slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Thanks. I agree, it's a tough nut to crack. I do, however sense a callousness in McCain's approach.
McCain and Obama
- Thread starter tsmooth
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Thanks. I agree, it's a tough nut to crack. I do, however sense a callousness in McCain's approach.
tav1
Well-known member
If you "don't know if this is true, but it probably is and can be checked..." why didn't YOU check it out? Was it because you are more interested in spreading malicious gossip than discussing issues and what each candidate's presidency would be like?
Here...I've done it for you: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
Took all of 12 seconds...
BTW, Obama was, um, like eight (8) years old when the person in question was doing his "bomb" stuff.
Sheeze!!!
Well, you got me, I can't prove it, but it is my opinion that Obama would not qualify as a FBI or Secret Service agent. I would not call my prior post "malicious gossip". My statement is based on things I've heard, from whom I believe are credible sources. It is a moot point because he is not seeking either of those positions. He does appear to have the Constitutional requirements to be President:
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
True, Obama was 8 years old when Ayres was involved in terrorist acts, but he (Obama) was an adult when he mingled with Ayres.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_had_a_pattern_of_contacts_with_weathermen_terrorists/
Regarding real issues;
1) I've seen/heard the Obama speech where he talks about major cuts to military spending and weapons development, even going as far as eliminating nukes. Nice thought, but not practical in today's world.
Our enemies will have them, but we won't.
2) Like most Liberals, he wants to re-distribute wealth, make everything fair,
expand government, blah, blah, blah. I've hard enough of his speeches regarding these issues.
These 2 issues alone; national defense, and re-distibution of wealth eliminate Obama for me. I will not be part of the Obama-nation. Just my opinion. No need to flame.
Torry
DrJRapp
Well-known member
The healthcare "crisis" in America is a complex one and I don't think that either candidates program represents a true solution if a "solution" even exists.
While the negatives of McCain's plan have been previously well laid out herein, I don't believe that Obama's plan has undergone like scrutiny.
Obama want's to use governmental power to ensure fainess and provide coverage to more people. In countries that have adopted similar plans, waiting times have radically increased and in most cases services have been severly truncated. Under his plan, the government would be a virtual monopoly buyer of perscription drugs with the power to set prices. This will adversly effect innovation and new drug development. His envisioned National Health Council will control prices and services; practitioners and providers, notibly the specialists, who don't receive what they believe is adequite compensation for the many years of education that they invested, and the long hours they spend on the job will just cease or go elsewhere. This would result in reduction of available services. Obama's proposed play-or-pay policies WILL force many marginal businesses out of business, increasing unemployment. The income of younger, healthier individuals who don't use many health services will be redistributed when they are forced to share the cost of paying for the old and the infirm who were previously not covered.
Most importantly, the government has never shown us it's ability to add value to ANYTHING, in fact, it usually manages to add cost and diminish the value of everything it controls. For example, the government already controls Medicare, which has an unfunded liability of more than $31 TRILLION. Given this poor track record through many years of many administrations both Republican and Democrat, why should we (or Obama) believe that the government can effectively manage the entire healthcare system?
While the negatives of McCain's plan have been previously well laid out herein, I don't believe that Obama's plan has undergone like scrutiny.
Obama want's to use governmental power to ensure fainess and provide coverage to more people. In countries that have adopted similar plans, waiting times have radically increased and in most cases services have been severly truncated. Under his plan, the government would be a virtual monopoly buyer of perscription drugs with the power to set prices. This will adversly effect innovation and new drug development. His envisioned National Health Council will control prices and services; practitioners and providers, notibly the specialists, who don't receive what they believe is adequite compensation for the many years of education that they invested, and the long hours they spend on the job will just cease or go elsewhere. This would result in reduction of available services. Obama's proposed play-or-pay policies WILL force many marginal businesses out of business, increasing unemployment. The income of younger, healthier individuals who don't use many health services will be redistributed when they are forced to share the cost of paying for the old and the infirm who were previously not covered.
Most importantly, the government has never shown us it's ability to add value to ANYTHING, in fact, it usually manages to add cost and diminish the value of everything it controls. For example, the government already controls Medicare, which has an unfunded liability of more than $31 TRILLION. Given this poor track record through many years of many administrations both Republican and Democrat, why should we (or Obama) believe that the government can effectively manage the entire healthcare system?
Last edited:
eknuds01
Well-known member
HsvToolFool
Well-known member
Now I don't care who you are...
...but this is funny...
http://www.youtube.com/v/XgDCXLhBMQU&hl
The accents, makeup, and clothing just kill me.
...but this is funny...
http://www.youtube.com/v/XgDCXLhBMQU&hl
The accents, makeup, and clothing just kill me.
Yeah, probably best to just to stick with the Republicans, inasmuch as we all know what a terrific job they've they've done...
To paraphrase Ross Perot, that "great sucking sound" you hear regarding health care in this Country is all those $$$$$$ being sucked out of our health care system by the "middle-men" HMOs and other Health Insurance "Providers." Seems to me that it is difficult to perceive the value-added of what some call blood-sucking entities...
