Primaries

Remove all ads!

This may push Hillary over the edge. I'm not sure how she will handle "being ignored"

 

It is not surprising that after the last results and how they were interpreted by the media and, as it appears, other politicians both Obama and McCain have pretty much discounted Clinton. How she acts depends on whether she thinks she has more to gain from continuing or from dropping out.

 

Bah, she will win some minor primary next week which everyone knew beforehand that she would win and the media will resurrect her again despite it apparently being mathematically impossible for her to win.

 

Even the media may have difficulty in resurrecting her. Obama has now passed Clinton in the number of superdelegate supporters as well. As Dan Rather once said, "There was a light at the end of the tunnel, but it was out."

 

I think the media already wants to move on towards the Obama-McCain fight too. Anyway, I found the two top blogs at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ quite interesting (the Edwards and Barr ones, in case new ones emerge in the meantime). How likely is it that Barr or any other could do a Nader on McCain, btw?

 

That is certainly the biggest and most obvious difference between them, but it is only one of many. The fact is, there are MANY policy issues where McCain and Obama are different beyond Iraq.

To wit: If you don't have and can't afford health insurance for your kids, McCain is not your candidate - regardless of your political affiliation. If you're unemployed and can't find a job, McCain is not your candidate - regardless of your political affiliation. If you're going to lose your house to foreclosure, McCain is not your candidate - regardless of your political affiliation. If you make less than $250,000 per year, and stand to benefit from letting Bush's tax cuts expire for the upper class, McCain is not your candidate - regardless of your political affiliation. If you think we need to talk to our adversaries as well as our friends, McCain is not your candidate - regardless of your political affiliation.

Finally, if you think the maverick senator from Arizona, who was willing to reach across the aisle and seek compromise is going to show up in the White House in November - in other words the John McCain of 2000 - then the John McCain of 2008 is not your candidate - regardless of your political affiliation.

 

Shaman, my friend, I'll bet a whole PACK of cookies on the venality of Hillary any day of the week. Send me your address and if I'm wrong you get some Oreos!

God knows, I eat enough of them, which keeps me in shape -- Round is a shape!

As for Barack ignoring her now, she's going to HATE that one! But really, she's finished, and if Barack wants to win in November, he'd better start focussing on his real foe -- Mccain. Of course, we're going to have to open a new thread to hash that one out because it won't be a primary anymore

 

Rhetorically, I agree with you, but poor white southerners who can't afford health insurance have been voting against their own economic interests for years. Why? Gay marriage. Affirmative action. Abortion. Separation of Church and state. Gun Control. There's a reason republicans flog the social issues.

Put simply, it doesn't matter if the democrat best represents your interests when you think he's an elitist latte liberal who is going to take away your bible, your gun, and he's going to force your kids to get gay marriages.

 

Sorry, I tried to not respond, but I just couldn't help myself

Because our savior will just give it to you, nevermind who will pay for it, it won't be you, it will be some rich guy.

Because everyone knows that it is the government who creates jobs, not businesses.

If you were an idiot and bought a house you couldn't afford, and acquired financing you were to stupid to understand don't worry about it. Without a doubt it is the government's responsiblity to save your home and credit rating. Don't worry about it, all those people who live within their means won't mind if the government spends some of their money to help you out.

$250,000, where did that number come from. The latest stats I have are from 2005 when if you earned more than $103,912 you were in the top 10% of the country and this group was responsible for 70.30% of the individual taxes paid. Of course, everyone knows that taxing people is a great way to stimulate the economy

Put another way, even a poor white southerner is smart enough to realize, you should never trust someone who promises you everything for nothing. Throw in acceptance of deviant behavior and blatant disregard for the Constitution and yee haw, you have my vote.

Now I have to go, I have to respond to some e-mails. It appears that I have won a UK lottery, a Microsoft lottery, and some Africans need my help in transferring money.

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself either.

You're actually right on this one! Although it won't be "some rich guy", it will be a bunch of rich guys and gals who make over $250,000 per year. (see below comment for more details)

The largest employer in the US, when you consider government contractors, is - you guessed it - the US federal government! I should know - I'm one of them! So yes, the government does create jobs - tens of thousands of them in fact.

Right. Because the federal government's responsibility is bailing out huge banking institutions like Bear Stearns to the tune of $50 billion paid for by the US taxpayer. Sorry, but I'd rather see than money help people not lose their homes.

That number came from the US tax code. It's the magic number that places you in the highest tax bracket in the US economy. Bush's tax break lowered everyone's federal income tax requirement by about 2%. Both HRC and BO support making the top income earners give another 2% - in other words they would return to the tax rate they were paying under Bill Clinton's administration. I think the economy was pretty good then...

