Way to prove my point, douchebag.

When I present direct fucking quotes from the campaign negating your prior assumption, you go emo on me and accuse me of trolling.

Fucking. Brilliant.

Thanks for doing my work for me.

2/15/2008 2:40:31 AM

This is interesting:

http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/bloomberg.federal.government.2.654315.html

Quote :

"President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that will result in cash rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 for more than 130 million people. The federal checks are the centerpiece of the government's emergency effort to stimulate the economy, under the theory that most people will spend the money right away. But Bloomberg does not believe it will do much good. And his harsh words at a news conference Thursday reflect the view among some of his associates that the country's economic woes present a unique opportunity for him to launch a third-party bid for the White House. The theory among those urging him to run for president is that a businessman who rose from Wall Street to build his own financial information empire might be particularly appealing as the fiscal crisis worsens. Publicly, Bloomberg says he is "not a candidate," and explained recently he is speaking out on national issues as part of an "experiment" to influence the dialogue in the race. His tirade against the candidates and the economic stimulus package on Thursday began when he was asked how that experiment is going. In his answer, he praised Democrat Barack Obama for the plan the Illinois senator outlined on Wednesday that would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama projects it could generate nearly 2 million jobs. Last month, Bloomberg and Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania announced a coalition that would urge more investment in infrastructure. "I don't know whether Senator Obama looked to see what I've been advocating, or not -- you'll have to ask him -- but he's doing the right thing," Bloomberg said. "

2/15/2008 10:31:35 AM

Let’s take a closer look at who’s really qualified and or who’s really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress http://www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton’s bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact’s straight from the Senate Record. Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize. During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427.

These inculded

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

2/15/2008 1:03:40 PM

Quote :

"112 crime fighting bills"

Every day he seems more and more like a real-life super-hero

2/15/2008 1:13:44 PM

^^ Not to defend Sen. Clinton (because that's about the last thing I'd do), but you're comparing apples to oranges. You've laid out the bills that Clinton has written and passed, and compared them to the bills that Obama has written (but not necessarily passed or even gotten out of committee). Meanwhile, credit for co-sponsoring? Great, but not exactly sticking your neck out - especially not when it's a renewal of a fairly long-standing framework, like Nunn-Lugar.

How many bills has Obama written and passed? Which ones? How does this compare to Clinton? How many bills has Clinton "co-sponsored?"

This post smells an awful lot like it's ripped straight from talking points.

2/15/2008 1:35:06 PM

yeah there are people on politico who spam that board with that very post again and again. and even as an obama supporter, i call bullshit on that post.

2/15/2008 1:37:15 PM

OK..let's take a closer look at the specifics of Obama as laid out in a recent Wisconsin stump speech.

Quote :

"Obama has proposed a fund to offer direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud and would ease the burden on struggling homeowners by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year. "

Who pays for this fund? And more tax credits? I doubt we will be lowering any spending to pay for this...perhaps a tax increase?

Quote :

"Obama is the only candidate to propose a middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans -- $1,000 per working family. He’ll also eliminate income taxes for any senior making less than $50,000. "

Ahh the proverbial "Middle Class Tax Cut" Rememebr when Bill Clinton promised one..and then, once in office, poof! It couldn't be done. Instead, we got the largest tax increase in our history.

Quote :

"Obama’s universal health care plan cuts costs more than any other plan in this race – it will save the typical family up to $2500 on their premiums. "

How is this massive program paid for? More tax increases? And no mention that there won't be waiting lines and civil servant attitudes towards our healthcare.

Quote :

"Obama will provide the middle class a fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, "

More give-aways. More tax-increases.

Quote :

"Obama will expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and he’ll double spending on quality afterschool programs."

Expanding more credits...expanding higher taxes.

Quote :

"He will also expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include more businesses and millions more workers; and change a system that’s stacked against working parents by requiring every employer to provide seven paid sick days a year, so that they can be home with their child if they are sick. "

Don't let his fascism get in the way of our political version of American Idol. He's so dreamy!!

