Printable View
Lots of Republicans and "independents" looking for a Democrat presidential candidate to curl up next to.
NBC is embedded in the war zone now and describe the disintegrating scene in the Republican campaign tent.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-bHIqxkmdw[/url]
12 days and a wake up!
[QUOTE=BadMan]Ummmm,
That's bullshit.
[url]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/pennsylvania.html[/url]
Regards,
BM. Besides, you called it for the guinni and said Obama would be seeking a post in Hillary's cabinet. Your foresight is suspect.[/QUOTE]My foresight says the advantage is now to Obama, so if you're banking on my suspect analysis, be careful, amigo!
Obama's own internal poll shows him only +2 in Pennsylvania:
[url]http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/10/22/report-obama-internal-poll-shows-two-point-race-in-pennsylvania/[/url]
And interestingly enough, here's his track record in Pennsylvania from last April's primary, where his result (loss by -9) was much worse than his polling (+2):
[url]http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Penn_Release_040208.pdf[/url]
"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation ’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee ’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
Hmm …. “a system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.” That sounds very, very familiar, doesn ’t it? Don ’t we already do this with Social Security?
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller ’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal. …
Under Ghilarducci ’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U. S. Government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
That means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k) and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your “matching ” funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!
As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year … except, of course, you can ’t. It ’s in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option.
Maybe you ’ll be lucky, and they ’ll have Franklin Raines running the agency issuing those bonds.
The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.
If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k) s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."
[b]Now that will be a "wake up"![/b]
[QUOTE=Sidney]And beginning in January, he will begin to realize, as his business declines perceptibly, the subsequent severe decline in worldwide business, and much of the World's decline of stocks and bonds was anticipated by the Obomination's probable election. Bacchus9 and other ''O'' lovers will be severely disenchanted. Their glee will turn to tears! ----Sad Sid----[/QUOTE]Syd, old sport,
You are getting dangerously close to joining the Wizard of Libidos behind the green curtain there with the flashing lights and smoke machine. Actually, now that I think of it, you've gone far beyond - you are not in Kansas anymore Syd. You've really gotta give up smoking those 100 dollar bills, it's hazardous for your health and apparently causes delirium. The prospect of Obama's presidency brought on the worldwide financial crisis and will be responsible for a recession and my personal business failure?
I've got news for you Syd. I would of voted for a postage stamp of a dead president if I thought it would put an end to the train wreck the Republicans have engineered for America and the world. Thank god there's someone brave enough, skilled and smart enough like Obama to snatch the power out of their hands and try to find a way out. I'm sure it won't be pretty whatever comes next and I'm sure you'll be joining the Bob Barr's of the US to single mindedly bringing him down, like they relentlessly dogged Clinton, instead of giving credit where it's due and working for the general good.
11 days and a wake up!
[QUOTE=Punter 127]"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation 's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee 's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
Hmm. "a system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute." That sounds very, very familiar, doesn 't it? Don 't we already do this with Social Security?
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller 's Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
Under Ghilarducci 's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U. S. Government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
That means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k) and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your "matching " funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!
As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year. Except, of course, you can 't. It 's in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option.
Maybe you 'll be lucky, and they 'll have Franklin Raines running the agency issuing those bonds.
The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.
If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k) s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."
[b]Now that will be a "wake up"![/b][/QUOTE]Don't you know those 401(k) things are just a tax dodge for the rich and super rich? Part of making them pay their fair share will be to seize those funds and spreading the wealth around to those less fortunate than those fat cats with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in tax-sheltered accounts on Wall Street.
Republicans are deserting a sinking ship every day. Even Palin has been saying negative things about McAngryOldGuy positioning her for 2012. Such a supportive party they even hate one another.
As for the Dems controlling all branches of the government? We saw how well that worked when the Repubs had it (the worst in 70 years) so the last thing we need to total Dem control. The Repubs need to retain filibuster control in the Senate.
However, the fact that when they were in control they threatened to eliminate the ability to filibuster when the Dems tried to use it, and scared the Dems into submission, they have set a precedence that may come back to bit them in their fat asses-which would be unfortunate for all of us.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely-I just made that up but it sure sounds great:-)
Suerte.
Stowe
Of course, there wasn't ONE conservative on this forum that had a problem when the Repubs had total control-now they are crying because it could work against them.
[QUOTE=Punter 127]"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation 's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee 's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
Hmm. "a system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute." That sounds very, very familiar, doesn 't it? Don 't we already do this with Social Security?
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller 's Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
Under Ghilarducci 's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U. S. Government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
That means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k) and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your "matching " funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!
As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year. Except, of course, you can 't. It 's in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option.
Maybe you 'll be lucky, and they 'll have Franklin Raines running the agency issuing those bonds.
The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.
If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k) s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."
