Democrat campaign promises to tax the rich! we heard it all before!

[chad750]

Raising taxes on the wealthy is a ****ing joke always has been always will be
for one reason only 10% of individual americans make 90,000 or more a year this pole was done by CNN so if that is true then if you raise taxes on people who make this much or more you will never get enough tax revenue to pay for all of the US's expenditures. Of course they will have to raise them across the board it is the only way they can take in any revenue I just hope we are not stupid enough to fall for it again.

 

[steveox]

If i was elected senator id vote for the wealthy to pay and extra 5% on income taxes and extra 10% on an CEO tax.Which means if youre an corperate excutive you pay 10% more. But here are the tax breaks. You get an deduction if your company together builds fuel efficient cars gets 50+MPG or more. If your company has solar power in building. Utilty companies get extra tax credit if they build a windmill farm and use electric hybrid vechiles. If you dont meet these requirements youll be paying a lot of taxes to the IRS!!

 

[PLC1]

I blame the Democratic Party for not allowing Drilling at ANWR and not allowing drilling on the coast of California. And not allowing refineries being built.Lets face it democrats wont allow 20 new refineries around the nation.This is why Gas Prices are out of line today.Democrats promised they would solve the gas price problems if theyre elected.In fact Hillary pledged this"" If Republicans are in minority,,We will promise to get the price of oil down and she said that exactly 1 year ago today. Well last year at this time gas was 2.85 a gallon now its 3.05 a gallon.Its seems to me THEY LIED!!! There was a campaign protest called
"" PAIN AT THE PUMPS=PAIN AT THE POLLS"" And this cost the Republicans the Election. I even Voted my senator and congressman out of office. And this Protester Yelled at D.C rally and said this,,, YOURE GONNA LOWER THESE GAS PRICES,, SECURE OUR BORDERS GIVE BACK OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS OR YOU CAN FIND YOURSELVES ANOTHER JOB!!!,,, And It Worked..Now were gonna Focus on DEMOCRATS in Congress and in Senate and were gonna throw them out too if we dont see these signs in november in 08

You can find yourself in this crap.

I Dont have a choice democrats.I gotta do what i have to do.You can ether get the gas prices down or YOURE OUT!!! Its very simple!

Good argument, except for this:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels, such as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery expansions. That could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come.

Oil industry executives no longer believe there will be the demand for gasoline over the next decade to warrant the billions of dollars in refinery expansions originally anticipated as recently as a year ago.

Biofuels coupled with efforts to get automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars and SUVs have been portrayed as key to countering high gasoline prices, but they are likely to do little to curb costs at the pump today, or in the years ahead as refiners reduce gasoline production.

Gas prices are based on supply and demand. As long as the supply can be limited, the price will remain high. It's basic economics. Why would the oil companies want to increase production and decrease their bottom line?

Democrats, Republicans, the federal government in general has little to do with the price of gas, except to levy taxes on it.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Bill Clinton was a GREAT president! In fact he may have been one of our GREATEST presidents!

That's really a laughable statement. He was an adequate peacetime president. He didn't do anything spectacular. He didn't have any major screwups (other than refusing to capture bin Laden).

He moved the entire Democratic Party to the center and did many important things such as MAJOR welfare reform.

You can thank Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America for this one.

President Clinton completely wiped out the budget deficit actually creating a surplus.

That's what happens when you slash the military capabilities by 40%. And you can also thank Newt Gingrich for this. His Congress was on the verge of making an amendment that made it mandatory for the budget to be balanced in times of peace.

 

[PLC1]

That's really a laughable statement. He was an adequate peacetime president. He didn't do anything spectacular. He didn't have any major screwups (other than refusing to capture bin Laden).

Yes, and there was the lying under oath thing, but with a wife like Hillary, what man wouldn't lie about an affair with another woman?

You can thank Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America for this one.

Whatever happened to the Contract with America? Was it a casualty of the demise of the Republican party?

