Clamoring for change?? [Archive]

ki4kxq

08-28-2008, 06:33 AM

You would think with the constant barrage from the democrats saying that Americans are clamoring for change, and with the "excitement" of the democratic convention this week, that Barack Obama would be way ahead of John McCain. Not so fast, the Gallop Poll now shows that McCain is 2 points ahead of Obama. You would think with the news media constantly telling us how bad things have been under GW, that Obama would be double digits ahead of McCain, but no, he is struggling. How can that be? If you have listened to the speakers at this convention, it is easy to understand.

They can't understand why Obama is not leading among women. Well, 2 out of 3 small businesses are started by women. With these people talking about making businesses pay a minimum wage of $9.50 an hour for a job that is worth $5 an hour and raising taxes and health care costs for those small businesses, it's no mystery. With people calling for the government to pay for everything from retirement, to health care, to bailing people out of there own financial messes, no wonder there has not been the traditional bounce.

This election, for all the rhetoric of how messed up our economy is, how bad we look to the rest of the world, what a buffoon GW is and McCain is just more of the same, it should have been a runaway for Nobama. Now it is looking as though unless McCain just does something completely stupid, he may be the next president.

Only time will tell, but the fact that Obama is struggling this hard when NBC is running favorable news stories about him at a rate of 10 to 1, (positive to negative) it doesn't bode well for the democrats. If you're looking for someone to blame for this, look to Pelosi and Reid. They really pissed off the average folks when they left for vacation without addressing oil drilling and other programs while oil was spiking up in price.

It's gonna be an interesting 2 months!!

naturalmanwa

08-28-2008, 06:59 AM

I agree it will be interesting the next couple of months. The CBS news last nite had an article about why Obama was behind in the polls---one reason had to do with race. Seems many people don't want a black president. Hell of a note. I thought the person's qualifications had to do with it instead of their race or sex.

ki4kxq

08-28-2008, 07:12 AM

I have already voted for a black man for president in 2000. When the Texas primary rolled around, it was McCain, Bush, and Alan Keyes. I would much rather have had Keyes as the president these last 8 years. He is a true conservative and constitutionalist. Very knowledgeable in world affairs.

One reason I'm sure will be race. For some it is not about the ideology but the color of the skin. That is sad, but true I would say in any country. If you are up for President, Senator, Congressman, Supreme Court justice, I don't care if you are polka dotted as long as I agree with your views.

Unfortunately for Obama, it's not his race that is his major drawback, but his far left voting record and views. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. His views are socialist and that still does not resonate with most middle class Americans. Also, for someone that proclaims he is for freedom, he is trying to get the Justice Dept to shut down a wealthy Texan who is paying for anti Obama ads. What about free speech? You don't see the republicans trying to silence George Soros.

These are the kinds of things that are holding Obama back.

Boreas

08-28-2008, 07:26 AM

This is a good question. Of course, the only polls that count are the elections themselves, so anything now is just speculation. I am not up on the details of what is going on down there. I do have a couple of comments.

I cannot believe that anyone would only be paid $5 per hour, and that someone would consider this an adequate wage. How do you determine that someone should be paid such a low wage? Is it even possible for someone to live on that? Walmart pays very low wages. They are also responsible for a ton of money (don't know the details at this point) being spent on welfare, since its employees must use social assistance to "top up" their salaries in order to even live. I know that $10 per hour is a poverty wage here. Perhaps your cost of living is much less than ours.

There is no such thing as a "far left" politician in the US. I find it hilarious that anyone would think there is. We can do far better up here! :sneaky:

George Bush is generally not well respected around here. He frankly looks like a buffoon and a bully on several levels. I think your country can do far better with a next leader. It is too bad really. He could have really done well by responding better to some of the calamaties your country has faced during his term. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina to name a couple. Instead, he increased the polarization and fear.

It will be interesting to see where this thread goes.

ki4kxq

08-28-2008, 07:44 AM

The work, should determine what is paid. Sorry, but sacking groceries is not a $10 an hour job. The misconception is that a minimum wage job is something to live and support a family on. These jobs are not meant to support a family.

The government cannot set a minimum wage without doing more damage than good. Here's the deal, if I as an employer have a set amount that my business can afford for payroll. Those dollars and the skill level required to do the job will determine what that job is worth to me. Let's say the minimum wage is $7 an hour. With my budget, I can employee three people. Now let's assume that the government in it's quest to help people, tells me I must pay $10 an hour. Where do I get that money? Do I raise my prices? The market may not bear that out and shoppers will go elsewhere. I still only have the same payroll amount to work with. Here's what I will be forced to do. Instead of the 3 people I have working for me now, I will more than likely have to let one go. Now instead of 3 people working at a starting out job or part time to help the family budget, which is what a minimum wage job is supposed to be, one will be hitting the unemployment line. The free market decides what a job is worth. If you have no skills, you will not make very much money.

Plus, a national minimum wage is ridiculous anyway. The cost of living is way lower in Mississippi than Washington state. This is what conservatives are talking about when they say that government hurts more people than it helps with it's contrived programs. You can tell me what to pay, but that doesn't mean I can do it. Goodbye jobs.

Republicans are wanting to drill for more oil. These are awesome paying jobs that you can start out with no previous experience. You would think if the democrats were worried about wages, and the high cost of oil, this would be something that would kill 2 birds with one stone. Nope, they don't want to drill for more oil, even though with the new technology, it is very environmentally friendly and quick to market.

NudeTopher

08-28-2008, 08:11 AM

... I would much rather have had Keyes as the president these last 8 years. He is a true conservative ....

Oh yes, we all remember Keyes. He is such a staunch supporter of family values he disowned his own daughter, and cut off all communication with her, when she came out as a lesbian during his campaign. That probably gave him a standing ovation from his friends at Focus On The Family.

NudeTopher

08-28-2008, 08:20 AM

I cannot believe that anyone would only be paid $5 per hour, and that someone would consider this an adequate wage. How do you determine that someone should be paid such a low wage? Is it even possible for someone to live on that? Walmart pays very low wages. They are also responsible for a ton of money (don't know the details at this point) being spent on welfare, since its employees must use social assistance to "top up" their salaries in order to even live. I know that $10 per hour is a poverty wage here. Perhaps your cost of living is much less than ours.

Exactly! But, the OP states that these jobs aren't meant to support a family. They are just for supplemental income. Imagine a 35 hour/week job just to supplement a family's income.

There is no such thing as a "far left" politician in the US. I find it hilarious that anyone would think there is. We can do far better up here! :sneaky:

It's been said that there isn't a politician in national office now who is "as left" as that ever so loveable ex President Richard Nixon.(R).

ki4kxq

08-28-2008, 08:32 AM

NudeAl

08-28-2008, 09:07 AM

Yes, it is interesting to me why he isn't ahead in the poles.

I have been back and forth over the candidates. I liked Mcain back on 04 when he was a maverick now he is nothing more than a party man. As a serviceman who has served this country for many years and several combat tours I appreciate his service in uniform. I don't think he has done everything he can for the vets though he was not in favor of the new GI bill he has not really impressed me with his support of new veterans legislation, I think Obama has a far better track record in that regard. More importantly I think the times call for a man who can think outside the box and not get caught up in the same old business as usual routine.

I feel we are on the verge of an economic collapse the like of which we have not seen since the 1930s. If memory serves the whole world was and most of western Europe fell victim of right wing totalitarian dictatorships. Now I am not accusing any one of either party of that. I do think however that it very well could have happened to this country as well had it not been for the likes of FDR. Say what you will about the man he developed social safety nets that have served this country well for over 70 years and most of them have been under attack for the last 8 years. Not very many people alive today remember that prior to his New Deal policies there were no social safety networks. That was fine when times were good however when unemployment and financial ruin were rampant we were a society on the verge of collapse and we could very well have had a second revolution here in this country. As the economic situation here gets worse, and it will, we will see more and more social unrest. Good people will turn to any means to support their families both lawful and unlawful. The disparity between rich and poor in the US has not been this great since before The Great Depression. The similarities are all there we just seem to be sliding more slowly this time, perhaps thanks in part due to some of the market safeguards that were put in place as a precaution.