Quote :

"Obama will require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings"

And if the worker doesn't want to have his money enrolled, will he be able to opt out? I thought that's why we have social security ...why do we need another gov't retirement program, when the first one is working so well?

Quote :

"establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement; ban rate changes to debt that’s already incurred; and ban interest on fees. "

Why not just have the gov't issue all credit cards? Get the greed and profit out of it.

Quote :

"Obama will reform bankruptcy laws to make sure that those who can demonstrate they went bankrupt because of medical expenses can relieve their debt and get back on their feet. "

No new opportunities for fraud there.

Quote :

"Obama would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. "

This sounds real expensive. FDr would be proud: "The NIRB..We Do Our Share"

Quote :

"Obama will end tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and give breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages here in America. "

Again, why bother with this piddly stuff Obabma? Just have all companies owned by the gov't. After all, it's the gov't, not the private sector, which creates and provides jobs with decent wages..right?

Quote :

"Obama’s energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create millions of new jobs over the next two decades "

$150 Billion? Who pays for that?

Quote :

"He will also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology "

What if they don't want to?


Here are some Obama quotes:

"It’s a Washington where George Bush hands out billions in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don’t need them"

Class Warfare schtick..no "Change" there.

"This is what’s been happening in Washington at a time when we have greater income disparity in this country than we’ve seen since the first year of the Great Depression. At a time when some CEOs are making more in a day than the average workers makes in a year. "

Maybe we can put these evil rich people in some type of camp.

"One of the principles that John Edwards has passionately advanced is that this country should be rewarding work, not wealth. "

Sounds like wealth just plops down magically from the sky on the lucky few...hard work and ambition has nothing to do with it.


"Since the Earned Income Tax Credit lifts nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty each year, I’ll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. "

More people, who pay no income tax, getting a tax refund? Sound economic thinking there.


" And I won’t wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage – I’ll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it’s not just a minimum wage, but a living wage"

Who cares that higher minimum wages creates more unemployment...he sounds so good saying it.
And who decides what a "living wage" is...power-grubbing politicians?


"When that war ended, they were given the chance to go to college on the GI Bill, to buy a house from the Federal Housing Authority, and to give my mother the chance to go to the best schools and dream as big as the Kansas sky. "

Translation: This country is great because of government, not because of private enterprise.

I'm sorry, but this stuff sounds like the tired old clap-trap we hear from democrats every election. The rich are evil, tax and spend..blah blah blah.

Obama is a charmer, but the 'having' him as president will be quite different than the 'wanting' him.

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 11:42:54 PM

obama>>mccain>>clinton

2/16/2008 4:50:06 AM

^^ Easy there tumbleweed, Obama supporters don't like to hear anything that uses economic theory or logic. You are going to anger the natives.

2/16/2008 11:50:41 AM

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

2/16/2008 12:08:14 PM

Quote :

"^^ Easy there tumbleweed, Obama supporters don't like to hear anything that uses economic theory or logic. You are going to anger the natives. "

Yep. Good post earthdog.

You forgot to mention, stoping the war and raising taxes on 1% of the population will create an infinity of dollars.

He is also going to bring back the condor and the unicorn. I cant wait.

2/16/2008 12:39:00 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like wealth just plops down magically from the sky on the lucky few...hard work and ambition has nothing to do with it. "

You sound like an idiot - You're telling me you don't know anyone who was born into money?

2/16/2008 2:37:28 PM

Quote :

"You sound like an idiot - You're telling me you don't know anyone who was born into money?"

Hahaha.....you are right... people born into money should have to give it all back and earn it themselves!! (and no, I was not born into any money)

2/16/2008 3:07:54 PM

Quote :

"Hahaha.....you are right... "

I know, but

Hey people, my post is right above!!!! So did I say this?

Quote :

"people born into money should have to give it all back and earn it themselves!!"

or does Redstains441 have a serious problem with reading comprehension?

