Obama/mccain Round 2

[85suited 0]

While we're at it, let's repeal Social Security and keep another 8% that we can invest as we see fit.

I magine what we could do if we actually got to keep the money we earned....What a novel concept...

[timwakefield 68]

I magine what we could do if we actually got to keep the money we earned....What a novel concept...

Too bad we have to spend it on stupid things like the military and schools! Stupid schools. Damn kids should get jobs like the old days. And why can't somebody else pay for the military? Like, we should invade a bunch of countries and steal their wealth and use that, and eliminate taxes altogether. Call it Vikingomics. Rolls off the tongue.

[85suited 0]

Too bad we have to spend it on stupid things like the military and schools! Stupid schools. Damn kids should get jobs like the old days. And why can't somebody else pay for the military? Like, we should invade a bunch of countries and steal their wealth and use that, and eliminate taxes altogether. Call it Vikingomics. Rolls off the tongue.

I pay over 1/3 of my income to the federal govt in income tax, throw in another 3% in state tax, sales tax, property tax, tax tax and more tax..The government wastes our money...earmark reform is just the startDo you think it is ok that we give the govt that much money?If you gave them less.. there would be less for them to waste ...and maybe just maybe.. the important things would get the money

[timwakefield 68]

If you gave them less.. there would be less for them to waste ...and maybe just maybe.. the important things would get the money

This strikes me as illogical. First you have to define whether or not the 'important things' are getting the money now. If not, I don't see how giving the government less money would make that happen. I admittedly don't know much at all about economics or the budget or the current crisis or any of that, but the argument of 'They should tax me less because it sucks that they take my money' isn't very strong. Of course there is a shitton of waste, but there are also a ton of things that don't get the money they need. I don't see how an across-the-board tax cut for the middle-class and wealthy (this is what you're asking for?) will help us as a country. From my very skeletal knowledge of the tax system, if you are paying "over 1/3" of your income in federal income tax then you would be in the "I'm doin' just fine" tax bracket. $350,000+ per year seems to be the only bracket that pays higher than 33%, at 35%. Correct me if I'm way off, or just tell me that the fact that you're rich doesn't mean the government is entitled to a larger slice of your money. But if you go with the latter, I saw it coming.

[mk 11]

I've never been more impressed with Obama as I was tonight. What I saw tonight, unlike the last debate or the Biden/Palin debate was an absolute crushing in Obama's favor. I honestly think he destroyed him across the board. On every question I felt that Obama was strong. Just my opinion of course, I'm sure others may think that McCain won and they have that right. As for me, I was very proud of Obama tonight and think this was a solid step towards nailing down the presidency. Very happy with what I heard and saw...

cross posting from sick thread, i forget that people talk about this in here

Obama should be performing a million times better than he is in these. I haven't been thrilled with any of his answers on the economy despite the fact that he actually is doing the right things. This is why I wanted to work on his campaign and seriously considered it. His handlers are fucking this up. All he needs to say is this: The current administration of recycled Reaganites and Republicans in Congress, i.e. Senator McCain, have been driving the metaphorical economic bus for the past 8 years, and whenever a road block was put up they just drove right the fuck through it in the name of creating an 'ownership' society. Now we are teetering off a cliff where that road ended, and if we leave this up to them we are all going to fall into the abyss. What I'm going to do is assemble the best team of economic advisers the world has ever seen (I'm doing this RIGHT NOW so they'll be ready to act IMMEDIATELY once I take office in January)--men who've not only helped companies through disasters but COUNTRIES, men who understand how modern financial markets work and where they need new, 21st century regulation--and we are going to get some rope together and pull this bus back from the cliff. Then we're going to throw the drunk drivers under a cold shower and go to work. I'm willing to be a one-term President. I'm willing to dedicate my ENTIRE FOUR YEARS IN OFFICE to solving this financial crisis because if we don't do it now it will only get worse, and the Republicans in Washington have been mortgaging this country's future for too gd long.

