Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by ace1914

That Immigration bill didn't pass, did it?

Nope, because the far right deep sixed it. McCain has decided on a new tact, focus on border security first, but keep a path to legal status right behind it... not something the far right necessarily likes. But it has a better chance of happening than McCain/Kennedy.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lotta anger in this thread. Mind if I pose a question to both sides? If, on Election Day, your candidate loses in a close race, what will your reaction be? I just got back from the convention in St. Paul and was talking with a left-leaning blogger about this, and what was interesting to me is that we both predicted some violence if Obama loses in a close election.

Voting third party. My candidate has already lost. Once I pick one to vote for.

But as for the "If Obama Loses People Will Riot" thoughts, it's just not going to happen. It could and I can understand why. If he's killed, sure...'68 will look tame in comparison.

But if he just loses? That won't happen unless there is voter fraud and it looks like a stolen election.

Hopefully, they've learned since 2000 how to cover this stuff up.

[ISiddiqui]

There is always voter fraud somewhere.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I predict that there won't be any violence if either loses in a close election.

Fixed.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Lotta anger in this thread. Mind if I pose a question to both sides? If, on Election Day, your candidate loses in a close race, what will your reaction be? I just got back from the convention in St. Paul and was talking with a left-leaning blogger about this, and what was interesting to me is that we both predicted some violence if Obama loses in a close election.

Also, I'm curious to know how many folks participating in this thread are A) actively volunteering for their candidate of choice and B) have donated money to their campaign. Maybe I'll start a poll on that one.

Good post, Cam. I'll take part

1. Not sure. I'm voting McCain, but I'm not all that worried if Obama wins. It's not that I don't think he will try some dangerous (and potentially harmful) policies, I just don't think anything will pass with much substance. If we had a republican controlled congress, I would consider Obama just to ensure gridlock. I voted for Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2000 for similar reasons. Since it's the dems in control, I'll go McCain (the Palin pick helps as well).
2. Whomever loses will complain about voter fraud/disenfranchisement and god help us if a big state is within 1-2 percentage points. It seems like the democrats are so invested in Obama, I could see a major backlash of some sort if he loses. Still, I doubt there's any serious amount of violence.

A) No, I like Palin but am not a big enough fan of McCain to volunteer.
B) No, not when it was just McCain. Although I probably will now that Palin's on the ticket.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Also, I'm curious to know how many folks participating in this thread are A) actively volunteering for their candidate of choice and B) have donated money to their campaign. Maybe I'll start a poll on that one.

A)Not yet.
B)Yes, and this is the first time in my life that I've made a political contribution.

[Calis]

A.) No, and would be incredibly surprised if I ever find a candidate I back strongly enough to do so.
B.) Yes. First time in my lifetime also, and I didn't think I would. Palin pushed me over the edge for donating. (Not for McCain)

[JPhillips]

There will be very minor violence, but the media will make it look like the Watts riots.

I don't give money as I think real charities are more valuable.

I haven't volunteered and while I might I haven't decided. I teach an intro class that's politically diverse and I'm not sure I want to bring that level of politics into my class.

Now you need to play too Cam!

[CamEdwards]

My answers are no and no right now, but both could (and probably will) change by election day. As for the violence, perhaps it was just the left-leaning folks that I talked to in St. Paul, but I was struck by how angry they were. It may not be this election, but I think there's a certain contingent who feel like the election was certainly stolen in 2000, have their doubts about 2004, and are heavily invested in the idea of an Obama presidency. I could see those people getting angry enough for violence in the case of a close loss. I'm not sure if it would be rioting or targeted violence against Republicans, but I'm guessing we'll see it. I don't think we'll see (as that columnist for the Philly Daily News suggested this week) a "race and class war", but I think there'll be plenty of ugly moments.

[SFL Cat]

Hadn't really thought about post election violence, but I suppose if Obama loses it won't take long for someone to start crowing about racism, and if the media runs with that, I guess there could be some isolated rioting. Don't think it will be anything major. I'm sure Obama himself would try to discourage any kind of violence.

Actually, I think if Obama wins, he's probably in more danger from an assassination standpoint. If he was killed in office, I think that would be a whole different ballgame, and there would be some major major violence in retaliation.

[Buccaneer]

Finally a page worth reading and responding to, instead of the stupid, inane partisan bullshit.

I do agree with Arles on what actually will happen, as it relates to you and me (i.e., not much). I am on record as very much wanting gridlock. I can only hope that the minority party can still have some clout and not let Congress/Executive get away with shit like they did from 2001-2007.

To answer the questions: No and no. Why encourage the same old crap? Much, much better to give your time, money and resources to real charities that can make a difference (good call, JP).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Arles

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters has a good feeling on what that "else" will be. I think they'll find it's going to be very close to "4 more years of Bush and his policies" on most major issues (war, health care, education, taxes, social security, energy).

This is what I don't understand from big Obama supporters. So you don't like McCain, okay. I'm fine with that. You nit-pick what his ideas are. However, what exactly Obama stand for? What specifics has he offered exactly? I just get the anti-McCain (who equals Bush) and he's a great speaker vibe from the definite democratic voters. Maybe I'm wrong here. I think this why this closer race than expected.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Finally a page worth reading and responding to, instead of the stupid, inane partisan bullshit.

