How will you feel if Obama loses?

[trish]

i am not voting for obama , so i want him to lose ,

That's kinda backwards isn't it. The reason you want him to lose is because you're not voting for him? The rest of your reasoning isn't much better: it would be "scary" if the dems had a veto proof majority. McCain won't be able to shit against a veto proof majority and neither will your vote for McCain. But more importantly, what's so scary about a democratic veto proof majority? It was the republicans who ruined this country over the last seven years, eroded our constitutional rights, turned a ten year budgetary surplus into trillions of dollars of debt and turned the whole world against us. We need a democratic veto proof majority to start repairing the damage done.

[JelenaCD]

i know the republicans are horrible yet Obama is the new Jimmy Carter , Bush is incompetent yet he has done 3 good things , reduced taxes , got 2 great supreme court people in Alito and Roberts , and Bush is the man that is protecting the USA constition from world government , Bush , lots of bad yet some good ,

[JelenaCD]

let me give you communists some hard cold facts !
the top 1% of americans in income pay 40 % of the taxes and half americans pay no taxes ! and Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich ? yes tax sucess to pay for the losers , it's backward theory , we never defeated communists , they still exist in the democrate party ,

[trish]

...
the top 1% of americans in income pay 40 % of the taxes and half americans pay no taxes ! and Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich ? yes tax sucess to pay for the losers , it's backward theory , we never defeated communists , they still exist in the democrate party ,

Spoken like a real American hating elitist. True patriots proudly pay their dues without complaint. True patriots look out for each other. True patriots spell "Americans" with a capital A, and they don't just mean the top 1% who have "acquired" 90% of the Nation's wealth and power.

[thx1138]

Under McCain this will only get worse http://conservativehq.com/blog/bush_...deral_deficit/

[Cuchulain]

JelenaCD wrote:

let me give you communists some hard cold facts !
the top 1% of americans in income pay 40 % of the taxes and half americans pay no taxes ! and Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich ? yes tax sucess to pay for the losers , it's backward theory , we never defeated communists , they still exist in the democrate party ,

Considering that the wealthiest among us get most of their income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at 15% (far less than the rate wage earners pay), I'd say yes, it's time to raise their taxes.

Also,
"In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data."

" Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income. "

"As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes."
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...8DBEFEB5202%7D

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson

Here's one that should make your head explode:
"If the rich and super-rich don't pay their fair share, the middle class will get socked with the bill. But the middle class can't possibly pay it. America's middle class is under intense financial pressure. Median wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have been going nowhere for 30 years; health costs are soaring (employers are quickly shifting co-payments, deductibles and premiums to their employees), fuel costs are out of sight, the prices of the houses occupied by the middle class are in the doldrums.

What's fair? I'd say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich, meaning those earning over $500,000 per year. I'd also suggest an annual wealth tax of one-half of 1 percent on the net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets. Can't be done, you say? Well, the highest marginal tax rate under Republican Dwight Eisenhower was 91 percent. It dropped under John Kennedy to the 70 percent range." - http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/25/taxes/

As for your 'communist' remark - "from each, according to his abilites; to each, according to his needs" DOES sound pretty radical, almost like something Jesus would say.....

[Cuchulain]

got 2 great supreme court people in Alito and Roberts

Yeah, those two are a couple of gems:

SUPREME COURT
Courting Conservatives
Last year's "hyperpartisan" Supreme Court produced a "higher share of 5-4 decisions than any term in the last decade." Despite Chief Justice John Roberts's promise to seek greater consensus, 24 out of 68 decisions were resolved by a 5-4 margin. As The New York Times notes, "The Roberts bloc has not adhered to any principled theory of judging. The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?" "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," said Justice Stephen Breyer in a high-profile dissent at the end of the last term. This year's term promises more of the same, with Justice Anthony Kennedy once again the pivotal swing vote. While this Court's docket contains cases that could potentially strike Kennedy's "individualistic, even slightly liberal chords," the four-person Roberts bloc will likely continue to go out of its way to issue activist conservative rulings.
http://www.americanprogressaction.or.../10/court.html

"For the Supreme Court of the United States, this will be remembered as the year of intellectual dishonesty. In their Senate confirmation hearings, John Roberts and Samuel Alito cast themselves as first-rate lawyers, as masters of legal craftsmanship who are committed to the principle of stare decisis.

John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that judges must "be bound down by rules and precedents." Invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, he affirmed that "the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability," and "integrity in the judicial process." Although acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary for judges to reconsider precedents, he stressed that this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, where a decision has proved clearly "unworkable" over time. But in general, "a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

Similarly, Samuel Alito testified to the Senate that the doctrine of stare decisis is "a fundamental part of our legal system." This principle, he explained, "limits the power of the judiciary" and "reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions." Stare decisis, he added, it is "not an inexorable command," but there must be a strong "presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

Disturbingly, John Roberts's and Samuel Alito's actions on the Court now speak much louder than their words to Congress. During the past year, Roberts and Alito have repeatedly abandoned the principle of stare decisis, and they have done so in a particularly insidious manner. In a series of very important decisions, they have cynically pretended to honor precedent while actually jettisoning those precedents one after another.

The tactic, in short, is to purport to respect a precedent while in fact interpreting it into oblivion. Every first-year law student understands the technique. It works like this: "Appellant argues that Smith v. Jones governs the case before us. But Smith v. Jones arose out of an accident that occurred on a Tuesday. The accident in this case occurred on a Thursday. We do not overrule Smith v. Jones, but we limit it to accidents that occurr on Tuesdays." This illustration is, of course, a parody of the technique. But it captures the Roberts/Alito style of judicial craftsmanship. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr...u_b_54273.html

[chefmike]

i know the republicans are horrible yet Obama is the new Jimmy Carter , Bush is incompetent yet he has done 3 good things , reduced taxes , got 2 great supreme court people in Alito and Roberts , and Bush is the man that is protecting the USA constition from world government , Bush , lots of bad yet some good ,

SMDH...what a heaping crock of shit. That goes for both your post, and the repug party and it's chickenhawk leaders that you so shamelessly shill for... you really need to lay off the Limbaugh, lady! It's rotted your brain!

[JelenaCD]

Nice little editorial from this weekend , Part 4 of 'The Audacity of Socialst '
Obamanomics Flunks The Test
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.

"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."

Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.

"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.

Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.

Take those megarich he vilifies — the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.

Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.

(It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)

Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.

President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.

He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.

During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.

Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.

Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.

Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.

Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.

But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.

In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.

So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.

"If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.

Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.

[trish]

"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

Yeah, haven't you noticed all those detroit car workers and Pittsburgh steel workers and all those Wallmart checkers climbing up the corporate ladder and moving into hundred acre mansions?