i like how these people pushed the subprime loans and now that they backfired they blame the greedy lenders rather than their own misguided attempts to give people something they don't deserve. they drove them TO the lenders!
don't forget the non-profit group he started to funnel money to also. he should be jailed for money laundering.
stupid, and of course greedy. most scams often rely upon the greed of the victim to stupefy them blind to common sense. i can see the scammers using this fact to rationalize their actions.
how funny. i used to think it was racist because of the 'i got your picture' line. i used to think it was stereotypical like the japanese tourists who always have cameras around their necks. but in reading the actual lyrics it's not like that at all. whoops.:-x
but i'd say this part:
No sex, no drugs, no wine, no women
No fun, no sin, no you, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger
Everyone avoids me like a cyclone ranger
sure you could say 'what? he seems like a moral guy'. but, come on, he's just not very fun, adventurous, or cool. and that's part of the stereotype
i've not seen it. maybe i'll check it out. as far as him fact-checking? well, like i said i've not seen sicko but any of his other shit:-x you're right, it IS Michael Moore. i don't know whether you were trying to be ironic or not. as far as being attacked by wingnuts.. well, i think he qualifies as part of that same category himself. same with the media. in all honesty i see the media siding with him quite often. unless you're talking about fox news.:-p
i'm not sure how obama's tax plan is more realistic. it's essentially a $500 bribe, similar to george bush's economic stimulus plan. except, it goes to people who may not even be paying taxes, where bush's bribe went to taxpayers only.
so it's actually kind of like welfare.
also, it's coming from payroll taxes, which funds social security. so it's going to hurt social security even more.
also, he's never said if this is something that's going to happen every year, or just the first year he's in office.
also again, we've seen that bush's $600 economic stimulus bribe didn't work, so i don't see how giving $500 back to everybody, including non-taxpayers, will really help the economy. and if paying taxes is 'patiotic' according to biden, then why are they in the next breath saying they're giving a tax cut?
also, that tax plan is just that. $500. his 'tax calculator' on his website should have just been a box that says 'if you make less than 100k a year, you will get $500 from us'. check it out. that's really what it is. and apparently between 100k & 250k you will get no rebate but also no increase. and above 250k an increase, which, if you consider small business income, is NOT rich. or even close. that will kill small business. most people don't own small business so they don't care. but they may work for one and don't realize this is their raise money (among other things for the company of course) going bye bye.
i agree about energy. if you can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel why not? this has been something that like many times, socalled 'liberals' (i hate that word) get wrong. their hearts might be in the wrong place but their minds and mouths aren't.
you may be right on the way. that's a realistic assessment. if there IS any difference i don't see it being rapid. then again, a collossal blunder from EITHER candidate could add all kinds of complications. but let's give both he benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. gates & petraeus are highly competent, whether you're for the war or not.
as far as health care, in all honesty, mc cain's plan would be great hypothetically & philosophically, but, that's only if the country was full of law-abiders, and responsible self-sacrificers, and people who didn't abuse the system.
for people who pay for their own insurance already or have private plans, mccain's plan would be a godsend. the problem is, it still doesn't account for, well, a big thing, especially along border states, is illegal immigrants who clog up the emergency room when they have a cold. this is just a fact. anybody who disputes this just doesn't have any real idea. hell my dad offered his employees full coverage blue cross for $64 and most of them don't take it. they say they can't afford it, but one of those guys who said that spends $200 a weekend on cock fights. no joke. a few others, i'm sure they drink more than $64 a month worth. it's simply misplaced priorities. anyways mc cain's plan doesn't really address where that will come from.
on the other hand, for someone who really does want insurance will be given the tax credit to get it. this would be awesome, for people who already get their own insurance, but also for people who are serious about getting it in the future if they dont' already. also, the fact that he wants to let you pick from any insurance company no matter what state they're in, can only be a good thing, as it will foster competition. think of your cable company. since your cable company's the only game in town, they screw you with high prices & shitty service. if they had competition they'd be forced to offer you more at a better price. this is a good idea.