I do agree with Arles on what actually will happen, as it relates to you and me (i.e., not much). I am on record as very much wanting gridlock. I can only hope that the minority party can still have some clout and not let Congress/Executive get away with shit like they did from 2001-2007.

To answer the questions: No and no. Why encourage the same old crap? Much, much better to give your time, money and resources to real charities that can make a difference (good call, JP).

Do you think that the winner, on either side, will be a one-term president?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Do you think that the winner, on either side, will be a one-term president?

I do, but don't expect McCain to announce he won't run for re-election if he wins. That'd just make him a lame duck president. My prediction on Obama being a one-term president is predicated on my opinion that he'd be awfully Carter-esque in office, but if he turns out to be more Clintonian I reserve the right to change my opinion.

[Buccaneer]

That's a very good question, Galaxy. With the perceived divisiveness that will only get magnified and perpuated, the pendelum will keep swinging back and forth. It is all about "getting" the opposition and the next election cycle will start this November. The primary thing that will prevent a one-term president is the opposition throwing up a truly inferior candidate (like Mondale, Dole).

[mtolson]

I am voting for Obama. If he were to loss I personally would just feel a little disappointed but not near the point of violence. I think there is a small potential for violence depending on how close the loss is. Some people just want a excuse to act a fool. However, I think no matter who wins there will be a divide in our country. I honestly don't think either is all that suited to be president and would have preferred Edwards (until his sexgate problem). This whole process has just gotten to the point where it so negative and full of FALSE statements that you can't believe much of anything either side says without having to go to a news site to verify the truthfullness of it yourself.

NO to A and B. I get Obama's text messages and emails and they are actually starting to annoy me. Every time I look up its a request for $$$.

On a side note, I really would like to thank the forum for this thread. It has had it's negative moments but all-in-all I appreciate hearing everyone else's point of view. Discussing politics at work just doesn't work and amongst family members is pretty much a love fest of Obama. I like hearing other prespectives, even if I don't agree with them.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

This is what I don't understand from big Obama supporters. So you don't like McCain, okay. I'm fine with that. You nit-pick what his ideas are. However, what exactly Obama stand for? What specifics has he offered exactly? I just get the anti-McCain (who equals Bush) and he's a great speaker vibe from the definite democratic voters. Maybe I'm wrong here. I think this why this closer race than expected.

1. He gives insightful answers instead of the extra partisan sidebars. Yes, he's taken shots at Hillary and McCain but not on the level of those that were taken at him.

2. He (to me) seems to be committed to changing America. That doesn't mean he's going to "part the water and descend from heaven," in my opinion. He is just asking everyone to sincerely, put racism, sexism, and hate aside for the good of the country. Unfortunately/Fortunately, his heritage makes him a guy who can do this.

3. He does not come off as the person to have answers to every problem in America. In his acceptance speech, he talked about personal responsibility and its relation to getting America back up on its feet. As a black man, our particular culture likes to act as if the issues we face are separate or not an issue that many other Americans face. As a kid, you are brought up to think that. As you get older and see more of the world, you learn that there are people as bad or worse off, that aren't black. I like his talk on that subject of personal responsibility.

3. The fact that he's trying to encourage people to do community service, and that's near to my heart. Go out and give selflessly to your fellow man. Sure there's an incentive(credit towards college) but to help each other and get a step towards higher education is a pretty noble cause.

4. Tax cuts for the middle class. For the last eight years every tax cut was geared towards people who shit the couple of million that I'll make in my entire lifetime. It seems like he's looking out for people like myself with his tax plan.

There are others but that's all I feel like typing because my eyes are hurting from talking with you guys all day and night.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by molson

John Kerry's slogan was basically, "I'm someone else!" That doesn't really get people fired up.

Certainly they've at least learned THAT lesson this time around.

To be fair here, Obama will indeed have to offer up solutions to the very problems caused by the Bush presidency. McCain will also have to do so, but the more I think about it the more I feel that ideas will have little to do with the outcome of the election.

As much as I would like to think that race won't matter, I have a hard time imagining that enough white people will actually have the gumption to vote foe an african american.

What does it say when people get energized over an unknown and utterly insignificant person like Palin? The Democrats can refute her record all they like with fact after fact, they can tie McCain to Bush with concrete evidence, but the Republicans will simply say that it does not matter while they sling their lies about Obama. It worked brilliantly for Bush against Kerry and if McCain doesn't reuse that strategy (ignore the truth and spread lies) then he deserves to lose.

I would love to see a time when issues really mean something in a presidential election, but I am afraid that day is far far in the future.

-Cork

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by mtolson

Discussing politics at work just doesn't work and amongst family members is pretty much a love fest of Obama. I like hearing other prespectives, even if I don't agree with them.

+1000

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I do, but don't expect McCain to announce he won't run for re-election if he wins. That'd just make him a lame duck president. My prediction on Obama being a one-term president is predicated on my opinion that he'd be awfully Carter-esque in office, but if he turns out to be more Clintonian I reserve the right to change my opinion.

I am not sure why I feel this way, but I think every move Obama makes will be scrutinized and magnified. I think his whole presidency (if he wins) will be filled with racial overtones on all accounts. He ends up not being able to please anyone ! I hope I am wrong but I just still see so much racism (in both directions) that I don't see how it will NOT become an issue.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Finally a page worth reading and responding to, instead of the stupid, inane partisan bullshit.

