Didn't you vote democrat for the Governor of Calyfornia election?

I can't think of a Republican I ever voted for in our gubernatorial elections. But I would have to go back and look at every election since 1972 to confirm that.

Please share, Im interesting in hearing.

No he called me a tool. I have no problem being called a democrat or liberal.

Yep the polls show older white men will not vote for a black man for president.

II found your accusations about others "listening to pundits" amusing considering that is exactly what you are doing. The only difference is that the pundits you swoon over just happen to agree with you.

I don't see how you can think the pundits one listens to are any better than the ones you listen to.

If you put baddog in a room filled with older white men and told me to pick out the one guy who probably wouldn't vote for Obama....

Are you suggesting I won't vote for Obama because he is black?

Let's be exact. He called you a "DEMOCRAT tool".

Isn't a democrat tool different from a regular tool? I thought it was. :1orglaugh

No I read and learn. Tell me who am I listening too? Who do I swoon over? Please share you know so much about me. People quote right wing talking points and that's fine. I have a opinion, which I can back up and I'm swooning over people. What are your opinions ,it just seemed your good at judge others opinions?

Yep I am.

If you having been voting democrat while most here were in diapers. Then you voted for ones with little experience and ones who were much more liberal. So for this lifelong democrat to decide to vote for someone, who would be against most of your beliefs, since you have been a democrat forever. The poll seems to fit one could think.

I meant have I just got up.

If you tax rich people up to their eyeballs, they move out. Then, what? You just killed the golden goose.

Tonster, I don't understand any of that. Several of your "sentences" aren't even complete sentences.

Please try again. Take a breath, regroup your thoughts, and have another go at it.

I know you can write more clearly than that.

Of course he is. The fact is the majority of older white voters WILL NOT vote for a black man. Affirmative action grudges, social issues and many have never had a black as an equal either professionally or socially are just a few of the reasons.

Ok Here I go:

Well Baddog you have said here over and over "that you have been voting democrat while people here were in still diapers". If you did vote "Democrat" for so long that would mean you have voted for democratic candidates that had little experience like Obama and some that were probably more liberal than Obama. So for a lifelong democratic to turn away from his party and vote for someone who is totally 180 degrees from that belief system would lead one to say the poll is right. Older white men arent going to vote for a black president.

Then let me be perfectly clear: Fuck you Tony, and the horse you rode in on.

No, he really can't. Compared to Alien he may appear to be capable, but in reality, the only coherent posts he makes are cut and paste of someone else's words.

Man Baddog, you get nasty quick when it comes back to you. Have I ever said fuck you to you and you love being my critic? I dont think I ever did.Is this coherent?

Not true

Not voting for Obama, isn't what made me think you lean right. And I personally don't think his skin color is a factor for you either.

I'm sure, living in Cali, you have some Democrat even Liberal views on many things. When it comes to more, gov level issues, ideas, you appear to go right. Even wanting to vote Republican in 04, or 08 - has to say that your Gov level views are not on the Democrat side of things.

Is it the economic polices? Tax, war, maybe it's related to your personal money/investments? I'm really just curious as to what makes you feel you are forced to vote Republican.

For me, I could vote either way. But when I listen to McCain he just sounds like an old senile man. The last few years, he has changed, his mind is mush. Listen to him speak from 2-4 years ago and listen to him today. He wasn't ever a great speaker but he at least kept it together. But now.. He says one thing that is just backwards and an adviser leans in and corrects him.

Accusing a guy of voting based on skin color isn't exactly a compliment man.

Nowhere in any of his posts have I seen evidence that he's basing decisions that way.

Frankly I'm not surprised by his reaction.

Let's please get back to the pros and cons of the two economic policies being put forth

You called me a racist, so fuck you. Permanently.

Very good. Now, let's see if we can put three words together in a sentence. Try using a noun and a verb, then we can move up to adjectives and adverbs.

My Dad is an older white man, lives in the South, he is voting for Obama. Most of "his" friends are. However, most older white men in the area aren't. But to back them up, they have never voted democrat in the history of voting. So the guy could be the best Democrat in the world - a sure win - and these guys will vote Republican until they day they die.

My first business partner, it didn't matter what half Democrat view you had, it was totally and 100% wrong to him. Even the smallest non-important thing. And everything that went wrong, to him, was a democrat that did it. Color was not a factor.

