world

McCain, Obama get tough, personal in final debate

185 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

185 Comments
Login to comment

Since YangYong is at a loss for words, allow me -

"A new national poll by CBS News and the New York Times showed Obama leading McCain by a commanding 53% to 39%"

The election's over! McCain's toast!

And here we got Biden, who, along with his running mate, voted for the $850 billion bailout plan, critizing McCain's $300 billion bailout plan. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did McCain vote against the $850B bailout? Isn't Biden criticizing the idea of buying the mortgages at face and negotiating a lower value for them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't McCain's $300Bn bailout plan on top of the $850Bn bailout he rushed back to Washington to "negotiate"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has already denied planning to raise Joe Plummer's taxes!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Altria - No, it's part of the $850 billion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe The Plumber has now become a National Celebrity!

Joe The Plumber needs to join the McCain-Palin Celebrity Ticket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The McCain-Palin Celebrity Ticket"

Heck, Team Obama-Biden has a lot more celebrities supporting them than McCain-Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain's making Obama dance trying in vain to defend his record!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain is destroying Obama, this is so funny!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mccain is wasting Americans' time trying to talk about trivial details.

Obama is talking about the economy - Americans' number 1 concern.

Mccain is barreling off the tracks as usual.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mccain needs to up his game if he wants to come second in this campaign, ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! Obama is right now destroying john mccain's last 2 last gasp chances at taking back the lead - Accorn and Ayers.

bye bye john mccain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3- McCain has just exposed Obama as a friend of a terroorist and campaigner fraudsters Acorn. He is finished. Good job McCain!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's going to be a tough campaign but here's how it'll likely pan out:

1st: Barack Obama 2nd: Joe The Plumber

Last: john mccain

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ha ha!! john mccain is going to have to defend his choice of Sarah 'Bridge to Nowhere' Palin!!!

Can't wait! Sarah Palin's hubby belongs to a shady organization that wants Alaska to break away from the USA.

How unpatriotic is THAT?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just had a moment to slip into a room at work and watch 30mins of the debate.

Two thoughts.

McCain is very clearly grasping at straws the the Ayers and Acorn issues. No matter which party you support, the fact is McCain looks more interested in party partisanship than in the real issues facing the country. And that will hurt him in the polls post debate. I'll bet the farm on it.

Obama looks cool, collected and continues to bring the conversation back to what the American people need. Folks at home are worried about very real issues that have nothing to do with party politics. They are worried about money, home, sending their kids to school, taking care of aging parents and medical care. They care about jobs and taxes. And Obama is being very clear about the fact that he shares those concerns.

Conclusion: McCain needed a clear victory tonight to salvage his campaign. He needed to shine ON POINT for issues that the country cares about. And if the first 37mins are an indicator, and I feel strongly that they are, he is sinking faster than anyone could have imagined.

McCain will lose this debate. And if he continues on his current course with his rabid VP candidate, the American people will say no in a way that sends a clear message of one of the strongest mandates by the public to a new president in recent history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

john mccain is sinking into the quicksand.....too funny.

Why can't mccain continue to slash budgets for domestic programs?

And why can't mccain keep on lying by saying Obama wants to increase taxes when Obama has clearly stated many, many times that his policy is to CUT taxes for 95% of Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama vs mccain is

21st century vs 20 century

Intellect vs. propaganda

Future energy sources vs oil baron buddy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obaam is stuttering and truely panicking. Mccain has him up against the ropes and is heading for a K.O.

game over Obama! Bwahahahaha

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you people watching the same debate?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ontherecord. Hey, what are you watching? Clearly something imaginary because if you think McCain is winning this debate then he must be paying you a lot to think so. Even my Republican friends are wondering if McCain has has some kind of stroke or some other cognative incident, because he is clearly drifting off the stage and away from what is important.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

john mccain - the right man in the right place at the wrong time.

ha ha! mccain just said AGAIN that Obama wants to increase taxes.

A straight out, bullet-between-the-eyes lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope john mccain doesn't start muttering and wandering around the stage like a lost womble like he did last time, ha ha!

He needs to be wearing a seatbelt to keep him in his chair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Zero?" john mccain has been caught blinking in the lights of the oncoming freight train that is going to crush his campaign. :-)

Obama is blowing mccain away. LOL!

Ding dong! Game over McCain-Palin Celebrity Ticket

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey Obama, your almost out for the count.

Need some smelling salts?

McCain is doing mighty fine, and winning hands sown doggone it!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe The Plumber for President!!! :-)

Joe is getting a LOT of airtime in this debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain will lose this debate"

He's already won this debate and we've still got almost 30 minutes to go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This interviewer is very, very good.

Most impressive control of this debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain loses, America loses.

Obama wins , America loses, again.

Why are people so happy with possible Obama's win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama is blowing mccain away"

Sushi, you'd best quit taking whatever it is you're taking. It's seriously affecting your judgement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama just said the fine for Joe the Plumper was zero and McCain looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Obama further stated he would give a 50% credit on Joe's health insurance coverage for his employees if he so chooses. But small business are exempt from fines and requirements to provide health care.

Please review the debate at this point and watch McCain like a deer caught in the headlights. It is right when Obama answered McCain's question of the amount of the fine. Obamma said "Zero!" It is hilarious. hilarious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! john mcain has just said he would consider anyone for position of judge based on their qualifications.

How the heck did he select Sarah Palin?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No doubt, Obama is blowing McCain away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The interviewer ( moderator ) is very, very good."

Yeah, ol' Bob's been around for awhile.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No doubt, Obama is blowing McCain away"

Pure denial.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge is the only guy watching the same debate as me. Are you guys in the Twilight Zone?

McCain has shown presidential style, and Obama has shown himself to be at high school debating level. Democrats stay home in November, McCain is going to win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

john mccain is having trouble talking about education.

But he's more than apt talking about spending Americans' tax dollars on building bombs and bullets adn killing foreigners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" McCain has taken a new campaign approach this week, positioning himself as a fighter for the American middle class," Yes, since he is a millionaire,owns eight houses and has been a senator some 23+ years, and has nothing for the American people since he has been in office. Let's not forget he's GW's golfing buddy and has been his prison wench for the past century. Yes, I think he does represent the middle class.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Democrats stay home in November, McCain is going to win

I can't make any sense of that. Stay home, because if you don't you will vote and then McCain won't win? Is that what you mean?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain is always playing the patriotic card. The American people can see through this display of flag waving. Example: McCain was talking about the economic value of the trade relations with Columbia; he throws in the saving of the three Americans by the Colombians. While I am very grateful to the Colombians and have always dared anyone to challenge my patriotism (I refuse to wear it on my sleeve), it had nothing to do with the economic issue they were debating. It is however indicative of McCain's pandering and avoiding issues to try to insert slogans and sound bites.

In the beginning McCain appealed to anger. Anger, anger, anger he inserted. Watch they have not begun their closing statements. McCain will reiterate Anger. Is Anger an issue in America?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was wrong about McCain mentioning anger again; oh well I can admit my mistakes. I also don't mind taking the risk of predicting political tactics. Again I was wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obbama won!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

His closing he can't seem to string more than 3-4 words together at a time without stumbling over them. Keeps talking about his history. We don't care around John McCain's history. We care about what he will do and his VERY SCARY rightwing, flat earther VP buddy Palin.

McCain's post debate sinking will be unrivaled since the sinking of the Titanic. GOP break out those violins for a round of Nearer My God To Thee, because it is over people and you are headed for the bottom of the political sea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The damn fool Obama is talking about giving cash to the lazy and workshy.

he lost the debate, because patriots will not trust him, he didn't even deny his association with the terrorist Ayres.

I propose cutting welfare payments to encourage the lazy to get off their backsides and into work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are people so happy with possible Obama's win.

An intelligent, articulate person as leader. That's why I would be happy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't think we've seen that much political blood spilled in a single debate. They will be cleaning up after this disaster right up until the election is lost and McCain heads back into his old live and Palin into very deserved obscurity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe Wurtzelbacher will be in McCain's ads. This will not work to McCain's advantage. Palin's Joe Sixpack has turned into the real human Joe Wurtzelbacher. If Joe W. is making over $250,000 a year does he need a tax break? That is the bottom line. I don't know any Joe Sixpack, Joe Camel or Joe Schmoe for that matter that makes over $250,000. I know more than a few people who make over $250,000 and a few are personal friends. None of them are Joe Sixpack!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least McCain did somewhat better than his previous two, more energy and bite.