What is a political thread without stupid, inane partisan bullshit? A thread not worth reading.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ace1914

1. He gives insightful answers instead of the extra partisan sidebars. Yes, he's taken shots at Hillary and McCain but not on the level of those that were taken at him.

2. He (to me) seems to be committed to changing America. That doesn't mean he's going to "part the water and descend from heaven," in my opinion. He is just asking everyone to sincerely, put racism, sexism, and hate aside for the good of the country. Unfortunately/Fortunately, his heritage makes him a guy who can do this.

3. He does not come off as the person to have answers to every problem in America. In his acceptance speech, he talked about personal responsibility and its relation to getting America back up on its feet. As a black man, our particular culture likes to act as if the issues we face are separate or not an issue that many other Americans face. As a kid, you are brought up to think that. As you get older and see more of the world, you learn that there are people as bad or worse off, that aren't black. I like his talk on that subject of personal responsibility.

3. The fact that he's trying to encourage people to do community service, and that's near to my heart. Go out and give selflessly to your fellow man. Sure there's an incentive(credit towards college) but to help each other and get a step towards higher education is a pretty noble cause.

4. Tax cuts for the middle class. For the last eight years every tax cut was geared towards people who shit the couple of million that I'll make in my entire lifetime. It seems like he's looking out for people like myself with his tax plan.

There are others but that's all I feel like typing because my eyes are hurting from talking with you guys all day and night.

But what is he proposing to change? Community service and just offering tax cuts for the middle class are nice, but that's not change. That is not a strategy to fixing the problems. It's about developing and carrying out real plans. I don't want a guidance councilor, I want a good CEO.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But what is he proposing to change? Community service and just offering tax cuts for the middle class are nice, but that's not change. That is not a strategy to fixing the problems. It's about developing and carrying out real plans. I don't want a guidance councilor, I want a good CEO.

Everything that I put were reasons that I like him. You really don't have to agree.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Everything that I put were reasons that I like him. You really don't have to agree.

I know. I respect that. What I'm trying to get at is, what is he offering to change (details) in terms of the issues?

[duckman]

welp

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I do, but don't expect McCain to announce he won't run for re-election if he wins. That'd just make him a lame duck president. My prediction on Obama being a one-term president is predicated on my opinion that he'd be awfully Carter-esque in office, but if he turns out to be more Clintonian I reserve the right to change my opinion.

I just wonder if Obama is setting the expectations too high for his voters (and the independent voters who decided on him). Or, if he continues his far-left record, they might stop and wonder if this is what they want. I think people have a general feeling on what a McCain presidency will bring them, but I think that they are more realistic in his approach.

[Deattribution]

I'm confident that no matter who wins, he'll be thoroughly trashed through his whole tenure as a failure by a large (if not the entire) opposite side of the party line. It's just the way things are these days, everyone thinks they could do a better job, or they know someone who could.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by molson

John Kerry's slogan was basically, "I'm someone else!" That doesn't really get people fired up.

Certainly they've at least learned THAT lesson this time around.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I know. I respect that. What I'm trying to get at is, what is he offering to change (details) in terms of the issues?

Well, lets take a look at some of the bigger issues and where Obama and McCain stand. Blue for Obama and Red for McCain. (Source - CNN.com)

Abortion:
Opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade. Disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." Did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.

Voted for the Prohibit Partial Birth Abortion bill in 2003 and "yes" for Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007. Believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned. Supports Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Economy:
Would pump $75 billion into the economy via tax cuts and direct spending targeted to working families, seniors, homeowners and the unemployed. The plan also includes $45 billion in reserves that can be injected into the economy quickly in the future if the economy continues to deteriorate. Would provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. Would provide an additional $250 tax cut to workers and an additional $250 to seniors if the economy continues to worsen. Would extend and expand unemployment insurance.

Would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Would allow first-year deduction of equipment and technology investments and establish a permanent research and development tax credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on R&D.

Energy:
Says he would invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy. Proposes increasing fuel economy standards and would require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources by 2025.

Gas tax holiday
Said he does not support a federal gas tax holiday and called it a "classic Washington gimmick." Voted for an Illinois gas tax holiday while in the Illinois State Senate. "Six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all, but we had lost revenue. I learned from a mistake."

Energy rebate
Said during an August 4, 2008, speech that "we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now."

Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Would suspend buying oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Said during an August 4, 2008, speech that the U.S. should sell 70 million barrels of oil from the reserve for less expensive crude oil. Earlier this year, Obama said he did not think the country should use the strategic oil reserves "at this point." He said on July 7: "I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve I think has to be reserved for a genuine emergency."

Taxes on oil companies
Advocates a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Offshore drilling
Previously was against lifting federal government restrictions on offshore drilling, but appeared to modify his position in an August 1 statement that supported a bipartisan legislative effort that would expand offshore oil drilling. Part of the statement read: "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nuclear energy
Stated in a presidential debate that "we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix." Says he will find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.

Proposes a national energy strategy that will rely on the technological prowess of American industry and science. Would not support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the competition that stimulates innovation and lower cost. Says he would work to reduce carbon emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Gas tax holiday
Has called for the suspension of the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4-cent-a-gallon diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The McCain campaign has said the lost revenue would be paid for by money from the general fund.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Advocates suspending the purchase of foreign oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during periods of high prices to reduce demand.

Taxes on oil companies
Opposes windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies.

Offshore drilling
Believes the federal government should lift restrictions on offshore drilling and provide incentives to states permitting offshore exploration. McCain said he opposed lifting such restrictions during his 2000 presidential campaign run. Against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Nuclear energy
Calls for building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the goal of eventually constructing 100 plants. Believes barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. Would provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits.

Coal
Says he would commit $2 billion annually to advance clean coal technology.

Cars and driving
Proposes a $300 million award for "the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Has called on automakers to make a more rapid switch to flex-fuel cars.

Renewable energy
Says he would promote market for alternative, low carbon fuels such as wind, hydro and solar power and would work to create a system of tax credits to develop such sources.

Climate change
Proposed a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies. It is a market-based approach that would set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits.

Coal
Says he would invest in technology that will allow us to use more coal.

Cars and driving
Would mandate all new cars be flex-fuel capable and supports advanced technology, including research into new engines and plug-in hybrids. Would provide retooling credits to help domestic manufacturers switch to more fuel-efficient cars. Has said he would make $4 billion in loans to help domestic manufacturers retool factories and build more fuel-efficient cars. Says he would put 1 million 150-mpg hybrid cars on U.S. roads within six years and would provide a $7,000 tax credit to consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars. Supports next generation biofuels.

Renewable energy
Says he would require that 10 percent of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first presidential term. Says he would extend the Production Tax Credit for five years to encourage the production of renewable energy like wind power, solar power and geothermal energy.

Climate change
Proposes reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 by using a market-based cap-and-trade system. Would create a Global Energy Forum and re-engage with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Immigration:
Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Co-sponsored Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Iraq:
Opposed use of military force in Iraq. In October 2002, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama said, "I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst rather than best impulses in the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars; I am opposed to dumb wars." Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Had once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

On withdrawal
Would redeploy U.S. troops at a pace of one to two brigades a month. The Obama campaign says the proposed schedule would remove them from Iraq within 16 months and be complete by summer 2010.

Would maintain residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq, like targeting remnants of al Qaeda, protecting U.S. service members and diplomats, and supporting Iraq's security forces.

Would commit $2 billion toward an international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis.

Would make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

Would pursue diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region, including Iran and Syria. Compact would aim to secure Iraq's borders, keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq, isolate al Qaeda, support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction and development.

The surge
Opposed January 2007 "troop surge." In July, Obama said, "I have acknowledged repeatedly that the fact that we put more troops in there helped to quell the violence. The question is whether or not my position, in suggesting that we need to begin a phased withdrawal, we should have begun it earlier, whether that position that I took was a mistake. And I do not believe it was, because I continue to believe that the only way for us to stabilize the situation in Iraq -- I believed it then, and I believe it now -- is for the parties to arrive at a set of political accommodations."

Status of Forces Agreement
Believes that any Status of Forces Agreement, which allows U.S. military forces to operate within the host country, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Also believes that any security accord must be subject to congressional approval.

Voted in 2002 for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was one of the earliest proponents of sending additional American troops to Iraq.

On withdrawal
Does not believe in setting a withdrawal timetable. During a July interview, McCain said, "anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground. Anything is good. But the timetable is dictated not by an artificial date but by the conditions on the ground."

States on campaign Web site, "I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops."

During a May speech that projected the state of the world after his first term, McCain said, "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced."

Believes that the United Nations should play a role in supporting provincial governments' elections in late 2008 and the national government elections in 2009.

Believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq. States that international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Also believes that Iraq's neighbors should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq.

The surge
Supported January 2007 "troop surge" and was one of the earliest proponents of the strategy. Stated in July campaign speech, "all the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. ...I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops, which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. ... Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war."

Status of Forces Agreement
Support U.S.-Iraqi negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement, saying, "while negotiations with the Iraqi government are ongoing, reports indicate that all dates included in the draft security agreement are aspirational goals, based on conditions on the ground. ... We are today negotiating a conditions-based agreement that will enable us to withdraw troops in victory and with honor."

This is the stuff that I like to hear about in a presidential election. Issues and ideas.

-Cork

[JPhillips]

He doesn't have a far-left record. What's he done that is so far-left?

As for details of change, look at his website. I could cut and paste, but I doubt it would satisfy you, if you are going to disqualify every policy proposal as not changey enough. I've said over and over that's there are plenty of good policy reasons to vote against Obama. I see lots of folks here and elsewhere that aren't making policy arguments, though.

As for McCain, I wouldn't be that unhappy with the 2000 McCain, but I honestly have no idea what I'd get with a McCain presidency. Is he the 90s McCain, the 2000-2004 McCain or the current McCain? He's changed his position twice in the last ten years on almost every domestic issue and I don't know how much is true belief and how much is pandering.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Cork

To be fair here, Obama will indeed have to offer up solutions to the very problems caused by the Bush presidency. McCain will also have to do so, but the more I think about it the more I feel that ideas will have little to do with the outcome of the election.

As much as I would like to think that race won't matter, I have a hard time imagining that enough white people will actually have the gumption to vote foe an african american.

What does it say when people get energized over an unknown and utterly insignificant person like Palin? The Democrats can refute her record all they like with fact after fact, they can tie McCain to Bush with concrete evidence, but the Republicans will simply say that it does not matter while they sling their lies about Obama. It worked brilliantly for Bush against Kerry and if McCain doesn't reuse that strategy (ignore the truth and spread lies) then he deserves to lose.

I would love to see a time when issues really mean something in a presidential election, but I am afraid that day is far far in the future.

-Cork

Your partisanship makes baby Obama cry.

So what's your #1 issue, and why do you prefer Obama over McCain on that issue?

BTW, the whole "I don't know if enough white folk are gonna vote for a black guy" thing is a bit overblown in my opinion. Enough white folk voted for him to become the Democratic nominee, right?

[JPhillips]

This will cause McCain some embarrassment this week. The FDIC just took over Silver State Bank, and...

HENDERSON, Nev.--(Business Wire)--
Silver State Bancorp (NASDAQ:SSBX), the holding company for Silver
State Bank, announced today that Andrew K. McCain submitted his
resignation today as a director on the Boards of Directors of Silver
State Bancorp and Silver State Bank, citing personal reasons.

Mr. McCain previously served as a director of Choice Bank in
Scottsdale, Arizona from 2006 to April 1, 2008 when Choice Bank merged
into Silver State Bank. Mr. McCain had been appointed to the Boards of
the Company and Silver State Bank in February, 2008 and had served on
the Audit Committee. Mr. McCain has recently been appointed Chairman
of the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, effective this month.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Cork

Well, lets take a look at some of the bigger issues and where Obama and McCain stand. Blue for Obama and Red for McCain. (Source - CNN.com)

Abortion:
Opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade. Disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." Did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.

Voted for the Prohibit Partial Birth Abortion bill in 2003 and "yes" for Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007. Believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned. Supports Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Economy:
Would pump $75 billion into the economy via tax cuts and direct spending targeted to working families, seniors, homeowners and the unemployed. The plan also includes $45 billion in reserves that can be injected into the economy quickly in the future if the economy continues to deteriorate. Would provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. Would provide an additional $250 tax cut to workers and an additional $250 to seniors if the economy continues to worsen. Would extend and expand unemployment insurance.

Would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Would allow first-year deduction of equipment and technology investments and establish a permanent research and development tax credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on R&D.

Energy:
Says he would invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy. Proposes increasing fuel economy standards and would require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources by 2025.

Gas tax holiday
Said he does not support a federal gas tax holiday and called it a "classic Washington gimmick." Voted for an Illinois gas tax holiday while in the Illinois State Senate. "Six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all, but we had lost revenue. I learned from a mistake."

Energy rebate
Said during an August 4, 2008, speech that "we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now."

Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Would suspend buying oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Said during an August 4, 2008, speech that the U.S. should sell 70 million barrels of oil from the reserve for less expensive crude oil. Earlier this year, Obama said he did not think the country should use the strategic oil reserves "at this point." He said on July 7: "I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve I think has to be reserved for a genuine emergency."

Taxes on oil companies
Advocates a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Offshore drilling
Previously was against lifting federal government restrictions on offshore drilling, but appeared to modify his position in an August 1 statement that supported a bipartisan legislative effort that would expand offshore oil drilling. Part of the statement read: "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nuclear energy
Stated in a presidential debate that "we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix." Says he will find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.

Proposes a national energy strategy that will rely on the technological prowess of American industry and science. Would not support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the competition that stimulates innovation and lower cost. Says he would work to reduce carbon emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Gas tax holiday
Has called for the suspension of the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4-cent-a-gallon diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The McCain campaign has said the lost revenue would be paid for by money from the general fund.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Advocates suspending the purchase of foreign oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during periods of high prices to reduce demand.

Taxes on oil companies
Opposes windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies.

Offshore drilling
Believes the federal government should lift restrictions on offshore drilling and provide incentives to states permitting offshore exploration. McCain said he opposed lifting such restrictions during his 2000 presidential campaign run. Against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Nuclear energy
Calls for building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the goal of eventually constructing 100 plants. Believes barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. Would provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits.

Coal
Says he would commit $2 billion annually to advance clean coal technology.

Cars and driving
Proposes a $300 million award for "the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Has called on automakers to make a more rapid switch to flex-fuel cars.

Renewable energy
Says he would promote market for alternative, low carbon fuels such as wind, hydro and solar power and would work to create a system of tax credits to develop such sources.

Climate change
Proposed a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies. It is a market-based approach that would set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits.

Coal
Says he would invest in technology that will allow us to use more coal.

Cars and driving
Would mandate all new cars be flex-fuel capable and supports advanced technology, including research into new engines and plug-in hybrids. Would provide retooling credits to help domestic manufacturers switch to more fuel-efficient cars. Has said he would make $4 billion in loans to help domestic manufacturers retool factories and build more fuel-efficient cars. Says he would put 1 million 150-mpg hybrid cars on U.S. roads within six years and would provide a $7,000 tax credit to consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars. Supports next generation biofuels.

Renewable energy
Says he would require that 10 percent of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first presidential term. Says he would extend the Production Tax Credit for five years to encourage the production of renewable energy like wind power, solar power and geothermal energy.

Climate change
Proposes reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 by using a market-based cap-and-trade system. Would create a Global Energy Forum and re-engage with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Immigration:
Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Co-sponsored Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Iraq:
Opposed use of military force in Iraq. In October 2002, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama said, "I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst rather than best impulses in the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars; I am opposed to dumb wars." Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Had once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

On withdrawal
Would redeploy U.S. troops at a pace of one to two brigades a month. The Obama campaign says the proposed schedule would remove them from Iraq within 16 months and be complete by summer 2010.

Would maintain residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq, like targeting remnants of al Qaeda, protecting U.S. service members and diplomats, and supporting Iraq's security forces.

Would commit $2 billion toward an international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis.

Would make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

Would pursue diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region, including Iran and Syria. Compact would aim to secure Iraq's borders, keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq, isolate al Qaeda, support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction and development.

The surge
Opposed January 2007 "troop surge." In July, Obama said, "I have acknowledged repeatedly that the fact that we put more troops in there helped to quell the violence. The question is whether or not my position, in suggesting that we need to begin a phased withdrawal, we should have begun it earlier, whether that position that I took was a mistake. And I do not believe it was, because I continue to believe that the only way for us to stabilize the situation in Iraq -- I believed it then, and I believe it now -- is for the parties to arrive at a set of political accommodations."

Status of Forces Agreement
Believes that any Status of Forces Agreement, which allows U.S. military forces to operate within the host country, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Also believes that any security accord must be subject to congressional approval.

Voted in 2002 for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was one of the earliest proponents of sending additional American troops to Iraq.

On withdrawal
Does not believe in setting a withdrawal timetable. During a July interview, McCain said, "anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground. Anything is good. But the timetable is dictated not by an artificial date but by the conditions on the ground."

States on campaign Web site, "I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops."

During a May speech that projected the state of the world after his first term, McCain said, "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced."

Believes that the United Nations should play a role in supporting provincial governments' elections in late 2008 and the national government elections in 2009.

Believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq. States that international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Also believes that Iraq's neighbors should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq.

The surge
Supported January 2007 "troop surge" and was one of the earliest proponents of the strategy. Stated in July campaign speech, "all the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. ...I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops, which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. ... Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war."

Status of Forces Agreement
Support U.S.-Iraqi negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement, saying, "while negotiations with the Iraqi government are ongoing, reports indicate that all dates included in the draft security agreement are aspirational goals, based on conditions on the ground. ... We are today negotiating a conditions-based agreement that will enable us to withdraw troops in victory and with honor."

This is the stuff that I like to hear about in a presidential election. Issues and ideas.

-Cork

Thanks Cork!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This will cause McCain some embarrassment this week. The FDIC just took over Silver State Bank, and...

I do see the Fed is planning to take over Freddie Mac and Fannie Man this weekend.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Cork

As much as I would like to think that race won't matter, I have a hard time imagining that enough white people will actually have the gumption to vote foe an african american.

Give me an Alan Keyes or a JC Watts and they'll get my vote. I voted for Keyes is a primary some time back.

Originally Posted by Cork

What does it say when people get energized over an unknown and utterly insignificant person like Palin? The Democrats can refute her record all they like with fact after fact, they can tie McCain to Bush with concrete evidence, but the Republicans will simply say that it does not matter while they sling their lies about Obama. It worked brilliantly for Bush against Kerry and if McCain doesn't reuse that strategy (ignore the truth and spread lies) then he deserves to lose.

I would argue that insignificant is in the eye of the beholder. Palin gets the right fired up because she has charisma. She has lived the values that she preaches. Plus, she has appears to have a connection with the common Joe. This isn't a GWB or GHWB that were born with silver spoons. She isn't a McCain who came from a line of famous Admirals in the Navy. She isn't a Regan who seemed larger than life to many of my generation. Plus, she is a hell of a lot closer to my views on many of the issues than McCain.

Also, both sides spread lies and tend to ignore the truth. Neither side has a monopoly on that.

Originally Posted by Cork

I would love to see a time when issues really mean something in a presidential election, but I am afraid that day is far far in the future.

To me and many of my friends it does come down to issues. But there are somethings that override where someone may stand on the issues. Take Guliani for example, I considered voting for him not because of his stance on issues, but based upon his leadership skills. Say what you will about him, but he left New York in better shape than when he entered office. Eventually, I opted not to vote for him in the primary, but I did consider him.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Your partisanship makes baby Obama cry.

So what's your #1 issue, and why do you prefer Obama over McCain on that issue?

BTW, the whole "I don't know if enough white folk are gonna vote for a black guy" thing is a bit overblown in my opinion. Enough white folk voted for him to become the Democratic nominee, right?

My main issues are the economy and the war in Iraq.

I tend to favor Obama because as a middle class American I think that it is time to end the days of rewarding the upper class with tax breaks and make them pay their fare share like the rest of us. I am tired of seeing companies rewared with tax breaks, and then turn around and ship jobs over seas. I am tired of rich people not paying social security taxes on all of their income. I am tired of overpaid CEO's ruining company after company. It is time to make those who have been more fortunate pay their fair share. No more, no less.

As for the war in Iraq, I have been against it from day 1 because I felt that we had no justification for invading and that we had not finished our business in Afghanistan. As a former member of the military, it makes me sad to see our troops needlessly put in harms way. If they have to fight, then let them fight for something worth fighting for in Afghanistan.

-Cork

[SFL Cat]

Yes, very handy reference guide Cork.

Although I disagree with the above. Every so-called tax increase on the rich gets passed down the line...and everyone eventually pays. Call it trickle down taxation.

I wasn't keen on going into Iraq when we did. I would have preferred to finish business in Afghanistan first. We had Saddam Hussein contained. But Iraq would have had to be dealt with eventually. If Bush's dad hadn't left the Shia's twisting in the wind after encouraging them the revolt against Saddam...there's a better than average chance he could have been overthrown. Of course, that could've turned out bad too, especially if Iran became the dominate controlling force in a Shia Iraq.

I'm all for going pedal to the medal when we fight wars. Crush the enemy, none of this political PC bullshit that gets American servicemen killed.

Also, men and women who lay it on the line doing what their government asks them to do deserve the best of everything as far as medical care, rehabilitation, and benefits both to them and their families. It is the least the country can do for them. Nothing boils my blood more than to see the substandard care a lot of these veterans receive in the VA system.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I know. I respect that. What I'm trying to get at is, what is he offering to change (details) in terms of the issues?

You asked for opinions. From some of your posts, I doubt you will find a sufficient answer if you are looking for something to agree with.

[JPhillips]

I voted for Keyes is a primary some time back.

So you're the one!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Cork

I tend to favor Obama because as a middle class American I think that it is time to end the days of rewarding the upper class with tax breaks and make them pay their fare share like the rest of us. I am tired of seeing companies rewared with tax breaks, and then turn around and ship jobs over seas. I am tired of rich people not paying social security taxes on all of their income. I am tired of overpaid CEO's ruining company after company. It is time to make those who have been more fortunate pay their fair share. No more, no less.

Define "fair share". They pay the bulk of US tax revenue as it is. It's not taxes that are the problems, it is spending that is. I do agree with you in providing tax breaks for companies who turn around and ship jobs overseas.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Yes, very handy reference guide Cork.

Although I disagree with the above. Every so-called tax increase on the rich gets passed down the line...trickle down taxation.

I've said this before. If you can prove trickle down theories on every tax cut/raise there's a Nobel Prize waiting with your name on it.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Yes, very handy reference guide Cork.

Although I disagree with the above. Every so-called tax increase on the rich gets passed down the line...trickle down taxation.

What I have found after reading through the issues are that in many cases, Obama and McCain's ideas are not that far apart.

For the record, I generally like John McCain. I respect his service to our country and feel that he genuinely cares about America and sincerely wants to help. What I have issues with are the far right wing republicans who scare the living shit out of me.

I also am scared shitless by the far left whackos as well which is why I consider myself a moderate. I will never register as a democrat or a republican and often times vote for candidates from both parties.

-Cork

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I predict that there won't be any violence if McCain loses in a close election.

Props to you VV. Your random short post gave me a genuine chuckle in the muck & mire of this thread and I appreciated that.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Define "fair share". They pay the bulk of US tax revenue as it is. It's not taxes that are the problems, it is spending that is. I do agree with you in providing tax breaks for companies who turn around and ship jobs overseas.

One major issue I have is why rich people are not taxed on all of their income when it comes to social security. Why am I taxed on 100% of my income but not those who make over a set amount (I think it is around $125K or somewhere slightly above).

Why do the oil companies get major tax breaks at a time when they are pulling in record profits?

Why are most of the tax loop holes ones that favor the rich?

I would like a system that makes everyone pay their "fair share". if you make $500K, then pay $500K to social security. remove tax loopholes that allow the rich to write off things that the rest of us can't and make them pay what they really should in taxes.

All I want is for everyone to pay what they honestly should pay. No more, no less.

-Cork

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by ace1914

You asked for opinions. From some of your posts, I doubt you will find a sufficient answer if you are looking for something to agree with.

After reading I see you didn't ask for opinions. I thought you asked why I'm voting for him. Sorry.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He doesn't have a far-left record. What's he done that is so far-left?

One note regarding how far left or right a candidate is would be how much they vote the party line. In this case, McCain is 3x more willing to cross lines than Obama. Obama votes with the majority of Democrats 96% of the time, while McCain voted with the majority of Republicans 88% of the time.

That said, I agree with McCain regarding the use of coal, no windfall tax, reducing corporate taxes, and his stance on Iraq. I think McCain also has a better view of Nuclear Energy. Additionally, I disagree with Obama's tax plan.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Cork

One major issue I have is why rich people are not taxed on all of their income when it comes to social security. Why am I taxed on 100% of my income but not those who make over a set amount (I think it is around $125K or somewhere slightly above).

Why do the oil companies get major tax breaks at a time when they are pulling in record profits?

Why are most of the tax loop holes ones that favor the rich?

I would like a system that makes everyone pay their "fair share". if you make $500K, then pay $500K to social security. remove tax loopholes that allow the rich to write off things that the rest of us can't and make them pay what they really should in taxes.

All I want is for everyone to pay what they honestly should pay. No more, no less.

-Cork

Just be careful when using the word "record profits" for oil companies. They are only making about 10% profit margins. This doesn't change with the pricing of oil goes up or down.

I'm not too up on all the rules and guidelines of social security (I like to see it privatize and allow people to keep all their money and invest/spend it as they choose, but that's another thread). Do you not collect that year's income in pre-SS earning years if you earn a certain income? Do they pay on what they earn under that set amount)? Don't you have income limits on what you can earn and what you can receive back per month once you can start to collect it?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've said this before. If you can prove trickle down theories on every tax cut/raise there's a Nobel Prize waiting with your name on it.

If you raise a tax on a business, you cut into that business' profit margin...there are a number of ways they can respond...

First, they can eat the cost of the increased tax...and operate at a lower margin...unlikely, especially if they are a publically held company and must answer to a board and shareholders, who tend to get grumpy when the value of their stock or the dividends they receive are driven down by lower profits.

Second, they can lay people off...employees are usually the highest expense for most companies. It becomes an interesting conundrum. Yes, the company is paying higher taxes, but by eliminating positions, revenues from federal taxes paid by those employees disappears...plus if those employees are eligible for federal unemployment benefits...there you go.

Third, they can raise the price of the product or service they offer, indirectly passing on the cost of the tax increase to paying customers. Contributes to inflation, which decreases the value of what we get for our money.

[JPhillips]

One note regarding how far left or right a candidate is would be how much they vote the party line. In this case, McCain is 3x more willing to cross lines than Obama. Obama votes with the majority of Democrats 96% of the time, while McCain voted with the majority of Republicans 88% of the time.

I'd argue that's not a very accurate measure of how far left or right a candidate may be. Party stances change, voting 100% with Nixon would still have you in favor of price controls and environmentalism. I don't think too many people would qualify price controls as far right. A more accurate distinction of differences is in votes cast. That doesn't allow either side to to say far-left or far-right, but it does give us a clearer indication of where people stand. IMO terms like far-left or far-right don't mean much of anything.

On policy issues, fine. There are differences between the candidates and while I think voting on likability is how the race will be decided, I certainly prefer voting based on some thought.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Cork

One major issue I have is why rich people are not taxed on all of their income when it comes to social security. Why am I taxed on 100% of my income but not those who make over a set amount (I think it is around $125K or somewhere slightly above).

Why should the rich, who do not need SS, be forced to pay a dime for it? If you want to say its a tax, abolish the SS payments and make it a tax.

Originally Posted by Cork

Why do the oil companies get major tax breaks at a time when they are pulling in record profits?

First, the oil companies have a return on investment of roughly 5-10%. If I went to a bank for a loan and told them I planned a return of 5-10% on the investment, they would send me on my way.

Second, it is irrelevant. If you start your own company, and you do extremely well, do you want to get taxed more because you are successful? You want to get taxed more because you're making more money than me, a schlub who is barely breaking even? The reason why many companies are making record profits is due to the weak dollar. The value for oil went up, the dollar went down, you had a double whammy and voila, the oil companies made more money in a weak currency. An interesting exercise would be to see what the profits would have been the last few years in Euros and see how it compares.

Originally Posted by Cork

Why are most of the tax loop holes ones that favor the rich?

Because it is ultimately the rich who drive the economy.

Originally Posted by Cork

I would like a system that makes everyone pay their "fair share". if you make $500K, then pay $500K to social security. remove tax loopholes that allow the rich to write off things that the rest of us can't and make them pay what they really should in taxes.

All I want is for everyone to pay what they honestly should pay. No more, no less.

What should everyone pay? Let's say you pay $200 a year in taxes. I pay $20,000 a year in taxes. Why should I pay more? You probably use more government services than I do. I can afford private schools for my child. I can afford a private security force that will react faster than the police department, etc., etc. Just an off the cuff example, be gentle.

If you want taxes to be fair, go to a flat tax with a sales tax on top of it. No exceptions, no loop holes.

The sad truth of the matter is due to the businesses that revolve around the tax code, I don't see it being changed or improved any time soon.

EDIT: Not picking on you, you just illustrated your points and I take the opposite view on many of them. The only agreement is on SS taxes where I am largely playing Devil's Advocate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If you raise a tax on a business, you cut into that business' profit margin...there are a number of ways they can respond...

First, they can eat the cost of the increased tax...and operate at a lower margin...unlikely, especially if they are a publically held company and must answer to a board and shareholders, who tend to get grumpy when the value of their stock or the dividends they receive are driven down by lower profits.

Second, they can lay people off...employees are usually the highest expense for most companies. It becomes an interesting conundrum. Yes, the company is paying higher taxes, but by eliminating positions, revenues from federal taxes paid by those employees disappears...plus if those employees are eligible for federal unemployment benefits...there you go.

Third, they can raise the price of the product or service they offer, indirectly passing on the cost of the tax increase to paying customers. Contributes to inflation, which decreases the value of what we get for our money.

Those aren't the only options. They can streamline the business and operate more efficiently. They can find ways for the workers to be more productive. It could spur them to find more revenue streams and increase total profits. And there are other possibilities I'm not thinking of.

Again, if you can prove trickle down economics you'll get a Nobel Prize. It isn't anywhere near as simple as you'd like to make it.