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

[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, 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.

Let's also not forget how he railed against NAFTA in the primaries, while secretly telling the Canadian government to ignore his pandering rhetoric.

[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 in smears, 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.

[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!!

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:

[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.

[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.

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 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.

[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.

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...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/...xSchedule.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.

[Proletariat]

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

[KukriKhan]

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

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.

Oh the irony.