What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hope and Change! woo!

  • #21
"I don't buy the whole argument that out of staters don't have access to the same information you do about politics. You don't have an amazing revelation reserved only for the state of MA."

You may have access to information about where Scott Brown stands on hot issues like gov't spending, war, and health care based on the internet or on national news channels like FOX or CNN, MSNBC, etc. but did you get to see all the attack ad's put on by both parties non stop? Were you solicited for votes non stop for the last 2 weeks via annotated voice msg's? Did you get the news from BOSTON based news stations who interviewed the candidates about themselves about where they grew up and the towns they live in currently?...aka how the represent the people of MA - BS both are wealthy and don't worry about forclosure, paying the bills, and getting loans to pay for their children's education. (yes Scott Brown's town of Wrentham is a bit run down, but not where he lives) (Yes martha lives in a well to do town so she doesn't have a clue about joe the plumber's problems). Did your information tell you about the 4 democrats and 2 republicans that started the race? I bet they only covered the final 2 dem vs rep. Did you know it was discovered that Brown's party had ballots already filled out for him and gave them to voters? Why is it a huge deal a republican won in MA, because we traditionally vote democrat does not mean we are always democrat (Mitt Romney?) In fact the democrats have themselves to thank for losing the public vote of confidence here (chuck turner, sal dimaisi, diane wilkerson, deval patick.. want to tell me about them?). As I said, Brown won because he had a better run campaign, it has less to do with health care reform and Obama's agenda than you think... Fact is he won independent votes and conservative democrats because he had a better campaign based on limiting gov't spending, creating jobs, increasing troops in afghanistan, AND reworking the health care bill, not killing it altogether... although fox news would have you believing differently! if you think the people of MA really are disenchanted with Obama and therefore voted Brown into the Senate because he blocks things Obama wants do you are very wrong. How about Bush's war of terror, where has that gotten us, oh yeah trillions of dollars in debt maybe, countless lives lost? Where have the golden parachutes gotten us? How about the Patriot Act, really seems that it worked at stopping richard reed, and that guy from Nigeria from getting on airplanes! I am not saying I agree with all the spending that's being done on capital hill now, nor am I saying I support everything Obama does. What I am saying is wise up if you think MA is such a raging liberal state and that Brown's win reflects what all of America thinks about Obama and his agenda. His win is really not that historic in MA more or less a deviation from the norm (lets see if we stay republican in 2 years, my guess no, although I wouldn't be surprised if a republican stayed on) and I will bet our next governor will be a republican who I'll probably vote for...just because he is a republican that won by a small margin in what has been a traditionally democratic state doesn't make it a huge historic event... Brown ran a better campaign, had a better debate, caught fire last week, and won by 5%...coakly didn't do anything to better her campaign until it was too late nor did she have the same fire or appeal to blue collar workers and business executives that Brown did. its really that simple, she tanked and wasn't a good choice for the democrats, where as Brown caught lighting in a bottle and campaigned hard in the suburbs where he needed to (yes he did win teddy's old district too).

Hopefully you will pardon me if I miss some of your post, but it is way too much of a headache to read the whole thing in the largest paragraph of all time ;)

Everything you said is true in that you experienced it first hand, but the general methods of campainging and election do not change... and a few college classes in polictal science will give you plenty of knowledge to understand the implications of everything you just mentioned.

It IS historic. 1972... read it... almost 40 years. What do you define as historic?

As to the Patriot Act and other general claims, how can you even quantify if it worked or not? The concept is not invalidated just because you throw a few instances out where it failed. Nothing is perfect.

As to your statement of fox news. I could very easily flip it the other way and say you probably get most of your info from CNN. Truth is I read both liberal and conservative opinions and then I do fact checks. I NEVER believe ANYTHING at face value until I have given it thought.

Phil
 
  • #22
what do you out of staters know about MA politics? Brown didn't win because the people of Massachusetts don't believe in Obama, and don't want health care reform. Brown won this election because he had a better campaign than Martha did.

uh huh..keep telling yourself that! ;)
just be aware that no one really believes it..
(and it makes no sense..Democrats will vote for a Republican just because he had "a better campaign"?? riiiiiight.)
but if it makes you feel better, then ok..