Or, for that matter, (given your comments, above) why should this Republican Administration choose to take over (yeah, I know, they call it a "rescue") these financial institutions? Seems to me that Republicans are just fine with businesses making huge profits, and paying their CEOs obscene amounts of $$$$$$$$. But when the enterprise fails, then suddenly it is up to the Federal Government (that's You & Me, BTW) to bail them out, assume their HUGE debt resulting from poor decision-making by their execs (oh yeah, that "executive experience" thing again...), and STILL giving these (dirty rotten) scoundrels their Golden Parachutes.
I don't recall Fannie or Freddie or Bear Stearns or AIG wanting to have the citizens of These United States partner with them when they were raking in the $$$$$$$$. But let "real" valuations of their positions come to light, and their enterprise start to collapse, and all of a sudden they want to "partner-up" with us.
What a CROCK!!!
Thanks for "Manning-Up." I respect you for that and appreciate it.
OK...But even better to "vet" if first. I hope you weren't relying on Rush or one of those other factually-challenged extremist media turkeys...
I would really, really appreciate it if you could provide any credible reference / link regarding this. I ask because I looked. I really, really looked. The inference leads one to believe that Obama wants the United States to unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons, and of course he has suggested no such thing. He probably DOES believe that a reduction in nuclear weaponry in the world would be a good thing, like most every President before Bush II. Bush I was all for such a reduction. I know this first-hand.
Well, maybe if we had enjoyed a little more government oversight, we (You & Me) wouldn't have to be bailing out Freddie and Fannie and Bear-Stearns and AIG, etc. These "execs" were clearly reckless, yet they get "Golden Parachutes" while we get stuck with paying for their arrogance, greed, and blundering.
Seems to me Bush was the fella looking to redistribute wealth -- only his method was bass-ackward as he just sought to enrich the wealthy (and here he was pretty well successful)!!!
He was wrong-headed about that just like he was wrong-headed about nearly everything he touched. JMHO, of course...BTW, whats wrong with striving to make things a bit more fair?
I think Obama is pretty determined to Strengthen our National Defense, not weaken it as you suggest.
tav1
Well-known member
I would really, really appreciate it if you could provide any credible reference / link regarding this. I ask because I looked. I really, really looked. The inference leads one to believe that Obama wants the United States to unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons, and of course he has suggested no such thing. He probably DOES believe that a reduction in nuclear weaponry in the world would be a good thing, like most every President before Bush II. Bush I was all for such a reduction. I know this first-hand.
True, Obama does not suggest to unilaterally disarm our nukes, but what he does propose in this link does scare me. I'm all for eliminating wasteful spending as he proposes but the cuts and cutbacks he wants are too much for me. People can decide for themselves based on his own words.
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-protect-america/
Well, maybe if we had enjoyed a little more government oversight, we (You & Me) wouldn't have to be bailing out Freddie and Fannie and Bear-Stearns and AIG, etc. These "execs" were clearly reckless, yet they get "Golden Parachutes" while we get stuck with paying for their arrogance, greed, and blundering.
I did see on the news where both McCain and Obama each entered separate legislation a couple of years ago that could have helped head this off, but both bills died. I'm not for government bailing out companies, but I guess it had to be done in these cases?
Seems to me Bush was the fella looking to redistribute wealth -- only his method was bass-ackward as he just sought to enrich the wealthy (and here he was pretty well successful) How so?
!!! He was wrong-headed about that just like he was wrong-headed about nearly everything he touched. JMHO, of course...
BTW, whats wrong with striving to make things a bit more fair?
I think Obama is pretty determined to Strengthen our National Defense, not weaken it as you suggest.[/QUOTE]
True, Obama does not suggest to unilaterally disarm our nukes, but what he does propose in this link does scare me. I'm all for eliminating wasteful spending as he proposes but the cuts and cutbacks he wants are too much for me. People can decide for themselves based on his own words.
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-protect-america/
Well, maybe if we had enjoyed a little more government oversight, we (You & Me) wouldn't have to be bailing out Freddie and Fannie and Bear-Stearns and AIG, etc. These "execs" were clearly reckless, yet they get "Golden Parachutes" while we get stuck with paying for their arrogance, greed, and blundering.
I did see on the news where both McCain and Obama each entered separate legislation a couple of years ago that could have helped head this off, but both bills died. I'm not for government bailing out companies, but I guess it had to be done in these cases?
Seems to me Bush was the fella looking to redistribute wealth -- only his method was bass-ackward as he just sought to enrich the wealthy (and here he was pretty well successful) How so?
!!!
He was wrong-headed about that just like he was wrong-headed about nearly everything he touched. JMHO, of course...BTW, whats wrong with striving to make things a bit more fair?
I think Obama is pretty determined to Strengthen our National Defense, not weaken it as you suggest.[/QUOTE]
OK, I watched the link (thanks). Sounded no different to me from what recent presidents have pushed -- especially Carter, Reagan & Bush I. It is difficult to understand why Obama would be criticized for such a position.
Sounded to me like the purveyor of the Blog was trying to make an issue of something without knowing what they were talking about.
