Polls tend to fluctuate like a see-saw but there are some who literally swear by them. However, this current poll is most interesting and thought you'd like to hear about it!

Newsmax.com - Newsmax/Zogby Tracking: Hillary&#39s Pa. Lead Growing (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/newsmax_zogby_poll/2008/04/18/89255.html?promo_code=2A89-1)

I knew she would in Pa!
Where I live they love the Democrats that keep raising taxes thinking it will draw more money when actually it deters people! Not that Obama won't raise taxes but I swear she would tax us to death!

Thanks, Sky; Obama sunk his candidacy in PA and if Dems are smart they will deep-six him before the convention.

I knew she would in Pa!
Where I live they love the Democrats that keep raising taxes thinking it will draw more money when actually it deters people! Not that Obama won't raise taxes but I swear she would tax us to death!

I'm not so sure about that. Having heard the recent debate between Obama and her (incidentally, the network observer after the debate declared Hillary as the winner!) I was much impressed! She spoke of ways to not tax Americans during her administration, especially the middle class. She went into greater detail about her other plans and said if anyone wanted to know more about those plans, to go to her website at: HillaryClinton.com - Hillary on the Issues (http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/)

I think realistically speaking, no matter what one thinks of Hillary, taxes are inevitable to some extent (remember the elder Bush and his Read My Lips No New Taxes and how it embarrasingly backfired?) However, no party, Democrat or Republican can operate without some kind of tax elevation in order to operate efficiently in light of a wild, out-of-control tax-spending Congress with pork barrel projects on both sides. Therefore, Hillary's plan merits taking a good look at!

Thanks, Sky; Obama sunk his candidacy in PA and if Dems are smart they will deep-six him before the convention.

Yes, George, you are right. Now if people would only get the glaze out of their eyes for Obama and stop looking through rose-colored glasses and realize that he cannot win when it comes to a McCain vs. Obama scenario, they would deep-six him right now!

[QUOTE=SkyGem However, no party, Democrat or Republican can operate without some kind of tax elevation in order to operate efficiently in light of a wild, out-of-control tax-spending Congress with pork barrel projects on both sides. Therefore, Hillary's plan merits taking a good look at![/QUOTE]

Why is the answer always raise taxes?

Why doesn't ANY candidate mention the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING?

Why are we as voters conditioned to believe that the government spending must always increase, and NEVER decrease?

Newsmax also has this to say:

"Obama Takes Big National Lead Over Clinton in Newsweek Poll

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:30 PM

-- THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats nationally

___

THE NUMBERS

Barack Obama, 54 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 35 percent"

Even if Hillary doesn't increase taxes directly I am sure she will find ways to pass costs off to us. Like her Hillicare, she has already said ALL AMERICAN's have to pay into it and be a part of it. Therefore the healthcare system would be monopolized by the government for the most part.

Why is the answer always raise taxes?

Why doesn't ANY candidate mention the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING?

As well they should! But then, it would not serve their interests now would it!

Why are we as voters conditioned to believe that the government spending must always increase, and NEVER decrease?

Another good question but it appears that it is a non-ending cycle that comes back full circle, 360 degrees, to the fact that the elected officials consider themselves citizens too, which they are, and they obviously feel that they are empowered to handle the job the way they want to, not the way their bosses, those who elected them, tell them to do. Until we can get a better handle on this situation and champion a law that will restrict and restrain their spending, the status quo will remain intact, most unfortunately. Let's get a national "Restrict and Restrain Congressional Spending Law" enacted! But who will have the gumption to step up to the plate and champion it and really carry it through is what remains the question!

Another good question but it appears that it is a non-ending cycle that comes back full circle, 360 degrees, to the fact that the elected officials consider themselves citizens too, which they are, and they obviously feel that they are empowered to handle the job the way they want to, not the way their bosses, those who elected them, tell them to do. Until we can get a better handle on this situation and champion a law that will restrict and restrain their spending, the status quo will remain intact, most unfortunately. Let's get a national "Restrict and Restrain Congressional Spending Law" enacted! But who will have the gumption to step up to the plate and champion it and really carry it through is what remains the question!

If you were president, how would you go about restricting spending without raising taxes?

Another good question but it appears that it is a non-ending cycle that comes back full circle, 360 degrees, to the fact that the elected officials consider themselves citizens too, which they are, and they obviously feel that they are empowered to handle the job the way they want to, not the way their bosses, those who elected them, tell them to do. Until we can get a better handle on this situation and champion a law that will restrict and restrain their spending, the status quo will remain intact, most unfortunately. Let's get a national "Restrict and Restrain Congressional Spending Law" enacted! But who will have the gumption to step up to the plate and champion it and really carry it through is what remains the question!

Of course that is only part of the great equation. Even if such a person was found who would be strong enough to champion a "restrict and restrain" law it would ultimately depend on his or her supporters to carry it through to fruition. That is where the problem would remain. There simply would not be enough support for such a bill as Congress obviously feels that all is o.k. with the status quo and if it ain't broken, don't fix it. With that kind of mentality coupled with the lack of great candidates who would fight to the finish to bring new ways of doing things thereby minimizing costs to the taxpayers we would find ourselves only hoping those who have promised change would live up to their words and fully support that train of thought once they took office. But it is difficult, at best, because all requires support from Congress that makes the laws and then a president who would carry the torch.

Why is the answer always raise taxes?

Why doesn't ANY candidate mention the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING?

Why are we as voters conditioned to believe that the government spending must always increase, and NEVER decrease?
It takes a president with a backbone (to veto) and the support of 35% of either the House or Senate (to confirm the veto) to cut spending; probably 90% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans will increase spending w/o batting an eye, which is, unfortunately, a majority in both houses. Those Bozo's call it, "representing their constituency". :eek:


If you were president, how would you go about restricting spending without raising taxes?
Eliminate payroll deduction for all taxes from employees and any liability of employer responsibility for collection of them. And, the national government cannot spend more than 99% of what is collected, except in the event of a national emergency (war).

If you were president, how would you go about restricting spending without raising taxes?

That is indeed a fair question but a tough one. If I was commander-in-chief I think the first thing I would need to do was to dissolve the factors that weigh into the current system of thinking about why we need things and how we are going to pay for them. I know I would immediately start to draw strong criticism and opposition from those who have high stakes with such a change. I would try to work with a strong coalition from both parties, including my cabinet, to work with me in passing on my message that would include only a few priority items for representatives of each state for each fiscal year and the rest of their proposals would go to a special committee, appointed by me, who would review each state Senator's and Representatives' request for spending and then have the committee decide whether that item or items was truly vital for that state's overall continued function. But before that could be done, I would need the support of every elected Congressional official to take a pledge to ACCEPT whatever the committee rules whether the terms be favorable or unfavorable to them. No appeals. No further action (that would be costly!). After the committee reviewed their proposals they would rule based upon the needs of the state and country with economists, statisticians and prognosticators along with the financial preparedness of the state in question to meet those needs, and the overall will of the people as a majority. Those would be my main points, to start with, that would need to be met by those Congresspeople in Washington.

If I could get them to pledge as stated above, I believe I would be in a good position to start to turn the economy around as there are little options, at present, to do that without raising taxes since Congress simply WON'T stop spending our money. Again, that would be a tall order but I would propose that in my first 100 days in office and try to garner support for it by reaching the media, individual state coalitions, supporters, etc. and the public would either support me in proposing this or would find a way to be non-responsive which would then tell me that the status quo is, after all, the way the nation wants to go when pitted against a viable proposal that would have a chance to work. It would then be back to square one or trying to re-think another proposal that would not be as effective but that might receive more cohesive support. Absent that, I would then have to regretfully report to the nation that they have no one but themselves to blame for higher taxes! It would not be a comfortable thing to do but a reality. But I would still continue to work in lowering taxes and finding ways to tighten the belt as much as I could, given the universe of thought about the matter and the non-support of those whose support would be most critical to get the job done.

Well, if I restrict spending, why would we need to raise taxes?

The government should not be everybody's sugar daddy, contrary to the Liberal and Socialistic beliefs.

I would eliminate welfare completely. Take things back to the way they were before the infamous FDR created our welfare system. If someone was in dire need, the churches and various civic organizations filled in the gaps. If you wanted something better than a bowl of soup for dinner, you went out and worked and earned the money to have something better.

