Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 88

Thread: McCain is going to win

  1. #41
    [quote=Tucker134;2809712]That's what i'm saying!! I don't think people realize how well McCain's appearance on Letterman & his speech at the Alfred Smith dinner will resonate with undecided voters..he's finally showing the sense of humor that he's been known for- On the other hand, he should keep Palin quiet for the next 2 weeks...she hasn't been impressive at all IMO..& I was rooting for her[/quote]


    Allright! McCain for Court Jester! I'm sure Barrack will hire him s entertainmet for the Inngural Ball!

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    6,974
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2809646]It's going to happen...& it's not just wishful thinking on my part. Obama peaked too early, & McCain is just finding his groove. People have no idea who Obama is...he's an unknown commodity. There are numerous examples over the past 30 years of BS polls that favor a Democratic candidate, where the actual results turned out vastly different. McCain is a trusted, tried & true public servant. Joe the plumber's issue with Obama's tax plan brought out a response from him that he'll regret for a long, long time..."we need to spread the wealth around"- that's socialism. He almost had America fooled. The truth is he is a product of the radical left wing of the Democratic party; there is no denying that. And the fact that he's black doesn't help his cause. That's not a good thing, but it's reality. The Alfred Smith dinner earlier this week, coupled with his David Letterman appearance & response to Obama's run in with the disgruntled blue collar worker, has McCain's campaign energized again. Lastly, I have a feeling the Republicans have an October surprise to spring on the Obama campaign...& I suspect it'll involve something they've dug up on Michelle Obama. Let's hope so, because an Obama presidency, with Reid & Pelosi running Congress, would be a very scary thing.[/QUOTE]

    Good luck with that.:rolleyes:

  3. #43
    Here's what people don't understand just yet....

    This is a football site, so i'll use a football analogy

    Obama has a 4th quarter lead, & he had the ball. Joe the Plumber sacked him this week..."we need to spread the wealth around" = EXPOSED. The American people are starting to see Obama for who he really is....& it isn't "The One". He isn't bi-partisan, & never has been. He is smooth, but he comes from the gutter- the corrupt democratic political machine that is Chicago. Rabble rousing community organizers, black separatist preachers, admitted & unrepentant terrorist friends (not "some guy I know from the hood")...Tony Rezko? He's a Syrian Chicago slumlord who's now wearing an orange jumpsuit in prison..his ties to Obama are worthy of a separate post.

    McCain just got the ball back....

  4. #44
    McCain will win because no one wants to turn this country over to Reid & Pelosi. Obama is not change he has voted 96% of the time with Reid.

    I do believe in the final days leading to the election the focus will go back on Obama and voters will be thinking "do I really want this guy to be President"?

    Stay tuned...

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2809677]Except the media is almost 100% in Obama's corner...they're trying to shape everyone's views toward the democratic ticket in the hopes that American exceptionalism will take a backseat to western European socialism. That's not us![/QUOTE]

    I don't know if you noticed but the banks are all nationalized. That's not free market it's western european socialism. And we did it in tandem with Europe.

    that's Bush who did it by the way. Not Obama in Jan of 09. Bush did it today.

    American exceptionalism is dead... and W killed it. Turns out we aren't that different from the rest of the world. We might be optimistic or whatever else but we aren't that much better than any other country right now. In fact they all own our debt and their currency's kick our currency's butt on a daily basis.

  6. #46
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2809887]I don't know if you noticed but the banks are all nationalized. That's not free market it's western european socialism. And we did it in tandem with Europe.

    that's Bush who did it by the way. Not Obama in Jan of 09. Bush did it today.

    American exceptionalism is dead... and W killed it. Turns out we aren't that different from the rest of the world. We might be optimistic or whatever else but we aren't that much better than any other country right now. In fact they all own our debt and their currency's kick our currency's butt on a daily basis.[/QUOTE]

    The thing is, anyone who calls Obama a socialist is either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant of either 1 or 2 things:

    1) what actually is socialism, or

    2) what the US economic sytem is.

    The "spreading wealth" is socialist criticism is absolutely nonsense. Since the 1930s the USA has been spreading wealth around through taxation. People need to stop being willfully ignorant here.

    There are many people in this country who work who, legally don't pay taxes. I, on the otherhand, pay a whole bunch of taxes and those tax dollars are, in part, covering those who don't pay taxes. Plus, those taxes are used to benefit people who make less money than me.

  7. #47
    You need to check the facts......the $US dollar has rallied agains the yen/euro in the last few months to a staggering degree. The whole world flocks to US Treasuries when they want their cash in a SAFE PLACE. We still provide the beacon of light to the entire free world- The bank bailout was very unfortunate...but it had to happen. There's plenty of blame to go around, there's been enough threads on that.