Scot
 
  • #23
I was a Sociology major not a Poly Sci major...in fact I didn't take 1 poly sci course. As for CNN I never watch it, but I did take a course on the sociology of News and how EACH station distorts the truth in favor of their own agenda. In fact I usually tune out new stations except the local paper, if I do watch the News I flip between FOX boston and WBZ boston. As for the Senate seat, mind telling me how long Teddy held it, or John Kerry? It would go a long way in explaining why it has been held by democrats for so long in MA.

My definition of Historic is something that changes the course of history for a life time, not 2 years. 9/11 was historic, the Kennedy assassination was historic, landing on the moon was historic...

As for the Patriot Act, mind telling me instances where it has worked and protected us from harm, as opposed to the CIA doing their job both domestically and internationally pre 9/11? I do agree it was put in place for a reason after 9\11, but I'd like to know more about how it has worked in favor of intelligence\protection as opposed to dissolving so called civil liberties?

Hey Scotty - tell me why was Jack E Robinson a better choice for conservative republicans as opposed to scott brown in the original election? Tell me why Scott Brown targeted INDEPENDENT VOTERS and DEMOCRATS ON THE FENCE? Also humor me by saying why a republican won in a so called "traditional" democratic state if democrats are supposed out weigh republicans heavily in this state? Logic would say democrats had to vote republican for Brown to win based on the voter turn out. Keep on thinking you know about MA politics...I don't pretend to know about NY politics now do I? You do realize Brown DIDN'T run on religious beliefs like other republican's have, and contrary to campaign ad's he does support abortion to an extent (he wanted emergency contraceptives to be denied based on medical personnel beliefs). He is also FOR gun control to an extent, not against. (to be 100% against gun control in MA is political suicide btw)...Seems a little too liberal if you ask me.
 
  • #24
Hey Scotty - tell me why was Jack E Robinson a better choice for conservative republicans as opposed to scott brown in the original election? Tell me why Scott Brown targeted INDEPENDENT VOTERS and DEMOCRATS ON THE FENCE? Also humor me by saying why a republican won in a so called heavily democratic state if democrats out weigh republicans heavily in this state? Logic would say democrats had to vote republican for Brown to win based on the voter turn out.

Those are exactly my points! ???
of course many democrats must have voted Republican..thats obvious.
thats what im saying..
My point is that it had nothing to do with "running a better campaign"..
it had everything to do with actual Massachusetts Democrats being fed up with their own party! For a Massachusetts Democrat to actually vote Republican, things have to be REALLY bad with the way Democrats have been running things for the last year!
to the point that Massachusetts Democrats turned on their own party!

THAT is why he won..
because even Democrats, in the most liberal state in history, cant stand the extreme out of control polices and direction of their own party anymore..
that is what its all about..THAT is historic..

If you think this has nothing to do with Obama..you're crazy..

Scot
 
  • #25
I was a Sociology major not a Poly Sci major...in fact I didn't take 1 poly sci course. As for CNN I never watch it, but I did take a course on the sociology of News and how EACH station distorts the truth. In fact I usually tune out new stations except the local paper, if I do watch the News I flip between FOX boston and WBZ boston. As for the Senate seat, mind telling me how long Teddy held it, or John Kerry? It would go a long way in explaining why it has been held by democrats for so long in MA.

My definition of Historic is something that changes the course of history for a life time, not 2 years. 9/11 was historic, the Kennedy assassination was historic, landing on the moon was historic...

As for the Patriot Act, mind telling me instances where it has worked and protects us from harm, as opposed to the CIA doing their job both domestically and internationally?

Hey Scotty - tell me why was Jack E Robinson a better choice for conservative republicans as opposed to scott brown in the original election? Tell me why Scott Brown targeted INDEPENDENT VOTERS and DEMOCRATS ON THE FENCE? Also humor me by saying why a republican won in a so called "traditional" democratic state if democrats are supposed out weigh republicans heavily in this state? Logic would say democrats had to vote republican for Brown to win based on the voter turn out. Keep on thinking you know about MA politics...I don't pretend to know about NY politics now do I?

I never said you were a polysci major... I was simply saying with the right knowledge base ANYONE can fully understand and comprehend what is going on politically in the mysterious state of MA. As to your point about the senate seat... I am referring to the state as a whole being reliably democratic since 1928. In the last 10 presidential elections MA has gone to a Democrat 80% of the time. In the Senate a Republican has not won since almost 40 years ago.

It has come to semantics in terms of what historic means. We'll agree to disagree, since it will be a fruitless discussion.

