care companies to compete with each other.
You apparently didn't read the article too much, because the plan is not 'some magical tax plan', it's just a well thought out and well explained one that actually makes sense. Can you point out the actual facts in that article that are BS?
Obviously the articles are biased. What you have to do when reading an opinion article is just keep in mind that it's biased, and then you should be ok. I did that, and I still came away with enough information to support McCain.
Obama is fiscally irresponsible. look at his 730 million dollars in earmarks. how is that change? that isn't change. that is the same crap they have been doing in washington for years.
And Palin never dealt with earmarks? She is fiscally irresponsible because she overspent as mayor and left her town in debt when she left office, even after millions in earmarks.
Also, this link is a good breakdown of the GOP claims from yesterday:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Fair enough, but that doesn't undermine my point that ALL of these programs are deprecated and need to be eliminated or torn down and built from the ground up in order to free up a massive amount of wasted money.
I don't disagree. I'm just sick and tired of people blaming one party for things both parties are responsible for (and yes that goes both ways).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I wasn't sure whether to cheer or stick a fork in my eye and manually extract my eyeball tonight. Both would be equally difficult to pull off. It probably wasn't as bad as watching Obama, but that's like saying getting shot isn't as bad as getting run over by a tractor.
Last week I heard Sean Hannity sneer about the god-like worship accorded to Obama by a crowd of mindless zombies. For once Mr. Hannity and I are agreed, but he should be reminded: that cuts both ways.
If I have to endure one more moment of old, tired, vomit-worthy saccharine nonsense about the glorious fight against the tactic of terrorism or the courage of "our boys" in blue, or the miracles of monopolized socialist health insurance, one more moment of McCain's terrific tales of torture or the skin color of Obama X... I won't really have any other method of recourse than posting this all over again. Sure wish I did.
Well I'm going to start off with the fact that I'm a liberal and I will be voting for Obama this upcoming election, now that I got that out of the way,
PALIN?!?! what's in heaven's name was McCain thinking? When I first saw her my mind said, "omg that's that Christine chick on Seinfield..." I don't know her in person but at first-glance, I'd say she's good looking for a politician (idc what you guys think, take a look at the other women governers/reps/senators...) I'll give her that. So the first thing I hear her say is on a dead topic, the bridge to nowhere, ok great tell everyone in America you didn't decide to waste billions on a pointless bridge for nothing (maybe saftey if that). So she can draw an appaulse from a 'political joke' you might have heard on Seinfield... So what did she do with all that money the Federal government gave Alaska? Why put it in her pocket I'd guess? Our tax payers money just disappears nowadays.. Hey does she's have a daughter? Is she single? Cuz I'd be interested! O wait yes, she does have a daughter! I'm not sure if she's single, but she's pregnant?!?! I mean with all the money she has avaliable to her she still couldn't hide the fact that her own daughter! had gone against what the whole Republican party has such strong emotions and feelings about, pro-life and the practice of abstanance! Why is it important to practice abstanance and be pro-life? Well if I had a guess, it'd be something to do with the fact of SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE... I mean what if all the 17 year old girls of our nation were pregnant? I sure as heck wouldn't be dating on a daily basis AND it would result in some other complications I would imagine... enough about her daughter...
So she can talk the talk? She talks about stories, stories of her son going off to war (she tries to make this sound like an honor, what's so honorable about sending your child off into Iraq were he/she could possibily die?) stories about her parents, but I haven't hear too much of about what she herself has done...
I mean she even tried quoting the flavor text of a new magic card coming out,
she said, "ya know they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull, lipstick"...i know, she didn't even get the 'wolly thoctar' part right... heh Woolly Thoctar
:symr::symg::symw:Creature - BeastThe only difference between a hockey mom and a Woolly Thoctar is lipstick.#209/2495/4Woolly Thoctar
:symr::symg::symw:Creature - BeastThe only difference between a hockey mom and a Woolly Thoctar is lipstick.#209/2495/4
So I could go on for awhile about other stupid things she raves on about or things she's done like selling the camerical airliner on ebay well not exactly...and she has 5 kids? I didn't get their names with 100% carity but I heard, Treck bristol willow piper and Trig, I can't say much about the boys names but the girls for me at least, went from a beautiful image of a bristol pine, to a weeping willow, to a man smoking a cancer stick (a piper)... I just get the shivers thinking about having a lady like her 2nd in line to being the all powerful president of the United States...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks:
Extended - Gifts Rock
Legacy - UGRW Stax // SI
Basically the main criticism of the McCain tax plan is that it doesn't cut taxes for most people.