    How sad that you believe American exceptionalism is dead, & that W killed it. I disagree. Clinton deserves credit for going to Bosnia & stopping ethnic cleansing when Europe wouldn't. What country is more charitable than the USA? Did you know that Clinton's official policy for Iraq was regime change? Do I need to go through each & every Democratic Senator/Comgressman/power player that didn't believe Saddam had WMD's? Or Eurpe for that matter? The 16 UN sanctions that Saddam violated? How about Dan Rather's Letterman appearance a few days after 9/11, that's since been pulled by You Tube...where they both cried while agreeing that we need to get Saddam...you live in the greatest country in the history of the world- It's too bad you don't see that.

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=SMC;2809922]The thing is, anyone who calls Obama a socialist is either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant of either 1 or 2 things:

    1) what actually is socialism, or

    2) what the US economic sytem is.

    The "spreading wealth" is socialist criticism is absolutely nonsense. Since the 1930s the USA has been spreading wealth around through taxation. People need to stop being willfully ignorant here.

    There are many people in this country who work who, legally don't pay taxes. I, on the otherhand, pay a whole bunch of taxes and those tax dollars are, in part, covering those who don't pay taxes. Plus, those taxes are used to benefit people who make less money than me.[/QUOTE]

    Thank you. I was beginning to think I had somehow entered a class for the intellectually challenged. To anyone who has watched the disparity between rich and poor widen substantially and the concentration of wealth escalate, the idea of "spreading the wealth" seems awfully reasonable to me. That doesn't make me a socialist. It merely makes me someone who thinks it's time the middle class stops getting screwed. I think most average Americans will get that message plain and clear. They're not fools. They know there is something very wrong with corporate pigs getting golden parachutes while their companies fail while the little guy gets laid off and has his pension taken away. It's not just about taxes; it's about closing loopholes that high-priced tax lawyers and accountants for corporations have been driving through for years. Just look at the ACTUAL taxes corporations pay, as opposed to the rate of taxation in the IRS code. It's frankly a joke. US corporations are among the least taxed in the western world after their accountants get done using the laws their lobbiests bought in congress.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2809806]The number of people on the lower end of the income scale who are exempt from federal income taxes has been increasing, while the proportion of the federal income-tax burden borne by higher-end taxpayers has gone up. If this is the fruit of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush class warfare on behalf of the wealthy, the boys down at the yacht club have to be bitterly disappointed.

    A study by the Tax Foundation (of all taxes, not just federal income taxes) found that between 1991 and 2004, “the only income group whose share of total taxes increased was the highest income quintile.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 40 percent of taxpayers paid 99.1 percent of federal income taxes in 2004, leaving the other 60 percent to pay .9 percent. The wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers — the focus of so much Democratic ire — pay nearly 40 percent of federal income taxes, and about as much as the entirety of the bottom 95 percent.

    People at the lowest end have been escaping federal income taxes entirely. More than 40 million income-tax filers have no income-tax liability. President Bush’s tax cuts increased the number of people in this category by millions. And more than 20 million families pay no income taxes while getting a check from the Treasury thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit, a bipartisan policy that President Bill Clinton made one of his causes.

    Our tax system is hugely redistributive. When all federal, state, and local taxes and spending are taken into account, the lowest 20 percent of households got $8.21 in spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while the top 40 percent paid more in taxes than they received in spending, according to the Tax Foundation. Overall, more than a trillion dollars was extracted by the U.S. government and handed out further down the income scale.

    Thus, in terms of "spreading the wealth around"....it's already been happening[/QUOTE]

    It's certainly not spreading from corporations....

    Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes
    Report Says Most Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes; Lawmakers Blame Loopholes
    By JENNIFER C. KERR Associated Press Writer
    The Associated Press
    WASHINGTON



    Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

    The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

    Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

    "It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

    An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

    "Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.

    The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

    More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

    The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.

    Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices — amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.

    "It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.

    ————

    On the Net:

    Government Accountability Office: [url]http://www.gao.gov[/url]


    Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

    Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Tucker rhymes with something....

    Facts about Wealth in the United States

    Title Facts about Wealth that every American should know
    Source: Office of Social Justice, Archdioeces of St. Paul and Minneapolis

    This page defines wealth as, "what you own minus what you owe. In other words, it is net assets."

    Selected quotes from the page:
    The [richest 1% of Americans] now own more than the bottom 90% [of Americans].
    The top 10% [of Americans] own 71% of all private wealth.
    Over 86 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds, including pensions, was held by the top 10 percent of households. In 1998, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock.
    Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the bottom 40% of U.S. households.
    In the 22 years between 1976 and 1998, the share of the nation's private wealth held by the top 1% nearly doubled, going from 22% to 38%.
    In 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals in the "Forbes 400" owned $92 billion. By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.

    And the number have gotten even more extreme since 2000. Yup, we definitely need to "spread the wealth" and damn soon. Or to quote our old friend Thomas Jefferson "a little rebellion once in a while is a healthy thing."

  11. #51
    Yeah, so what? The top 1% own alot of the public co's...therefore they own alot of the stock. If it wasn't for the taxes paid by Wall Street firms, NYC wouldn't be able to pay for much of anything....like picking up after you pigs in Greenwich Village. So enjoy your commune, it's on us.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2809986]Yeah, so what? The top 1% own alot of the public co's...therefore they own alot of the stock. If it wasn't for the taxes paid by Wall Street firms, NYC wouldn't be able to pay for much of anything....like picking up after you pigs in Greenwich Village. So enjoy your commune, it's on us.[/QUOTE]

    Go back and look at your statement about the distribution of taxes and then look at the distribution of wealth. If Bill Gates' wealth is equal to 40% of tax payers BY HIMSELF, what does that make you conclude about the rest of the 1% of the wealthiest? Your figure would suggest that they are NOT paying their fair share, even at the equivalent of 40% of US taxpayers...

  13. #53
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,672
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2809871]Here's what people don't understand just yet....

    This is a football site, so i'll use a football analogy

    Obama has a 4th quarter lead, & he had the ball. Joe the Plumber sacked him this week..."we need to spread the wealth around" = EXPOSED. The American people are starting to see Obama for who he really is....& it isn't "The One". He isn't bi-partisan, & never has been. He is smooth, but he comes from the gutter- the corrupt democratic political machine that is Chicago. Rabble rousing community organizers, black separatist preachers, admitted & unrepentant terrorist friends (not "some guy I know from the hood")...Tony Rezko? He's a Syrian Chicago slumlord who's now wearing an orange jumpsuit in prison..his ties to Obama are worthy of a separate post.

    McCain just got the ball back....[/QUOTE]
    But he's down by 3 touchdowns.

  14. #54
    [QUOTE=RIJetFan;2809818]Good luck with that.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    McCain made a big move Saturday among independent voters, cutting's Obama lead from 16 points to just 8 points. Now, Obama leads by a 46% to 38% margin, with the balance of independents either unsure or supporting someone else. McCain's strong performance at the Alfred E. Smith charity dinner in New York City Thursday, combined with his appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman Thursday night, may have had a positive effect. Other Zogby polling has recently shown that independent undecided voters tend to prefer consuming their politics in such entertainment venues.


    Ummmm, this from Zogby this MORNING...

  15. #55
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    [QUOTE=adb280z;2810015]But he's down by 3 touchdowns.[/QUOTE]

    Which is why he's started throwing all the Hail Marys (Bill Ayers/ACORN). Unfortunately, he's on the road, his team sucks, and they apparently don't have any wide receivers. The rookie they put in has trouble dropping the ball and had a few turnovers already so they've got no running game.

    I'd buy this theory if McCain's peak wasn't so much lower than Obama's valleys. Nobody likes him, and he doesn't have anything new to say. He's basically done, barring a catastrophe.

  16. #56
    It's so over. Obama is going to win. Sorry Reps, you'll have my vote this time around, but I don't even see it being close.

  17. #57
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2809684]In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

    A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.[/QUOTE]

    Wait... Bush won by 7.8 points
    1 month before the election he was leading by 2 points
    3 weeks before the election he was leading by 5 points

    And this shows how far off polls are?

  18. #58
    McCain is down 2.9 percentage points as per Zogby this morning....well within the margin of error. The media & 60% + of JI respondents can't change that....it's not SO OVER! Keep the faith McCain supporters...

  19. #59
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Katy, Texas
    Posts
    1,494
    [QUOTE=MysticalJet;2809731]This socialism word is thrown around constantly and people use is as a hate word. Democracy and socialism coexist everywhere. I can make an argument that globalization with all the global organizations is Democratic Socialism. Both Republicans and Dems have policies with socialist twists to them. Shoot, McCains idea for the gov't to buy the bad mortgage loans is a socialist idea.

    Please understand what socialism is before throwing it around it assuming democrats = socialists.[/QUOTE]

    I understand all too well. I have lived in socialist countries, have you? Probably not.

    Democrats do not signify socialism to me. Obama does, so does Hillary for that matter. Don't characterize my comments as applying to all Dems, that's not the case.

    Argue all you want - you obviously do not understand the rhetoric associated with socialism. If you did, you would see right thru Obama.

  20. #60
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2809986]Yeah, so what? The top 1% own alot of the public co's...therefore they own alot of the stock. If it wasn't for the taxes paid by Wall Street firms, NYC wouldn't be able to pay for much of anything....like picking up after you pigs in Greenwich Village. So enjoy your commune, it's on us.[/QUOTE]

    Dude do you even go to NYC?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us