Election 08-An informative discussion

I think this is one, if not the most, important elections in history. With most of us being able to vote, I think a thread discussing views ( WITHOUT FLAMING OTHERS OR THE CANDIDATES) would be helpful to those of us too busy with school and other things to watch the primary elections and other political shows.

Honestly, im scared of our future as a country. Or dollar is losing its value and IMO it is only a matter of time (maybe not in our lifetime) until we are no longer considered a superpower.

What are your views and who do you want to win the primaries and why?

What do we need as a country the most right now?

Not only should we worry about the president but more importantly the Legislative branch. I believe Democrats have the majority but would that be good for the near future?

I like Ron Paul but I wonder what he'd do if he abolished the federal reserve. There isn't enough gold in the world to represent the value of our money so you'd think there'd be some problems with the gold-backed system. Then again, I also don't like the fed's policies and I don't like the fact that we are spiraling into debt with every extra dollar created. Some of Ron Paul's ideas sound great but they also seem kind of unrealistic. Just saying... I'm thinking I'll vote for either him or Obama depending on who I think stands a better chance of winning. I don't want to "waste" a vote. I really do like the idea of a smaller, less involved government though...

Oh and I hope McCain doesn't get elected. Seriously, I am so surprised at how ignorant this guy can be. As for Huckabee, I don't want to offend anyone but I really really really don't want a diehard evangelist in the Whitehouse. I'm not much of a Romney fan either. I think he's kind of an asshole[=http//youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y&D#JVD]asshole.

Anyway, sometimes it feels kind of hopeless. The media is always censoring Ron Paul and I really do think he has good things to say that Americans need to hear.

[quote1346ff23db="J4320"]I like Ron Paul but I wonder what he'd do if he abolished the federal reserve. There isn't enough gold in the world to represent the value of our money so you'd think there'd be some problems with the gold-backed system. Then again, I also don't like the fed's policies and I don't like the fact that we are spiraling into debt with every extra dollar created. Some of Ron Paul's ideas sound great but they also seem kind of unrealistic. Just saying... I'm thinking I'll vote for either him or Obama depending on who I think stands a better chance of winning. I don't want to "waste" a vote. I really do like the idea of a smaller, less involved government though...

Oh and I hope McCain doesn't get elected. Seriously, I am so surprised at how ignorant this guy can be. As for Huckabee, I don't want to offend anyone but I really really really don't want a diehard evangelist in the Whitehouse. I'm not much of a Romney fan either. I think he's kind of an asshole[=http//youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y&D#JVD]asshole.

Anyway, sometimes it feels kind of hopeless. The media is always censoring Ron Paul and I really do think he has good things to say that Americans need to hear.[/quote1346ff23db]

Nice, I agree 100%. Every time Ron Paul says something meaningful he gets interrupted or they move on to another question. I'm trying to decide between Hillary and Obama right now.

I've already posted way too much in the Democrat and Republican candidate threads to retype it all here, and I'm too busy/lazy to go find it and cut & paste here, so I'll refer you to those threads for my own views. ;)

I'm all for Ron Paul too J4320.

And zr2152, I too am very scared for our well-being here in the US. it really is only a matter of time until we're no longer a 'superpower' or whatever you want to call it lol. And unfortunetely I can definitely see it happening in my lifetime. I don't know how old everyone is here, but I still have a good 60 years to live probably lol, and I might be a downer but I have no faith in anybody running for the presential election except Ron Paul, but i don't see him having much of a chance of winning. =/ I'm absolutely voting for him though anyway. Small government is the way to go, and if he could get rid of the IRS like he has planned he would be a god haha. And he's the only runner that actually isn't a dick when it comes to marijuana. Its fine and dandy to not support it, but I've seen the video's of that man on youtube that uses medical marijuana and the candidates disgust me, especially Romney, who ignored him, didnt answer his question, and turned his back and walked away. Is that the way you want your country run? I should hope not.

As for the whole 'money backed by gold'... its a good idea. I'm not quite sure how that would be executed, but it does say that gold and silver should be the only currency (or backed by it) in the constitution. I think Ron Paul has the right idea there.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard It's not a new idea.

oh I know its not a new idea. But I believe he is the only candidate that has suggested it, right?

[quotecf10e118a8="Gman14"]oh I know its not a new idea. But I believe he is the only candidate that has suggested it, right?[/quotecf10e118a8]

I'd guess so. How in the hell could the United States alone go back to a gold standard? There's not enough gold in the entire world to back the US currency, assuming that we could obtain it all. It's also impossible to use monetary policy (as the Fed is fond of doing) with a gold standard in place. It's archaic, and just another example of why Ron Paul is out of touch and totally unelectable.

[quoteb83651726f="doylnea"][quoteb83651726f="Gman14"]oh I know its not a new idea. But I believe he is the only candidate that has suggested it, right?[/quoteb83651726f]

I'd guess so. How in the hell could the United States alone go back to a gold standard? There's not enough gold in the entire world to back the US currency, assuming that we could obtain it all. It's also impossible to use monetary policy (as the Fed is fond of doing) with a gold standard in place. It's archaic, and just another example of why Ron Paul is out of touch and totally unelectable.[/quoteb83651726f]

Yeah, see that's what I was saying. I love some of his other constitutionalist ideas and etc but anyone who jumps on the bandwagon of returning to the gold standard does not have a good understanding of modern economics.

As I've said repeatedly, Ron Paul is a total flake with ideas that are impossible to implement. They sound ideallic to his large grassroots following, who are mostly young and inexperienced/naive about politics, economics, and diplomacy. To everybody else "in the real world," he's a total loon. All the fundraising in the world won't change that, and is why he's a single-percentage candidate and always will be IMO.

On another note, I'm glad to see Romney throw in the towel. My only hope is that his followers don't back Huckabee, but I have to wonder if that's not his intent. OTOH I don't think both of them together can unseat McCain's lead for the nomination. I'm still hoping for a McCain v. Obama general election -- at least that way I can accept either candidate. I know Obama will probably be a favorite to win over McCain in the general election. Hillary would be easier for McCain to beat, but it's too close to call, and a risk I'd rather not take. So here's to Obama winning the Dem nomination, so I can at least rest somewhat easy. IMO Obama and McCain are the only candidates worth any consideration.

Here's Ron Paul's section on the Federal Reserve --

http//www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Federal%20Reserve

I've read some of it. Can anyone find anything about how the gold standard system would supposedly work under his presidency?

Do you think the country is ready for a woman or a black man as president? I feel that we dont even have our simple prejudices worked out and i think we would have more problems if either of them got into office (not saying they would not make good presidents).

If Obama got to November, he would probably have my vote.

Well anyhow, our country is screwed. I really don't think any candidate are ready to run the country. I think Ron Paul has the best ideas, yet I agree with everyone here that they are a bit out there and probably wouldn't work.

I get to vote this year and I've been leaning towards McCain or Obama. I really respect that McCain's son is in the military, but I also think Obama has some great ideas and has the power to change the US. I am a little uninformed though, but lately I've been reading up on it a lot. I'll be 18 in June so I didn't have a chance to vote in the primaries.

McCain supports the war, wants more war and wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. If he gets elected I shudder to think what will happen to this country. I would NEVER vote for him or any one else who wants to continue/expand the war.

[quoteac88170a99="J4320"]Here's Ron Paul's section on the Federal Reserve --

http//www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Federal%20Reserve

I've read some of it. Can anyone find anything about how the gold standard system would supposedly work under his presidency?[/quoteac88170a99]

He would allow competing currency along with the existing dollar making it legal to trade with gold, silver, etc.. That way the dollar would actually be backed by something. It's in the consitution that the dollar should be worth 1/20 of an ounce of gold. What we have now is the govt being able to print money out of thin air which is killing the dollar. The federal reserve is extremely corrupt and does a lot of shaddy things with little regulation. Ron Paul wants to slowly ween the country off the federal reserve and central banking agencies.

[quote9c8d3691fe="dmorris68"]As I've said repeatedly, Ron Paul is a total flake with ideas that are impossible to implement. They sound ideallic to his large grassroots following, who are mostly young and inexperienced/naive about politics, economics, and diplomacy. To everybody else "in the real world," he's a total loon.[/quote9c8d3691fe]

No need to demean Ron Paul and his supporters just because you don't agree with them. You're not even attacking the issues, you are just attacking him and his supporters. If you disagree with an issue of his, say why.. don't just shrug it off and say it's impossible and loony. I wonder how much you actually know about his policies and his method of thinking.

[quotedba1398e98="bruman"][quotedba1398e98="dmorris68"]As I've said repeatedly, Ron Paul is a total flake with ideas that are impossible to implement. They sound ideallic to his large grassroots following, who are mostly young and inexperienced/naive about politics, economics, and diplomacy. To everybody else "in the real world," he's a total loon.[/quotedba1398e98]

No need to demean Ron Paul and his supporters just because you don't agree with them. You're not even attacking the issues, you are just attacking him and his supporters. If you disagree with an issue of his, say why.. don't just shrug it off and say it's impossible and loony. I wonder how much you actually know about his policies and his method of thinking.[/quotedba1398e98]
He's running for public office, with positions on issues that make no sense to me. I can demean lihimli all I want. ;)

I never intended to "demean" his supporters other than to say they appear naive and inexperienced. His most loyal and vocal base is the internet youth. He has virtually no support to speak of outside that demographic, and certainly not from any seasoned, politically-savvy voters. It isn't just my opinion -- the voters speak for themselves. He has 16 delegates so far. SIXTEEN. John Edwards has 26 and he's been out of the race for weeks now. Huckabee -- a [idba1398e98]distant[/idba1398e98] third -- has 161, ten times more than Paul. Well, okay, he's second now that Romney's out, but how many of Romney's delegates do you think Paul will get? Statistically zero, I'll wager. And even if Huckabee (or Paul, for that matter) were to get 100% of Romney's delegates, he'd still have barely half of McCain's delegates. The GOP decision is virtually made, but even if it isn't, the only person who can challenge McCain is Huckabee now (unless Romney jumps back in). Paul will probably have a hard time getting invited to the convention as a [idba1398e98]guest[/idba1398e98], let alone a candidate. He's a Libertarian in Republican clothes. In fact, he'd probably be more successful running as a Libertarian.

As far as his issues... gee, where to start. We've discussed them here and in other threads, but I'll hit some highlights off the top of my head.

He's an isolationist. Pull out of NATO and the UN, kick the UN out of the US, and pull all troops home. Right. As a veteran, the very idea makes me cringe to even think about.

Abolish the income tax and the IRS? Please. That's an unrealistic idea if there ever was one. Pie-in-the-sky idealism that we might all dream about in our own little Utopias, but everyone knows it isn't possible. I'm all for tax reform, would love to see a simplified flat tax, "postcard return" system, but it would still have to be managed, regulated, and enforced. His idea of using Federal Tarriffs on everything is also bad, IMO. I've lived overseas for years, and paid high VAT's -- I hate it. I'd rather pay a reasonable tax on income that be hit for 17% "federal sales tax" on top of whatever the state tax is, every time I bought a meal or something.

Not only the IRS, but close down nearly all federal agencies? I'm not a fan of bureaucracy either, but Congress will never let that happen. Bureaucracy will always be an inevitable if not necessary evil when you're running a country of this size, with the global importance and influence that we have. One man cannot rule the US, nor can we be divided into 51 autonomous states with no federal "glue" to bind us together. And sorry, but the Constitution alone isn't enough. Being a strict Constitutionalist 250 years after it was written makes about as much sense as literally interpreting everything in the Bible and trying to apply it to modern culture. Times have changed, and while the general ideas and principles still apply and should be enforced (basic freedoms, inalienable rights, etc.), applying it entirely in a strict and literal sense, with no room for interpretation and flexibility, would leave us in the dark ages while the rest of the world moved along without us. Don't know about you, but I'd rather be at the forefront of civilization, not behind it. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It's not Moses' tablets.

Paul's gold standard idea is also fantasy. Even if he doesn't intend a total reversion to a 100% gold standard (impossible anyway), the disruption caused by such drastic measures as dissolving the Federal Reserve would resonate throughout our economy and thus the world in such a way as to most likely be devastating.

