WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Foxfyre wrote:

So far I have seen criticism of the Republicans, but I maintain you don't win by bashing Republicans.

What will Pelosi, Durban, Kennedy, Biden et al do differently if the Democrats regain power?

They will get us out of Iraq much quicker. At this point, Bush is staying to save face. The Iraqis hate us, and a little under half want us dead.

Exactly HOW will they get us out of Iraq?
Will they just leave without doing anything to ensure the safety of US troops during the pullout?
Will they ask the UN to help us get out?

Its easy to say lets get out of Iraq,but I have yet to see a reasonable plan put forth to accomplish that.
All they have done is say that they can do it "better",but they havent said how.

The Dems will quickly reduce the deficits, and probably bring back surpluses. John Spratt will head Budget, and his number one goal is deficit elimination.

How?
There are only two ways to reduce deficits,reduce spending or raise taxes.
Are you in favor of tax increases for everyone?
Remember,The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%

Those figures come from the IRS and the CBO,by the way.
So,you will have to pay more in taxes,or the dems will have to cut spending.
Now,since the dems have NEVER cut spending,except for defense spending,that makes tax increases more likely to happen.
Personally,I prefer to keep my own money.

The Dems will move toward universal health-care coverage, and more protection of pension assets. They will bring in a stronger SEC, FCC, EPA, etc., to protect the public from the scammers. The EPA's watchdog just said that ethics at the agency is essentially MIA. (The head of EPA is, of course, a former lobbyist.)

So you say the dems want to reduce the deficit,then you turn around and say they want to spend more money.
That doesnt make sense.


The Dems will stop the tax expenditures for the super rich.

What specific tax expenditures are you talking about,especially in view of the IRS numbers aboout who pays most of the taxes?


Under Bush, alternative fuels means looking in new places for oil. The Dems will mandate more hybrid vehicles, etc., and, certainly, better mpg for our autos.

Except that the dems have constantly opposed new nuke power plants and they have opposed wind farms in their areas.
Also,are you saying that the dems will actually try and mandate what kind of vehicles we can drive?
Why havent they led by example by getting rid of their private jets,their fleets of private vehicles,their multiple homes in several states,etc.
Why havent they all installed solar cells and wind turbines on their own property?
If they are going to tell me how I have to live,then they need to lead by example.

Now,even conceding the need for alternative fuels,we still need to find sources of domestic oil to wean us off of foreign oil.
The switch to alternative sources of energy wont happen overnight,so we still need to have our own oil supplies.
Etc., etc.

How?
There are only two ways to reduce deficits,reduce spending or raise taxes.
Are you in favor of tax increases for everyone?
Remember,The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%

Those figures come from the IRS and the CBO,by the way.
So,you will have to pay more in taxes,or the dems will have to cut spending.
Now,since the dems have NEVER cut spending,except for defense spending,that makes tax increases more likely to happen.
Personally,I prefer to keep my own money.

I see MM is here with his strawmen

My area is filled with wind farms. We have so many wind turbines that half of them are turned off. The power companies haven't built the power lines required to transfer the electricity yet.

Then why has Teddy Kennedy continuously opposed putting up a windfarm of the coast near the Kennedy compound?
He says because it will "block his view" of the bay.
But he "supports alternative energy sources?

I know that the area around Palm Springs,the area around Tehachapi,and thehills between the SF bay area and Stockton have multiple wind turbines set up,I dont deny that.


I don't have a private jet or 2 homes or a fleet of vehicles. I don't know too many liberals that do have that. We might as well hit you back with a strawman. Why aren't you out drilling for oil in your backyard? Your failure to drill an oil well 5 feet from your house proves that conservatives don't want oil wells in their backyard. Until you personally drill your own oil well by hand MM you are nothing but a whiner.

How many homes does John Kerry have?
How many cars does he have?
How much oil does it take to run his cars and heat or cool his homes?

BTW,I have a natural gas well on my property.
It is about 35 feet from my back door.
So,your ridiculous argument wont work.
If you believe in alternative fuels,how much do you use solar power?
Where is your own private wind gererator?
The plans to build your own are available on line.
Do you use solar energy to power your house,to run your vehicle,to heat your water,etc?


It can take 3-5 years to bring a new oil field on line. I think I saw it would take 7-10 years for a new field in Alaska. New sources of oil won't help us in the short term. In 7 years we could change over the majority of the US fleet to other energy sources.

Quote:

How?
There are only two ways to reduce deficits,reduce spending or raise taxes.
Are you in favor of tax increases for everyone?
Remember,The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%

Those figures come from the IRS and the CBO,by the way.
So,you will have to pay more in taxes,or the dems will have to cut spending.
Now,since the dems have NEVER cut spending,except for defense spending,that makes tax increases more likely to happen.
Personally,I prefer to keep my own money.

Oh the BS just keeps rolling out of you doesn't it MM? Crap directly from Rush Limbaugh's website. You didn't bother to check the REAL source did you?

Income taxes will make up 44% of Federal revenues this year according to the Treasury dept.
Do you think it is fair to use a figure that only includes 44% of what people pay in taxes? I don't.

The rich make 16.8% of the income but their income taxes make up only 15% of the Federal revenues. Interesting argument there MM. The rich pay less in income taxes as a share of total Federal revenues than they make in income.

I notice you dont dispute the validity of the numbers regarding income tax.
Why is that?
Maybe because you know they are correct,and you cant stand that.


The dems have never cut spending except Defense? Are you calling GWBush a liar?
Historical tables for the 2007 Bush budget can be found here with yearly spending.
http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/hist04z1.xls
In 1993-1994 the followiing catagories were CUT under Clinton and democratic Congress budget
Agriculture, EPA, Labor, Justice, Education
In 1994-1995 budget (also democratic control, budget for 1995 is written before 1994 elections) the following agencies were cut Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Labor, State, Office of the President, NASA, International Assistance.

IF your links are correct,then its a first.
Dems seem to have never met a welfare giveaway or spending increase that they opposed,except for the military,as a rule.
They seem to always want to cut defense first,and you even admit that yourself.
Why is that?
Why do the dems want to cut defense before anything else?


Too bad you can't get simple facts right MM. It might make us believe your made up numbers more.

The strongest correlation between income and voting is not whom you vote for but if you vote at all. The more you earn, the more likely you are to turn out. According to the census, 81.3% of those who earned $100,000 or more turned out in 2004; the figure for those who earned less than $20,000 was 48%.

That's because the rich have something to vote for. They have two parties; the poor here have none. Ultimately, the question of what's the matter with Kansas or any other state must in no small part be answered by yet another one: what's the matter with Democrats?

Republicans appear to be gaining on the Democrats in the 2006 midterm campaign because of growing confidence in the economy, falling gas prices and President Bush's sustained political offensive on the terrorist threat, according to pollsters and campaign strategists.
The most significant political movement in the past week or two has been in the battle for control of Congress. National preference polls on the so-called "generic ballot" question -- which party's candidate voters say they would choose -- show Republicans have narrowed the once-substantial lead Democrats held and are now trailing them by three percentage points, independent pollster John Zogby said Friday.
Mr. Zogby credited the Republican Party's sudden political turnaround to "the president's focus on the war on terrorism, a rebound among his own base," and the Democrats' failure to lay out a clear plan of their own on "how are we're going to get out of Iraq and what they would do about terrorism that's better than the Republicans."
Democrats "are not giving their Democratic base what it needs to hear on those issues," Mr. Zogby said. "Republicans are severely wounded. The Democrats should be crushing them, and they are not."
Top election forecasters have pointed to an anti-Bush and anti-Republican "wave" that they predict will return the Democrats to majority power in the House, but Mr. Zogby said, "I don't see the landslide that others are seeing. That doesn't mean it can't materialize, but as of today, it's not happening and this is mid-September."

Article below is sure to strike fear into the hearts of the liberal masses...I think 3% is probably well within the margin of error to call this election a virtual dead heat today...and Repubs gaining...


Source

Quote:

Republicans appear to be gaining on the Democrats in the 2006 midterm campaign because of growing confidence in the economy, falling gas prices and President Bush's sustained political offensive on the terrorist threat, according to pollsters and campaign strategists.
The most significant political movement in the past week or two has been in the battle for control of Congress. National preference polls on the so-called "generic ballot" question -- which party's candidate voters say they would choose -- show Republicans have narrowed the once-substantial lead Democrats held and are now trailing them by three percentage points, independent pollster John Zogby said Friday.
Mr. Zogby credited the Republican Party's sudden political turnaround to "the president's focus on the war on terrorism, a rebound among his own base," and the Democrats' failure to lay out a clear plan of their own on "how are we're going to get out of Iraq and what they would do about terrorism that's better than the Republicans."
Democrats "are not giving their Democratic base what it needs to hear on those issues," Mr. Zogby said. "Republicans are severely wounded. The Democrats should be crushing them, and they are not."
Top election forecasters have pointed to an anti-Bush and anti-Republican "wave" that they predict will return the Democrats to majority power in the House, but Mr. Zogby said, "I don't see the landslide that others are seeing. That doesn't mean it can't materialize, but as of today, it's not happening and this is mid-September."

On the official site for Liberals

Of one thing we can be certain, and that is that the net losers in November will be the American public, and especially the working class--no matter who "wins."

If Americans stand up to the hate they can work to win elections.

dyslexia wrote:

SBrowning wrote:

By the way, itsn't it a little bit ironic to have a picture of a baby for your icon when you're a Democrat?

Yes quite true, it takes an adult to be a democrat.

It always amazes me how so many conservatives don't seem to understand the English language.

And you do?

Whether or not you agree with his politics, SBrowning used the term appropriately. As he explained, if one believes the Democratic Party is the party of Abortion, it is ironic for a professed Democrat to use a baby's image as an A2K icon. Admittedly, his is not a particularly clever observation, but in the context he has set forth, his use of ironic is proper. What is it that you believe the word to mean?

"Ironic" could be considered the opposite of "redundant" which I think is what SBrowning was trying to say.

Ironic and redundant do not define similar states, but they are hardly opposites. I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion that SBrowning was attempting to point out redundancy, but it might be interesting to learn of your explanation.


I was going to let your usual wit rest on its own merits dys but sometimes the kids need things explained to them.

Do your kids and those with whom you come into contact a favor, and don't try to explain things to them.

Setanta wrote:

Of one thing we can be certain, and that is that the net losers in November will be the American public, and especially the working class--no matter who "wins."

This doesn't make any sense.

One can never match the hate of the "born again" fundamentalists for the common people of the USA. They hate minorities, gays, moderates, and lovers of liberty.