Who took our country away from us?

[Imawhosure]

So Whosure, do you or don't you support farm subsidies?

 

Planet----------->I support the theory of farm subsidies, but not what it has morphed into.

 

If I remember correctly, (which I may not and that could change my mind) the original program was put in to insure food prices stayed low, and reasonably stable. The government wanted to make it possible that people could at least feed themselves.

 

Of course, as usual with Washington it has changed to something else.

 

And Planet, don't get me wrong please. I am not here to tell you that I refuse to vote for anyone who wants to install new programs. I am just tired of new programs that raise our taxes. If they are willing to cut spending to pay for programs, I would certainly consider voting for such a person. I think it is extremely fair for our candidates to say we want this program, this one, then this one; and we will eliminate this spending, this spending, and this to pay for it. Then we Americans just decide what programs we want and vote accordingly by the candidate that supports our view.

 

If there was an amendment to the constitution for a balanced budget, I don't care who put it forth, I would vote for them, even if it meant them putting in a one time tax hike to balance it and keep us at the status quo!!!!!!

 

Where I differ from many of you is------------>At these tax rates, new programs are just crazy to consider because anyone older that 30 has heard it all before. New programs, new spending, larger deficits, and now we in trouble again. It is a viscious circle from both partys for the most part.

 

We can debate all we want about what to spend government money on. I have no problem with that, and more than likely even support some of your views. (some, JUST SOME, lolol) But I refuse to support new programs or anyone who stands for new programs without them having a solid way to pay for them. If their solid way is raise someones taxes, that is unacceptable. Not because it will be mine, but because as long as we fight one another on whos' taxes should go up, we never stand together to FORCE those we elect to actually govern, and make hard choices.

 

Regardless of if it is your view that Republicans give money to the rich, or my view that the dems give money to a boatload of people, we make it to easy as a nation for them to get elected by screwing someone over. What if they had to stick it to everyone slightly to get this stuff in place? I believe you would see this nation come together, voting yay or nay. Instead, we want someone else to pay for it so we vote one way or the other. You see what that has gotten us, and it ain't pretty!!!!

[Trimdingman]

I can remember another left-wing doomsday hoax. Because of urban sprawl, and population increases, we are headed for starvation, as more and more people will be living off less and less farm land. The population did explode, but we had a huge surplus of food production, so farmers are now being paid not to grow crops. Maybe the reason is because the socialists sent out the wrong message, and farmers bought into it. The socialists won, as they accomplished more government meddling. They would have preferred the collective farming disaster modelled after their beloved USSR. All they ended up with was farm subsidies.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Trimdingman

[mountaineerwv]

From your own link LIBERAL,

 

"You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes."

 

Read what it says!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

...

 

I counted 13 exclamation points. Hey, CON, can you not understand what it is saying? It says: "You may have heard......". Do you want me to repeat it? "You may have heard". The article goes on to dispel what "you may have heard".

 

Geez....I know you write and speak English, but you must understand what you read too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mountaineerwv]

Blame whoever you like, but the facts are this, out of a three trillion dollar budget, almost half of it goes toward defense and debt relief. For some strange reason conservatives think our budget problems stem from liberal policies such as welfare, not so. It's less than one percent of the budget. It's about the only thing Congress has been cutting. You want less taxes? Great so do I, but for gawds sake, stop making war, and start making sense.

 

You and everyone else's tax rate has been substantially less than it should have been. Up to now, the Asians, and Arabs have financed the Bush administrations insane fiscal policies. It's not the liberals that are killing this country, it's the conservatives. At least when the liberals did spend, it was on the citizenry as a whole, not the wealthy two percent.

 

In addition, they had the courage to tax as they spent. Not so with conservatives, sure they cut taxes, but they spent more than ANY liberal administration ever did, all the while racking up massive debts. We'll pay almost half a trillion next year alone, on interest towards the debt. Where did the vast majority of that nearly 10 trillion dollar debt originate; under conservative administrations. In particular, supply side tax cuts, or trickle-down economics. Like I said, that warm fuzzy feeling you have on your backside isn't money my friend, lol.

 

As a Limbaugh fan would say: "Ditto".

 

Supply-side economics had 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush to destroy our economic health that these same idealogues want to give us more of this. Don't they learn from their mistakes?

