Why the Democrats might lose in '08

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The frontrunners including Obama and Clinton already admitted that they will raise taxes across the board. This wont affect just the rich. If you sell a stock, get paid a dividend, the tax rates will go up. Also if you sell property theres going to be a raise of Capital Gains tax. Most Americans are tired of 8 years of W in the oval office but mention taxes, The Dems have almost no chance of winning

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/21/dem_candidates_say_higher_taxes_necessary/

[lleeder]

I think the reason they will lose is that they both have been playing up to Al Sharpton and his organization.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I think the reason they will lose is that they both have been playing up to Al Sharpton and his organization.

I heard on the news that Clinton made a visit to Sharptons Nat'l Action Neteork , she basically said that blacks are doing poorly under this admistration and let us Democrats take care of you. Same ole schtick

[johnniewalker]

Even slate did a piece on why saving money in T-bills and bank accounts is close to not being worth it b/c of taxes and inflation. With a higher capital gains tax it would seem to discourage putting money in stocks as well.

[myfilth]

After the Bush administration I couldn’t imagine not voting democratic next year but apparently the democrats are going in a direction were I will vote republican.

[Death Metal Moe]

I am BEGGING the Democrats to put up ANYTHING worth voting for. Seriously, they just have to put up a moderatly normal guy, not do some fucking social experiment with the a woman or black canidate, and they will win.

Please put up even a bland "Kerry-esque" guy and we'll vote for him. I think the country is ready for it.

[Marc with a c]

is sleeves a democrat?

[myfilth]

It seems to be a grantee that either Hilary or Obama will be the candidate for the Democrats and that's a losing proposition for me. I would like Giuliani to get nominated for the Republicans. Not just cause of 911 but he is also down the middle on Democrat and Republican issues.

[myfilth]

But sadly I don't see Giuliani's chances as very good.

[jetdog]

Have any of the dems beside Kucinich offered a point-by-point plan for Iraq?

[HBox]

I am BEGGING the Democrats to put up ANYTHING worth voting for. Seriously, they just have to put up a moderatly normal guy, not do some fucking social experiment with the a woman or black canidate, and they will win.

Please put up even a bland "Kerry-esque" guy and we'll vote for him. I think the country is ready for it.

You've just labeled any woman or black candidate a "social experiment" and I think I can infer that you wouldn't vote for them because of who they are. And I'm sure you don't consider yourself racist or sexist. But you've just said you wouldn't vote for a black man or any woman. So what gives here?

As for taxes, they've been consistently lowered since Bush entered office and the economy hasn't been anywhere near where it was when Clinton was in office at any time. I think the country would handle it fine.

Unless you're fine with going deeper and deeper in debt with the Chinese. I mean, the rapidly sinking value of the dollar is a good thing, right?

[K.C.]

The frontrunners including Obama and Clinton already admitted that they will raise taxes across the board. This wont affect just the rich. If you sell a stock, get paid a dividend, the tax rates will go up. Also if you sell property theres going to be a raise of Capital Gains tax. Most Americans are tired of 8 years of W in the oval office but mention taxes, The Dems have almost no chance of winning

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/21/dem_candidates_say_higher_taxes_necessary/


It's not going to help, but it's not going to hurt as much as you think...too many other big issues to distract people with.

And I still don't think Hillary or Obama will win the nomination, but I've gone over my thoughts on that several times in other threads on RF.net

[HBox]

And another thing. This isn't the point of the campaign where candidates are putting together concrete plans. It's way too soon. (Remember this when you hear "What does Obama stand for?" He has two books out explaining that but just like every other candidate has no concrete policy proposals yet) The only candidate who has done anything close is John Edwards with a health care plan. You think you know a lot more than you actually do about candidates. For example: you might think John McCain is as devoutly pro-war as anyone could be. But even he admitted last weekend if the war was just as unpopular when he enters office as it is now he'd withdraw.

A lot of things will change in the just under 2 years left until the election and the candidates will do the same. As another example: if tax revenues suddenly surged incredibly and eliminated the deficit next year (just about impossible, but just an example) no candidate is just going to say "Hey, I'm still going to raise taxes for no reason, just cause I feel like it!"

[Yerdaddy]

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9861/blazingsaddles128cj4.jpg
WRONG!

