Experts and users discuss barack obama, john mccain, election 2008: Who Has the Right Plan for America's Economy?
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
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 (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.
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.
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