Massive bailouts, foreclosed homes, jaw-dropping gas prices, chaos on Wall Street. These are just a few signs of the U.S.'s struggling economy. As America enters the next chapter of its history, what impact will an Obama administration have on our economic future?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The American and global economies are so immensely complicated we lose sight of the person and the family. We must recognize that the economy needs jumpstarts-- exactly as said in this Argument --but the ordinary jumpstart gets an engine running and one jumpstart is enough. Not so with the national economy or a family's economic security.
We must have continuous follow up to make sure the cycle of "investment, job, pay, output, sales, consumption, profit, investment", has begun and is running smooth enough for the results we're after.
Too many Educated People believe the cycle is private and automatic. And for some it is.
But for nations and the planet the cycle needs a SYSTEM of continuous jumpstarts whenever the engine quits.
Too many EP's believe we needs high taxes. We don't. We need MONEY-- to be saved until output is affordable for the pay received. Keynes' general theory of money must be simplified and pounded in, in argument.
- john gelles
July 24, 2008 7:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Barack Obama
First, I dont think that the government can make better investment decisions than the free market. Government institutions dont have same incentives and disincentives as the free market institution. Experience proves over and over again, that when governments do something, they do it with a lower quality and a higher price, than private institutions. Furthermore, every government intervention in the marketplace distorts its even more, and makes problems in the long run worse.
Government spending and market intervention is part of the problem, not its solution! Every reputable economist knows that.
From where does the government gets its money in the first place? In a consumer driven economy, every tax is paid in the end by the consumer. Stealing money to spend it supposedly better, is wrong.
2 Is it really a sane idea to destroy the rewards and punishments of the market, by punishing highly successful people with higher taxes, and rewarding highly unsuccessful with a "safety net?
- eXtremeLogic July 25, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Uncommitted
that can't be trusted with our economic future. We've had 19 years of Republican administrations to show us firsthand that "trickle down" just destroys the economy by eliminating the buying potential of people in the lower brackets of the economy. Why was the economy so robust during Clinton's administration? Because lower income folks didn't feel on the verge of financial destitution at every turn. Throw in corporate greed combined with complete lack of government oversight and it's clear that "the Rich Get Richer" is a doomed strategy for long-term economic health.
Economies that have a strong base that can afford to spend money can afford to nurture wider and more tiers above the lowest levels. Is a pyramid that's a mile high by a foot wide at its base going to stand for long? Or is a better stability model a pyramid that's a mile wide by a foot high?
No question. Trickle Up is far more sensible.
- veetwo July 25, 2008 8:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
Good try veetwo. Over the last 19 years, between the THREE branches of government, we have experineced an even balance of democratic and republican influence, so trying to pin our problems on republicans is disingenuous at best! If we extend our analysis to thirty years, we see the greatest contrast between Jimmy Carter's "spread the wealth" plan in cooperation with his tax and spend congress, and Ronald Reagan's "get government off our backs" plan in spite of a liberal congress. I still remember the misery of the first plan and the relief of the latter.
Cutting slices off of one person's big piece of pie to "spread the wealth around" just makes more crums, and don't forget the bureaucrats eat most of the slices they cut off, so very littel actually gets "spread around." Can you name one pie slicing program that ever made someone rich (other than a politician that is)? Social Security? We pay 15% a year for 50 years and get poverty benefits for 5, but it's going bankrupt! Welfare? The choice of inner city baby mills or abortion! Education? The more they spend the worse it gets!
Barry experimented with his "spread the wealth around" philosophy in Chicago. The folks on the South Side are as poor as ever. Barry and his frineds are filthy rich (but some of them will have to wait until they get out of jail to spend it all), and the political machine is bigger than ever. Is he coming to Washington to find more wealth to spread around in Chicago or to impose that failed plan on the rest of the nation?
If everyone wants a bigger piece of pie, and we all do, the only way to do that is to bake more pies. The private citizens of America are the most industious, igenious, and generous people on the planet. Most of them love to bake pies, and they even enjoy sharing the pie--unless some big government regulator is taking it by force. If we keep more money in the hands of entrepreneurs, and less in bloated bureaucracies we'll bake more pies than we can eat. Besides "trickle-up" is a defective metaphore!
We surely had lack of oversight, and that should be punished, but the regulations are on the books. The corruption of personal greed within government is just another reason to keep government small. If greed has eight sharp teeth, then corrupt governemtn has 32! By the way Barry would have had plenty of opportunity to pull some corrupt government teeth while he was in Chicago; does he have any trophies?
- ScottyNow October 18, 2008 12:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Neither one of them desirves to be President. Because they are both congressmen and congress is the problem.
It is time to form a new government.
Only way to get the greed out of Washington D.C.
- ronbat July 28, 2008 10:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
This idea of the government shifting funds from this to that....
Taking from this and putting it into that...
It's like shifting eggs in a basket. Every step of the way it's taxed, a portion is wasted and the government takes a cut to run... more government.
Lets look at what this Democrat Congress has done:
Bailouts for banks. Bailouts for home lenders. Bailouts for people who took/recieved loans they could not afford because of "Equal Opportunity Lending". Bailouts for Bear Sterns. Bailouts for people who built thier houses under sea level with no insurance. Bailouts for telecoms who commited crimes aginst my constitutional rights (for which Barack Hussein Obama voted for). Now they want to put us hard-working tax payers who are responsible and pay our bills to be on the hook for those who took money they could not pay back, in the context of going after "Predatory Lenders" who gave THIER money to people with lousy credit under the guidance of THIS government.
- NFurno August 1, 2008 11:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: John McCain
I don't think you have to vote for a candidate just because you are a democrat or a republican. I think you need to use your brain and research the candidates. There is numerous web sites to go to for information and not just to the candidates site. I am a 70 year old female and did just that. I think Senator McCain has the best economy plan. I am a retired policewoman and draw social security. I want that protected. I think Senator McCain can do that for me and all Americans. I also think his experience in government and foreign policy is greater, therefore Senator McCain has my vote.
- justme October 12, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: John McCain
I'm not sure I could handle another hit from big government. A jump start implies the economy is sitting still and the battery is dead, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
We are in the process of navigating SLOWLY around a huge obstacle--worthless sub-prime mortgages bundled in opaque packages called mortgage backed securities. These sub-prime mortgages were mandated by big government "spread the wealth" regulations. Please, Mr. Obama, if you could step to the side of the road and distract 20,000 bureaucrats with with a speech, we'll take care of the economy on our own.
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 11:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The economic ramifications of Obama's economic plan couldn't be more clear. His plan relies on raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 and all businesses and corporations. Most people think they aren't affected by this because they don't make more than $250,000. But, those of us making less than $250,000 are the ones affected more by this. Businesses won't just accept a tax increase leading to a profit reduction. Instead, they will maintain their profits by increasing the costs of the goods and services they provide, cutting salaries of the people who work for them, and cutting jobs within their companies. So, everything we buy (food, fuel, clothes, electronics, etc.) and all the services we utilize will cost us more, way more than the proposed tax break he promises. Also, the extremely wealthy will decide not to buy their yachts and extra mansions, and not to go to the most expensive restaurants. In the end, Obama's plan will lead to less money being put into the economy (leading to fewer sales tax payers), increased unemployment (leading to fewer income tax payers), and an economic depression like we have never seen.
- jross72 October 18, 2008 7:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: John McCain
See his FHA HOME plan to fund subprime borrowers who will be getting a free ride at the taxpayers' expense. Talk about a blackhole for tax dollars. McCain will literally funnel Small Town Values(tm) tax payers' money into Orange County, CA mansions whose owners got smart and realized the government will save them from having to make their full mortgage payments.
Separately, doesn't Obama propose eliminating capital gains taxes on small businesses? And an employer tax credit for offering health insurance (to encourage them to hire more people)?
- nbkwx55 September 7, 2008 10:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
I actually read McCain's FHA HOME plan in its entireity, which apparently nbkwx55 did not do. His plan has common-sense eligibility guidelines which are tied to incomes and home values. To qualify you must fall BELOW a certain income level, show you COULD afford the mortgage when you applied for it, and show you CAN'T afford the variable mortgage rate change. Once you qualify, you still have to pay back the loan. It's not a perfect plan, but it's better than anything else that's on the table!
Obviously, nbkwx55 never ran a small business! You pay capital gains when you cash in. Once you cash in, someone else is running the business, OR the business is defunct! So eliminateing the capital gains tax for small businesses, actualy DEincentivises the continued growth of small businesses. This fits Barry's vision for centralized government control of all facets of our lives. With less small business competition, the axis of control shifts to the cozy relationship between big union bosses and big government.
The health insurance tax credit is just sugar for the laced big-government health care cool-aide. You can drink it if you want...not me. I'm staying alive!
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 9:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I actually also read the FHA Home plan in its entirety as well. Kudos to us both for reading! Yay!
The plan has "squishy" guidelines to allow FHA to approve or deny applications as public policy sees fit. Borrowers' documentation amounts to an attestation that they can afford the new mortgage which the FHA will approve or deny based on some unpublished guideline. Sounds very similar to the "no doc" / "liar loans" that are defaulting in massive numbers these days. So all of your all cap "COULD afford, "CAN'T afford" tests amount to an "honor system" test. As for repaying the loan - read it again. The borrower will not repay FHA directly - the FHA will get paid back through some kind of convoluted equity certificate that amounts to a cap on the borrower's price appreciation - a good disincentive to sell the house for maximum price down the road. In the end, it's not better than anything else on the table. Apparently the Congress, Senate and President all agreed when they passed TARP which is focused either on buying up securitized mortgages or investing directly in banks. It's not a borrower outreach program and it makes no claims to specifically modify delinquent loans via the FHA. Thank goodness McCain suspended all campaigning to swoop in and save this plan - just in time to have it fail to pass the House and send the stock market into a nosedive. Way to assert your leadership, Senator!
Point 2 - thanks for the assumption but I do run a small business. Your assertion is ridiculous. I'm building my business to sell one day - as does almost every other small business owner I know - so cap gains is a big issue to me. If a business goes defunct, cap gains has no impact. If you are running a small business, make an appointment with your accountant to discuss this if you believe otherwise.
There is no central government control when cap gains tax on the sale of a small business is eliminated. You look like a right wing nut job when you claim it does. Union bosses? Have you looked at union enrollment numbers lately? They're in huge decline. Now you're approaching ill informed wacko nut job. Congrats! That's a tough level of nuttiness to achieve on this website but you have done it.
The health insurance benefit taxation that McCain proposes is being masked by his tax credit for use towards insurance premiums. The US has never taxed an employer benefit like health insurance before. It's crazy to think this is a good move for anyone at any tax bracket. This does nothing to stop health insurance costs from escalating at 2-5x the rate of inflation. Barack's plan actually puts a cap on insurance costs and starts to cram down the providers' costs as well. Since the opinion of small business owners is so important to you, you'll be happy to know that they favor this plan over McCain's overwhelmingly.
So thanks for your informed response. Your misspelled reference to the Jonestown mass suicide event is a classy one (it's Kool Aid, not cool aid - didn't years of watching a pitcher jump through walls yelling "oh yeah!" teach you anything?). I reitereate my congratulations on your achieving ill informed wacko nut job status.
- nbkwx55 October 20, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
Obama proposes increasing capital gains taxes. Also, he is proposing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, something no one talks about. Once that happens, even the people in the lowest tax bracket (not just people making more than $250,000) will see their taxes increase. So, EVERYONE who pays taxes will have to pay more with Obama's plan.
- jross72 October 18, 2008 7:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
Just as the lowered demand for oil has resulted in lower fuel prices, the laws of supply and demand and many other basic economic principles support exactly what you're saying. This is why I'm terrified of an Obama presidency. Like the man just fine, don't get me wrong - in fact, I think he would have made a great president a decade or so ago. But unfortunately what people have to realize is that Obama is a day late and a dollar short - literally - in proposing the kind of idealistic plans he has for our nation, including in terms of foreign policy.
We all need to face the fact that we are far too deep into a capitalistic approach to make any drastic about-face into a more socialistic approach now. Before all is said and done we are irrevocably faced with more government involvement because of the criminal, greedy, and devil-may-care actions of the few. On top of that, ANYTHING that resembles the government's issuance of a tsk-tsk to big and small businesses when businesses are already terrified about what will happen next will surely result in the consequences that you outline here. In fact, I think those consequences will be more dire than you predict.
Our dog-eat-dog business style and need for greed in this nation is what drives our economy, like it or not. If you take that away, the inevitable shrinkage leaves us in a "like taking candy from a baby" situation. Business in the US does not know how to operate with reasonable profit margins anymore. Rather than scaling back to less obscene CEO packages, engaging in better corporate governance, and modifying our raging need to profit at others' expense, Obama's plan would surely backfire. He doesn't realize that he's not dealing with adults here - he's dealing with spoiled children at their worst.
The economic cycle you outline is an obvious cause and effect if Obama's policies were to be implemented. Kondratiev's principle that says we will experience an economic depression every 67 years doesn't seem to have been borne out - well at least not exactly. I believe if you reset the clock to 1942, the year after the end of WWII, you'll find that 67 years results in NEXT YEAR. THAT is why Obama's policies terrify me.
I wish I believed otherwise. And I actually do believe in capitalism. The problem is that the system is so dysfunctional now, it's like watching Jerry Springer on acid when you follow the daily developments in our economy. Here's what everyone seems to be forgetting - the reason terrorists targeted the World Trade Center over and over again was this: they knew that our greed was our Achilles heel. See any relationship between Sept 11, 2001 and the targets and what is happening now? The terrorists are winning and they are winning on our own soil. They are right - our greed is our Achilles heel. And unfortunately, while probably motivated by the best of intentions, President Bush's actions in the wake of Sept 11 is EXACTLY what the terrorists counted on. Because our other Achilles heel, second only to our greed, is our need to preserve that greed at any cost. The US can be counted on to protect her interests at ANY cost. The whole world knows that. And the terrorists' plans worked like a charm.
So the bottom line is that as Americans we are our own worst enemy. Obama trying to get us to take proper care of ourselves now is a day late and a dollar short. Trying to reason with countries whose mission is the demise of the United States is like trying to negotiate a 16 oz steak away from a pit bull. The "steaks" we are dealing with now require an admission about the way things really are. And John McCain is a realist who sees the way things really are. He knows the terrorists will not stop in their desire to destroy us. He knows that we are facing some of the worst times of our country's relatively short history. And he understands that we are our own worst enemies. He is the only one whose plans are steeped in the reality that only someone who has looked into the eyes of those who would destroy him can see.
McCain's plans work WITH the system the way it is now. They deal with the core causes, such as the housing industry. He has the real understanding about what's going on. Obama is simply latching onto people's hope and their rose-colored glasses. That's the bottom line. People want to believe that you can just wholesale blame a political party and everything will be alright. But this time that just isn't true. Now, I fear, we will be our own worst enemies yet again.
- ReformtheEstablishment October 19, 2008 7:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
Sorry - I meant to say our year of entry into WWII (technically I know it was December 11, 1941, but for all practical purposes it began in 1942). Guess this issue really gets my brain scrambled!
- ReformtheEstablishment October 19, 2008 9:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
Obama's tax plan is more complex than this. The small business cap gains tax elimination _is_ part of it. He is also planning to allow cap gains taxes on other investments to go back to where they were before the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts are temporary as written in law, so allowing them to expire could be viewed as "raising" or could be viewed as "status quo". His income tax plan, however, is - as he has described it a number of times - not going to raise taxes on those that make less than $250k in income - including the impact of letting the Bush tax cuts expire as the law currently calls for.
If you want to get even more complex, noone's addressed the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT currently affects many people that Bush targeted to have lower taxes, including those that sell their businesses. I haven't heard either candidate address it so I have no clue which side will do what. But it's a boring topic most voters can't follow so we probably won't hear much about it. Take a look at your tax return - especially if you make over $200k as a household or plan to sell a business - and you'll see AMT popping up to trump whatever Bush tax cut you thought you would enjoy.
Finally, I'd argue that our ballooning deficit is proof that the current tax revenues are insufficient for the future. After TARP passed, we have a huge new future obligation to support (on top of Medicaid, Social Security and Defense) and borrowing more and running up a larger deficit won't work. We can argue about why trickle down economics should work, but the last 8 years shows it doesn't. Real wage growth has been terrible, the number of uninsured and underinsured has grown rapidly and all other measures of economic prosperity are indicating it was a squandered opportunity to grow the whole country versus the top 5%.
- nbkwx55 October 20, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
These are some of the spending plans you don't hear about on TV. Most of these are planned by the Democrats in Congress, which is why you don't see them directly associated with Obama; however, if Obama is president, they will pass without resistance.
1. $1.5 billion in tax relief for trial lawyers by encouraging more risky but more rewarding lawsuits.
2. Global Poverty Act - spend $845 billion in U.S. money to eradicate world hunger and ensure foreign environmental sustainability. Oh, but Obama won't spend a dime of his own money to help his poor brother.
3. My personal favorite: Wage Insurance - this is a new federal payroll tax (which will be paid by ALL workers along with social security and medicare taxes) which would provide a check for people who get a new job that pays less than their prior job. It will be worth half the difference. This means if your neighbor decides to quit his 40 hour/week job for a 30 hour/week job, the government will pay him 50% of the difference (or 5 hours of pay per week)!
So, despite all of you who are CERTAIN that taxes will not be raised for anyone making less than $250,000, you are wrong. Sure, Obama may not be proposing it directly, but his Democrat colleagues are, and only McCain will veto it.
Vote for Obama and watch your pay check fall, leading to less shopping, and resulting in an economic depression like we have never seen.
- jross72 October 25, 2008 1:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
I believe the SNAFU on Wallstreet is sufficient to conclude that people with self interest will ultimately lead to the downfall of our economic system
- AlGray September 24, 2008 1:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
The culpability of Wall Street is to be assumed! It is supposed to be a mechanism to harness greed for productivity, but as usual, corrupt government regulation used the irresistible power of coersion to enforce an insatiable desire for personla profit!
AlGray's accurate insight is proof that MORE government regulation CANNOT unravel this SNAFU! Plenty of government regulations were in place to prevent this economic meltdown, but the self-interest of the politicians who were supposed to enforce them got in the way. Don't you find it strange that the most rewarded Senator Chris Dodd, who received almost $1 Million from Fannie and Freddie (in addition to his great Mortgage deals frome Country Wide, and whatever inside trading tips floated by),has the audacity to "investigate" the abuses? It makes sense that as the second most rewarded, with $500K from Fannie and Freddie, Barry has been very quiet about the culpability of Congress. That's a spotlight that might embarrass him, and darken his rising star status.
I'd like to see someone commit to knock heads together (so to speak) up there on Capital Hill! A couple of times during the debates I thought McCain might make it public, and that would have sealed his deal with me, but at least he mentions it directly in his proposal.
More importantly, The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which got steroid treatments in 1999, introduced government regulation that FORCED banks to write the stupid mortgages that have tied the market up in knots! It also required Fannie and Freddie to buy those mortgages from private banks, with implicit government guarantees. The opaque mortgage based securities that Fannie and Freddie have been using to cook their books are the beginning and the end of this mess!
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The heart of America has always been the people. The people run this country. In the past when there were issues we used our Creative ingenuity to come up with the best solutions. Giving Government the power to make decisions for us is not the right move. What is freedom when someone else says what you can and cant have and do with your life. Taxing the rich will decrease the amount of business and corp. owners and cause us to loose even more jobs. I personally just got laid off and it had nothing to do with the economy. When you work with the criminal justice department then less work actually is a good thing. Now I can sleep better and teach students who are eager to learn. Again I say let the constitution reign, let the people run this country.
- rkiser October 12, 2008 10:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: John McCain
My vote is not for sale, Mr. Furman, but thank you for the offer. I would like the government to get out of direct economy manipulation altogether! I'm not sure that anyone can do that for me, but at least Senator McCain is not trying to bribe me with a post-election check.
The economy is not broken down; it is in a traffic jam, and an insane "spread the wealth around" strategy is the primary obstacle! The Reinvestment Act of 1977, with its 1999 steroid treatments, FORCED banks to write mortgages to patently unqualified home-buyers, designatedFannie and Freddie to buy those loans with implicit government guarantees. The real estate market flooded with unqualified customers. With higher demand prices began to rise and speculators stepped right in! Because of inflated home values, Fannie and Freddie can cook the books with these opaque mortgage backed securities, but last month the s*** hit the fan. Now the credit market is legitimately clogged with distrust and fear, and we taxpayers are on the hook for $1 Trillion in bailouts. Did I here someone say "implicit guarantee for mandated sub-prime loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie"?
Simple solution collect less taxes all around, and Americans will have more wealth to "spread around" on their own. Private Americans are the most generous people on the planet! Next, accept resignations from all members of the Banking and Finance Committees in the House and Senate. Then, lay off 30% of the Washington-based bureaucrats, which produces two good results. First, the deficit will go down when they stop working on their boondoggle projects. Second they can get a job working at something productive rather than thinking up ways to regulate our lives.
Truly, the contrast between my views and Barry's could not be much clearer.
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 11:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
It is always a simple matter to check history when comparing options. Stimulus plan: tried it, the economy got worse. $500-$1200 does not a spending spree create as a one time shot. History does show that continuing the stimulus for several cycle, say yearly has an agragate affect to positively influence the economy. Additionally, the concept of stimulus being repeated: well that's a tax break, for everyone. Now we are actually discribing McCain's plan. Ironic.
Job creation: spend taxpayor money to invest in job creation, green or otherwise. This can work, but takes years to make an impact. A quicker path is to open up the restrictions on the jobs we could already have. Drilling for example, ON SHORE, could have additional oil on the market in under a year, not the 3-4 years for offshore drilling. This is more jobs, more wealth creation, and we use the money from the oil rights to invest in the longer term green job creation. Now we are tax neutral to boot. Now we have gravatated to the McCain plan.
- bobberaaaaa October 19, 2008 11:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Obama and this argument say in few words spoken softly we must reduce taxes for ordinary people and make sure th nation's economy works for them. THESE ARE GIGANTICALLY IMPORTANT TO EVERY VOTER OBAMA NEEDS TO HAVE ON HIS SIDE.
How to reach the voter with these points is the real challenge. Keynes and Adler argued we do not even need taxes. Production and consumption in a monetary system of production support the money used to motivate labor. Savings can replace taxes until anti-inflation taxes, ONLY, may have to supplement such savings.
A mobilized economy as we had in WW II is called for in today's crises. But to get these dramatic truths into the dialog of the day seems to be impossible.
TAXES and ECONOMIC SUCCESS as argued by Obama hit these nails on the head. But the way they are presented they read dry as dust. I do not have the answer. But the answer is a MUST. Get the guys who wrote these two points together. And make these points into our new national anthem.
- john gelles July 24, 2008 7:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Barack Obama
The wealthiest individuals in this country have had an unfair advantage for far too long. They have used their wealth and connections to perpetuate a "winner take all" strategy that benefits only them. Additionally, their children enjoy these same benefits (best schools etc) and promise to perpetuate this situation for generations to come. Yes, a few crumbs do get thrown to the masses, but the vast majority of the subsequent wealth creation is enjoyed by a relative few. Obama wants to turn this around and force the very wealthy to give back to those from which they have taken so much and so mercillessly exploited.
- Coventry July 24, 2008 11:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Barack Obama
Everything about your post is wrong on every level and you have clearly identified my disgust with the democratic party. Mercilessly exploited? A few crumbs? Blame everyone else from successful people to corporations as an excuse for why your life didn't turn out the way you thought instead of taking a long hard look in the mirror. I have had more hardship in my life than anyone you can name, regardless of background. I fought through it all and am now successful and yes, my kids will be going to good schools. What, I should send them to bad schools to make you feel better?
Life is not fair and there is no such thing as a level playing field unless you would prefer to live in North Korea because there is about as close to a level field as you will find. Years ago I wanted to play pro football. Should they have leveled the playing field for me? People who are faster than me should have been forced to run with 100 lb. weights on their backs. That would be a level playing field. That would be fair to me.
No matter who you are, what your upbringing was, what your skin color is, religious belief is, there are always going to be people who get better chances than you. Don't compete with them, compete with yourself. Rich people didn't hold you down. Corporations didn't hold you down. George Bush didn't hold you down. You held yourself down. Suck it up and play the hand you were dealt and if you work at it, your life will be better. But continue to blame and point fingers and cry about how you were wronged by life and you are only hurting yourself.
- Pliskin October 2, 2008 1:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: John McCain
Please Coventry, think about what you said in July! The wealthiest people in our country don't just force people to give them money. They get rich because we really like the stuff they do and we pay for it!They work, they take big risks, they build businesses, they hire people, thy buy equipment for their employees to work with, they provide goods and services that make our lives better. Can you identify the goods and services the top ten wealthiest individuals in America provide to make our lives better?
Then they spend about 1/10th of theri wealth on themselves, give a bunch to charities that turn them on, and reinvest the rest of it to grow their business, start a new business, or invest in other businesses on the market. More jobs! And there is no rule that keeps you or I from following that same path, except our won ambition.
On the other side, Barry wants to take, by force, 35% of their corporate profit before anyone else gets to see it. Of what's left, he wants to take, by force, another 40% of their personal income. And of what's left, he wnats to take, by force, another 35% of their capital gains. He claims he wants to spread the wealth around, but when you look at his performance in Chicago, you find that all the poor people on the South Side are still poor, he's blindly rich, all of his friends are blindly rich, and that big Chicago machine pays a million sloths to create and enforce mindless regulations that make it harder for the poor people to find a way out of the cellar. I'd much rather have a good paying job that comes with a vibrant economy than a few hundred bucks of Eearned Income Credit Welfare that comes with Barry's "spread the wealth around" nightmare!If you torpedo, the big boats with higher taxes, it goes down with the crew and passengers too.
Name one federal "spread the wealth" program that has actually made things better. Social Security? Bankrupt! Welfare? Inner city baby mills! Education? The more they spend the worse it gets! Higher taxes just get productive workers in the marketplace fired so worthless bureaucrats can get hired.
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 9:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX.
MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA: Impose a 28% on profit from ALL home sales.
How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their
retirement income.
- burnleaf July 28, 2008 7:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Uncommitted
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA Impose a 39.6% tax!
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'
- burnleaf July 28, 2008 7:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Uncommitted
INCOME TAX:
MCCAIN (no changes) - Single making 30K - tax $4,500, Single making 50K - tax $12,500, Single making 75K - tax $18,750, Married making 60K- tax $9,000, Married making 75K - tax $18,750, Married making 125K - tax $31,250.
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400, Single making 50K - tax $14,000, Single making 75K - tax $23,250, Married making 60K - tax $16,800, Married making 75K - tax $21,000, Married making 125K - tax $38,750.
Under Obama, The working people making the least will have their taxes almost double!
How does this affect you?
- burnleaf July 28, 2008 7:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Uncommitted
The boast of giving 95% of workers tax relief seems absurd! Approximately 35% of workers pay no income tax at all. I happen to be one of them right now. How will this "tax relief" work for us--a check in the mail? If the fellow who signs my check happens to be in that top 5% will he have to lay me off to pay the government the extra money? I'd really rather keep my job, but now the "spread the wealth around" theme comes into focus!
The Military and Homeland Security protect me, my family, my wealth, my job, my community...The Treasury Department (when it's not dealing with "spread the wealth" sub-prime mortgage bailouts) maintains fiscal balance for the economy...The IRS collects revenue...The State Department maintains neighborly relationsh with our international frineds and enemies...The Justice Department enforces laws and prosecutes lawbreakers...We all benefit from all of these valuable services whether we pay taxes or not. When I have a job that pays me enough that I can pay taxes, then I am HAPPY to pay for those valuable services.
But there are a host of "spread the wealth" programs that are just bloating our bureaucracy and increasing our national debt without any real results. Enlarging the Welfare program under the disguise of "tax relief is utterly deceptive. Barry says, "I'll give you and your wife $1,000 to drink this yellow cool-aide.
No thanks. My liberty is worth more than $1,000 per year to me. The best way to gather wealth is a JOB! If my neighbor loves me and gives me $1,000 bucks as a gift, I'd say tanks. But if I take it from him by force, he'd hate me. Besides, I'd like to become one of those 5% rich people who Barry expects to carry 100% of his big governemtn boondoggles.
All John McCain needs to do to win me over is promise to knock some corrupt heads together (so to speak) in congress!
- ScottyNow October 18, 2008 1:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"But there are a host of "spread the wealth" programs that are just bloating our bureaucracy and increasing our national debt without any real results"
The war in Iraq? I'm with you, I don't think haliburton needs to have my wealth spread to them.
"Besides, I’d like to become one of those 5% rich people who Barry expects to carry 100% of his big governemtn boondoggles."
This is misleading. The super wealthy currently pay a lower percentage of their income than the middle class. Warren Buffet has stated that he pays about 17% of his income in taxes which is less than his secretary and made a million dollar bet with a bunch of rich people that non of them could prove that they paid a higher percentage than their secretaries. None of them took him up on his bet!
Obama’s plan will simply restore some balance here. McCain’s plan will actually increase the difference between what Buffet pays compared to his secretary by further decreasing the capital gains tax.
- reckoner October 18, 2008 10:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
Good try reckoner...nothing intelligent to say ON Subject? Just change the subject! Defense spending is not a socialist "Spread the wealth around" program, it is one of the legitimate purposes for which the Federal government was formed by the constitution!
But while we are on that subject, I can remind you that although it is not a socialist "spread the wealth around" policy, the Iraq war has produced results!
1. A brutal dictator who killed almost 1 million of his own citizens has been deposed, tried for war crimes, and executed! (100% of Free World leaders wanted this to happen, and even 98% of Congress voted for it!)
2. The war on terror is being prosecuted in the terrorists' back yard not ours! Have you noticed the last seven years with no radical muslim extremist attacks on our soil! The vigilance of freedom is expensive, but it is worth every penny!
3. Another growing democracy in the Middle East!
- ScottyNow October 19, 2008 1:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
people that throw the word "socialist" around always have a double standard. The government spending they like is justified and the ones they don't like are "spread the wealth" programs.
The role of government is to provide security for it's people. This means more than simple physical security from from violence. The FDIC is a good example. The FDA is a good example. Public schools are a good example.
The idea that Iraq is a growing democracy is laughable.
- reckoner October 20, 2008 8:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
First, Reckoner, if Warren Buffet feels like he's not paying enough taxes to spread his own wealth around, he could do a few things to change the situation.
1. He could fire the Accountant who files his tax forms and pay his dumb tax figure--you know--the one without all the itemized deductions!
OR
2. He could just make a donation to the government! Thank You Mr Buffet!
Second, How much is 17% of 1 Billion? $170 million from one man! Thank You Mr. Buffet!
Third, Warren Buffet paid income tax on his $Billions when he first earned them! Now these $Billions are invested in the market. They are financing companies that produce trillions of dollars in goods and services that make our lives better! They are creating JOBS so that regular folks like us can earn a living. Because most of his Billions are doing the entire world so much good, he only has to pay 15% capital gains tax. Capital Gains represent the increase in the value of his investments, and they are more valuable to him, simply because they are more valuable to the entire economy! We all benefit from him leaving the money in the market--especially now in a credit cruch. Thank You Mr. Buffet for letting us use the Billions you earned so that we can earn the opportunity to carry the weight of our own government, and thank you for paying a second rouond of taxes on your $Billions
Fourth, although Mr. Buffet is superwealthy and doesn't need to worry about his capital gians tax, (he is the top 1/10th of 1% of taxpayers) the rest of us need to be careful about who's in charge of "spreading our wealth around." The only pwople who benefit from these socialist "spread the wealth around" programs are the politicians who get obscenely rich on the kickbacks and the bureaucrats who siphon of the funds. You haven't answered the most important question on my mind:
Can you name even one socialist "spread the wealth around" (Thank you Barry for that compelling Phrase!)program that has lifted anyone out of poverty?
- ScottyNow October 19, 2008 2:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Can you be clear. Do you believe that the super wealthy should pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class?
"Can you name even one socialist "spread the wealth around" (Thank you Barry for that compelling Phrase!)program that has lifted anyone out of poverty?"
Public schools
- reckoner October 20, 2008 8:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
Better use that $1,000 wisely, as it won't go very far. We need John McCain, who will bring jobs for a stable future, reduce spending for lower taxes, reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax to protect your investment. Big government is VERY expensive, that is why they want to give you back $1,000. If we sell out to get a few bucks in our hand, we will owe for a much longer time. And, if you are in a category that is to pay the "retributive-redistributive-fairness" taxes, you will pay even more. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness demands a McCain presidency.
- TexasMom November 1, 2008 9:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
Who Has the Right Plan for America's Economy?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Republicans had 8 years to do something
The Republicans had a good deal of time to try to do something positive for the country, even after dealing with the Trade Center attacks. But what we got was a needless war unrelated to 9/11, enormous debt and an economy that is terrible for the average person. What would be my motivation for rewarding the Republican party for that? Especially when it's looking like McCain is running as George Bush's third term?
- Kelly
July 23, 2008 11:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Obama is clearly "The Good Old Boy"
John McCain, clearly, has shown us that he has stood up to Bush repeatedly for a better America and to the Republican party for his entire career. Obama is clearly "The Good Old Boy" in this campaign. It is becoming apparent to democrats all over the nation, unfortunately, that Obama is too egotistical to do effective work in the best interest of this country.
- indieplanet
September 28, 2008 6:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
McCain is no maverick
That's amusing. Obama a "good old boy?" It hasn't been that long ago that real "good old boys" were lynching people that had the same skin color as Obama, just because they had that skin color. Either you're engaging in a very sick joke or you have no clue as to what "good old boy" really means in the history of the US.
It would also be nice if you could cite some examples that show how Obama is too egotistical to do effective work. Are these the best Republican talking points these days?
- Kelly
September 28, 2008 9:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Both
They're both "good old boys" in my eyes.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Statement
Good statement. I do not believe either of them is truly qualified to run this country.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Convention
Watch the Convention, that was proof enough for me to see that Obama is egotistical. Then listen to every thing he has said this whole year. However, I am not for McCain either. I think that they both are show boating. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a clean campaign without all the bashing that just is cut and dry as to what the candidates would try to do when they get in the White House?
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
McCan is not whom he tries to portray himself to be!!!!!!!!!!!
Being from Arizona you have been conned by the maverick John McCain. Neither canidate is perfect but make sure you do your research before falling for the maverick!!
- chaseruns26
October 1, 2008 12:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are wrong
View this with an open mind if you can. Vote your conscience but at least be an informed voter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Thiis not spin or right-wing rhetoric, it is footage from CSPAN where Democrats are saying there is no housing crisis coming and Fanny and Freddy are fine and Republicans calling for regulation. You are being lied to.
And here is a NY Times article from 1999 predicting the failure and subsequent bailout of Fanny and Freddy due to changes during the Clinton administration.
--SNIP--
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
--SNIP--
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
forclosure phil
I agree one ought to be an informed voter. It has become common knowledge that Phil Graham is at the top of the responsibility list when it comes to our current crisis. He was major deregulator of the 90's and did ir purposly to line the pockets of the ultra rich whats more it worked!
- wanderer
February 28, 2009 1:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whats wrong with America
Sorry to use you as an example, Phil, but to me, you represent what is truly wrong with Americans and politics. You take the easy way out, to repeat the garbage without doing a little of your own research or coming up with your own view point. It is so easy to blame a single person rather than step back and look at the system as a whole. So saying Phil Graham is at the top overlooks the problem and ergo, one cannot have solve a problem without understanding the problem.
The key to the financial issue is complex, no doubt, but one can easily point out the biggest contributor to the problem and the issue that started the downfall: the housing market collapse. Within that are a number of factors starting with Fannie and Freddie. They are hybrid organizations. They are neither private company nor are they a government agency. There are something in between and that is a big part of this problem. Had they been a company, they would have had to behave in a more responsible fashion. Had they been a government agency, they would have been subjected to more oversight. Add to that, the goal of the Clinton administration to put more lower income people into home ownership (under a Republican congress so blame is equal). Now you have a recipe for disaster. Mortgage companies sell mortgages to home buyers then in turn sell those mortgages to Fanny and Freddy. Fanny and Freddy has restrictions on which mortgages they would buy so mortgage companies sold the ones they knew they could resell. Prior to Bill's home ownership initiative, Fanny and Freddy would not buy risky mortgages like Interest only, etc. but after Bill's initiative, they started buying up risky loans which in turn had mortgage companies drooling because now they had a whole new HUGE market to sell to that was not available to them before. For interest only or adjustable ARMS, everything was peachy for awhile until the adjustment period when lower income, credit risky folks found themselves unable to afford the adjusted payments. Needless to say, 1) this crisis has been brewing for a long time and 2) as homes foreclosures started to increase nothing was done and 3) as homes foreclosed, people spent less thus slowly putting an undertow on our whole economy.
The point is, blaming Phil Graham or any single individual in this mess is dangerous as it does not address or even reveal the full scope of the problem. So when you point to deregulation, yet in the video clip I linked to above which I don;t think you watched, you have lawmakers literally saying that there is no problem and that a government appointed auditor is wrong. How do you watch that and think the government should have been more involved when it clearly shows that our government is incapable?
- Pliskin
February 28, 2009 2:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part II
In cases of regulation or government bailouts, here is what happens: businesses do not need to be financially sound. This is very much like the kid you knew in school was was small but friends with the bully. That guy would flap his lip endlessly because he knew the bully had his back. Take the bully away, and this guy thinks a little more before he speaks. If a business like a bank knows the government will be there to save them, they can take greater risks and this is exactly what happened with Fanny and Freddy.
But the biggest issue to me is I feel, long ago, we lost our concept of government. It is no longer by the people, for the people as every decision made has underlying motives. Things like campaign contributions, PAC money, lobbyists...not to mention political spin because Lord knows, no one want to be holding the bag. In the video clip above, you can see Democrats arguing with the auditor, saying Fanny and Freddy were financially sound yet listen to them this past fall and they sing a different tune. It wasn't their fault, it was the republicans and deregulation. Find someone else to blame so people won't think it was you and never mind that those senators in the video all got money from Fanny and Freddy.
Everyone is to blame and everyone had their hands in the cookie jar and I have gotten to a point where I don't believe a one of them, republicans or democrats.
So please take a step back and really look at this. It is so easy to blame Bush for the war, for example, when Al Gore virtually guaranteed in 2000 that he would invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam if elected. If Gore had won, we'd be in the exact same place we are now. It doesn't matter who is in office, or what little letter is shown after their names (R or D), its our whole government. I voted for Obama only because I hope and pray he really is someone different. Only time will tell...
GORE'S CAMPAIGN SPEECH TO AIPAC, May, 2000: His own words...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Gore.html
"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone."
"We have used force when necessary, and that has been frequently. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a senator, I voted for the use of force, as vice president I supported the use of force. If entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waiver. Never waiver."
A politician is a politician. Don't blame them as individuals, blame the collective mess that our government has become.
- Pliskin
February 28, 2009 2:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
phil
I do agree that many are to blame. However, it would appear you take the "its the system" approach; which is to say no one is to blame. Therefore, there is no such thing as personal responsibility. Moreover, to point to Al Gore and claim he "would have" done the same thing as Bush in Iraq seems to me a bit of a logical leap. The problems we face is not "the system". The problem is a philosophy that rewards greed and embraces the maintenance of inequality of opportunity.
And lets be honest here. Bush's war had nothing to do with ridding the world of a vicious tyrant, nor did it have anything to do with the now infamous weapons of mass destruction. It had everything to do with no bid contracts, using 9/11 an excuse to invade Iraq and gain control of its oil.
Of course, there is no one to blame because it the "system". Tens of thousands of people have died and no one is to take responsibility. We can only blame the "collective mess" then?
- wanderer
March 1, 2009 6:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fact vs party line
When will Democrats stop listening to the ever changing party line. I remember watching the debate on the House and Senate floor about the start of the war in Iraq. The majority of Democrats were right there with the Republicans voting,knowing it meant invading Iraq, approval to use force against Iraq. Back then everyone believed the intelligence, the Russians, Germans, French, British, and others as well. Later a bi-partisan committee was set up to look at the intelligence and found it flawed but cleared the Bush Administration of knowingly lying. Most, but not all, Democrats seem to forget about all this. Lets remember, Democrats controlled Congress most of the past 50 years and in contol again the past two years. The economy has faltered with Democrats in control of the purse strings...Why should we reward them? People who think McCain is Bush is just drinking the kool-aid.
- aferla
October 16, 2008 2:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mccain? Bush?
So we are to put a Democrat into the white house whose desire is to institute more social programs and more government control on things? You look at what he is planning to do. How many billions or trillions of dollars do you think it will take to accomplish that? Allot more than the current -$$$$$ that America has. You cannot institute programs that give the government control of things that people should control without 1) taking away freedoms 2) it costing a fortune 3) it hurting the pocket book of the citizens. Who do you think will pay for all the proposed things Obama wants? It won't be him. It will be the average Joe who works the perverbial 9 to 5.
- UltraConservative October 22, 2008 11:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Easy Choice
McCain was linked to the Savings and Loan debacle in the 80's and his ex 'financial advisor' Phil Gramm co-sponsered the bill that started the mortgage crisis and works for UBS Bank which hid $18 billion in US taxpayer assets from the IRS.
Economy McCain?
- gridlock July 24, 2008 6:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And the Proof
And the proof about this is where?
Obama reminds me of a Flippy Floppy Guy! He votes what way will suit him best as a senator. He bashes Hilary and then is buddy buddy with her. That to me is not the kind of President we need.
And McCain? I am not convinced there either.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fix the foundation
The right plan for America's economy is more than getting the economy jump-started after the Republican Administration's debacle.
There's a fundamental flaw in the foundation (exasperated by Clinton and his destruction of the welfare system) where those on the lower-end of the economy (and increasingly, the lower-middle-class) don't have, or are limited to, access to the basic services necessary for the pursuit of happiness: healthcare, basic food stuffs, energy, etc.
McCain's plan is a continuation of the Bush Administration's policies, tax breaks for the rich and corporations--including huge tax breaks for energy companies. While Obama's plan isn't flawless, it more readily addresses the foundational issues than McCain's plan and in the LONG RUN, will be better for the US. Economists are touting McCain's plan, but it's a temporary steroid for an economy suffering from a severe long-term disease that needs to be addressed by more robust solutions.
- akahn
July 24, 2008 8:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just a thought
But has any one even looked into McCains tax breaks for "Rich"?
What about Obama's Socialist views on government ran Health care?
I am not convinced either one is a good candidate for President.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Socialism? Who, Obama?
First off, now that GW has become the greatest "socializer" in the history of the US (the world?) the tune of $850B in government hand-outs, I don't think anyone can say that if Obama decides to spend a fraction of that on healthcare that it would be a big deal. Oh, and nevermind the billions we've wasted on a war in another country that provided no real benefit to the US or Americans, and by most accounts, have made the world a more dangerous place.
Furthermore, the majority of Americans, 58% to 38% support some role of government in providing healthcare for Americans. I'm sorry I can't provide the source for that since I heard it on the radio last week.
Finally, if we've all learned ANYTHING from the current finanical crises, it's that private enterprise can NOT be left unregulated--even Greenspan stated the same:
"Greenspan said he found a flaw in his general ideology.
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, were such that they were best able in protecting their own shareholders and the equity in their firms," Greenspan said.
"He said the breakdown “shocked me. I still do not fully understand why it happened.”
Ref: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/greenspan-admits-mistake-related-to-financial-crisis-2008-10-23.html
The idea that private industry will a) provide the best service--e.g. optimize b) provide saftey to both its shareholdes and customers, and c) work well unregulated has now been PROVEN to be both false and passe. The finanical system is MUCH MUCH larger than the healthcare system in this country and it has helped to officially change what we conser to be "free market" economics. The final verdict: It doesn't work. BTW, you, your children, and your grand-children will be paying for that failure with your hard-earned US dollars.
Finally, having lived in other countries, you should consider what better health-care would look like. See the following:
Health Care Lessons From France
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
"2000, health care experts for the World Health Organization tried to do a statistical ranking of the world's health care systems. They studied 191 countries and ranked them on things like the number of years people lived in good health and whether everyone had access to good health care. France came in first. The United States ranked 37th."
The story is very good, BTW, and worth listening to.
"Socialized Medicine" is a blanket statement that fails to take into consideration the nuances of individual societies and they respective culturual and political systems. As you surely know, blanket statements are generally not productive in providing a sound discussion.
Finally, a system of healthcare where there's greater access to healthcare for all Americans, better quality and more affordable healthcare--even if that means government involvment is a better system than one that's unregulated and left to the "free market". Our recent history proves that moving forward on principles based in the now-failed free market economy not only don't work, but are costly and disasterous.
- akahn
November 11, 2008 7:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But...
But, where will it stop?
Do you actually think that if the government gets total control of Health care it will stop there? I am not at all for being forced into purchasing health care if I do not want to. My wife and I currently pay for our own heath care insurance, and if we choose not to use it, it is our decision. I do not believe that the Government has any right to decide whether or not the health care plan I have is sufficient enough. That is my decision. By the way, I wander how many of those 58% that are for it are those that are on the Welfare Health plans already? I provide medical for my employee's which is way more than ample for their needs (ample because the employees picked it). I personally don't see the need for the government to come in and look at that plan and say we feel it is not sufficient, you have to buy more.
If the government takes control of our financial institutions, where will that stop? Whats next? Other big business?
What about Obama's plan for 401K's? I have saved a fortune in mine and do not believe that it is fair for ANY one to touch that except for me and my wife when we retire.
And that is just the tip of the Iceburg.
I am not for a take from the rich and give to the poor government philosophy. My wife and I are in that bracket that Obama wishes to raise taxes on. We have enough taxes as it is. If our taxes get raised, that means a) We either have to produce more to make up the difference (and hence the government takes even more) b) We have to make cut backs (meaning someone loses).
Granted, someones taxes have to be raised to pay for the trillions Obama wants to spend.
What then, is the solution? That is truly a good question.
- UltraConservative November 14, 2008 4:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where Will It Stop? - Valid Concern
I think you have a very valid concern about "Where/When will it stop?" However, I think one thing to keep in mind is that we live in a Republic, and should you feel that what the current government is doing is not to your liking, you have the option of voting them out of office.
Take this as a joke. In addition to your two options above, you and your wife could always get divorced and file seperately--that might cut down on the taxes--depending on how important that is to you.
I'd also like to be sure we don't go into this next administration thinking that Ibama will cost the US Taxpayer trillions. The current mess we're in is Republican-born, and the cost of it is in excess of $3T (Source: Bailout Price Tag: $3.5T So Far, But 'Real' Cost May Be Much Higher - http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/126117/Cost-of-the-Bailout-3.5T -So-Far-But-'Real'-Cost-May-Be-Much-Higher?tickers=AIG,FNM,FRE,XLF,%5EDJI,%5EGSPC,C).
Lets not forget how we got into this mess: a war that drained our coffers and made our country more unsafe and Republican led deregulation that left financial organizations to their own devices. You may not want to pay more taxes (under Obama), but thanks to the current administration--and the polices backed by McCain--you've incurred debt you hadn't intended to and money from your and your children's pockets is going to line those of wealthy bankers who made billions (trillions?) over the last decade.
If you ask me, if I had a choice between being forced into debt to bail out the chumps that were pro-"free-market" (when it suited them--now they're against it and what the G-man to step in) and paying higher taxes to help a fellow American who has a hard time putting food on his table or providing healthcare for his family, I will ALWAYS choose the latter!
The current administration took my money from me without my permission, lied to me about us being a free-market society, put my and my children's future at risk (with both debt and the stabilization of this country's economy) and is giving it away (aparently, without a clue!) to anyone and their mother willing to classify themselves as "bank holding company". Atleast with the next administration, even if they raise my taxes and take my money, I know it'll go to help another American rather than a filthy banker.
- akahn
November 16, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Help the entrepreneur, help the economy
Startups and small businesses represent 50% of the GDP, they provide the most innovation and long term economic growth.
Obama's incubators, cheap small loans, easier health insurance, elimination of capital gains tax will all help startups and small businesses.
McCain's equipment credit won't help thrifty startups unless they spend. They are aimed at helping big equipment sellers.The estate tax break doesn't help hungry new talent, it softens rich kids. McCain's r&d credit benefits dedicated research departments but innovation happens in startups not r&d departments look at Silicon Valley. McCain's cell phone and internet tax breaks are dressed up as supporting innovation but how? How does a general tax break like that target innovation and growth - it doesn't.
Obama also offers funding for a new green industry. New domestic energy sources will create new industries, new opportunities - that's more growth.
Obama's policy is designed to create growth. McCain's not really.
- riaz rizvi
July 24, 2008 12:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cap gains?
Where do you get your info from? Obama has said he will raise cap gains, not eliminate it. And he has stated he is open to near doubling of it to 28%. When cap gains are higher, investors hold thier investment whereas when cap gains are lower, they cash out and reinvest in new businesses. Raising cap gains taxes would be economic suicide right now.
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 11:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where I got my facts from...
I read this quote, "Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation".
It is on this website by Obama's Economic Adviser, Jason Furman (under verified expert arguments) and I see that is also at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy /#small-business which is an official campaign page.
I believe you are complaining about the capital gains tax increase Obama is proposing for families earning more than 250K per year, which is set to return to 20%. (see - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries ).
So his policy will encourage high earners to invest in small businesses, as opposed to property, say.
I am in favor of supporting investment into small businesses since it will encourage the growth of economic activity as opposed to the growth of asset values.
- riaz rizvi
October 1, 2008 11:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What?
You sent a link from an op-ed piece. Op = opinion. Get your information from a non-partisan tax review. And I'm not saying I am thrilled with McCain's plan. And in both things you sent, not one says that high income people who invest in small business would be exempt from the caps gain taxes. It says small businesses themselves would be exempt.
So where do these small business investments come from? From people making more than 250K. Have you ever started a small business? Other than the SBA which accounts for a tiny fraction of 1% of all investment dollars, they either come from individuals in the form of Angel investment or from VC firms. Both of which will be hit by the cap gains increase and THEY are the one that provide investment capital for small and start-up business.
Obama has said at minimum he will go up to 20% and would consider going as high as 28%. But don't take my word for it, nor should you take an op-ed article's word for it, hear it from Barack Obama himself, especially when presented with irrefutable evidence that lowering capital gains actually increases cap gains tax revenue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8
Not thrilled with either candidate and I don't like Bush but as a small business owner myself, Obama's tax plan and economic strategies make this a no-brainer. McCain.
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 12:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More facts then...
In Section II of the detailed "Full Obama Tax Plan" on Obama's website ( http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes / ) it says he will eliminate all capital gains taxes for investors in small and start up firms.
Regarding the general tax rates of high income families in that document it says they will go up to 1990 levels, but I repeat they unequivocally state that capital gains on investment in small businesses will disappear. So no-one will pay capital gains on small businesses.
Of course if we just keep all taxes low we eventually pay - since the government will be forced to borrow more which will weaken the dollar now and in the long term (through widening treasury yields). So low taxes for all during a deficit is just an abdication of responsibility. Taxation is a relative game. What should be taxed more, to get us out of this growing deficit?
I am an entrepreneur and I also belong in the high income bracket. Right now I want the tax profile to change to encourage the growth of industrial activity instead of opulence.
If the tax code rewards capital gains on the commodities of a luxurious lifestyle then investment will go into those products, 3MM dollar homes, fine art... Right now we need to knuckle down to create recession beating growth, which means the not-so-fun stuff like shares in start-ups.
- riaz rizvi
October 1, 2008 1:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
First off...
My hats of to you for having an informed decision, honestly. It is refreshing even if we don't agree. And, according to what I am now reading on the Obama site, I was wrong about investment into small businesses. I'll give you credit for that. However; I stick by my overall opinion on this. Small businesses sell things to larger businesses. Hit them with higher taxes and they spend less. Small businesses buy supplies from larger businesses. Hit them with taxes and they raise thier prices which affects small businesses.
I think that is where we disagree. I don't believe you can pull out a subsection of business as a separate entity: everything is intertwined.
The other thing is that the people who make investment in small businesses also make other investments so if thier other investments are taxed higher, they will have less to invest or more likely, will hold thier investments longer.
The other thing is that it is not clear on where the invisible line is that defines a small business and if Obama has stated that somewhere, I would be open to reading it. I started a small business and we will probably sell within the next year or two. If we sell for a million, are we a small business? How about 10 million? Is the excempt status apply to the sale of the business overall or to the size in profit one person makes on the sale? What if my wife and I make over 250K, we pay zero cap gains on the sale of the business? I have too many investors so I won't be retiring by any stretch but even the remote possibility that I could end up paying 13% more to the IRS pisses me off and Obama's plan has a lot of gray in areas that are of grave concern to me. And while 250K per year in combined income is huge in some places, we are by no means rich living in Southern Cal.
And while I agree in principle that more could be done to promote small business investment, stock market investment also has it's benefits to the economy as does home purchases, regardless of the dollar amount.
Investing in art? OK, you are stretching it a bit there...lol
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 2:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Higher taxes means more Outsourcing
Higher taxes for companies means more outsourcing of Jobs to other countries.
Any one ever stop to think about why all these American companies have moved their manufacturing else where? It is not all about the fact that they can get cheaper labor.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Higher taxes means more Outsourcing
Agree. And outsourcing comes from environmentalists pushing their agendas (follow their money trail for fun sometime - Saudi oil $, they don't want us to become energy independent).
- CharlieBravo
October 12, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Missed one option!
Cutting capital gains taxes is a good thing all around, but the cutting of taxes must be accompanied by an equal cut in spending. No one ever forced the government to borrow money. The government borrows money becasue it doesn't have the courage to tell people that they must pay for all the free lunches their "spread the wealth around" plans offer. (I am so glad that was Obama's phrase--it is so much more compelling coming out of his mouth!)
How do you cut taxes on 50% of workers, send an extra "tax break" welfare check to 45% of workers, and convince 5% of the people to carry 90% of the cost of government--including the $150 billion in "tax break" welfare checks, and $3 Trillion in NEW spending? That 5% didn't get rich because they are dumb! They will find a way to let the common man pay for every free lunch the government gives out! Or did you fail to understand that that $750 Billion bailout was Wall Street collecting on Uncle Sam's implicit guarantee of the Community Reinvestment Act mortgages bought and sold by Fannie and Freddie?
The only net CHANGE in Barry's plan is an enlarged bureaucracy that skims the cream off this "spread the wealth around" tank. Please, name one big government "spread the wealth around" plan that made someone other than a politician opulently rich! I can imagine the opulent bureaucracy that Barry, Nancy, and Harry would build together!
When the economy is roaring, you can get away with that tax and spend game, but tax and spend now will turn a recession into a depression! Even the Democrats of history understood this! Here is the best way to distribute wealth: JOBS! Because private Americans are the most industrious and innovative people on the planet if you reward their service with profit.
If you want to "spread the wealth around" choose your favorite charity. If a charity that turns you on isn't available. Start one! Because private Americans are also the most generous people on the planet.
The "facts" you presented were the promises of a polititian's pre-election proposal. We intelligent folk don't plan our lives around those proposals, because they are only as reliable as the person making them. How far can I trust a man who has conveniently renounced every socialist mentor, friend, workmate, and organization that propelled him from the Chicago machine to the cusp of national power? I don't want to be mean spirited, so I only offer the exhaustive list to those who express interst.
- ScottyNow
October 18, 2008 3:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are dead on
They just can't see through the smoke and mirrors.....
- esnesnommoc
October 13, 2008 7:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Higher Taxes is not the answer
Are higher taxes of any sort for any bracket the answer?
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doesn't add up
Those that would invest in small businesses of the size we are talking about here are going to be the business owners themselves. Less than 1 percent of these business are traded publicly. Where is the advantage to the investor?
- esnesnommoc
October 13, 2008 7:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This I have read
I have read every thing from both sites and listened to much both have said. I would have to say I agree with this information. Obama is not for eliminating Capital Gains. As a Small Business Owner, I do not see Obama as by best bet.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sounds good but...
All this sounds good, but you have to understand the functioning of our government. Just because a candidate says he will do something when running for President does not mean he or she will accomplish it. We have seen this time and again. Plus, just because a President wants something does not mean Congress will pass it.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
GO, JOHNNY, GO!
If you want to pay twice what you currently are in taxes, vote Obama!
If you can afford higher interest rates, vote Obama!
If you're comfortable with even higher gas prices, vote Obama!
If you're not bothered by the ever increasing cost of groceries, vote Obama!
If you enjoy empty promises, vote Obama!
If you're not bothered by the reality of on the job training as a requirement for the next president of the United States, vote Obama!
Otherwise, vote for security and experience, John McCain!
Go, Johnny, Go!!
- MAMA to Sam
July 24, 2008 9:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I see you are caught up in the new american dream
You have to be dreaming if you really believe this. His side kick keeps getting less and less like a successor to want in the White House, with "Johnny" gasping his last breath to this mortal coil.
Only thing 'bama offers is some hope of change. Johnny offers more of the same. Tell me MAMA to Sam, have you profited by this mess of an economy? I can feel your enthusiasm but I fail to see your substance. Did you perhaps go to school with Pailan? (not a true typo)
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 5:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Too Presumptuous
tomcat-
You are not even close in your assumptions. Not that is any of your business, but we are a middle class family in the Midwest with both parents working FT, one child and struggling to make ends meet. While Obama talks a good game, he is the one lacking substance. His platform of hope ensures an enormous increase in taxes when we already don’t have it to give.
I’ve personally met them both, Obama and McCain. Senator Obama desires to be president to be president. Senator McCain truly cares about his country and desires to serve us in the greatest capacity possible.
- MAMA to Sam
September 14, 2008 7:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Higher taxes...by the Republicans
"His platform of hope ensures an enormous increase in taxes when we already don’t have it to give."
And the McCain/Bush platform of despair has already guaranteed us higher taxes for several lifetimes. Who do you think is going to pay for that trillion dollar war? And if Congress is stupid enough to give away money to a bunch of Wall St. bankers who couldn't manage their own who do you think is going to pay for that? Yes, you and me. With higher taxes.
And this is not to mention the nearly silent coup that is going on by the Executive branch. Our constitutional rights have nearly evaporated with nary a sound from those who say they would like to keep government out of our lives. Yes, the Republicans.
- Kelly
September 29, 2008 9:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mom to Sam
And who is pushing the $700 billion bailout on Wallstreet??? Hello??? The Democrats! By the way, there is no such thing as the McCain/Bush platform. That is something the Obama camp constructed to persuade those who are not able to think for themselves. Unfortunately, Obama counts on Americans not being able to think for themselves and buying into his deceit and unsavory tactics.
- MAMA to Sam
September 30, 2008 7:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
For what it's worth
The only thing that McCain and Bush have in common is the same party. McCain and Obama have more in common than McCain and Bush. None of them are worth 3 cents in my book.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hope is useless
Hope without substance isn't worth 2 cents. I see Obama as a good talker with little to say and McCain as just another part of the Washington establishment. Only Bob Barr offers any "Hope" of real change.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's go with a chance of change or stick with the same old system...
That's the chance we take. No one can know if Obama can do anything, but I know McCain won't at all and will just continue to do things that will run this nation into the ground. Now that's not to say Obama won't do the same thing, we never know, but I can't chance that. Plus even though we're struggling I have no problem paying higher taxes? Why because my child deserves health care whether my husband is employed or not or his employer provides insurance. See my child has this little thing called a pre-existing condition which gets her denied private insurance and she doesn't qualify for state problems because my husband makes too much. Under Obama at least there would be a chance that there would be health care for her in some manner. And I don't mind paying more to make sure my daughter gets what she needs. Maybe I'm just not that greedy.
- PamalaLauren
October 1, 2008 8:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not Greedy
I understand where you're coming from but what is best for you may not be best for the country as a whole.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 3:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Higher Taxes?
I am a Business Owner. I cannot afford any more taxes. As for health care, I want to decide what kind of coverage to carry. I do not want that left up to the government. Besides that, If I want to pay cash for my visits to the doctor and not use insurance, that is my business as well, not the governments.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Amazed me
I have always wondered why business have failed to see the huge savings if the US had universal health care. Imagine all of thos workers comp lawyers out of work because the medical isn't an issue. Where is business when it comes to universal health care? I had a company with 90+ employees befor I sold it. Universal health care without having to fund as much workers comp? Seems like a no brainer.
- tomcat2200
October 11, 2008 5:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No Brainer?
Check out the formula for Socialism (or better know as Communism). One part of that is putting government in charge of Health Care. They can't even handle the economy and foreign policy, how are they going to handle health care? The answer: they can't. Barack Obama is not a super hero. He is just the same old Democrat, wearing the same old suit, preaching the same old democrat message.
- UltraConservative October 13, 2008 11:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yeah...right
Even from as far away as Canada I can see this persons eyes aren't working. Yeah..."Fundamentally Strong eh!" Have fun in your recession!
- xaxen
September 17, 2008 3:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hate to tell you
If the US goes into Recession Canada will be right behind and the rest of the world after that.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Amazing
What amazes me is the number of people that Point at Bush and say you are to blame for the Ecomony. Bush is not to blame for the problem with Wall Street. Read the News. It is the CEO's that have syphoned out the Millions from these companies that have caused the Problems.
From my stand point, the presidential race is nothing more than a mud slinging contest and the person who is successful in slinging the most mud will be the next president.
Barack Obama, next President? Not enough experience from where I sit. John McCain, next President? Not convinced he has what it takes.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where's the substance of your position?
Talking points with zero support. Try again.
- Suzer
October 1, 2008 6:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And yours?
Where is the substance for your position?
This election is going to come down to who can succeed in being the best mud slinger.
Neither is fit to be president of this Great Nation.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just wanted to get more specifics on your thoughts ...
The only position I have taken is that you didn't support yours.
- Suzer
October 2, 2008 9:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Support with what?
You want facts? Look at the Obama Web site and the McCain website. They have all the facts, or so they say. I am not buying that either of them know what they are doing as far as what to do with this country.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 2:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Take us straaight to H*&^ Johnny
How many right wing talking points can you swallow in one day. Guess you can swallow a mouth full.
- chaseruns26
October 1, 2008 12:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
He who-- Jumpstarts an economy; Lowers Taxes; Limits Trade
Obama plans to jumpstart our systems of production and consumption-- and I have said YES to that-- and to doing it again if necessary-- to keep the system RUNNING like a spinning top that won't fall on its side.
Obama plans to lower taxes. Remember, the Republicans win if Democrats stand for TAXES. Americans believe taxes are not FAIR unless based on ability to pay. Less than 20 % of us are able to pay TAXES-- because incomes are so extremely UNEQUAL. TAXES are only needed to prevent ruinous INFLATION because nations can spend money into circulation-- and if the money is saved, there will be no demand pull inflation. So SAVINGS by ordinary people can replace all taxes on them.
Trade allows labor cost to be depressed to the world's lowest wages. This destroys the middle class. American democracy cannot afford trade UNLESS its middle class is fully protected from low wages. Obama must SHOUT this fact from the rooftops.
- john gelles
July 24, 2008 9:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How?
You said "Obama plans to jumpstart our systems of production and consumption". Please give me specifics on how he plans to do that?
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not a Clue
In my opinion, Barack Obama has not a clue what it takes to jumpstart the economy. He is a Senator. He has never been a Small business owner and has no clue as to what it takes to run one. He has no clue as to what it takes to get off the ground and running. From what I have seen and read, Obama is just the opposite of what you have posted here.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Taxing into prosperity?
Taking money from productive people to buy the votes of non-productive people will not improve the economy. It will improve the finances of some of the people for a short period of time and then the productive people will go engage in wealth producing activities somewhere else. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter will leave and Paul will eventually starve.
- joelinda July 25, 2008 12:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Perhaps Peter can aford to make the move?
You really think people will leave? You really believe the opportunity would exist somewhere else?
Dear Joelinda
Wake up and smell the coffee. You cant expect to drain the people of money for mortgages they don't qualify for.
Frankley, if Peter leaves, there are 1/2 million others willing to take his old job that paid the big (inflated) good old boy bucks. No one on this planet is irreplaceable. Even CEO's of major corporations, put on their pants one leg at a time. Except for the very few women allowed that is.
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 5:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Employee mentallity
Yes, the job creators will invest somewhere else. Don't confuse the issue by substituting highly paid employees, in your mind, with investors and business owners. Also, please try to think for yourself instead of attacking people personally that oppose your views. Argue the issue, not the person please. If you'll buy the cappuccino, I'll be happy to drink it. We can talk about how I refinanced my mortgage 2 months ago; yes the landscape has changed drastically.
- joelinda September 14, 2008 7:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Simple Answer
This is a no-brainer: If you are among the lower or middle class, do you want a $500 tax cut or a $1000 raise in salary? If you are unemployed, do you want a handout or a job?
You strengthen the economy by creating and strengthening businesses which in turn create jobs which in turn allows people to buy more which in turns supports more business growth, ad infinitum...Obama's 'Robin Hood' approach spells economic disaster and will push more investment dollars and businesses overseas.
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 11:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How about Neither
You guys are full of it. Neither side has it right,not evem close. Read anything by Robert Ringer, or for that matter use your brains. The two party system has degraded us all into babling idiots shouting propoganda for our side. Problem is, these two are so close, there is no side. How about abolishing the IRS and cutting welfare out completely. Take a stand for something that matters. Get back to the gold standard and back to what our forefathers originally intended, life, liberty and the persuit of happiness WITHOUT government intervention. No matter who's side you are on.
- butch July 25, 2008 7:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Finally an intellegent post
Are you a Bob Barr supporter?
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neither Has It Right
Butch - You are correct in your logic. And what is sad, the government no longer listens to the people at all. With the passage of the bailout, it is blatantly clear that the citizens no longer have a voice. That is why TheDirtyOnion ( http://thedirtyonion.com ) is going to ask for everyone's support in trying to yell at the establishment so loud that they have to listen. At this rate, we will fall into a depression and then revolution. Let's make our government listen before things get so out of hand that they don't even vote anymore.
- Gideon From The Dirty Onion
October 1, 2008 7:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's an Evolved System Nobody Designed: But Reform is Possible
I thought Obama was GREAT this week-- but for argument's sake I'm not yet fully committed to his plan and against McCain's.
All of the comments above fail to admit the rich and poor, alike, want assured wealth for themselves-- from a system neither designed. That system pits capital against labor. In WW II, COST PLUS profit (as a % of cost) contracts, favored capital that paid labor the most!
Sounds crazy, but it was a mixture of government planning and private entrepreneurial implementation. Would this be possible in today's war against non-state villains and the threat of a global race to reach the lowest wages; dirtiest air, water and land; and least attractive world-- culminating in war and revolution?
Of course it would, if we remembered how we went from depression to victory in WW II-- and mobilized the nation and its allies to mimic its cooperative systems updated to take full advantage of the information, biological, and materials (nanotech) revolutions.
- john gelles
July 25, 2008 10:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
nanotech?
Forget that one m8. It's just window dressing for the same old chemistry. I recall the days when contriving chemical "shapes" used to be a pleasant hobby of the organic chemist of old. When some marketing maven managed to plaster a new name on it and added all the glitz, it didn't really usher in anything more than a few bucks for the hobby.
Nothings changed. Everything gets solved by the same old chemistry in the end.
To hear some of the things supposedly developed with nanotechnology such as ultra fine powder in tennis balls to plug the pores of the inner liner, only bring a chuckle to my countenance. That's the best they can do with a trillion dollars pouring in?
Our real futures is in such things as micro actuators (too large to classify as nanotechnology) and further improvements in stepping servo motors.
I for one think there could be interesting convergence in those two technologies together. I think the micro actuators could further improve stepping servo systems an order of magnitude in accuracy if correctly implemented. There you go, a billion dollar idea free for the taking, if someone else isn't already doing it.
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 5:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reform?
Now that is funny. Calling Barack Obama a reformer. That is far from what he is. A showboating politician is all he is. He says what he believes people what to hear just like every other politician out there.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gore and Pickens have critical energy and economy plans
Gore and Pickens want the election to elevate our attention to energy and its potential to refinance the whole economy-- to get the show on the road.
Too many Americans see government as a drag on the economy-- when, in fact, as China proves (and totalitarian communism could not) a wise government can be the guiding beacon for an economy in which it CREATES money-- and taxes are strictly limited to protecting the value of that money. SAVINGS and SUPPLY, of course, are the major protectors of that value.
Obama will lose this election, or, if elected, he will lose our MOMENT in history-- unless he convinces the American people that GOVERNMENT MAKES MONEY-- as its cost is minimized and its effect on GROWTH in long term living standards is maximized.
Shopping for stuff is not the PURPOSE of an economic democracy. Supplying individual and universal NEEDS is the purpose. Foremost among these are the blessings of life and liberty for future generations of humans here and abroad.
- john gelles
July 26, 2008 10:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do we need Economic Democracy?
Economic democracy features rights not guaranteed by conventional democracy-- the foremost of which is labor's right to jobs for every applicant and fair high wages for every employee. These are specified or implied in the Second Bill of Rights www.ustaxreform.us/2nd -bill.htm. These rights were obvious in January 1944 when they were declared to be essential for the future of political democracy FDR. They remain obvious today.
The rights will make money-- not cost a single cent. Without them, there is not money enough to go around-- nor will there be enough of the things that money can buy-- when we look at the supply side.
Obama gets it-- but does not spell it out. McCain gets it, but fears the moral hazard of outlawing unwanted individual poverty as a crime-- curable with grub stake loans for people who want to eat. Moral hazard, or not, it has become a national security issue: if we would lead the free world, we must prove our system has a purpose and such purpose is being met.
- john gelles
July 27, 2008 5:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
2nd bill of rights?
You are referring to a state of the union address made by FDR. A job is not a right, it is something you earn through hard work and sacrifice. There is a word for it when a job becomes a right protected by the government: communism. And how does guaranteeing a job not cost a cent? Who pays thier salaries?
Where do these Obama folks get this stuff from?
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 1:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
straws
They are grasping at straws to put a democrat back in the white house.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More tax cuts are not the answer
As a voter who understands the logic behind supply-side economics as well as the utility of limited government programs, I don't believe we need more tax cuts at this time. Tax rates are probably about where they need to be, and maybe even a bit low.
Too high taxes are just as detrimental to a society as are too low taxes, and just like too much of a good thing can end up being a bad thing we need to recognize the appropriate level of balance between taxation and services.
So far, with promises of tax cuts to their respective constituencies, neither candidate is living up to that responsibility.
- TinSoldier
July 27, 2008 9:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agree
I would agree with you here.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They are pretty much the same
With either one of these corrupt blowhards we're going to end up with bigger, more intrusive government and more spending in Washington. Ron Paul had the right plan for America's economy but he did not have much of a chance since the only people who rise to the top in the two political parties are those who are willing to be the paid-for lackeys for corporate and special interests.
We're facing some hard times ahead.
- Red Green July 29, 2008 8:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Small is beautiful.
The smaller our government the better. I think we can all agree that none of these big government programs have ever worked.
"The most striking about modern industry is that it requires so much and accomplishes so little. Modern industry seems to be efficient to a degree that surpasses one's ordinary powers of imagination. Its inefficiency therefore remains unnoticed."
-Schumacher.
- iluvhunter08 September 17, 2008 10:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bob Barr
The Libertarian Candidate. He won't win but if he gets enough votes it can establish the Libertarian party as legitimate. You have to start somewhere. A Libertarian vote is not a wasted vote.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
At Last!
Hooray!!! A smart person!
- F2XL
October 1, 2008 7:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Race is Too Close to Let John Out-Promise Barack!
John promises to let the states drill and the the gas price fall now from fear of future domestic oil and other energy. BARACK MUST SAY OK-- I'LL DO THE SAME. No harm done but some votes gained.
John promises lower taxes will yield higher investments and jobs. BARACK MUST SAY OK-- I'LL DO EVEN MORE. I'll carry out tax relief for all those whose discretionary income is so low, their taxes are UNFAIR. No harm done but some votes gained. We cannot allow voters to think we will tax more than McCain: in fact we will tax less-- and we must hammer home the point.
- john gelles
July 30, 2008 11:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Every one is forgetting...
Every one is forgetting that the President can only do what the Congress will allow them. Sad to say, I don't think Barack Obama with his wishy washy, flippy floppy moves will do any better than McCain. Just look at the way he has been on again off again with Clinton. That is not the face of someone I want in the White House. Someone who is one moment bashing and the next buddy buddy is not what I call trustworthy.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Promises
History has show us that promises are just that promises. When was the last time you saw a presidential candidate live up to what he promised to do? Barack Obama is not any different. He talks big, but is still when he pillows his head at night a politician.
A 6 year old told me this joke once, he said: How do you tell when a politician is telling the truth? The anser: When he is calling another politician a liar.
Hammer home what point?
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Drilling for Oil and Lowering Taxes
McCain says he will drill for oil off the coasts of only those states who want this. He says he will lower taxes and Obama will raise YOUR taxes.
His ads are simple and attractive. He would like to WIN by making YOU believe that only he will find oil so YOU can drive and only he will lower YOUR taxes so you can keep YOUR own money. He may win if OIL and TAXES become an excuse NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA.
How does Obama WIN? NOT by long explanations of why McCain cannot be trusted to put gas in your tank or money back in your pocket. Obama must have a counter punch immediate answer: Obama must agree to let the states drill off their coasts. He can add to that the precautions that are necessary and the fact that we need energy NOW-- far sooner than drilling can deliver. On taxes, Obama must promise NO ONE will lower YOUR taxes as much as HE will lower them. Why lose the election by being against what people want.
- john gelles
July 31, 2008 5:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Used to be...
I remember when the Republicans were against big government. Now the Federal Government is the single largest employer. I remember when the Republicans were for privacy of the individual and free enterprise. Now 9/11 has passed every voter failed initiative for the past 40 years, by law enforcement and government to view any and everything anyone does. Free enterprise now means if you are big enough the government will bail you out at the expense of the people that couldn't qualify for your services to begin with. It's free money for the enterprise class businesses.
To be honest, I don't think Johnny can survive (im)Pailin. And she doesn't have enough school chums to run the country.
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 6:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then why are you for Obama.
"Free enterprise now means if you are big enough the government will bail you out at the expense of the people that couldn't qualify for your services to begin with. It's free money for the enterprise class businesses."
If this bothers you Obama is certainly not the answer. He'll gice more of the same. Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, is the answer. No matter if you vote for Obama or McCain you lose. Maybe the Libertarians won't win this time but with enough votes they can start to become a factor. You can't win this time but think 10-20 years down the line.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Check this out
Check this one out!
Taxes... Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait
for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
easy pick
How can anyone look at McCains talking points and not notice how close they are to what Bush has done in the last 8 years. For an MBA, Bush has been a fiscal disaster. And you want the same? Nuf said
- john5021
August 3, 2008 10:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
too true
I think Bush was asked about the economy, and he thought they said E-Comedy. It's been a downhill slide for the people at the bottom for too long. Everyone knows what slides down hill.
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 6:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PLEEEEAAAAASSSSSSEEEEE
Please!!
You act as if Bush had any thing to do with the current financial institution mess. Wake up!! It began long before Bush ever got into office.
Barack Obama is not the Answer and neither is John McCain. The answer is someone who really cares about the People. Do we have one of those running for office? NOPE!!
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 6:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
please yourself
If you hadn't noticed, he ha been in office for almost 8 years. He IS the one responsible (or at least supposed to be).
I voted for him the first time, before I realized he stuffs his offices with friends and cronies. He has managed to insulate himself from the real world, and eats up any and everything his buddies tell him.
As for ecconomy? He's clueless. How else would he send a three page request to conress for $700 Billion. He also dumpped it all on to the FED with no oversight. It's the same way he has run the war, and homeland security. We now have "supermen" running everything, and it stinks to high heaven. Too much power dumped into too little circles. No one has a clue as to what is going on, and it's all legal as long as no one knows.
Bush supervised all of the deregulation which led to this mess. It was under his watch, including everything else he inheirited. What has been going on in Wall Street is nothing short of snake oil peddling. Bush and the FED allowed it to be that way. Just who do you think is responsible for these things? It's called management 101. Bush gets an "F". Quite honestly Bush was blindsided by it all, and still doesn't understand what is happening. Clueless. And to think he wanted to feed it to the Fed with no oversight. His good buddy will fix it all. Just like homeland security. We got "good buddies" ruinning everything with no oversight all over the place. Free hands with unlimited budgets and no one to answer to. Why do you think nothing has actually been accomplished, (other than putting airline travelers through hell) since homeland security has been formed? All those agencies merged into one pot? Human rights in the US are in free fall. All of the failed initiatives of the past 60 years from police and other agencies that were tossed by the public, were suddenly and quietly implemented. You now have to guess and prove what they are doing, before they even admit to doing it. All under the Bush banner.
It was Bush that originally cut funding for the Veterans Admin. Then turned aroud and dumped Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom vets into the system. The poor souls from previous conflicts dropped in priority, and now, if you are a Viet Nam Vet, triage has been suspended by the Bush administration directive, so that an older prior conflict vet with an anurism, gets bumped for care, for a desert storm vet with a head cold. That is why so many doctors are jumping ship from the VA. That is why they had to throw in a $10 million budget line for that VA admin that replaced the one that didn't have the funds to maintain the VA facility in Texas. You remember, the one that got fired because the desert storm vet didn't like the level of services, because Bush cut the original VA budget, and dumpped in the patients, to ease the military medical flood. The original administrator got the ax, to cover for what Bush has done to the vets. these few years. Administrative suspension of triage. Good one George. At least HE gets to go to the active duty facilities.
As for your closing comment, you are correct. None of the candidates are "for the people".
Of the two, Obama seems less inclined to do as much damamge. Honestly we havent had a president "for the people" since Lincoln. Carter had good intentions, but was as clueless as Bush seems to be when it comes to running things.
Yes PLEEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE!!!
- tomcat2200
October 11, 2008 5:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Incorret Premise
He did not have anything to do with the careless, wreckless, etc. spending of the financial community. He had nothing to do with the CEO's of these companies syphoning money. He had nothing to do with the fact that they have risked their own necks on deals that they should not have made.
Think about it, when did this mess start? It started when the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006. It also had began long before then. It has more to do with bad judgment in the past than it does with George Bush.
Barack Obama is not Super Man and does not have the answer. He is preaching the same message every other democrat has, and it has not ever worked.
- UltraConservative October 13, 2008 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If he is so great then...
If he is so great then why does he read stuff like the book "The Post American World". (I have a copy the picture take of him with the book in his hand). That is not a book I would want the Next President to be reading. IT IS THE MUSLIM/ISLAMIC VIEW TO DESTROY AMERICA FROM WITHIN. Or why would he say thing like "should the political situation in American Change, he would whole heartedly embrase the Muslims."
These are not things I want for the next president.
- UltraConservative October 13, 2008 11:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Socialist Mud pie!
The housing debacle falls squarely in the laps of the Clinton adminstration who 1995 pushed for loosening credit and squarly on the shoulders of Barney Franks, Sen Dodd, Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi. In 1999 this group of four socialist forced and threatened lenders into lending for homes when peole did not qualify. Wall Street took the socialist mud pie perfomred some alchemy and turned mud into gold.
Bush was not smart enough to get out of the way and is now covered with socialist mud slide.
Look it up!
- jodantec October 17, 2008 8:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mud Pie?
I did look it up. It was the removal of oversight and regulation that did this to us. Wall Street isn't the group of self correcting altrueists they would have us believe. Given the chance they would sell their own children on short term options if there were a buck to be made.
What the socialists of this country are, or were trying to do is to give the opportunity for more people to become home owners. This tends to make people more of a social stake holder. It twends to create more social citizens.
It goes back to now that the people who were not good enough to own a home, get to pay for all those homes that Wall Street funded. THAT is why so many people are upset. They don't see why all of those people need a bailout on those loans. They don't care if the housing prices take a dive. If anyrthing, as far as they are concerned, homes were way over priced, as demonstrated by the people that are upside down on their loans now.
I may appear that I am pro Obama, but I haven't seen a decent candidate since Regan. I had always admired McCain for his past record. I just can't abide someone like Palin, a heartbeat away from the Presidency. She is the epitome of croney politics, throwing her classmates into high paying public jobs in Alaska, regardless of qualifications.
- tomcat2200
October 17, 2008 1:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Regan Fan Really?
When did you ever hear Ronald Reagan say to a plummer, "I believe if the government spreads the wealth around, everyone wins." ? It's one thing to make socialist mud pies and throw them around, tomcat2200, but when you eat them like that?
Wall Street is supposed to be greedy! The greed is harness by competition into a cycle of productivity and profit. The problem is goofy governemtn regulation! In 1977 a "spread the wealth around" Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, mandating private banks to make mortgage loans for unqualified low-income home buyers. The banks flatly refused because they knew it wouldn't be productive for anyone.
IN 1999, Bill Clinton negotiated the deal that drives the melt down today. The "spread the wealth around" plan required banks to make those dumb loans to unqualified low-income homebuyers, but authorized Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac to buy them with implicit GOVERNMENT guarantees. He tried to get strong standards at Freddie and Fannie but the radicals refused.
Since then, the Banks have been writing these loans like crazy because the REGULATION leaves them everything to gain an nothing to loose. Freddi and Fannie buy them all because the REGULATION leaves them everything to gain and nothing to loose. Freddie and Fannie fold them up into opaque mortgage based securities and pawn them off on Wall Street. The implicit government guarantee is still intact and everyone knows it (except joe sixpack has stopped paying attention. Wall Street buys them up like candy because the REGULATION leaves them efverything to gain and nothing to loose!
In 2001, the Bush Administration audits Freddie and Fannie, and see that disaster is on the way. They have been demanding authority to deal with the faulty REGULATION on ever since, but the "spread the wealth around" plan won't work with stricter standards on these government subsidized entities-Freddie and Fannie.
Finally in 2008, the "spread the wealth around" shit hits the fan. Wall Street bosses jockey for position and send Paulson to Congress with a three page proposal. "Make good on that Government guarantee: $750 Billion in ten days, or the lights go out. Congress negotiated this "spread the wealth around" deal, and they had no recourse.
Of course they spin this as Wall Street greed and it is, but the greed never would have caused this damage without the insane "spread the wealth around" government REGULATION. THe regulation we needed was on the corrupt Government subsidized entities--Freddie and Fannie--but the corrupt congress refuse to pass that regulation.
This is exactly the kind of corrupt socialist HUD bullshit Barry has been running in Chicago for the last ten years. And its exactly the kind of bullshit Sarah Palin shoveled out of Alaskas Republican Party!
- ScottyNow
October 19, 2008 3:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Three Page Proposal!
Obviously, Paulson didn't need any more than that 3-page proposal to get what he wanted. Has anyone in this discussion read Paulson's three page proposal? Here it is in essence:
Page 1:
In 1977 Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but private banks refused to carry the risks of lending to sub-prime borrowers.
Page 2:
To overcome this risk aversion among private banks, Congress mandated sub-prime loans at private banks, and authorized Fannie and Freddie to purchase sub-prime mortgages from private banks--with an implicit government GUARANTEE. Freddie and Fannie have been leveraging the risks throughout the global economy, and administration regulators have been warning of these dangerous practices for nine years.
Page 3:
Wall Street hereby collects on the government GUARANTEE!
$750 Billion--Net 10 days.
Think clearly, folks. If Presidnet Bush thought for a moment that this mess was his responsibility, why would he initiate the transaction? Even Bill Clinton warned congressional Democrats about this mess! The Dems have done their normal hyper-spin, with the pretense of imaginary non-binding controls on the bailout, but they have no recourse. When rich people negotiate from a position of strength, they dictate terms. Three pages is plenty! Wall Street executes "spread the wealth around" services for the government!
The Washington media elite are willing to play obfuscation games for now (becuase they hate Bush so much) but they can only obstruct the obvious evidence so long. The Democrats wink at Wall Street and say, "We'll blame you forever!" Wall Street winks bank and says, "As long as we get the money, we don't care who you blame! We have some pre-ordained lieutenants ready to take the fall at this end. This is exactly the same scenario that played out during the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80's.
Wall Street greed an political corruption are no respecter of parties. I'm not convince McCain can solve this problem, but Barry's "spread the wealth around" plans are part of the problem. By the way, has Barry ever tried to tackle corruption at this level in his entire life?
- ScottyNow
October 18, 2008 4:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm Curious?
Which of Bushe's economic policies has caused the present problems? I'll tell you, none. Actually it goes back 20+ years to deregulation and irresponsible actions by the banking community and the rank and file citizen. Bush had nothing to do with it. I'm no fan of Bush but he's not responsible for the present fiscal problems.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well said
Well put TBCASS and you are right on. The seeds for the latest housing mess was planted under Clinton in 1997 and there is plenty of blame to spread around on both sides. And one thing that Obama folks fail to grasp is 1) True conservatives are not fans of Bush by any stretch and 2) McCain and Bush really don't like each other at all and 3) if the election were McCain vs. Clinton, I think you would have a hard time picking who was more liberal of those two.
I don't like Bush but do like McCain mostly for his long and documented history of reaching across the aisle and making things happen, especially ones that cost him dearly with the GOP base. While I don't agree with everything he has done, I believe a uniter is what this country needs right now. Obama has never crossed members of his own party once and by that I mean something he believed in but was unpopular with the left base. Last thing we need is people like that or Pelosi, who in the times of economic crisis, spews hate towards the GOP rather than unity. We deserve better from the speaker of the house much less the president.
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well Said too
Well Said!!
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 6:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
HOME RUN
At least some one else see's where the blame really lies. I am no Bush fan, but even I know enough to put blame where the blame lies. It does not lie in the president, it lies in the companies. Bush did not set the incomes of the CEO's, the companies did. It seems to me that when all else fails, blame Bush. It is like saying that Obama is to blame or McCain is to blame. They too had nothing to do with it.
I say don't bail them out, let them drown in the mess they created. Bail out the Americans who are the ones really struggling instead.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is easy!!
It is easy to see if you are not looking at it from Republican / Democrat view point that they are not the same. However, it you look at it from an American standpoint, you see that Obama and McCain are more alike that even they want to admit.
- UltraConservative October 2, 2008 9:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Economy???
Neither of these candidates have the background to improve the economy. It will all depend on who they pick as their advisers or their running mate. And, as for the Right Plan, this really doesn't mean much when the party can't live up to it. However, as for Obama's current advisor, someone needs to seriously find a replacement for him, his plan doesn't look very promising for the American people, and make the Republican party's look better every day. However, as for getting anything done about the economy. With a Democrat congress snowballing every effort the Republicans throw on the floor, nothing has/is going to happen. I love the comments that the Republicans haven't done anything in the past eight years. I wonder why??? Blame congress, not whoever is president.
- Farside Left August 4, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lets see of the last 8 years...
Only two years have been controlled by Dems. Where do you place the blame?
- PamalaLauren
October 1, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Blame
Blame everyone, republicans and democrats. This crisis started before Bush took office and was propped up by both sides of the aisle until it was too late. Its sad that so many people like to take the easy answer: blame Bush. They refuse to accept that their party had any hand in this.
Watch your very democrats say that there were no issues with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac in 2004 while Republicans are calling for regulation. Your party is lying to you. (Shocking, no?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Or read this New York Times article from 1999 predicting the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac 9 years before it happened and nearly 2 years before Bush took office.
New York Times article from September 30th, 1999.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Please, if you do nothing else, seek truth and stop repeating something you heard as fact.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 12:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neither
Obama and his tax position, in particular regarding estates, dividends and capital gains are absurd at best. McCain cannot be trusted in regard to his tax positions. We need to get rid of incumbents. Our representatives have not been concerned about our energy issues and now they take a 5 week vacation. Come winter, how will many folks pay their heating oil bills at $1,000 + per 250 gallon tank, say 4 times. Of course Speaker Pelosi shut off the lights, telephones, mikes, and kicked the people out of the House visitors area so that does save some energy I guess.
- Garf
August 4, 2008 2:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Follow The Money
The phrase I use to explain how our representative’s vote is follow the money. While they put us in jail at the rate of one every 38 seconds, one in every three blacks can except to go to jail. They have overspent the budget by 9 trillion (a trillion is a thousand billion) (a billion is a thousand million) (a million is about what you will earn your entire working life) trying to put the debt in perspective. During the Bush administration there has been the biggest shift in wealth in recorded history. From the poor, middle class to you guessed it the rich. The only new buildings going up in my town are banks wonder why? (What is the interest payment on 9 trillion? Bet the banks can tell you!)
Obama as far as I know is the only candidate that is not accepting PAC and corporate money. When elected he will owe the people and we have some plans! Washington bend over its time to get what you are due! We see what you are doing and we will hold you accountable!
- Cherokee Fred hussein August 5, 2008 1:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Follow the money
Obama does not accept corporate or PAC money? See for yourself.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
And that is just money from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, the two entities that got us into this mess. And keep in mind these totals are from 1989 until now, when Obama has only been a senator for less than one term. He racked up that kind of greedy kickbacks in two + years and from two companies that have killed our economy. Want more lists of corporate money that has been handed to Obama? Or is it Bush's fault? Right, George stuck the money in Barrack's pocket when he wasn't looking.
The world would be a better place if people didn't believe everything they heard and researched the truth for themselves. Yet far too often you hear sound bites soeone heard on TV or from a friend repeated as truths. And that applies to both sides. In the internet age, apathy towards truth is inexcusable.
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 12:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fact fee commentary
The fact ever fewer people understand how economies work is scary This is partially a result of the takeover of ed curricula by activists full of bile toward a straw figure of capitalism which exists only in their minds.
Few comments favoring Obama contain useful/verifiable facts, e.g., "Look where 8 years of Bush has left us." So let's look: My retirement portfolio is off its '07 highs, but well above where it was when Bush took office. There are more jobs now. The housing bubble (for which many forces are responsible) has hurt recent homebuyers (many speculating), but those owning at least 5-10 years are ahead, and history shows, as in the 80's, they'll rebound.
The wealthiest 1% pay about 40% of all taxes; the top 5 over 1/2, the bottom 1/3 NO fed income taxes. Fair share my foot. O'b tax increases will hit far more than the top 1% he claims. Sellers of retirement investments, anyone collecting dividends, the entire upper middle class, small/modest biz/estates & many more.
- bigpics
August 6, 2008 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Obama
McCain is allready starting to have Alzhimers. We need someone with vision and a nack of talking to both sides and get us out of the oil war, bring our troups home and quit spending all our dollars on some of the richest people in the world. Yes we needed to hpget rid of Sadam, but now let them fight thier own battles. I have 5 grand sons in the Air Force and am not proud of the way they are treated but back them 100 percent. Let's get on with making America Great !!!!
- smokie August 6, 2008 9:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Won't Happen
Won't Happen with Obama as President. He has every one buffaloed into thinking he has the correct answer. Well, He does not. I believe he has nothing more than a recipe for disaster. Cut and Dry.
I have many friends and family members in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though I do not like the War, I support them none the less. They are their because they of their own free will joined the United States Military. I am glad we live in a Free Country that does not force its people to serve.
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 6:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We're in trouble one way or the other
Bottom line, I don't think either candidate is worth their salt. However, John McCain gets my vote because the democrats are all about short-term fixes. These fall on their faces later. The reason the economy sucks so bad right now is the crap Clinton pulled when he was in office. The economy was good during the Clinton administration because of the things older Bush set in motion while he was in office. Then comes Clinton (who is improperly praised for good economy) and ruins things. George Bush was left to clean it up.
Don't judge a president by their current term, only time will tell. Not to mention I don't want to be paying higher taxes, they're already too high :(
- bagpiper2005
August 12, 2008 2:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree but....
I have to add this: Clinton's economic windfall was due to two main factors: the internet becoming commercially viable and the Republican congress slashing cap gains taxes to thier current 15% rate. Lowering the cap gains taxes resulted in an unprecidented level of investment which created the dot com boom. The bubble was going to burst no matter who was in office. But note: lower cap gains and investment increases. Raise cap gains and investment dries up. Obama has said many times that he is willing togo as high as 28% on long term capital gains. That is all kinds of wrong.
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 11:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't punish small business ( The Rich )
Many small business file taxes as sole proprietorships or partnerships which means they file as individuals not corporations.
Obama's plan will raise taxes on these small businesses making it harder for them to survive let alone expand and hire new employees (small business are responsible for around 50% of new job growth)
This will slow our economy.
What good are "Obama's incubators" if the new business are taxed out of existance once they get started?
Keeping taxes low on our businesses is a much better stratagy.
- mostly a conservative August 24, 2008 7:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The small business are not the rich
Most of the small business owners I knew were distinguished by having the greatest debt.
Only a few made it to big bucks, and most were to fail miserably loosing house and home in the process, if not their families.
The overall tax structure in this country is aimed at killing business. We need a flat tax. Something people can plan for and companies can project. Just getting rid of the excess tax lawyers and accountants, would save the country billions.
Hey, It's not like Bush never fired lawyers before. (lol)
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 6:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What kills businesses?
Government intervention of any kind kills businesses, tomcat2200! Taxes are just one of the government interventions that kill businesses. Barry's "small business incubator" idea is the worst kind of government intervention. ONce you give these corrupt politians a hand in the development of small businesses in our economy, the trend toward socialism becomes irreversible.
- ScottyNow
October 19, 2008 3:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
AMEN to that!!
That is an excellent question. I am a small business owner my self and do not care to see Obama raise my taxes. It is hard enough staying a float as it is with out someone adding more expenses to the pot.
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 6:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
are you kidding?
I will never vote for anyone endorsed by the worst president in american history.
- Enjoy Cannabis
August 27, 2008 2:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jimmy Carter
The worse president? Jimmy Carter. Who does he endorse?
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Reply
LOL. Good Reply.
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 6:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
let's compare
list the things that make Carter the worst in your opinion and I'll compare them to Bush's record in the same arena.
- reckoner
October 9, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'll bite
Inflation rates soaring from about 6% when he was elected to 13% and rising when he left. Unemployment averaging over 7% and rising. Total ineptitude in handling the Iran Hostage crisis. I don't know how old you are but I was in my 30's when Carter was president. I voted for him but all I remember is economic chaos and a low opinion of the US in the world in general, kind of like today, and just a general impotence in the way he handled adversity. The only difference is I think that Bush was handed a much worse set of circumstances than Carter was so Carter gets my nod as the worse ever with Bush second and Herbert Hoover third. My opinion goes way beyond statistics. They say the economic situation today is the worse since the 30's but I think it was worse in the late 70's to early 80's.
- tbcass
October 9, 2008 12:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
let's compare
"all I remember is economic chaos and a low opinion of the US in the world in general"
Sounds exactly like Bush, but I bet this economic crisis we are in now is worse than the one during Carter. I bet our world opinion is lower than during Carter. Carter did not authorize US forces to use torture! Carter did not claim the power to arrest any american citizen without due process. Carter did not claim dictator like powers on a global scale, including spying on Americans without warrants.
Bush was handed a surplus and turned it into a mess. Bush was handed a good economy.
- reckoner
October 9, 2008 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Carter worse
I lived through both. Carter was worse, take my word for it. Bush had a LOT more bad shit happen while he was President. It's easy to be a good president when nothing happens. I wonder how Clinton would have fared if all this stuff happened while he was president? To me it seemed that the Economic conditions were worse under Carter and he did nothing about it. It took Reagan to do something. Bush is trying to do something. The existing economic conditions have their roots in the Clinton years so he has to share some of the blame.
Torture, that's been going on forever. Do you think it just started with Bush? You are very naive. You and I have a difference of opinion. In times of crisis all those things you hate about Bush are necessary and have been used by many presidents in the past. You are right, Carter wouldn't have had the balls to do what Bush did and that was his weakness. Nice guys don't make good Presidents. Since you and I are diametrically opposed to what is necessary in times of crisis no further discussion is useful. The Biggest mistake Bush made was going into Iraq. I was opposed to that from the beginning and believe it is the root of all the present problems.
- tbcass
October 10, 2008 8:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
bush is the first
Bush is the first President to authorize torture, yes. Please show me another administration in history that wrote legal memos authorizing torture.
Yes, there is the giant disaster of Iraq. How is anything Carter did as bad as invading the wrong country? Seriously, imagine if a Democrat was in charge when we were attacked and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack. Far worse than anything Carter did.
Regarding the economy, Republicans were completely in charge for 6 years under Bush. They had all the power to do whatever they felt was necessary. They did nothing to prevent this, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to see it coming.
Bush
1) invaded the wrong country
2) giant financial collapse the depths of which we do not yet know
3) authorized torture
4) subverted the basis of our Constitution by asserting the power to detain americans with no trial and torture them (see the Padilla case)
5) outed a CIA agent
6) turned a surplus into the largest debt ever (with a republican congress)
What did Carter do again?
- reckoner
October 10, 2008 12:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
on the economy
This week's Dow drop of 18.15 percent eclipses the week ending July 21, 1933. That was a drop of merely 15.55 percent.
- reckoner
October 10, 2008 3:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bush is History?
The roots of this financial meltdown, go all the way back to Jimmy Carter's "spread the wealth around" plan. Specifically, the Community Reinvestment act of 1977 set the stage with a mandate to lend money to unqualified homeowners. The mandate was enforced under Clinton in 1999, and it has been brewing under the surface ever since.
Interstingly enough, when Clinton negotiated the bill, he warned congress that low standards at Fannie and Freddie could lead to a disaster like this. Bush Administration regulators have been confronting congress with this for six years, and asking for authority to do something. There is plenty of blame for both parties, but the root of the problem is insane "spread the wealth" plans.
Although Clinton ran against Bush 41 on the basis of a slowing economy, he actully inherited a vigorously growing economy, so he got away with his tax increases, and the economy did generally well during his entire term, but he did leave Bush a shrinking economy. Economists always tell us: this year's policy is next year's economy.
Objectively speaking, no one could have produced much better results with this economy over the last 6 years given the circumstances of the world. Bush has been facing pretty much the same global dynamics that Carter did with the added pressure of this sub-prime mortgage mess. I lived through Carter: 13% interest, 8% unemployment, 6%inflation is much more miserable than 4% interest, 5% unemployment, and 5% inflation.
There is no way that Barry will be able to reproduce Clinton results, and if he tries to implement the tax and spend plan he has on the table, he'll make both Bush and Carter look good as he becomes the worst president since Herbert Hoover. You just can't "spread the wealth around" when wealth is shrinking!
- ScottyNow
October 18, 2008 5:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Worst President in American History?
Go and find the Foreign Policy Magazine from August I believe it was. I think that the editor's of that Magazine would have to disagree with you on that one. They devoted most of the magazine to him. I believe the article showed 10 Points or so where they disagree that he is the Worst President Ever.
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 6:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
People create the economy NOT government.
Both of these guys are weak on the economy. They, like 99% of polititans, are self perpetuating, busy-body know-nothing, butinskies. They try to justify their existance by creating new laws(which are not needed), not realizing they are useless individuals that do not need to exist because they create Nothing. Politicians, along with lawyers(most politains are lawyers), are a class of leaches on society. They strut around Washington, thinking they are so important, when in fact they are a class of modern-day unproductive tyrants. They produce no food, no product, no energy, they just interfere in affairs that they are ignorant about. That said, McCain is just a little less ignorant.
- ITOS
August 28, 2008 9:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
McCain Side is not objecting properly
Please, if you are going to make an objection to an Obama plan, be specific. Vague statements like "Obama puts his faith in Washington" do not make any sense unless you BACK IT UP WITH FACTS. Please, tell us exactly what is wrong with Obama's plan and give an honest response.
I feel this type of wishy-washy political discourse has become your campaign's M.O. in all forums of public communication. I think perhaps you feel that it is not necessary to have an honest back and forth with the other side to win, but perhaps we could give it a try for the sake of our country's future?
- greg September 9, 2008 9:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Details
Raising capital gain taxes to near double thier current rate. Taxing the hell out of the people who create and invest in business growth, essentially punishing people for suceeding. Raising corpoprate taxes insuring that more businesses will take thier company and thier jobs overseas. Getting the second most money from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac while they committed fraud and dragged our country into the worst recession since the 1920's.
There are a few, start with those.
I admit, I love Obama's idea about granting more college money but requiring community service.
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 12:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not to mention
Not to mention:
Though he says he endorses hunting and fishing, he wishes to raise taxes on Guns, which is one of many things that the NRA has stacked up against him. Go to their web site and see what they have to say. I do not see how he can on his site say he is for Sportsman and then wants to makes changes that will cause problems for sportsmen.
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 7:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
9-15-08
I see neither candidate coming out against a possible rate cut. This tells me both are in the pockets of special interests. These special interest groups now have the audacity to call for an interest rate cut so they can continue the exact practices that got them into trouble in the first place. They are looking for a short term prospect to make some money; nothing more. I hope we don't see a rate cut and no comment from either of these guys.
- Oasthad September 16, 2008 9:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Calling all Democrats/Consider voting for John McCain
I have been a democrat but now find it gravely unfortunate that Barak Obama should be our representative in the race for president.
Clearly John McCain is the only qualified candidate as much as I did not want to admit it. During the debates many of my democratic associates were disappointed at Obama's weak, uninformed and defensive presentation. It was his opportunity to shine but instead he showed no prior history of experience or true passionate dedication to America.
I urge all democrats to consider that a vote for McCain is our best chance for a better economy.
- indieplanet
September 28, 2008 6:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neither one has a plan
I can't see either of these "good ol' boys" willing to make the real significant cuts in spending necessary to balance the budget. We need someone to take a slash and burn approach to spending and be willing to take the criticism and possible failure to get re-elected. Only the Libertarian party has that kind of plan.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neither
This is a poorly worded question by Opposing Views. Neither of these candidates has "the Right Plan". A better question would be, "Who Has the Best Plan for America's Economy". My opinion on that, however, is also: neither of these candidates.
Obama wants to increase the role of government (and therefore, expenditures) and McCain, as an influential senator, sat idly by while the government let Freddie and Fannie (whose credit the government implicitly guaranteed) take huge risks that contributed to the housing bubble that eventually led to the taxpayer bailout of both organizations.
Both Senators support the financial rescue package and I expect them to both vote in favor of the plan tonight. This is a horrible mistake for our economy in the long term. The size of it will demand more government regulation over those who participate in the plan (and possibly even those who don't) which will reduce innovation in the financial sector - which is normally a good thing and makes the US one of the most flexible economies in the world. The bailout is also an enormous shift of resources to poorly run companies from whatever else it may have been used for.
Bob Barr has a better plan for the economy than either Senator McCain or Obama. He opposes the bailout, he opposes government sponsorship of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and he opposes the increasing reach of the U.S. federal government.
- mofochickamo
October 1, 2008 8:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Windfall Profits
Quick question to all prObama fanboys: Define "windfall profits." Obama has discussed time and time again that he will tax oil companies to "punish" them for making too much money.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Anyone care to ellaborate?
- F2XL
October 1, 2008 6:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting read!!
The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.
Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.
I posted part of it above so that those in doubt can go read it.
As the writer says, that is something they do in a place where the Government runs every thing. We are free here in America. I was not aware that it was illegal to make a profit no matter how big it is.
- UltraConservative October 4, 2008 7:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I was born in the 90's but....
....I could've sworn I read somewhere that Jimmy Carter had something similar in mind back in his day.
Either way, I'll give either Barack or Durbin a windfall of cash if they could answer the questions you raised in that first paragraph. ;)
- F2XL
October 6, 2008 12:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Voting for Obama? Be afraid, be very afraid . . .
I'm not wild about either candidate, but I'm voting McCain/Palin and here's why. There's one fundamental difference between McCain and Obama that's critical - - it's the main thing we all need to consider in deciding who to vote for. It has to do with our view of what America is supposed to be and what kind of country we want to live in. That difference is this: Do you believe in unlimited and ever-expanding power of the federal government, or do you believe that given the fact that we also have state and city governments to which we also pay lots and lots of money in taxes to help us with roads, schools/education, crime etc., that the federal government ought to be as small as it possibly can be? Obama's view on the federal government is "the bigger the better", McCain's is "smaller is best".
The federal government was originally designed to do a few very specific things, like "defense of the nation", which also required "levying taxes", etc. It was not set up to do things like figure out a way for us to get paid FMLA time off from work to go to a child's school luncheon or to a PTA meeting as Michele Obama said her husband would fight for. The nation was set up on the principle of treating us all equally and fairly, not embracing a Robinhood approach of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, which is basically Obama's approach to taxes. We should have one lower tax rate for all Americans and the federal government would just have to figure out how to shrink itself down to a manageable level and work within a budget just like the rest of us have to, period.
There seems to be no end to the social programs Obama wants to create, or increase funding for, but I haven't heard him say a single specific thing he would cut out of our federal budget. If we're already running a $450 billion deficit each year, and we have a $9 trillion national debt, how do we not cut anything out, spend more, and also treat all of our citizens like charity cases by giving us tax credits for everything under the sun and half a dozen new things to depend on the federal government for that many of us don't even want or need?
Oh wait - - he'll pay for his new spending by raising taxes on "big oil" and, of course, people who are no longer alive. Obama wants to keep the death tax but raise it back to 45% for estates that qualify. It's embarassing to live in a country whose government thinks that if you work hard and create wealth to leave your family and you've paid all your taxes as appropriate while you're alive, that when you die, the government is somehow entitled to 45% of everything you owned. At least McCain wants it to not be more than 15%. And as far as creating a windfall profits tax for oil companies, who do you honestly think will pay that extra tax in the end? Those of us who use gasoline, of course, which is pretty much everyone. And while the tax is passed onto us, Obama gets a big slap on the back for going after those SOB oil companies and "beating them"!
My fear about Obama on healthcare is just as serious - - in forcing companies to cover pre-existing conditions, no one wins (except Obama once again by getting credit for beating the American insurance industry, but really beating the American people in the end). If you already have an HMO, chances are, you don't have a limitation on pre-existing conditions in the first place. Obama isn't gaining you anything. If you have another type of plan, chances are you do have a pre-ex limitation. If they're required to not have PCL clauses, those potential 10's of millions in losses the companies will be exposed to will be passed onto the rest of us, even if we don't have a pre-ex condition, in the form of higher premiums for all, which could mean some might have to cancel coverage they currently have because they won't be able to afford the new higher premium.
Whoever gets the job has to get serious about energy, and declaring war on our own oil companies is not the answer. They aren't the enemy when it comes to energy. WE ARE!! We're the junkies, they're just the dealers. Americans have to get serious and we won't do it unless we're forced into it. Energy independence is the key to everything - - just like Sarah Palin said in the debate. It's the key to national security, foreign relations, and economic stability here at home. Any President who isn't focused on that just about full time (and ending the 2 wars we're in) is going to be a miserable failure. And if he's focused on what really matters in the big American picture, that would leave the rest of us to figure out the stuff we should figure out for ourselves - - like what our kids do after school, and who gets married and who doesn't, and who gets to attend the PTA meeting at school and who doesn't, etc. That stuff isn't what Presidents are hired to do!!!
- Mark in North Carolina
October 12, 2008 4:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It isn't the economy, stupid
The stock market will recover nicely if government stays out of the way, it drove it to where it is now.
The only questions that needs asking is: If McCain associated with known unrepentant abortion clinic bombers -- would anyone vote for him? If not -- why is anyone voting for Obama?
- CharlieBravo
October 12, 2008 7:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Election basics
What this election is really all about...
the fight for/against becoming a(lot) more socialist country.
The other night, I watched one of Sen. Bidens speeches in which he stated that while growing up his father told him to work hard and follow the rules.
Which he said he did and look how he turned out...
But since then the rules have drastically changed and people have to work a h@#$ of a lot harder to keep their own money in their pockets.
In the 2nd debate, Sen. Obama refered to Pres. Kennedys space challenge...
Whatever happened to Pres. Kennedys:
"ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country"
Appears it's been modernized into:
"-ask what you can legislate others to do for your benefit and beliefs"
Then once "law" the tightening begins.
- Joe6Pack
October 13, 2008 10:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who Has the Right Plan for America's Economy?
(R) = Make the pie bigger for all.
(D) = The pie can't be made bigger, redistribute it.
And on another note. If McCain openly associated with known unrepentant abortion clinic bombers would anyone vote for him? If not then why is anyone voting for Obama?
- CharlieBravo
October 14, 2008 12:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE: the pie
Are you sure it's not:
(D) = The pie will not be made bigger, redistribute it,
(so through your economic reliance on us, we can control you better)
..."Please sir, may I have some more?"
===
also the "bombers" association issue has gotten real tired...
...the issue to be resolved, specifically answered, is which one of
the nine(?) different answers is the personal/official reply?
- Joe6Pack
October 14, 2008 4:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Finally!
There it is! It's not about some washed up terrorist; it's about talking straigt with the American People. All he had to do is say, "We have worked together on important projects that we both agree on!"
Unfortunately when you look at those projects they are all the same "spread the wealth around" garbage that most Americans despise. Dig to the root of the matter and Ayers reveals just how deep Barry's socialism runs! It would be the death of his political desireability if it became known
- ScottyNow
October 19, 2008 4:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE: Truth please
At the Alfred E. Smith charity benefit/roast, Sen. Obama made referance(joke) that he was from Krypton (so, he's a brother to the big guy with an "S" on his chest?)...
At least his brother is a defender of Truth, Justice and the American way.
I first received via email (today)...
Search the web for an Open Letter to Barack Obama by Michael Master of McLean, Virginia,
within the last few days (Oct 18) and being posted on multi-sites.
- Joe6Pack
October 19, 2008 5:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ask better Questions if you want better Answers
The mistake most often made in solving any problem is the assumption that someone knows the whole answer. Answers can be liken to a picture made up of dots or pickles that are called questions. If you ask enough questions and places enough dots on the page then the answer appears.
Niether of these "POLITICIANS" or the current incompetent Democratic Congress or the obtuse Republican Administrations has begun to ask the right questions. Why would anyone expect political organizations that are based on a force counter-force culture ever do the right things for the right reasons. As the Economist John Maynard Keynes said “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
The reality is that the economy is like a self rigthing boat that is designed to rise and fall over a 15 year cycle on an ocean of desires and dreams created by the citizens in spite of all the good or bad intentions of politicans. If you want things to improve then change the way you look at them and the things you look at will change. That statement will correct the Economy far faster than listening to politicians "debate" what they don't understand are not willing to change unless they or their party can directly benefit.
-
- jodantec October 17, 2008 8:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Define your view of America's Economy
If your view of the "right economy" is one in which a “good year” means you’ve made more money than last year and the government takes most of your windfall in an attempt to make it "good for all", then your man is Obama. If, on the other hand, you want an economy that spreads prosperity through growth, then your man is McCain. It's that simple. If you want to make the economy more dependent on the government and less on the people, then vote for Obama. If you believe in entrepreneurship, individual opportunity, and the chance at what used to be called, and last I checked still is called, the "American Dream" vote for McCain. What's your view of America? I know what mine is and I don't dispute the validity of yours if it differs from mine, just be sure you understand the "model" you are voting for. Now is the time to have that clear, not some years down the road when suddenly America’s economy becomes something you didn't intend in that vote.
- talisgeirf
October 18, 2008 5:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Obama=Inflation - Higher Unemployment
My tax expert reviewed our business last week and said under Obama our taxes would be increased from 15% to 40%. That means we will have to increase our prices to the consumer and possibly lay off an employee. I am in the same boat as millions of other businesses. How can this be better for America. Obama = Inflation - Higher unemployment.
- koch
October 20, 2008 3:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
John McCain's Youtube ad to Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
John McCain's most powerful ad -- an open letter to Barack Obama in which an Iraq War veteran criticizes his stand on the war -- didn't cost the Republican candidate a dime.
In "Dear Mr. Obama," army veteran Joe Cook stands in front of the camera and scolds the Democratic presidential candidate for calling the Iraq war a mistake. The two-minute video, which was posted on YouTube, has gotten more than 11 million hits and is the most popular election video on the site.
In the video, Cook tells Obama why he disagrees with his Iraq war policies and says he's supporting McCain. At the end, he walks away from the camera, revealing that he has a prosthetic leg.
Cook, 23, was wounded in Iraq in June and returned home to Wauconda, Ill., to recover. He said he enlisted three years ago because of his family's dedication to serving their country. His parents were both marines, and he has two brothers in the military.
Now that he's back from Iraq, Cook continues to help his fellow service members, running a business with a neighbor that provides valet parking services at veterans' hospitals.
"When I first got back it was all about the recovery and everything like that, but as the race starting going on, I got more involved," he said, explaining why he made the video. "I started reading about McCain and stuff. He's a leader. I can really respect him, seeing as he's a vet as well."
Cook said he has already cast his ballot in Illinois early voting.
Video director Michael Brown, who teamed up with Cook to create the video, said he was inspired to make the video because he wanted to share the experiences of soldiers that aren't reported in the media and to lend support to McCain for his position on the war.
"Obama has been squealing since 2002 that Iraq is a mistake," Brown said. "He's using the military as pawns, he has not brought our troops home and he has not done any good. When he says it's a mistake, he's disrespecting our guys."
"I'm not connected with any campaign," Brown said.
- indieplanet
October 31, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Look at the facts!
Junior Senator Obama works for a state who has the worst budget, most corruption, worst funding for education, and highest taxes. I don't think I want him running our budget let alone planning our economy!
- CLOUD9
November 1, 2008 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
sawmill king
I can see through all the fog.. Looks like Oboma is trying to do things to ease up on our problems. But in some cases it is back firing--as I see it all these people that are begging for billions of dollars--when they finially get the money--they do not use it wisely at all. They just spend it all away. So in essence we are just feeding the problem. I would like to know who has a good solid plan on how to solve the initial problems we all have at the present. The so called bail out is not going to work for anyone. And by printing a huge amount of money will not get the job done. Our dollar bill is worth nothing now. We do not have enough gold in fort knox to cover for any amount of money. True we all need a good leader allright. One that can tell these people that are begging for money--they had better use the money very wisely--instead they just blow the money for their top officials to party on. Where does this all end. First things first. Gas and Diesel prices---we need to lock down all the prices. So Joe does not just increase the prices because he wants a second personal jet to ride in. Second all the high priced executives take a large pay cut. Through out all the unions and get the automobiles prices down under the moon so some people might be able to afford one for a change. Get the money into circulation again. Jobs are still a huge question. Too many business are going belly up---why is that???? They do not know how to run a business--just know how to grab all the proceeds why? Why are they alowed to continue to keep on doing these things. Lets face it people---we need a person that is all about common sence--and not a person that knows how to sharpen a pencil. All the things I mentioned in this comment is common sence--regardless who is the better leader or planner.
- flying eagle
February 2, 2009 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My stimulus...
I feel I am qualified to offer my suggestion on the only way to get this country out of the horrible mess it is in, because I feel I am a very typical middle class family mom. This whole thing started with the price of gas. Gas is something we all HAVE to have, no way about it. When the government did nothing to stop the drastic rise in gas prices it completely led to the zero confidence of the American people. We have no way to not use gas. If it was anything else, we could have used something different, like if milk goes up, stop buying it. If PG&E goes up so high you can’t afford it, you turn the heat and air off (even though that never seemed to lower our bill!). You have choices to use an alternative or not at all. But when gas was allowed to go up so high that it took every driver’s discretionary income, necessity income, etc., it completely stripped all confidence I had in any government entity. It hit the American middle class in every aspect, we had to pay hundreds more a WEEK just to get to work which most of us didn’t even have extra, so other necessities were set aside just to get to work. And every other thing in our lives went up also because of the price of gas, absolutely everything was raised because of the higher gas bills. The fact that there was nothing the government could do or would do to stop this created the mass panic of the people to quit buying anything, which led to the housing downfall because those first people losing their jobs started the mass loss of houses, which started the domino effect that is still taking place because the people saw that something like that (the outrageous rise of gas prices) was allowed to happen with no government help to let such a thing take place. And now states have even gotten so used to the high gas prices which means high gas taxes that they want to tax the mileage on the small cars that some people managed to buy that are cheap on gas because they are not getting as much gas taxes (I find this disgusting!). So even if you manage to do something so that you are not paying such an outrageous price weekly for your gas, they are going to get you by charging on the miles you drive! I feel that there is so much greed at the top that no one will try to do anything to make sure this never happens again because there are a lot of people who are making money on the high gas prices even though it is ruining the country! There is no way that I will ever be able to buy a new car when gas could go up again to cost me $500 a month.
My purpose for this letter is I feel the only way to get the American people’s confidence back is to use ALL the bailout money that is being thrown away by just giving it to the corrupt banking CEO’s is to use it ALL for an alternative to gas for the entire country and every American so they don’t have to be completely at the whim of whoever is adjusting gas prices and taxes. Use it all to create the best alternative that everyone will use because just letting a bunch of different ones come out means there are not enough stations available for the people who choose a particular alternative. And give one small car that uses this alternative to gas to each family. I believe the whole country would come out of recession if the gas problem was addressed COMPLETELY.
- CaliforniaMom555
February 11, 2009 7:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Test comment
This is a test comment from OpposingViews technical staff.
- SolarSanitizer
July 31, 2009 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Money we don't have
Obama borrowed 800 Bil. worth of money WE don't have, thus putting America in huge debt. Not exactly a smart idea. Truthfully there could have been better candidates, but out of these two I would say McCain would have been the best for the Economy.
- Dylandts
August 14, 2009 11:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.