I have many reservations about Obama. I am a gun owner and I do not think he has a very good record in supporting gun owners rights, but he has addressed this. McCain also has a fairly poor track record if you were to ask the NRA so that seems to cancel each other out, no gain no loss. Obama may be a bit of a socialist but with the economic situation that the country is facing I think we mid to lower income Americans can use a little help. I know no one in the white house in the last 8 years has been working very hard to help resolve the issues that face us. I feel he at least will try to right some of the wrongs that have been going on. What with so many of our good paying jobs being exported overseas and then the wealthy who own and control these corporate entities putting their money in off shore banks in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland is it any wonder average Americans are getting fed up with being shafted?

If we elect McCain we can expect the same treatment, after all if you have no idea how many homes you own it is not hard to see which economic bracket you are in. Now you may counter that Obama is not in the middle class and you would be right but he came from middle class roots and he seems to have not forgotten where he came from. I think there must be some sort of reason more people cannot see who is looking out for their interests. I guess one of the big things not being addressed is his race and some misinformation regarding his religion. There are still some out there who perpetuate the notion he is a Muslim not that there is anything wrong with Muslims however that can make a difference in some peoples minds.

Only time will tell but I feel he is the best hope we have for a better future.

NudeTopher

08-28-2008, 09:11 AM

NudeTopher, I don't know what the dynamics were in that family, and neither do you. It seems to me that they were probably not all that great. When the child of someone who does not agree with homosexuality, decides to come out during his bid for President, they are doing so to start a family fight. I'm not saying what he did was right, but there are obviously things there on both sides. I also don't know what the track record for his or her behavior toward each other was before the incident, so I don't know who's at fault there.

I stated that minimum wage jobs were not only to supplement income, but as starter jobs. Jobs meant to give someone a little more experience, savings, etc to move on to something that pays more and has more benefits. Again, minimum wage jobs are not meant to support a family.

1. When you hold someone up as a wonderful Conservative, and it's the Conservatives that wave the banner of "family values" it's perfectly permissible to show their hypocrisy.

2. I don't know what kind of business you run. But, we run a small business (under 100 employees). About 30 of our employees are union, a few are hourly, and the rest are in sales or management. I can tell you without any doubt that we have NEVER paid minimum wage. We believe that we have a responsibility to provide liviing wages (to both part-time and full-time) employees. We also know that if we only offered minimum wage we would never get the type of employee that we desire. And that is for everything from telephone receptionists on up the food chain at our dealership.

Any business that is looking to pay minimum wage, or less, is looking to exploit the employees! You provided an example of setting a budget of $x and that can be divided among two or three employees based upon the minimum wage. My experiece is quite difference.

We have been in business now for three generations. We hire employees based upon needing someone to fill a need. If we need another car detailer because business is good and another salesperson it's because business is good or our wanting to provide a better product. Competition determines our wanting to put out a better product.

If the difference between minimum wage and want you want to pay an employee is say $2.00/hour and that employee works a 40 hour work week that means that your business can't afford an expense of $80/week. The actual amount is probably a lot less since I'm sure you don't really think you would pay that much under minimum wage. But, the end result is - if a business can't afford an expense of under $100/week I truly question if that business should remain in business.!

Qikdraw

08-28-2008, 10:37 AM

The work, should determine what is paid. Sorry, but sacking groceries is not a $10 an hour job. The misconception is that a minimum wage job is something to live and support a family on. These jobs are not meant to support a family.

Its too bad that most of the times these are the jobs that are available. I agree minimum wage is not good enough to raise a family on, which is why a lot of parents have 2 or 3 jobs. When manufacturing started heading overseas, we were told that we would be a technological nation, we would lead the world in computer technology and service, now those jobs have been sent overseas, and now we are a service economy. This is the largest growing sector of American jobs, 'service'. Minimum wage jobs. This is what our government has given us. And its both sides, not just republicans or just democrats, its both. Which is why when Obama says he will cut tax breaks for companies that outsource, this is a good start to bringing jobs back to America.

I'm not concerned about the polls, this is still early and people are just paying attention to what is going on. I'll start paying attention to polls after debates, as that is where both sides see both candidates the best, and without political pundidtry to get in the way.

usmc1

08-28-2008, 11:17 AM

Boreas

08-28-2008, 06:22 PM

I stated that minimum wage jobs were not only to supplement income, but as starter jobs. Jobs meant to give someone a little more experience, savings, etc to move on to something that pays more and has more benefits. Again, minimum wage jobs are not meant to support a family.

I am tired and cranky, so I will keep it short. Many people are forced to work at those "starter jobs" because the real jobs have been axed. Due to the neoliberal movement, aka neoconservative (which does NOT reflect true conservative values), we now have seen globalization and the outsourcing of valuable jobs. They value profits so much that they see wages as a cost instead of an asset. Yes, I know wages cost. A smart employer will pay a living wage and will help make sure the work environment is decent. A smart employer will not need to axe the pay to stupidly low levels so that s/he can make a profit at the expense of the little guy. A smart employer does not need a minimum wage because s/he pays decently anyway.

I personally prefer to shop at places that pay decent wages (not absurdly high ones for the record) and I will pay a little more to support them. It is for that reason I do not shop at Walmart. Sam Walton is one of the orchestrators of stupidly low wages.

Anything resembling "allowing the market to decide" is garbage in your example.

Boreas

08-28-2008, 06:30 PM

Wow, there have been some good posts in response to the low wages comments. :applause: Right on! NudeAl, thank you for reminding everyone about what extreme right-wing ideology did in the past. They say that the Great Depression demonstrates the value of worshipping at the altar of "The Free Market" and exactly how things work out when you allow the free market to determine things.

Has the market every been truly free anyway???? :confused:

OZJames

08-28-2008, 07:10 PM

As an Australian, I probably shouldn't meddle in American politics - but I will because the USA has taken on the world in politics and economics and war and therefore I feel that gives me the right to make a comment.

I find it shocking and depressing that the polls show McCain has even any chance. I think America and the world is doomed if Obama is not elected President. With McCain, Americans and the world will get more of the same, war, poor economy, low wages, corruption in industry especially war industry, more environmental damage, poor medical insurance system etc.

You have been ruled by Republicans for too long and it's time for a change. One of the great things about democracy is that we can vote out a party , try the alternative. Each party sees what the other party has done and when elected tries to fix it - thats gives a great balance over time - it's time to change.

I am glad that Hillary did not win the Democrat votes, we have seen what she can do in the past. When she was "assistant President" to Bill, there was a raft of poor decisions and bad management of her campaigns, her medical reform package and her defense of the Whitewater scandal etc despite the argument that she should have learnt from those experiences I think OBama presents as a VERY intelligent person and the world needs an intelligent and wise leader. If McCain is elected because of the inevitable limitations caused by his age, America and the world will be lead by a team of UNELECTED people behind the scene.

jon71

08-28-2008, 11:37 PM

Sanslines

08-29-2008, 04:33 AM

Unfortunately for Obama, it's not his race that is his major drawback, but his far left voting record and views. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. His views are socialist and that still does not resonate with most middle class Americans. Also, for someone that proclaims he is for freedom, he is trying to get the Justice Dept to shut down a wealthy Texan who is paying for anti Obama ads. What about free speech? You don't see the republicans trying to silence George Soros.

These are the kinds of things that are holding Obama back.

Bill Clinton was also very much more to the left when he entered the White House. He very quickly realized that he had to become much more of a Centrist in order to get anything accomplished. This was due to the fact that he had to deal with Congress. The same will happen to Obama if he becomes Presdent. Regardless of what he says now, he will have to shift more towards the center if he ever wishes to accomplish anything. Much of what Obama is saying now are lofty dreams. The reality of government is very different from lofty dreams and Obama certainly realizes this but right now his job is to sell himself to the largest possible number of people. The reality is yet to come.

