i found on an online sportsbook they were offerign even money bets on presidential election. I mentioned to my roomate (huge democrat regardless) and he offered to bet me @ 2-1 if he gets Dems so I took reps at 2-1 laying 50 to win 100...what do u guys think? What are true odds? It def. looks like the Dems are going to win but my best bet is if Hilary wins primaries that America wont vote for a woman and if Obama wins that America wont vote for a half black/half muslim dude...(not political standpoint, just EV). My other friend said hed also lay me 2-1 for a bigger bet, should I take? Do republicans have a chance

Wake me up in 18 months and I'll let you know.

BBFIDTS

I don't think that most of America will vote for these two type of people, even if they are the better candidates.

thats my thinking and why i took the bet

Right now a Republican (Rudy) is leading everybody in the polls. America wont vote for Obama or Hillary because of their bad policy...dont try to wish and hope, its not going to happen.

Dems trading 58 on tradesports seems fair

I'd short hillary if she is the nom - i think she's unelectable unless all of bills conquests vote for her

58% is what? like 1.5-1?

If that happened it would be a blow out like we haven't seen since Reagan won his second term.

Help me out here guys. Now if I were an American I'd vote for Obama, no question about that. I personally feel he's a new kind of (American) politician, in a good way, "the real deal", like Oprah put it.

But I still don't understand why people hate Hillary so much. Can anyone point me in the right direction? What have she done that makes her unelectable? Ok, so she's the wife or arguably the most successful president you've had, doesn't that count for anything?

And that it would be impossible to get a man that just happen to have a gene that gives him darker skin or a woman elected is just scary. Are Americans really THAT narrow minded? You know that would just confirm all my prejudice towards Americans.

Obama has no experience. He hasn't even had a full term as a Senator yet. I want someone with a little government experience.

Bill Clinton the most successful president we have had? Are you serious? Ever hear of a guy named Reagan who freed Eastern Europe from the grip of Communism? I don't think Reagan is our most successful but Clinton is not even in the top half.

A lot of people in this country just don't like Hilary. I also think that a lot won't vote for her because her husband was President a few years ago. After the Bush's I don't think we will have another political dynasty(whether you like them or not it is a political dynasty IMO) like that for many years to come. I think the majority of Americans will be looking for a new direction from recent presidents.

Hilary is a socialist. if she ever won I am not sure what I would do. Probably take all my money out of the bank and the market and put it in a shoebox

FYP

No...I will not vote for him because of his opinions on issues that are important to me. I have supported a black man (Alan Keyes) in each of the last two contested republican primaries. I wish Colon Powell were running this time, I would vote for him in instead of Rudy in a heartbeat.

I think the biggest thing Obama has going for him is the fact that he is young and black. Nobody (the average American) really knows anything else about him yet. They just see a fresh face, have heard other people like him but no real specific reasons why, and the feel a little touch of liberal guilt.

Hilary is a socialist ***** who will try to implant microchips into peoples brains and control every aspect of our lives...and tax the **** out of us.

by saying this, its painfully obvious you have no clue what socialism is and how a socialist votes or goes about things. Hillary is more conservative then her husband


as far how the election is going to turn out, it is way too early to have any clue who teh noms are gonna be. I don't think that any of teh front runners right now are going to be the ones who get the nomination, especially for the dem side where the field is wide open. Polls right now are meaningless. Rarely do early front runners get the nomination

what!? you aren't serious are you. Reagan had very little to do with the Berlin wall coming down, Tito's downfall, the USSR's downfall, or Ceaucescu's downfall.




you're levelling us right right

Reagan was the major catalyst for the fall of the Soviet Union. Building up our militay itself was responsible for the USSR going bankrupt. The wall coming down and the downfall of the USSR was a direct result of the policies of the Reagan administration.

all of the reasons that set up the USSR's downfall was in place long before Reagan even considered running for office, in fact, Russia/USSR had always been broke and it is the failings of whatever regime was in charge to actually harness the economic possiblities of all of the territories of Russia whether it be the Tsar, the provisional government, or the various leaders of teh communist party. The wall came down almost 18 months before Yeltsin pulled off the coup in 91. When Reagan said, "Mr Gorbachev, bring down this wall" he wasn't saying anything that everyone in germany or all of the NATO countries had been feeling and he is hardly responsible for being the catalyst that instituted the change that happened in Germany or any other former Warsaw Pact nation

Take the guy from Law n Order with the points, unless Jeb Bush runs.

Dittos on Alan Keyes

Hillary is a liberal socialist, and socialist are naive. The only reason it works anywhere in the world is because the USofA is protecting everyone from the next Hitler/Stalin/taking over the world despot. Take away the US's military, and other countries would find they do not have enough money for national defense, and would start scrapping socialist programs to pay for the new armies they need.

Reagen had more to do with the demise of Russia than anyone else. They were going to fail, but he quickened it, and created a huge economic boom in our country while he did it. He created the way for us to step up and become the lone superpower. without his economic gains, we would not have been able to afford to be the world's police, and unstability would have been problematic.




Here is the secret, only known by a few key people in the USA, me being one of them.

The political party that has the largest balloon drop at their convention will win the election. been true the last 8 elections, will be true this one.

In 2000 both sides did the same number of balloons, that's why it was so close. Last election my buddy did the republican's and it went off without a hitch, the dems hired a company that didn't know squat about big drops, and their's failed, just like Kerry's campaign.


Obama is not a muslim, he's a Christian.


There, I think I got everything straighten out.

Good Luck

First of, you have no clue what socialism really means. Secondly, socialism is built on capitalism, you are confusing it with communism.


Well, Obama clearly stating that he wants to put an end to the crap you call lobbyism would be enough for me. I couldn't stand living in a country where the richest gets their way. Just look at the UIGA as one tiny example. Just look at the debacle with global warming. The oil and energy companies are paying so that the US won't do the right thing, it's despicable.

And that last sentacne is just ridiculous. I don't even understand why socialism isn't more popular in the US, since it goes so well with religion. Religion (as far as I can tell) is about being the best person you can be and to help others, do good things. Socialism is about people working together to create a society where everyone has a good standard of living (do good things for each other). Now I'm not a socialist, but I think it's strange that religious people in the states tend to support the ideology of "everyone for themselves" where doing good things isn't the best thing.

I can not nor will I ever vote for a typical "2007" Democrat because I do not believe that success should be taxed to subsidize failure. I won't simply call such people "liberals" because "liberals" come in many, many different flavors (I definitely consider myself "liberal" in many ways), but the taxation of success as a subsidy for failure is a fairly accurate mantra of the present day Democrat party due to their voting base of constituents.
My money is my money. I get it because I bust my *** like a dog and because I'm smarter than other people. It isn't fair, but neither is life. I get my money because I plan, make deeply researched and accurate conclusions on things and sacrifice buying that new Playstation 3 or gold rims for my car in order to boost my equities holdings or emergency savings. I do well because of the decisions I make, that anyone else can make, but Democrats believe that I do well because I'm some sort of an "insider" and as such, I should be taxed to pay for some idiots own stupidity or horribly poor life decisions.

Democrats spend way too much time trying to make life "fair" for everyone (including stupid, lazy failures) at the expense of people who do well for themselves based on their own talents, abilities, decision making, drive and/or work ethic. I hate that.

Conversely, I am totally disgusted with the "2007" Republican party. The gross domestic overspending, Iraq- mindless, lemming-like support for Bush in his dumb crusades- completely caving on immigration in order to pander to Hispanics who are the closest thing Conservatives have to a minority base. The offshoring of American Jobs is the worst domestic fiscal crisis we've faced since the Civil War. It is no different than CEO's who take control of an old, long-established company and loot it in order to buoy the short term share price. That is what's being done to America, and the ®'s are responsible for it. When the bill comes due and our entire economy is predicated on "service industry" jobs that pay $9 an hour, we will see a system of "elegant decay" start to set in. I am very torn on what to do, as I believe that governmental interference with free markets is the worst possible solution, but something needs to be done (possibly tax breaks for domestic insourcing)

I don't know who I am going to vote for- I don't like Obama because I don't want my money to go to pet leftist social programs and I don't think he has the experience to do the job, I don't like Hillary because I've researched her a lot deeper than what you see on the news, and the underbelly of that woman is an ugly, ugly thing.
I sort of like McCain, and I don't care for Gulliani that much (who himself is an aggressive Governmentalist- "New York City" mentality)

Still, I think the (D)'s will take it down for no other reason than the publics total disgust with the past 8 years of R control- the blown opportunities, the gross missteps, etc. And after 8 years of (D) control, the public will become disgusted with them in the same way, and vote the R's back in.

Socialism attaches itself to Capitalism much like a parasite attaches itself to a host mammal.

Saying "socialism is built on capitalism" is true. Socialism cannot exist without Capitalism as Capitalism is the producer and socialism is the consumer- however, Capitalism can exist just fine without Socialism- matter of fact, Capitalism is a lot healthier the freer it is of the Socialist parasite.

I think that this website helps explain alot http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/politcow.html

This has got to be a troll... right?

Your money is not necessarily your money. You live in this country. You are protected by its army, its police, its firemen. You are profitable because the country as a whole is economically sound. Lots of people make money, the poverty is low, unemployment is low, and so people can afford to buy whatever it is that you sell, or can afford to pay you for whatever it is that you do.

In exchange, you owe this country what are called "Taxes." For living here, earning money here, or making purchases here, you have to pay the government. Since they supply the conditions that allow you to live in freedom and live successfully, you need to repay them so that they can continue to do so.

Pretty obvious stuff, right?

So why do people get so confused when the government taxes them? You wouldn't be making that money in the first place if the government wasn't around. You aren't owed the money because you yourself are such a great indivudual. You may be good at what you do or whatever, but you need the government. And for that, you need to pay taxes.

So, the government isn't stealing your money when it charges you taxes. It has a right to take money from you and us it as it sees fit to maintain a level of economic success, freedom, and protection from foreign countries or terrorists that it deems necessary. If you disagree with exactly how the government uses the money that you give it that it has a right to have and would like to argue that other policies would better help the economy, well, that's of course fine. But arguing with the idea of taxes in general and claiming that money that you worked for necessarily belongs to you is incorrect.

LOL! The mantra of Socialism and Socialists.. I could only wish that people like you were more candid about it when speaking in public. Your honesty is refreshing.

In order to run the dialog in circles (which all leftist-blamers are masters at, since it keeps the discussion from approaching the oh-so-painful truth), you trot out a stupid, inaccurate red-herring- claiming that I must "not believe in any taxes"- to distract from what I really said.

Let me repost it for you, in big letters so there isn't any confusion.

"I do not believe that success should be taxed to subsidize failure."

This doesn't mean that I don't believe in "taxes".
Taxes are fine to pay for roads, military security, critical national infrastructure, emergency services, public education, building bridges, paying firemen, etc.

What my taxes are NOT for is to fund weeping, socially oriented programs that serve no purpose other than furthering a few peoples grossly idealistic, childish view of a Utopian society. I sure wish I remembered the exact quote and who it was that said it, but it was something along the lines of "Giving your money to help people is laudable. Forcing others to give their money is reprehensible" (I'm sure someone will be along with the exact quote shortly)

In short, I believe the fruit that results from my labors is the very definition of what's "mine".
If that money is taxed to pay for services and infrastructure that benefits me, that is OK. If it is taxed to pay for services and infrastructure that benefit all of society (like public education), that is OK too.
But when it's taxed to pay for the failings of a few (individual welfare, corporate welfare, etc)- that is NOT OK by any measure.

If you believe that the money I work hard to earn somehow belongs to others, or, is only there to be "taxed" to pay for whatever legislators feel is best, I would ask you to expound on that. I see you live in the US, so you are kinda liable to the economic philosophies and precepts of this country, when you say that my money really doesn't belong to me (which is wrong).
If you lived in Russia, China or Norway, I would understand your confusion about individual financial culpability, but being an American, you really have no excuse.

Let me conclude with this statement, that you neglected to quote.

You sure make a compelling argument.

another problem with taxes is this:
The top 1% of America pays 38% of the takes in this country. They account for 18% of the money.
The top 50% of people in America pay 96% of the taxes in America.
The bottom 50% of people in America pay the other 4%.

That being said I am not saying that it is unfair for the rich to pay more in taxes every year. However, I think that it is totally unfair that they have to pay a higher % of their income. I believe in the Fair Tax which would basically be a higher sales tax and nothing else (No Tax Day, No IRS, etc) This would still mean that the rich would pay more as a whole because they are much more likely to buy more. I think this is the most fair answer to the tax problems in our country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Thanks.

Excellent post regarding stats.

To the OP, here are some actual odds from the sportsbook I use fyi

2008 Presidential Elections - .
4/17/2007 8:00 PM Who will be Republican Nominee for 08 US Election
151 John McCain +305
152 Mitt Romney +485
153 Rudolph Guiliani +135
154 Any Other +205
4/17/2007 8:00 PM Who will be Democrat Nominee for 08 US Election
161 Hiliary Clinton -165
162 Barrack Obama +285
163 Any Other +225

ya but what about dems vs reps???

FYI, i am supporting Ron Paul and I agree that taxes shouldnt be used to subsidize failures, but we do need some taxes (prob around 15% but obv i am no economist). I know my dad who is a doctor and entrepeneuer who came from a lower-middle class family paid upwards of 55% income tax at times during Clinton administration as a result of his working hard 70-90 hours/week...just brutally unfair.

Wait...if your friend is offering you 2 to 1 odds and you can get even odds at the sportsbook you can freeroll. Bet $100 with your friend at 2 to 1, then bet $100 against yourself at even odds. If you win over your friend you make $100, if he wins you break even (Maybe -$10 for Vig).

Or bet $100 at 2 to 1 with your friend and bet $150 against yourself at even money, then you automatically win $50 minus some vig again.

Then who gives a crap who wins?

(Insert bigger numbers if possible obv)

Unless Ross Perot wins, then you're screwed!

i shud try and find hte site again

that is soooo easy money on that bet. I also wouldn't doubt that on the rep side that we'll see someone emerge later in the year too who will end up getting the nom. actually, the mitt romney bet isn't that bad of a bet because of the odds you're getting

What I meant is that the government has the ability to pass laws to take away any amount of your income at any time. I was speaking on a purely theoretical basis. Anything that you possess when living in country run by a government you own at that government's pleasure. Though I'm quite happy to give you springboards to leap off of against socialism. However, I never once claimed that any socialist policy was good or bad. Really, my rant resembled more of something that would come out of the mouth of an anarchist (something that I'm in no way in favor of).

All I ever said was that you HAVE to pay taxes, and the government decides how to use those taxes for the benefit of the people. If you believe that welfare programs do not benefit the people in general and instead create a cycle of poverty, that's fine. I never argued against that. I didn't argue much at all, really. But I'm glad that I got you so worked up. It shows that you're at least passionate about your issues, which is a good thing (within reason, of course).

It's neither wrong nor right, only a matter of interpretation. Of course, if the government were to pass laws legally allowing them to take our money at will, I'm pretty sure it would be overthrown over night, but that's a different story.

I get what you're saying, paying taxes is part of life, the arguement is what is a fair tax.


A flat tax will be bad for us initially, but get better as our economy adjust to not having tax loopholes. 10+ years.

A graduated tax is acceptable, but what percentage is correct?

A consumer tax would be bad in my opinion, as the tax burden would be pushed on the shoulder of the poor more than rich.

Our current tax system is too confusing, and it allows to many stupid loopholes that I can't exploit properly. I would like more loopholes relating to the balloon industry please.

fyp

1st point: I think I have a little clue...maybe just enough to get myself into trouble. Let's see, socialism....well intentioned social prgrams designed for the government to 'help' people, but created in such a way that they actually will never wipe out the problem, only keep it supported for eternity. Giving clean needles to drug addicts to help them stay healthy..giving people money because they are out of work...for years on end. Paying mothers to not get married, and rewarding them for having more children out of wedlock...Taking money from the productive sectors, giving it to the undproductive, and keeping a large percentage for the government to oversee this action? Making decisions that dictate what is right and what is wrong for all the people, and creating punishments for peoplethat don't accept those decisions.

No, I understand socialism.

2nd point:

Christian in the USA help people at a level no other country can approach, in dollars or in percentages. The government on the other hand will spend $100 on a welfare recipient, of which $87 will go to the government workers who's job it is to get the money to the welfare person, the other $17 will actually go to the welfare person. Compare that to many Christian organizations like Samaritan's Purse which gets about 85%+ to the person in need and you will understand why not wanting the government to be the source of help for people isn't selfish, it's good economics.

This is bullshit!

This is not bullshit!

Bullshit?


This is SPARTAAAAAAAA!

(sorry, I couldn't help myself. I didn't even really like that movie)

I generally dislike socialism, still I feel like I have to defend it somewhat. Socialism isn't a movement that stem from the "elite", it's got it strongest support in the ranks of everyday workers. Sure, people that are slackers also support it but the vast majority of people that vote for the socialistic parties here in Sweden do it because they feel the current system is deeply unjust. I can understand why they think it's unfair that they work as much as people in the offices, yet, earn maybe only 50-75% salaries. This is one of the problems of capitalism, the people that work with handling the capital is setting the salaries. Now there used to be a time when I despised anything that had to do with socialism, but with age and a little life experience I've at least started to understand some of the reasons why socialism is popular in Sweden.

You just point out and exaggerate the bad parts. Conservatism (which is the other side of the spectrum) could as easily be exaggerated and look equally bad. I think the best system is somewhere in between, both systems, at each end of the political spectrum has faults.

And to the guy that wrote that he didn't want to subsidize failure:

Although I agree to some extent you are greatly oversimplifying. Consider this. You get your college/university education and get a great well paying job. After working for a while something out of your control results in you losing your job. First of, those life savings won't keep you afloat for long. What if you become unemployed for more than just a few months? Where in this story were you a failure? Of course there are people that will exploit the system, but is this reason enough to just scrap it altogether? There are few things in life that are clear cut and simple, global warming is just one of few

You are saying socialism will be a safety net for financial security. I feel the government has no business being this safety net, especially when they must take the money for this from people that have on their own created financial security.

Same principle as the recent flood in the Mississippi valley. There were people that paid for flood insurance, every month for years and years. The floods came and they went to collect on their insurance policy. Right next door was a person who never paid a penny for insurance, and low and behold the government stepped in and gave them financial help. Well what is the results of that? Fewer people are paying for flood insurance now, because they are going to let the government insure them for free. So next flood the government will be even more burdened to help, and that trend will only increase.

There is a point where people become too dependant on government, and when this happens the next logical step is to dole out care via conditions. ie age, health etc. Not what I want government to do.


I see why living in a country that has a working system would make you focus on the positives, but if and when Germany gets ansi, or Russia/China decides to expand, you will find that a good retirment plan is a distant second to a good military

maybe the Terminator will find a loophole in the constitution snd become the next prez

hehe