You know, if your whole livelyhood was based on livestock, or you cared about game at all, and then saw the desimation from a pack of wolves, or by chance lived out in the country and had to worry about wolves and the safety of your family, you might not spout all this PETA bullchit about how against shooting wolves ANYWAY possible you are!!!
Snowmobilers For McCain/Palin...
- Thread starter snoman8
- Start date
In Alaska, really? I can see in Montana. Right now I believe the law in Montana is you can shoot wolves if you or your property is in danger, and I completely agree with that. To me, if you or your property are in danger, do you think you need to run, grab a helicopter, then go chase one down until it is tired, then get out and shoot it. In the middle of flippen Alaska.
Even though I am not much for hunting or fishing personally, I am all for hunting and fishing rights and keeping land and water open for those purposes. But come on, that is sport wolf hunting for the rich.
Even this type of hunting is a useful game managment tool. Being from Montana you should know this. Oh wait, you're not really from Montana.
Here ya go. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm
Heres a sample.
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom
by J.D. Foster, Ph.D.
WebMemo #1835
When pressed about the harmful effects on the economy, proponents of higher taxes often fall back on what can be called the "Clinton defense." President Bill Clinton pushed a major tax increase through Congress in 1993, and, so the story goes, the economy boomed. How, then, can tax increases be so bad for the economy? The inference is even stronger: that higher taxes actually strengthened the economy.
The Clinton defense is superficially plausible, but it fails under closer scrutiny. Economic growth was solid but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. Low taxes are still a key to a strong economy.
Did you actually read this whole thing? There is not one resource cited. Look, you can spin anything anyway you want. How about this, they cite the tax affect really is only four years (which I don't get if the tax change was for 9 years like it was). Yet, most Republicans say Clinton was set up by Reagan (nevermind the 4 years of Bush I and a recession). Then they say in 18 months the Democratic Congress killed the economy. The cool thing, we were headed into a recession 4 years after the Bush tax cuts.
So, this article is a journalistic piece with no evidence. Come to me with something solid. Every contention I have made has been backed with evidence or I have it and it has not been posted yet.
You are absolutely right! The only people it will hurt are the poeple they employ.
Okay, I have said this before and will say it again. The vast majoirty of the 450,000 small business owners that make over that amount are very sharp people. Do you think they are not going to invest in their business to return $100,000 when it costs them an additional $4,600 in taxes? They still make $95,400 on the deal. Even if hiring an employee brings in only $20,000, doesn't that still make sense to add the person when it only costs them an additional $920?
Every small business I know hires on production, not based on their tax rate.
Even this type of hunting is a useful game managment tool. Being from Montana you should know this. Oh wait, you're not really from Montana.
At least I display and explain mine. You on the other hand choose to remain anonymous. LOL
Z
zsnowshredder
Member
If your on this snowest I assume, like me, you are passionate about riding. The bottom line is, if you like to ride, you'll be doing alot less of it if we have a democratic president and a democratic congress. They will be able to do wahatever they want, with no checks and balances.
If your passionate about riding, why would you vote for people that want to shut down our riding areas.
If your passionate about riding, why would you vote for people that want to shut down our riding areas.
S
skooter
Well-known member
Reasons to vote mccain
• Pro life
• Pro guns
• Felt more broke during democratic presidency even though democrates favor the middle class sounds good, but doesn't ring true with my bank account
• International relations….I don’t want a soft shoeing, silver tongue guy that makes comprises need someone to draw lines in the sand
• Judicial appointments
Obama will appoint judges that will further liberal causes…gay marriages, killing unborn infants, removal of God from even more public places, implementing regulations forcing broadcasting to give equal time to pros and cons on any issues. So,
Being realistic, it’s the democrats turn in office…it seems to rotate…Obama will win. So, please be sure to balance the power and vote republican
Mccain also supports school vouchers which would open up competition in education. Imagine a school that would actually listen to parents as customers and work with you to keep your business...providing our children with the best education possible. Instead of being stuck with a teacher that is coasting to retirment and no options.