but i have a question about mccain's plan again.. he says if your insurance plan is less than the $5k credit, you can keep the change. that's nice. hell that's awesome to some people.. but what that makes me wonder about, is the amount of uninsured people who might just pocket
he's not necessarily promised any longer stay in iraq. he's only been more realistic about the fact that it's a mess and still needs to be cleaned up. obama has reacted to that by pretending he can do it any better. he doesn't have a plan other than to say 'i don't know what i'm going to do, but i will do it better.'
now, last time i checked his website, it said 'a responsible, phased withdrawal.' so, as opposed to an Irresponsible withdrawal? of course a president wants a 'responsible' withdrawal. so does mc cain. he just didn't say it in those words. which brings us to 'phased'. you mean they're not going to leave all at once? of course not. how's that any different than mccain? there is no substance whatsoever. it's all style. obama's style is to give the impression of empathy. but that's just a communication technique. mc cain's looking at what needs to be done, not how to please people. i doubt he wants to drag the war out anymore. he's NOT bush, and not very much like him either. obama's done a great job of hammering this idea that mc cain is bush's twin into the minds of the people. it's scary how far money can carry an inaccurate message. anybody actually paying attention to what he's saying can see the inconsistencies, conflicts and contradictions in his words when you actually think of the ideas and implications of the substance of the matters at hand.
ok so your evidence for this is where? or are you just repeating something you heard somewhere that sounds like something agreeable to supporting your current political predisposition?
we won't be happy. obama's healthcare plan will cause the healthcare industry to implode. mccain's is MUCh better. obama's 'if you like your plan, then keep it', statement breaks down when you think about what socialized healthcare will do to 'competition'. employers will stop offering the better plans to go with the state-required minimum. companies will move to states with more lax laws. especially since obama won't allow you to buy a healthcare plan out of state. being able to buy a plan out of state will only foster more competition. more competition means better service. so... why not?
but GOD DAMN are you right about them both being extremely arrogant. i give barack the bigger douche award there though. motherfucker has a messiah complex bigger than bono's!
though, bono did a lot of work in africa, so i give him respect.
oh boy, where to start. first, by calling your sig rather ironic.
people don't call obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people (as well as not so rich people). people call obama a socialist because, well, for one, his health care plan is EXACTLY socialist. it will also be a disaster. but i've already explained that elsewhere in this thread. he has also flat out said he wants to 'spread the wealth around'. THAT is socialist.
if he wants to raise taxes that's one thing, but how about paying down the debt?
you yourself mentioned that we're trillions in debt. so, why spend the way he is? also, by taking that welfare plan that he's calling a tax refund out of payroll taxes, he is further taking money that will already go to already-failing social security. he is making the problem worse and has patently neglected the social security issue, verbally & literally.
to explain the bank thing. sure, you can let them fail. but in doing so, then the rest of the economy suffers. see, for people to run business,like say, oh, i dunno, high tech manufacturing? they need FUNDING. that usually comes in the forms of LOANS.. given out by these entities called.. what do you know? BANKS. so if the banks die, so do all businesses that rely on loans for funding. these businesses run the range from say, your small time Joe Plumber, the guy who runs the donut shop, to huge multinational corporations. THAT is why we're bailing out the banks. not bc somebody WANTS to, but bc we HAVE to. if you're going to start asking questions about the recent bailout package, how about asking why nancy pelosi but in a provision that adds a $420 line item to every mortgage initiated over $100k to fund groups like and including ACORN.
speaking of ACORN, look them up and see obama's affiliation with them. check out their site. it basically translate to 'politically motivated group dedicated to getting poor people free shit'. it's as socialist as it gets. hence obama's very accurate label as a socialist.
while we're talking about groups like ACORN, pelosi also wants a whopping 20% of any profits on the bailout to go to groups such as and including them.
wait, what? PROFITS? that's right. that bailout, wasn't just a grant. it was comprised of LOANS. loans that need to be paid back.
which brings me to your next topic: GM. GM isn't looking for a 'handout'. they're looking for a LOAN. again, to be paid back. - i am NOT saying i agree that they should get one. though.. if they can survive that means people won't lose jobs. least not as many. letting any corporations fail means letting people lose their jobs, so, take your pick.
and i TOTALLY agree with you that they can't make a car anybody wants. jesus. some of those things are hideous. BUT. it's that and more. it's also the ridiculous pensions they have to pay to retired union members. toyota doesn't have that problem so they can make a cheaper car.
i don't even know what you're talking about high tech manufacturing. are you talking about computers, like the kind that come from china because they're cheaper to manufacture there? to entice companies to build things stateside it has to be economically feasible. lowering taxes helps.
