A Message To Liberals
 

It is hard to understand why people are so in love with Obama. Do they hate Bush so much that they would cut off their own nose to spite him? If you want the REALITY of an Obama Presidency and Democratic Congress just take a look at California. When Governor Grey Davis(D)was recalled the state had a $15,000,000,000.00 deficit. The newly elected Govenator ARHOLD floated a Bond Issue to cover the deficit. In the past 5 years the revenues in California increased by $24,000,000,000.00 a year. California OUTSPENT those new revenues with an increase in government bureaucracy and is NOW facing another $15,000,000,000.00 deficit. The Democrats JUST DON"T KNOW WHEN TO STOP SPENDING out in California. What makes anybody think it would be any different on a national level? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from Lib central....San Francisco.

California to remedy the situation is proposing to raise income taxes on the Rich and Businesses by $8,200,000,000.00 or raise the Sales Tax by another Penny. That means a 9.50% Sales Tax rate.... How many sales will California lose to the Internet before California closes the hole to stop the bleeding.

what needs to happen is that there needs to be a law passed that taxes collected need to be spent in certain percentages and that they don't get another dime.

x for fire Dept's
y for paychecks
p for infrastructure
and so forth.


this 1 percent here and there is a death by a thousand paper-cuts.

Pair o dice!

Ted, Liberals are the new Conservatives. You guys have bankrupted the country, squandered its moral high ground, used the Constitution as toilet paper and enslaved our children in debt to the Chinese. nuff said, get over it, move on.

Shaun,

Don't hold back now, no sugar coating...tell us in plain and simple language how you REALLY feel :D

Shauny the Liberals ARE NOT THE NEW CONSERVATIVES. Do U honestly think that when given the keys to the piggy bank to fund new Federal Socail Programs that there will be the least bit of restraint? CA's Liberal government is a REALITY, the deficit is REAL. Granted the Republicans ain't done so well either, but with McCain there is hope of a return to fiscal responsibility, with the Liberals there is NO HOPE of that happening.

Shauny just take a look at what Obama and his advisors say about his eco0nomic thinking. Obama has said, "The greastest influence on my life was my mother, and she was a very socially conscience person." He was parsing words when he said "Socially Conscience" that means his inclination is to take from the Rich which means Middle Class to someone from South Chicago and givve to the poor....the people who live in South Chicago. Total socialism is his idea of a perfect world. That is the base line with Obama. Then ya take a look at the Nancy Pelosi's of the world and they are give away artists themselves. If ya think I am joking ask your fellow Pelicans who live in CA what they think.

Tabs, you've hit one nail on the head AFAIC. In order to curb the outside state sales to CA, all we need is a national sales tax. It could be low and lightly affect the low state, or no state sales tax areas. But, the proceeds would benefit all states.

Beyond that, we need to enforce the fact that sales tax IS due on all sales to CA from other states. The CA resident is supposed to file and pay. Not likely this is going to be an easy job to collect those taxes, but if we did, there would be no need for the bond or the tax increase. And it would bring CA dollars back to CA.

:eek:

...because the 49 other states need to help CA?

You miss the point, I'm afraid. While the national sales tax may not be a panacea, who could not use more money? Or less of the Federal money?

AFAIK, the Fed money is not distributed equally.

Its not that Bush is so great, or McCain is anything great either...But Obama is a DIASTER waiting to happen. All he has is a bunch of smooth sounding words that buzz in the ears of Liberals as being something great. He is light in the loafers of experience folks, guys like Putin will eat him for lunch. A Democratic Congress will run over any inkling of restraint that he might posse.

Then one has to look at who is really calling the shots for Obama, and that would be one Edward Kennedy and the Daley Brothers. Do you think Obam,a is in control of anything other than showing up for speeches? It is practically like he is reading from a script that has been written for him. He is great in front of large crowds, but pi$$ poor one on one. Also EXACTLY WHY is Caroline Kennedy on the VP vetting commitee? That right there is the smoking gun....

So what we have is another Teddy Kennedy ultra left wing Liberal running on the Democratic Ticket. Who among you thinks that Caroline Kennedy is going to pick anybody for VP that is not simpatico with her beliefs? Nobody is going to be selected that can outshine the Bama man. They are having trouble finding someone who fits the part....they are left with who???? Timmy kaine...are they serious....talk about a left wing light weight....he has a sing songy voice....he is the new Gov of VA....and before that he was a mayor of Norfolk? His wifes father was a previous govenator, he is Catholic, Harvard educated AND Caroline LIVES IN VA.......Anyone care to guess why Timmy Kaine is on the short list for Obama VP.

BTW: when I posted some of this stuff on the Charlie Rose Comment Board...I got a real nasty reply that sounded like a Brahman....telling the regular folk not to pay any attention to Tabby. My guess is that a whale of Kennedyista made that comment.

Now with Kennedy in charge does anyone think that a Clinton will be anywhere near the WH with a Bama man in residence. There is a major split in that party... AND if Edward is in REALLY BAD SHAPE during the Convention Do not count out Hillary trying to steal the nomination...

Hey Milt you are heading for a banning with Wayne.....for your offensive rhetoric...

Wow.

So, we get your good stuff today. ..

No, it would be the other way around. California already pays much more than it's share in federal taxes (about 35% more than their share), and with an economy this big California would also pay a much higher amount of a national sales tax than it would get back from the feds. They would use California's extra revenue to support the poor states, just like they do now.

No, I don't think that is the answer. California needs to stop spending money supporting the illegal aliens here, California needs to stop the 300,000 or so that flood across our border every year, California needs to stop the entitlement hemorrhaging that is killing us. Things like free medical for life and early full pensions for many state employees. California needs to pass a balanced budget initiative that says they absolutely cannot spend more money than they take in.

Funny thing is, Arnold tried to do all those things. The democrat-controlled legislature and the special interest groups (teacher's union, firefighter's union, police union, nurse's union etc) all ganged up and broke all spending records to defeat the governor's initiatives. No, the liberals in California brought this on themselves. You asked for it, you got it. Asshats every one of you that voted against the governor's ballot initiatives.
The republicans told you so but noooooooooooooooo............ you democrats are too smart to listen to us. You know better. Now look at the mess you've made, and you think that you can solve it with more taxes?

You'll get more taxes and fight over that money like sharks in a feeding frenzy. SPEND SPEND SPEND GIMME GIMME GIMME I WANT MORE THAN MY SHARE then cry when it's all gone and say you need even more.
Are there any democrat politicians out there that have ever actually balanced a check book? I seriously doubt it.

I disagree entirely! Putin ate Bush for lunch. Obama will be dessert.

sounding a little shrill here Ted, what we need now is Scott and his Chicken Little pic!:D

If Obama's friends from college are telling the truth, experience isn't the only way that Obama is light in the loafers.

I'm pretty passionate about the direction our country is going. We're in for some rough times ahead based on the last 20 years of failed policy.

O ,,,,,,,,,,,, K,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, can you provide just one example of Putin eating Bush's lunch please? Something real and substantial and no cut and pasted from some wacko liberal nut-case blog. Thanks.

oh Sammy, I didn't say Putin ate Bush's lunch. I said Putin ATE Bush for lunch.

Bottom line: Government doesn't have a funding problem. Government has a spending problem.

So I guess that would include the Clintongs then ??? Gee, I thought you woulda loved them :D

Yawn

So you are in a bad position due to 20 years of bad policy by both parties and you want to turn and run the wrong direction

Why would you think that Mark? :confused:

It's not "me", it's us. we're in a bad position, together.

I've chosen the least wrong direction in which to run. Obama may result in us tumbling down a hill. McCain will result in running off a cliff. That is my opinion.

Well Shaun, to answer your question, your post said 'twenty years of bad policy' or something to that effect. So do the math, amigo. Sheeesh.. :D

Aside to Tobra.... Right on !