I believe he is a closet racist. He can make a convincing argument that he didn't write those newsletters, and maybe he didn't. But you can't tell me that someone who funds a newsletter that carries HIS name at the top, written in the first person making references to Paul's personal details (such as growing up in his hometown), for 20 years, knows absolutely nothing about it until called out on it? And has "no idea" who wrote it? Please. Just admit it, say you're sorry, and move on. His acceptance of "moral responsibility" for it while denying and shifting blame to unknown & unnamed ghostwriters (even if it was his best friend and chief of staff) seem less then genuine to me. McCain has far more credibility in most people's eyes, and I think deservedly so.

About the only thing I can agree with Paul on is his position on gun control.

Well, that's enough, I've got a headache. It's a lot easier to debate this stuff in person than it is to type it all out. ) The reality of the situation is, if by some miracle the candidates ahead of him were all simultaneously struck by lightning, leaving him the only one left standing and thus swept into office, this country's government would be at a total stand-still for 4 years. Nothing would get done. One man cannot rule a democratic country, especially one like the US -- it takes a machine, and he wants to gut the machine. We'd have states succeeding from the union. Congress and all the federal agencies would never let him do it, therefore we'd be in total gridlock until he left office.

Don't take these political debates personally, bruman -- I have nothing against you. Even if I consider your political ideals naive (as a Paul supporter), I was once a naive idealist too, so I don't hate you. I'm just a cranky old fart who's been around the block enough to recognize the difference between practical change and total fantasy.

Understood, thanks for writing that out. I don't agree with many of the things you've said.. I've read counter arguments against them and for me they make more sense so I side with them.

Here are some links to you and any one else who is interested in the other side of the arguments

Non-Interventionism vs. Isolationism
http//www.nolanchart.com/article423.html

Nato argument
http//www.fdrs.org/nato_facts.html

UN argument (written by paul)
http//www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html

As far as abolishing the income tax.. I'm not sure if I'm reading it wrong or if you're confusing abolishing the income tax with nothing and the fair tax? Under Ron Paul's plan there would be no increased in sales tax.

Here's another article on this subject about the IRS/Income tax written by paul
http//www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html

As far as the gold standard, I kind of noted this previously but Dr. Paul has said he does not want to completely return to a gold standard.. he wants to legalize gold, silver, etc. to compete against other currencys and let the market (he is a strong believer in free markets) decide which one becomes domininent.
Article that discusses gold standard
http//www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

Many of Ron Paul's arguments sound radical at first because they are almost unheard of in our society.. but that doesn't mean you should automatically reject them. There is some good reasoning behind his arguments but you will never find that if you look at it from face value or in 30-second soundbytes. Research and an open mind is required.

Ron Paul and I'm sure many of his supporters know he can't do everything he wants to do due to congress, the house, senate, etc -- and the president doesn't have THAT much power.. it is distributed. Ron Paul says what he believes though... he doesn't pander or change his positions to suit the voters. He's extremely principled. McCain of all people even previously called him "the most honest man in congress".

I have nothing against you either dmorris.. it just seems disrespectful to call ron paul a 'total loon' because of policies you don't agree on (and most likely don't have a complete understanding on/have researched the other side of the argument). Ron Paul is extremely smart, he's written a few books and is very knowledgable on the history and the positions he carries.

Maybe I'm taking this too personally... it's just politics right ). I've been a pretty strong supporter though so I kind of feel the need to defend him... I feel he gets a lot of unneeded disrespect especially from the media and that his positions are distorted a lot. I also met him at a rally, got an autograph and what not.. it was a good experience. He seems like a legimately GOOD guy though... been married for 51 years to the same person, is very honest and principled for what he believes in (even if he is standing alone)... that takes a lot of courage. There's no reason he should be dissrespected/made fun of.

bruman, let me just say I respect your zeal. Too many young people don't get involved in the democratic process at all, let along learn about the issues, the candidates, or get up and vote.

I feel like I have enough of a handle on Paul's ideas to know that most are impossible to implement. Many of them sound great. Utopian, even, as I've said. Some sound just downright silly to me. Regardless of that, I'm aware that Paul is an intelligent, articulate, and for the most part, probably honest man (although I still have a problem with how he handled the newsletter incident). That doesn't mean he can't be a flake -- a lot of brilliant people, geniuses no less, were flakes and didn't live "in the real world."

I'm a realist who knows that, to survive at the federal level of politics, and certainly at the presidential level, there is going to be a certain amount of "dishonesty" no matter who the candidate is. You just can't get to that level without some degree of pandering, tit-for-tat, lying about skeletons in closets, etc. You say he doesn't pander to voters. Well guess what that's who gives him the job. If you don't relate to and impress the people in a position to elect you, you won't be elected. They don't have to like you, they just have to know you're the right person for the job, who can get things done. Obviously the voters don't see that in Paul. This is hardball politics, where the soft and totally honest folks just don't survive. It may sound cynical and cliche, but electing a president almost always comes down to choosing the lesser of evils. Do I think McCain is perfect? Of course not, nor do I agree with every single one of this positions. He's just the best overall candidate that represents my position on most issues, followed by Obama (so you'll see I'm not a party ideologue -- I vote for who I feel is the best candidate, period).

One thing that continues to amaze me about Paul's supporters, is their dogged insistence that he has a chance. I was reading CNN's Political Ticker yesterday about Huckabee vowing to stay in the campaign to the end. I don't think Huck stands a chance either and is dividing the party further, but I'm not that surprised at his determination. What floors me are the Paul supporters who posted comments on that piece. Huckabee made a point about it now being a "two man race" for the GOP nomination, which just set them off. They said things like "No, no, no, it's a three man race!", "Dr. Paul is in it to win it!" and one actually said "You'll all look foolish when Dr. Paul gets the nomination!" C'mon, it's not even a two man race at this point, Huckabee has almost no chance. Paul has absolutely ZERO chance. It's one thing to stick to your guns and support your losing candidate in spirit, as a symbolic protest of the other candidates -- that sort of zeal and loyalty can be admirable. But to publicly proclaim that he still has a chance is just silly, and those folks are the ones who help contribute to the notion that Paul's supporters are nutty. That doesn't help his image either.

Finally, Paul is reported to be near throwing in the towel, if the DC gossip site Wonkette is to be believed.

http//wonkette.com/354581/ron-paul-basically-gives-up

[quote0868ba01c6="Wonkette[=http//wonkette.com/354581/ron-paul-basically-gives-up]Wonkette"]It is a tragic day for the Ron Paul ReLOVEution or whatever they call it. Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it’s over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat. Gather the children and vodka so we can mourn the American Revolution that was lost.
...
"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen."
...[/quote0868ba01c6]

Sorry for bumping a super old thread, but I thought it would be more beneficial than starting a new one.

With the 2008 United States Presidential Election coming up, I thought it was appropriate to bring this thread back up for discussion.

Regardless of your candidate of choice and political views, I hope we can have a civil discussion backed by facts and respect for one another.

I want to respond to a few posts from the past

[quote299560159e="zr2152"]I think this is one, if not the most, important elections in history. With most of us being able to vote, I think a thread discussing views ( WITHOUT FLAMING OTHERS OR THE CANDIDATES) would be helpful to those of us too busy with school and other things to watch the primary elections and other political shows.

Honestly, im scared of our future as a country. Or dollar is losing its value and IMO it is only a matter of time (maybe not in our lifetime) until we are no longer considered a superpower.

What are your views and who do you want to win the primaries and why?

What do we need as a country the most right now?

Not only should we worry about the president but more importantly the Legislative branch. I believe Democrats have the majority but would that be good for the near future?[/quote299560159e]

I consider myself a moderate liberal (with a few exceptions, I for one partially support the death penalty). I am voting for Barack Obama on November 4th because he is the first candidate to run for office that has excited me. As a starving college student, I shudder at the fact that in just a few years (even months, given the problem with our economy at the moment and the huge mistakes this current administration has made) our country will become vastly inferior to the rest of the world.

Over this Bush administration, we have been made into a stereotype Ignorant, fat, stupid, over-patriotic, greedy, irresponsible citizens of the planet that we all inhabit. We have gotten ourselves into an insane budget deficit thanks to the false "war on terror" in Iraq (which comes with its own logo and theme music. Thanks Studio 60, why were you cancelled?). The Bush administration took the $559 billion surplus that Bill Clinton reported at the end of his presidency and ran us the opposite direction. Our economy just collapsed, and we are on the verge of approving a $700 billion, taxpayer-funded "bailout" for the ones responsible for it all. Ridiculous.

John McCain has claimed that "I'm going to be honest I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."[=http//www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007600]"I'm going to be honest I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.". I don't feel comfortable with two back-to-back Presidents who do not put the economy at the top of his (or her!) agenda as President.

I also do not agree with the way John McCain is running his campaign. He has pledged a respectful campaign[=http//www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-01-mccain-va_N.htm]pledged a respectful campaign, but has resorted to Karl Rove tactics. Even Karl Rove himself has said that McCain has gone too far[=http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/]McCain has gone too far, as has Mitt Romney[=http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY5Plqs5d98]Mitt Romney.

On top of that, I have to stress that John McCain is seventy-two years old. If he wins the Presidency, but dies of old age, that means that we are going to be staring at a President Sarah Palin. I am totally terrified of that. Sarah Palin claims she is willing to go to war with Russia[=http//www.blufftontoday.com/node/23630]claims she is willing to go to war with Russia, supports a surge in Afghanistan[=http//www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/25/politics/horserace/entry4477239.shtml]surge in Afghanistan, First Lady Laura Bush has stated that Palin is "not ready to lead"[=http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/palin_4]"not ready to lead", as has Chuck Hagel[=http//community.tasteofhome.com/forums/t/670904.aspx]Chuck Hagel. After watching Palin's false personality at the Republican National Convention, being interviewed by Charles Gibson, on another interview with Sean Hannity, and an interview with Katie Couric, I have concluded that Palin is by far the worst Vice Presidential candidate in the history of our Presidential Elections. She does not have the ability to formulate any opinions of her own, and she dodges any questions (including softballs) by referring back to a set of talking points that she has prepared by the McCain campaign. When Couric asked her for an example of McCain's leadership claims, she responded with just a bunch of talking points[=http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM72M62jAUc]she responded with just a bunch of talking points.

What we need right now for our country is solid, decisive leadership that addresses the needs of the American people, especially with fixing our crumbling economy and restoring our image internationally. We were once regarded as a great country with a strong economy, great education, cutting-edge technology, diversity, intellectual leaders and great citizens.

I think what our legislative branch requires is a 45-45 split on Democrats and Republicans, and about 10% of Independent/third-party members who can help bridge the gap between both ideologies and offer different views on issues put up for voting.

[quote299560159e="doylnea"]http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard It's not a new idea.[/quote299560159e]

Yup! William McKinley defeated William Jennings Bryan by running as a gold standard candidate during the Gilded Age. Jennings Bryan was the Democratic/Populist candidate, with McKinley running as the Republican. It's also notable that this was the election that pretty much ended up with both parties swapping images. For the first time, the Republicans ran as the party of wealth and prosperity while the Democrats ran as the party of change.

I'm glad you brought this topic up. It very interesting, and I learned some from your post unknown. I don't get into the election too much, I look at things every once in a while and see what everyone is saying, and honestly McCain seems like a big ole hypocrite and very arrogant. He called the Obama campaign unexperienced, then his running mate is Sarah Palin - an unexperienced woman. And maybe it's just me, but I still think the only reason he picked Palin was because Clinton was out of the picture and the attractive soccer mom would get some votes, just for being that - an attractive soccer mom. Honestly I don't know how to look at the issues. Everyone always just says what will please the people. I don't like that McCain seems willing to run this country into another World War. Also, I really don't understand why McCain is delaying the upcoming debate, just have it already. Obama just seems like a likeable guy, who seems more lower/middle class oriented and just straight forward, while McCain just shocks me sometimes. Like him saying you need to make $5,000,000 to be considered upper class (or however he said that) makes him look dumber than a box of rocks. But that's just my thoughts, I've sure everyone will let me know I'm wrong lol .

One point of contention. Vote for whomever you would like to, but realize that this current financial mess we're in is shared by all.

The Republicans get the deficit pinned to them, but the mortgage crisis and subsequent bank failures have Democrat fingerprints all over them.

Basically we have nobody that is willing to run the government like I do my family. "If the money is not there, we don't spend it." Don't kid yourself into thinking that Barack will be any different. His proposed policies will ring up huge bills for us taxpayers.

I'm voting for McCain because I actually think he might do something about the spending that is killing our country. Say he doesn't know the budget, but his advisers do. Like him or not, Romney is a financial mastermind. So I turst that like Thatcher (who wasn't perfect in all ways, but surrounded herself with good people and is, by extension, considered a great leader), that McCain will do the same. I can't say the same for Obama. The people he is linkind to continue to be of questionable character and judgement. Which by extension makes me question his judgement. I can't take that risk on someone I don't fully know.

Ok, I'm done.

[quote44d1cefd7b="mookieb2"]One point of contention. Vote for whomever you would like to, but realize that this current financial mess we're in is shared by all.

The Republicans get the deficit pinned to them, but the mortgage crisis and subsequent bank failures have Democrat fingerprints all over them.

Basically we have nobody that is willing to run the government like I do my family. "If the money is not there, we don't spend it." Don't kid yourself into thinking that Barack will be any different. His proposed policies will ring up huge bills for us taxpayers.

I'm voting for McCain because I actually think he might do something about the spending that is killing our country. Say he doesn't know the budget, but his advisers do. Like him or not, Romney is a financial mastermind. So I turst that like Thatcher (who wasn't perfect in all ways, but surrounded herself with good people and is, by extension, considered a great leader), that McCain will do the same. I can't say the same for Obama. The people he is linkind to continue to be of questionable character and judgement. Which by extension makes me question his judgement. I can't take that risk on someone I don't fully know.

Ok, I'm done.[/quote44d1cefd7b]

Well said. )

obama > mccain

For as long as I've been here, I've always thought your name was Mano fice. Never understood it. I just realized it's man of ice. I'm such a dweeb!!

I always thought it was 'man orifice'

[quotea10c5bf57b="manOFice"]obama > mccain[/quotea10c5bf57b]

False. I don't like either candidate, but Obama is not what this country needs right now. The economy is collapsing, and the only people that can save it are the extremely wealthy (or the federal government). Instead, he wants to raise taxes for the wealthy, giving them less disposable income and giving tax cuts to the middle/working class. I can't understand how anyone would support giving tax cuts to people that work paycheck to paycheck, it's illogical. Those people aren't going to use it to stimulate the economy, they're going to put it towards bills, etc.

National health care is a terrible idea. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Someone's gotta pay the bills, and guess who it's going to be? The people that already have their own health insurance because they can afford it. Call it selfish, but my dad shouldn't have to pay for everyone else to have health care just because he works his ass off and has a good job that pays good money. I know Obama says you don't have to participate in it if you have employer provided coverage, but the money has to come from somewhere, and it's going to come from the repealed tax cuts for the wealthy, effectively making them pay for it. Great idea Obama, take away disposable income from the wealthy so they buy less and decrease demand for products created by the working class. Genius.

I'm just trying to follow your logic - giving money to people who need money, (through tax cuts) is bad, because they'll spend it on bills? And to push your 'logic' further, I presume they shouldn't pay off those bills because then the big corporation can continue to accrue interest on the unpaid bills?

Perhaps, maybe, it's plausible, just maybe, and setting aside the assumption that a family earning less than $227K a year (the point at which Obama's taxes are phased in, iirc), a family might not have outstanding bills, and then they could also stimulate the economy by spending that money in the economy. Of course though, given your present and past posts, I'd presume you've never met anyone who a) doesn't earn less than $227K a year, and b) if they did, then they're also on welfare, so that's not something you've ever considered.

Furthermore, if we didn't spend [b677b34e4c0]$200B[/b677b34e4c0] a year on a war, just look at a couple of things we could do instead.
http//graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/17/business/0117-biz-webLEONHARDT.gif[" alt=""/img677b34e4c0]

Gosh, we could do all of those things, and still have money left over, to I don't know, pay down the debt that the President has thrown over our collective shoulders.

And did you really throw a "my dad" in there? Cripes, have you ever considered how these decisions will effect you, say when you graduate in 3 years, and McCain's tax plan will cost you more than Obama's tax plan...because you know for damn sure that you're not going to be earning $227K a year when you graduate from college.

Think for yourself man.

Amen doylenea. I don't understand how people think Obama will spend that much more money, when McCain obviously more willing to continue the war. Do people realize how many billions (hell, soon to be trillions) this stupid war is costing?

[quote54f2ce2a38="slambam"]Amen doylenea. I don't understand how people think Obama will spend that much more money, when McCain obviously more willing to continue the war. Do people realize how many billions (hell, soon to be trillions) this stupid war is costing?[/quote54f2ce2a38]

correct me if I am wrong, but the war has costed just over 1/2 billion or so. I dont believe it will be hitting the trillions. and if it does, it going to be another 7 years at least... none the less it is still alot of money and i dont disagree with that.

However, I do believe the war "started" for a good reason, I believe the money (for the most part) has been spent for a good cause. I do believe that the war was handled right the first year or 2 but has been handled fairly poorly in recent years. However, i think it would be one of America's biggest mistakes to simply pull out.

I know a large amount of people in the military (army and airforce) and a majority of them have been to the middle east (one of which is planning to willingly do his 3rd tour) and they all believe they are fighting a good cause and CANNOT pull out. Alot dont believe in how its faught, but believe at least in the fight.

I hate MTV and pretty much all the news media. They skew things so much. but if you talk to the people actually fighitng you get a completely differant story.

None the less, I try to vote for who i believe the best is. I do believe McCain is a better candidate.

[quotef3348c70f3="doylnea"]And did you really throw a "my dad" in there? Cripes, have you ever considered how these decisions will effect you, say when you graduate in 3 years, and McCain's tax plan will cost you more than Obama's tax plan...because you know for damn sure that you're not going to be earning $227K a year when you graduate from college.

Think for yourself man.[/quotef3348c70f3]

I'm planning on being in college for at least 4 more years (I'm planning on doing a 3/2 MBA program that Kelley offers). I'm a sophomore now, so I wouldn't graduate until 2012. So, I'm still going to be affected by the taxes my dad pays. I know I'm not going to be earning $227k a year (though I think the cut-off is $250k, not sure), or even half of that. But I'm going with what's going to affect me, which is what my dad makes, so I'm supporting McCain. Though I will repeat I don't like EITHER. And yes, plenty of people I know earn less than $227k.

So far in the debate I haven't seen McCain look Obama in the eye once.

[quotebb643e6cc1="phriq"]correct me if I am wrong, but the war has costed just over 1/2 billion or so. [/quotebb643e6cc1]
1/2 billion? You're way off. And "costed" isn't a word.

[quoted6c98d3651="hehehhehe"][quoted6c98d3651="phriq"]correct me if I am wrong, but the war has costed just over 1/2 billion or so. [/quoted6c98d3651]
1/2 billion? You're way off. And "costed" isn't a word.[/quoted6c98d3651]

yeah costed isn't a word,,, none the less, how off am I? you need to back up your claims...

We spend (and have been spending) 1/2 billion on the war every 48 hours.

Wow. How can you be that wrong? Half a billion total? Come on man, get educated. I don't care what political affiliation you are, there is no reason to think the cost is that low. Just use a little critical thinking to think how expensive things are. Think about how much 1 bomb would cost. I'll give McCain some credit. He did not do as bad as Bush did in debates. I re watched portions and you guys were correct. He did not look Obama in the eyes haha.

[quote892386404c="Powerbook"]Wow. How can you be that wrong? Half a billion total? Come on man, get educated. I don't care what political affiliation you are, there is no reason to think the cost is that low. Just use a little critical thinking to think how expensive things are. Think about how much 1 bomb would cost. I'll give McCain some credit. He did not do as bad as Bush did in debates. I re watched portions and you guys were correct. He did not look Obama in the eyes haha.[/quote892386404c]

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the technical aspects of McCain's presence. Just because he's not an amazing orator and has trouble looking people in the eyes doesn't mean that his ideas and leadership skills aren't good.

And alternately, just because Barack excels at public speaking does not mean that his ideas and ideals are good or even rational. He's an extremist that warms up to people through his ability to deliver a damn good speech.

None of that matters though. It's what they are talking about more than how they deliver their message.

[quote9d3564e8b4="TravMan162"][quote9d3564e8b4="Powerbook"]Wow. How can you be that wrong? Half a billion total? Come on man, get educated. I don't care what political affiliation you are, there is no reason to think the cost is that low. Just use a little critical thinking to think how expensive things are. Think about how much 1 bomb would cost. I'll give McCain some credit. He did not do as bad as Bush did in debates. I re watched portions and you guys were correct. He did not look Obama in the eyes haha.[/quote9d3564e8b4]

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the technical aspects of McCain's presence. Just because he's not an amazing orator and has trouble looking people in the eyes doesn't mean that his ideas and leadership skills aren't good.

And alternately, just because Barack excels at public speaking does not mean that his ideas and ideals are good or even rational. He's an extremist that warms up to people through his ability to deliver a damn good speech.

None of that matters though. It's what they are talking about more than how they deliver their message.[/quote9d3564e8b4]


lol what does this have to do with anything I said? I never said I support Obama because he is a much better speaker. Someone made a funny comment saying McCain never looked at Obama, and I noticed it was correct. ) McCain is not a good candidate for me for a variety of reasons. Obama's policies are more in line for my own good. I don't really like any of them, but Obama is the closest right now to what I want. I won't dis McCain, because I do think he is a good man.

Just thought I would share this video for the upcoming Vise-President debates coming on Thursday.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

I think Obama will turn out to be a repeat of Jimmy Carter. Little known, but has the media in his pocket(you can't deny it even if you support him).

I loved how he said "6 years ago I stood up and said no to the war in the middle east." 6 years ago? He was some small time Chicago politicain, yet he acts like he actually had some kind of influence. The only reason he even won that election was due to some fluke that his competitors dropped out. Then he joins the Senate in Jan 2005 until now, spending the majority of his time campaigning to become President. He's got good intentions, I just don't think that he knows how to accomplish them. I'm also scared of the fact that we know so little about him, he claims he's not Muslim, but his middle name is Hussein; and hell, there are claims(that I believe to be true) that he wasn't even born in the U.S. None of this actually poses a threat, but if somebody is running for President we shouldn't have all of these doubts about them.

so, the fact that he opposed the war when he wasn't a US Senator discredits his opposition to the war?

his birth certificate has been verified - http//www.newsweek.com/id/154599/page/2

I mailed out my voter registration today )

[quote6795746c4a="HYPE."]I think Obama will turn out to be a repeat of Jimmy Carter. Little known, but has the media in his pocket(you can't deny it even if you support him).

I loved how he said "6 years ago I stood up and said no to the war in the middle east." 6 years ago? He was some small time Chicago politicain, yet he acts like he actually had some kind of influence. The only reason he even won that election was due to some fluke that his competitors dropped out. Then he joins the Senate in Jan 2005 until now, spending the majority of his time campaigning to become President. He's got good intentions, I just don't think that he knows how to accomplish them. I'm also scared of the fact that we know so little about him, he claims he's not Muslim, but his middle name is Hussein; and hell, there are claims(that I believe to be true) that he wasn't even born in the U.S. None of this actually poses a threat, but if somebody is running for President we shouldn't have all of
these doubts about them.[/quote6795746c4a]

Are you really trying to say that just because his middle name is Hussein means he must be Muslim? All of the information you have doubts about is readily available online if you'd just look for it.

lol don't be a senator and get stuck in this situation

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o&feature=rec-fresh[]http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o&feature=rec-fresh

[quote50712e963e="Iloveipods2"]lol don't be a senator and get stuck in this situation

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o&feature=rec-fresh[]http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o&feature=rec-fresh[/quote50712e963e]

That video is hilarious...

[quote50712e963e="theysayjump"][quote50712e963e="HYPE."]I think Obama will turn out to be a repeat of Jimmy Carter. Little known, but has the media in his pocket(you can't deny it even if you support him).

