As a matter of FACT, NO - I haven't. I challenge you to show me ONE post where I've made a person's race an issue. I DO make an issue of character, integrity, honesty, and capability. Maybe you mistook those for 'race' issues ... there seems to be an inability to distinguish those things from 'race' with the ones who pull out the 'race card' when their 'intellectual capacity' gets overloaded ...

lol you keep thinking that... like a true republican

You replied to a post that mentioned nothing about race. It basically implied that republicans are too stupid to understand basic economics.

Again, I don't see a need to invoke race into a debate that has nothing to do with it.

Debate the differences in policy.

The problem is that people DON'T want to " hear it " when someone steps forward using logic.

Lower the tax burden on small businesses and they WILL start hiring again. Give them some INCENTIVE to hire people.

Right now, they see a higher tax burden coming. Everyone is trying to cut costs right now and that goes double for small businesses.

The direction we are being led in at the moment is a direction of reliance on the government rather than SELF reliance. It's also a direction of people feeling entitled to government money ( which is actually TAXPAYER money ) when they have done nothing at all to EARN anything of the sort.

People no longer feel the need to be responsible for their own well being because they think the government will be there to give them a handout no matter what.

Take a good long look at the happenings at Joe Louis Arena last year when people were lining up for money from " Obabma's stash ". That was Liberalism in action.

" Go back to sleep America. Your government will take care of everything " Bill Hicks

Now..I am not, in any way, shape or form, saying the Republicans have any better plans. They have proven time and time again that they are just as bad as anyone else.

I totally agree with lowering the tax rates, but it isn't enough. We have come to the point where If we are going to lower taxes the government has to offset it with an equal cut in spending.

That will stimulate the economy, unlike the massive deficit spending we've seen.

I wish people would stop crying and complaining about Obama. Get over it. This nation was beyond help when he became the figure head.

I've never heard anything come out of his mouth that did not make a lot of sense. On the other hand, George Bush was a total idiot and a fool and an embarrassment to America.

I used to cringe and run screaming from the room every time George Bush start talking. I wanted to pound my head against the wall and scream... are Americans really THAT stupid to believe this idiot? (George Bush.)

He was a joke.

Well..they were stupid enough to vote for someone based strictly on an image that was portrayed by the media.

What does that tell ya?

Get over it???I suppose we should just shut up and bury our heads in the sand while some idiot who has no idea what he is doing keeps getting America so deep into debt we have to hand our country over to China in a year?


The more time that goes on the more people realize that George bush really did know what he was doing.There is no doubt in my mind that George bush would have figured out a way to bring our economy back to a good productive level in 6 months or less(as he did when he inherited Clintons recession).His tax breaks were the main reason our economy stayed healthy when he was running the show.The downturn in America started when the Democrats gained power during Bush's last term.It has been falling ever since.


As far as this nation being beyond help when Obama took over???This nation could have made a full come back had our Government lowered taxes for business's and individuals.History has always shown when you lower taxes the economy starts to pick up.It is wasteful spending and high taxes going to wasteful spending that has dragged America into the ground.If you really believe this nation was beyond help the last thing you should have done is voted for a person who has no idea what he is doing.


When history is written the blame for this mess is not going to blame Bush but Obama and his lack of experience.His poor picks for his cabinet along with his inability to accept failure,mistakes,and to not work with Republicans will all play a part in this massive failure.


Hopefully Americans will never make these mistakes again.

Voting for a man who has never been in the military.
Voting for a man with a middle eastern name.
Voting for a Liberal.
Voting for a man with no experience.
Voting for a man who has illegal relatives living in the United states.
Voting for a man who has no pride in America.
Voting for a man who promises everything and delivers nothing.
Voting for a man who can not prove he is even a citizen of the USA.
Voting for a man who has friends who are terrorists.

Your list would exclude Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (to name a few)! I guess you missed a bunch of history classes

That damage was done many years ago. Obama can't fix it, nobody can so stop blaming him. If you can find anyone who could fix it let us all know. Blame the Fed and the IRS and the International bankers.