[mountaineerwv]

I can remember another left-wing doomsday hoax. Because of urban sprawl, and population increases, we are headed for starvation, as more and more people will be living off less and less farm land. The population did explode, but we had a huge surplus of food production, so farmers are now being paid not to grow crops. Maybe the reason is because the socialists sent out the wrong message, and farmers bought into it. The socialists won, as they accomplished more government meddling. They would have preferred the collective farming disaster modelled after their beloved USSR. All they ended up with was farm subsidies.

 

Don't you just love how these Conservatives can sprinkle their tirades with words like "socialist" and "communist" and "liberal" and "USSR" and you choose the word-du-jour to vent their anger?

 

And we have had our government dominated by these Conservatives ever since Reagan and they still are not happy. They controlled the White House. They controlled the Congress. They controlled the Supreme Court. Things are going in the wrong direction and they want to "stay the course." Unbelievable.

[Trimdingman]

As a Limbaugh fan would say: "Ditto".

 

Supply-side economics had 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush to destroy our economic health that these same idealogues want to give us more of this. Don't they learn from their mistakes?

 

 

The Reagan-Bush years were the most prosperous of my lifetime. To-day, we are at war for our very survival as a civilization. No cost is too great. When we win the war, the cost will be reaped ten-fold.

 

I like Rush, but he is wrong on religion. You see, unlike Liberals, Conservatives use their own brains, and discard ideas which are proven wrong. They change, evolve. Liberals are stuck in dogma. Their leaders need them to be like sheep. Sometimes that requires religious-style brainwashing. They hate the internet, as there is too much readily available information. Sheep need to be kept stupid. They like government-controlled education so that they can control how much knowledge that the sheep acquire. They promote the dullards to try and discourage the brilliant students. Science is not encouraged, as that promotes brilliance. Someone who studies Arts, and knows how to quote others is considered to be smarter than the science student who knows how to think for himself.

[methos]

The Reagan-Bush years were the most prosperous of my lifetime. To-day, we are at war for our very survival as a civilization. No cost is too great. When we win the war, the cost will be reaped ten-fold.

 

I like Rush, but he is wrong on religion. You see, unlike Liberals, Conservatives use their own brains, and discard ideas which are proven wrong. They change, evolve. Liberals are stuck in dogma. Their leaders need them to be like sheep. Sometimes that requires religious-style brainwashing. They hate the internet, as there is too much readily available information. Sheep need to be kept stupid. They like government-controlled education so that they can control how much knowledge that the sheep acquire. They promote the dullards to try and discourage the brilliant students. Science is not encouraged, as that promotes brilliance. Someone who studies Arts, and knows how to quote others is considered to be smarter than the science student who knows how to think for himself.

 

Canada must provide some sort of mental wellness, if not, you need to consider paying for it yourself. You NEED help.

[Imawhosure]

The Reagan-Bush years were the most prosperous of my lifetime. To-day, we are at war for our very survival as a civilization. No cost is too great. When we win the war, the cost will be reaped ten-fold.

 

I like Rush, but he is wrong on religion. You see, unlike Liberals, Conservatives use their own brains, and discard ideas which are proven wrong. They change, evolve. Liberals are stuck in dogma. Their leaders need them to be like sheep. Sometimes that requires religious-style brainwashing. They hate the internet, as there is too much readily available information. Sheep need to be kept stupid. They like government-controlled education so that they can control how much knowledge that the sheep acquire. They promote the dullards to try and discourage the brilliant students. Science is not encouraged, as that promotes brilliance. Someone who studies Arts, and knows how to quote others is considered to be smarter than the science student who knows how to think for himself.

 

On my side, it was Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. I don't actually remember if Clinton tried to screw up a good thing with all his problems personally occupying the news media at that time, but needless to say he didn't, and that was good enough for me. For a Democrat; personal problems aside, I thought he did an outstanding job. If I remember, he raised taxes slightly, but didn't get goofy with programs.

 

Yeah, I know, I know. Someone is going to ask about NAFTA. Someone is going to ask about him missing Bin Laden. People are going to ask a lot of questions about my above statement. But honestly, we are making determinations on actions by hindsight, our Presidents must make them on foresight. I am sure most of you are able to understand which way is much harder to get the correct decision made.

 

But lets be real here------------>besides Kennedy, what Democratic President hasn't put in programs in the last 40yrs that cost oddles.

 

Heck, even compare Bill Clinton to Obama and see if they both look like democrats, or if Bill Clinton almost looks like a conservative when their policys are compared.

 

I do not like Bill Clinton, but then again I am not thrilled with LONESOME GEORGE either. But since I am not Monica, Hilly, or Laura, I do not have to sleep with them, lololol, and just look at the outcome of the policies.

 

Now I ask my conservative friends who come to this site------------->who would you rather have by a longshot, no other choices and you MUST vote...........Bill Clinton and his policy, or Obama and his stated policy?

 

And there you have it!!!!! There are degrees of conservatism, just as there are degrees of liberalism. Sometimes a republican like Ronald Reagan and a democrat like John Kennedy more closely resemble one another then say............two democrats like Kennedy and Obama, or two republicans like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

 

Governance from the center is NOT a bad thing.......except for the far right and left wing constituency. But honestly, just as we had the Reagan democrats, we also had the Clinton republicans. Once in, by governing from the center they didn't need their fringe contingency any longer. (and in both cases it pissed of the fringe elements if you will remember)

 

And now for something I heard on the news. I haven't verified it, but I am sure if the news was wrong, someone (AKA MOUNTAIN, hehehehehe) will correct it.----------------->

 

Democrats are extremely worried according to the news reports because of a little formula that is used to check a candidates power rating, or something like that. (I forgot the exact term)

 

It seems that the democrats themselves consider Hilly to be much closer to the center than Obama. When putting up a map of the last general election for President, Obama has not won one formerly red state from Hilly as of yet. The democrats fear (understandably) that if the people of these states want someone who is as close to the middle as possible, they will not get a win in those states with Obama versus Mcain. Those people will choose the other side who is much closer to the middle, and not a far left liberal like he is.

 

Therefore, the odds are high that the electoral map will resemble almost (if not) an exact copy of the last Presidential election in their eyes, and that means defeat. This is where the SUPER DELEGATES come in.

 

As of now, it is only grumbling by some in the democratic party, but it will become a roar if it follows suit in Indiana, and other states previously won by republicans in the general, if Barrack can not carry the day and Hilly wins them.

 

While I am mostly conservative, I must concur. You can not like the reality, but it does point to why you should feel their angst if you are a democrat.

 

Personally, were I 85% sure that Mcain was going to win against either candidate, I would hope Obama would win the primarys. Sadly, I am not.

 

If all 3 were running, we would have to choose between bad, worse, and a possible disaster. My feeling is that hopefully Indiana and friends change the tide so we get Mcain and Hilly, then we only have to choose between bad and worse by removing the disaster.

 

Time will tell, but I gotta tell you I will watch the dem convention much closer than the repubs. I wanna see how the dems pull this off. It may give all of us a lesson in politics we have not yet learned.

[mountaineerwv]

The Reagan-Bush years were the most prosperous of my lifetime. To-day, we are at war for our very survival as a civilization. No cost is too great. When we win the war, the cost will be reaped ten-fold.

 

I like Rush, but he is wrong on religion. You see, unlike Liberals, Conservatives use their own brains, and discard ideas which are proven wrong. They change, evolve. Liberals are stuck in dogma. Their leaders need them to be like sheep. Sometimes that requires religious-style brainwashing. They hate the internet, as there is too much readily available information. Sheep need to be kept stupid. They like government-controlled education so that they can control how much knowledge that the sheep acquire. They promote the dullards to try and discourage the brilliant students. Science is not encouraged, as that promotes brilliance. Someone who studies Arts, and knows how to quote others is considered to be smarter than the science student who knows how to think for himself.

 

Most prosperous? Did you forget the Clinton years? They were alot better for me.

 

After 5 years of war, when will we know we have won? What is your definition of WIN?

 

Liberals are stuck in dogma? That makes me LOLOLOLOLOL.

 

Like sheep? That makes me LOLOLOLOLOL. Ever hear of someone saying DITTO, Rush?

 

Just curious, TRIMDINGMAN, do you have ANY college? Or, have you learned all of your brilliance from life experiences?

[mountaineerwv]

They hate the internet, as there is too much readily available information. Sheep need to be kept stupid.

 

You truly are amazing. This liberal supplied Internet links to back up my statements and some conservative accused me of not using my own words. This same conservative also said that they do not need links as they know the facts by using their common sense. Now, who would you say of the two have a greater affinity for the Internet?

 

I have noticed that Conservatives apply characteristics to their opponents when in reality they apply to themselves. Conservatives do not trust intellectuals. Conservatives do not trust scientists. Conservatives are accused of being sheep-like in their devotion to their leaders (Reagan, Bush, et al). Conservatives are accused of being dogmatic when it comes to politics and religion. And you try to apply them to liberals?

 

As I said earlier, Conservatives live in an alternate reality, of their own creation.

[Imawhosure]

I counted 13 exclamation points. Hey, CON, can you not understand what it is saying? It says: "You may have heard......". Do you want me to repeat it? "You may have heard". The article goes on to dispel what "you may have heard".

 

Geez....I know you write and speak English, but you must understand what you read too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

May have heard? My good man, it states that we are the SECOND highest taxing authority in the world on corporations. YOUR OWN SITE.

 

They explain how their money doesn't translate by the rate, but let me ask you something----------->how much money does it cost someone to avoid taxes? It must be quite a bit; wouldn't you say, or why would they flee to where taxes are lower?

 

Look, we can all understand why puter makers support teams leave this country for India; all they gotta pay for is a phone call. But what you have to explain is why manufacturing flees. I am more than positive it costs tons of money to ship back something large like steel, cars, rolls of Aluminum, or large quantitys of tires across the ocean. So why do they leave?

 

ANSWER: taxation, and overly zealous regulation that costs tons of money.

 

TRIMDINGMAN--------->Can you do me a favor and tell us how much money Ford puts into National Healthcare in Canada for its employees. Then tell us how much your tax has gone up for National Healthcare their as far as your personal tax rate.

 

Be honest when you find out, it is time we compare what it actually costs the working man/woman, and not fantasyland numbers.

 

I am going to assume (may not be correct, but assume) that companys pay less there, and that individuals pay more.

 

Why?

 

Because with NAFTA, were it not so, Toyoty would build plants in the US and Mexico instead of Canada. By rudimentary calculations, in Canada, Ford and GM should be much closer in cost to Toyoty, and I know damn well Toyoty would have none of that.

 

So tell us Trim if you can find it. I am honestly interested to see how different costs affect how companys and corporations do business.

[mountaineerwv]

On my side, it was Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. I don't actually remember if Clinton tried to screw up a good thing with all his problems personally occupying the news media at that time, but needless to say he didn't, and that was good enough for me. For a Democrat; personal problems aside, I thought he did an outstanding job. If I remember, he raised taxes slightly, but didn't get goofy with programs.

 

Yeah, I know, I know. Someone is going to ask about NAFTA. Someone is going to ask about him missing Bin Laden. People are going to ask a lot of questions about my above statement. But honestly, we are making determinations on actions by hindsight, our Presidents must make them on foresight. I am sure most of you are able to understand which way is much harder to get the correct decision made.

 

But lets be real here------------>besides Kennedy, what Democratic President hasn't put in programs in the last 40yrs that cost oddles.

 

Heck, even compare Bill Clinton to Obama and see if they both look like democrats, or if Bill Clinton almost looks like a conservative when their policys are compared.

 

I do not like Bill Clinton, but then again I am not thrilled with LONESOME GEORGE either. But since I am not Monica, Hilly, or Laura, I do not have to sleep with them, lololol, and just look at the outcome of the policies.

 

Now I ask my conservative friends who come to this site------------->who would you rather have by a longshot, no other choices and you MUST vote...........Bill Clinton and his policy, or Obama and his stated policy?

 

And there you have it!!!!! There are degrees of conservatism, just as there are degrees of liberalism. Sometimes a republican like Ronald Reagan and a democrat like John Kennedy more closely resemble one another then say............two democrats like Kennedy and Obama, or two republicans like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

 

Governance from the center is NOT a bad thing.......except for the far right and left wing constituency. But honestly, just as we had the Reagan democrats, we also had the Clinton republicans. Once in, by governing from the center they didn't need their fringe contingency any longer. (and in both cases it pissed of the fringe elements if you will remember)

 

And now for something I heard on the news. I haven't verified it, but I am sure if the news was wrong, someone (AKA MOUNTAIN, hehehehehe) will correct it.----------------->

 

Democrats are extremely worried according to the news reports because of a little formula that is used to check a candidates power rating, or something like that. (I forgot the exact term)

 

It seems that the democrats themselves consider Hilly to be much closer to the center than Obama. When putting up a map of the last general election for President, Obama has not won one formerly red state from Hilly as of yet. The democrats fear (understandably) that if the people of these states want someone who is as close to the middle as possible, they will not get a win in those states with Obama versus Mcain. Those people will choose the other side who is much closer to the middle, and not a far left liberal like he is.

 

Therefore, the odds are high that the electoral map will resemble almost (if not) an exact copy of the last Presidential election in their eyes, and that means defeat. This is where the SUPER DELEGATES come in.