What? You saw that graph earlier right? The problem with McCain's plan is that he lowers taxes a LOT on the wealthy, but he was always known for cutting taxes. The problem is this puts us into an even greater deficit.
Well ****, I didn't even know that these credits exist, which in effect massively cuts taxes for most middle class people, while forcing health care companies to compete with each other.
You apparently didn't read the article too much, because the plan is not 'some magical tax plan', it's just a well thought out and well explained one that actually makes sense. Can you point out the actual facts in that article that are BS?
Obviously the articles are biased. What you have to do when reading an opinion article is just keep in mind that it's biased, and then you should be ok. I did that, and I still came away with enough information to support McCain.
I just re-read the article and my impression was still: wealth redistribution is bad, McCain will take Bush's tax policies, renew them, and then reduce them even more. It makes sense if you are a believer in trickle-down economics. I am not, and I think a simple look at history shows why.
I will however admit that I am sure there are other on this board that are more versed in economics then I am. I am more a liberal for the social issues then the fiscal ones.
But is he short on money? Even close to short on money? Is he in a huge debt?
I just can't see a situation like Highroller described being so prevalent to be worth consideration.
Also, funny that you post this so soon after your new thread.
To be honest, I have no idea, but I would expect him to have student loans to pay off. Columbia's not cheap, last I heard.
And yes, that did occur to me. I assure you, I'm not embellishing any part of the story here
in contrast i show you current history of how trickle up fails. (morgage crisis anyone) (loaning money to people that can't afford it to begin with?)
(loaning money to people with bad credit?)
yep we see how well that works banks forclosing all over the place.
however i will point to the 1980's and point to 2003-2007
yep urza saw that in someone else brought up that article and it was debunked as well.
so you are comparing 24 million that she used to actually benefit her town. Compared to 730 million that went to special interests, campaign donors, his wifes hospital and 10 million went to study soybean disease. and who knows where the rest of it went to. yea he did that in 3 years. there is no comparison.
ok sure whatever. if you want to knock one for it you better knock the other one. however given your view on obama i doubt that will ever happen.
wealth distribution is bad. not sure how you can morally say that steal is legal. More money for my company is a good thing. the better they do the more i get paid. the more oppertunity i have. this is the same all over.
they can afford to hire other people to fill in positions. the less money my company has the less money i get paid. the less oppertunity i have.
people that believe in wealth redistribution need to take their own money they work for and just give it to someone else who has less than them. we are talking 30-40% of what you make not 5 or 10 bucks. maybe when you get sick of giving your money to someone else that didn't work for it you will see why it is bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's certainly true for many people. Whether or not it's the "majority" of people I would question.
I certainly know duel-income families making ~$200,000/year that are basically living paycheck to paycheck, and it's not because they are irresponsible with their money. But it is partly because they choose to spend their money in a certain way. They have nice houses (with large morgages) in nice neighborhoods, and nice cars (I'm talking about Camry's not Lexus'). They've got their kids in private schools (where the public schools aren't really up to par), and credit card debit (from "stuff," which could be annual vacations, clothes, eating out, etc.) They do have debt from school, and they are also trying to put something away for retirement and/or saving for their kid's college educations. None of that is extravagent and I don't criticize anyone in that kind of situation.
They sure aren't hurting though.
No one I hear is saying that - except Republicans who are saying that Democrats are saying it - except the Democrats are not saying it.
Not absurd. Not the be all and end all of personal wealth, but far from absurd. In fact, I think it's quite a good indicator most of the time.
That's just this past Congress, I'm sure you realize? The one that is currently under liberal domination? Your statistics are misleading at best, because of the nature of how Congress works.
Edit:
The majority of our debt is owed to American citizens. The large majority.
EDH:
UBGThe MimeoplasmUBG
China owns alot of US Treasury Securties. Yes, that is a form of debt for the US government... but anyone can buy these things. In fact, they are probably the most trusted type of bond in the world.
It isn't as sinister or as disastrous as you make it out to be.
Problem is that interest on our debt is currently 9% of our national budget, and I consider that pretty sinister =/
Well, I could have shown all the bills Obama wrote that will never see the light of day because they were reported to committee...but that would be misleading.
Other congresses in the search show Obama being involved in more bills. Here is the link for that, I am watching Mccain's speech.
Props for his responding to that protestor. I wonder what her(?) sign said.
To the bottom poster: especially when the '51st Democratic Senator' is Joe Lieberman...
Twitter
The senate is currently split 49/49. I'd hardly call that "liberal domination".
EDIT: OMFG, YES! THEYRE PLAYING BARRACUDA!!!!!!