 

As a tax professional, I don't believe in that $250K number. Per the brackets I'm looking at a couple filing jointly hit the highest marginal bracket at $349,701 in 2007. While true they did save 2% in their taxes, there were plenty of other things in those tax cuts that were phased out long before people hit the highest marginal bracket. I for one do not want to pay 2% more in taxes to fund the follies of others (not that I'm anywhere's near the highest bracket)

I also don't agree with your assessment of Bear Stearns You seem to be playing fast and loose with the numbers you are throwing around.

 

There are going to be some very clear-cut issues from which voters are going to have to decide:

Healthcare - Has the American public been so screwed over by the insurance companies that they have had enough? Remember, insurance companies get a different price for paying healthcare bills from hosptals than the average individual. Of course, the cost for healthcare has gotten so out of hand, that even employers can't stand the burden any longer. If you are a company, and have to shell out millions for healthcare insurance for your workers, then you are at a disadvantage, becuase your European counterparts don't have to pay for it; insurance for workers in many industrialized countires have nationalized healthcare. America is behind the curve. Many Amreicans are ready for a change, since the same old solutions that Republicans have come up with (you just pay more) is no longer working for either workers or companies.

Iraq: Oh, yes, continue to give away all my tax dollars to Halli, Exxon, Boeing, United Technologies, Lockheed/Martin and Blackwater. All those huge contracts in Iraq are a huge drain on the US taxpayer. Yet, Iraq is floating in oil, which is now selling for 126.00 a barrel. First, blowup Iraq and stick the American taxpayer with that bill; then rebuild it at the expense of the American taxpayer. And for a finale, allow the Iraqis to later become rich off all the oil that they are sitting on. And sell it to us at 5 times the price before this whole idiotic process started. In the meantime, the American taxpayer gets to pay for the whole show....nice. This choice is clear and Americans have had enough.

Abortion: 8 years of George Bush and abortion is still legal. All those white Southerners who voted for Bush sure knew what they were doing. Of course, he has two newbies on the SC who MAY change things - one day. But forget about any kind of Constitutional Amendment or national legislation to make abortion illegal. Let's make it happen through the backdoor of government, by way of the court system. And most of all, let's pretend that our newbies on the Supreme Court are "Constitutionalists." Whatever THAT is supposed to be....

 

Well said. I just have a few points.

1. Health care- somebody has to pay. With the current system the corporations that are picking up some of the health care costs, have to pay whether they make money or not. If we move to a government system, then the corporations will not have to pay except in the form of higher taxes. I worry about this as if a company doesn't make any money it doesn't pay any taxes, and then who is stuck paying the bill.

2. Iraq- I agree, it is time to make all the "No blood for oil" chanters into prophets. The government should send Iraq one huge whopping bill for everything.

3. Abortion- I don't think it is fair to blame the GOP for the courts being activists. That started a long time ago and if anything the GOP complains about it more than anyone else.

 

For 2008, the top bracket will be $357,700+ and will be charged 35%. In 2000, it was $288,350+ and was charged 39.6%. You don't need to be a tax professional to see that those in the top bracket are saving a hell of a lot more than 2%*. Households making between 182,400-357,000 will pay 33%. In 2000, the rate for people making 147,050-288,350 was 36%, which is higher than what the top bracket pays now.

Activist judges? Do you really believe that? "Activist judge" is just a silly little pejorative term used any time a judge makes a legal decision conservatives don't like. It has no actual basis in reality.

* And this is without even factoring in the fact that most Americans in that tax bracket not only are able to take far more write-offs than the members of our rapidly fading middle class, but also earn the majority of their income in the form of dividends and capital gains, the taxes on which Bush cut by a quite a bit more.

 

I think that's a fair point, TGS. FDR was another one for "stacking" the court to get what he wanted, which he otherwise could not. My point was that GWB has done little for all those who voted for him regarding the "values" issues. That was supposedly what decided the 2004 election. But to be honest, I don't see where things have changed for the "values" voter all that much.

 

hhmmm, chandos and why is oil so expensive? maybe 30 years of dems not allowing drilling here or any new refiniries. gotta save those owls. even if we just sell the oil we help ourselves as the fields in north dakota have between 175-500 bilion barrels not counting whats in ANWR and off the coasts

 

Well, that's the same line the oil companies spout. And it's well, crap. There is plenty of oil and, just imagine this: The oil companies have the entire PLANET on which to build refineries, and whatever else their greedy little hearts desire. So what do they blame: Yes, the state of California. Is that the ONLY place on an entire planet that they can build refineries? I guess, from the way they rant about it. Maybe it's just something about California, a place where all "lines converge."

Imagine this also (cause it's not very hard): they could build all the refineries they want to in the great states of the South, like Texas, because those states could care less about their environments. And I know that cause I live there....

 

nope not california at all more like lousiana, texas & many other states just look around

 

Those states have loads of refineries, ya think a few more would make a difference to them? You are here: The Oil Patch.

 

actually you need to check the number they used to have as opposed to the number they have now & the age of the ones that are left

in 1981 we had 324 refineries which dropped to less than 150 by 2005 & further since