Two bad choices for President - do you agree?

[trinacriabob]

I'm on the way to work today and one sees headlines on the paper, the MSN home page and all kinds of crap. And then you can't help but think:

Aren't both Presidential tickets lacking?

At the time we need good leadership the most, we have (1) a reasonably likable but 72 y.o. Arizona Republican who picks a woman who just had a baby within the last 6 months and whose (national and) international political savvy is thoroughly questionable, and (2) a well-educated but almost completely inexperienced Illinois Democrat who delivers all this unsubstantiated rhetoric and sounds like a Bible church preacher if you're listening to him from the other room.

Out of 302 million people living here, is this all there is?

To the smart people out there, and I think that's almost everyone here: (1) doesn't it scare you that this small-town Idaho newscaster who went to a handful of colleges to get ONE degree... and winks.... could be your Commander in Chief? and (2) don't you realize that this man who is thought to be charismatic and articulate will hardly solve all of our problems and that the stripes of US flag as a fading inset within a large "O," as if it was a "field of dreams," is just a "pipe dream?" Seriously...it's a Presidential election, not a judging call at a Toastmasters meeting.

Yes, both Presidential tickets are lacking.

Chime in...but try to keep it civil.

[mustang84]

Even though Obama wasn't my favorite choice in the primaries, as a college educated young person that is just starting out in the working world and has been following the main issues of both, I feel most comfortable with him being president. I'm tired of seeing all our money go overseas to this war as we let things go from bad to worse at home. I am a former Republican turned Independent because that party no longer reflects the core values of conservative policy.

Palin scares the hell out of me. Especially when it comes to foreign diplomacy. In a global world where we are losing our dominance, we can't afford any more bad relations than we have had the last eight years.

I don't like the idea of the government taking control of our banks and handing out money to everyone, but we're at the point where it's saving our ass from economic catastrophe. I'm not a fan of big government (especially when it comes to Constitutional rights and privacy), but we have let Wall Street run amuck and putting regulation on them will restore order and get the crooks out.

I don't think Obama will be able to accomplish all he has laid out, but I don't think he is all talk either. The key thing for me is that he has laid out a solid plan and stuck to it. He also has focused his campaign more on his policy rather than petty character attacks.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

1) Obama will likely have super majorities in both house and senate and thus will not likely have to be bi-partisan in any measure... which quite frankly scares the hell out of me because any sibilance of conservatism in fiscal policy will be lost even worse than the hack job our current administration has done with it.

2) After the liberals get some bills passed the public will invariably turn against them and get a republican majority back in 2010.

3) in 2012 Hillary will successfully run against Obama, or totally divide the party if she fails.

4) Chuck Norris will be the GOP candidate and will easily win.

[Camino LS6]

The options are not good.

Fatal flaws all around.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

I dont think either one is ideal but I will side with Obama on this one. How much does McCain mention the middle class? Hardly at all. Seems he is getting awfully desperate with his ads and that he has to dig up something from 40 years ago to try to discredit Obama. I really do not want him to be the one dealing with the foreign countries. Bush has done enough damage on that front. Just because he is a war hero doesnt mean he is capable of running a country. Ullysys S Grant is an example of that.

[vonVeezelsnider]

4) is more likely than you'd think.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

4) is more likely than you'd think.

I'd vote for him over Obama or Hillary.

[siegen]

I'm on the way to work today and one sees headlines on the paper, the MSN home page and all kinds of crap. And then you can't help but think:

Aren't both Presidential tickets lacking?

At the time we need good leadership the most, we have (1) a reasonably likable but 72 y.o. Arizona Republican who picks a woman who just had a baby within the last 6 months and whose (national and) international political savvy is thoroughly questionable, and (2) a well-educated but almost completely inexperienced Illinois Democrat who delivers all this unsubstantiated rhetoric and sounds like a Bible church preacher if you're listening to him from the other room.

Out of 302 million people living here, is this all there is?

To the smart people out there, and I think that's almost everyone here: (1) doesn't it scare you that this small-town Idaho newscaster who went to a handful of colleges to get ONE degree... and winks.... could be your Commander in Chief? and (2) don't you realize that this man who is thought to be charismatic and articulate will hardly solve all of our problems and that the stripes of US flag as a fading inset within a large "O," as if it was a "field of dreams," is just a "pipe dream?" Seriously...it's a Presidential election, not a judging call at a Toastmasters meeting.

Yes, both Presidential tickets are lacking.

Chime in...but try to keep it civil.

I don't feel that the Obama-Biden ticket is lacking. Combined, they are brining a substantial amount of experience and relevant education to the white house. Obama was in the Illinois senate for 8 years and the US senate for 4 years. He is a graduate of Harvard and taught constitutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago. Before that he was president of the harvard law review. blah blah blah.

As far as McCain and Palin goes, I can't imagine anyone voting for that one other than the people who vote based on party alone.

[Sixty8panther]

Yes, been saying it all along.

I'd vote for him over Obama or Hillary.

Agreed.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Yes, been saying it all along.

Agreed.