[akoff 0]

I admittedly don't know much at all about economics or the budget or the current crisis or any of that, but the argument of 'They should tax me less because it sucks that they take my money' isn't very strong. Of course there is a shitton of waste, but there are also a ton of things that don't get the money they need. I don't see how an across-the-board tax cut for the middle-class and wealthy (this is what you're asking for?) will help us as a country. From my very skeletal knowledge of the tax system, if you are paying "over 1/3" of your income in federal income tax then you would be in the "I'm doin' just fine" tax bracket. $350,000+ per year seems to be the only bracket that pays higher than 33%, at 35%. Correct me if I'm way off, or just tell me that the fact that you're rich doesn't mean the government is entitled to a larger slice of your money. But if you go with the latter, I saw it coming.

350k a year doesn't make you rich...350k per year over time and well invested makes you rich!!! Very large difference.I have no understanding why anyone would pro taxes. I understand they needed and will never go away. I also understand that our country can't function without them. It is a question of leves and reasonable...governments like anyone else spend what they have!! The more they take the more they waste....that doesn't mean they need the money. It means they have access to it so they spend it!!35% maybe the top tax bracket but that only factors income. What about, state, local, SS, sales, Fuel, sin (cigarettes, booze for those of you that don't understand), death....the list goes on. It is not about being willing or the need to pay taxes, it is about WTF are you ding with all the money!!!! STOP IT you looking up the food chain and saying oh he makes 350k per year so he should pay more is dumb....he already does!!! So now you are going to require more?? what is gong to happen? investment stops, expendable income drops, sales plummet, all your BS taxes go down because the amount of money being spent is lower....so we need to raise taxes again!!!!!Use your freakin heads, stop being jealous, go earn your money work and you will do well. You are going to lose in the long run either way if your not willing to do that!!!Simple lower taxes = larger cash flow = more tax $$ for those shitheads to waste....in poker terms DON'T TAP THE GLASS fish pay your bills!!!

[neretva 0]

Too bad we have to spend it on stupid things like the military and schools! Stupid schools. Damn kids should get jobs like the old days. And why can't somebody else pay for the military? Like, we should invade a bunch of countries and steal their wealth and use that, and eliminate taxes altogether. Call it Vikingomics. Rolls off the tongue.

Public schools should be eliminated. All schools should be in the private sector and should be paid for in full by parents. That would solve a huge part of this government induced economic mess while at the same time improving the educational system.As for the military, we need that. I like paying for that, it protects my country.

[neretva 0]

This strikes me as illogical. First you have to define whether or not the 'important things' are getting the money now. If not, I don't see how giving the government less money would make that happen. I admittedly don't know much at all about economics or the budget or the current crisis or any of that, but the argument of 'They should tax me less because it sucks that they take my money' isn't very strong. Of course there is a shitton of waste, but there are also a ton of things that don't get the money they need. I don't see how an across-the-board tax cut for the middle-class and wealthy (this is what you're asking for?) will help us as a country. From my very skeletal knowledge of the tax system, if you are paying "over 1/3" of your income in federal income tax then you would be in the "I'm doin' just fine" tax bracket. $350,000+ per year seems to be the only bracket that pays higher than 33%, at 35%. Correct me if I'm way off, or just tell me that the fact that you're rich doesn't mean the government is entitled to a larger slice of your money. But if you go with the latter, I saw it coming.

This is classic statism. You will do brilliantly under Obama, filling out forms and standing in lines for your cut of someone else's efforts. Can you please get off your ass and take care of yourself? Please?

[copernicus 0]

Public schools should be eliminated. All schools should be in the private sector and should be paid for in full by parents.

Education is a social benefit, not just an individual benefit. Public school education got you most of your car, TV, cell phone etc etc etc. . Schools also accomplish more than just education. They are babysitters (too much so today) allowing both parents to work and be productive; they are community centers, giving kids a place to gather for 6-7 hours a day; they reduce the need for police, who would need to patrol where the kids whos parents could care less about their education hang out.There would a tremendous free-loader problem if schools werent publicly funded. Of course it is not a Federal government issue, and the bulk of the funding and power lies at the local level, so eliminating it at the Federal level would do no harm and maybe some benefit. But public funding of schools may be the most important social good after protective services.