That's what happens when you slash the military capabilities by 40%. And you can also thank Newt Gingrich for this. His Congress was on the verge of making an amendment that made it mandatory for the budget to be balanced in times of peace.

Which still left the US as by far the biggest military spender on the planet.

The balanced budget was a part of the now roundly ignored contract with America. Can the Repbulicans now be sued for breach of contract?

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;13950]That's really a laughable statement. He was an adequate peacetime president. He didn't do anything spectacular. He didn't have any major screwups (other than refusing to capture bin Laden).

President Bill Clinton did a phenomenal job! He kept people talking. He kept the economy booming for all 8 years of his presidency. He completely wiped out the budget deficit. He helped make a lot of friends around the world. And he did try to kill Bin Laden, he came close... closer than anyone else before or since.

You can thank Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America for this one.

Newt Gingrich was and will always be a worm. His "Contract With America" was more like a "Contract On America". This is the slimy type of political pundit that would scream bloody murder about Clinton having an adult consensual affair... do anything he could to smear and highlight a persons personal life. While all the while he himself was cheating on his wife with his secretary and even was so low as to present divorce papers to his wife while in the hospital suffering with cancer. This is why he didn't even try to run for re-election.

Yes I'm glad you brought up old "Newt" because that's the exact example to a tee of the Republican Party. Thank you.

That's what happens when you slash the military capabilities by 40%. And you can also thank Newt Gingrich for this. His Congress was on the verge of making an amendment that made it mandatory for the budget to be balanced in times of peace.

The Democrats believe in "pay as you go". They strive for balanced budgets. This is how we worked down the killer Reagan deficit that was dropped in Bush seniors lap.

After the Cold War ended phasing out older weapon systems and building a somewhat smaller but much better equipped, quick strike type of military was and still is a smart and cost effective way to go. Granted it's not built for invading and lifetime occupation of other countries... but then no one though back then we'd let ourselves get sucked into another Vietnam situation.

Bush thinks we have plenty of disposable troops to do this. We will see.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

President Bill Clinton did a phenomenal job! He kept people talking. He kept the economy booming for all 8 years of his presidency. He completely wiped out the budget deficit. He helped make a lot of friends around the world. And he did try to kill Bin Laden, he came close... closer than anyone else before or since.

He was a mediocre president, which is fine. Not every president has to do something spectacular and revolutionary. He did some good things, he did some bad things, but to put him up in a category with this country's best presidents is really laughable.

And he could've had bin Laden if him (or Dick Clarke) were willing to be more aggressive.

Regarding the economy -- he handed Bush a recession, but to say that is to give him way too much credit. The President has little to no influence on the economy. The Fed Chairman and the international market override any president.

Newt Gingrich was and will always be a worm. His "Contract With America" was more like a "Contract On America". This is the slimy type of political pundit that would scream bloody murder about Clinton having an adult consensual affair... do anything he could to smear and highlight a persons personal life. While all the while he himself was cheating on his wife with his secretary and even was so low as to present divorce papers to his wife while in the hospital suffering with cancer. This is why he didn't even try to run for re-election.

...to say nothing of his politics. Sure he was hypocritical in going after Clinton for his affair (i.e. perjury). He's still the smartest man in Washington and the only one who has anything meaningful to say on every issue.

The Democrats believe in "pay as you go". They strive for balanced budgets. This is how we worked down the killer Reagan deficit that was dropped in Bush seniors lap.

Balancing the budget is a patently conservative (though not necessarily Republican) ideal -- Andrew Mellon, Calvin Coolidge...

After the Cold War ended phasing out older weapon systems and building a somewhat smaller but much better equipped, quick strike type of military was and still is a smart and cost effective way to go. Granted it's not built for invading and lifetime occupation of other countries... but then no one though back then we'd let ourselves get sucked into another Vietnam situation.

Not at all. He believed in slashing, slashing, slashing. The person your thinking of with the phasing out and creating a quick, light military focused around Special Operations is Donald Rumsfeld, not Clinton.