Actually i wonder what chuck's positions on the issues are? I may actually be enthusiastic if he were to be the GOP nominee.

[Drew Dowdell]

Actually i wonder what chuck's positions on the issues are? I may actually be enthusiastic if he were to be the GOP nominee.

So... wait. You won't vote for Obama and one of the reasons you cite is lack of experience, yet you're interested in a washed up action movie star who happens to be conservative yet has never held a public office ever!

[Drew Dowdell]

(2) a well-educated but almost completely inexperienced Illinois Democrat who delivers all this unsubstantiated rhetoric and sounds like a Bible church preacher if you're listening to him from the other room.

1. 16 years in office is "completely inexperienced"?

2. The details behind his rhetoric is laid out for all the world to see on his website, if you'd take the time to study it you may have a better understanding of what he wants to do.

3. If sounding like a Bible church preacher is the worst you can come up with, I think we'll be ok.

Obama/Biden '08 - Bringing phonics back to the Whitehouse.

[loki]

neither would push to address "hamilton's curse"

DiLorenzo reveals how Hamilton, first as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and later as the nation’s first and most influential treasury secretary, masterfully promoted an agenda of nationalist glory and interventionist economics—–core beliefs that did not die with Hamilton in his fatal duel with Aaron Burr. Carried on through his political heirs, the Hamiltonian legacy:

• Wrested control into the hands of the federal government by inventing the myth of the Constitution’s “implied powers”

• Established the imperial presidency (Hamilton himself proposed a permanent president—–in other words, a king)

• Devised a national banking system that imposes boom-and-bust cycles on the American economy

• Saddled Americans with a massive national debt and oppressive taxation

• Inflated the role of the federal courts in order to eviscerate individual liberties and state sovereignty

• Pushed economic policies that lined the pockets of the wealthy and created a government system built on graft, spoils, and patronage

• Transformed state governments from Jeffersonian bulwarks of liberty to beggars for federal crumbs

By debunking the Hamiltonian myths perpetuated in recent admiring biographies, DiLorenzo exposes an uncomfortable truth: The American people are no longer the masters of their government but its servants. Only by restoring a system based on Jeffersonian ideals can Hamilton’s curse be lifted, at last.

[trinacriabob]

I am a former Republican turned Independent because that party no longer reflects the core values of conservative policy.

but we have let Wall Street run amuck and putting regulation on them will restore order and get the crooks out.

Yes, Independent means thinking for oneself,

Yes, who would have thought we would see another Enron in less than 7 years?

[regfootball]

ricer was right on points one and two. Very true. we'll swing way too far left. I see some serious damage being done by a lefty congress and president. think its bad now? so yes, we'll have repubs back in 2010.

i would prefer we never see Hillary ever show up again.

all that said, i just am not sure i can vote for mccain. old and creepy and not seemingly having direction. Palin is hot, and seems to have skill, but she needs more grooming. Maybe in 2012. The repubs need to develop some younger, more middle of the road talent, who don't scare the pants off of people.

Funny bit, my lefty buddy sent me an email the other day....'Palin took off her blazer at a rally the other day!'

OK, aside from me wanting to see that....slowly, to music, if that is the notable thing we say about her as a candidate, then its safe to say she needs more time.

I forgot to ask him if she let her hair down, too. LMAO

Edited October 15, 2008 by regfootball

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The options are not good.

Fatal flaws all around.

+1

Mark LaNeve for president!!!!!

4) Chuck Norris will be the GOP candidate and will easily win.

Any "MAN" who claims to like the Honda Ridgeline will not get my vote. I used to like Chuck, before he made a bad judgement call.

Edited October 15, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[SoCalCTS]

We might actually swing back to the middle once Obama wins. This country has been tipped too heavily to the Republican side since the end of the Clinton presidency. Hopefully, we can get supermajorities in the house and senate and start to return the government to a more centrist viewpoint. All the conservatives, will be screaming, "the sky is falling" but the truth is that there is no plan to take the country to the far left. We just need to undo the damage of the past 8 years.

[toesuf94]

So, Barack is seeming to be a lot of people's choices on here, and frankly, that scares the hell out of me! He is a SOCIALIST who just this week told a plumber to his face that he wants to re-distribute the plumbers EARNED wealth to people who are 'behind him' in making it because they do not have his opportunity.

I am not excited about Mccain all that much, if at all, but come on! The other side wants to TAKE YOUR TAXES and GIVE it to people who DO NOT WORK or EARN "enough" to be in the Middle Class! What is the cut off for "enough", and when the people Barack wants to raise taxes on decide to put their money elsewhere - i.e. tax shelters, or become creative with accountants - where is the tax money going to come from? The Middle Class!

By the way, the 11% of the middle class that Obama keeps saying has disappeared during the Bush years...you know where they went? To the UPPER CLASS! This is the CHANGE that he is after, and that scares the hell out of me, a guy who works 70+ hours a week in a small family owned business that is a BULLS EYE in the earnings that Obama wants to go after for higher taxes to give to those 'less fortunate' than me. That is why I am voting for McCain - the lessor to two evils.