[b]Now that will be a "wake up"![/b][/QUOTE]Sorry P127,.
But there is no way the Dem would eliminate this-especially considering the economic situation. If they did, they would be out of power in 2 years. Just like the Repubs want to privatize Social Security. The crash proves that was a moronic idea and if they tried that THEY would be removed from power.
They might do this if they came up with something that would replace the lost write-off / pre-tax savings.
While the Repubs would try their idea, the Dems won't because they don't have balls to stand by their convictions-they only follow polls.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Is this what we can expect if the democrats take total control? I guess deficits aren't so bad after all.
Daddy Rulz you're right they're not "tax and spend ", Barney Frank admits they're spend and tax![/QUOTE]And yet the Repubs, during the past 6 years (prior to the Dems taking control of Congress) have spent more than any Dem controlled government since the Vietnam war-possibly longer.
And yet, I NEVER hear a conservative complain when the Repubs spend money.
Even since the Dems have taken control has the money been spent like a drunken sailor because the Dems didn't have the balls to stand up to the bushman.
Suerte.
Stowe
Lets get the record correct ok? George W. Bush took Office in January of 2001
“In the 107th United States Congress (January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003,) Both chambers had a Republican majority only until June 6, 2001, after which the Senate had a Democratic majority.
January 3, 2001: The Senate began the Congress evenly split, 50-50, between two parties. In the House, there was merely a 9-seat Republican advantage.
June 6, 2001: Senator Jim Jeffords, previously a Republican, declared himself an independent and announced he will vote with the Democrats, giving Democrats control in the Senate with a one-seat advantage. Democrat Tom Daschle became Senate Majority Leader.”
So your six years of total control is incorrect, they controlled both houses for 4.5 years, (A case could be made that it was only 4 years, considering Jeffords voting record.) And the Republicans never had the filibuster proof kind of super majority the Democrats may see now, we haven ’t seen that since the Carter years.
[quote]Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of "a source of financial anxiety and fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets." Please, I'll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.
What effect would this plan have on an already battered stock market? Well, I would imagine it would send it even lower, sticking a shiv into the portfolios of everyone who didn't jump aboard. [/quote]Stowe you ’re a friend and I respect your opinion, and we have had political difference of opinions for a long time.
However you telling me [i]“there is no way the Dem would eliminate this-especially considering the economic situation.”[/i] And [i]“the Dems won't because they don't have balls to stand by their convictions-they only follow polls.”[/i] Well I ’m sorry but it ’s just not very reassuring or comforting!
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Stowe (you disgusting pervert) I know Sid pretty well. If he was serious about organizing a fund like this I believe he would manage it well and not abscond with a penny.
I called his bluff because I knew he was breaking balls, though I would contribute 5% of what I make in the next year to help get something like I described rolling.
Why he would say no liberals answered the call when I did confused me, he's pretty conservative and even though I think of myself as a moderate I reckon I'm pretty liberal by his standards.
By the way Sid I'm serious about contributing. I think it would be cool if 1000 of us gave a 1000 bucks and started a college fund for those kids. We could let Exon invest half and Sid could trade half.[/QUOTE]Hey DR, you sick fuck!
Of course he would probably not abscond with the money but if he uses it as a medium to denigrate and attack others, then he should not be surprised if he is attacked in retribution. If he is upset by the attack then he should either not attack others or he should grow up and expect to receive what he gives.
Suerte-you are the REAL pervert.
Stowe
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Lets get the record correct ok? George W. Bush took Office in January of 2001
"In the 107th United States Congress (January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003, Both chambers had a Republican majority only until June 6, 2001, after which the Senate had a Democratic majority.
January 3, 2001: The Senate began the Congress evenly split, 50-50, between two parties. In the House, there was merely a 9-seat Republican advantage.
June 6, 2001: Senator Jim Jeffords, previously a Republican, declared himself an independent and announced he will vote with the Democrats, giving Democrats control in the Senate with a one-seat advantage. Democrat Tom Daschle became Senate Majority Leader."
So your six years of total control is incorrect, they controlled both houses for 4.5 years, (A case could be made that it was only 4 years, considering Jeffords voting record. And the republicans never had the filibuster proof kind of super majority the democrats may see now, we haven 't seen that since the Carter years.
Stowe you 're a friend and I respect your opinion, and we have had political difference of opinions for a long time.
However you telling me [I]"there is no way the Dem would eliminate this-especially considering the economic situation."[/i] And [I]"the Dems won't because they don't have balls to stand by their convictions-they only follow polls."[/i] Well I 'm sorry but it 's just not very reassuring or comforting![/QUOTE]Hola Amigo,
Yeah, we do not agree on many political aspects but that is cool with me as you and I have had some good and interesting conversations in that regard!
The Dems did not control the House after the elections of 2002. The Dems has 210 eats, the Repubs 222 with 1 Indy. In the Senate in 2002 the Dems ended with 48 and the Repubs with 51. So when Jeffords moved over that still did not give them a majority-especially when considering Cheney was the tie breaker.
In the 108th Congress in 2004 the Dems STILL did not control the House as they had 202 seats to the Repubs 232 with 1 indy. In the Senate in 2004 the Dems had 45 to the Repubs 55.
It was not until 2006 when the Dems took the Senate 51 to 49 and the House 233 to 202.
So until 2006, the Repubs held control over both branches of the govt.
Thus, I was wrong when I indicated the Repubs held power for 6 years. Rather they held it from Jan. 2001 (when Bush took office) until Jan. 2006 (when the new Congress was seated) which is actually about 5 years-so I was off by 1 year. The point is still correct that they blew the crap out of the budget during that time and none of the conservatives on the forum were complaining then.
I cannot imagine the Dems changing the 401k situation-that would be a death sentence for them and I would not vote for them if they did that-unless they substituted it for something that provided the same benefit to us 'average' working-class Americans.
I could be wrong but it would be political suicide and the Dems are sooo afraid of losing their majority (basically ball-less. That is the reason there should NEVER be total control of both branches by either party-all position I would like to see even one conservative agree upon when it applies to Repub leadership as well as Dems (again, something I have not seen)
Suerte and take care, amigo.
Stowe.
BTY - I could not meet with 'our' chica as she never answered her phone and her voice mail box was always full--damn, I was really bummed. Thanks for the alert, anyway.
[quote=Stowe]The Dems did not control the House after the elections of 2002. The Dems has 210 eats, the Repubs 222 with 1 Indy. In the Senate in 2002 the Dems ended with 48 and the Repubs with 51. So when Jeffords moved over that still did not give them a majority-especially when considering Cheney was the tie breaker. [/quote] January 3, 2001 was the start of the 107th Congress, the Senate began the Congress evenly split, 50-50, between the two parties, until June 6, 2001, after that and until January 3, 2003 we had a Democratic majority Senate. That looks like a year and seven months to me.
Remember the new members elected in the November 2002 election didn’t take office until January 2003 which means they were part of the 108th congress.
If you still disagree with my dates please explain how Tom Daschle could have been Senate Majority Leader from June 6, 2001 until January 3, 2003, again that looks like a year and seven months?
When you consider Jeffords voting record I think a case could be made that the Republicans only controlled both houses about 50% of Bush’s terms.
Please check your dates.
The 107th congress was from January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003.
The 108th congress was from January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords[/url]
[quote=Stowe]I cannot imagine the Dems changing the 401k situation-that would be a death sentence for them and I would not vote for them if they did that-unless they substituted it for something that provided the same benefit to us 'average' working-class Americans.
I could be wrong but it would be political suicide and the Dems are sooo afraid of losing their majority (basically ball-less. That is the reason there should NEVER be total control of both branches by either party-all position I would like to see even one conservative agree upon when it applies to Repub leadership as well as Dems (again, something I have not seen) [/quote] I can’t imagine it either but you saw my post and it’s all over the internet, Google it.
Having control and having a super majority is two different things, and I will go on record and say super majorities are not good for the country, regardless of the party. I can only remember one time in my lifetime that a party had a super majority and that was the Carter years. You may remember other times, but you’re a lot older then me …lol.
Pisses me off beyond words that they would even think about it, and I don’t like them even talking about fucking with my 401k.
I don’t care what party or who’s doing the talking.
However it does give us insight as to how they think, and we should be paying attention to what they’re saying!
Sorry to hear about your bad luck with our girl, but she has always been a bit of an elusive prey, but definitely one worthy of pursuit. ;)
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Pisses me off beyond words that they would even think about it, and I don't like them even talking about fucking with my 401k.
I don't care what party or who's doing the talking.
However it does give us insight as to how they think, and we should be paying attention to what they're saying![/QUOTE]Of course they're going to take away your 401k - all the code words are already working. "Wealthy" "tax shelter" "fairness".
Coming soon will be proposals to abolish tax-favorable treatment of Roth IRAs.
Private wealth in private hands is antithetical to the economics theory that motivates Obama Democrats. Bill Clinton-style "triangulators" they ain't. They are redistribution of wealth Marxists.
As in Argentina, you will probably get some lip-service as to how the government is going to step in and "guarantee" (read: "expropriate") your private pension accounts against the dangers of the free market. Big Government to the rescue. If he wins, I think that before he leaves office Obama will try to increase spending as a percentage of GDP over 35%, up from 22 now. Taxes will probably rise by 50% over current levels.
Take a look at your paycheck, take out an extra 50% in taxes, and see how it will look after you "spread the wealth around" the way The Messiah wants.