I loved how he said "6 years ago I stood up and said no to the war in the middle east." 6 years ago? He was some small time Chicago politicain, yet he acts like he actually had some kind of influence. The only reason he even won that election was due to some fluke that his competitors dropped out. Then he joins the Senate in Jan 2005 until now, spending the majority of his time campaigning to become President. He's got good intentions, I just don't think that he knows how to accomplish them. I'm also scared of the fact that we know so little about him, he claims he's not Muslim, but his middle name is Hussein; and hell, there are claims(that I believe to be true) that he wasn't even born in the U.S. None of this actually poses a threat, but if somebody is running for President we shouldn't have all of
these doubts about them.[/quote50712e963e]

Are you really trying to say that just because his middle name is Hussein means he must be Muslim? All of the information you have doubts about is readily available online if you'd just look for it.[/quote50712e963e]

As for this goes, I am not a Barak supporter, but i do think that if you Support McCain you have to give better reasoning for your dislike of Barak than just his name and speculative rumors. In all fairness, Baraks political background is pretty small, which i do say is a valid thing to say, but yea, even if you dont like either candidate, you should base your dislike off of fact and not rumors and speculation.

So it's been a while since anyone posted in here.

For people on both sides, how do you think you party is doing? Any undecideds have an idea of who they'll vote for?

What stations are you going to watch come election night? I'm working until 10pm and then I'm coming home and watching Comedy Central (John Stewart and Stephen Colbert), but I'll likely flick through a bunch of them.

I took off work. I might try to volunteer election day. I already early voted (for Obama). Definitely gonna be an exciting night.

[quotead53e55b1b="HYPE."]I think Obama will turn out to be a repeat of Jimmy Carter. Little known, but has the media in his pocket(you can't deny it even if you support him).

I loved how he said "6 years ago I stood up and said no to the war in the middle east." 6 years ago? He was some small time Chicago politicain, yet he acts like he actually had some kind of influence. The only reason he even won that election was due to some fluke that his competitors dropped out. Then he joins the Senate in Jan 2005 until now, spending the majority of his time campaigning to become President. He's got good intentions, I just don't think that he knows how to accomplish them. I'm also scared of the fact that we know so little about him, he claims he's not Muslim, but his middle name is Hussein; and hell, there are claims(that I believe to be true) that he wasn't even born in the U.S. None of this actually poses a threat, but if somebody is running for President we shouldn't have all of these doubts about them.[/quotead53e55b1b]

He does not have the media in his pocket. Enough with the "liberal media bias" bullshit.

So if you were against/for the war but weren't "important" at the time, that means that your opinion means nothing? In that case, your opinion means nothing here at all.

You're scared that you know so little about him? Pick up both his books and watch his speeches.

You think he's a Muslim? It's been refuted thousands of times from all over the political spectrum. Try FactCheck.org, something McCain likes to name drop a bit. Here's a question What IF he was a Muslim? Is that bad or something? Why is that bad? Is there a reason you're associating the word "Muslim" with anything bad?

Oh, his middle name is Hussein so that makes him a Muslim? Again, if Obama was a Muslim, what's wrong with that? His formal name is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. His father's name was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. His first and last name have Arabic origins. "Barack" for "Blessed", and "Hussein" for "Handsome One". Are you blatantly announcing your ignorance?

He wasn't born in the U.S.? That's been discredited by FactCheck.org. If you'd like to start questioning whether or not Hawaii is part of the United States, why don't we start questioning whether or not the Panama Canal zone is part of the United States, since John Sydney McCain was born there?

Going by your logic again, since John McCain's middle name is Sydney then that MUST mean that he's Australian and is ineligible to run for President.

[quote8b7b068fd0="unknown uchiha"][quote8b7b068fd0="HYPE."]I think Obama will turn out to be a repeat of Jimmy Carter. Little known, but has the media in his pocket(you can't deny it even if you support him).

I loved how he said "6 years ago I stood up and said no to the war in the middle east." 6 years ago? He was some small time Chicago politicain, yet he acts like he actually had some kind of influence. The only reason he even won that election was due to some fluke that his competitors dropped out. Then he joins the Senate in Jan 2005 until now, spending the majority of his time campaigning to become President. He's got good intentions, I just don't think that he knows how to accomplish them. I'm also scared of the fact that we know so little about him, he claims he's not Muslim, but his middle name is Hussein; and hell, there are claims(that I believe to be true) that he wasn't even born in the U.S. None of this actually poses a threat, but if somebody is running for President we shouldn't have all of these doubts about them.[/quote8b7b068fd0]

He does not have the media in his pocket. Enough with the "liberal media bias" bullshit.

So if you were against/for the war but weren't "important" at the time, that means that your opinion means nothing? In that case, your opinion means nothing here at all.

You're scared that you know so little about him? Pick up both his books and watch his speeches.

You think he's a Muslim? It's been refuted thousands of times from all over the political spectrum. Try FactCheck.org, something McCain likes to name drop a bit. Here's a question What IF he was a Muslim? Is that bad or something? Why is that bad? Is there a reason you're associating the word "Muslim" with anything bad?

Oh, his middle name is Hussein so that makes him a Muslim? Again, if Obama was a Muslim, what's wrong with that? His formal name is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. His father's name was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. His first and last name have Arabic origins. "Barack" for "Blessed", and "Hussein" for "Handsome One". Are you blatantly announcing your ignorance?

He wasn't born in the U.S.? That's been discredited by FactCheck.org. If you'd like to start questioning whether or not Hawaii is part of the United States, why don't we start questioning whether or not the Panama Canal zone is part of the United States, since John Sydney McCain was born there?

Going by your logic again, since John McCain's middle name is Sydney then that MUST mean that he's Australian and is ineligible to run for President.[/quote8b7b068fd0]

I don't think he was claiming that there was anything wrong with being muslim. But the possibility of him concealing his religion of being muslim is what makes him so shady...Personally, I think that is such utter trash haha, and yeah the fact website totally refutes this. I's pretty lame how the word muslim always seems to have negative connotations at the global level...

I think his supposed links to known terrorists is a little disconcerting, albeit propaganda or not.

[quotea1fe736902="TravMan162"]I think his supposed links to known terrorists is a little disconcerting, albeit propaganda or not.[/quotea1fe736902]

His past work with ACORN bothers me.

Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit. So what?
[quote5f07c90e4c]• Fact Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. [/quote5f07c90e4c]

[quote51dd4f71e5="doylnea"]Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit. So what?
[quote51dd4f71e5]• Fact Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. [/quote51dd4f71e5][/quote51dd4f71e5]

It's very unclear in his role and I find this article complete and informative
http//article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=#more[]http//article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=#more

[quote1b76523129="Iloveipods2"][quote1b76523129="doylnea"]Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit. So what?
[quote1b76523129]• Fact Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. [/quote1b76523129][/quote1b76523129]

It's very unclear in his role and I find this article complete and informative
http//article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=#more[]http//article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=#more[/quote1b76523129]

Instead of reading from a conservatively biased writer like Stanley Kurtz, I suggest you look up a nonpartisan source such as FactCheck. Radical organization? Hardly. Do not link partisan sources here if you're going to make a case for yourself. Partisan sources only fuel more bias, and in order to have an informative discussion we must distant ourselves from both conservative and liberal sources. Only by provide nonpartisan sources can we have an informative and productive discussion.

http//www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html

[quote1b76523129="TravMan162"]I think his supposed links to known terrorists is a little disconcerting, albeit propaganda or not.[/quote1b76523129]

But there are no links to terrorists. If you are discussing William Ayers, allow me to point you to a nonpartisan source
http//www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

i voted already.

went to norwalk for the early voting, place was crowded. waited in line 2 hours.

blegh. not a good experience, but it was still cool to vote. My first time voting in a presidential election. w00t!

Just read this on CNN

http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html[]http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html

[quote97c704ba38="Iloveipods2"]Just read this on CNN

http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html[]http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html[/quote97c704ba38]

And what's your point and comment?

Don't just post links, this is a discussion.

Man, I can't remember a US election that got this much coverage up in Canada before.

[quote109e5b893d="tylerc"][quote109e5b893d="manOFice"]obama > mccain[/quote109e5b893d]

False. I don't like either candidate, but Obama is not what this country needs right now. The economy is collapsing, and the only people that can save it are the extremely wealthy (or the federal government). Instead, he wants to raise taxes for the wealthy, giving them less disposable income and giving tax cuts to the middle/working class. I can't understand how anyone would support giving tax cuts to people that work paycheck to paycheck, it's illogical. Those people aren't going to use it to stimulate the economy, they're going to put it towards bills, etc.

National health care is a terrible idea. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Someone's gotta pay the bills, and guess who it's going to be? The people that already have their own health insurance because they can afford it. Call it selfish, but my dad shouldn't have to pay for everyone else to have health care just because he works his ass off and has a good job that pays good money. I know Obama says you don't have to participate in it if you have employer provided coverage, but the money has to come from somewhere, and it's going to come from the repealed tax cuts for the wealthy, effectively making them pay for it. Great idea Obama, take away disposable income from the wealthy so they buy less and decrease demand for products created by the working class. Genius.[/quote109e5b893d]

Just got around to reading this topc ... you really believe all that crap? roll I guess one thing we really disagree on is politics...

If you're really into education... you'll want to read into obama.

What do you mean do I believe all that crap? That's what Obama wants to do; repeal the tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 to pay for national health care.

[quoted1a96f2302="tylerc"]What do you mean do I believe all that crap? That's what Obama wants to do; repeal the tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 to pay for national health care.[/quoted1a96f2302]

But what you said is GOOD. Who cares if the person who makes 250k+ a year has to pay a little bit more in taxes and the people like me or someone else that lives pay check to paycheck gets a tax cut...

And with mccains health care practice, it's going to make a shit load of companys not even offer health benefits anymore....

Uchiha, you said this earlier,

"He does not have the media in his pocket. Enough with the "liberal media bias" bullshit."

Lets be fair man, there are numerous stories that state there has been unfair coverage towards the Democrats this election cycle. Here's on from ABC News (Hardly a Republican advocate)

http//abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188

Also, Factcheck.org is run by the same guy who eitehr started the AP news service or currently runs it. Hardly a non-partisan source for news. I can't help but think that logic would assume that some of his bias would come across into factcheck as well.

Now, I read drudge and listen to Rush, the big difference is that I don't claim that they are non-partisan. I read them for the information that is important to me and thats it. Because I trust them, I like what they offer, much the same as you and your sources.

Oh how I wish we had a better conservative candidate than McCain.


About Obama's character. Everyone is quick to dismiss any ties to bad people that Obama may have (or may have been tried to be pinned to). The problem I have is where are the good people in his life? Who is there to tell the good stories? You can look into my life and see a few real a-holes, but there are many many more who would stand and talk of how good a guy I am.

Obama seems to have no one that does that for him except for people in his campaign. Now, I don't know the man except for whats been seen on the election trail. I can't make a judgement on his character except for what I see. And what I see is a man who continually has to distance himself form shady characters (Wright, Ayers, Resko, Acorn, etc. etc.) Where are the good poeple in his life? The press, because of what I believe to be biased coverage, has not done enough for me to feel confident in voting for this guy. I just don't trust him.

To each his own. I'm going Republican.

C'mon manOFice, why would someone who worked hard to get where they are and earn a nice pay cheque, just start paying more in taxes to help people who are less fortunate?

Because they give a shit about others? roll

The real problem is this is not what America was built on.


The founders set up a country that would reward people for the work that they do. The government is to protect and serve. Not mandate my generousity.

[quote8052af7ba4="theysayjump"]C'mon manOFice, why would someone who worked hard to get where they are and earn a nice pay cheque, just start paying more in taxes to help people who are less fortunate?

Because they give a shit about others? roll[/quote8052af7ba4]

If I work hard and bring home a nice paycheck, it should be up to me if I want to help others. And if I do, I should be able to decide who I help.

[quote9ea681fde4="CollidgeGraduit"][quote9ea681fde4="theysayjump"]C'mon manOFice, why would someone who worked hard to get where they are and earn a nice pay cheque, just start paying more in taxes to help people who are less fortunate?

Because they give a shit about others? roll[/quote9ea681fde4]

If I work hard and bring home a nice paycheck, it should be up to me if I want to help others. And if I do, I should be able to decide who I help.[/quote9ea681fde4]

Who says you work harder than me? If I make less than you but still work harder but just make a large amount lower why not have the people that make more than enough pay a small bit more in taxes to have me a hard working person who just makes less get a tax break

It's like this

You work hard - you make a hell of a lot of money
I work hard - I make just normal amount of money or way below

Why is it wrong to tax the first person a small bit more to help me or others??

McCain says screw em
Obama says lets help them

Also I was just using the first part as a example, not comparing you and me.

And if anyone is interested in what they say about education or what they are doing

http//www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

Read up there.

The whole no child left behind needs to go!

Ps. If mccain made it into president...and then when he croaks you really want palin running this country? You have to be kidding me...

You are correct about Education. No child does need to go. But really read that other stuff you wrote. Who are you to demand a portion of my money. You have the same oppurtunities to make as much money for yourself as I do.

We mostly start the same way with public, government funded education. if you work hard and get grades you have the same oppurtunity for scholarships. If you get the grades in college you have the right and ability go get a great job. It is up to you and I fundamentally disagree with your notion that you deserve a portion of my hard work.

I, as an American, get to decide whom I give my money to. It is not my governments job to tell me what to do. Use the God given talents that you have and go make something of yourself, stop expecting to get a sugar daddy.

[quote401933c6a7="manOFice"][quote401933c6a7="CollidgeGraduit"][quote401933c6a7="theysayjump"]C'mon manOFice, why would someone who worked hard to get where they are and earn a nice pay cheque, just start paying more in taxes to help people who are less fortunate?

Because they give a shit about others? roll[/quote401933c6a7]

If I work hard and bring home a nice paycheck, it should be up to me if I want to help others. And if I do, I should be able to decide who I help.[/quote401933c6a7]

Who says you work harder than me? If I make less than you but still work harder but just make a large amount lower why not have the people that make more than enough pay a small bit more in taxes to have me a hard working person who just makes less get a tax break[/quote401933c6a7]

Your example is fine -- I believe in a graduated tax scale, and I wouldn't have a problem with myself paying a higher tax if I'm clearing $150,000/yr as a lawyer, in order to give you a break when you're clearing $20,000/yr ringing up groceries.

What I don't believe in is raising the taxes of those who are hard working and successful, to spread the wealth around to everyone. There is no good way for a group as high up as a federal government to reliably distribute the money in a way that would only help the people that need it, in the way they need it.

Are you (the people complaining about richer people paying slightly more to have poorer people getting health care coverage) demanding more control over where all of your taxes are going? Or just the part where it goes to giving more people health care coverage?

I bust my balls every day and I'm sure it's more than what the CEO of the company does, yet he makes millions more than I do. He did what he had to do to get to that point and that's fine, but a slight increase in his taxes is not going to break the bank.

I make $16k a year, work hard and I'd be MORE than happy to pay higher taxes so that people worse off than myself could see a doctor or get health care.

Our taxes go to things far less rewarding or meaningful to society so why not demand control over where that money goes? If it's better for society as whole, who gives a fuck if it costs a little more?

I'm not against helping others, but I don't think a federal-level wide angle wealth redistribution is the answer.

Health insurance premiums are ridiculously high, and medical bills are just as astronomical. That's what needs to change, those costs need to come down. Eliminate the frivolous lawsuits that drive up malpractice insurance.

Maybe taxes should go towards locally (city or county)-controlled programs such as flu shots for people who can't afford it, subsidize prescriptions for children, subsidies to pediatricians to let them keep their costs down if they show they are passing that saving on to the people who need it. Lower federal taxes and increase local taxes to fund programs at the local level, rather than a federal level.

I'm not against helping people who need it, I just don't think the current system(s) will really do that, without way too much of the money going towards those who are milking the system.

[quote9df8677f74="mookieb2"]You are correct about Education. No child does need to go. But really read that other stuff you wrote. Who are you to demand a portion of my money. You have the same oppurtunities to make as much money for yourself as I do.

We mostly start the same way with public, government funded education. if you work hard and get grades you have the same oppurtunity for scholarships. If you get the grades in college you have the right and ability go get a great job. It is up to you and I fundamentally disagree with your notion that you deserve a portion of my hard work.

I, as an American, get to decide whom I give my money to. It is not my governments job to tell me what to do. Use the God given talents that you have and go make something of yourself, stop expecting to get a sugar daddy.[/quote9df8677f74]

I hope that was just general comments and not directed at me? I'm a man and and not a women who gets a sugar daddy. I go to work 40+ hours a week and make my salary that my 4 years of college was for.

I think most of your statements are false. Not everyone can go to college or get scholarships...or even have the same education. I got my education in NY, great schools etc. Now I live in NC and the school system is a joke.

And sadly you as a american don't always get to decide whom you give your money to. It is part of the governments job to tell you what to do with some of it. As you pay state and federal taxes now amoung a million other taxes.



Edit

CG you make some good points

Edit

And whats with mccain and palin wanting to drill this world to nothing?

They totally seem against going green for this country? Am I wrong?

Obama constantly talks about other methods of energy yet I only hear drilling out of mccain?

Of course we still have to drill but good lord that is all he wants to do?


.....

Quote
"There are 37 million poor Americans. Most poor Americans are in the workforce, yet still cannot afford to make ends meet. And too many poor Americans are single mothers who are raising children. Barack Obama has been a lifelong advocate for the poor -- as a young college graduate, he rejected the high salaries of corporate America and moved to the South Side of Chicago to work as a community organizer. As an organizer, Obama worked with churches, Chicago residents and local government to set up job training programs for the unemployed and after school programs for kids."

That says a lot about a person but I highly doubt mccain has done something like that?

I said Sugar Daddy as a generalization. I'm sorry if there was offense.

Well intentions are great. And everyone wants to help the poor. I give a good portion of my paycheck to my church which runs a comunity food bank out of our building that gives 150+ families each month 2 weeks worth of food. We recently gave extra to help those same families get a turkey for their Thanksgiving dinners.

We give money to various charities at all times during the year when the need arises and when we can.

My family is one of those families who rose from nothing, through hard work, to have a great life and it was this country that allowed it. We weren't given any advantages and didn't demand that the people who made more than us help out. We worked for it and out of gratefulness and out of our faith, we give back in a number of ways.

The redistribution of wealth is a thing that will fundmentally change our country into a place that punishes prosperity.

And yes, I do realize that our taxes are government mandated expenses that we have no say in. I can see how good of a job they've done with what they already take, why would I expect them to do well with more?

I'm done.

And with all of this said, Barack is going to be elected.

McCain's a little bit of a turkey of a candidate. Not conservative enough for the right, too conservative for the left. Decent guy, poor Republican choice.

[quotecae419ccc6="manOFice"][quotecae419ccc6="tylerc"]What do you mean do I believe all that crap? That's what Obama wants to do; repeal the tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 to pay for national health care.[/quotecae419ccc6]

But what you said is GOOD. Who cares if the person who makes 250k+ a year has to pay a little bit more in taxes and the people like me or someone else that lives pay check to paycheck gets a tax cut...

And with mccains health care practice, it's going to make a shit load of companys not even offer health benefits anymore....[/quotecae419ccc6]

Tell me how this makes sense

[quotecae419ccc6]Tax distribution
Tax concentration coefficient (a variant of the Gini coefficient) is a measure of tax inequality. The higher the number, the more progressive the tax.

As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States.[8] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes -[bcae419ccc6] the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%)[/bcae419ccc6], the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10] If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[/quotecae419ccc6]

I do agree that the well-off should pay more. My dad makes a very good living, yes, but why should he have to pay more than 40% as he does already? He's got two kids to put through college as well as the other expenses of every other family, and almost half of his income is taken away every year.

His kids could put themselves through college. shrug

[quote7b6efd5718="theysayjump"]His kids could put themselves through college. shrug[/quote7b6efd5718]

My wife had 0 help from her parents putting her through college.

And tyler, I don't understand all that but why don't you tell me what mccain is going to do that negates those numbers I guess? Idk

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I can focus on school instead of working through college or taking out loans, but it's not what McCain is going to do, but rather what Barack Obama is going to do to change that. By repealing tax cuts, those earning $250k+ are going to pay even MORE of that distribution.

[quote340e6ec5b3="tylerc"]Tell me how this makes sense

[quote340e6ec5b3]Tax distribution
Tax concentration coefficient (a variant of the Gini coefficient) is a measure of tax inequality. The higher the number, the more progressive the tax.

As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States.[8] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes -[b340e6ec5b3] the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%)[/b340e6ec5b3], the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10] If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[/quote340e6ec5b3]

I do agree that the well-off should pay more. My dad makes a very good living, yes, but why should he have to pay more than 40% as he does already? He's got two kids to put through college as well as the other expenses of every other family, and almost half of his income is taken away every year.[/quote340e6ec5b3]

You quoted a pretty important part that you didn't highlight, namely
[quote340e6ec5b3]If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[/quote340e6ec5b3]

That is to say, the wealthy, who are taxed at a higher rate, pay (almost) a proportionate amount of their wealth in taxes as do the poor, those who pay at a lower rate.

And further, you write "it's not fair that my dad has to pay more than 40% as he does already? ...and almost half of his income is taken away every year."

A) if your family is in the top tax bracket, AGI being greater than over $178K a year, they pay 27% of that in taxes, plus 35% for anything above $178K. You'll note a couple of things, a) this is nowhere near 40% in taxes, b) it's not half of his income either. Furthermore, I believe you've said your father is a CPA, so you can't tell me he doesn't know the ins and outs of paying less tax, by setting up trusts, or having investment property, etc.

I'm all for an intelligent conversation about taxes, and tax rates, but I'm going to refute BS with facts, and so far, that's not been to your benefit.

And by the way, IMO, you're way too focused on this single issue of taxes in your critique of Obama. Have you considered any of the other McCain proposals closely - like the one where he proposes a $5000 check be cut to families to pay for their health care, despite in almost every family circumstance that not being enough to pay for health care, [i340e6ec5b3]and[/i340e6ec5b3] just for good measure, that $5000 will be considered taxable income?

Yeah watch the increase of taxes go to help illegal aliens get health care. I don't believe in helping illegal aliens get free health care. Even if they are dying. Become a citizen first.

is this a problem?

http//graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/21/books/obama-reads-533.jpg[" alt=""/img6b4e02a7b0]

[quotee7c8355277="EatChex89"]Yeah watch the increase of taxes go to help illegal aliens get health care. I don't believe in helping illegal aliens get free health care. Even if they are dying. Become a citizen first.[/quotee7c8355277]

Are you for immigration reform?

[quote432cc4310e="TravMan162"]is this a problem?

http//graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/21/books/obama-reads-533.jpg[" alt=""/img432cc4310e][/quote432cc4310e]

Reading Fareed Zakaria's new book is hardly cause for concern.

okay, just making sure. I got it in a chain letter and I didn't really know if there was more to that than met the eye.

The fact that you got it in a chain letter should've been a good sign about whether to think it was a problem or not.

I just had a whole rant typed up and I deleted it because it doesn't matter people's minds are made up anyway but is there anyone voting for Obama for any reason besides the fact that he is "helping out the low-middle class?"

Because every single person I've heard that is voting for him is for one of three reasons

1.) he promises "hope" and "change" and gumdrops and candy canes,
2.) He's going to raise the upper class' taxes and "redistribute the wealth"
3.) He's "blackli".

Is anyone voting for any reason other than those, because I got news for you, #2 is a joke and it's going to do more harm than good. Does this guy have anything else going for him?


liOnly 1/16th black

4) Sarah Palin

I'm voting for him because he understands immigration reform more than McCain while McCain wasn't even there to vote for a pill passage he helped craft. I'm voting for him because Obama publicly said "No" to Prop 8 while McCain has supported and endorsed the marriage ban.

