Got my Jim Cooper (D - TN 5th district) yard sign yesterday. Hopefully it won’t get stolen/vandalized.
Listened to a little bit of the TN governer debate yesterday and I have to admit that the Republican, Haslam, came off a little better than McWherter, the Dem. I’m still torn on that race.
Correct. I’m a moderate conservative on most issues (except abortion) roughly between JOhn McCain and Scott Brown.
Which John McCain? The John McCain of 2000, the John McCain of 2007 through the spring of 2008, the John McCain of the summer of 2008 through Election Day, the John McCain from the day after election day through inauguration, or the John McCain since inauguration day?
I second that, kevja! Meg Whitman strikes me as a hidden agenda driven person. Plus she seems to like to spend money pretty easily on lame stuff, like her campaign. 
I’m going for Jerry Brown. Not that I’m fond of electing sharks, mind you… Mrs. Boxer will get my vote, third election in a row.
What does this even mean?
I’ll just pass it off as the rantings of one poster, and not necessarily a common view held by many non-Republicans. :rolleyes:
Saying the opposite (The democrats don’t have enough of your money yet?) has a plausible foundation. Democrats are more pro taxes :: they have taken more of my money. I don’t get it. But that’s not surprising.
I actually like him when he’s on Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me. As a Floridian, he has my vote.
What it means is that Curtis’s list consists entirely of Republicans, most of them in races in which he doesn’t even have a stake. So he might as well have just said that he prefers a straight Republican party-line ticket.
And the difference between Republicans and Democrats isn’t which one wants to tax; they both do. The difference is whom they want to tax. Democrats want to tax people who have money, while Republicans want to tax people who don’t. Hence, electing more Republicans amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class.
What’s the point of taxing people who don’t have money?
This is one the most sad posts I’ve read on here. It, like the first post referred to, makes no sense. Even if it were true, how does only taxing the poor people result in a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.:rolleyes:
It’s not worth the cost of collecting what they have, but the IRS makes it up in volume. [rimshot]
There’s a pretty obvious implied “to spare” after “money”.
Obama cut your taxes. Is that surprising to you?
What does that even have to do with your original post? How does having a Republican in office lead to the “rich” taking other people’s money?
Everyone (yes, that includes Bill Gates and John Galt and anyone else you can name) receives the benefits of government services. If you tax poor people and then use that money to provide services to rich people, how is that not redistribution of money from the poor to the rich?
Not if you also tax rich people. I have yet to see any Republican platform include a proposed legislation where taxes only apply to poor people and not rich people.
Meh, I think Republicans want to take more of my money because they love to cut taxes while increasing spending and thus dramatically increasing the debt. They are either going to destroy the economy by bankrupting the US Government, or make it necessary to dramatically increase taxes at a later date to cover the interest payments. Of course, President Obama is not looking too good in this regard at the moment; he may be the first Democratic President to increase the debt/GDP ratio since Roosevelt. But since every Republican President since Nixon has increased this ratio, I am willing to cut him a little slack and give him the benefit of the doubt. Touch economic times and all that.
Of course you have. The Bush tax cut was a boon to the wealthy. Krugman says it is equivalent to writing a tax payer check to the top 1200 richest people in America for 3.2 million dollars, every single year. The Repubs are fighting to keep this fiasco in place and many Americans have been convinced it is a good idea.
The Bush tax cut was sunsetted because in their evil little hearts, the rich Repubs knew it was bad for deficits and should not go on forever. If we killed the whole thing, our deficits would drop 25 to 30 percent. Does that sound bad? Yet the greedy rich have convinced Americans that any tax is bad. They like getting richer off tax payers.