Why I am not a Conservative

[timesjoke]

Timesjoke,

 

Sarah Palin is simply GW Bush in a skirt, yet "conservatives" here seem to support her.

 

Well that proves your completely misinformed. Your buying into the Liberal lies Hugo. Bush was a closet Liberal, let me give you an example, do you really think Sarah would have supported and voted for the Amnesty bill Bush pushed for?

 

Your only case for trying to make Sarah seem liberal is her getting money from the oil companies for the people......I can see how that might twist in some minds to mean that is similar to welfare but in reality it is much, much different.

 

 

The oil in Alaska belongs to the people of Alaska....right? Just having the ability to extract the pil from the ground does not mean it belongs to the oil companies "YET". The oil companies have to earn that oil and each State can set their own value for their own product. If the value Alaska set on their own resource was too high, no oil company would want it........Free markets Hugo, the oil companies have a choice.

 

 

 

Me as a taypayer paying into the welfare system, I do not have a choice.

 

 

 

I love the way Bender keeps up the pressure of insults, and that is the typical Liberal attack machine.

 

 

They know their biggest weakness for their agenda is if people look at it with the facts so anytime someone tries to break down things by the numbers they derail the discussion away from the facts with personal attacks.

 

Because they are too weak minded to do anything else.

 

Bender is a robot to their causes because there is something inside him that sees America as it was designed as bad so they will ignore the constitution, ignore the founding fathers, ignore even basic fiscal responsibility all in the name of turning America into a daycare facility with "THEM" controlling everyone.

 

 

But, they also know what they are doing is wrong. When they lash out at those who challenge their agends as Bender strikes out at me, it is because they really hate themselves and know no other way to conduct themselves.

 

 

Time and time again Bender has claimed the Republicans have never had any other ideas but that lie has been countered by IWS over and over again. Bender chooses to ignore the many examples IWS has shown like wearing blinders so he never has to admit to it. In the last 6 months Republicans have offered alternative bills and budget plans to those offered by the Democrats but because they do not involve turning socialist the Democcrats like Bender who only want to push a socialist agenda they will not even be looked at.

 

I bet Bender has not even read the many bills that were offered by Republicans for healthcare reform, but that does not restrain him from shooting off his mouth to claim they were bad....wait he claims they never existed.

 

 

 

I again say go back to the author of the piece being discussed and see what that man describes as a Liberal.

 

A Liberal most certainly does not force changes, what the author describes as socialists is what Bender, Obama, and every other Democrat is today.

[snafu]

After having a Republican President who embraced expanding the federal government's role in medicine and education and who proposed massive budget deficits in a time of prosperity (making the current even more massive deficits in a recession both politically and economically (under the direction of Lord Keynes) inevitable and now we had the Republicans nominating a liberal in the last election and overwhelmingly rejected the one candidate whose words and votes actually show he is for not only fighting the expansionary plans of the socialists but actually reducing the size of government. Of course, he is an extremist. Let me quote Barry Goldwater "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

 

Now, of course, the Republicans seem infatuated with a governor who put a tax on oil companies, reducing employment, so she could give every Alaskan a welfare check.

 

Oh wait a minute....

 

It's not welfare and your a smart man, why would you even say such a thing? Again we rent our land and collect our rent. If that's not American I don't know what is.

 

Reducing employment? she's been a strong advocate on the new gas pipeline that would create hundreds of jobs if not more. Oh by the way in the lower 48 they have voted to open their resources but we were shot down by one vote.

 

Your quoting Gold Water (a Republican) but your not even giving Sarah the benefit of the doubt. She might be a Republican by name but only because as you know a third party wouldn't have a chance. She will change the Republican Party and help give it a new course. Ya know we all learn by our mistakes so try not to bring up Bush so much. She will cross party lines..

 

Also...

 

Palin stimulus veto prompts special session of Legislature: Legislature | adn.com

[snafu]

Oh and I bet she could kick your ass.

[hugo]

Well, de ja vu, I remember having "conservatives" defending Bush in 2000 when I claimed he was a liberal. You nominate someone with conservative economic principles I just might vote Republican. Ya gonna need a few more Republicans. Nominate someone who taxes employment and rewards sloth (Palin) you will not get my vote.

[snafu]

Well, de ja vu, I remember having "conservatives" defending Bush in 2000 when I claimed he was a liberal. You nominate someone with conservative economic principles I just might vote Republican. Ya gonna need a few more Republicans. Nominate someone who taxes employment and rewards sloth (Palin) you will not get my vote.

 

"Conservatives"... Yeah I was on the bandwagon and I still stand by Bush. He may not have been the Conservative that we perceived or wanted him to be but he's a whole lot better than any liberal as we perceive the term to be now anyday!

 

I just ask that you don't pass judgment on Sarah now and I won't put my vote in for her now either. What do you say?

[hugo]

"Conservatives"... Yeah I was on the bandwagon and I still stand by Bush. He may not have been the Conservative that we perceived or wanted him to be but he's a whole lot better than any liberal as we perceive the term to be now anyday!

 

I just ask that you don't pass judgment on Sarah now and I won't put my vote in for her now either. What do you say?

 

Sarah's own words on an economic issue:

 

: Who is responsible for these failing institutions [such as AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Bros., in the mortgage crisis] in your view?

A: I think the corruption on Wall Street--that is to blame. And that violation of the public trust. And that contract that should be inherent in corporations who are spending, investing other people?s money--the abuse of that is what has got to stop. And it?s a matter, too, of some of these CEOs and top management people and shareholders not holding that management accountable, being addicted to, we call it, O-P-M, ?other people?s money.? Spending that, investing that, not using the prudence that we expect of them. But here again, government has got to play an appropriate role in the stringent oversight, making sure that those abuses stop.

[snafu]

Sarah's own words on an economic issue:

 

: Who is responsible for these failing institutions [such as AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Bros., in the mortgage crisis] in your view?

A: I think the corruption on Wall Street--that is to blame. And that violation of the public trust. And that contract that should be inherent in corporations who are spending, investing other people?s money--the abuse of that is what has got to stop. And it?s a matter, too, of some of these CEOs and top management people and shareholders not holding that management accountable, being addicted to, we call it, O-P-M, ?other people?s money.? Spending that, investing that, not using the prudence that we expect of them. But here again, government has got to play an appropriate role in the stringent oversight, making sure that those abuses stop.

 

What happened after the bail out of AIG and Fannie Mac? Didn't the CEO's walk away under their golden umbrellas? Didn't they take a fancy vacation with bail out money? Hell yeah they need to be held accountable?

[snafu]

They're the s making the decisions and setting their own salary's. Yeah they need to be held accountable. If the government is going to bail them out then the government should regulate them. Damn if we did and damed if we don't. To late we already did!!!! Thanks to the Dem's were already in the business!!!

[timesjoke]

What happened after the bail out of AIG and Fannie Mac? Didn't the CEO's walk away under their golden umbrellas? Didn't they take a fancy vacation with bail out money? Hell yeah they need to be held accountable?

 

What is the difference between a scam artist who steals money from an old lady or the scam artist who steals from a million old ladies?

 

The difference is the latter donates money to political campaigns.

[snafu]

What is the difference between a scam artist who steals money from an old lady or the scam artist who steals from a million old ladies?

 

The difference is the latter donates money to political campaigns.

 

Thank you!

[snafu]

I know you don't like to divulge much of your life hugo but it seems to me your more concerned about the top 1%. Although I agree with you all in almost every stance why are you changing your tune now? Are you concerned?

[hugo]

A true classical liberal would not have failed to mention government forcing institutions to make high risk loans to minorities and housing in bad neighborhoods. A true classical liberal would not have put all the blame on corporations and only blamed government for not being active enough.

 

A little info Sarah should have mentioned:

 

In reality, regulatory policy has worked in the opposite direction. The government wanted more risky loans made, not fewer. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to make loans in poor neighborhoods. Banks (and I was a banker under the CRA) figured that making some bad loans was just another tax, a cost of doing business as a regulated company. In 1995, the Clinton administration revised the CRA to increase pressure on banks to make more loans to risky borrowers. In 1997, the first pool of subprime mortgages was securitized (by Bear Stearns!).

 

The law regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was rewritten to reduce their capital requirements, meaning they would become riskier. Some critics were concerned about the risk, but here is what Congressman Barney Frank had to say at the time:

 

 

“These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

 

At the height of the real estate boom, the United States set record home ownership rates. Politicians, including President Bush, bragged about their success at getting Americans into their own homes. As recently as August 2007, the President bragged that he was helping Americans get homes with lower down payments and higher loan limits. He also signed a law making it easier for homeowners to walk away from their mortgage obligations.Would more regulation have reduced the number of bad loans made? Most likely, more regulation would have increased the problem.

 

 

If I want someone who blames corporations for everything and believes in taxing corporations and handing out freebies with the revenue I can vote for Obama. Instead, I will be voting for a classical liberal on economic matters again. Maybe the Republicans will nominate one for the first time since 1984.

[hugo]

Cong. Report Says Government Caused Financial Crisis; Sessions' Questions on Sotomayor

by Connie Hair

 

07/08/2009

 

 

In a stunning report (pdf) released yesterday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the current financial crisis was traced back to government intervention in the U.S. housing market. Yes, you read that right.

 

The report issued by the Republican minority didn’t disclose the names of the culprit individuals, but it sure pointed a lot of fingers at organizations, politicians, lobbyists and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

 

According to the report, government intervention “created ‘affordable’ but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests -- politicians, lenders and lobbyists -- who profited from the ‘affordable’ housing market and acted to kill reforms.”

 

 

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the committee, released a summary of key findings from the report that included:

 

• Political pressure led to the erosion of responsible lending practices:

In the early 1990s, Fannie and Freddie began to come under considerable political pressure to lower their underwriting standards, particularly on the size of down payments and the credit quality of borrowers. (p.6)

 

• Lower down-payments led to housing prices that outpaced income growth: Once government-sponsored efforts to decrease down payments spread to the wider market, home prices became increasingly untethered from any kind of demand limited by borrowers’ ability to pay. Instead, borrowers could just make smaller down payments and take on higher debt, allowing home prices to continue their unrestrained rise. (p. 11)

 

• Members of an “affordable housing” coalition shared profits with political allies to help legitimize their business practices: Fannie Mae created and used The Fannie Mae Foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically-connected organizations like the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. It also hired well-known academics to give an aura of academic rigor to policy positions favorable to Fannie Mae. (p.7)

 

• The Government Sponsored Enterprises led the way into the housing crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were leaders in risky mortgage lending. According to an analysis presented to the Committee, between 2002 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie purchased $1.9 trillion of mortgages made to borrowers with credit scores below 660, one of the definitions of “subprime” used by federal banking regulators. This represents over 54% of all such mortgages purchased during those years. (p.24)

 

“The spin on the financial crisis by those who favored government efforts to erode lending standards is that the housing bubble didn’t cause this recession,” Issa said. “The findings in this report should remind this Congress that ignoring the role of politics and government in causing the housing crisis and the economic collapse while pursing other regulatory reforms will not fix the underlying problem.”

 

Has anyone told Barney Frank?

 

Has anyone told Sarah "Cut and Run" Palin?

[timesjoke]

I don't see your point, the "Modern" liberals forced the irresponsible lending rules, Clinton signed the fist state of the program of forced loans into action and several attempts by the Republicans to rein this program back was stopped again, by the liberals. The biggest attempt was by the Republicans in 2004 where the Liberals said the Republicans were just "fear mongering" (sounds familure) and even accused a couple of the Republicans for being racist because they were trying to stop minorities from getting afordable loans.

 

That direct act from the liberals to force bad loans to be written did create the new atmosphere for loans and risk taking but at the same time, once the ball was rolling, many irresponsible groups decided to learn from the Government who was setting the example and took the ball and ran with it.

 

 

 

What this has to do with Sarah I have no idea, looks to me like your trying too hard to find fault where there is no fault Hugo. I am not saying she is the queen of perfection, just that she is an honest person in a field of dishonesty that politics have turned into.

[RoyalOrleans]

A recent Gallup polls shows that 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative. Only 21% of Americans call themselves liberal and 35% consider themselves moderate.

 

Clearly all of these conservatives don't consider themselves to be Republicans. Many of them are round in the ranks of or in sympathy with the Libertarians. A lot of them even vote Democrat. Conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. There are a lot of conservatives, for instance, who do not feel that it is the government's role to control a woman's reproductive life. Many of them won't vote Republican until the party starts to concentrate more on governance than it does on people's personal lives.

 

Fact is, the Republican party is out of fresh and new ideas, and it is ignoring the good old ones. Where are the Republicans who are standing up with anything more than a whimper for free enterprise?

 

OK .. you know where I'm going. I'm completely convinced that if the Republican party would put its full support behind the FairTax, and pledge to pass it as soon as they have control of the House and the Senate, it would turn next year's midterm election on its ear. The FairTax would become the issue. Sure, the Democrats would demagogue it, but as more and more Americans learned the truth their demagoguery would serve to hurt their cause, not help it. The formula here is so simple. Would you rather pay the government 33% of everything you earn, or 23% of everything you spend. What do you think of the idea of nobody paying any taxes at all to the federal government until they have provided for the basic necessities for their family? Now think about that one. Should the government have a claim on one single penny of the money you earn --- or, to state it differently --- should the government have any claim on one single minute of your life before you've taken care of your own family's basic needs? Unless I miss my guess, most Americans would answer "no" to those questions. Can't you see the Republicans running on a campaign of "Not one penny for the government until your family is taken care of." Well, that's the FairTax.

 

Why won't the Republicans get behind this? The FairTax is the most thoroughly studied and researched piece of legislation ever to have been placed before the Congress of the United States. Still, the Republicans don't believe that they can stand up to Democrat demagoguery. They have no confidence in the voters. They think that the voters will respond to simplistic and sophomoric ideas like calling the Democrat Party the "Socialist Democrat Party." Yeah ... that's showing 'em. But when it comes to supporting and promoting legislation that would bring about the largest transfer of power from the government to the people in our history .... The Republicans shy away.

 

There are trillions of dollars ... perhaps as much as $13 trillion ... in American dollar-denominated deposits working in overseas economies. Those dollars belong to Americans and American corporations. Stimulus? You want stimulus? What if that money came flowing back home to work in our economy? Can you imagine the stimulus to our economy that would result from just one-half of this money coming back home? This money would be spent by the people who earned it and own it, not by the government. The spending decisions would be privately made, not made in Washington's dark chambers. Obama's idea? Pass laws that tax these overseas earnings right here at home. Construct an economic Berlin Wall. If you see a dollar trying to escape our tax system, shoot it down without remorse. The FairTax plan? The FairTax play that could be the Republican plan? Tell the people who hold this wealth to bring it home with absolutely no federal tax consequences whatsoever. No taxes, no interest on taxes, no penalties .. nothing. Bring it home and put it to work in America and for Americans. But ... have you heard one single Republican present these different approaches to the American people?

 

How can the Democrats frighten the Republicans so much on this plan? The Democrats would argue for withholding money from your paycheck before you even see it. The Republicans could argue for presenting you with 100% of your paycheck every payday. The Democrats could argue for taxing everything that moves. The Republicans could argue for businesses operating in the US with no tax component on capital or labor. The Republicans aren't willing to take on this argument?

 

How sad it must be to have the hearts and minds of the plurality of the American people, but be unable to translate that into actual support. How on Earth do we have Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running the show? Again, I said there were two reasons. The first being that the Republican Party has nothing going for itself: wolves in sheep's clothing ready to socialize and control the economy as much as the Progressive Democrats! The second is because the American people have been conned ... at least in the presidential election ... into voting for a man who promised them "hope" and "change."

 

Elections have consequences. Are you starting to figure that out yet?

[timesjoke]

The problem is, the mass majority of those who vote Liberal do not pay any or much tax anyway, so why would they care? They are only voting for people like Obama because they are promising to take from the "rich" to give it to them.

 

 

The small number of strict liberals/socialists like Bender do it out of some kind of feelings of guilt. They have success but they feel as though they have not really earned that success so they gladly embrace out of control taxes as a kind of penance for what they see as their own sin/evil that they need to make up for.

[RoyalOrleans]

The problem is, the mass majority of those who vote Liberal do not pay any or much tax anyway, so why would they care? They are only voting for people like Obama because they are promising to take from the "rich" to give it to them.

 

 

The small number of strict liberals/socialists like Bender do it out of some kind of feelings of guilt. They have success but they feel as though they have not really earned that success so they gladly embrace out of control taxes as a kind of penance for what they see as their own sin/evil that they need to make up for.

 

Do you just talk to hear yourself speak?

 

Do you post just to see your little name appear in a post?

 

Jesus Fukken Christ.

 

Do you actually believe anything you say?

 

---

 

Now you take away the weight of what I posted with a bunch of bullsh!t? I thought we were having an intelligent discussio here?

 

You are a sh!theel. You are a fukken drama-laden sh!t-buzzard. Get the fukk out of this thread and stop kibitzing everyone's fukking points with your douchebaggery!

 

There I feel better.

 

Fukker.

[ImWithStupid]

The Fair Tax would never work.

 

It would end up like any other sales tax and this would be exempt or that would be exempt, it would hurt the poor too much to tax this product or that product, and would just end up being another political and bureaucratical nightmare as the current tax code.

 

The only simple and "fair" answer would be a flat tax.

 

You listen to Neil Boortz too much.

[RoyalOrleans]

The Fair Tax would never work.

 

It would end up like any other sales tax and this would be exempt or that would be exempt, it would hurt the poor too much to tax this product or that product, and would just end up being another political and bureaucratical nightmare as the current tax code.

 

The only simple and "fair" answer would be a flat tax.

 

You listen to Neil Boortz too much.

 

Yeah... maybe I do.

 

The FairTax is just an example of how things need to radically change. Maybe it will devolve into a beast similar to our current tax code, maybe it won't as long as honest legislators are at the helm?

 

Who knows?

 

The point is, as much as I like the FairTax (and I don't give a damn about the poor or their children or their children's children) and the Flat Tax (which is probably a better proposal), something needs to happen.

[ImWithStupid]

something needs to happen.

 

 

I definitely agree with that assessment.

[timesjoke]

I hope your little tirade did make you feel better but it changes nothing.

 

Your just like the average liberal/socialist who gets mad at the person instead of addressing the information posted because you know you can't refute the validity of the information.

 

 

I like you a lot RO, but my point is valid. The majority of voters do not pay any or much tax, so why would they care about the FairTax? They get money/services that far outpace the money they pay in so to them the existing system is great.

 

 

I love the FairTax, it is a great idea to save massive amounts of money for the Government not maintaining the IRS and it will make life a lot simpler for all who pay tax. You will take drug dealers and illegal aliens who do not pay into the system now and suddenly they are supporting the system when they spend money. Awsome idea.........but those same people who will suddenly be forced to pay tax will not like the idea.

 

 

Right now I pay a huge amount of tax on my income before my child support is taken out, the EX gets 100% tax free income from me. If we wnt to the FairTax, suddenly she would be paying tax on that money.....again I love the idea, don't get me wrong I fully support the FairTax.

 

 

 

 

But...............

 

I am only pointing out the fact that very few people who vote Liberal/socialist pay taxes so why would they care? How do you get them to buy onto the idea RO?

[phreakwars]

The problem is, the mass majority of those who vote Liberal do not pay any or much tax anyway, so why would they care? They are only voting for people like Obama because they are promising to take from the "rich" to give it to them.

The majority who vote DEMOCRAT are the working class blue collars you idiot, always has been. And we pay more payroll taxes now then ever, while corporate taxes are lower.

 

[attach=full]2390[/attach]

 

 

The small number of strict liberals/socialists like Bender do it out of some kind of feelings of guilt. They have success but they feel as though they have not really earned that success so they gladly embrace out of control taxes as a kind of penance for what they see as their own sin/evil that they need to make up for.

No, we embrace taxing the shiit out of the rich, because they were made rich off the backs of the blue collar workers, and they owe us. Power to the people mutherfukker, power to the people. You on the otherhand, side with the corporations, just like the lobbyist wanted you to. Your all for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Which makes you and your party... LOSERS, as shown by the last election... Chump.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

The majority who vote DEMOCRAT are the working class blue collars you idiot, always has been.

.

.

 

 

If that were true, and it isn't. Explain this...

 

[attach=full]2391[/attach]

[RoyalOrleans]

I hope your little tirade did make you feel better but it changes nothing.

 

Ehhh... a little.

 

Your just like the average liberal/socialist who gets mad at the person instead of addressing the information posted because you know you can't refute the validity of the information.

 

It's hard to refute bullsh!t.

 

The voters will vote how YouTube, ET, ABC, NBC, Fox, Hannity, Chris Matthews, etc etc tells them to vote.

 

I like you a lot RO, but my point is valid. The majority of voters do not pay any or much tax, so why would they care about the FairTax? They get money/services that far outpace the money they pay in so to them the existing system is great.

 

Do you want to suck my dick?

 

I love the FairTax, it is a great idea to save massive amounts of money for the Government not maintaining the IRS and it will make life a lot simpler for all who pay tax. You will take drug dealers and illegal aliens who do not pay into the system now and suddenly they are supporting the system when they spend money. Awsome idea.........but those same people who will suddenly be forced to pay tax will not like the idea.

 

Change ain't looking to make friends, TJ. Change calls the tune for which we all must dance.

 

Something has to happen. Soon.

 

Right now I pay a huge amount of tax on my income before my child support is taken out, the EX gets 100% tax free income from me. If we wnt to the FairTax, suddenly she would be paying tax on that money.....again I love the idea, don't get me wrong I fully support the FairTax.

 

Stop having children, don't get a divorce...

 

But...............

 

I am only pointing out the fact that very few people who vote Liberal/socialist pay taxes so why would they care? How do you get them to buy onto the idea RO?

 

They would care with the same PR group that helped get Obama elected to office.

 

I prefer to allow minds wrap themselves around an idea without forcing it upon them, however your average voter has to be coddled.

[timesjoke]

The majority who vote DEMOCRAT are the working class blue collars you idiot, always has been. And we pay more payroll taxes now then ever, while corporate taxes are lower.

 

Wrong as usual.

 

The ONLY blue collars who vote Democrat are union and government employees (both state and federal), that is a small segment of the total voting numbers.

 

No Government workers actually contribute to the tax base because their pay is from tax money so they do not pay any taxes in reality.

 

The only group that both pay a lot of taxes and consistently blindly vote for Libarlas/socialists is Union workers.....and they are rewarded well with Government contracts and sweet deals like the UAW deal with the Government buyout.

 

 

No, we embrace taxing the shiit out of the rich, because they were made rich off the backs of the blue collar workers, and they owe us. Power to the people mutherfukker, power to the people. You on the otherhand, side with the corporations, just like the lobbyist wanted you to. Your all for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Which makes you and your party... LOSERS, as shown by the last election... Chump.

 

So tell me something, how many people do the poor people employ?

 

Every dollar you have is because rich people put out the investments to build stores and run companies who emply people.

 

The Rich made money because they "Invested" their money to make it grow. If you punnish the rich too much, they will stop taking chances and simply sit on their money and as long as their money is sitting still, you can't touch it.

 

Your system is set up to punnish the rich for putting their money to work creating jobs, but you reward them for cutting jobs.

 

 

 

Ehhh... a little.

 

Good to know, now let's try to discuss things like adults.....

 

 

It's hard to refute bullsh!t.

 

The voters will vote how YouTube, ET, ABC, NBC, Fox, Hannity, Chris Matthews, etc etc tells them to vote.

 

People are stupid sure, but not robots to that degree, I watch Fox sometimes but I vote based on my beliefs, not how a television show tells me to vote.

 

It is not bull to say the truth RO. The average voter is only looking out for what they can get out of something so being as the poor outnumber the middle class and rich, they are now using mob rule, but they are not smart enough to see past the promises of more welfare people like Obama make.

 

Do you want to suck my dick?

 

No, I get headaches trying to see tiny objects, I shoud get glasses but I am too vain for glasses so I will have to pass.

 

 

Change ain't looking to make friends, TJ. Change calls the tune for which we all must dance.

 

Something has to happen. Soon.

 

I never dissagreed with you my friend, I say again, I fully support the FairTax, but your logical point does not get past the greed of those who want the Liberals/Socialists to give them more "free" stuff.

 

 

Stop having children, don't get a divorce...

 

Not sure of your point, I simply showed you one of the negatives from the FlatTax that many people complain about. Women getting support will end up with a lot less money because right now tax comes out for the man prior to payment, once the woman have to pay taxes on it you bet there will be screaming and a massive flood of support change orders hitting the courts.

 

Again, just trying to talk from a reality standpoint.

 

 

They would care with the same PR group that helped get Obama elected to office.

 

I prefer to allow minds wrap themselves around an idea without forcing it upon them, however your average voter has to be coddled.

 

But again Obama ran on two ideas. He was not Bush, and he was going to give the poor "free" stuff. Once you tell people they will "all" have to pay taxes, they will not like that even a little bit.