Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/4/08 01:45 PM, Jizzlebang wrote:

At 9/3/08 07:31 PM, Chavic wrote:

McCain wants stricter laws to protect the environment and to drastically cut down on carbon emmisions. He also wants to stop give tax cuts to companies who outsource

Barack Obama has proposed denying tax reliefs to companies that ship job overseasBarack Obama would consider charging Bush administration over Guantanamo

So he has the same plan as McCain on companies who outsource. McCain: 0 Obama: 0
("Charges" for Guantanamo are ridiculous")

McCain has proposed 4 new tax cuts. More than the $1.35 trillion tax reduction of 2001 and the $320 billion tax cut of 2003 that Bush already did. (Obama wants to raise taxes by the way)

Obama wants to raise?

High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.

McCain wants to lower taxes for EVERYBODY. The top earners would save more than the lowest but dollar wise, but they pay much more in taxes in the first place.
Obama wants to increase taxes for some, but lower taxes for others this means adding almost a third of what the top earners make to what they already pay in taxes. So they will be paying very close to half their income in taxes.
I'm a poor UCF student, who can only afford college thanks to an academic scholarship, so I'm hardly biased. I think paying close to half of what you earn is ridiculous. Less taxes for everybody is fair and certainly a good thing. Many of the "evil rich" people worked hard for the money that they make.
(you can see current tax brackets here)

McCain 1 Obama: 0

McCain also wants to introduce a tax breaks for families who buy there own health insurance,

Obama wants income-related federal tax subsidies for health insurance

Obama wants to increase federal spending.
LINK
Although tax policy shows promise as a means of providing health insurance to some of the uninsured, covering substantial numbers of uninsured persons will require very large expenditures, both overall and per newly covered person. Even the most effective tax policy considered in this study would cost at least $40 billion per year and cover less than 30 percent of the
uninsured.
The result would be long waits for treatment, lower quality and higher taxes.

A much more effective way. The government should continue to provide insurance for the poor, elderly and disabled through Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. The private insurance market in each state should be reorganized so everyone else is offered a choice of basic plans at affordable prices.The details of these and similar plans can be found at the sites below, and please note that they at a much lower cost than Obama's plan, which means fewer taxes.

#1
#2
#3
#4

Which makes it McCain:2 Obama: 0 by the way

At 9/3/08 10:37 PM, GallitoMix wrote:

At 9/3/08 08:53 PM, Element272 wrote:
However, you must agree that McCain made a poor choice for a running mate. McCain is elderly and has a number of health problems, if he wins then Sarah Palin is next in line to be the President of the most powerful country in the world.

Sorry to break it out to you, pal, but the United States is AMONG the most powerful countries of the World, but is NOT the most powerful one. There are plenty of competing nations now for that spot, including the European Union, Russia, and China. I think all four countries / blocks are more or less on par when it comes to overall power. I tell you this because, you know, Americans have got a really big ego for no real reason anymore. Not that Americans are bad people or anything, though.

Agreed, I was just using a hyperbole to make my point. Even so, Sarah Palin leading ONE of the most powerful countries is still not a comforting thought for reasons that I have already stated.

At 9/3/08 07:04 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 9/3/08 06:46 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Taxation (McCain wanted accompanying spending cuts),

So McCain is even more conservative with the budget. Thats being a Republican Maverick.

One of bushes major criticisms from democrats and within his own party was his reckless spending. In the sense of the present understanding of the republican party, wanting sound budget controls is something that hasn't been discussed in a long time, and actually implementing sound budget controls even longer. Anyone who actually wants to cut ridiculous spending is a maverick in my opinion.

campaign financing (McCain joined with democrat Feingold to put limits on 407 advocacy groups, or something like that, much to the dismay of fellow republicans),

Both parties bases support campaign finace reform.

If democrats want it too than i see little problem.

illegal immigration (McCain co-sponsored the defeated immigration bill that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants),

After the bill was defeated and in the primaries McCain became heavily anti-immigration.