[Lamar]

I go Obama. Mainly because of his economic policy as well as a desire to pull our troops out of the wrong country.

McCain, for lack of any viable policies himself, has resorted to merely attacking Obama while reiterating Obama's statements as his own (see today's Washington Post). Plus, his running mate is enough to erase any desire to vote for him.

Mind you, although this will only my second time voting, I don't vote parties. Just who I deem to be clearly the best person for the job. Case in point: it'd be a MUCH harder choice for me if Huckabee had won the GOP nomination.

[gm4life]

I love the comments bringing back the middle class. McCains plans of cutting everyones taxes means more jobs for everyone, and therefore helping the middle class. Why you might ask? The more companys small and large get taxed the less money they have to spend on employees and wages. So when Obama gets in and raises taxes supposedly helping out the middle class and below sure you'll see money back and a greater possibility you won't have a job. John McCain has a record and a clear a record of working across the lines with people from the other party. One of the reasons I was so not ready to jump on the McCain bandwagon was because he is so moderate. I do find it funny lets bring back the middle class Obama will take away the middle class read into his plan it will kill buisness. For the reason I stated above, this country with Obama in office will swing so far left it isn't even funny instead of the balance we have today. Obama will have four years and a republican will win I can gurantee it. The country will be destoryed because companies have less money to pay there employees and therefore fire because they are being taxed more. Oh but wait that money will end up in 95% of Americans pockets but you will have a higher possibility of not having a job. If that is change we would get (and we would) I'd rather keep it the same. The other thing I find so funny is folks saying how alike McCain and Bush are that is complete horse-$h!. John McCain is no G.W.B. he is not a typical republican often times having upset his parties leadership. In 2004 Kerry even offered McCain the V.P. spot and the dems begged him to come over to there side. He didn't being a man of his word that shows how moderate and unlike G.W.B. he is. Barack's tax and spend policies scare me and of the 95% of American's he is cutting taxes is plain scary because only 60-70 percent of Americans pay taxes. So we would be giving back to the folks who pay nothing. Another example of economic re-distribution something Obama believes in just like socialism, take alot from the few rich and give to many. Obama's friends like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers scare me as well and look whom he has helped like Acorn, training there people in addition to being a lawyer for them. Then he sent 800K to them as well, and Acorn in part can be blaimed for sub-prime problem preasuring banks/officals to loan money to folks whom could never pay it back. So when folks put it only on Bush that is crap people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd all had hands in this. Seriously if your not scared of what this man would do like meeting with some of the most corrupt people in the world without pre-conditions that is just insane. Barack Obama is change alright and has voted 94 times to increase or to keep tax leaves high what does that say about his plan for the middle class? Or how about voting the increase taxes on folks making just 42K a year? Yup that is sticking up for the middle class alright. Face it you koolaid drinkers Obama is no JFK and JFK is the last dem I voted for. The party has changed and folks still vote for them because there is a D behind your name. If Obama gets in I have many fears and that is just a short list, and looking at his lack of a voting record voting present nearly 50% of the time and the other times he has voted it is the most liberal record in the senate and that is what the middle class wants right? If Obama gets in this country will head deeper into the $h!ter you just wait. If Obama's friends don't scare you, his voting record then his planned policies should. A vote for Obama is a one step closer to bigger goverment that will hurt buisness and the lessen the chances of growing it. A vote for Obama will ensure we are one step closer to socialism. A vote for Obama will ensure a change but not a change for the better. A vote for Obama is a vote a man with extreme values and beliefs.

John McCain has had a clear record and has always put his country first honoring first in and first out when he was a POW. That says alot about the man so disagree with him about what you want but you know you can trust him. Where-as Obama does what ever gives him the most political gain so when it was helpful to have Rev. Wright on his side he used him and then dis-owned him.

Go ahead vote for change but change can be a bad thing.

Edited October 15, 2008 by gm4life

[Drew Dowdell]

So, Barack is seeming to be a lot of people's choices on here, and frankly, that scares the hell out of me! He is a SOCIALIST who just this week told a plumber to his face that he wants to re-distribute the plumbers EARNED wealth to people who are 'behind him' in making it because they do not have his opportunity.

I am not excited about Mccain all that much, if at all, but come on! The other side wants to TAKE YOUR TAXES and GIVE it to people who DO NOT WORK or EARN "enough" to be in the Middle Class! What is the cut off for "enough", and when the people Barack wants to raise taxes on decide to put their money elsewhere - i.e. tax shelters, or become creative with accountants - where is the tax money going to come from? The Middle Class!

By the way, the 11% of the middle class that Obama keeps saying has disappeared during the Bush years...you know where they went? To the UPPER CLASS! This is the CHANGE that he is after, and that scares the hell out of me, a guy who works 70+ hours a week in a small family owned business that is a BULLS EYE in the earnings that Obama wants to go after for higher taxes to give to those 'less fortunate' than me. That is why I am voting for McCain - the lessor to two evils.

What in sam hell are you talking about?

