RK1

That isn't "food for thought" that is smoke blown up your ***.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...E2M2Y2NDQ4ZTM=
The Campaign Spot on National Review Online

Obama has a long record, made repeated statements supporting the banning of handguns, the banning of all "semi-automatic" firearms.

He supported the Chicago ban on handguns and the D.C. ban on handguns.

From 1994 to 2002 Obama was a director for the Joyce Foundation, the foremost funder of anti gun groups in the country.

The Violence Policy Center- official position that handguns should be banned throughout the U.S., recieved over 15 million dollars in grants from the Joyce Foundation while Obama was a director.

Funded publication of "Unsafe in any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns." and "Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns."

MikeJohnson

Well RK1, you may disagree with Obama's position on gun control but as an owner of handguns and rifles, I am not at all concerned that he will take my guns away from me. I am concerned that McCain will take away my civil liberties, add to my tax burden, do nothing to reduce my dependency on foreign oil, keep our troops in Iraq forever, ignore this failing economy, do nothing to promote alternative energy and generally continue the failed policies of the Bush administration. Personally I think it is WAY past time for real change in America and it is obvious we won't get that from McSame!!!

RK1

Like I said in previous posts, I won't vote for either of them. Obama might not take your guns away because, one, he's probably going to lose and two, he wouldn't have the votes in Congress. But he IS on record as wishing he could do it.

The only way to reduce the tax burden is to limit the size, scope and expense of the federal government. Neither McCain or Obama has the slightest intention of doing that.

MikeJohnson

The truth is Obama and Coburn sponsored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act which Bush signed into law in 2006. This bill brings transparency to Federal spending by making public all government contracts, grants, earmarks and loans.
He also sponsored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act which requires earmarks to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. It also prohibits Senators from advocating earmarks if they have a financial interest in the project like the bridge to nowhere and other projects championed by corrupt politicians. Furthermore he has advocated for amendments to Homeland Security and Defense spending to stop "no bid contracts".
Obama has supported and voted for common sense "pay as you go"rules which most of would agree makes more sense than borrowing from the Chinese.
He has recently voted against raising the national debt limit which has now exceeded $8.6 trillion. Of course McCain voted for it. Talk about fiscal responsibility...
WE are damn sure not going to reduce the tax burden by giving tax breaks to the wealthy as McCain would do. It's about time they paid their fair share. Same goes for business that hides off shore and employs illegal aliens.
So don't tell me that Obama won't do anything to to limit the size, scope and expense of government. He already has.

RK1

That Federal Funding etc. Act was co-sponsored by McCain as well as Coburn and Obama.

I don't know how good the law was 'cause the same guys are now sponsoring "Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008"

Maybe next year they're cosponsor a strengthening the strengthening law!

In any case, the laws you cite may or may not be worthy, but they don't do a damn thing to limit the size, scope or expense of government.

You don't limit government by raising the debt but you don't limit government by raising taxes either, not even taxes on "the rich".

The only way to limit government is to limit spending.

The only way to limit government is to cut spending.

MikeJohnson

The Republicans won't limit spending. They have out spent the Dems many fold over. The only spending cuts they can come up with are the programs that actually help Americans like veterans and retired folks. Raising taxes is not about limiting government, it's about paying down the deficit. I don't know about you, but I have to balance my budget every month or I don't get to ride my Hawk and isn't that what this site is all about? If you want to cut spending how about holding special interests accountable or the bloated military industrial complex??? How about holding Wall street speculators accountable for the ridiculous price of gas??? Come on man, I can't believe you are OK with the way things are under Bush... McCain is only going to continue the same failed policies. Why not take a chance and give Obama a shot to make good on his claim so change? What have we got to loose?????????????

MikeJohnson

Senator Barack Obama's tax plan would provided a rise of 5.4% in after tax income for the bottom 20% of the US population. Senator John McCain's tax plan would provide that same group a 0.9% rise in income. Under the Obama tax plan the top 0.1% would see a drop in after tax income of 12.4% while the McCain plan would see a rise in 11.6% in after tax income for the same group. So John McCain is correct when he says that Barack Obama would raise
your taxes, but only if you are in the top 0.1% of tax payers.

RK1

Well Whoopie! But some Americans still have too much honor and integrity to demand a government that rips off OTHER PEOPLE so they can get free ****.

Why should the "fair share" of a guy who works harder and smarter than you be any greater than your "fair share"?

There are three hundred million people in the U.S. You know what would be fair?

Take the entire federal budget, divide it by 300,000,000 and send everyone a bill.

Demand that the poor and the middle class pay what actually is their "fair share" and you'll see the Parliament of ****** in D.C. reduce the size and expense of government down to what the Constitution authorized in less time than it takes you to tie your shoes.

Condor

"the rich" pay waaaay more than their fair share.

drew_c14

I think you're failing to understand the bigger picture. Sure this sounds nice on the outside as most of aren't in that top percent. But our employers are in that group. When the government takes money from the guy who pays your check they are taking it from you.

If a business or business owner is taxed more money they will lower wages, cut jobs or reduce benefits. It's just common sense. If you put more money back into the pockets of the business they now have incentive to grow and create more jobs. In this growth they will be looking for a better quality of employee, which means they will increase wages and benefits.

This is the exact reason that capitalism works and socialism does not. If you take away the chance at growth and prosperity than nothing is left. Why start a successful business when you will make the same amount of money working somewhere else doing far less.

Gregw

Or just keep the profit margin, since most went into business to make money.

LineArrayNut

MikeJohnson

Well Condor the rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government. Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone, but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it. Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income. If you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire. Investments in the nation's infrastructure like transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc, are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry. As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools, but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts. The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it. Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich suck up over $400 billion a year. Compare that to the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Drew, you are missing the point I was trying to make and that is that Obama is going to do more for the average American than McCain will in terms of personal income taxes. And by the way, W's tax breaks for the uber rich did nothing to stimulate the economy as we have dramatically seen reciently. The trickle down economics that Regan championed have only reduced the middle class and added to inflation. Every time we have a Republican in the White House the % of GNP goes down compared to when we have a Democrat in there. You guys are only shooting yourselves in the foot by supporting the conservatives. History has proiven this over and over and it just amazes me that some are too stupid to realize it. I guess it is racists like Linearraynut that are to blame...

Duck007