Bush did not break the economy. AT ALL. he broke our national respect.
if he broke any economy, well, you could argue he broke our grandchildrens' economy, due to his spending like a drunken sailor, but that's it.
the war didn't fuck the economy up either. it just contributed to the debt. (see above about your grandkids.) what fucked the economy up was a bunch of things. some people say lack of regulation. some people say too much regulation. it was both.
the regulation that happened under Clinton started it. actually, in 1977 Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which basically forced banks to make loans to poor people, in an effort not to discriminate. Clinton made ammendments to it in 1995 that made it worse.
so that was bad regulation. yes, the problems just started surfacing now. that's where the banks' fault and the lack of regulation comes in.
by 'not discriminating', which means basically giving loans to people who can't afford them. ('poor' = you can't afford it. that simple.) this created the subprime lending. look up the definition of 'subprime lending.'
now the banks are coming out with these crazy loans to poor people who can't afford their homes. now, to make them seem affordable, to drop their initial payments, they had to come up with these funky schemes. now, to 'not discriminate', they made these same funky schemes to people who weren't poor, who could afford a small house, but now THESE people started buying bigger houses THEY couldn't afford.
now that's what created the bubble. you can understand the rest i'm sure. if there was a lack of regulation, well maybe the regulation should have prevented the banks from being able to sell the loans off to other entities right away. but you can see where regulation made it worse, as well as lack of regulation. there is good and bad.
there are others to blame also, like greenspan keeping rates low. remember, he was controlling the rates. controlling the rates = regulation. but it's not bush's fault in any way.
i agree with you 100% regarding the cost of things going up. what's the point of making more if things cost more? i agree. the only thing, both republicans and democrats can cause that.
republicans cause it by giving businesses like the telcos too much power. government granted monopolies. which really, weren't a central tenet of the republican party. republicans used to be true conservatives. they used to be against welfare of any kind, including corporate welfare. things have somewhat changed, but Mc Cain isn't really in that faction of the party anyways. but you get the idea: no competition for telcos = cable co gets to charge you a shitload for crappy service bc they can. i remind my dad of this a lot.
by the same token, democrats can cause this also. the more companies are taxed, the more they'll just raise prices and pass the taxes along to the consumer. and worse, money that will normally go to raises for employees will go to taxes. so not only are you paying more for things, you're not really making more either.
the problem with most people who support obama is they buy into his bullshit. he likes to paint this picture of the millionaire CEO paying no taxes and this picture of this poor struggling family who, if only they had a little extra help, would be able to afford more things. the problem is, that's only one way to look at it. the reality of the matter is that most businesses affected by taxes will be the Joe Plumber type. he, pelosi, and the democratic party in general, LOVE to pit the employee against his employer. 'all corporations are rich and evil'. 'all employees are hard working and honest and getting screwed by the employer'. 'there are no bums or people abusing the system.' 'all welfare recipients are struggling and in need and helpless'.
another problem with obama's healthcare program is that it will KILL private insurance companies.
employers will drop their GOOD insurance plans & go with the crap state plans.
also, not being able to choose will mean no competition. McCain wants you to be able to choose, and to further improve the system, wants you to be able to choose companies from out of state. this will mean competition, rather than monopolies. also, companies won't just simply move to the states with the most lax laws, similar to how they tend to move to Delaware, or internationally, Ireland, to dodge taxes.
ironically, some of you will vote obama. the healthcare industry will be fucked up. but rather than realizing it was because of stifled competition, or the government fucking it up, you'll simply attribute it to the insurance companies being 'evil'.
it's simple game theory. there have to be appropriate logical motivators(be they positive or negative) for all parties involved, or it'll breed corruption, or just a broken system.
my hypothesis is that Bush approved every bill as long as he got his war funding. i think subsequently the congress who actually wrote all those bills up figured, 'if he can have a war, then we can have..[insert bullshit earmark project here], which is fucked up thinking. granted, i can see disagreement with the war. but, that's still money spent. the worst thing to do is spend even more. but congress did that, not the president.
also, it's not the president who has fucked up the economy. at all. as much as you, i, or anybody else despise him in all his incompetency, he did not ruin the economy.
there is good regulation, and bad regulation. there is also good conservatism and bad conservatism. there is also good liberalism & bad liberalism.
to follow george bush with barack obama would be inflicting the worst of both worlds upon this country. simply a tag-teaming of the 2 parties in charge in butt-fucking our country in their own respective styles.
to think 'bush is a republican. he is evil,incompetent,smelly, etc. democrats aren't republicans so they are not evil, incompetent, smelly, etc.' is just ignorant at best, irresponsible and even dangerous at most.
the surplus under clinton came from reagan. policies he initiated years before finally came to fruition. this is the principle blunder of many people who do not truly understand the economy or the reagan or clinton administration.
a fear of mine is that obama will become elected, the economy will finally right itself, and people will mistakenly attribute it to his administration.
but the average Joe the Plumber IS the economy. and he knows what it costs to run his business. he also knows he can't always just jack up his rates to make up for all the new taxes. he knows his competition may cheat on their taxes or in other ways, and his customers will go elsewhere, so just raising his prices isn't so simple. he also knows that more money paid in taxes equals less money to buy new equipment, and LESS MONEY FOR EMPLOYEES' RAISES.
Slashdot Mirror
great point. i'd personally be happy to be able to tether it with my iphone for net access. if it were around $150 i'd get one.
Thank you!
-i work in baca's district. believe me i'm with you. i was thinking i should post an entry similar to yours until i saw yours.
but to do my part, here's the article referring to baca's role in the housing crisis from the WSJ the other day:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111072368352309.html
i like how these people pushed the subprime loans and now that they backfired they blame the greedy lenders rather than their own misguided attempts to give people something they don't deserve. they drove them TO the lenders!
don't forget the non-profit group he started to funnel money to also. he should be jailed for money laundering.
do you work for the military?
stupid, and of course greedy. most scams often rely upon the greed of the victim to stupefy them blind to common sense. i can see the scammers using this fact to rationalize their actions.
L-O-B-B-Y-I-S-T*
a beowulf cluster of these!
i once got busy in a burger king bathroom..
mitch hedberg, is that you?
new windows 7 system requirements?
*dodges chair*
how funny. i used to think it was racist because of the 'i got your picture' line. i used to think it was stereotypical like the japanese tourists who always have cameras around their necks. but in reading the actual lyrics it's not like that at all. whoops. :-x
but i'd say this part:
No sex, no drugs, no wine, no women
No fun, no sin, no you, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger
Everyone avoids me like a cyclone ranger
sure you could say 'what? he seems like a moral guy'. but, come on, he's just not very fun, adventurous, or cool. and that's part of the stereotype
i've not seen it. maybe i'll check it out. as far as him fact-checking? well, like i said i've not seen sicko but any of his other shit :-x you're right, it IS Michael Moore. i don't know whether you were trying to be ironic or not. as far as being attacked by wingnuts.. well, i think he qualifies as part of that same category himself. same with the media. in all honesty i see the media siding with him quite often. unless you're talking about fox news. :-p
you from california too? :-p
i'm not sure how obama's tax plan is more realistic. it's essentially a $500 bribe, similar to george bush's economic stimulus plan. except, it goes to people who may not even be paying taxes, where bush's bribe went to taxpayers only.
so it's actually kind of like welfare.
also, it's coming from payroll taxes, which funds social security. so it's going to hurt social security even more.
also, he's never said if this is something that's going to happen every year, or just the first year he's in office.
also again, we've seen that bush's $600 economic stimulus bribe didn't work, so i don't see how giving $500 back to everybody, including non-taxpayers, will really help the economy. and if paying taxes is 'patiotic' according to biden, then why are they in the next breath saying they're giving a tax cut?
also, that tax plan is just that. $500. his 'tax calculator' on his website should have just been a box that says 'if you make less than 100k a year, you will get $500 from us'. check it out. that's really what it is. and apparently between 100k & 250k you will get no rebate but also no increase. and above 250k an increase, which, if you consider small business income, is NOT rich. or even close. that will kill small business. most people don't own small business so they don't care. but they may work for one and don't realize this is their raise money (among other things for the company of course) going bye bye.
i agree about energy. if you can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel why not? this has been something that like many times, socalled 'liberals' (i hate that word) get wrong. their hearts might be in the wrong place but their minds and mouths aren't.
you may be right on the way. that's a realistic assessment. if there IS any difference i don't see it being rapid. then again, a collossal blunder from EITHER candidate could add all kinds of complications. but let's give both he benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. gates & petraeus are highly competent, whether you're for the war or not.
as far as health care, in all honesty, mc cain's plan would be great hypothetically & philosophically, but, that's only if the country was full of law-abiders, and responsible self-sacrificers, and people who didn't abuse the system.
for people who pay for their own insurance already or have private plans, mccain's plan would be a godsend. the problem is, it still doesn't account for, well, a big thing, especially along border states, is illegal immigrants who clog up the emergency room when they have a cold. this is just a fact. anybody who disputes this just doesn't have any real idea. hell my dad offered his employees full coverage blue cross for $64 and most of them don't take it. they say they can't afford it, but one of those guys who said that spends $200 a weekend on cock fights. no joke. a few others, i'm sure they drink more than $64 a month worth. it's simply misplaced priorities. anyways mc cain's plan doesn't really address where that will come from.
on the other hand, for someone who really does want insurance will be given the tax credit to get it. this would be awesome, for people who already get their own insurance, but also for people who are serious about getting it in the future if they dont' already. also, the fact that he wants to let you pick from any insurance company no matter what state they're in, can only be a good thing, as it will foster competition. think of your cable company. since your cable company's the only game in town, they screw you with high prices & shitty service. if they had competition they'd be forced to offer you more at a better price. this is a good idea.
but i have a question about mccain's plan again.. he says if your insurance plan is less than the $5k credit, you can keep the change. that's nice. hell that's awesome to some people.. but what that makes me wonder about, is the amount of uninsured people who might just pocket
he's not necessarily promised any longer stay in iraq. he's only been more realistic about the fact that it's a mess and still needs to be cleaned up. obama has reacted to that by pretending he can do it any better. he doesn't have a plan other than to say 'i don't know what i'm going to do, but i will do it better.'
now, last time i checked his website, it said 'a responsible, phased withdrawal.' so, as opposed to an Irresponsible withdrawal? of course a president wants a 'responsible' withdrawal. so does mc cain. he just didn't say it in those words. which brings us to 'phased'. you mean they're not going to leave all at once? of course not. how's that any different than mccain? there is no substance whatsoever. it's all style. obama's style is to give the impression of empathy. but that's just a communication technique. mc cain's looking at what needs to be done, not how to please people. i doubt he wants to drag the war out anymore. he's NOT bush, and not very much like him either. obama's done a great job of hammering this idea that mc cain is bush's twin into the minds of the people. it's scary how far money can carry an inaccurate message. anybody actually paying attention to what he's saying can see the inconsistencies, conflicts and contradictions in his words when you actually think of the ideas and implications of the substance of the matters at hand.
ok so your evidence for this is where? or are you just repeating something you heard somewhere that sounds like something agreeable to supporting your current political predisposition?
sorry, i need facts.
a touchscreen chair? what, the prototype was destroyed before testing could be completed?
but GOD DAMN are you right about them both being extremely arrogant. i give barack the bigger douche award there though. motherfucker has a messiah complex bigger than bono's!
though, bono did a lot of work in africa, so i give him respect.