2/16/2008 3:31:15 PM

Quote :

"Why do you support Obama?"

Because someone just stole my goddamn yard sign.

2/16/2008 8:40:24 PM

I'm glad no one has been playing

2/16/2008 9:24:18 PM

Quote :

"You're telling me you don't know anyone who was born into money?"

Sure ...but this statement:

Quote :

"this country should be rewarding work, not wealth."

...suggests to me that Obama makes a telling distinction. You either work OR you're wealthy. And the people who work should be rewarded, while the wealthy should not.

I don't see him acknowledging the fact that most wealthy people started off not-wealthy and then worked their asses off to get wealthy. And that these wealthy people provide a valuable service or product that benefits society in some way. No one would've given them a penny if they hadn't provided something that society desired.

His time-worn liberal pitch is : The wealthy are just lucky, fortunate, life's-lottery winners...no hard work. They don't need their money. They owe society. They need to give back. Those who want to keep their hard-earned money are just greedy and insensitive to the needs of the Less Fortunate.

This strategy is usually a winner, sad to say.

[Edited on February 16, 2008 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2008 10:28:04 PM

YES

WE

CAN

2/17/2008 3:34:28 AM

Quote :

"Tax Delusions by Alan Reynolds , New York Post 2/15/2008 Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both propose to "turn the economy around" in a novel way - by raising tax rates on small businesses, working couples and stockholders in general, including retirees. Of course, their plans are also meant to raise revenue for their various hundreds of billions in new spending - but the move would fall flat on that front, too. Start with the deficit. The Bush administration predicts a $409 billion budget shortfall for fiscal 2009. But that rests on absurd assumptions - a sudden $104 billion drop in the price of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a freeze in non-security discretionary spending - and a speeding up of economic growth. In fact, this election year's "stimulus" bills are likelier to slow things down in 2009. Seven of the 10 postwar recessions began in the year after a presidential race, including 2001 and 1981. So, with luck, the next president may start out with an economy that is only fragile or feeble and a deficit not much above $500 billion. Now, on to tax hikes. Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. The federal government now takes 33 percent of taxable income above $200,000 on a joint return and 35 percent of income above $357,700. Both Democrats would raise those tax rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. Even the Tax Policy Center (a think tank famously friendly to tax hikes and Democrats) estimates that raising the top two tax rates might bring in a mere $32 billion in 2010. That's 6 percent of the likely deficit - not a license to start a dozen new programs. To squeeze a few more pennies from top taxpayers, Clinton and Obama would also phase out all personal exemptions at $250,000. That means large families would pay higher taxes than childless couples with the same income. They'd also phase out itemized deductions - which would force two-earner families in New York and California to pay more federal tax than those living in Texas and Florida. And this politically suicidal tax discrimination against New Yorkers, Californians and big families would bring in only an extra $15 billion a year. All in all, these tax hikes add up to, at most, $47 billion a year - only 1.5 percent of federal spending and 0.3 percent of GDP. And even that assumes nobody makes the slightest effort to avoid the increased taxes. In reality, many two-earner families would become one-earner families; doctors would play more golf; some folks would quit working long hours and others would retire early. Top-bracket taxpayers would maximize deductions (take out a bigger mortgage, put more in the 401k) and minimize taxable income (buy municipal bonds or just spend rather than invest). Such tax avoidance alone would cut the estimated revenue in half. The tax hikes' adverse effects on the stock market and the economy would more than eliminate the other half. Meanwhile, both candidates are eager to spend more tens of billions a year on health-insurance subsidies, billions more for biofuels and (in Obama's case, at least) tens of billions more for several more refundable tax credits - checks to people who don't pay income tax. All these shameless vote-buying schemes would only worsen the real budget problem - which is runaway spending, not taxes. Marginal tax rates are now much lower than they were in 1993 to 1996 on all incomes, large or small. And tax rates are much lower on dividends and capital gains. Yet the individual income tax brought in 8.5 percent of GDP last year - the same as in 1996 and much more than under the higher tax rates of '93-95. Why do lower rates bring in as much money? In part because people do less to avoid taxes once rates are cut, in part because lower rates promote economic growth. But the Democrats have an ideological bias against recognizing these clear facts - a naive faith in higher tax rates and an aversion to confronting excess spending. So they plan on two more tax hikes that won't work. Obama wants to bring back the 28 percent tax on capital gains. In fact, our experience in the first Clinton administration proves that this would lose a lot of revenue: Investors would sit on stocks rather than sell and pay the tax. The cap-gains tax dropped from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1997 - and revenues from that tax alone accounted for 12 percent of all individual income-tax payments from 1997 to 2000 - up from just 7.9 percent from 1993 to 1996. Obama and Clinton also want to raise the tax on dividends from 15 percent to 39.6 percent. But that would just compel investors to liquidate blue-chip stocks at distress-sale prices and get back into tax-exempt bonds, cutting revenues further. Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. Other presidents have tried and failed to tax their way out of a budget squeeze. During the 1990 recession, the first President George Bush raised tax rates on "the rich," mostly by ending their deductions and exemptions. It didn't work: Individual income taxes brought in 8.3 percent of GDP in 1989 and just 7.6 percent of GDP by 1992. President Bill Clinton then piled on another layer of high tax rates, 36 percent and 39.6 percent, while also greatly hiking taxes on Social Security benefits of working seniors. That failed, too: Individual income taxes brought in only 7.8 percent of GDP in 1993 and '94, 8.1 percent in 1995. Federal revenues did not get much above the 1989 level until 1997 - when they rose because the capital-gains tax was cut. In short, Obama is a "tax-and-spend" liberal, while Hillary is a "spend-and-tax" liberal. If either actually launched their gargantuan spending plans on the basis of imaginary revenues expected from taxing the rich, he or she would quickly end up having to tax the stuffing out of the middle class."

2/17/2008 10:07:40 PM

earthdogg, the democrat supporters wont read it or look at the facts that the MASSIVE amounts of increased spending which will be "paid" for by raising taxes on the wealthy and ending the war just wont add up and is a terrible idea.

Its funny that these people think we can actually afford these plans.

Our govt spent almost 700 billion last year on healthcare between medicare and medicaid. So thats what it cost for the poor and the over 65 crowd. Now just imagine bringing in the vast MAJORITY of the population onto that. And 20-40 billion would cover that?

YES WE CAN believe anything you say, is more like it.

Its also funny that these people support raising taxes on the evil coorporations. You know the same ones that make all the crap they cant live without. And in no way do EVIL coorporations just pass on those taxes to thier consumers...nah.

You want a better life? Look to yourself not to your government to provide it for you. Although one requires more work than the other, so I can see the attraction many have for it.

Here is even a better one. All this talk about obama stimulating the economy is kinda cute. On one hand you have both parties tripping overthemselves to give people money, for nothing, to stimulate the economy...however in thier next breathe call for tax increases. So money in the hands of the people is good for the economy one second, but bad the next? yep, thats the kind of thinking ive come to expect from washington.

2/17/2008 11:15:10 PM

god forbid we pay for wars that we wage.

2/18/2008 11:30:38 AM

Considering McCain now says he wants the Bush tax cuts permanent, a long-term presence in Iraq, and possibly "more wars" in Iran, Obama's proposals show far more promise of balancing the budget than McCain's.

2/18/2008 11:40:31 AM

^how do you figure? Just the new entitlement spending alone is a disaster waiting to happen.

Iraq is a short term expense. Yes we will probably always have a base there, but the real killer is entitlement spending. So what better way to address it than to ADD more.

Ok, let me try to ask you another way. If we are already bankrupt with the current programs we have.. you agree? Then ADDING more onto it will somehow HELP the problem? Dont kid yourself that the classwarfare of increasing the taxes on the rich will pay for all of it.

We have spend approx. 400Bill on iraq in 4 years. We spend 1.3 Trillion a year in entitlements. Yeah, we need more of them.

I agree we need to pay for the wars, but those are a short-term problem. The real problem is govt spending and esp entitlments. Our govt simply cant afford to pay for the promises its already made to its citizens... now they want to make MORE? You guys are kidding yourselves if you think it makes sense.

2/18/2008 12:02:24 PM

and obama is in favor of a pay-go system. whether this actually happens is up in the air i guess (it's not entirely his decision on whether this happens).

2/18/2008 12:59:00 PM

I think paygo is a great idea for most spending. However, the money just isnt there. Either he is full of shit about paygo or the other increases in spending he is proposing. If you are going to redo paygo, you have to CUT spending, not expand it massively with universal healthcare and all the other increases.

2/18/2008 1:28:26 PM

Conservatives said the same thing when Bill Clinton was running, yet the deficit he inherited was turned into a surplus. Obama, Clinton, or McCain would have certain realities to deal with if they are actually interested in balancing the budget. Each of them has made proposals or promises that will be difficult to pay for, since we are already starting close to half a trillion in the hole. I'm pretty confident Obama can pay for his policy proposals. What will be more difficult is to pay for his expenses and Bush's.

2/18/2008 1:57:02 PM

^sure, the biggest tax increase in american history helped. And the increase just wasnt on the "rich" either. To clinton's credit he tried to reform some entitlements. He also didnt pass a massive spending like universal healthcare.

Im still pissed at the bush admin for passing medicare drug plan. As fiscially irresponsible that was, it will be a drop in a bucket to EVERYONE healthcare and drug plan.

Keeping the tax rates the same and cutting spending would be fine. We are projected to be in a surplus in the future. HOwever adding more water to the sinking ship is NOT the answer. Even though you WANT it.

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/18/2008 2:14:36 PM

Quote :

"Conservatives said the same thing when Bill Clinton was running, yet the deficit he inherited was turned into a surplus."

Borrowing against the Social Security surplus does not a surplus make. We never had a general revenues surplus under Clinton - only an accounting ledger trick.

Although even that is the closest we've been to a "surplus" in the last 60 years...

2/18/2008 2:38:32 PM

i guess i can't answer your question...i don't support obama or clinton

i guess i'll have to go with mccain...but even that's kinda supporting the democraps

2/18/2008 3:01:28 PM

no comments on the matt drudge plagiarism scandal?

2/18/2008 4:18:26 PM

considering the "plagiarism" was a suggestion from the person who originally said the line. i don't think it will stick too much.

2/18/2008 4:23:01 PM

Quote :

"no comments on the matt drudge plagiarism scandal? "

With all the other reasons to not vote for him, plagiarism isnt one. Should be a nonissue.

2/18/2008 4:33:03 PM

you are a mean doctor

2/18/2008 4:37:20 PM

I can't wait till the debates kick up between the republicans and democrats and Obama is forced to actually debate issues with somebody. Then everybody in America will realize he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. His policies will destroy the backbone of the country.

2/18/2008 4:37:37 PM

spoken like a status quo republican

2/18/2008 4:39:04 PM

^^you clearly haven't seen the quotes regarding how little mccain knows ABOUT HIS OWN POLICIES

2/18/2008 4:39:55 PM

Mccain can explain his policies, Obama can't because he knows what he proposes will cost way way way way way way to much money.

2/18/2008 4:47:28 PM

Obama will have no problem explaining his proposals. He's already explained them time and time again.

2/18/2008 4:54:36 PM

is this why mccain denied that his carbon policy had a carbon cap when he supports a cap and trade system

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/18/2008 4:54:56 PM

Obama will get manhandled on all the issues in any debate. Which is why he hasn't gone on any news programs that will actually ask him questions other than just let him talk. If it weren't for the left wing media people, who have no backbone whatsoever, backing him Obama wouldn't even be in the picture because all the media let him slide on policies.

2/18/2008 5:07:34 PM

it's not like he's done 18 debates or something.

2/18/2008 5:23:17 PM

Yes, but all the opponents in those debates had the same problems he has so they wouldnt question him on them.

2/18/2008 5:26:13 PM

in that they support things that he supports or that they are also uninformed?

i guess i'm unclear on whether you think that obama doesn't know what he's talking about or that his policies are untenable.

2/18/2008 5:49:30 PM

The democrats all support healthcare for everybody. So Obama isnt going to ask Clinton how are you going to pay for it because he doesn't want to be asked that himself. They both have the same ideas.

Therefore, when the republicans and democrats debate this issue all the stuff the democrats are getting by with right now will come out. It's already come out in the republicans thats why some aren't supporting Mccain. Whoever the republican candidate is though is going to tear into the democrats because they havn't had to explain any of their ideas to a high degree yet.

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 8:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/18/2008 8:34:49 PM

i consider myself a moderate with tendencies toward the left and i sure as fuck do not like health care...i dont like social security either...i dont like health care cause there are too many unhealthy fucks that eat mcdonalds etc and dont exercise, and i dont like social security cause it seems like the smart thing to do is set up IRA's etc

2/18/2008 9:01:46 PM

healthy people cost more than fatties that die early

2/18/2008 9:05:42 PM

Quote :

" #8 Barack Obama Because white people are afraid that if they don’t like him that they will be called racist." "

2/18/2008 9:29:25 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Obama will provide the middle class a fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, " More give-aways. More tax-increases. Quote : "Obama will expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and he’ll double spending on quality afterschool programs." Expanding more credits...expanding higher taxes. Quote : "He will also expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include more businesses and millions more workers; and change a system that’s stacked against working parents by requiring every employer to provide seven paid sick days a year, so that they can be home with their child if they are sick. " Don't let his fascism get in the way of our political version of American Idol. He's so dream"

Real quick on this political hack job EarthDogg you got going here.

Education tax credits - you have a problem with educating Americans? I'm assuming you're one of the mind that believes if you can't afford college, you shouldn't go. Must be nice.

Child care credits - apparently you believe working families or single parents should truly go at in alone. thus continuing the cycle of bad education, lack of parental guidance, and low acheiving American students. or that everyone has a grandma around right? why not just have them do it.

Paid leave for new parents - so parents should have to choose whether to stay at home with their newborn or miss that paycheck they so direly need to pay rent. I have a friend right now going through that who will opt not to stay home with his wife, because he can't afford to not work.

Here's what it comes down to with Republicans and Democrats-

Republicans care about money. Run government like a business period.

Democrats at least pretend to give a shit about people. Run government like government, to support people in their steed.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : edit]

2/19/2008 12:58:50 AM

Quote :

"healthy people cost more than fatties that die early"

never thought of it like that

in my mind all the population being healthy is a good thing...thats when i'd want to get socialized medicine imo

2/19/2008 1:11:12 AM

Quote :

"Education tax credits - you have a problem with educating Americans? I'm assuming you're one of the mind that believes if you can't afford college, you shouldn't go. Must be nice. "

Take a loan like most of us

[quote]Paid leave for new parents - so parents should have to choose whether to stay at home with their newborn or miss that paycheck they so direly need to pay rent.[quote]

Are you serious? Why not, we already pay people not to work, why not some more. This time we will FORCE businesses to pay for employees not working. Geez, will obama force my boss to pay for me if I choose to stay home too? Or do I have to have a kid to get that luxury?

I think you are wrong on your generalization of democrats and republicans.

In my mind, republicans SHOULD stand for freedom and get the govt out of your way to make the life you want. Dems are there to provide you with a life that they want for you, kinda the opposite of freedom.

Most of your talk was about tax credits. Then you defend big govt. So let me pose this to you. You are basically advocating that people should get "credits" towards their income tax. So the govt decides how much of YOUR money you deserve. Im advocating that you should keep ALL the money you work for. Then you dont have the gubment determining how much and when you need YOUR MONEY.

2/19/2008 9:06:05 AM