Clinton didn't merely reorganize or cut military spending -- he cut military capabilities by 40%.

 

[Abraxis Axis]

Clinton didn't merely reorganize or cut military spending -- he cut military capabilities by 40%.

that is because he wasnt going to start a religious crusade
__________________

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;13990]He was a mediocre president, which is fine. Not every president has to do something spectacular and revolutionary. He did some good things, he did some bad things, but to put him up in a category with this country's best presidents is really laughable.

You are entitled to your opinion. I believe you to be totally incorrect... but you are still entitled. President Clinton just recently spoke here in Columbus at The Ohio State University. He was great as usual.

It is true he didn't have a huge war to deal with during his presidency and those sort of things do often define a president. But he kept us out of major international military quagmires, he worked with the UN and or allies and he did a stellar job with the economy. He even had a plaque on his desk from day one that read, "It's the economy stupid". He did what I elect a president to do. Not try to be my preacher... not try to be my father... just run our country. And except for his personal attractions he did that seamlessly. So seamlessly it looked almost easy... even with an extremely hostile Republican Congress!

And he could've had bin Laden if him (or Dick Clarke) were willing to be more aggressive.

As I said still closer than anyone else.

Regarding the economy -- he handed Bush a recession, but to say that is to give him way too much credit. The President has little to no influence on the economy. The Fed Chairman and the international market override any president.

Revisionist history aside Bill Clinton had the economy as his main objective. He was handed a terrible situation and he worked with everybody to make it right. Again... just a great job at working difficult situations out to a good conclusion.

...to say nothing of his politics. Sure he was hypocritical in going after Clinton for his affair (i.e. perjury). He's still the smartest man in Washington and the only one who has anything meaningful to say on every issue.

Hypocritical is an understatement but of course I agree. As far a shear intellegence... Newt couldn't carry President Clinton's jock strap. President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Newt was just a loud, mean spirited little man that happen to be in the majority at the time. While Clinton is just the opposite. He actually cared about people and not just an agenda.

And it's funny because I actually had short conversation with Mr. Gingrich by chance at the Atlanta airport about a year or so ago waiting between flights. And trust me if you talked with him face to face... his personality would pretty quickly take the hero worship away.

Balancing the budget is a patently conservative (though not necessarily Republican) ideal -- Andrew Mellon, Calvin Coolidge...

Well you would definitely have to go way far back to find any of that "Calvin Coolidge" because if you look at anyone in recent history, Reagan... Bush... Bush. You'd see that is no longer any part of their agenda.

Not at all. He believed in slashing, slashing, slashing. The person your thinking of with the phasing out and creating a quick, light military focused around Special Operations is Donald Rumsfeld, not Clinton.

Well again I remember things totally different. I clearly remember Clinton initiating the downsizing policy, why he did it, and the type of military believed to be most useful in the "21st century".

I'll be glad to stick with President Clinton. You can have Newt & Rummy. We'll just have to see how they all fare in history.

Clinton didn't merely reorganize or cut military spending -- he cut military capabilities by 40%.

And again we come back to this. The Cold War was over. We had no intentions of invading and occupying whole other countries on vast Nation Building campaigns. The military of the past was set up to be deployed to fend off major Russian Divisions... this was no longer the case.

(SIDEBAR: Wife ex-Army military intelligence, a Russian linguist specializing in code translation stationed at the Army lingquistics base in Monterey California.)

The bottom line is the military isn't supposed to be some massive "jobs program". It's extremely expensive and has to be operated cost effectively and in tune with the times. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Bunz]

A few things I will point out.
Gasoline in my hometown: Clinton years at its highest 2.30, right now under Bush, 4.93
Cigarettes under Clinton- 3 bucks, Bush 6 bucks
12 pack of cheap beer- Clinton $10-Bush 14.50
I know where I live has a very high cost of living and I make these comparisons to show real market movement. Where the difference is often minor on that sort of thing, out here in rural Alaska, the difference is very noticable.
Also keep in mind, it is true that gas prices are based on supply and demand. But that is also based on supply and demand of the futures market. Anytime there is an international upheaval as people saw a year ago during the Israel-Palestine scuffle, the price went through the roof. If Bush had half a heart and any brains whatsoever and could pull his head out of his ass concerning the progress in Iraq, we wouldnt be in the situation we are in with gas prices. A stable Iraq with production similar to what they had in 1989 would cause gas prices to drop faster than Bush approval rating, or faster than Clintons pants at a ugly girl convention....however you want to look at it.

 

[Bunz]

Also USMC, I notice that you harp on Clinton for cutting back the military...which is fair to a point because the military was down sized during his tenure, but the process was started during the Daddy Bush administration. Also keep in mind that there wasnt the need for as much military forces after the end of that little misunderstanding we called the Cold War. The GOP were in on that as well. Unfortunately, with our current administration and the wars going on, piss poor planning resulted in a real stretching of the military resources available to them. Rummy himself said you go to war with the force you have and not the force you wish you had. I will also point out that he said he wanted a smaller, more mobile military which is exactly what one has now compared to 1992-93. I dont think many would disagree that we have/had more than enough military resources to handle what was the real pressing issue of importance and that was Afghanistan. It was the diversion of men and materiel to Iraq and attempting to settle whatever score lil' Bush did have with Saddam that has caused the serious drain on the military.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You are entitled to your opinion. I believe you to be totally incorrect... but you are still entitled. President Clinton just recently spoke here in Columbus at The Ohio State University. He was great as usual.

Clinton was a good speaker, no doubt (though I'd still take the Great Communicator).

It is true he didn't have a huge war to deal with during his presidency and those sort of things do often define a president. But he kept us out of major international military quagmires, he worked with the UN and or allies and he did a stellar job with the economy. He even had a plaque on his desk from day one that read, "It's the economy stupid". He did what I elect a president to do. Not try to be my preacher... not try to be my father... just run our country. And except for his personal attractions he did that seamlessly. So seamlessly it looked almost easy... even with an extremely hostile Republican Congress!

I'm in agreement with you that a president doesn't have to (nor do I really want them to be) some great revolutionary figure who alters the course of history. I really just want strong defense, secure border, low taxes, and minimal government interference everywhere else.

But Clinton was far from flawless -- there were a number of large terrorist attacks that he failed to respond to, not to mention the disgraceful mishandling of the Somalia crisis which Osama bin Laden still maintans gave him his most successful propaganda opportunity.

Furthermore, you are giving him way too much credit with the economy. He didn't confront terrorism which removed the area where he should've been spending the money (the military) and his presidency happened to be right in the middle of the internet/computer age which ignited our economy. Lastly, I'll say again -- the president has a minimal effect on the economy anyhow.

BTW -- Bush ain't doing too bad either.

As I said still closer than anyone else.

What kind of thinking is this? "Oh he could've easily had bin Laden but decided he didn't want the hassle. However, he was still close." At least Bush tried.

Hypocritical is an understatement but of course I agree. As far a shear intellegence... Newt couldn't carry President Clinton's jock strap. President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Newt was just a loud, mean spirited little man that happen to be in the majority at the time. While Clinton is just the opposite. He actually cared about people and not just an agenda.

Okay, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Who cares? Newt Gingrich is a PhD in history which is much more relevant to politics anyhow. Your last two sentences are quite comical. It is a well-known fact by the staffers that Clinton had probably the worst temper of anyone who had ever lived in the White House. It is also a well known fact that all he cared about was crafting his legacy (i.e. an agenda). Of course, this agenda was fixing the Israel/Palestinian mess -- that worked real well.

And it's funny because I actually had short conversation with Mr. Gingrich by chance at the Atlanta airport about a year or so ago waiting between flights. And trust me if you talked with him face to face... his personality would pretty quickly take the hero worship away.

That's funny, because really the only reason I liked Gingrich so much is because of a 10 minute face-to-face conversation I had with him back in '04. I walked away from that conversation saying to myself, "That's the only guy who has a clue what's going on in Washington." My conversation was also at an airport, and he came up to my friend and I (who both happened to be wearing our BDUs) and started talking about the Marine Corps, the war, and then the election.

Well you would definitely have to go way far back to find any of that "Calvin Coolidge" because if you look at anyone in recent history, Reagan... Bush... Bush. You'd see that is no longer any part of their agenda.

You obviously didn't read what I had written. I said that balancing the budget was a conservative ideal starting with Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Treasurer.

Well again I remember things totally different. I clearly remember Clinton initiating the downsizing policy, why he did it, and the type of military believed to be most useful in the "21st century".

I'll be glad to stick with President Clinton. You can have Newt & Rummy. We'll just have to see how they all fare in history.

Didn't you listen to Clinton? He didn't say he was slashing the military to make it more equipped for 21st century warfare. He said he was doing it as part of his "peace dividend". He didn't want to be the strongest military country.

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;14259]Clinton was a good speaker, no doubt (though I'd still take the Great Communicator).

Reagan was a good actor I'll not argue that point. However I don't think many would say he had the warmth of Clinton. He also bankrupted the USSR by putting our military spending out of control knowing they could not keep up. The end result could be seen as good because it caused the collapse of the USSR. However economically it was deficit spending pure and simple and it was terrible. It made Bush senior have one of the all time bad economies to deal with. I remember well hearing the gory details almost every night after work on the news.

I'm in agreement with you that a president doesn't have to (nor do I really want them to be) some great revolutionary figure who alters the course of history. I really just want strong defense, secure border, low taxes, and minimal government interference everywhere else.

Keep us out of war if possible. Keep the economy on a good track. Protect the necessary domestic social programs the poor, the sick and the elderly need. Protect a woman's right to choose. Appoint good Supreme Court Justices.

But Clinton was far from flawless -- there were a number of large terrorist attacks that he failed to respond to, not to mention the disgraceful mishandling of the Somalia crisis which Osama bin Laden still maintans gave him his most successful propaganda opportunity.

Furthermore, you are giving him way too much credit with the economy. He didn't confront terrorism which removed the area where he should've been spending the money (the military) and his presidency happened to be right in the middle of the internet/computer age which ignited our economy. Lastly, I'll say again -- the president has a minimal effect on the economy anyhow.

Never said he was flawless. But I still to this day think his decisions were sound. And the country after seeing what happens when you go the other way sees the folly of trying to attack terrorists like the are some foreign country. It's like invading Sicily to try and eradicate the Mafia. It does not work.

I like the Qaddafi technique. Lob a couple cruise missiles into his tent. Kill a few people very close to him... in his case his son. Do this enough and it can produce a somewhat more peaceful atmosphere. No sucking the treasury dry and sacrificing our brave soldiers to occupy, Nation Build and referre a Civil War.

BTW -- Bush ain't doing too bad either.

You know I don't agree. His plan has been a disaster. He had absolutely no exit strategy or even a basic understanding of the region.

What kind of thinking is this? "Oh he could've easily had bin Laden but decided he didn't want the hassle. However, he was still close." At least Bush tried.

Clinton being the person he is concerns himself with things like collateral damage and he did make attempts to get Bin Laden.

If it's so easy why hasn't the cowboy got him? He's had what a four and a half year all out offensive and is still totally clueless as to where he is. And the one time he had him cornered he turned the job over to "sub-contractors". Of the two I'd still take the Clinton approach.

Okay, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Who cares? Newt Gingrich is a PhD in history which is much more relevant to politics anyhow. Your last two sentences are quite comical. It is a well-known fact by the staffers that Clinton had probably the worst temper of anyone who had ever lived in the White House. It is also a well known fact that all he cared about was crafting his legacy (i.e. an agenda). Of course, this agenda was fixing the Israel/Palestinian mess -- that worked real well.