But, maybe that's just me. BTW, I would encourage everyone to watch it. Nothing scary at all about it, just good, common sense...
Seems to me Bush was the fella looking to redistribute wealth -- only his method was bass-ackward as he just sought to enrich the wealthy (and here he was pretty well successful)
By giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent of Americans, and doing NOTHING to reduce the debilitating payroll taxes that workers pay.
Not to mention the generous increase in tax incentives to businesses to send jobs overseas, or failing to even so much as attempt to close those loopholes that encourage businesses to locate to places like the Caymans...The majority of the largest 100 businesses now pay NO income taxes, for crying out loud! It may sound fair to you, but it sure doesn't to me!
eknuds01
Well-known member
OK, I watched the link (thanks). Sounded no different to me from what recent presidents have pushed -- especially Carter, Reagan & Bush I. It is difficult to understand why Obama would be criticized for such a position.
Sounded to me like the purveyor of the Blog was trying to make an issue of something without knowing what they were talking about.
But, maybe that's just me. BTW, I would encourage everyone to watch it. Nothing scary at all about it, just good, common sense...
Seems to me Bush was the fella looking to redistribute wealth -- only his method was bass-ackward as he just sought to enrich the wealthy (and here he was pretty well successful)
By giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent of Americans, and doing NOTHING to reduce the debilitating payroll taxes that workers pay.
Not to mention the generous increase in tax incentives to businesses to send jobs overseas, or failing to even so much as attempt to close those loopholes that encourage businesses to locate to places like the Caymans...The majority of the largest 100 businesses now pay NO income taxes, for crying out loud! It may sound fair to you, but it sure doesn't to me!
XOM (2007): total taxes = $105B; effective tax rate = 44%
3M had a 2007 effective tax rate of 32%
Explain to me how companies don't pay taxes?
Perhaps this link will be helpful to you...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml
Or perhaps this one...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories
Let us know what you think.
eknuds01
Well-known member
Perhaps this link will be helpful to you...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml
Or perhaps this one...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories
Let us know what you think.
From the 2nd link:
But many of the companies the report found had paid no tax were likely small businesses that pay other taxes. Generally, many small firms, because they do not have shareholders, are able to shift corporate income to individual income.
The first link was mentioned all corporations (chapter S and the like) - not the largest 100 you mentioned in the post.
Your original post said the top 100 largest companies pay no income tax - this is simply not true. Now, our tax code is 34534534634x more complicated than it needs to be and there are loop holes that companies (and individuals) exploit. I am a big advocate of simplifying the tax code to close off these loop holes. T that would make things a lot more transparent (and everyone would consume less Tums in April).
Last edited:
Actually, in the interest of accuracy -- I did NOT state that the "...top 100 largest companies pay no income tax." If you would review my post, you will find that it says that the MAJORITY of the 100 largest companies pay no income tax.
I stand by MY statement.
And I am also a strong advocate of tax code simplification.
So what's the consensus on McCains' latest unpredictable act ? Is he :
a) Trying to make a political move in an attempt to slow his campaigns' freefall in the polls?
b) Actually hoping to make a difference in the stumbling negotiations on the bailout?
c) Indirectly trying to get Sarah Palin out from having to debate Biden?
d) Going completely batsh*t?
I have my own thoughts about each one of the above listed options, but I shall save them until I've heard a few more possible motives from this board. Let's hear 'em !!
~VDR
a) Trying to make a political move in an attempt to slow his campaigns' freefall in the polls?
b) Actually hoping to make a difference in the stumbling negotiations on the bailout?
c) Indirectly trying to get Sarah Palin out from having to debate Biden?
d) Going completely batsh*t?
I have my own thoughts about each one of the above listed options, but I shall save them until I've heard a few more possible motives from this board. Let's hear 'em !!
~VDR
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
You mean this one?...
John McCain has launched his second Hail Mary pass in a month. On Wednesday he called for a suspension of the presidential campaign—no events, no ads, and no debate Friday—so that he and Barack Obama can head to Washington to forge a bipartisan solution.
Yeah, let's get rid of the time honoured American traditions to fit his own agenda.
John McCain has launched his second Hail Mary pass in a month. On Wednesday he called for a suspension of the presidential campaign—no events, no ads, and no debate Friday—so that he and Barack Obama can head to Washington to forge a bipartisan solution.
Yeah, let's get rid of the time honoured American traditions to fit his own agenda.
Diamonds
Well-known member
My vote is for (A)
Last edited:
kwr
Well-known member
First debate - I think these things are seldom won but are more about overall impressions.
My call McCain inevitably looked better on foreign policy with his years of experience but dismal on the initial bailout question. He sounded like yesterday's man and was constantly corrected by Obama about halftruths.
Obama looking presidential, McCain looking tired.
Kevin
My call McCain inevitably looked better on foreign policy with his years of experience but dismal on the initial bailout question. He sounded like yesterday's man and was constantly corrected by Obama about halftruths.
Obama looking presidential, McCain looking tired.
Kevin
