Republican Candidates

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
You think McCain is a liberal?
Yes, in many ways.
Let's not forget Kerry asked McCain to be his running mate in 2004 and McCain took forever to turn him down.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
The rich are taxed less.
The top 50% of wage earners pay over 90% of the total federal tax collected.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
The top 50% of wage earners pay over 90% of the total federal tax collected.
lol, I think it was this thread, but I've already had that debate with him.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
Thompson. I like him. Most don't. If you don't like him, please explain why to me.
Well since you asked...
Consider the news his candidacy has generated:
•He refuses to take a pledge not to raise taxes;
•He lobbied for an abortion advocacy group before becoming a U.S. senator;
•He employed his son in a no-show job for $170,000 for four years at his political action committee after leaving office;
•As a lobbyist, he helped the attorney representing the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, to fight requests to extradite them to the U.K. to stand trial;
•His other lobbying clients included Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the leftist Haitian dictator who, but for a lack of oil, would have been the Hugo Chavez of the last generation;
•He skipped and is skipping the first two debates of his presidential candidacy and said he was looking forward to attending the Oct. 14 New Hampshire debate -- the one that was cancelled weeks ago;
•He is taking this week off from presidential campaigning;
•He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment.;
•He is also unfamiliar with the proposal to lower soaring insurance premiums Floridians must pay for home storm coverage since the hurricanes;
•He said that Iraqis were supporting us because of al Qaeda's ban on smoking;
•He's run through three campaign managers and as many communications directors in just three months;
•He fell short in the fundraising competition, coming up with only a net of $2.8 million by the end of July;
•After leaving the Senate, he picked up his lobbying career by representing Equitas, an insurance company he helped dodge paying for asbestos/cancer claims;
•After negative publicity about his comments suggesting that Cuban immigrants were potential suicide bombers, he blamed Hillary Clinton for causing the publicity by "releasing a statement that she made trying to capitalize on something when she knew better";
•He didn't know enough about drilling in the Everglades to comment.
Not bad for the first two weeks of a presidential campaign!
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
How about taking the war money and using it for something else? If they can find money to support a country (Iraq), why not support the homeland first? Look at the billions of dollars that have been spent on this war so far. How much in healthcare services would that have paid for the citizens of THE UNITED STATES? We've been through the 'war mess' in numerous other threads, but I've personally seen no benefit from this 'war' (and please don't say 'your security from terrorism and your democratic freedom.'
)
Actually, military spending helps fuel the economy. Many economists attribute WWII spending as the trigger that eneded the Great Depression.
Military spending creates jobs, dollars are turned over in the local, state and national economy based on the mutiplier impact(less some leakage). Each dollar spent on miltary spending is then returned via taxes, etc. and pumped back into the economy
That is the benefit to your local, state and national economy regarding the war....and government spending in general for goods. The economy would actually be in worse shape as what you propose creates far more leakage on the economy, plus much higer taxes to support socialized medicine. In the end, quality, coverage and the overall economy suffers, as too much money is removed from the economy in support of subsidized government run healthcare. There is less money to spend as more taxes will be moved to a system doomed for failure.
tax rates would have to be increased significantly to cover your plan.....leading to higher rates of unemployment and more people relying on governemnt to take car of them.
In the end...the country is weaker..and Ali baba is in your front yard ready to toss a dirty bomb threw your window.
But hey, you'll be on the 6 month waiting list after the terrorist attack to see your Dr..if he/she is still around. Perhaps you won't make it though...as I doubt they will leave any survivors around. in your neighborhood.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Again, you pull out of my argument the only thing YOU THINK supports your views. Of course you completely ignore the validity of my other comments because they are true, and you still refuse to accept them. You making a trip to San Antonio? I'm sure you'll be in the very front of the MLK march. Interesting that it appears you're the only person on this forum that is African American. At least no one else seems to be supporting your viewpoints. So does that make the saltwater aquarium hobby racist?
You are sadly mistaken if you believe black discrimination no longer exists are is no longer a problem in society.
We have made strides in many areas, but we still have a long way to go.
I am not black...but I respect what I hear from those that still experience discrimintation based on the color of their skin.
You are mistaken regarding your statment there were just as many balck slaves in the north during the Civil War.
If you decide to study US Economic History...you will find there were two US economies during the Cvil War era...the north was based wage labor and the south based on slave labor.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I agree. I have no problem with higher taxes as long as it's for the war and not the war + a horde of failing social programs.
That's the problem with all social programs. All fall short of goals, projections of cost and outcomes fall below expectations.
Those that rely on governemnt to take care of them regarding their needs ...will be let down.
The track record for social prrograms is perfect....all failures based on outcome.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
The top 50% of wage earners pay over 90% of the total federal tax collected.
That may be true, however; based on % of taxable income...it seems from what I've been hearing lately from those like Buffet.." Any CEO who comes forward and and can show they pay a higher % of their taxable income than their secretary does... I will give them $1 million cash."
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Well since you asked...
Consider the news his candidacy has generated:
•He refuses to take a pledge not to raise taxes;
•He lobbied for an abortion advocacy group before becoming a U.S. senator;
•He employed his son in a no-show job for $170,000 for four years at his political action committee after leaving office;
•As a lobbyist, he helped the attorney representing the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, to fight requests to extradite them to the U.K. to stand trial;
•His other lobbying clients included Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the leftist Haitian dictator who, but for a lack of oil, would have been the Hugo Chavez of the last generation;
•He skipped and is skipping the first two debates of his presidential candidacy and said he was looking forward to attending the Oct. 14 New Hampshire debate -- the one that was cancelled weeks ago;
•He is taking this week off from presidential campaigning;
•He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment.;
•He is also unfamiliar with the proposal to lower soaring insurance premiums Floridians must pay for home storm coverage since the hurricanes;
•He said that Iraqis were supporting us because of al Qaeda's ban on smoking;
•He's run through three campaign managers and as many communications directors in just three months;
•He fell short in the fundraising competition, coming up with only a net of $2.8 million by the end of July;
•After leaving the Senate, he picked up his lobbying career by representing Equitas, an insurance company he helped dodge paying for asbestos/cancer claims;
•After negative publicity about his comments suggesting that Cuban immigrants were potential suicide bombers, he blamed Hillary Clinton for causing the publicity by "releasing a statement that she made trying to capitalize on something when she knew better";
•He didn't know enough about drilling in the Everglades to comment.
Not bad for the first two weeks of a presidential campaign!
He is a lobbyist.. I think its b/w Huckabee and McCain...I think they will be the last 2 standing.
As far as democrates.. I think Obama will win both S.C and NV... I think the remarks about Obama will hurt her in S.C as well as the Culinary Union lawsuit in NV.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
He is a lobbyist.. I think its b/w Huckabee and McCain...I think they will be the last 2 standing....
He's also the most Conservative of the bunch.
Neither McCain nor Huckabee are true Conservatives and a large segment of the Republican Party is sick and tired of "negotiating" with Democrats. We want a Conservative to stand for what we believe and fight for it.
 

