Republican party

[Atlantian]

Why would anyone that makes less than 40,000 a year support them? Just want to know why. Since you more than likely have no insurance or benefits. But, you still support them. It just amazes me.

 

[UltimaSword]

Both parties suck at helping the poor. I personally like democrats more often because I have pretty liberal views. Though I don't pick a candidate just because of that.

 

[Mama Faith]

I do hope you want a truthful answer on this and that you're not just baiting people. Either way, I'll bite. I was raised a Democrat but after Jimmy Carter's presidency and the massive layoffs in our state, I started looking at the Republican party. Granted, though my hubby and I make over 40k nowadays, back then we made about 22k (raising 3 children) so I think that's pretty close to the equivalent. We started voting for the individual instead of the party. As the years passed, the Democrats seemed to get further away from our beliefs whether it was on abortion, taxes or the military. Before the attacks start, let me say I'm adamantly Pro-life for good reason. I counseled crisis pregnancies for 8 years and saw the damage done. I won't even get into the D & X procedure they're doing now because it makes me cry to think about it. You can google it yourself. The Democrat's current candidate supports this procedure along with performing NO medical procedures on a baby who lives through a botched abortion. As far as taxes; I am always anti-tax and vote against them on principle. I have little to no faith in government doing anything right and it seems like whenever they stick their fingers into something, it costs 10 times more than before. Therefore, leave my money alone and I will continue to tithe to various groups. OK...I think that explains my position well enough. I respect the right of others to have differing opinions and to voice them. Coming from a family of 11 children, I learned quickly that not all of us think alike.

The only sin that we never forgive in each other is a difference in opinion. – Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[UltimaSword]

Mama on abortion states already have laws that demand the care of a child born from a failed abortion. Obama said that is why he rejected adding a law that said that same thing. Also I am pro-choice only up to a certain amount of months. I think partial birth abortions are murders. i also think if the mother is like 7 8 9 months it is also murder. I forgot the exact month of development.

 

[Mama Faith]

Ultima, he also stated that he didn't want a woman to second guess her decision to have gone through with that abortion if the child happened to live through it. But mainly, I can't get past him having no problem with partial birth abortions. I believe in the sanctity of life and though I hold my beliefs close to my heart, I will never condemn a woman for having had one....unless they've been using it as birth control. The ones who have had one need compassion and not judgment. I have a family member who had one and if anyone could've seen the guilt and hurt she carried to her death bed, it'd break your heart. But I won't hijack this thread with this issue; I just wanted to respond to your response.

 

[Atlantian]

Thanks for your opinion. The reason I wanted to know is because the part of the country where I lived for years is mostly Dems. And we always did well with a Dem in office. And our economy sucked with a Repub (except Ronald Reagan).

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Why would anyone that makes less than 40,000 a year support them? Just want to know why. Since you more than likely have no insurance or benefits. But, you still support them. It just amazes me.

Funny how just about the whole of Hollywood supports the democrat party...la

 

[Mama Faith]

Funny how just about the whole of Hollywood supports the democrat party...la

I've noticed the same thing Scoundrel but in Hollywood's case, I think it has more to do with issues such as abortion, gay marriage, animal "rights", Greenpeace and the military. Whatever the case may be, I've never based my life or beliefs on Hollywood's mentality (or lack thereof). I have more respect for an ant than I do for Hollywood. Btw...why do your posts always end in "la"? *LOL* I get such a kick out of it.

Atlantian, you have just echoed why I vote the way I do. Since one party didn't do anything for your economy, you naturally chose to go with the other. It makes perfect sense. That's why I don't like to get into "party bashing". As far as I'm concerned, neither party gave us excellent choices this time around. If the only reason someone can give me as to why they're a certain party is because they were raised that way, I would wonder if they're simple minded. You have a valid reason for your beliefs just as those with opposing views do. I think it's awesome to be able to voice those views without fear of attack.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

I've noticed the same thing Scoundrel but in Hollywood's case, I think it has more to do with issues such as abortion, gay marriage, animal "rights", Greenpeace and the military.

Actually it is much simpler.

Young people (adolescent to oh lets say 30ish) are the largest spending demographic and most certainly the largest movie goers.

You people tend to be against the Man(nothing more defined than that), aka Democrats (yes the preadolescencents included).

It is simple, they wont be Hollywood stars unless they publicly cater to that Spending Block.

UltimaSword should have added if he was for Abortion being a means of Birth Control.

Also, be advised, speaking badly of Jimmy Carter may make it ... harder for you to post here even though what you said is the truth.

 

[Mama Faith]

Also, be advised, speaking badly of Jimmy Carter may make it ... harder for you to post here even though what you said is the truth.

I was a young woman getting ready to graduate from HS when Carter was president and the world was in chaos. Many seem to have forgotten what happened with the economy back then, including gas prices. Ronald Reagan saved our sorry arses but many refuse to acknowledge that because of his being a Republican (and I commend Atlantian for being able to say it). I have an uncle who will cuss anything Republican and praises anything Democrat. He and I have gotten into heated discussions and when I "score" a point, he'll just shake his head, grit his teeth and tell me he'd like to slap me. For some reason, I find it amusing and will get up, give him a *HUGE HUG* and tell him I love him...even if he is misguided. I can be such a brat.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

*Shrug*

Yup, those are the things that happened and the way it was.

 

[Dutchhans]

I was a young woman getting ready to graduate from HS when Carter was president and the world was in chaos. Many seem to have forgotten what happened with the economy back then, including gas prices. Ronald Reagan saved our sorry arses but many refuse to acknowledge that because of his being a Republican (and I commend Atlantian for being able to say it). I have an uncle who will cuss anything Republican and praises anything Democrat. He and I have gotten into heated discussions and when I "score" a point, he'll just shake his head, grit his teeth and tell me he'd like to slap me. For some reason, I find it amusing and will get up, give him a *HUGE HUG* and tell him I love him...even if he is misguided. I can be such a brat.

A lot less worse than is happening now with the credit crises, plus if Reagan hadn't stopped all the development programs for alternative fuels and conservation, chances are that today we wouldn't have an energy crises like in the past 6 months, or international tension because we have to protect our oil supplies.

Besides that under Reagan the spending didn't go down, it is not for nothing that the largest government building is named after Reagan, only debts went up. One of the mistakes made in the past (also under Clinton) is the surpression of small recessions by the fed, being one of the factors that causes the perfect storm in the financial market.

Clinton was a visionary president, who didn't like Reagan gave in to the flavor of the month, but tried to govern with long term goals.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

I have an uncle who will cuss anything Republican and praises anything Democrat. He and I have gotten into heated discussions and when I "score" a point, he'll just shake his head, grit his teeth and tell me he'd like to slap me. For some reason, I find it amusing and will get up, give him a *HUGE HUG* and tell him I love him...even if he is misguided. I can be such a brat.

Sounds like you got a pretty good opportunity to understand and deal with dogma. It is a good thing your Uncle was actually there, at least the two of you can speak of the events from a base of knowledge. That always helps.

Good luck and may you always find it amusing and just give him a big cuddle. I am sure it will help. Families are good for that.

 

[Mirage]

A lot less worse than is happening now with the credit crises, plus if Reagan hadn't stopped all the development programs for alternative fuels and conservation, chances are that today we wouldn't have an energy crises like in the past 6 months, or international tension because we have to protect our oil supplies.

I would hardly blame Regan completely for this. We have had 20 years of presidents since then that could have reversed that decision . Why didn't they act to do so?

Mir

 

[Dutchhans]

I would hardly blame Regan completely for this. We have had 20 years of presidents since then that could have reversed that decision . Why didn't they act to do so?

Mir

Because Reagan had people mesmerized, any President trying to reverse those policies would have been quartered. Clinton tried and got pretty far by his attempts of balancing the budget, to be followed by a Reagan disciple who once again went into a spend, spend and lower taxes mode.

It's like raising your credit card limits, buying a new car and large house on credit and only going to work part time.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Clinton was a visionary president, who didn't like Reagan gave in to the flavor of the month, but tried to govern with long term goals.

ROFL, Clinton governed by trial balloon...la

 

[Dutchhans]

Clinton was a visionary president, who didn't like Reagan gave in to the flavor of the month, but tried to govern with long term goals.

ROFL, Clinton governed by trial balloon...la

Oops error, meant Carter.

 

[Mirage]

Because Reagan had people mesmerized, any President trying to reverse those policies would have been quartered. Clinton tried and got pretty far by his attempts of balancing the budget, to be followed by a Reagan disciple who once again went into a spend, spend and lower taxes mode.

It's like raising your credit card limits, buying a new car and large house on credit and only going to work part time.

What do you mean mesmerized? LOL That's just silly.... and Clinton was still mesmerized four years later? Puleaseeee..!!

Do you mean mesmerized like Barak has the country mesmerized??

You make me laugh...LoL

Mir

 

[Aran]

I don't think that everyone should have to pay for things I want/need, that's why.

 

[Tycolby]

Can you please Explain how trickle up economics works!

Really, please tell me how my hard earned taxe dollars given to ppl who dont strive to go out and get a better job will make them more like to try to strive?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life. Dont take hard working americans' dollars away, instead teach this ppl how to do the jobs that are needed in america.

Guess thats why Bil Gates is moving his jobs out of country, for skilled computer programers.

And why should ppl get bigger income tax rebates than income taxes they paid all year?

 

[Mama Faith]

Amen. I actually heard people within my own large family complaining that their 'stimulus' check wasn't the max amount. When I asked how much they paid in and was told "nothing", I couldn't help but bust out laughing. Insofar as knowing how to fish (I've always loved that saying), I'm so thankful I had parents who taught us the value of a decent wage for a decent job done.

 

[Notzaga]

They should limit the voting age to between 25-55. Also, you should have to purchase your vote. It should cost about $15,000 per vote. Maybe another $5,000 to let your wife vote too but hers should only count for like 1/5 of a vote. That way rich people in Utah wouldn't be able to force issues by their voting power.

 

[Flora Green]

Sexist.

 

[Az of DSR]

Ok people, too much news and talking to the same people about the same stuff....

Up untill 2000 the tax code was fair, then Bush came into office and he decided that the rich should get these extra tax breaks because its what he called the "trickle down" theory. Well guess what, its time for a change. It was just another backoffice way for the 5% of america who has all the money to steal from the public coffers. So Obama is going to fix this error and go back to the same tax sceme we have always used.

Obama is like robinhood fighting off the evil sheriff tax code of bushes. Stealing from the public coffers and Obama is getting it back to help feed the poor in the parts of america where you dont become rich, you survive.

I often wonder how we as normal job and cash flow people could really allow our tax dollars to be stolen from us in this tax code. I think I have my own answer to my "whys?". Im a young man so dont let my arrogance or lack of spelling ( = annoy you. I think people get what the deserve, but how could this happen?

Its our greed. We all want the dream of being one of those rich people on TV. All of the right wing policies are stack in the favor of this small minority of wealth, in yet most of the party is made up of the poorest of americans. Its the same reason people buy lottery tickets, its that dream we all seem to have. Its what we do when we cant change the life we are stuck living, dream. Martin Luther King all the way down to Joe the Plumber.

Like Ronald Regan was to the Repubs, may Obama be to the Dems.

Last note. As the curve of wealth goes up, so does the ratio of savings. In the sense those on the lowest part of the curve have 100% spending, and at the top say bill gates, spends less then 1% maybe? So if you want to stimulate the economy why would you give it to someone who already has more then they will spend? But if you give it to someone who spends every dime they get then they will enter your jobs and your bosses will have to hire more staff to meet the demand. Stop letting the trickle down theory cloud your judgement, let the trickle up movement begin.!

Via la Revolution, All hail the golden age of Obama

( =

 

[Notzaga]

Ok people, too much news and talking to the same people about the same stuff....

Up untill 2000 the tax code was fair, then Bush came into office and he decided that the rich should get these extra tax breaks because its what he called the "trickle down" theory. Well guess what, its time for a change. It was just another backoffice way for the 5% of america who has all the money to steal from the public coffers. So Obama is going to fix this error and go back to the same tax sceme we have always used.

Obama is like robinhood fighting off the evil sheriff tax code of bushes. Stealing from the public coffers and Obama is getting it back to help feed the poor in the parts of america where you dont become rich, you survive.

I often wonder how we as normal job and cash flow people could really allow our tax dollars to be stolen from us in this tax code. I think I have my own answer to my "whys?". Im a young man so dont let my arrogance or lack of spelling ( = annoy you. I think people get what the deserve, but how could this happen?

Its our greed. We all want the dream of being one of those rich people on TV. All of the right wing policies are stack in the favor of this small minority of wealth, in yet most of the party is made up of the poorest of americans. Its the same reason people buy lottery tickets, its that dream we all seem to have. Its what we do when we cant change the life we are stuck living, dream. Martin Luther King all the way down to Joe the Plumber.

Like Ronald Regan was to the Repubs, may Obama be to the Dems.

Last note. As the curve of wealth goes up, so does the ratio of savings. In the sense those on the lowest part of the curve have 100% spending, and at the top say bill gates, spends less then 1% maybe? So if you want to stimulate the economy why would you give it to someone who already has more then they will spend? But if you give it to someone who spends every dime they get then they will enter your jobs and your bosses will have to hire more staff to meet the demand. Stop letting the trickle down theory cloud your judgement, let the trickle up movement begin.!

Via la Revolution, All hail the golden age of Obama

( =

LOL, Obama has already lost the election. Enjoy!!!

 

[Mama Faith]

But in my humble opinion Az, here's the error in your logic. The wealthy spend much more than 1% based upon just the "spending mentality". Have you ever heard the saying that you "spend what you make"? It seems that no matter where the hubby and I have been income-wise, that has been the case for us. And if Bill Gates were to spend 1% of his gazillion dollars, that'd still be a heckuva lot more than I'll see in a lifetime.

As an aside....have they figured out what they consider middle class income yet? It's gone from $250,000 to $150,000 to $120,000. Or is it possibly the $41,500 Obama used as a figure in June/July? I'm to the point where I don't know that either party is going to be able to do much with the mentality that's out there anymore. It's just a "gimme gimme" attitude and it's beyond old. I find it all so sad and would love to see the day where government just gets back to protecting us and making laws. Other than that, leave us the heck alone.

 

[Atlantian]

Oh now! Come on! Do any of you really understand the tax code? You have to have a degree to really understand it! I doubt very seriously there is ANYONE here that understands the tax code of the U.S.! And besides! All I wanted was honest answers to my question!........You make hardly any money......yet you support someone that make you poorer? Just answer the question! Thats all I wanted to know! Why would anyone do that?

 

[Az of DSR]

Well my dad has a phd in econ, and as he is my boss/partner for work. Sometimes changing the topic is a nice tactic. So I brought up these threads for that video game i used to play (we talk alot of politics) and he mentioned most of the above ideas to me to explain the flaws of trickle down.

But I think I get the idea that we all might just be looking at the elephant in the room, just some see the back and other the front. Never get to see the other point of view for yourself, but doesnt mean its not there.

But to get back on topic.

1) Evangelicals or faith based extremist. Both parties are fairly faith based, the republicains might take it so far as to oppose this onto everyone even if they do not practice (abortion, creationism/bible science, gays..)

2) My dads theory is its about wanting to be a part of lifestyle of the rich or wealthy. So they vote republician to make sure the party is still there when they get there invite. Which unfortionately never comes.

3) One of my favorite uncles voted for bush both years because he wanted to keep his guns. Very simple ( =

4) I have a cousin whos a career marine. I think most of the military and there familys will also vote republican based on a view that its in there best interest. And in alot of ways it is.

Theres my experience with the party. And let me end with I do kinda like McCain as a man. Its hard to talk bad about ethier canidate for me, just ya gotta remember its bigger then just them. They hire the people to do the jobs and run the country. I think they both will make sure we still on the map for a long time. ( =

Obama will just do more for me, and I will just have to argue most likely you aswell even if ya dont realize it.

 

[Flora Green]

Because the democrats by and large are socialists and the Libertarians are more concerned with getting high than protecting the country.

 

[Der Rock]

Can you please Explain how trickle up economics works!

Really, please tell me how my hard earned taxe dollars given to ppl who dont strive to go out and get a better job will make them more like to try to strive?

oh what a argument
yeah, and at the time ALL people are movie stars or bank manager then u have to pay no more taxes anymore?????
but moooment, who do u think will dispose ure garbage, or repair the toilette, or clean the windows ??????????????????????????????????????

the QUESTION is not how "get a better job", the question is how get this people payed fair
a houerly earning from 7-9 $ or in german 3-7 € is nothing else then modern slavery


or how is that: "oh we are so sorry we cant safe youre child´s life because u cant pay the
hospital expense"
its a bad world


hmm,the wall street manager had a so called better job, they gamble away the pension of millions of people . do u mean such "better jop´s" ?

 

[Nexus]

Can you please Explain how trickle up economics works!

Really, please tell me how my hard earned taxe dollars given to ppl who dont strive to go out and get a better job will make them more like to try to strive?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life. Dont take hard working americans' dollars away, instead teach this ppl how to do the jobs that are needed in america.

Guess thats why Bil Gates is moving his jobs out of country, for skilled computer programers.

And why should ppl get bigger income tax rebates than income taxes they paid all year?

Trickle down doesn't work either btw, because the how financial structure is designed to protect and promote the wealthy. You know those who can sink their cash into non-taxable assets, and small private corporations. Let me give you an example.

If I had the money to do so, I could buy up properties at auction or through foreclosure, once I had 10 or so I could start a Real Estate Investment Trust, which can be incorporated. Now the majority of my travel be it for work or pleasure can be written off as tax deductible (within laws governing such) as long as I stop by a couple of real estate offices, drop off cards and view a house or two, vehicles can be purchased and written off as business expenses if I use them to go to neighborhoods to view properties....or if I am renting properties out used to carry supplies for repairs or business related things, even though the usage is mainly for personal use! This is 100% legal but requires a good bit of start up capital, yea you pay annual property taxes but quite often on property that is increasing in value faster than tax reappraisal. Small business can't do this as their income isn't enough to allow this type of diversification, the middle and lower class individuals can't do this because of needed starting capital.

Stock options vs pay is another fine way people hide money from their income. Most large company CEO's get the majority of their salary in Stock options, they only pay tax out on them when they are traded, their worth goes up, but there's no more tax paid out on that money.


Trickle down doesn't work because there are too many ways for Wealthy individuals and Companies to put buckets out to stop the trickle.....

 

[Hanna]

Thanks for your opinion. The reason I wanted to know is because the part of the country where I lived for years is mostly Dems. And we always did well with a Dem in office. And our economy sucked with a Repub (except Ronald Reagan).

Actually the Democrats, starting with Johnson, suck at economics. Clinton only did well because he was still living off Reagan's work and had a Republican congress to balance the budget.
The main problem with Bush is that there were too many costly crises' (Kritina, Floods, 911 etc.), a war the was restrained from going forward by not supplying enough troops to begin with (this was mostly the commanding generals fault at the time). When he took office in 2001 he wanted the problem with the mortgages looked at but failed to push the matter, even when the secretary of the treasury warned congress openly about the problem in 2003, McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2005 to try and correct the problem which was overwhelmingly voted down by the Democratic congress.

The second biggest problem with Bush is he is likely the worst public speaker in presidential history.

Democrats do best when holding only small politcal offices, once they get to congress or above they tend to screw things up because they vote as the wind blows rather than using real logic.

Obama is a grand master of the wind blowing politics. He's so good everyone ignored the fact he finds white people disgusting and firmly believes (which he is obviously correct) that he can pacify them over any controversies with a smile and polite and calm speech. That he spent a good deal of his time, talking with foreign leaders (often notorious) to try and block negotiations currently in progress with the real part of our government, so that he could push his adgenda for WHEN he became president.

I am really amazed how easy the majority of our country was so easily swooned by a slick salesman's smooth talking.

 

[Nexus]

But in my humble opinion Az, here's the error in your logic. The wealthy spend much more than 1% based upon just the "spending mentality". Have you ever heard the saying that you "spend what you make"? It seems that no matter where the hubby and I have been income-wise, that has been the case for us. And if Bill Gates were to spend 1% of his gazillion dollars, that'd still be a heckuva lot more than I'll see in a lifetime.

As an aside....have they figured out what they consider middle class income yet? It's gone from $250,000 to $150,000 to $120,000. Or is it possibly the $41,500 Obama used as a figure in June/July? I'm to the point where I don't know that either party is going to be able to do much with the mentality that's out there anymore. It's just a "gimme gimme" attitude and it's beyond old. I find it all so sad and would love to see the day where government just gets back to protecting us and making laws. Other than that, leave us the heck alone.

The 2006 Census put the average income in a US household at $46,326 33% of households in the US make between $30,000 and $62,000 so that's probably a better representation of Middle class and would put that $46k figure about dead center.

But there's a lot more to look at when you talk Economics and how a Government should deal with it. Take for example the median house cost in the US which is about $192,000 With 10% down and a 5% AIR (Annual Interest Rate for fixed rate mortgages ) That's $927.63 a month in payments for 30 years. The top 25% of the lower class only bring home around $1875 a month....so when you factor in other expenses it's damn near impossible for over 30% of American's to own a home and have any type of quality of living. All that needs to be taken into account when you discuss what needs to happen to the economy. Trickle Down doesn't help these people, it gets stuck somewhere in the Upper Middle income bracket. More needs to be done to put money in the pockets of those that work for it....and that doesn't mean just the well educated or extremely lucky. This problem is being made worse by illegal immigration, Illegal Immigrates are filling up what used to be decent wage jobs mainly in home construction and and factory labor work. I think everyone would hate it if I was to get granted 3 wishes for change to the government because my idea of immigration reform isn't very popular with most people I talk too.

But one thing I really want all the Republican Die Hards to do is look up government spending by president...The Past 3 republican Presidents have set record levels (for the time) of spending by the government while during Democratic times that spending had dropped off.

Oh and you can't use War spending for Iraq as an excuse for the poor economic status during his terms...He started the fight even though he was told the intelligence he based the decision to go to Iraq on was possibly faulty. Instead of doing what a wise and prudent leader would and making damn sure he was acting on correct information before violating another nations sovereignty he didn't. The biggest reason we're in the economic mess we're in with the national debt as high as it is, is because Ol'GW wanted to jump the gun and have a Legacy, and wound up sticking us right in the middle of an ant hill of the most virulent nations currently on the planet, Most middle eastern countries are governed strictly where religious law is made into punishable offenses and religious belief is restricted. It's a perfect place to breed zealots as we all know with the constant screaming of Jihad by Extremist Islamic Clerics, violating any of those countries sovereign status was an open invitation to every zealot militant in the middle east, which well thanks to formation of Israel by the Allies at the end of WWII there seems to be many of.

Let me also ask this...Why the hell are we paying to rebuild Iraq and Still paying for construction in Kuwait? That's where the major spending is hurting us..historically war has helped the economy. But in this case it's hurting it...Why because two of the countries with the largest Oil commodities are barely paying a dime to rebuild....Oh wait Bush signed off on that...How bout this....The DOE granted contracts for additional oil and Natural Gas to be claimed in Alaska.....It's being sold to Japan.....Enough to fuel 1.4 million American house holds for a year....while costs of heating oil are going up 24% this winter vs last year....What about those that can barely afford it now? Oh wait That was a Republican decision.....

Don't get me wrong I don't think Democrats are innocent but this topic is about Republican's. I've said already what I think about how the government is set up and what should be changed..but hell if that was to happen so many people would freak out even though in the long run it would probably be better.

 

[Hanna]

Well my dad has a phd in econ, and as he is my boss/partner for work...

Well first off if all economists agreed there would only be Republicans. And Jimmy Carter would never have destroyed the economy for Reagan to fix. Economics is NOT a science, but there are some guiding principles. Ones that most Democratic economists usually ignore.

One is that government cannot provide wealth, it does a damm poor job at it. If the politicians were good are creating businesses and jobs, they wouldn't be politicians. At least the Republicans realize this. Ever notice how many of the top Democratic politicians are Lawyers often Harvard Lawyers, well trained in persuasion and acting.

Our system is based on checks and balances, once government takes over business, those checks and balances are lost. Motivation to achieve is lost. Yes we need government regulation, it why we have labor laws, minimum wage laws, anti-trust and anti monopoly laws, plus many other laws to keep businesses in check. But, we also have to be careful not over do it.

Take a look at the welfare system. You actually got kids aspiring to be welfare moms. Welfare was a program that was so tightly entwined in bloated government red tape, that it made it difficult if not nearly impossible to get out of once you were fully on it.

By the way Federal minimum wage should always be set to scale of the lowest cost of living state. It's the states themselves that are responsible for making sure that their states minimum wages are set appropriately for their state's cost of living. Obama wants to jack this up rapidly to 9.50 an hour, this will cripple small business in lower cost of living states - namely Republican states.

 

[Nexus]

One is that government cannot provide wealth, it does a damm poor job at it. If the politicians were good are creating businesses and jobs, they wouldn't be politicians. At least the Republicans realize this. Ever notice how many of the top Democratic politicians are Lawyers often Harvard Lawyers, well trained in persuasion and acting.

Tell that to FDR and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Government no can't directly create wealth, but it can assist with and create business to assist with employing the people.

Our system is based on checks and balances, once government takes over business, those checks and balances are lost. Motivation to achieve is lost. Yes we need government regulation, it why we have labor laws, minimum wage laws, anti-trust and anti monopoly laws, plus many other laws to keep businesses in check. But, we also have to be careful not over do it.

Government Regulation has to change with the times and protect the citizens and legal residents of it's country. This is something the US hasn't been doing and needs to really focus on. How much of the blue collar labor has been taken by illegal immigrants? Construction, farming, landscaping....especially in the South East, West and South West.

Take a look at the welfare system. You actually got kids aspiring to be welfare moms. Welfare was a program that was so tightly entwined in bloated government red tape, that it made it difficult if not nearly impossible to get out of once you were fully on it.

Umm Clinton signed in Welfare reform that limited it's assistance to 5 years, after that it's up to the states to generate relief funding.

By the way Federal minimum wage should always be set to scale of the lowest cost of living state. It's the states themselves that are responsible for making sure that their states minimum wages are set appropriately for their state's cost of living. Obama wants to jack this up rapidly to 9.50 an hour, this will cripple small business in lower cost of living states - namely Republican states.

Federal Minimum Wage also hasn't kept pace with the cost of living, it needs to be put into proper scale. The Fact that many states especially the poor one's rely on the federal minimum as their standard is directly reflected in them having some of the lowest incomes per capita in the nation. But oh yea we can't take care of our own people but we can give out billions in relief to other countries, rebuild nations that can generate enormous amounts of capital in a short period.

On a slightly related subject....

Personally I think every American should really see where their money is going, and I'm not talking about just taxes either...I'm talking about charitable donations too. Tithing at church or donations starving kids in Kenya thanks to Sally Struthers thanks to a late night infomercial..... and find out where that money really goes...does it help the kids living in back allies in Washington DC? What about folks who loose their homes to floods or other natural disasters here in the US? How much of it goes to pay off politicians for votes? The US has gotten this stupid Idea they need to bail out and save every other country when we need to help ourselves first.

 

[Hanna]

One is that government cannot provide wealth, it does a damm poor job at it. If the politicians were good are creating businesses and jobs, they wouldn't be politicians. At least the Republicans realize this. Ever notice how many of the top Democratic politicians are Lawyers often Harvard Lawyers, well trained in persuasion and acting.

Tell that to FDR and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Government no can't directly create wealth, but it can assist with and create business to assist with employing the people.

Because it was a completely desperate time 24% unemployment, he was printing fake money to finace this. It didn't pull us out of the depression, it just made it easier to bear for those that were unemployed. The businesses that ultimately pulled us out of the depression, were created more by WWII and trade with other nations. There were like 5 million people still stuck in these programs by the time WWII hit.

Our system is based on checks and balances, once government takes over business, those checks and balances are lost. Motivation to achieve is lost. Yes we need government regulation, it why we have labor laws, minimum wage laws, anti-trust and anti monopoly laws, plus many other laws to keep businesses in check. But, we also have to be careful not over do it.

Government Regulation has to change with the times and protect the citizens and legal residents of it's country. This is something the US hasn't been doing and needs to really focus on. How much of the blue collar labor has been taken by illegal immigrants? Construction, farming, landscaping....especially in the South East, West and South West.

Well then thank Bill Clinton for all the aministy he handed out, something that the Democrates pushed hard for, how soon you all forget.

Take a look at the welfare system. You actually got kids aspiring to be welfare moms. Welfare was a program that was so tightly entwined in bloated government red tape, that it made it difficult if not nearly impossible to get out of once you were fully on it.

Umm Clinton signed in Welfare reform that limited it's assistance to 5 years, after that it's up to the states to generate relief funding.

Correction, yes old Bill signed it (you know that was kind of his job), but it was a Republican bill and passed into law by a Republican congress.

By the way Federal minimum wage should always be set to scale of the lowest cost of living state. It's the states themselves that are responsible for making sure that their states minimum wages are set appropriately for their state's cost of living. Obama wants to jack this up rapidly to 9.50 an hour, this will cripple small business in lower cost of living states - namely Republican states.

Federal Minimum Wage also hasn't kept pace with the cost of living, it needs to be put into proper scale. The Fact that many states especially the poor one's rely on the federal minimum as their standard is directly reflected in them having some of the lowest incomes per capita in the nation. But oh yea we can't take care of our own people but we can give out billions in relief to other countries, rebuild nations that can generate enormous amounts of capital in a short period. .

Well there you are a bit misinformed. It is suposed to be based on the lower cost of living states. If your state is not raising their minimum wage according to that states' cost of living, blame your states congress. If the Federal government was the only regulator for minumum wage you would cause a great deal of job loss and inflation in areas that have lower COSTS of living. Notice the word costs, I didn't say standards of living. You people (democrats) want to gravitate toward cities with HUGE inflation and outragous cost of living, have at it. Go ahead and make yourselves as uncompetive as posible in the US and world trade market. But, don't impose it on the rest of us.
Federal minimun wage has been rising steadily
$5.85 - July 24th, 2007
$6.55 - July 24th, 2008
$7.25 - July 24th, 2009 <- Obama wants this to jump straight to 9.50

On a slightly related subject....

Personally I think every American should really see where their money is going, and I'm not talking about just taxes either...I'm talking about charitable donations too. Tithing at church or donations starving kids in Kenya thanks to Sally Struthers thanks to a late night infomercial..... and find out where that money really goes...does it help the kids living in back allies in Washington DC? What about folks who loose their homes to floods or other natural disasters here in the US? How much of it goes to pay off politicians for votes? The US has gotten this stupid Idea they need to bail out and save every other country when we need to help ourselves first.

It's not governments job to decide where my charitable donations go. And I sure don't trust Obama to do that. He wouldn't even help his own family in Kenya, or help the school there he promised to help 3 years ago, and hes worth millions. The Obamas' income jumped from around $350k a year to $1.7 million in 2005 when he became a US senator. And you better believe hes got that money tucked away in nice tax shelters. Oh yeah, senators make $169k a year, and his wife salary suddenly jumped over 200% with no promotion and no job change. Yeah this guy just loves you little folk.

He's got real big plans to tax US citizens to pay for his wolrd wide welfare programs.

Oh yeah one more thing, FDR was a Harvard Lawyer.

 

[Tycolby]

Hanna For Pres!!!!!!

 

[Nexus]

Because it was a completely desperate time 24% unemployment, he was printing fake money to finace this. It didn't pull us out of the depression, it just made it easier to bear for those that were unemployed. The businesses that ultimately pulled us out of the depression, were created more by WWII and trade with other nations. There were like 5 million people still stuck in these programs by the time WWII hit.
Well then thank Bill Clinton for all the aministy he handed out, something that the Democrates pushed hard for, how soon you all forget.

And things aren't heading in that direction now? Right now the government is encouraging international trade, to the point it's hampering US domestic affairs, this is BAD. We have the ability to be pretty much the world market place but we're not because of poor regulation. Already the best technology is developed not produced but developed in 2 countries. The US and Russia. The US has the capability to grow enough agricultural resources to feed every man woman and child on the planet, but we pay farmers to plow under fields. Yet we've got a problem with unemployment, and hunger in our own country that the government doesn't seem to give a rats ass about. It's Democrats and Republican's alike up there.. Neither one can fix things without the other, and that's where I think the hard line political party views come to nothing short of treason because they don't benifit anyone because it alienates those elected from the people they claim to serve.

Well there you are a bit misinformed. It is suposed to be based on the lower cost of living states. If your state is not raising their minimum wage according to that states' cost of living, blame your states congress. If the Federal government was the only regulator for minumum wage you would cause a great deal of job loss and inflation in areas that have lower COSTS of living. Notice the word costs, I didn't say standards of living. You people (democrats) want to gravitate toward cities with HUGE inflation and outragous cost of living, have at it. Go ahead and make yourselves as uncompetive as posible in the US and world trade market. But, don't impose it on the rest of us.
Federal minimun wage has been rising steadily
$5.85 - July 24th, 2007
$6.55 - July 24th, 2008
$7.25 - July 24th, 2009 <- Obama wants this to jump straight to 9.50

So your saying the cost of living in lower income states hasn't outstripped the federal minimum wage? It has in some areas by far that why an adjustment is needed. Problem is you can't trust the governments of the individual states to make everything right all the time, when the states won't act in the best interest of their citizens then it's time for the Feds to step in. The Federal Government set a minimum and the states don't always adjust for there situation. This is a flaw in the allowance of people to hold certain offices as long as they continue to be re-elected. I am totally opposed to Political parties, lobby groups, and corporate and organization driven campaign donations. Also I'm totally in favor of limited terms of office for all state and federal elected officials. After a decade or so they seem to loose touch with the people they serve. It's the 21st century and 80% of the US has internet access. I can go and get the E-mail address of any Senate or House of Representatives member I want and tell them what I think on a daily basis if I want. Lobby Groups are outdated and past their usefulness and do nothing but clog, bog down, and corrupt the political process.

It's not governments job to decide where my charitable donations go. And I sure don't trust Obama to do that.

I don't trust the government to do it either but the sad truth is most people as individuals don't know where it's going either. You think church organizations don't lobby and in essence pay of politicians for favorable votes? They do. Industry? You betcha. How in the world can you look in the mirror and say "I feel good I fed a starving kid in Ethiopia today" while the kid across town is being underfed? Or there's a guy living under an underpass because the company he works for went under? Or how about the Korean Vets that get no benefits but can't work due to mental disorders like shell shock and flash back or due to disabilities they gained from the war that prevent them from working? Do you really know where you charitable donations are going? No most people can't. Personal feelings on it...International charities should spend the money they acquire in any country they gain it from, not abroad.

 

[Hanna]

Because it was a completely desperate time 24% unemployment, he was printing fake money to finace this. It didn't pull us out of the depression, it just made it easier to bear for those that were unemployed. The businesses that ultimately pulled us out of the depression, were created more by WWII and trade with other nations. There were like 5 million people still stuck in these programs by the time WWII hit.
Well then thank Bill Clinton for all the aministy he handed out, something that the Democrates pushed hard for, how soon you all forget.

And things aren't heading in that direction now? Right now the government is encouraging international trade, to the point it's hampering US domestic affairs, this is BAD. We have the ability to be pretty much the world market place but we're not because of poor regulation. Already the best technology is developed not produced but developed in 2 countries. The US and Russia. The US has the capability to grow enough agricultural resources to feed every man woman and child on the planet, but we pay farmers to plow under fields. Yet we've got a problem with unemployment, and hunger in our own country that the government doesn't seem to give a rats ass about. It's Democrats and Republican's alike up there.. Neither one can fix things without the other, and that's where I think the hard line political party views come to nothing short of treason because they don't benifit anyone because it alienates those elected from the people they claim to serve.

Our country has always depended on international trade form the very start. It still does, the problem is we have a lot more money going out then we have coming in. Especially with oil, international trade defecits are a problem. Making us less competive in the world market will only hurt us.

As far the government paying farmers not grow, there are two reason for this. One is having too much surplus hurts our economy by lowering prices below the cost to grow. The second reason is that farmers used to overwork their land in such a way as to actually distroy it's ability to grow. Some of that is taken care of with crop rotation but not all of it and some areas have limited ability to grow different types of crops.

Another problem is that the govenrments of the countries with the starving people actually block US effert to help them.

Well there you are a bit misinformed. It is suposed to be based on the lower cost of living states. If your state is not raising their minimum wage according to that states' cost of living, blame your states congress. If the Federal government was the only regulator for minumum wage you would cause a great deal of job loss and inflation in areas that have lower COSTS of living. Notice the word costs, I didn't say standards of living. You people (democrats) want to gravitate toward cities with HUGE inflation and outragous cost of living, have at it. Go ahead and make yourselves as uncompetive as posible in the US and world trade market. But, don't impose it on the rest of us.
Federal minimun wage has been rising steadily
$5.85 - July 24th, 2007
$6.55 - July 24th, 2008
$7.25 - July 24th, 2009 <- Obama wants this to jump straight to 9.50

So your saying the cost of living in lower income states hasn't outstripped the federal minimum wage? It has in some areas by far that why an adjustment is needed. Problem is you can't trust the governments of the individual states to make everything right all the time, when the states won't act in the best interest of their citizens then it's time for the Feds to step in. The Federal Government set a minimum and the states don't always adjust for there situation. This is a flaw in the allowance of people to hold certain offices as long as they continue to be re-elected. I am totally opposed to Political parties, lobby groups, and corporate and organization driven campaign donations. Also I'm totally in favor of limited terms of office for all state and federal elected officials. After a decade or so they seem to loose touch with the people they serve. It's the 21st century and 80% of the US has internet access. I can go and get the E-mail address of any Senate or House of Representatives member I want and tell them what I think on a daily basis if I want. Lobby Groups are outdated and past their usefulness and do nothing but clog, bog down, and corrupt the political process.

The U.S. is a federation of states, as such each state has it's own constitution, government, and their own sovereignty to a degree each state agreed upon when they joined the US. It is the responsibility of the people in those states to make sure their government is doing what they are suppose to be doing. It is a socialist view that the federal government should control all the states on non-constitutional matters.

It's not governments job to decide where my charitable donations go. And I sure don't trust Obama to do that.

I don't trust the government to do it either but the sad truth is most people as individuals don't know where it's going either. You think church organizations don't lobby and in essence pay of politicians for favorable votes? They do. Industry? You betcha. How in the world can you look in the mirror and say "I feel good I fed a starving kid in Ethiopia today" while the kid across town is being underfed? Or there's a guy living under an underpass because the company he works for went under? Or how about the Korean Vets that get no benefits but can't work due to mental disorders like shell shock and flash back or due to disabilities they gained from the war that prevent them from working? Do you really know where you charitable donations are going? No most people can't. Personal feelings on it...International charities should spend the money they acquire in any country they gain it from, not abroad.

Government help other countries as a matter of goodwill and to help in negotiations in international matters. Obama want to take this further and force you to donate through taxes to countries that he "just" wants to, based totally on his own personal feelings.

However if you donate to a charity, it is your responsibility to make sure you are donating to a charity that actually uses the money for the purpose they claimed they would. Whether it be to help people in another country or our own.

 

[Nexus]

Our country has always depended on international trade form the very start. It still does, the problem is we have a lot more money going out then we have coming in. Especially with oil, international trade defecits are a problem. Making us less competive in the world market will only hurt us.

And tossing higher taxes on companies that outsource won't help presuade them create jobs here in the US?

As far the government paying farmers not grow, there are two reason for this. One is having too much surplus hurts our economy by lowering prices below the cost to grow. The second reason is that farmers used to overwork their land in such a way as to actually distroy it's ability to grow. Some of that is taken care of with crop rotation but not all of it and some areas have limited ability to grow different types of crops.

Another problem is that the govenrments of the countries with the starving people actually block US effort to help them.

While I'll agree with the crop rotation point and over use of land, who does the plowing under really help? Mainly large Co-opts. The average farmer isn't getting any help at all out of this program because he doesn't control enough land to matter. Further more how does it help market value when we give other countries a large portion of what's grown and give the farmers a minimum market price or it?

The U.S. is a federation of states, as such each state has it's own constitution, government, and their own sovereignty to a degree each state agreed upon when they joined the US. It is the responsibility of the people in those states to make sure their government is doing what they are suppose to be doing. It is a socialist view that the federal government should control all the states on non-constitutional matters.
Government help other countries as a matter of goodwill and to help in negotiations in international matters. Obama want to take this further and force you to donate through taxes to countries that he "just" wants to, based totally on his own personal feelings.

Your forgetting the US isn't a Direct Democracy, it's a Republic. Laws aren't passed by the people, they simply elect those who do pass the laws. We ultimately have little control over what they do, and thanks to there not being a limit in terms of service for the Congress those can have long lasting effects regardless of who the President is. The Federal Government's job is to act in the best interest of the Nation as a whole, if the individual states aren't doing it then it should fall back on to the Federal Government to set limits and require compliance of the States on these matters to improve the overall quality of living for individuals.


Secondly I think I trust Economic Analytical reports more so than individual opinion on the Economy. McCain's plan would have helped less on the whole than Obama's, regardless of what his camp and the Republican Party wanted you to believe. While the wealthy may bear out the largest portion of the Tax Burden they don't do so on a level equal to the lower income brackets. Warren Buffet made a point of this not too long ago. He made $43 million last year and paid out 17.7% in Taxes. His Secretary? $60,000 and paid out 30% in taxes. His means far outweigh his secretaries, yet he paid a proportionally less amount in taxation. All men may be created equal but it seems their check books aren't..... Leaving tax breaks in for companies that outsource is BAD, McCain voted to leave these in last time it came up. Woohoo lets help companies that take jobs out of America!!

I think Obama has the right Idea Tax companies that outsource more and give breaks to those that create more in the US.

However if you donate to a charity, it is your responsibility to make sure you are donating to a charity that actually uses the money for the purpose they claimed they would. Whether it be to help people in another country or our own.

Damn straight it is the individuals responsibility. BUT how many actually take that responsibility? Few do if any really. Personally I'd rather place my money towards helping individuals in this country than abroad and I think it's damn shameful if most citizens don't think like wise.

Most importantly, Obama hasn't done anything yet.... Nor can he do anything he wants. Congress has to approve any bill before he can sign it into action. The only thing he will have direct control over without congressional approval is Every Branch of the Military for a limited period after which he has to gain congressional approval to continue unless they are in some way directly tied to terrorist organizations.

 

[Aran]

If he has a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, sure he can do what he wants, he'll have the backing for it.

 

[Az of DSR]

If he has a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, sure he can do what he wants, he'll have the backing for it.

looks like these threads are giving u an education and u say something smart from time to time..... congrats

 

[Nexus]

If he has a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, sure he can do what he wants, he'll have the backing for it.

Democrats don't have the 61 seats needed for a 2/3 majority in the senate so yes it's a democratic majority but it's not able to just walk anything through.

 

[Hanna]

Our country has always depended on international trade form the very start. It still does, the problem is we have a lot more money going out then we have coming in. Especially with oil, international trade defecits are a problem. Making us less competive in the world market will only hurt us.

And tossing higher taxes on companies that outsource won't help presuade them create jobs here in the US?

Most likely it will presuade them to move their operations to a different country.

As far the government paying farmers not grow, there are two reason for this. One is having too much surplus hurts our economy by lowering prices below the cost to grow. The second reason is that farmers used to overwork their land in such a way as to actually distroy it's ability to grow. Some of that is taken care of with crop rotation but not all of it and some areas have limited ability to grow different types of crops.

Another problem is that the govenrments of the countries with the starving people actually block US effort to help them.

While I'll agree with the crop rotation point and over use of land, who does the plowing under really help? Mainly large Co-opts. The average farmer isn't getting any help at all out of this program because he doesn't control enough land to matter. Further more how does it help market value when we give other countries a large portion of what's grown and give the farmers a minimum market price or it?

Actually it helps the small farmer alot as they have the least control over the market, so the government stepping in to ensure prices don't tank does alot to keep that small farmer in business.

The U.S. is a federation of states, as such each state has it's own constitution, government, and their own sovereignty to a degree each state agreed upon when they joined the US. It is the responsibility of the people in those states to make sure their government is doing what they are suppose to be doing. It is a socialist view that the federal government should control all the states on non-constitutional matters.
Government help other countries as a matter of goodwill and to help in negotiations in international matters. Obama want to take this further and force you to donate through taxes to countries that he "just" wants to, based totally on his own personal feelings.

Your forgetting the US isn't a Direct Democracy, it's a Republic. Laws aren't passed by the people, they simply elect those who do pass the laws. We ultimately have little control over what they do, and thanks to there not being a limit in terms of service for the Congress those can have long lasting effects regardless of who the President is. The Federal Government's job is to act in the best interest of the Nation as a whole, if the individual states aren't doing it then it should fall back on to the Federal Government to set limits and require compliance of the States on these matters to improve the overall quality of living for individuals.

Secondly I think I trust Economic Analytical reports more so than individual opinion on the Economy. McCain's plan would have helped less on the whole than Obama's, regardless of what his camp and the Republican Party wanted you to believe. While the wealthy may bear out the largest portion of the Tax Burden they don't do so on a level equal to the lower income brackets. Warren Buffet made a point of this not too long ago. He made $43 million last year and paid out 17.7% in Taxes. His Secretary? $60,000 and paid out 30% in taxes. His means far outweigh his secretaries, yet he paid a proportionally less amount in taxation. All men may be created equal but it seems their check books aren't..... Leaving tax breaks in for companies that outsource is BAD, McCain voted to leave these in last time it came up. Woohoo lets help companies that take jobs out of America!!

I think Obama has the right Idea Tax companies that outsource more and give breaks to those that create more in the US.

First your quoting me totally out of context, I was taking about minimun wages. And your combining to totally unrelated statements and then refering to something else entrirely. Your off on some tangent.

Second, yeah, you can do a lot about your local governments, it's just that people like you want to sit back and let other people do it for them. If you want to be heard it takes work, not just sitting and whining that you can't do anything because they are already elected.

And your taking a socialist view point. "The Federal Government's job is to act in the best interest of the Nation as a whole, if the individual states aren't doing it then it should fall back on to the Federal Government to set limits and require compliance of the States on these matters to improve the overall quality of living for individuals. " Nope, not the way this country is set-up. It is only the federal governments responsibility in matters of the US constitution. Anything else would change the entire system of government we have, to a more marxist society. You would have a lot and I mean A LOT less say over your government and a lot less freedom.

However if you donate to a charity, it is your responsibility to make sure you are donating to a charity that actually uses the money for the purpose they claimed they would. Whether it be to help people in another country or our own.

Damn straight it is the individuals responsibility. BUT how many actually take that responsibility? Few do if any really. Personally I'd rather place my money towards helping individuals in this country than abroad and I think it's damn shameful if most citizens don't think like wise.

Most importantly, Obama hasn't done anything yet.... Nor can he do anything he wants. Congress has to approve any bill before he can sign it into action. The only thing he will have direct control over without congressional approval is Every Branch of the Military for a limited period after which he has to gain congressional approval to continue unless they are in some way directly tied to terrorist organizations.

Again, your trying to dictate others freedom of choice, it's their responsibility to check on charities that they are giving to, but it certainly isn't your right to dictate what they give to.

As far a Obama, he already has a good majority in both houses of congress. And most of these politicians are the type that will do and say anything to get re-elected, so they most likely will follow Obama messiah's lead. You will be suprized how much will go Obama's way.

 

[Kensai Tsunami]

Atlantian, i have wondered that very thing for the past 30 yrs or so. i have a buddy who is a construction worker and actually a very intelligent guy, yet he is bent on voting republican. he refuses to even entertain the thought of voting for anyone other than a republican and this is utterly amazing to me. i say to him, "are you aware that the rep party doesnt give a damn about you cuz you make about 30k a yr? you are shooting yourself and your family in the foot by voting against your better interests fool."
he gets mad and starts to argue exactly like all these ppl here do. and his argument along with all these folks is absolutely absurd. all i can figure after yrs of debating with him about the issue, is that he has been 'taught', or better yet, 'brainwashed' by his parents into imagining that a republican in office is better for the country.
its prolly not something anyone with a true understanding of what each party stands for can fathom. its simply crazy to vote against your own best interests. the parties provide a balance between the rich and the poor ...period. the issues involved get sketchy over party lines, but the differences are very clear. with the exception of actors and musicians and such, who in general have a much more 'i dont want to step on the backs of poor folks to get what i want in life attitude', rich in general means you vote reb, if you are not then you vote dem or liberal or whatever. all the arguments about abortion, wages, etc. really have little to do with an individual as much as the party behind the individual person running for office.
so there is my opinion. i'm sure someone much smarter than i will have an opinion dif from mine and try to force it down my throat. thanks in advance for attempting to 'educate' me.

 

[Aran]

Ah yes, thinking only of ourselves, a true Democrat you are.

 

[Nestorius]

You people talk about politics here. That's so cute.

 

[Hanna]

Atlantian, i have wondered that very thing for the past 30 yrs or so. i have a buddy who is a construction worker and actually a very intelligent guy, yet he is bent on voting republican. he refuses to even entertain the thought of voting for anyone other than a republican and this is utterly amazing to me. i say to him, "are you aware that the rep party doesnt give a damn about you cuz you make about 30k a yr? you are shooting yourself and your family in the foot by voting against your better interests fool."
he gets mad and starts to argue exactly like all these ppl here do. and his argument along with all these folks is absolutely absurd. all i can figure after yrs of debating with him about the issue, is that he has been 'taught', or better yet, 'brainwashed' by his parents into imagining that a republican in office is better for the country.
its prolly not something anyone with a true understanding of what each party stands for can fathom. its simply crazy to vote against your own best interests. the parties provide a balance between the rich and the poor ...period. the issues involved get sketchy over party lines, but the differences are very clear. with the exception of actors and musicians and such, who in general have a much more 'i dont want to step on the backs of poor folks to get what i want in life attitude', rich in general means you vote reb, if you are not then you vote dem or liberal or whatever. all the arguments about abortion, wages, etc. really have little to do with an individual as much as the party behind the individual person running for office.
so there is my opinion. i'm sure someone much smarter than i will have an opinion dif from mine and try to force it down my throat. thanks in advance for attempting to 'educate' me.

There is the flaw in your logic, you think democrat politicans represent the poor and the republicans represent the rich. Democrats politicans represent socialist economics and republicans represent capitalistic economics.

However please note that most democratic politicans become democrats because it is easier to sell "I am going to give you free money" than it is to try to explain why that is bad for the economy and society in general. That's why you see so many lawyers jumping in on democratic bandwagon to get elected, it's simply eaiser.

 

[Loqucious]

Why would anyone that makes less than 40,000 a year support them? Just want to know why. Since you more than likely have no insurance or benefits. But, you still support them. It just amazes me.

There is no republican party any more. They are merely democrat imposters.

 

[Bo Hica]

Democrats don't have the 61 seats needed for a 2/3 majority in the senate so yes it's a democratic majority but it's not able to just walk anything through.

You really need to learn more about things before you speak on them.

RINO's and DINO's are "key swing vote". Look them up then come back and talk about a workable majority.

Anyone who would vote for or against a party as a whole should have their ability to vote removed because they are endangering the country at large with such a reckless act.

Stupidity is not a reason to vote for or against something. Informed and logical people only vote the person and not the party.