[akoff 0]

Public schools should be eliminated. All schools should be in the private sector and should be paid for in full by parents.

I can't go here. Schools are huge and I have no problem paying for them. Could they strucured better? maybe, but where I am from our public schools are outstanding. I send both of my children to them. I don't do it because i have to but because they are getting a good education. If they weren't I would yank them in a second. The fact of the matter is that even if I would chose to pull my kids and go private in the future I still don't have an issue paying for them. They are our future work force...these are mandatory good tax $$ at work.IMO

[brvheart 1,752]

The jokes help me stop crying. (my 2nd biggest stock holding is BAC)

BAC will be back. Buy more. Also buy MER.

You listened to Brvhrt. They will bounce back strong fwiw.

this.

Amazing.........no one was crushed, all I seen was two weak Candidates. You have no worries.........McCain lost the election when he voted for the bailout.

This can NOT be overstated. McCain would have had a HUGE poll bounce (that's what she said?) if he would have voted against it.

cross posting from sick thread, i forget that people talk about this in hereObama should be performing a million times better than he is in these. I haven't been thrilled with any of his answers on the economy despite the fact that he actually is doing the right things. This is why I wanted to work on his campaign and seriously considered it. His handlers are ****ing this up. All he needs to say is this: The current administration of recycled Reaganites and Republicans in Congress, i.e. Senator McCain, have been driving the metaphorical economic bus for the past 8 years, and whenever a road block was put up they just drove right the **** through it in the name of creating an 'ownership' society. Now we are teetering off a cliff where that road ended, and if we leave this up to them we are all going to fall into the abyss. What I'm going to do is assemble the best team of economic advisers the world has ever seen (I'm doing this RIGHT NOW so they'll be ready to act IMMEDIATELY once I take office in January)--men who've not only helped companies through disasters but COUNTRIES, men who understand how modern financial markets work and where they need new, 21st century regulation--and we are going to get some rope together and pull this bus back from the cliff. Then we're going to throw the drunk drivers under a cold shower and go to work. I'm willing to be a one-term President. I'm willing to dedicate my ENTIRE FOUR YEARS IN OFFICE to solving this financial crisis because if we don't do it now it will only get worse, and the Republicans in Washington have been mortgaging this country's future for too gd long.

I know that you're just ranting here, but I think you're totally off. Only the far left have a hatred of Reagan and so trying to tie anything to him wouldn't work for anyone but you and all the gay people. Secondly, the rest would have been a lie. Maybe you're saying that doesn't matter because it would work? If that's the case, then I agree with you, he should have said this. Thirdly, I think he would lose some people with all the cussing.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I think Mccain needs to do something drastic at the final debate. Something that will grab headlines everywhere. BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[JustDoIt 10]

This strikes me as illogical. First you have to define whether or not the 'important things' are getting the money now. If not, I don't see how giving the government less money would make that happen. I admittedly don't know much at all about economics or the budget or the current crisis or any of that, but the argument of 'They should tax me less because it sucks that they take my money' isn't very strong. Of course there is a shitton of waste, but there are also a ton of things that don't get the money they need. I don't see how an across-the-board tax cut for the middle-class and wealthy (this is what you're asking for?) will help us as a country. From my very skeletal knowledge of the tax system, if you are paying "over 1/3" of your income in federal income tax then you would be in the "I'm doin' just fine" tax bracket. $350,000+ per year seems to be the only bracket that pays higher than 33%, at 35%. Correct me if I'm way off, or just tell me that the fact that you're rich doesn't mean the government is entitled to a larger slice of your money. But if you go with the latter, I saw it coming.

I find it ironic that when we are trying to get money into the economy that Obama wants to take it out of the economy.History tell us less taxes more revenue for the Government. Obama in a debate when finally cornered responded "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness".If you look at countries around the world that have lowered taxes their economies have boomed.

[akoff 0]

I find it ironic that when we are trying to get money into the economy that Obama wants to take it out of the economy.History tell us less taxes more revenue for the Government. Obama in a debate when finally cornered responded "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness".If you look at countries around the world that have lowered taxes their economies have boomed.

QFTAnd as always those with less will suffer most....but at least they voted for their champion!! So sad really.

[copernicus 0]

I think Mccain needs to do something drastic at the final debate. Something that will grab headlines everywhere. BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

And as Ive been saying for at least 6 weeks, the only game changer left (since he apparently doesnt want to get down in the gutter with Obama) is to name the top of his cabinet...Giuliani Attorney General, Romney Treasury, Petraeus Defense.

[Nimue1995 1]

Maybe the most boring debate ever. They both suck equally. I give McCain the edge only because spending and taxes are a big issue for undecideds and Obama made no real argument against the fact that he will increase both spending and taxes. And, anyone who can reason realizes that trickle down economics ir very, very real, and it can work in the opposite way as well, like now. He also wins on the record, like bringin up the fact that Obama ran on his middle class angle before and has done dick. The record does speak.

Again you're giving way to much credit to the undecideds actually taking the time to investigate anything that the candidates have said. And that said, most would go for the guy who seems to offer the best plan for them - middle class tax cuts which sound very good. Again Obama has used class warfare to his advantage and McCain fumbled it.

I think McCain failed all around. Just in the general way he approached the questions- for example, when the first question was asked about the rescue plan (aka- "bailout bill") I don't recall a single thing McCain said in response, as it was precisely the same type of banal, abstract, pointless droning that living 5 years with the same woman has programmed my brain to automatically tune out.Saddam Hussein Obama stepped right up to the kid and said (paraphrase) "so what you're asking is, what will this bill do for me..." then he proceeded to outline a number of ways that the bill will have a practical, on-the-ground impact.Right now, that is the kind of guy Americans want. Not old, crusty ideologues.

Exactly! I noticed that Obama looked directly at the person and cut to the chase on this question which in my opinion gave him the debate. Again right now people need a psychological boost even if it's not "real". And I think Obama gave them that boost while McCain just sounded recycled. McCain needed to come out with a bang and he didn't. Slight win to Obama for making the connection with the audience both during and after the debate.

In my opinion, the only way McCain could win at this point is if his campaign paid for a 30 minute spot on National television and he had an articulate speech that not only laid out his plans, but talked about why things are where they are at, how he proposes to fix them. Illustrates then fundamental differences between he and Obama and shows proof of the lies and half-truths.I picture it like a presentation with a giant power point going on behind him.The general public does not know which statements are less than truthful, and they also won't do the research on their own. It needs to be spelled out and not in talking points.A flow chart of Obama's associations, and his voting record would run huge.He should do this a week or so before the election. So Obama cannot prepare a response.

Ala Al Gore and the global warming movie. Might work if he could get people to watch. Enough buzz like Gore got with his movie and it might just happen. Especially if he released it on video at the same time. Needs to be a bit farther out or at least have the video available before hand though.

Public schools should be eliminated. All schools should be in the private sector and should be paid for in full by parents. That would solve a huge part of this government induced economic mess while at the same time improving the educational system.As for the military, we need that. I like paying for that, it protects my country.

So schools for the rich and screw the poor hey? Sounds like the last 8 years to me only you screw yourself too because then there won't be a work force here in America unless you like going back to an agricultural based society.

[fatman 1]

From my very skeletal knowledge of the tax system, if you are paying "over 1/3" of your income in federal income tax then you would be in the "I'm doin' just fine" tax bracket. $350,000+ per year seems to be the only bracket that pays higher than 33%, at 35%. Correct me if I'm way off, or just tell me that the fact that you're rich doesn't mean the government is entitled to a larger slice of your money. But if you go with the latter, I saw it coming.

You are spot on. He should be punished by paying higher taxes for all of the hard work that he has put in to get him where he is today. The nerve of some people.

[copernicus 0]

Correct me if I'm way off, or just tell me that the fact that you're rich doesn't mean the government is entitled to a larger slice of your money. But if you go with the latter, I saw it coming.

I see. And the top 4.5% of taxpayers paying 44% of income taxes isnt progressive enough.

[85suited 0]

Enough is enoughIf I stay in the City of Chicago...I will have to send my kid to private school, becausse Chicago Public Schools SUCK!!!! More wasted tax moneyNot a chance I will stay in Chicago for my Sons Schooling, Unless I can get him into Ayers UN School

[85suited 0]

Gus, I have a question about the second to last question of the night.. Here it isBrokaw: All right. We're going to try to get in two more questions, if we can. So we have to move along. Over in section A, Terry Shirey -- do I have that right, Terry?Shirey: Senator, as a retired Navy chief, my thoughts are often with those who serve our country. I know both candidates, both of you, expressed support for Israel.If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?Mccain Let -- let -- let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles. (I shotened this response, because mccain asnwered ddirectly)Obama: Well, Terry, first of all, we honor your service, and we're grateful for it.We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it.And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don't provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests.It is important, though, for us to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the scenario where we've got to make those kinds of choices.And that's why I have consistently said that, if we can work more effectively with other countries diplomatically to tighten sanctions on Iran, if we can reduce our energy consumption through alternative energy, so that Iran has less money, if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it's an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences.If you do change your behavior, then it is possible for you to re-join the community of nations.Now, it may not work. But one of the things we've learned is, is that when we take that approach, whether it's in North Korea or in Iran, then we have a better chance at better outcomes.When President Bush decided we're not going to talk to Iran, we're not going to talk to North Korea, you know what happened? Iran went from zero centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons to 4,000. North Korea quadrupled its nuclear capability.We've got to try to have talks, understanding that we're not taking military options off the table.Does obama ever really answer the question here? Does this mean he would seek UN approval before defending America or our allies?? Your thoughts?

[Balloon guy 158]

I see. And the top 4.5% of taxpayers paying 44% of income taxes isnt progressive enough.

So if someone make $300K a year, is 10 times more taxes than a middle class person making $45K a year a fair amount?Isn't it fairer for one family to pay ten times more in taxes than another?As long as that family has a nicer house and car I mean.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

In my opinion, the only way McCain could win at this point is if his campaign paid for a 30 minute spot on National television and he had an articulate speech that not only laid out his plans, but talked about why things are where they are at, how he proposes to fix them. Illustrates then fundamental differences between he and Obama and shows proof of the lies and half-truths.I picture it like a presentation with a giant power point going on behind him.The general public does not know which statements are less than truthful, and they also won't do the research on their own. It needs to be spelled out and not in talking points.A flow chart of Obama's associations, and his voting record would run huge.He should do this a week or so before the election. So Obama cannot prepare a response.

H. Ross Perot tried this.

[CaneBrain 95]

And as Ive been saying for at least 6 weeks, the only game changer left (since he apparently doesnt want to get down in the gutter with Obama) is to name the top of his cabinet...Giuliani Attorney General, Romney Treasury, Petraeus Defense.

Palin is clearly his gutter girl. I cant think of one person in any area of politics that I would want to be AG less than Rudy Guiliani. He makes Scalia look like a softie.

[copernicus 0]

So if someone make $300K a year, is 10 times more taxes than a middle class person making $45K a year a fair amount?Isn't it fairer for one family to pay ten times more in taxes than another?As long as that family has a nicer house and car I mean.

they are receiving the same services, why should they pay even $1 more? They receive the same services why should they pay any more as a % of income?The 45k filer is paying 10% of gross, the 300k filer is paying 20% of gross. Twice the RATE of the 45k filer.

[copernicus 0]

Palin is clearly his gutter girl. I cant think of one person in any area of politics that I would want to be AG less than Rudy Guiliani. He makes Scalia look like a softie.

If you want to clean up Wall Street and want a unified criminal and military approach to terrorism, there isnt anybody better.