Once this welfare system was created, it started the downfall of the poor in this country.
It made them dependent on the government for their every need. It took away the incentive to be responsible for yourself and your family. It created teen mothers who could cared less about the baby, what really mattered was how much more the check would be if they could have another one.

Yes, I blame the Dems for our welfare mess, and if we did away with this one government entitlement, we would not have any budget problems at all. We could lower taxes and still have money left over every year to spend on other programs.

When you take away the incentive for an individual to be responsible for themselves, you create an individual without pride, without purpose, without dignity, and who will be standing there with their hand out for the rest of their life.

Ok, off the soap box, today has been a doozy!!

Eliminate payroll deduction for all taxes from employees and any liability of employer responsibility for collection of them. And, the national government cannot spend more than 99% of what is collected, except in the event of a national emergency (war).

How are you going to support Defense and Social Security and education and unemployment insurance et al. If payroll deductions are eliminated, what's to be collected?


If you wanted something better than a bowl of soup for dinner, you went out and worked and earned the money to have something better.

Working at what job? For how much? Do you know how much a loaf of white bread costs? A gallon of skim milk? A jar of cheap peanut butter? And where will that person live? In your basement?

There is a better way to go than just dumping the welfare program. It can be tweaked so there is less chance of abuse.

The system we have now is abusing the very people it provides for.

Why didn't you quote my other point?

When you take away the incentive for an individual to be responsible for themselves, you create an individual without pride, without purpose, without dignity, and who will be standing there with their hand out for the rest of their life.

I will just agree to disagree with you on this topic.

How are you going to support Defense and Social Security and education and unemployment insurance et al.? If payroll deductions are eliminated, what's to be collected?
Very little of either education or unemployment comes from Washington. Social Security and Medicare need to be scaled back, over time. Defense is a national expenditure and there is plenty of revenue for that.

Very little of either education or unemployment comes from Washington. Social Security and Medicare need to be scaled back, over time. Defense is a national expenditure and there is plenty of revenue for that.

You must be very young to discount SS and Medicare so easily.

The current president has spent how much out of the Defense budget? And it's still in the black? Where is "plenty of revenue" coming from?

You must be very young to discount SS and Medicare so easily.

The current president has spent how much out of the Defense budget? And it's still in the black? Where is "plenty of revenue" coming from?
I wish I were young! SS and Medicare will be scaled back; mark my words. Revenues go up every year. "According to the CBO’s long-run forecast in December 2005, federal taxes under current law will rise from 18.3 percent of GDP to nearly 19 percent within five years and reach almost 24 percent of GDP by 2050. This means that the federal tax burden on Americans, as a proportion of income, will increase by almost one-fourth. When state and local taxes are included, the U.S. tax burden will be comparable to the burden in today’s slow-growth Europe." Read more at: What Is Really Happening to Government Revenues: Long-Run Forecasts Show Sharp Rise in Tax Burden (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1957.cfm)

I wish I were young! SS and Medicare will be scaled back; mark my words. Revenues go up every year. "According to the CBO’s long-run forecast in December 2005, federal taxes under current law will rise from 18.3 percent of GDP to nearly 19 percent within five years and reach almost 24 percent of GDP by 2050. This means that the federal tax burden on Americans, as a proportion of income, will increase by almost one-fourth. When state and local taxes are included, the U.S. tax burden will be comparable to the burden in today’s slow-growth Europe." Read more at: What Is Really Happening to Government Revenues: Long-Run Forecasts Show Sharp Rise in Tax Burden (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1957.cfm)

And what happened to all the money that was being held in trust for SS?

And what happened to all the money that was being held in trust for SS?
The SS trust fund is smoke and mirrors. Someone wrote the other day that the Johnson Administration came up with the idea of funding the Great Society with SS trust fund monies. All that remains today are "IOU's".

Thanks, Sky; Obama sunk his candidacy in PA and if Dems are smart they will deep-six him before the convention.

I just heard on the news that the Obama campaign has just conceded that Hillary is about 12 points ahead in Pennsylvania!

I just heard on the news that the Obama campaign has just conceded that Hillary is about 12 points ahead in Pennsylvania!
Carl Rove, on Hannity's America predicted a high, single-digit win for Hillary on April 18. Is The Obama taking-on water?

