[Juballharshaw]

No, regarding the voting change thing or whatever it is.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by tex

And you don't think that is going to help the economy at all? Notice its been going up as this country "goes to shit." Maybe thats what the problem is. Keep driving up the tax rate and its going to drive out all the big corporations, leaving us no jobs at all. As trendy as it is to hate corporations, you really need them. They produce goods, pay your paycheck, give you good health insurance, and many other benefits. Hiking taxes on them is going to result in three things: reduced benefits/pay, layoffs, and/or raised prices. Tax cuts will increase spending, thus resulting in more jobs from expansion, research and other expenditures. The evil greedy capitalists are not going to horde it, not many companies have overflowing coffers. Of course they want to make money, but the easiest way is to get bigger or more powerful, which happens by spending on expansion and research.

Tax breaks for corporations that are making a record profit? Tax breaks so they can still pay ceo outrageous sums of money despite poor performance?

God forbid we give tax breaks to the people that actually buy things. Do you honestly believe tax breaks or subsidies for corporations will mean more research and more jobs? I have yet to see any evidence of that! If such things were true then a plan like the gas tax relief, McCain and Clinton are proposing might actually be a good thing.

The fact is, the number one goal of any business is profit at the largest possible margin!

So Obama and the Change Brigade are going to come in and fix everything? You realize government inherently sucks because its so big. A few talking heads aren't going to change shit. The bureaucracy is too bloated for anything to happen in a semblance of short term.

I have no delusions that either dems will magically fix everything, what I do believe is that one of them wont be continuing the complete nonsense that is our government. You can begin to change things without taking the first step.
Either way I'd rather not have a continuation of what the past 8 years has brought us.

It is really showing in this thread that you keep bringing up EVERYTHING about him, even when it isn't on topic. If you notice me ignoring parts of your posts, its because I either agree or it is completely irrelevant.

I bring him up because he is one of the three options we have for president (likely options that is). I bring him up as a comparison. And you might not have brought McCain into the conversation but others did.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by MSP

In 2000 I was voting for change. Gore had been in the Whitehouse for 8 years and I wanted fresh blood. But 2004? No offense but I have no regrets voting against John Kerry. Which is basically what I did. And let's not forget that the candidate that I voted for won both elections. Four counting the two times I voted for Clinton. I guess when it comes to bad judgment of political character I'm in the majority.

Being lumped together with the rest of the country is not necessarily a good thing, besides only 30% of them still feel good about their choice.

It's not about winning, it's about choosing the best candidate and I have yet to here any good reasons why anyone would vote for Bush, be it for the first term or the second.

[mistawiskas]

Elections have become "not a choice", but more like a lack of options.

[tex]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

The fact is, the number one goal of any business is profit at the largest possible margin!

Are you even reading, or just shooting from the hip at this point?

Of course they want to make money, but the easiest way is to get bigger or more powerful, which happens by spending on expansion and research.

Once you become a sprawling behemoth like Walmart, Exxon, etc., profits come naturally. It this wasn't the case, we wouldn't see corporations doing such "selfless" things as opening new plants, buying up other companies, etc.

[tex]

Originally Posted by Juballharshaw

No, regarding the voting change thing or whatever it is.

Ooops. I did, just with a horribly incorrect sentence:

The tax voting thing is that congress must have a higher voting percentage than it does right.

now. To change taxes.

That made no fucking sense...

Redux:
He wants to increase the minimum voting percentage in congress to change tax laws. That sucks because we're going to have a Dem controlled congress, blah blah blah

[tex]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

God forbid we give tax breaks to the people that actually buy things.

Oh yay, let's elect more democrats who are going to do such brilliant things as give us singular rebates which will go to stimulate our dead economy by ... paying off debt.

Taxes are not going to end up going down in any way with a Democrat president and congress. Don't kid yourself. Corp tax cuts may not be as peachy as cuts for you and me, but its still going to help. Like it or not, corporations doing better (looked at stock levels lately?) means a better economy, which does benefit individuals. Better jobs, pay and lower price levels.

[MSP]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Being lumped together with the rest of the country is not necessarily a good thing, besides only 30% of them still feel good about their choice.

It's not about winning, it's about choosing the best candidate and I have yet to here any good reasons why anyone would vote for Bush, be it for the first term or the second.

Well duh, it's not a popularity contest or about winning. I was just saying that there were a lot of people who voted for Bush for reasons that you don't agree with or understand. Doesn't make them wrong and you smarter necessarily. For example he has successfully carried out at least one function for which he earned my vote - to appoint conservative supreme court judges. To me that's a far more powerful branch of government than the executive.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by tex

Better jobs, pay and lower price levels.

You are kidding yourself with this one.

This is not a democrat versus republican debate, they both suck and that's part of the problem. I don't want a continuation of what we already have, I don't want someone who lacks foresight when making decisions or sticks to party line because that's where their loyalty lies.

I was trying to illustrate this point by bringing up the fact that I liked McCain in 2000 because that's what he brought, independent thinking, unfortunately thats not the case now and my options are pretty slim.

If this current congress can't get it's act together I'll do what I did last election and vote the incumbents out (actually I've already decided I will be doing that, Pelosi has really disappointed me as we as boxer).

[tex]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

You are kidding yourself with this one.

I'm bored with your bullshit rhetoric like this. I'm tapping out on this argument. Its not even worth the effort.

Throwing out non sequiturs like the WTO and vietnam (okay, maybe Vietnam is related on some tangent, but not how we've been discussing iraq) and now this isn't really lending credence to your argument.

[ninefivezero]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

...I liked McCain in 2000 because that's what he brought, independent thinking, unfortunately thats not the case now and my options are pretty slim.

When was this "independent thinking"? I ask because I honestly don't know. People throw around the stupid "maverick" word around, just because that is what they have heard before.

I read or heard somewhere, and I'm not sure the time scale of this, it was probably since Bush has been in office, that his votes have been in line with Bush 95% of the time.





I have to say though, I'm so tired of politics right now. There is a reason I've avoided this thread for the most part.... *sigh*

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by tex

I'm bored with your bullshit rhetoric like this. I'm tapping out on this argument. Its not even worth the effort.

Throwing out non sequiturs like the WTO and vietnam (okay, maybe Vietnam is related on some tangent, but not how we've been discussing iraq) and now this isn't really lending credence to your argument.

I'm sorry you can't follow it