Miscounting Obama's Tax Votes

factcheck.org

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: a brighter America 08 @ 07/05/2008 8:10:33 PM

    Beware of the person who calls others "unworthy of trust", and follows up, with "you can trust me". McCain called Senator Obama untrustworthy, however in the same breath claimed, "you can trust me"! Like I said, beware of such a person. McCain does NOT have the right to decide whether or not we can trust him!! We, the citizens and votes make this decision. And I think a great majority of us do not find McCain trustworthy. This gross inflation of votes he, his campaign and the DNC are putting out there is plenty of proof of how the Republicans lie and distort the truth. They need to be reminded that Hilliary uses exactly those kind of tactis (Rovian) on Senator Obama! McCain does not represent change; he has been in the Senate for how many years: 30 or so? Just what has he done to help our country during that time? Judging by our current situations and circumstances, the Repubs have done nothing, they have been to busy "fighting an unnecessary war", expending our human resources as well our our financial resources. The way they handled Katrina shows just how little they care about our country and our people!! John McCain is truely not fit to be our President. He is totally out of touch with the USA and the rest of the world. He has only learned of the poverty through his campaign and suddenly he cares about it?? Yeah, right!!

  • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/05/2008 6:32:57 PM

    AverageJoe: Meant to add, if you read my previous post (06:05:49),, please let me know, it would make me happy to know you saw it!
    Thanks again, Lightnin'

  • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/05/2008 6:05:49 PM

    To AverageJoe: re your 01:49:12 post yesterday: You indicated in another post, as I recall, that you're a Teamster. If those long trips endow their drivers with such clarity of thought and expression, I recommend such driving be made mandatory for Congress, the President, and the Supremes, it would benefit the country greatly! My hat is off to you for your post, it is simply the best explanation for our entry into the Iraq war that I've seen from any news or political source. I saved it to a file of political writings in my computer, printed a hard copy, e-mailed it to my address book, with an encouragement for them to forward it to all of their contacts of either stripe who don't have closed minds, and also to: The White House, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman! I will likely e-mail it to the major networks, and several of the major papers in the country. Yeah, I was quite impressed! Congratulations, and thank you! Lightnin'

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/03/2008 6:12:39 PM

    YET ANOTHER FLIP FLOP THIS TIME ABOUT ABORTION Refer to these votes by Obama if you are looking for proof...
    2001 IL Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act --Obama voted NO

    2002 IL Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act --Obama voted NO

    2003 IL Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act --Obama finally got the bill from the senate as he was the chaired of the health and human services committee. He held on the Bill and make sure it would not come up for a comittee vote.

    This is the sort of radical ultra left stands he takes that frightens me.....who would vote against ensuriing life saving protocols for infants borned alive even...if it was during and abort process gone wrong. Who? who would do this? Why would you kill a child who have made it alive into the world against all odds.....what is the humane justification?
    NOW HE'S SAYS THAT WOMEN CAN'T HAVE ABORTIONS IF THIER HAVING MENTAL PROBLEMS GEEZE MAKE UP YOUR MIND !!!!

    • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/03/2008 8:40:04 PM

      Every person involved in a "Born Alive" incident should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for intentional negligent homicide, with no possibility of parole, and any medical personnel should lose their license to practice for lfe. (They have obviously violated their Hippocratic Oath to "Do No Harm" to a living person.) Thank God the vote went against obama, and the Act was passed. Obama is lower than contemptible. What ARE the penalties, now that the Act was passed, anybody know?

      • Posted By: Nins @ 07/04/2008 12:36:38 AM

        The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) referred to live-born pre-viable fetuses 20 weeks gestation (four and a half months) old or less. "Pre-viable" which means that they are so young that they would all die anyway.

        The BAIPA was a political ploy designed by the pro-Life faction to smear the reputation of any politician who voted against it. Pre-viable fetuses ALL DIE ANYWAY, so this legislation was not aimed at protecting the life of babies, it was aimed at hurting the politicians who voted against it. If it had passed it would have overturned Roe v. Wade in Illinois for about one minute -- the amount of time it would take for the pro-Choice groups to counter sue to get it overturned, since the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. That bill was a huge waste of taxpayer money and nothing more than grandstanding. Any lawmaker with a conscience voted against it, and Obama had the balls to finally table it once and for all. GOOD FOR HIM.

        • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 07/05/2008 5:29:07 PM

          No, it's for a baby born alive at any stage of development. The federal version had no trouble at all passing, with support from both parties.

          "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born
          alive at any stage of development."

          http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/summary/920SB1095.html

    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/04/2008 12:36:23 AM

      The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) referred to live-born pre-viable fetuses 20 weeks gestation (four and a half months) old or less. "Pre-viable" which means that they are so young that they would all die anyway.

      The BAIPA was a political ploy designed by the pro-Life faction to smear the reputation of any politician who voted against it. Pre-viable fetuses ALL DIE ANYWAY, so this legislation was not aimed at protecting the life of babies, it was aimed at hurting the politicians who voted against it. If it had passed it would have overturned Roe v. Wade in Illinois for about one minute -- the amount of time it would take for the pro-Choice groups to counter sue to get it overturned, since the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. That bill was a huge waste of taxpayer money and nothing more than grandstanding. Any lawmaker with a conscience voted against it, and Obama had the balls to finally table it once and for all. GOOD FOR HIM.

      • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 07/05/2008 5:27:59 PM

        No, it's for a baby born alive at any stage of development. The federal version had no trouble at all passing, with support from both parties.

        "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born
        alive at any stage of development."

        http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/summary/920SB1095.html

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/04/2008 1:56:12 PM

    Did you know McCain has had 4 different campaign managers? McCain just can't get it right. He keeps changing managers, as if it is their fault that he can not succeed. Fact is, McCain is NOT a good candidate.

    After his first run at the Presidency when he got swift boated by Bush, his manager John Weaver got McCain to play "Maverick" and cross party lines to become a NeoLiberal. McCain almost changed parties and became a Democrat and Kerry's running mate, but at the 11th hour he switched horses again and hired Terry Nelson to manage him. Nelson is a strong GOP establishmentarianist, and got McCain to throw himself behind Bush, with promises of the GOP giving him the 2008 nomination. But Nelson didn't last, because the strategy failed. The right wing was suspicious of McCain because McCain voted against abortion, for gay rights and for gun control during his "maverick" phase. They didn't know if they could trust him. Also, Nelson spent money hand over fist, nearly bankrupting McCain's campaign. So he replaced him with Rick Davis, who was at the helm for the past year. Davis is a fiscal conservative, made McCain sell that expensive big bus, and made McCain mind his manners and act polite in public. But now, Davis has been fired too. Why? Because McCain is getting desperate, and the gloves are coming off. His new manager is Steve Schmidt, a Rove disciple and former Rove employee. McCain has also hired Nicole Wallace and Greg Jenkins to head his "Communications Team." Nic and Greg are also former Rove employees, masters of the art of swift boat smear campaigns. McCain going to let the Rove bulldogs off the leash. Look out, America, this is going to get ugly.

    My prediction: the 20% of America that is made up of ignorant jingoists will be cheering to see Rove's bloody tactics. But you know what? They were all going to vote for McCain anyway. The rest of America will be so disgusted by the hatchet work of the NeoCons that they will vote AGAINST McCain.

    The "last resort" tactic of the GOP to win this election will be to bomb Iran, starting another war. Mark my words, if McCain is not doing well in September, Bush will bomb Iran. He is already setting the stage for this, by saying that Iran has nuclear weapons, even though inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency have both found NO EVIDENCE of nuclear weapons. REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING? It's the fake "weapons of mass destruction" all over again.

    Did you know that on June 26, Bush, very quietly, declared a state of National Emergency? During a National Emergency the President can DECLARE WAR without waiting for the approval of Congress.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html

    It is going to be a very bumpy ride, America, so hold on, and DON'T LET BUSH AND ROVE STEAL ANOTHER ELECTION. I wouldn't mind so much if they were good for the economy, but let's face it, they are destroying America.

    • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 07/05/2008 5:21:36 PM

      Um, that's for North Korea, not Iran. And do you know how many National Emergency states we're in right now? Some of them are from the Clinton era, like this one for Cuba:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010227-1.html

      Or the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071018-7.html

      Or this one is for Zimbabwe, should we be worried about war with them next?

