Yep, all three are liberal although McCain is the least liberal. He has crossed party lines more than any other republican.
It's a no lose for liberals this election.
Obama - Ultra liberal (a national disaster waiting to happen)
Clinton - Liberal
McCain - Middle road, about 50% liberal, 50% conservative.
ronbo: since you don't like any of the candidates, which of those that ran for either ticker that's now out of it did you like? (e.g.: ron paul, john edwards, huckabee....?)
Yep, all three are liberal although McCain is the least liberal. He has crossed party lines more than any other republican.
It's a no lose for liberals this election.
Obama - Ultra liberal (a national disaster waiting to happen)
Clinton - Liberal
McCain - Middle road, about 50% liberal, 50% conservative.
ronbo: since you don't like any of the candidates, which of those that ran for either ticker that's now out of it did you like? (e.g.: ron paul, john edwards, huckabee....?)
I like McCain OK but don't think he was the best choice. I think Huckabee would have been better. Strong on border security and McCain isn't. Obama and Clinton will just let the illegals stream in like Bush has. I'm afraid McCain might also. Hopefully the States will crack down on illegals and require temporary work permits.
Yep, all three are liberal although McCain is the least liberal. He has crossed party lines more than any other republican.
It's a no lose for liberals this election.
Obama - Ultra liberal (a national disaster waiting to happen)
Clinton - Liberal
McCain - Middle road, about 50% liberal, 50% conservative.
So, in your definition, anyone who isn't a mindless drone and who doesn't follow every single party-line vote of the Republican Party is a "Democrat?"
Exactly how stupid do you like your candidates to be?
If either party had all of the right answers, they would probably have done a lot better job running our country through the years. Wedding yourself to the "liberal bad/conservative good" and "Democrat bad/Republican good" mindset just makes a person willfully ignorant.
Reality is a little more complicated than that.
For starters, define "liberal" and "conservative" for me. I'm not saying to give me a laundry list of talking points on different issues, but define for me what, in your mind, defines the political philosophies you call "liberal" and "conservative."
Bush is more liberal than McCain in my opinion. He's soft on immigration and a big pork spender. The only vetos he's used in over 7 years were bills to stop spending on the war. He has signed every other spending bill that's crossed his desk. He's been a wimp towards Iran and North Korea too. Hillary would be tougher than Bush. He did have the tax cut that reduced taxes under $9300 after deductions to 10%. That's a person making $18,000 or under pays just 10% on their net income under the Bush tax cuts. The Dems will not renew those tax cuts and those millions of poor will get a 50% tax increase to 15%. So I do applaud Bush for cutting taxes to the poor.
Bush is more liberal than McCain in my opinion. He's soft on immigration and a big pork spender. The only vetos he's used in over 7 years were bills to stop spending on the war. He has signed every other spending bill that's crossed his desk. He's been a wimp towards Iran and North Korea too. Hillary would be tougher than Bush. He did have the tax cut that reduced taxes under $9300 after deductions to 10%. That's a person making $18,000 or under pays just 10% on their net income under the Bush tax cuts. The Dems will not renew those tax cuts and those millions of poor will get a 50% tax increase to 15%. So I do applaud Bush for cutting taxes to the poor.
Again, please define "liberal." How are you using that term? What does it mean?
By the way, I don't think the Dems are talking about renewing taxes on poor people ... you're simply not telling the truth there. They are talking only about getting rid of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. You can be against that sort of thing, but at least be informed and honest when you criticize their policies.
Bush is more liberal than McCain in my opinion. He's soft on immigration and a big pork spender. The only vetos he's used in over 7 years were bills to stop spending on the war. He has signed every other spending bill that's crossed his desk. He's been a wimp towards Iran and North Korea too. Hillary would be tougher than Bush. He did have the tax cut that reduced taxes under $9300 after deductions to 10%. That's a person making $18,000 or under pays just 10% on their net income under the Bush tax cuts. The Dems will not renew those tax cuts and those millions of poor will get a 50% tax increase to 15%. So I do applaud Bush for cutting taxes to the poor.
Ronbo,
Do you just make up stuff as you go? Here is a list of his vetoes, I think it is pretty clear you are wrong. And how exactly would HC be tougher? Is it because she threatened to Nuke Iran?
1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).
2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of, H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.
3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).
5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto.
6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).
7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007[18]. Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).
8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[19]
9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[20] [21]. Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.
The Democratic Congress has vowed not to renew the tax cuts. Here is what that means.
Capital Gains: Rates will rise to 10 or 20 percent, depending upon income, on January 1, 2009.
Dividends: Rates will rise to match standard income tax rates on January 1, 2009.
Child Credit: This credit will shrink from $700 to $500 per child on January 1, 2011.
The Income Tax: Rates will increase between 3 and 4.5 percentage points in each bracket on January 1, 2011.
The 10 Percent Bracket: The bracket will be eliminated on January 1, 2011, raising the income tax burden of many workers by 5 percentage points.
The 15 Percent Bracket for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, the upper limit of this bracket will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the upper limit of the 15 percent bracket for single filers, creating a marriage penalty.
Standard Deduction for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, this will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the standard deduction for single filers, creating a marriage penalty.
The Estate Tax: The top rate for this tax will increase to 60 percent on January 1, 2011, and the value of an estate exempt from taxation will shrink to $1 million, which is less than it is today.
The Democratic Congress has vowed not to renew the tax cuts. Here is what that means.
Capital Gains: Rates will rise to 10 or 20 percent, depending upon income, on January 1, 2009.
Dividends: Rates will rise to match standard income tax rates on January 1, 2009.
Child Credit: This credit will shrink from $700 to $500 per child on January 1, 2011.
The Income Tax: Rates will increase between 3 and 4.5 percentage points in each bracket on January 1, 2011.
The 10 Percent Bracket: The bracket will be eliminated on January 1, 2011, raising the income tax burden of many workers by 5 percentage points.
The 15 Percent Bracket for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, the upper limit of this bracket will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the upper limit of the 15 percent bracket for single filers, creating a marriage penalty.
Standard Deduction for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, this will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the standard deduction for single filers, creating a marriage penalty.
The Estate Tax: The top rate for this tax will increase to 60 percent on January 1, 2011, and the value of an estate exempt from taxation will shrink to $1 million, which is less than it is today.
Just remember the Dems are telling you it isn't a tax increase, even though you pay more in taxes.
Ummm ... ronbo ... I know what was in that bill. There was no need to copy and paste that into a post. But you do realize that the Democrats have the ability to let that bill expire WHILE AT THE SAME TIME proposing new legislation to cherry pick the tax cuts they want to keep to make permanent, right?
And you and I both know that the Democrats won't be raising taxes on poor people. They will be only raising taxes on the "wealthy." The two candidates have specifically stated that many times. This isn't a secret.
And again, can you please define "liberal" for us in terms of how you are using it?
Ummm ... ronbo ... I know what was in that bill. There was no need to copy and paste that into a post. But you do realize that the Democrats have the ability to let that bill expire WHILE AT THE SAME TIME proposing new legislation to cherry pick the tax cuts they want to keep to make permanent, right?
And you and I both know that the Democrats won't be raising taxes on poor people. They will be only raising taxes on the "wealthy." The two candidates have specifically stated that many times. This isn't a secret.
And again, can you please define "liberal" for us in terms of how you are using it?
Ummm ... ronbo ... I know what was in that bill. There was no need to copy and paste that into a post. But you do realize that the Democrats have the ability to let that bill expire WHILE AT THE SAME TIME proposing new legislation to cherry pick the tax cuts they want to keep to make permanent, right?
And you and I both know that the Democrats won't be raising taxes on poor people. They will be only raising taxes on the "wealthy." The two candidates have specifically stated that many times. This isn't a secret.
And again, can you please define "liberal" for us in terms of how you are using it?
BAC please define "wealthy".
I believe the candidates have already done that in their stump speeches ... each probably having a different cut-off.
It's not me that's using that term to promote their policy -- it's them.
If I was ranting and raving about the "wealthy" in the same way Ronbo is using "liberal" as a derogatory term, I would take the time to define exactly what that meant in the context of what I was ranting and raving about. Absent that, the terms are pretty meaningless ... especially "liberal" since nobody who ever uses "liberal" as a derogatory term seems to have any consistent definition for it. They just use it to mean "bad."
Forgive me, I thought you were ranting and raving about Rondo's ranting and raving. I also think it's been established that we have a different opinion of what wealthy is.
On a side note. Oboma wants to take off the 100,000K cap on Social Security tax. I think its a good first step in paying for Social Security. I also know it's going to get him killed as a tax and spend Liberal by people such as Rondo.
Is a person making 120,000 that ends up paying more Social Security taxes wealthy? I'm not sure if Oboma stated 100,000 as his cut off point for no new taxes in that ABC debate.
Forgive me, I thought you were ranting and raving about Rondo's ranting and raving. I also think it's been established that we have a different opinion of what wealthy is.
Yes, I was ranting and raving about Ronbo's ranting and raving ... but that doesn't change the fact that I wasn't using the term "wealthy" in the same way he was using the word "liberal." I referenced the term "wealthy" (in quotation marks as emphasis) to indicate that this is a subjective term and is defined by those who use it ... in this case, the candidates we are talking about.
I don't recall ever saying what my personal opinion of "wealthy" is, but if I ever use that term in an argument of my own, I will certainly be sure to define it precisely.
On a side note. Oboma wants to take off the 100,000K cap on Social Security tax. I think its a good first step in paying for Social Security. I also know it's going to get him killed as a tax and spend Liberal by people such as Rondo.
Is a person making 120,000 that ends up paying more Social Security taxes wealthy? I'm not sure if Oboma stated 100,000 as his cut off point for no new taxes in that ABC debate.
Ronbo was arguing that they wanted to raise taxes on poor people. It was on that point that I disagreed with him.
I think we can all agree that it is likely that taxes will go up for people in the highest tax brackets if the Democrats take the White House and hold Congress (as they have actually promised to do just that).
Whether that is a good or bad thing would be a good debate.
But ronbo saying that the Democrats are going to do things that they haven't said they'd do (and actually promised they wouldn't do) is something that either needs to be ignored by everyone or proactively refuted.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