• Pro life
• Pro guns
• Felt more broke during democratic presidency even though democrates favor the middle class sounds good, but doesn't ring true with my bank account
• International relations….I don’t want a soft shoeing, silver tongue guy that makes comprises need someone to draw lines in the sand
• Judicial appointments
Obama will appoint judges that will further liberal causes…gay marriages, killing unborn infants, removal of God from even more public places, implementing regulations forcing broadcasting to give equal time to pros and cons on any issues. So,
Being realistic, it’s the democrats turn in office…it seems to rotate…Obama will win. So, please be sure to balance the power and vote republican
Mccain also supports school vouchers which would open up competition in education. Imagine a school that would actually listen to parents as customers and work with you to keep your business...providing our children with the best education possible. Instead of being stuck with a teacher that is coasting to retirment and no options.
S
skooter
Well-known member
I don't get the whole housing crisis?? Wasn't the crisis when the cost of housing was increasing at astronomical rates where the average joe couldn't afford them. If housing keeps going down....our children MIGHT be able to buy one. The way it was going, I was seriously wondering how my children would ever be able to afford a home.
Z
zsnowshredder
Member
If you want to get an understanding of the housing, crisis watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487
H
HardcoreAK
Member
The fact of the matter
My comments in red (for republican sake)
My comments in red (for republican sake)
Call it agreement if you want to, same difference
H
HardcoreAK
Member
Never said he doesnt take special interest money
ALL politicians take money in one form or another and at one point or another in their careers from some special interest groups, that is the way it is. I just like the fact that McCain wants it all out in the open so WE can see where it comes from. "Transparency of the goverment!" WOW....what a revolutionary concept.
Just like Mrs. Palin putting the governors checkbook on the internet for the world to see. Theres no secrets.
I believe the people DESERVE to know who is being lobbied and by who they are being lobbied. If somebody is afraid to hang it out like laundry they are doing something dirty or unacceptable....plain and simple.
ALL politicians take money in one form or another and at one point or another in their careers from some special interest groups, that is the way it is. I just like the fact that McCain wants it all out in the open so WE can see where it comes from. "Transparency of the goverment!" WOW....what a revolutionary concept.
Just like Mrs. Palin putting the governors checkbook on the internet for the world to see. Theres no secrets.
I believe the people DESERVE to know who is being lobbied and by who they are being lobbied. If somebody is afraid to hang it out like laundry they are doing something dirty or unacceptable....plain and simple.
H
HardcoreAK
Member
You are totally uninformed...
Sarah is proven corrupt and that is proven where?
You have now lost what little bit of credibility you had built up in this thread.
NUMBER 1:
She was proven in the court to have not been guilty for firing the commisioner. The commisioner was fired for performance issues that are too many to list all of them here. Sarah was borderline guilty of abuse of power for trying to get the trooper fired. Todd probably crossed the line by getting involved, but I see no ill reasoning behind what he was doing, (trying to make things right) The truth is that the Trooper (related to them or not) was out of control, a danger to society and it was in his personal files that he was written up for: a) Drunk in public in a BAR in uniform, making threats and brandishing his weapon, Twice. No repercussions to him? b) He took game out of season, got some time off to go to jail? c) He threatened the Palin family, multiple times, using his State cell phone to make the calls, while on duty. The guy should have been fired at the first offense. The commisioner got his dues for covering it all up.
FYI: It is solely the State of Alaska's responsibility to fly her family "The First Family" anywhere she goes. Thats the real deal, its written on the books. Kuwait, China, Denver, whatever, Period. Nobody outside Alaska said a dam word when her predecesser was flying all over the WORLD for personal reasons in the GOVERNORS PERSONAL JET which first order of business in the governors office, SARAH SOLD ON EBAY. Now she flies commercial like the REST of us peoples, (that is until she got on the campaign ticket)
Heck she can fly them all first class as far as I am concerned. Doesnt matter if its campaign business or not. Sarah has cut over 1 billion in wasteful spending from the budget for our state, so who cares about 21000 dollars. She could fly them around the world till shes dizzy. I dont care.
I cant wait till shes in the white house and mops up the floor with the rest of the dirty bastards in congress who are undoubtedly dirty beyond all imagination. You think the scandals in Alaska were bad, just wait........
Sarah is proven corrupt and that is proven where?
You have now lost what little bit of credibility you had built up in this thread.
NUMBER 1:
She was proven in the court to have not been guilty for firing the commisioner. The commisioner was fired for performance issues that are too many to list all of them here. Sarah was borderline guilty of abuse of power for trying to get the trooper fired. Todd probably crossed the line by getting involved, but I see no ill reasoning behind what he was doing, (trying to make things right) The truth is that the Trooper (related to them or not) was out of control, a danger to society and it was in his personal files that he was written up for: a) Drunk in public in a BAR in uniform, making threats and brandishing his weapon, Twice. No repercussions to him? b) He took game out of season, got some time off to go to jail? c) He threatened the Palin family, multiple times, using his State cell phone to make the calls, while on duty. The guy should have been fired at the first offense. The commisioner got his dues for covering it all up.
FYI: It is solely the State of Alaska's responsibility to fly her family "The First Family" anywhere she goes. Thats the real deal, its written on the books. Kuwait, China, Denver, whatever, Period. Nobody outside Alaska said a dam word when her predecesser was flying all over the WORLD for personal reasons in the GOVERNORS PERSONAL JET which first order of business in the governors office, SARAH SOLD ON EBAY. Now she flies commercial like the REST of us peoples, (that is until she got on the campaign ticket)
Heck she can fly them all first class as far as I am concerned. Doesnt matter if its campaign business or not. Sarah has cut over 1 billion in wasteful spending from the budget for our state, so who cares about 21000 dollars. She could fly them around the world till shes dizzy. I dont care.
I cant wait till shes in the white house and mops up the floor with the rest of the dirty bastards in congress who are undoubtedly dirty beyond all imagination. You think the scandals in Alaska were bad, just wait........
Z
zsnowshredder
Member
Obama's tax cuts?????
From the Wall Street Journal 10/13/08
Below is from the 10/13 Wall Street Journal. Be sure to see the bolded sections & graph at the end:
Obama's 95% Illusion - It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion
From the Wall Street Journal 10/13/08
Below is from the 10/13 Wall Street Journal. Be sure to see the bolded sections & graph at the end:
Obama's 95% Illusion - It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion
I just now got to watch the video. That is some good spin. I really like it when they just show a headline of an article as fact.
And I really like it when they say the Democrats blocked a bill in 2003. Lets see here, who owned the House, the Senate, and the President in 2003? Don't tell me the Democrats could block anything.
Look, the housing bubble was cause by so many different factors, from greedy banks, to idiots saying they can afford a $400,000 house, to zero regulation, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying loans they shouldn't have, and to Countrywide selling loans they shouldn't have bought. I knew this was going to happen in 2005, as the first foreclosures were hitting and anyone who read the news at that time should have know too. Too bad Congress did not realize anything until the Democrats took over and Bear Stears failed.
For the other posts, no time to respond.
H
HardcoreAK
Member
Real - reality tv
what does he have to hide? These videos are only Part I of a three part series, of which Part III will air Sunday at 9pm.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3136274&referralPlaylistId=playlist
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3136265&referralPlaylistId=playlist
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3136297&referralPlaylistId=playlist
Need a reason to vote for McCain / Palin after watching this?
If you can watch these videos, given the reputation of Hannity and Colmes, and disregard the concerns for Mr. Obama's history you need to get your head examined.
Wanna know about McCain? Just ask him, theres no SECRET. While John McCain was a POW in Veitnam, Mr. Obama was.........
what does he have to hide? These videos are only Part I of a three part series, of which Part III will air Sunday at 9pm.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3136274&referralPlaylistId=playlist
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3136265&referralPlaylistId=playlist
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3136297&referralPlaylistId=playlist
Need a reason to vote for McCain / Palin after watching this?
If you can watch these videos, given the reputation of Hannity and Colmes, and disregard the concerns for Mr. Obama's history you need to get your head examined.
Wanna know about McCain? Just ask him, theres no SECRET. While John McCain was a POW in Veitnam, Mr. Obama was.........
Last edited:
R
rev440alaska
Well-known member
why would anybody that loves riding vote for obama? thats what i want to know
Because to keep riding areas open, we need to take care of the Sierra Clubs and get more money into Congress than they do. The vast majority of land closures originates with lobbyists buying off Congressman. Whether we have McCain or Obama, if that bill hits their desk, they are not going to veto it. Check out McCains environmental records, it is not too much different.