most insightful post in the thread. mod this motherfucker up.
neither can run a country. they're both pillaging the place. don't pretend democrats are any better.
oh boy, where to start. first, by calling your sig rather ironic.
people don't call obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people (as well as not so rich people). people call obama a socialist because, well, for one, his health care plan is EXACTLY socialist. it will also be a disaster. but i've already explained that elsewhere in this thread. he has also flat out said he wants to 'spread the wealth around'. THAT is socialist.
if he wants to raise taxes that's one thing, but how about paying down the debt?
you yourself mentioned that we're trillions in debt. so, why spend the way he is? also, by taking that welfare plan that he's calling a tax refund out of payroll taxes, he is further taking money that will already go to already-failing social security. he is making the problem worse and has patently neglected the social security issue, verbally & literally.
to explain the bank thing. sure, you can let them fail. but in doing so, then the rest of the economy suffers. see, for people to run business,like say, oh, i dunno, high tech manufacturing? they need FUNDING. that usually comes in the forms of LOANS.. given out by these entities called.. what do you know? BANKS. so if the banks die, so do all businesses that rely on loans for funding. these businesses run the range from say, your small time Joe Plumber, the guy who runs the donut shop, to huge multinational corporations. THAT is why we're bailing out the banks. not bc somebody WANTS to, but bc we HAVE to. if you're going to start asking questions about the recent bailout package, how about asking why nancy pelosi but in a provision that adds a $420 line item to every mortgage initiated over $100k to fund groups like and including ACORN.
speaking of ACORN, look them up and see obama's affiliation with them. check out their site. it basically translate to 'politically motivated group dedicated to getting poor people free shit'. it's as socialist as it gets. hence obama's very accurate label as a socialist.
while we're talking about groups like ACORN, pelosi also wants a whopping 20% of any profits on the bailout to go to groups such as and including them.
wait, what? PROFITS? that's right. that bailout, wasn't just a grant. it was comprised of LOANS. loans that need to be paid back.
which brings me to your next topic: GM. GM isn't looking for a 'handout'. they're looking for a LOAN. again, to be paid back. - i am NOT saying i agree that they should get one. though.. if they can survive that means people won't lose jobs. least not as many. letting any corporations fail means letting people lose their jobs, so, take your pick.
and i TOTALLY agree with you that they can't make a car anybody wants. jesus. some of those things are hideous. BUT. it's that and more. it's also the ridiculous pensions they have to pay to retired union members. toyota doesn't have that problem so they can make a cheaper car.
i don't even know what you're talking about high tech manufacturing. are you talking about computers, like the kind that come from china because they're cheaper to manufacture there? to entice companies to build things stateside it has to be economically feasible. lowering taxes helps.
Bush did not break the economy. AT ALL. he broke our national respect.
if he broke any economy, well, you could argue he broke our grandchildrens' economy, due to his spending like a drunken sailor, but that's it.
the war didn't fuck the economy up either. it just contributed to the debt. (see above about your grandkids.) what fucked the economy up was a bunch of things. some people say lack of regulation. some people say too much regulation. it was both.
the regulation that happened under Clinton started it. actually, in 1977 Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which basically forced banks to make loans to poor people, in an effort not to discriminate. Clinton made ammendments to it in 1995 that made it worse.
so that was bad regulation. yes, the problems just started surfacing now. that's where the banks' fault and the lack of regulation comes in.
by 'not discriminating', which means basically giving loans to people who can't afford them. ('poor' = you can't afford it. that simple.) this created the subprime lending. look up the definition of 'subprime lending.'
now the banks are coming out with these crazy loans to poor people who can't afford their homes. now, to make them seem affordable, to drop their initial payments, they had to come up with these funky schemes. now, to 'not discriminate', they made these same funky schemes to people who weren't poor, who could afford a small house, but now THESE people started buying bigger houses THEY couldn't afford.
now that's what created the bubble. you can understand the rest i'm sure. if there was a lack of regulation, well maybe the regulation should have prevented the banks from being able to sell the loans off to other entities right away. but you can see where regulation made it worse, as well as lack of regulation. there is good and bad.
there are others to blame also, like greenspan keeping rates low. remember, he was controlling the rates. controlling the rates = regulation. but it's not bush's fault in any way.
i agree with you 100% regarding the cost of things going up. what's the point of making more if things cost more? i agree. the only thing, both republicans and democrats can cause that.
republicans cause it by giving businesses like the telcos too much power. government granted monopolies. which really, weren't a central tenet of the republican party. republicans used to be true conservatives. they used to be against welfare of any kind, including corporate welfare. things have somewhat changed, but Mc Cain isn't really in that faction of the party anyways. but you get the idea: no competition for telcos = cable co gets to charge you a shitload for crappy service bc they can. i remind my dad of this a lot.
by the same token, democrats can cause this also. the more companies are taxed, the more they'll just raise prices and pass the taxes along to the consumer. and worse, money that will normally go to raises for employees will go to taxes. so not only are you paying more for things, you're not really making more either.
the problem with most people who support obama is they buy into his bullshit. he likes to paint this picture of the millionaire CEO paying no taxes and this picture of this poor struggling family who, if only they had a little extra help, would be able to afford more things. the problem is, that's only one way to look at it. the reality of the matter is that most businesses affected by taxes will be the Joe Plumber type. he, pelosi, and the democratic party in general, LOVE to pit the employee against his employer. 'all corporations are rich and evil'. 'all employees are hard working and honest and getting screwed by the employer'. 'there are no bums or people abusing the system.' 'all welfare recipients are struggling and in need and helpless'.
it's a bunch of shit.
Mc Cain has promised less spending. Obama has promised more. you do the math.
another problem with obama's healthcare program is that it will KILL private insurance companies.
employers will drop their GOOD insurance plans & go with the crap state plans.
also, not being able to choose will mean no competition. McCain wants you to be able to choose, and to further improve the system, wants you to be able to choose companies from out of state. this will mean competition, rather than monopolies. also, companies won't just simply move to the states with the most lax laws, similar to how they tend to move to Delaware, or internationally, Ireland, to dodge taxes.
ironically, some of you will vote obama. the healthcare industry will be fucked up. but rather than realizing it was because of stifled competition, or the government fucking it up, you'll simply attribute it to the insurance companies being 'evil'.
it's simple game theory. there have to be appropriate logical motivators(be they positive or negative) for all parties involved, or it'll breed corruption, or just a broken system.
McCain is not Bush.
my hypothesis is that Bush approved every bill as long as he got his war funding. i think subsequently the congress who actually wrote all those bills up figured, 'if he can have a war, then we can have..[insert bullshit earmark project here], which is fucked up thinking. granted, i can see disagreement with the war. but, that's still money spent. the worst thing to do is spend even more. but congress did that, not the president.
also, it's not the president who has fucked up the economy. at all. as much as you, i, or anybody else despise him in all his incompetency, he did not ruin the economy.
there is good regulation, and bad regulation. there is also good conservatism and bad conservatism. there is also good liberalism & bad liberalism.
to follow george bush with barack obama would be inflicting the worst of both worlds upon this country. simply a tag-teaming of the 2 parties in charge in butt-fucking our country in their own respective styles.
to think 'bush is a republican. he is evil,incompetent,smelly, etc. democrats aren't republicans so they are not evil, incompetent, smelly, etc.' is just ignorant at best, irresponsible and even dangerous at most.
the surplus under clinton came from reagan. policies he initiated years before finally came to fruition. this is the principle blunder of many people who do not truly understand the economy or the reagan or clinton administration.
a fear of mine is that obama will become elected, the economy will finally right itself, and people will mistakenly attribute it to his administration.
but the average Joe the Plumber IS the economy. and he knows what it costs to run his business. he also knows he can't always just jack up his rates to make up for all the new taxes. he knows his competition may cheat on their taxes or in other ways, and his customers will go elsewhere, so just raising his prices isn't so simple. he also knows that more money paid in taxes equals less money to buy new equipment, and LESS MONEY FOR EMPLOYEES' RAISES.