I do think the Democrats will probably lose in 08 but not because of this or any other issue. They will lose because not one of you fucking conservatives even read that 500-word article. You simply accepted WRESTLINGFAN's explaination of what Democrats are doing at face value despite the fact that he has the second worst record for getting his facts right after LordJizo. You sound like steam escaping. The way you people think has nothing to do with conservatism anymore - you're a cult. You live in a collective fantasy where information, evidence and reality itself is only accepted if it comes from other cult members. And that - as you have shown since the 1994 Gingrich revolution - is more politically powerful than political ideology regardless of how destructive and wrong it proves to be. You are the Branch Davidians on a massive scale and the country belongs to you for as long as the few remaining traditional conservatives refuse to challenge you.

[Snacks]

I think people are stupid in this country. After all the spending, the war and the extreme tax cuts to the rich, whoever is in office has to raise taxes to recover. The taxes will mainly effect the rich not the poor or middle class (250k or more). As for stocks, you only pay on your gains and you can write of gains against other losses. If your gains are so much that it puts you in a higher tax bracket (the top 2% richest bracket) then too bad pay a little more.

How anyone can vote for a Republican after the past 6 years is beyond me. It shows the stupidty and the fact that people cant think for themselves. Sorry, no American can say this country is better now then it was in Jan 2001. Maybe the very rich and some of them might say finacial they are better off but they see how we are hated and how many Americans are dying that they think we are still fucked since Bush became president.

[patsopinion]

i want to blame it on the the party supporters

but in reality its the party itself

the people that dont feel like politics support their idealism are partial to democrat(liberals)

but in realiy its a lost party with an anit republican (conseratitive) stance

it seems to me i

if your vote to count its the pro choice republicans that your voice should count towards

the dem really dont have a defined identify and i think that in the long run these pussies dont have a major goal?

these bastards needs to work harder to define who they are. because at this point they any one buts. which is what they have been way prior to the regan administration and its simply not enough to be a party

they got voted in the house/senate last term because of the failure of a defined party line and america going against that. But that is not enough to be a real "potential" unless they are willing to be ahead of not only the pack but ahead of american politics

which the main canidates have definitly not proven

just the thoughs of a drunk kid

[Yerdaddy]

i want to blame it on the the party supporters

but in reality its the party itself

the people that dont feel like politics support their idealism are partial to democrat(liberals)

but in realiy its a lost party with an anit republican (conseratitive) stance

it seems to me i

if your vote to count its the pro choice republicans that your voice should count towards

the dem really dont have a defined identify and i think that in the long run these pussies dont have a major goal?

these bastards needs to work harder to define who they are. because at this point they any one buts. which is what they have been way prior to the regan administration and its simply not enough to be a party

they got voted in the house/senate last term because of the failure of a defined party line and america going against that. But that is not enough to be a real "potential" unless they are willing to be ahead of not only the pack but ahead of american politics

which the main canidates have definitly not proven

just the thoughs of a drunk kid

It's like a Bukowski poem without the drunken hookers.

[Recyclerz]

It's like a Bukowski poem without the drunken hookers.


Example 5,762 (or so) of why Yerdaddy should be 3rd mike on the Show.

[foodcourtdruide]

You can never predict who the frontrunners are going to be for either party until the actual primaries. Remember 2004? No one thought Kerry was going to emerge as the Dems presidential candidate. Going into the primary Richard Clark was the favorite.

I'm personally just hoping that Al Gore shows up ala Chris Jericho circa 2000 WWF and puts this election in the bag.

[foodcourtdruide]

The frontrunners including Obama and Clinton already admitted that they will raise taxes across the board. This wont affect just the rich. If you sell a stock, get paid a dividend, the tax rates will go up. Also if you sell property theres going to be a raise of Capital Gains tax. Most Americans are tired of 8 years of W in the oval office but mention taxes, The Dems have almost no chance of winning

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/21/dem_candidates_say_higher_taxes_necessary/

That is clearly not what the article says.

[Bulldogcakes]

Example 5,762 (or so) of why Yerdaddy should be 3rd mike on the Show.

For the 8 people listening who would actually get that joke.

[Heather 8]

Remember 2004? No one thought Kerry was going to emerge as the Dems presidential candidate. Going into the primary Richard Clark was the favorite.



I think you meant Wesley Clark.

[Bulldogcakes]

I think people are stupid in this country. After all the spending, the war and the extreme tax cuts to the rich, whoever is in office has to raise taxes to recover. The taxes will mainly effect the rich not the poor or middle class (250k or more). As for stocks, you only pay on your gains and you can write of gains against other losses. If your gains are so much that it puts you in a higher tax bracket (the top 2% richest bracket) then too bad pay a little more.


You're right that people in this country are stupid, but unfortunately its the ones who agree with you.