Very good point. Obama is getting the same ratio of votes from the same constituencies that past Democrats have.

In all honesty, I think this will be the first time I don't vote for a presidential candidate in the almost 30 years I've been of voting age. I just can't do the "which one is the least worst" bit and feel good about it. No attractive Dem or Rep, Bob Barr makes me ill and I don't see any other worthy candidates.

The wild card in this election is the youth vote. The young voted in record numbers in the primaries which allowed Obama to clinch the nomination.

They always are. Unfortunately, they never seem to remember that until the day after the GE.

I think the results of this election will be a lot like others.

Obama the democrat will get:
- 90% of African American vote
- Slightly over half of female vote
- majority of youth vote (who historically never come out in numbers to make any impact)

McCain the republican will get:
- majority of white male vote
- majority of older people (who come out and vote in large numbers - key is they're majority of pop.)
- perhaps half of Latin vote (I don't know)

baddog, I think you're position is simply that Obama is unelectable. But why vote for McCain instead of not voting at all. By voting for McCain it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. ?

The last election is the first Presidential election I did not vote and it may be the case again. I have not completely made up my mind yet as there is still alot of time before the election...but I can definitely state that I am not pleased with either of the candidates.

As for all of the other parties...it is just a wasted vote for sure.

How is it not a punishment? You are sitting there saying that the succesful people in this country need to pay more money. That if you become a skilled worker, go to school, work your ass off to become a success, we'll hit you with much more taxes.

You can argue percentage of income and others, but the fact is that the rich pay virtually all the taxes in this country. Virtually everything that our government provides us with comes from the top 5% of earners. As I said, telling them they have to pay more is no different than you going to the bar with your friends and pointing to the richest guy there and demanding he pays everyone's tabs.

But the bigger question is why are we trying to bring in more revenue? Shouldn't we be cutting the ludicrous expenses? Seems like this is just another plan to get more money in to feed their crook friends with pet projects. I have no problem pitching in more money if the government has cut back all the shitty spending and needs it. But when we dump this money into bullshit wars and retarded pet projects, I'll protest at any tax increases to the people in this country.

Some interesting conversations in this thread, mostly between Snakedoctor and Pocketkangaroo. Good information to consider.

Listen if you had a flat tax where everyone paid the same then the poor would have to get even more walfare or you'd have people starving living in the streets which would just lead to anarchy. The fact is rich people are rich because they live in the USA and not say N Korea. Now asking them to pay more then they should should not be a problem for them to be so lucky to live in the USA vs N Korea. Becuase if the USA was like N Korea Bill Gates would NOT have $55 billion to his name. FACT.

Sorry but ask 100 people

A) Make $10 and hour and pay no taxes ever.

B) Make $1 million a year but pay half of it in taxes.

All 100 will take option B

A minimum wage worker pays $7.65% of his income in FICA taxes. A person making $500K pays 1.5% So there is discrepency in the tax code all around.

Only problem I have with Obama's plan is

A) $250,000 is kind of arbitrary. The top tax bracket is $336,500 So why not make it that?
B) If you insist on raising the payroll tax don't also raise the top tax rate back to 39% One or the other.

At least the payroll tax adresses an issue. Social Security. Who knows where the extra tax $ from the tax increase on the top tax bracket will go. Perhaps Ted Stevens will use it to build another bridge to nowhere in alaska so he can get his "internet" to come faster through the tubes. It's not a truck you know.

In the end it's just a proposal. Obama isn't a king. Congress passes tax reform and even though the dems control congress they don't have 60 votes in the Senate to stop a GOP fillibuster so Obama won't have any other choice but to compromise with the GOP if he wishes to get anything done.

No one is advocating a flat tax, just saying the system is far too progressive. Asking 5% of the country to support the other 95% seems a tad unethical to me. Then saying "hey, that other 95% needs more stuff so lets just ask that 5% for more" seems even more unethical.

It's not a matter of what someone would prefer, it's ethical aspects of demanding one of those people to pay all the taxes for the other. The guy making a million dollars a year most likely worked very hard for it. He probably went to college, worked long hours, and was innovative. The guy making $10/hour probably didn't go to college, didn't try and better himself and wasn't innovative (and yes there are cases where this isn't true, but I'm going by the percentages here). So why punish the people in this country who are advancing business, technology, etc?

A person making $500k will not get back anywhere near what he puts in (even with the current system). There is a maximum payout on social security benefits. The guy who made $500k a year is paying for not only his retirement, but others who didn't make much money too.

Which makes this my gripe with the increase. Social Security was setup to be a pension of sorts for workers. It would now turn it into a welfare system.

The $250,000 thing bothers me too. Partly because $250,000 isn't as much as it used to be (especially with the inflation we'll be seeing). Don't get me wrong, a guy making that can support a nice family of 3 in a great neighborhood and big house, but it's not like he's flying private jets around. In fact, in may parts of the country, that wouldn't even be considered rich.

But my biggest gripe with all of this is they are looking for new revenue streams before fixing the problem with expenses. I have no problem paying more in taxes if it goes to things I think are worthwhile (health care, infrastructure, alternative energy, medicine). But I do have a problem with my government demanding more from people when they are the cause for needing more. They started this war, they allowed the spending to get out of hand, they are the ones responsible. I'd rather take a stand on this, tell them to cut the spending first, then come back to us and tell us what you need. The government is not a business that should be looking for new revenue streams.

Well then if the choice is to tough for you, and things don't turn out the way your like down the road, go fuck yourself.

I hate fucking people that are too weak to make a decision in life. Weak Weak Weak

I made a decision - the decision not to vote. If someone offers me several handfuls of shit as the only thing to eat, I'm going to make a decision - the decision is not take any of them. I'm being offered handfuls of shit in this election.

I spend a lot more time voting in my local elections which actually have a lot more effect on how things "turn out the way (I) like down the road." I'm guessing most of the people posting here vote once every 4 years and don't even bother with their local elections.

The choice is not to tough when one dislikes all of the candidates and when one knows...that no matter what...things are not going to turn out the way one would like. None of the above...becomes an easy choice...not a tough choice. I did not vote in the last Presidential election and I may not vote in the upcoming election. At this point in time...I view all of the candidates...of all of the partys to be equally bad choices.

You are correct...city...county and state elections have a greater impact upon ones daily life then the federal elections.

[QUOTE=pocketkangaroo;14320634]No one is advocating a flat tax, just saying the system is far too progressive. Asking 5% of the country to support the other 95% seems a tad unethical to me. Then saying "hey, that other 95% needs more stuff so lets just ask that 5% for more" seems even more unethical.[/bquote]

Oh some here do advocate a flat tax. If you make 95% of the money I'm not so sure what's wrong with you paying 95% of the taxes. And ironically with a flat tax that's what you'll get anyways.


It's not "punishment". If the rich guy thinks he had so bad of move to another country and see what his taxes are or how easily he can make money.

what is your answer make the rich pay les. then where does the money come from? It HAS to come from those that make less. Oh sure I'm sure people will say they need to cut spending. yeah when that day happens wings will sprout form my anus and I'll be able to fly.


No one gets back what they put in. As fas as I'm concerned it's system that's outlived its usefulness. Guess what, anyone advocating just getting rid of SS will never get elected.

I'ts always been a welfare system. A pension is you put money in and that money goes into an acocunt with your name and you get that money when you retire. Any money you pay into socail security TODAY goes to pay for people getting social security TODAY. there's no gurantee any of get a SS check. If you died before you collect SS you're shit out of luck. If you have a pension then you die your heirs get that money.

Well if someone can't live off $250K I'm not going to feel sorry for them. Anyways under this proposal a person making $250K would not even see an increase. A person making $350K would only pay in an extra $6200.

Payroll taxes go to pay SS benefits. that won't change. The fact is in less than 10 years SS will be paying out more than it takes in.

Sure there are other ways to fix it. But the AARP lobby won't let you. They'll scare old folk into believing you are going to take away their check and since old people vote more than younger people, you'll lose.

Back in the 80's they raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67. That helped some but let's face it people live A LOT longer now than they did in 1935. In fact the average lifeexpectancy in 1935 was 63. Doesn't that make you think.

Also they didn't raise the early retirement age. That's still 62. Why not if you raise retirement age to 67 it only makes sense to raise ealrly retirement to 64.

You could reduce benefits. I'm not seeing how one does that and gets re-elected. Considering people my age are my expected to get back 70% of what they paid in I'd have to say no fucking way to that.

You could let peole invest teh money themselves but not the retarded way Bush wanted it to be done. But not even his idea could get passed. And to me that would be a baby step over what I would have proposed.

