lolSaint Gregory said:Hey, why is Obama delivering McCain's new economic speech... oh wait.
lolSaint Gregory said:Hey, why is Obama delivering McCain's new economic speech... oh wait.
Qwerty710710 said:Looking at some numbers in 2004 122,293,548 people voted. So the Obama campaign is expecting only <8 million more people will vote? Sounds too low to me I was reading that Ohio there expecting 800,000 more people to vote than in 04.
Our analysis reveals that the national rate of disenfranchisement, and particularly that of black men, remains at substantial levels. Not surprisingly, states that disenfranchise felons for life have far greater numbers of disenfranchised adults than other states. Our findings include:
· A total of 3.9 million adults, or 2.0 percent of the eligible voting population, is currently or permanently disenfranchised as a result of a felony conviction.
· Six statesAlabama, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyomingexclude from the vote more than 4 percent of their adult population, or more than one in twenty-five.
· Florida and Texas each disenfranchise more than 600,000 people.
· Alabama, California and Virginia each disenfranchise close to a quarter of a million persons.
Table 3 provides a breakdown of the number of persons disenfranchised for felony convictions who are in prison, on probation or parole or have completed serving their sentences. It reveals that:
· Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the disenfranchised are not in prison, but are on probation, or parole or have completed their sentences.
· 1.4 million of the disenfranchised are ex-offenders.
· Five statesAlabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginiaeach disenfranchise more than 125,000 ex-felons. One-third of all disenfranchised ex-felons (436,900) are in Florida.
· One million people of the disenfranchised were only sentenced to probation and not to prison. Texas disenfranchises nearly a quarter of a million people (234,200) on probation.
Stumpokapow said:It's also called RCP randomly including and excluding polls with no rhyme or reason.
"Jobs, baby, jobs"
Hillary Clinton, stumping for Obama in Pennsylvania, offers her rebuttal to the GOP's "Drill, baby, drill."
Toledo, OhioRumpledForeskin said:Where is obamarama speaking at by the way?
RumpledForeskin said:Where is obamarama speaking at by the way?
thefro said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_el_pr/obama
Summary of new stuff in expanded plan:
- 90 day foreclosure moratorium for banks who take part in the Federal Bailout
- $3000 tax break for each new job a company creates through 2010
- Can withdraw 15% ($10,000) of retirement/IRA's without penalty through 2009
- Federal loans for state/local governments who need them to make payroll
thefro said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_el_pr/obama
Summary of new stuff in expanded plan:
- 90 day foreclosure moratorium for banks who take part in the Federal Bailout
- $3000 tax break for each new job a company creates through 2010
- Can withdraw 15% ($10,000) of retirement/IRA's without penalty through 2009
- Federal loans for state/local governments who need them to make payroll
:lolNabs said:His numbers have no choice but to jump
the hopium has gotten a hold of me.
fapthefro said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_el_pr/obama
Summary of new stuff in expanded plan:
- 90 day foreclosure moratorium for banks who take part in the Federal Bailout
- $3000 tax break for each new job a company creates through 2010
- Can withdraw 15% ($10,000) of retirement/IRA's without penalty through 2009
- Federal loans for state/local governments who need them to make payroll
StoOgE said:Is the 15% provision require some qualifying action? Like 59.5, buying a new home, hardship, school, etc? Or is it just blanket 15%.
Obama also is proposing letting people withdraw up to 15 percent of their retirement funds, to a maximum of $10,000, without any penalty this year and next. They would still have to pay normal taxes on the money. He said letting people dip into their IRAs and 401(k)s would help them get through tough times when money is tight.
Flo_Evans said:Found this sort of interesting
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/index.html#TopOfPage
Pretty fucked up that your right to vote in national elections is determined by the state.
thefro said:Blanket 15% up to $10,000
mrmyth said:Need to find some weights for my shoes to keep me grounded.
This election is like watching Dream Team I walk over the rest of the world.
StoOgE said:I have no problem disenfranchising ex-felons. I think once you prove that you are no longer a member of society in good standing you should forfeit your right to vote. You broke the social contract, you pay the price.
StoOgE said:I have no problem disenfranchising ex-felons. I think once you prove that you are no longer a member of society in good standing you should forfeit your right to vote. You broke the social contract, you pay the price.
StoOgE said:Nice.
I think this is what you call a "finishing move".
The Lamonster said:
Nagourneys (from NYT) Reasons Why It May Not Be Over
1. Not everyone who has recently registered as a Democrat may vote on Election Day.
2. The Democrats improved voter turnout effort may still not work as effectively as the Republicans effort.
3. The race may swing back to McCain under the pendulum theory.
4. A national security event in the closing days could shuffle the deck of cards.
5. Race.
6. The Ayers attack could end up sticking.
Once they have paid their debt to society, they should be allowed back into society. Including their right to vote. Felons in prison, I'm fine preventing from voting.StoOgE said:I have no problem disenfranchising ex-felons. I think once you prove that you are no longer a member of society in good standing you should forfeit your right to vote. You broke the social contract, you pay the price.
artredis1980 said:
lol That makes it sound like a WWE event.so_awes said:my friends, they're chanting USA! USA! USA! over at the McCain speech :lol :lol
StoOgE said:Nice.
I think this is what you call a "finishing move".
Cloudy said:The tax break for job creation is a really good idea
Stop, you're killing my high.BenjaminBirdie said:
CharlieDigital said:What about false convictions? Convictions for non-violent crimes (i.e. marijuana?)?
I think it's a bit extreme. The whole idea is that they're ex-felons and that they've reformed; otherwise, why set them free?
BenjaminBirdie said:
CharlieDigital said:I need to see more details before I jump aboard...I can see all sorts of ways that this could be abused by unscrupulous companies not to mention that it could cause a sort of "job bubble" when the tax breaks are rescinded.
Need more details on how he'll prevent employer fraud and how to prevent it from being abused.
Link : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_el_pr/obamaHe also called for a $3,000 tax credit for each additional full-time job a business creates. That means a business that adds five jobs would get a $15,000 break. That would end after 2010 and would cost $40 billion, the campaign estimates.
WTF is this?BenjaminBirdie said:
So are you saying tax breaks are badVictimOfGrief said:
So why ever set them free? What other rights should be restricted from them? Voting rights is kind of arbitrary.StoOgE said:I agree that false convictions are a problem, but they are a problem in general with the legal system. Our legal system needs to be corrected in general.
And yeah, I think felons should lose the right to vote. We are talking serious crimes when they approach that level... and I dont look at it like punishment, I think we have a right to keep destructive members of society from having a say in our elections process. These are people that have been bad-actors in our society. Once you prove that you are willing to harm the society you live in you shouldnt have a say in its day to day operations.
By offsetting the tax cuts with cuts in other spending, closing corporate tax loopholes, ending the war in Iraq and raising taxes on the wealthy, for starters.Hootie said:....does either candidate really expect to lower taxes for ANYBODY? How the hell is that even possible right now?
StoOgE said:At 3000 dollars all it really does is offset the payroll taxes for the first year for the jobs. Its not enough for companies to create jobs just for the tax cut, but it removes a hurdle to them creating the jobs. I think it is a smart move that could lead to jobs being created quicker than they otherwise might be.
syllogism said:So are you saying tax breaks are bad