Capital flows too freely nowadays to punish investments because it makes domestic political sense. Markets will punish you instantly if there's a penny more to be made elsewhere. Like it or not we have to compete globally, not just locally and that includes tax policy. If you want to lower people's net returns on investments prepare for higher unemployment, lower pensions for retirees, and higher taxes on EVERYONE to pay for it.
Interest rates can also go up if demand for bonds declines due to less attractive returns. And that means higher payments for Uncle Sam on the (7?) trillion debt he has. Guess who pays for that? Everyone.

[A.J.]

I think people are stupid in this country.

And there you have it in a nutshell.

[sailor]

You can never predict who the frontrunners are going to be for either party until the actual primaries. Remember 2004? No one thought Kerry was going to emerge as the Dems presidential candidate. Going into the primary Richard Clark was the favorite.

I'm personally just hoping that Al Gore shows up ala Chris Jericho circa 2000 WWF and puts this election in the bag.
I think you meant Wesley Clark.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/C/htmlC/clarkdick/clarkdickIMAGE/clarkdick.jpg

[WRESTLINGFAN]

You're right that people in this country are stupid, but unfortunately its the ones who agree with you.

Capital flows too freely nowadays to punish investments because it makes domestic political sense. Markets will punish you instantly if there's a penny more to be made elsewhere. Like it or not we have to compete globally, not just locally and that includes tax policy. If you want to lower people's net returns on investments prepare for higher unemployment, lower pensions for retirees, and higher taxes on EVERYONE to pay for it.
Interest rates can also go up if demand for bonds declines due to less attractive returns. And that means higher payments for Uncle Sam on the (7?) trillion debt he has. Guess who pays for that? Everyone.

Anyone who makes an investment is taking a risk. To further tax capital gains and dividends doesnt make sense IMHO. If theres any arguement for increased taxes it should be for people who Western Union money back to their native countries. I think 25% would be fair. I read that in 2006 over 30 billion dollars was sent to Mexico.

[pennington]

I'm personally just hoping that Al Gore shows up ala Chris Jericho circa 2000 WWF and puts this election in the bag.

Both Bill Clinton and James Carville have said in the past few days Gore is going to enter the race. Then I heard yesterday he contacted some of his top campaign people from the 2000 election to see if they're available.

If Gore does jump in I think Edwards is done (Biden, Dodd & Kucinich never had a prayer anyway). Hillary would probably lose more than Obama but it would be a real bloodbath.

But as an old Jersey City Democrat once told me, "The Democrats can fuck up a wet dream".

Go Rudy...

[DarkHippie]

Just thought I'd highlight the main points:

Dem. candidates say higher taxes necessary
WASHINGTON April 21 (UPI) -- Democrats seeking the 2008 U.S. presidential nomination say they would raise taxes for the upper class but extend tax cuts on middle and lower classes. Sens. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., and Barack Obama, Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, N.C., said through aides that, if elected, they would raise income, capital gain and stock dividend taxes for people in higher income brackets, The New York Times reported Saturday.

However, the three leading frontrunners -- as well as fellow candidates Sens. Christopher Dodd, Conn., and Joseph Biden Jr., Del., and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- also agree tax cuts need to be extended for families with annual income of about $200,000 or less.

[johnniewalker]

Just thought I'd highlight the main points:

Dem. candidates say higher taxes necessary
WASHINGTON April 21 (UPI) -- Democrats seeking the 2008 U.S. presidential nomination say they would raise taxes for the upper class but extend tax cuts on middle and lower classes. Sens. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., and Barack Obama, Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, N.C., said through aides that, if elected, they would raise income, capital gain and stock dividend taxes for people in higher income brackets, The New York Times reported Saturday.

However, the three leading frontrunners -- as well as fellow candidates Sens. Christopher Dodd, Conn., and Joseph Biden Jr., Del., and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- also agree tax cuts need to be extended for families with annual income of about $200,000 or less.

Your summarized version looks better and has bold print which sticks out and helps us illiterate.

[Midkiff]

Our country's just straight fucked.

[Jujubees2]

Both Bill Clinton and James Carville have said in the past few days Gore is going to enter the race. Then I heard yesterday he contacted some of his top campaign people from the 2000 election to see if they're available.

If Gore does jump in I think Edwards is done (Biden, Dodd & Kucinich never had a prayer anyway). Hillary would probably lose more than Obama but it would be a real bloodbath.

But as an old Jersey City Democrat once told me, "The Democrats can fuck up a wet dream".

Go Rudy...

And take McCain with you!!!!!!!

[empulse]

Capital Gains effects people the most in the area of reselling property/homes (ie-flipping). They pay almost 27% tax on an invest they have made if they withdraw the money before (or sell the property) in a one year period from the time of the initial investment / purchase. Best to hang on to they property and avoid the tax. It also serves to keep the market from inflating in an unnatural manner.

Taxes pay for - schools, roads, public services, libraries, and other social needs that WORK. We live in a PAY -TO -PLAY society, get used to it. Taxes suck when wages are down. When you have no benefits, no health insurance. But more over these tax increases.. refer to removing the tax cuts that ONLY BENEFIT THE TOP 1% of 2% OF THE WEALTHIEST. Which affects how many people who post here? ZERO. Quit spreading disinformation. Its amazing so many of you can be convinced to vote against your own best interest.

Taxes were highest during the Clinton administration... and look how we prospered. He also made sure the the cocksucking corporations that haven't paid taxes in 6 years (The TOP 80% OF CORPS IN THE USA), actually had to pay. But now.. i have to pay for it. They don't figure in the cost of the war in the budget. But I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. taxes will have to be raised to pay for the FAKE math this White House uses. You can't put it on a credit card and hope daddy comes to take care of it.

Gore running? Yes, he's been running the best campaign of all. By not running. My radio psychic... put the battleship Hillary up front, she can take a beating, and bleed the republican money machine. They can't see past her. 15 minutes before the first primary Gore steps in, and would probably sweep every one of them. He has the money, and he doesn't have to report any of his money raising activities right now, he is not a candidate. He doesn't have to give interviews to the RIGHT WING PRESS. He isn't a candidate.
He's the un-cola. And even more - I think i could envision a Gore / Obamma ticket. Also it doesn't hurt that the rose colored glasses have come off in regards to this current administration. For whatever reason the American people have finally filled up on bullshit to the point of not swallowing another bite from Bushco.

Recent polls show the American people 72% - 28% trust the democrats in congress more than the republicans. With 2 years of investigations, and Bush opening his mouth to say something stupid every 10 minutes... Its a shoe-in.

With that said, I am actually changing my party affiliation when i move next week to Independent. I am more liberal / Progressive than anything, but the Democratic party is still plagued with spineless pussies. We should have the balls to end the war, and raise taxes to clean up this awful mess. How about a 25% tax on Oil company profits. That would cover most of it.

thats my whining crying 2 cents.

[Jujubees2]

Impulse, you speak the truth. My wife is getting her PhD at the school I work for due to my tuition remission program. When she got her master's a few years ago, the tuition wasn't taxed. But leave it to the Republicans to stick it to the middle class as now I have to pay tax on her tuition remission. Yet, they wanted to give tax breaks to the big oil companies who are making record profits. Go figure.

[johnniewalker]

Impulse, you speak the truth. My wife is getting her PhD at the school I work for due to my tuition remission program. When she got her master's a few years ago, the tuition wasn't taxed. But leave it to the Republicans to stick it to the middle class as now I have to pay tax on her tuition remission. Yet, they wanted to give tax breaks to the big oil companies who are making record profits. Go figure.

That's bs, school loans are an area that need to be worked on. My subsidized loans barely cover tuition, and one year didn't even cover. It's hard to cover if you are not working or have something going like you jujubees.

[HBox]

Yeah the college aid shit fell off the cliff my last year, 2002-2003. The year before between my aid, scholarships and federal student loan I was covered. But that year despite my scholarships and mine and my family's income not changing I all of a sudden faced a $8,000 shortfall and had to take an additional loan. This is the bedrock of having upwardly mobile society. It's the justification for not overtaxing the rich. They are not some upper privileged class generally. Anyone can become rich so why overly tax people who have earned it and contributed to society?

But most of the time the people who favor low taxes on the rich oppose education funding, the very thing that is supposed to even the playing field. Go figure.

[phixion]

I read that in 2006 over 30 billion dollars was sent to Mexico

well in 2016 i bet over30 trillion dollars will be crossing the pacific to go to good old china, for no other reason than to pay for loans that we needed to take out to fight this war and still have tax cuts. so higher taxes? yeah my generation will be forced to pay for the sins of our fathers.

this is my first post since the board renovation.

[Snacks]

You're right that people in this country are stupid, but unfortunately its the ones who agree with you.

Capital flows too freely nowadays to punish investments because it makes domestic political sense. Markets will punish you instantly if there's a penny more to be made elsewhere. Like it or not we have to compete globally, not just locally and that includes tax policy. If you want to lower people's net returns on investments prepare for higher unemployment, lower pensions for retirees, and higher taxes on EVERYONE to pay for it.
Interest rates can also go up if demand for bonds declines due to less attractive returns. And that means higher payments for Uncle Sam on the (7?) trillion debt he has. Guess who pays for that? Everyone.

What does that mean?

The people that agree with me are dead on right. Everyone is always so worried about raising taxes, yet they never listen to who is getting raised. The dems want to keep the taxes the same for the poor and middle class. Unless you make more then $250k a year higher taxes will effect businesses and the top 2%.

Since Bush has become president the poor has gotten poorer and middle class has become lwoer middle class. They did a study that stated the economy looks good, but the only ones benifiting from it have been big business and the top 2%.

[Recyclerz]

You're right that people in this country are stupid, but unfortunately its the ones who agree with you.

Capital flows too freely nowadays to punish investments because it makes domestic political sense. Markets will punish you instantly if there's a penny more to be made elsewhere. Like it or not we have to compete globally, not just locally and that includes tax policy. If you want to lower people's net returns on investments prepare for higher unemployment, lower pensions for retirees, and higher taxes on EVERYONE to pay for it.
Interest rates can also go up if demand for bonds declines due to less attractive returns. And that means higher payments for Uncle Sam on the (7?) trillion debt he has. Guess who pays for that? Everyone.

As usual, I agree with part of what BDC says. (But not about Yerdaddy - It would be a lot more than 8 people and, more importantly, one of them would be Ron Bennington. :wink: )

Tax policy is a consideration for people/organizations making investment decisions and a too confiscatory government policy would discourage investment in that country. However, as long as Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin are around I think we'll still have a bit of a home field advantage. When I was young, admittedly a long time ago now, conservatives used to say that it was only fair to tax all income at the same rate, regardless of how it was derived, a defendable economic position. Now they say that income derived from investments should be treated more favorably than income earned as wages. (If you're earning a middle-class salary these days you are probably paying a higher marginal income tax rate than somebody who inherited a boatload of stocks and bonds from Grandpa and is living large off the returns. Warren Buffet pointed this out and he was right.) If we were a developing country that needed to build up a stash of home grown capital to invest in itself I could buy the argument. But can anybody explain to me why it is a good idea for the US Treasury to give preferrential tax treatment to Paris Hilton's income over that of a construction worker?

Not a rhetorical question, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[MrPink]

Anyone else find it funny that none of these politicians mention cutting spending as opposed to raising taxes?

[HBox]

Anyone else find it funny that none of these politicians mention cutting spending as opposed to raising taxes?

Not true. The Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq. That would be a gigantic spending cut.

[epo]

I really in my heart believe the Democrats can't lose in 2008. As much as my beloved party fucks up, this one is even too hard for them to shit the bed on. Here is why:

Bush Hangover. This is a gigantic issue for the Republican establishment. Not just in this election, but for the next 10-15 years. So many Republicans took the easy way out in the 2002 & 2004 elections and became "Bush Republicans". Many of them have track records of 90%+ on voting with Bush on bills. This is a issue as you can then be labeled as being with Bush. (This kills Sam Brownback for his voting record & Tommy Thompson who was in Bush's cabinet.)

The Current State of the Nation. Let's admit a status quo: Things aren't awful, but they certainly aren't great and we could be doing things to fix that. So people will look for a new direction. (This automatically eliminates John McCain who is essentially running for a third Bush term.)

Branding. This is more important than people think. The major Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore) are all known quantities. The public already has an opinion of them and it will be the job of the campaign to simply tweak those images to their needs. The Republicans however have a major problem in this area. Outside of McCain & Guiliani (and barely him) nobody knows who the fuck these people are. So in a rare moment in time, the Democratic Party has an opportunity to be the aggressor and crush the branding efforts of the Republican candidates.

A perfect example of this principle was in 2004 when the Republicans had a known brand in Bush and were able to focus their efforts on crushing John Kerry's image. They managed to turn a 4-term Senator with a history of being tough on crime, social involvement and who happened to be a decorated war veteran into a flaming pussy who stood for nothing. Do you think that can't happen to another unknown brand? (This injures Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback)

The battle for the soul of the Republican Party/Messy primary. I've said for awhile that at some point the Republican Party is going to have an internal implosion. The battle between the libertarian wing of the party and the social conservatives is dying to happen. The two groups have nothing in common other than tax cuts. Now take that setting and magnify it on a stage with Senator Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback on a televised debate.

All primaries are ugly. Mud is slung and dirty politics are played. However the Republican candidates have the backdrop of the battle for who they are, while the Democrats all agree on basic issues and will be arguing about policy.

Money. All things aside the early fundraising numbers seem to indicate that the money should be even this time around and could favor the Democrats early as the Republicans don't have an established candidate at this time.

Honestly, I don't see how the Democrats can fuck this one up.