Jump to content

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

In an ideal society everyone would be able to earn enough money to afford decent housing, proper health care, a good education if desired, and all the essentials such as food, clothing, etc. But society is not ideal and realistically some people are going to need help.

Fair would be everyone paying the same tax rate no matter how much income but that's not how income taxes are assessed and society would be in total chaos under a fair plan.

Living in California and more specifically in Los Angeles County, has taught me to abandon fairness when it comes to property tax. From there I have expanded my newfound indifference to all forms of taxes. In Los Angeles County, property tax owners are always the first in line to have to pay extra taxes for funding schools. I used to think it was unfair that anyone who didn't have children in school or in public school should have to pay for it when parents who live in apartments and have one to however many kids in public school skated.

The only real gripe I have about taxes is when they are not used for the purpose for which they were intended as in don't raise taxes to fix a hole in the road and then end up using it to remodel some senator's office.

Has the so called religious right got a stranglehold on the Republican party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I think only those that side against the Republicans have that mindset. I am a fiscal conservative and do not agree with the social agenda. I think it would be hard to find a person that agrees with every aspect of their party's stances. I side with the party that would make government less intrusive rather than bigger.

With the continuation by the Democrats to push for an increase in government it only allows for Republicans to push their social agenda further once gaining power. If you give government more power then it matters not which party is in control, it only matters that they now have the power to affect the social lives of Americans.

It boggles my mind as to why some Democrats want government to be big but on the other side of the coin they want government to stay out of social affairs.

Do the radical war protesters and Code Pink members have a stranglehold on the Democratic Party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And when have these very same people start giving a damn about the wroking people even when their taxes were lowered 7 years ago? They have had more tax return dollars put in their pockets, and they are STILL laying off and outsourcing jobs. But now working people are supposed to care that they will have to receive higher taxes after screwing us all these years?

once again, I don't feel sorry for them.

So Warren Buffet, who is worth $56 biliion dollars, should pay the exact same amount of taxes as someone working 3 jobs and is being taxed to death? That is what you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The RR and the ultra-right wing of the party have it in their control. More mainstream Republicans, like Lincoln Chaffey and the Governator are not at the top oreven near the top of the leadership of the party. Hell, I don't even think GWB is a ultra conservative. I think he's a good guy outside of the presidency.........he's just a beyond-lousy president whose policies and those of his party helped lead us to where we are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And on the other side of the coin, it boggles my mind why some Republicans want government to be smaller, yet they want government to be all up in my social business.

Six of one; half dozen of the other.

Considering that the Republican party, in the name of "Homeland Security," pushed its way into our homes and daily lives, I always find it ironic that they are supposed to be the ones in the name of "less intrusive government."

BTW, I've enjoyed the debate so far, even if Casey and Peyton seem to be the only ones holding up the McCain side of things ;):lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

See that's what bothers me. Yes, he did speak at the RNC about ONE issue. If you check his voting record, he is absolutely a Democrat and has complete Democratic stances on EVERY other issue. He's been a foot soldier in the party for years and years and years. Is he not allowed to have one independant thought? Can he not vote his conscience and speak his mind without being ex-communicated from the party?

And I'm not saying the Democrats are alone in this. Rudy Guiliani is as Republican as they come. He's a party man and has towed the party line more times than any of us can count BUT he does not believe in overturning Roe v Wade and he's too liberal for the party. I mean, WHAT???? Can the man not have his own opinion?????

And as a voter, WE are getting screwed because people learn the game. They spout what the party wants them to spout in order to get funding for the larger campaign and to get recognition on the ballot but how much do they believe in what they are saying? That's what we have to figure out. I have NEVER in my life met anyone that completely and totally believes in every part of either party's platform. Each party would serve themselves well to allow independant thinking without condemining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the important thing to note as far as this election is concerned, is that McCain is one of those Republicans that wants government smaller. You have the far left and the far right. John McCain is much more moderate than his opponent, IMO.

I believe that the majority of Republicans (voters and leaders) do not want to be "all up in your social business". While many have a conservative stance on social issues, that does not translate into wanting to dictate how Americans live their lives. I think belief in smaller government reflects this, and out weighs stances on social issues.

George Bush was not a typical Republican in the sense of wanting smaller government. He has disappointed me a great deal in respect to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Less intrusive government........yet want to push social agendas to make a segment of the praty feel more at ease.

For smaller government........but the federal government grew at a substantial rate the past 8 years, with the current president not vetoing one single bill from 2000-2007.

It happens on both sides, that I can assure you......but I think I see your point. It sounds like hypocricy to you, is that what you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or something. He still has the full time 9-5 in Atlanta, right? Julie was there. Idk if Maggie’s gonna be a part of it though 
    • At this point, the best nonpaywall coverage of Los Angeles (and anything political)  is in...the Tennessee Holler https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social And as always, emptywheel continues to be consistent https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social
    • Today Monday was the start of people arriving at the funeral, but the service hasn't started yet.  I know this is the nonspoiler thread but I think it's okay to say (in nonspecific terms) that the funeral episodes span a few days.  I won't detail it more here. Just sayin' keep watching.
    • Why am I only now hearing about what happened in L.A., lol?
    • While I agree that Reeves is Jennifer, I honestly do prefer Cady McClain in the role, as I feel she had/has a wider range of acting capabilities than I feel Reeves has. It's the strength of an actor, ultimately, for me, regardless of how I feel about Reeves' political/social views (which I widely disagree with). Plus, not to mention, they costumed Reeves like an old-fashioned frumpy farm/Moron wife, while McClain had some fashion-forward moments.
    • Wait - so no Will, Jack, or Jen at John's funeral? That’s just weird. What was the point of bringing them back then? Did Julie and Maggie even show up? I mean, seriously.
    • From the comment section of this IG post: theonlydaphneeduplaix Over 70 National commercials over my nearly thirty years career and some how I only have my hands on five

      Please register in order to view this content

      . Thank you @cityofllanview for digging deep and finding this @longjohnsilvers commercial from 2000. If anyone feels inclined to dig deep and find more, I’d greatly appreciate it!!!!   https://www.instagram.com/p/DKX9m3ytGIw/ cityofllanview and theonlydaphneeduplaix Now we know Thursday ain't here but here is a Flashback to @longjohnsilvers commercial from 2000 featuring the amazing @theonlydaphneeduplaix make sure to catch her as Nicole on @beyondthegatescbs Weekdays at 2pm on @cbstv and streaming on @paramountplus.                    
    • Full statement from city of Glendale https://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/9293/16
    • Has anyone ever totted up how many women on GL slept with both father and son(s)? Reva gets a lot of crap for it but she's far from the only one: Claire Beth Blake Olivia Dina Did I miss anyone?  Also, did Reva ever sleep with Phillip? They always had some "closeness" thing, but I don't know if they ever actually did the deed. If they did, then Reva's the clear winner, with TWO families covered, lol!  
    • I think Long was probably planning to have Claire suffer from Post Partum, but she left the writing staff shortly after Claire had Michelle so that element didn't get explored. And I always assumed that when Claire returned in the late 90s/early 00s.. that she was realizing that she messed up by not staying a part of Michelle's life and became resentful/bitter over her previous choices.  That was my theory.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy