Charles Barkley calls conservatives "fake Christians&qu

[Mr. Sun]

Both Obama and Billary are dangerous wealth redistributionists. The Constitution will become even more of a dead document under either one of them. Liberal loonies will have you believe the countries problem is Iraq and healthcare!

BIG YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN..........

[walkingart]

nope, the real problem is the economy and the tax cuts Bush has handed out. the hand shakes with big business who export jobs and still recieve government tax breaks and subsidies, not to mention the research grants that pharmaceutical companies get, than turn around and rape the consumer to make profits.

[walkingart]

but then again, I am under 30, so my vote is meaningless since my peers don't vote. maybe we should ask a senior citizen who are next president will be and why.

and as far as wealth redistribution, my wife and I are going to make $100,000 less this year than last, which was $50,000 less than the year before. unless you are a millionaire, nothing is getting redistibuted. and since the wealthy get all the breaks, as Warren Buffett said, "I pay a lower percentage tax than my secratary." Now that is just sad!

[Mr. Sun]

^^^ Ah yes, and why is that so? Because the Constitution has been replaced with party passions and pandering in order both parties to remain relevant in elections. Republicans burned out the economy in order to pay for massive debt service and keep benefits flowing. A stable economy is dangerous for both parties because they continue to borrow, replace social security receipts with IOU's in order to make deficits look a lot smaller. All this does is drive up costs.

And when you mix in massive immigration influxes all common sense and nationalism goes right down the sewer.

P.S. Can you tell the effects of this lull in SUN's basketball is having on me?

[Mr. Sun]

as Warren Buffett said, "I pay a lower percentage tax than my secratary." Now that is just sad!

But Warren isn't telling the whole story. Top 5 percent of tax payers paid more than 55 percent of all income taxes. They had adjusted gross incomes above $120,846 a year.

The wealthiest 1 percent

[Mr. Sun]

P.S. Where the middle class and poor working man like you and me get screwed is not with income taxes, but through social security. The feds take our SS payments and piss it away on debt service, pork and free-give aways. Basically use if for chit other than paying retirement benefits!

[walkingart]

you seem to know more than I on taxes, i will concede!

[PraiseAdonai]

This whole "the rich don't get taxed" thing is just a ploy thrown out there by the dems. The really rich people make up less than 1% of the country. I don't see how we could force 1% of the people to pay most of the taxes. Same thing with the "Republicans hate the middle class" thing. A very large majority of the middle class vote republican. And if u look at the Bush tax cuts, they have been very generous to the middle class tax payers.

And to impulsenine, I've seen the details in Obama's plans and they will cost this country 870 billion dollars and counting. The reason he doesn't want to debate is because he may have to actually tell people where this money will come from.

[CriticalMass]

Obama keeps saying the money we spent in Iraq would have been better spent here in the US on infrastructure, schools, blah blah blah...

That should be a red flag as the money spent in Iraq was money this country didn't and doesn't have. But , he would have spent it anyway....and plans to drop billions more. He is inspirational...but other than that, I have heard nothing but the same o same o from him....the same rhetorical commentary that you get from both parties.

As far as taxes, educate yourself on the alternative plans being proposed...mainly the Fair Tax. Google it and read both pro and con, before you condemn it as many have. If you support it, email your congressman. This country is in a financial mess... and all our congress and Prez can do is print more money to give everyone a check. They are the 'Big Thinkers' ?

The entire populace of the US should be outraged at this inept behavior....and the sooner the 'under 30 ' crowd realizes that their future is being pissed away, the sooner change will happen. It will take generations to change traditions, and the apathy of the young voter has allowed a stranglehold by the crusty old farts and their decrepid status quo thinking. There are far too many 'lifers' in Congress.

I support the FairTax simply because it removes governments greedy hands from my wallet. Our current tax code does not work, is full of loop holes and back door behavior that you have to hire/pay someone to find. The average Joe is now working well into MAY to pay his tax bill. Surprisingly, I continue to hear how happy some people are to get their 'tax refund'.

Yet...Hucksterbee and Ron Paul are the only candidates that support the FairTax.... and Paul was quickly labeled a crack pot by the media and his own party because he believed in following the constitution to the letter.

That, to me, is the scariest thing that this election has revealed.

This country is in the crapper, but we just haven't bumped into enough turds to know it. Barkley is one of the few who atleast does.

[shrink]

nope, the real problem is the economy and the tax cuts Bush has handed out.

Maybe its because I'm older, and have seen more elections, but these kind of quotes just make me sad.

Every time an election comes around, the party that's not in office tries to convince people that the economy is horrible. They think that if they say it enough, people won't check, and simply believe them. The truth is, that the economy for over the last decade, spanning the Clinton and Bush presidencies, has been very strong historically. Inflation has been tremendously low, as people who recall the double-digit inflation of the late '70's will point out. Unemployment has been low as well .. again, I recall double-digit unemployment from that time.

As for the Bush tax cuts, I think people that bash them should do their own research. Were the tax cuts just for the rich? Well, the rich were already paying a much larger percentage of the taxes to begin with, so they did get money back. Their top tax rate droped from 39% to 35%. I'd point out that despite the scapegoating of "the rich," that's not necessarily a bad thing either, because the rich and upper middle class create most of the jobs in the country (as it was also shown by the large job growth the year after these cuts were put in effect). But everyone who paid taxes benefited from them. Let's look at the other end of the scale. If I recall, while "the rich" still pay 35%, the minimum tax rate for low income earners dropped from 15% to 10%. Moreover, many of them got to stop paying taxes altogether, as Bush increased the amount low income earners could make before they even had to begin paying taxes. The tax cuts also increased the child tax credit (certainly not a bigger aid for the upper class) and tried to fix the AMT. Finally, are people really argueing that Americans don't give the government enough money as it is?

Finally, the tax cuts actually led to an INCREASE in the amount of tax money received for the government to use. Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts, and there was a surge in job creation after the tax cuts took place, benefiting both high income and low income Americans alike.

Every election cycle, politicians are going to try to trick voters into hating one party or the other, and they'll pick easy targets to try to rally your anger. All I ask is that you look at both parties like a pack of liars. You have something they want -- your vote -- and if you want to give it to them, make sure they aren't stealing it from you with lies.

[RJM]

Ghandi once said,

[PraiseAdonai]

It's easy to make blanket statements about a certain group whether it be religion, race or gender. Gandhi can make the statement but it's useless if he doesn't know Christ first. It's hard to compare Christians to a Christ that you don't know.

[walkingart]

It's easy to make blanket statements about a certain group whether it be religion, race or gender. Gandhi can make the statement but it's useless if he doesn't know Christ first. It's hard to compare Christians to a Christ that you don't know.

I don't think that is necessarily a blanket statement, but rather a condemnation of how people who claim to be part of a group but don't show any real characteristics of that group.

One of my best friends for the past 25 years is a Pastor, and in his words, if he had to guess how many people who claimed to be a Christian actually were; it would be less than 5%. He calls it false salvation or false faith.

If you are inclined to think that religious leaders of different faiths don't study "their competition" you are sadly mistaken. I would argue that Ghandi knew better who Christ was then most who call themselves Christians.

[walkingart]

and as for a fair tax, i am totally on board.

keep in mind those of you who knock Obama and Hillary's economic plans; Hillary will keep the tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 and Obama for those who make less than $75,000. not as if the middle class is going to be effected. and if they are lying, they will only have 4 years in office, just ask Bush Sr.; who was a far better President than his son and yet only served a single term.

[PraiseAdonai]

-= original quote snipped =-



I don't think that is necessarily a blanket statement, but rather a condemnation of how people who claim to be part of a group but don't show any real characteristics of that group.

One of my best friends for the past 25 years is a Pastor, and in his words, if he had to guess how many people who claimed to be a Christian actually were; it would be less than 5%. He calls it false salvation or false faith.

If you are inclined to think that religious leaders of different faiths don't study "their competition" you are sadly mistaken. I would argue that Ghandi knew better who Christ was then most who call themselves Christians.

Gandhi did not say "I do not like MOST of your Christians" he said "I do not like your Christians". That's a blanket statement.

I would say 5% is a little low. If every Christian could follow Christ perfectly, we wouldn't have needed a savior.

And when I say Gandhi didn't "know" Christ, I meant personally. He can read a hundred books and the bible front to back but still never grasp who Christ is.

[impulsenine]

It's easy to make blanket statements about a certain group whether it be religion, race or gender. Gandhi can make the statement but it's useless if he doesn't know Christ first. It's hard to compare Christians to a Christ that you don't know.

The vast majority of the Christians he ever met - colonial British - were trying to exploit, tear apart, or blow up his country. It's admirable he even opened the Book, nevermind read it.

It's a horrible thought -- but what good is Christ if no Christian follows his more-difficult messages of humility and peace?

What an absolutely terrifying thought.



We need the Suns to start playing again.

[rsavaj]

-= original quote snipped =-



The vast majority of the Christians he ever met - colonial British - were trying to exploit, tear apart, or blow up his country. It's admirable he even opened the Book, nevermind read it.

It's a horrible thought -- but what good is Christ if no Christian follows his more-difficult messages of humility and peace?

What an absolutely terrifying thought.



We need the Suns to start playing again.

Good post.

[impulsenine]

and as for a fair tax, i am totally on board.

If someone can explain enforcement -- how to prevent a maaaaaasive black market for everything from car repair to computers -- I'll be OK. The main thing I do like about it isn't the 'no IRS' thing, but that the states won't have to fight over pork money - they have to use what they get from their own citizens.

I'm also glad that both Democratic candidates seem to want to kill the tax incentives for companies moving offshore. I can only imagine how much that'll make for the Gov't. Taxes are, after all, essentially a public trust to make us secure, free, educated, etc. So we really want the U.S. government to be great at collecting them fairly and using them effectively.

The other advantage of the FairTax is that it levels the paperwork playing field, somewhat. The bazillions of dollars in undeclared income from the stock market and other easily-hidden investments hinder current tax collection efforts quite a bit. Unfortunately, the way things are set up, the IRS is most efficient at getting taxes from W2 sort of people because of the paper trail, and because rich people can hire expensive accountants. The IRS doesn't bother with those high-yield tax cheats because they need expensive lawyers of their own to ever see a dime. So they go after the people who can least afford taxes.

The good news about the middle-class bracket is that Obama (and I think Clinton) want to do this:

Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

Anyway, just trying to get the info out there.

Finally, the tax cuts actually led to an INCREASE in the amount of tax money received for the government to use.

The increase in revenue has something to do with an IRS restructuring that made it more efficient. The limitation of inflation has been an accomplishment, and the unemployment rate has remained steady. That's the good news.

The problem - and the reason things like health care and food costs are becoming more of an issue - is that the poor are more likely to get poorer, and the rich richer. There's a lot of reasons for it, but a steady employment rate is only good if people have jobs that are keeping them fed and housed. It was really bizarre and sad when I was teaching high school that I was feverishly working another job - upwards of 65 hours a week, between the two - to make it past $30,000 a year.

And to impulsenine, I've seen the details in Obama's plans and they will cost this country 870 billion dollars and counting. The reason he doesn't want to debate is because he may have to actually tell people where this money will come from.

Most of it will come from letting upper-class tax cuts expire, not funding empire-building (though that won't save money on a massive scale since China owns most of our debt for that), eliminating tax loopholes for a lot of very profitable corporations who pretend to all have their main offices on some island in the Caribbean, and in particular using technology to bring about more efficiency, especially in health care. Honestly, he's positively miserly compared to what we've had over the last decade. There's also the general economic (i.e., taxes from people spending) benefits that come from forcing Detroit to stop making cars that won't sell, insurers from taking money without care, and forcing credit card issuers to stop bankrupting people.


Lastly, despite feeling pretty betrayed by McCain's voting no on the bill that would've prevented CIA torture, all three current candidates seem willing to take advice from both parties, and to change according to new developments - Obama and McCain in particular.

This is no Bush-Kerry election. I feel a little spoiled, really. But I think the fact that we have at least two good candidates (depending on who you ask) has something to do with the fervor, and that fervor, that interest in how the nation runs, is ONLY a positive thing for America in general.

[walkingart]

We need the Suns to start playing again.

Your preaching to the choir!

[impulsenine]

-= original quote snipped =-

Your preaching to the choir!

On that issue, perhaps!