I'd go as far as saying it was as good, if not better, than Sarah's.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
Not at all, to me =/ Sarah came off as more personable and energetic - McCain said what needed to be said, but I'd have liked a little bit of his good ol' self shining through. I hope he DOES elaborate on the issues a bit more in the first debate - that will stick a potato in the dem's tailpipe
Yeah.
In other news, I now support McCain. It wasn't the speech though. It was some careful, careful reading:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/johnnys_got_a_new_girl.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122031215585888783.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/mccains-test-against-anti-immigration-right
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/347724
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/judgment_under_fire.html
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/451zywin.asp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_palin_feeding_frenzy.html
so now you'll I'll try to prove me wrong. Go for it. But I suggest you all read the Wall Street Journal article, which, IMO, is the most worthwile.
EDIT: Obviously I don't agree with everything said in the above articles. But I do agree with enough of it.
What I liked about Mccain's speech, compared to Sarah's, was the emotional appeal. I literally had to dry my eyes when it was over, so I suppose my emotions are a driving force behind it.
Don't get me wrong, Sarah's speech was a Grand Slam too.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
however mccain needs to really address issues with the economy with iraq and other things that the voters are looking for. if he can then it will really bump him in the polls.
the only other time to do that is in the debates.
What i want to understand is exactly what change obama is talking about. It seems to me he wants to change things back to the 70's. I know people that lived during that time. they hated it. they depised it. some would rather die than go back. i know dem's and rep's alike that just cringe when the 70's are mentioned.
Obama still has yet to expalin who is going to pay for his 800+ billion dollar budget on top of that pay for his universal healthcare. they are not going to be taxed together it is going to be separate.
Obama is fiscally irresponsible. look at his 730 million dollars in earmarks. how is that change? that isn't change. that is the same crap they have been doing in washington for years.
I do hope that most people here realize that most of the people that make over 250K a year are small business owners. That you are talking about dramatically increasing their taxes when it is small business owners that are the number one employeer for the country right now.
as for socail programs if they are used correctly then they work however someone mentioned about feeling sorry for them and helping them out.
yes we should help them out to a certain extinct. however if i choose to help someone it should be up to me i should not be forced by the government. I work to clothe and feed my family what i have left over if anything i can give.
as someone mentioned better education is how you fight poverty. not free hand outs. no one gets ahead by free hand outs. all you do is create slaves to a miserable quagmire of rot and death. if you think poor people are happy living like that they are not. however in the system we have as soon as they try to get ahead it slaps them back down.
people that have jobs trying to get out quit because the government cuts their help back so much they have to fully go back on the system. that is not freedom or the american dream. that is enslavement.
we push our kids and ourselves to be as successful as possible. we tell our kids work hard get good grades study be the best you can be.
Then you have someone like obama come along and say well because you are successfull you have to pay more. am i the only one that see's the logical fallacy in that? Someone else isn't as successful as you so we have to punish you steal what you work for and give it to someone else. that makes sense.
That is telling the straight A student she gets a C because it isn't fair to the other kids who didn't get A's. it is logically insane.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Meh, I guess...but seriously LFR, he's been doing it for years and it's been alright. So I think it's not going to make a big impact...or even a small one.
Can you tell me what in here was particularly enlightening? These are a lot of heavy and obvious biased articles. WSJ is especially biased, the article basically said McCain has some magical tax plan, only they neglect to say its just the Bush plan++.
- Enslaught
Basically the main criticism of the McCain tax plan is that it doesn't cut taxes for most people. Well ****, I didn't even know that these credits exist, which in effect massively cuts taxes for most middle class people, while forcing health care companies to compete with each other.
You apparently didn't read the article too much, because the plan is not 'some magical tax plan', it's just a well thought out and well explained one that actually makes sense. Can you point out the actual facts in that article that are BS?
Obviously the articles are biased. What you have to do when reading an opinion article is just keep in mind that it's biased, and then you should be ok. I did that, and I still came away with enough information to support McCain.
And Palin never dealt with earmarks? She is fiscally irresponsible because she overspent as mayor and left her town in debt when she left office, even after millions in earmarks.
Also, this link is a good breakdown of the GOP claims from yesterday:
Twitter
It is reckless... but not bad enough to be considered... evil.
The problem I see is that some people think this huge trade deficit is a bad thing.
Otherwise, I am still undecided for this November.
I don't disagree. I'm just sick and tired of people blaming one party for things both parties are responsible for (and yes that goes both ways).
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Last week I heard Sean Hannity sneer about the god-like worship accorded to Obama by a crowd of mindless zombies. For once Mr. Hannity and I are agreed, but he should be reminded: that cuts both ways.