Sanslines

08-29-2008, 04:51 AM

The work, should determine what is paid. Sorry, but sacking groceries is not a $10 an hour job. The misconception is that a minimum wage job is something to live and support a family on. These jobs are not meant to support a family.

Very true! Minimum wage jobs were intended to be entry level jobs for s defined period of time. They were never intended to provide a wage that could support a family.

In the old days around here, there were numerous manufacturing jobs. Generally men (armed with a menaingful high school diploma) would arrive into town via train, find cheap but clean and safe housing and meals at the YMCA, and within a week would find a job at one of the local manufacturing industries. Fast forward to today, and the trains are gone, the YMCA is closed, and all that is left of manufacturing are old, abandoned buldings.

Today, those jobs have all been replaced by Wal Mart and other assorted service type industries. These industries pay low wages. All of the higher paying jobs have long since left and due to present state government policies willl not return. Job killing taxes and regulations have sent many jobs fleeing from the state and from keeping other industries that pay high wages from entering the state. New York State has a long term exodus of young people who leave the state (as soon as they graduate) for destinations such as North Carolina where there are many meaningful jobs and a chance to build a future. Incidentally, both North Carolina and New York State are run by Democrats. However, in New York State, the Democrats, who have been in power and control forever have consistently failed the state population with their policies. Hence why the state continues to hemmorage.

The latest scheme by the Democrat Governor of New York State is to 'reduce state spending' by forcing the counties to pay for state mandated programs. This is just a fiscal trick where the state can sing their accolades of reducing state spending but neglect the fact that such tricks cause serious harm to state counties. Some upstate counties have already warned that in order to fund those state mandated programs that the state will no longer fund, they will have to raise their portion of sales tax and will also have to raise property taxes by double digits! It is any wonder that there is also going to be another exodus of young people from the state? Who will be left except retirees?

It is clear that BOTH Republicans and Demoncrats have failed New York State. The ONLY advantage that the Republicans have offered is that they have held the line on state spending and endless tax increases.

There is so much talk about change and yet the only change that MUST occur in New York State is to find a way to encourage meaningful job creation and growth in the state and stop taxing people to the point where they must leave the state in order to survive.

Sanslines

08-29-2008, 04:54 AM

A smart employer will pay a living wage and will help make sure the work environment is decent. A smart employer will not need to axe the pay to stupidly low levels so that s/he can make a profit at the expense of the little guy. A smart employer does not need a minimum wage because s/he pays decently anyway.

Please come to New York State and attempt to set up and run a small business. You will have a very different perspective once you do.

Perhaps running a dairy farm is in your future. If so you will realize that dairy farms continue to go bankrupt as costs of business (such as property taxes and energy costs) continue to spiral upwards and so there is no money left to pay ANY wage to anybody.

Sanslines

08-29-2008, 05:04 AM

.......She has clients that are honest hard working decent people but due to a lack of education/training the only jobs they're really qualified for are minimum wage or jobs that pay only slightly more that minimum wage.

This is the REAL problem and NO ONE has a solution to this problem. In the old days, students who graduated from high school actually knew something and were prepared to enter the work force and begin their lives. Today, you would be surprised how many college seniors who can't even balance a checking account and when asked they have told me that "mom or dad handles the bills".
There is a whole spectrum of individuals out there and not everyone can benefit from higher education. Not everyone is interested or able to handle higher education. Thus, there is a real misconnect between the types of jobs availible versus the amount of knowledge required for those jobs.

Sanslines

08-29-2008, 05:09 AM

Pennsylvania and Ohio give Obama modest leads although I know they'll be hard fought.

Pennsylvania also continues to suffer 'brain drain' as younger people leave the state. Pennsylvania has the second highest percentage of elderly after Florida. Scranton, the birthplace of Joe Biden, has been 'dying' for years. The city, along with Wilkes Barre and Hazleton, are rooted in the 1950's and were built on coal. When the coal dried up, so did the jobs and there hase NEVER been a recover in those areas. I wonder what Joe Biden has to say about his birthplace.

Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania, was the mayor of Philadelphia. Philadelphia continues to have a 'murder epidemic' and also continues to lose population. This trend started in the 1960's and has continued under BOTH Republican and Democratic Governors. I wonder what Ed Rendell has to say about Philadelphia now.

If politicians of both parties are going to crow about a 'glorious future' then they need to be asked about their past accomplishments. It's long past time to put aside the biased, party loyalist type of hype and deal with facts and past accomplishments and lack of accomplishments.

G I Joe

08-29-2008, 05:17 AM

Change....yell, right. Everything and everybody need that. But be careful what you wish for!

usmc1

08-29-2008, 05:29 AM

The good news is that the state by state polls (what really counts) shows Barack Obama doing a little bit better than the national polls suggest. I think the most recent assessment of electoral votes had Obama at 226, McCain at 189 and 123 too close to call. I hope it gets a lot better than that but that's a decent starting point. Obama is doing at least as well as Kerry and Gore everywhere and in many states better. Democrats haven't even thought about Virginia since 1964 and it's tied now. Pennsylvania and Ohio give Obama modest leads although I know they'll be hard fought. Either candidate would have a really hard time without carrying at least one of those and you're in great shape if you could win both. Also younger and first time voters are deliberately undercounted. That's because most times they don't show up big on election day. The thing is during the primaries there were tons on young and first time voters showing up. If we see in Nov. what we saw during the spring Obama will do a lot better than the polls say he will.
As for the minimum wage too many people have to support their families on minimum wage. My mom works in social services. That's the dept. that handles food stamps. She has clients that are honest hard working decent people but due to a lack of education/training the only jobs they're really qualified for are minimum wage or jobs that pay only slightly more that minimum wage. The idea that it's just teenagers looking for date money is misleading, that makes up a lot smaller percentage that people think. Something like 30% of the people making minimum wage are the primary or sole wage earner for their family. Another 40-50% are a vital secondary income, usually bolstering the other spouse's job which is just a smidge over minimum wage. Personally I'd love to see it raised and attached to a c.o.l.a. but that would end the political fighting that both sides relish.

Let's see. The conservatives say that everyone should work and support themselves. Right? I've got that correct don't I?

The conservatives say that their tax dollars ought not go to programs assisting people capable of working and supporting themselves. Right? I've got that correct don't I?

Then why would conservatives, who want people to work and support themselves, and who do not want to pay taxes to help assist others, be in opposition to the payment for work of wages at a level permitting a person to support themselves and their family?

When people work, and are able to support themselves and their families, crime goes down, more taxes are paid and budget surpluses are created. Those wages "turn over" three or more times in a community creating more jobs and services, which enable more people to work "and support themselves".

Conservatives are forever putting themselves in these sorts of intractable, self-contradictory sort of positions. They just seem not to be able to see through to the other side of their positions.

Another quick example. Someone wrote that bagging groceries should not be a $10.00 an hour job. OK, putting everything else aside, I'll accept that. But neither should bagging groceries be the only job available for a single-mom trying to get by! Or an older American trying to buy medicines while in the donut hole. Or a young man trying to establish himself and a family. There must be created other, viable options for training, for education, and for jobs which do offer living wages--not the either or choice offered by conservatives.

This is the essential failure of conservatism, it is always against, opposed, or rejecting things within an either/or context, but never comes forth with a solution, or new idea or program to rectify problems. It never sees any further down the trail than its own selfish nose.

Naturist Mark

08-29-2008, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by ki4kxq
Unfortunately for Obama, it's not his race that is his major drawback, but his far left voting record and views. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

One dishonest magazine called Obama the most liberal senator - the same one that called Kerry the most liberal senator 4 years ago. Then it cooked the books to justify its predetermined results - I discussed that pack of lies earlier (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=198665&postcount=16).