What has happened to federal spending? "After increasing spending 45 percent since 2001, President Bush and Congress are finally acknowledging that government growth is out of control. Yet despite some small steps in the right direction, they are not close to reining in government." Runaway spending: Left unchecked, Washington's overspending could drown America in taxes and debt (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed070306a.cfm)
It will be difficult to maintain that George W. Bush was a "conservative".

I just heard on the news that the Obama campaign has just conceded that Hillary is about 12 points ahead in Pennsylvania!

The Obama campaign conceded no such thing! The Pennsylvania endorsements are coming in like a flood!


Carl Rove, on Hannity's America predicted a high, single-digit win for Hillary on April 18. Is The Obama taking-on water?

April 18 was yesterday (Happy Birthday, Mom! ). Hannity is full of beeswax.

Regarding cutting spending:

Social security started 1935, Age 65 was deemed the "retirement age" but note that the average life expectancy was less than 65 at the time.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html


Funding would not be an issue if only a few % actually lived beyond 65 and there were several workers per retiree.

Now the life expectancy is 78. 13 years beyond "retirement," and with the baby boomers a lower worker to beneficiary ratio.

So perhaps the "retirement " age should be raised to 70. That would take a lot of pollitical b... s for any politician to suggest this.


---------------------------------------------------

Get rid of earmarks


Taxpayers for Common Sense: FY2008 Appropriations Bills (http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy08earmarks/fy08databasemain.html)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tax policy that promotes growth.


Americans for Tax Reform (http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/april/041508pr-taxdaymatrix.html)


Or replaces the current one altogether


Americans For Fair Taxation: (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Get rid of Medicare part D

Walmart and the private sector deliver generic drugs to the consumer cheaper.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Study finds huge variations in the cost of end-of-life care for Medicare patients (http://www.startribune.com/nation/17342244.html)


Amount spent on end of life care. This really needs to be taken a look at.
It is projected that healthcare willl consume 15% of gnp. We should objectively determine what is the most efficient way of using resources.

Here is the latest Gallup national poll .

Gallup Daily: Clinton 46%, Obama 45% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx)

Hillary has overtaken Obama. Hillary will win in Pa. but I doubt it will be by the doublew digits some are projecting.


The Obama campaign conceded no such thing! The Pennsylvania endorsements are coming in like a flood!

It appears to me that his endorsements are coming in nationally like a flood . Robert Reich ;a Clintonista just jumped ship . Obama also got Sam Nunn's endorsement.

Hillary's best case is that Obama is winning red States that will probably vote McCain in the general election while she has performed better in the high electoral count blus states. She makes a good case when she uses this in her argument that Obama is not electable .

But I think Obama will ultimately get the nod from the Dems. He will be so weakened by the Democrat civil war that perhaps McCain has a chance. (that and the fact that ultra-lib progressive candidates don't win despite their phony unity message )

This is just too much fun ! I hope they knock-down and drag it out through their convention !

Actually this protracted battle has fostered a stronger following for Obama. He has shown that he can withstand the slings and arrows with grace and intelligence. Fine qualities to have in the White House.

It's fun the watch the repugs running scared, hoping it's the witch Hillary that their man runs against. :)

How Hillary can still win:

uBGyuYKlxIg&eurl

April 18 was yesterday (Happy Birthday, Mom!!). Hannity is full of beeswax.
Cute!

He has shown that he can withstand the slings and arrows with grace and intelligence. Fine qualities to have in the White House.


On the contrary ;he has stumbled and fumbled questions about "who is Obama" ?; that is why they continue to be raised. All week he bellyached about the ABC debate saying the issues weren't raised for the 1st hour. But there is such little difference between the two Dems on policy issues the only thing left is character and electability to discuss. Hillary makes a good case that he is not ready for prime time.

Actually this protracted battle has fostered a stronger following for Obama. He has shown that he can withstand the slings and arrows with grace and intelligence. Fine qualities to have in the White House.

It's fun the watch the repugs running scared, hoping it's the witch Hillary that their man runs against.