I'm confused. Why would you think I'm pro-Clinton? I've been consistently down on Clinton in many areas of his Presidency. I think one of the few things he got really right was Welfare Reform. it was a bold move in concert with Congress at the time. I am disappointed that with the baby steps taken under Clinton, we haven't evolved the reforms put in, strengthening what works, ditching what didn't, getting more people to work paying taxes, not receiving the benefits of taxes.

I guess you haven't seen my take on entitlement programs.

yes, 20 years includes Clinton's tenure. he could have done so much more than he did, but he cared more about himself than the country ultimately.

Maybe, but we have enormous costs just to do business. More money raised isn't the total answer. More money and better spending policies will work for now.

But, this thread is moving in too many directions. I won't even touch Sam's vile spewing. Save that stuff for some hate thread.

Shaun,

Damn, this is funny, go back and read the post I replied to. It/you said 'twenty years of bad policy' That, if you do some basic arithmatic, includes the Clinton years. That's ALL I was alluding to, mi amigo :rolleyes:

You are so young, apparently, (nothing wrong with that...I wish I was) and get too wrapped around the axle on this stuff. Chill a bit... Realize that 'We the People' have zilch to say about any of what happens....but then I have been accused of being a bit cynical. ;)

Get some sleep....me too...

After watching Obama, McCain last night.....Geez...Shaun you are way out in left field, so far out you are lost in the weeds.

The ever equivocal Obama and the direct to the point McCain. Obama is a chimera.

It's a left versus right thing Shaun, you godless lefties, you cowboy neocon righties, that sort of thing.

BTW, you are right it is we(or us, as the case may be) I say you because you are supporting Mr Obama, who made a great answer on the who would you not nominate for SCOTUS, I must say.

And I don't agree with you. That's why I asked for an example or evidence to back up what you said.

that would be the the nanosecond from the moment Bush said he looked in Putin's eyes and saw his soul, to the present.

While Bush was intellectualizing on how to turn Democrats into traitors for political gain, Putin was playing the long game.

Bizarre. First I see a thread about how science is meaningless except to humans, or something like that. I figured I need more mescaline to understand that one. And now this.....

Noting the spending practices of a conservative Republican governator as an example of liberal spending excesses? Take a closer look. Shaun is right. Lately, that is.....the past twenty years or so, spending has been positively correlated to conservative administrations, and negatively correlated to liberal administrations. You guys are watching the sunset of the administration that has re-written the record books on spending, leaving all previous contenders in the dust.....and you're frozen in fear of Obama. I don't get it. Frankly, objectively, your worst fear should be that Obama will spend like Bush 2 and Reagan. That's a worst case scenario that, statistically, you should not be expecting. If Obama spends like Clinton, he will be.....technically....."conservative" compared to your heros.

Once again, the President proposes the budget, the Senate (after some meaningless crap by the House) approves the budget and makes it law, and only if they want too. Once the budget gets to the Senate, the Pres is nearly a non-factor unless he is veto override proof.

Also, the budget is almost wholly mandated spending, which is indexed and increased every year since those entitlements are law...laws made by who?

Was the Senate Rep under Reagan...how many riders were on the budget in the '80's? How's Pelosi doing with this budget?

You guys (reps and dems) worry way too much about blaming the other party while both parties are fleecing you. That is the worst case scenario.

Jesus, where is my pink box:cool:

WTF are you talking about, conservative Republican governator? No such animal, if you think Ahnold is a conservative Republican you are greatly misinformed about this subject too.

I am concerned about what Mr Obama and Ms Pelosi will accomplish together.

Mr Obama is far to the left of Mr Clinton on practically every subject, Mr Clinton is a morally bankrupt moderate, his wife may be evil, but she is not convinced the United States is evil. Mr Clinton was blessed with a booming economy that was left over from his predecessors. Mr Reagan did well to get us out of the Carter Malaise


Mr Obama will make our current President look like Barry Freakin' Goldwater, if that does not petrify you with terror, you are not paying nearly enough attention