Short version: Obama is NOT the #1 most liberal senator, he is the 43rd most liberal Senator. Only 7 democrats ranked less 'liberal' than Obama, and 42 Democrats ranked more liberal - including Clinton.

Obama is by far the most middle of the road of all the major candidates for president this year. I only wish his record was more progressive, but I'm willing to trust his judgment over all the other contenders.

His views are socialist and that still does not resonate with most middle class Americans.
The right throws around the term 'socialist' without understanding what it means. I'd like to see a definition of socialism that is in any way consistent with Obama's proposals.

Also, for someone that proclaims he is for freedom, he is trying to get the Justice Dept to shut down a wealthy Texan who is paying for anti Obama ads. What about free speech? You don't see the republicans trying to silence George Soros.

These are the kinds of things that are holding Obama back.

Obama is urging the Justice Dept. to enforce the law that McCain wrote on a tax-exempt 501c4 group that broke the law that McCain wrote. You'd think McCain would also be interested in stopping people from breaking laws that McCain wrote. You'd be wrong.

-Mark

ki4kxq

08-29-2008, 06:15 AM

After listening to Obama's speech last night, I have a few questions that I would like to ask Mr. Obama. For the record, Obama is a great speaker, he can get a crowd excited. Too bad there were no real solutions, just generalities. I did hear a couple of things I agreed with, many more I didn't.

Obama talks about McCain using fear tactics to get elected. I heard Obama say last night that republicans wanted to take the retirement away from old people. That's not fear mongering. Mr. Obama, you said last night that privatizing social security would gamble away peoples retirement. Really? If social security is such a great thing Senator, why do you and the rest of your colleagues opt out of social security for a privatized system? Why can't the people at least have a choice like you do to participate in social security or not, with it's whopping 2% rate of return?

Also, you stated last night that you were for clean coal technology and nuclear power. That's funny, because several times in the past you said you would never support those two things. Which statement am I to believe? Just wondering.

Last night on the second amendment, you said we could all agree that criminals should not have AK-47's. No kidding. Criminals shouldn't have any access to weapons because they should be in jail. So what exactly is your stand on the second amendment? I know you have stated that private citizens should not own handguns. However, when the supreme court decided that owning weapons, including handguns was an individual right, you said you felt the same. Again, which is it.

You stated last night that you would give tax cuts to 95% of the working families. Why 95%? You constantly talk about fairness. Why not be fair and cut taxes to 100% of the working families? Do they deserve any less? They work just as hard, but evidently you don't think so? Shame on you.

NudeAl

08-29-2008, 07:24 AM

Ask yourself this question, "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? "

If the answer is yes go ahead and vote for McCain if not vote for Obama.

Boreas

08-29-2008, 07:30 AM

Ask yourself this question, "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? "

If the answer is yes go ahead and vote for McCain if not vote for Obama.

:applause: Good thought.

ki4kxq

08-29-2008, 07:40 AM

Actually, I am better off today than I was 8 years ago. However, most of that has to do with me and hard work. I am not looking to McCain nor Obama to "save" and/or "protect" me. I wonder if Obama looked at the new economy numbers before he gave his speech last night. Unemployment is down, inflation is down, interest rates are down. The majority of homeowners are not holding subprime mortgages and are not in foreclosure. We have made more money this year than we know what to do with. With high diesel prices and this "horrible economy". Go figure.

I am no big fan of McCain. However, of the two, I believe he will do far less damage than Obama. He will at least serve as a check against a democrat controlled house and senate.

usmc1

08-29-2008, 07:53 AM

Obama talks about McCain using fear tactics to get elected. I heard Obama say last night that republicans wanted to take the retirement away from old people. That's not fear mongering. Mr. Obama, you said last night that privatizing social security would gamble away peoples retirement. Really? If social security is such a great thing Senator, why do you and the rest of your colleagues opt out of social security for a privatized system? Why can't the people at least have a choice like you do to participate in social security or not, with it's whopping 2% rate of return?

FALSE! Since 1983, twenty-five years, a quarter of a century, members of congress have been required to "pay into social security". That is a sufficient amount of time for the truth to have filtered out into the hinterlands, and through the the thickest of heads!

They also have the opportunity for a 401K and pension plan.

So, the issue becomes not that our representatives do not pay into scocial security, but, why is it the private sector has stopped profit sharing through discontinuance of pension plans?

ki4kxq

08-29-2008, 07:56 AM

It looks like McCain has at least made a smart move with his VP choice. He has chosen conservative Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Way to go. This will give McCain the conservative credentials he does not have. It will also lure some of the "Hillary" women who were threatening to vote for McCain, to actually do so.

Sarah Palin does not believe in the government bailouts. She stopped the bridge to nowhere, is a staunch believer in drilling for more oil, including ANWAR. She has also stated that Alaska should be independent of federal handouts and has moved them in that direction. Alaska has been doing well in her care.

We were holding our breaths thinking the VP pick could be the end of the line for McCain. With this pick, it looks like he gets it and really could win the Presidency. Good for him.

ki4kxq

08-29-2008, 08:10 AM

ki4kxq

08-29-2008, 08:26 AM

Just found out something very funny about Gov Palin. Her predecessor had bought with state funds, a jet. Sarah Palin when she got into office said that the State of Alaska, nor she as governor, needed a private jet. She sold the State jet on Ebay and made the State of Alaska a profit. The more I find out about this woman, the more I like her.

usmc1

08-29-2008, 09:00 AM

I stand corrected on the social security issue. As far as pension plans, if I work for a company that gives me a pension, that is a great benefit. No company should be under any obligation to do so. However, like higher wages, good benefits packages attract great employees. But again, that is not something that a company should be compelled to do.

Depends on what you mean by obligation. You're bright, research what has happened to promised pensions over the lat two decades.

But, back to obligation, yes, an employer has a moral obligation to share a percentage of profits with the labor that helps create those profits. It's called profit sharing, most often put in the form of pensions to protect against old age and health issues.

That being said, I would much rather control my own retirement dollars through a 401k, IRA, or SEP IRA like we have. When you have a company controlled pension, the company controls the dollars. If they go under, so does your retirement. Same way with social security. With that the government controls your dollars. Nope, just get out of my way and let me control my own retirement, is that too much to ask. If you like social security, you should have the option to stay in it. But why is choice, which the democrats seem to like when it suits them, such a bad thing?

No one asks that you abandon any savings or investment plan you want. But, what we do oppose is the privatization of social security and turning over, to wall street croupiers, the most reliable, in our history, social insurance program for retirees, surviving spouses, orphans, and disabled workers. Simply put, I do not think anyone in their right mind would be all that excited about having their safety net tied up in General Motors.

And that, does not even address the issue of the borrowing of trillions from China, Japan or Mexico that it would take.

</EMBED>

ki4kxq

08-29-2008, 09:23 AM

Sorry, they have no such thing. Is it a good and decent thing from them to do? Yes. They have an obligation to fulfill their end of the employment contract, whatever that is. If they offer a pension plan, they need to live up to it. If they offer health insurance as a perk, stand by that. They do not have an obligation to share their profits except as they see fit.

Their obligation is to provide a safe work environment, and to stay competitive to continue to offer jobs to those in their community. Their obligation is to obey the laws of the land and to pay what they promise.

I notice nobody ever mentions the employee's obligations to their employer. When you visit a fast food restaurant, store, even higher paying jobs, ask yourself if the service you got was what the employer is paying this person to do. More often than not, it is very poor service to their employer. Funny, nobody ever mentions that obligation. All relationships are a two way street, even employer/employee.

usmc1

08-29-2008, 09:39 AM

Sorry, they have no such thing. Is it a good and decent thing from them to do? Yes. They have an obligation to fulfill their end of the employment contract, whatever that is.

As with congress and social security you again demonstrate a lack of knowledge, throwing forth uninformed opinions as though it had merit. It does not.

Acquaint yourself with this encyclical, and then try the debate:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Boreas

08-29-2008, 10:50 AM

That being said, I would much rather control my own retirement dollars through a 401k, IRA, or SEP IRA like we have. When you have a company controlled pension, the company controls the dollars. If they go under, so does your retirement. Same way with social security. With that the government controls your dollars. Nope, just get out of my way and let me control my own retirement, is that too much to ask. If you like social security, you should have the option to stay in it. But why is choice, which the democrats seem to like when it suits them, such a bad thing?

Do the Democrats really limit choice, or is it your spin? Having a national pension plan does not prevent people from making their own retirement plans as well. We have a national pension here in Canada. I have also paid into work pension plans. I have also taken the responsibility to make some retirement plans separate from both systems. I do not think I am unique.

Boreas

08-29-2008, 10:56 AM

But, back to obligation, yes, an employer has a moral obligation to share a percentage of profits with the labor that helps create those profits. It's called profit sharing, most often put in the form of pensions to protect against old age and health issues.

I agree. If you manage a Walmart, you will get a bonus (profit sharing apparently) that is larger than most employees annual pay. The employees apparently do not receive this benefit. Too bad, since they are doing the grunt work that brings in the money to the mucky mucks.

Sorry, they have no such thing. Is it a good and decent thing from them to do? Yes. They have an obligation to fulfill their end of the employment contract, whatever that is. If they offer a pension plan, they need to live up to it. If they offer health insurance as a perk, stand by that. They do not have an obligation to share their profits except as they see fit.......

I notice nobody ever mentions the employee's obligations to their employer. When you visit a fast food restaurant, store, even higher paying jobs, ask yourself if the service you got was what the employer is paying this person to do. More often than not, it is very poor service to their employer. Funny, nobody ever mentions that obligation. All relationships are a two way street, even employer/employee.

It has been my experience that you tend to get the service that reflects how good you are as a customer. Friendly customer, more likely friendly service. And I am speaking from experience on both sides of the cash register.

brazhunter

08-29-2008, 11:03 AM

Having a national pension plan does not prevent people from making their own retirement plans as well.
It does when the tax rate for that national pension is high. Right now it's 15% for people who are self-employed. That's only the Social Security tax and doesn't include the Federal Income Tax, and state and local taxes.

But hey, that will all change after Obama is elected, right? Of course, I won't be able to drive anymore because my gas will be $10 a gallon but that is Change though not necessarily one I can live with.

brazhunter

08-29-2008, 11:12 AM

I agree. If you manage a Walmart, you will get a bonus (profit sharing apparently) that is larger than most employees annual pay.
So what? Anybody can walk off the street and do what the typical Walmart floor worker does. Very few of them can run a store that employs hundreds of people.

This is the same crap we hear about oil companies, pharm companies, and other that employ tens or hundreds of thousands of people, often giving them a good standard of living while producing products that make life better for most people and in some cases, producing products that literally save lives. And for that they are demonized and threated. Interestingly, the same people who complain so much about the income of the people running those companies are fine with ridiculous incomes of celebrities and entertainers who, amazingly, contribute huge sums of money to the politicians who promote class envy for the purpose of political power.

This is the core of the demoncrat platform - class envy: they have more than you do so we, by the power of the government, are going to take money from them and give it to you.

usmc1

08-29-2008, 12:23 PM

So what? Anybody can walk off the street and do what the typical Walmart floor worker does. Very few of them can run a store that employs hundreds of people.

And that justifies low wages, part time hours, no benefits, and no collective bargaining?

Boreas

08-29-2008, 12:30 PM

This is the core of the demoncrat platform - class envy: they have more than you do so we, by the power of the government, are going to take money from them and give it to you.

This not about class envy. It is about people earning what they deserve. When you are in power, you get to skim off the top whenever you want. You can give yourself raises. Etc. When you are at the bottom, you have no power and have to accept what they give you. So what is wrong with a Walmart employee getting some incentive and a small percentage of the profits when they have helped to create the proper environment. If people are given incentives, and are paid properly, they often perform better. Some ethical employers have discovered this, and have dividend programs of many varieties. If you treat them badly, you will get what you deserve.

Ever heard of Pavlov and Skinner?

brazhunter

08-29-2008, 12:42 PM

And that justifies low wages, part time hours, no benefits, and no collective bargaining?

Don't work there if you don't like the terms. If Walmart can't get workers, they either improve their compensation or go out of business. Apparently more than enough people are willing to work for what Walmart is willing to pay.

Collective bargaining is totally responsible for driving high paying industrial jobs out of my area well before NAFTA came around.

usmc1

08-29-2008, 12:47 PM

Don't work there if you don't like the terms. If Walmart can't get workers, they either improve their compensation or go out of business. Apparently more than enough people are willing to work for what Walmart is willing to pay.

Collective bargaining is totally responsible for driving high paying industrial jobs out of my area well before NAFTA came around.

No that's garbage, sometimes that is the only job available, since Goodyear now makes its tires in Howschungdung in order to beat the workers out of benefits and retirement pensions, avoid decent pay to new workers, and skip healthcare and pensions!

Collective bargaining helped establish the middleclass and a standard of living that was the envy of the world, greed drove those jobs out of your area, not collective bargaining.

brazhunter

08-29-2008, 12:57 PM

This not about class envy. It is about people earning what they deserve. When you are in power, you get to skim off the top whenever you want. You can give yourself raises. Etc. When you are at the bottom, you have no power and have to accept what they give you. So what is wrong with a Walmart employee getting some incentive and a small percentage of the profits when they have helped to create the proper environment. If people are given incentives, and are paid properly, they often perform better. Some ethical employers have discovered this, and have dividend programs of many varieties. If you treat them badly, you will get what you deserve.

Ever heard of Pavlov and Skinner?


Look, I think Walmart sucks. I think they sell junk. I don't like they they are responsible for importing so much of their merchandise from overseas. I think they could and should treat their employees better. And I don't do business with them for all those reasons but you are wrong with the idea that a store manager just writes their own raise. It doesn't happen that way.

As far as people earning what the 'deserve', well just what is that? Who gets to decide, you, me, the grunt employee? Should a high school kid working part time with no experience or no special training get the same pay that that somebody with advanced education and years of experience in a position with responsibilities that effect MANY employees?

Qikdraw

08-29-2008, 01:16 PM

Figure out your tax cut under the Obama plan (http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/?)

McCain would tax me $871.11 MORE than Barack Obama.

Qikdraw

08-29-2008, 01:18 PM

His views are socialist and that still does not resonate with most middle class Americans.

Well his vews are not socialist, and actually most Americans when asked what they want follow Obama's plans. Healthcare, taxes, energy, Iraq, the majority of Americans agree with Obama.

brazhunter

08-29-2008, 01:29 PM

.. in Howschungdung in order to beat the workers out of benefits and retirement pensions, avoid decent pay to new workers, and skip healthcare and pensions!...

Pension obligations, even more than producing crummy products, is what's driving the US automakers into financial ruin. When that happens, EVERYBODY is out of a job and a pension.

usmc1

08-29-2008, 02:18 PM

Figure out your tax cut under the Obama plan (http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/?)

McCain would tax me $871.11 MORE than Barack Obama.

Damned near $1,000 more under McCain.

Boreas

08-29-2008, 02:30 PM

Look, I think Walmart sucks. I think they sell junk. I don't like they they are responsible for importing so much of their merchandise from overseas. I think they could and should treat their employees better. And I don't do business with them for all those reasons but you are wrong with the idea that a store manager just writes their own raise. It doesn't happen that way.

As far as people earning what the 'deserve', well just what is that? Who gets to decide, you, me, the grunt employee? Should a high school kid working part time with no experience or no special training get the same pay that that somebody with advanced education and years of experience in a position with responsibilities that effect MANY employees?

I am not suggesting that the managers write their own raise. What I am wondering is why they are more deserving of a bonus than the grunts on the floor.

My point is also that if a cashier is helping to make the store a better place, then why can't they also get some sort of bonus.

I have a big problem with considering the rich powerful people more deserving than those on the bottom on the pole.

usmc1

08-29-2008, 02:53 PM

Pension obligations, even more than producing crummy products, is what's driving the US automakers into financial ruin. When that happens, EVERYBODY is out of a job and a pension.
No bad model decisions are the primary problem. The workers will build a good car, always ahve and always will. But, the models must be what the public needs. US automakers have ignored this, and we've lost our own market to foreign competitors.

Qikdraw

08-29-2008, 03:14 PM

Pension obligations, even more than producing crummy products, is what's driving the US automakers into financial ruin. When that happens, EVERYBODY is out of a job and a pension.

Actually even though GM is doing horribly as a company their pension system has an abundance of money. In fact they recently had to cancel their health benifits for retires because that was costing too much, and instead they increased the pension amount.

What has hurt American manufacturers is they have failed to learn lessons from the early 70s gas crisis. They've continued to make huge vehicles with horrible gas miulage and tell the American people this is what they want to buy. Foriegn car manufacturers have steadily relied on fuel effeciancy, it is no wonder why American companies are doing horrible now. Its their business model that has wrecked their business not pensions.

brazhunter

08-29-2008, 04:10 PM

No bad model decisions are the primary problem. The workers will build a good car, always ahve and always will. But, the models must be what the public needs. US automakers have ignored this, and we've lost our own market to foreign competitors.

Oh the same workers build great cars when their working in the US Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and Saturn factories... usually absent the productivity burden of labor unions. American works are great - best in the world IMHO. Unions do their best to make sure that doesn't happen though.

Naturist Mark

08-29-2008, 05:24 PM

It does when the tax rate for that national pension is high. Right now it's 15% for people who are self-employed. That's only the Social Security tax and doesn't include the Federal Income Tax, and state and local taxes.

Actually it is 12.8% for both the self-employed and other-employed. Half is paid by the employee and half by the employer (who is also the employee in the case of the self employed). But either way it comes out of what the worker really earns. That is up until you reach the income cap. Once you are wealthy enough you don't have to pay an extra penny.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

08-29-2008, 05:32 PM

Sarah Palin does not believe in the government bailouts. She stopped the bridge to nowhere,.

Governor Palin was FOR the bridge to nowhere (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx) before she was against it.

Congress stopped the bridge once they were embarrassed by it.

-Mark

Sanslines

08-29-2008, 05:33 PM

Figure out your tax cut under the Obama plan (http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/?)

McCain would tax me $871.11 MORE than Barack Obama.

I thought one of your major complaints about Bush is that he is running an enormous deficit as he is spending too much and not taxing enough to cover expenses. Obama is not going to cut programs and it is impossible to pay for more programs without increasing tax revenue across the board. If you are serious about your complaints about Bush and his deficits, then you should be twice as upset over the Obama plan as you will pay more tax.

Sanslines

08-29-2008, 05:36 PM

Its their business model that has wrecked their business not pensions.

It is many things which include the many financial obligations that Toyota and the other car companies that have relocated to the South to avoid. Obligations such as pensions and medical expenses are enormous for Ford and GM.

Qikdraw

08-29-2008, 06:42 PM

I thought one of your major complaints about Bush is that he is running an enormous deficit as he is spending too much and not taxing enough to cover expenses. Obama is not going to cut programs and it is impossible to pay for more programs without increasing tax revenue across the board. If you are serious about your complaints about Bush and his deficits, then you should be twice as upset over the Obama plan as you will pay more tax.

I will not be paying more taxes, and as tax cuts go to the middle and lower class this will help spur the economy. Trickle down doesn't work, its just made things worse. When people have more money to spend, they will spend it, and thus an healthy economy is born. It really is quite simple.

Qikdraw

08-29-2008, 06:45 PM

It is many things which include the many financial obligations that Toyota and the other car companies that have relocated to the South to avoid. Obligations such as pensions and medical expenses are enormous for Ford and GM.

Pensions are not considered part of regular operating expences, companies are not allowed to touch them other than to add to them and pay out to retirees. The days of companies using it as capital are long gone. So it is not an expense for companies, it is seperate from their business model.

OZJames

08-29-2008, 07:02 PM

NudeTopher

08-29-2008, 07:26 PM

Pension obligations, even more than producing crummy products, is what's driving the US automakers into financial ruin. When that happens, EVERYBODY is out of a job and a pension.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

While it's true that GM had a cost of approximately $ 2,000 - 3,000 per vehicle for "the legacy" the pensions were not, and never were the problem. In fact, the pensions were well funded. It wasn't rocket science doing the math to figure how much they needed to invest to fund the pension plans. The reason that I said "had" is that GM just turned over the investments for the unions to manage themselves.

So, where was the problem? Back in "the day" the unions asked for, and were given, lifetime health benefits during collective bargaining. Back then health insurance cost maybe $100/year. Then it went to $100/quarter...and eventually to $100/week.

At the time health for life was given if someone was diagnosed with cancer, through "exploratory surgery" they were told to get their affairs in order. Now, you can keep a cancer victim alive with $10,000 pills and radiation until they are old enough to die from something else. Nobody saw where medicine was going. Nobody could enision mri's, cat scans, transplants, chemo, radiation, etc.

UNTIL MEDICINE, AND THE COST OF MEDICAL INSURANCE GETS TAKEN OFF THE BACK OF BUSINESS INDUSTRY AFTER INDUSTRY WILL SUFFER. WE NEED NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BOTH AS A HUMAN RIGHT AND TO ALLOW BUSINESSES TO PROSPER!

jon71

08-30-2008, 12:04 AM

Sanslines

08-30-2008, 03:48 AM

I will not be paying more taxes, and as tax cuts go to the middle and lower class this will help spur the economy. Trickle down doesn't work, its just made things worse. When people have more money to spend, they will spend it, and thus an healthy economy is born. It really is quite simple.

You didn't address the issue that currently we have an enormous budget deficit. Two things must happen to address this situation that many have so vociferously complained about. Either taxes must increase or spending must decrease. Since spending will not only not decrease but will increase as new programs are proposed, taxes must increase in spite of what any politician says. If taxes do not increase substantially to pay off the deficit and fund new programs, than all of the rhetoric that has been lodged against Bush concerning the deficit will also be valid against the new President. To do anything less is playing party politics and is pure hypocrisy. If your federal income tax does decrease, you will pay more in other taxes and your overall tax burden will either remain the same or increase.

Sanslines

08-30-2008, 03:53 AM

Barack Obama has proposed a middle class tax cut. Once he's president I, like over 90% of Americans, will be paying LESS TAXES. McCain now supports the Bush plan to cut taxes only on the very wealthies American's and have everyone else pay for it. Also don't forget that as we end the Iraq war that will be a gargantuan reduction in spending. There will be other spending cuts I'm sure but that will dwarf everything.

Do you really believe that Obama will be able to pass on the enormous tax increases necessary to fund new programs and pay off the deficit on those 5 percent 'wealthy' who will not only not see tax decreases but will see tax vastly increase? Do you really believe that they will remain silent and do nothing when they will be hit with enormous taxes? The so called wealthy have the money and control of politicians and politicians do not have free reign against them. Even Bill Clinton was only able to pass on a very modest tax increase for the highest wage earners. As was indicated in previous chart that I posted, taxes went up across the board to pay off the deficit when Bill Clinton was President. If Obama is President, he must do something similar IF he is serous about reducing the deficit. The was in Iraq will not end instantaniously and the war in Afghanistan will continue with added resources. There may eventually be some decrease in military spending but anyone who has worked in the defense industry knows very well that the military is loathe to give up any programs and will fight tooth and nail to keep their monetary resources. The budget numbers just do not add up to allow tax decrease and increased spending on domestic programs. It just does not make rational sense!

Taxes will continue to be a shell game and will increase overall. If one tax decreases, then others will increase to cover the deficit. The day of paying for programs has arrived. Complaining about passing off the costs of programs to future generations by deficit spending (or to 'others') will end (or will it) as all people should be required to pay for the programs that benefit them.

If you examine the 'tax cut' chart you will clearly see that enormous tax increases are proposed for the top earners. This is a fantasy and only a proposal to get people to buy into getting 'something for nothing' while the 'wealthy' pay for it all. Bill Clinton was NEVER able to increase taxes against the wealthy anywhere near this proposed amount as he had to deal with Congress who will again block any enormous tax increases against the wealthy. As a result, everyone paid more with those at the top paying a bit more but no where near what Obama is proposing.

If, by some chance, Obama does finds a way to decrease income taxes according to this table, then you can be assured that your overall taxes will increase as other taxes must increase in order to fund programs. This has ALWAYS been the case.

Sanslines

08-30-2008, 04:10 AM

I will not be paying more taxes, and as tax cuts go to the middle and lower class this will help spur the economy. Trickle down doesn't work, its just made things worse. When people have more money to spend, they will spend it, and thus an healthy economy is born. It really is quite simple.

What is simple is that paying off the enormous deficit takes money. The money has to come from somewhere as it doesn't just fall from the sky. Overall you will be spending more on taxes one way or another. It might come from the state level if the federal government cuts funding to the state. It might come from the local level as the state cuts funding to the counties (as it going to be the case in New York). Taking New York as an example, the state WILL cut spending to balance the budget and may even reduce some tax ever so slightly. This will be done by passing on the costs of state mandated programs to the counties who must then come up with money to fund those mandated programs. Hence, we will see another round of country sales tax increases and double digit property tax increase as well as county cuts in funding to programs such as animal shelters in order to fund state mandated programs. The last round of cuts resulted in closure of several libraries as well as other 'non essential' services' as well as an enormous increase in county taxes to pay for state mandated health care program coverage. If people want the programs, then everyone pays for them rather then passing the buck.

Sanslines

08-30-2008, 04:26 AM

Following the links from the 'Obama Tax Cut' chart:

From the tax policy center:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=555 bgColor=#ffffff>Abstract

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.
<HR>Introduction

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Neither candidate?s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.

Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. These projections assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010 and that the Alternative Minimum Tax is fully effective.

-------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that Obama is not going to be serious about a balanced budget and will pass on the deficit costs to future generations just as the Republicans have done.

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>_uacct = "UA-392952-2";urchinTracker();</SCRIPT>

usmc1

08-30-2008, 04:49 AM

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

While it's true that GM had a cost of approximately $ 2,000 - 3,000 per vehicle for "the legacy" the pensions were not, and never were the problem. In fact, the pensions were well funded. It wasn't rocket science doing the math to figure how much they needed to invest to fund the pension plans. The reason that I said "had" is that GM just turned over the investments for the unions to manage themselves.

So, where was the problem? Back in "the day" the unions asked for, and were given, lifetime health benefits during collective bargaining. Back then health insurance cost maybe $100/year. Then it went to $100/quarter...and eventually to $100/week.

At the time health for life was given if someone was diagnosed with cancer, through "exploratory surgery" they were told to get their affairs in order. Now, you can keep a cancer victim alive with $10,000 pills and radiation until they are old enough to die from something else. Nobody saw where medicine was going. Nobody could enision mri's, cat scans, transplants, chemo, radiation, etc.

UNTIL MEDICINE, AND THE COST OF MEDICAL INSURANCE GETS TAKEN OFF THE BACK OF BUSINESS INDUSTRY AFTER INDUSTRY WILL SUFFER. WE NEED NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BOTH AS A HUMAN RIGHT AND TO ALLOW BUSINESSES TO PROSPER!

What he said!:applause:

usmc1

08-30-2008, 04:55 AM

That there Obama feller said he's a gonna cut my taxes so's I's a votin' fer him.

Wow, man, this single-issue, vote for the guy who will cut my taxes the most is fun and easy.

Makes me wish I was rich, then I could get me a really big old tax cut, maybe not even pay any at all.

ki4kxq

08-30-2008, 09:02 AM

When someone takes the enormous risk and expense of starting a business, they alone, or the board if a corporation are the ones that will decide who gets to share in profits, and how that is done. As I stated before, people will work where they get the most benefit from the work they do, so a smart business will do profit sharing. Again though, that is completely up to them and not the church.

Boreas, obviously you have not been to some of the business establishments here in the US lately. When you go into a store happy and bubbly, which I am most of the time, you can barely get them to look up from their cell phone long enough to acknowledge your presence. Most employers here are at their wits end, no matter what the pay, it is hard to find good workers who truly care about their jobs. Yet, they ***** and whine at every opportunity to do so.

My dad always told us kids, there is no such thing as a bad job. If you have a job that pays you $5 an hour, work like it is paying you $10 an hour. Before long, you will not be working for $5 an hour because everyone else is working like they are being paid $2.50 an hour. He was so correct. That advice has never failed me.

I see it in this industry all the time, especially from those that own their own trucks. The last 6 months some folks have done nothing but whine. They can't make a living because freight rates are too low, fuel surcharges are too low, diesel is too high, and on and on. However, the past 6 months, we have more money than we can believe pulling the same freight, contracted to the same company, paying the same fuel charges as those other folks. Why? Because we worked like no one else was willing to work, that's why. We're not the only ones, there are plenty more of us out here making a killing why others are parking their trucks.

So I guess to answer your question, no, not every low level worker deserves to share in the profits. Let them prove their worth, then share in the profits. We contract to the largest carrier in the world. That's right, the world. They have trucks and offices everywhere. They do not share profits with us, nor do they with their company drivers. Doesn't bother me as long as I get the money that I agreed to work for, on time and in full.

As to the choice of retirement. Sure I invest on my own, however, the government is taking 15% of my income to invest in their own little ponzi scheme. That money is making an average of 2% return and cannot be willed to my heirs. It is a complete and utter ripoff. If someone can add and subtract, they realize they are being completely hosed. Funny thing is, the poorest that need help the most, are the ones who benefit least. Oh they get a check every month, but they would have gotten far more if we had a different system and they would have been able to will the rest to their heirs when they pass on. As for gambling with retirement dollars, let's look at the facts. Retirement is a long term investment. The stock market has never, I repeat, never, lost money in any 10 year period, including the 20's and 30's. With restrictions and guidelines, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to have a privatized system.

Boreas

08-30-2008, 09:31 AM

ki4kxq I agree with a lot of what you say. I do believe that we have to work hard, and that the effort we put into it pays off. Also, if you will read what I wrote previously, I suggested the dividend cheque, or incentive be for good work performance. If a cashier has made the store more profitable, why shouldn't they be rewarded? Do only the higher ups deserve rewards? I do not think so. I do not think the people with the power are more valuable than the little guys.

I will admit to being rather biased in a lot of this discussion. I have seen what some of these policies do to people who are on the bottom. Some of these policies have actually made it very difficult for hardworking people to succeed. These are neoliberal policies and as I have said before, they do not reflect true conservative values. They are policies and ideologies motivated by greed alone. It is social Darwinism that cheats by making it very difficult for people to play a role in "The Market Economy". I am all for creating a society where all can succeed. I do not think we have it.

I used to work for the local hospital. This province has some powerful unions, and I do believe some changes need to be made in the union system (power) here. I do not believe that our government has taken the right steps to fix them. Our government has set out to break unions and break the backs of some of the workers. One of the bigger unions represents laundry, housekeeping and dietary workers. These people make up about 35% of the union. There were other professionals and para-professionals in this union as well. I was a member of this union. When we went on strike, the government said that they needed to cut the wages of "uneducated, inexperienced, and overpaid" staff. I, with an MSW and 20+ years of experience was lumped in with the uneducated, overpaid and unskilled group. The spin was amazing. Also, if you think there is no skill involved in cleaning hospitals, follow a cleaner around for a bit. They wanted to contract out these three areas to contractors who would pay very low wages. There are so many issues with this, that I will not go into it right now. Just know that the cleanliness etc of hospitals who have contracted out has gone down, and various infections have gone up. Anyway, it ended up with the union caving in to the government. We all got 15% wage reductions. I was angry and decided to go out into private practice. I have not looked back. My colleagues who wash the floors and prepare food may or may not have had that option. Many did leave since the work environment became horrible.

Hospital administrators voted themselves a hefty raise at the same time. I ask you, who is more important, or less important in a hospital. Do you think that doctors and nurses are the most important? They may be, sure. They cannot do their jobs properly if housekeeping does not do theirs. It is all an interconnected system where all the parts interact and depend on the others. I believe the same can be said about stores and other businesses. The administrators and managers cannot do their jobs properly or make money, if the cashiers and such do not do theirs.

Sanslines

08-30-2008, 09:37 AM

Boreas, obviously you have not been to some of the business establishments here in the US lately.

Well, Boreas is invited to come and visit or work at an upstate New York dairy farm but so far she has not replied. Perhaps she is waiting for a better offer such as working in a Finger Lakes vineyard where she can become chief product tester.

Boreas

08-30-2008, 09:43 AM

Well, Boreas is invited to come and visit or work at an upstate New York dairy farm but so far she has not replied. Perhaps she is waiting for a better offer such as working in a Finger Lakes vineyard where she can become chief product tester.

Do you know how far I am from there?

We do have issues up here too. I live in a the oil and gas area of Canada. It is said that anyone can work here. That means that the service jobs that are lower paying are hard to fill. We get all manner of levels of service. Sometimes, you just have to be patient.

The oil and gas industry pays very well, and people here can make gobs of money, especially if they work hard. Unfortunately, that also creates some social problems like housing shortages, drug and alcohol abuse, and others. We are booming and bursting at the seams.

Meanwhile, other parts of Canada are losing people to this area. Of course, that has its consequences too.

Sanslines

08-30-2008, 09:55 AM

Do you know how far I am from there?

We do have issues up here too. I live in a the oil and gas area of Canada. It is said that anyone can work here. That means that the service jobs that are lower paying are hard to fill. We get all manner of levels of service. Sometimes, you just have to be patient.

The oil and gas industry pays very well, and people here can make gobs of money, especially if they work hard. Unfortunately, that also creates some social problems like housing shortages, drug and alcohol abuse, and others. We are booming and bursting at the seams.

Meanwhile, other parts of Canada are losing people to this area. Of course, that has its consequences too.

Yes I know all about oil and gas in Alberta. As a matter of fact, your companies and people are down here involved in the exploration and drilling for the enormous natural gas reserves that sit about 10,000 feet or so under this area. There are also a number of guys that I have talked with that will travel from here to Alberta for a 6 month stint and will make enormous amounts of money working day and night in the tar sands area. These guys will drive their RV's (well insulated of course) so housing won't be a problem and they will be too busy working to get involved with drug or alcohol abuse. They have families to support back here and will be sending their earnings back home to their familes rather then wasting it on indulgences and substance abuses.

BTW, did I tell you that one of the 'free' fringe benefits of working at the vineyards around here is the free wine. With free wine, what more could anyone ask for.
Ok.....ok......so it's a secret company conspiracy...........keep the workers 'liquored up' so they will be happy and won't complain about wages or benefits.

Boreas

08-30-2008, 10:06 AM

LOL. Drink up. :laugh:

Actually, I am in BC. We are sort of Alberta north. The capital of this area really is Calgary, not Victoria.

I guess there is some free trade happening! A lot of American companies are up here exploring and drilling and all that.

usmc1

09-03-2008, 04:24 PM

Busting up the numbers in the latest Gallup, Palin is not helping with women, and Obama is gaining ground among men!

Although John McCain still has a double-digit lead among white male voters, Barack Obama has closed the gap by 8 points and among whites who are independents, he has narrowed the deficit to 5 points, according to Gallup's analysis (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109975/Obama-Gains-Overall-McCain-Among-GOP-Women.aspx) of August's tracking poll data and a comparison of it to polling done Aug. 30-Sept. 1 after the Democratic convention.

For Aug. 1-28, McCain led among non-Hispanic white males by 56 percent to 35 percent, a lead that fell to 53 percent to 40 percent after the convention. McCain had led among white voters who describe themselves as independent by 51 percent to 35 percent, but now, he leads Obama only by 47 percent to 42 percent.

Sarah Palin so far does not appear to have helped McCain much among white women. His lead among them was 4 points both in the Aug. 1-28 period and then in the Aug. 30-Sept. 1 sampling. Among white Democratic women, Obama's lead had been 74 percent to 15 percent, and is now 82 percent to 13 percent.

Obama has gone out ahead of McCain among white women who are independents, moving from a statistical tie to to a 46 percent to 39 percent lead.

jon71

09-03-2008, 05:30 PM

Continuing the state by state numbers things look good. Obama leads by 15 in Iowa and 12 in Minnesota. In Ohio it's only two points, well within the margin of error but as more states move to Obama's column that means he can focus more on the remaining toss ups. Also Obama will only need to win a small portion of those toss ups to get to 270 while McCain will have to almost run the table. C.N.N.'s map is now 243 for Obama, 189 for McCain and 106 too close to call (with 270 needed). Michigan, N. Hampshire and Colorado will do it. Obviously if Obama carries Ohio I can't see McCain coming back from that.

usmc1

09-04-2008, 01:47 PM

Reading the Chicken Entrails.

Obama has moved into a slight lead in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.clothesfreeforum.com/ /><ST1:place w:st=</ST1:place>Ohio
<ST1:place w:st="on"></ST1:place>Obama (D) 47
McCain (R) 45

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>
Republicans went to <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Minnesota</ST1:place></st1:State> with high hopes of taking it into play. This is not a state that McCain wants to give up. Oooops!<O:p></O:p>
Obama (D) 53
McCain (R) 41

<O:p></O:p>
And into the “Heartland”, <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Iowa</ST1:place></st1:State> <O:p></O:p>
Obama (D) 55
McCain (R) 40

<O:p></O:p>
And, McCain still holds a 3-point lead in <ST1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">North Carolina</st1:State></ST1:place>, (bet they didn't poll nacktman) which keeps it in play. Obama holds a big lead in the first District of NM signaling that he will take that state.

<O:p></O:p>
Moving on.

Remember the Taliban, those wonderful and wacky, funny dressed natives in Afghanistan, who provided aid, comfort, dancing girls and cold drinks to Al Qaeda kingpin Bin Laden and his merry band of plotters prior to the September 11 attacks on America?

<O:p></O:p>
Sure, those guys. Yeah, yeah, I know, but Iraq, was really, really, really important for some reason, so we let them rebuild their power base, and replant their opium poppy fields to finance their nefarious rituals targeting just about everyone, including their own dissidents. So we sort of let that pesky old cut-up Bin Laden off the hook, so to speak.

<O:p></O:p>
Well, John McCain has announced that he knows how to get Osama Bin Laden. “President Clinton had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. President Bush had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. I know how to do it and I'll do it," he told ABC's "World News" in an interview.
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Great news there, John old chap. Since we’ve got good, solid, brave, young Americans dying almost daily over there, maybe you’d be generous enough to let the military in on it, so they could just go ahead and do it, and maybe help spare a few lives, or, heaven forefend, another attack here in the states. Do it now instead of posturing during a campaign—there’s no anchor on your butt holding you back!
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
What a load of cheap, self-serving BS.
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
We deserve better than this. I grant you we’ve been asleep at the wheel, and often vote for the wrong person, at the wrong time, for all the wrong reasons, but despite that, we really do deserve better than this. Don’t we?