U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Strike For The South]

A vote for "Ron Paul" at this point is a vote for McCain, because I need to do my best to ensure McCain is defeated and the Iraq war comes to a close.

I can't surrender my support for Obama between McCain and Obama, and no realistic third party candidate. To do so would be staying neutral in the biggest election of my lifetime.

So the Iraq war is your biggest issue? Do you really think Obama will be able to draw back troops at the speed his says?

No man who votes stays neutral. A vote for Ron Paul is exactly that a vote for Paul. McCain doesnt get both.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Obama's plan, if I recall correctly, was an 18 month (estimated) withdrawl beginning as soon as he's elected.

The sooner, the better, but I can understand a slow withdrawl for safety's sake.



EDIT: Ron Paul will never get elected President. I could vote on principle, and the guy who I most strongly disagree with will get elected. I can't do that. On principle, I have to vote against McCain, and I can't vote for a longshot rival. I have to vote for Obama to do the biggest damage to McCain to ensure he doesn't get elected.

If I were a single-issue voter, it would be to end the Iraq war. But I'm not. At the same time, voting for Ron Paul is the same as voting for Mickey Mouse, because it will never happen.

You can vote for Ron Paul if you like. I will, should he become the Republican nominee in 201YourDreams.

[Don Corleone]

So if you're not a hard and fast Obama supporter, ATPG, you're just choosing the lesser of two evils, doesn't this flexible defintion of Middle Class (and hence, the tax hikes) worry you a bit? Or are you rich like TinCow and think it's good to raise taxes on everyone?

[Strike For The South]

Obama's plan, if I recall correctly, was an 18 month (estimated) withdrawl beginning as soon as he's elected.

The sooner, the better, but I can understand a slow withdrawl for safety's sake.

So remind me again how voting 3rd part is staying neutral. Especially when your about to vote for a man who is very far from conservatism :ears:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am a recently unemployed college student with no money, except the stuff I was earning from my job which I no longer have, which I use to pay for my own college education instead of leech off of the welfare state.

I am supporting Obama primarily because he's going to withdraw us from Iraq. Secondly, he's not Hillary Clinton.

Given the choice between Clinton and McCain, I'd shoot myself.

[Strike For The South]

EDIT: Ron Paul will never get elected President. I could vote on principle, and the guy who I most strongly disagree with will get elected. I can't do that. On principle, I have to vote against McCain, and I can't vote for a longshot rival. I have to vote for Obama to do the biggest damage to McCain to ensure he doesn't get elected.

If I were a single-issue voter, it would be to end the Iraq war. But I'm not. At the same time, voting for Ron Paul is the same as voting for Mickey Mouse, because it will never happen.

You can vote for Ron Paul if you like. I will, should he become the Republican nominee in 201YourDreams.

So why do you keep saying you're a conservative. McCain is not my dream choice and I wont vote for the man but he is certainly better than the messiah from a conservative view.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Filed under the category of "Let's break major campaign promises before the votes are even in" category, Joe Biden changed the defintion of middle class on 10/28 (for tax increases purposes) to household incomes of 150K. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523819032678157.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Today, Bill Richardson announced that it's down to 120K (http://beltwayblips.com/video/richardson_under_obama_those_that_make_120k_get_tax/).

Do I hear 90K? Do I hear 75K? Do I hear there are no tax cuts, and raises on every household that makes 70k a year or more? :yes:

I think people making over 80k a year are rich. 70k maybe, 60k is probably pushing it though.

[Don Corleone]

I think people making over 80k a year are rich. 70k maybe, 60k is probably pushing it though.

That's household income there chief. And trust me, when you make 80k, you definitely won't think you're rich.

Rich isn't "anybody who has more than me so I want somebody to take it away". Most people define it as upper x% of the salary scale.

[Strike For The South]

I think people making over 80k a year are rich. 70k maybe, 60k is probably pushing it though.

ok. I can tell you right now that people making 60-80k a year aren't trust fund babies who had everything handed to them. Many of them worked very hard for the life they have. Why should they pay more for people who cant be bothered with hard work. See thats the thing. I could stomach an increase if this were about the budget, if we cut out all the junk and still needed more cash to have the government run properly than yea I can see how a tax increase may be needed but its not. This man is the same man who gave out NINJA loans for christ sake. He wants to expand the epic clusterintercourse that is the federal government.

[Koga No Goshi]

Stop getting your "facts" from campaign ads.

And then you say:


What we do know is that Obama was completely wrong about the surge

Hello McCain talking point, haven't seen you since the debates.

Exactly how is McCain's support of one tactic proof of its genius as a leader when he was wrong on everything else? I might also add, the whole right was calling the Surge a Big Victory (tm) weeks and months before there were even any positive reports about any effect it was having. Total PR stunt.

[TinCow]

Or are you rich like TinCow and think it's good to raise taxes on everyone?

*ahem* I don't appreciate my words being mischaracterized. If you are going to use my views to insult someone else, at least do me the courtesy of stating them accurately.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sorry for doubting that but I do.

Fragony, this is one of the many comments you make when you stick your nose into U.S. politics that show you don't know crap from crayola.

If you think there are more people who will vote for a black guy BECAUSE he is black, than there are people who will vote for an old white guy because he's an old white guy, you must have overlooked the last 300 years of our history.

And to say none of us could possibly like Obama's platforms... when you live in a country that is significantly further to the left than the U.S. and Obama is like Europelite.... where do you get this stuff? Do you have some fantasy that the U.S. is entirely made up of super right wing Fragonyclones?

[Xiahou]

Obama's plan, if I recall correctly, was an 18 month (estimated) withdrawl beginning as soon as he's elected.

The sooner, the better, but I can understand a slow withdrawl for safety's sake.So, that puts him within a couple of months of the current status of forces agreement? A bold declaration on Obama's part.....

As I've said earlier, Obama's foreign policy could charitably be described as incoherent, being more realistic, it smacks of dishonesty and pandering. He's said pretty much whatever was popular with his audience at the time. I think it's interesting that your biggest complaint against McCain is his pandering, when Obama has done far more. At least McCain's positions have stayed consistent while he's played up rhetoric for the base.

Here's a fun one that I forgot to add to Obama's earlier list of foreign policy pandering:
In the primaries, Obama chastised Hillary for voting to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group- he called is "saber rattling" and a "blank check" for war. Before AIPAC, however, Obama sang a different tune:
And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.
He did even one better when he was questioned on it during a visit to Israel:
Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.Of course, Obama isn't on the Banking Committee (http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Information.Membership), but that doesn't stop him for claiming to be on it when in Israel and taking credit for the bill's passage out of committee. :dizzy2:

Let's also not forget how he railed against NAFTA in the primaries, while secretly telling the Canadian government to ignore his pandering rhetoric (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=293120).

[Askthepizzaguy]

So, that puts him within a couple of months of the current status of forces agreement? A bold declaration on Obama's part.....

He's been proposing timetables for withdrawl since before the Bush administration would even agree to say the word timetable out loud. Bush himself decried timetables since the war began, and on the brink of the election, Bush now decides a timetable, within a couple of months of the Obama proposal, is a good idea.

A bold declaration on Bush's part, to support a plan similar to Obama's and radically different from McCain's.


I think it's interesting that your biggest complaint against McCain is his pandering, when Obama has done far more. At least McCain's positions have stayed consistent while he's played up rhetoric for the base.

My biggest complaint against McCain is smearing and attacking Obama on subjects besides his platform, not pandering, which is basically required in order to be a politician on either side.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's household income there chief. And trust me, when you make 80k, you definitely won't think you're rich.

Rich isn't "anybody who has more than me so I want somebody to take it away". Most people define it as upper x% of the salary scale.

Don, it seems like you have bit, sink and swallowed the notion that your taxes are going to quintuple under Obama, and you're fearful of that. If that's the only real factor upon which you want to vote in this election, and you just want to hedge your bets and make absolutely sure you're going with the candidate least likely to raise a tax that could hit you, you're not 100% safe with McCain but I can see why you'd lean more that way.

But, I don't see why the rest of us should sit around defending theoretical scenarios where people making 60k, 70k or 80k are going to see huge tax increases, when we have to assume the candidates are lying for that to be the case. You're being a Joe The Plumber, the guy makes 40,000 and goes around saying Obama is going to raise his taxes. If you have that level of distrust that the candidates are being totally and wholly dishonest with you then I am not sure how you go about making a decision at all, except based on fears and suspicions, which seems to be the case for many of the people dreading an Obama presidency.

It is hard to address the "taxes" crowd because so much of it is in the vague and the vitriol. "I don't want my taxes going to people who don't pay" sort of business. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you subsidize oil corporations. You know, those businesses that posted 400 billion dollar quarterly profits in the last couple of years? A lot of your taxmoney goes to no-bid contracts to private entities doing questionable business in Iraq-- how much do you suppose that income is being taxed? Do we even know? ;) How many American businesses have taken tax incentives, loopholes or cuts and then outsourced jobs and directed A/R through the Caymans?

There's a lot of milking going around, but in the big scope of it, I'm suspicious of people who see it only as a bunch of nonworkers laying around living off taxmoney. We've had 8 years of nanny government, but not under Democrats, and not for "welfare people." It's been corporate nanny government.

I voted in every possible way imaginable against the Iraq War, with two votes against Bush and abstains on Democratic Congresspeople who voted for the war (there was no point in switching aisles as virtually all of the Republicans voted for it, or supported it.) Yet my tax money is going to pay for it, for years to come probably. If Dick Cheney showed up in cardiac distress on my doorstep I'd probably slam the door in his face, yet I've got tax money going to all kinds of special pet contract awards to companies he is tied to or big defense contractors who supported getting him and Bush into office.

The bill is coming due. Honestly, I think you have a vastly exaggerated notion of where taxes are going to be increased and on whom. You run away with these statements about "supporting someone who is going to raise taxes on everyone", which I think is false and alarmist. But, even if that were the case, the bill for 8 years of corporate darling government and tax cuts and two wars with no end in sight is coming due. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia own a lot of our debt. We've had a housing market crash, we've had almost constant job loss aside from temporary and small countertrends over the last 8 years, we've seen large increases in the cost of gas and food and basic items and the #1 cause of bankruptcy remains healthcare bills.

I get that you don't want to pay taxes. Let's just assume you are correct and you're going to be smacked with them, despite anything that weenie Obama says. How exactly do you feel we should reckon with the situation we're in? Hacking the government down to nothing but defense? We don't have a serious Libertarian candidate nor would I vote for one because I don't like the idea of having to get together with 20 of my neighbors to discuss defraying the cost of fixing the broken streetlight or the holes in the road, or paying $35,000 per year out of pocket for public college. What is the plan, exactly? I see people tossing around things like "lame duck" or "get the government gridlocked so it can't do anything." Do you believe these problems are going to fix themselves and go away if we just beat away the specter of taxation and bury our heads in the sand?

[Xiahou]

He's been proposing timetables for withdrawl since before the Bush administration would even agree to say the word timetable out loud. Bush himself decried timetables since the war began, and on the brink of the election, Bush now decides a timetable, within a couple of months of the Obama proposal, is a good idea.

A bold declaration on Bush's part, to support a plan similar to Obama's and radically different from McCain's.The status of forces agreement was passed by the Iraqis. Unless changes are made, the date will remain the same regardless of the president. Obama showed poor judgment in opposing the surge. His fellow Democrats had a press conference where they literally declared the war lost while troops were still fighting to win it and his plan would have had all troops out by last March. It's by now pretty obvious which plan was the wiser. It's the surge that Obama opposed, that will allow for withdrawals in the coming years.


My biggest complaint against McCain is smearing and attacking Obama on subjects besides his platform, not pandering, which is basically required in order to be a politician on either side.Obama has done worse than pandering- he's flat out lied. But at least he doesn't engage (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/a-different-mem.html) in smears (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ae409tJEI), right?

McCain has had a larger percentage of negative ads, but that's largely because Obama is so flush with cash that he can outspend McCain 5-1 or more. He can even afford half hour infomercials on all the major networks. Of course, he got all of this money after he proved himself a liar yet again after breaking the pledge he signed to accept public financing. Remember, buying the election is only bad if you're a Republican. :yes:

[Koga No Goshi]

The status of forces agreement was passed by the Iraqis. Unless changes are made, the date will remain the same regardless of the president. Obama showed poor judgment in opposing the surge. His fellow Democrats had a press conference where they literally declared the war lost and his plan would have had all troops out by last March. It's by now pretty obvious which plan was the wiser.


You are on extremely weak ground here. McCain showed poor judgment in supporting going into Iraq, supporting undermanning Afghanistan, supporting the WMD theory, supporting the flawed intelligence, picking Sarah Palin, cancelling his campaign to work on a bailout plan, saying the fundamentals of the economy were sound, defining middle class at around a million in income, saying he will help balance spending by cutting 18 billion in pork, saying we should stay in Iraq until we have "victory" with no one having ever defined what the heck constitutes victory, voting for the war, backing down and supporting the Bush/GOP stance on torture, losing a primary to the likes of George W Bush, owning 13 houses and claiming he didn't know exactly how many houses he had, crashing several planes (even during flight training), calling his wife the "C" word in front of reporters, saying he hates gooks publicly, singing a song about bombing Iran, etc. etc. etc.

But yes, Obama's an evil fool. He didn't reco'gnize the shocknawe of the Surge. Off with his head!

Edit: Add "running a campaign so bad that he is having to fight even in states Repbulicans take for granted", "running a negative campaign and ads and robocalls that turn off voters", "supporting a healthcare tax credit that will hack funding to medicare and may have cost him elderly Florida voters", etc. etc.

Yup nothing says good judgment like John McCain.

[woad&fangs]

Out of Curiosity, who would you guys put in your cabinet if you were elected president?

My List:

VP- Condoleezza Rice
State- Bill Richardson
Treasury- Mitt Romney
Defense- David Petraeus
Attorney General- Fred Thompson
Interior- ?
Agriculture- ?
Commerce- Warren Buffet
Labor- (merge with commerce)
Health and Human Services- Hillary Clinton
Housing and Urban Development- Paul Ryan
Transportation- ?
Energy- Barack Obama
Education- ?
Veteran Affairs- John McCain
Homeland Security-(merge with defense)


5 Reps
3 Dems
2 Unknown affiliations
4 ?s

[Koga No Goshi]

Out of Curiosity, who would you guys put in your cabinet if you were elected president?

My List:

VP- Askthepizzaguy (to get the pizza-eating vote)
State- Lemur
Treasury- Barack Obama
Defense- Tribesman
Attorney General- Tincow (lawyer aren't ye?)
Interior- Bopa the Magyar
Agriculture- PanzerJaeger, he looks like he lives in farmland in his gallery pics
Commerce- Don't know if anyone here owns businesses...
Labor- Sasaki Kojiro
Health and Human Services- Swedish Fish
Housing and Urban Development- DonCorleone
Transportation- (Any of you Europeans from countries with good transportation systems want it?)
Energy- Anyone but Fragony or Cheney
Education- Seamus Fermanaugh
Veteran Affairs- KukriKhan
Homeland Security-(changed to Department of Security for the Beloved Leader)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd go for security - after all, the Victonian National Front did a fairly good job at that. ~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obama is going to steel my children's food and sell it to buy Playstations for black prison inmates!!

:soapbox: The last time a Democrat was in the White House, the budget was so well balanced that your taxes could be lowered to a sustainable lower level.

Then the Republican Horde moved in.

This horde of locusts lowered your taxes by praying on your children. They mortgaged them to the Chinese communists. Some family values. This just to stay in power - they were too spineless to put the real choice before America: less spending, or higher taxes.

Eight years of endless tax breaks for America's billionaires. That's what Republican tax policy amounted to.
We've seen their worth over the last few months.
Oil prices at $150? They didn't blink an eye. Probably opened another bottle of champagne to celebrate record profits while the gas prices seriously ate away at your family budget.
Banking crisis? The million dollar bonuses had all been paid already. Let the Middle class clean up the mess with a trillion dollar in taxes bailout plan.
Financially crippling war in Iraq - paid for by the Middle Class? Most profitable for Bush' billionaire Blackwater owner and old college buddy.

Obama can restore a healthy budget while maintaining and lowering Middle Class taxes. By proven Democratic financial prudency. I say you get the gold-plated, diamond-studded Playstations back from Bush's billionaire buddies and sell it to pay for your children's education. That they may compete with the Chinese later in life - they are already up to their noses in debt to them as is. And McCain is quite willing to add a few trillion to your children's debt to help maintain the lifestyles of his nine figure net worth friends.

Maybe Obama is lying about tax breaks for the Middle Class. Maybe he can't pull it off. Maybe he isn't and maybe he can.
Certainly, I would prefer it over the candidate who openly admits that he is going to make America's Middle Class bend over backwards even more, and hopes to get away with it by employing lies, deceit and scare tactics to make those silly peasants believe otherwise.

[CountArach]

There is could and should, but also here and now. In my humble opinion people are too busy thinking about the ideal of Obama being the president rather then Obama actually being one. But this isn't therapy it's a country.
Fragony, could you please explain to me why the polls have shown that Obama's race is not important to the majority of Obama's voters.

Anyway, while Frag looks for that, it would appear that McCain's economic message is not getting through:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/taxes1.png

[Xiahou]

You are on extremely weak ground here. McCain showed poor judgment in supporting going into Iraq, supporting undermanning Afghanistan, supporting the WMD theory, supporting the flawed intelligence,That puts him in pretty good company then- right with most of the Democrats in Congress- including Pelosi, Reid, and, of course, Joe Biden. The difference is that they decided to oppose the war once it became politically unpopular, while McCain knew the importance of seeing it through. In what I'm sure you also consider more bad judgment, McCain said he'd rather lose an election than see the country lose a war. Obama, not being in federal office, didn't have to take any meaningful position on the war, but we can be pretty sure he would know better to than to take an unpopular position like that.
picking Sarah Palin, cancelling his campaign to work on a bailout plan,If Palin was bad judgement, shouldn't Biden at least cancel that out? He's been a disaster. Yes, suspending his campaign was a dumb stunt.
saying the fundamentals of the economy were sound,Yeah, he said that- wrapped around that comment were statements that we were in a financial turmoil and that we were in economically trying and difficult times. That sounds a little different when in context.
defining middle class at around a million in income,That was clearly a joke. He basically dodged the question- sort of like saying abortion is above your pay grade.
saying he will help balance spending by cutting 18 billion in pork,What's wrong with that?
backing down and supporting the Bush/GOP stance on torture, losing a primary to the likes of George W Bush, owning 13 houses and claiming he didn't know exactly how many houses he had, crashing several planes (even during flight training), calling his wife the "C" word in front of reporters, saying he hates gooks publicly, singing a song about bombing Iran, etc. etc. etc.Ah, now we're getting into the personal attacks that so many Obama supporters claim to deplore unless they're the one's employing them. Clearly he was an inept and stupid pilot- and that's why he ended up a POW. But, how is owning multiple houses bad judgment? Regardless, I don't see where any of this is a counter to Obama's repeated lies and questionable judgment.

*The racial epitaph is unjustifiable, even recognizing his POW traumas. He apologized for it, but if someone wants to hold that against him, they can.

[CountArach]

What's wrong with that?
I think the point is that $18 billion isn't enough.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Out of Curiosity, who would you guys put in your cabinet if you were elected president?This sounds fun. Me as president - at last, I should add - and:

VP - Banquo's Ghost. I can sell him as a trusted Irish-American. That'll project reliability to the masses. And US citizenship will force him to abandon title.
State - Seamus. Foreign affairs obviously demands a Francophone Secretary
Treasury - Don Corleone. Go get 'em, Don!
Defense - Xiahou. Hawkism moderated by sanity is the way to go.
Attorney General - EnglishAssassin. Eh, Common Law is Common Law.
Interior - Good ol' Beirut
Agriculture - Uh...John Mellencamp? Homegrown Indiana farmer boy.
Commerce - CountArach. He's good with numbers and knows what US enterprise needs right now.
Labor - JAG. About bloody time somebody put the 'u' in labor.
Health and Human Services - Hillary Clinton. Do it, girl!
Housing and Urban Development- Redleg for no apparant reason whatsoever
Transportation- Strike for the South. Got to squeeze my boy in somewhere. Here he'll hopefully do least damage.
Energy - Viking.
Education - Koga No Goshi. Hah! Not! Make that Devastating Dave instead.
Veteran Affairs - KukriKhan. That should work.
Homeland Security - Crazed Rabbit. Guns!
New: Secretary of Culture - Proletariat. Books!

[Koga No Goshi]

That puts him in pretty good company then- right with most of the Democrats in Congress- including Pelosi, Reid, and, of course, Joe Biden.

None of them are running for President so I fail to see your point as to how this makes McCain a good choice.


If Palin was bad judgement, shouldn't Biden at least cancel that out? He's been a disaster. Yes, suspending his campaign was a dumb stunt.

You're joking, right? Obama would have had to have picked Paris Hilton or something to cancel her out. I don't even need to get into how I can't stand Palin's stance on virtually everything to discredit her as a candidate. She has virtually no experience, she's an ex beauty queen who went to five colleges and got a degree in journalism, she said she can see Russia from Alaska and that makes her qualified to deal with foreign leaders, she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was and she couldn't name a single Supreme Court Case besides Roe V. Wade. We're supposed to believe this compares to Joe Biden's resume on ANY GROUNDS WHATSOEVER besides "Xiahou doesn't like his politics"... why?


Yeah, he said that- wrapped around that comment were statements that we were in a financial turmoil and that we were in economically trying and difficult times. That sounds a little different when in context.

He completely changed his message between 8 and 12 on the same day. "There are some problems but err um the fundamentals are sound" is a far cry from "OH MY GOD THE BOTTOM FELL OUT, THIS DEMANDS MY IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY ATTENTION!"


What's wrong with that?

The debt stands at 10 trillion and the cost of the Iraq War alone is 10 billion per month. Cutting 18 billion per year in pork is the single and only way McCain has even deigned to pretend he'd try to close the deficit.


Ah, now we're getting into the personal attacks that so many Obama supporters claim to deplore unless they're the one's employing them. Clearly he was an inept and stupid pilot- and that's why he ended up a POW. But, how is owning multiple houses bad judgment? Regardless, I don't see where any of this is a counter to Obama's repeated lies and questionable judgment.

The difference being, I don't have to look up someone McCain sort of knew kinda, several years back, who sat next to him on a bus one time to make any of these criticisms. :) And, you were the one who started the poor judgment discussion. If Obama had served in the national guard and crashed three tanks into freeway pylons somehow I think that would be a running joke amongst every single Republican. We've just been classy enough not to make McCain's "war record" part of the campaign, even though there's WAY more to destroy him with using sleaze tactics than you guys had when you launched your character assasination on Kerry's war record.

By the way, you defended McCain... yet again... by attacking Democrats. Aren't you able to think up anything in his favor, whatsoever, besides "um he said the surge would work"?

[Koga No Goshi]

This sounds fun. Me as president - at last, I should add - and:
Education - Koga No Goshi. Hah! Not! Make that Devastating Dave instead.


This makes me sound like I'm anti-education or something. :inquisitive:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not at all.

I just think that Devastating Dave will have a more moderate impact on the impressionable minds of young Americans. ~;)

I will also centralise America and abandon states rights. And I'll abolish Canada. Then I'll redraw the map and create new states. You I will make governor of the state of Commie Coast: BC, Wa, Or, Northern Cali. Then you get to rule with an iron fist over Crazed Rabbit and turn him into a hippie peacenik.

(By which I mean to say: don't take all of it too seriously. It's just random nonsense. If you were called Pol, I'd name you Secretary of Pot and all that. )

[Don Corleone]

I know from personal experience that 39% is perfectly affordable for anyone with enough income to be in the top tax bracket. Trust me, my personal economic outlook is far better under the Republicans than it is under the Democrats. My taxes will go up under Obama, but I'm not complaining because I know I can afford it. I know plenty of people who will qualify for that 39% bracket and trust me, not a single one of them will be defaulting on a mortgage or struggling in any way. Even without the absurd number of tax deductions available in the current tax code, anyone who can't live on $152k per year (61% of $250k) is seriously mismanaging their expenditures.

I'm sorry, TinCow, you're correct. I was not remembering your comment in the context in which it was conveyed. I humbly apologize. :bow:

Now, let me ask you, knowing what you know of housing... do you think a family can live on 39% of their gross income when that gross is only 120K? Do you think that Biden and Richardson are correct, that we need to treat a household of 120K as the 'wealthy' and hit them with that 39% federal income tax, a 12% social security tax, a 5% government retirement account mandatory contribution, a 6% state income tax, not to mention sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes on anything they own and taxes on their phone, power, cable, and other utilities. They say say that you should allow about 28% for your residence. How much does that leave for lavish luxuries like heat, gasoline and utilities?

[Xiahou]

By the way, you defended McCain... yet again... by attacking Democrats. Aren't you able to think up anything in his favor, whatsoever, besides "um he said the surge would work"?And you defended Obama by attacking (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2051475&postcount=4269) McCain. Congratulations. :laugh4:

As I've said, McCain isn't my first choice. Had Hillary been nominated instead, I would've most likely voted third party. At least she managed to show some consistency and dare I say integrity on foreign policy. I have no reason at all to trust anything Obama says and all I'm left with is a short resume, a decidedly liberal voting record and a lot of empty speeches. :no:

[Don Corleone]

Obama is going to steel my children's food and sell it to buy Playstations for black prison inmates!!


The last time a Democrat was in the White House, the budget was so well balanced that your taxes could be lowered to a sustainable lower level.

Then the Republican Horde moved in.

This horde of locusts lowered your taxes by praying on your children. They mortgaged them to the Chinese communists. Some family values. This just to stay in power - they were too spineless to put the real choice before America: less spending, or higher taxes.

Eight years of endless tax breaks for America's billionaires. That's what Republican tax policy amounted to.
We've seen their worth over the last few months.
Oil prices at $150? They didn't blink an eye. Probably opened another bottle of champagne to celebrate record profits while the gas prices seriously ate away at your family budget.
Banking crisis? The million dollar bonuses had all been paid already. Let the Middle class clean up the mess with a trillion dollar in taxes bailout plan.
Financially crippling war in Iraq - paid for by the Middle Class? Most profitable for Bush' billionaire Blackwater owner and old college buddy.

Obama can restore a healthy budget while maintaining and lowering Middle Class taxes. By proven Democratic financial prudency. I say you get the gold-plated, diamond-studded Playstations back from Bush's billionaire buddies and sell it to pay for your children's education. That they may compete with the Chinese later in life - they are already up to their noses in debt to them as is. And McCain is quite willing to add a few trillion to your children's debt to help maintain the lifestyles of his nine figure net worth friends.

Maybe Obama is lying about tax breaks for the Middle Class. Maybe he can't pull it off. Maybe he isn't and maybe he can.
Certainly, I would prefer it over the candidate who openly admits that he is going to make America's Middle Class bend over backwards even more, and hopes to get away with it by employing lies, deceit and scare tactics to make those silly peasants believe otherwise.

First off, Obama has gotten record numbers by promising a tax cut to everyone making 250K a year or less. As it gets closer to the election date, we hear that modulated by "but we'll have to take your 401k plan", and "maybe 150k", "maybe 120K", or from Barney Frank "maybe everyone should pay more taxes, from the bottom up". You see, I'm not against Obama, per se. I'm against the tidal wave that's coming my way: a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate, a Democratic House, Democratic White House, majority of states with Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors. Put it all together and what have you got. As I've said several times, Obama himself may mean what he says. Doesn't matter, it's always easier to say no to to the opposition than your own party.

