McCain vs. Obama in a Simple chart form

[Jeff88coupe]

McCain vs. Obama







THE “SIMPLE MATH” APPROACH






2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS





ISSUE




JOHN McCAIN





BARACK OBAMA



Favors new drilling offshore US


Yes -MCain


No -Obama


Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it


Yes McCain


No Obama



Served in the US Armed Forces


Yes McCain


No Obama


Amount of time served in the US Senate


22 YEARS McCain


173 DAYS Obama


Will institute a socialized national health care plan


No McCain


Yes Obama


Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy


No McCain


Yes Obama


Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately


No McCain


Yes Obama


Supports gun ownership rights


Yes McCain


No Obama


Supports homosexual marriage


No McCain


Yes Obama


Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase


No McCain


Yes Obama


Voted against making English the official language


No McCain


Yes Obama


Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals


No McCain


Yes Obama




CAPITAL GAINS TAX



MCCAIN


0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.


OBAMA


28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)




DIVIDEND TAX



MCCAIN


15% (no change)


OBAMA


39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')




INCOME TAX



MCCAIN
(no changes)


Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250


OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)


Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!




INHERITANCE TAX



MCCAIN


- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)


OBAMA


Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.




NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA



New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!












You can verify the above at the following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/j ohn_mccain/

[MrsAPE]

pretty plain and simple there.

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

You forgot one:

Will be a Bush carbon copy:


McCain = Yes

Obama = No


:lol:

[jlt2006]

You forgot one:

Will be a Bush carbon copy:


McCain = Yes

Obama = No


:lol:

I think that I would rather have a copy of what is current as aposed to what the conditions will be after Obama.

It is just amazing how blind people can be. His smile is not worth me giving up more of my hard earned money that I have worked my ass off to get.

My guess is that anyone that votes for Obama has way to much money and wont feel any pain about paying more and more to the government.

Just my 2 cents.

[89notch]

I think that I would rather have a copy of what is current as aposed to what the conditions will be after Obama.

It is just amazing how blind people can be. His smile is not worth me giving up more of my hard earned money that I have worked my ass off to get.

My guess is that anyone that votes for Obama has way to much money and wont feel any pain about paying more and more to the government.

Just my 2 cents.

Do you really think a president has this much power?

[93cobra]

no brainer...mccain is our guy period. and no he will not be a carbon copy of bush...

i want to hear 5 key reasons obama needs to be our guy... please educate me obama supporters....

[93cobra]

btw you forgot a key one jeff....lol

"in favor of user fees for general aviation"

mccain no
obama yes

[mach_u]

Great post. It's scary the socialist views Obama has and wants to implement on this nation.

[04 Venom]

Quiz :how many times have federal income taxes been raised during the last 40 years and who where the Presidents at the time? The answers may surprise you.

[Waffles]

Quiz :how many times have federal income taxes been raised during the last 40 years and who where the Presidents at the time? The answers may surprise you.

Quiz : How stupid are you again? Nevermind, I already know the answer.

[Crucial]

McCain vs. Obama

Supports gun ownership rights

Yes McCain
No Obama


Voted against making English the official language
No McCain
Yes Obama


Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
No McCain
Yes Obama


thanks , you just set my decision in stone .... looks like mccain gets my vote

[89notch]

McCain vs. Obama










CAPITAL GAINS TAX



MCCAIN


0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.


OBAMA


28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)







You can verify the above at the following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/j ohn_mccain/


Most of this is BS here is one I busted in about 5 seconds from your first link
Obama: Would eliminate capital gains taxes for business start-ups, although he would favor raising the capital gains tax rate to somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent for taxpayers making more than $250,000.

[89notch]

Also from one of the links

Make more than $250,000 a year? Watch out. Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes. Social Security taxes, too.

Run a corporation? Lucky you. John McCain wants to cut your business taxes.



Also this is not directed towards anyone I'm just tired of seeing the anti-Obama bullshit posts and emails. Get used to hating him because you are going to have to watch him run this country for the next 4 years. :bigthumb

Its sounds like Obama is really going to put a hurting on the average person :rolleyes: Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and McCain wants to lower taxes on the rich.
Why is it you are voting republican?

Are you rich?
Most likely not but you hear tax cuts and think its going to benefit everyone. When really republicans are only looking out for the already wealthy.

Like guns?
Guess what a democrat will never be able to take your guns away. They may put some laws out to limit some guns but honestly its probably best that they outlaw fully automatic hand guns and rifles. Why in the hell would someone need that? If you want to be able to defend yourself with an automatic weapon than join the military. Don't get me wrong I like to shoot guns and own a few myself but I really don't need to have anything like that.

Obama will be the best person for the job for middle class people hands down.

[04 Venom]

Quiz : How stupid are you again? Nevermind, I already know the answer.

You wear your ignorance as if it is a badge of honor.

[Rick93coupe]

.

Obama will be the best person for the job for middle class people hands down.

I couldn't disagree with you more bud.

[89notch]

I couldn't disagree with you more bud.

And that's why you should never talk politics with your friends :lol: I guess we will just have to see what happens after he is elected :D

[89notch]

I couldn't disagree with you more bud.

I have never had someone back it up with facts why he does not support the "average person"

[93cobra]

Obama will be the best person for the job for middle class people hands down.[/COLOR]

:screwy::doh:

if you don't mind me asking...what do you do for a living 89notch??

[89notch]

:screwy::doh:

if you don't mind me asking...what do you do for a living 89notch??

Firefighter/paramedic

[93cobra]

thats right i knew that...

hats off to you...thats awesome & appreciated!

[93cobra]

not trying to be nosy...couldn't remember & i know a lot of people's occupation strongly urge them to vote one way or another...rep or demo....regardless of canidate views etc..

[347sc]

What happens when you raise the taxes for big business? Prices go up, economy goes down.

If you owned a business who would you hire to run it? The man with very little experience or the guy that has years of experience?

I'll take the evil I know over the Marx I dont.
Mc Cain and the Milf VP here!

[DeckerEnt]

Kelly, I have to educate you on fully automatic weapons. First and foremost, they are the most regulated firearms that an ordinary citizen can purchase. To get one, and the supply is not too large a number as you think, first you have to find one for sale. Let's take your average Black rifle for example. The M-16 made famous in vietnam. A transferrable one in full auto is going to cost in the range of 13,000 to 15,000 dollars. This puts it out of reach of your local kids on the street pulling off petty crimes. Second, you have to pay for it up front before the back ground check. Not some instant check like other guns but a full 90 day ATF FBI back ground check. Then you have to fill out a form with a picture, fingerprints, complete history, AND a signature from a local sheriff or prosecuting atorney (spelling..sorry) testifying to your character. There is also a 200.00 dollar tax stamp that must be purchased in addition to the price of the firearm in advance.
Once the 90 day background check comes back that you are clear, the dealer, who has his own licenses and permits to get, must deliver the firearm to you within one week.
Not done yet. The firearm then must be secured in a room or safe which only you have a key or know the combination to the lock for. Not done yet.
If you want to take said full auto firearm across state lines to shoot it, you must call the ATF and let them know in advance that it will be moving across state lines.
All of these hoops were put in place in the 60s and 80s. President Regan put the cut off in place for any importation or new manufacture for the general public. If you research you will find transferrable, pre 86 samples, and post 86 samples. Transferrable is just that. Anyone who can purchase a handgun can purchase a full auto weapon. You have to be able to afford it and have the time and resources to wait. Pre and post samples can only be sold between class 3 dealers and the general public can't purchase those.
As far as crime, there has been like less than 5 crimes commited by an owner of a fully automatic weapon.
I will say this once and get it through your head. Full auto firearms are NOT a problem in the United States of America. Leave that issue alone. I have an intrest in them and have for a while and have read all the laws.
My 200.02
Keith

[ADaughen]

Also from one of the links
Are you rich?
Most likely not but you hear tax cuts and think its going to benefit everyone. When really republicans are only looking out for the already wealthy.



Obama said any family who earned $100k/year was "rich" so, I guess I am. :tard:

If you want to see MORE businesses go overseas just wait for Obama's presidency. Taxing companies will drive up the costs. They either have the option to cut corners, raise prices, or move overseas where profit margins are higher.


I think DeckerEnt covered the 2nd Ammendment stuff... :thanks::AR15:




Sounds like communisim is alive and well in the US. :mad:

[blk93notch]

the biggest problem i have with obama is that he wont even put his hand over his heart for the pledge of alligiance (sp?) he just stands there why everyone else does it and also says it.

[mustangboy]

Here is a question to ponder. Who does terrorist and al Queida want to win the election? I bet it's not McCain. That is enough to make my decision for me. And btw I hate when they talk about taxing the rich. Why the hell should they pay taxes to support the lazy do nothing for themselves having 6 kids and no job low lifes when they busted their ass to get where they are. BTW making 250k does not anywhere near make you rich.

[BigBadStang]

It's not even really a Presidential issue as much as a Congressional issue. Granted, the President is a vital cog in the U.S. Government, but Congress has far more power than the President. To keep this post short, this is MY general view on Democrats blaming everything on the President...It seems to me that the economy has went to hell since "we the people" elected a Democrat controlled Congress (which has sat by and done absolutely NOTHING).

And I wonder why Obama, or Biden have NOT been subjected to the same media scrutiny as Palin has? I think we all know why.

:popcorn:

[89notch]

Kelly, I have to educate you on fully automatic weapons. First and foremost, they are the most regulated firearms that an ordinary citizen can purchase. To get one, and the supply is not too large a number as you think, first you have to find one for sale. Let's take your average Black rifle for example. The M-16 made famous in vietnam. A transferrable one in full auto is going to cost in the range of 13,000 to 15,000 dollars. This puts it out of reach of your local kids on the street pulling off petty crimes. Second, you have to pay for it up front before the back ground check. Not some instant check like other guns but a full 90 day ATF FBI back ground check. Then you have to fill out a form with a picture, fingerprints, complete history, AND a signature from a local sheriff or prosecuting atorney (spelling..sorry) testifying to your character. There is also a 200.00 dollar tax stamp that must be purchased in addition to the price of the firearm in advance.
Once the 90 day background check comes back that you are clear, the dealer, who has his own licenses and permits to get, must deliver the firearm to you within one week.
Not done yet. The firearm then must be secured in a room or safe which only you have a key or know the combination to the lock for. Not done yet.
If you want to take said full auto firearm across state lines to shoot it, you must call the ATF and let them know in advance that it will be moving across state lines.
All of these hoops were put in place in the 60s and 80s. President Regan put the cut off in place for any importation or new manufacture for the general public. If you research you will find transferrable, pre 86 samples, and post 86 samples. Transferrable is just that. Anyone who can purchase a handgun can purchase a full auto weapon. You have to be able to afford it and have the time and resources to wait. Pre and post samples can only be sold between class 3 dealers and the general public can't purchase those.
As far as crime, there has been like less than 5 crimes commited by an owner of a fully automatic weapon.
I will say this once and get it through your head. Full auto firearms are NOT a problem in the United States of America. Leave that issue alone. I have an intrest in them and have for a while and have read all the laws.
My 200.02
Keith

I never said full auto weapons were a problem in the us. I will say you can bet your ass they would be a huge problem if they were cheaper and more readily available. The reason they make it so expensive and difficult to get ahold of is to keep dirtbags from killing people with them. I understand people are gun nuts and love to shoot as a hobby but those laws need to be in place to keep us safe from the nutbags.

[347sc]

It's not even really a Presidential issue as much as a Congressional issue. Granted, the President is a vital cog in the U.S. Government, but Congress has far more power than the President. To keep this post short, this is MY general view on Democrats blaming everything on the President...It seems to me that the economy has went to hell since "we the people" elected a Democrat controlled Congress (which has sat by and done absolutely NOTHING).

And I wonder why Obama, or Biden have NOT been subjected to the same media scrutiny as Palin has? I think we all know why.

:popcorn:


That is the best statement in this thread. I have said that over and over.

[IWRBB]

Its sounds like Obama is really going to put a hurting on the average person :rolleyes: Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and McCain wants to lower taxes on the rich.
Why is it you are voting republican?

I'm voting McCain bacause I work. Every day. I've never recieved a penny from social security, unemployment, or welfare. I've done nothing but pay the government- then they turn around and give it away to people who perpetually scam the governement (generation after generation) while they sit at home on their lazy asses all day.

In general, Democrats support more of that BS, while the Republicans would prefer I get to keep as much of MY money as possible.

Neither party is great, and most politicians suck big time no matter their party- but it's a clear choice when it comes to which party wants to tax the crap out of those who actauly work hard, and give it to those who are lazy assholes. If I didn't work, or recieved public assistance, I'd vote for the democrats.