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080304-6.html

      The reason it's been so quiet is that it's not that big of a deal. But if you want to use the fear tatics, go ahead.

      Fear: It's not just for right-wing Republicans anymore.

    • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/04/2008 2:37:10 PM

      Yeah, nits, reported your abusive comments so far, will look forward to reporting any more of 'em you spew! You quite sure you're taking your medication like you should? Suggest you look in the mirror periodically for signs of frothing, don't stay alone if there are any actial paroxsyms. Those "lifeline" rigs can be a lifesaver, too! Wait, forget I said that last, what was I thinking?

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/04/2008 4:50:44 PM


        Report all you want lightnin. Nins said nothing abusive. But if you want to waste your time, go right ahead.

        Less time you will have to post lies and distortions!

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/04/2008 1:54:55 PM


    This article is about how the GOP's claims that Obama has voted to raise taxes are NOT TRUE. This article is about how the GOP is lying to Americans.

    Despite the fact that this article proves the GOP allegations are false, there are several bloggers posting here acting as if the GOP lies were true, and talking about how Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class. Even after they are proven wrong, they still keep kicking and screaming. It's amazing.

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/04/2008 4:13:45 PM


      Keep posting the truth, Nins.

      You are a wonderful person, and you know what you are talking about!

      Happy Birthday, America!

      • Posted By: Nins @ 07/05/2008 3:38:26 PM

        Gosh, thank you so much!

        I really appreciate your support.

  • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/05/2008 1:41:39 AM

    (Copy of an abuse report, FYI:) Please see "nins" @ 07/04/2008 13:54:19 re personal attack charging lies, in the first and last para's., and "the-commish", 7/4/08 16:50:44, claiming my posts are lies in the last sentence. Thanks awfully! lightnin001

  • Posted By: Kaelinda @ 07/04/2008 7:11:10 PM

    Being an old lady myself, I can sympathize with McCain's occasional slip of the tongue and forgetfulness. But when it's shown that he can't even count - and that the RNC that supports him can't count, I start to worry.

  • Posted By: Timofmars @ 07/03/2008 11:13:24 PM

    lightnin, nice job arguing with yourself and your own imaginary constructs. McCarthy would be proud. But you waste your breath ranting against a common sense comment by an adult. Unless you're just trying to reassure yourself that you're right and common sense is wrong... In that case, keep it up, I know you can do it!

    Regarding your election outcome prediction, lol. Just lol. I know you'll easily forget how wrong you were come November. You're very good at suppressing inconvenient knowledge.

    • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/04/2008 10:24:24 AM

      Let me try to clarify here, I do not write in an effort to convert Obamorrhoids, or to argue with them, That would be an exercise in futility, and simply a waste of time and effort. You can't reason with a closed mind. I write for the people who ARE capable of learning, reason, and understanding, many of whom ARE patriotic, non-socialist, salt-of -the-earth American Democrats, whose minds haven't been poisoned by 8 years of their party's failures, and eight years denying the American people rejected their candidates, and their intense jealousy and anger at being defeated, as well as a paralyzing fear that they are going to lose this time, making them 0 and 3! I also write for the Republicans and independents, who probably reject obama for his associations with the lying, racist , anti-American Wright and Farrakhan, and for William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrne, who bombed US government buildings, and 3-4 years ago said they only wish they had done more of it (obama has never repudiated them, and began his campaign in their living room!) I also suspect that most decent Americans reject his socialism (no liberal-extremist candidate has won in the last 40 years, and the American voters will not be intimidated into voting for another one just because he's black, they don't care if the extremists call them racists, they know better! They probably also reject his association with Chicago criminal Rezko, voting FOR the barbaric practice of Partial-Birth Abortion (no God-fearing people or doctors who believe in a heaven do that), and he voted AGAINST, AGAINST, AGAINST the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (which prevents medical personnel or anyone else leaving a baby alone to die, without medical care, if they survive an abortion attempt. EVERY doctor or other medical people who have EVER had anything to with that practice should instantly lose their license for life (they've violated their Hippocratic Oath of "Do No Harm") to a living human baby after it is born, (they now get only a $25 or $50,000 fine), and they should be charged with intentional negligent homicide, suffer the maximum penalty, with no possibility of parole, as should the parent or parents.) If a hospital does it, they should have a 2-3 strikes rule, and be shut down if they violate it again. An abortion clinic should go down for one occurrence. The law shoud also be changed to make equal penalties for Partial-Birth Abortion, unless the mother is going to DIE immediately without it.

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/04/2008 4:44:36 PM


        "You can't reason with a closed mind."

        You just described yourself perfectly. A brilliant autobiography!

      • Posted By: Nins @ 07/04/2008 1:54:19 PM

        Lightnin, there are do many lies in your blog it would take me an hour to expose them all. I will just address the Born Alive Infant issue:

        The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) referred to live-born pre-viable fetuses less than 20 weeks gestation. "Pre-viable" means that they are so young that they would all die anyway, even if given ICU care.

        The BAIPA was a political ploy designed by the pro-Life faction to smear the reputation of any politician who voted against it. Pre-viable fetuses ALL DIE ANYWAY, so this legislation was not aimed at protecting the life of babies, it was aimed at hurting the reputation of politicians who voted against it. If it had passed it would have overturned Roe v. Wade in Illinois for about one minute -- the amount of time it would take for the pro-Choice groups to counter sue to get it overturned, since the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. That bill was a huge waste of taxpayer money and nothing more than grandstanding. Any lawmaker with a conscience voted against it, and Obama had the balls to finally table it once and for all. GOOD FOR HIM.

        I could similarly refute every other claim in your blog, which is filled with lies. You should change your name form "lightnin" to "lying."

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/04/2008 1:55:45 PM

    Why did the US military cancel a news conference where they were going to display the "Iranian" weapons they found in Iraq? Because there WERE NO IRANIAN WEAPONS to display. Here are links supporting the fact that the weapons found in Iraq did not come from Iran:

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013695.php
    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/fire_next_time.html
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

    NOT TO MENTION that the Untied States itself has had a notable role in arming the insurgency. When the US dissolved the Iraqi Army, that flooded Iraq with weapons. More recently the Pentagon admitted that it had lost track of a third of the weapons distributed to Iraqi security forces in 2004-05, totaling 190,000 assault rifles and pistols that are currently on the streets of Iraq. The British paper that published this article got it's information straight from the US Government Accounting Office's public website:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-admits-190000-weapons-missing-in-iraq-460551.html

    Ask yourself, why would America want to pretend that Iran is pushing weapons in Iraq, when actually WE (the USA) has flooded Iraq's streets with weapons? Because Bush wants to declare war on Iran, and just like the fake "WMDs" in Iraq, he needs something to frighten Americans, so he comes out with this BS about Iran killing US soldiers in Iraq. He has also said that Iran is making nuclear weapons, but recent inspections have found NO EVIDENCE of nuclear weapons in Iran. JUST LIKE how repeated inspections found NO EVIDENCE of WMDs in Iraq. The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN inspectors and nuclear experts at the Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) all agree that Iran DOES NOT have nuclear weapons. The IAEA report states that Iran only has "low enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium necessary to produce a bomb." The ISIS reports states "It is important to note that they do not encompass the full scope of work required for a comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Missing is theoretical work on nuclear weapons, uranium metallurgy, and the development of a neutron initiator." http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/2008/iaea_report_on_iran.htm#_ftn9

    In case you think the idea that Bush wants to bomb Iran is reactionary, you should know that John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, recently told FoxNews that he can "definitely envision Bush bombing Iran before he leaves office." By bombing Iran, Bush makes it more likely McCain will be elected. But can the US Treasury, can the US economy stand more war? Even if we could afford it, we don't have the manpower in uniform. You know what that means: draft and conscription. Vote for McCain. Watch your children come home in body bags. Watch America go into a Great Depression.

  • Posted By: Karenn1 @ 07/04/2008 9:52:42 AM

    Pay taxs get something back in ,fix roads ,briges,health programs,schools.Cut taxs and rich get richerand you can suck your thumb.If were all tax the same buy power is the same.Tax cut leads to inflation for the middle class worker.and nothing accomplish for american workers.So tax me a % and Corporation also no back room corruption.

  • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/03/2008 9:01:14 PM

    The article seems like Semantics 101 to me, very protective of obama. You CAN split hairs and say that voting AGAINST a reduction in taxes is not "voting FOR higher taxes", of course, particularly if you're trying to sway the count. How about if we make two tables, one labelled "Lower Tax Rate Option" and the second named "Higher Tax Rate Option", and go through the votes again, placing Obama's votes in the correct location for each bill, then add up the columns? Would that satisfy your need to defend obama and make him look like less of a liberal extremist than he is? Would you then be willing to stop trying to convince people that the Republicans were liars, or were trying to deceive the voting public? Didn't think so. When you say your prayers tonight (Probably you don't do things like that, now do you? You can tell us!), put in some nice words about William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrne, Jeremiah Wright, and obama's other best bud's.

    • Posted By: hesingswithfrogs @ 07/03/2008 9:08:00 PM

      The GOP needs to figure out that the world isn't black and white. "Lower Tax Rate Option vs. Higher Tax Rate Option." If you really want to get a clear picture, you need to take into account who would be paying the higher or lower tax, where would the money go, how much need is there, is it a good investment, is it a waste, can we afford it? Of course the GOP's leader (Bush) isn't so intelligent and sees things in black and white, so I suppose its not all your fault given the poor example you've had over the years.

      • Posted By: averagejoe.com @ 07/04/2008 12:16:08 AM

        Interesting the way you stated your argument but doesn't hold water. As a teamster my taxes will go up if they are not cut simply by me getting a cost of leaving raise. That's also true for my father who is on social security. We are both due COLA raise this year of about 3%. Because of this raise we will pay higher taxes simply if the tax stays the same as Mr Obama prefers. I believe it's called bracket creep, a very deceptive way of increasing middleclass taxes while inflation eats up my COLA raise! Now if MR Obama and congress vote to cut my taxes then my taxes based on income go down. It seems pretty black & white
        to me, Plus I don't give a darn about what he rich guy is paying in taxes. It has no effect on my houshold. I'm sure he will either pay taxes or write it off as some type of expense. business or charitable, both good for our economy. But what do I know I'm just an average middleclass American worker that pays more taxes every year because I get raise. I'd like to see Mr Obama vote for cutting my taxes significantly!

        • Posted By: hesingswithfrogs @ 07/04/2008 2:59:46 AM

          I'm not sure how my "argument" doesn't hold water. It simply demonstrates the many considerations that go into tax policy and make it something more than simply black and white. It seems like your concern is about your taxes not being indexed to inflation. With your raise, you go into a higher tax bracket, but the raise was just to keep up with the cost of living. This is a very common complaint and has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. The Alternative Minimum tax works the same way. It's a matter of congress having foresight when drafting the tax code to take into account inflation. In the end, it comes down to four things. 1. What needs to be done. 2. How much is it going to cost. 3. How are we going to pay for it. 4. Can we afford it. Obama recognizes that the middle class can only contribute so much. That's why he believes that high income earners need to shoulder more of the load and that's what he's voted for again and again. Just like you would expect a 300 pound lineman to carry more weight than a 100 pound old man, it is only fair to expect a top income earner to contribute more than a single working mom of two.

        • Posted By: hesingswithfrogs @ 07/04/2008 2:39:09 AM

          I'm not sure how my "argument" doesn't hold water. It simply demonstrates the many levels of analysis that are involved in tax policy. I think what you're saying from your own experience is that you'd like to see the tax brackets indexed to inflation. That way if your raise simply helps keep you keep up with inflation, then you should be in the same tax bracket. This is a complaint that many have about our tax code and it isn't a matter of Republican or Democrat. It's a matter of having the foresight to draft the tax code to take inflation into account. The Alternative Minimum's failure to be indexed to inflation works the same way. Like I said before, the top 1% in this country own more than 38% of the wealth. They can shoulder a greater tax burden without feeling the pain, unless you count one less Bentley as pain.

      • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/03/2008 9:39:23 PM

        The "democratic directions" when criticized" Disregard, deny, deflect, deceive, disinform, disparage, damn, depart! Who would be paying the tax? Ans. - the middle-class, as usual. The "rich" democratic voters have accountants and attorneys who assure they will not have to pay taxes, the poor receive benefits from taxes, they don't pay taxes. Where would the money go? usually add-ons or earmarks. Is it a good investment? Taxes are not an investment, they are confiscation of capital, do the taxed get the return? Is it proper to invest money you have confiscated from other people? Is it a waste? Can we say "Bridge to Nowhere?" How about "Hillary was the "Princess of Pork" last year, highest oinker in the nation"? Can we afford it? Of course, the rich, poor, and many college students, blacks, and under-30's (obama's "base" aren't going to have to pay those taxes, only the "enemy" middle-class, who are therefore Republicans, will have to pay, so of course you can afford it! Can you say "redistribution of wealth"? How about "I'm a socialist!"

        • Posted By: hesingswithfrogs @ 07/03/2008 11:32:29 PM

          I have a feeling that you're just shooting from the hip here and haven't really looked into things. According to Newsweek, "A closer look reveals that he's [Obama] voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year." Given this history, it only stands to reason, that as President, Obama would support a similar approach. Consequently, the argument that under an Obama administration, the middle class would be the ones paying higher taxes seems flawed, at least as far as Obama is concerned. Also flawed, are your views that taxes are not an investment. In reality, taxes are invested. They are invested in roads, bridges, defense, food safety, drug safety, crime prevention, etc. These investments are what has allowed the United States to prosper over the last two centuries when compared to others countries. Among other things, tax investments from our citizens has allowed the development of industry, transportation, and stability. As a result, many have prospered disproportionately with the benefits of these investments. Although the overachievements of our most prosperous citizens (and their ancestors) is commendable, unfortunately, many of those same people do not feel a debt to the country which has so heavily invested in them and laid the groundwork for their prosperity. These people, often Republican, would rather greedily shirk their civic responsibility to contribute for their use of their country???s resources and enjoyment of their country???s benefits. No-one is asking our prosperous citizens to pay taxes to the point where they are no longer well above the curve. They do, however, possess a larger share of the pie and can contribute with much less pain than say others with middle, or lower incomes. The richest 1% of households in the U.S. own 38% of all wealth. Obama???s tax policy recognizes this fact and takes it into account. After all, $500 to Ross Perot, is not the same as $500 to a single mother of two working in a factory to make ends meet.

          • Posted By: hesingswithfrogs @ 07/04/2008 12:33:45 AM

            Where I do think we can or at least should find some common ground is on controlling spending. The war in Iraq has now cost $550 billion dollars and counting. That money ultimately, will have to come from our taxpayers. Conducting a war half the way around the globe is not free. The war in Iraq has been an exercise in reckless spending Bush and his Republican cronies. While we may debate on which segments of our population should bear the greatest burden of paying for this war,, our war debt will have to be paid, regardless. Bush has been one of the most reckless spending Presidents we have ever had. Obama's common sense policies will reign in this reckless spending.

            Consider this, Hillary Clinton's proposal for universal health-care carried a price tag of about $100 billion dollars a year to cover every man, woman, and child in this country. Even with this cost, universal healthcare would contribute back to the economy by improving worker productivity and reducing days missed from work. War in Iraq is costing about $100 billion per year. It has been nothing but a drain on our country and its hard to say what its contributed to our economy other than lining the pockets of government contractors. Since you relate to things in black and white, which would you rather spend $100 billion on? The Health of our Citizens, or Death and Destruction overseas?

            • Posted By: averagejoe.com @ 07/04/2008 1:49:12 AM

              I agree that Bush and his republican congress were total irresponsible in spending our tax dollars on many partisan projects. On the other hand I expect my president to protect this nation and it's vital interest
              at any cost, that includes lives and capital. Without defense of our nation we can not do any good for americans or the world. When my country is safe I can live free, work hard, take care of my family, raise my children right, and be a good citizen, helping others when I can. If my country is not safe, from enemies abroad or here then my family, my fellow citizens, and myself will all live in a fear that would
              paralyze all of us and the free world. Yes Irag is quandrum, but we must remember 9/11 and the after math of 3000 innocent fellow american citizens, being vaporized by these mideast assasins. The intelligence that the world had on Saddam Hussein showed he had WMD's. He had ignored 16 UN resolutions, he tried to assinate a former president, he fired on our planes in the no fly zone in violation of the surrender agreement from the first Irag war, he was corruptly using the food for oil program for his own pesonal wants, he had previously attcked two of his neighboring countries, plus israel, he harboured one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, plus he sent a commerce commision to Nigeria, which has only one thing to export and that is yellow cake uranium, plus he and his govenment acted as if they had WMD's by fooling UN inspectors, then kicking them out and bluffing us along when all they had to do was come clean and join the world community. Well most of Americans, congress, and our alies thought he had WMD's too! It's just like a poker game only the stakes are a lot higher, we called his bluff and found out he didn't have any aces. There's a time when you have call. Better to call on his turf and be wrong than to not call and have him kill some innocent people somewhere wth the aces you though he might have, but you didn't have the courage to call him on! The next poker game is brewing with Iran and I don't
              want a president who does'nt have the courage to call their bluff. Iran has made it very clear what they think
              of us, and if they end up with the aces of WMD's I'm sure the world will change for the worse. That means my families way of life will change. I expect my president to do everything in his power not to let that happen. And if he fails the national deficit, government spending, or the taxes I pay won't make a hill of beans difference!

  • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/03/2008 10:16:01 PM

    hesingswithfrogs: How about "hedanceswithcommunism"? Do you read that conservative rag "National Geographic"? Perhaps you may have seen recent issues, with legions of Chinese women picking up bricks from huge factories that collapsed in recent earthquakes, and I believe, Peruvian women on their knees manicuring golf courses for the hoy polloi there. (Obviously staged by Rep[ublican stooges!) Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hugo Chavez, all victims of Republican lies, their socialist/communist states a model for the world! And what do you expect will be your place in the bureaucracy after the revolution, comrade, commissar, do you think? Certainly not a member of the proletariat, eh, not you! Why not take a trip to your favorite socialist state to check out there? You'd probably love it! Why didn't you think of it before? Can you say"disappeareanos"? Have you seen how the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, etc. negotiate with dissidents? Remarkably effective, comrade! Quite black and white. McCain 57%, Obama 41%! Write it down, refer back to it on Nov. 4th, scratch your head and wonder how I knew way back now!

  • Posted By: hesingswithfrogs @ 07/03/2008 8:51:18 PM

    More GOP lies and distortions. What's new? I suppose takes a special sort of "character" that can approve of these types of deceitful manipulations. In that vein, John McSame may have some "character" after all.

  • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/03/2008 8:46:49 PM

    Sinistar? I think not. Try Siniscum.

  • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 07/03/2008 6:49:02 PM

    Lori...
    Fact check this: HOW MANY TIMES DID OBAMA VOTE AGAINST A TAX?
    How Many times did he vote FOR TORT REFORM?

    • Posted By: loriw @ 07/03/2008 8:30:42 PM

      uumm, were you asking me? because I don't recall commenting on this topic. I scrolled below and can't see where I posted...

  • Posted By: rmenasco @ 07/03/2008 6:01:44 PM

    Any wonder why we are so polarized? The left yells and hurls insults. It's impossibe to get an intellectually honest arguement with them.

    • Posted By: lightnin @ 07/03/2008 8:29:51 PM

      Re: Your "impossible" comment, well, duh, of course, it's PHYSICALLY impossible for that to happen! (Can you say "Obamorons"?)

  • Posted By: aurum79 @ 07/03/2008 8:11:26 PM

    The neocon lie machine belches forth its product.

  • Posted By: Gorestradamus @ 07/03/2008 5:50:31 PM

    Wow, talk about a bad article. There are so many misdirecting and biased attempts to make "YOUR" candidate look good and the RNC look bad for putting out the facts, that it makes me sick. He is pro-big government and that means against American individuals.

    What is next, are you going to contend that the Democrat controlled congress isnt to blame for the spike in oil prices.. sure we "could" get at 4.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the USA, but environmental laws have nothing to do with that....

  • Posted By: Gorestradamus @ 07/03/2008 5:46:45 PM

    OOOHh, lets make some fine distinctions to try to make your guy sound better. He is for government and against the people. It is that simple.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse