Keep putting the republicans into office, when all your rights and freedoms are gone dont cry about it.

KOAJ,

 Please dont insult me with that.  We all know Ron Paul is a completely differnt type of republican if you even want to call him a republican.  Lets get the facts straight, it was the republicans who created the bill, it was Bill Frist that attached the bill to the ports security bill in the middle of the night, it was the republicans who would not let the democrats remove this bill from the port security bill and it was the republicans who passed this bill in a landslide. So if you want to dance around that, go right ahead, but the facts are the facts.  Listen keep voting for these republican jerks that want to control every aspect of your life all because you believe that they will put a few more coins in your pocket. Down the road when all your freedoms have been trampled on, am sure you will be asking yourself was those extra dollars worth it and my guess is deep down you will know it to. Like i keep telling you, money isnt everything, sometimes you have to give up a few dollars to be free.

As far as Reid goes, your out of touch with that idea. In fact the vegas casinos which want to go online, will tell reid what to do. Face it, if the damn republicans werent the thorns of this bill, you would see legalized online gambling.  So we have nobody to blame for this but your republican buddies. Any way you to try to spin, still comes out the same, the republicans took this right away from us.  In fact think about this, why didnt the republicans just leave things alone and not create a bill to ban or legalize it?  Thats because they want to control each and every one of us, thats why they went out of their way to create the damn bill and add it to another bill at 2:00 a.m. that the democrats had to vote for. Talk about slimy moves, thats about as low a sit goes.

So vote keep voting republican

Of course there is way more important issues in this country I agree 100 percent.  Point here is, its the damn republicans who are always creating these type of bills to control us.  Let us all lead are lifes and stop interfering with our freedoms, thats not to hard to ask for.  The grip around what people cant do in this country is getting tighter and tighter due to the republicans creating these crazy type of laws.

Your right bigger issues right now, the war, healthcare,jobs, taxes, energy, social security and the list goes on.

These were all big issuses facing the country when the republicans went out of their way to create this stupid ass bill, instead of working on those problems.

Sorry but your numbers dont add up that you keep talking about. I have read some of the tax plans on sites that are totally unbiased and none have the numbers your using.

Like i said before my wife owns a business and we arent worried about paying more if need be.

By the way what type of business do you own, that you believe your going to pay thru the roof in taxes if Obama is elected?  You must be living in disneyworld if you think that your not gonna have to pay for the debt McCain creates with the war continuing for years and from his tax cuts to the rich. Who do you think is going to pay for these things? You and I, thats who. So since am gonna have to pay for these things anyway no matter what, i might as well have the guy in office who isnt gonna try and take away all of my freedoms and will leave the Constitution alone.

KOAJ,

 You gotta stop letting everything be about you. Since you have a way of gambling, you dont give a crap about others.  This is very selfish and i dont know how old you are, but am actually shocked that you would be like this.  Its like you have this one dog one bone thing going.  Iam going to change you if its the last thing i do on this planet,lolllllll

yeah he was really reaching with that one.

The Social Animal

Near the start of his book, “The

Conscience of a Conservative,” Barry Goldwater wrote: “Every man, for

his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for

his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he

must make; they cannot be made by any other human being.” The political

implications of this are clear, Goldwater continued: “Conservatism’s

first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?”

Goldwater’s vision was highly individualistic and celebrated a

certain sort of person — the stout pioneer crossing the West, the

risk-taking entrepreneur with a vision, the stalwart hero fighting the

collectivist foe.

The problem is, this individualist description of human nature

seems to be wrong. Over the past 30 years, there has been a tide of

research in many fields, all underlining one old truth — that we are

intensely social creatures, deeply interconnected with one another and

the idea of the lone individual rationally and willfully steering his

own life course is often an illusion.

Cognitive scientists have shown that our decision-making is

powerfully influenced by social context — by the frames, biases and

filters that are shared subconsciously by those around. Neuroscientists

have shown that we have permeable minds. When we watch somebody do

something, we recreate their mental processes in our own brains as if

we were performing the action ourselves, and it is through this process

of deep imitation that we learn, empathize and share culture.