[IWRBB]

It's not even really a Presidential issue as much as a Congressional issue. Granted, the President is a vital cog in the U.S. Government, but Congress has far more power than the President. To keep this post short, this is MY general view on Democrats blaming everything on the President...It seems to me that the economy has went to hell since "we the people" elected a Democrat controlled Congress (which has sat by and done absolutely NOTHING).

And I wonder why Obama, or Biden have NOT been subjected to the same media scrutiny as Palin has? I think we all know why.

:popcorn:

Congress writes the laws, but the President still does matter. If they have the balls, they can veto ANY bill. Then the congress needs 2/3's to override the veto. It's tough to get 2/3's of Conress to agree on anything.

They can also issue executive orders.

[dedpedal]

Jesse Ventura for president!!!!!!
Arguement settled.

[ADaughen]

Jesse Ventura for president!!!!!!
Arguement settled.


The peope of Montana might have a thing to say about that. Many didn't like him and Pawlenty has been "cleaning up his mess".

[jlt2006]

Do you really think a president has this much power?


No, that is way it said after Obama.

If he continues to cause people to go through life with blinders on.

By the end of his four years in office we will be so screwed up that it will take years to recover from.

[dedpedal]

The peope of Montana might have a thing to say about that. Many didn't like him and Pawlenty has been "cleaning up his mess".


I thought it was Minnesota? Either way, I like him because he dont take shit from anyone and speaks his mind.

[04 Venom]

I thought it was Minnesota? Either way, I like him because he dont take shit from anyone and speaks his mind.

You're right on both counts.

[Kwik92GT]

BTW, when did it become a crime to be successful in this country? Kills me how folks think it's OK for the government to ass rape the people and companies that are doing well for themselves with taxes. The government has plenty of money as it is, they just don't manage it for shit. As long as it isn't you having to pay the load it's all good, right? :rolleyes:

[DeckerEnt]

Remember this, businesses do not pay taxes. The customers of those businesses do. For example, milk. Mr cow milker is making millions providing milk to all of us. He has expenses and to cover them, milk comes out to around 3.00 a gallon. Then the government says, Mr cow milker's company is getting a tax increase this year. Guess what happens, milk goes to 3.50 a gallon.
In a business, everything figures into final product cost. Taxes are part of it as well as transportation,storage, heat,cooling, Mr cow milker's vacation, etc etc etc...
It wouldn't matter who was president. It is just how companies do business.
Keith

[ADaughen]

I thought it was Minnesota? Either way, I like him because he dont take shit from anyone and speaks his mind.

He's from one of those states up there.

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

I think that I would rather have a copy of what is current as aposed to what the conditions will be after Obama.

It is just amazing how blind people can be. His smile is not worth me giving up more of my hard earned money that I have worked my ass off to get.

My guess is that anyone that votes for Obama has way to much money and wont feel any pain about paying more and more to the government.

Just my 2 cents.

Just for the record, i'm not "blind", i'm stirring the pot. :bigthumb

[mach_u]

Our government needs to cut itself way back and become lean and mean. Something we have a much better chance of doing with McCain/Palin. Throwing money at the problem does not fix it, it just makes a more expensive mess! My father and I have a small computer business, that we have had for the last 10 years. After we pay contractors, expenses, taxes, etc. we make just enough to have a small salary for each of us. Truth be told we could both be making a lot more working for somebody else but we enjoy working together and enjoy the work we do. We have so many clients that have small businesses just like ours, that are in the same boat. One or two employees, the owners working 60-80hrs a week to make a small salary themselves. Those of us working hard, should not have to pay higher taxes than we already do, to support those in this nation that choose a life of laziness. If you want to help those individuals, and you have the means to do so, great BUT don't take my hard earned money to do so! Small businesses and the middle class are the backbone of this country and an Obama/Biden "plan"(I use that term very loosely) does not offer any incentives to increase either!

[04 Venom]

AJ, not being to be a smartass, buy how would you make the government "lean and mean"? I have given it a lot of thought, but I am interested in other people's perception. Politicians of both parties since 1968 have said they were going to "eliminate fraud and abuse", "make government run like a business" to borrow a few of their favorite phrases.

Reforming government is always mentioned prior to elections and then is promptly forgotten. It is not even on the radar screen when voters are polled regarding their perception of the issues that cause them the greatest concern. Why will it be different this time?

[BigBadStang]

Something to think about. These following figures came from The Tax Foundation and IRS Statistics, 1983 through 1993.

"There are about 199 million voters in this country. Seventy million of these voters have absolutely no federal income tax liability at all. Do the math. This means that 35 percent of voters are entirely out of the federal income tax picture. I think a good argument could be made that these people shouldn't be voting at all.

OK ... We've taken care of 35% of the voters. I'm sure you can see that these net tax consumers are hardly going to be voting Libertarian or Republican.

The next group of voters are the 129 million (out of the 199 million total) who actually pay federal income taxes. Divide the voters who actually pay taxes into the top 25 percent and the bottom 75 percent. About 97 million voters make up the bottom 75 percent of income earners who actually pay some federal taxes. This 75 percent pays a whopping 17 percent of all federal income taxes collected. So, let's add this 97 million voters who pay about 17 percent of the federal income taxes to the 70 million voters who pay nothing. That adds up to 167 million voters out of a total of 199 million. More math --- this means that 84 percent of all voters amount for 17 percent of all income taxes paid.

Now we go to the remaining voters. The 32 million we have left. These are the higher income earners. The high achievers. These 32 million Americans pay 83 percent of all federal income taxes collected. They account for 16 percent of the voters.

Sixteen percent of the voters in this country are paying 83 percent of the federal income taxes. The Democrats and leftists don't need their votes. They need their money for their big government, welfare state spending programs. When Ted Kennedy called for a tax increase, who do you think he was talking about ? That 16 percent, that's who. The 16 percent of Americans who are paying 83 percent of the taxes. And where did Kennedy want to spend the money? On the other 84 percent of voters, that's where.

It's foolproof. If you have 1000 voters who are going to cast votes on your future --- and if you can take money away from 160 of those voters to be used to buy votes from the other 840 ... you have it made. Election assured."

[Mustard]

I feel as if I need to throw my hat in the ring now. What has Obama done to make him fit for the job of running our country? His time in the senate? I don't think so. His comunity orginizing skills? Again, no. These skills only led to his developer friends getting rich ( tony resco) look that guy up. How about his friends? Bill Aires, Rev. Wright, and Tony Resco? God I could write a paper on the bad thing Bill Aires has done and been a part of. Question, do you let your kids hang out with trash? I would say all of you are saying no, I don't want them influnced by them. Well then why would you want a leader that has been influanced by people that have a hatred for this country. A man that helped bomb the pentagon and some police stations? A man that freely speaks hate against this country as he " teaches" or gives a sermon to his flock. And another thing about this church. They gave there life time achivement award to Lewis Freican (sp?) This guy is, well look him up for your self. He is a man filled with hate for Jews and whites alike. I would like ot make another point here as well. This election is really becoming about Sara Palin. She is the future of the Republican party. She is a smart and vocal woman that puts the country first. Her record in Alaska speaks for it's self. She comes from a back ground like most of us. Hard working middls class. She is not form the Blue Blood washington types that have run this country into he ground.

[mach_u]

AJ, not being to be a smartass, buy how would you make the government "lean and mean"? I have given it a lot of thought, but I am interested in other people's perception. Politicians of both parties since 1968 have said they were going to "eliminate fraud and abuse", "make government run like a business" to borrow a few of their favorite phrases.

Reforming government is always mentioned prior to elections and then is promptly forgotten. It is not even on the radar screen when voters are polled regarding their perception of the issues that cause them the greatest concern. Why will it be different this time?
Glad you asked. Here's my two cents...

NO IRS for starters

Privatization of Social Security without a doubt

Less Federally mandated laws, and more state and local controlled decision making.

We need to put control of our school systems back to state and local government. For an advanced nation, our education system is a complete embarrassment. Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and Australia, to name a few, all do not have national education systems. Those countries have educational systems managed from the state, province, etc. level and ALL rank higher than we do educationally.

Less social handouts that incentivize poor behavior, ie Federal Welfare. Be it housing assistance, bailouts, etc. needs to be cut way back or simply done away with. This is something that should be dealt with at a state and local level. If a state's population does not like how things are run in it's state, then it should elect new leaders to remedy it's problems. What's good in one state is not always good for another and as such we need to limit the oversight of Federal control and put more power to the states and local government, thus giving the power back to the people as our founding fathers original had planned.

Finally, the last thing we DO NOT need, which will continue to bankrupt this nation further, is a Federally funded/managed Healthcare system! As P.J. O'Rourke once said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!"

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." –Thomas Jefferson (1801)

Hope that helps clear things up for ya! :bigthumb

[Black92LX]

Great post. It's scary the socialist views Obama has and wants to implement on this nation.

hell he is far beyond a socialist, he is a full blown Marxist.

[FMGT1999]

I know who I am voting for and personally I like what I hear.

Kyle

[93cobra]

Obama said any family who earned $100k/year was "rich" so, I guess I am. :tard:



i guess i am too....:eek:...sure don't seem like it..

its not too hard these days if husband & wife have a skilled trade or college & both put in 40 a week

believe me i feel farthest from the word "rich"....they say "middle class family these days make 70-100k a year

[NaomiDstangLvr]

Also from one of the links

Make more than $250,000 a year? Watch out. Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes. Social Security taxes, too.

Run a corporation? Lucky you. John McCain wants to cut your business taxes.



Also this is not directed towards anyone I'm just tired of seeing the anti-Obama bullshit posts and emails. Get used to hating him because you are going to have to watch him run this country for the next 4 years. :bigthumb

Its sounds like Obama is really going to put a hurting on the average person :rolleyes: Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and McCain wants to lower taxes on the rich.
Why is it you are voting republican?

Are you rich?
Most likely not but you hear tax cuts and think its going to benefit everyone. When really republicans are only looking out for the already wealthy.

Like guns?
Guess what a democrat will never be able to take your guns away. They may put some laws out to limit some guns but honestly its probably best that they outlaw fully automatic hand guns and rifles. Why in the hell would someone need that? If you want to be able to defend yourself with an automatic weapon than join the military. Don't get me wrong I like to shoot guns and own a few myself but I really don't need to have anything like that.

Obama will be the best person for the job for middle class people hands down.
It doesn't matter, sadly if he is elected he'll be assassinated within a year. I bet you anything.

But I'm writing in for Mickey Mouse, 'cause I don't trust Obama as far as I can throw him and McCain I'm afraid will be just like Bush.

But from my understanding McCain is for to get the troops home, just a little bit at a time?!?

[NaomiDstangLvr]

i guess i am too....:eek:...sure don't seem like it..

its not too hard these days if husband & wife have a skilled trade or college & both put in 40 a week

believe me i feel farthest from the word "rich"....they say "middle class family these days make 70-100k a year

I'm sorry if you make $100,000 a year, yeah, your not hurtin'!!!!!!!!! That's $50,000 a piece, that's some good living.

[mustangjon]

i guess i am too....:eek:...sure don't seem like it..

its not too hard these days if husband & wife have a skilled trade or college & both put in 40 a week

believe me i feel farthest from the word "rich"....they say "middle class family these days make 70-100k a year

yah the whole welfare/healthcare system is so fubar'd dump it start over. I think i remember last i read on a family to raise a kid was roughly 60k (to be the non poverty level without aid ect)

I myself raise my daughter alone, have a dead beat ex whom doesnt pay child support ect. I'll prolly pull down 45k this year, previous 2 was 40kish working almost 60 hours a week meanwhile every form of "govm aid" has actually laughed at me, if i have tried for any assistance, former job i couldnt afford 70 bucks extra a week for my daughters insurance because we qualified as a "family" i tried to get just her.. not myself a medicaid card, was denied. I bust my ass for every dime i make, and cant get help meanwhile deadbeats drain the system. So im all with AJ on removing those systems.

Hell maybe i should just get fired, draw unemployment, file for welfare, child assistance, and i can prolly make 50k a year and put my kid in daycare all day while i sit on the computer in chatrooms :lol:

[Black92LX]

McCain I'm afraid will be just like Bush.

Please explain why you feel this way. Because clearly we haven't been looking at the same person then. McCain is far more liberal than Bush.


Plus I really don't see what's so bad about Bush.
*He has kept this country safe for the past 7 years.
*We are winning the war, yeah it's taking quite awhile but we aren't fighting an enemy like we have ever fought before. We aren't fighting a nation with set borders or hierarchy and plus the libs want to be all friendly and give them every opportunity to cause harm to us before we act. The death toll is very very low. There have been more deaths of the unlawful kind (almost twice as many( in Chicago this summer.
*The unemployment rate is the lowest average it has been since the 1950s.
*Home ownership is at an all time high even with the foreclosures being high (but Bush has zero control of that, it's the lenders giving loans to people that never deserved a loan in the first place) The housing market is by no means in trouble it is in quite a few cities maybe 6-10 but the vast majority of cities it's still booming. I just sold my house in under a month for my asking price.
*Taxes are at an all time low (AJs original post gave the numbers)
*Gas prices have gone up (but that is to be expected but yet it is another thing Bush has zero control over).

I could go on much longer but I am pretty sleepy and I need to get to bed.

[DeckerEnt]

:agree:

[beefcake]

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[04 Venom]

Glad you asked. Here's my two cents...

NO IRS for starters

Privatization of Social Security without a doubt

Less Federally mandated laws, and more state and local controlled decision making.

We need to put control of our school systems back to state and local government. For an advanced nation, our education system is a complete embarrassment. Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and Australia, to name a few, all do not have national education systems. Those countries have educational systems managed from the state, province, etc. level and ALL rank higher than we do educationally.

Less social handouts that incentivize poor behavior, ie Federal Welfare. Be it housing assistance, bailouts, etc. needs to be cut way back or simply done away with. This is something that should be dealt with at a state and local level. If a state's population does not like how things are run in it's state, then it should elect new leaders to remedy it's problems. What's good in one state is not always good for another and as such we need to limit the oversight of Federal control and put more power to the states and local government, thus giving the power back to the people as our founding fathers original had planned.

Finally, the last thing we DO NOT need, which will continue to bankrupt this nation further, is a Federally funded/managed Healthcare system! As P.J. O'Rourke once said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!"

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." –Thomas Jefferson (1801)

Hope that helps clear things up for ya! :bigthumb

You and I agree about a flat tax (and no IRS as it currently exists), but you stand a better chance of getting laid on successive nights by Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan and Jessica Beal.

Disagree about privatizing Social Security-- the vast majority of people are too undisciplined to save and invest reguarly and too ignorant of the equity markets. Remember, the NASDAQ has never recovered from the crash in 2000. We have the lowest rate of saving of any first world country. Social Security was intended to be a safety net, not the primary source of retirement income. As it stands now, income after about $95,000 a year is not subject to further SSN deduction during a calendar year. The only solution that has a chance of passing Congress is raising the limit, raising the retirement age slightly and reducing benefits for retirees with incomes over a $500,000. For example, the first $95,000 of annual income is subject to witholding, as it now is, and once your income goes above $1,000,000 annually, it kicks back in.

What federal laws specifically? Meat inspection? Mine safety inspections? FDA approval of drugs? I think you will find that there are more state and local laws and regulations that affect your daily life than federal laws.

Since 1996, welfare has been declining; it is probably at the lowest level ever right now. Anyone qualifying for benefits has a limit in terms of how long they will receive money and has to participate in job training or register for work to receive benefits. When the Republicans took control of Congress in Clinton's first term, they passed the present welfare reform and Clinton signed the bill. If anyone doubts what a master politician Clinton was, within 2 years, the public believed he was responsible for welfare reform, when the Republicans basically held a gun to his head.

Now health care. I don't understand why you and many others feel the way you do. Health care costs are killing employers. We are the only major country that depends on employers to furnish health care coverage. What you are not taking into consideration is that we already have a de facto national health care system. It works very simply-- anyone who has insurance, or pays for health care out of pocket, is subsidizing everyone else who does not have coverage and cannot pay for care. Doctor, hospitals and other providers simply add the cost of those who can't pay to those that can. Those without insurance end up clogging the emergency rooms, which is far more expensive than seeing a doctor. Moreover, the uninsured many times wait until a minor problem becomes a serious one before seeking attention in the emergency room. That's like saying I can't afford an oil change, so I wait until the engine blows. Which is cheaper? If our present system is so great, why do we pay TWICE as much for health care as Europe and Japan, but the quality of our health care ranks 18th? Clearly, there has to be a better way. The possible solution would be allow anyone who wants to to enroll in the same insurance pool that federal employees have. If they can't afford it, then the government should pay the premium. It's cheaper in the long run and you wouldn't lose coverage if you changed jobs or became unemployed. Federal employees have a choice of approximately 12 different plans, each with different coverages. Because 1.5 million persons are in the pool, savings are realized by competition between the carriers and economies of scale. My wife gets excellent health care under this system (Bluecross/Blueshield) for $80 per month. Pre-existing condition cannot be excluded under this plan either--try that with private policies.

Schools are still almost exclusively under state and local control; one of the few good things Bush has done (maybe the only one) was to push for national standards in the No Child Left Behind legislation. Test scores have gone up across the board during the last two years and that is the reason. He faced stiff opposition from state and local governments and teachers, but he was right in holding firm. If a school district opts out, they are not eligible for a certain percentage of federal funding. The legislation set the standards and left the school districts to figure out how to reach the goal in the manner of their choosing. On average, we are far behind the countries you list. The top 20% of our schools are competitive internationally; they come from school districts that spend more on education than average, have parents that value education and serve as role models because if the success they achieved. As a nation we place less emphasis on education and until that changes, we will continue to lag behind. Adhering to a 180 day school year for example, is archaic. I think you will find that other nations have a more centralized control over the curriculum than here.

So we agree on some things, but not others. At least you are thinking. :bigthumb

[beefcake]

You and I agree about a flat tax (and no IRS as it currently exists), but you stand a better chance of getting laid on successive nights by Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan and Jessica Beal.

Disagree about privatizing Social Security-- the vast majority of people are too undisciplined to save and invest reguarly and too ignorant of the equity markets. Remember, the NASDAQ has never recovered from the crash in 2000. We have the lowest rate of saving of any first world country. Social Security was intended to be a safety net, not the primary source of retirement income. As it stands now, income after about $95,000 a year is not subject to further SSN deduction during a calendar year. The only solution that has a chance of passing Congress is raising the limit, raising the retirement age slightly and reducing benefits for retirees with incomes over a $500,000. For example, the first $95,000 of annual income is subject to witholding, as it now is, and once your income goes above $1,000,000 annually, it kicks back in.

What federal laws specifically? Meat inspection? Mine safety inspections? FDA approval of drugs? I think you will find that there are more state and local laws and regulations that affect your daily life than federal laws.

Since 1996, welfare has been declining; it is probably at the lowest level ever right now. Anyone qualifying for benefits has a limit in terms of how long they will receive money and has to participate in job training or register for work to receive benefits. When the Republicans took control of Congress in Clinton's first term, they passed the present welfare reform and Clinton signed the bill. If anyone doubts what a master politician Clinton was, within 2 years, the public believed he was responsible for welfare reform, when the Republicans basically held a gun to his head.

Now health care. I don't understand why you and many others feel the way you do. Health care costs are killing employers. We are the only major country that depends on employers to furnish health care coverage. What you are not taking into consideration is that we already have a de facto national health care system. It works very simply-- anyone who has insurance, or pays for health care out of pocket, is subsidizing everyone else who does not have coverage and cannot pay for care. Doctor, hospitals and other providers simply add the cost of those who can't pay to those that can. Those without insurance end up clogging the emergency rooms, which is far more expensive than seeing a doctor. Moreover, the uninsured many times wait until a minor problem becomes a serious one before seeking attention in the emergency room. That's like saying I can't afford an oil change, so I wait until the engine blows. Which is cheaper? If our present system is so great, why do we pay TWICE as much for health care as Europe and Japan, but the quality of our health care ranks 18th? Clearly, there has to be a better way. The possible solution would be allow anyone who wants to to enroll in the same insurance pool that federal employees have. If they can't afford it, then the government should pay the premium. It's cheaper in the long run and you wouldn't lose coverage if you changed jobs or became unemployed. Federal employees have a choice of approximately 12 different plans, each with different coverages. Because 1.5 million persons are in the pool, savings are realized by competition between the carriers and economies of scale. My wife gets excellent health care under this system (Bluecross/Blueshield) for $80 per month. Pre-existing condition cannot be excluded under this plan either--try that with private policies.

Schools are still almost exclusively under state and local control; one of the few good things Bush has done (maybe the only one) was to push for national standards in the No Child Left Behind legislation. Test scores have gone up across the board during the last two years and that is the reason. He faced stiff opposition from state and local governments and teachers, but he was right in holding firm. If a school district opts out, they are not eligible for a certain percentage of federal funding. The legislation set the standards and left the school districts to figure out how to reach the goal in the manner of their choosing. On average, we are far behind the countries you list. The top 20% of our schools are competitive internationally; they come from school districts that spend more on education than average, have parents that value education and serve as role models because if the success they achieved. As a nation we place less emphasis on education and until that changes, we will continue to lag behind. Adhering to a 180 day school year for example, is archaic. I think you will find that other nations have a more centralized control over the curriculum than here.

So we agree on some things, but not others. At least you are thinking. :bigthumb

my health care at the dealership is horrible

2k per person deductible, 4k family max, the first 1k comes out of a fund, so the next 3k unless it's all the same person comes out of pocket.

now,
when my wife would go to the pediatrician when i didn't have insurance, a visit was like $70, and you got a 20% discount if you paid right away, so $56

now, on insurance, a visit is something like $120, they bill the insurance company, who allows like $90, now, once the deductible is gone, i'm now on the hook for $90 lol

our health care system sucks

[ADaughen]

I'm sorry if you make $100,000 a year, yeah, your not hurtin'!!!!!!!!! That's $50,000 a piece, that's some good living.

We aren't hurting per se, but we aren't rolling in it either.

ETA: I'm glad you have no understanding of our expenses, but sound willing to vote someone into office that thinks he can do a better job with my money than I can. :(

ETA2: I work hard for my money, as I am sure you do, too. What right does the Gov't have to take OUR money and pay someone who chooses not to work? :mad:

We pay over $24k in income taxes @28% and if we're lucky we'll have to pay out <$1000 in April.

[mach_u]

...
As for the flat tax, I firmly believe that as a nation if we push for the reform, it will happen. Many countries have implemented it and it works extremely well. I'll take my chances with the ladies :) and keep urging my government representatives to consider it. The benefits overall are well worth the hard work involved. I will guarantee however that an Obama/Biden administration will have zero chance of seeing this ever get actioned.

Privatization of Social Security is the only hope we have for its existence. I am pissed that I am paying into something that I most likely be non-existent by the time I retire. I don't see any other good solution without some major overhauling. It's apparent the current system is not working and simply throwing money at a situation obviously doesn't make it any better. Some general public education/corporate education on the matter and some simple choices for investing would make things run far smoother. A tiered system in which those of us paying now would still pay a large chunk into Social Security to cover benefits for those retirees still needing it and slowly decreasing the number of the course of the next 10-20yrs would resolve the issue. Hell, even simply a mandatory savings account that can't be drawn on until a specific time as an option for those that want to play it safe, is going to most likely pay out more than this failing Social Security system we have now. Unfortunately this "do nothing" plan of the left is hardly working.

I will agree 100% we need health care reform. Small example, but I went to the Chiropractor the other day, and on my bill to the insurance company was a charge for $25 for an "Ice Pack." During the physical therapy, the used a re-usable ice-pack which probably only cost $5 to begin with and they billed the insurance company $25 for it! THAT is ridiculous! Now of course, I'm sure the insurance company haggles and refuses to pay half the bill like they usually do with most Dr's offices and ends up reimbursing the Dr's office for half of what they were billed - it's just the way the system operates. The whole way of doing things is ridiculous. Dr's have to carry ridiculous premiums because we live in a sue-happy environment. We desperately need reform on how the legal system handles lawsuits for ridiculous dollar amounts, for ridiculous cases. We need reform with big drug manufactures - prescription costs are out of control and drug manufactures are making money hand over fist. There is so much excess crap in our medical system that needs changed.

Personally, I visit the Dr. once a year for a checkup. I have been sick a couple of times over the last year (in fact I am getting over a nasty cold now) but haven't gone to the Dr. for it. I take some OTC medicine, rest and in a few days I am back to normal - just common sense. I thankfully do have great insurance through my wife's company but for many years I didn't, because being a small business owner, my father couldn't afford the coverage. I know countless people however who with the slightest sniffle or fever, are sitting in the ER. Now what happens when all of those people who don't have full medical coverage and deal with their colds and sniffles just like I do, have the option to go to the ER whenever they like? We will see a huge influx in our hospital ER's and an overall increase and strain on our medical system. Ask any paramedic that you might meet and they will tell you how many degenerate, low life, leeches on the system that they chauffer to the hospital each year for a "free ride" to the hospital because they are too damn lazy to go themselves! I have friends and family members that are firefighter/paramedics and the numbers are astounding! They don't have to pay for it, so they utilize the hell out of the system. Unfortunately that abuse will only be worse with a tax payer funded medical system. The drug companies will get richer, the hospitals make more money and the average, responsible citizen looses their quality of healthcare, waits longer for an ambulance and has to pay more to cover it!