If I have to endure one more moment of old, tired, vomit-worthy saccharine nonsense about the glorious fight against the tactic of terrorism or the courage of "our boys" in blue, or the miracles of monopolized socialist health insurance, one more moment of McCain's terrific tales of torture or the skin color of Obama X... I won't really have any other method of recourse than posting this all over again. Sure wish I did.
PALIN?!?! what's in heaven's name was McCain thinking? When I first saw her my mind said, "omg that's that Christine chick on Seinfield..." I don't know her in person but at first-glance, I'd say she's good looking for a politician (idc what you guys think, take a look at the other women governers/reps/senators...) I'll give her that. So the first thing I hear her say is on a dead topic, the bridge to nowhere, ok great tell everyone in America you didn't decide to waste billions on a pointless bridge for nothing (maybe saftey if that). So she can draw an appaulse from a 'political joke' you might have heard on Seinfield... So what did she do with all that money the Federal government gave Alaska? Why put it in her pocket I'd guess? Our tax payers money just disappears nowadays.. Hey does she's have a daughter? Is she single? Cuz I'd be interested! O wait yes, she does have a daughter! I'm not sure if she's single, but she's pregnant?!?! I mean with all the money she has avaliable to her she still couldn't hide the fact that her own daughter! had gone against what the whole Republican party has such strong emotions and feelings about, pro-life and the practice of abstanance! Why is it important to practice abstanance and be pro-life? Well if I had a guess, it'd be something to do with the fact of SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE... I mean what if all the 17 year old girls of our nation were pregnant? I sure as heck wouldn't be dating on a daily basis AND it would result in some other complications I would imagine... enough about her daughter...
So she can talk the talk? She talks about stories, stories of her son going off to war (she tries to make this sound like an honor, what's so honorable about sending your child off into Iraq were he/she could possibily die?) stories about her parents, but I haven't hear too much of about what she herself has done...
I mean she even tried quoting the flavor text of a new magic card coming out,
she said, "ya know they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull, lipstick"...i know, she didn't even get the 'wolly thoctar' part right... heh
Woolly Thoctar
:symr::symg::symw:Creature - Beast
:symr::symg::symw:Creature - Beast
So I could go on for awhile about other stupid things she raves on about or things she's done like selling the camerical airliner on ebay well not exactly...and she has 5 kids? I didn't get their names with 100% carity but I heard, Treck bristol willow piper and Trig, I can't say much about the boys names but the girls for me at least, went from a beautiful image of a bristol pine, to a weeping willow, to a man smoking a cancer stick (a piper)... I just get the shivers thinking about having a lady like her 2nd in line to being the all powerful president of the United States...
Extended - Gifts Rock
Legacy - UGRW Stax // SI
What? You saw that graph earlier right? The problem with McCain's plan is that he lowers taxes a LOT on the wealthy, but he was always known for cutting taxes. The problem is this puts us into an even greater deficit.
I just re-read the article and my impression was still: wealth redistribution is bad, McCain will take Bush's tax policies, renew them, and then reduce them even more. It makes sense if you are a believer in trickle-down economics. I am not, and I think a simple look at history shows why.
I will however admit that I am sure there are other on this board that are more versed in economics then I am. I am more a liberal for the social issues then the fiscal ones.
- Enslaught
To be honest, I have no idea, but I would expect him to have student loans to pay off. Columbia's not cheap, last I heard.
And yes, that did occur to me. I assure you, I'm not embellishing any part of the story here
(loaning money to people with bad credit?)
yep we see how well that works banks forclosing all over the place.
however i will point to the 1980's and point to 2003-2007
yep urza saw that in someone else brought up that article and it was debunked as well.
so you are comparing 24 million that she used to actually benefit her town. Compared to 730 million that went to special interests, campaign donors, his wifes hospital and 10 million went to study soybean disease. and who knows where the rest of it went to. yea he did that in 3 years. there is no comparison.
ok sure whatever. if you want to knock one for it you better knock the other one. however given your view on obama i doubt that will ever happen.
wealth distribution is bad. not sure how you can morally say that steal is legal. More money for my company is a good thing. the better they do the more i get paid. the more oppertunity i have. this is the same all over.
they can afford to hire other people to fill in positions. the less money my company has the less money i get paid. the less oppertunity i have.
people that believe in wealth redistribution need to take their own money they work for and just give it to someone else who has less than them. we are talking 30-40% of what you make not 5 or 10 bucks. maybe when you get sick of giving your money to someone else that didn't work for it you will see why it is bad.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum