Anybody watching the RNC? Pretty funny stuff.

Is that seriously a quote from the convention?

Yeah. The audience was chanting it for a while to.

Haha, I've been watching for 15 minutes, and if I had any doubts about voting against McCain, the republicans have successfully erased them.

Oh, that's what we're talking about...

I drilled your mom last night

Sounds like something someone's mother says quite often

(damn censor, lol)

Lol, they're chanting "Drill, baby, Drill" again.

Seriously this convention is terrible.

You're terrible. I've been watching most of the night and it was electrifying.

While I disagree with certain parts (such as shouting "Drill, baby, drill!"), I'm not sure how you could describe it as terrible. Unless of course you're just suggesting that it's terrible because you disagree with the things that are being said. But as far as enforcing the points and getting the message out they want to get out, I think they're doing a fine job.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying I agree with everything that's being said, I'm just saying that it doesn't have any less substance than the DNC had.

Your MOM is terrible.

I missed all the fun tonight.

Edit: Wait, no, it's still going! Awesome!

Republicans: 2
Democracy Now: 0

No better than the already terrible DNC. In fact, I'll probably like McCain's speech better in the end, because I thought Obama's was downright laughable and pretty awful.

I'm not a big fan of these conventions at all.

Yeah, that's a little misleading. It leaves out the part where another Democracy Now producer was filming a protest when police swarmed in, knocked her to the ground and dragged her, despite her having press credentials. Another producer that was with her was also arrested. Which is why she went down there to see what was going on.

Those are also the same police that conducted "preemptive raids," without warrants, on protest and media groups that had come into the city for the RNC, such as Eye Witness Video, a group that documents police brutality. Some were charged with conspiracy to comit a felony riot.

oh okay

fixed it

anyway

<@Vin> but anyway, they mentionned two or three times that prisoners at guantanamo should have no rights
<@Vin> they accused obama of being a flip flopper (with with only two real flips), but I can link you a list of 72 times where mccain has flipped
<@Vin> he even opposes legislation now that he helped pass originally
<@Vin> they continually occused obama of increases their taxes
<@Vin> and he is increasing taxes
<@Vin> on 1% of america
<@Vin> http://bruno.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/35/35a38441768173b8c1235ce7dd52d1c02abbadce.gif
<@Vin> and giving the middleclass a LOT more relief than mccain is

sorry I was high

and the pic doesn't link here it is

Ah redistribution of wealth.

It says that the bottom three of said groups are 60% of taxpayers. However, The top 3 are responsible for the largest chunks of government income. I'm not familiar with tax codes but I don't think that people making $18K pay much of taxes. I made...$27K last year (stupid 4 mos. unemployment ) and I ended up getting $$ back.

I'll just come out and say it. I want tax cuts for the rich. I want as many tax cuts for the rich as humanly possible that doesn't horribly cripple the government.

I appreciate republican conventions much more then democratic ones.


The last two conventions for the dems have felt more like the MTV VMA's then anything grown up and political.

Thanks vinny. That picture does far more to demonstrate 'bama's socialism than my limited vocabulary could. And to think that those bottom feeders are already getting back more than they pay, if they pay anything at all. Doesn't that mean that a negative sign should be placed infront of their tax rate since they actually "earn" more money than their employers pay them? Illegal aliens might be bad but not nearly as bad as greedy, scumsucking Americans that would only vote for a socialist to fatten their "wellfare" checks.

Where's Huckabee when you need him? Oh, that's right, endorsing McCain.

We really need to do away with wellfare.

Like seriously, that was only supposedto be temporary in the first place.

CNN just replayed Romney's speech. I'm intrigued by the novel ideas about suspension of habeas corpus that he obviously has.

something i noticed about the tax cuts, both of them are giving a total reduction, even though the nation is on the verge of a recession. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a total increase in taxes?

so you would rather pay more taxes?

Why? So we can take more $$ from the people (consumers) who can avoid said recession? Instead of $$ being spent on goods and services, it's being pissed away by the government. Americans need more of their $$ so they can SAVE and repay off their ridiculous debts. Taking more $$ from them means those debts aren't getting paid any faster.

Look, you don't understand. Many of the people Bush cut taxes for, McCain plans to cut taxes for, and Obama says he's going to cut taxes for, effectively have a NEGATIVE income tax rate. They receive all of the money that is withheld back and then some. To the tune of thousands of dollars beyond what was withheld per individual return. This is accomplished with tax credits such as the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit.

Bush already shifted most of the tax burden to the wealthy. He did this by reducing the tax rate which has allowed more people to prosper. If you look at America's personal income quintiles the bottom has stayed roughly the same but there has been a shift up from the middle. All of those people are now paying higher tax rates. I believe that raising those rates again will contribute to stagnation and less revenue.



Yeah because, like, people would obviously be better off with even less money. Wait, what?

I agree with the tax cuts, but the problem is that because of the ridiculous debts, the tax cuts are really not going to help that economy so much. It's kind of crisis zone right now because with the increased income of consumers, they should be reinvesting it back into the economy to somewhat jumpstart it, but they aren't because they are using a lot of it to pay off debts. That's why the stimulus really didn't have THAT great of an effect, because people were just using a lot of it to pay off debt.

In fact, either of the tax cut programs I bet results wouldn't be seen for a pretty long while :/.

This is true. And this is one of the main causes of our current economic slumps. People got loans they never every should have in their entire existence. When reality hit them like a ton of bricks, foreclosures and repossessions went through the roof.

personaly, I just dont see how a bank could think that a loan in which the amount of extra money they would get back on interest, when one takes into account the likelyhood of the person being able to pay the whole loan back leaves you with less money when you started with, how they could say that it was a worthwhile risk.

I mean, there are probably casino games that have better overall chances of ending up with more money than you started with. An individual should be free to make whatever stupid risks they want to with their own money, but a bank should realy not do stupid things like give loans to people who most likely wont pay them back.

Heck, I bet even loansharks wouldnt touch most of those people as they wouldnt have enough to steal to make back the money they would have gotten if payed back with interest.

In other words, sub-prime loans go against even the idiotic policies of economic rationalism (an oxymoron, as economics is by definition irrational) would say to at least make sub-prime loans a small enough part that the money you make back on other loans would be enough to cover losses from unfulfillable sub-prime loans.

er.... no. if we have an economic slump because people are not spending money, then taxing them further, while creating a little bit more revenue for the govt, will only worsen the problem. cutting taxes will, in theory mean, more expendable income, more money invested back into the economy more sales for business and more sales tax revenue for the government.

Paris Hilton should pay no taxes.

Because she's Paris Hilton, and she still hasn't had the money to go fix that fish hook she calls a nose.

I still think we should completely get rid of the income tax and increase event taxes to compensate. The government gets away from the morally questionable practice of taking property(money) from those that rightfully earned it, you allow people who want to save money the ability to save more, you get more circulation of money in the economy, and the rich will still pay the most in taxes but now in a morally acceptable way(they are going to buy more, hence they're going to pay more of the taxes). Normally this kind of tax system would not work in an economy of any substance, but since ours it based on consumerism, I think it would work.

Granted, that is quite a bit of complicated work just to have the moral high ground when taking the money from pay checks is far more efficient and simple.

It wouldn't work and will never happen.

What we need is a pimpin ho's tax.

It is far from efficient and simple. Think IRS, volumes of tax code, and the costs of managing and complying with the tax code. I believe "far more politically expedient" would have been a better choice of words. The method you propose is the simplest and most efficient.

See, I can find disagreement with you even when I agree.

Pimpin' already ain't easy enough.

One of the primary qualities of being a tool.