So, I've gotten a reply to my Democrats Spreading Lies post, and I thought everyone should see it. I'm not trying to point this guy out, I simply thought he brought up a good point, so I thought I'd counter point and it was interesting enough for me to share with you all.
right wing lunatic? it makes sense that your question is a typical non-sequitur, one of the lunatic's favorite tricks.
Answer to your question: 65% do believe that Obama will do a better job with the economy, regardless of the earmark situation. That's because they are smart enough to see that earmarks are nothing compared to the price of the war in Iraq. People are losing so much money because of the price of health care, education, and houses... McCain has no plan whatsoever to fix any of that, and in fact will continue Bush's policies on those, spend more in Iraq, and make the overall situation worse. Obama has a plan and you can check it out at barackobama.com.
65% of Americans are really smart to see through McCain's BS about insignificant earmarks (as compared to the Iraq war's price). That's just a way to divert attention.
The biggest tax we pay is the money we give to health care insurance companies for substandard service, the expensive education system and mortgages. Whoever provides relief on that will offer an actual tax cut to most people, unlike the income tax cut, only for the rich, that McCain proposes.
Travis said... Earmarks totaled $24 billion dollars on the last budget that they passed. That's $80 per person in America. Doesn't sound like much, but that's for every person, not including people who don't pay taxes such as students, prisoners, and some senior citizens, so the amount may be upwards of $200 per person.
That's just in earmarks.
With the war in Iraq dying down, the cost is significantly going to change. It was and continues to be important to finish up the work we're doing there and they are.
In fact, if I remember correctly, we have signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to be completely out of the country by the end of 2009 or 2011, I'm not quite sure on the date. It's early in the morning, and I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look up the exact date.
If Democrats win seats in both parts of Congress, which is likely to happen, and Obama in office, it will be easier to pass even larger earmarks.
The Senates biggest earmark offenders are all Democrat (John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, etc.)
So, I'm going off of the track record of McCain, which is something that Obama wants us to avoid looking at.
Specifically, McCain talks of spending cuts, while Obama talks of Universal Health Care, and other programs that will cost money.
How does he plan on paying for it? With higher taxes.
People in general, you and me included, don't like paying taxes. We'll do everything we can to avoid them. With Obama in office, he wants to tax the wealthy significantly higher and higher. If he continues to do that, the wealthy will simply move their funds elsewhere and we'll get $0 from taxes from them.
This is why we need a flat tax of say 20% or some other such number. That way, the more you earn, the more you pay.
My worry is that Democrats get a veto busting majority in both houses of Congress, and we elect either McCain or Obama, and Congress goes on a wild spending spree.
The war in Iraq is actually a smaller piece of the cost of Congress' spending. I wrote about it here:
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2008/09/democrats-pushing-lies.html
Tax revenue is up, contrary to what Democratic lies are being told. Democratically controlled Congress has shot up spending by over $400 billion dollars in the two years they've had power. That's about $1,200 for every man, woman, and child in America.
That's ADDITIONAL spending. Those on the Left don't talk about spending cuts, which is something that simply must happen. They talk about the war in Iraq costing x amount of money, and how we should be putting that money towards other things.
Nevermind the money is actually being borrowed rather than spent.
My healthcare is being taken care of by my employer. If they gave me shitty service, I'd complain and we'd look for a better provider (which actually happened about 2 years ago)
It's not the government's job to get involved in healthcare or your mortgage.
If you bought a mortgage larger then you could afford, sell it and move into an apartment. It's been that way forever. If you didn't plan on losing your job when you bought the house, or if losing the job means you can no longer afford the home, the only person you can blame is yourself. How about a little personal responsibility?
Education I agree is shoddy. Kids need to be taught, not passed through. We should be asking what we are getting for the money we are giving them, instead of giving them more and more money.
When a new school is built, it should be a normal looking building, not some art deco piece. Money should go towards more teachers, higher teacher wages, better equipment, up to date text books, not more bullshit administrators who keep passing kids through to the next grade while the kid cannot spell worth shit.
The war in Iraq is expensive, I will agree. But we need to look at spending cuts, not more taxes. In fact, I pay more in taxes then a lot of people make in a year. I want to know what kind of returns I'm getting for my money. If you increase my taxes and don't give me anything of value for it in return, such as reducing the deficit, increasing jobs, or our infrastructure, then I'm going to get creative with my money and avoid as much taxes as possible and then, where are you going to get your revenue from? Obama wants to lower taxes on the middle class and poor, so you won't be getting the money from them.
I'm simply looking at the track record of each candidate when it comes to fiscal responsibility, and there is simply no comparison. Obama has asked for hundreds of millions, including money towards his wife's employer at the time, and McCain has asked for almost nothing in comparison.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment