Who are YOU Voting for?

this is pointless. youre just spitting out irrelevant anecdotes. you should email this to rush so he can use it on his show.

rant of the year.

 

Call it a rant if you want but you still didn't answer any questions. Where were your Democrat leaders for the people after Katrina?

Of course you don't want to discuss welfare. You try to make light of the issue because it's the Democrats meal ticket to buy votes.

There's nothing anecdotal about it!

 

Red, gumborue, et al...

Please explain to me how taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" is not redistribution of wealth.

You're not saying we should take money from the "rich" to build infrastructure, improve our military, pay our debt, etc., so how is taking from those who have to give to those who don't not a redistribution plan.

This sets a horrible precedent. Where does it end? What if we overspend under Obama and have no new revenue.? Do we reach out to the "rich" and say it's time to pony up again?

 

Red...please explain,

Since you don't consider taxing the wealthiest 1% as a redistribution of wealth, please explain your definition of the following.

What is redistribution of wealth?

 

Forgive me for doubting anything from the Democrats but I was born and raised in Louisiana.

In my lifetime we've had ONE Republican Senator (Vitter-1st in over 100 years) and only a few Republican Governors. This state has been run (or run into the ground) by the Democrats. We can pretend that out history has always been the fault of a Republican President or Congress but we've dug our own holes much more often and need look no further than our state's borders to find the problems.

I was fortunate to grow up in St. Tammany Parish. We've been primarily led by Republicans and have enjoyed the best schools, crime rate, and quality of life in the state. Several other Republican-led parishes have also fared well.

It just seems that we have higher expectations than other areas and the desire to make these things happen without waiting for another government program.

I've said before that maybe Louisiana should always have one Republican and one Democrat as our Senators. Mary Landrieu had a fire lit under her as soon as Vitter was elected. Prior to that she just sat on her rear.

 

You're just ignoring the obvious negative effects Obama's plan will have on the deficit. His pledge to increase government spending by $200 plus billion annually and his proposed tax cuts to 95% of the country will certainly increase the deficit exponentially. Obama's plan is laid out in black and white. Do you refuse to discuss the effects of that plan on the deficit? Rather than discuss the obvious outcome of his plan you revert back to what the Republicans have done in the past. No, lets not see what transpires. Lets put Obama's plan under a microscope now. If you do that you will come to the conclusion that Obama's plan will add significantly to the deficit. Give me some recent evidence to back up your claim of the Democrats being the party of fiscal responsibility. What spending decreases has the Democratically controlled Congress implemented over the last 2 years?

As if Mccain or Obama will not have economist advising them.

Not at all. What I am suggesting is to not only look at each candidates plans but to also look at who's plan will actually get inacted. Does it really matter if Mccain's plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts if there's no way in hell the Democratic congress is going to pass the bill?

Did you miss my point entirely? Yes, if Obama wins he will more likely get stuff done to the tune of $200 billion plus increased annual spending that will add to the deficit along with tax cuts to 95% of Americans that will add to the deficit. The proposed deficit for 2009 is $490 billion and this was calculated before the $700 billion bailout and before we even knew the economy is expected to be very bad into 2009. In the meantime your candidate is still proposing his $200 billion plus spending increases and tax cuts and all you have to say is lets wait and see what transpires!

In this time of economic crisis we can't afford a president that fails. We can't afford 4 additional years of increased deficits. If we don't have an option to elect a president that has a responsible economic plan we might as well have gridlock. Once again, I stand by my statement that a Mccain presidency would result in policies more inline with those you've advocated in this forum. If Mccain is elected the Bush tax cuts will end as scheduled and no new additional tax cuts will be implemented (Certainly not on the rich) If Obama is elected we get massive government spending increases and tax cuts to 95% of tax payers. (If you trust Obama will keep his promises.)

So you tell me why a Mccain presidency would not be better for reducing the deficit. And before you go back to talking about how the Republicans have performed in the past you must take into consideration that the Democratically controlled Congress will not enable Mccain to pass the Republican policies you so much deplore. In fact, if Mccain wants to get any major legislation passed he will be forced to do so in a bipartisan manner. This should tell you that a Mccain presidency will be one of moderation and that should please you.

 

McCain will continue Bush's interventionist and aggressive (and costly) foreign policies.

McCain will continue Bush's uncooperative BS and abuse of executive power; partisanship will further explode (indicated by McCain's new campaign strategies - how low can they go, trying to link Obama and terrorism and hate for America and how can Republicans defend this? McCain is trying to appeal to the worst of human nature).

McCain will continue to apply Republican ideals while executing democratic gameplans.

McCain will continue to be out of touch with the middle class and won't fix the loopholes open to exploitation by the rich.