JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
I fall in the "top 10% of wage earners".....care to back up your statement.....
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
McCain Hates Pilots
- Thread starter pipe
- Start date
- Watchers 70
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
I fall in the "top 10% of wage earners".....care to back up your statement.....
I wasn't talking about you Joe. I'm talking about those that fall into the top tax bracket. Last year I also fell into the top 10% of wage earners, and I certainly didn't consider myself "rich," and neither does Obama. But those in the top bracket can stand to have their rate put back to what it was pre-taxcut.
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
.....sounds like liberal "wealth envy"....I'm working on getting into that bracket rather than criticizing those who have EARNED it...... They already pay more in taxes because they earn more money.....They don't need to be penalized because YOU don't think it is "fair".....You have become quit the liberal......
How do you like Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama?
Carl_Spackler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Posts
- 705
PCL, you sound like a victim. The truth is that none of us would be where we are if these evil rich people had never invested their money in the companies we work for, buy products from, and obtain services from. Look at a third world county. They don't have "big business" and see where their QOL is.
I will say it. THANK YOU BIG BUSINESS AND RICH PEOPLE for:
building my house
making my car
producing my food
clothes
gas
computers
cell phone
etc.
Everything the libs are proposing would reduce incentives from companies to produce.
Higher taxes on business and investors. Higher fuel taxes, etc. All of these would directly affect your job. Dems are not about helping the little guy, they are all about CONTROL.
I will say it. THANK YOU BIG BUSINESS AND RICH PEOPLE for:
building my house
making my car
producing my food
clothes
gas
computers
cell phone
etc.
Everything the libs are proposing would reduce incentives from companies to produce.
Higher taxes on business and investors. Higher fuel taxes, etc. All of these would directly affect your job. Dems are not about helping the little guy, they are all about CONTROL.
I hate Ted Kennedy, and yes, his car has still killed more people than all of my guns put together, but I think it's good that he's endorsed Obama. Exit polling indicates that registered Dems actually made a big deal out of that endorsement. Despite his drunken shenanigans, Teddy is still quite popular with the wacky left. If it gets Obama the votes he needs on Tuesday, then I'm all for it.
Carl_Spackler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Posts
- 705
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
......doesn't it say something about Obama's view of how things should be in this country? I don't understand this love affair some of you have for Obama......he is just another liberal.....His voting record is very similar to both Hillary and Teddy.....
Obama is part of "the wacky left".....
No, he's really not. The wacky left wants a single-payer socialized healthcare system. The wacky left thinks that communism was a good idea that just didn't get a fair shake in the USSR. The wacky left thinks the old 90% tax bracket was a good idea. The wackly left thinks taking everyone's guns away is a good idea. Etc... Obama supports none of these things. In reality, few Dem politicians do, because they can't get elected with such crazy ideas. Only the fringe groups actually believe these things.
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
Obama’s Liberal Record Might be a Bigger Hurdle Than His Race
New America Media, Commentary, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Posted: Feb 06, 2007
Editor’s Note: While the political conversation is fixated on Barack Obama’s race, his liberal record is the first hurdle he has to cross in the Southern and border states writes New America Media Associate Editor Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006).
Whenever Barack Obama’s name comes up as a Democratic frontrunner for the presidency, the debate centers on whether the country is ready for a black president. But while race is a big X factor in Obama’s bid for the top spot, it’s hardly the only factor. The other crucial factor is his record and views on the issues and how they will play to voting blocs in the South as well as in Western states like Montana and Colorado, and the Border states that make up the northern tier of the South – Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland etc. The South alone has 144 electoral votes. The Border states and their neighbors hold 60 to 70 more electoral votes. They have been the absolute make or break states for presidential hopefuls since 1972.
When Obama’s record and views are separated from the mythmaking and rock star rapture he’s wrapped in, the problem of his electability looms large. Obama got a perfect 100 rating from the NAACP, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, the Children’s Defense Fund, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Illinois Environmental Council (during his stint in the Illinois legislature) and got a huge plus rating from the ACLU. These are America’s top liberal advocacy groups, and they are some of his most ardent cheerleaders.
Meanwhile, Obama bombed in the ratings he got from the conservative National Taxpayers Union, National Right to Life, the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, the Federation for Immigration Reform and the American Conservative Union. These are some of the nation’s top conservative advocacy groups, and they reflect the interests and views of millions of voters on immigration, spending, guns, abortion and military prowess. These voters will scrutinize his record and his views with a laser eye.
They are also the voters who gave George W. Bush and Republican presidents George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon their decisive margin of victory over their Democrat opponents. They are not, as the myth goes, mostly beer-guzzling, gun-toting, Confederate flag-waving rednecks. They are middle to upper income families who have a college degree or education and live in suburban neighborhoods. In surveys, fewer then one in five Americans labels himself as liberal.
In the South, the number of those that call themselves conservative soars to 70 percent. And they have been rock solid Republican for nearly four decades. Bill Clinton did not alter the political thinking or equation in the South. George H. W. Bush in 1992, and Republican challenger Bob Dole in 1996, got fewer white male votes than Reagan and Nixon. But those votes didn’t go to Clinton. Insurgent presidential candidate Ross Perot, with his anti-government assault in 1992 and 1996, grabbed a big chunk of them. That helped pry four Southern states out of the Republican column, and put them in Clinton’s win column. Even then, Clinton bagged only one-third of the Southern white vote. Eight years of Clinton’s centrist political tilt did not make the South more Democratic Party friendly. Pat Buchanan, not George W. Bush, proved that in the 2000 presidential campaign. His freewheeling, hard right rants appealed to many white male voters when he ran as an independent candidate in 2000.
Republican presidential contender Barry Goldwater in 1964 set the ugly tone for how campaigns have been waged, or more particularly, the bash and trash of Democrats with code words and wedge issues since the 1960s. Republicans have artfully stoked voter rage with code words and slogans that tap the gender and racial fears of millions of voters. Republicans have also played hard on the anger, frustration, and hatred that many American voters harbor toward government.
Reagan masterfully crafted the “get government off your back” line into a solid Republican selling point. He targeted the remnants of the Great Society programs. He crippled funding and further eroded public enthusiasm for social spending. Conservatives took the cue and painted the government as pro-higher taxes, pro-bureaucracy, pro-immigrant and especially pro-welfare and pro-rights of criminals. The Republicans’ repeated smear of the Democrats as tax and spend, liberal, big government proponents has struck and will continue to strike a chord with many.
Then Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean’s awkward, off-the cuff quip in the early days of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary that the Democrats must grab a bigger share of the “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks” brought howls of protest, and charges that Dean was a closet bigot. But Dean got it right. The white male vote in the South puts any Democrat in a deep hole before the first ballot is punched. Obama’s moderate to liberal views and voting record won’t change that. And that doesn’t even count the X factor of race.
New America Media, Commentary, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Posted: Feb 06, 2007
Editor’s Note: While the political conversation is fixated on Barack Obama’s race, his liberal record is the first hurdle he has to cross in the Southern and border states writes New America Media Associate Editor Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006).
Whenever Barack Obama’s name comes up as a Democratic frontrunner for the presidency, the debate centers on whether the country is ready for a black president. But while race is a big X factor in Obama’s bid for the top spot, it’s hardly the only factor. The other crucial factor is his record and views on the issues and how they will play to voting blocs in the South as well as in Western states like Montana and Colorado, and the Border states that make up the northern tier of the South – Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland etc. The South alone has 144 electoral votes. The Border states and their neighbors hold 60 to 70 more electoral votes. They have been the absolute make or break states for presidential hopefuls since 1972.
When Obama’s record and views are separated from the mythmaking and rock star rapture he’s wrapped in, the problem of his electability looms large. Obama got a perfect 100 rating from the NAACP, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, the Children’s Defense Fund, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Illinois Environmental Council (during his stint in the Illinois legislature) and got a huge plus rating from the ACLU. These are America’s top liberal advocacy groups, and they are some of his most ardent cheerleaders.
Meanwhile, Obama bombed in the ratings he got from the conservative National Taxpayers Union, National Right to Life, the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, the Federation for Immigration Reform and the American Conservative Union. These are some of the nation’s top conservative advocacy groups, and they reflect the interests and views of millions of voters on immigration, spending, guns, abortion and military prowess. These voters will scrutinize his record and his views with a laser eye.
They are also the voters who gave George W. Bush and Republican presidents George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon their decisive margin of victory over their Democrat opponents. They are not, as the myth goes, mostly beer-guzzling, gun-toting, Confederate flag-waving rednecks. They are middle to upper income families who have a college degree or education and live in suburban neighborhoods. In surveys, fewer then one in five Americans labels himself as liberal.
In the South, the number of those that call themselves conservative soars to 70 percent. And they have been rock solid Republican for nearly four decades. Bill Clinton did not alter the political thinking or equation in the South. George H. W. Bush in 1992, and Republican challenger Bob Dole in 1996, got fewer white male votes than Reagan and Nixon. But those votes didn’t go to Clinton. Insurgent presidential candidate Ross Perot, with his anti-government assault in 1992 and 1996, grabbed a big chunk of them. That helped pry four Southern states out of the Republican column, and put them in Clinton’s win column. Even then, Clinton bagged only one-third of the Southern white vote. Eight years of Clinton’s centrist political tilt did not make the South more Democratic Party friendly. Pat Buchanan, not George W. Bush, proved that in the 2000 presidential campaign. His freewheeling, hard right rants appealed to many white male voters when he ran as an independent candidate in 2000.
Republican presidential contender Barry Goldwater in 1964 set the ugly tone for how campaigns have been waged, or more particularly, the bash and trash of Democrats with code words and wedge issues since the 1960s. Republicans have artfully stoked voter rage with code words and slogans that tap the gender and racial fears of millions of voters. Republicans have also played hard on the anger, frustration, and hatred that many American voters harbor toward government.
Reagan masterfully crafted the “get government off your back” line into a solid Republican selling point. He targeted the remnants of the Great Society programs. He crippled funding and further eroded public enthusiasm for social spending. Conservatives took the cue and painted the government as pro-higher taxes, pro-bureaucracy, pro-immigrant and especially pro-welfare and pro-rights of criminals. The Republicans’ repeated smear of the Democrats as tax and spend, liberal, big government proponents has struck and will continue to strike a chord with many.
Then Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean’s awkward, off-the cuff quip in the early days of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary that the Democrats must grab a bigger share of the “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks” brought howls of protest, and charges that Dean was a closet bigot. But Dean got it right. The white male vote in the South puts any Democrat in a deep hole before the first ballot is punched. Obama’s moderate to liberal views and voting record won’t change that. And that doesn’t even count the X factor of race.
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
Barack Obama on Civil Liberties
From Tom Head,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
ACLU Rating: Barack Obama has a 79% lifetime rating from the ACLU, and a 50% rating to date for the 2006-2007 legislative session.
Abortion and Reproductive Rights - Strongly Pro-Choice: Obama achieved an 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in both 2005 and 2006. He has expressed firm disagreement with the Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart ruling of 2007, which upheld a federal ban on live intact D&X ("partial birth") abortions. While serving as a member of the Illinois State Senate in 2001, he abstained from voting on two parental notification bills.
Death Penalty - Retentionist, But Supports Reform: Although Obama supports the death penalty in extreme cases, he was personally involved in a legislative effort in Illinois to reform the state's capital punishment system. Among other things, he co-wrote legislation requiring the videotaping of confessions in capital cases. He frequently criticizes application of the death penalty in the United States, citing instances where death row inmates have been exonerated, as well as the well-documented racial disparities in capital sentencing.
The First Amendment - Supports Campaign Finance Reform Legislation: One of the primary reasons Obama's current ACLU rating stands at a mere 50% for 2006-2007 is his vote against a legislative amendment that would have exempted grassroots lobbying efforts from campaign finance reform regulations. The amendment passed the Senate without Obama's support.
Immigrants' Rights - Moderately Generous: Obama supports the continued use of government services by undocumented immigrants, as well as the guest worker program and citizenship path proposal that would have been implemented by the Senate's 2007 immigration reform bill. On the other hand, he strongly supports increased funding for border security and has expressed firm opposition to amnesty proposals.
Lesbian and Gay Rights - Everything But Marriage: Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), federal hate crime legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, civil unions, and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He opposes both the Federal Marriage Amendment and same-sex marriage, a compromise position held by the majority of 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, as well as several of the Republican candidates. Read more...
Race and Equal Opportunity - Leading Candidate: Obama, who spent 11 years working as a civil rights attorney, was the first and is quite often the only candidate of either party to speak of institutional racism, racial socioeconomic disparities, and racial segregation. He strongly supports affirmative action programs.
The Second Amendment - Supports Increased Gun Control: Obama holds an F rating from the NRA, and he tends to support any gun control legislation that comes his way.
War on Terror - Democratic Mainstream: Obama's position on Bush's post-9/11 policies are fairly typical of a national Democratic politician. He supported the 2006 reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, but argued that the earlier version of the legislation threatened civil liberties and joined Senate Democrats in revising the Act to address these concerns.
Tom's Take: Obama is the only candidate of either party with significant civil rights activism and grassroots organizing experience. His time in civil rights activism exceeds the amount of time he has spent as a national politician. Obama is also the only viable presidential candidate in my memory to have taught constitutional law professionally, for more than a decade, before running for president. Although Obama tends to be a fairly mainstream Democrat on most issues, and his positions on campaign reform and gun rights will be a significant and understandable concern to many, his overall platform is among the strongest of the top-tier candidates in both parties. He is by no means a perfect civil liberties candidate, but he is a much stronger civil liberties candidate than most of his opponents.
From Tom Head,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
ACLU Rating: Barack Obama has a 79% lifetime rating from the ACLU, and a 50% rating to date for the 2006-2007 legislative session.
Abortion and Reproductive Rights - Strongly Pro-Choice: Obama achieved an 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in both 2005 and 2006. He has expressed firm disagreement with the Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart ruling of 2007, which upheld a federal ban on live intact D&X ("partial birth") abortions. While serving as a member of the Illinois State Senate in 2001, he abstained from voting on two parental notification bills.
Death Penalty - Retentionist, But Supports Reform: Although Obama supports the death penalty in extreme cases, he was personally involved in a legislative effort in Illinois to reform the state's capital punishment system. Among other things, he co-wrote legislation requiring the videotaping of confessions in capital cases. He frequently criticizes application of the death penalty in the United States, citing instances where death row inmates have been exonerated, as well as the well-documented racial disparities in capital sentencing.
The First Amendment - Supports Campaign Finance Reform Legislation: One of the primary reasons Obama's current ACLU rating stands at a mere 50% for 2006-2007 is his vote against a legislative amendment that would have exempted grassroots lobbying efforts from campaign finance reform regulations. The amendment passed the Senate without Obama's support.
Immigrants' Rights - Moderately Generous: Obama supports the continued use of government services by undocumented immigrants, as well as the guest worker program and citizenship path proposal that would have been implemented by the Senate's 2007 immigration reform bill. On the other hand, he strongly supports increased funding for border security and has expressed firm opposition to amnesty proposals.
Lesbian and Gay Rights - Everything But Marriage: Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), federal hate crime legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, civil unions, and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He opposes both the Federal Marriage Amendment and same-sex marriage, a compromise position held by the majority of 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, as well as several of the Republican candidates. Read more...
Race and Equal Opportunity - Leading Candidate: Obama, who spent 11 years working as a civil rights attorney, was the first and is quite often the only candidate of either party to speak of institutional racism, racial socioeconomic disparities, and racial segregation. He strongly supports affirmative action programs.
The Second Amendment - Supports Increased Gun Control: Obama holds an F rating from the NRA, and he tends to support any gun control legislation that comes his way.
War on Terror - Democratic Mainstream: Obama's position on Bush's post-9/11 policies are fairly typical of a national Democratic politician. He supported the 2006 reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, but argued that the earlier version of the legislation threatened civil liberties and joined Senate Democrats in revising the Act to address these concerns.
Tom's Take: Obama is the only candidate of either party with significant civil rights activism and grassroots organizing experience. His time in civil rights activism exceeds the amount of time he has spent as a national politician. Obama is also the only viable presidential candidate in my memory to have taught constitutional law professionally, for more than a decade, before running for president. Although Obama tends to be a fairly mainstream Democrat on most issues, and his positions on campaign reform and gun rights will be a significant and understandable concern to many, his overall platform is among the strongest of the top-tier candidates in both parties. He is by no means a perfect civil liberties candidate, but he is a much stronger civil liberties candidate than most of his opponents.
Carl_Spackler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Posts
- 705
I've been reading obama's website on the issues. I will say he does a good job convincing the ignorant and pandering to the masses. Just about every single proposal will cost lots and lots of money.
He wants the minimum wage to rise so a person can work 40 a week and be able to afford housing, transportation, food, clothing etc. If this were to happen, the damage to the economy and unemployment would be huge.
His health care plan would be a disaster.
He wants to put a bandaid on social security instead of fix a program that was broken before it even started.
Pick one issue, and I'll show you the problems with it.
He wants the minimum wage to rise so a person can work 40 a week and be able to afford housing, transportation, food, clothing etc. If this were to happen, the damage to the economy and unemployment would be huge.
His health care plan would be a disaster.
He wants to put a bandaid on social security instead of fix a program that was broken before it even started.
Pick one issue, and I'll show you the problems with it.
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
Oh, the humanity!!! People actually able to live a decent quality of life for an honest day's work. The horror! [/sarcasm]
His healthcare plan has a few flaws, but it's the best thing being proposed on either side of the aisle. Only Romney comes even close to a decent plan on the Republican side. The others are pure disasters.
A real fix isn't politically feasible right now. A band-aid is the best that we can hope for, and he's got a pretty good band-aid.
Carl_Spackler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Posts
- 705
If raising the minimum wage was such a good thing, why not raise it to $50/hr? Look at it from a business pov (i know it's hard). If an employer is forced to pay a wage of $X/hr, the employee must produce to cover the cost of his or her employment. If they can't, bye bye job or business must raise prices, sales go down and bye bye job. Unemployment would rise.
Other than the implications a raise in minimum wage would have, it was never designed to support a family on. Very few minimum wage workers live in poor house holds. That is because they are mostly kids, or second income earners in the home. Low skilled jobs for low wages build skills that lead to higher skilled higher paying jobs.
Additionally, there is no authority for the federal government to control minimum wage. Let the states take care of it...some already do.
Other than the implications a raise in minimum wage would have, it was never designed to support a family on. Very few minimum wage workers live in poor house holds. That is because they are mostly kids, or second income earners in the home. Low skilled jobs for low wages build skills that lead to higher skilled higher paying jobs.
Additionally, there is no authority for the federal government to control minimum wage. Let the states take care of it...some already do.
Re. McCain and the NMB etc. .... Granting that everything alleged may be true, even then I will vote for what I feel is in the national interest overall, even if it goes completely against my own specific industry or union interests. Under no circumstances could I ever vote for Clinton II, and Obama, while he has lots of good points, so far also appears to be a big government guy, losing my vote unless he convinces me otherwise. (And yes, Bush was big government too). And I don't plan on sitting out the election or inserting a write-in. Regardless of who wins, I hope there is always a party split between congress (at least one house) and the oval office- so government can do the least damage.
Last edited:
atafan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Posts
- 434
This is a memo to all you liberals that want to tax the rich and evil corporations until they bleed.
When the evil corporations get taxed more they just pass it along to joe six pack, so joe six pack pays that tax increase. If you pinch those evil corporations so hard that they can't do business in the USA anymore they move overseas and joe six pack loses his job. If you tax the wealthest so hard that they get pinched, they cut back and joe six pack loses his job again.
Wake up! The evil corporations and the wealtiest need to taxes that are not too high, that way the economy is healthy and unemployment is low. Poor old joe can keep on consuming and we are all happy nappys.
The enemy is BIG government and slackers not sucessfull entities.
Simple, No?
When the evil corporations get taxed more they just pass it along to joe six pack, so joe six pack pays that tax increase. If you pinch those evil corporations so hard that they can't do business in the USA anymore they move overseas and joe six pack loses his job. If you tax the wealthest so hard that they get pinched, they cut back and joe six pack loses his job again.
Wake up! The evil corporations and the wealtiest need to taxes that are not too high, that way the economy is healthy and unemployment is low. Poor old joe can keep on consuming and we are all happy nappys.
The enemy is BIG government and slackers not sucessfull entities.
Simple, No?
Because $50/hr isn't necessary to keep people out of poverty. The minimum wage is only there to keep employers from abusing workers and not paying them a living wage. If an employer isn't capable of paying the bare minimum wage to keep his employees out of poverty conditions, then that employer needs to be weeded out to make room for employers that can. There is absolutely no justification for paying employees less than they need to merely survive.
And never the less, many people do have to support a family on such wages, or wages very close to it.
Perhaps you could cite a reference in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from enacting a minimum wage?
Carl_Spackler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Posts
- 705
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
A little reading on the "Irish miracle".....
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/internat/pd062601c.html
Private enterprise drives the economy.....not the government.....
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/internat/pd062601c.html
Private enterprise drives the economy.....not the government.....
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
So simple, even a liberal could understandNot that they would admit it though.
.....if they went to a government school, they may not understand it....
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