As for Clinton balancing the budget, he did it with a Republican Congress writing his budget for him, and they frequently shut down government because he didn't want to cut spending.

Finally, I'm many things, but a racist isn't one of them. Perhaps I should take a break from discussing politics for a while, I think I'm getting a little too into it, and if all you hear from what I said is that I hate black inmates (don't remember saying anything about anybody's race though), I'm clearly not communicating very well.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry, TinCow, you're correct. I was not remembering your comment in the context in which it was conveyed. I humbly apologize. :bow:

Now, let me ask you, knowing what you know of housing... do you think a family can live on 39% of their gross income when that gross is only 120K?

You mean 61%, don't you?


And you defended Obama by attacking McCain. Congratulations.

As I've said, McCain isn't my first choice. Had Hillary been nominated instead, I would've most likely voted third party. At least she managed to show some consistency and dare I say integrity on foreign policy. I have no reason at all to trust anything Obama says and all I'm left with is a short resume, a decidedly liberal voting record and a lot of empty speeches.

Not at all, it is your side of the aisle making the sarcastic comments and dread predictions about how bad Obama would be, and/or mocking people as totally brainless or without any rational reason if they're for Obama. Several of the forumers voting for Obama, including Askthepizzaguy and others, gave lengthy explanations as to why they are voting Obama. Everyone ducked Pizza's challenge for someone to give a similar rationale for why McCain is a good President---- and instead all we got was PJ saying "there are reasons, I don't have time to debate them" basically, and the rest of you just continuing to say Obama is sooooo bad, taxes will go up, or oh look at this link about loonie Dem fringe.

McCain was right about the surge, in your opinion. In what other way is he a good candidate? Is he small government? Is he a fiscal conservative? Is he a Constitution defender? Does he have a great plan for where to lead the nation over the next four years?

Or is he just not a scary-named black guy who might raise taxes? Where's your rational reason? If you want to toss around vague characterizations of everyone voting Obama as just a non thinking victim of personality cult, when not one of you can put forward a proactive argument for voting McCain, then sit down and put a sock in it please.

[Xiahou]

Or is he just not a scary-named black guy who might raise taxes? Where's your rational reason? If you want to toss around vague characterizations of everyone voting Obama as just a non thinking victim of personality cult, when not one of you can put forward a proactive argument for voting McCain, then sit down and put a sock in it please.Get over yourself- this is pathetic. Show me where I've done what you're charging or you put a sock in it. It's sad that you've got nowhere left to go but strawmen and accusations of racism. It's really astonishing....

[Don Corleone]

You mean 61%, don't you?.

Not when you add in all the other taxes we pay: Social Security, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, utilities taxes and all the other taxes we pay.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Case FOR John McCain:

McCain has demonstrated, repeatedly, his willingness to focus on problems and resolve them. He does this regardless of party affiliation and without seeking to redesign the wheel. For example, McCain was instrumental in the normalizing of relations with Vietnam, concluding that it was time to let the past be the past and create a working relationship which was beneficial to both nations. If anyone had a right to hold a grudge, it was he. He pushed past that and worked to bring about normalization. As a leader in the Gang of 14, he worked to preserve what he considered an important aspect of Senate procedure -- the filibuster -- while pushing for nominees to be considered and reviewed as quickly as possible. He ignored the standard party mantras on campaign financing and worked to craft campaign finance laws that minimized the impact of corporate monies and political action committees. McCain was among the first to seek better oversight/business practices from the Fannie and Freddie corporations, years before the incident reached meltdown (his effort was defeated). McCain isn't much of a conservative on many issues, but he does seek to resolve problems and prefers solutions that aren't high cost in reaching those goals.

On foreign policy, McCain has playe a role in international discussions and been involved in normalization of relations with Vietnam, discussions on Mexican-US relations, and defense and security concerns for more than a decade. McCain enjoys a high degree of credibility with the US military. He does not have a reputation for weakness or appeasement -- good characteristics at any time -- but equally he does not have the reputation of being a warmonger. He has supported military action on several occasions, but has often criticized decisions to use force. Once they're deployed, however, McCain is very solid about supporting the troops and maximizing their chances for victory. He would pursue the war on terror, though probably with a different tone of operations, and would not let up pressure on Al Queda and its support networks. McCain would, however, bring a different tone to the process. He has been outspoken in his criticism of harsh interrogation measures and has asserted that greater coordination with our traditional allies would be part of his approach.

He is also intensely aware of what its like to be broken -- to face real harship and to know that you, by yourself, were incapable of besting that situation. He may have been a hot-shot aviator, but he learned that he didn't have all the answers -- but that answers could be found working with others and by sticking persistently to your focus on the common problem.

I'm not McCain's biggest fan -- many of his choices conflict with my view of what's appropriate for America as he is NOT a dyed in the wool conservative -- but McCain fixes his mind on a problem and works to get a resolution to happen. We could do a lot worse.

[Redleg]

When discussing tax rates one should break it down and take a look at the complete picture of how it effects any one income tax group.

Okay lets look at the current tax rate for the group that income tax seems to be adjusting downward the income rate of 129,000 to 195,000, which is an adjust income based upon one's deducations.

Currently this group pays 28% of thier adjusted income to taxes, this is indeed the adjust income tax rate taken from the IRS.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

Now add Social Security which while has a cap at 100K for 2008, it still equates to about 5 % +/- 1%.

http://complianceconnection.adp.com/Toolbox/FederalTaxes/SocialSecurityTaxSchedule.aspx

Medicare which is somewhere around 1.45% last time I looked.


What this means is that the total income tax rate taken by the Federal government on this income group is 34% currently.

Now add individual state income taxes which vary but an conservative average for this group would also around 5% +/- 3% depending on the state.

So on the adjust income the tax rate is approaching 39% under the current income tax structure.

Now lets add sales tax which just about everyone pays on the goods and services that they buy, now this is often done at the county level - but it from my experience it seems to average out above 7.5% so for sake of arguement lets just call it 7%. Now this will only be taken when people spend money on daily and montly expenses outside of credit payments alreadly made. So when adding it to the calculation for how it effects the income - we should be very conversative and say 2% or less of income is paid into sales tax. For the sake of arguement lets just say 1% for this examble.

This brings our tax rate on income to 40%.

Now add the property tax this income bracket will often have on the ownership of real property - ie their house. Now this tax is often just paid to the individual's county but it is a tax in itself.

So on average for sake of arguement we can say that they own a house of appoximate value of $200,000, now this is a low figure because if this was a Kansas House - it would cost several times more in say California or even New Yord City. Most counties that I have lived in have a property tax of about 1.8% of the value of the house. When you include it in the taxes paid for the year we can take that tax rate and pretty much straight apply it to the income - so in this examble the tax rate compared to income could be said to be 2 to 3%. I will call it 2%.

So now the tax rate compared to income for this income group is approaching 42% of their adjust gross income. Now depending on how well they itemize their deducations, their income rate can be adjusted down rougly 1/5 of the current rate. So when we take a fifth out the adjust rate to factor in the total income of the individual the tax rate come out to be about 34%.

So what does that mean - it means that this income group is alreadly paying a third of their income in taxes.

Now some would call these individual rich - but they are not by any means wealthy, just in the upper 20% of the income earners in the nation.

Now when we look at the debt the United States has taken on, it easy to see that any promise by a canidate to cut taxes begins to fall flat on its face on reality, this wage group will not see an income tax cute, more then likely they will see an increase in their taxes.

Now the next group will also be hit pretty much in the same way when one begins to look at the actual numbers based upon the individuals income. So the income group of about 68,000 to 129,000 which has pretty much of the same precentages of the previous group except they have a 3% lower federal income tax rate. This means that the current tax rate for this group is roughly 31% of total income.

Again looking at the reality of the current Federal Budget - I do not see how a income tax cut will be happening for this group in all reality, since if I remember the income group correctly when compared to the total populaton this income group represents can roughy be assumed to be in the upper 35% of wage earners. So yep I believe both candiates are not telling the truth when they mention tax cutes regardless of which income group they are talking about.

Okay for the group that both sides are activitily trying to convince that they will receive a tax cut, the income group of $30,000 to appoximately $68,000. their current federal tax rate is 15%, and their property taxes average out slightly higher compared to income around 8% because they are often in houses valued at around $100K depending of course in where they fall in this income group. So for arguement sake we can assume an average of 5% of income. So their current combined tax rate equates to about 24 to 26% of income. A megar tax cut of 1% will mean a lot to this group because it buts anywhere from $300 to $600 dollars a year back into their pocket. But in reality I think this is also misleading since the State governments that have income tax are facing budget issues also, so while the Federal Government might not tax them - the state governments might. So now we have addressed roughly 60 to 70% of the population that have income and this group in total pays somewhere around 95% or better of all income tax paid.


So yes Koga both candidates are misleading the people about tax cuts, the current economic and public debt assumed by the government does not equate to a reasonable expectation of a cut on income tax. A reasonable expectation would be to see a tax increase to pay the debt. Coupled with statements about increasing the scope in which the government insures the health and welfare of the people, a reasonable assumption would be to see a tax increase to pay for not only the current debt, but also future promised services that the government will provide if the candidate gets his programs through congress.

So while I would like to see an income tax cut on my portion of the income tax - I dont have a reasonable expectation of actually seeing a tax cut, in fact I can safely assume that this is a standard campaign ploy to garner votes, but one that neither candidate can expect to actually accomplish once they begin to actually deal with the budget. I find both candidates misleading since both have at least voted or had the opporunity to vote on the national budget at least once in their political careers.

What I must evaluate is which candidate I believe will provide the best course of action for the country and will actually lead us out of the economic crisis, and political situations the nation is currently entangled in.

[KukriKhan]

Gentlemen.

Less than 100 hours remain until the US actually decides who will be the next POTUS.

Let us not engage in words that might close this thread because of personal attacks.

Passions are high. Philosophies are at stake. The direction of America the next four years are at issue.

Diversity of opinion is a good thing, and encouraged. Please... allow your fellow posters the personal respect he/she deserves for having thought through the issues and candidates of their choice.

Doing otherwise brings closure, and warnings, and unnecessarily hurt feelings.

:bow:

[Proletariat]

Where'd you get that post from, Kukri? The toilet store?

:furious3::furious3::furious3:

[KukriKhan]

Where'd you get that post from, Kukri? The toilet store?

:furious3::furious3::furious3:

Heehee. Just because I wrote you in on my ballot...

[CountArach]

Commerce - CountArach. He's good with numbers and knows what US enterprise needs right now.
:laugh4:

Oh the irony.

[KukriKhan]

:laugh4:

Oh the irony.

We can only hope you're also good at the gold-y, silver-y, copper-y, and paper-y. :laugh4:

[CountArach]

We can only hope you're also good at the gold-y, silver-y, copper-y, and paper-y. :laugh4:
:laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

So yes Koga both candidates are misleading the people about tax cuts, the current economic and public debt assumed by the government does not equate to a reasonable expectation of a cut on income tax.

Redleg, first off, well thought out post.

However, I think that factoring in things like sales tax, which vary from state to state, and which no candidate will be summarily raising across all states, is a bit of an off-topic bit of information to bring in when we are discussing their tax plans. California, for instance, has an 8.25% sales tax rate which has been around for years, and that is likely to go up because of rather severe state level deficit problems. However if my sales tax rate jumps to 9% or 9.5% next year, that is something between me and Sacramento, not something evil Obama did to raise my taxes. Our state financial problems have long preceded the Presidential campaign.

Second off, I do not believe anyone has been going around telling people you will get a calculated x in income tax cuts under Obama. It's been pretty much the opposite, a slew of doomsday scenarios either where people just say their taxes are going to go up (under unspecified circumstances and unspecified levels of increase) to wild accusations unsupportable from a comparison of all non-speculative information about the candidates that retirement accounts are going to be seized, gutted or nationalized, that there are really all kinds of secret built-in back doors so that "actually" someone making 60 or 70k is going to be taxed like someone making 250k, etc. etc. etc.

I think the only point "my side of the aisle" has been making on that topic is, that when choosing between the candidates, screaming that the world is ending and taxes are going to be smacked up the wazoo under Obama is completely untrue for a very large majority of us-- unless the denizens of this forum are vastly better paid than a normal cross section of the U.S. population.

[Koga No Goshi]

From Seamus:

The Case FOR John McCain:

McCain has demonstrated, repeatedly, his willingness to focus on problems and resolve them. He does this regardless of party affiliation and without seeking to redesign the wheel. For example, McCain was instrumental in the normalizing of relations with Vietnam, concluding that it was time to let the past be the past and create a working relationship which was beneficial to both nations. If anyone had a right to hold a grudge, it was he. He pushed past that and worked to bring about normalization. As a leader in the Gang of 14, he worked to preserve what he considered an important aspect of Senate procedure -- the filibuster -- while pushing for nominees to be considered and reviewed as quickly as possible. He ignored the standard party mantras on campaign financing and worked to craft campaign finance laws that minimized the impact of corporate monies and political action committees. McCain was among the first to seek better oversight/business practices from the Fannie and Freddie corporations, years before the incident reached meltdown (his effort was defeated). McCain isn't much of a conservative on many issues, but he does seek to resolve problems and prefers solutions that aren't high cost in reaching those goals.

On foreign policy, McCain has playe a role in international discussions and been involved in normalization of relations with Vietnam, discussions on Mexican-US relations, and defense and security concerns for more than a decade. McCain enjoys a high degree of credibility with the US military. He does not have a reputation for weakness or appeasement -- good characteristics at any time -- but equally he does not have the reputation of being a warmonger. He has supported military action on several occasions, but has often criticized decisions to use force. Once they're deployed, however, McCain is very solid about supporting the troops and maximizing their chances for victory. He would pursue the war on terror, though probably with a different tone of operations, and would not let up pressure on Al Queda and its support networks. McCain would, however, bring a different tone to the process. He has been outspoken in his criticism of harsh interrogation measures and has asserted that greater coordination with our traditional allies would be part of his approach.

He is also intensely aware of what its like to be broken -- to face real harship and to know that you, by yourself, were incapable of besting that situation. He may have been a hot-shot aviator, but he learned that he didn't have all the answers -- but that answers could be found working with others and by sticking persistently to your focus on the common problem.

I'm not McCain's biggest fan -- many of his choices conflict with my view of what's appropriate for America as he is NOT a dyed in the wool conservative -- but McCain fixes his mind on a problem and works to get a resolution to happen. We could do a lot worse.

Seamus,

Thanks for (finally!) a proactive support of McCain instead of a derision of the "mindlessness" of anyone supporting Obama. ;)

I can't really say anything you said was at all wrong, though I think (as someone who is not a McCain supporter, naturally) that a lot of the things you give him credit for are just qualities of good politicians, period, and are qualities in relative abundance across the parties (such as both Obama and Biden working across the aisle on many issues.) The one nitpick I would make is that McCain's wholehearted endorsement of Iraq calls into question not his dedication to the troops per se, but the credibility with which one can cast a vote in confidence that he is not going to run our foreign policy regarding terrorism in an identical mold to the Bush Administration. In that regard, voting for him is very much a leap of faith; there is little to go on besides his somewhat late-game retooling of his campaign as trying to swipe the "change" title and saying things will be different, but not necessarily giving many details in the "how" department, especially regarding Iraq, where in the debates, he failed to say much other than "bringing the troops home with victory."

I think your argument is quite rational and realistic. I would submit though (not to you personally, but as a general statement regarding the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread) that nearly everything you said about McCain, is equally the reasons many people are supporting Obama. We might repaint the qualities a little and call them "temperament", "character", "calm headedness", "clear headedness" etc., but we're basically talking about the same "go in, work on a problem and resolve it, putting aside party if you have to, and don't do rash destructive things" qualities we want in a candidate.

I would add also that in the case of Obama, he espouses not just a temperament or personality but a vision and message that many Americans actually believe in-- we're not just defending it because it comes out of Obama's mouth, but because (many of us-- not all) are progressives who've lived under 8 years of an admin about as regressive on every issue important to us as you could dream up. Long-neglected problems in our society like healthcare and education and outsourcing, which few people up until now have been willing to really do anything about other than use them as carrots on a stick or try to turn them into new millennia wedge issues, are finally being talked about in a big and direct way, with actual plans to back them up. And throw in a lot of conservatives or Independents who, while not really enamored completely with either major party's platform or ideology, simply feel that we've spent 8 years spending a lot (effort, money, manpower, political capital) on things that haven't worked out very well for most people, and little to nothing on things that affect a lot of everyday people's livelihoods or opportunity and quality of life.

So, to make a long story short, I wish that everyone would look to Seamus's post as a model of how we can talk about our disagreements.... instead of "pfft, you're clearly just brainwashed to support that guy and you will defend anything that comes out of his mouth." IMHO it makes the person saying that look bad, and completely urinates on the level of discussion.

[Tribesman]

The status of forces agreement was passed by the Iraqis.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Wow someone likes to invent "facts" don't they Xiahou .
The status of forces agreement has not been passed, in fact they still havn't agreed on a final draft to put to the legislature to see if they will pass it .

[Banquo's Ghost]

Seamus, your post was a thoughtful and excellent argument for Senator McCain.

Obviously, I have no vote in this election, but those are most of the reasons why, in the early stages, I would have considered putting my support in his direction (had I said vote).

Unfortunately, two decisions - one chronic, one acute - made me change my mind. The former is that Senator McCain has not run as himself. He has allowed his essential decency and "difference" to be hijacked by the worst of the Republican party machine. His campaign has been shameful in the way it has occluded his great strengths, enumerated in your post, to pander to the lowest denominator of the "base". (How delicious it is to describe the repulsively anti-intellectual wing of the Republican party as "the Base" and have them think it a compliment).

He has, in effect, committed the sin of many military men - he has fought the last war. The 2004 campaign was about splitting America even more deeply by mobilising the Base and frightening enough of the other citizens to tip the scales. This election has seen the citizenry quite frightened enough, and heartily tired of division. McCain was exactly the right man to choose for such a mood - as we all recognise, had the GOP chosen any other nominee the election would have been over months ago.

But he was advised to run the Bush campaign of 2004. To pander to the ever shrinking group that think the United States are about fear rather than hope. Despite this, his essential strengths have shone through enough times to keep him in touching distance of the White House - an incredible feat that deserves some honour.

His acute mistake was rooted in this campaign error. The choice of Sarah Palin was monumentally foolish. The America she believes she owns as "real" is a withering rump. It is an America that believes in regulating people's morals rather than their hopes. It "thinks" in monosyllables and assesses a leader's worth in terms of his ability to share a beer. It is the America of Other, of Division, of McCarthyism. It is an America that has often existed in history, but like Frankenstein, Bush dug it up and re-animated its rotting corpse for his own ends; and the Monster has ravaged many an innocent in its incoherent rage. The citizens have finally seen that twisted visage now representing their nobility, their ideals, their liberties and they wish to see it consigned back to Hell.

Senator McCain would be just the man to do it, but he has allowed himself advice that casts him as the electrical contractor come to fix the mains. He has chosen a running mate whose only appeal is to put lipstick on the Monster in order to make the sloughing flesh more appealing. Senator Obama meanwhile, is leading the mob of villagers and provided them with torches.

I understand from various sources that McCain wanted to choose Senator Lieberman as his vice-presidential choice. This would have been typically brave of the man, and had he done so, I suspect the polls would be right the other way round now. He would have cast himself as the healer he undoubtedly is, and underlined the truth that split government - a bipartisan Republican president with a Democratic Congress - is the American way, and historically the most effective form of that country's government. The pygmies around him could not countenance it however, for what would the Base think?

He was persuaded to choose division and a woman so clearly unsuited for office it would be hard to caricature further. He was persuaded to run a campaign utterly counter to his own beliefs and strengths.

A man so easily persuaded to make cardinal errors against his own values and judgement is not a man to be President. That is why he should not be elected, in my opinion.

The great tragedy for Senator McCain and the world is that he was amongst the first victims of the Monster back in 2000. This time he has embraced it willingly, and it carries him to another doom.

Had he been elected president in that fateful year, both America and the world would have been different places, and I suspect he would be about to retire as one of the greatest and most well-loved presidents of history. Such is Fate's whim.

[Gregoshi]

Nice posts by Seamus and BG regarding McCain. Seamus' describes what I'd hoped for McCain. Unfortunately, BG's - in words much better and clearer than I could have composed - describes how I feel about McCain after his dreadful campaign. Thank you gentlemen. :bow:

[Redleg]

Redleg, first off, well thought out post.

However, I think that factoring in things like sales tax, which vary from state to state, and which no candidate will be summarily raising across all states, is a bit of an off-topic bit of information to bring in when we are discussing their tax plans. California, for instance, has an 8.25% sales tax rate which has been around for years, and that is likely to go up because of rather severe state level deficit problems. However if my sales tax rate jumps to 9% or 9.5% next year, that is something between me and Sacramento, not something evil Obama did to raise my taxes. Our state financial problems have long preceded the Presidential campaign.

Actual I believe it is on topic, because it has an impact upon how people have to spend what income they do have, and is a tax that is collected by a government that has direct impact on the individual. Yes the President does not have any influence on sales tax, but you can not deny that it is a tax that has to be paid, and has an overall effect on the individual.

So when speaking of how people are taxed by the different levels of government - it has to be considered into the equation. You can disagree, but to do so seems wrong because I am trying to paint a picture of how all taxes impact on our income regardless of our income bracket.

I do see your problem because not all is controlled by the Federal government in wanting to use this type of calculation, but I am speaking of a total tax rate, not just what the federal government controls. The reason for this is to show what a percentage point increase does to the average american regradless of their income.

In fact because of the shortfalls in income to many city, county, and state governments because of the economic situation I beleive that the people making less then 30K will be hit hard by the local governments in the increase of taxes that will be coming from that direction because of the economy



Second off, I do not believe anyone has been going around telling people you will get a calculated x in income tax cuts under Obama. It's been pretty much the opposite, a slew of doomsday scenarios either where people just say their taxes are going to go up (under unspecified circumstances and unspecified levels of increase) to wild accusations unsupportable from a comparison of all non-speculative information about the candidates that retirement accounts are going to be seized, gutted or nationalized, that there are really all kinds of secret built-in back doors so that "actually" someone making 60 or 70k is going to be taxed like someone making 250k, etc. etc. etc.

Neither candidate has made a campaign based upon raising taxes, which is my point. However when one looks at what the government has to spend over the next four years, one can assume from that, that the Federal government is going to have to raise taxes. If an individual understands how income is taxed, and at what levels - one can figure out that the groups that pay over 95% of the current income tax will have a tax increase unless the government finds another way to increase the intake of funds to pay for the outlays.

All other means of gathering inlays also have an impact on the average american weather it is direct or indirect. Income tax is the main direct impact.

Now I dont like the negative campaign McCain is running about the taxes under Obama, because he has also campaigned on lower our taxes. It makes him a hypocrit, because he is also promising to increase government services to the people, but is not explaining how it will be paid for.

So once again I have to say that both candidates are incorrect in thier campaign promises to lower taxes, and are doing it to gain votes. The Republicans will use scare tactic more so then the Democrats regarding this issue which I believe is you point. But I dont believe either candidate will actually lower taxes, and my own analysis is that the govenment has no choice but to raise taxes. Hopefully its only 1 or 2 percent of income, but it can be as high as 5 or 6% for all income groups that end up with an adjust income of over 30K.




I think the only point "my side of the aisle" has been making on that topic is, that when choosing between the candidates, screaming that the world is ending and taxes are going to be smacked up the wazoo under Obama is completely untrue for a very large majority of us-- unless the denizens of this forum are vastly better paid than a normal cross section of the U.S. population.

Well the current tax structure and studies I have seen indicate that just under 40% of the population makes less the 30K in adjust gross income that meets the criteria for above 15% income tax. This is the group I believe both will attempt to prevent from seeing an increase in taxes.

The remaining groups will not be safe from a tax increase in my humble opinion, I do believe they will attempt to limit the impact on the two income groups lower then 128K under the current tax scheme to less then a 2%.

The comments of Biden and Richardson seemly confirm this opinion because they continue to adjust downward the income group that is going to be affected by the tax increase.

So my prediction is that regardless who wins office - we will see a no more then a 2% of income tax increase for those who make between 30K to 128K adjust gross income, and that those who make more then that will probably see a 3-5% increase initially, after the first congress after the election completes its session for the 2010 tax year.

I just dont see a tax cut in our future regardless of who wins.

[m52nickerson]

I just dont see a tax cut in our future regardless of who wins.

The problem with not giving the tax cuts promised or raising taxes will hurt very bad when election time comes around again.

[Redleg]

The problem with not giving the tax cuts promised or raising taxes will hurt very bad when election time comes around again.

It was one of the things that cost Bush 41 an election back in 92.

With the current debt of the government and the planned expenditures of both candidates, a tax increase is coming in the next four years, I just see it happening as soon as congress meets after the election.

In fact I would have more respect for the candidate that actually runs on a realistic platform of getting the government out of debt. However neither of them are running such a campaign they are both running on promises to cut taxes and to increase government services.

and that doesn't add up to me.

So pick a candidate, neither of the two major candidates currently running will be able to bringe a balance budget back into the government unless they reverse themselves on a campaign promise. Be it an increase on governemnt services or a tax cut, one of the two will not happen based upon the current outlays of the government versus its intakes unless the government continues to spend the nation into greater and greater debt.

But I am willing to bet that Obama if elected will insure that the bottom 40% of wage earners do not see an increase in income taxes, however I do think he is wrong about the rest.

Same thing with McCain, I dont see him reducing taxes across all income groups either.

Both Candidates will probably try to leave the current income tax structure below 68K the same or a small percentage lower, and the other 30 percent or so will see a tax increase

[m52nickerson]

It was one of the things that cost Bush 41 an election back in 92.

With the current debt of the government and the planned expenditures of both candidates, a tax increase is coming in the next four years, I just see it happening as soon as congress meets after the election.

In fact I would have more respect for the candidate that actually runs on a realistic platform of getting the government out of debt. However neither of them are running such a campaign they are both running on promises to cut taxes and to increase government services.

and that doesn't add up to me.

So pick a candidate, neither of the two major candidates currently running will be able to bringe a balance budget back into the government unless they reverse themselves on a campaign promise. Be it an increase on governemnt services or a tax cut, one of the two will not happen based upon the current outlays of the government versus its intakes unless the government continues to spend the nation into greater and greater debt.

But I am willing to bet that Obama if elected will insure that the bottom 40% of wage earners do not see an increase in income taxes, however I do think he is wrong about the rest.

Same thing with McCain, I dont see him reducing taxes across all income groups either.

Both Candidates will probably try to leave the current income tax structure below 68K the same or a small percentage lower, and the other 30 percent or so will see a tax increase

I disagree. I think if Obama get elected we will see cuts close to what he has purposed. The fact that he will increase taxes at the top will let him do this. It will come at the sacrifice not starting some of his plans in his first few years. McCain would have to deal with a strongly Dem congress, less likely to get what he wants.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus, your post was a thoughtful and excellent argument for Senator McCain.

Obviously, I have no vote in this election, but those are most of the reasons why, in the early stages, I would have considered putting my support in his direction (had I said vote).

Unfortunately, two decisions - one chronic, one acute - made me change my mind. The former is that Senator McCain has not run as himself. He has allowed his essential decency and "difference" to be hijacked by the worst of the Republican party machine. His campaign has been shameful in the way it has occluded his great strengths, enumerated in your post, to pander to the lowest denominator of the "base". (How delicious it is to describe the repulsively anti-intellectual wing of the Republican party as "the Base" and have them think it a compliment).

He has, in effect, committed the sin of many military men - he has fought the last war. The 2004 campaign was about splitting America even more deeply by mobilising the Base and frightening enough of the other citizens to tip the scales. This election has seen the citizenry quite frightened enough, and heartily tired of division. McCain was exactly the right man to choose for such a mood - as we all recognise, had the GOP chosen any other nominee the election would have been over months ago.

But he was advised to run the Bush campaign of 2004. To pander to the ever shrinking group that think the United States are about fear rather than hope. Despite this, his essential strengths have shone through enough times to keep him in touching distance of the White House - an incredible feat that deserves some honour.

His acute mistake was rooted in this campaign error. The choice of Sarah Palin was monumentally foolish. The America she believes she owns as "real" is a withering rump. It is an America that believes in regulating people's morals rather than their hopes. It "thinks" in monosyllables and assesses a leader's worth in terms of his ability to share a beer. It is the America of Other, of Division, of McCarthyism. It is an America that has often existed in history, but like Frankenstein, Bush dug it up and re-animated its rotting corpse for his own ends; and the Monster has ravaged many an innocent in its incoherent rage. The citizens have finally seen that twisted visage now representing their nobility, their ideals, their liberties and they wish to see it consigned back to Hell.

Senator McCain would be just the man to do it, but he has allowed himself advice that casts him as the electrical contractor come to fix the mains. He has chosen a running mate whose only appeal is to put lipstick on the Monster in order to make the sloughing flesh more appealing. Senator Obama meanwhile, is leading the mob of villagers and provided them with torches.

I understand from various sources that McCain wanted to choose Senator Lieberman as his vice-presidential choice. This would have been typically brave of the man, and had he done so, I suspect the polls would be right the other way round now. He would have cast himself as the healer he undoubtedly is, and underlined the truth that split government - a bipartisan Republican president with a Democratic Congress - is the American way, and historically the most effective form of that country's government. The pygmies around him could not countenance it however, for what would the Base think?

He was persuaded to choose division and a woman so clearly unsuited for office it would be hard to caricature further. He was persuaded to run a campaign utterly counter to his own beliefs and strengths.

A man so easily persuaded to make cardinal errors against his own values and judgement is not a man to be President. That is why he should not be elected, in my opinion.

The great tragedy for Senator McCain and the world is that he was amongst the first victims of the Monster back in 2000. This time he has embraced it willingly, and it carries him to another doom.

Had he been elected president in that fateful year, both America and the world would have been different places, and I suspect he would be about to retire as one of the greatest and most well-loved presidents of history. Such is Fate's whim.


Wow. I suspected that I'd get a "hammer" back at me for posting a pro-McCain piece -- I didn't expect it from my Irish Ghost....et tu Brute? :devilish:


Let me address your two "shortfalls" in reverse order, and then connect them all to the larger issue that you raise (knowingly or unknowingly I can't tell; but since you use your cerebrum rather well, I am going to guess the former).

Palin's choice was political and designed to garner support among the GOP base. McCain HAD to do something along these lines in order to garner key GOP support. He wanted a woman, and someone with youth, in order to add/convey a sense of energy that he, one-on-one with Sen. Obama, lacks. Palin seemed to have little baggage, wasn't too doctrinaire as a conservative, and had a bit of the "Reagan Westerner" style that appeals to so much of the GOP base. Was she the most qualified choice? I doubt it. What they didn't prepare for -- but should have -- was the fact that whoever was selected as VEEP nominee was going to be hammered by the media (who can't go after McCain's quirks the same way as the man was literally tortured for his country) as the VEEEP nom is fair game. To add to this, his campaign went for surprise value and did not allow the media advance notice to prepare and evaluate her. The media views this as their "right" in our political system and they were NOT happy to be cheated. They've been looking for ways to belittle her since. Given her lack of experience and somewhat cavalier governance style, they've been able to find ammo. I don't believe Gov. Palin is nearly as bad as people make her out to be now, but there were probably other choices that would have had fewer negatives and the Campaign staff mis-played the media.

On to your "chronic" concern; which I will use to get at the point that I think you were alluding to.

McCain is being forced to play in a two party game -- when he doesn't really belong to either one.

McCain has to run a campaign that caters to all elements of the GOP. Fear and negative tactics appeal to the "bloodsport" instinct among one's own fringers, who view the opposition as enemies to be crushed rather than opponents (true of both parties). It is easy to slip from legitimate efforts to poke holes in your opponent's record into the fear-mongering mode, and the loudest voices in your party will eat it up and yell for more.

McCain, I believe, was willing to adopt some of the more classic conservative positions on economics because he wasn't really an econ guy in the first place. He's not comfortable with the social conservatives except on the abortion issue.

Ultimately, he is trapped into being the nominee of a party that he agrees with only 4 times in 5. In an ideal world, he and Leiberman would have formed a viable third party in 2007 after Leiberman was re-elected despite being ousted from the Dems. They'd both be happier and they'd both be able to pursue the political philosophy they prefer [non-aggressive but fairly right wing FoPo; mildly traditionalist but not much legislation for traditional social values; mixed economics largely aimed at keeping the status quo running with some slight improvements].

To do this, however, would have been suicide. The laws, funding apparatus, election balloting and everything else are set up to preserve the two-party approach.

What you're decrying McCain for, then, with your "chronic" reference, is his unwillingness to tell a significant slice of his own party to shut the :daisy: up. He's not fighting the "last war," he's fighting the fight that the constraints of his party are forcing him towards. He tried to take things a new direction in 2000 and Bush handed him his lunch. McCain learned then that if he was going to get to be President, it would have to be on GOP terms.

Stunningly enough, despite a flawed campaign, an electorate that's in the mood for a new face, AND the economic kerflaffle that became the "October surprise," McCain still has an outside shot at winning. If he does, it will be with 48% of the vote that just happens to be in the right Electoral College mix and he'll be saddled with all of the "you're not really the one we wanted" crap.

So, if he wins (and noting the fact that the GOP will NOT be running much of Congress anyway) I'd say his best bet would be to drop out from the GOP, FORM that third party, make Leiberman party chairman, and start establishing a new political voice with 4 years from the bully pulpit with which to do so. He'd change USA politics forrever that way. Besides, barring some unbelievable turn of events for which McCain, as president, gets "savior" status, the GOP will not nominate him again even if he wins. This is his last moment.

Having a 3rd party of quasi -Centrists might be useful to us all politically. As long as we don't end up balkanized like the Knesset, it might be very positive.


Thanks, Banquo, I needed that. You can go back to haunting Scots royalty now....

[Redleg]

I disagree. I think if Obama get elected we will see cuts close to what he has purposed. The fact that he will increase taxes at the top will let him do this. It will come at the sacrifice not starting some of his plans in his first few years. McCain would have to deal with a strongly Dem congress, less likely to get what he wants.

So you dont think that Biden and Richardson are speaking correctly as they lower the income level that is probably going to be hit.

Obama stated 250K
Biden stated the threshold would be 150K, and then made another statement that those making between 150K and 250K wouldn't get a tax cut nor would they get an increase.
And reportly Richardson has said something else that the threshold would be 150K for the tax cut. Everything else above that amount would net a tax increase.

The story has shifted over time by those who represent the candidate.


Now then here goes the crux for me, how is Obama going to pay for the increase in governmental services that he is purposing and how is the government going to pay the debt that has been assumed in the recent bailout package, the conducting of the two wars, and the spending that the government has been doing over the last 8 years?

I dont believe the current plan will net the needed inlay of funds into the government to fund the requirements, especially given that the government is wanting to cut taxes on income.

Now if one takes a look at how of the taxes paid by those making less then 150K contribute to the net inlays of the government, you might find a surprise that demonstrates that this purposal is smoke and mirrors to garner votes. Should those making more then 250K pay more taxes then others? Some say yes others say no, it all depends on the position of the individual on how they feel about progressive taxes. I am not against progressive tax when its applied correctly with limited loopholes.

But then you also agreed with me - that if he does indeed do the tax cuts the campaign promises of the candidate will most likely have to be postponed or canceled.

So in essence campaign promises that the candidate knows he can not keep are misleading and an attempt to garner votes, this is the very thing that is wrong with our politicans, pandering to the voters with no ability to actually do what they state. As I said earlier both candidates are using this tactic when it comes to tax cuts, and negates it as an issue for me to measure when voting for a candidate.

[Xiahou]

So, if he wins (and noting the fact that the GOP will NOT be running much of Congress anyway) I'd say his best bet would be to drop out from the GOP, FORM that third party, make Leiberman party chairman, and start establishing a new political voice with 4 years from the bully pulpit with which to do so. He'd change USA politics forrever that way. Besides, barring some unbelievable turn of events for which McCain, as president, gets "savior" status, the GOP will not nominate him again even if he wins. This is his last moment.

Having a 3rd party of quasi -Centrists might be useful to us all politically. As long as we don't end up balkanized like the Knesset, it might be very positive.That would actually be a great outcome. I doubt it will happen, but we can hope...

Really, I think McCain winning the primary was a fluke that was a result of a perfect storm of circumstances involving different factions of the GOP base being pulled different directions. Eventually, all that was left was McCain. He didn't win so much as he was the last man standing. Parties never nominate someone that far to the center. It would've been the equivalent of the Democrats nominating Lieberman instead of throwing him out of the party. Similarly, Lieberman would have seen little support from the Democrat party unless he ran to the left and did whatever he could to appease their base.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Obama has a funny habit of "accidentally" saying he'll cut taxes for "americans making under 250,000". That's for families only...individuals making more than 200,000 will pay more taxes. Now the republicans take that plus this:


"Spreading the wealth was not -- he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just -- that was put in by George Bush, people making an average $1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic -- they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." (WNEP-Scranton, Interview With Sen. Joe Biden, 10/27/08)

And this:


"What Obama wants to do is, he is basically looking at $120,000 and under, among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those." (KOA-AM, Interview With Gov. Bill Richardson, 10/31/08)

And are mass spamming emails and forum posts with the subject "250,000...200,000...150,000...120,000...WHERE WILL IT END" ~:eek:~:eek:~:eek:

A non paranoid reading of those quotes would lead you to a different conclusion though. You have to be convinced that "demo-crats want to take all my money" to go for the slippery slope nonsense.

[m52nickerson]

So you dont think that Biden and Richardson are speaking correctly as they lower the income level that is probably going to be hit.

Obama stated 250K
Biden stated the threshold would be 150K, and then made another statement that those making between 150K and 250K wouldn't get a tax cut nor would they get an increase.
And reportly Richardson has said something else that the threshold would be 150K for the tax cut. Everything else above that amount would net a tax increase.

The story has shifted over time by those who represent the candidate.


Now then here goes the crux for me, how is Obama going to pay for the increase in governmental services that he is purposing and how is the government going to pay the debt that has been assumed in the recent bailout package, the conducting of the two wars, and the spending that the government has been doing over the last 8 years?

I dont believe the current plan will net the needed inlay of funds into the government to fund the requirements, especially given that the government is wanting to cut taxes on income.

Now if one takes a look at how of the taxes paid by those making less then 150K contribute to the net inlays of the government, you might find a surprise that demonstrates that this purposal is smoke and mirrors to garner votes. Should those making more then 250K pay more taxes then others? Some say yes others say no, it all depends on the position of the individual on how they feel about progressive taxes. I am not against progressive tax when its applied correctly with limited loopholes.

But then you also agreed with me - that if he does indeed do the tax cuts the campaign promises of the candidate will most likely have to be postponed or canceled.

So in essence campaign promises that the candidate knows he can not keep are misleading and an attempt to garner votes, this is the very thing that is wrong with our politicans, pandering to the voters with no ability to actually do what they state. As I said earlier both candidates are using this tactic when it comes to tax cuts, and negates it as an issue for me to measure when voting for a candidate.

Senator Obama has been consistent in saying that people who make under 250K will not see there taxes increased. According to the "tax calculator" on his site those who make under 200K will see a tax cut.

It is true that some of the Obama's plans may have to be delayed, but that does not mean that he is going back on his promises.

The current financial crisis does not suddenly mean we have to cut deficit spending in one year. I think we will see an increase in spending initially. Once the economy recovers some that deficit can be brought down.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, if he wins (and noting the fact that the GOP will NOT be running much of Congress anyway) I'd say his best bet would be to drop out from the GOP, FORM that third party, make Leiberman party chairman, and start establishing a new political voice with 4 years from the bully pulpit with which to do so. He'd change USA politics forrever that way. Besides, barring some unbelievable turn of events for which McCain, as president, gets "savior" status, the GOP will not nominate him again even if he wins. This is his last moment.



I don't see a snowballs chance in hell of McCain winning this election. Yes, according to A single poll of the popular vote today he is within the MOE, but if you look at the electorals he is sunk. Lets all remember that the national popular vote has nothing to do with the election. We might be seeing 50-45 split, but I'd wager that the electoral outcome is somewhere insane - like 25% or more difference in Obama's favor. I'd bet a similar landslide to Reagan. Of course, if there is a Bradley effect anything similar to what occurred on a regular basis during the dem primaries, McCain could theoretically win the Popular - but again, snowballs chance in hell of winning the election. It has been absolutely over for a week and arguably over for 2 months.

At least a confused centrist will be the one that is humiliated in this Republican holocaust. This gives us an excuse not to try it again for a while. Centrist scapegoating.

[Hosakawa Tito]

The last couple of pages have included some very well written and thoughtful posts. I applaud your efforts. No matter who wins let us hope there will be a real sea change and improvement in attitude and cooperation between both parties to do the right thing. I think this has been the longest and most bitterly contentious campaign in living memory.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/getalong-1.jpg

[Hooahguy]

aye- very well written posts!

now, im going to post something Neal Boortz said in his bi-weekly newsletters:


AT LEAST KNOW WHO YOU'RE VOTING FOR -- A CHALLENGE

The election is now eight days way. If you've made up your mind for Obama; or if you're trying to noodle through some of the things he's been saying on the campaign trail, this should help. I've taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful ... if unchallenged ... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.

So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.

Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!

"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."

It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called "tax cuts."

So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you'll be getting from The Chosen One. I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words "tax credit" with the word "payment." That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get 'em:

* A $500 "make work pay" payment.
* A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
* A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
* A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
* A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
* A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
* Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.

There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes.

It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them.

"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."

Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.

Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?

The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.

"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."

First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.



"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."

He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There's a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.

Now that wasn't too hard, was it?

Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You're going to have that on your conscience.

REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH

Now that brings again to Obama. You've heard, haven't you, that a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview of then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama has surfaced. In that interview Obama says that it was a tragedy that during the civil rights era the Supreme Court didn't pursue "redistribution of the wealth." Here's the relevant portion of the interview if you care to hear it for yourself.

We've really made some progress here. Well, I guess that the left has really made some progress. We now have a presidential candidate who talks openly of increasing taxes not because the government needs the money, but because the people who do have the money don't actually deserve it and there are other people out there who need it more. Sorry folks, but facts is facts. Redistribution of the wealth is a basic tenant of Communism. To whatever degree you support a forced redistribution of wealth you are a Communist. Simple as that.

The warning signs have always been there. In his book Dreams from my Father Obama writes of a relationship he had in is late teens with someone named "Frank." For some reason Obama doesn't include his last name. Obama refers to Frank as "a poet" who was full of "hard-earned knowledge." He also says that Frank had "some modest notoriety once." Yeah, I'll say. Frank was Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the CPUSA. For those of you who don't like acronyms, that's Communist Party of the United States of America. Frank Marshall Davis ... some mentor, don't you think?

For all of you suburban housewives and country clubbers who think that you are just so, like, enlightened for voting for Obama, it's time for your wake up call ... though I don't know if it will help:
Barack Obama's core belief is that we belong not to ourselves, but to government. We are tools that the government is free to use to bring about what Obama calls "economic justice." The fruits of our labor belong to government ... and government can do with them what it pleases.

Now if this is your philosophy, then vote for this guy. Then every time you draw a paycheck why don't you drop him a line and ask him how much of it you can keep to care for your family and plan for your own future and how much he would like to have to redistribute to someone who sat on their butt while you were busting yours. After all, you voted for him.

AND HOLD ON TO YOUR PENSIONS WHILE YOU'RE AT IT

Some interesting happenings last week. Argentina proposes seizing all private pensions. The purpose? That would be to redistribute all of that money to people who actually need it more. Now I've exhausted my Google capabilities trying to identify this person, I believe it was Barney Frank, but some leading Democrat last week said that the pensions belonging to some evil CEOs would be the first to go. That's just the beginning folks. Mark my words, because I want the "I told you so" on this one, after Obama is sworn in you are going to see an attack on privately held pensions and 401K plans. There's about four or five trillion dollars out there, and the Democrats want their hands on it to further their redistribution schemes.

FINALLY, A REPORTER WITH SOME ONIONS (WELL, FIGURATIVELY ANYWAY)

A TV reporter in Central Florida actually asked Joe Biden questions that we have waited so long for the MSM to ask ... and the Obama-Biden campaign isn't pleased. Last Thursday, Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Joe Biden. You can watch the interview here.

West asked Biden about Obama's "spread the wealth" comment. She quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden whether Obama's comments were Marxist. Biden's response: "Are you joking?" West also asked Biden about his comments that Obama would be tested by an international crisis early in his presidency. His response to that: "I don't know who is writing your questions."

It doesn't matter who is writing the questions, Joe. What matters is that these are the questions that many Americans have been wanted answers to ... but nobody has dared to ask.

In fact, Biden was so upset by the interview, that the Obama campaign canceled an interview with Jill Biden, Joe's wife, because it was unhappy with West's questions.

Here's what the Obama campaign had to say about the interview. Notice how the Obama campaign has reacted to radio and TV stations that run unflattering ads or ask tough questions � ban them, ask the Justice Department to get involved, get a hold of their advertisers. This is just the beginning, folks.


"There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public -- not misleading the American people with false information. Senator Biden handled the interview well; however, the anchor was completely unprofessional. Senator Biden's wife is not running for elected office, and there are many other stations in the Orlando television market that would gladly conduct a respectful and factual interview with her."


"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."

So by asking these questions, West is deemed "unprofessional." How about those reporters who reported on Sarah Palin's children, or her days as a beauty queen? Those reports are not unprofessional, but when you ask a Vice Presidential candidate about tax policy ... THAT is unprofessional.

[Redleg]

Obama has a funny habit of "accidentally" saying he'll cut taxes for "americans making under 250,000". That's for families only...individuals making more than 200,000 will pay more taxes. Now the republicans take that plus this:

So are you saying because its "accidently" that he doesn't mean what he states?



And are mass spamming emails and forum posts with the subject "250,000...200,000...150,000...120,000...WHERE WILL IT END" ~:eek:~:eek:~:eek:

A non paranoid reading of those quotes would lead you to a different conclusion though. You have to be convinced that "demo-crats want to take all my money" to go for the slippery slope nonsense.

A non paranoid reading of those quotes is that the story could have different end results based upon what each individual has stated.

But given your statement I could assume your attempting to claim I might be paranoid - which would be incorrect since I forsee a tax increase coming regardless of what either candidate has stated. Especially given the state of the federal budget.

But then I remember what Bush Sr. stated and what had to happen to insure that the government was able to meet its obligations after his initial election.

There is a striking similiarity between his campaign about not raising taxes, and what is happening in this election.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

aye- very well written posts!

I agree, very well written! Do you perhaps have something well written to share with us? You do! Awesome.


now, im going to post something Neal Boortz said in his bi-weekly newsletters:

:boxedin:


This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.

Lol, just as soon as McCain's promises are debunked on a special edition of "the price is right".


And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."


According to the most recent IRS statistics for 2006, some 45.6 million tax filers—one-third of all filers—have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. For good or ill, this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.

Tax Foundation estimates show that if all of the Obama tax provisions were enacted in 2009, the number of these "nonpayers" would rise by about 16 million, to 63 million overall. If all of the McCain tax proposals were enacted in 2009, the number of nonpayers would rise by about 15 million, to a total of 62 million overall.

Listen to the slightly lighter kettle calling the slightly darker pot black!


Ienjoyed the well written article you posted so much I've been inspire to continue the tradition of this thread by posting a video of michael moore ranting for an hour straight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnrLloO7nFQ

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So are you saying because its "accidently" that he doesn't mean what he states?

I'm saying he sometimes intentionally simplifies his plan when he talks about to make it more appealing to people.



[/quote]A non paranoid reading of those quotes is that the story could have different end results based upon what each individual has stated.

But given your statement I could assume your attempting to claim I might be paranoid - which would be incorrect since I forsee a tax increase coming regardless of what either candidate has stated. Especially given the state of the federal budget.[/QUOTE]

Don strikes me as a bit paranoid about it. A non paranoid reading of those quotes would, for example, take into account that bill richardson is the governor of new mexico while obama is soon-to-be president of the united states and therefore a more reliable source for specific numbers :2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

I'm saying he sometimes intentionally simplifies his plan when he talks about to make it more appealing to people.

So are you saying that its okay for a politician to mislead people in order to garner votes?





A non paranoid reading of those quotes is that the story could have different end results based upon what each individual has stated.

But given your statement I could assume your attempting to claim I might be paranoid - which would be incorrect since I forsee a tax increase coming regardless of what either candidate has stated. Especially given the state of the federal budget.

Don strikes me as a bit paranoid about it. A non paranoid reading of those quotes would, for example, take into account that bill richardson is the governor of new mexico while obama is soon-to-be president of the united states and therefore a more reliable source for specific numbers :2thumbsup:

Indeed Bill Richardson is the governor of a state, and has been campaigning for Obama, just like Biden is the VP nomiee, campaigning with Obama. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both men speak with some or complete knowledge on what the plan is?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So are you saying that its okay for a politician to mislead people in order to garner votes?

Now where did I say that :smash:






Indeed Bill Richardson is the governor of a state, and has been campaigning for Obama, just like Biden is the VP nomiee, campaigning with Obama. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both men speak with some or complete knowledge on what the plan is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE-YJ---GI

[m52nickerson]

Indeed Bill Richardson is the governor of a state, and has been campaigning for Obama, just like Biden is the VP nomiee, campaigning with Obama. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both men speak with some or complete knowledge on what the plan is?

No it would not. We have seen people on both sides make statement that had to be corrected by the candidates.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here is Peggy Noonan coming to all the right conclusions about this election. I was worried that she would pull a Chris Buckley, but she is an actual Conservative where Buckley is a daddy's boy college liberal.

I see in this article the only remaining case for John McCain.

Obama and the Runaway Train

The race, the case, a hope for grace.



By PEGGY NOONAN

http://online.wsj.com/img/renocol_PeggyNoonan.gif



The case for Barack Obama, in broad strokes:

He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CP189_oj_noo_D_20081031114054.jpg

A great moment: When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.

There is something else. On Feb. 5, Super Tuesday, Mr. Obama won the Alabama primary with 56% to Hillary Clinton's 42%. That evening, a friend watched the victory speech on TV in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, saw on the screen "Obama Wins" and "Alabama." She said, "Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school." She said, "That's where they used the hoses." Suddenly my friend saw it new. Birmingham, 1963, and the water hoses used against the civil rights demonstrators. And now look, the black man thanking Alabama for his victory.

This means nothing? This means a great deal.

John McCain's story is not of rise so much as endurance, not only in Vietnam, which was spectacular enough, but throughout a rough and rugged political career of 26 years. He is passionate, obstreperous, independent, sees existential fables within history. His self-confessed role model for many years was Robert Jordan in Ernest Hemingway's novel of the Spanish Civil War, "For Whom the Bell Tolls." Mr. McCain, in his last memoir: "He was and remains to my mind a hero for the twentieth century . . . an idealistic freedom fighter" who had "a beautiful fatalism" and who sacrificed "for something else, something greater." Actually Jordan fought on the side of the communists and died pointlessly, but never mind. He joined his personality to a great purpose and found meaning in his maverickness. In his campaign, Mr. McCain rarely got down to the meaning of things; he mostly stated stands. But separate and seemingly unconnected stands do not coherence make.

However: It was a night during the Republican Convention in September, and two former U.S. senators, who had served with Mr. McCain for a combined 16 years, were having drinks in a hotel dining room. I told them I collected stories of senators who'd been cursed out by John McCain, and they laughed and told me of times they'd been the target of his wrath on the Senate floor.
The talk turned to presidents they had known, and why they had wanted the job. This one wanted it as the last item on his résumé, that one wanted it out of an inflated sense of personal destiny. Is that why Mr. McCain wants it? "No," said one, reflectively. "He wants to help the country." The other added, with almost an air of wonder, "He wants to make America stronger, he really does." And then they spoke, these two men who'd been bruised by him, of John McCain's honest patriotism.

Those who have historically been sympathetic to the Republican Party or conservatism, and who support Barack Obama -- Colin Powell, William Weld and Charles Fried, among others -- and whose arguments have not passed muster with some muster-passers, go undamned here. Their objections include: The McCain campaign has been inadequate, and some of his major decisions embarrassing. All too true. But conservatives must honor prudence, and ask if the circumstances accompanying an Obama victory will encourage the helpful moderation and nonpartisan spirit these supporters attempt, in their endorsements, to demonstrate.

There is for instance, in the words of Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty, "the runaway train." The size and dimension of the likely Democratic victory seem clear. A Democratic House with a bigger, more fervent Democratic majority; a Democratic Senate with the same, and possibly with a filibuster-breaking 60 seats; a new and popular Democratic president, elected by a few points or more; a Democratic base whose anger and hunger have built for eight years; Democratic activists and operatives hungry for business and action. What will this mix produce? A runaway train with no one to put on the brakes, to claim a mandate for slowing, no one to cry "Crossing ahead"? Democrats in Congress will move for innovation when much of the country hopes only for stability. Who will tell Congress of that rest of the nation? Mr. Obama will be overwhelmed trying to placate the innovators.

America enjoyed divided government most successfully recently from 1994 to 2000, with Bill Clinton in the White House and Newt Gingrich in effect running Congress. It wasn't so bad. In fact, it yielded a great deal, including sweeping reform of the welfare system, and balanced budgets.
Whoever is elected Tuesday, his freedom in office will be limited. Mr. Obama is out of money and Mr. McCain is out of army, so what might be assumed to be the worst impulses of each -- big spender, big scrapper -- will be circumscribed by reality. In Mr. Obama's case, energy will likely be diverted to other issues. He will raise taxes, of course, but he may also feel forced to bow to a clamorous base with the nonspending items they favor: the rewriting of union law to force greater unionization of smaller shops, for instance, and a return to a "fairness doctrine" that would limit free speech on the air.

And there is this. The past few months as the campaign unfolded, I listened for Mr. Obama to speak thoughtfully about the life issues, including abortion. Our last Democratic president knew what that issue was, and knew by nature how to speak of it. Bill Clinton famously said, over and over, that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." The "rare" mattered. It set a tone, as presidents do, and made an important concession: You only want a medical practice to be rare when it isn't good. For Mr. Obama, whose mind tends, as intellectuals' minds do, toward the abstract, it all seems so . . . abstract. And cold. And rather suggestive of radical departures. "That's above my pay grade." Friend, that is your pay grade, that's where the presidency lives, in issues like that.
But let's be frank. Something new is happening in America. It is the imminent arrival of a new liberal moment. History happens, it makes its turns, you hold on for dear life. Life moves.
A fitting end for a harem-scarem, rock-'em-sock-'em shakeup of a year -- one of tumbling inevitabilities, torn coalitions, striking new personalities.

Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." And so my beautiful election ends.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum (http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=4410).

[CountArach]

Lol, just as soon as McCain's promises are debunked on a special edition of "the price is right".
I wouldn't count on it. Rich Fields and Drew Carey stand to win too much money from McCain's tax plan.

[Koga No Goshi]

Obama stated 250K
Biden stated the threshold would be 150K, and then made another statement that those making between 150K and 250K wouldn't get a tax cut nor would they get an increase.

Worth pointing out, yes, that the overwhelming majority of us are well under this threshold? There are a lot more people than just the 40% making around 30k adjusted, and then 150-250k+.

[Redleg]

Now where did I say that :smash:

That is why it was asked as a question. When someone over simplifies their explanation I have discovered in my professions in both the military and the civil sector that they are attempting to mislead or prevent you from fully understanding the situation.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE-YJ---GI
[/quote]

I dont watch youtube - show it in print if you want me to see it.

[Redleg]

No it would not. We have seen people on both sides make statement that had to be corrected by the candidates.

Show me in print where Obama has corrected both men.

[Redleg]

Worth pointing out, yes, that the overwhelming majority of us are well under this threshold? There are a lot more people than just the 40% making around 30k adjusted, and then 150-250k+.

Last time I looked at IRS figures there were about 40% of the population making under the 30K adjusted, If you have better figures by all means point out the link and the information. Proverty rate and median adjust income seemly supports that conclusion.

Looking at real numbers of tax returns that is provided on the IRS website, one might see a slight increase in the percent to about 45%;105,000,000 million filled with income under 30K, 78,000 millioned filled with income to 68K, and about 29,000,000 filled with income up to 150K, with about 10,000,000 filling above 150K, so while 40% might be low its not off by much.

Now my concern is that both candidates are making promises of tax cuts, which is not realistic in the face of the current debt for the nation, nor with the planned outlays that both candidates are advocating. The statistics of income and how tax is computed is interesting for the fact that it shows that both candidates are attempting to minipulate the vote by promising tax cuts at the federal level. Now if we pay attention to what is happening with the individual states, we can all predict a tax increase that will happen because of their own internal shortfalls, and that most states required that the state government have a balanced budget.

So they either get more money from the federal government or raise their own internal taxes. Which will effect the overall tax rate that people pay.

Worse case is that both candidates are misleading the people, knowing that either they will have to raise taxes, or cut out some of the campaign promised programs. I find it interesting that many think on those making above 250K will have a tax increase under an Obama adminstration, and that the rest will have a tax decrease. The rethoric from those within the campaign and outside doesn't really support that conclusion because of the adjustments in defining the cutoff by Biden and Richardson. To their credit they say they will not see an increase or a decrease, but that is completely different then what Obama has stated.

Now I only point out this, not because I am against Obama - only that I am pointing out that his campaign has not been consistent in the message. Now McCain is no better because he promises one across the board, which doesn't make since when one looks at his campaign promises and what the government budget is. So in the issue of Tax cuts, I find McCain's logic completely off, and Obama's campaign slightly misleading.

This forces me to look at the other issues that each candidate is running on, because I see both unable to meet their campaign goal of lowering taxes for my income level. (and no I am not in the 150 to 250K income group, I am in the next group that represents about 30 to 40% of the population)

[m52nickerson]

Show me in print where Obama has corrected both men.

His own plan, every speech he makes regarding his tax plan, any interview, they clearly state his position.

[m52nickerson]

Now my concern is that both candidates are making promises of tax cuts, which is not realistic in the face of the current debt for the nation, nor with the planned outlays that both candidates are advocating. The statistics of income and how tax is computed is interesting for the fact that it shows that both candidates are attempting to minipulate the vote by promising tax cuts at the federal level. Now if we pay attention to what is happening with the individual states, we can all predict a tax increase that will happen because of their own internal shortfalls, and that most states required that the state government have a balanced budget.

Only McCain has stated that he would balance the federal budget his first year office.

[Redleg]

His own plan, every speech he makes regarding his tax plan, any interview, they clearly state his position.


That was not what I asked, where has he directly stated that the two had overstepped what is plan

[Redleg]

Only McCain has stated that he would balance the federal budget his first year office.


which is a big win in his column

[CountArach]

which is a big win in his column
But also highly difficult with his tax cuts without putting in massive cuts in Federal programs - which is politically unpopular.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That was not what I asked, where has he directly stated that the two had overstepped what is plan

So instead of clarifying by stating his position clearly you want him to rebuke his running mate?

[Louis VI the Fat]

'Sarkozy' gives Sarah a call... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7704673.stm)

Somewhat funny prank call. ('Our American advisor Johnny Hallyday' :laugh4:)

Sarah Palin sounds very impressed to reveive a call from Nicolas. I guess she still can't believe that she is suddenly propelled onto the world stage. (And neither can I ~;p )

To be honest, I started out feeling mean when I first pressed the play button. Hoping that she'd be pranked real good. That the call would show the limited extend of her foreign policy experience. Arguably, it does.
But...I couldn't help to notice that she actually sounded sincere in her affection for Sarkozy, sincere in her warm welcome. And she managed to keep a stiff upper lip thoughout. I can't believe it I would ever say it, but I found her quite endearing. :wall:

Fair play to her, +1 karma points for Sarah.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There have been politicians who have been duped - sometimes with much more "interesting" consequences - by the same duo. I was actually quite impressed with how Mrs. Palin handled the call.

[Redleg]

So instead of clarifying by stating his position clearly you want him to rebuke his running mate?

If his running mate is incorrect then yes, if his running mate clarified what the plan is - then I want to know that from the man himself. Not his pundits.

[m52nickerson]

That was not what I asked, where has he directly stated that the two had overstepped what is plan

I don't know that he has. I will still take what he is saying over one of his surrogates.

[m52nickerson]

But also highly difficult with his tax cuts without putting in massive cuts in Federal programs - which is politically unpopular.

.....and stating it so long into a campaign looks more like desperation more then a plan.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So Obama wants to bankrupt coal plants in the US. (http://www.wvrecord.com/news/215679-coal-official-calls-obama-comments-unbelievable)

Think about that a bit, and how dramatically that would increase the price of electricity, hurting the poor the most, of course.

And then he wants to socially engineer how people live through taxes and the like. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueCxeXZAUU&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) Not a new concept, but another dismal government intrusion on freedom, the idea that government can force you to decide as it wants you to, the idea that government should have any say in what legal goods you buy. Imposing your morality, you might call it.

If Obama's elected and gets all his taxes passed, he and the democrats will blame the economic troubles on the legacy of Bush and not on their own anti-growth actions.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

'Sarkozy' gives Sarah a call... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7704673.stm)

Somewhat funny prank call. ('Our American advisor Johnny Hallyday' :laugh4:)

Sarah Palin sounds very impressed to reveive a call from Nicolas. I guess she still can't believe that she is suddenly propelled onto the world stage. (And neither can I ~;p )

To be honest, I started out feeling mean when I first pressed the play button. Hoping that she'd be pranked real good. That the call would show the limited extend of her foreign policy experience. Arguably, it does.
But...I couldn't help to notice that she actually sounded sincere in her affection for Sarkozy, sincere in her warm welcome. And she managed to keep a stiff upper lip thoughout. I can't believe it I would ever say it, but I found her quite endearing. :wall:

Fair play to her, +1 karma points for Sarah.


She's not a total putz. The media is just pissed off with a vengeance because she wasn't vetted through them by the McCain team. They view it as their "given" political role as the 4th estate, and they do NOT respond well to any politician who does not give them the short list for any position or the text of a speech in advance.

Sarah is a bit young for the job in terms of experience; like most governors she has limited FOPO training at best; and guiding Alaska isn't quite like working with the economy of California or New York, but she's not the complete dweeb some want her to be.

Now, is she the BEST choice for veep nominee -- that's another issue.

[Tribesman]

And then he wants to socially engineer how people live through taxes and the like. Not a new concept, but another dismal government intrusion on freedom, the idea that government can force you to decide as it wants you to, the idea that government should have any say in what legal goods you buy. Imposing your morality, you might call it.

So that would be like high taxes on tobacco and alcohol then , tax breaks on efficient electrical goods or cars and the like :inquisitive:
Social engineering eh :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

Hello all followers of US politics and presidential picking paradigms.

I direct your attention to this currently locked thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=109348), which we will unlock early Tuesday (US Election Day) morning, and use as the successor thread to this one.

We will close this thread tonight on or about 1800 PST, to allow time for all US posters to get a good night's sleep before the big day. So: posters have the next 12 or so hours to get their last-minute campaign-era arguments in, before we move on the the "horse race" phase of the actual election.

I thank all for a very stimulating read, and cooperative attitude these past 21 months of primaries, conventions, and campaigns. :bow:

May the US pick wisely, and the best man win!

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'd like to add my thanks to all patrons who have contributed to this thread in such a positive, challenging and enlightening manner.

It has been (with just a very few exceptions) a pleasure to read and moderate this thread. Despite strong passions and trenchant opinions, you have done the Org proud. I doubt if one would find a more well-mannered, respectful and informative discussion on the election anywhere.

Well done, and thank you. I wish our American orgahs the very best on this eve of their election, and hope that all goes well.

I shall be watching the unfolding drama and commenting in the new thread (awesome work, CountArach, really :bow:) as things go. Please forgive any aberrance therein - it'll be really, really late/early for us Euros!

[m52nickerson]

So Obama wants to bankrupt coal plants in the US. (http://www.wvrecord.com/news/215679-coal-official-calls-obama-comments-unbelievable)

Think about that a bit, and how dramatically that would increase the price of electricity, hurting the poor the most, of course.

And then he wants to socially engineer how people live through taxes and the like. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueCxeXZAUU&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) Not a new concept, but another dismal government intrusion on freedom, the idea that government can force you to decide as it wants you to, the idea that government should have any say in what legal goods you buy. Imposing your morality, you might call it.

If Obama's elected and gets all his taxes passed, he and the democrats will blame the economic troubles on the legacy of Bush and not on their own anti-growth actions.

CR

Obama said that if someone wants to build a coal power plant it would bankrupt them because of the cap and trade penalties.

From the article

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

So you will still have the existing coal power plants to use coal, plus and clean coal plants that could be built.

[gaelic cowboy]

'Sarkozy' gives Sarah a call... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7704673.stm)

Somewhat funny prank call. ('Our American advisor Johnny Hallyday' :laugh4:)

Sarah Palin sounds very impressed to reveive a call from Nicolas. I guess she still can't believe that she is suddenly propelled onto the world stage. (And neither can I ~;p )

To be honest, I started out feeling mean when I first pressed the play button. Hoping that she'd be pranked real good. That the call would show the limited extend of her foreign policy experience. Arguably, it does.
But...I couldn't help to notice that she actually sounded sincere in her affection for Sarkozy, sincere in her warm welcome. And she managed to keep a stiff upper lip thoughout. I can't believe it I would ever say it, but I found her quite endearing. :wall:

Fair play to her, +1 karma points for Sarah.


Yeah an I would give her one too yum yum

[gaelic cowboy]

Obama said that if someone wants to build a coal power plant it would bankrupt them because of the cap and trade penalties.

From the article

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

So you will still have the existing coal power plants to use coal, plus and clean coal plants that could be built.


Never mind yer GHG an all that climate change mullarky the real death knell of coal plants and coal mining in general is cost allied to scaricity of resources. Those mines in the US must be fierce exspensive to run just on labour costs alone no ones gonna open one of those coal plants unless there mad in the head.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So Obama wants to bankrupt coal plants in the US. (http://www.wvrecord.com/news/215679-coal-official-calls-obama-comments-unbelievable)

Think about that a bit, and how dramatically that would increase the price of electricity, hurting the poor the most, of course.

And then he wants to socially engineer how people live through taxes and the like. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueCxeXZAUU&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) Not a new concept, but another dismal government intrusion on freedom, the idea that government can force you to decide as it wants you to, the idea that government should have any say in what legal goods you buy. Imposing your morality, you might call it.

If Obama's elected and gets all his taxes passed, he and the democrats will blame the economic troubles on the legacy of Bush and not on their own anti-growth actions.

CRAlarmist spinning of reality, me thinks.


- America already is a Marxist state. The US already has a progressive tax system. Bush and Reagan have been redistributing wealth. Or, stealing the tips from hard working waiters and handing them out to lazy bums on the street, as the alarming real story that was emailed to Hooah showed, has been standard practice for ages.
A few percent more or less taxes under Obama makes no qualitative change to the current redisributive system.
If you are middle class, then Obama will increase your disposable income. If you don't have to save to put your kids through college, than McCain will reward you for being rich. That's all.

- America already is socially engineering. VAT, subsidies, high taxes on tobacco and liquor, tax breaks for certain behaviour - all of it has been standard American practice since time immemorial. Again, by the standard of the alarmists Ronald Reagan would be a Marxist social engineer.

- Coal.
Let me remind our Republican friends that McCain - just like Obama - up until a few months ago wished to replace polluting coal plants with cleaner coal plants and nuclear energy. Together with so many of McCain's strong selling points, this was tossed out of the window recently by our flip-flopping spineless 'maverick' (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/mccain-governors/) to cater to the far right and big business.
Obama has stuck with his promise. McCain changed his after he won the primaries. This does not bode well.
Whether Obama's continued commitment to make America clean and energy independent through innovation is commendable or not is a matter of personal preference.

- There are economic troubles already. I note with some bemusement that the Republicans are already trying to retro-blame the current troubles on Obama's (possible) future presidency. :dizzy:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obama is going to steel my children's food and sell it to buy Playstations for black prison inmates!! [...]
Finally, I'm many things, but a racist isn't one of them. Perhaps I should take a break from discussing politics for a while, I think I'm getting a little too into it, and if all you hear from what I said is that I hate black inmates (don't remember saying anything about anybody's race though), I'm clearly not communicating very well.I missed the seriousness of this the first time round.