In this nation, those that can't afford healthcare cannot be refused medical care because of their inability to pay for it not to mention Medicaid for those that qualify for it. I have known several people who could not afford healthcare, barely making ends meet and got sick. They ended up having the bills completely written off by the hospital or a couple friends without insurance that were able to negotiate the price to a manageable level. Changes are needed yes, but we shouldn't throw the baby out just yet! We have a great healthcare system in this country and that's why we have so many people coming in from all over the world to utilize it. We just need some overhauling to perfect it!
Looking at how our government handles it's spending, the last thing we need is for them to mess it up even more!

As for our Educational system, I will strongly have to disagree with you on the benefits of NCLB and our President for pushing for it. State test scores may be showing some improvement, but what has happened is that schools are teaching to the test and have lowered the standards for proficiency because so much of their funding relies upon good scores. Basically we are graduating test-smart, book-smart idiots. The fact is our education system is not a "one size fits all" answer. Different individuals require different types of education and trying to teach a child to pass a test is hardly setting them up for life. Our students should have options, allowances for other forms of education if desired. Incentives for private schooling, home schooling, perhaps an influx in Montessori type education would be beneficial. Both my wife and I were home-schooled all the way through High School and both of us did extremely well in state testing. We both stayed active in sports and activities and to my knowledge neither one of us has any bad social issues because of it! lol My wife went on to get her BA from a prestigious University with an excellent GPA and having some freedoms in my education, allowed me to start a career path towards the IT world at a young age. As long as students are forced to work inside a box, they will continue to think inside the box and we will continue to produce smart stupid kids! Here's an interesting article on the matter: http://www.timeoutfromtesting.org/pr/PR_Neil_NoChildLeftBehind.pdf

Finally, on cutting government excess and spending, this article is good for a read: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2572

[MrsAPE]

As for our Educational system, I will strongly have to disagree with you on the benefits of NCLB and our President for pushing for it. State test scores may be showing some improvement, but what has happened is that schools are teaching to the test and have lowered the standards for proficiency because so much of their funding relies upon good scores. Basically we are graduating test-smart, book-smart idiots. The fact is our education system is not a "one size fits all" answer. Different individuals require different types of education and trying to teach a child to pass a test is hardly setting them up for life.

Amen!! From the moment they walk in the door...test training begins. Teacher's no longer 'teach' kids. They train them to take test.

[93cobra]

We aren't hurting per se, but we aren't rolling in it either.

ETA: I'm glad you have no understanding of our expenses, but sound willing to vote someone into office that thinks he can do a better job with my money than I can. :(

ETA2: I work hard for my money, as I am sure you do, too. What right does the Gov't have to take OUR money and pay someone who chooses not to work? :mad:

We pay over $24k in income taxes @28% and if we're lucky we'll have to pay out <$1000 in April.

:agree:

[02mingryGT]

I've read through all of this and there have been some great posts. Any of you who think that you will not be paying higher taxes if Barry Obama is elected need to do some research on your own instead of getting your information from the mainstream news media. And besides as people have already mentioned you raise taxes on any business and they'll transfer that to the consumer. Simple economics that Barry Obama and his "advisers" don't understand. And as far as assault rifles go, I don't see anyone running around shooting people with them so why worry about it? Or is it just another ploy for the left to take any remaining means the people have of defending themselves against their government? Barry had a 15 point lead in June, remember? The more Barry talks the more votes he loses.....:bigthumb

[04 Venom]

Amen!! From the moment they walk in the door...test training begins. Teacher's no longer 'teach' kids. They train them to take test.

At least they are learning something. It is a start, but obviously needed changes can be made along the way.

[ADaughen]

At least they are learning something. It is a start, but obviously needed changes can be made along the way.


They aren't learning nearly enough. I have two good friends that are educators. One taught high-level 2nd graders. Her kids were learing multiplication tables while other 2nd graders were learning not to eat paste. Then the school board said they couldn't "discriminate against the stupid" and mixed up the classes, the advanced kids are getting bored while the ones that weren't taught the basics are caught up.:(


Of course... some people think parts of the government just want happy little worker drones. :eek:

[Waffles]

Something to think about. These following figures came from The Tax Foundation and IRS Statistics, 1983 through 1993.

"There are about 199 million voters in this country. Seventy million of these voters have absolutely no federal income tax liability at all. Do the math. This means that 35 percent of voters are entirely out of the federal income tax picture. I think a good argument could be made that these people shouldn't be voting at all.

OK ... We've taken care of 35% of the voters. I'm sure you can see that these net tax consumers are hardly going to be voting Libertarian or Republican.

The next group of voters are the 129 million (out of the 199 million total) who actually pay federal income taxes. Divide the voters who actually pay taxes into the top 25 percent and the bottom 75 percent. About 97 million voters make up the bottom 75 percent of income earners who actually pay some federal taxes. This 75 percent pays a whopping 17 percent of all federal income taxes collected. So, let's add this 97 million voters who pay about 17 percent of the federal income taxes to the 70 million voters who pay nothing. That adds up to 167 million voters out of a total of 199 million. More math --- this means that 84 percent of all voters amount for 17 percent of all income taxes paid.

Now we go to the remaining voters. The 32 million we have left. These are the higher income earners. The high achievers. These 32 million Americans pay 83 percent of all federal income taxes collected. They account for 16 percent of the voters.

Sixteen percent of the voters in this country are paying 83 percent of the federal income taxes. The Democrats and leftists don't need their votes. They need their money for their big government, welfare state spending programs. When Ted Kennedy called for a tax increase, who do you think he was talking about ? That 16 percent, that's who. The 16 percent of Americans who are paying 83 percent of the taxes. And where did Kennedy want to spend the money? On the other 84 percent of voters, that's where.

It's foolproof. If you have 1000 voters who are going to cast votes on your future --- and if you can take money away from 160 of those voters to be used to buy votes from the other 840 ... you have it made. Election assured."

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

Let's also not forget that these top 16% are the people who create jobs, stimulate the economy, fund all the government social programs, etc... and the government punishes them for their deeds with higher and higher taxes.

Just for the record, I am not amoung the top 16%. :lol:

[04 Venom]

We have a great healthcare system in this country and that's why we have so many people coming in from all over the world to utilize it.

It's great if you have money and can afford the best care. Those are the people that travel here for medical care. For the average person, it does not work nearly so well. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law travel to Costa Rica for any major dental or medical procedures. They both are self-employed and have insurance with high deductibles. Some of you may have seen the piece on 60 Minutes about a year ago about medical tourism. They showed US citizens going to India for bypass surgery (many of the doctors there are trained in the US and Britain) and it cost $10,000. Some US doctors have started clinics in Cancun to treat Americans. A friend of mine had to have his prostate removed because of an aggressive form of cancer. His specialist was in Boston and offered him the choice of having it done there or in Cancun--for a 70% reduction in the cost. If you have an x-ray done in Cincinnati, it may well be read by a radiologist in India.

[Waffles]

I'm sorry if you make $100,000 a year, yeah, your not hurtin'!!!!!!!!! That's $50,000 a piece, that's some good living.

Seriously? I make just a little more than that by myself. I'm certainly not "living good" so I'm a little confused.

[Ranger50]

You and I agree about a flat tax (and no IRS as it currently exists), but you stand a better chance of getting laid on successive nights by Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan and Jessica Beal.

A flat tax is closer than you think if limp wristed, linguine spined politicians had a pair. But sadly, most of the actual voting populace, at every election, a.- doesn't make any money anymore, or b.- doesn't work for their money. So we are stuck with this system for the time being.


Disagree about privatizing Social Security-- the vast majority of people are too undisciplined to save and invest reguarly and too ignorant of the equity markets. Remember, the NASDAQ has never recovered from the crash in 2000. We have the lowest rate of saving of any first world country. Social Security was intended to be a safety net, not the primary source of retirement income. As it stands now, income after about $95,000 a year is not subject to further SSN deduction during a calendar year. The only solution that has a chance of passing Congress is raising the limit, raising the retirement age slightly and reducing benefits for retirees with incomes over a $500,000. For example, the first $95,000 of annual income is subject to witholding, as it now is, and once your income goes above $1,000,000 annually, it kicks back in.

You have got to be kidding me, right???? This is placed under NIMBY, in my opinion. I know I am supposed to be my brother's keeper, that "awful" book called the Bible tells me that, but I am not going to be my brother's saftey net for life. Their problems are not my problem. If they want to blow all their money on scratch-off tickets, it is THEIR money to waste, not mine. Let me spend that money my own way and reap the rewards. Playing with the limits on SS won't solve anything. It's a neverending rathole with money being thrown down it.


What federal laws specifically? Meat inspection? Mine safety inspections? FDA approval of drugs? I think you will find that there are more state and local laws and regulations that affect your daily life than federal laws.

But there is also a pesky rule where federal laws trump local rules.


Since 1996, welfare has been declining; it is probably at the lowest level ever right now. Anyone qualifying for benefits has a limit in terms of how long they will receive money and has to participate in job training or register for work to receive benefits. When the Republicans took control of Congress in Clinton's first term, they passed the present welfare reform and Clinton signed the bill. If anyone doubts what a master politician Clinton was, within 2 years, the public believed he was responsible for welfare reform, when the Republicans basically held a gun to his head.

Good. Welfare needs to go the way of the dodo. The Great Society is a great failure. So far, I have yet to see it help anyone out to the point of being prosperous.


Now health care. I don't understand why you and many others feel the way you do. Health care costs are killing employers. We are the only major country that depends on employers to furnish health care coverage. What you are not taking into consideration is that we already have a de facto national health care system. It works very simply-- anyone who has insurance, or pays for health care out of pocket, is subsidizing everyone else who does not have coverage and cannot pay for care. Doctor, hospitals and other providers simply add the cost of those who can't pay to those that can. Those without insurance end up clogging the emergency rooms, which is far more expensive than seeing a doctor. Moreover, the uninsured many times wait until a minor problem becomes a serious one before seeking attention in the emergency room. That's like saying I can't afford an oil change, so I wait until the engine blows. Which is cheaper? If our present system is so great, why do we pay TWICE as much for health care as Europe and Japan, but the quality of our health care ranks 18th? Clearly, there has to be a better way. The possible solution would be allow anyone who wants to to enroll in the same insurance pool that federal employees have. If they can't afford it, then the government should pay the premium. It's cheaper in the long run and you wouldn't lose coverage if you changed jobs or became unemployed. Federal employees have a choice of approximately 12 different plans, each with different coverages. Because 1.5 million persons are in the pool, savings are realized by competition between the carriers and economies of scale. My wife gets excellent health care under this system (Bluecross/Blueshield) for $80 per month. Pre-existing condition cannot be excluded under this plan either--try that with private policies.

Geez, what did we do BEFORE "health insurance"? Most the time the fees charged were NOT usury. People could afford going to the hospital or doctor, since EVERYONE paid at time of service. Why can't we go back?


Schools are still almost exclusively under state and local control; one of the few good things Bush has done (maybe the only one) was to push for national standards in the No Child Left Behind legislation. Test scores have gone up across the board during the last two years and that is the reason. He faced stiff opposition from state and local governments and teachers, but he was right in holding firm. If a school district opts out, they are not eligible for a certain percentage of federal funding. The legislation set the standards and left the school districts to figure out how to reach the goal in the manner of their choosing. On average, we are far behind the countries you list. The top 20% of our schools are competitive internationally; they come from school districts that spend more on education than average, have parents that value education and serve as role models because if the success they achieved. As a nation we place less emphasis on education and until that changes, we will continue to lag behind. Adhering to a 180 day school year for example, is archaic. I think you will find that other nations have a more centralized control over the curriculum than here.

The schools are only have local control over what the feds dictate, aka test scores. Most of your high test score schools, I have seen, do not take in many federal dollars to educate the children enrolled. Or if they do take in the federal dollars, you can thank a generous proker from Congress.


So we agree on some things, but not others. At least you are thinking. :bigthumb

Feelings aren't thinking.

Brian

[mach_u]

It's great if you have money and can afford the best care. Those are the people that travel here for medical care. For the average person, it does not work nearly so well. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law travel to Costa Rica for any major dental or medical procedures. They both are self-employed and have insurance with high deductibles. Some of you may have seen the piece on 60 Minutes about a year ago about medical tourism. They showed US citizens going to India for bypass surgery (many of the doctors there are trained in the US and Britain) and it cost $10,000. Some US doctors have started clinics in Cancun to treat Americans. A friend of mine had to have his prostate removed because of an aggressive form of cancer. His specialist was in Boston and offered him the choice of having it done there or in Cancun--for a 70% reduction in the cost. If you have an x-ray done in Cincinnati, it may well be read by a radiologist in India.
Apparently, we are both in agreement that medical reform is needed - still don't see how that indicates we need government funded medical care for all citizens in this county? A little disappointed this was all the response I got back from my post but I guess it's tough to argue with truth. :D


Feelings aren't thinking.
Could agree more! :bigthumb

[Ryan218]

personal..if i could vote..McCain. the whole almost double are taxes with the way everything is right now would really hurt EVERYONE.

[ADaughen]

Seriously? I make just a little more than that by myself. I'm certainly not "living good" so I'm a little confused.


Glad I'm not the only one. :(

I'd hate to think I was bad at managing money. :lol:

[04 Venom]

Apparently, we are both in agreement that medical reform is needed - still don't see how that indicates we need government funded medical care for all citizens in this county? A little disappointed this was all the response I got back from my post but I guess it's tough to argue with truth. :D


Could agree more! :bigthumb

Whoa. What about my suggestion that everyone be eligible to join the federal health insurance plan? How is that government funded health care? Can you afford $80 a month for single coverage or $300 for family coverage--for excellent coverage? Is that better than what you have? These are PRIVATE COMPANIES that provide the insurance. How can I be clearer than that? Jeez!

[Black92LX]

Whoa. What about my suggestion that everyone be eligible to join the federal health insurance plan? How is that government funded health care? Can you afford $80 a month for single coverage or $300 for family coverage--for excellent coverage? Is that better than what you have? These are PRIVATE COMPANIES that provide the insurance. How can I be clearer than that? Jeez!

Please explain to why it is the Governments job to provide you with health care????????
Why should you be granted what you consider "affordable" personally I pay $185 a month for my health care and maybe spend $200 out of pocket when it comes to copays and the like.
I would gladly pay far more than that as I have had two bills for over $5,000 in just 2 years amongst the standards.
It's like anything else profits drives competition, competition drives new technology, and lower prices at that.
It's just a fact to deal with human beings are driven by incentive money/profits are a much larger driving force than that of the good feeling you get when you help someone out.
If the government takes over and says how much a doc gets paid, how much a script can cost where is the incentive to make better products, medicines and technologies.
The FDA is responsible for the inception of maybe 10 drugs vs the thousands upon thousands by that of the private sector.

I will gladly pay, in your words, the "high" price of health care.
And you were correct about the main reason for the cost of health care being so high. All the people that don't have to pay for it especially those that are not here legally.


Secondly name me one thing that the government runs that has not been done better by the private sector?? Just one that's all I am asking.
The only one I can think of is military protection, but the only reason for that is size and ways of governing.
If Blackwater had the size magnitude of our military guess who would win. Blackwater has far better training and viable equipment.
Why do you think we hire them to protect our dignitaries and not our own military.
I will give you space exploration for the same reason of size and money. But if this Virgin fella ever gets his space stuff kicked off we very well could see that change.

[04 Venom]

Please explain to why it is the Governments job to provide you with health care????????
Why should you be granted what you consider "affordable" personally I pay $185 a month for my health care and maybe spend $200 out of pocket when it comes to copays and the like.
I would gladly pay far more than that as I have had two bills for over $5,000 in just 2 years amongst the standards.
It's like anything else profits drives competition, competition drives new technology, and lower prices at that.
It's just a fact to deal with human beings are driven by incentive money/profits are a much larger driving force than that of the good feeling you get when you help someone out.
If the government takes over and says how much a doc gets paid, how much a script can cost where is the incentive to make better products, medicines and technologies.
The FDA is responsible for the inception of maybe 10 drugs vs the thousands upon thousands by that of the private sector.

I will gladly pay, in your words, the "high" price of health care.
And you were correct about the main reason for the cost of health care being so high. All the people that don't have to pay for it especially those that are not here legally.


Secondly name me one thing that the government runs that has not been done better by the private sector?? Just one that's all I am asking.
The only one I can think of is military protection, but the only reason for that is size and ways of governing.
If Blackwater had the size magnitude of our military guess who would win. Blackwater has far better training and viable equipment.
Why do you think we hire them to protect our dignitaries and not our own military.
I will give you space exploration for the same reason of size and money. But if this Virgin fella ever gets his space stuff kicked off we very well could see that change.

That's laughable.

[Black92LX]

That's laughable.

If it's so laughable answer the question.

I ask for one instance where the government has out performed the private sector.

ONE ALL I ASK FOR IS ONE!!!!!!!!!!

Why is it no one can answer this question whenever I ask it.

[cstreu1026]

I don't understand why people things its the burden of the haves to give hand outs to the have nots. If one day I live in a giant mansion, have 50 cars, 10 vacation homes, and swim through my money like Scrooge McDuck it will be because of my own hard work and the choices I have made. What right does government have to take what I have earned for myself just to give to those who like the desire and/or ability to get somewhere on their own? There are lot of things that people can do to improve their standing in life but many expect it just fall in their lap or be handed to them by the. I say that instead of raising taxes on the rich or even the flat tax we should tax goods at a higher rate. Tax those that consume more not those that earn more.

[cstreu1026]

i guess i am too....:eek:...sure don't seem like it..

its not too hard these days if husband & wife have a skilled trade or college & both put in 40 a week

believe me i feel farthest from the word "rich"....they say "middle class family these days make 70-100k a year

Same boat here. :(

My wife and I both went to college. I have a decent job and my wife has a pretty good job, but we are far from rich (despite what some may think). I definitely don't make enough to do everything I want to. However, I don't feel entitled to what others have. Instead I am taking on a second career and probably a third in order to get where I want to be in life. I think too many people in this country feel they are too good to start at the bottom and work hard to get somewhere. If that weren't the case then there wouldn't be work for illegal aliens on farms, in factories, and in other roles.

[Black92LX]

I say that instead of raising taxes on the rich or even the flat tax we should tax goods at a higher rate. Tax those that consume more not those that earn more.

Your thought process will do just that because those that have more tend to consume more.

[cstreu1026]

Thats fine by me. However, those that plan for the future won't be penalized nearly as much. I think capital gains taxes are bullshit along with the inheritance tax. Why should people pay making wise decisions and benefitting them? Basically its my money and I should have more control where, when, and how I give it to the government. Besides it might make the majority of people become wiser consumers.

[mach_u]

I say that instead of raising taxes on the rich or even the flat tax we should tax goods at a higher rate. Tax those that consume more not those that earn more.
Generally countries that implement a "Flat Tax" system will incorporate a higher goods tax as well. Perfect example, here is what we had setup in New Zealand.
$0 - $38,000 19.5%
$38,001 - $60,000 33%
Over $60,000 39%
No declaration 49%
The way it works is if you make $45k, you pay 19.5% up to $38k, and 33% for the remainder up to $45k. It's simple, low overhead and very effective.
Finally we have what we call GST (Goods & Service Tax - ie Sales tax) of 12.5%. The whole system is so simple and brilliant, I still for the life of me, can't figure out why our daft politicians here can't figure it out! :HYF:

[04 Venom]

If it's so laughable answer the question.

I ask for one instance where the government has out performed the private sector.

ONE ALL I ASK FOR IS ONE!!!!!!!!!!

Why is it no one can answer this question whenever I ask it.

Here's just a short list off the top of my head:

1. The Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb.
2. The space program--particularly landing men on the moon in 1969.
3. The Tennessee Valley Authority that electrified large areas of the South and controlled chronic flooding.
4. The Panama Canal.
5. Any number of government programs that brought the country out of the Great Depression.
6. The Federal Reserve System.
7. The national park system.
8. The SEC--not the athletic conference, idiot
9. How about WW II?
10. The interstate highway system
11. The railroad system in the mid- to late 1800s (the government gave land grants and backed loans for each mile of track laid because private companies could not capitalize the projects).
12. The Human Genome Project
13. The internet and supercomputers, both originally funded by the Defense Dept.
14. Land grant colleges
15. G.I Bill
16. Public libraries
17. The Library of Congress
18. Disaster relief programs
19. Law enforcement
20. Center for Disease Control
21. Free polio vaccines during the 1950s
22. The FDIC
23. Bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae--think what would happen to the stock market tomorrow, and your 401(k), if it didn't. The federal government is the only institution that can undertake these actions.

What I truly find laughable about your previous diatribe is the statement that Blackwater has better training and equipment than the military and could do better if it was the same size. Where do you think they hire most of their employees--yeah, ex-military. I forwarded the link to my son who spent 5 years in the USMC, including a deployment in the war zone. He suggested that you take your cheesdick to Iraq and find out for yourself.

[cstreu1026]

You could probably put together a list of things as long if not longer that the government has screwed up or is in the process of screwing up.

[Black92LX]

Here's just a short list off the top of my head:

1. The Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb.
2. The space program--particularly landing men on the moon in 1969.
3. The Tennessee Valley Authority that electrified large areas of the South and controlled chronic flooding.
4. The Panama Canal.
5. Any number of government programs that brought the country out of the Great Depression.
6. The Federal Reserve System.
7. The national park system.
8. The SEC--not the athletic conference, idiot
9. How about WW II?
10. The interstate highway system
11. The railroad system in the mid- to late 1800s (the government gave land grants and backed loans for each mile of track laid because private companies could not capitalize the projects).
12. The Human Genome Project
13. The internet and supercomputers, both originally funded by the Defense Dept.
14. Land grant colleges
15. G.I Bill
16. Public libraries
17. The Library of Congress
18. Disaster relief programs
19. Law enforcement
20. Center for Disease Control
21. Free polio vaccines during the 1950s
22. The FDIC
23. Bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae--think what would happen to the stock market tomorrow, and your 401(k), if it didn't. The federal government is the only institution that can undertake these actions.

What I truly find laughable about your previous diatribe is the statement that Blackwater has better training and equipment than the military and could do better if it was the same size. Where do you think they hire most of their employees--yeah, ex-military. I forwarded the link to my son who spent 5 years in the USMC, including a deployment in the war zone. He suggested that you take your cheesdick to Iraq and find out for yourself.

I think you missed my point I never stated that the Government does not do everything poorly, my point is the private sector can in almost all cases do it better because in the end it is driven by profit. I also feel that the government needs to be in place for certain things but it's becoming far too large and as Benjamin Franklin (i think) said. The government that gives you everything has the power to take everything away.

1. Constitutes the Military as I stated in my post
2. Constitutes the Space Program as I mentioned in the first post
3. Where is it at now???? Look how the private sector has revamed the coal
industry and has continued to make coal a main stay and way of life for
the rural states like KY and West Virginia.
4. Many private companies do just as good construction work, the size and
scale just has not been requested like the need there.
5. And their aren't private organizations that were a great help as well,
churches along with other nonprofits.
6. It's unlawful for any private company to print or create a valid legal
currency. Though one could look at the credit card market (though I find
credit to be not so good, except in a few situations.)
7. There are plenty of gorgeous private parks out there. Ever been to the
Duke Estate in New Jersey. Sure it may not be as large because the Gov't
has far more resources.
8. (not sure why we had the name calling.) I am familiar with the Securities
and Exchange Commission a little bit. Not a huge need for it with the
private sector.
9. Again that's military
10. You don't think a private civil engineer could possibly do that with the
right funding or needs??
11. Where is it at now??? Today we have RJ Corman and CSX to of the
largest railroad companies of all time. Take a trip to Nicholasville Ky and
visit the main RJ Corman lot and you will understand.
12. Not familiar with it but it sounds medical. And there are plenty of
outcomings from the private medical world.
13. May have been started by the DOD, but who made them what they are
today?????? The private sector.
14. There are many private colleges out their that fund themselves.
15. A great program, but there are tons of Private Sector groups that give
people lots and lots of money for college.
16. Another great program but there are many private libraries too that are
just as good if not better (Harvard Law Library for instance)
17. Same as 16 the government just has a little more access to single issue
works that they created.
18. Would you be referring to FEMA and DEEM (Katrina was great) I will take the Red
Cross' help over FEMA any day of the week. On a side note I am a
certified first responder for disaster relief with all 3 organizations and
I will tell you if you have your choice for help take the Red Cross.
19. I suggest you take a look at some of private Law Enforcement in this
country. You can start with the RJ Corman Railroad police. Policing is done
just as well on the private sector. RJ Corman and CSX run a joint tactical
unit that is top notch.
20. Without the private sector and there research the CDC would not function
at the level it does.
21. The polio vaccine was not created by the government. It was created by
a research student.
22. Insurance is available on the private level far past $100,000
23. Bailing out Freddie Mae and Mac is not a good idea in my opinion but ohh
well.

Tell your son I appreciate his service.
As for Blackwater, It was not a knock on our military in any form or fashion, I believe we have the greatest military on the planet.
Again as for the name calling not sure where that comes into play. But I could very well enlist and head over to Iraq if I so choose. But there are other things I would rather do and happy here thanks.

But you said it yourself, many of Blackwater employees are ex military. They are taking what the government has done and expanding and making it better.
Have you ever been to any Blackwater training or studied it??
You would see that they are top notch and they have top notch equipment.
The Military used to be the leader in many training regiments for LE no who do they turn to, many go to Blackwater and companies of the like.
Also who did most weapons and tactical equipment go to for testing of their products they used and still do go to the military, but it's on a huge increase to have Blackwater test their equipment.

Again. I think you took my post the wrong direction. We need a solid government to be our foundation. But we do not need it to be everything else in our life.
The private sector can and will do it much better. There are times where the government needs to step in but no where near the fashion they do today.
Sure there will be rough times, but it only drives the private sector to do more.

Americans are a strong and resilient people. But when the government keeps stepping in and giving us that crutch too many people cling to that crutch even after they have healed and expect a crutch even for the smallest thing making them weaker and weaker in turn making society weaker.
We need to learn to rely on ourselves again.
It's not the governments job to take care of you as an individual. If you live in Hurricane Alley it's not the governments job to get you in and out of there.

[04 Venom]

But I could very well enlist and head over to Iraq if I so choose.

Excellent idea.

[5.0calypso93lx]

Excellent idea.

What an intelligent response...

Great thread and great debate! I really don't see how you can vote for Obama after reviewing all of the facts in this thread.

[IWRBB]

I really don't see how you can vote for Obama after reviewing all of the facts in this thread.

Word. The only reason I can think of is because they are easily influenced by the liberal media. Either that, or an irrational hatred of George Bush, also developed from the liberal media.

[02mingryGT]

Latest polls:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

[89notch]

What an intelligent response...

Great thread and great debate! I really don't see how you can vote for Obama after reviewing all of the facts in this thread.

Its this word that everyone likes to use a little to often. 90% of all political facts are not really facts. Anyone who thinks all this BS is true I would like to sell them some ocean front property on the beach in Dayton Ohio. :lol:

[Maximus]

Please back up your statement with some evidence that they wrong. Ive been ready ALOT of negative things about your guy, but show me some good things he has done...im being serious here, not sarcastic.:bigthumb

[DeckerEnt]

I agree with Craig. I too have heard so much negetive stuff about Obama but I would like to hear the good stuff he has done. Littlest to biggest, just make a list.
Keith

[mach_u]

Latest polls:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
I'm all for political signatures, obviously NOT an Obama fan either but DUDE, that signature needs resized yesterday!

[Maximus]

I'm all for political signatures, obviously NOT an Obama fan either but DUDE, that signature needs resized yesterday!

Your a mod, get on it.:bigthumb

[mach_u]

Your a mod, get on it.:bigthumb
I don't get any good powers. :( If somebody steps out of line in the Boom Boom room though, I am all over it! :D

[93cobra]

Please back up your statement with some evidence that they wrong. Ive been ready ALOT of negative things about your guy, but show me some good things he has done...im being serious here, not sarcastic.:bigthumb

I also asked on a couple of these similar threads ..."Educate me"...."What am I missing" "Give me a list of 6 reasons why he will be better for us"...etc...

NOTHING......

The only thing I've been told by anyone explaining why they are going to vote for obama is a few friends & family that work union trades which their union suggests they vote democratic regardless of canidate...

I don't want to hear...uhhh i don't want 4 more years identical to bush...thats bs

[347sc]

CHANGE! Oh wait they can't tell what he will change either.

[93cobra]

CHANGE! Oh wait they can't tell what he will change either.

obama is counting on hurding all the uneducated idiots of america that don't have a clue whats going on in this world to vote for him.

....all the blacks that will vote for him simply because he is black & all whitetrash bastards out there "and believe me...theres lots of them"...that don't know what paying property taxes, income taxes etc etc is all about...

as long as these lowlifes of all race, get their welfare checks, section 8 housing supplied, food stamps, maybe a carton of basic lights & a 40 ....their good

the sad thing is by simply saying "we need change" & "no more bush" will be enough to make up these idiots minds because they hear other retards at work, or whoopie goldberg & a host of other hollywood morons support obama & they join the bandwagon...even though they don't even know themselves whats best for them...

what happens when "the change" obama wants winds up not being such green pastures

id re-elect bush before putting that martin luther king wanna be in charge of our nation's future...

[NaomiDstangLvr]

We aren't hurting per se, but we aren't rolling in it either.



No doubt, everything now a days costs an arm and leg...

[cstreu1026]

He already has the power to change things as a congressman but has no record of doing so......probably because he has been too busy running for president since they elected him to office.

[89notch]

Its not my job to educate you on the other candidates and maybe that's why you are voting for who you are. Its everyone's right to vote for who you want but big dumb hillbilly's crack me up with some of the shit they say. I just love to ask the question "Why are you a republican" and 90% of the time you get the same answer "They will never take my guns away" That crack me the hell up and I know dems do the same things and it probably drives you crazy also. This is also why it is not a good idea to talk politics with your friends it will get you no where. People can say what they want but I will probably always vote democrat. I have never seen a republican candidate that peaks my interest one bit.

Compare the issues and make your decision.

http://www.barackobama.com/

http://www.johnmccain.com/convention.htm

[facemelter71]

I dont understand why there is an issue with the second amendment.It is my right to keep and bear arms.Just like it is your right to vote.If i so choose to defend me or my family in time of need,then I will exercise my right to bear arms.If you think that by stripping every american of this right will make our country safe so that no one will own a weapon but military,you are sadly mistaken.There is no backround wait for a criminal,no checks.They would still have guns.I will never vote for some one willing to take the 2nd amendment from me.

[Maximus]

Since I dont own any guns, that rules that out.:)

It just seems a little odd that Obama has been a senator for 200 days and running a campaign for most of them? What has he really done for Illinois or this country? All I see him preaching is "Change" Im all for change and tired of the Political backdooring that goes on, BUT I dont see Obama doing any good change....





HELL I would rather have Hiliary in there than Obama.:bigthumb

[cstreu1026]

Truthfully, I don't think either of them is the best man for the job. Unfortunately it comes down to picking the lesser of the two evils.

The fact that Obama is willing to increase entitlements is enough keep me from voting for him. I would rather see the government teach people a skill or trade to earn a pay check than to simply hand them a check.

[cstreu1026]

HELL I would rather have Hiliary in there than Obama.:bigthumb

I think I actually agree with that. The devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

[Maximus]

Truthfully, I don't think either of them is the best man for the job. Unfortunately it comes down to picking the lesser of the two evils.

Thats why Bush was voted in his second term.:(

[89notch]

HELL I would rather have Hiliary in there than Obama.:bigthumb

:bigthumb Me too but I had to settle with Obama

[Maximus]

:bigthumb Me too but I had to settle with Obama

Cool, we will cancel each other out cause Im gonna settle with the old guy w/ the MILFs:lol::bigthumb

[cstreu1026]

Hell I would rather elect the MILF. I think out of all those involved she best represent the average American family.

[NaomiDstangLvr]

HELL I would rather have Hiliary in there than Obama.:bigthumb
I was really hoping she'd get in, I was going to vote for her, hell she did great the first 4 years she was president!! :lol:

[NaomiDstangLvr]

Please explain why you feel this way. Because clearly we haven't been looking at the same person then. McCain is far more liberal than Bush.


Plus I really don't see what's so bad about Bush.
*He has kept this country safe for the past 7 years.
*We are winning the war, yeah it's taking quite awhile but we aren't fighting an enemy like we have ever fought before. We aren't fighting a nation with set borders or hierarchy and plus the libs want to be all friendly and give them every opportunity to cause harm to us before we act. The death toll is very very low. There have been more deaths of the unlawful kind (almost twice as many( in Chicago this summer.
*The unemployment rate is the lowest average it has been since the 1950s.
*Home ownership is at an all time high even with the foreclosures being high (but Bush has zero control of that, it's the lenders giving loans to people that never deserved a loan in the first place) The housing market is by no means in trouble it is in quite a few cities maybe 6-10 but the vast majority of cities it's still booming. I just sold my house in under a month for my asking price.
*Taxes are at an all time low (AJs original post gave the numbers)
*Gas prices have gone up (but that is to be expected but yet it is another thing Bush has zero control over).

I could go on much longer but I am pretty sleepy and I need to get to bed.

I guess it's just the 9/11 conspiracy thing that gets me about Bush. I still suspect something, that he knew way before it happened.

But I do agree with certain issues with McCain, maybe I shouldn't say which issues, 'cause I really don't want to affend anyone on this board. I think I'm going to research McCain a little more. Also, Palin.

[NaomiDstangLvr]

Um, 57+ States Obama?!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7S5V2es9Dw&feature=related

[07thorobrd]

all i kno is that im not voteing for some1 that wont salute the american flag and has the middle name haussain

[chadomac]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[IWRBB]

I guess it's just the 9/11 conspiracy thing that gets me about Bush. I still suspect something, that he knew way before it happened.

But I do agree with certain issues with McCain, maybe I shouldn't say which issues, 'cause I really don't want to affend anyone on this board. I think I'm going to research McCain a little more. Also, Palin.

C'mon. You really think the government knew 9/11 was going down and let it happen? Seriously? Wow.

I know the conspiracy theorists are out there, hell I even watched the selective reporting they called "Loose Change" just to see what "they" think happened. They only part of the whole thing that made me think that there was even a bit of conspiracy was the lack of crash material at the Pennsylvania site. OK, not much left from a huge plane, crash specialists were baffled by the lack of ANYTHING in the hole. That is strange. But then you get the rest of their theory- they believe the government took all those people off that plane in Ohio, still have all the people somewhere under government control, and the plane, well, they don't know what happened to it. They also believe all the cell phone calls from that flight were faked. Really? REALLY?

When it comes down to it, either the US government was 100% behind it, or not. There's really no in between.

As for Palin, here's my prediction. McCain/Palin win 2008. McCain doesn't run for a 2nd term in 2012, as it's been hinted at. Next election 2012, Palin vs. Clinton. We all know who will win that, as long as she's still hot in 4 years. :)

[DeckerEnt]

As far as the plane into the pentagon, ever see the pic of all the light poles knocked down in a direct path with the building and the hole? No missle could do that. And where are all those people? The government isn't going to kill that many American citizens. No way no how.
Keith

[04 Venom]

But I do agree with certain issues with McCain, maybe I shouldn't say which issues, 'cause I really don't want to affend anyone on this board.

I don't think you have to worry offending people here; these threads tend to turn into a contact sport. On second thought, if you are a Bengal player, you may want to hang back.

[juiced347]

Also from one of the links

Make more than $250,000 a year? Watch out. Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes. Social Security taxes, too.

Run a corporation? Lucky you. John McCain wants to cut your business taxes.



Also this is not directed towards anyone I'm just tired of seeing the anti-Obama bullshit posts and emails. Get used to hating him because you are going to have to watch him run this country for the next 4 years. :bigthumb

Its sounds like Obama is really going to put a hurting on the average person :rolleyes: Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and McCain wants to lower taxes on the rich.
Why is it you are voting republican?

Are you rich?
Most likely not but you hear tax cuts and think its going to benefit everyone. When really republicans are only looking out for the already wealthy.

Like guns?
Guess what a democrat will never be able to take your guns away. They may put some laws out to limit some guns but honestly its probably best that they outlaw fully automatic hand guns and rifles. Why in the hell would someone need that? If you want to be able to defend yourself with an automatic weapon than join the military. Don't get me wrong I like to shoot guns and own a few myself but I really don't need to have anything like that.

Obama will be the best person for the job for middle class people hands down.

i would move out of this country if obma becomes president

[04 Venom]

I think you missed my point I never stated that the Government does not do everything poorly, my point is the private sector can in almost all cases do it better because in the end it is driven by profit.

The private sector can and will do it much better. There are times where the government needs to step in but no where near the fashion they do today.
Sure there will be rough times, but it only drives the private sector to do more.



We are not as far apart as you think. Here's a quick and dirty way of deciding what is an essential government service. Look in the yellow pages--if you see companies advertising a service, it is probably not a service the government should do. However, you view of the federal government is about 15 years out of date. Your maxim that the private sector can do anything better because it is profit driven is simplistic at best and naive at worst. If you have ever been a senior manager of an organization with thousands of employees and an annual budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and I have, it just ain't that simple. You can't compare a small business with 50 employees with a business or government entity with 250,000 employees. There is no linear relationship between organizational size and complexity--it is exponentially more difficult to manage the largest organizations successfully. If you read organizational theory or management texts, you already know that the larger companies become (and I am talking companies with more than 10,000 employees), the less efficient they tend to be.

Now lets take everybody's favorite whipping boy here--the federal government. Did you know that members of the Senior Executive Service, the highest level mangers in an agency, are under a pay for performance compensation scheme? Here's how it works. Every executive has his or her performance plan that is unique to that organization. It specifies numerical measures over a broad range of areas. How you "grade out" each year determines your pay. The base pay varies slightly, but is approximately $110,000; the maximum pay is currently $172,500. The government-wide average for SESers is about $158,000. If you deemed an extraordinary performer and exceed all expectations, you are eligible for a bonus. If you don't have a good year, your pay may be reduced from the previous year. No stock options and no golden parachutes if you can't hack it. Compare that to the average CEO salary of $15.7 million. The CEO of Countrywide Mortgage made $102 million last year. During his "management" the stock has plummeted each year.

In the federal government the heads of agencies are paid about 3.8 times the average employee's salary. The average CEO makes 500 times (it was 25 times in 1970) the average hourly worker's salary in the private sector. Keep that in mind when you watch the head of the Federal Reserve System trying to manage fiscal policy, prevent a mortgage meltdown and lessen the severity of economic cycles (one of the most important positions in the entire world) and know that he is paid significantly less than a middle manager in most large corporations or a second year associate in a New York law firm.

Lets also examine briefly the "bloated" federal government. In 1960, the US population was 179,000,000 people and there were 1.8 million federal civilian employees. Fast forward to 2007 and the US population stands at 303,000,000 people. How many federal civilian employees in 2007 you ask? Well, how about 1.8 million, the same as in 1960 (the highpoint was 2.3 million in 1969).

Not what you expected?

[04 Venom]

In the federal government the heads of agencies are paid about 3.8 times the average employee's salary.

My typo; the figure is 2.8 times

[cstreu1026]

I agree on the pay. My wife is a federal employee and she makes pretty good money and has decent benefits and job security. Starting pay was a little more that $20K less than what a good friend of hers was making when he started with DuPont in the same year. She could probably make twice as much in the private sector for what she is doing. All she would have to do is give up that job security and a job she actually likes doing.

[02mingryGT]

As far as the plane into the pentagon, ever see the pic of all the light poles knocked down in a direct path with the building and the hole? No missle could do that. And where are all those people? The government isn't going to kill that many American citizens. No way no how.
Keith

That and there were dozens of witnesses on the highway it flew over that saw the plane. Some people are just stupid and will believe anything.

[02mingryGT]

i would move out of this country if obma becomes president

Stop it. You sound like Susan Sarandon.

[ADaughen]

i would move out of this country if obma becomes president


Nah, just quit your job. They can't tax what you don't make. :bigthumb

[02mingryGT]

Pay and number of employees have nothing to do with efficiency.

[04 Venom]

Pay and number of employees have nothing to do with efficiency.

If a government or business deliver greater services with fewer people, that is efficiency. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.

[dirtyone55]

Truthfully, I don't think either of them is the best man for the job. Unfortunately it comes down to picking the lesser of the two evils.

The fact that Obama is willing to increase entitlements is enough keep me from voting for him. I would rather see the government teach people a skill or trade to earn a pay check than to simply hand them a check.

I agree that people should be taught to do something, but lets stop for a minute and face reality here, what is going to encourage them to get off of their asses? The only thing that I can think of is if we take something away from them such as our tax dollars that are paying for them to live...... Section 8 housing, foodstamps, welfare checks. The only way to encourage them to get on their own feet is if they are better off working and putting the effort towards contributing to the country, instead of making the people who do work carry the lazy scum of this country along for the ride. There is plenty of other people out there who have worked for what they have today, whether it is taking loans out and going into debt, or working 80 hours a week to pay for the cost of living plus their education to better themselves. The opportunity is out there to suceed in this world, but you can not simply just teach somebody a skilled trade and think that they will go out and do something with it, there needs to be some sort of motivation within these people to do something, but unfortunantly that is not something you can teach people. I feel that if there is going to be something done to reform this country, I think the best place to start would be to completely cut the welfare system, and start over from scratch and completely restructure the system, just simply taking more tax dollars from the working class and investing it into education for the people who are not willing is just simply another waste of tax dollars.

[04 Venom]

I agree that people should be taught to do something, but lets stop for a minute and face reality here, what is going to encourage them to get off of their asses? The only thing that I can think of is if we take something away from them such as our tax dollars that are paying for them to live...... Section 8 housing, foodstamps, welfare checks. The only way to encourage them to get on their own feet is if they are better off working and putting the effort towards contributing to the country, instead of making the people who do work carry the lazy scum of this country along for the ride. There is plenty of other people out there who have worked for what they have today, whether it is taking loans out and going into debt, or working 80 hours a week to pay for the cost of living plus their education to better themselves. The opportunity is out there to suceed in this world, but you can not simply just teach somebody a skilled trade and think that they will go out and do something with it, there needs to be some sort of motivation within these people to do something, but unfortunantly that is not something you can teach people. I feel that if there is going to be something done to reform this country, I think the best place to start would be to completely cut the welfare system, and start over from scratch and completely restructure the system, just simply taking more tax dollars from the working class and investing it into education for the people who are not willing is just simply another waste of tax dollars.

Your facts are a little out of date. If you Google Temporary Assistance For Needy Families and Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Act you can get the facts regarding welfare benefits. Briefly, welfare recipients have dropped 60% since 1996 as the result of these statutes. The federal government does not administer welfare benefits anymore. Block grants are given to the states and they run the programs. There is a 60 month lifetime limit for welfare benefits and individuals must be employed and off benefits within 2 years, although states can set lower limits. Also, single parents have to work a minimum of 30 hours per week and a couple generally have to work 55 hours per week.

[02mingryGT]

If a government or business deliver greater services with fewer people, that is efficiency. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.


Your a flat out shit talking fool. You try to act like your this big business Senior Manager but I'm afraid to say McDonald's doesn't count.......:bigthumb
It would help your case if you actually knew the definitions of the metrics you so poorly speak about.

What your talking about is productivity NOT efficiencies. Here I have the definitions below so the next time your in a big meeting with your crew members you'll know the difference:

productivity(n.) The rate at which goods or services are produced especially output per unit of labor.

efficiency (n.) The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system.

And if by chance some fool would be stupid enough to put you in charge of millions of dollars I'm sure your employees probably call you a dumb ass behind you back. :flipoff:

[BigBadStang]

Here we go again...:lol:
:popcorn:

[04 Venom]

Your a flat out shit talking fool. You try to act like your this big business Senior Manager but I'm afraid to say McDonald's doesn't count.......:bigthumb
It would help your case if you actually knew the definitions of the metrics you so poorly speak about.

What your talking about is productivity NOT efficiencies. Here I have the definitions below so the next time your in a big meeting with your crew members you'll know the difference:

productivity(n.) The rate at which goods or services are produced especially output per unit of labor.

efficiency (n.) The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system.

And if by chance some fool would be stupid enough to put you in charge of millions of dollars I'm sure your employees probably call you a dumb ass behind you back. :flipoff:

As Ronald Reagan said,...."there he goes again". Well Mingry, your basic problem is you are thinking above your pay grade again. Stick to simple issues with single syllable answers like "yes" or "no".

You see, there is more than one definition of efficiency. A dictionary would be a wise investment for you. Here's some of the other definitions of efficiency from Webster's New International Dictionary, Unabridged:

1. the capacity to produce desired results
2. the effective operation as measured by a comparison of actual and possible results
3. the effective operation of a task with a minimum of wasted effort.

Now when you understand that there was a 70% increase in the demand for federal services between 1960 and 2007, and no correspondng increase in the employees producing those services, you stand a chance of making the connection that yes, indeed, that meets one or more of the definitions of efficiency. You see, that's why businesses reduce employees when they produce fewer goods or services--to become more efficient, reduce costs and, hopefully to make money. It really is that simple-- to most people. Now in your case, the inability to focus on more than one concept at a time or recognize problems within a factual context, I could see why you are confused. Just don't assume others labor under the same handicap. This lesson is free; next time I will send you a bill.

[04 Venom]

Here we go again...:lol:
:popcorn:

Well, 02MingryGT should realize that when you act like a fool, someone is bound to take notice.

[Black92LX]

Your facts are a little out of date. If you Google Temporary Assistance For Needy Families and Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Act you can get the facts regarding welfare benefits. Briefly, welfare recipients have dropped 60% since 1996 as the result of these statutes. The federal government does not administer welfare benefits anymore. Block grants are given to the states and they run the programs. There is a 60 month lifetime limit for welfare benefits and individuals must be employed and off benefits within 2 years, although states can set lower limits. Also, single parents have to work a minimum of 30 hours per week and a couple generally have to work 55 hours per week.

Sure that is what the rules state but who actually checks to see if these people are working???? No one. As long as the people are willing to lie on their documentation they get their benefits.

A prime example is that the Feds state anyone who has an arrest warrant whether it be local or federal cannot receive any social security benefits this includes benefits for their children.

Who's job is it to report that they have a warrant for their arrest??? The person receiving the benefits. Do you really think if they have not turned themselves in on the warrant they are going to call the local Social Security office to inform them of their warrant???

Also the second problem is many people receive benefits for their children which do not fall under those classifications that you have provided.

[04 Venom]

Sure that is what the rules state but who actually checks to see if these people are working???? No one. As long as the people are willing to lie on their documentation they get their benefits.

A prime example is that the Feds state anyone who has an arrest warrant whether it be local or federal cannot receive any social security benefits this includes benefits for their children.

Who's job is it to report that they have a warrant for their arrest??? The person receiving the benefits. Do you really think if they have not turned themselves in on the warrant they are going to call the local Social Security office to inform them of their warrant???

Also the second problem is many people receive benefits for their children which do not fall under those classifications that you have provided.

Regarding the first point, did you even bother to check with Kentucky to see what procedures they have to verify employment, or do you expect me to do everything for you? Do you really think the people in Kentucky are really that stupid that they wouldn' t think to ask for a paycheck stub and verify employment? I suspect it is another example of shooting from the lip that is so rampant here.

Regarding the second statement, cite the statute you are talking about. I don't believe it exists and here's why; the states or federal government can't seize property or incarcerate you without due process, which would require a conviction, guilty plea or a seizure of property authorized by a court. An arrest warrant is simply authorization to take you into custody--not a conviction. I also doubt your assertion that a felony conviction disqualifies someone from a lawful benefit, unless their is a court judgment stating that you owe a debt to the government. If someone is convicted of crime such as perjury, what is the basis for denying an otherwise lawful benefit? If you have a monetary judgment registered against you, the government can withold tax returns, payments pursuant to a contract to provide services, etc.

So once again, show me the statute that says what you say it does. Do your own research.

[12seclx]

What about this?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/06/wsj-the-mccain.html

[Black92LX]

Regarding the first point, did you even bother to check with Kentucky to see what procedures they have to verify employment, or do you expect me to do everything for you? Do you really think the people in Kentucky are really that stupid that they wouldn' t think to ask for a paycheck stub and verify employment? I suspect it is another example of shooting from the lip that is so rampant here.

Regarding the second statement, cite the statute you are talking about. I don't believe it exists and here's why; the states or federal government can't seize property or incarcerate you without due process, which would require a conviction, guilty plea or a seizure of property authorized by a court. An arrest warrant is simply authorization to take you into custody--not a conviction. I also doubt your assertion that a felony conviction disqualifies someone from a lawful benefit, unless their is a court judgment stating that you owe a debt to the government. If someone is convicted of crime such as perjury, what is the basis for denying an otherwise lawful benefit? If you have a monetary judgment registered against you, the government can withold tax returns, payments pursuant to a contract to provide services, etc.

So once again, show me the statute that says what you say it does. Do your own research.

Here is the newest that actually allows local agencies to report those with outstanding warrants.
Straight from the SSI website


Fugitive Felon Reporting
Fugitive Felon reporting provides a mechanism for law enforcement agencies to submit arrest warrant information to SSA. Outstanding felony warrants and parole/probation violation warrants may lead to the suspension of social security benefits and SSI payments.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/gso/gsowelcome.htm

a couple more for the requirements. read the bullet points.
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-4.html (for a child's benefits)
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-1.html (for retirement benefits)


here is a link to the court case that it stems from
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/ar/02/AR2006-01-ar-02.html


If you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest

You must tell us if you have an outstanding arrest warrant for:

* A crime that is a felony under the laws of the state in which you live; or
* A crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year in states that do not classify crimes as felonies.

You cannot receive disability benefits for any months in which there is an outstanding arrest warrant for a crime that is a felony (or a crime that is punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year).
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10153.html

[04 Venom]

Here is the newest that actually allows local agencies to report those with outstanding warrants.
Straight from the SSI website


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/gso/gsowelcome.htm

a couple more for the requirements. read the bullet points.
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-4.html (for a child's benefits)
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-1.html (for retirement benefits)


here is a link to the court case that it stems from
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/ar/02/AR2006-01-ar-02.html


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10153.html

I see where you are coming from. However, you have to read the holding in the Second Circuits opinion in the Fowlkes case carefully. The judges deny Social Security's claim that they can disqualify him for benefits because of an outstanding warrant and say there must be evidence that he was fleeing to avoid prosecution, which is a felony in and of itself. Look in the heading marked "Holding". Specifically, it says, "The Second Circuit held that the Agency could not conclude that an individual is fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody, or confinement from the mere fact that an outstanding felony arrest warrant or order exists." Look further in the section "Explanation of How SSA Will Apply the Fowlkes Decision" where it says "We will not use the existence of an outstanding felony arrest warrant or similar order as the sole basis......to withold benefits....". The key part to recognize is there has to be a court order issued that an individual is fleeing prosecution, which is a crime independent of the basis for the orginal warrant, for SSA to deny benefits. The mere existence of a warrant means nothing.

That's why I knew your description of the procedure could not have been accurate without even knowing about the Fowlkes case, since the federal courts have consistently held, for more than 200 years, that the "due process" clause of the Constitution requires a determination that an individal has committed a crime before you can be incarcerated or have his property confiscated.

The Social Security website should be updated, since it is misleading and not consistent with the Second Circuit's decision. Whoever at Social Security Administration came up with the brilliant idea that you can deny benefits based upon a warrant doesn't have avery good understanding of constitutional law.

The mistake is not yours, the SSA has to take credit for that one.

[Black92LX]

You are missing one point about search and seizure.

All that is necessary to search and or seize is probable cause.

A guilty plea/verdict is not necessary for the seizure of assets.
A signed arrest warrant shows that probable cause of the crime has been found. Therefore assets can be taken at that moment.

If through the course of the case they are found not guilty, then at the end of the case the items (if legal) will be returned.

So yes on a warrant alone benefits can and are restricted. Does it happen in every case no. Is the possibility there and does it need to happen more often, absolutely.

It goes back to that money thing I was talking about before. Money drives people. Take their money away and they will change their actions.

The vast majority of my clients that I work with for 10 hours a day receive some sort of assistance whether it be for themselves or their children.
I have learned the ins and outs of cheating the Federal Government from the people that are doing it.

As for you pay stub example.
It's much like the old proof of having car insurance. Go get a job for a week so you have a stub to present at the initial/only interview. Then after you get your first taste you are well aware no one will be coming to double check on you so you quit your job.

[04 Venom]

You are missing one point about search and seizure.

All that is necessary to search and or seize is probable cause.

A guilty plea/verdict is not necessary for the seizure of assets.
A signed arrest warrant shows that probable cause of the crime has been found. Therefore assets can be taken at that moment.

If through the course of the case they are found not guilty, then at the end of the case the items (if legal) will be returned.

So yes on a warrant alone benefits can and are restricted. Does it happen in every case no. Is the possibility there and does it need to happen more often, absolutely.

It goes back to that money thing I was talking about before. Money drives people. Take their money away and they will change their actions.

The vast majority of my clients that I work with for 10 hours a day receive some sort of assistance whether it be for themselves or their children.
I have learned the ins and outs of cheating the Federal Government from the people that are doing it.

As for you pay stub example.
It's much like the old proof of having car insurance. Go get a job for a week so you have a stub to present at the initial/only interview. Then after you get your first taste you are well aware no one will be coming to double check on you so you quit your job.

You are mixing criminal law concepts and the authority of an adminsitrative agency such as SSA. They are not comparable.

Yes, probable cause must be present in a criminal case to obtain a search/seizure warrant. That must also be approved by a judge and the theory is that a seizure is necessary to prevent the potential destruction of evidence. The seizure, based upon a warrant, is not permanent. That can only happen after an
adjudication and if the court determines that a forfeiture is appropriate.

You are wrong that SS benefits can be halted based upon a warrant and the case you cited earlier specifically prohibits SSA from doing this. You seem to confuse police powers in a criminal investigation with administrative sanctions that a government agency can enforce. They are not the same.

[04 Venom]

By the way Black92LX, I'm guessing from your posts that you are a police officer. If so, hats off to you because I know how difficult the job is. Two of my brothers were cops (now retired) and my youngest son is a cop in the Baltimore area.

[02mingryGT]

As Ronald Reagan said,...."there he goes again". Well Mingry, your basic problem is you are thinking above your pay grade again. Stick to simple issues with single syllable answers like "yes" or "no".

You see, there is more than one definition of efficiency. A dictionary would be a wise investment for you. Here's some of the other definitions of efficiency from Webster's New International Dictionary, Unabridged:

1. the capacity to produce desired results
2. the effective operation as measured by a comparison of actual and possible results
3. the effective operation of a task with a minimum of wasted effort.

Now when you understand that there was a 70% increase in the demand for federal services between 1960 and 2007, and no correspondng increase in the employees producing those services, you stand a chance of making the connection that yes, indeed, that meets one or more of the definitions of efficiency. You see, that's why businesses reduce employees when they produce fewer goods or services--to become more efficient, reduce costs and, hopefully to make money. It really is that simple-- to most people. Now in your case, the inability to focus on more than one concept at a time or recognize problems within a factual context, I could see why you are confused. Just don't assume others labor under the same handicap. This lesson is free; next time I will send you a bill.

Dude you have to be the stupidest motherfucker ever born. We sat around at work today and laughed at your stupidity. You have the answers in your own post and you still can't figure it out. Efficiency by definition is output compared to the input in plural. That means more than one input factor dumb ass. Your comparison deals with just labor which is productivity. You would be correct in saying they are more productive but not efficient. You can use that way, wrongly, but it's still incorrect. You didn't use it in the correct context and when I pointed that out you decided to make yourself look stupid again. That's cool.

How about you bring me that bill in person?

[02mingryGT]

How many federal civilian employees in 2007 you ask? Well, how about 1.8 million, the same as in 1960 (the highpoint was 2.3 million in 1969).

Not what you expected?

You know i really could cared less about this post when you wrote it the other day. I would have figured you would have checked your stats. Should have know better:

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesfed05.html

More like 2.9 million. Download the spreadsheet.

[04 Venom]

Dude you have to be the stupidest motherfucker ever born. We sat around at work today and laughed at your stupidity. You have the answers in your own post and you still can't figure it out. Efficiency by definition is output compared to the input in plural. That means more than one input factor dumb ass. Your comparison deals with just labor which is productivity. You would be correct in saying they are more productive but not efficient. You can use that way, wrongly, but it's still incorrect. You didn't use it in the correct context and when I pointed that out you decided to make yourself look stupid again. That's cool.

How about you bring me that bill in person?

Mingry,

You prove once again that reading is not comprehension. You may have read, but don't understand, that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA. In your case it is much closer to 100%.

When you say "work" do you mean a sheltered workshop for the mentally impaired? In terms of the bill, I'll do this. I'll make a contribution in your name to the Cincinnati Zoo.

[04 Venom]

You know i really could cared less about this post when you wrote it the other day. I would have figured you would have checked your stats. Should have know better:

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesfed05.html

More like 2.9 million. Download the spreadsheet.

Wrong again. The payroll figures you cite included intermittent and temps and 600,000 Postal Service Workers. The figures I quoted in my post excluded postal workers because in 1960 they were considered federal employees, but the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 changed the status of the employees. Unlike federal employees, postal employees fall under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, just like private sector employees. Federal employees fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Postal employees are permitted to bargain through their unions for pay and benefits, just like the private sector. Federal employees are barred by law from bargaining over their pay and benefits. The figures I report came from the Office of Personnel Management website, which manages federal employees.

So I was comparing apples to apples. If you want to include postal service employees in the equation, which OPM does not, there are about 200,000 fewer USPS employees now than there were in 1960. The same argument holds regardless of which comparison you make.

So, you're wrong. Again. Have another banana.

[04 Venom]

02MingryGT,

Having repsonded to your posts in a like fashion. You can continue to make it person and I will respond in kind. If you would rather skip the invectives, as I would, I will as well. However you want to continue is up to you.

[Waffles]

You all will notice I've stopped debating with Venom. He's an imbecile and never has anything actually intelligent to say. He's just one of those guys that fancies himself as intelligent and likes to hear himself talk.

[04 Venom]

You all will notice I've stopped debating with Venom. He's an imbecile and never has anything actually intelligent to say. He's just one of those guys that fancies himself as intelligent and likes to hear himself talk.

Well obviously you would rather continue the low road, Hardcore. Whether or not you have stopped debating remains to be seen, but the reasons you state for halting are wrong. You basically got your ass handed to you on every occasion, but you won't take like a man. You are a walking inferiority complex. If this is indeed goodbye, let me recommend a speech pathologist for you to help you with your sssstutterinnnnnng.

[Waffles]

Everyone here has read what's been written between us. Everyone knows you're full of shit. You're an idiot, and I don't debate with idiots. I'd be happy to debate any position with anyone, but with you it's kinda pointless. I didn't win our debates but that's because of you lack the capacity to understand.

[04 Venom]

Everyone here has read what's been written between us. Everyone knows you're full of shit. You're an idiot, and I don't debate with idiots. I'd be happy to debate any position with anyone, but with you it's kinda pointless. I didn't win our debates but that's because of you lack the capacity to understand.

Welcome back; that was a short retirement. Once again you find yourself standing in water over your head and lacking the commom sense to walk to shore. I can only hope you have not reproduced and infected the gene pool.

[Maximus]

So are there going to be nametags at the cruise in?:lol::lol:

[04 Venom]

So are there going to be nametags at the cruise in?:lol::lol:

:D:D:D:D:D

[Waffles]

lol... certainly hope so. Maybe I can give the old man a heart attack. ;)

[04 Venom]

The old man will be watching John Force at the NHRA Mid-South Nationals. In Hardcore's case, he will be prowling the creeks of his home state looking for unaccompanied males in canoes for a jam session of dueling banjos.

[02mingryGT]

Wrong again. The payroll figures you cite included intermittent and temps and 600,000 Postal Service Workers. The figures I quoted in my post excluded postal workers because in 1960 they were considered federal employees, but the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 changed the status of the employees. Unlike federal employees, postal employees fall under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, just like private sector employees. Federal employees fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Postal employees are permitted to bargain through their unions for pay and benefits, just like the private sector. Federal employees are barred by law from bargaining over their pay and benefits. The figures I report came from the Office of Personnel Management website, which manages federal employees.

So I was comparing apples to apples. If you want to include postal service employees in the equation, which OPM does not, there are about 200,000 fewer USPS employees now than there were in 1960. The same argument holds regardless of which comparison you make.

So, you're wrong. Again. Have another banana.

Dude those numbers are from the US Census. The get their numbers from the OPM, so how am I wrong?

Also this from the OPM website from downloadable word file:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data File covers all Federal civilian employees except Members and employees of Congress, Architect of the Capitol, Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, General Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development, Office of Compliance, U.S. Court of Appeals to Veterans Claims, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Judicial Branch, White House Office, Office of the Vice President, Office of Policy Development, Federal Reserve Board, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Postal Service, Postal Rate Commission, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Army/Air Force Exchange Service, Defense Consolidated Metropolitan Technical Personnel Center, Defense Career Management and Support Agency, Public Health Service's Commissioned Corps, and foreign nationals employed overseas.

Seems like a lot of people not to count. Hard to say the federal government is slimmer when you have incomplete data. And what is the difference between a temp and a full time employee? A lot of companies run their labor force with mostly temp workers. BAE comes to mind as one. I don't understand why you think a comparison between only full time employees of the federal government is an accurate reflection of total employment. Are not the temp's performing a job function?

Please post the link to the 1960's data.

[04 Venom]

Mingry,

First off, I appreciate the tone of your message and I wanted to acknowledge that. Work is gruesome today and it will probably be this weekend before I can respond further.

[04 Venom]

Please post the link to the 1960's data.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/ExecBranch.asp

Here you go.