But in the end too little too late. In 3 weeks history will be made as I and millions of Americans vote and elect its first Black American president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow sarge has made a lot of progress; at least now he admits he is in:

Pure denial.

Admitting it is the first step sarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A new national poll by CBS News and the New York Times showed Obama leading McCain by a commanding 53% to 39%"

Don't forget that the only polls that count are those in November. Or if you're a McCain supporter, those showing McCain taking a less severe drubbing than he's actually taking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain’s abuse in Vietnam is relevant. Not to qualify him for the presidency, but to take the sting off the drubbing Obama will give him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the beginning McCain appealed to anger. Anger, anger, anger he inserted. Watch they have not begun their closing statements. McCain will reiterate Anger. Is Anger an issue in America?

apparently more so than common sense

0 ( +0 / -0 )

John McCain and Sarah Palin represent angry, ignorant, dumbed-down, flag-waving Americans.

But how many Americans are there like that?

Americans are better than that and that's why Barack Obama has this election in the bag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain's demeanor appeared pompous and smug. Glaring eyes that blink too often from frustration were evident. Add to that forced smiles and pseudo machismo, well all you need is one "deer caught in the headlights moment" and I think America has a proper image of the real John McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rjd - "In 3 weeks history will be made as I and millions of Americans vote and elect its first Black American president."

You will have the vast majority of the world's population congratulating you for making the right choice for America and the right choice for the world by electing Barack Obama.

Sorry mccain, you screwed up again :-(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama did his same old steady self.

John McCain needed a knock-out punch and he didn't get it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Without evidence of a serious incident involving Obama, we cannot win.

What was McCain thinking? He could have hammered him, buy he looked helpless.

A sad day for patriots. America very soon our lives will be hell!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MrDickMorris you should be more afraid of a lack of social programs than you are of them. History has proven again and again that social investment results in jobs, business stimulation and a resulting increase in tax paying people who can in turn drive other efforts to invest in our country.

We've had too many years of this cowboy lone ranger thinking that has left our schools, infrastructure and social fabric in shambles.

Intelligent social investment is very good for a nation in need of economic stimulation. Roosevelt was smart enough to use it and we should be too. Enough 20th century non-sense about socialism. There is a difference between social responsibility by a government and socialism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what a smart campaign the Obama team have run.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A sad day for patriots.

Great day for America has come......Those that claim that mantle of Patriot do not hold a monopoly on it. A Patriot is not one who votes Republican, a Patriot is one who votes for the good of America. I am a Patriot and my vote will go for Obama.

Bravo Zulu to Obama from one who heard the call of our Great Nation and answered it!

Gooooooooo Navy!<BG>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The few remaining (and panicking) ultra-righties on here have an odd grasp on reality if they really equate social welfare programs with being a socialist nation. They don't seem to realize just how much they depend on social systems as it is when they are sliding, and having been cut by the Bush admin in favour of tax breaks, etc. to large corporations. If McCain were elected -- and that's not even a possibility now -- he would freeze even more spending for social programs and people would suffer worse than they are now. Here's a bulletin for people who believe in such nonsense as having social programs beefed up means you will become like Cuba: get your head out of your a$$! You need MORE spending on social programs, not LESS! It's not going to turn you into a 'socialist country' by any means, though it will of course provide more equal access to things like medicine, job security, etc.

Anyway, one of my favourite points in the debate is that McCain himself could not even admit that Palin was qualified to be president. Says a lot about his choice! Bye-bye, McCain, and bye-bye Palin (in a couple of months it'll be back to 'who?')

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever happenned to all that bravado about whipping Obama's you know what?

One of McCain's argument why Palin could make a good president if the need arise - her husband's a tough guy. wink wink. Careful Putin, Todd's revving up his snowmobile!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought this debate was about even.

McCain showed a more energetic and more passionate person than he has been and he showed a willingness to engage that had been missing in his past efforts. I'd certainly rate him higher on the emotional spectrum. On the other hand, he sometimes showed a volatility that suggested that he would not be "a steady hand at the helm" (as I believe he has suggested). Obama was consistently calm and looked more Presidential.

Issue-wise, I thought McCain scored good points about the economy in the early going. He clearly and forcefully distanced himself from Bush and left Obama with no effective option to rejoin. If there were any pro-lifers who were undecided I think he also outscored Obama on the Roe-vs.-Wade question as well. On the other hand, I think he hurt himself with his constant refrain of "I know how to do that". He hurt himself with the Ayers issue. And he hurt himself with a health plan that looks to the problem for the solution. While Obama was relatively flat and presented little that was new, when he did present his plans he was more clear in how he was going to achieve them.

If I had to score based on energy, I'd give it to McCain. If I had to score only on mental clarity, I'd give it to Obama. Not being the impartial selector of judges that McCain says he would be, if I had to award the round to either pugilist, I'd give it to Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Definitely Obama. By a mile.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like the pundits are giving this one to ol' man McCain.

Good on you McCain - you've done it again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what a smart campaign the Obama team have run.

Don't mention the s-word. It irks conservatives, especially with their current ticket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wanted to see them answer the tough questions, like: "when Putin rears his head and flies into America's airspace, where does he go?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The lead Obama has over McCain is huge. Its going to take a bit more than fiddling with the voting polls and the final tally for McCain to become president. But looking back over the past two elections at how voting anomalies delivered the presidency to George Bush jnr both times should be a warning not to not be complacent about the outcome of this election.

As Barrack Obama's speeches have often made clear enough over the past months, both the Democrat and Republican parties represent the interests of two factions of America's ruling elite. They both are political parties motivated by the necessity to best serve corporate America. Its just a question of whether the (slightly) moderate Democrats will finally find within themselves the courage to stand up when the votes are countered and the funny business begins, and fight, or whether they will fold. Obama certainly is more convincing than either Gore or Kerry.

But then he'd have to be to convince the ruling elite that he's got what it takes to look after their interests in this environment when the voting public really are looking for change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"As Barrack Obama's speeches have often made clear enough over the past months, both the Democrat and Republican parties represent the interests of two factions of America's ruling elite"

Who are these two?

Can you name the people and groups that comprise even one of them?

It would add a little credibility to your repetitive posts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some numbers from the CNN poll were just read on TV.

Obama was seen as stating his ideas more clearly by 66%-25%, was seen as the stronger leader by 56%-39%, and was more likable by 70%-22%.

McCain did win in one category: He's the candidate who launched more attacks on his opponent, by a whopping 80%-7%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

john mccain said at least twice that if elected he would freeze spending for social programs.

The truly scary thing was he actually seemed to think this was a good idea.

He backs a war that will cost America between $2-3 TRILLION, then when his nation barrels into debt - in no small part because of the out-of-control defence spending - john mccain vows to freeze all spending on domestic programs.

That's almost like attacking your own mother when she is nursing you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As martin luther king said "i have a dream" I hope Obama wins and no strange things happening again during voting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was pretty clear just how angry McCain still is.

It's amazing how after the last two debates, even after all the coaching he must be getting, he can't contain his anger and contempt.

And it's great to see that the American people are seeing this too, and are turned off by it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems the right-wingers, save for one or two posts, have not been very active on this thread. I guess it's the overall whipping of 'you know what' by Obama to McCain, and the fact that Obama has this election in the bag is finally sinking in.

Fear not, li'l campers! In a few weeks Obama will be sworn in and the world a better place for it. You'll be cursing him on the outside, but secretly relieved on the inside.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From an election blog site - (bolding, mine)

"For people who pay attention to subtleties, what struck me most tonight was that McCain cried his crocodile tears -- as if going for the Joe Biden emotion moment -- over being called a racist.

Obama's been called a racist, too, and worse. Far worse, including a baby killer. And none of that showed. He didn't stoop to it and you know what, I can support someone who knows that you don't let a bully see you cry -- that, to me, is Presidential.

When was the last time any president you admired complained of hurt feelings? Obama's answer: Our feelings don't matter, the American people matter.

Presidential. Everything else that happened in the debate, to me, pales next to that moment."

Source: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/snap_polls_give_overwhelming_w.php#comments

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain's campaign was all about experience -- until he picked Palin.

It was all about putting country first -- until he picked Palin.

It was all about the success of the surge -- until everyone from General Petraeus and the authors of the latest NIE made it clear that victory in Iraq exists only in McCain's and Palin's stump speeches.

It was all about William Ayers -- until voters rejected that line of attack.

It was all about national security -- until the economy collapsed.

Now it looks like it's going to be all about Joe the Plumber -- and Sarah Palin's "expertise" on autism.

Obama closed by promising to "work every single day, tirelessly, on your behalf." McCain closed by just sounding tired -- exhausted by all the unleashed fury."

Full text: www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/mccains-losing-strategy-d_b_135109.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Game, Set, Match to Barack Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - What did you expect from the CNN poll? The majority of the respondents are in the tank for Obama. The actual election results will be MUCH different. You'll see. I'll betcha you wish you could vote for Obama to cancel out my vote for McCain!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Definitely Obama by a mile"

"Game, Set, Match to Barack Obama"

Pure delusion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Besides unleashing his pent up anger and blinking like a deer in the headlights, another thing mccain screwed up was bringing up Ayers.

No one gives a crap about Ayers.

What they do care about is the economy, jobs and whether they are going to keep their houses, and clearly, Obama is streets ahead of mccain in that area.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, even those dreaded Euro-types have a better grip on what is best for your country than you do, I'm afraid to say.

Obama-Biden '08!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3,

I think feelings matter, but I think they need to be genuine. When Hillary said, "That hurts my feelings," she did so with grace and humor yet got her point across. McCain's feelings might also have been genuine but I thought he was hurt by the tone of self-righteousness which seemed to me to underlie his statement of them.

I thought Obama's statement that feelings don't matter but that the American people do was an excellent rejoinder. And certainly any president's job is to put his personal hurt feelings aside and focus on the problems that face the country. However, I certainly don't want a president who doesn't listen to his feelings or who is afraid to talk about them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a little sinful delight for all the punters out there -

McCain's Deer In The Headlights Moment (VIDEO)

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/15/final-debate-mccains-deer_n_135063.html

I'm happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you're out there," Obama responded. "Here is your fine: Zero."

McCain interrupted, asking "Zero?" He stayed frozen in the same position, blinking his eyes in confusion, as Obama continued his answer.

"Zero," Obama said. "You won't pay a fine because as I said in our last debate, and I'll repeat John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees who are not doing it. I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ha ha! This is awesome!

http://palinaspresident.com/

Click on the various objects around the Oval office, especially the bridge on Sarah Palin's desk :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - "even those dreaded Euro-types have a better grip on what is best for your country than you do"

They do not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge. They do so. You and other Republicans have been flat wrong on the Iraq war, the environment, WMD, government spending, George Bush, and now you are flat wrong on thinking john mccain will make a good president.

I stand by my claim - even those dreaded Euro-types have a better grip on what is best for your country than you do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll betcha you wish you could vote for Obama to cancel out my vote for McCain!

I got that covered sarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe the Plumber at this point has a lock on the Republican nomination - he can just write his own ticket.

I'm thinking maybe he can be Secretary of Plumbing in the new administration, or something. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "They do not."

Nice comeback, sarge! haha. No doubt if you were on the screen you'd be in an even worse deer-in-headlights moment than McCain was -- and that was HUGE! If you're going to debate, come to the table with something other than simple, one word lame retorts like the one I quoted. And if you do bring something, make sure you've got your info correct, unlike McCain! haha. HILARIOUS!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for the links, Sushi. Pretty funny, and very detailed in pointing out the sheer idiocy of Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What we saw tonight is Senator Obama looking every bit Presidential, calm, intelligent and reassuring. It has indeed taken a "brother" to actually bring cool to politics.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are busy offering "Joe the plummer" ambassadorships to France or possibly England if they win, fat chance. I suspect that "Joe the Plummer" will become the corner stone of the Republican campaign over the next three weeks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really wish many here would take a look at the other dozen or so people running to the presidentcy.

Roger Calero Gloria LaRiva - has made a good name for herself and is a woman.

Cynthia McKinney - could settle being the first black and woman at the same time.

Ralph Nader - He's always running, yet no one seems to listen.

Charles Jay Gene Amondson Brian Moore Bob Barr - another big name in US politics Dr. Charles “Chuck” Baldwin Alan Keyes - a big name in US politics

0 ( +0 / -0 )

exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees who are not doing it. I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty." That is what he proposes, but I wouldn't believe it. The gov is going to sink way into everyone's pockets.

How come I don't hear either candidate say they would accept any tax payer money for salaries? As well as paying into their federal government provided health care system?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"even those dreaded Euro-types have a better grip on what is best for your country than you do"

And on the evening of Nov. 4th here's what the, heh, european vote tally will look like for obama:

http://minx.cc/?post=273762

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heard the latest? They're renaming the Great Depression the George Bush Great Depression (GBGD.)

Are Americans REALLY game enough to make it worse by electing john mccain??

I don't think so. Americans are way better than that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII, that link, like mccain's campaign, is dead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"John McCain had to be in command, steady and reassuring, but his partisans were urging all-out war on Obama's character.

When he takes that course, and he soon did, the polls show that voters turn away. They worry a lot more right now about paying their bills than about some guy named Bill Ayres. (But that would come from McCain -- because that's all he's got. .)

And McCain had to know Obama would be ready, not just to answer and dismiss the attacks, but to cite them as proof that McCain can't deal with real concerns like the economy.

And he can't: he just keeps repeating his tired falsehood about Obama raising taxes on most Americans and the middle class, when in fact he cuts them and Obama wins the exchange hands down."

More here: www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-m-shrum/put-mccain-out-of-his-mis_b_135062.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3

Very funny Palin V.P. Office. Your other link did not work. If you look at it as posted you will notice that the underscores (_) are missing. JT's comment section does not recognize underscores. It uses them to format text into italic. You could use a substitute character and explain to readers that they must substitute the underscore. Let's not complain about things we cannot change and figure out how to get around it. I am sure it was never JT's intent to limit links and it could be costly to change the software if it cannot be done in-house.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain can't deal with real concerns like the economy." Neither can Obama. Neither of these two were economic geniuses, just parasites taking in tax money instead of making money.

We had our chance to put an economic power horse in office once upon a time. We didn't then and everything he stated would happen, has happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, global liberals resort to citing huffpo as a news source as their desperation mounts.

Good times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as their desperation mounts.

desperation? really?

The GOP supporters actually believe their own fairytales. Whatever is in that koolaid, its pretty potent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder how much of a role Karl Rove had in the debate preparation for mcsame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

romeoRamenII - "Heh, global liberals resort to citing huffpo as a news source as their desperation mounts."

I think Sarge's 'denial!' quote applies in full to your above comment.

The only desparation I feel is ...well... I don't fell any desperation at all to be honest.

Obama has this in the bag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

obama's healthcare "plan" that he outlined in the debate is a carbon copy of what hillary proposed last Spring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RR says I am feeling desperation. McCain says I am feeling anger. A couple of mind readers is what we got here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey = "If using huffingtonpost.com as a source is desperation then quoting yourself as a source must be sheer insanity."

LOL! Republicans will do ANYTHING to convince themselves the parallel world they live in is the same as ours. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

carbon copy of what hillary proposed last Spring." no, not really. Hillary was/is the largest recipient of pharmaceutical lobby funds, Obama is not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No one could have coached McCain to be this bad.

His criticism of Obama on trade: bye, bye Ohio. His decision to talk about how he repeals the tax deduction for health coverage: McCain got squashed again. " Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer": it was in 1994 and Obama wasn't even in the Illinois State Senate, let alone the US Senate.. And if he thinks this election is about school vochers, he really is a nitwit.

When it isn't sad, it's sinister. McCain isn't a candidate anymore, but a negative research dump-- a heedless purveyors of distortion and untruth, a man who started off running on his experince, but ends up now as a right-wing caricature stumbling toward defeat with dishonor."

More here: www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-m-shrum/put-mccain-out-of-his-mis_b_135062.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

.... ahead in the polls ...

That same line could of been written in 1984, or 1988, or 2000, or 2004...

Oh, wait. It was!!!

Nevermind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which party does the oil corporations have in their pocket? Hint: long history of tax breaks for the oil companies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII at 05:52 PM JST - 16th October

Donkeyleitmotiv2/3injapan, you've been caught out. You will forever be known as an American wannabee at this site. Get over it and move on with your life ... at least all four of them.

LOL.....silly little man

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Which party does the oil corporations have in their pocket? Hint: long history of tax breaks for the oil companies."

Which party is in the substantially deeper pockets ( 6, 7 times deeper) of the lawyers and legal firms?

Hint - they are so indebted to them they have put two of the same on their ticket, to signal their shared enthusiasm for screwing the middle class and the productive people in America and calling it "change".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: Leave it be; RomeoRamen is having a meltdown, which we'll see a lot more of since Obama is the next president. He reacted to this news in much the same way as others, just before creating some of his new handles. Don't let him get to you.

Anyway, you really ARE pretty sad, RR. You can't say a SINGLE thing about the debate, merely try and character bash Obama in a very immature fashion that attempts to divert -- much more transparently than McCain himself -- from the fact that you're backing a losing horse. I don't care one wit that I can't vote in your election, because Obama is getting FAR more votes than McBush, and so clearly my vote is not needed to set your country back on the right path.

Try not to meltdown, amigo... the site wouldn't be the same with RR(1,2, or II for that matter).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This debate took place, literally, a mile from my place. (Lots of police closed the main connecting road; a few friends attend the university; a friend's father actually attended the debate).

IMHO, McCain won a bit the first half-hour, while Obama won handily the last half-hour. McCain did well attacking, but Obama did even better defending. In the end at the after-debate quick polls, Obama gained a bit more off this last debate (as he also did the previous 2 debates) than McCain did. Especially among the intangibles like likeability, Presidential-ness, clearness, etc and among the independent voters.

What McCain needed to do was stop Obama's momentum, but all these debates did was further push Obama into the threshold. Fortunately for McCain, this is the last, as seems further debates would just hurt him. Unfortunately for him, it'd be hard to stop Obama's momentum within these last 3 weeks before the election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In addition to differences on taxes and spending, McCain said Obama advocated trade policies that recalled those of Herbert Hoover, who presided over the start of the Great Depression."

This part of an Obama presidency will be interesting. The Dems recently screwed our allies in democratic Columbia on expanding free trade with them either because Pelosi and friends are pro-Chavez (possible future Sec. of Education Bill Ayers certainly is) or because they are beholden to the unions and, like most "liberals" these days they lack a basic understanding of economics.

Either way it doesn't look good for certain countries heavily dependent on trade with the US.

I doubt Obama would go after Mexcio though - he needs the Hispanic support and to at least appear sincere about helping less fortunate nations.

But Canada is going to be a different story I think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I did mean to say a long time ago in this thread that McCain did not do that bad. He does lack a certain freshness because he goes over the same talking points but unfortunately Obama must also restate points to establish consistency. On style and performance Obama blew him away like those scenes of the atom bomb blowing houses away. I am actually not big on style and performance but I know the American public puts a lot of weight into those traits. I do love it when Obama does not feel it is necessary to get in the last word. Also when McCain was trying to interrupt Obama he did not raise his voice but continued speaking. That is so difficult to do; it takes an enormous amount of discipline and concentration on your idea of which you are making your point. I have not been able to do that consistently when I am interrupted. I tend to raise my voice a little bit or concede the floor. But I never claimed to be a good speaker. I am good at technical and analytical activities. I think good writing can fall into those categories. Obama was also amazing on substance. He was clear and concise on the issues. I love to tease sarge by making overwhelming claims of victory but in truth I have to look at it how the average Joe will look at it. The average Joe will see it as closer to a tie with a majority claiming Obama won. I like intellectuals so I just love to see Obama using his mind to get his message across. I do think that Obama has a much greater mental capacity as well as outright intelligence than McCain and it showed tonight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great performance by Obama. He'll be a good President, one of the best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pity ,McCain won the debate but not enough to knock out Obama.Obama may win the election because America is tired of every thing and wants a fairy tale. But one will never know, life is full of surprises.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The MSM tools that have moderated these debates have very carefully avoided offering the candidates any opportunity to explain their respective positions on the 2nd Amendment or the Fairness Doctrine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain did not do badly at all. Heck, most pollers think he improved from the previous 2 debates. But they also think Obama still swept the debates though.

McCain is a respectable man; heck I'd daresay many independent and Democrat voters wouldn't mind too much if he wins despite the unpopularity of the Bush administration (in contrast, there are also many Republicans who don't want him to win, for various reasons). It's just that, he's running against Obama. (Whatever happened to Dr. Condy Rice anyways? Though with the change in Americans' mindset, dunno if she would had made a difference anyways.)

It'll be hard for McCain to win the states. Obama is winning a couple states that Bush won last time, while sll 6 battleground states are all "red" states 4 years ago. So, McCain not only has to win all those battleground states but also switch back a couple currently "blue" states.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am a man who will put his cash where his word stands: I'll take any of you McCain addicts for a million yen, the bet: The McCain / Palin ticket will not become the Presidential and Vice Presidential elect this November 2008.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic: "The MSM tools that have moderated these debates have very carefully avoided offering the candidates any opportunity to explain their respective positions on the 2nd Amendment or the Fairness Doctrine."

Of course they did -- because McCain took a serious beating. Had McCain won the debates out and out you'd be on here saying how fair and wonderful they were.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I am a man who will put his cash where his word stands: I'll take any of you McCain addicts for a million yen, the bet: The McCain / Palin ticket will not become the Presidential and Vice Presidential elect this November 2008."

Are you with ACORN?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, "coulropphobic",

Little buddy, as per two years ago, I'd keep what dollars you have left in your pocket before making the leap from the cliftop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By law ACORN must turn over any registration form that has been filled out. And this makes sense. If organizations were allowed to throw away voter-registration applications forms because they didn't like the way they looked, that could lead to valid registrations being pitched which could mean voter suppression.

ACORN has helped register 1.3 million voters in 21 states and routinely notifies local officials of incomplete or suspicious registration cards, said Bertha Lewis, interim chief organizer for National ACORN in a recent interview. She said local election officials sometimes use those cards to "come back weeks or months later and accuse us of deliberately turning in phony cards."

The Republicans just want to keep people from voting. If the NeoCons know so much about ACORN's voter registration let's hear some percentages of invalid ballots.

Why did't McCain give us numbers tonight? I want to know the number of proven invalid ballots out of 1.3 million. Talk is cheap. I want facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't understand why a nation of nearly 300,000,000 people has only two main Parties for its politics... Have you guys ever thought of voting someone else?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey - "Talk is cheap. I want facts."

Talk and anger is about all the GOP has at the moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey

How are fixed with cash. Hope you worked hard and threw a little in the bank, because it's time to spread that wealth you work hard for around.

There is no way I'm going to vote for him now after that remark.

Thanks, Obama I worked hard played by the rules put some money in the bank and now I have to spread it around a little.

Joy....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Have you guys ever thought of voting for someone else?"

Yeah, my first choice was Fred Thompson, but he lost out to McCain.

Hey, all you Obama supporters - get ready for President McCain! And Vice President Palin!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't understand why a nation of nearly 300,000,000 people has only two main Parties for its politics... Have you guys ever thought of voting someone else?"

Riiight!

That's what I keep telling people!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "There is no way I'm going to vote for him now after that remark."

Who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Hey, all you Obama supporters - get ready for President McCain! And Vice President Palin!"

Sounds like you're having a nice little dream :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought McCain did a great job. He's a great debator.

Obama's style disappointed me. He turned everything into, "but the American people care about this issue so I'm going to talk about it instead of arguing."

Good thing I don't look for a debator when voting for a President.

Obama won me over with his primary speeches. Just the President I've been hoping for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moonbeams - "I thought McCain did a great job. He's a great debator."

Had McCain been debating bambi, I think the Arizona senator would have conclusively edged out the famous forest dweller, especially with regards to deer-caught-in-the-headlights stares. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama: "I don't mind being attacked for the next three weeks"

That's good, because that's exactly what's going to happen, as McCain and Palin go after his socialist record, his questionable proposals and his ties with Bill Ayers and ACORN ( which Obama tried to run from in the debate ). But what's really going to be Obama's undoing is the fact that Joe the Plumber would end up paying more in taxes under Obama's tax plan. See, Joe plans to earn more than $200,000 from this business.

By the way, what with the economic crisis, global warming seems to have faded. Sushi, what's up with that? Why, I though global warming was the #1 threat to the world, and not even one word about it...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

If you've been paying taxes, you've been spreading your wealth around. Unless you recommend doing away with taxes, your issue is not with spreading wealth around, it is without how to spread it around.

If you've worked hard and played by the rules and now have wealth that could be spread around, why don't you consider that the rules may have benefited you? Additionally, you might also consider that the certain rules may have benefited you while being beyond the reach of others. There are many people who have worked hard and played by the rules who have no wealth to spread.

I take it that you are one of the Americans who make over $200,000 per year. If you make less than that, Obama promises tax cuts. If you make more than that, congratulations. But except from members of your country club or marina or from those who are ideologically obsessed, you're not likely to get much agreement.

Money belongs to the US government. We could go back to a barter system, I suppose, but I suspect that if we were all paid in bushels of corn, sides of beef, cans of gasoline or board feet of timber, who would be rich and who would be poor would be vastly different than it is today. Money is widely recognized to facilitate trade and the task of taxing it always has been--at least in conception--an exercise in benefitting the common good.

Obama's points with Joe the Plumber were that (1) his tax proposals put more money in the hands of people who can buy Joe's services and (2) allow people like Joe to accumulate more money sooner so that they don't have to wait to start businesses. I suppose you might call that trickle up instead of trickle down. And trickle down hasn't been such a great success as more and more people and a greater percentage of people fall under the poverty line, as the gap between the truly wealthy and the middle class widens and as the middle class fractures.

Obama used the expression "spread the wealth" just once in his 5-minute talk with Joe and he used it toward the end of the conversation as just one more way to express his point. In the debate, he never used it that I heard or read. McCain used the expression at least 9 times and he didn't use it to explain anything. He used it as grown-ups use boogeymen to frighten children.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No new taxes!

Both of the canidates budgets add 200-300 Billion to the deficit and surprisingly taxes will only go down!

I would like to see 100% health care coverage tried in Alaska or Hawaii first just to see how it does then slowly implemented and federal health stats could be sold to help finance the program. I would also like to see health IRAs instead of HSAs that must be zeroed out every year.

Obama's plans seems more realistic and with the rich and corporations paying fewer % of the taxes (historically) it only makes sense they should pay more.

People and Corporations must give up entitlements and pay their fair share. The days of handouts and pork are over. The Iraq war is over. The purse strings must be pulled tighter.

-Most of these current problems are due to bad government policy and lobbyist influence. -->look at all the Senate pork thrown on the 1 Trillion bailout bill --> these politicians still don't get it and should be held responsible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am a man who will put his cash where his word stands: I'll take any of you McCain addicts for a million yen, the bet: The McCain / Palin ticket will not become the Presidential and Vice Presidential elect this November 2008... and not ONE taker. As expected all those shrub-ites do is the sam ol' talkin' loud but sayin' nothing walk out of the ring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "By the way, what with the economic crisis, global warming seems to have faded. Sushi, what's up with that? Why, I though global warming was the #1 threat to the world, and not even one word about it..."

It's not the main issue, Sarge, becasue the "leadership" of the Republican party you support has led to this massive financial bailout that is putting your country into even greater debt than ever before.

But that's what you get for being irresponsible, Sarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How does Alaska’s proximity to Russia provide evidence of your foreign policy experience?

Well, it certainly does because our ... our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia ... We have trade missions back and forth. We ... we do it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where ... where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. --- Sarah Palin

Why would Palin be so good for NASA? Because there is so much space between her ears.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, what George Will termed John McCain's "boiling moralism" was on full display last night. As is always the risk with self-righteousness, it came across as more farce than fierce.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having recorded and edited the debate down to McCain's silences / grimace / eye bulges and huffs I now have a good opportunity to teach children a little about "Stranger Danger".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yang - You forgot his blinks. You also forgot to grow up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - You mean to say an economic downturn, which we have been through many of, is now more of a threat than global warming?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama was supposed to knock McCain out in this debate, but instead, McCain is still within striking distance. Obama CAN'T CLOSE THE DEAL.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCian is a dork, like, kinda, you know what i'm saying dude?

Obama battered him, yo, so cool, he is awesome!!!

They talk about Joe Plumber, the rich greedy guy. He is too rich, he gotta learn to pay more tax. Obama gonna give me new trailer and TV, McCain don't promise me nothing, he just like wars, he bad man.

McCain said bad thing about Obama, but Obama won, he is so cooool!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As usual, many of you lose the point. Obama will raise taxes; he's said this. Everyone is quick to say 'well, if this clown Joe (or any small business who will be taxed if making over the required amount) is making $250,000 he's rich and deserves to be taxed'.

Several problems with that. Joe's business might be making a net profit of $250,000 - but that doesn't necessarily mean that Joe is taking $250,000 home with him. Profit has to be re-distributed into any business to a degree - even if this $250,000 does not include salaries to to other employees and basic necessities he might have to pay. Net profit isn't take home dollars. Joe likely won't become a millionaire as quickly as you folks seem to think.

$250,000 - while it might sound like a lot to those of us earing 1/5 or less of that per year. But most of us work for someone and don't own a business. Business employee people like us common workers. If they're taxed heavily it can determine how many of us normal folks they can hire, and what wages they can afford to pay those they employ. The trickle effect is that Mary working in a small manufacturing plant might not get a pay increase despite the cost of living, or a new mouth to feed.

'Share the wealth and tax the rich'. In a capitalist society, why do some of you see it as such an evil to be rich? The wealthy are now portrayed as 'evil' and it's assumed they all made their fortunes in bilking the common man through oil profits or whatever. There are lots of wealthy folks in this country that worked damned hard to get there. Why should they be punished. Don't forget that the wealthy industrialists built this country. We'd be a third world crap-hole without them, like it or not. And hypocracy aside, any of you out there bitching about the wealthy - if you suddenly became rich, and be honest, would you feel it fair that your money it taken from you to provide for someone else?

America has always been great becuase it works on the premise that the average person can succeed; why do so many liberals now want to punish those that do? Doesn't it seem rather petty to begrudge someone success?

Feeding the starving, helping the poor and providing assistance for everyone to live healthy, without fear and with dignity definitely should be the goal of any civilized society. But punishing those with the drive and ability to succeed (and who then create jobs and build the economy) seems a damned silly way to go about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow sailwind makes more than $250,000 and he is not willing to pay any extra in income taxes. Why would someone make a voting decision on a soundbite? Use Obama's calculator. I calculated sailwind at $200,000. I put him in as both him and his wife working. I recall he said he had a child before so I put 1 dependent in. He gets a $5,164.62 tax cut. I tried $500.000. and it said "You probably will not get an Obama Tax Cut. This calculation is not perfect, and Obama has recently promised not to raise taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 per year." That was using:

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

You can say it is only promises but McCain wants you to believe that Obama says a person making $250,000. and less are going to help spread the wealth around. Sorry sailwind if you are making above that figure I think it is time you pulled your share. If you are making less then I won't tell you not to vote for McCain; but I hope you enjoy your tax cut when Obama delivers on his promise. I would encourage anyone to go to the website and figure out your tax cut. Here is another website that has a calculator and explains the tax cut a little. It also has a .pdf you can download that is a longer version of Obama's tax plan. Please do not get information on Obama's tax plan from McCain. Mark my words Obama promised and Obama will deliver.

I only said sailwind made more than $250,000. because he said "Thanks, Obama I worked hard played by the rules put some money in the bank and now I have to spread it around a little" If he has to spread it around then he would have to make more than $250,000. I really hope that is the case because I would have to say he is one successful retired sailor. But if it is because he just believed McCain's rhetoric then he will win anyway when Obama makes good on his promise. I'd call that win/win. But that assumes someone making over $250,000 is grateful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth said:

Several problems with that. Joe's business might be making a net profit of $250,000 - but that doesn't necessarily mean that Joe is taking $250,000 home with him. Profit has to be re-distributed into any business to a degree - even if this $250,000 does not include salaries to to other employees and basic necessities he might have to pay. Net profit isn't take home dollars. Joe likely won't become a millionaire as quickly as you folks seem to think.

It does mean he is taking home $250,000. if he is an S corporation as defined by the IRS. The simplest explanation may be provided by Wikipedia. But if you don't want to believe that Google it and it can be verified more than a thousand times over. I studied this in graduate level Business Law. You end up with the lack of personal liabilities like a corporation but you pay the taxes like an individual/family taxpayer. You can have up to 100 shareholders and there are really very few other requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain finally whipped Obama's "you know what," if by "you know what" he meant "opponent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain certainly put to rest any question of his vigor.

I have never seen an elderly man flail like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He (Joe the Plumber) could also be taxed (no double taxation) as an individual if he formed his company as an LLC. In any situation I would choose the LLC status because it allows total flexibility. Wait until the news comes out that peoples LLC's and S Corps. are not causing them higher taxes below $250,000 and a tax break below $200,000. This will probably not occur (the realization) until their accountant hands the shareholder's the bill and their individual tax filings. You may see an influx of voters to the Democratic Party.

Again with both the LLC and the S corporation you use the standard deductions like a corporation and determine the bottom line the same except taxes are not taken out of the entity they "flow through" as they say to your individual tax filing. If you own a 'C' Corporation you are actually getting taxed twice; once at the corporate level and another time for your capital gains and/or income from salary. Of course all companies must pay FICA for their employees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth,

I really don't think that anyone other than Joe is concerned about how quickly Joe becomes a millionaire. I have no doubt that if Joe is earning above $250K, provides a good service and has satisfied customers and is able to subcontract with developers and what have you, that Joe has the possibility of being a millionaire. Obama's tax plan might delay that by 6 or 7 months.

Suppose gets hit, at some point, with an additional $5K in taxes. Not enough to hire an employee. If he's paying an employee $40K (and being generous say he's spending a like amount on benefits--so $80K) and making say $250K profit, Joe has a tough decision. Should he give his employee a raise and personally take a $5K hit, should he not give his employee a raise or should he terminate his employee? Taking the $5K hit is an investment in his business. Not giving the raise keeps Joe safe and maybe doesn't even hurt the employee because of the tax breaks the employee gets from Obama. Terminating his employee--the "productivity enhancement" tool of "wealthy industrialists"--seems like a fairly silly option for Joe.

Additionally, going back to those benefits, Obama helps Joe pay for those benefits. Obviously as Joe climbs higher in profit, Obama will assist him less and tax him more. What's the problem? Nobody is "punishing the wealthy". That is a very odd concept. What is happening is that the government is requiring that the wealthy give back to the society that enabled their wealth.

Spreading the wealth is about the only way you can feed a multitude with a basket of fish and a basket of loaves. That and soup kitchens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way SezWho2 I did not see you explanation to sailwind before I posted my initial tax comment. Good job by the way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I mean, "Suppose Joe gets hit...", etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gooddonkey I believe you. But that doesn't change my precept that just because you've been successful that you should be punished, and that in particular taxing a small business that might be successful is a bad practice economically. I'm certainly not an economist, but I think it fair (a no brainer)to say that a business must make money to be successful. If you are taxed at a greater rate for your sucess - where is the incentive to succeed? And in my estimation, success in small business means a stronger economic base, more jobs and a growing economy.

Perhaps I don't fully understand the entirety of Mr. Obama's plan, or the Democrat's basic tenant of 'tax and spend'. Common sense tells me that raising taxes for the rich and big companies, while it might not be pleasant for them, it is sustainable and a burden they can absorb. So far so good in raiing capital I suppose. In this case I should think the small successful business, or the medium sized businesses will feel the brunt. How much of our economic sector does this encompass? I don't know if I buy Obama's '95% will not be affected' promise. Either way, if these businesses - which I would assume employ a good or at least significant sector of the American work force - are taxed at a higher rate due to their success - won't this have a detrimental affect? I should think this would slow job growth rate and even stunt business growth to a degree, all of which means fewer jobs in a recession where so many are already screwed. Again, I'm no economist and if someone can explain to me how this is going to grow the economy I'd be happy to listen.

I would also venture that some of the larger (read richer) companies are hit even harder then this will have effect as well. While most of us find them evil (myself included) large companies often get tax breaks for a reason - to promote growth and grow the economy. A necessary evil if you will. If the economy is already going down the tubes, and we end these tax breaks and in fact tax them more - whether it's knee jerk reaction or not - they're going to scale back. That means job loss. That means more unemployed and more in need. In the end, doesn't this perpetuate the problem the tax break to the poorer masses and the re-distribution of wealth is trying to fix?

All I know is that I'm old enough to recall Jimmy Carter becoming president, and the subsequent economic disaster that ensued. My father lost his job for the first time ever, having started working at the end of the Great Depression. I'm just not convinced that economically Obama's plan is going to have the desired affect that he, and many of you, wish to believe. I hope I'm proven substantially wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho - Well, it is to a degree a punishment for being succesful. You have to pay more to the Feds for your business's success. I don't know if I'd say the society enables the wealth - the system does. So perhaps you're right in that the system can expect a higher payback. But the reason and success of the business belongs solely to the proprietor. His 'payback' to the system and society is to provide jobs and build the economy in a positive way (granted, not all do that, but in theory, and most do).

Your premise talks of a $5K 'hit' per employee - but you assume one employee. Talk about a dozen, then we're talking $60K and a hefty sum. As I later stated, this doesn't affect the large business; they can eat these expenses. But in the smaller/medium sized shops, it can be significant.

Plus we haven't talked about who we're redistributing this wealth to, circumstances and means. Look, I'm all for helping out those in need. But even my wife, who's as liberal as they come and a Social Worker by profession admits that there are fundamental problems in the social welfare system and those programs designed to help the unfortunate. Fraud, theft, misuse of funds. How about talk of cleaning that up?

I think more of my point here is that people - even intelligent people - grasp at something as being the answer without looking at it in 3 dimensions. It's the old law of action/reaction. What sounds great isn't always the case. Just as case in point - socialized health care. Everyone thinks it's great in countrys like Canada or the UK where they don't pay the dollars we do in health care. But there's a price. A friend of mine in the UK waited six weeks to get his tooth fixed. Another friend's mother-in-law had to go from Italy to Switzerland to get a life or death operation becuase in their socialized system they couldn't get the operation in time to save them. Free and cheaper comes at a price sometimes. I'd rather pay (aliet too much) than end up dead. But many in this country would clamor for socialized medical care as a great answer without examining the pitfals. Same goes in this with 'taxing the rich'. While it smells too much of Socialism to me, it has consequences as well. In these economic times only a fool wouldn't give pause to thought just because you want to vote party line. That goes for both parties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a question, the wealthiest 1% of Americans own 95% of everything but pay proportionately fewer taxes than the other 99%. Why shouldn't they pay more? Shouldn't they give more money to the government that is largely responsible for their wealth, whose services they avail themselves of? 250,000 a year is above the household median in even the richest neighborhoods. Why continue to put the weight of the taxes these people aren't paying on the poorest citizens? So Joe has to wait 5 months more to buy his business. Big deal. The cost of his success shouldn't be on our backs. As someone stated, Joe pays more taxes so that the people making less get a break, and can accually afford to hire Joe. Win/Win. Initially it will cause a loss, but the increase in lower working class capital will cause a boom in business as more people will be able to buy more things, more workers will be needed to meet demand, resulting in more jobs. Most if not all of the people in the 250,000+ range can afford the temporary loss.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW, he didn't say "5k per employee", he said that because Joe took a 5k hit ONE of his employees gets no raise or maybe gets fired.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The trouble with the thinking "tax the rich,give it to the poor" is that it will smooth the society AT FIRST but will create a backward, lazy society later! People will slowly slowly become lazier and lazier ,staying homes making babies and waiting for government's hand-outs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth

You really raise legitimate concerns. You mentioned job loss in larger corporations. It is a possibility. It becomes more of a possibility if they can't get commercial paper which is short term loans they use for payroll and other short term expenditures. I hope the $700 billion package will solve the credit crisis along with other world leaders who put up money. I think it is a risk to raise taxes on large corporations and I think you are wise to be leery of the backlash. You can also bet that a financial adviser, whether that be an accountant or another business expert, is going to do a cost benefit analysis on capital spending, hiring and development. They will show management where taxes effect each scenario. Capital spending, hiring and development each have their place when a company is seeking growth. So I do not want to pretend that raising taxes on the wealthy and large corporations is a panacea we have ignored until now. I don't see corporations and rich people as evil. I judge both entities on there merits. I find oil companies making windfall profits to be a little disturbing when energy prices were hurting our economy. I am willing to do the experiment of raising taxes on the wealth corporations and individuals. I hope that the results will be evaluated carefully and adjusted if necessary. Right now Obama has some of the best Economists and business minds in the world at his disposal.

If it sounds like I did not answer your question of how it is possible to make the plan work then you are correct. I can admit I don't have the answers. I do however remember a time when Clinton was president and he raised taxes and the economy grew. The corporations were growing at a rate greater than the effect of a greater tax burden would have on hampering the hiring of new employees so unemployment was ridiculously low.

Someone on JT had the audacity to say Clinton did not have any years of budget surplus. They said he spent the surplus. Duh! that would be part of the budget and reduce or eliminate the surplus. He did have some years in which the United States had a budget surplus.

There are many actions Clinton took to help grow the economy. One action that people just don't understand is economic diplomacy. He used his staff to garner more trade for the U.S. Also many will scoff at this but when a greater portion of the world loves us they will buy more of our goods. You will see a huge portion of the world take a sigh of relief when Obama becomes president. The world is just waiting to fall in love with America all over again. They loved us during the Clinton years and that was a significant factor in foreign trade. Fortunately the world has learned that a unilaterally minded president like Bush will be gone and someday they will get a president who listens as well as he or she speaks.

Tigermoth, I enjoyed your comments. I did not want to bs you so I said it was a risk to raise taxes. In other words I don't know for sure what the effect will be. I do trust them to adjust policy accordingly. By the way here are his current economic advisers: Paul Volcker, who incidentally was appointed by Jimmy Carter and began the task of lowing inflation before Regan was president by limiting the growth of the money supply. It was under Volcker not Greenspan that Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983 (I really like Greenspan also). Lawrence Summers, former Sec. of Treasury. Warren Buffet, well his greatest claim to fame is being Warren Buffet. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary. Paul O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ought oh!

Turns out that “Joe the Plumber,” as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, may run a plumbing business but he is not a licensed plumber. His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes a bit in back taxes.

Betcha this is just the tip of the iceberg!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anot Susagami - Sorry, you're right on the 5K thing - read it wrong. Would you want to be the one employee that took the hit or got the axe? One sacrificed for the good of the many I suppose.

Certainly I think the wealthy should pay their share, but not inordinately so - and that's where thoughts differ. It's almost as if the left wants to go after the successful with a 'damn you for being successful, pay up you bastards'. You state that the government is responsible for their wealth - why do you think that? I think that individual drive and initiative is responsible for their wealth. Certainly government help comes afterwards; undoubtedly part of that is 'greasing the cogs' as they say - but part of it is a legitimate attempt to keep them feeding the economy. You seem to think that if no one was rich we could be much better off; redistribution of wealth. It's called Socialism and furthers to Communism. It's pretty much proven not to work becuase humans are far too greedy, and it certainly wouldn't work with the lot we have in this country. Many people would argue that Obama is a Socialist, and the parallels are clear.

All I'm saying is that everyone wants a free lunch, but there's a price to pay at the end. Tax the wealthy; tax the hell out of them! But it's going to have far reaching effects on the economy that are going to be detrimental in the recession that we're slowly (or quickly) plunging into. And while Barrack says that it will only affect those making over $250,000 - how many times have politicians changed their stances, or numbers, once power was grasped. Remember the old 'read my lips' quote? Just because that was a Republican doesn't mean both sides don't play the game. Whe the belt tightens the gloves come off.

I think everyone should be taxed at the same percentage rate. If you make $12,000 per year, quite obviously you're going to pay a tiny fraction of what someone making $500,000 or $5 Million will pay. But why should one segment be told 'you'll get a tax break because you only work at Wal-Mart' while the successful business man is told 'you'll pay %37'. You see that as fair, I see it as essentially a punishment for success. It's like telling a smart kid you'll only pay for him to go to school for a week, while the less intelligent one gets a full scholarship. Maybe it's not the Wal-Mart employee's fault - he/she tried. Maybe they dropped out of school or just aren't very smart. Why should the rich be required to make up for their shortfall? This view horrifies liberals, just as the 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps and survival of the fittest' horrifies liberal sociologists. I'm more of a realist than a political leaner. I don't have a great job making tons of money - but that's not the fault of the rich, nor the fault of anyone else except myself. I don't possess the drive, determination and self-motivation to be one of the wealthy. But that's my fault and I've at least got bullocks enough to admit to it and take repsonsibility for myself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why support parties or candidates? Neither of these guys are going to fix the global slump, presidents just don't have that much control. I have personally stopped caring because neither one will deliver anything meaningful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In reading some of these posts, which debate where the tax burden should fall, there's little sense of why the government taxes in the first place, namely to meet its own financial obligations. Since tax revenues over the past eight years have been insufficient to cover those expenses, Uncle Sam should have been forced to either cut spending, difficult to do given many publicly-supported "layabouts" are in fact retirees, or ask the citizenry to cough up more.

Instead the GWB administration has pursued another option, that is borrowing to balance the books. This places an onerous tax burden on future generations of course, who had no chance to participate in the current debate about the relative merits of soaking the rich versus levying a flat tax on all.

The Chinese have evinced interest in buying another round of treasury bonds which will be auctioned off to pay for the Wall Street bail-out. Why are they willing? Well, they've created a consumer good manufacturing juggernaut second to none in human history. But Chinese domestic consumption is insufficient to snap it all up, hence they need to export. The good ole USA, wonders never cease, is their primary market and they would rather have Americans buying their junk than paying higher taxes. Sounds good to most of us as well, after all who wouldn't prefer a flat-screen TV to a cancelled check to the IRS?

Crunch times comes when our consumption falls off, as it certainly will over the next year. Then the Chinese may wish to put their money somewhere else other than buying our debt. Where will the money come from to pay for the stimulus packages aimed at getting the US economy out of recession? That's the question which needs to be addressed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth -

I think everyone should be taxed at the same percentage rate. If you make $12,000 per year, quite obviously you're going to pay a tiny fraction of what someone making $500,000 or $5 Million will pay.

Well, yes and no. If you make $12,000 a year and need $10,000 for food, housing, clothing and education for your kids, you've got a margin of $2,000, or roughly 17% of your income. If you make $500,000 and because you live high need $100,000 for the same basic needs, you have a margin of $400,000, or roughly 80% of your income. Charging both these people at the same percentage rate of say 10% means that one guy is paying $1,200 or 60% of his 'spare' money in taxes, while the other guy is paying $50,000 which looks like a lot in comparison but is actually only 12.5% of his 'spare' money. (I'm taking numbers off the top of my head for ease of illustration - real numbers are different, but you get the idea.)

One other thing I don't understand about this 'It's wrong to tax the rich' business - The War President claimed the rich & elite as his 'base'. If they're the ones who supported him in his policies, what's wrong with getting them to foot the bill for his failure to budget properly? If 90+% of America initially supported the invasion of Iraq, shouldn't there be an increase in taxes across the board to pay for it? What gives with all this talk of cutting taxes in a time of war - and then asking other countries to pay for America's bogged-down military activities?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth, you said:

Many people would argue that Obama is a Socialist, and the parallels are clear.

Could you please explain what those clear parallels are. I do know that the number one attribute of socialism is ownership of businesses and financial institutions; as well as land such as farms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The War President claimed the rich and elite as his 'base'. If they're the ones who supported him in his policies, what's wrong with getting them to foot the bill for his failure to budget properly?"

You know nothing about America. The Democrats are now the party of the super rich.

Think George Soros. Think Ned Lamont. Oprah. John Kerry and his billionairehead wife.

"Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich" Michael Franc 11 4 2007

(Author uses IRS data.)

"This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence."

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto110420071235381693

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know nothing about America. The Democrats blah blah blah...

Where did I mention party affiliations? Bush had a popularity rating over 90 immediately after the invasion of Iraq, meaning that over 90% of Americans (of all political affiliations) thought that starting a war was a good idea.

So now it's time to pay. It isn't a question of 'taxing the rich to give to the poor'; it's taxing everybody so that the country can pay its way. If Americans don't like having to pay for the wars they start, maybe they'll think about electing a president who isn't gungho.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo,

The U.S. needs to quit spending more money than we bring in. Taxing people does not actually bring in more money in the long run. Historically, revenues increase when tax rates decrease. There is an inverse proportionality to this that liberals don't seem to buy. If companies have more money to spend, then they invest more in production, and keep people employed. They conduct more B2B operations (more revenues for the gov't too), and their employees buy more stuff (because they're employed...more revenues). The 2001 and 2003 U.S. tax cuts showed a definite positive relationship with respect to our federal revenues. Now, I believe that tax cuts are only half of the issue. Reductions in spending are also a vital part of the problem. The U.S. can eliminate the deficit with the stroke of a pen, but refuses to do so (Pelosi and Reid aren't big on spending cuts...neither is Obama). Our new fiscal reality is that we can no longer afford to put capital gains taxes and corporate taxes at a rate that is 3 times that of other industrialized nations (U.S. is 35%, Ireland is 11%...where do you think companies would prefer to go?).

With respect to the war: We faced a new national reality after 9/11, but the fact that the U.S. has long since been the target of terrorist regimes is nothing new. After we assisted the Mujahadeen to free Afghanistan from the Soviets, they turned on us because we didn't stick around. Afghanistan was ground zero for operations against the U.S., but we let them slip off of our radar after 1979-1980. After 9/11 we amplified our radar, and any nation that even looked at us funny was going to be in for some serious trouble. Saddam Hussein threatened the destruction of Israel, had bombed almost all of his neighboring countries (Israel, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, to name a few), and he wanted us to believe he had WMD. Sorry, but that was a dumb idea in a post 9/11 world. You would also do well to learn a little more about international political economy. The U.S. is not broke because of the Iraq war. In fact, we're spending per capita much less than in any serious conflict prior (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea...).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where did I mention party affiliations?

Here:

The War President claimed the rich and elite as his 'base'.

Unless you are now saying 90 percent of the country fits the description of 'rich and elite'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The rich and elite are democrats, republicans and others. it means exactly what it says don't read your own views in it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Baldie -

I'm not interested in the whys and wherefores; if the majority of Americans are happy to have the country in a virtually permanent state of war, for whatever reason, that's their choice; but they need to be prepared to foot the bill for their actions. Whether Iraq is costing more or less than other wars is also quite beside the point; If I have an empty wallet today then I cannot afford even a cheap meal, regardless of whether I was eating gourmet yesterday (or perhaps because I was eating gourmet yesterday....)

If the US is not broke, please pay for your own wars (by raising taxes from the people who supported the war) instead of asking other countries (whose people did not support the war) to pay for you while your own people get a free ride in the form of tax cuts.

I do understand all the stuff about tax cuts helping the economy/tax hikes hurting the economy; perhaps if people hurt a little bit they'll be less ready to support politicians who are eager to drop bombs, and we'll all be better off (in many ways) in the long run.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic -

Sorry if I confused you.

Two separate arguments: 1) 'It's wrong to tax the rich, it's wrong to punish people for being successful' and 2) 'There should be tax cuts for the lower-paid'.

1) I see nothing wrong with taxing the rich at a higher rate than the not-rich; as I explained above, an across-the-board tax rate is not equitable, but places a disproportionate burden on the less well-paid. In America's case, Bushie claims the rich as his own, so it's only fair to ask them to pay a fair share in bailing out his failed policies.

2) If a country's economy is doing well and there's money to spare, then passing on that wealth to the man in the street in the form of tax goods is a good thing. But when the economy is not doing well - the country is at war (on two fronts) and the economy is being compared to the Great Depression - then demanding/promising tax cuts seems sheer folly. Especially when some posters are happy to remind us, when it suits their argument, that even poor people in America have a higher standard of living, in terms of number of cars/TV sets/etc than the supposedly comfortable middle classes of other nations.

If people, rich and poor, find they have to pay for the wars they start, maybe there'll be fewer wars started, at least by the so-called democracies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having recorded and edited the debate down to McCain's silences / grimace / eye bulges and huffs I now have a good opportunity to teach children a little about "Stranger Danger".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth,

Thank you for your response. It seems that there was some confusion about the "$5K hit", but it now seems to be cleared up, so let me address a couple of your other points.

You seem to me to put down an individual's success entirely to that individual's own efforts. I don't think that is true. I think individual effort is very important. However, so is luck--being in the right place at the right time with the right offering. So is social approval of your product. (No matter how hard they worked, the dealers just couldn't get those Edsel dealerships off the ground.) We are all connected. And if we can dare to make the judgment that the executive of a failing financial organization should forgo the contractual compensation for which he worked, I'm not sure why we should scruple at asking any high-income person to pay more.

As to who we are benefiting in increasing the taxation on lower income people, I don't think there is any doubt that your wife has seen some things that make her doubt the system. But that system's have been put in place for all who meet the criteria of those programs. Yes, there is fraud, theft and misuse of funds. I'm certainly in favor of cleaning that up. Is anyone not in favor of it? But look at the other end of the spectrum--the banks, the insurance companies, those on which Obama's tax increases will most impact. There's fraud, theft and misuse of funds. Unless you have reason to believe one is worse than another, that doesn't seem to be a good reason not to tax or not to design benefit programs.

Finally, if you want to think of taxes in terms of punishment, I guess that's OK, but to me it's a very strange way of looking at it. There is no upper limit on the amount of wealth that a person can accumulate. Punishment would be taking money away from people--taxing someone more than a dollar for every dollar earned. Taxing someone ninety cents on the dollar might remove the incentive for someone to increase his pre-tax income from $1,000,000 to $1,000,001. But looked at another way, how much marginal effort would be required to effect that increase?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six."

Why that's more expensive and potentially damaging to health than an ongoing war of liberation in Iraq isn't it?

They can have their lobsters and I'll toast them to less death on a global scale and paranoia in your backard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six."

I guess the wife of a presidential candidate can't have a nice dinner now. They all eat caviar, drink champagne, and fly on private jets. They are politicians, they don't dine at Denny's. What were you thinking?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six."

I can't imagine her getting through all that by herself. But if it was her own money, who cares? Anyway, what do you think Cindy McCain orders up from room service? Cheese on toast?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six."

When you have one house and one car instead of more homes and cars than you can count, you tend to have cash left over for room service.

And I like the "Iranian" detail here. Those Obama's are so thick with the I-rainyuns they eat I-rainyun caviar!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama reviewed one of William Ayers' books way back in 1997.

He lied in that debate.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=64

More proof that Obama worked closely with William Ayers the failed domestic terrorist and that he lied and continues to lie about his association with an unrepentant marxist nutjob.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain should have released this, and should have done it weeks ago.

Devastating.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=TfF15cUc9AM

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cmon, people, get a life. Please please please...

No deal.

President Obama to win on November 4, 2008, and every day after that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

For once we agree. McCain should have released that weeks ago.

Devastatingly ridiculous and patently false.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites