Basically if you run a business that makes more than $250,000 a year - which is about 98% of all small businesses - then you will see a massive tax hike with Obama.  He wants to spread the wealth around.  That is what the plumber was complaining about.

 

Robin Hood in reverse - run by Friar Dodd, the Sheriff of Mass. Barney Frank - with helping hands to Little Franklin Raines and Scarlet Joe Johnson.

 

I agree with you about the need to vote against virtually every incumbant, period, to attain a real chance for significant improvement.  However, it would be unacceptable to do so by voting for communists.  The only opportunity to eliminate Republican incumbants is either in the primaries as opposed to the general election in November, and/or else to vote for a conservative third party candidate in the general election.

 

 

Economics is the easy issue....Does the model you'd like to follow more closely have at it's core more or less taxes?

Education same thing...pick a state that our nation should emulate.

I never really had hugo chavez in mind for either.

 

 

The war, I'm about done arguing to the contrary. F'em, F'em good too...and use a tomahawk and a nuclear sub to do it with...that way, everybody is home for BBQ. Thank you sir, for your and others' service in keeping us safe and alive. We want the same for you and your grandkids. I honestley don't know the best way to achieve that....but I agree that it's more important than anything else.

From the same article - the tax rates for couples earning between $25,000 and $40,000 a year would GO UP under the Obama redistribution plan....

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Softwar,

 

I hold you in the highest regard here. I enjoy just about every post you make. However, I believe you have come to some incorrect conclusions here. Let me explain. I am not advocating any candidate. Nor am I defending any of them. All I am saying is that this issue is an irrelevancy for the vast majority of voters. Nobody gives a crap about any of this. By nobody I mean the swing voters who haven't made up their mind. In fact, the majority of Americans don't care about this. This issue is a waste of time from the McCain campaign which is floundering and in deep trouble. Moreover, politicians, Obama or McCain, all have dubious associations by the nature of their jobs. The vast majority of people they come into contact with almost guarantees that some will be of questionable character. But decades old associations that have nothing to do with current events on voters minds don't matter and more often than not the side that starts bringing things like this up is LOSING and grasping at straws to find an issue that will stick.

 

John McCains campaign stinks and was horribly run. Just to give an example. John McCain criticized Obama on lack of experience and then turns around and nominate Sarah Palin as VP? WTF!!! I mean when you are 72 years old with a history of health problems, who you nominate as VP matters. I know Sarah wows the conservative base. But the vast majority of America was like WTF???

realclearpolitics. com.

Check out those numbers. Think Palin helped or hurt?

 

 Next McCain attacks Obama on spending and socialism but then goes on to propose a bailout for every individual who has ever dropped his lollipop? So now McCains floundering campaign sensing imminent doom is researching the history of anybody Obama has ever known or dealt with regardless of relevancy. Meanwhile the Obama campaign roars along talking about the two issues on American TVs everyday. The wars and economy!

 

You know, McCain is a lot like Dan Marino of the Miami Dolphins. Great but never quite makes it to the top. McCain is going to have to do a lot better than he has in the little time left to have any chance. Either that, and I feel I've posted here long enough to be candid, or hope that America isn't ready to put a person who looks like Obama in the White House on election day. Short of that though this race is all but over.

 

If someone can prove Obama has young naked boys tied up in his basement then fine. THAT WOULD WORK. But short of some obviously egregious act this guilt by association nonsense is a waste of time. For that to work it has to be OBVIOUS to a dumb a$$ with no explaination required. You would need a picture like Obama embracing OJ Simpson and having beers to get the kind of shock needed to change votes. Even more so if it have nothing to do with issues. 

 

McCain all but blew it with the nomination of Sarah Palin for VP. THAT was the decisive point. Had he been able to convince a younger healthy reputable respected statesmen or women to take the VP post and then focused on the issues with a clear direction on the war and economy he would be in a much better position. I think the GOP horribly miscalculated the significance of Obama's candidacy and what it means to Americans and globally. You can bet they understand now!

 

 

 

-DA 

 

See here is the problem. the Democrats aren't communist. Comparing them that way is absurd and only makes you seem like a far right wing republican. Outside of that small circle no one will take you seriously. Voting for some third party conservative candidate is only going to waste time. Besides, look at how socialist our government is right now! Its not going to get any worse under a democrat. Sure they may put some policies together you may disagree with. But after it goes through congress things will balance out in the end. Extreme politics rarely ever carry the day "my friends...lol."

 

 

-DA

 

You're not wrong in the primary points you're making, but.... See, here is the problem... most people (including probably mostly all the Democrat politicians themselves) are too ignorant or too much in denial to recognize that the Democrats (granted, perhaps not every last one) actually are communists.  At least some Republican poiticians are, too.  Disputing that comparison is little more than arguing over the amount of communism they are required to advocate before agreeing to label them communist.  Absolutely we ought to look at how socialist our government is right now "thanks" to the Repubicrats, but you are delusional if you think Democrat majorities will **ever** result in **anything** other than increased socialism in our government--they **always** have, and the **only** thing that sometimes holds them back from doing worse to our country is the occasionally successful, lingering influence of the few real conservatives in government.  On the other hand, at least occasionally it is possible for conservatives to take enough hold of Republicans to at least have a chance at trying to reduce socialism a little, e.g., the Newt Gingrich House and the Contract With America.  However, there is no "balance" or some sort of swinging back and forth with no permanent movement one way or the other--the history of American politics is a constant slide toward increased socialism with occasional temporary reversals that are soon overcome and exceeded ("two steps forward, one step back").  You yourself acknowledge that we didn't start as socialist as we are now, and I contend there's no time when it's been worse overall.

 

I know you're trying to talk about practical realities independent of partisanship, and I'm interjecting a mix of conservative idealism and frustration.  Sorry to intrude.  Carry on.

 

 

Did I miss something...Was Pelosi impeached?...did a Daley lose an election somewhere, or what???