Geneticists have shown that our behavior is influenced by our

ancestors and the exigencies of the past. Behavioral economists have

shown the limits of the classical economic model, which assumes that

individuals are efficient, rational, utility-maximizing creatures.

Psychologists have shown that we are organized by our attachments.

Sociologists have shown the power of social networks to affect

individual behavior.

What emerges is not a picture of self-creating individuals

gloriously free from one another, but of autonomous creatures deeply

interconnected with one another. Recent Republican Party doctrine has

emphasized the power of the individual, but underestimates the

importance of connections, relationships, institutions and social

filaments that organize personal choices and make individuals what they

are.

This may seem like an airy-fairy thing. But it is the main

impediment to Republican modernization. Over the past few weeks,

Republicans have talked a lot about change, modernization and reform.

Despite the talk, many of the old policy pillars are the same. We’re

living in an age of fast-changing economic, information and social

networks, but Republicans are still impeded by Goldwater’s mental

guard-rails.

If there’s a thread running through the gravest current concerns,

it is that people lack a secure environment in which they can lead

their lives. Wild swings in global capital and energy markets buffet

family budgets. Nobody is sure the health care system will be there

when they need it. National productivity gains don’t seem to alleviate

economic anxiety. Inequality strains national cohesion. In many

communities, social norms do not encourage academic achievement, decent

values or family stability. These problems straining the social fabric

aren’t directly addressed by maximizing individual freedom.

And yet locked in the old framework, the Republican Party’s

knee-jerk response to many problems is: “Throw a voucher at it.”

Schools are bad. Throw a voucher. Health care system’s a mess. Replace

it with federally funded individual choice. Economic anxiety? Lower

some tax rate.

The latest example of the mismatch between ideology and reality is

the housing crisis. The party’s individualist model cannot explain the

social contagion that caused hundreds of thousands of individuals to

make bad decisions in the same direction at the same time. A Republican

administration intervened gigantically in the market to handle the Bear

Stearns, Freddie and Fannie debacles. But it has no conservative

rationale to explain its action, no language about the importance of

social equilibrium it might use to justify itself.

The irony, of course, is that, in pre-Goldwater days, conservatives

were incredibly sophisticated about the value of networks, institutions

and invisible social bonds. You don’t have to go back to Edmund Burke

and Adam Smith (though it helps) to find conservatives who understood

that people are socially embedded creatures and that government has a

role (though not a dominant one) in nurturing the institutions in which

they are embedded.

That language of community, institutions and social fabric has been

lost, and now we hear only distant echoes — when social conservatives

talk about family bonds or when John McCain talks at a forum about

national service.

If Republicans are going to fully modernize, they’re probably going

to have to follow the route the British Conservatives have already trod

and project a conservatism that emphasizes society as well as

individuals, security as well as freedom, a social revival and not just

an economic one and the community as opposed to the state.

That may be, but we know exactly what it means.

 Your starting to sound like Amazing met with your answers. When he said hes gonna cut taxes for 95 precent of Americans, he means hes gonna cut them for 95 percent of the people actually paying taxes.  Not 95 percent of the population.

When i was reading your post, all i kept saying to myself was KOAJ is kidding with this last post

cd

put the glass of kool aid down.

taxes) but Obama's plan seems to be affecting the top % of the people,

while the rest should remain pretty much unaffected.
-----------
obama says he will cut for 95% of americans. currently 40% approx of americans pay no taxes so his 95% is off base. also the cuts he talks of are mostly credits. tax credit is election friendly word for spending

i'm not sure what dollar amount or rate he is cutting for the middle class but if business has less money and middle class has more, business will push prices onto the middle class. there's no denying that effect

neither candidate has the wherewithal to deal with the financial mess but the most important thing either can do is cut spending and cut it a lot. obama is a big government guy, mccain is not

Yes, I love to gamble as much as anyone, but I am much more concerned about the economy than getting down on football.

Sadly, for the economy:

Obama=100% horrible

McCain=99.999% horrible

Am choosing McCain, cause he is slightly "less horrible" than Obama, as far as the economy goes.

How do you understand socialism?

These questions went unanswered by all the liberals on a thread a few days ago.  So I am asking specifically Hugo, cd329, cashin, secondagain, kujayhawks or any other of the liberals who are in favor of Obama's tax plans.  All I want is your opinion or theory on how this plan helps the middle class.  Thanks in advance for your participation.

So now Obama has begun to "evolve" his position on rescinding the tax cuts.  So I ask all the liberal economists on here:  When is it good for the economy and the middle class  to raise the cost of doing business on corporations?  How many jobs will be created vs. lost by raising the cost of doing business?  Will prices go up or down to the end user if the cost of doing business goes up?  

One other question I would like added is: Will your investments be better or worse off if your capital gains are raised by 10%-13%?

I think we've experimented with that long enough.  As far as our current economic condition, I will tell you that I absolutely abhor reading the newspaper every day.  Been going on for years.

If you want to correlate the stock market with politics, there are plenty of brokers around here but I'll tell you for a fact that stock and asset values rise when the "smart" people are in charge.

Second quarter portfolio statements for 2008 were (I have been told) the largest drop since the Depression. 

As a follow up, if anybody is going to have a "tax" discussion, you also have to have a Government Spending discussion.

They go hand in hand.

There have been many posts here regarding that but to control spending, need a strong leader to be able to say no existing spending patterns.  Also, need to lay off useless military spending.

Anybody have a problem with that?

In a nutshell, if we want to have a "Middle Class," need to keep the jobs here in the USA.  If you do not care about the Middle Class, then that's a whole nother ball game because it is cheaper to manufacture and outsource to Asia.  Chinese factory workers make $3,500 per year.

How do we pay for it? Taxes? I can assure you that in order to pay for it, the middle class will have to ante up. Plus, my research on the "Canada Experiment," - i.e., socialized healthcare shows that critical services - surgeries, oncologics, et. al. - are grossly underserved. Most who can afford it come to Detroit (where I live) and pay out of pocket, those who cannot wait for months to get the necessary care.

"As far as "spreading democracy" and buying allies. There are easier and cheaper ways to do that."

Huh? Are you referring to the Middle East war? I don't know if you realize it or not - probably not since the press sure as hell isn't reporting it - we have beaten back terrorist elements in Iraq are are in the process of giving it back to the Iraqis. Anbar is completely operated and defended by the Iraq government. Within a couple of years I expect the rest of the country to follow suit. Afghanistan will follow suit and Iran will be surrounded by unfriendly neighbors.

"Personally, I think it takes a dozen golf balls and some hookers but politically, if we just need an airport to borrow from time to time, we do not have to invade and then have to rebuild every little country that runs into a squabble with their current leadership."

Typical misunderstanding/cynicism/naivete of why we are fighting over there

"If the military gets bored or needs a project, send them to the border. Or crime ridden neighborhoods but wasting our time with offshore border disputes is not worth our time."

I'd like to hear your comments should Israel get nuked by Iran.

Listen, I disagree how the war was waged - too P.C., not enough firepower, initially - but it is successful now with a more appropriate strategy and we are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully we can take our resources and troops and start funneling them into Afghanistan and start to finish the job there.

Reagrding the Obama economic plan, taxing the wealthy is a risky venture. They run the small businesses and the large corporations. Take money from them and they raise prices or reduce their employees. Either way, the little person gets hurt. How about reducing taxes for everyone? When that was done over the course of the past seven years, our federal government revenues have ben the highest in our nation's history. Why? People are spending and paying taxes. By targeting just one segment of the population - middle class tax cuts - plays to election politics and class envy. Fortunately most people don't get sucked in by the "soak the rich" platitudes anymore.

One other thing because this thread mentioned liberties and freedoms being taken away and which party is more adept at doing so. The problem is that both parties are very good at it and if you aren't sure look up a California energy policy proposed by their Democratic members requesting that once a person's consumption reaches a certain level, the electric company may have the right to shut off their energy. That's almost Stalinist.

The Libertarians are your safest bet in this arena, but Bob Barr just can't pull off the election and Obama is just too damn scary. He lacks experience, he cannot think for himself without a teleprompter, and his economics would destroy our economy. I will hold my nose and vote McCain.