I can only defend mccain, not support him, but by 'Heavily anti immigration' there's the issue that Mccain and obama's immigration policy [check their websites] are awkwardly similar

Iraq (McCain was always somewhat critical of the manpower invested),

He is still a staunch supporter of the war which fits the Republican base.

It's not really fair to say that Iraq policy is divided solely between the two poles of 'leave' and 'stay', especially since it's hard to tell if Obama's policy would genuinely disentangle the united states from iraq. Mccain has never said that the tactics that were used in the early occupation of iraq were satisfactory, he DID say that there were not enough troops stationed in iraq in the begining which made defending the country from threats difficult and hindered progress in the region. I don't know if this is true or not [As a matter of militaristic experience] It's too vague to say that if two people beleive in continuing the same war, that these two people must also, therefore, agree on the same plan of action taken to win the war.

Global warming (McCain has been a far more enthusiastic supporter of anti-carbon [anti-economic growth] initiatives),

His anti-carbon policies are things to make it look like he cares about the environment. His policies will not help global warming at all. He also still supports pro-big oil polocies like drilling offshore and ANWR.

The fact that Mccain believes or claims to beleive that global warming can be stopped by reducing domestic anthropogenic green house gasses is a major turn off for me, more so than creating policies that don't actually do anything, as you claim, or help the big evil oil companies.

congressional procedure (part of the "gang of 14" who made the compromise to allow Alito to join the Supreme Court while maintaining the legitimacy of fillibustering [stopping legislation by absence because too few representatives agree with you to vote against it]. As you can see, there are a lot. Anyone who follows politics remotely should recognize at least one of these,

He supports Alito and filibustering! Why those are not thing the Republicans use. Well except for the fact Alito is Republican and Republicans filibuster .all the time.

I don't know enough about the history of filibustering to agree with or disagree with the comment. I'll assume since you said it as a fact that you consider it to be true, I'm interested in knowing where you learned this. [Source, basically]

Or just a lazy sob.

Personal attacks. You can do better

He's not the first one to do so on this thread, anyone who does is by default a fool since personal attacks harm the debator in becoming the focus of the argument. [Why should they?]

At 9/3/08 11:06 PM, cHunter wrote:

At 9/3/08 08:53 PM, Element272 wrote: Yes I know Obama lacks experience as well, at least he has SOME experience on a federal level and further more. I think we can all agree that Biden would be a much more suitable President than Sarah Palin if the parties

Palin is the only one with executive experience out of all four of them. She at least was an amazing governor of her state (80% approval rating).

Obama is a former pothead and cocaine user. I don't feel comfortable at all just thinking about him in power!

Oh my god... did you seriously just go there... seriously...? *deep sigh*

HEY IDIOT, SARAH PALIN IS A FORMER POTHEAD TOO

ALSO, how... the hell... is Palin the only one with executive experience... God, if you had at least said McCain is the only one that would be more reasonable...

FORMAL FEDERAL EXPERIENCE
______________________
Obama - 4 years.
McCain - 26 years, not including the military.
Biden - 35 years, he also spent a couple years on a county council.
Palin - 0 years, with 2 years as governer, 8 years as major.

Yeah... theres some major fail there...

Executive experience would take me forever to formally measure... But I can guarantee Biden and McCain have WAY more.

Seriously, learn your crap before you post next time.
The former pothead comment about Obama made me seriously want to hit somebody.

At 9/4/08 04:43 PM, TheMason wrote: If partisanship is the issue then McCain is more of your man than Obama. According to The Washington Post, Obama voted along party lines 96% of the time. Biden 96.6% and McCain 88.3%. To put this in perspective:

Percent of the Senate that voted along party lines more than the candidates:
Biden: Only 6% of the Senate voted along party lines more often than him.
Obama: Only 9% of the Senate voted along party lines more often than him.
McCain: Only 62% of the Senate voted along party lines more often than him.

SOURCE

His voting record was before the nomination. Before the nomination he had very different views from what he's preaching now... for example, he used to be against waterboarding, that view has changed. He used to support abortion, he's changed his view on that as well. So, the voting record certainly can't be used as an accurate figure for McCain, when McCain only whored out to the Republican party just recently.

Furthermore, it's not about partisianship, it's about McCain's policies which basically mimic those of the abysmally unpopular Bush Administration.

Furthermore, I have looked at the Obama plan and there is nothing new about it. In fact in terms of economics Obama seems like he's going to be more of a third Bush term than McCain. See where Bush messed up was when the .com bubble burst, the market took the budget surpluses of both the federal and state governments with it. Bush in response to this (and 9/11) increased government spending on the military and entitlements (his perscription drug benefit added over a Trillion dollars to the budget). This increased spending was during a time of shrinking tax revenues.

Despite the fact that you're completely ignoring McCains other Bushy policies and focusing simply economics, You're forgetting the fact that Obama plans to put money into social programs (which directly benefit the US infrastructure, something that Bush has neglected) and not Department of Defense projects.

Obama wants to increase spending (healthcare anyone?) which means taxes are going to have to go through the roof. Now it is pretty much economic law that higher taxes reduce economic activity...which essentially will mean that Obama will not be able to collect enough tax revenue to pay for his "change".

Obama is cutting taxes for everyone but those who make more than 600,000 a year (the top 1% of the US). In fact, anyone making less that 110,000 a year (more than 60% of the US) will receive a larger cut from Obama than they would from McCain. Not only does this pay for expensive (but necessary) programs like healthcare, but it also works towards balancing the severely unbalanced wealth distribution in the US. Something that McCain's economic policies would only make worse.

Furthermore, in a time of war two government programs are taking up about half of the federal budget: Social Security and Medicare. We could go to war with N. Korea and Iran in order to come close to spending as much on the military as we are these entitlements. And Obama wants to add a third massively large program to the federal budget?

Considering the fact that the Military budget (kept seperate from the federal budget) skyrockets above both of those, and also considering the fact that Obama plans to end an incredibly expensive and strenuous war, I don't think such a plan is unreasonable.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/10 2043

^ Thats why

i personaly don't like him he sounds to much like bush and we don't need more of that.
Obama ftw.

At 9/5/08 07:02 PM, Element272 wrote:

Agreed, I was just using a hyperbole to make my point. Even so, Sarah Palin leading ONE of the most powerful countries is still not a comforting thought for reasons that I have already stated.

As opposed to Obama who has only been a senator for 1 term who's foreign relations experience amounts to touring the world putting on big shows for crowds of people? At least Palin is a governor and actually over an entire state, unlike obama who really runs nothing, just has a seat in a room full of seats where people vote on things.. BTW, how many times has Obama voted?

Let's see...
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr ess/members/o000167/

Obama has served 1 full term and working on a 2nd term in congress.
That's a lot of experience there! How much foreign relation experience does that give em? *crickets* exactly.

I can't find anything on foreign relations experience. Giving a big speech in Berlin does not count. That's about like Clinton's "experience". Sipping tea with the wives of foreign leaders =/= foreign relations experience.

You're saying "Palin doesn't have experience, we shouldnt let her lead if McCain dies. Obama however, doesn't have experience, He's PERFECT for the job!"

I better start checkin them Obama advertisements for subliminal messages.

At 9/5/08 10:09 PM, idiot-buster wrote: i personaly don't like him he sounds to much like bush and we don't need more of that.
Obama ftw.

This statement dumbfounds me every time i hear it. Its sad when people are so blinded by their ignorance that they eat whatever propaganda they are given.
"McCain is another Bush!"
"Obama is a celebrity!"

gimme a damn break, you are actually so ignorant that you believe the 1 sided ads that you see on TV? All I can say is, keep the blindfold on if your brain is so tiny that it can only process the information given to you on TV. Ignorance is bliss, which could be why I'm miserable when I see who i get to choose between when I'm casting my vote. I know Bob Barr won't win, but if those who aren't brainwashed by the system keep voting for who we truly want and not who we think will win, then perhaps, someday, in the distant future the people will be fed up with feeding the titans that they will elect a 3rd party and show the giants that this nation is still run BY THE PEOPLE!

At 9/5/08 11:09 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/5/08 07:02 PM, Element272 wrote:

Agreed, I was just using a hyperbole to make my point. Even so, Sarah Palin leading ONE of the most powerful countries is still not a comforting thought for reasons that I have already stated.

As opposed to Obama who has only been a senator for 1 term who's foreign relations experience amounts to touring the world putting on big shows for crowds of people? At least Palin is a governor and actually over an entire state, unlike obama who really runs nothing, just has a seat in a room full of seats where people vote on things.. BTW, how many times has Obama voted?

Let's see...
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr ess/members/o000167/

Obama has served 1 full term and working on a 2nd term in congress.
That's a lot of experience there! How much foreign relation experience does that give em? *crickets* exactly.

I can't find anything on foreign relations experience. Giving a big speech in Berlin does not count. That's about like Clinton's "experience". Sipping tea with the wives of foreign leaders =/= foreign relations experience.

You're saying "Palin doesn't have experience, we shouldnt let her lead if McCain dies. Obama however, doesn't have experience, He's PERFECT for the job!"

I better start checkin them Obama advertisements for subliminal messages.

To reiterate and define some more:
Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review, if you look into it, he really was a fairly profound president. The article does state it, but to re-iterate he was part of the illinois senate for 7 years. And was a Chicago Law lecturer for 12 years.

Sarah Palin went to the University of Idaho and her minor was in political science. Sarah Palin was on the city council of a small town with a population of 9000 called Wasilla for 4 years, then a major of the same town for 8 years. Then was elected the Governor of Alaska for 2 years.

Obama's education was much more profound than Palin's. Honestly as far as experience goes I wouldn't say one has exactly a huge edge over the other.
Also Joe Biden compliments Obama, meaning he is everything that Obama isn't. Yet what does Palin have that McCain doesn't... besides a female body part.

I believe McCain's choice for a running mate wasn't a very good one. Given the demographics he may have been trying to win over... I think Kay Hutchison would have made a more intelligent choice.

Also take into consideration, Obama worked his way up for the most part on his own. He is the democratic nominee because of what he's done. Sure, Palin earned her way to the governor of Alaska, but not to the running mate position. Although this is true of all running mates, this is one of the major differences between Palin and Obama.

So I'd say Obama has more ambition, a better education, and most of all he has referent power thats how he's standing as the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee, speaking of which he did run his own campaign which you have to admit was quite successful. This gives him a huge advantage over the other candidates. If you recall at first Hillary had a huge advantage over Obama and early on it was assumed she was going to win the nomination in a landslide. Yet the more time Obama received, the more popularity he gained.
His referent power is what gives him the ability to deeply influence change throughout congress, the supreme court and bureaucracy.

SO... Obama has referent power giving him the potential to change, McCain and Biden have experience and influence as well.
What does Palin have?

Oh and on the side.
Thanks Korriken for not being an idiot. Seriously I think your the first intelligent person I've had a debate with in quite a while.

The stupidity of a number of people on here is astounding. I will agree a number of the Obama supporters on here are pretty much retarded. Really some of the stuff though that some of these people post...

cHunter: Obama is a former pothead and cocaine user. I don't feel comfortable at all just thinking about him in power!
Element272: HEY IDIOT, SARAH PALIN IS A FORMER POTHEAD TOO

*sigh*

At 9/5/08 11:22 PM, Korriken wrote: gimme a damn break, you are actually so ignorant that you believe the 1 sided ads that you see on TV? All I can say is, keep the blindfold on if your brain is so tiny that it can only process the information given to you on TV. Ignorance is bliss, which could be why I'm miserable when I see who i get to choose between when I'm casting my vote. I know Bob Barr won't win, but if those who aren't brainwashed by the system keep voting for who we truly want and not who we think will win, then perhaps, someday, in the distant future the people will be fed up with feeding the titans that they will elect a 3rd party and show the giants that this nation is still run BY THE PEOPLE!

To all you "third party reveloution people" have you ever considered the reason the two parties are so popular is not because they are evil titans that destroy te like of Bob Barr but because most Americans are political moderates wo cannot get behind the extreme conservative views of someone like Bob Barr.

At 9/6/08 03:01 PM, aninjaman wrote:

To all you "third party reveloution people" have you ever considered the reason the two parties are so popular is not because they are evil titans that destroy te like of Bob Barr but because most Americans are political moderates wo cannot get behind the extreme conservative views of someone like Bob Barr.

i doubt it, only because the approval rating of both party's has been pretty low. 3rd party certainly doesn't RECEIVE as much attention and i DOUBT that if you went into the streets of new york, asking people who bob Barr is, that they would be able to tell you who he was let alone whether or not his veiws were considered extremist. But this is my guess based on my feelings about the competence of the electorate. The only evidence i could use to back up my claim is that, by simply looking at the mainstream media [i will not imply that they are liberal or conservative] you do not get very much coverage of people like bob barr, it's my opinion that if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are either very crazy or very politically aware, [or both]

Because he distances himself from the bush administration. In case you didn't notice supporters of Huckabee and Romney were attacking him for not being a true republican prior to his nomination as republican candidate. It is clear that he doesn't stand for everything bush and the rest of the party stand for.

Not that I necessarily support him, I just feel it is unfair to link him to the bush administration.

At 9/4/08 04:43 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/3/08 06:20 PM, aninjaman wrote:

Obama wants to increase spending (healthcare anyone?) which means taxes are going to have to go through the roof. Now it is pretty much economic law that higher taxes reduce economic activity...which essentially will mean that Obama will not be able to collect enough tax revenue to pay for his "change".

I always had a bad feeling about Obama, I definately think you are right. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that higher taxes means less fuel for a slowing economy. But he is bound to be president. It is inevitable.

At 9/7/08 01:19 AM, MrFlopz wrote:

At 9/4/08 04:43 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/3/08 06:20 PM, aninjaman wrote:

Obama wants to increase spending (healthcare anyone?) which means taxes are going to have to go through the roof. Now it is pretty much economic law that higher taxes reduce economic activity...which essentially will mean that Obama will not be able to collect enough tax revenue to pay for his "change".

I always had a bad feeling about Obama, I definately think you are right. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that higher taxes means less fuel for a slowing economy. But he is bound to be president. It is inevitable.

Keep in mind the biggest damn difference between Obama and McCain... The Iraq War? Pulling out of this war will save this nation a countless, and I mean a countless amount of $$$...

Also Obama's plan is that of a Robin Hood effect in a way. He's offering a tax plan that will reduce taxes for the bottom 95% of the population, and heavily increase taxes for the top 5% of the population.

Fact - The top 1% of the population makes up about 1/3rd of the economy.

I mean sure the health care and such may help even it out. Yet you have to admit there's nothing McCain can do while maintaining the war in Iraq that would help our economy more than what Obama is doing by pulling us out.

For a while my parents were paying close to 2k on healthcare a month...
I'd say a change in that wouldn't hurt.

Charisma is way more important than experience in politics because energising voters through emotional speeches can win more votes than policies. That's why I think that Obama will win.

Meh, McCain is a crook. Besides, you'd have to be incredibly stupid to vote republican again after the mess they've brought about... There's empirical evidence; if voting republican doesn't work the first time and it doesn't work the second time, why should you think it will work the 3rd time... You'd have to be a moron to think that trying the same thing over and over again will eventually produce a different outcome. I mean, you could argue that 'times have changed' but seriously, it's almost exactly the same as when Bush got elected the second time, except now the economy is worse and there's a housing crisis going on. I don't think Obama will make a great president, but I seriously doubt that he could do worse than McCain.

I want to vote for McCain because I rather have my president die from old age then be assassinated.

You guys really need a public health system, so badly. The one reason I wouldn't move to the States at the moment is that you don't have public healthcare. It's something that Western democracies need, and almost every single other one has one.

Try and keep it seperate from government, beyond taxation.

At 9/7/08 10:47 AM, Earfetish wrote: You guys really need a public health system, so badly. The one reason I wouldn't move to the States at the moment is that you don't have public healthcare. It's something that Western democracies need, and almost every single other one has one.

Try and keep it seperate from government, beyond taxation.

How would we keep it seperate from government? Having a health care system seperate from government has got America into this current mess where health care companies cheat the poor.

At 9/7/08 12:36 PM, aninjaman wrote: How would we keep it seperate from government? Having a health care system seperate from government has got America into this current mess where health care companies cheat the poor.

In our country it's too heavily involved in government and therefore there are things like targets and government initiatives and government bureaucracy kinda fucking it up from the inside. You can still have something publicly owned and largely seperate from the government, like the BBC.

Two reasons:
1.) He's not Bush.
2.) He's not a walking Hallmark card.

It's the reason that Gordon Brown had good approval ratings when he took over as out PM - he wasn't Tony Blair, nor was he Blair's Tory Mini-Me. He had to really fuck things up to start sliding.

Unless some of you can all see into the future none of us can comprehend what either candidate will do or is capable of.

Just to add my take, McCain remains popular simply because the nominee for the Republican party. Most people who consider themselves Republicans won't give it any thought before the support him just as much as most Democrats will quickly and unquestionably support Obama.

At 9/7/08 10:47 AM, Earfetish wrote: You guys really need a public health system, so badly. The one reason I wouldn't move to the States at the moment is that you don't have public healthcare. It's something that Western democracies need, and almost every single other one has one.

Try and keep it seperate from government, beyond taxation.

Good yes but there are cracks in the system. I've heard that due to the number of applicants for care some governments (France?) have put restrictions on who can obtain care. Foreigners and citizens recently emigrated from other countries? Bit of a fight there but that problem is preferable to no healthcare at all.

States are a bit obsessed on tax cuts though. And there are some major disparities between people who work for the same employer. Taxation for our wealthier classes is far lower you'll find than many of the old world countries our parents came from. I think it can be proven that the difference in compensation between the common working man or woman and their employer in the United States and the like in other developed nations are way off.

Seems to me that Europe has made the mistakes, it's caused all the trouble but now it's learning from it. What can we learn to gain from their efforts? What use is a healthy economy if you have unhealthy, uneducated and unhappy citizens? I'm not happy and I can't claim to be any smarter than those who live across the pond because I'm not.

Best way to improve a situation is to consider one's self. What could you do to screw up it up for everyone else? Consider that the first step towards making a difference. If we can't think on something or question ourselves then I can see why so many arguments either tend to be short and familiar or overly sited and at face value appear to be written by someone who's well informed.

Sorry I've gotten off topic, again.

At 9/7/08 10:38 PM, pigtailsboy wrote: Unless some of you can all see into the future none of us can comprehend what either candidate will do or is capable of.

Just to add my take, McCain remains popular simply because the nominee for the Republican party. Most people who consider themselves Republicans won't give it any thought before the support him just as much as most Democrats will quickly and unquestionably support Obama.

THats not true. There is a republicans for Obama site and the vice versa for McCain. In elections there is an average of 9% of people defecting to the other party. People don't always vote based on just your party.

At 9/5/08 09:06 PM, Musician wrote: His voting record was before the nomination. Before the nomination he had very different views from what he's preaching now... for example, he used to be against waterboarding, that view has changed. He used to support abortion, he's changed his view on that as well. So, the voting record certainly can't be used as an accurate figure for McCain, when McCain only whored out to the Republican party just recently.

Sad thing is that Obama is equally guilty of being a flip flopper.

Furthermore, it's not about partisianship, it's about McCain's policies which basically mimic those of the abysmally unpopular Bush Administration.

Eh...if you look at economic policies Obama 1 would be Bush 3. See my recent response to "Challenge to Fiscal Conservativism".

Despite the fact that you're completely ignoring McCains other Bushy policies and focusing simply economics, You're forgetting the fact that Obama plans to put money into social programs (which directly benefit the US infrastructure, something that Bush has neglected) and not Department of Defense projects.

Guess what Musician...I don't care about anything but economics in this election. Obama's plans of putting money into social programs is a continuation of Bush's policies. No Child Left Behind...a bi-partisan social infrastructure program created with Ted Kennedy that is fucking up education and not helping it. In terms of healthcare Bush created a drug benefit plan under Medicare/aid that adds over $1 TRILLION to the federal budget. He is spending Billions in Africa to fight AIDS.

As for defense spending...do you not realize that defense spending as a percent of the budget has not increased significantly under Bush? Pre-9/11 we spent 16-18% of the federal budget annually...now with TWO wars the percentage is about 20-21%. Social Security and Medicare/aid takes up about 25% EACH. The truth of the matter, the money to fight these wars is being provided through cuts to other defense programs...to include manpower in the Air Force and Navy.

Bush has not neglected social spending...that is simply a manipulation of reality. In fact he has irresponsibly increased it.

Obama is cutting taxes for everyone but those who make more than 600,000 a year (the top 1% of the US). In fact, anyone making less that 110,000 a year (more than 60% of the US) will receive a larger cut from Obama than they would from McCain. Not only does this pay for expensive (but necessary) programs like healthcare, but it also works towards balancing the severely unbalanced wealth distribution in the US. Something that McCain's economic policies would only make worse.

This is going to be one of the few times you'll hear a cut taxes and cut spending Republican say this: THE LAST THING WE NEED ARE TAX CUTS. Our spending is out of control and we're not bringing in enough money. Furthermore, economic studies has found that once you increase taxes on the "rich" much more than it already is...the less the "rich" actually pay because it encourages tax sheltering.

As for "wealth imbalance"...this is a very old (and discredited) idea. We do not need the government redistributing wealth. I am glad for the rich. That is the reason we have jobs in this country. If wealth redistribution was a good thing the USSR would not have fallen, China would not be becoming capitalist and North Korea would be a first world country. Yeah...that is good change for America.

Considering the fact that the Military budget (kept seperate from the federal budget) skyrockets above both of those, and also considering the fact that Obama plans to end an incredibly expensive and strenuous war, I don't think such a plan is unreasonable.

Hmm...every federal budget I've seen (and every academic study I've seen) includes military expenditures. This is a fantasy my friend...you are being fooled and yes: Obama 1 will be Bush 3.

1. the area in ANWR that people are talking about when they talk about drilling there covers around 2,000 acres; ANWR itself covers 19,000,000 acres.
2. Palin has actual experience running something (her hometown and the state of Alaska) Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden don't.
3. A landslide in electoral terms would be like what happened with Regan in 1980 and 1984 (he won the vast majority of states (one of 'em he won 49 states!)).

At 9/5/08 07:51 PM, Element272 wrote: ALSO, how... the hell... is Palin the only one with executive experience... God, if you had at least said McCain is the only one that would be more reasonable...

ACTUALLY he is correct that Palin is the only one running with executive experience. What he was referring to was the branch of government the individuals have served in. Obama and Biden have zero executive experience, McCain's command in the Navy could count (which would be one year) and Palin has 20months as governor plus her time as small-town mayor.

See the federal experience you are talking about is legislative in nature. It involves a totally different skill set from being governor or president which is executive in nature. This is why historically more people have become president from a governorship rather than the senate...a trend that has only increased in the last 100 years. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all became president with just gubenatorial experience and no "formal federal experience".

Yeah... theres some major fail there...

Executive experience would take me forever to formally measure... But I can guarantee Biden and McCain have WAY more.

That would be a guarantee you would have to pay out on. Neither Biden nor McCain has ever been elected to an executive position. When McCain commanded a Naval aero squadron at Sarrasota Florida for a year that could be counted as executive experience. However, that would be just about it.