Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Predictions?

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:47:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Election day (for the US, not sure about other nations).

Anyone care to make predictions overall? On specific races?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:52:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:47:44 AM, OreEle wrote:
Election day (for the US, not sure about other nations).

Anyone care to make predictions overall? On specific races?

Overall, I think the conservatives have the upper hand, but maybe I'll be surprised. I would like to see it split right down the middle. Hopefully, that will force some compromise and promote better policies...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:57:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:52:43 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:47:44 AM, OreEle wrote:
Election day (for the US, not sure about other nations).

Anyone care to make predictions overall? On specific races?

Overall, I think the conservatives have the upper hand, but maybe I'll be surprised. I would like to see it split right down the middle. Hopefully, that will force some compromise and promote better policies...

I don't think (in the senate) the numbers will make any difference at all. The republicans are going to continue to block the democrats (they only need 41 to hold a filibuster) until 2012, unless they somehow get the seats to overturn a veto.

The house is definately going to the republicans unless the entire teaparty movement forgets that today is election day.

Governers are going strongly republican, which will allow for redistricting in republican favor so they can take more in the house in 2012.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:59:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thank god the republicans are in office. That will stop the corporate welfare/warfare state.

[So my prediction is that nearly all electoral possibilities have the same outcome]
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 9:06:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It looks like the war-mongering socialists are going to control the Senate, and the other war-mongering socialists are going to take control of the House.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 9:15:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I predict Rick Boucher is going to be voted out of office for the first time in 28 years!
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 9:18:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 9:06:15 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It looks like the war-mongering socialists are going to control the Senate, and the other war-mongering socialists are going to take control of the House.

So you think the warmongering socialist republicrat party is in a pretty good position, then?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 9:21:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 9:15:57 AM, Marauder wrote:
I predict Rick Boucher is going to be voted out of office for the first time in 28 years!

That is interesting.

According to RCP, Boucher has had a double digit lead for nearly the entire race (they only looked at SurveyUSA), but suddenly at the end of last month, Griffith took a 1 point lead, making it a toss up. Based on that sudden shift, it may well be likely that Griffith take a 5 point win.

What sucks is that nearly every single political news site is blocked at work, so I don't know where I can watch the results come in.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:19:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What makes the election results so interesting is that there are so many close races. The major pollsters are using the voter turnout model from the 2008 elections. Some say that there will be a lot more Republicans. Democrats claim that the threat of the Tea Party has revitalized their side. Democrats considerably outspent Republicans in electioneering this year (about $1100 million to $700 million), and that is evidence that interest among Democrats is high. On the other hand, on the generic ballot Republicans are 15 points ahead of Democrats. In 1994, they were only 7 points ahead. Gallup calls that "uncharted territory."

Prof Sabato at the University of Virginia predicts Republican gains of 8 in the Senate and 55 in the House. That's probably an impartial reading of the polls. Rush Limbaugh says 9 and 60. Dick Morris 10 and 70+. Some Democrats are predicting around 6 and 45.

Personally, I dunno. If forced to bet, I'd go with Sabato, but the wide range of uncertainty is what makes it so interesting.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:21:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 9:06:15 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It looks like the war-mongering socialists are going to control the Senate, and the other war-mongering socialists are going to take control of the House.

Since when were socialists warmongers? Last I checked that was the Republicans and they're not socialist.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:21:35 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 9:06:15 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It looks like the war-mongering socialists are going to control the Senate, and the other war-mongering socialists are going to take control of the House.

Since when were socialists warmongers?
They aren't all warmongers. But the Republican and Democratic socialists are.

Last I checked that was the Republicans and they're not socialist.
Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:30:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:59:47 AM, Sieben wrote:
Thank god the republicans are in office. That will stop the corporate welfare/warfare state.

LMFAO. You can't be serious.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:34:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

I wish I could find it. There was a sataristic political graph, that had a little corner of blue that said "libertarian" and the rest of the graph (including the center, left, right, and bottom) was red and said "damned socialists."

I wish I saved it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:35:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:34:32 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

I wish I could find it. There was a sataristic political graph, that had a little corner of blue that said "libertarian" and the rest of the graph (including the center, left, right, and bottom) was red and said "damned socialists."

I wish I saved it.

Hahahaha. That's perfect! xD
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security). They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare). They support high income taxes and the regulatory state. In what sense are they not just as socialist as the Democrats?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:45:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security). They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare). They support high income taxes and the regulatory state. In what sense are they not just as socialist as the Democrats?

That's not really socialism. It's something else. The word "socialism" is very often used incorrectly. http://dictionary.reference.com... Besides, last time I checked, Republicans were against that sort of thing.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:48:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid).
They support cutting it back.

They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security).
They support cutting it back. By both privatising it and raising the minimum age.

They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare).
A lot less then the democrats do.

They support high income taxes and the regulatory state.
They support income tax cuts. They support estate tax cuts. They support capital gains tax cuts.

In what sense are they not just as socialist as the Democrats?
I'm not really sure.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:49:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:45:28 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security). They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare). They support high income taxes and the regulatory state. In what sense are they not just as socialist as the Democrats?

That's not really socialism. It's something else. The word "socialism" is very often used incorrectly. http://dictionary.reference.com... Besides, last time I checked, Republicans were against that sort of thing.

Cuba isn't 100% socialist--but it would still be accurately described as a socialist country. Someone doesn't need to support 100% socialist to be described as a socialist. Republicans and Democrats are socialist in the sense that they support a lot of socialist policies.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:52:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:48:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid).
They support cutting it back.
No they don't. Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president, greatly expanded socialized medicine in the U.S. Republicans also opposed the supposed "cuts" in Medicare in Obama's healthcare bill.
They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security).
They support cutting it back. By both privatising it and raising the minimum age.
No, they don't. I think there are a couple Republicans that support privatization and cuts, but the party as a whole is overwhelmingly opposed to it.
They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare).
A lot less then the democrats do.
In rhetoric--they don't actually do anything about it.
They support high income taxes and the regulatory state.
They support income tax cuts. They support estate tax cuts. They support capital gains tax cuts.
No, they support delaying taxes, not reducing them. Cutting taxes now to increase the amount of debt that has to be paid back later doesn't count as a real tax cut.
In what sense are they not just as socialist as the Democrats?
I'm not really sure.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:53:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:49:25 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:45:28 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security). They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare). They support high income taxes and the regulatory state. In what sense are they not just as socialist as the Democrats?

That's not really socialism. It's something else. The word "socialism" is very often used incorrectly. http://dictionary.reference.com... Besides, last time I checked, Republicans were against that sort of thing.

Cuba isn't 100% socialist--but it would still be accurately described as a socialist country. Someone doesn't need to support 100% socialist to be described as a socialist. Republicans and Democrats are socialist in the sense that they support a lot of socialist policies.

It's also not accurate to describe someone that is 1% socialist as a socialist. By saying that someone is a "insert tem here" you're implying that they are at least mostly that title.

Then we get into how do you define socialism. If you take it by the way that Marx defined it, then we are nothing close to socialism. If you take it simply by its roots, then really anything that promotes society over individuals, is socialist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:58:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:52:43 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:47:44 AM, OreEle wrote:
Election day (for the US, not sure about other nations).

Anyone care to make predictions overall? On specific races?

Overall, I think the conservatives have the upper hand, but maybe I'll be surprised. I would like to see it split right down the middle. Hopefully, that will force some compromise and promote better policies...

You're a rare breed, gavin...
no comment
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 12:14:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:52:49 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:48:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid).
They support cutting it back.
No they don't. Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president, greatly expanded socialized medicine in the U.S. Republicans also opposed the supposed "cuts" in Medicare in Obama's healthcare bill.

You know that the only reason the republicans opposed it is because a large part of their 2010 (and their 2012) campaign rides on Obama being a massive spender and so they want to prevent any cuts in government spending so they can blaim it on him. It is the same reason for holding up the extention of the tax cuts for the middle class and then saying that Obama is raising everyone's taxes.

They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security).
They support cutting it back. By both privatising it and raising the minimum age.
No, they don't. I think there are a couple Republicans that support privatization and cuts, but the party as a whole is overwhelmingly opposed to it.

No it didn't. While the party was not solidly for it at the time (largely because republicans traditionally do well with older people, and don't want to be seen messing with their retirement, and because in 2005 there was a growing liberal movement that would take congress in 2006), it was the democrats that were adament agaisnt it, and enough republicans against it that they never felt the need to bring it up.

Now republicans are much stronger pressing for financial responsibility from government and have a growing youth support (compared to 2006 and 2008), they will be more likely to bring up this elephant in the corner.

They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare).
A lot less then the democrats do.
In rhetoric--they don't actually do anything about it.

You mean like the pledge to reverse "obama-care" that has a good deal of support?

They support high income taxes and the regulatory state.
They support income tax cuts. They support estate tax cuts. They support capital gains tax cuts.
No, they support delaying taxes, not reducing them. Cutting taxes now to increase the amount of debt that has to be paid back later doesn't count as a real tax cut.

It is cutting taxes. I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is foolish and short sighted, but it is still cutting taxes (also, they do want to cut spending).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 12:19:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 12:18:15 PM, Koopin wrote:
GOp FTW!!!!

I don't really fit under any particular party, but I suppose out of the American parties I seem to be closest to Republican so I agree. ^_^
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 12:54:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 12:14:32 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:52:49 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:48:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:42:34 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:30:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:54 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Yes they are. They sometimes have free-market rhetoric, but they're just as bad as the Democrats on economic policy (except for Ron Paul).

You probably have a pretty twisted definition of socialism then if you think Republicans are Socialist. I'm not a socialist, but it's still worth pointing out.

They support socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid).
They support cutting it back.
No they don't. Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president, greatly expanded socialized medicine in the U.S. Republicans also opposed the supposed "cuts" in Medicare in Obama's healthcare bill.

You know that the only reason the republicans opposed it is because a large part of their 2010 (and their 2012) campaign rides on Obama being a massive spender and so they want to prevent any cuts in government spending so they can blaim it on him. It is the same reason for holding up the extention of the tax cuts for the middle class and then saying that Obama is raising everyone's taxes.
That really isn't much of an excuse. Anyway, there's no way they'd actually suggest cutting Medicare. It's political suicide, especially when a large % of their supporters are those Tea Party "keep your government hands off my Medicare" people.

They support socialized retirement benefits (Social Security).
They support cutting it back. By both privatising it and raising the minimum age.
No, they don't. I think there are a couple Republicans that support privatization and cuts, but the party as a whole is overwhelmingly opposed to it.

No it didn't. While the party was not solidly for it at the time (largely because republicans traditionally do well with older people, and don't want to be seen messing with their retirement, and because in 2005 there was a growing liberal movement that would take congress in 2006), it was the democrats that were adament agaisnt it, and enough republicans against it that they never felt the need to bring it up.
Now republicans are much stronger pressing for financial responsibility from government and have a growing youth support (compared to 2006 and 2008), they will be more likely to bring up this elephant in the corner.
It's political suicide to bring up privatization now, with the economy the way it is and the stock market crash fresh in everyone's minds. Some Republicans do support some privatization, such as Paul Ryan's plan, which partially privatized SS. But the Republican leaders repeatedly said that they did not in any way endorse Ryan's plan, and do not plan on privatizing social security. As for Republicans pressing for financial responsibility--they aren't. They say that they want smaller government, but refuse to name anything specific they'd cut, and even want to increase war spending.

They support socialized aid to the poor (welfare).
A lot less then the democrats do.
In rhetoric--they don't actually do anything about it.

You mean like the pledge to reverse "obama-care" that has a good deal of support?
I don't see how this "pledge" contradicts my claim that the Republicans are all talk. If you look at the specifics of what they suggest, it's pretty much the same as Obamacare, just without Obama's name on it.
They support high income taxes and the regulatory state.
They support income tax cuts. They support estate tax cuts. They support capital gains tax cuts.
No, they support delaying taxes, not reducing them. Cutting taxes now to increase the amount of debt that has to be paid back later doesn't count as a real tax cut.

It is cutting taxes. I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is foolish and short sighted, but it is still cutting taxes (also, they do want to cut spending).
No, it's delaying taxes. How exactly is cutting taxes for people now to raise taxes on people tomorrow an improvement?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:39:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd be very happy if Barney Frank got the boot. I take some crap for wanting him out from my gay friends, but he's a terrible man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 2:53:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Exit polls are just starting to come in. And the first election results in about 8 minutes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"