 

As of now, it is only grumbling by some in the democratic party, but it will become a roar if it follows suit in Indiana, and other states previously won by republicans in the general, if Barrack can not carry the day and Hilly wins them.

 

While I am mostly conservative, I must concur. You can not like the reality, but it does point to why you should feel their angst if you are a democrat.

 

Personally, were I 85% sure that Mcain was going to win against either candidate, I would hope Obama would win the primarys. Sadly, I am not.

 

If all 3 were running, we would have to choose between bad, worse, and a possible disaster. My feeling is that hopefully Indiana and friends change the tide so we get Mcain and Hilly, then we only have to choose between bad and worse by removing the disaster.

 

Time will tell, but I gotta tell you I will watch the dem convention much closer than the repubs. I wanna see how the dems pull this off. It may give all of us a lesson in politics we have not yet learned.

 

Can you be a little more succinct with your posts? Nobody wants to read your stream of blather.

 

The Dems will win in 2008. Why? Because no party has ever won with an incumbent president with low approval ratings and an impending recession. Even Joe Scarborough admitted as much.

[mountaineerwv]

May have heard? My good man, it states that we are the SECOND highest taxing authority in the world on corporations. YOUR OWN SITE.

 

...

 

This is getting tiresome. Yes, the rate is the 2nd highest, but did you read the rest of the story? Where do we rank in our collection of those taxes?

 

Read the whole story, do not pick out what you want to see. I know it is hard for a conservative to read the whole story.

[Imawhosure]

HEHEHEHEHEHEHE, no woman, or black person has ever won the presidency either. So exactly what is your point?

[Imawhosure]

This is getting tiresome. Yes, the rate is the 2nd highest, but did you read the rest of the story? Where do we rank in our collection of those taxes?

 

Read the whole story, do not pick out what you want to see. I know it is hard for a conservative to read the whole story.

 

Yes it is tiresome, you do not grasp that it costs money to avoid taxes. You still haven't explained why they leave, or don't you know?

[Imawhosure]

This is getting tiresome. Yes, the rate is the 2nd highest, but did you read the rest of the story? Where do we rank in our collection of those taxes?

 

Read the whole story, do not pick out what you want to see. I know it is hard for a conservative to read the whole story.

 

And nobody wants to follow your links which are much longer than my posts.

 

I think they would much rather see us debate the issue through our own wits; that is if you have any.

[methos]

Most prosperous? Did you forget the Clinton years? They were alot better for me.

 

After 5 years of war, when will we know we have won? What is your definition of WIN?

 

Liberals are stuck in dogma? That makes me LOLOLOLOLOL.

 

Like sheep? That makes me LOLOLOLOLOL. Ever hear of someone saying DITTO, Rush?

 

Just curious, TRIMDINGMAN, do you have ANY college? Or, have you learned all of your brilliance from life experiences?

 

 

No, he mentioned in an earlier post he dropped out for fear of being indoctrinated by liberals. It explains allot, lol.

[mountaineerwv]

May have heard? My good man, it states that we are the SECOND highest taxing authority in the world on corporations. YOUR OWN SITE.

 

OK, time for a little refresher for my conservative friend:

 

The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

 

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.

 

Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

[Imawhosure]

Come on man (woman) use your wits! You point out on fallacy from my memory, then claims that dispells everything else. You use links, hehehehehehehe.

 

I contend you are a bunch of hot air that has no skills at all. Prove me wrong!

[mountaineerwv]

HEHEHEHEHEHEHE, no woman, or black person has ever won the presidency either. So exactly what is your point?

 

I'd say that it is about time, wouldn't you?

[Imawhosure]

OK, time for a little refresher for my conservative friend:

 

So tell us mr TAX guy, which rate is higher-------------->capital gains, or personal income tax rates for the rich?

[Imawhosure]

Mountain searches for the answer, and can't fathom why I asked the question.

[mountaineerwv]

And nobody wants to follow your links which are much longer than my posts.

 

I think they would much rather see us debate the issue through our own wits; that is if you have any.

 

At least those links are informative and fact filled, not a bloviators personal opinions.

[Imawhosure]

Mountain leaves the board cause he is nervous as to why I asked such an incredulous question. (hehehehehehehehehehehehe)

 

The answer will become clear when he returns from his links, but I am sure he will figure out the trap I have boxed him into, much to his chagrin I might add, hehehehehehehehe.

[Imawhosure]

Hey, you are the genius, answer the question!