Actually I have MANY examples of when the Patriot Act has worked but unfortunately I can't give you the specifics. I have worked in bank investigations for several years and have seen FIRST HAND the apprehension of criminals. Sometimes one can connect the dots from the initial perpetrator and take down an entire operation. You made a blanket statement that just isn't true. You know that the media is selective in what it communicates to the public, so you should have a firm understanding that much goes on behind the scenes that the public does not know about.
 
  • #26
"I never said you were a polysci major... I was simply saying with the right knowledge base ANYONE can fully understand and comprehend what is going on politically in the mysterious state of MA. As to your point about the senate seat... I am referring to the state as a whole being reliably democratic since 1928. In the last 10 presidential elections MA has gone to a Democrat 80% of the time. In the Senate a Republican has not won since almost 40 years ago."

This isn't presidential, its senatorial....therefore the candidate who wins represents the people of that state and their point of view, not the entire USA's point of view. I am saying that sure you get the news, but can you say this win by scott brown came down to the people of MA's point of view on the issue of health care reform alone? Surely he won on other points than just that. Did you hear hear about him campaigning in vital places earlier on last week with schilling, flutie, daughter ayla, etc. i.e going to the south shore, and north shore, and down to the cape? places where it had previously gone to ted? What I am getting at he did not win solely on the health care issue alone and blocking a 60 majority in the senate by democrats. Do you think that the corruption on beacon hill (mostly democrats) had a little to do with people's disinterest in the democratic party here? I would also be curious to know how close Bush Sr. round 1 and Reagan came to winning MA, I bet its closer than you think. There is more to his win than what national media channels are giving you is my main point here.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

Scotty I love how you look at this like MA is against Obama's plan entirely as well as the national democratic party's point of view. You couldn't be more wrong about why and how Scott Brown won MA. This wasn't a landslide win here 52% to 47%. Tell me why he keeps saying this is the people of Massachusett's seat? If you only knew about life with and life after Mitt Romney you just miiiight have a clue why Brown won by 5%. Do you think Deval Patrick and the other local's on beacon hill had ANY THING to do with the margin of victory by Scott Brown? Keep dreaming Premier Bush and Cheney were good for the USA....have I ever denied health care and ever increasing taxes weren't on voters minds? I have yet to defend Martha or support her if you have been paying attention
 
  • #27
"I never said you were a polysci major... I was simply saying with the right knowledge base ANYONE can fully understand and comprehend what is going on politically in the mysterious state of MA. As to your point about the senate seat... I am referring to the state as a whole being reliably democratic since 1928. In the last 10 presidential elections MA has gone to a Democrat 80% of the time. In the Senate a Republican has not won since almost 40 years ago."

This isn't presidential, its senatorial....therefore the candidate who wins represents the people of that state and their point of view, not the entire USA's point of view. I am saying that sure you get the news, but can you say this win by scott brown came down to the people of MA's point of view on the issue of health care reform alone? Surely he won on other points than just that. Did you hear hear about him campaigning in vital places earlier on last week with schilling, flutie, daughter ayla, etc. i.e going to the south shore, and north shore, and down to the cape? places where it had previously gone to ted? What I am getting at he did not win solely on the health care issue alone and blocking a 60 majority in the senate by democrats. Do you think that the corruption on beacon hill (mostly democrats) had a little to do with people's disinterest in the democratic party here? I would also be curious to know how close Bush Sr. round 1 and Reagan came to winning MA, I bet its closer than you think. There is more to his win than what national media channels are giving you is my main point here.


Agreed. I do think a lot went on behind the scenes, but that is the dynamic of ANY election. But I also agree with Scot in that many are downplaying this win. I look at the history of the state in terms of politics and I look at what happened. What happened contradicts many of the prior decisions made in MA. Has there been success in terms of the Republican party in MA prior to this election? Yes. Has there been strong success? That would be a resounding no. I do not think myself or anyone else is wrong in finding a correlation between the poor approval rating of President Obama and a Republican win in a state that historically isn't exactly what I would call a state up for grabs.

Phil
 
  • #28
The pseudo-logic of this thread is astounding. Have any of you read word one about political trends? An upheaval is entirely to be expected at a time like this; we're on a cusp between conservative and liberal politics. It happens about every forty years. Any statistician worth their beans would laugh these arguments out of the room - this is not (yet) representative of any sort of trend at all. Call me when ten traditionally stagnant seats change over at the same time; that would be unusual. One is an outlier - they happen all the time.
Why is it so mind-boggling to die-hard leftists or rightists to imagine that some people vote based on something other than the labels politicians give themselves?
~Joe

PS - Er... that came out a bit rant-y. But as a mathematician, I must voice my strong objections. :/
 
  • #29
for the record Clinton didnt balance the budget.......how can you have a balanced budget and hand out refunds if your in debt.......just a thought......cant make that sorta math work in my personal finances.....

swords, you say you make $30,000 a year and dont get the republican side.....combined between my wife and i working 2 over full time and both of us working part time jobs barely broke $50,000 last year...paid for our own health insurance out of pocket.....i dont want a damn thing to do with most of DC's help.....especially putting them in charge of my health care......Montana has had no problems helping out those that really cant make ends meet though they try....well over half the children in the state are on a state sponsored health care program, a program i agreed to raise my taxes for to support even though my girls dont qualify for it and yet Montana still ran a balanced budget last year, a real one.....you want state sponsored healthcare? figure out how to run it in Minnesota and leave my tax dollars out of it....
 
  • #30
rattler, I sometimes get the feeling that your experience with politics has been very different from my own. I much envy the apparently egalitarian climate you seem to live in. Where I've come from, the powers that be will backstab you quite reliably if you don't demand public rights and liberal involvement with community/governmental bodies. The simplicity of conservatism is quite appealing to me, but the people that run for office around here just aren't trustworthy. (I guess it's kind of a, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" kind of thing.)
~Joe
 
  • #31
live in a state thats fairly independent, big on letting you live your life how you see fit.....live in a part of the state that if a natural disaster hits we likely aint likely to see help and have to step up and help ourselves and deal with it in house so to speak.....

i grew up poor, my first vehicle was the one i bought myself when i was 20, have been working since i was 12....ive got thousands of dollars in guns, most paid for cause i decided i wanted it than ait peanut butter sandwiches for two months to pay for it....i dont look and dont ask for a handout.....if i aint happy bout my situation i dont look around for someone to help me i just figure no one aint and deal with the problem head on myself.....

in general i dont like the democrats cause they want to take my hard earned dollars that i busted my arse for.....ive got no problem helping ppl, i give thousands of dollars of my money every year to help individuals on hard times, have had to eat peanut butter sandwiches because of it before.....but i knew the money was going to those that prolly could use it more than me.....the federal government has a long and documented history of screwing things up....rather see things run locally.....if i need to i can get in and personally complain to my governor cant do that to DC....the current gov is a democrat that i voted for cause he has told the feds to screw off and leave us alone on several occasions, infact he seems to love passing legislation for no other reason that to flex states right muscles and piss off the feds.....he also is dead set on running a balanced budget by cutting expenses, not by going into debt.....
 
  • #32
The people of Mass will see their mistake before long as their new Senator votes in lockstep to prevent any real change on any front. Meanwhile the Democrats will get off their fat, lazy behinds and realize they have to nominate energetic, aggressive, progressive candidates, and that passive, weak candidates just don't cut it. If you look at what people were dissatisfied about, it was that they don't feel that their needs are being taken care of while Wall Street and the Bankers and such are all bailed out. Well, they'll be in for a rude surprise when their new Senator does nothing for them either, but the message should be loud and clear at the DNC. In the end, this will be a good thing for progressives and Democrats. A wake-up call, if you will.
 
  • #33
The people of Mass will see their mistake before long as their new Senator votes in lockstep to prevent any real change on any front.

"Preventing change" is exactly right..and its just what the voters want and hope they will get from their new Senator..

this will prevent the kind of change the voters didnt want,
and was on the verge of being forced upon them against their will..
thats what this is all about...preventing a certain type of change..the radial left "change" that was far too radical even for the most liberal state in the union..
that really says something about the direction we were headed..

when liberal mass democrats think its too much for even them, the fact that the agenda had gone WAY too far is simply undeniable..

Scot
 
  • #34
CONGRATS MISTER BROWN!!

Once again the American Revolutions begins in Massachusetts.

Don't let us down brother. :)
 
  • #35
The pseudo-logic of this thread is astounding. Have any of you read word one about political trends? An upheaval is entirely to be expected at a time like this; we're on a cusp between conservative and liberal politics. It happens about every forty years. Any statistician worth their beans would laugh these arguments out of the room - this is not (yet) representative of any sort of trend at all. Call me when ten traditionally stagnant seats change over at the same time; that would be unusual. One is an outlier - they happen all the time.
Why is it so mind-boggling to die-hard leftists or rightists to imagine that some people vote based on something other than the labels politicians give themselves?
~Joe

PS - Er... that came out a bit rant-y. But as a mathematician, I must voice my strong objections. :/

I don't think anyone here denies that outliers happen. This particular one had exceptional timing and its impact will likely be very strong. Not all of them will result in the same outcome nor will they have the same effect. I won't pretend to be an expert in political trends in the field of statistics but I do know an extremely noteworthy event when I see one (An event that only happens twice in one's life on average may very well be classified as noteworthy) and apparently so do millions of other people.

Phil
 
  • #36
"Preventing change" is exactly right..and its just what the voters want and hope they will get from their new Senator..

this will prevent the kind of change the voters didnt want,
and was on the verge of being forced upon them against their will..
thats what this is all about...preventing a certain type of change..the radial left "change" that was far too radical even for the most liberal state in the union..
that really says something about the direction we were headed..

when liberal mass democrats think its too much for even them, the fact that the agenda had gone WAY too far is simply undeniable..

Scot

Your ill informed arguments about Scott Brown and above all Massachusetts are almost comical. Surly with your wealth of knowledge about liberal MA, you would have realized Mitt Romney won MA in the primary presidential election....you have yet to answer ANY of my questions about MA politics you seem to know so well...why didn't your republicans call for less government spending while Bush was in office? Mission Accomplished in Iraq? Scott Brown was a nude model for cosmopolitan magazine in the 1980's, ALL republicans must LOVE that. Stop living in a fantasy world in which republicans have no faults! Try moving back to reality where both sides have flaws

Geee maybe we're liberal in MA dating back to 1776 and the revolution? We wanted a separation (among other issues) between church and state you far right wing republicans seem to ignore. If you can't see the right wing extremist evangelicals getting involved in politics you are blind. Continue to be ignorant when it comes to generalizations about every so called liberal who lives in MA wanting change....It makes you seem VERY informed and convincing...By classifying MA as raging liberals you A. offend moderates like myself, B. you offend staunch republicans from MA by calling them liberal. C. you continue to ignore the simple fact our governors in the past have not all been democrat (4 of the last 5 have been republican). Maybe I'll classify all conservatives as right wing extremist evangelicals....especially new york republicans...btw if you want more liberal try your neighboring state Vermont

If anything I agree with capslock the most...at least his arguments make sense
 
  • #37
Scot,
I think you'll find that the voters of Massachusetts don't feel quite the way you think they do. For example, Mass. has already enacted within their state many of the health care reforms in the proposed bill - and it's wildly popular there. As a result 98% of state residents have health insurance. Further, surveys show that the economy is number on their priority list and that their dissatisfaction with the status quo is that Wall Street is taken care of but not the average guy. They have a short memory, though - the Bush administration's policies created the economic crisis, and the bailouts were substantially put in place by Bush - only Bush didn't have any restrictions or accountability with his bailouts. In fact, it is the GOP that has protected Wall Street, who argue against salary/bonus restrictions for the executives of the failed firms, and who have watered down the Health Care Bill beyond all usefulness.

We still have an embarrassing health care insurance system in this country - the worst in the industrialize world by far. Folks like rattler don't like taxes, but for some reason don't make the connection that our health care costs are worse on his pocketbook than anything Washington can come up with. We pay almost double what every nation on earth pays for health care, yet we have 40-plus million people with NO coverage, and untold millions more with under-coverage. The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country is medical costs. That doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. It doesn't have to either - our system is basically a giveaway to predatory insurance companies. Our doctors are great - our health care, when it can be afforded, does not need to be fixed. How we pay for it is an international embarrassment, and the GOP notion that any reform there should be blocked is indicative of how they represent insurance companies, not Main Street. Let me share a little graphic that puts into perspective our failure in this area:

6a00e0098226918833012876674340970c-800wi.jpg


Furthermore, I think the people of Massachusetts will start second-guessing themselves when they find out that Senator Brown is an anti-gay bigot who opposes gay marriage, that he voted against aid for 9/11 relief workers (on cost grounds, yet he was fighting for corporate subsidies and funding a golf course), that he pretends he's never heard of the Tea Party movement, and that he sponsored a legislative amendment that would have allowed medical personnel to deny emergency contraception to rape victims if it "conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief."

This vote was a symbolic vote against the status quo - Massachusetts, far from being the most liberal state in the nation, changes parties frequently. Most of their recent governors have been Republican, for example. Voters are dissatisfied right now - and rightfully so. And Brown had the fortune of running against an incredibly weak Democratic candidate who couldn't seem to find time to campaign at all. If anything, this is a wake-up call to Democrats to stop compromising all meaningful change away, and to stop catering to Wall Street while ignoring real, regular tax payers.

Max
 
  • #38
I don't think anyone here denies that outliers happen. This particular one had exceptional timing and its impact will likely be very strong. Not all of them will result in the same outcome nor will they have the same effect. I won't pretend to be an expert in political trends in the field of statistics but I do know an extremely noteworthy event when I see one (An event that only happens twice in one's life on average may very well be classified as noteworthy) and apparently so do millions of other people.

Phil

I see what you mean here, but what's noteworthy to one has a lot to do with perspective and information sources. A 100-year flood is noteworthy to humans that rarely live longer than that, but on the scale of geological history it's a regular, even expected, event. Likewise, there are unexpected political events all the time. This one just happened to be in a jurisdiction that is in focus for most Americans, and to have obvious undertones that make for sensational media reports.

in general i dont like the democrats cause they want to take my hard earned dollars that i busted my arse for.....ive got no problem helping ppl, i give thousands of dollars of my money every year to help individuals on hard times, have had to eat peanut butter sandwiches because of it before.....but i knew the money was going to those that prolly could use it more than me.....the federal government has a long and documented history of screwing things up....

I'm never sure whether I should be distressed or relieved to see how our ideals tend to line up with one another. I kind of feel like the contrary of what you say is true, for me at least; it always seems to me that the Republican/conservative agendas are trying to "take" my money. I put that in quotes because most of the conservative policies and spending doesn't ever seem to benefit me. In the case of liberal programs - the ones that aren't totally spoiled by overreaching, that is - I am usually more comfortable with my taxes being spent because the money comes back to me, one way or another. When I think of Republican agendas, I get a long list of things that have more or less hurt America, either in the eyes of the global community or by causing infighting amongst voters. While the stuff that Democrats push is often less effective at accomplishing the intended goals, my overall impression is that they're at least conceptually and morally sound (implementations aside - I'm pretty sure corruption is just an unavoidable feature of centralized governance.)
~Joe
 
  • #39
Elaborate graphs and statistical models aside, the planned health care bill swelled from somewhere in the neighborhood of twelve hundred pages to over twenty-five hundred; and no one in office was wiling to claim to have read it or any of its myriad earmarks. Friends of mine, both in the medical field and the law could barely decipher its language; and if the professionals were unable to understand its implications, imagine the populace at the business end of this proposed legislation.

Brown's election is no mandate but a wholesale reaction to the opinion -- on both sides of the fence -- that government, and its steroidal increase in size and debt, is without a pilot at the helm; and some correction or balance was in order. The Massachusetts program, for all of its popular support, is tremendously costly and debt-ridden with vast administrative expenses; and I know of many who have fled the state in the last few years because they could no longer afford the exorbitant property taxes (especially if retired).

While it may be true that the US is seen as behind many other industrial nations in terms of its health coverage, it is also quite telling that many European leaders -- when faced with serious illness -- forgo their respective country's health care coverage and flee to the Mayo Clinic or Cedars Sinai . . .
 
  • #40
Actually I said under 30K - 30K would be great! I used that number cos that seems to be the cut off where they even start talking about cutting or raising taxes whenever they get out the big foam boards in congress with their pointer sticks... :D

Making as little as I do I get about half of the money I pay in returned to me on a tax refund, hence what I meant by republicans hate people like me. I've heard them complaining about people like me so I know what I've heard out of their own mouths. When they essentially point at you and say "you are destroying America merely by existing and being too poor to owe as much taxes like the owner of a company does" I don't feel welcome from their side at all.

This year my tax refund is going for all the oral cancer screenings I went through in December at a dentist and two doctors... Yeah, it's party time! LOL
 
Back
Top