rylan1

Active Member
So what do you all thing about the economy and the new proposed Ecomomy Relief package they are talking about. What candidate do you think would be best in getting us out of this mess?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
So what do you all thing about the economy and the new proposed Ecomomy Relief package they are talking about. What candidate do you think would be best in getting us out of this mess?
What mess?
The only "mess" we are in right now was brought upon us by Americans living outside of their means and not reading the fine print in their mortgages.
The best way to "fix" it is to allow the Free Market to run it's course.
So I feel the best candidate would be the any of them willing to make the tax cuts permanent and to keep Government's involvement in business to a minimum.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
What mess?
The only "mess" we are in right now was brought upon us by Americans living outside of their means and not reading the fine print in their mortgages.
The best way to "fix" it is to allow the Free Market to run it's course.
So I feel the best candidate would be the any of them willing to make the tax cuts permanent and to keep Government's involvement in business to a minimum.
Fact is we are in a mess... its not just mortages its inflation and higher energy costs. Leading economists are saying we are either already in a recession or right on the edge of one, and they are predicting on things getting worse. Of course you can blame people for their circumstances; however, you have to place a lot of blame on lenders who mislead people w/o full disclosure. I agree that some people sought out to live above their means, but the mortage lenders gave these people the impression that the loans where affordable. All I'm saying is that its not a one-way street. You give people the idea they can afford a home and approve it (by changing peoples income on forms), when maybe just a year ago they believed this was only a dream.
Another note: Nationwide Insurance is laying off like a 1000 people to avoid falling into a crunch based on staying ahead of a recession. When people get laid off its a clear sign that things are not looking good.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Since the beginning of the 1900's this couintry has experienced a recession every 6-10 years. It has nothing to do with policies of the government in office at the time is my current belief. It has everything to do with the people in the economy and the consumer.
Why should the government bail anyone out for these

[hr]
problems? In the long run it will hurt the financial institutions more so than those fore closed on. It goes on their credit for a few years is all. They can still go rent a place for a while. Foreclosure is better on your credit than bankruptcy, i know this first hand through my brother who just got divorced and foreclosed on because his ex- wife was stupid and didn't pay the

[hr]
with the money he gave her.
The

[hr]
companies will be out a loan, have to refurbish the houses because I guarantee they will need fixing up, foot the cost of placing it on the market and with the market dropping lose money on their next deal. So I say do nothing. those that signed the loan will be better off than the

[hr]
companies in the end and force the

[hr]
companies to make a decision on if they wish to restructure loans to a lower payment so their current loans can be saved. Thus allowing the people to still stay in their house.
As for energy costs, heating homes in winter has gone up, but with a 2000 dollar investment you can heat your home now with pellet stoves for 200-400 dollars for a winter versus that cost for a month. So There are energy options out there and more and more people are going this route now.
Why does the government need to do anything, how about doing something for yourself for once?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Fact is we are in a mess... its not just mortages its inflation and higher energy costs. Leading economists are saying we are either already in a recession or right on the edge of one, and they are predicting on things getting worse. Of course you can blame people for their circumstances; however, you have to place a lot of blame on lenders who mislead people w/o full disclosure. I agree that some people sought out to live above their means, but the mortage lenders gave these people the impression that the loans where affordable. All I'm saying is that its not a one-way street. You give people the idea they can afford a home and approve it (by changing peoples income on forms), when maybe just a year ago they believed this was only a dream.
Another note: Nationwide Insurance is laying off like a 1000 people to avoid falling into a crunch based on staying ahead of a recession. When people get laid off its a clear sign that things are not looking good.
Rylan, this goes back to the fundamental difference you and I have.
I believe individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions. You believe the government needs to step in and aid people.
If you buy a house it is YOUR responsibility to understand the loan you are AGREEING too. If a person is too uninformed to read and understand their loan agreement then maybe home ownership isn't the best idea for them right now.
Nationwide may very well be laying off people in fear that the government is going to step in and not allow them to forclose on homes they now legally own?
Energy prices have absolutely nothing to do with the President. If you believe Hillary when she says she will lower fuel prices you need to study the global market a bit more. She's already expressed an interest in a "windfall" tax on the oil companies for making large profits. Taxing oil companies will drive them out of the USA, prevent them from spending excess profits on new technology and prevent them from exploring for new oil fields. Surely you don't actually believe this will lead to a lowering of gas prices...
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Since the beginning of the 1900's this couintry has experienced a recession every 6-10 years. It has nothing to do with policies of the government in office at the time is my current belief. It has everything to do with the people in the economy and the consumer.
Why should the government bail anyone out for these

[hr]
problems? In the long run it will hurt the financial institutions more so than those fore closed on. It goes on their credit for a few years is all. They can still go rent a place for a while. Foreclosure is better on your credit than bankruptcy, i know this first hand through my brother who just got divorced and foreclosed on because his ex- wife was stupid and didn't pay the

[hr]
with the money he gave her.
The

[hr]
companies will be out a loan, have to refurbish the houses because I guarantee they will need fixing up, foot the cost of placing it on the market and with the market dropping lose money on their next deal. So I say do nothing. those that signed the loan will be better off than the

[hr]
companies in the end and force the

[hr]
companies to make a decision on if they wish to restructure loans to a lower payment so their current loans can be saved. Thus allowing the people to still stay in their house.
As for energy costs, heating homes in winter has gone up, but with a 2000 dollar investment you can heat your home now with pellet stoves for 200-400 dollars for a winter versus that cost for a month. So There are energy options out there and more and more people are going this route now.
Why does the government need to do anything, how about doing something for yourself for once?
I hope you are not directing your comments I'm just asking the question because I believe that the gov't is going to step in and do something very soon.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Fact is we are in a mess... its not just mortages its inflation and higher energy costs. Leading economists are saying we are either already in a recession or right on the edge of one, and they are predicting on things getting worse. Of course you can blame people for their circumstances; however, you have to place a lot of blame on lenders who mislead people w/o full disclosure. I agree that some people sought out to live above their means, but the mortage lenders gave these people the impression that the loans where affordable. All I'm saying is that its not a one-way street. You give people the idea they can afford a home and approve it (by changing peoples income on forms), when maybe just a year ago they believed this was only a dream.
Another note: Nationwide Insurance is laying off like a 1000 people to avoid falling into a crunch based on staying ahead of a recession. When people get laid off its a clear sign that things are not looking good.
umm, over the last quarter we have had 5% growth. The Generally accepted definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of no growth, we haven't experienced that since before clinton. How can we be "sliding into a recession" if we haven't even had one quarter of negative growth. Right now economic indicators are a mixed bag. Some are down others are up. Jobs are up, the GDP will be up again this quarter, inflation is still within target rates. This is a trumped up "crisis."
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Exactly... the economy is slowing down... no question. A Recession is a bit of a stretch, however.
The media needs something to beat up on the Republican Administration for though.... What's funny is how long it took the media to admit we were in a recession as Clinton left office, yet how quick they are to jump on this one.
 
Top