What's fun to watch is Obama supporters unveiling their alternate realities. Seems everyone but the Obama camp is acknowledging his stumbling and fumbling and muddled answers to the "slings and arrows" he's invited on himself. There's certainly been no "grace and intelligence" in how he handles a campaign crisis, unless you call whining after the debate last week over finally facing the tough questions "grace and intelligence." It only gets tougher in office when the real crises come - and whining doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Tha ABC debate has widely been derided as a farce. You seem to be the only one who doesn't see that.


There's a whole thread at Digg of similar questions one should ask of McCain:
Digg - Leaked: ABC's Stephanopoulos interviews John McCain (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Leaked_ABC_s_Stephanopoulos_interviews_John_McCain )

The ABC debate was the 1st time that the Democrats didn't debate in front of cheerleaders. I'm sure if they knew they would get tough questions they would've found a way to opt out like they did with FOX .

The ABC debate was the 1st time that the Democrats didn't debate in front of cheerleaders. I'm sure if they knew they would get tough questions they would've found a way to opt out like they did with FOX . Here are some great topics for debate for a presidential candidate:

The financial crisis
The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
Afghanistan
Health care
Torture
The declining value of the US Dollar
Education
Trade
Pakistan
Energy
Immigration
The decline of American manufacturing
The Supreme Court
The burgeoning world food crisis.
Global warming
China
The attacks on organized labor and the working class
Terrorism and al Qaeda
Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance

But you believe that lapel pins, a reverend, "bitter" and "elitist" comments are more important.

Tell me where the two candidates disagree on any of those issues you detailed ? Why have a debate when there is no alternate position taken ?

tell me where the two candidates disagree on any of those issues you detailed ? Why have a debate when there is no alternate position taken ?

The "how" of any of those is up for grabs.

Tha ABC debate has widely been derided as a farce. You seem to be the only one who doesn't see that.

LOL, poor baby Obama had to actually answer some tough questions, unlike debates where they were asked say something nice about another candidate or answer a question from a snowman.

Even Taylor Marsh at Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/just-how-soft-has-obamas_b_97146.html) said Obama has been treated "Marshmallow soft. Down pillow soft. Baby's bottom soft."


So no one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.

Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.

The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.

This is the reason we lose elections.

What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.

If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.

Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)

We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.

No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.

Obama's free ride is over, deal with it.

I can't wait until the media get hold of McCain and his "issues".

I can't wait until the media get hold of McCain and his "issues".
Oh, beeswax!

As long as Evita and Obama are slugging it out they're going to get most of the attention. But, since the superdelegates are ignoring Howard Dean's pleas to make up their mind now, and they can't get anywhere with their FEC complaint, the DNC is rolling out their first anti-McCain ad (http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/04/new_ad_on_john_1.php).

That's a great ad!

Hillary started in Pennsylvania with 16 percentage points ahead of Barack six weeks ago. Her lead has dwindled and for Barack, a loss of 12 points are less is considered a victory. Also campaign disheartening for Hillary is the fact that she could get the populace vote in the State, but probably doesn't pick up many delegates out of a win.

What's fun to watch is Obama supporters unveiling their alternate realities. Seems everyone but the Obama camp is acknowledging his stumbling and fumbling and muddled answers to the "slings and arrows" he's invited on himself. There's certainly been no "grace and intelligence" in how he handles a campaign crisis, unless you call whining after the debate last week over finally facing the tough questions "grace and intelligence." It only gets tougher in office when the real crises come - and whining doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

You've been quite content with these traits in your president for the last 8 years so why is it such a problem when its Obama? (not that I agree with your assessment)

I can't wait until the media get hold of McCain and his "issues".

Did you watch Stephanopoulos' Sunday's inteview with McCain ? He was trying to reestablish his liberal cred and asked tough questions of McCain... which McCain hit out of the park. Evita is right in that if Obama can't handle tough questions from relatively friendly interviewers how is he going to handle a face off with the Mahdi-hatter ?

You've been quite content with these traits in your president for the last 8 years so why is it such a problem when its Obama? (not that i agree with your assessment)

Skell, actually I've acknowledged many a Bush problem the past few years but what I don't buy is the constant portrayal of him as an idiot because he can't say "nuclear." That's the difference here, nobody is insulting Obama's intelligence. If the guy can't give a consistent, confident answer to the tough questions he's rightfully facing now, how can we trust his character and coolness under fire?

Only the very vocal neo-con minority here aren't satisfied with his rebuttals of smear attempts (and frankly you guys never will be, this is your bread and butter), the vast majority are impressed with the way he has handled himself.

Hello:

Obama bama bo bama, ramaa dama do dama, Obama presy po presy, PRESIDENT, yeah man.

excon

Only the very vocal neo-con minority here aren't satisfied with his rebuttals of smear attempts (and frankly you guys never will be, this is your bread and butter), the vast majority are impressed with the way he has handled himself.

NK, the reason they are impressed is they get a thrill up their leg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-t_n_86449.html) any time he speaks.

He's THAT good!

.

I live in Pa no one ever asked me who I am voting for so I don't know where they get these numbers from. I Voted for Obama this morning! Besides She needs to win By a LARGE margin here to even put a dent in his lead and I don't see that happening.

I live in Pa no one ever asked me who I am voting for so I don't know where they get these numbers from. I Voted for Obama this morning! Besides She needs to win By a LARGE margin here to even put a dent in his lead and I don't see that happening.

Thank you, spitvenom. I hope there are more who feel like you do.

I don't know what large margin means . I think she gets a double digit win today;or close enough to convince her to plod on. I see Obama bowed out of the NC debate. What ? Is he afraid of tough questions from Kaity Couric ?

Tom, you need to worry about the upcoming debates when Obama gives McCain and his rhetoric support no place to hide. The Democrats have debated a new record number of time already, I think 20 or 21. How many debates did the Pubs have? McCain should had had more debates Huckabee, but he didn't. The Pubs were so chicken of Ron Paul they didn't want him at the debates as all. According to the talking heads of news commentary, if Hillary gets a 13 or more point win in Pennsylvania that's considered a large margin victory for her.

The talking heads are Obama cheerleaders. You see how they rallied to his defense when he was asked some challenging questions by Charles Gibson ? Everyone concentrates on his exchange about Bill Ayers but fails to mention his bumbling answers about Capital Gains taxes. It did not matter to him that his hero JFK reduced Cap gains taxes for the stimulous effect ;or that Bill Clinton's cap gain reduction led to a balanced budget. To Obama it was a matter of fairness. I don't care if it's good for the economy . It doesn't fit in with my socialist indoctrination.

Hello wingers:

It's clear, the only reason you're on Obama's case, is cause you know he can beat McCain, whereas you don't think Hillary can.

Why don't you be upfront about it? Something you righty's just can't do, huh?

excon

Tom- Are you kidding me? ABC has become the Hillary network and Fox with addition of Karl Roves is Pub at least seventy percent of the time along with most talk radio. I'm not going to champion Bush economics despite JFK's reduction in Cap Gain tax. The dynamics changed when Reagan and Herbert Walker put large corps in the driver's seat. I'm done with the Clinton's, but to Bill's credit he was running policy for one country, not burdening his nation with nine billion dollars a month in the Iraqi war. McCain's no different. He's closer to Dubya, than X, Y, and Z.

In truth I think they will have an easier time with Obama because of 2 factors . 1. he will be the most radical lefty to run ever 2. I think that race would play a part in the decision. I think it is probable that when polled a larger majority of Evita supporters say they would cross over and vote McCain.

I don't like Evita ;but I think she would be a better national security President than Obama. He has also displayed a redistributional doctrinaire economic position on things like taxes.
Your hero JFK reduced cap gains taxes to stimulate the economy . BJ Clinton used Cap gains reductions to balance the budget. Obama wants to rasie them in excess of 28% over issues of "fairness" .
I am looking for the best President . Of the two remaning Dems Obama has proven himself not ready for prime time .

Tom- this election is coming on the heals of Dubya's disastrous second term. Barnum and Bailey could throw in a clown and beat the Republicans come November. Let's say, hypothetically the Dems give up a hefty twenty percent swing to McCain after one of the two Dems candidate loses nomination. Did you realize that still wouldn't be enough? Taxation? Somebody is going to be taxed and I don't care what any of the politicians claim to the contrary, Republican or Democrat. We have huge debts and if we can get them paid down in my lifetime, and that also means to stop spending like maniacs (thanks to Dubya the Republican useless war nut and a Democratic Congress), perhaps someday we leave our children the American dream intact. Who knows we might even have some Social Security to retire on. Of course there are more than just taxes to raise revenues, but the current administration hasn't been business savvy on most citizen's behalf.

I see no reason to believe the blue State Red State dynamic won't continue this cycle give or take a few swing states. As for tonight ;the big unknown is the Amish vote :)

Hello wingers:

It's clear, the only reason you're on Obama's case, is cause you know he can beat McCain, whereas you don't think Hillary can.

Why don't you be upfront about it? Something you righty's just can't do, huh?

excon

Ex, it's looking more and more like McCain can beat either of them - but if he doesn't I'd rather have "the lesser of two evils" so to speak. I think Obama would be an absolute disaster. Sure, everyone will love us again because the Obamas' self-loathing brand of liberalism will lead him to genuflect to the world.

Where people get this "hope" and optimism from Obama is beyond me. Obama whining about facing tough questions, his elitist, condescending attitude toward "bitter" working Americans and Michelle "first time I've really been proud of my country" Obama's guilt is depressing. Take this from Michelle who says of America (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_collins?currentPage=3), 'life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear.” She speaks of her own "constant sense of guilt... It’s guilt, feeling guilty all the time.”

Hope? Yeah, that's it... how about we just have mass group therapy sessions for all these self-loathing guilt-ridden elitists instead of putting them in charge?

Sure, everyone will love us again because the Obamas' self-loathing brand of liberalism will lead him to genuflect to the world. ...
Yeah, that's it...how about we just have mass group therapy sessions for all these self-loathing guilt-ridden elitists instead of putting them in charge?Where's the self-loathing part?

1) Economy and 2) war. I suspect the GOP has infiltrated their communities and that for many Amish they just stay at home, farming, crocheting, and baking pies during today's Democratic primary. :)

Where's the self-loathing part?

Michelle expressed it ("constant sense of guilt," we're a country that's “just downright mean"), and Obama is cashing in on it.

I figure since No one called me or anyone I know to ask who we are voting for this poll is just as good! This is from philly.com (the daily news website)

Obama supporters may consider it a joyful noise. Clinton's, an unholy racket.

On N. Broad Street at Girard, a half-dozen Obama fans standing on a concrete median, holding signs entreating passing motorists to "Honk for Obama."

The majority of drivers are complying. There's a whole lot of beeping goin' on

Maybe this is why no called anyone I know about who we are voting for so this must be how they get their polling information.

Bill Clinton has a new strategy, blaming the Democrats' process, "We don't have a nominee here because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result." Seems I mentioned that after the Texas primary where Clinton won the popular vote but Obama got more delegates. It's hard to figure out where the Dems stand on this popular vote thing, they want it for the general election, Obama had no problem taking more delegates even though he had fewer votes in Texas, but wants the superdelegates to base their decision on him winning the popular vote. I think Bill is right.

Michelle expressed it ("constant sense of guilt," we're a country that's “just downright mean"), and Obama is cashing in on it.Oh, so you made it up, got it.

In truth I think they will have an easier time with Obama because of 2 factors . 1. he will be the most radical lefty to run ever 2. I think that race would play a part in the decision. I think it is probable that when polled a larger majority of Evita supporters say they would cross over and vote McCain.

I don't like Evita ;but I think she would be a better national security President than Obama. He has also displayed a redistributional doctrinaire economic position on things like taxes.
Your hero JFK reduced cap gains taxes to stimulate the economy . BJ Clinton used Cap gains reductions to balance the budget. Obama wants to rasie them in excess of 28% over issues of "fairness" .
I am looking for the best President . Of the two remaning Dems Obama has proven himself not ready for prime time .

I agree with you, Tomder! Hillary IS the stronger on national security when compared to Obama among many other things. Hillary has had her husband deal with it every day for EIGHT years! Don't you think that gives her a great "in" on that matter! Of course it does! However, one has to pause to consider why she is not winning more. It's because the public is enamoured with the black candidate rather than the woman candidate because he is a smooth-talker but rather short on substance to get the country "battery-charged" to run great again as when Hillary's husband was President! And the public gets bored way too easily with details as Clinton Provides (check out her website!) and would rather listen to and follow a follower than a LEADER like Hillary. Obama follows the Rev. and others. Hillary follows her conscience that guides her to a great plan she has outlined on her website that will surely help to start solving the nation's problems. Obama would rather waffle with reporters, say cutsie-tootsie quips about his opponent, brush his shoulder with over-stated arrogance and avoid answering the Real Questions that Hillary is not afraid to answer. She's not afraid to go into the lion's den and even if she's not popular with the lions! She goes to confront Goliath and in the process grabs the bull by the horns. That is why one just has to admire her among many other things! She has impressed me greatly by meeting with those who are not with her politically! In this regard, Obama shows great weakness while Hillary's Strength continues to Surge Skyward! But some, most unfortunately, seem to appreciate more a good male actor rather than a True Leader.

She goes to confront Goliath and in the process grabs the bull by the horns.

She couldn't even grab Bill's bull by the horn and she's married to him.



Surge Skyward!

Is that in reference to rapture theology? I've got some reality check news for you, but that's a whole other subject.

Thanks, Sky; Obama sunk his candidacy in PA and if Dems are smart they will deep-six him before the convention.

You're welcome, once again, George!

HILLARY TAKES PENNSYLVANIA! Gotta Love It!!

And yes, Obama did sink his candidacy (and BIG $$$ MONEY $$$) in PA. and it still did him literally no good in the end. Hillary was outspent by more than 2 to 1 and still she took the Big state! Guess Obama was just too bitter for those Pennsylvanians' liking! But they sure sweetened up to Hillary! You're right, George, if dem Dems are smart, they will deep-six Obama before the convention as Obama hasn't won the big states yet either with all his money or his hoopla! GREAT GOING HEE-REE!! This gives her great Momentum to continue and attract even more Superdelegates! She's on the roll now!

Try to keep up. She was supposed to take Pennsylvania due to demographics. She had a sixteen point lead just six weeks ago, currently hoovering around a ten point margin in the primary, but might not get double digits in the final count. BTW Hillary's begging for campaign charity like those televangelists that mostly far right-wingers entertain. How much money have you donated?

Polls tend to fluctuate like a see-saw but there are some who literally swear by them.

That was about the polls. And now --- Major Networks are reporting that Hillary has raised about 10 MILLION DOLLARS in the 24 hours after her double-digit Victory in Pennsylvania! Everyone thought it would be a single digit win but even at 10 it becomes DOUBLE-DIGIT for those who don't understand it. Also, it appears that Obama outspent her in the PA. primary by over 5 to 1 not 2 to 1 as previously thought! How 'bout that! Hillary is positioning herself well for the remaining states and Superdelegates who are not locked in to either candidate right now! Great Going Hillary -- CONGRATULATIONS on your Pennsylvania win and may there be Many more!!

Why is the answer always raise taxes?

Why doesn't ANY candidate mention the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING?

Why are we as voters conditioned to believe that the government spending must always increase, and NEVER decrease?

I absolutely agree... wake up!:mad:

The SS trust fund is smoke and mirrors. Someone wrote the other day that the Johnson Administration came up with the idea of funding the Great Society with SS trust fund monies. All that remains today are "IOU's".

George please correct me if I am wrong about this;

There never really was or is a "fund for social security and the collected dollars are "dumped' into a 'common fund?"

Our present federal income tax law is a temporary law and must be voted upon ever2 or 3 years to "renew" it?
Stringer

George please correct me if I am wrong about this;

There never really was or is a "fund for social security and the collected dollars are "dumped' into a 'common fund?"

Our present federal income tax law is a temporary law and must be voted upon ever2 or 3 years to "renew" it?
Stringer

Social Security taxes go into the 'general fund', as far as I know. There is no trust fund. But I recall in 1964: a teacher told me that budget surpluses were like manure: they just sat around and smelled. This teacher knew what LBJ was proposing, but no one anticipated how expensive it would be.

The income tax law is anything but temporary. The country was founded w/o it, but a constitutional amendment, around 1916, approved the use of income taxes; the guise was paying for WW I; but taxes are rarely reduced, much less repealed. The 'Bush tax cuts' are considered temporary because they are supposed to expire in 2010 or thereabouts.

Stringer --

Trust Fund FAQs (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html)

No, the tax law isn't renewed every few years.