Most small businesses DO NOT have an adjusted gross income higher than $250,000.

How do you account for the 11million people now out of work in this country? Are they now so affluent that they were middle class, but now don't have to work?

You want to see Socialist? How about this bank bailout? $700 Billion dollars going to the richest people in this country... and even in other countries.

If you're going to go on uninformed rants, at least have the decency to link to things to back your $h! up.

[gm4life]

Lamar I like Huckabee also and Obama vs. Huckabee is a bigger jump than McCain vs. Obama.

[Drew Dowdell]

I love the comments bringing back the middle class. McCains plans of cutting everyones taxes means more jobs for everyone, and therefore helping the middle class. Why you might ask? The more companys small and large get taxed the less money they have to spend on employees and wages. So when Obama gets in and raises taxes supposedly helping out the middle class and below sure you'll see money back and a greater possibility you won't have a job.

80+ years of trickle down economics have led us to where we are today. You keep posting this erroneous statement over and over as if repeating it will make it true. But tell you what... I'll support a tax cut (not really a cut, but an extension of the Bush reductions) if you support a MASSIVE increase in the minimum wage for full time workers. Income has STAGNATED for the past 40 years in this country. CEOs are now making 400 times the salary as your average workers... and for what? For driving this country head first into the iceburg.

By infusing the middle class with funds they will have money to spend on "stuff". A CEO doesn't need a tax cut to buy a new car, "Joe Sixpack" does.

My great grandfather was the President of a multinational cooperation. He did well, but he wasn't pulling down anything like what these CEOs are getting today. He and my great-grandmother had one car, a 1983 Caprice Classic V6, and a modest town home.

John McCain has a record and a clear a record of working across the lines with people from the other party. One of the reasons I was so not ready to jump on the McCain bandwagon was because he is so moderate. I do find it funny lets bring back the middle class Obama will take away the middle class read into his plan it will kill buisness. For the reason I stated above, this country with Obama in office will swing so far left it isn't even funny instead of the balance we have today.

We don't have balance today. The republicans have created an unregulated free for all in the banking industry. McCain wants to do the same for your healthcare. You are so off the mark with your "Obama killz bidneessses" it's laughable. Most small businesses do NOT make over $250k a year AGI. Most small businesses will get tax CUTS.

Obama will have four years and a republican will win I can gurantee it. The country will be destoryed because companies have less money to pay there employees and therefore fire because they are being taxed more. Oh but wait that money will end up in 95% of Americans pockets but you will have a higher possibility of not having a job. If that is change we would get (and we would) I'd rather keep it the same.

Companies ALREADY don't have money to pay their employees but it is NOT BECAUSE OF TAXES!!!!! Holy crap you're getting aggravating by repeating this over and over even though I've corrected you already.

REPEAT AFTER ME:

THIS IS NOT A TAX PROBLEM. THIS IS A CREDIT PROBLEM.

THIS IS NOT A TAX PROBLEM. THIS IS A CREDIT PROBLEM.

THIS IS NOT A TAX PROBLEM. THIS IS A CREDIT PROBLEM.

Please please please PLEASE learn this and understand it!

The other thing I find so funny is folks saying how alike McCain and Bush are that is complete horse-$h!. John McCain is no G.W.B. he is not a typical republican often times having upset his parties leadership. In 2004 Kerry even offered McCain the V.P. spot and the dems begged him to come over to there side. He didn't being a man of his word that shows how moderate and unlike G.W.B. he is.

If you think that was anything other than a purely political move, you're more out of it than I thought. McCain was SMART not to take that bait. McCain is unlike Bush in that he can form complete sentences.

Barack's tax and spend policies scare me (borrow and spend doesn't? That's what McCain is proposing) and of the 95% of American's he is cutting taxes is plain scary because only 60-70 percent of Americans pay taxes. So we would be giving back to the folks who pay nothing. Another example of economic re-distribution something Obama believes in just like socialism, take alot from the few rich and give to many. (As opposed to taking from the many to give to the rich... like we're doing now?)

Obama's friends like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers scare me as well and look whom he has helped like Acorn, training there people in addition to being a lawyer for them.

In case you missed it, pictures and video of McCain at an ACORN function surfaced over the weekend. Large donors that funded and endorsed McCain have also funded Ayers. McCain's head of transition team was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein.

John McCain has had a clear record and has always put his country first honoring first in and first out when he was a POW. That says alot about the man so disagree with him about what you want but you know you can trust him. Where-as Obama does what ever gives him the most political gain so when it was helpful to have Rev. Wright on his side he used him and then dis-owned him.

Go ahead vote for change but change can be a bad thing.

You are now simply full of it.

McCain has been to ACORN functions.

McCain has accepted money from people who have funded terrorism <Ayers>

McCain has man on his campaign staff who was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein.

McCain has Borrow and Spend policies that will only further this nation's currency crisis.

[The O.C.]

1) Obama will likely have super majorities in both house and senate and thus will not likely have to be bi-partisan in any measure... which quite frankly scares the hell out of me because any sibilance of conservatism in fiscal policy will be lost even worse than the hack job our current administration has done with it.

I totally agree......and don't forget, the democratic congress is facing even lower approval ratings than the Bush administration itself.....

Obama's going to be a rubber-stamp approver for the congress......with him there ARE NO checks-and-balances.....

[Lamar]

Lamar I like Huckabee also and Obama vs. Huckabee is a bigger jump than McCain vs. Obama.

I'm trying to remember the last time we actually had a STRONG race... when we had to think to vote for the best person instead of voting for one because we hate the other.

However, the Iraq War issue always tends to sway me.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Lamar

[Drew Dowdell]

I totally agree......and don't forget, the democratic congress is facing even lower approval ratings than the Bush administration itself.....

Obama's going to be a rubber-stamp approver for the congress......with him there ARE NO checks-and-balances.....

You know WHY they got lower approval ratings? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T STAND UP TO BUSH!

When Bush is no longer in office, that will no longer be an issue.

[The O.C.]

You know WHY they got lower approval ratings? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T STAND UP TO BUSH!

When Bush is no longer in office, that will no longer be an issue.

.....rrrrright....

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

You people who post about the middle class obviously do not understand how our nations economics work. Unless you somehow can magically find a way to bring manufacturing jobs back that pay $60-70k a year then i don't see how you are going to create a middle class for the people who only have a high school diploma. The downsides to a service economy really is that if you don't have college education then your pretty well out of luck because all the service jobs that don't need college are either minimum wage or like $15/hour. Short of unionizing (which Obama is apparently strongly in favor of with his current proposals) it would be impossible to expand the middle class... at the expense of making services a hell of a lot more expensive for the rest of us.

FORCING the rich to subsidize the middle/lower class is not the best way to go about it, especially as that one WSJ article i posted earlier shows that for the lowest classes, Obama's plan actually makes the marginal rates HIGHER for them (and exactly the same in the lower-middle class, and higher when you start earning more than 100k i believe... this is for 2 income family homes, so 100k is not that far out there), which would discourage them from trying to earn more money.

Additionally, since the workforce is much larger these days, it does not work in favor of a middle class. The old pension model does not work anymore because people in this country do not have enough kids to support it.

[siegen]

Oldsmoboi I'm surprised you tackled that herculean paragraph. It was too much for me to read. ;-]

I'm trying to remember the last time we actually had a STRONG race... when we had to think to vote for the best person instead of voting for one because we hate the other.

Why are people trying to use this "lesser of two evils" cop out so much? If you are going to vote for one because you hate the other, do yourself a favor and don't vote. Or perhaps research an independent candidate and vote for one that you want to be president. It doesn't matter if they don't have a chance at winning, it's the fact that you are exercising your right to vote and not blindly choosing one. Every vote sends a message, even if it doesn't win any electoral votes.

[gm4life]

80+ years of trickle down economics have led us to where we are today. You keep posting this erroneous statement over and over as if repeating it will make it true. But tell you what... I'll support a tax cut (not really a cut, but an extension of the Bush reductions) if you support a MASSIVE increase in the minimum wage for full time workers. Income has STAGNATED for the past 40 years in this country. CEOs are now making 400 times the salary as your average workers... and for what? For driving this country head first into the iceburg.

By infusing the middle class with funds they will have money to spend on "stuff". A CEO doesn't need a tax cut to buy a new car, "Joe Sixpack" does.

My great grandfather was the President of a multinational cooperation. He did well, but he wasn't pulling down anything like what these CEOs are getting today. He and my great-grandmother had one car, a 1983 Caprice Classic V6, and a modest town home.

We don't have balance today. The republicans have created an unregulated free for all in the banking industry. McCain wants to do the same for your healthcare. You are so off the mark with your "Obama killz bidneessses" it's laughable. Most small businesses do NOT make over $250k a year AGI. Most small businesses will get tax CUTS.

Companies ALREADY don't have money to pay their employees but it is NOT BECAUSE OF TAXES!!!!! Holy crap you're getting aggravating by repeating this over and over even though I've corrected you already.

REPEAT AFTER ME:

THIS IS NOT A TAX PROBLEM. THIS IS A CREDIT PROBLEM.

THIS IS NOT A TAX PROBLEM. THIS IS A CREDIT PROBLEM.

THIS IS NOT A TAX PROBLEM. THIS IS A CREDIT PROBLEM.

Please please please PLEASE learn this and understand it!

If you think that was anything other than a purely political move, you're more out of it than I thought. McCain was SMART not to take that bait. McCain is unlike Bush in that he can form complete sentences.

In case you missed it, pictures and video of McCain at an ACORN function surfaced over the weekend. Large donors that funded and endorsed McCain have also funded Ayers. McCain's head of transition team was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein.

You are now simply full of it.

McCain has been to ACORN functions.

McCain has accepted money from people who have funded terrorism <Ayers>

McCain has man on his campaign staff who was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein.

McCain has Borrow and Spend policies that will only further this nation's currency crisis.

You modified and mis-quoted me... Go figure. If you believe that more goverment is the way to go then drink up the koolaid just like the mainstream media aka MSNBC presents it. Just like they are right on the domestic auto industry. You mention the past 80 years I'd say they have been plenty darn good for most folks, wouldn't you? Our nation is safer than it was 80 years ago for sure, blacks and females have the same rights as any white American males. Yes McCain has been an Acorn function but McCain never donated 800K to the group that registers largely poor folks whom get played and told to vote for a person with the D behind there name. The problem in inflation my friend and ever 20 years or so this happens and we move on. Guess what American's have the solutions not the goverment with policy. Good old fashioned capitalism got us here and will get us out. Alot of small biz do take in 250K a my wife works for one with only 40 employees (many part time) and it is a few times that. So encourage buisness by lowering everyones taxes including compaines small and large alike to encourage job creation did you miss that? More taxes means less money to hire/pay people. So yeah if your what Obama defines as middle class you will have a nice tax cut and the people whom take the risks are getting screwed with taxes and forced to cut and fire, that is fine. The less goverment involvment the better off everyone is. Believe what you want but Obama is scary and clearly believes in socialism and that won't work.

[traumadog]

Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress will do just as much damage as GWB and a Republican majority did in '02.

The Democrats will feel no need to negotiate with any fiscal hawks on the other side of the aisle and WILL spend what they feel is both necessary and whatever pet projects they'll want financed.

In any case, the two options remaining are:

1) raise taxes for those below the $250k/year mark Obama has set out (as there are only so many above that mark)

2) deficit-finance the rest - until the US Government's credit rating drops out

in which case our kids will wind up paying for it anyway.

And for those looking for a "clear choice in President" - you only have to go as far back as Carter vs. Reagan. Not that Reagan was perfect, but he did take the country out of the late 70's/post-Vietnam funk it was in, and prepared it for the 90's boom times. And note, he did that with a Democratic majority in Congress.

So I personally believe that the country works best when the parties split the White House and Congress - which forces people to work together more to get things done.

And in any case, if I could have, I'd have voted for McCain over W 8 years ago (it's moot, as I'm a registered Independent). It's a problem in this country when the "power bases" of this country won't allow centrists to be nominated for President from either party.

Edited October 15, 2008 by traumadog

[Drew Dowdell]

Oldsmoboi I'm surprised you tackled that herculean paragraph. It was too much for me to read. ;-]

I got about two thirds of the way through before my laptop sighed and started typing out the same response all on it's own.l

[Drew Dowdell]

You modified and mis-quoted me... Go figure. If you believe that more goverment is the way to go then drink up the koolaid just like the mainstream media aka MSNBC presents it.

I never stated that MORE government is the way to go. Taxes are not the only measure of the size of government. We DO need financial market regulation. Do you have any idea what CDSes are or how they work? The "market" made up a way for you to take out an insurance policy on the house of someone you don't know and then collect when it burns down. It's a $63 trillion a year ponzi scheme.

Just like they are right on the domestic auto industry. You mention the past 80 years I'd say they have been plenty darn good for most folks, wouldn't you? Our nation is safer than it was 80 years ago for sure, blacks and females have the same rights as any white American males.

COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic of economics.

Yes McCain has been an Acorn function but McCain never donated 800K to the group that registers largely poor folks whom get played and told to vote for a person with the D behind there name.

If McCain can't run a successful voter registration and get out the vote operation... how is that Obama's problem?

The problem in inflation my friend and ever 20 years or so this happens and we move on. Guess what American's have the solutions not the goverment with policy. Good old fashioned capitalism got us here and will get us out.

So... the solution to the problem also happened to be the cause? Just parsing the logic of your words there.

P.S. Inflation is not the cause of stagnant wages.

Alot of small biz do take in 250K a my wife works for one with only 40 employees (many part time) and it is a few times that. So encourage buisness by lowering everyones taxes including compaines small and large alike to encourage job creation did you miss that? More taxes means less money to hire/pay people. So yeah if your what Obama defines as middle class you will have a nice tax cut and the people whom take the risks are getting screwed with taxes and forced to cut and fire, that is fine.

Then it's not being run right. Fire the comptroller and hire someone who know his &#036;h&#33;. Cutting taxes on companies that don't have an income because their middle class customer base has dried up is like throwing logs on a fire that was put out with a firehose. 'Taint gonna work.

The less goverment involvment the better off everyone is. Believe what you want but Obama is scary and clearly believes in socialism and that won't work.

Less government involvement got us where we are. We need to regulate/eliminate the CDS ponzi schemes. We need to regulate the mortgage market. We have proven, yet again, that pure, unbridaled, caveat emptor capitalism just feeds off itself in a frenzy till it explodes shattering millions of lives.

[siegen]

And for those looking for a "clear choice in President" - you only have to go as far back as Carter vs. Reagan. Not that Reagan was perfect, but he did take the country out of the late 70's/post-Vietnam funk it was in, and prepared it for the 90's boom times.

Hindsight is 20/20.