I realize I live in the REAL world and solutions that I think are logical and fair are not going to get done. So the best soltuion is working within the system to get as much as you can within the restraints of the reality of how the world works.

Barr/Root in 08. As long as you think you only have 2 choice America will always get shit. I fmore peoel would vote 3rd party even if they have no chance in hell in getting elected maybe if enough vote the 2 parties will get it. Hell who knows if we had a 3rd party in Congress even at only 10% the other 2 parties would not have a chocie but to compromise if they wanted to get anything done.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/?s=0609-continue

You've been talking shit for the past year about politics, and you didn't even vote? Fuck you.
You don't even have a right to talk about any part of how this country is being run. I always knew you were a fucking blowhard and now you proved it.

I have never understood the act of not voting. Our forefathers for generations and generations have fought and died specifically for that right, and you fucking lazy ass can't even find the energy to read about the candidates and vote accordingly.

I personally think that if you don't vote, you should get deported and let the next person in line that wants to become a citizen take your place.

You obviously don't understand the very freedoms you're chirping about. True freedom not only means having the right to vote, it also means having the choice to abstain from voting if one feels none of the candidates are worth their vote.

One question, if I may... why do you always sound like such an angry punk in so many of your posts? Wouldn't it be nice to just once engage in a debate like an adult? You'd certainly drive home your points a lot more effectively than with all the "fuck you's" and punkspeak.

I'm just saying.

so really what you've said in this thread is you don't make shit for money. You would feel differently if you made more then 250k a year.

Because it's called go fuck yourself, not go debate yourself. If I wanted your opinion I would take a mirror and look at my asshole.

yeah, right . . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...barr021098.htm

And they do. Halliburton, Accenture, Tyco, Global Crossing, Cooper, Foster Wheeler have all moved overseas. Tons of companies are setting up shop in Bermuda. Everytime a billion dollar company moves overseas it adds more burden on to the average taxpayer.

While personally I feel there should be tougher laws on companies that derive most of their income from the United States while hiding in Bermuda, I think our high taxes play an equal role. I'd rather have 20% from these guys instead of the 0% we're getting.

There is no other answer besides less spending. Maybe that means simply re-organizing/streamlining procedures that cost too much in Washington, or maybe it is just cutting out unnecessary stuff. I would love to see a team of 3rd party consulting firms called in and let us know where government is throwing away its money.

The poor get back more than they put in, especially if they live a long life.

It would actually be an extra $12400 since. Essentially every dollar you make over $250,000 is being taxed at over 50%. That just seems insane to me that you would want to punish someone that much for being succesful.

I just don't get this thought process of wanting to penalize people for making money. Is it not beneficial for this country to be on the cutting edge of business and technology? Is it not beneficial to have a more intelligent population? Is it not beneficial to have people who work hard and are dedicated? If so, why continue to make them the scapegoats for the problems in this country. All you're doing is making it more beneficial for someone to skip the hard work and education part and pick up a job at UPS driving a truck for 30 years.

This is the crux of the problem. There is no long term solution for fixing it besides just taking more money. People are going to be living much longer and we're going to need much more money. Any of the real solutions will just piss old people off (the people who actually show up and vote).

I still feel it's best to offer much better breaks for individuals and companies who help you setup your own IRA/401K. Right now the tax breaks are minimal (considering there is a real low cap on how much you can invest for retirement). Raise those caps dramatically, especially for people who are over 50 and coming up on retirement (they currently have a "catch-up" limit but it's not nearly enough). Companies should also get breaks for running employee based 401k plans.

With that, you can raise the retirement age a few years, and potentially even the payouts. Those who have huge IRA/401K funds available (perhaps over $5 or $10 million) may be excluded from receiving social security checks.

The system is currently fucked up and I think needs an overhaul that goes beyond the simple "lets just take more money from rich guys".

I agree, I'd just do it as a protest vote. Even if you get 5% of the vote for a 3rd party candidate, it sends some waves through the political space. I don't think the Libertarian Party will be that 3rd party since they are still run by fucking loons. I do think a moderate party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative would have a great shot (and yes I know that usually means Libertarian but those guys are way over-the-top).

The only problem is that once a 3rd party gains any foothold in this country, the other 2 parties will enact rules that make it even harder for them to win (like after Perot).