I voted for Obama because I am tired of the soaring education costs, and my family nor I make anything close to 250,000 a year. It would be nice to see folks who make a lot of money contribute more of their pays. Another reason I voted for Obama is that he didn't vote 90% of the time with Bush, and McCain's healthcare plan is a joke to me. I never really liked Obama, but I don't want someone who would keep the Bush policies going. I don't care what people say, but based on McCain's voting record he will continue most of Bush's policies or generally govern in a similar manner. Obama also has the better energy plan in my opinion.

Goddammit. I am struggling to understand the argument that the rich should contribute more of their paycheck? Why?

I've yet to hear an argument that convinces me that someone who makes more money needs to contribute more than they already are. They are already in a higher tax bracket. They already contribute more. Why are we taking their money and putting it in our pockets?

It makes no sense. I know if I was making $250k and someone told me that I was forced to give up more of it to help support the struggling middle class, I'd be pissed as hell.

Will someone please make this make sense to me so I don't have to be such a cynical prick about it? Because it seems to me that the middle class is quick to call the upper class greedy and make them share their wealth, but if we are trying to take their money, doesn't that make us greedy?

Capitalism is not about sharing. It's about getting yourself in a position of financial comfort and being rewarded for the decisions you make and the effort you put forth. How can we take their money and redistribute it in the name of capitalism?

The brass tax of it is the difference between the two parties.....

Democrats vote with the emotion and not logic....and Republicans vote the opposite way. Of course this is not a 100% rule, but is the general rule.
With Obama's main running platform being Hope, Change, and I am not Bush, he is trying to incite strong emotion with nothing behind it.

[quote6d268a0367="Powerbook"]I voted for Obama because I am tired of the soaring education costs, and my family nor I make anything close to 250,000 a year. It would be nice to see folks who make a lot of money contribute more of their pays. Another reason I voted for Obama is that he didn't vote 90% of the time with Bush, and McCain's healthcare plan is a joke to me. I never really liked Obama, but I don't want someone who would keep the Bush policies going. I don't care what people say, but based on McCain's voting record he will continue most of Bush's policies or generally govern in a similar manner. Obama also has the better energy plan in my opinion.[/quote6d268a0367]
BTW...that $250,000 figure has dropped to $150,000 in a speech Biden gave...
"What we're saying is, that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million," Biden said.

"It should go to middle-class people, people who make $150,000 a year."

They are saying it was a slip of the tongue, but was it??

Here is a good article on taxes...

http//www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes

1. Are income taxes fair?

That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, comlipared with 37 percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoullidered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 perlicent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?

The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.

But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

Who Pays How Much in Taxes4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?

No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 perlicent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.

5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?

They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.

6. What is the economic logic behind these lower tax rates?

As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.

7. Are lower tax rates responsilible for the big budget deficits of recent decades?

There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts.

Rich Pay More Under Bush Tax Cut8. Do the rich pay more taxes because they are earning more of the income in America?

Yes. There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.

What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.

9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?

No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.

10. Does the tax distribulition look a lot different if we factor in other federal taxes, such as the payroll tax?

It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

11. How do tax rates in the United States compare with tax rates abroad?

Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the United States than they are in most other industrial nations. This gives America a competitive edge in world markets. But America’s lead in low tax rates is shrinking. For example, the United States now has the second-highest corporate income tax in the developed world, after Japan. Our personal income tax rate is still low by historical standards. But in recent years many European and Pacific Rim nations have been slashing income taxes—there are now ten Eastern European nations with flat-tax rates between 12 percent and 25 percent—while the political pressure in Washington, D.C., is to raise them.

Capital Gains Tax Revenue12. Do tax cuts on investment income, such as George W. Bush’s reductions in tax rates on capital gains and dividends, prilimarily benefit wealthy stockowners?

The New York Times reported that America’s millionaires raked in 43 percent of the investment tax cut benefits in 2003. It’s true that lower tax rates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut.

The same phenomenon occurred with the capital gains tax, which is essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply holding onto their stock, home, or business. This “lock-in” effect, as it is called, can be economically inefficient, since owners have a tax incentive to keep poor investments, rather than drawing out the cash and putting it into assets that are more productive. When the capital gains tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other enterprises.

The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.

This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between 2003 and 2005. Capital gains tax receipts also far outpaced the revenues that the government’s static models predicted. Between 2003 and 2007, actual tax receipts exceeded expectations by $207 billion.

http//www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%20Taxes.jpg[" alt=""/img86afee1254]
[img="86afee1254]http//www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%20Cut.jpg[" alt=""/img86afee1254]
[img="86afee1254]http//www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/Capital%20Gains%20Tax%20Revenue.jpg[" alt=""/img86afee1254]

Good stuff Box.

And Powerbook. How is the rising educational costs a Republican problem? Last I checked most universities are run and managed by Liberals.

Maybe if they'd put those endowments to work for their students some of the tuiton costs could be cut.

[quote471e024388="Veek"]I'm voting for him because he understands immigration reform more than McCain while McCain wasn't even there to vote for a pill passage he helped craft. [/quote471e024388]
While I can understand your reasons for supporting Obama, some of which I happen to agree with, I don't think you can rate Obama higher than McCain on immigration reform. This is one area where McCain has repeatedly broken with his party and actually done more to achieve immigration reform, and for longer, than Obama. Here is an editorial writeup from Ruben Navarrette, a Hispanic columnist for CNN.com, that puts things in perspective and dispels the misconceptions about McCain on immigration reform

http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/navarrette.immigration/index.html

[quote471e024388]Thanks to the immigration issue, many Latinos think of Democrats as the good guys and Republicans as the bad guys. It's an attitude that spells trouble for John McCain.

But it isn't that simple, and this election proves it. McCain -- a Republican -- risked his political career to pursue comprehensive immigration reform, while Barack Obama -- a Democrat -- was late to the issue and made some bad choices once he stepped into the debate.

...

Maybe Democrats are waiting for a potential President Obama to lead the way. But the issue isn't even on Obama's radar.

He voted for a pointless Senate bill calling for the construction of 700 miles of border fencing (he later said he regretted that vote); proposed a "poison pill" amendment intended to gut the guest worker program; lost the Latino vote to Hillary Clinton in part because he was so enthralled with the politics of black-and-white that he overlooked the Latino electorate; and suggested that he would not get around to comprehensive immigration reform in the first 100 days of his administration.

Democrats are lucky to have Republican boogeymen like Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO, who uses immigration to scare up votes and campaign cash. Tancredo isn't just anti-illegal immigrant. He's anti-immigrant.

This modern day "Know Nothing" tried to limit visas for high-skilled workers from China and India, argued that real Americans speak English, called Miami a "third world country," and proposed a moratorium on all immigration - including the legal kind. And, now that he is retiring from Congress, Tancredo is suggesting that he might run for Colorado governor in 2010.

Tancredo's least favorite Republican is -- guess who? -- John McCain. That's because the Arizona senator knows a nativist when he sees one and hasn't been shy about criticizing Tancredo and other members of his own party when necessary. He did just that in a recent telephone interview with me.

"Because of the kind of rhetoric that was used on this issue, there are many Latinos who believe that we are anti-them and not anti-illegal immigration," McCain said.

The Arizona senator told me about his visit to a small town in Iowa, where residents have recently experienced more illegal immigration from Mexico.

"There were a lot of elderly people there," McCain said, "and they seemed to be genuinely frightened. A woman said, 'This is terrible. I have to dial 1 for English. They're destroying our culture.' And I said, 'Ma'am, you know the greatness of America is that we've had wave after wave of new blood, new vitality...There is no reason for you to be frightened. And the people who are frightening you are not doing you anything but a grave disservice.' "

Meanwhile, during a recent interview on Spanish-language television, Gov. Sarah Palin declared her support for comprehensive immigration reform. She said that, while she doesn't favor a "total amnesty" (without conditions), she does support giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization.

People have to "follow the rules," she said, but they should also be "treated equally and fairly in this country."

Splendid. We can start by judging political figures on their own merits instead of giving some a free ride while punishing others for sins they didn't commit.[/quote471e024388]

One of the better fact checks I've read

http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/fact_check_campaign_s_most_wanted[]http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/fact_check_campaign_s_most_wanted

PS. The race is tightening according to the polls(+0.4McCain and -0.2Obama currently)! This is going to be good!

EDIT Ugh, I hate how many of the polls don't give a standard deviation to their numbers.

lol bonus edit

http/" alt=""/img262.imageshack.us/img="262/2487/obamamccainreversalqd8.jpg[" alt=""/img6ea0e5ed07]

LOL. Some of the responses here are 100% ridiculous. As far as taxes go there aren't that many brackets. Obama is not going to raise taxes for those making below 250,000.... What's so hard to understand about that? Obama is getting rid of the Bush tax cuts which heavily favored those of upper income levels. McCain isn't doing anything for those of us who are having a hard time paying for college. I'm sorry I don't have wealthy parents or grandparents who have my college education paid. Also, what's so wrong about the rich contributing what they once used to contribute? It would be nice if I could get some relief. I am voting because of my situation, not because other people. I do not fall in the 250,000 nor do my folks, so I have nothing to worry about there. The middle class needs relief, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I could care less if my neighbor down the street has to eat out less because his tax bill is higher. Oh yeah please read what Doylnea said about taxes, that covers my view precisely.


I also have to single out the comment that says most colleges are managed by liberals. How is this the reason for all the problems? What about all those colleges who have conservative management, why are they just as expensive? Hmm..... Could it be perhaps that the whole system needs reworking?

Education

Obama

Higher Education

li Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.
li Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid Obama and Biden will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.



Mccain

Improve Information for Parents
Institutions report on hundreds of factors to the U.S. government every year, but the government does nothing with the information. Making this information available to families in a clear and concise manner will help more students make more informed choices about higher education.

Simplify Higher Education Tax Benefits
The existing tax benefits are too complicated, and many eligible families don’t claim them. By simplifying the existing benefits, I can ensure that a greater number of families have a lower tax burden when they are helping to send their children to college.


and others that do not make college anymore affordable...

[quote2d739ab9e2="Powerbook"]LOL. Some of the responses here are 100% ridiculous. As far as taxes go there aren't that many brackets. Obama is not going to raise taxes for those making below 250,000.... What's so hard to understand about that? Obama is getting rid of the Bush tax cuts which heavily favored those of upper income levels. McCain isn't doing anything for those of us who are having a hard time paying for college. I'm sorry I don't have wealthy parents or grandparents who have my college education paid. Also, what's so wrong about the rich contributing what they once used to contribute? It would be nice if I could get some relief. I am voting because of my situation, not because other people. I do not fall in the 250,000 nor do my folks, so I have nothing to worry about there. The middle class needs relief, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.[/quote2d739ab9e2]

I have an IRA that I have contributed $2,000 into the past two summers, which is now worth about $1,050. My parents have also lost about 40% of their retirement savings. How is it they're getting richer when they're losing their savings?

[quote9e2c68b3db="tylerc"][quote9e2c68b3db="Powerbook"]LOL. Some of the responses here are 100% ridiculous. As far as taxes go there aren't that many brackets. Obama is not going to raise taxes for those making below 250,000.... What's so hard to understand about that? Obama is getting rid of the Bush tax cuts which heavily favored those of upper income levels. McCain isn't doing anything for those of us who are having a hard time paying for college. I'm sorry I don't have wealthy parents or grandparents who have my college education paid. Also, what's so wrong about the rich contributing what they once used to contribute? It would be nice if I could get some relief. I am voting because of my situation, not because other people. I do not fall in the 250,000 nor do my folks, so I have nothing to worry about there. The middle class needs relief, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.[/quote9e2c68b3db]

I have an IRA that I have contributed $2,000 into the past two summers, which is now worth about $1,050. My parents have also lost about 40% of their retirement savings. How is it they're getting richer when they're losing their savings?[/quote9e2c68b3db]

They are losing their savings along with many other Americans. I guess you are categorizing your family as being rich then. You are talking about the current economic conditions particularly the stock market which is effecting everyone. Your parents aren't nearly suffering as much as those who earn a lot less than them. I lost about $1000 in my IRA also, this is why I want a change. Think about those who are making 50,000 a year and are losing 40% of their retirement. The American attitude is much too selfish in many aspects. The rich right now are taking advantage of the situation, so they can increase their wealth. 3% tax increase isn't such a big deal if you can afford to pay for it. Someone needs to fund our government. This is all I am going to say, I don't want to get into an economic debate with anyone. I could easily do this by citing similar items that Doylnea already has, or using some commonly taught theories in economics.

[quote8e0b8bcb7a="tylerc"]I have an IRA that I have contributed $2,000 into the past two summers, which is now worth about $1,050. My parents have also lost about 40% of their retirement savings. How is it they're getting richer when they're losing their savings?[/quote8e0b8bcb7a]

What does that have to do with McCain or Obama?

[quote4111e21ecc="doylnea"][quote4111e21ecc="tylerc"]I have an IRA that I have contributed $2,000 into the past two summers, which is now worth about $1,050. My parents have also lost about 40% of their retirement savings. How is it they're getting richer when they're losing their savings?[/quote4111e21ecc]

What does that have to do with McCain or Obama?[/quote4111e21ecc]

He was trying to refute my statement that the rich are getting richer. I'll give him credit though. At least he didn't make something up such Obama won't stop at 250,000 he will continue to lower the bar.

While I lean liberal Obama is just too far over. Raising taxes on the wealthy while looking good on paper will just kill the economy. The verge of a recession is not the right time to be raising taxes.

The $200,000 (or $150K or $250K depending on where you look) salary that looks so huge really isn't that large, especially for those in larger cities. A family where a husband and wife are both working could be in that salary range. You start over-taxing the business owners and there won't be as many businesses.

Also I don't know why health care is so terrible that it needs to be reformed. Socialized medicine is horrible (just try to get elective surgery in Canada) and any movement in that direction is bad for everybody. Throwing more money in to existing programs so they cover more people should help.

I appreciate the difficulties being a student (I have my share of student loans) but the application process really isn't that hard and loans are available for anybody. Besides by the time these great programs get passed (if ever) you'll probably be done with school anyway.

I liked Obama and may have voted for him a few months ago, but recent speeches have revealed he's way too liberal for me.

Obama just won Ohio. Supposedly no republican has ever lost Ohio and still won. So it appears this is going to Obama.
[b5305960d48]
105 195 electoral Obama[/color5305960d48]
90 electoral McCain[/color5305960d48][/b5305960d48]

[edit] messed up on my numbers, hit "0" instead of "9"

[quote852f95d850="EatChex89"]Obama just won Ohio. Supposedly no republican has ever lost Ohio and still won. So it appears this is going to Obama.
[b852f95d850]
105 electoral Obama[/color852f95d850]
90 electoral McCain[/color852f95d850][/b852f95d850][/quote852f95d850]

Yep, pretty much over if you ask me, he'll probably take NC and FL and really blow him away

Yeah only 270 to win and obama is winning by a landslide so far.
[be29e941919]
200 electoral Obama[/colore29e941919]
124 electoral McCain[/colore29e941919][/be29e941919]

[quotebcb210ca3d="EatChex89"]Yeah only 270 to win and obama is winning by a landslide so far.
[bbcb210ca3d]
200 electoral Obama[/colorbcb210ca3d]
124 electoral McCain[/colorbcb210ca3d][/bbcb210ca3d][/quotebcb210ca3d]

I'm actually really surprised with the popular vote, both CNN and Yahoo show 50%/49% , Obama/McCain respectively..... but not all the states are counted yet. Hope you guys voted! wink

...but yes, Obama is getting all the electoral votes.

[quoteee8469d11c="Iloveipods2"][quoteee8469d11c="EatChex89"]Yeah only 270 to win and obama is winning by a landslide so far.
[bee8469d11c]
200 electoral Obama[/coloree8469d11c]
124 electoral McCain[/coloree8469d11c][/bee8469d11c][/quoteee8469d11c]

I'm actually really surprised with the popular vote, both CNN and Yahoo show 50%/49% , Obama/McCain respectively..... but not all the states are counted yet. Hope you guys voted! wink

...but yes, Obama is getting all the electoral votes.[/quoteee8469d11c]

cnn shows 800k + more votes for obama right now even tho that fluctuates every second, lol

I'm watching ABC, I like their touch screen and their NY Times Square conversion haha.

[quoteeb922876c8="EatChex89"]I'm watching ABC, I like their touch screen and their NY Times Square conversion haha.[/quoteeb922876c8]

lol doesn't beat that CNN McCain/Obama approval line during the debates. My friends and I joke about that line all the time. lol

EDIT

The race is surprisingly closer than I thought it would be in terms of popular vote.

and it appears Obama is going to get most of the electoral and be President by tonight.

[quote04c8365024="Veek"][quote04c8365024="EatChex89"]Yeah watch the increase of taxes go to help illegal aliens get health care. I don't believe in helping illegal aliens get free health care. Even if they are dying. Become a citizen first.[/quote04c8365024]

Are you for immigration reform?[/quote04c8365024]

No i'm just for legal citizenship.

[edit]OBama is the next projected president. You heard it here first.

http//www.kanyeuniversecity.com/client_images/kanyewest/3106_e06556a58fe1e90bc19264fce29d0bd0.jpg[" alt=""/imge4c0ff200e]

I'm so glad he got in. I was hoping for a change. roll

[quote4e4eddb9a0="EatChex89"][quote4e4eddb9a0="Veek"][quote4e4eddb9a0="EatChex89"]Yeah watch the increase of taxes go to help illegal aliens get health care. I don't believe in helping illegal aliens get free health care. Even if they are dying. Become a citizen first.[/quote4e4eddb9a0]

Are you for immigration reform?[/quote4e4eddb9a0]

No i'm just for legal citizenship.

[/quote4e4eddb9a0]

OIC...

[quoted8cf3e4f5e="TravMan162"]I'm so glad he got in. I was hoping for a change. roll[/quoted8cf3e4f5e]

Great 8) . Lets hope you do too lol twisted

[quotedb1743ad0f="TravMan162"]I just had a whole rant typed up and I deleted it because it doesn't matter people's minds are made up anyway but is there anyone voting for Obama for any reason besides the fact that he is "helping out the low-middle class?"

Because every single person I've heard that is voting for him is for one of three reasons

1.) he promises "hope" and "change" and gumdrops and candy canes,
2.) He's going to raise the upper class' taxes and "redistribute the wealth"
3.) He's "blackli".

Is anyone voting for any reason other than those, because I got news for you, #2 is a joke and it's going to do more harm than good. Does this guy have anything else going for him?


liOnly 1/16th black[/quotedb1743ad0f]

I completely agree.... And now that he has won, All I hear is the fact he is the first black president. People dont care about issues anymore. And point 2 that you brought up pisses me the Flilili off... What gives any person incentive to work and make over 250,000 if they will be taxed that much. America has turned from a hard-working, self-motivated country to a country who cries "give me, give me!" and think work is somehting they should not have to do.... We think we are so deserving when we deserve nothing. Were like a bunch of 8 year old's in wal-mart wanting everything for ourselves.

Your right, it doesnt matter. But I seriously think in 4 years your going to see that half of what Obama has promised will not be possible, or it will be broken and cause more disaster.

[quotedb1743ad0f="ajasax"]4) Sarah Palin[/quotedb1743ad0f]

And not voting for a better candidate because of his running mate is one of the most obsurd things I have heard.

Palin is Governer of Alaska which is the executive cheif possition. No, she has no Senate experience, however, the Senate is a completely differant branch of the government. Besides that, 4 years of National Senate Experience is hardly experience at all. McCain completely trumps Obama in that regard.

America has got their promises of gumdrops, but I dont think its going to work well at all.

[quotebe4d83aeae="phriq"]And not voting for a better candidate because of his running mate is one of the most obsurd things I have heard.

Palin is Governer of Alaska which is the executive cheif possition. No, she has no Senate experience, however, the Senate is a completely differant branch of the government. Besides that, 4 years of National Senate Experience is hardly experience at all. McCain completely trumps Obama in that regard.[/quotebe4d83aeae]

So McCain dies and you'd be fine with Palin as president? She's a complete idiot. Can't speak for herself and when she does she fucks something up.

Turns out she didn't even know that Africa was a continent. That's president material right there.

She also didn't know what countries were in NAFTA. North American Free Trade Agreement

And uhh, class what countries are considered North America? US, Mexico, and Canada. Time to run for VP everyone@

[quotec8bbcb0893="theysayjump"][quotec8bbcb0893="phriq"]And not voting for a better candidate because of his running mate is one of the most obsurd things I have heard.

Palin is Governer of Alaska which is the executive cheif possition. No, she has no Senate experience, however, the Senate is a completely differant branch of the government. Besides that, 4 years of National Senate Experience is hardly experience at all. McCain completely trumps Obama in that regard.[/quotec8bbcb0893]

So McCain dies and you'd be fine with Palin as president? She's a complete idiot. Can't speak for herself and when she does she fucks something up.

Turns out she didn't even know that Africa was a continent. That's president material right there.[/quotec8bbcb0893]

Okay let's be a little serious for at least a second, do you honestly believe that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent? roll I do believe some of the other claims though. I feel the high amount of pressure and mockery that resulted kind of left her angered?

[quoteb9196d3854="Iloveipods2"][quoteb9196d3854="theysayjump"][quoteb9196d3854="phriq"]And not voting for a better candidate because of his running mate is one of the most obsurd things I have heard.

Palin is Governer of Alaska which is the executive cheif possition. No, she has no Senate experience, however, the Senate is a completely differant branch of the government. Besides that, 4 years of National Senate Experience is hardly experience at all. McCain completely trumps Obama in that regard.[/quoteb9196d3854]

So McCain dies and you'd be fine with Palin as president? She's a complete idiot. Can't speak for herself and when she does she fucks something up.

Turns out she didn't even know that Africa was a continent. That's president material right there.[/quoteb9196d3854]

Okay let's be a little serious for at least a second, do you honestly believe that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent? roll I do believe some of the other claims though. I feel the high amount of pressure and mockery that resulted kind of left her angered?[/quoteb9196d3854]

yes, I honestly believe that, in part because it was reported by Fox News

[quoteb9196d3854]However, perhaps one of the most astounding and previously unknown tidbits about Sarah Palin has to do with her already dubious grasp of geography. According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency," in part because she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA, and she "didn't understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself."[/quoteb9196d3854]

The video is worth watching, because even BillO can't even defend Palin.
http//www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html

[quote18afc4276f="Iloveipods2"]
Okay let's be a little serious for at least a second, do you honestly believe that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent? roll I do believe some of the other claims though. I feel the high amount of pressure and mockery that resulted kind of left her angered?[/quote18afc4276f]

Well, I mean... http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUhRrzK6p0g

[quote9ecf5a5fdf="theysayjump"][quote9ecf5a5fdf="phriq"]And not voting for a better candidate because of his running mate is one of the most obsurd things I have heard.

Palin is Governer of Alaska which is the executive cheif possition. No, she has no Senate experience, however, the Senate is a completely differant branch of the government. Besides that, 4 years of National Senate Experience is hardly experience at all. McCain completely trumps Obama in that regard.[/quote9ecf5a5fdf]

So McCain dies and you'd be fine with Palin as president? She's a complete idiot. Can't speak for herself and when she does she fucks something up.

Turns out she didn't even know that Africa was a continent. That's president material right there.[/quote9ecf5a5fdf]
Looking at things now (and very recently) I will have to agree with you, Frank. At first I was excited about Palin as McCain's choice, I thought she energized the McCain campaign, which it really needed. I too felt that she had demonstrably greater executive experience than Obama, and one of the reasons McCain chose her is because she did inherit a corrupt political system in Alaska and manged to successfully turn it around for the most part. She's also wise to energy issues.

However it became apparent that her newfound celebrity had gone to her head. I think part of it had to do with how McCain's team handled her at first, but when she finally broke loose and started running her mouth, it became painfully apparent to me that she was swimming in the deep end for the first time without her floaties on. She ran Alaska well, but with blinders on to the rest of the world -- after all, she hardly needs to know much about Africa to do that job. She graduated college, was a successful and popular mayor, and apparently did well as governor, so I don't think she's a total idiot.

