What Lawyeron and Left Wing Liberals have in common....

We want a Dean Democratic nomination....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...

Please please please....

Vote for Dean in the Democtratic primaries... He''s Karl Rove''s choice!

Go Howard Go!

Go Howard Go!

This is turning into a Howard Dean pep rally. Where are the liberals? This is your man. Let''s hear your support.

I''m going to vote for Dean in the Democratic Primary here in AZ. Go Dean! I donated money to dean.

You guys sound like the Communists during the elections of the Cold War. Or Gray Davis in 2002.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

You guys sound like the Communists during the elections of the Cold War. Or Gray Davis in 2002.

I just want to make sure Dean gets his chance.

I think that''s what the Russians said about McGovern.

It''s either Dean or Lieberman, and Lieberman already said he won''t work weekends, so I''m for Dean!!!

That''s okay, Bush never works the month of August. I''d say it''d balance out.

""That''s okay, Bush never works the month of August. I''d say it''d balance out.""

Are you kidding? Presidents can take vacations? The whole month??

Are you kidding? Presidents can take vacations? The whole month??

Yeah, he just plays Nintendo and sleeps in.

Come on guys...

"Mex" wrote:

""That''s okay, Bush never works the month of August. I''d say it''d balance out.""

Are you kidding? Presidents can take vacations? The whole month??

August is a dead month in D.C. Congress is away and he isn''t taking a ""real"" vacation. He is just working from home. He still gets all of his briefings and has a ton of meetings and works, just from home.

"Ulairi" wrote:

He is just working from home.

Isn''t that what he technically does in D.C.?

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

He is just working from home.

Isn''t that what he technically does in D.C.?

The White House isn''t his home. It is where he lives.

Dean is actually alot more centrist on some issues. And he wasn''t really all that thrilled with signing the civil unions bill into law in VT. Now that he''s ""reactionary man"" though he seems to be touting that alot. I think he''s after attention and money now, and will go after substance later. If you read actual Dean quotes, he kind of laughs about all this and freely admits he''s pretty centrist on normal issues.

I will again be voting against Bush. If I happen to get the chance to vote *for* a candidate for president, it will be the first time for me. I just fill in the ""not that Republican"" dot on the ballot.

There''s not a good democrat candidate in the bunch. Either that or the democratic party is just crap now, and I''d prefer to ''throw my vote away'' on a third party.

Of course, they''re all heads and shoulders above Bush, but that''s not saying much. ...those little jabs are such a pointless release....

Dean is a putz. He''s angry and does not have a postive view of the country. I think he is a mini-fascist.

Wasn''t Lieberman getting called ""Bush-lite""? Either way, it''s difficult to find a candidate of any party to admire these days. I just vote democrat as the most likelihood that the environment and schools get cash and protection. Call me naive but what pisses me off about the Bush admin is the repeal of hundreds of executive orders protecting the environment. I''m not a green freak. I just like parks, and clean air and water and stuff. And f*ck the rich.

It was recently pointed out by the second richest guy in the country that under the new dividend taxes (the source of his money being dividends) that his secretary will pay a higher % of her income in taxes then he will.

I''m not a green freak. I just like parks, and clean air and water and stuff. And f*ck the rich.

Why? What is wrong with being rich? Don''t you want to be rich? I do.

It was recently pointed out by the second richest guy in the country that under the new dividend taxes (the source of his money being dividends) that his secretary will pay a higher % of her income in taxes then he will.

[/quote]

That is garbage. You cannot compare income tax to dividend tax.

It was recently pointed out by the second richest guy in the country that under the new dividend taxes (the source of his money being dividends) that his secretary will pay a higher % of her income in taxes then he will.

I also think it is a little ridiculous to keep hearing from billionaires who tell us ""they don''t need the tax cut"". I assume they also don''t need Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare, but I don''t hear anyone quoting Bill Gates to support junking social programs.

"Roo" wrote:

And f*ck the rich.

A question of curiosity, Roo... Who do you consider rich in this country? The top 20% of wage earners? The top 5%? Where''s your cutoff?

There''s not a good democrat candidate in the bunch.

I won''t pass judgment on whether the democrats are ""good"" or not, they certainly stand for the principles that you and other liberals have espoused on this board so I don''t know by what measure you judge. They are unelectable, however.

Pundits are saying ""Bush can be beat"". Well, Clinton could have been beat in his second term election too. The economy hadn''t hit full stride in 1996. But the Republicans throw out Dole for God''s sake. He was unelectable too.

Gore is electable. (And some think he did win). He unfairly took the heat from Clinton''s sins. He should have never abdicated to run for another election so soon. I''m not a Gore fan, but he''s the only Democrat that doesn''t want to make me head up North and move in with Certis.

That Dean is a liberal is a label used by the news media and the Republican leadership to pigeonhole and dismiss Dean. Dean reduced taxes and had balanced budgets when he was Governor of Vermont. Bush has yet to balance a budget as President, Governor or Baseball team owner. Who would you say is more fiscally conservative?

Sadly, Dean is probably the only Democratic candidate that can mobilize the Democratic base and the Anybody but Bush crowd. The question is Dean more like McGovern (lost election in 49 states) or Franklin Roosevelt (Liberal Governor butt of Republican jokes who won 4 Presidental elections).

Foros: Does Dean have a postive message? He wants to raise my taxes so we can have socialized health care. How will he balance a budget? How do you balance a budget when the economy is in a flat growht period with out massive spending cuts or massive tax hikes?

Dean is angry and violent. He never talks about a postive America, he talks about a horrible America. I like Even Bayah.

""And f*ck the rich. ""

Come on, even I disagree with that. What''s wrong with being rich? That''s what I''m looking forward to anyway ...

Ulairi,

As for balancing the budget Bill Clinton managed it, so it can be done.
Dean comes across as angry yes, but violent?? Did he hit a Republican I didn''t heard about . Seriously, I agree that his anger (I''m mad and it''s George Bush''s fault) will turn off a lot of voters. Here in the South we tend to vote for candidates we think of as likeable. Dean has too much of that angry in your face New Ywark Yankee baggage to win in the South. (But does he need to win in the South?)
Dean''s disadvantage is that he is one of numerous candidates viving for attention. He is forced to be outrageous and polarizing to garner support and donations. How much of this is real and how much is political posturing remains to be seen.

I also agree about not wanting a socialized medical program. Had that in the Army. Didn''t like it.

I like John McCain. And I voted for Bob Dole . Go figure.

As for balancing the budget Bill Clinton managed it, so it can be done.

Bill Clinton never balanced a budget. Congress balanced a budget. It is easy to balance budget when you''re having huge growth, it is hard and you really cannot balance a budget with two wars on flat growth. That was my point.

Dean comes across as angry yes, but violent?? Did he hit a Republican I didn''t heard about . Seriously, I agree that his anger (I''m mad and it''s George Bush''s fault) will turn off a lot of voters. Here in the South we tend to vote for candidates we think of as likeable. Dean has too much of that angry in your face New Ywark Yankee baggage to win in the South. (But does he need to win in the South?)

He comes off as an angry violent man. I want someone with a postive view for the country. I want a leader not someone who can rant and stir up the leftist.

Dean''s disadvantage is that he is one of numerous candidates viving for attention. He is forced to be outrageous and polarizing to garner support and donations. How much of this is real and how much is political posturing remains to be seen.

If I was Bush I would just run TV ads where Dean said he wasn''t sure if Saddam being gone as a good thing. Dean is an idiot. He can only plat to the leftist and will not win of moderate Republicans like my self or independents.
I also agree about not wanting a socialized medical program. Had that in the Army. Didn''t like it.

I like John McCain. And I voted for Bob Dole . Go figure

Sorry I guess ""f*ck the rich"" is a vast oversimplification.

I''m sure one of you however can find the political cartoon with about 8 panels where it shows Bush getting interviewed about he''ll solve various economic issues. The cartoonist had all of Bush''s reponses be ""Tax cuts for the rich."" Substantially lowering dividend taxes does mean that if the stock market has a ""boom"" period or even a ""balloon"" period ala dotcom time, tax revenues won''t reflect it very much. Less dividend tax isn''t predicted to create jobs in the short term, and certainly not be re-election time. If 100% of your income comes from dividends, your ""income"" tax will be 15%, while someone who goes to work 40 hours a week can still pay 35% tax. That''s a fair comparison to make.

So okay I had just finished reading http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/... when I made my comments. Sorry to step on toes.

In my recently taken U.S. government class we were told the purpose of government was to decide who gets what. In doing this they don''t try to make the most people happy, but rather spread around unhappiness as evenly as possible. Dividend taxes mostly affect retirees with money who vote and rich people who donate $2000 a piece to campaigns. That''s what the tax cut was for. Not to stimulate the economy.

we were told the purpose of government was to decide who gets what.

Let me know what school teaches this so I can start a protest... That''s the purpose of a Communist government, but otherwise this statement is patently wrong.

Government should exist to allow a community to collectively address those problems which individuals cannot, and to enforce the rule of law. Proper governmental undertakings include defense, infrastructure, education, and a safety net for the disadvantaged. Government does not exist to redress social inequality, redistribute wealth, or make decisions by decree that are best left up to millions of individuals.

I should be clear here. It is certainly true that some governments exist to decide who gets what, and take it upon themselves to go beyond the scope of what I have outlined above. But these systems have had names like Fascism and Communism, and have been discredited as legitimate forms of government.

Nice to see the Communist Party alive and well in our institutions of higher learning...

Edit - and to address your point:

Dividend taxes mostly affect retirees with money who vote and rich people who donate $2000 a piece to campaigns. That''s what the tax cut was for. Not to stimulate the economy.

But how do you think these people got dividend income? They invested, which is a huge stimulus to the economy. And the tax cut provides incentive for everyone to do this, through retirement planning or direct investment, which does more than just pad retirees'' bank accounts.

Your analogy about the person who lives off of dividend income vs. working is a good one. But the thing to remember is that one person works a job, while the other has provided capital to create jobs. It''s fine to lower taxes on income; I am all for it. But capital investment is what drives the economy and creates the jobs in the first place.

People have to work. You don''t have to incent it. But if you want the investment pool to grow and encompass individuals outside of a wealthy few, you will need special incentives to make it worthwhile.

If 100% of your income comes from dividends, your ""income"" tax will be 15%, while someone who goes to work 40 hours a week can still pay 35% tax. That''s a fair comparison to make.

Wrong. It is dead wrong. The reason the dividend tax cut is so important is that will help reshap the street from ""growth, growth, growth!"" to ""balance sheet, balance sheet, balance sheet!""

It was recently pointed out by the second richest guy in the country that under the new dividend taxes (the source of his money being dividends) that his secretary will pay a higher % of her income in taxes then he will.

Everything Ral just said is dead on. He just beat me to it. As for the above quote, I notice that Buffet never offered to give any of his tax cut back. If Buffet doesn''t need the tax cut, fine, but I notice that none of the people saying they don''t need the cut have offered to not take the checks.