The entire Bush family is an evil empire back to granddaddy Bush. They were in bed with Osama Ben Laden and his entire family, not to mention Granddaddy was a supporter of the Hitler movement. George Bush Jr. .... a pawn. And that is putting it nicely.



If if if. George Bush had plenty of time to lower taxes. Guess what? He didn't get it accomplished before he ran out of time. Promises Promises Promises is all we get. The Bush empire was out for the Bush empire and that is all.



So much for history. It has always been written by idiots who write what they want people to believe. Its mostly propaganda.



What is so all fired glorified about being in the Military?

If we are so desperate for change that we would vote for a man with the name Barack Hussein Obama , then that is proof that we voted for the dream or the man, without prejudice regarding the name OR the race.

As for having friends who are terrorists, take a look at George Bush and the Ben Laden family.

wow!
i can't believe i just read that...

If you have some logic pertaining to the following I would like to hear it.

I would like to see greater incentive for small business owners, I think we need to promote more of this spirit. How would you structure these incentives for small businesses? How would you determine the definition of the small business that would get the tax incentives?(what would be the restrictions)

How much incentive does a small business need, in other words, if we are discussing specific tax incentives - what kind of ratio would exist between the tax savings with and without the incentive?



Of all the MAJOR issues YOU would attribute to the this country, which ones should the government be involved in and which ones do you think are taking away individual self reliance?

This is why Thomas is so great. He is like a weather-vane for our culture. He says what he thinks, and we need to remember that he is not alone in these thoughts - many, many people listen to the same talk radio and share the same beliefs.

well, since you guys seem to think that anyone can change everything the the republicans messed up in 1.5 years, maybe you could do a better job.bush and his people have gotten this country and possibly the world the worst it's been since the 30's. and obama can't fix it in under 2 years? ya'll sound absurd the way your talking and not even thinking things through...NO ONE can straighten out this mess in 2 years ... so bi-t-ch all you want it's not helping anything...

True. I don't think anyone can fix this.... ever.

Its up to the people. They are all looking for a savior. Obama ain't Jesus. Jesus ain't coming back. People need to get off their butts and stop whining about what ever president is in office.

Im tired of hearing this same old BS about who is to blame and who isn't. This is an article from the New York times in 2003. Read what was being said by the Republicans and then read what the idiot Barney Frank said..

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003



WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

**************** ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''****************

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

The definition of a small business can be found here.



I don't know if there IS a specific ratio.

The logic behind my ideas is that, if you lower the tax burden on smaller businesses...not only can they actually afford to HIRE workers, but they can also afford to keep their prices more competitive. Where do you think the taxes companies pay are directed?? Straight to the consumer in the form of higher prices. It's always been that way. It always WILL be that way.

Lower the burden on the small business owner, watch them hire people, and watch the people they hire start buying the goods and services the small businesses provide because they'll be ABLE to. That, in turn, will make the small businesses more profitable and will allow them to expand or hire MORE workers. More workers will be able to buy more goods and services.

See the logic??





Health Care for one. What real incentive does anyone have now to get a job that pays enough to pay for health insurance when they know the government is just gonna GIVE it to them, at the expense of those who HAVE a job that pays enough to provide it?

The " Incentive to succeed " is being removed in this country.

Why should anyone WANT to succeed when the government, in it's infinite wisdom, is simply going to take HALF of every dollar you earn because they think ( the prevailing thought as seen in other threads in these forums ) you make " too much money " and don't really NEED that much so they ( the government ) can just take it from you and hand it to someone else who hasn't gone through the process of EARNING it.

What incentive is there for someone to work their butts off in school to get straight A's...get scholarships to college....spend 4 years or more getting the degree or degrees of your choice....and then being told by the government that you make " too much money "...money that you WORKED a lot of years to EARN and they are now going to take at least half of it ( and even more than that if you add in all the little bullspit taxes we are hit with daily ) away from you?

To ask the question is to admit you haven't been in it.

The military does many things very well. The single most important thing it does is to teach individuals to put the welfare of the TEAM ahead of SELF-INTEREST. If that's beyond the comprehension level you enjoy, then any further explanation is useless.

As for the other 'points' ... ? Pffffft.

Well put.