But she let things go to her head, channeled her enthusiasm and ego into totally wrong directions, and unfortunately McCain was shielded from much of this throughout the campaign. So I do believe that she cost McCain a number of votes, and considering how close the popular vote actually was, she might have even cost him the election. I think that's a choice that McCain is ultimately going to regret for a long time, if he's honest with himself. But again, it was typical of the type of "maverick" that McCain has always been. He doesn't do things according to the "old boy" rules of Washington politics, which is one the things I've always admired about him. It just happened to backfire on him this time...

[quote4d37418c3c="theysayjump"][quote4d37418c3c="phriq"]And not voting for a better candidate because of his running mate is one of the most obsurd things I have heard.

Palin is Governer of Alaska which is the executive cheif possition. No, she has no Senate experience, however, the Senate is a completely differant branch of the government. Besides that, 4 years of National Senate Experience is hardly experience at all. McCain completely trumps Obama in that regard.[/quote4d37418c3c]

So McCain dies and you'd be fine with Palin as president? She's a complete idiot. Can't speak for herself and when she does she fucks something up.

Turns out she didn't even know that Africa was a continent. That's president material right there.[/quote4d37418c3c]

And the same could hold true for Biden who thought that FDR was president during the start of the Great Depression and that he went on TV to talk about it.... people make mistakes.

And yes, I would be ok with Palin as our president.

Look, I'm a liberal, and an admitted Obama supporter, but you could ask a 2nd grader if Africa was a country, and they'd know the answer. The point is not that she didn't know, it's that she refused coaching and preparation; that sounds eerily like our current President.

[quote3e87b24897="phriq"]And the same could hold true for Biden who thought that FDR was president during the start of the Great Depression and that he went on TV to talk about it.... people make mistakes.

And yes, I would be ok with Palin as our president.[/quote3e87b24897]

I don't mean to be rude.... But you're high. I bet 98% of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you when FDR was president without looking it up. But not knowing Africa was a continent? Are you kidding me? These two aren't even comparable. Palin is dumber than a box of rocks. The only good thing about her is her looks. She's a terrible speaker, it reminds me of an elementary school teacher the way she talks. Maybe you would be OK with her as president. But I'm betting you are in a very, very small minority who believe that.

[quotefe597823f9="slambam"][quotefe597823f9="phriq"]And the same could hold true for Biden who thought that FDR was president during the start of the Great Depression and that he went on TV to talk about it.... people make mistakes.

And yes, I would be ok with Palin as our president.[/quotefe597823f9]

I don't mean to be rude.... But you're high. I bet 98% of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you when FDR was president without looking it up. But not knowing Africa was a continent? Are you kidding me? These two aren't even comparable. Palin is dumber than a box of rocks. The only good thing about her is her looks. She's a terrible speaker, it reminds me of an elementary school teacher the way she talks. Maybe you would be OK with her as president. But I'm betting you are in a very, very small minority who believe that.[/quotefe597823f9]

And those 98% of Americans are not trying to become president or vice-president are they?

Anyone with basic college history should know that FDR was the one with the "New Deal" and that was BECAUSE of the great depression. Is it wrong to hold our leaders to a higher accountability? They are the ones making decisions for the entire country.

Also he didn't just say that FDR was president in the great depression but that he spoke on TV. There were no TV's. FDR gave "Fireside Chats" over the RADIO; why? because TVs had just been invented and were not even commercially available yet.

Africa vs. FDR hmm what's worse? Come on get off your Republican bias. Forgetting when someone was president isn't as bad as the whole Africa thing. If you said Obama made a slip up, and it wasn't nearly as bad as McCain's I would admit it.

[quoteb511d9f923="slambam"][quoteb511d9f923="phriq"]And the same could hold true for Biden who thought that FDR was president during the start of the Great Depression and that he went on TV to talk about it.... people make mistakes.

And yes, I would be ok with Palin as our president.[/quoteb511d9f923]

I don't mean to be rude.... But you're high. I bet 98% of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you when FDR was president without looking it up. But not knowing Africa was a continent? Are you kidding me? These two aren't even comparable. Palin is dumber than a box of rocks. The only good thing about her is her looks. She's a terrible speaker, it reminds me of an elementary school teacher the way she talks. Maybe you would be OK with her as president. But I'm betting you are in a very, very small minority who believe that.[/quoteb511d9f923]

My history is correct. FDR was president from 1933 to 1945. In my original Statement I said the "start of the Great Depression". This in fact started in October 29, 1929 with the Stock Market Crash. Herbert Hoover was the President then. I also eluded to Biden claiming he went on television at this time as well. TV was not utilized and formally introduced till after that time as well.

Now, I would be willing to chalk Bidens misinformation to accidental error or stress from the race. But I would expect the same to be done for Palin as well.

In addition to your other comments. You only arguements have been she's dumb but has good looks. I hardly think that constitutes as reasoning. Secondly, Everyone claims Obama had a Landslide victory. However, they only look at the Electoral Votes. sure, by only those he did win by a Significant percentage, However, in popular vote, McCain was only 6 % behind. And lets face it, i would not feel real confident going into a new role as president if only 52 % of the nation voted for me. so your 98% i believe is off, because 46% voted for McCain, not 2.

[quotef343f12a3e="phriq"][quotef343f12a3e="slambam"][quotef343f12a3e="phriq"]And the same could hold true for Biden who thought that FDR was president during the start of the Great Depression and that he went on TV to talk about it.... people make mistakes.

And yes, I would be ok with Palin as our president.[/quotef343f12a3e]

I don't mean to be rude.... But you're high. I bet 98% of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you when FDR was president without looking it up. But not knowing Africa was a continent? Are you kidding me? These two aren't even comparable. Palin is dumber than a box of rocks. The only good thing about her is her looks. She's a terrible speaker, it reminds me of an elementary school teacher the way she talks. Maybe you would be OK with her as president. But I'm betting you are in a very, very small minority who believe that.[/quotef343f12a3e]

My history is correct. FDR was president from 1933 to 1945. In my original Statement I said the "start of the Great Depression". This in fact started in October 29, 1929 with the Stock Market Crash. Herbert Hoover was the President then. I also eluded to Biden claiming he went on television at this time as well. TV was not utilized and formally introduced till after that time as well.

Now, I would be willing to chalk Bidens misinformation to accidental error or stress from the race. But I would expect the same to be done for Palin as well.[/quotef343f12a3e]

To be fair to both of them we should attribute it to the stress of the campaign. I agree with that point.

[quotebf8bdfbeb6="Powerbook"][quotebf8bdfbeb6="phriq"][quotebf8bdfbeb6="slambam"][quotebf8bdfbeb6="phriq"]And the same could hold true for Biden who thought that FDR was president during the start of the Great Depression and that he went on TV to talk about it.... people make mistakes.

And yes, I would be ok with Palin as our president.[/quotebf8bdfbeb6]

I don't mean to be rude.... But you're high. I bet 98% of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you when FDR was president without looking it up. But not knowing Africa was a continent? Are you kidding me? These two aren't even comparable. Palin is dumber than a box of rocks. The only good thing about her is her looks. She's a terrible speaker, it reminds me of an elementary school teacher the way she talks. Maybe you would be OK with her as president. But I'm betting you are in a very, very small minority who believe that.[/quotebf8bdfbeb6]

My history is correct. FDR was president from 1933 to 1945. In my original Statement I said the "start of the Great Depression". This in fact started in October 29, 1929 with the Stock Market Crash. Herbert Hoover was the President then. I also eluded to Biden claiming he went on television at this time as well. TV was not utilized and formally introduced till after that time as well.

Now, I would be willing to chalk Bidens misinformation to accidental error or stress from the race. But I would expect the same to be done for Palin as well.[/quotebf8bdfbeb6]

To be fair to both of them we should attribute it to the stress of the campaign. I agree with that point.[/quotebf8bdfbeb6]

I agree. and I do agree with dmorris when he said that Palin may have been overly stressed or even had the fame get to her head. However, I do believe over a short time that would have faded and that she would have begun to do the same work in America that she has done with Alaska.

Regardless of any views we take, we all have to admit that this will be a interesting 4 years. and we are all americans.

^ Not Twon D

MSNBC Retracts False Palin Story; Others Duped

http//elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-false-palin-story-duped/

Interesting... the whole "Africa isn't a continent" thing was made up.

[quote16c5a8212c="CollidgeGraduit"]MSNBC Retracts False Palin Story; Others Duped

http//elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-false-palin-story-duped/

Interesting... the whole "Africa isn't a continent" thing was made up.[/quote16c5a8212c]

Gee, imagine that. A couple of disturbing points here

1. MSNBC.com has [b16c5a8212c]nothing[/b16c5a8212c] on their site about this. I did several searches for stories about Palin and Africa -- this was never mentioned. Gee, how's that for journalistic integrity?

2. The worst irony of all is that this hoax was perpetrated by a [b16c5a8212c]McCain policy adviser.[/b16c5a8212c]

I swear, as much as I like the man, McCain shot himself in the foot so many times during this campaign, I don't know how he can stand up. He needs to do a better job of unifying his own team.

BTW before taking FOXNews word for this, I verified the report as published by AP

http//ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiO_hn-5SfG9hdADHuRZ6hEDqNRAD94DQU5O0

I saw the first report on Fox News. The O'Reilly Factor of all places.

Although it's still really early, what do you guys think of what Obama's done so far and proposed so far? He seems to have done quite a bit but then I'm not sure if the media are just reporting every single little thing he does or not.

I like the guy, even though I didn't vote for him. It's obviously too early to judge success, but I like what I've seen far, for the most part. The man is charming as hell, he could sell ice to Eskimos. I just hope he hasn't sold us all on a pipe dream of "change."

- Gitmo needed something done. I'm not sure closing it outright is the best option, as there are still some serious bad guys in there who in my opinion should never see the light of day, let alone on US soil, but it is so tainted in the world view that it's going to be a serious blemish on our foreign policy recovery efforts. The issue now is what to do with the ones we can't release. And a lot we've been trying to release for a long time, but no other country wants to take them in.

- I liked his freeze of senior staff salaries and establishing ethics policies.

- So far I like what he's talking about doing with the other $350B of bail-out money. I also like how he put his foot down to his Dem colleagues in Congress even before inauguration, when he threatened to veto any legislation they tried to create to block it. That seemed to show them he won't be bullied around by anyone, not even his own party.

- I like that he is authorizing strikes in Afghanistan/Pakistan from the get-go. And as long as he maintains a reasonable withdrawal schedule for Iraq troops, I'm cool with that. He's wanting us to be out in 16 months. Not sure yet if that's entirely wise, but I'm leaning that way now that the Iraqi's are getting a little better at handling things themselves. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if we were most of the way there if Bush were still President 16 months from now. The Iraqis are asserting their sovereignty more and more, as was shown recently with their taking charge over lots of areas that had been controlled by allied troops, and setting timetables for foreign troop withdrawals themselves.

- Revoking the Reagan rule about not funding overseas family planning clinics that supported or counseled on abortions was to be expected. Clinton revoked it as well immediately after taking office, and the Bushes both reinstated it immediately. Just another one of those partisan black/white (or rather red/blue) issues that will probably continue to go back & forth like that for some time. However I have some reservations about sending funds to overseas family planning centers anyway -- nothing to do with the abortion issue, but due to the economic situation, we need to be taking care of our own right now before those in other countries.

- I hope he tackles immigration reform soon. This is one area where Bush had liberal views that I also supported, but he couldn't get it past his party, and there were enough Dem's that would automatically oppose anything Bush suggested that it didn't matter if the GOP liked it anyway. Maybe Obama will have better luck.

So he hasn't really done anything that I outright oppose so far. I can support him on most of his views that I'm aware of, but I do have a few concerns. Doing something foolish like, for instance, pushing draconian gun-control like the reinstatement of the Clinton AWB, unchanged from its original (retarded) form. Or punishing business and entrepreneurs with a heavy tax burden, pushing jobs and innovation overseas. I still can't reconcile how he promises to cut all the taxes for the middle-class while building up all the social programs his party is known for doing, without making a lot of upper-middle class bear a disproportionate burden. I'm all for proportionate tax liability, but not to point of punishment for success.

I'm enjoying the ride so far, I just kinda wish the media would get over its love affair mentality. Right now he could be eating dead babies for breakfast and the media would put a positive spin on it.