See you're making a very common mistake their. It's much more important to be smart across the board than experienced in one area. An extremely smart person like Clinton or even like Obama can adapt and make their decisions on good research.

Bashing Clinton's personality is lame my friend. He's loved all over the world and you know it.

That's funny, because really the only reason I liked Gingrich so much is because of a 10 minute face-to-face conversation I had with him back in '04. I walked away from that conversation saying to myself, "That's the only guy who has a clue what's going on in Washington." My conversation was also at an airport, and he came up to my friend and I (who both happened to be wearing our BDUs) and started talking about the Marine Corps, the war, and then the election.

I'm going to attribute that to the "birds of a feather" analogy and leave it at that. I could quickly see the mean spiritedness. I played him like I was one of his own. I knew that's the only way I'd really get to see how he was... and he was about what I expected.

You obviously didn't read what I had written. I said that balancing the budget was a conservative ideal starting with Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Treasurer.

You obviously didn't read what I had written. They haven't done anything like that for decades.

Didn't you listen to Clinton? He didn't say he was slashing the military to make it more equipped for 21st century warfare. He said he was doing it as part of his "peace dividend". He didn't want to be the strongest military country.[/QUOTE]

Dude... probably no one on this planet listened to President Clinton more than I did. He wanted both a 21st century military (are you seriously saying there were not major technology advances in our military under President Clinton) and he definitely also wanted to use the "peace dividend" to fix your Republican created economic mess. Which he did just as he said he would. ZERO DEFICIT... SURPLUS... remember those things? Got to love the guy!

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Protect the necessary domestic social programs the poor, the sick and the elderly need. Protect a woman's right to choose. Appoint good Supreme Court Justices.

And here's where you're wrong. This is not part of the government's job, per Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

I like the Qaddafi technique. Lob a couple cruise missiles into his tent. Kill a few people very close to him... in his case his son. Do this enough and it can produce a somewhat more peaceful atmosphere. No sucking the treasury dry and sacrificing our brave soldiers to occupy, Nation Build and referre a Civil War.

Ironic considering you go on to herald Clinton for his concern with collateral damage in the very same post. Anyway -- this technique was a failure. Say what you want about Bush, but we haven't been attacked in 6 years. That's more than Clinton could say.

You know I don't agree. His plan has been a disaster. He had absolutely no exit strategy or even a basic understanding of the region.

I was talking about the economy under Bush, not the war.

Clinton being the person he is concerns himself with things like collateral damage and he did make attempts to get Bin Laden.

If it's so easy why hasn't the cowboy got him? He's had what a four and a half year all out offensive and is still totally clueless as to where he is. And the one time he had him cornered he turned the job over to "sub-contractors". Of the two I'd still take the Clinton approach.

It was easy back then because bin Laden wasn't hiding. In fact, ABC News interviewed him. Now that bin Laden is on the run, probably in some cave in Pakistan, it's much more difficult to get him.

Bashing Clinton's personality is lame my friend. He's loved all over the world and you know it.

Denial.

You obviously didn't read what I had written. They haven't done anything like that for decades.

This is clearly a futile point to try to get across with you.

Dude... probably no one on this planet listened to President Clinton more than I did. He wanted both a 21st century military (are you seriously saying there were not major technology advances in our military under President Clinton) and he definitely also wanted to use the "peace dividend" to fix your Republican created economic mess. Which he did just as he said he would. ZERO DEFICIT... SURPLUS... remember those things? Got to love the guy!

Technological advances were made in spite of President Clinton, not with his help. This is a self-evident fact. Palerider and I talked about this in a thread somewhere on this board, I'll try to locate it.

 

[steveox]

Bill Clinton TAXED the Little guy!!! instead of getting the Millionares and Billionares. He raised taxes on the working class people instead getting those millionares and billionares.If you had voted for Bob Dole he would had rolled back those stupid gas taxes before George H W Bush and Clinton raised them.When Reagan was President the Federal gas tax was just 7 cents a gallon. Now its 18.5 cents a gallon thanks to Bushs dad and Bill Clinton.