Oh dear. I did not mean to imply you are a racist. We all know you better than that. I was lampooning the alarmist tone of the Republican base over the past two weeks.

Sorry. :embarassed:

Is it fair to cry racism over the tone of the Republican base? Perhaps not. Is it fair of the Republicans to call Obama's electorate Marxists and communists over a pretty mainstream income tax proposal? Perhaps not either.

I did cross the line of the general into the personal, for which my apologies.

[Xiahou]

Alarmist spinning of reality, me thinks.Sometimes I can't tell if you're being ironic, or serious... :inquisitive:


And then he wants to socially engineer how people live through taxes and the like. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueCxeXZAUU&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) Not a new concept, but another dismal government intrusion on freedom, the idea that government can force you to decide as it wants you to, the idea that government should have any say in what legal goods you buy. Imposing your morality, you might call it.That clip should have found its way into a campaign ad. I thought it was pretty powerful. :yes:

[Koga No Goshi]

The "they're not really incompetent, they just didn't get a fair shake from the media" defense of really, really phenomenally bad Republicans is not new, but it sure is old as an excuse for ineptitude. If you're going to use the media to judge one candidate when a clip from their preacher is played on loop for two weeks, or a misinterpreted comment like "lipstick on a pig" floods the airwaves, then it's totally fair game to attack someone who on the flipside, refuses to even give the public the opportunity to see any of their flaws or mistakes by refusing to publicly appear. (Cheney, anyone?)

To be honest I'm not sure how "the media is a big evil 4th estate" is in any way a mitigation of Sarah Palin's clear ineptitude for the job she has been handheld into running for. It's a chicken and the egg scenario-- the media wouldn't be having a cow at how they've been locked out and refuse access if the McCain campaign hadn't picked someone incompetent and unversed in foreign policy, who they knew they would have to hide and carefully control access to, in the first place.

And re: thread ending: Noooo. This is the bread and butter of the Backroom!

[CountArach]

Just another reason why people have to vote, even if their state isn't in play:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ca_proposition_8_chart.php
California's Proposition 8, which would amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage is very tight in the polling (Though Propositions are very, very hard to poll accurately). I know South Dakota also has a Proposition banning most abortions that is tight as well.

[Ronin]

It has just been anounced that Barack Obama's grandmother has passed away....my condolences to the family.

now...for the effects on the election? can this be significant???? sympathy vote???

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To be honest I'm not sure how "the media is a big evil 4th estate" is in any way a mitigation of Sarah Palin's clear ineptitude for the job she has been handheld into running for. It's a chicken and the egg scenario-- the media wouldn't be having a cow at how they've been locked out and refuse access if the McCain campaign hadn't picked someone incompetent and unversed in foreign policy, who they knew they would have to hide and carefully control access to, in the first place.

Koga my friend, dial it back a notch. I never said the 4th estate was being evil, just collectively too big for their britches and reacting a bit too "pissy" about Palin. She's not the worst veep nominee in history (consider Ferraro, Quayle, Agnew, Stockdale, A Johnson, Eagleton), though it'd be hard to assert she's in the top quintile (or the second for that matter). Virtually ALL governors are unversed in foreign policy, and they often get tapped for the top spot on the ticket; that one's a non-starter.

Her unforgivable sin is being a midddling (or sub-par) choice in an election when McCain needed a world beater. Pretty much sums up the whole GOP effort this time -- middling at best and facing a world beater. This time, at least, she'll come up short, but then again so will McCain.

EDIT: Condolences to the Obama family. She was, apparently, very close to him and her loss -- however expected -- cannot be anything but a tragedy. My prayers are with them.



And now, for a bit of shameless advertising. Sometime in the earlier part of the new year I'll be hosting Capo III in the Gameroom. Capo II was a compelling game...and generated a thread this size in roughly 1 month. Try it, you'll love the challenge.

Thanks to our "4 horsemen" for riding herd on this particular apocalypse so well -- passions were high and your kept all the balls in the air beautifully.

"Cast a cold eye on life, on death. Horseman pass by."

[Lemur]

Goodbye, dear election thread; we barely knew ye.

[TinCow]

I'd like to add my thanks to all patrons who have contributed to this thread in such a positive, challenging and enlightening manner.

It has been (with just a very few exceptions) a pleasure to read and moderate this thread. Despite strong passions and trenchant opinions, you have done the Org proud. I doubt if one would find a more well-mannered, respectful and informative discussion on the election anywhere.

Well done, and thank you. I wish our American orgahs the very best on this eve of their election, and hope that all goes well.

I would like to echo this towards the entire population of my country. This is a huge election of immense political and historical importance. It comes at a time in which our nation is beset by extremely serious issues which will have dramatic effects on our future for most of the rest of our lives. At the same time, our nation is divided nearly evenly along political lines that have existed for many years. This is the perfect storm that in many other times and places in history could have resulted in a revolution. Instead of this, we have had what has generally been one of the most civil and respectful political campaigns I have witnessed in my moderately short life. Reactions of extremism and hate on both sides have been an extremely uncommon exception and have not done anything but scratch at the periphery of the issues. Regardless of the result tomorrow, the very conduct of this election has made me very proud to be an American.

[Spino]

I would like to echo this towards the entire population of my country. This is a huge election of immense political and historical importance. It comes at a time in which our nation is beset by extremely serious issues which will have dramatic effects on our future for most of the rest of our lives. At the same time, our nation is divided nearly evenly along political lines that have existed for many years. This is the perfect storm that in many other times and places in history could have resulted in a revolution. Instead of this, we have had what has generally been one of the most civil and respectful political campaigns I have witnessed in my moderately short life. Reactions of extremism and hate on both sides have been an extremely uncommon exception and have not done anything but scratch at the periphery of the issues. Regardless of the result tomorrow, the very conduct of this election has made me very proud to be an American.

It ain't over till the fat lady tallies the votes... If the race is too close for comfort we could be in for a very rough period.

[Tribesman]

Only McCain has stated that he would balance the federal budget his first year office.

Yet studies of his proposed budgetry policies say that he will increase the defecit by 50% , so either he is going to abandon his financial policies or he is lying about balancing the budget .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, to sum up my reasons for not wanting Obama to win:
Giving the democrats control of Congress and the White House, with an ego to go along with it.

They can then pass their fairness doctrine to allow government some more control over free speech.

They can pass the Union handout act, or whatever the bill that lets Unions get recognition through pledge cards, removing the ability of companies to request a secret ballot.

Then they're Obama's radical friends, which suggests that he too likely will be the most leftist candidate ever elected (in addition to the policies he's espoused).

In accordance with that, his plans to increase an assortment of taxes will decrease US competitiveness as Europe is in competition to have the lowest corporate tax rate. Obama backers seem blissfully unaware of this.

He's also going to put the economy in serious pain with the cap and trade scheme for carbon dioxide that will greatly increase the burden on businesses and increase the prices of most goods, and which will also create bigger government to administer the scheme (Think a bit about how the government will decide how many carbon credits to award each industry or company - can you say 'corruption'?).

And then there's the vast government spending increases he wants, like for the 'civilian national security force'.

And the fact that Obama is going to be terrible at foreign policy at least initially, just like Kennedy.

But like Seamus mentioned earlier, the worst part will be the increase in government spending and the move towards a more socialistic country - moves that will be very hard to undo, and that will result in less economic and personal freedom.

CR

[m52nickerson]

The single biggest reason reason Obama and the democrats should win:

The Republicans took the helm of a country that was doing just fine. They managed to turn it and point it just about straight down. It the Democrats turn to right the ship.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Democrats have had control of Congress for two years. They could've ended the war, not voted for the wiretapping bill, etc. Remember that list of things they said they would do? When are they going to take responsibility?

CR

[Xiahou]

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm predicting an Obama win. According to my informal analysis, if either Ohio or Florida goes to Obama, you can go to bed early and be assured of Obama's win. OTOH, the only way I can see McCain winning is if he steals Pennsylvania from Obama and even if he did manage to win the electoral vote (and the presidency) he'd still lose the popular vote by a good bit.

If Obama wins, I also hope Democrats get a filibuster-proof senate majority. Then they won't be able to cry about the bad ole Republicans anymore and will only have themselves to blame for their screwups and failed policies. :beam:

[Hooahguy]

ya, seriously. the dems talk about change? why dont they start with themselves in congress?

[Strike For The South]

I think Dole has the gumption to pull this out. Clinton isnt that great.

[PBI]

In light of the imminent closure, may I echo Banquo's sentiments in saying how enjoyable it has been to read this thread, even if as a neutral I contributed only occasionally. If uninformed voters and petty namecalling are an argument against democracy, then this thread must surely be seen as a powerful argument in favour. I wish our American members the best of luck in choosing the right candidate, whichever one that may turn out to be.

:bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I voted for Baldwin.

And Xiahou, even if dems got 60+ in the Senate, they'd still blame all the bad things on the 'legacy' of Bush's policies. They'll weasel out of any and all responsibility.

CR

[Hooahguy]

well, since this is about to be closed anyhow, ill state my predictions:
i think Xiahou is right. obama will probably win.
but if mccain does, it will be by a very slim margin.

even though i dont like obama, i wish him the best if he wins, because ultimately, what is good for him is usually good for the country.
:sweatdrop:

[Koga No Goshi]

The Democrats have had control of Congress for two years. They could've ended the war, not voted for the wiretapping bill, etc. Remember that list of things they said they would do? When are they going to take responsibility?

CR

About the same time the Bush Admin and all the Rubberstamp Republican congressmembers take responsibility for creating all this awful legislation. ;)



And Xiahou, even if dems got 60+ in the Senate, they'd still blame all the bad things on the 'legacy' of Bush's policies. They'll weasel out of any and all responsibility.

That's great, from someone who blames all the good on former Republican policies, and all the bad on former Dem ones.

Recession? Clinton's fault. Terrorism? Clinton dropped the ball. Had nothing to do with the simian in the White House who ignored warnings and felt leadership was best provided from vacation in Crawford.

[CountArach]

Thanks for the joy-ride this thread and the preceding threads have been - it has been great to hear this amount of passion in the voice of the people. Just remember:

Vox populi, vox dei

[seireikhaan]

The Democrats have had control of Congress for two years. They could've ended the war, not voted for the wiretapping bill, etc. Remember that list of things they said they would do? When are they going to take responsibility?

CR
I wish I had Adrian's laughing smilie on hand; that, methinks, would be an adequate representation of how I'm feeling.

When will Dem's take responsibility? You being serious? As though the Dem's are the only one to fail on that account? How about Republicans for controlling Congress the last 14 years before that? Oh, wait, I forgot, that's becuase nasty Bill blocked all the good they were going to do.

Face it, CR, NOBODY had taken responsibility for ANYTHING. Don't even dare try to act as though the whole system hasn't gotten beyond saving, or that the Dems are the only ones at fault. To say so is utterly false. Let the Dems have their chance, they'll probably :daisy: it up, Republicans will be put back in, they'll probably :daisy: it up, and our loverly cycle of democracy will continue spinning. But maybe, just maybe, at some point, one of the "sides" will get it right, even if only for a few years. What American politics needs is parliamentiarism, so we can put our two-party farce to an end, and give better, more realistic representation of the views of the populace to work.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thanks to all contributors for a most informative and lively thread.

May the best man win. Or even McCain. Either way, my best wishes for America for the coming four years.



~+~+~+~<>~<*>~<>~+~+~+~


"The President has kept all the promises he intended to keep."
Clinton aide George Stephanopolous.

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
Dan Quayle

"I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law."
David Dinkins, New York City Mayor.

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC.

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."
Hillary Clinton.

[Strike For The South]

Thanks to all contributors for a most informative and lively thread.

May the best man win. Or even McCain. Either way, my best wishes for America for the coming four years.



~+~+~+~<>~<*>~<>~+~+~+~


"The President has kept all the promises he intended to keep."
Clinton aide George Stephanopolous.

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
Dan Quayle

"I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law."
David Dinkins, New York City Mayor.

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC.

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."
Hillary Clinton.

:laugh4:

[CountArach]

lol Louis, great post my man :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

The reason why Obama will win...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

[Hooahguy]

well, anyhow, im not going to visit this forum or any political area or turn on the radio or anthing until wensday morning. i dont want the stress of worrying about the election.
i may check this forum tomorrow morning, before voting, but after that, so long, until wensday morning!
may the best candidate win!
:2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

The reason why BHO the Messiah will win...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
I guess the silver lining in this is I won't have to support her or her uneducated daughters ass anymore because I'll be in the soup line with them (I wonder if they know who daddy be). With BHO wanting to cut 10% of defense contractors and his gay buddy Barney "My Boyfriend ran a brothel in my house" Frank wanting to cut 25% of the military budget, my life's work will go belly up. Oh well, a steady diet of colt 45 and KFC should do the trick to numb the pain.

A Republic dies from within from parasites that basically feed off those that produce. Eventually they kill off the producers and you have nothing left but parasites. Shall we listen as Obama plays his fiddle while we burn? No wonder the world has such a passion for him.

Those are the kind of people Im going to sell faulty products to

[Crazed Rabbit]

Those are the kind of people Im going to sell faulty products to

LOL!

And great post Louis.

EDIT - Thinking about it, it really is sad Obama's grandmother won't live to see her grandson win.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Well everyone keeps predicting an Obama win but i don't want to get my hopes up...

I think an Obama presidency will be a breath of relief after a bush admin, spending is going to be pretty damn tight after what the republicans left him with, so Obama will have to clean up that mess rather than on many new policys, but just a more thoughtful considered foriegn policy would be a start, and just a different attitude in general, things can only improve and i think obama will do a decent job of it.... if he wins.....

[KukriKhan]

My sincere thanks to all contributors. :bow:

This thread is officially closed.

Join me in a few hours here, in CountArach's thread. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=109348).

Until then, dear posters and readers: sleep well. And prepare for tomorrow's battles.

:bow: