Lipstick Jungle

I couldn't care the least what the candidates call each other. Lipstick on a pig or whatever. This is politics as usual. What is not politics as usual is the American people and the candidates focusing on the real issues affecting this campaign. Do we want another 4 - 8 years of the same? Do we?

I just have to say this. If Palin was a man - an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights anti environment MAN, would women be rushing to HIS defense?
Lets look beyond her genetalia folks - her vues are ultra right wing SCARY

Perhaps if I hadn't seen Obama flip Hillary the bird the day after the PA debate, I wouldn't believe it (see LA times and chicago sun times article on it if you doubt it), or perhaps if he didn't walk out to the song; "99 reasons, but a ain't one" I might give him the benefit of the doubt, but I have seen way too much, by watching how he treated Hillay to believe he wouldn't do the same to Sarah Palin.

Agreed Stilton agreeing to disagree is the best thing on some of these issues since they are philosophical.

I think we both have good intentions but have different perspectives on what we think cause the situations.

Just as you view the estate tax as a way to prevent a permanent upper class (a good thing I know we can agree upon) I see it from a different perspective.

The quote from Barkley I meant is "the rich will always be rich" is something that factors into my perspective.

I see things like estate tax and high taxes having no real negative effect on "old money" but keeping people from climbing up the ladder. The rich will always find innovative ways to stay rich regardless of the taxes they pay so to me high taxes keep the "old money" in play but stop "new money" from getting anywhere.

"Lot's of Hillary voters, Republicans and Independents saw the sexism and the reverse racism in Obama's primary run....McCain's camp is trying to innoculate itself. Brilliant"

This is largely how I see this issue and how I viewed the "dollar bill" race card issue brought to the table by McCain. He saw these tactics snuck in at strategic times in the democratic primaries and is putting a quick stop to it in the general election.

Here's the deal....if Obama meant nothing by it....he could simply say so and apologisize. It is voters not McCain that were offended.

He is picking the wrong fight her...apologize and move on instead of trying to attack McCain.

Lot's of Hillary voters, Republicans and Independents saw the sexism and the reverse racism in Obama's primary run....McCain's camp is trying to innoculate itself. Brilliant

It's because Palin referred herself the hockie mom and compared her to a pittbull.
Obama replaced the pittbull into a pig.
That's all the math...
It makes sense if McCain thinks Obama has insulted Palin.
Just ask Obama himself, honestly.

"The rich give A LOT more in taxes than anyone else. The "greedy and unamerican" thing once again; sigh. Its un-american to forcibly take people's possessions from them in the name of society in my opinion. It's easy for people that haven't earned things to say they have the right to them."

We're just going to have to agree to disagree there. If what you say is true neither you nor I would ever own any land in the U.S., as it would've all been taken long ago. If you like living in a fiefdom as a serf, I suggest you find another country to live.

"Maybe you don't understand the concepts of investment. Macroeconomics 101 might help in this. "Saving" for rich people means reinvesting."

Uh, I do understand macroeconomics and I do understand that saving for rich people means storing it in a bank and not touching it so it gains interest. If you want to defend trickle down economics, go right ahead, but I can show you very clearly that it does not work for the majority of Americans. Rich Americans, yes. Poor Americans, no.

"Lol by the logic your own quote you just say why taxing the rich doesn't work and hurts the middle class in the end. It's like overtaxing business. They will pass on the costs back to the consumer and screw the middle class more."

This doesn't make any sense to me in terms of context. I get the gist of what you're saying but with what quote are you referencing? Elaborate.

"Nice cop out for the fact you were wrong and didn't think about things like farms, small business, etc. Once again economics 101. The important thing is hopefully you learned something regarding the REAL effects of things like the estate tax."

I said I didn't have TIME to debate the nuances of farms and the estate tax. I am not sure why it wasn't posted, but that's what I wrote.

The real effects of the estate tax are to circumvent a permanent upper class. Period. It is designed this way on purpose, because it's un-American to establish the Old European style of economic oligarchy, generally exercised on the many by the privileged few (usually by a ruling class, e.g. a monarchy in most instances, who held prominence not by merit but by birthright and blood).

If you want to defend the merits of your arguments, fine, but I disagree with them. And as an American, I understand that the vision our forefathers had of this country was in direct contravention of the European-style governments they escaped from in the first place. I agree with that sentiment and that vision, and that's why I say it's un-American to away with the estate tax. Not to punish the rich but to give something back to your country when you die so that maybe, just maybe, someone else can share the same opportunities and prosperity as you.

Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He's a manipulator. People must stop getting sucked in by the liberal media.
Jake Tapper, of course Obama would not admit what he really meant with his comment. Was this a serious commentary?

McCain is now stuck in a bind. His first rally without Palin will be so poorly attended that the media will highlight it all over, and show McCain how poorly valued he is by the Republican base.
He cannot afford to let her go campaign alone.

That’s why he is not going to have any rallies when she is in Alaska for the rest of the week. What a chicken?!! Wonder what his campaign is going to spin this as: 'John needs to rest his sorry behind for a while'.

This will be a great opening for Obama to take center-stage.

This is the man who used the same phrase to refer to Hillary's health care plan...his daughter admitted today that he uses the phrase. This is the man who told "ugly" jokes about Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno and sex jokes about a woman and a bear. This is the man who called called his wife a "trollop" and the "c" word in front of company and offered to enter her in a topless beauty contest in front of a bunch of bikers.

"I don't think punishing the rich (as you put it) is the answer to a "liberal utopia" (your words), either. My perspective is that those who can afford to give more in taxes, should, because it's greedy and un-American not to."

The rich give A LOT more in taxes than anyone else. The "greedy and unamerican" thing once again; sigh. Its un-american to forcibly take people's possessions from them in the name of society in my opinion. It's easy for people that haven't earned things to say they have the right to them.

"Any savings the rich get in tax cuts they end up saving, not reinvesting in the economy, as is intended."

Maybe you don't understand the concepts of investment. Macroeconomics 101 might help in this. "Saving" for rich people means reinvesting.

"I've been very successful -- if you're rich, you're always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you're making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life."

Lol by the logic your own quote you just say why taxing the rich doesn't work and hurts the middle class in the end. It's like overtaxing business. They will pass on the costs back to the consumer and screw the middle class more.

"Farms, on the other hand are a special consideration and should be treated as such. I don't really have to debate the finer nuances of farms as they relate to the estate tax. Maybe later."

Nice cop out for the fact you were wrong and didn't think about things like farms, small business, etc. Once again economics 101. The important thing is hopefully you learned something regarding the REAL effects of things like the estate tax.

I am voting for Obama because I want my neighbor who's retired and can't afford health care to be able to get it. (She's 60 and hoping nothing happens to her until she turns 65 and can get on Medicare)

I am voting for Obama so that we get off domestic AND foreign oil for our energy needs.

I am voting for Obama so that lobbyists will no longer write our laws.

I am voting for Obama so that we end the war in Iraq and take the fight back to Afghanistan, to the people who actually attacked us on Sept. 11th.

I am voting for Obama because I want a diplomat, not a saber-rattler, in the White House.

I am voting for Obama because I want equal pay for equal work.

I am NOT voting for McCain because he doesn't talk about the issues and will just bring more of the same failed policies of the last 8 years.

>>I would argue you were making this insinuation and I bet 90%+ of people reading this thread would agree. In my book you just shot any credibility you might have had so there is no point debating with you any further since it appears to me you're being dishonest.

Hey, that's your choice. It was a simple question. If you can't tell me your perspective as it relates to your financial position, there's no sense debating the finer points, was the insinuation. If you want to take offense, fine. I'm not your mother and no, I'm not going to apologize.

I don't think punishing the rich (as you put it) is the answer to a "liberal utopia" (your words), either. My perspective is that those who can afford to give more in taxes, should, because it's greedy and un-American not to. Look at our $3 TRILLION debt. All the while this Reagonomics ("Trickle Down Economics") scheme the Republicans have forced down our throats simply doesn't work over the last 28 years -- minus the 8 years Clinton was in office, arguably our most prosperous ever. Good stewards of fiscal conservativism? Not the Republicans. That's a fact.

Any savings the rich get in tax cuts they end up saving, not reinvesting in the economy, as is intended. Moreover, giving the very wealthy ADDITIONAL tax cuts in a time of fiscal crisis is irresponsible in thinking this is going to benefit the economy as a whole. Why? The very rich will just pocket the savings by TAKING IT OUT OF THE ECONOMY, not reinvesting it in business and such.

Recently someone tried to corner Charles Barkley on whether he thought a tax hike for the rich was unacceptable. Here's what he said: "Well, I think that if you're rich -- I thank God I've been very successful -- if you're rich, you're always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you're making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life."

Well said, Chuck.

As for the rest of what you said about taxes over $250,000, see above.

Farms, on the other hand are a special consideration and should be treated as such. I don't really have to debate the finer nuances of farms as they relate to the estate tax. Maybe later.

Peace out.

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS Interactive Inc."

Heh.

There's that McCain campaign respecting intellectual property rights again!

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS Interactive Inc."

Heh.

"It's greedy to give it all to your family without giving something back to your country when you die, IMHO. It's un-American to not give something back."

This is a pretty weak argument in my book. Do you know how much these people paid in taxes for their wealth already? Liberals are becoming more and more socialist/communist it is scary.

"And I made no such insinuation. It was a simple question."

Here is your original post.

"Perhaps you should disclose your own financial state so it's more readily apparent where you're coming from with your post."

I would argue you were making this insinuation and I bet 90%+ of people reading this thread would agree. In my book you just shot any credibility you might have had so there is no point debating with you any further since it appears to me you're being dishonest.

FYI liberal idealist eutopia is every bit as faith based and hypocritical as religious conservatism. Whether or not a god is involved doesn't give someone the right to decide how everyone else should live and what should be done with other people's assets.

Lol I'm full of typos.

In my big post I meant disagree* not agree and in the other post "didn't think about things* like small business or family farms" is what I meant.

Stilton I would still like to get your take on income taxes above $250K a year and the estate tax in relation to small business including family farms.

I understand that the estate tax issue for "rich" people not including family farms and small business is more philosophical, but could you provide me insight why people should not be able to pass on their wealth to their families? To me that's one of the things america was built on is to reward hard work so that we can make our lives better.

Just because I'm not rich doesn't mean I think people that are should be punished. I rather look at what I can do to get there.

@Cryos:

>>2. If someone works hard why shouldn't they be able to pass on the assets to their kids? Why should someone else get the fruits of their labor? This sounds like jealousy and greed to me.

Not at all. The estate tax is enforcement that at least some of the money you've saved up over your lifetime in assets and instruments gets put back in the economy. At least that's the intent. It's greedy to give it all to your family without giving something back to your country when you die, IMHO. It's un-American to not give something back.

>>By the way I am middle class, paid my way through college and all my possessions were paid for by me so your insinuation I am rich is completely off the mark.

Great! Good for you! Me too. Now let's make sure everyone else gets the opportunity to, as well.

And I made no such insinuation. It was a simple question.

Stilton no response? I assume you can acknowledge you have not thought the death tax issue through and didn't think about thinks like small business or family farms.

That's what I see as one of the problems with class warfare. Often a $ amount and distraction blinds people from the real effect of their policies. Kind of like Obama's $250K being "rich" notion for taxes. Once again small businesses lose out BIG TIME under this scenario since most small businesses file as individuals.