Nor am I going to because it's dumb to do so. You took this completely out of context. I said MOST REPUBLICANS want limited government, that's true it hasn't changed. Some of the programs introduced by Bush increased some of the government, yes. That doesn't change the ideals of MOST REPUBLICANS. Your comparison is ignorant, I didn't say, well obviously most republicans want limited government just like George W Bush does. So why the heck am I going to pay any attention to what you're saying about G. W. that's just dumb and it's irrelevant.

 

Last post, I promise.

 

FACT: Bush was nominated by the GOP twice. Therefore he was nominated by the majority of Republicans.

 

FACT: McCain was nominated by the GOP. Therefore he was nominated by the majority of Republicans. He supported the bailout bill which places government hands into the private sector.

 

FACT: Many in the GOP backed the bailout bill as well. They were nominated/elected as Republicans.

 

Summation from these facts: It is difficult to say that "MOST Republicans support less government" when the actions by the leadership (elected by MOST Republicans) shows differently.

 

You can say that the traditional stance of most Republicans has been limited government and I would :thumb:. But it seems the current leadership is not adhering to the traditional stands of the Reagan Revolution and all you have to do is read even diehard, old Republicans to know that.

 

Since you have begun responding to my posts you have used every smear you can and even implied me as an Obama supporter in your opening response. I will not stoop to your level of name calling above. I will vote for McCain because he is the best option out there.

Last post, I promise.

 

FACT: Bush was nominated by the GOP twice. Therefore he was nominated by the majority of Republicans.

 

FACT: McCain was nominated by the GOP. Therefore he was nominated by the majority of Republicans. He supported the bailout bill which places government hands into the private sector.

 

FACT: Many in the GOP backed the bailout bill as well. They were nominated/elected as Republicans.

 

Summation from these facts: It is difficult to say that "MOST Republicans support less government" when the actions by the leadership (elected by MOST Republicans) shows differently.

 

You can say that the traditional stance of most Republicans has been limited government and I would :thumb:. But it seems the current leadership is not adhering to the traditional stands of the Reagan Revolution and all you have to do is read even diehard, old Republicans to know that.

 

Since you have begun responding to my posts you have used every smear you can and even implied me as an Obama supporter in your opening response. I will not stoop to your level of name calling above. I will vote for McCain because he is the best option out there.

 

Who back in 2000 had the popularity and chance at winning the Presidential election that was more conservative than G. W.?

 

Someone had to win the nomination, and republicans would rather it be someone who supports most of their beliefs and can win the Presidency, not some ultra conservative that didn't have a chance in hell. It doesn't mean that the person that wins represents everything his party believes in. So again, I shrug off everything you've just taken the time to so eloquently try to explain as nothing more than a waste of your time.

 

Again I would like to reiterate that we weren't discussing the current leadership, but rather the opinions and beliefs of most, but not all, republicans.

Found these numbers on the following website: http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/busting-the-myt.html

 

 

 

 

I'm ready to hear any justification/reason you have for these numbers...

Hoopy, I cannot see the graphics or links below the first one you posted. They come up as red Xs. I did follow the top link to find a liberal site attempting to shoot down “trickle down” or supply side economics. The author paints with a broad brush, basically laying the burden for growth in Median Household Income at the feet of each president. In so doing, he concludes that Clinton was better than Reagan or the two Bushes at growing incomes.

 

What he fails to acknowledge is that Congress controls the purse strings, and it could just as easily be the Republican controlled Congress under Clinton that boosted growth, or the Democrat controlled Congress under Reagan that hindered growth.

 

He does not delineate his data on a year by year basis, but lumps it by administration. This is not very helpful or accurate. He provides no specific data sources or methodology to allow a thorough cross referencing of his conclusions.

 

I did however, find it interesting that growth under Eisenhower and Kennedy was through the roof. It can be very safely argued that Kennedy was more conservative than many modern day Republicans much less those in his own party today. He lowered taxes, and it worked well until LBJ began his great society efforts which dragged things down near the end of his term and into Nixon & Ford.

 

This guy talks about "pumping money...to the wealthy" when the fact is, the wealthy are generating plenty of revenue on their own. The point of supply side economics is not to pump the wealthy money, but to encourage them to invest it as heavily as possible which is what creates jobs and generates more revenue and actually drives prices for other stuff down.

 

I still contend it is wrong to be envious or jealous or resentful of what some have. These are not the character traits that built America and made it strong.

News organizations eager to learn more about Wurzelbacher did besiege his house Thursday and discovered and reported that he lacks a plumbing license and owes back taxes.

 

Despite his criticism of the Democratic ticket, McCain himself has kept Wurzelbacher in the spotlight, mentioning him repeatedly in his appearances Thursday.

 

"Joe's the man!" McCain told a rally in Philadelphia's suburbs.

 

 

 

This is classic.

 

I think the question "Joe" asked BHO and the answer pertaining to wealth distribution is much more relevant than who "Joe" is. It's just another spin to draw attention away from BHO's socialist tax plan. "Joe" represents thousands of future small business owners that could be affected.

I still contend it is wrong to be envious or jealous or resentful of what some have. These are not the character traits that built America and made it strong.

 

Advocates of progressive tax systems or tax reductions for those who aren't rich are simply jealous? That's quite convenient. I'll never understand this worship of wealth that people engage in.

 

The rich need masses of people to do work for them, from the unskilled to the engineers, to the marketers, to the managers, the protections of civil society, a population who can afford their products or services, etc., or they don't make any money. The unskilled, the engineers, the marketers, and the mangers need wealthy people to need them. It cuts both ways. The incessant argument that it's only the rich in the economy who matter, or the supply-side argument, is wishful thinking. It's as much about stimulating those who have the money as it is those who don't. Keynesian economics eventually bore poor results, and so have supply-side economics, and it's my contention that the better policy lies somewhere in between: a strong emphasis on markets and competition in conjunction with a strong emphasis on basic welfare and rigorous education. And those aren't contradictory, as badly as some wish them to be (from both sides of the perspective).

I think the question "Joe" asked BHO and the answer pertaining to wealth distribution is much more relevant than who "Joe" is. It's just another spin to draw attention away from BHO's socialist tax plan. "Joe" represents thousands of future small business owners that could be affected.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

We're going in circles here...

 

I am hardly an advocate for the rich... :lol:

 

Nor am I an enemy of the poor.

 

I don't view people as rich or poor, or assign them value based upon their bank account.

 

I am very much against increased governmental confiscation of wealth for the purpose of allowing the government to spread it around for the not so transparent purpose of sucking votes from the beneficiaries just so megalomaniacal politicians can fuel their egos and grip on power. I contend that the Bourgeoisie we should be most concerned with are not the money generators and producers, but the politicians who control our nation’s purse strings.

 

The government is far less efficient than private industry at getting things done and managing the results. I've read report after report that validates about 1/3 of our tax dollars are wasted as is. The government is very good at a few things, and that's what it needs to focus on, and get out of people's way otherwise. I have no problem with government oversight in a few industries… that does not mean the government needs to actually operate them.

 

For these reasons, I think Obama is wrong.

I think the question "Joe" asked BHO and the answer pertaining to wealth distribution is much more relevant than who "Joe" is. It's just another spin to draw attention away from BHO's socialist tax plan. "Joe" represents thousands of future small business owners that could be affected.

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

Couldn't agree more.

You are correct sir. And if you raise taxes on rich people, it's not going to hurt them to the point that they still can't buy airplanes, cars, etc. Oh no, Joe Millionaire has to wait an extra week before he can buy that 23 billion dollar plane. Why not put a little extra in the pockets of those people making the planes and give them a little tax break so they can buy a car and see a little incentive in their work. Cmon people, it's not like the incredibly wealthy are going to be hurting that much if taxes are raised a little, but a lot of lower class citizens can barely afford gas to get to work.

 

You can't possibly believe that people with $250,000 per year in income are the "incredibly wealthy" able to "by that 23 billion dollar plane."

 

I think you are simply stirring the pot.

News organizations eager to learn more about Wurzelbacher did besiege his house Thursday and discovered and reported that he lacks a plumbing license and owes back taxes.

 

Despite his criticism of the Democratic ticket, McCain himself has kept Wurzelbacher in the spotlight, mentioning him repeatedly in his appearances Thursday.

 

"Joe's the man!" McCain told a rally in Philadelphia's suburbs.

 

 

 

This is classic.

 

Why?

^

JOE the Plumber isn't really called Joe, doesn't have a plumbing licence, and may not be hurt by Barack Obama's tax plan after all.

 

A new media man-of-the-moment was born. But, by yesterday, the truth was emerging. His hometown newspaper, the Toledo Blade, reported Mr Wurzelbacher didn't have a required plumbing licence and wasn't registered to work as a plumber in Ohio. More to the point, he did not have the money to buy the plumbing business where he now works.

 

And, even if he could buy the business, it was unlikely it would net the kind of income that would place it in a higher tax bracket under Senator Obama's plans.

 

On the contrary, under the Democrat's tax proposal, the plumbing business Mr Wurzelbacher has his eye on might be in line for a tax cut.

 

Nice try though.

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24511706-5012572,00.html

Hoopy, I cannot see the graphics or links below the first one you posted. They come up as red Xs. I did follow the top link to find a liberal site attempting to shoot down “trickle down” or supply side economics. The author paints with a broad brush, basically laying the burden for growth in Median Household Income at the feet of each president. In so doing, he concludes that Clinton was better than Reagan or the two Bushes at growing incomes.

 

What he fails to acknowledge is that Congress controls the purse strings, and it could just as easily be the Republican controlled Congress under Clinton that boosted growth, or the Democrat controlled Congress under Reagan that hindered growth.

 

He does not delineate his data on a year by year basis, but lumps it by administration. This is not very helpful or accurate. He provides no specific data sources or methodology to allow a thorough cross referencing of his conclusions.

 

I did however, find it interesting that growth under Eisenhower and Kennedy was through the roof. It can be very safely argued that Kennedy was more conservative than many modern day Republicans much less those in his own party today. He lowered taxes, and it worked well until LBJ began his great society efforts which dragged things down near the end of his term and into Nixon & Ford.

 

This guy talks about "pumping money...to the wealthy" when the fact is, the wealthy are generating plenty of revenue on their own. The point of supply side economics is not to pump the wealthy money, but to encourage them to invest it as heavily as possible which is what creates jobs and generates more revenue and actually drives prices for other stuff down.

 

I still contend it is wrong to be envious or jealous or resentful of what some have. These are not the character traits that built America and made it strong.

 

Did you not see the graphs on median household income during the Regean Clinton and two Bush presidencies? You should check it out.

You can't possibly believe that people with $250,000 per year in income are the "incredibly wealthy" able to "by that 23 billion dollar plane."

 

I think you are simply stirring the pot.

 

I think you missed the entire jest of my post, but that's okay.

Who back in 2000 had the popularity and chance at winning the Presidential election that was more conservative than G. W.?

 

Someone had to win the nomination, and republicans would rather it be someone who supports most of their beliefs and can win the Presidency, not some ultra conservative that didn't have a chance in hell. It doesn't mean that the person that wins represents everything his party believes in. So again, I shrug off everything you've just taken the time to so eloquently try to explain as nothing more than a waste of your time.

 

Again I would like to reiterate that we weren't discussing the current leadership, but rather the opinions and beliefs of most, but not all, republicans.

 

So is the same courtesy offered to Democrats as well?

Did you not see the graphs on median household income during the Regean Clinton and two Bush presidencies? You should check it out.

I actually investigated everything on the webpage. It is entirely ambiguous providing little more than the author's personal interpretation of data. He does not explain his methodology, or links to his data sources. I could take the same data and create graphs of my own, based on my own interpretation of the data that might read very differently.

 

His work could be accurate, but there's no way of knowing without more information. But hey, it's great if you're predisposed to his viewpoint. :thumb: