May I ask why?

And I forgot the figures that disprove the "Bush's tax cuts for the rich" theory in my locker again, but I'll make sure to post them up tomorrow.

Meh. This is my direct reason that I tell anybody who asks why I'm not voting for McCain.

"Both presidential candidates suck, McCain says one thing and goes for the other, best example is trying to insult Obama over experience, then giving vice president position to Palin, using her capability to have a fucked up family and look decent as an excuse, he doesn't release his medical information and when that's what people expect of a person his age, he's hiding shit, & he wants to keep us in a war that has ruined our country far worse than anything in history."

it doesn't come down to what he's offering.

It comes down to truth, morals, and secrecy.

Do I want a man who lies, uses cheap tactics, twists his story around and keeps things secret from the public, in office? I can understand if he wants to hide his dick size 'cuz that's irrelevant, but otherwise, I should give a fuck if some know-nothing broad is going to be 44th president of the United States when McCain dies from the same medical problems he chose to hide from me for obvious reasons. It's not like he'll get abducted so people can torture his cancerous tumor. "OMG CAN WE TRUST A PRESIDENT WHO CAN'T PISS IN A TOILET CORRECTLY?" .............. who the fucks gonna do that? He's just being secretive.

I find these to be very correct reasons to not vote for a human being. My favorite absolute choice... Decency.

As promised, here is the data that shows how Bush's tax cuts (supposedly for the rich) actually affected rich people. I'm going to break the data down into two sections.

Richest 1% of the population:

In 1990, the top 1% made 14% of the country's income. They paid 25% of the country's taxes.
In 2000, at the end of Bill Clinton's term, the top 1% made 21% of the country's income. They paid 37% of the country's taxes.
In 2007, after Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" were implemented, the top 1% made 21% of the country's income. They paid 39% of the country's taxes.

So, the tax cuts obviously haven't helped the richest 1% of the population. They're making the same amount of income as they were making when Bill Clinton was president, but now they're paying a little more taxes.

Richest 5% of the population:

In 1990, the top 5% made 27% of the country's income. They paid 44% of the country's taxes.
In 2000, the top 5% made 35% of the country's income. They paid 56% of the country's taxes.
In 2007, the top 5% made 36% of the country's income. They paid 60% of the country's taxes.

And so the trend continues. With the "help" of President Bush, the richest 5% make 1% more of the income, but pay 4% more of the taxes. The data actually seems to suggest that Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" aren't helping the rich all that much.

If you doubt the figures I just posted, all of the data is available at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov), so feel free to have a look yourself.

Hey Blay, next time you want to start saying I'm the one buying into all of this political bullshit, you might want to make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about first. Thanks buddy!

Regardless of who wins, I'm just going to miss Bush.

thank god for tax havens huh? lol

The idiocy on this site baffles me.

Mims'....your quoting goverment sites. Like they're any more reliable than Fox News

so you're saying the fact that if you're rich you get taxed ridiculously doesn't mean that using tax haven countries allows you to retain more of you money than you would have had you simply remained 100% based in the states

and don't ever imply that i'm stupid you jumped up lil sonofabitch

I'm pretty sure that they are.

lol, your telling me Fox news is a good source for fair and accurate points of view?

read what you said...and then ask that question

What the fuck are you talkin about Vision?


I was stating that Mim's quoted some goverment regulated website, now im not a conspriacy type of a guy, but our goverment is ran by some shady mother fuckers, n it aint hard to switch a few numbers around to paint a prettier picture.


Fox News, is obviously a biased ass channel, not that MSNBC isn't ....or CBS for that matter, pretty much all media sources have bias's in them.

But the way mim's came with his arguement was that, 'no its goverment website, its gotta be right'

n i was just laughin @ that

yay Obama!

i

i'm talking about you thinking that i said or implied that fox news were credible sources....when in fact....what i said was...and if you would have re-read it..you would have gotten this...is that government sites are in fact, more accurate then television stations...even if those television stations are funded by the government.


Reading comprehension, man.

heres an example in case you didn't get it.

No...I'm not telling you that. I don't think that, i never said it, or implied it.
I said government sites are better for accurate information then news sites.

You basically say "Yeah right, like government sites are more reliable for accurate info then fox news etc...etc..."

i say "actually, government sites ARE more reliable"

get it now?


the only what i said could have implied or meant what you thought....is if you said..."yeah right, like fox news is a reliable source of information"

then when i said..."actually, they are."

what you thought i said would have made sense.....but that wasn't your original statement...so clearly...that's not what i meant.

Nobody 08'
....