Who in your opinion will be a better president and why????

Samsara:  I thought you were smart.  I am sorry i misunderstood you! I see no reason to argue with hardhead person like you are.  Give your econ lecture to someone else .. .. calling people here highschool dropouts demeans yourself.  your writing style and choice of words reflects your own character .. That shows what kind of person you are ..bye now

 

Madhise, you try and correct me but when I give reasonings debunking your assumptions, you turn and still say you're correct?  Man o man, how much of a can-do-right type of guy are you??  Atleast ADMIT you were wrong and take it from there.  And going forward, bring some research into your posts if you ever are to prove me wrong, son.

BTW, I don't need you to vote for McCain...I need the educated and the peeps who understand the implications of taxes and those with a sound economic fundamental understanding know exactly whom to vote for.  You could support anyone blindly but to have a stance and belief in yourself and know why one candidate is better can only be decided by yourself from within.  As the great Civil War era poet/philosopher, Walt Whitman said, "Continue your annotations, continue your questionings."  In layman's terms, We do not have to be bhedas and follow, but rather look for the answers and do what is right!

 

madhise - my man u are right...   this guy samsara thinks he knows everything... the only words that come out of his mouth is nonsense...  95% garbage & 5 % some sense... u need a filter when u reading his comments.

 

Latoboy welcome!  Looks like your IP has been banned and you're now here as Gambler.  What happened to your other name: Kukpaboy?  HAHAH  He says it was a public computer.  HAHAHHA

San bro, pls do the honors and ban this foolio.  Could you check Gambler's IP and kindly block that too since its the same as Kukpaboy and Latoboy's!  Pls do the necessary and check the old posts to confirm if you have to.

A sajha well-wisher.

Wow, Look at this Samsara guy, I am quite amazed by his knowledge of Economics, he must have got an A in Econ101 and he still remembers it very well. Bravo!! Just because he knows Econ101, he thinks he knows how the global economy functions. And we all know how many times Economists have been correct, and how well they can predict. We have seen it for a long time, housing crisis, credit crisis, to name a few. And of course, people who make $25K per year would be voting for Obama, they don't make 250K like you do, dumbass.

And he predicts, based on his Econ101 knowledge, that Obama's tax policy will bring the downfall of social programs, the govt will run into more deficit. I wonder how the Scandinavian countries are doing so well with high tax rates, and did you happen to read on the news that Denmark is the happiest place on earth. but people like you only care about money don't know much about happiness. And let me tell you, tax cuts, what evidence do you have that they help the economy besides your meagre knowledge from Econ101? Denmark with its super high tax, have a booming economy, no national debt, universal health care, and what not. Everything Americans wish they had right now. 

"how on earth in the Long Run could we see the various welfare programs"

The goal of the welfare programs is to help people struggling in the short run so that they can be up and running in the long run. And let's not forget what Keynes said "In the long run, we are all dead".

Btw, I don't live in Canada.. doesn't my name suggest where i live, fool.

Clinton's programs was so much more beneficial than Reagan's programs simply because of the fact that raised taxes in the upper brackets and while the Republicans would like to believe that the benefits of Clinton era was simply the long-term effects of Reagan policies, they couldn't be more further from the truth. Clinton worked out budget cuts with the Republican congress that was broad and balanced.

One thing comes to mind, SPENDING. Clinton successfully cut spending than Reagan. The result was shrinking of federal deficit and eventually reversing. Reagan spent crazily than Clinton.

The higher taxes on the top brackets resulted in general circulation through earning and spending and which generated prosperity and more wealth. Employment rose, standard of living increased. The irony is that even the wealthy benefited simply because of the fact that they could live in a pleasant environment, be more fully the part of the normal population and put their money into steady income instead of risky gambles.

Everybody was better off. Rich, poor, black white, millionares, billionares, working people, unemployment rate dropped, housing it was the direct result of Clinton policy of raising taxes on the upper backets. Even the people under upper backets realized actually they had nothing to fear about. Reagan's keynesian trickle down economics caved to Clinton's fiscal policy. It is the sitting President not what is being inherited decides the economy.

The numbers speak for themselves, trickle-down economics helped the well-to-do richer only at the cost of sacrificing the middle class in the hope it trickles down. But Clinton's policies which helped working class people do better did not harm or penalize the wealthy. Every part of society benefitted greatly. Trickle-down theory does not work. Tickle-up works.

 

Well, it looks like this thread is getting little personal here, people accusing each other, this and that, etc. How about getting back to the purpose of the thread?

The more I learn about Obama, the more I am inclined towards McCain. I want to hear people's view to see why one should choose Obama or McCain.

McCain embodies working one's way up the ladder through hard work and personal sacrifice.  Obama represents cutting to the front of the line due to unwillingness to pay one's dues and throwing others under the bus. 

Here's a scenerio
If McCain chooses a female VP (granted it's almost impossible considering his age and his generation), then the game will be upside down. McCain can win over Obama, only and only if he picks a female VP. It will bring most of the Hillary's supporter in a heart beat to his side.
But a female VP for republican? It can never happen.

it seems Obama has said he will consider not raising Capital Gains taxes until the economy improves.

also he probably wont be raising Capital gains tax as much as he had promised to earlier. so maybe the difference between him and McCain on taxes not too different..

better for middle class people to vote straight for Obama since his policies are more friendly.

 

casey, HAHAHHA  Damn, your high-skool drop-out rhetoric really makes me laugh my balls out.  Denmark, he says!!  HAHAHA  Denmark's GDP is smaller than the total revenues of the most of the Dow Industrials (the corporations) we have here.  Hope you realize that the US's GDP is 13.795 Trillion (2007 figures) while Denmark's is just a meagre 301 Billion...The diff is 44 times!!  Even Exon Mobil, Citi and Walmart have revenues thrice as much as Denmark's!!  Its like comparing a midget wannabe baller to Shaq.  Man, it's rhetoric like that which make me ponder upon the comprehending abilities that I'm dealing with here of these high skool droup-outs.  He delves into the micro level instead of the overall BIG picture.  Even a monkey with half a brain would be able to run a nation that small.  

On a pound for pound basis, why not compare the welfare programs these Scandinavian nations have with the Indian Reservations here in the US (some of the countries have just as much populations as all the Reservations combines)...No one else in the world has it better when it comes to just sitting and receiving all the welfare benefits.  Hell, even the middle class here in the US would die for shiz like that.  WTF!   This foolio compares Denmark to the US...Compare the entire continent of Europe to the US in order to have a more accurate measure of your assumption!! 

 

Even CNN have now begun leaning right...Just shows how the left will never make it with Obama as thier flip-flopping head.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/27/beck.conventions/index.html

 

Commentary: Keeping my distance from the Democrats

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Here at the Glenn Beck program, the budget isn't exactly that impressive. We're not the federal government, with a limitless American Express card that we never have to pay off.

So, instead of traveling to Denver, Colorado, and reporting on the Democratic National Convention in a fancy suit like a real show, I get to watch the speeches at my house in my boxers. Sorry for that image. Here are my impressions of some of the noteworthy quotes from the convention so far, which I observed from a safe distance.

Nancy Pelosi: "I am very proud of the Democrats in Congress."

Never mind that no Congress in the past 20 years has passed fewer public laws than this one, according to the Wall Street Journal. How could they?

They are spending one quarter of their work week debating and passing symbolic measures such as creating National Watermelon Month. The Journal says no Congress in the past two decades has proposed more symbolic resolutions than this one -- 1,900, for those of you keeping score at home.

Pelosi went on to mention 10 specific accomplishments, which worked out to 0.9 accomplishments per percentage point of congressional approval rating. Ten accomplishments, 9% approval.

Nancy Pelosi: "On the most important policy decision of our time, the war in Iraq, Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong -- very, very wrong."

By her definition, do you know who else was very, very wrong? The Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden. And the last vice president they nominated, John Edwards. And the guy he ran with, John Kerry. And your headline speaker Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton, among many, many others.

Michelle Obama: "That's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities."

Michelle Obama's chosen career path led her to make $275,000 per year at a private hospital. Is that really a "public service" job?

It seems to me that a Republican wouldn't be able to get away with such a generous assessment of their résumé. They would surely be harassed for making a six-figure salary inside the evil health care industry, while millions suffer without insurance.

But hey, there's nothing wrong with making money, at least to me. And remember, she didn't say she was volunteering. She said she was "working to empower young people to volunteer," which is totally different.

Michelle Obama: Barack Obama will achieve his goals "the same way he always has -- by bringing us together and reminding us how much we share and how alike we really are."

How will he do it? He'll talk everyone into it. Yes, that has worked with his nomination, but can he "remind" me into wanting the government to pay for universal everything?

I don't think so. I must not be hoping hard enough for change.

Michelle Obama: If her husband wins, her children can tell their kids someday that they "decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming."

Sometimes doubting is good. For example, it's good to doubt that other countries' failing policies, such as universal health care, will suddenly work here.

Hillary Clinton: "John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis."

She must have missed the update that this number dropped by over a million. While it's still too high, I doubt she would have missed the news if it had risen.

She also missed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, that 37 percent of the uninsured live in households making more than $50,000 a year, most of which can afford health insurance.

Twenty percent aren't even citizens of this country. One in three are eligible for government insurance, but aren't enrolled. So, while our health care is far from perfect, it's much better than Hillary wants you to believe.

Hillary Clinton: "I will always remember the boy who told me his mom worked for the minimum wage and that her employer had cut her hours."

So, how will raising the minimum wage get that mom more hours? If the business owner found her employment too expensive at the lower wage, won't they be cutting her hours even more now?

By the way, since the minimum wage increase, teenage unemployment is at a 15-year high. I'm sure there's no relation whatsoever.

Joe Biden: "Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history ... John wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks."

Here is the justification behind this talking point:

1.) John McCain wants to cut corporate income taxes for all companies.

2.) Oil companies are companies.

That's it.

Democrats believe that you think oil companies are mean, so they single them out, hoping you think McCain has cut a special deal just for them. He hasn't.

I guess it's really hard to drum up anger against your opponent when you say, "John McCain wants to cut taxes for companies that make delicious ice cream sundaes, feed the puppies of toddlers and fix veterans' wheelchairs," but that's just as truthful as what Biden said.

Tonight, it's Barack Obama, at a football stadium, in front of what Reuters says looks like a Greek temple. Next week, we'll get to watch the Republicans' attempt at choreographed pageantry.

Am I the only one who can't wait for November fifth?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

 

McCain or Obama? I think this discussion will go on and on and on and still we won't be able to come to a concrete conclusion, if we don't prefer to choose the couterpart to our preference.

however, when I see some people preferring one candidate to the other thinking he will cut their taxes, it cracks me up like anything.

i guess most of the folks interested in this thread know that under obama's plan, the rich (statistically those who earn more than $250K...who makes less than just 5% of the US population) would pay more and the low and middle class would pay less.

by how much? we don't know. i don't know.

McCain's plan would make rich pay less compared to what Obama's plan would do.

by how much ? again, we don't know.

the tax proposals of the candidates are not as conspicuous as some of you may think and argue.

but here's a quick overview:
individual top income tax will go up to 39% under Obama's plan from the current 35% (The plan that Bush enacted ..which McCain's proposal will retain).
capital gains tax will go up tp 28-29% (which it was  towards the end of Bill Clinton's era that saw an undprecedented surplus) from the current 15%. however, there are doubts Obama will actually bring that much increase.
estate tax will go to a whopping 45% for the estates above $3.5 million under Obama's plan to only 15% for estates above $5 million under McCain's plan. So there is a major difference in this category as i see. but this tax is not the one that's making the uproar among people...(remember, it's a "death tax")

hence i don't see a MAJOR difference for the commoners.

on top of that, each individual's tax situation is different form others so it's hard to predict how much more or less you, as an individual or a hedge fund manager, are gonna pay under obama or mccain tax proposals.

and in addition to that uncertainty, there are caveats:

1) we don't know if their proposals will get through the congress. (Remember, McCain plan which is the continuation of Bush's plan will expire by the end of 2009-10 fiscal year)

2) their proposals don't take into account: wars, global economy, whethere the president will sign an expensive social program into law and other big, unexpected changes.

but assuming their proposals are renwed, under Obama's plan, the country will make a whopping $700 billion surplus in the next 10 years or so they say while McCain will make the US treasury pay $600 billion and hence will bring about another nearly insurmoutable deficit to the already weak economy of he country (And that does NOT include the impact of the ongoing Iraq war expenses which the old man is firm at continuing for another 100 freaking years!)

LOOTE,

most middle class people have 401k , retirement fund, mutual fund..

so capital gains taxes will hit u hard.

LOOTE,

most middle class people have 401k , retirement fund, mutual fund..

so capital gains taxes will hit u hard.

gambler,
28% capital gains tax hike is only for those in 250k+ bracket and that too i think is an exaggerated figure. it won't go more than 25% at the most under obama's plan IMO. it will rise up to 20% (being practical) if you ask me.

adding more to the ongoing discussion on economy:
as some of you may argue, the problem with today's economy, as i see, is  low patronage. you cannot stimulate economy without stimulating the buying power of low and middle class people. people with average income can't afford to buy coffee from starbucks these days let alone gas for their vehicles. a lot more people now shop in walmarts than in other relatively expensive stores.  average standard of living has plummeted due to inflation.

how do you address it?
1) either increase the wages from the employers (which is not possible with all emloyers)
2) give them people tax benefits which is what Obama is planning to do.

result: there will be more patronage for business, more money for the banking industries, more money for oil companies and more money in the hands of those who are interested to set up their own business. that's how you set up a platfrom for a firm/stable and prospering economy.

as they say, in ecnomics, you can reason both ways. you gotta choose the one that can potentially lead you through greater benefits at lower risks.

I SAY IT IS MCCAIN.HE IS A WAR HERO. HE WAS A US NAVY PILOT. HE WAS POW IN NAM WHEN HIS DAD WAS 4 STAR ADMIRAL. HE IS A LIBERAL REPUBLICAN. HE SHOULD WIN AND HE WILL WIN.

AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF BILL CLINTON. DEMOCRATS LACKD A GOOD LEADER (SENETOR JIM WEBB IS AN EXCEPTION).AL GORE...HE IS A QUITTER. WELL MONEY WAS IN SULPRUS WHEN BILL CLINTON LEFT THE OFFICE.AL GORE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE FALL OF DEMOCRATS.HE IS ONE ATTENTION SEEKING WHORE( EXCUSE MY FRENCH)..HE CAN MAKE MOVIES AND WIN NOBEL PRIZES..THAT MOVIE "INCONVENIENT TRUTH". WAS MR HANKEY THE CHRISTMAS POO..MATT STONE AND TREY PARKER WERE RIGHT IN THAT SOUTH PARK EPISODE ..NO BODY CARES ABOUT AL GORE ANYMORE,THEREFORE, HE COMES WITH NEW CRAPS EVERYTIME.

WE HAD JOHN KERRY IN 2004. OH WELL..I DID NOT UNDERSTAND HIM. HE CHANGED HIS TALKS TWICE A DAY. FOR EXAMPLE.HE PISSED ENLISTED MILITARY PERSONEL BY SAYING " You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq". WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM A LEADER LIKE THIS? WHO HAS NO RESPECT FOR THOSE 150,000 TROOPS SERVING IN IRAQ.

NOW WE HAVE BARRACK OBAMA.. A CONCEALED COMMUNIST,WHO BELIEVES THAT THERE SHOULD BE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH BETWEEN RICH AND POOR..HELLO MR.OBAMA.I KNOW YOU ARE A HYPNOTIC ORATOR.BUT THIS IS AMERICA.THIS IS A COUNTRY FOR DREAMERS..AND YOU CANT STRIP THE RIGHT OF DREAMING. I AM NOT RICH.BUT I WANT TO BE RICH. SO DOES EVERYBODY...

OK MR OBAMA ..U ARE A HYPOCRITE.. "CHANGE IN WASHINGTON"...AND YOU BRING GOOD OLD JOE FROM DELAWARE TO BE YOUR RUNNING MATE. HE IS A CATHOLIC ,BUT HE IS NOT THAT POPULAR IN OHIO AND OTHER SWING STATE.

OBAMA TALKED ABOUT CHANGE...HE WANTED TO GET RID OF THAT "TABOO" ( WHATEVER IT IS ) IN WASHINGTON. AND HE GETS JOE BIDEN..I REMEMBER WATCHING BIDEN AT MSNBC WITH THE LATE TIM RUSSERT. BIDEN  WAS TALKING LIKE A COPENHAGEN CHEWING REDNECK FROM TEXAS. HE WAS BEING RACIST. AND OBAMA CHOSE HIM..?? I DONT UNDERSTAND POLITICS. 1+1= 27 IN POLITICS. I WISH POLITICS WAS THE SIMPLE MATHEMATICS. WHERE 1+1= 2..AN ABSOLUTE TAUTOLOGY...BUT :(

BARRACK HUSSIEN OBAMA. SHAME ON YOU....

I THINK STEPHEN COLBERT SHOULD RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, AND JON STEWART SHOULD BE HIS RUNNING MATE.

AND IF THEY WIN THE ELECTION THEY SHOULD APPOINT MR GLEN BECK AS THE 67TH SECRETARY OF  STATE. HE TRULY WILL KICK SOME COMMUNIST BUTTS..

ABHORED

 

As I had predicted earlier on this post, the VP for McCain in a woman. Those who thought the race card with gender was over after Hillary backed off are about to get a kick, it's still there, Race Vs Gender.
Personally I think McCain made a brilliant move, he had nothing to loose. If he didn't pick a women, Obama would have won by a landslide victory. This way, even if he didn't get the 18 million of Hillary supporter, he'll definitely get majority of it. If the Republican chip her story properly in the media and starts attaching Biden, who is even worse than Clinton and Washington insider, McCain can come back strong and defeat Obama. McCain has nothing to loose, play it all. At the end of the election day, it only matters "how many votes" and NOT what they stand for. Ask Al Gore. Let's see how the Obama's campaign will react, things will get nastier for them and will put more negative attacks on McCain. Obama will put more dirty attacks on McCain, period. Sarah's life will be tested from here onward, but she can prevail if she can convince that just being a "woman" as a VP will matter to the majority of womEn . If Obama will loose, there will be riots all over the country, and Hillary will shrug off saying "I told you so, you didn't listen to me"
Guys, give your thought, just don't "copy paste" or repeat everything that you hear on the TV. You are not impressing anybody by repeating what every political pundit are saying.

I think the war for white house is wide open. With the democrats enthusiasm and everything, Obama should have been leading by at least 20 points, but the polls show clearly that it is a dead heat. Now that McCain attracts some of Clinton supporter's vote, things look worse for Obama. Don't forget, democrats went to the convention with lots of worries about the poll numbers.

If John McCain wins, do you think George Bush jr would have lost his third term (of course, US constitution does not allow it)? Because, policy wise, Sen. McCain has similar views to that of President Bush regarding some of the major issues- Iraq, Afghanistan, tax, Guantanamo Bay. This is what we have been hearing from most of the mainstream media. Again, if reports coming out of these media have total relevance to the ground reality, it would not be wrong to say President Bush is not popular among the voters or is least likely to get their votes for having policies that led to this economic crisis in the country. Taking into account all these, however, if Sen. McCain wins, what would be the message?

 

 

 

Last edited: 31-Oct-08 08:59 AM

View/Share this post only

OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!