[traumadog]

Less government involvement got us where we are. We need to regulate/eliminate the CDS ponzi schemes. We need to regulate the mortgage market. We have proven, yet again, that pure, unbridaled, caveat emptor capitalism just feeds off itself in a frenzy till it explodes shattering millions of lives.

Just a thought - the initial regulation might be part of the problem... FNMA/FHLMC had as express goals of increasing home ownership to lower income people (something that was a Clinton directive under the Community Reinvestment Act, IIRC). And I'd argue that it's this population (that may/may not have had any business owning a home) that's the big problem behind the meltdown. I think Fannie/Freddie went beyond what they were supposed to under CRA and supported additional sub-prime mortgage sales beyond CRA because it was profitable at the time.

Now whether or not additional regulation could have avoided this is unclear. I'd argue that the prohibitions on lower-income/sub-prime mortgages that the regulations would have made during the big housing boom of the 90's would have been called discriminatory against the poor by the very people asking for them now.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

A good read on the current crisis and its relation to regulation.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY3Y...YjA=&w=MA==

[gm4life]

Fact is two thirds of small buisness take in over 250K a year and his taxes would just kill them that is my point in all of this Obama will hurt buisness small and large alike and that is not good for them. If they are taxed more less money to pay wages and then less people can work for them and the more taxes a greater chance you loose your job Also how do you know or have any information on what my wifes place of work does. I know there situation you don't. Obamas plan is dangerous and rewards the folks whom don't work, under his tax cuts. Once again it is a shame they put him up and didn't put Hillary up whom had a plan for the economy or the guts.

[gm4life]

Oh and republicans aren't desperate for votes like Obama thats why acron registers poor people whom live in parks. :AH-HA_wink: And who is Barack Obama to decide who is rich? Should we punish peoples sucess? BO will and that is class war-fare. Plain and simple.

[SoCalCTS]

The Republicans in congress have had their say long enough. They tried to impeach Clinton over a BJ, they cried "Don't make us use the NUCLEAR option" over Bush appointees. They shouted for the minority to shut up when we tried to prevent the war in Iraq.

Well guess what Republicans in congress... It's your turn to sit down and shut up! Don't make us use the "Nuclear Option" to quell your dissent.

[Drew Dowdell]

Fact is two thirds of small buisness take in over 250K a year and his taxes would just kill them that is my point in all of this Obama will hurt buisness small and large alike and that is not good for them. If they are taxed more less money to pay wages and then less people can work for them and the more taxes a greater chance you loose your job Also how do you know or have any information on what my wifes place of work does. I know there situation you don't. Obamas plan is dangerous and rewards the folks whom don't work, under his tax cuts. Once again it is a shame they put him up and didn't put Hillary up whom had a plan for the economy or the guts.

1. "His taxes" are just the planned expiration of Bush's tax cuts. Business survived... thrived even.. under the Clinton tax setup.

2. I *really* need you to link where you're getting your statistic that 2/3s of small businesses make over $250k as well as a definition of what is considered a small business.

3. A company with 40 employees:

a. A good comptroller will make sure that the cost of doing business is as high as possible on paper.

b. If they're making well over $250k a year in profits, we'll call it an even million (you don't pay tax on a loss remember), their tax will go up 4.6%, 35% to 39.6%. That means that on $1m in profits, the business would pay $396,000 in taxes instead of $350,000. An increase of $46k.

"But wait! That could have been another job!" you scream.

Fine.. the company hires that new developer for $70k a year. Now their profits are down to $915k (consider healthcare and other employment costs). The tax becomes $362,240.

Sorry..... but your OMG OHNOOOZQ!!! doomsday scenario just doesn't play out.

[Robert Hall]

The Republicans in congress have had their say long enough. They tried to impeach Clinton over a BJ, they cried "Don't make us use the NUCLEAR option" over Bush appointees. They shouted for the minority to shut up when we tried to prevent the war in Iraq.

Well guess what Republicans in congress... It's your turn to sit down and shut up! Don't make us use the "Nuclear Option" to quell your dissent.

And the Repubs can't even pronounce 'nuclear'. Time for them to STFU.

Edited October 15, 2008 by moltar

[Northstar]

1. "His taxes" are just the planned expiration of Bush's tax cuts. Business survived... thrived even.. under the Clinton tax setup.

2. I *really* need you to link where you're getting your statistic that 2/3s of small businesses make over $250k as well as a definition of what is considered a small business.

3. A company with 40 employees:

a. A good comptroller will make sure that the cost of doing business is as high as possible on paper.

b. If they're making well over $250k a year in profits, we'll call it an even million (you don't pay tax on a loss remember), their tax will go up 4.6%, 35% to 39.6%. That means that on $1m in profits, the business would pay $396,000 in taxes instead of $350,000. An increase of $46k.

"But wait! That could have been another job!" you scream.

Fine.. the company hires that new developer for $70k a year. Now their profits are down to $915k (consider healthcare and other employment costs). The tax becomes $362,240.

Sorry..... but your OMG OHNOOOZQ!!! doomsday scenario just doesn't play out.

I don't think that is the doomsday scenario... the doomsday scenario would be a worker getting cut because of the higher taxes, leading to more unemployment.

If you take a scenario where the worker is let go because of the tax, I believe it would go something like this:

Tax on $1 mil under new plan: $396,000

Profit on that $1 mil: $604,000

Profit under old plan: $650,000

Company gets rid of worker who makes $70k a year ($85k with health care etc), does same amount of work (makes same revenue), new tax on $1,085,000: ~$430,000

Now the profit for the company is $670,000, and they can probably hire someone part-time for $25k a year if they need extra help and be able to get as much work done as before, assuming the salaried workers make up for some of the lost work. This is a perfectly feasible scenario and it actually happened at the company my dad works for, 3-4 high ranking people got cut because there was less revenue coming in, the taxes would have the same effect in the end.

[regfootball]

Just a thought - the initial regulation might be part of the problem... FNMA/FHLMC had as express goals of increasing home ownership to lower income people (something that was a Clinton directive under the Community Reinvestment Act, IIRC). And I'd argue that it's this population (that may/may not have had any business owning a home) that's the big problem behind the meltdown. I think Fannie/Freddie went beyond what they were supposed to under CRA and supported additional sub-prime mortgage sales beyond CRA because it was profitable at the time.

Now whether or not additional regulation could have avoided this is unclear. I'd argue that the prohibitions on lower-income/sub-prime mortgages that the regulations would have made during the big housing boom of the 90's would have been called discriminatory against the poor by the very people asking for them now.

that was clinton's mandate, BTW. Agenda. whatever.

[cletus8269]

maybe its just me but didnt jobs start vacating to the other places of the world during slick willy's day?

[trinacriabob]

maybe its just me but didnt jobs start vacating to the other places of the world during slick willy's day?

I'm not answering to your specific quote but to the Slick Willy days.

Slick Willy inherited the reins after a recession (1990-1991) and gave them up before another recession (2001-2002). The business cycle runs about every 8 to 10 years. This time it's a little early. You can almost set your clock to it. Check the first couple of chapters of any Macroeconomics introductory college text.

Slick Willy's "great" Presidency was, in some part, circumstantial. Also, he raised taxes, though not in a pronounced manner, to help fill the coffers. The combo of higher taxes and an expansion mode in the economy boded well for the overall picture.

As a person, I thought Slick Willy was repulsive. So was his wife. Both of them are very intelligent and, of course, overly ambitious. No, I am not partisan - I am an Independent and I vote for the candidate.

Edited October 15, 2008 by trinacriabob

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

It should also be noted that aside from the small tax hikes, "slick willy" was overall pretty conservative fiscally.

[Camino LS6]

...and after all of that, we are still left with two bad choices.

[Croc]

So, Barack is seeming to be a lot of people's choices on here, and frankly, that scares the hell out of me! He is a SOCIALIST who just this week told a plumber to his face that he wants to re-distribute the plumbers EARNED wealth to people who are 'behind him' in making it because they do not have his opportunity.

Proof? Sweet, looks like you didn't post any. BTW, for any part of that statement to be true, that plumber would hae to be making more than $250,000 per year...which is more than the average anesthesiologist makes. Try again.

I am not excited about Mccain all that much, if at all, but come on! The other side wants to TAKE YOUR TAXES and GIVE it to people who DO NOT WORK or EARN "enough" to be in the Middle Class! What is the cut off for "enough", and when the people Barack wants to raise taxes on decide to put their money elsewhere - i.e. tax shelters, or become creative with accountants - where is the tax money going to come from? The Middle Class!

The Middle Class? You haven't read Obama's economic plan, and you still provided no proof in your statements. You also allude to thoroughly-debunked Laffer Curve theory, so I'm not even going to go there...

By the way, the 11% of the middle class that Obama keeps saying has disappeared during the Bush years...you know where they went? To the UPPER CLASS! This is the CHANGE that he is after, and that scares the hell out of me, a guy who works 70+ hours a week in a small family owned business that is a BULLS EYE in the earnings that Obama wants to go after for higher taxes to give to those 'less fortunate' than me. That is why I am voting for McCain - the lessor to two evils.

Proof? Because anecdotally, when the vast majority of Americans have concluded they are worse off now than they were 8 years ago...I kinda doubt that many of the middle class were so upwardly mobile, especially to the tune of 11%. I know several families who would normally be considered upper-class who are now down to the middle class. So no, I don't buy it unless you provide any credible proof whatsoever.

[Satty]

Your choices for President:

Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party)

Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)

Bob Barr (Libertarian Party)

Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party)

Charles Jay (Boston Tea Party)

Gloria La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation)

John McCain (Republican)

Frank McEnulty (New American Independent Party)

Cynthia McKinney (Green Party)

Brian Moore (Socialist Party)

Ralph Nader (Independent)

Barack Obama (Democrat)

Ted Weill (Reform Party)

Granted only two of them have a prayer of being elected. Most of them dont even have their names on any ballots.

[gm4life]

This says it all. I can't beleive he really believes this.