Obama effectively clinches nomination

shinerbock · #1 06-04-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856

And the economy is in such great shape now?

First, this is a terrible argument for why I should vote for Barack Obama. Wealth redistribution, higher taxes and increased regulation aren't what I think America needs to rebuild the economy.

Second, at least we're retaining the appearance of capitalism. Enterprise economic systems fluctuate. I'm ok with that.

jon1856 · #2 06-04-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

First, this is a terrible argument for why I should vote for Barack Obama. Wealth redistribution, higher taxes and increased regulation aren't what I think America needs to rebuild the economy.

Second, at least we're retaining the appearance of capitalism. Enterprise economic systems fluctuate. I'm ok with that.

I am not arguing the point of who to vote for.
I was just commenting on the current state of the economy.
Over the past 8 years.
And I have very little problem with those making a great deal of money paying a fair share of taxes back. And some guy named Buffet seems to think like that as well.

PhiGam · #3 06-04-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856

I am not arguing the point of who to vote for.
I was just commenting on the current state of the economy.
Over the past 8 years.
And I have very little problem with those making a great deal of money paying a fair share of taxes back. And some guy named Buffet seems to think like that as well.

There's a difference between it being voluntary and forced (see: Socialism.)

shinerbock · #4 06-04-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856

I am not arguing the point of who to vote for.
I was just commenting on the current state of the economy.
Over the past 8 years.
And I have very little problem with those making a great deal of money paying a fair share of taxes back. And some guy named Buffet seems to think like that as well.

We probably have different views on what is "fair." Also, though I respect Warren, I don't really care about his views on taxation.

jon1856 · #5 06-04-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

We probably have different views on what is "fair." Also, though I respect Warren, I don't really care about his views on taxation.

Ok-fine.
I can not speak for you, but I know that I am no where near the top 1%..

Perhaps 10%

KSigkid · #6 06-04-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856

Ok-fine.
I can not speak for you, but I know that I am no where near the top 1%..

Perhaps 10%

I don't know that someone's current wealth position always has a direct correlation to their feelings on tax policy. I'm certainly not top 1%, but I agree more with Shiner's position.

jon1856 · #7 06-04-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I don't know that someone's current wealth position always has a direct correlation to their feelings on tax policy. I'm certainly not top 1%, but I agree more with Shiner's position.

We perhaps should start a thread on tax and end this hi-jack.

a.e.B.O.T. · #8 06-04-2008, 01:02 PM

Does anyone think that Obama HAS to choose Clinton now? She has said she will consider the spot... MEANING, if she doesn't get it after winning the popular vote... the Clinton-ites will go from livid to psycho

She forced Obama to give it to her now.

Personally, I really think Obama should choose Kathleen Sebelius. It will help him fill his weakness. She has been a vocal supporter of his. She is a strong woman who could hopefully attract the Clinton-ites... AND she is not scary!!!

shinerbock · #9 06-04-2008, 01:15 PM

Barack doesn't need a woman, he needs a white male. If I was running his campaign, I'd suggest Evan Bayh.

As for taxation, all Barack is telling me is that he won't make an unfair tax system more unfair to most. I'm not impressed. That is, if I'm to believe him.

33girl · #10 06-04-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Barack doesn't need a woman, he needs a white male. If I was running his campaign, I'd suggest Evan Bayh.

That's not a bad idea, except he might want to look for someone from a different region of the US. I guess Clinton & Gore effectively have disproved that being a must though.

When I hear some of the ideas for Republican Veep, I honestly want to hurl...it's pretty bad when you think "can't they just call Dan Quayle?"

jon1856 · #11 06-04-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Does anyone think that Obama HAS to choose Clinton now? She has said she will consider the spot... MEANING, if she doesn't get it after winning the popular vote... the Clinton-ites will go from livid to psycho

She forced Obama to give it to her now.

Personally, I really think Obama should choose Kathleen Sebelius. It will help him fill his weakness. She has been a vocal supporter of his. She is a strong woman who could hopefully attract the Clinton-ites... AND she is not scary!!!

Has too-No.
On a list-perhaps yes.
Have heard Kathleen's name in other conversations. She should definitely be on The A List.
I think a few former Generals could/should be on list as well.

Munchkin03 · #12 06-04-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Does anyone think that Obama HAS to choose Clinton now? She has said she will consider the spot... MEANING, if she doesn't get it after winning the popular vote... the Clinton-ites will go from livid to psycho

She forced Obama to give it to her now.

Personally, I really think Obama should choose Kathleen Sebelius. It will help him fill his weakness. She has been a vocal supporter of his. She is a strong woman who could hopefully attract the Clinton-ites... AND she is not scary!!!

See my earlier post. If he selects that shrill vindictive bitch, then he will be seen as weak and the Clinton era of lies, deceit, and liberal entitlement will continue.

Oh damn, maybe I should just go on and admit that I'm slowly becoming Republican.

Those damn taxes do it to me every time...

He needs a white male from the South, or maybe the Rust Belt.

jon1856 · #13 06-04-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

See my earlier post. If he selects that shrill vindictive bitch, then he will be seen as weak and the Clinton era of lies, deceit, and liberal entitlement will continue.

Oh damn, maybe I should just go on and admit that I'm slowly becoming Republican.

Those damn taxes do it to me every time...

He needs a white male from the South, or maybe the Rust Belt.

Not that I love taxes however thought should be given to:
When ever a "disaster" occurs, our hands go out.
When ever there is a problem with the interstucture, our hands go out.
When ever we look for a service, our hands go out.
Most of us who use any kind of mass transit, our hands are going out.
And all that money comes from just where?

We, the people, have been told so often that taxes are evil that we some times may just forget what pays for things.
And what other things get substituted for them.
Including debt.

nittanyalum · #14 06-04-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

He needs a white male from the South, or maybe the Rust Belt.

If he goes this route, he should pick Ted Strickland from Ohio. I'd prefer Bill Richardson, since he was my first choice in the primaries anyway. If he picks Richardson, I'll be able to get more excited about the ticket. He needs a governor, he needs to fill in that "executive office" experience gap and Richardson also brings foreign relations and cabinet experience. He also can reach out to the Hispanic vote, which Hillary did better with (though there also might be prejudice against him for the same reason). I like Evan Bayh, but (a) he won't help the "too liberal" argument and (b) teaming up a Senator from Indiana with a Senator from Illinois doesn't exactly make a power-duo ticket. Plus if he goes with the "I need a governor so I can't pick a Senator" argument, he gets out of the whole considering Hillary thing. I actually preferred Hillary over Obama, but I just don't see her in the #2 slot, I'd worry it'd lay the groundwork for a terribly dysfunctional administration.

PhiGam · #15 06-04-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

First, this is a terrible argument for why I should vote for Barack Obama. Wealth redistribution, higher taxes and increased regulation aren't what I think America needs to rebuild the economy.

Second, at least we're retaining the appearance of capitalism. Enterprise economic systems fluctuate. I'm ok with that.

I would have been OK with Hillary's plan which would have raised taxes for big earners back to 39% but Obama's "change" is going to bankrupt this country should he ever make it to the white house.