Obama Or Mccain?

[clibinarius]

I happen to think there's more than two paths this country can take. I'm seriously looking over Nader. I'm not sure the change the country needs, and I'm certainly not a Nader supporter, but voting for Obama fails to demonstrate any particular change. I don't take any politicians at their words and if enough people had faith in a third party, you might actually see change.

The idea that there are only two paths for America is one that is started by partisans who would rather glorify their ideas, hide their corruption, and ignore anyone's accomplishments. I would argue there's two paths if you ignore the congress and the third parties. If you add in the congress, there's over 1000 paths. If you add in the third parties...you get the point. After all, the Democrats voted for the War. Clinton bombed the hell of Iraq, as well as Serbia. Elliot Spitzer was cutting education and raising tolls. In fact, Democrats have started the Mexican American War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam...and you think they'll stop a war they promised to end, despite having voted for it and currently have a majority in both houses? They could shut down the government for god's sake-Gengrich did it! And did it hurt the Republicans? Let's see...they won in 1994...1996...1998...2000...2002...2004...That's a pretty good string. What's Harry Reid so afraid of? Losing Reelection? That's right-Nevada is Republican. The Democrats won't pick a senator from a safe seat-they need to do it to a red state because they want pork to get the residents to keep voting blue. It saved Tom Daschle! Wait...No, yeah, it saved Daschle, because no one has ever heard of Sen. Thune.

Mind you I'm not saying McCain's better. McCain has supported the dumb policies of Bush under most circumstances, only protesting to make the policies dumber. The only thing that separates the two to me is that when McCain screws up, Joe Lieberman (supposed Democrat, abandoned by the party for Republican Patrician and "Whites Only" club member Ned Lamont because he was rich and ran on one issue) whispers corrections in his ear.

And people like John Stewart-a personal friend of McCain as well as being personally very pro-Obama (and not wanting to be anti-Clinton) say that this is a strong field? If the country continues believing the Republicans and Democrats are to save us...Ron Paul (or someone in that tradition) will (eventually) win...and people who have actually read through Ron Paul's record without being zealots would be seriously disturbed at what he stands for. "But he wants to eliminate the federal reserve and he wants to end the Iraq War!"-So do a lot of Democrats. He also wants to make it illegal for you to bring a case before the supreme court. He wants to negate most treaties the US has signed with foreign countries. He surrounded himself in the 1990s with Neo-Nazis, such as Lew Rockwell. Nevermind all of that. He wants to end the war, man. It doesn't matter that something he does is liked by David Duke and Don Black. Oh yeah, he's also not someone who supports Israel. Now, that might be fine. I can understand a lot of people with criticism-see Chuck Hagel's complaints about Israel's bombing of Lebanon-even if I don't agree with the motivation. Isn't there something wrong with an OBGYN who is supported by Neo-Nazis, has had racist statements in his name despite disavowing them (after saying that they represented him on more than one occaison) opposing affirmative action, calling blacks potential terrorists, supporting war spending against the USSR leaving the country with a MASSIVE debt-does anyone see how this could make someone suspicious of his beliefs regarding Jews and anyone else on his opinions on the war on terror?

Mind you if the politicians weren't so full of it this Crypto-Nazi (as stated, his policies are very popular with Nazis, even if he believes in them) whom would've plead for peace with the Nazis in the 1940s wouldn't get much attention. As for opposing the war, one of Paul's reasonings was "it is destroying the party"-as if that's all that mattered. The Whigs were destroyed too, and we as a country moved forward.

Ron Paul rant aside...if you honestly believe what possible good Barack Obama will bring, please, tell me. Kennedy spoke a lot about hope and change and...wait... Edited July 2, 2008 by clibinarius

[clibinarius]

Winter tell me what just does experience get us????? Nothing! Bush has way more experience than kerry ddi, and look where it has gotten us. Another thing is yes I DO believe in change, no one has ever gotten me more motivated than obama. And I dont know if you missed it or not, but al gore mad some fantastic points in his backing of obama about his experience issue. And im sorry, but I gotta say fuck mccain he is the same as bush, and no im not saying the shit hilary was saying like mcbush. But if mccain is elected it will be the same administration 90% of it will stay in place, but a different devil running hell.

Vote Obama 08!

For the record, Kerry had FAR more experience than Bush did. Factually incorrect. Before he became president, he hadn't even been in another country or run a successful business. Kerry was-for better or worse-involved in foreign affairs for decades, as well as politics.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

Realistically, not idealistically speaking, we have two candidates to choose from this fall.

That's because most of America doesn't even care enough to vote let alone vote in a third party candidate. We are a nation full of apathetic, uninterested people.

I respect your idealism and knowlege Clib. You seem to have more than most in this thread, I just believe that if we, the voters, do what we can to buck the system at THIS particular junction it will take away from the dems potential for good, positive change and land more votes in the Republican's lap. I'm an independant BTW.

I think that for now the grass movement era in America is on hiatus and it'll take some serious shit for most to pull out of their personal lives, indulgences, and struggles and take interest in their society at large let alone a movement to bring about a serious political shift. Call me a hopeful cynic. Edited July 2, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[TheScotsman]

People who believe Obama will do this nation any good or justice are only deluding themselves beyond recognizable levels. Obama has his own agenda, McCain has his, neither are what the respective parties want from their own candidates. At least, however, I do not question McCain's motives. I question Obama's.

How and why? Is it because his name sounds foreign? Because you got the chain email saying he's a Muslim? Because the speeches are just too good?

Obama wants to change the direction this country is going in. From what I can see, its going in the shitter. Starbucks is closing 600 shops and firing 12000 workers. This will be the first time in several years there has been a net job loss nation-wide. If you really think McCain is going to do anything differently than Bush is, maybe you should take a gander at his voting record. 95% this year voting with Bush. Oil is hitting heights we've never seen. Who do you think is going to get us off oil quicker? McCain or Obama? I'm hedging my bet with Obama. "Let's drill our own reserves! It'll get the price down by 2015 if at all!" Please, we could be weaned off oil by then. Save the bullshit for the farm.

Man, if Obama comes to a sudden stop, you are going to find your head half way up his ass with all that ass-kissing!

Starbucks is failing because when people are dumping a bone in the petrol tank they have nothing to spend on a 6$ cup of coffee!
When a load of autoworkers get the boot, they won't have any coffee money either... more starbucks will close.

Israel is practicing maneuvers that "look" allot like planning a strike on Iran, Iran talking about shutting down the straight if Israel attacks their nuke program, and US admirals are saying that would constitute an act of open war, and would not be allowed happen. It is safe to assume Israel knows B. Hussein Obama is not a friend of the Jewish nation, and is looking toward closing Iran's nuke program in the case Obama comes out on top. Think not drilling is a good idea? Must be nice to be so happily naive.

Speeches good from the guy that said Ummmm 144 times in 12 minutes. The writers are good, he bites on an unscripted interview, exactly why he is avoiding taking McCain on in the open town-hall debates. How about, rather than telling us a "spending plan", tell us a way he is going to SAVE money! He can't seem to grasp the fact you can not spend your way out of debt! If you think the nation is in a mess now, wait until the mid east starts trading lead, GM, Ford, and Chrysler lock their doors.

No respect for posers, and that is all B. Hussein Obama is. He survives by appealing to those that envy what others have.

[Codename067]

Although I dont want him to, McCain will win.

As much as I want someone that does not think like Bush in office, I believe that McCain will take over for 4 years and then the Democrats will settle in.

Edit:

To each his own, but I am sorry if you believe that your vote counts, or have ever counted in Presidential races.

I do not believe in votes, I believe that everything is Pre-planned. And whatever the plan is, it will go according to how it was planned no matter what the public votes/says.

[Bulldog_916]

People who believe Obama will do this nation any good or justice are only deluding themselves beyond recognizable levels. Obama has his own agenda, McCain has his, neither are what the respective parties want from their own candidates. At least, however, I do not question McCain's motives. I question Obama's.

How and why? Is it because his name sounds foreign? Because you got the chain email saying he's a Muslim? Because the speeches are just too good?

Obama wants to change the direction this country is going in. From what I can see, its going in the shitter. Starbucks is closing 600 shops and firing 12000 workers. This will be the first time in several years there has been a net job loss nation-wide. If you really think McCain is going to do anything differently than Bush is, maybe you should take a gander at his voting record. 95% this year voting with Bush. Oil is hitting heights we've never seen. Who do you think is going to get us off oil quicker? McCain or Obama? I'm hedging my bet with Obama. "Let's drill our own reserves! It'll get the price down by 2015 if at all!" Please, we could be weaned off oil by then. Save the bullshit for the farm.

Man, if Obama comes to a sudden stop, you are going to find your head half way up his ass with all that ass-kissing!

Starbucks is failing because when people are dumping a bone in the petrol tank they have nothing to spend on a 6$ cup of coffee!
When a load of autoworkers get the boot, they won't have any coffee money either... more starbucks will close.

Israel is practicing maneuvers that "look" allot like planning a strike on Iran, Iran talking about shutting down the straight if Israel attacks their nuke program, and US admirals are saying that would constitute an act of open war, and would not be allowed happen. It is safe to assume Israel knows B. Hussein Obama is not a friend of the Jewish nation, and is looking toward closing Iran's nuke program in the case Obama comes out on top. Think not drilling is a good idea? Must be nice to be so happily naive.

Speeches good from the guy that said Ummmm 144 times in 12 minutes. The writers are good, he bites on an unscripted interview, exactly why he is avoiding taking McCain on in the open town-hall debates. How about, rather than telling us a "spending plan", tell us a way he is going to SAVE money! He can't seem to grasp the fact you can not spend your way out of debt! If you think the nation is in a mess now, wait until the mid east starts trading lead, GM, Ford, and Chrysler lock their doors.

No respect for posers, and that is all B. Hussein Obama is. He survives by appealing to those that envy what others have.

Are you seriously telling me that you would allow a big oil platform on your land behind your house or in your front yard? Yea right. And you're going to tell me it's safe to do it offshore too right? Nothing bad will ever happen if we drill in Alaska. Exxon and Shell are reputable, fine companies with an amazing safety record. Sure. Who's really more naiive here? We have all of the necessary energy right here in America, but we arent utilizing it. Vast expanses of open desert are available for solar panels. Huge swaths of windy non-buildable land in the midwest could go to wind power. To repeat a statistic that I did before, natural gas powered Honda cars are only available in California and New York! It's only about 40 bucks to fill up a tank or something on the whole of 2.55 a gallon and this is the highest it's ever been. WTF? Algae-produced bio-diesel could realistically be in mass production by 2015 if government and venture capital companies would invest heavily in it. Biodiesel is the wave of the future and it's either going to be THAT option, or the electric car, and it's mostly going to depend on the amount you travel per day. Oil is a finite resource that Shell or Exxon or Chevron would sell to China before it would sell to us if the price they paid was higher. They dont fucking care about the difficulties of the consumer, all they care about is their bottom line.

[clibinarius]

I support it. Does it hurt the environment? Perhaps. But why should we destroy the environments of other places? And won't it save energy costs not lugging things halfway through the planet? I for one don't use the hamptons, and I don't think they're worth saving any more than peasant homes in West Virginia. In fact, I'd rather gives those folks a break-maybe then they'll not be so racist when they vote. I mean, who suffers the most? Fishermen and people with high value real estate. And I'm concerned about the fishermen. I don't give a hoot about the high value real estate. Remember, Mass. killed windmills out at sea because they'd destroy the view from the Yachts...but they have no problem forcing people who can't afford it to pay higher gas prices, apparently...

Also drilling for oil might get money out of the hands of tyrants-though I'm not wanting to line the pocket of big oil. Maybe if Chavez didn't have excessive cash reserves to spend on worthless defense spending (I guess he thinks Brazil will invade? It won't help him against the US...) or if the price got dumped on the international market, people might have the gap between rich and poor closed in other countries which might *gasp* help create moderation not just in the obvious Islamic States but also countries like Israel which might sense a period of weakness and thus might have internal pressures to trust negotiation more...or Europe, which might not be dependent on Arab Oil and having these stupid integration policies which keep Arabs poor, angry and not considered European...it might also weaken the resolve to vote for people like National Front, which got 20% of the vote against Chirac...either way, it'll weaken the importance of foreign interests in the US. Isn't that worth something?

It might also help the economies of those with hyperinflation. Iran (which can't export much oil anymore) and Venezualia are sliding fast towards it. I think lower gas prices will fund saner governments.

Oh, bio fuels aren't an answer. We only have so much farmland. There are many starving people out there. You want to raise the food prices too? Food's been going out of control lately, and its only partially because of the weak dollar.

I think solar, wind, nuclear (fission and fusion) are the waves of the future. Though lord knows what we'll drive. Besides, bio fuels aren't exactly clean. Edited July 3, 2008 by clibinarius

[Bulldog_916]

I support it. Does it hurt the environment? Perhaps. But why should we destroy the environments of other places? And won't it save energy costs not lugging things halfway through the planet? I for one don't use the hamptons, and I don't think they're worth saving any more than peasant homes in West Virginia. In fact, I'd rather gives those folks a break-maybe then they'll not be so racist when they vote. I mean, who suffers the most? Fishermen and people with high value real estate. And I'm concerned about the fishermen. I don't give a hoot about the high value real estate. Remember, Mass. killed windmills out at sea because they'd destroy the view from the Yachts...but they have no problem forcing people who can't afford it to pay higher gas prices, apparently...

Also drilling for oil might get money out of the hands of tyrants-though I'm not wanting to line the pocket of big oil. Maybe if Chavez didn't have excessive cash reserves to spend on worthless defense spending (I guess he thinks Brazil will invade? It won't help him against the US...) or if the price got dumped on the international market, people might have the gap between rich and poor closed in other countries which might *gasp* help create moderation not just in the obvious Islamic States but also countries like Israel which might sense a period of weakness and thus might have internal pressures to trust negotiation more...or Europe, which might not be dependent on Arab Oil and having these stupid integration policies which keep Arabs poor, angry and not considered European...it might also weaken the resolve to vote for people like National Front, which got 20% of the vote against Chirac...either way, it'll weaken the importance of foreign interests in the US. Isn't that worth something?

It might also help the economies of those with hyperinflation. Iran (which can't export much oil anymore) and Venezualia are sliding fast towards it. I think lower gas prices will fund saner governments.

Oh, bio fuels aren't an answer. We only have so much farmland. There are many starving people out there. You want to raise the food prices too? Food's been going out of control lately, and its only partially because of the weak dollar.

I think solar, wind, nuclear (fission and fusion) are the waves of the future. Though lord knows what we'll drive. Besides, bio fuels aren't exactly clean.

#1: We arent destroying other environments that havent already been destroyed or have established oil fields on them already. There is an exchange rate issue here. Sure, not lugging it from halfway across the planet may help a little, but if Asia has a stronger currency and can pay the higher price, I ask you again, who do you think Exxon, BP and Shell are going to sell to? Us? Dont make me laugh. I recently read a National Geographic article highlighting the stealing of land from land owners in Wyoming, South Dakota, and Alaska. The federal government basically said, "We'll give you market value for this land and oil drillers will get to drill on it. If you dont take the deal, we will claim it as imminant domain, give you a token of what it's worth and kick you off ourselves." The land owners have since filed lawsuits in court and have been in this process for over 3 years. If you think the real estate in those places, minus maybe Alaska, are high-value, wow.

#2 Switching to clean energy would accomplish the same things and probably create jobs here. You wean yourself off the drug they are selling, you become more able to influence them with your allies' money. If it is optional, you give them the carrot or stick type treatment. We'll encourage ally countries A, B and C to buy oil from you, as opposed to them if you do the following things...A, B and C. If not, we'll encourage them to buy from your competitor. Or, "If you dont cease and desist in your evil ambitions, we'll be forced to place an embargo on your oil trading priviledges." It wouldnt affect us because we're independent of that influence.

#3 I dont think you read my post enough. Biofuels would be made from dry green waste, algae, and high-yield crops like hemp and switchgrass, leaving corn and soybeans alone. These would be for power applications like trucks, airplanes, and tractors. Electricity would be used for smaller commuter vehicles. The power would be generated by the methods I outlined above, solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, and the remainder would be made up of fossil fuels. The majority of American homes can be at least 50% powered by solar if they had the solar panels mounted on their rooves. Under conservation conditions, 90% can be powered by solar. If we can get clean coal power as well by sequestering the waste, that can accomplish carbon neutral coal burning which would undoubtedly add to the percentage of clean energy.

[TheScotsman]

People who believe Obama will do this nation any good or justice are only deluding themselves beyond recognizable levels. Obama has his own agenda, McCain has his, neither are what the respective parties want from their own candidates. At least, however, I do not question McCain's motives. I question Obama's.

How and why? Is it because his name sounds foreign? Because you got the chain email saying he's a Muslim? Because the speeches are just too good?

Obama wants to change the direction this country is going in. From what I can see, its going in the shitter. Starbucks is closing 600 shops and firing 12000 workers. This will be the first time in several years there has been a net job loss nation-wide. If you really think McCain is going to do anything differently than Bush is, maybe you should take a gander at his voting record. 95% this year voting with Bush. Oil is hitting heights we've never seen. Who do you think is going to get us off oil quicker? McCain or Obama? I'm hedging my bet with Obama. "Let's drill our own reserves! It'll get the price down by 2015 if at all!" Please, we could be weaned off oil by then. Save the bullshit for the farm.

Man, if Obama comes to a sudden stop, you are going to find your head half way up his ass with all that ass-kissing!

Starbucks is failing because when people are dumping a bone in the petrol tank they have nothing to spend on a 6$ cup of coffee!
When a load of autoworkers get the boot, they won't have any coffee money either... more starbucks will close.

Israel is practicing maneuvers that "look" allot like planning a strike on Iran, Iran talking about shutting down the straight if Israel attacks their nuke program, and US admirals are saying that would constitute an act of open war, and would not be allowed happen. It is safe to assume Israel knows B. Hussein Obama is not a friend of the Jewish nation, and is looking toward closing Iran's nuke program in the case Obama comes out on top. Think not drilling is a good idea? Must be nice to be so happily naive.

Speeches good from the guy that said Ummmm 144 times in 12 minutes. The writers are good, he bites on an unscripted interview, exactly why he is avoiding taking McCain on in the open town-hall debates. How about, rather than telling us a "spending plan", tell us a way he is going to SAVE money! He can't seem to grasp the fact you can not spend your way out of debt! If you think the nation is in a mess now, wait until the mid east starts trading lead, GM, Ford, and Chrysler lock their doors.

No respect for posers, and that is all B. Hussein Obama is. He survives by appealing to those that envy what others have.

Are you seriously telling me that you would allow a big oil platform on your land behind your house or in your front yard? Yea right. And you're going to tell me it's safe to do it offshore too right? Nothing bad will ever happen if we drill in Alaska. Exxon and Shell are reputable, fine companies with an amazing safety record. Sure. Who's really more naiive here? We have all of the necessary energy right here in America, but we arent utilizing it. Vast expanses of open desert are available for solar panels. Huge swaths of windy non-buildable land in the midwest could go to wind power. To repeat a statistic that I did before, natural gas powered Honda cars are only available in California and New York! It's only about 40 bucks to fill up a tank or something on the whole of 2.55 a gallon and this is the highest it's ever been. WTF? Algae-produced bio-diesel could realistically be in mass production by 2015 if government and venture capital companies would invest heavily in it. Biodiesel is the wave of the future and it's either going to be THAT option, or the electric car, and it's mostly going to depend on the amount you travel per day. Oil is a finite resource that Shell or Exxon or Chevron would sell to China before it would sell to us if the price they paid was higher. They dont fucking care about the difficulties of the consumer, all they care about is their bottom line.

Safe to do off shore, or not, Cuba is leasing offshore areas (less than 100 miles from Fl) to China, and India. If you think they are going to be careful, you have lost your mind. Tell me again, how much oil spilled after Katrina tore the hell out of a pile of oil rigs? Hmmm?

Since when does business care about anything but the bottom line?

It's not the cost of fuel that bothers me, its the damage to the economy that I worry about. Tomorrow I am going to do my usual weekend routine (a bit early for the fourth), I am going to haul my 8-71 huffed-572-powered-40+gal/hr alky-burning jet boat out to the lake behind my H2. It's not a problem I worry about. (Maybe I can find a prius to cut off and give the bird to just to make the day complete) What I do worry about is the effect of an untold number of baby-boomers starting to retire, and their 401's sinking like the Lusitania. It's going to fall on the younger generations to bail out those failing finances... along with GM, Ford, Boeing, and a pile of crooked financial institutions, not to mention people that bought a house worth double what they could afford.

Oh, by the way, the great Dem congressman we have sponsored a bill to ban wind turbines from areas frequented by birds... seem the dumb bastards (the birds, not the congressmen) have a propensity to crash into them and get killed.

Biodiesel is a joke. Go look at the numbers, it's only efficient if the unprocessed oil is less than 60 cents/gal. Corn conversion into oil is less efficient than ethanol production from corn. Just where do you think NG comes from? try oil drilling. The CNG powered honda is about 30% less than a petrol powered vehicle to operate... but it sucks... hard.

[Bulldog_916]

Then what do you suggest? Oil is running out, it doesnt replenish itself and the supplies we do have are constantly under threat from Israel or Venezuela or Russia or wherever you choose to make up a threat from. More drilling is going to get us nowhere. Clean alternatives will eventually free us from oil. We need to make eventually 10 years or less or else you along with everyone else including me are going to have a useless stack of metal shit in our driveways. If natural gas can power a fucking bus, then it can power a damn car. Natural gas isnt transported through the strait of Hormuz so any tension with Iran is null and void. America is going to have to make a choice. Do we want to keep paying between 8 and 10 dollars a gallon for gasoline, or do we want to free ourselves from that influence? We are heading toward recession and eventual depression. It's going to affect all of us. So we all need to be part of the solution.

And why do you care about baby boomers? They are going to be dead long before we are and we're the ones who have to live with this bullshit.

And as far as biodiesel goes:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfac...on_Capacity.pdf

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfac...mmonlyAsked.PDF

Plus, we already have distributors in practically every major city in the US. So the infrastructure is there, we just need to fuel it from something other than food crops. Edited July 3, 2008 by Bulldog_916

[Nabiscuit]

mccain baby. oboma is a socialist. nationalized healthcare!!! come on people we dont live in "A Brave New World". Haven't you all seen socialism fail before? this man and his socialist agenda has to be stopped. This country was made on core principles that the liberal/democratic party has failed to acknowledge. Like allowing CA judges to make law from the bench when they ruled on gay marriage!!!!!!

come on people do you all really want to pay for the bum on the side street to get the same medical coverage as you after you work endless hours in the office/job??? You dont get a choice! it will be another social security! no choice and most of us will never see that money. why dont we just let the government wipe our asses while there at it.

Seriously... what the F is oboma going to change? huh..... He has been a senator for 2 years. why do you think this man can run a country? this is insane.

Wow... I didn't know people like you actually existed.

[azcoyote]

I'm voting for Obama, albeit with some misgivings.

There are a number of interesting points that came up here, the economy, taxation, protectionism, the price of gasoline and government intrusion into private lives. Oh and the price of gas!

I predict great social upheaval in America and I think we have a better change of emerging as a republic with Dems in charge of the Federal Gov. We could very well end up with a police state if the GOP retains power. (How many signing statements were there?)

What American Don't want to Hear: , HOW TO HUNKER DOWN AND SURVIVE.
the "change" (depression) that's at our collective door.

To all of you tree haters out there in your SUV's and overpowered heavy luxury vehicles and motorboats, houseboats, airplanes and nitro racers. Recreational petrol users - Even though you are unconscionably selfish and wasteful, I want to say thanks for bringing this problem to a head. I want you to relish your joy riding, please buy all the gas while you still can, because the party's just about over. Unless you're a hedge fund manager, you will be parking it by this time next year. Permanently. Might as well enjoy it a few more times before it turn into a $50,000 pile of useless junk.

Find a home-based job or start a small scale local business. Or get a job you can access through public transportation or bicycle. You're daily commute is going to break you financially, if it hasn't already. Many formerly middle class folk are spending 2/3rds of their income on transportation. You can earn a whole lot less money from home to sustain the same lifestyle.

With the time saved not commuting - probably ten hours a week or more - plant a "victory garden." It saved countless Brits from malnutrition during and after WWII, and you probably need the exercise! Your investment in producing fresh food insures it's untainted by salmonella - generally a lot more wholesome. Considering the cost of a buck a tomato at the market, a garden can have really help home budgets. I predict a 50 percent rise in the price of food by this time next year. When you add up all the energy inputs required to put some fresh green beans on your plate, you can feel good about growing your own on many levels. Grow some tobacco too, it probably won't be banned, but subjected to whithering taxes.

If planting a garden is impractical for you, support local farmers and buy at farmer's markets or subscribe to CSA. Alternately you can join - or start a food cooperative. A lot of people will find it an attractive proposition in the coming months. Help run the market for a few hours a month; it will save you a lot of money.

Pay off your credit card debt. They can change the terms of your debt at any time. You are powerless to object. Get out of that morass ASAP.

Heating your home to sub-tropical levels this winter will be very costly. Be happy if you can keep your plumbing from freezing. If you can upgrade your insulation, windows and doors, or just new weather stripping and calking..it won't take long to recoup the cost. Get some warm clothes and good boots. You will have to face the elements. A feather comforter kept our pioneer ancestors warm - and alive - in unheated cabins with temperatures down to -40 or less. Don't panic, but be prepared.

We live in a global economy and it was inevitable that we should end up living like the rest of the developed world. It is a terrible wrench in that the changes are happening so quickly, but there were plenty of warning signs...most of us chose to ignore them, except maybe them crazy tree huggin' hippies!

Now this may surprise some to hear me say it... a born in Massachusetts liberal...I say get a gun and learn how to use it. Some people will get very desperate for food and shelter .... and you may not wish to "share" with them. They will have guns. If you feared the Dem's would take your guns, they can't - the Supreme Court made law and you have no further excuse to vote republican.

Because of the global nature of the petroleum market, don't expect that more drilling on US lands or offshore will obtain lower prices at the pumps. We will pay the world price for crude regardless of where it comes from. We will be bidding against the rest of the world with a dollar that's shrinking in value by the hour. Beyond lease payments, oil companies are under no financial or moral obligation to subsidize our ravenous appetite for gas and diesel.

In one respect, Obama's relative lack of experience is a positive. He owes few favors to lobbyists for big oil, big ag, and big pharma. And let's not forget McCain's darlings...the bloated military industrial complex. These interests will have to give up a lot for most Americans to prosper. Framing the debate in socialist vs capitalist will not improve our chances of success. We are tired of fear mongering from the right. Governments that combine elements of socialism and capitalism achieve far higher marks than we do when measuring some important things - education, health, wages, employment, social welfare and national security.

Business interests, the traditional Republican base, has enjoyed a feast much akin to the golden age which ended on Black Friday in 1929. Many of the controls subsequently established to prevent a similar collapse were dismantled under broad deregulations by a Republican-controlled congress. We are undoubtedly in for one rough ride as the perfect financial storm gathers...

This is important. The rest of the world seems to have a lot of enthusiasm for Obama. Aside from his inclusive rhetoric, his face will go a long way to demonstrate objectively that America is a meritocracy. Not a rich white boys club. Although it's a challenging concept to many in the GOP, we can't go it alone anymore. We can't persist in flipping off the rest of the world expecting them not to kick us when we're down. We are down now. The military is stretched so thin and is so damaged by serial deployments can we no longer wield the power we once did. We are like a paper tiger.

Not to be all glum about it, just mention you're from hookah forum and I'll slip you some extra crackers for your soup.

[anathema]

@scottsman: obama is good at giving speeches, mccain isn't but mccain is good at debates. so if you were obama, you'd avoid that debate also since it takes two people to have a debate, and only one person to give a speech.

though obama does need new material in his speeches, maybe he already does, haven't been keeping up.

@bulldog: keep paying $8-10/gallon? where do u live, i'll ship u some gasoline for 7.50/gallon, i take paypal. no point here, i'm actually for the high prices of gas, so people will use less, people only know how to talk in money. also i'm sure you can buy a natural gas car yourself, then install a natural gas refilling station at your home.

as for retirement, we dont pay for our retirement, our kid's taxes will. so as the baby boomers get old, we're paying for their retirement now and there isn't a big enough "kid base" to pay for it. that's the idea behind that. then you have the omg government overspending because they got extra tax money from the baby boomers when they were kids paying taxes.

[r1v3th3ad]

I dont like either candidate...

I was all for Ron Paul

I'm gonna have to go for the lesser of two evils and go Obama....If I vote McCain I'd be voting to send myself to war.

If draft returns, I'm dodging...I'll be hiding in the woods with my arsenal

[nestormakhno]

Which is why we shouldn't even be there now. It was stupid to even go in. Last I checked Obama was the only senator to step up tp bush and say NO we should not be invading with no behalf.

I completely agree that we should leave iraq in a better state then when we got there. just seems like its not going to happen. iraq is a quagmire...always has been. Dont know if there is much the U.S can do to make it a "democracy".

I was trying to read this post to the end, but that particular part inflamed me. Boulder, if you're going to sing his praises, check your facts. Obama wasn't even in the US Senate when the vote went down. What he may or may not have supported or thought is, therefore, completely irrelevant.

On the subject of McCain vs. Obama, I despise both, and will therefore abstain from voting. I live in California, so my "voice" doesn't count, anyway. The bulk distribution of electoral votes here will mean that Obama will probably capture all of California.

McCain is very much out of touch with reality. This is the first time in forever that he remembered that he's a member of the Republican Party and should probably stop trying to separate himself from it if he wants its support. The only problem is, he has changed his positions and flip-flopped to a point of extremely transparent pandering, which, I think, should be insulting to the GOP (as McCain now thinks that they can be bought with a simple change of ideology). Provided that he evens out toward November, McCain stands to ride the coattails of his military service right into the White House. Say what you will, but certain facts are undeniable:
1.) Americans, statistically, find him trustworthy, and he has shown himself, in the past, to be different from the rest of the GOP
2.) He has - yes - experience, and I believe that he will take a hard line in foreign policy that Obama could never have fathomed
3.) He has gracefully - and, thankfully - kept his hand out of social policies, which means that abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc will probably remain untouched for the duration of his presidency

Obama, on the other hand, is the rockstar agent of this ambiguous "change." Change looks great on paper, but he has no substance of any sort to back it up. I read his "platform," the one that was released at the start of the primaries. It was an embarrassment to a capitalist nation, and could be summarized in one sentence: "I will tax the shit out of you so that someone who has the bodily capacity to work doesn't have to." He said nothing of revising the welfare system, which is a disorganized, incoherent drag on our budget. Instead, he plans to socialize health care and give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Thanks, Barack, but no thanks. I don't work in America so that I have to undergo income leveling. I can move back to Europe for that. Also, why should I pay, through taxes, for someone who doesn't pay taxes? Sounds like racketeering to me.

His energy plans are even more laughable. He can pimp the Prius Mentality all he wants, but at the end of the day, he wants to tax oil companies. Where do you think that tax is going to go, Jimmy Carter? Surely, it can't go to the consumer! That would make far too much economic sense. The Scotsman was right: with Obama in office, gas will skyrocket.

In defense of the drilling: Ted Stevens has been writing odes about drilling Alaska for the five thousand years that he's been in Senate. The people of Alaska support it as well. Why have we not lowered our dependence on foreign oil by drilling our own? Because the hippies of California have deemed it that an energy crisis is much less severe than the death of the three caribou that inhabit the drillable grounds. We should drill not because we don't have enough oil (we do; at present, supply and demand intersect at $60 a barrel; the problem is the market speculation), but because increasing the supply of oil would automatically make oil futures less profitable to speculators.

Oh, Obama's foreign policy. This one makes me warm inside. He called Israel a stain on foreign relations (good job, dufus, for shitting all over the Jewish lobby, a MAJOR contributor to elections). He wouldn't know what to do with Iran if Ahmadinejad wrote him an instruction manual. And the war in Iraq? It's at a standstill. The US government overlooked a tiny issue when the war was started: that Saddam Hussein was, ironically, the only stabilizer in the region. Now, there's a full-blown civil war and we can't do anything about it. The only option is to Vietnamicize the hell out of there, before our debt escalates even more.

This one is for Boulder again: There's a popular, CIA-based theory (and I mean, from people who have worked for the CIA and no longer do, despise the organization, write angry memoirs, etc) that it was Clinton's continued negligence toward funding more Middle East-based programs for the CIA that caused 9/11. Even in 2001, there were very few people in the Agency who spoke Arabic. That doesn't happen overnight. As for "senseless wars" (since Iraq isn't a war, and neither was Afghanistan, let's call them "engagements"), kindly recall Bosnia and Mogadishu. Although both encounters were very brief and the former ended rather pleasantly, how would you ignore that?

But back to Obama. I'm sorry, kids, but I can't trust the flaming tirades of a man who can't answer a question straight (for reference, recall his thirty-second, "um... uh..."-filled response during the Las Vegas debate to the question of driver's licenses for illegals) or who has no economic backing, experience, logic, or anything, really, aside from a cutesy slogan and a pseudo-populist mentality. I can't wait for him to get eviscerated by McCain during debates, not because I like Ol' John, but because I think it will be hilarious, since Obama fails unscripted.

Cheers!

[Bulldog_916]

Which is why we shouldn't even be there now. It was stupid to even go in. Last I checked Obama was the only senator to step up tp bush and say NO we should not be invading with no behalf.

I completely agree that we should leave iraq in a better state then when we got there. just seems like its not going to happen. iraq is a quagmire...always has been. Dont know if there is much the U.S can do to make it a "democracy".

I was trying to read this post to the end, but that particular part inflamed me. Boulder, if you're going to sing his praises, check your facts. Obama wasn't even in the US Senate when the vote went down. What he may or may not have supported or thought is, therefore, completely irrelevant.

On the subject of McCain vs. Obama, I despise both, and will therefore abstain from voting. I live in California, so my "voice" doesn't count, anyway. The bulk distribution of electoral votes here will mean that Obama will probably capture all of California.

McCain is very much out of touch with reality. This is the first time in forever that he remembered that he's a member of the Republican Party and should probably stop trying to separate himself from it if he wants its support. The only problem is, he has changed his positions and flip-flopped to a point of extremely transparent pandering, which, I think, should be insulting to the GOP (as McCain now thinks that they can be bought with a simple change of ideology). Provided that he evens out toward November, McCain stands to ride the coattails of his military service right into the White House. Say what you will, but certain facts are undeniable:
1.) Americans, statistically, find him trustworthy, and he has shown himself, in the past, to be different from the rest of the GOP
2.) He has - yes - experience, and I believe that he will take a hard line in foreign policy that Obama could never have fathomed
3.) He has gracefully - and, thankfully - kept his hand out of social policies, which means that abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc will probably remain untouched for the duration of his presidency

Obama, on the other hand, is the rockstar agent of this ambiguous "change." Change looks great on paper, but he has no substance of any sort to back it up. I read his "platform," the one that was released at the start of the primaries. It was an embarrassment to a capitalist nation, and could be summarized in one sentence: "I will tax the shit out of you so that someone who has the bodily capacity to work doesn't have to." He said nothing of revising the welfare system, which is a disorganized, incoherent drag on our budget. Instead, he plans to socialize health care and give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Thanks, Barack, but no thanks. I don't work in America so that I have to undergo income leveling. I can move back to Europe for that. Also, why should I pay, through taxes, for someone who doesn't pay taxes? Sounds like racketeering to me.

His energy plans are even more laughable. He can pimp the Prius Mentality all he wants, but at the end of the day, he wants to tax oil companies. Where do you think that tax is going to go, Jimmy Carter? Surely, it can't go to the consumer! That would make far too much economic sense. The Scotsman was right: with Obama in office, gas will skyrocket.

In defense of the drilling: Ted Stevens has been writing odes about drilling Alaska for the five thousand years that he's been in Senate. The people of Alaska support it as well. Why have we not lowered our dependence on foreign oil by drilling our own? Because the hippies of California have deemed it that an energy crisis is much less severe than the death of the three caribou that inhabit the drillable grounds. We should drill not because we don't have enough oil (we do; at present, supply and demand intersect at $60 a barrel; the problem is the market speculation), but because increasing the supply of oil would automatically make oil futures less profitable to speculators.

Oh, Obama's foreign policy. This one makes me warm inside. He called Israel a stain on foreign relations (good job, dufus, for shitting all over the Jewish lobby, a MAJOR contributor to elections). He wouldn't know what to do with Iran if Ahmadinejad wrote him an instruction manual. And the war in Iraq? It's at a standstill. The US government overlooked a tiny issue when the war was started: that Saddam Hussein was, ironically, the only stabilizer in the region. Now, there's a full-blown civil war and we can't do anything about it. The only option is to Vietnamicize the hell out of there, before our debt escalates even more.

This one is for Boulder again: There's a popular, CIA-based theory (and I mean, from people who have worked for the CIA and no longer do, despise the organization, write angry memoirs, etc) that it was Clinton's continued negligence toward funding more Middle East-based programs for the CIA that caused 9/11. Even in 2001, there were very few people in the Agency who spoke Arabic. That doesn't happen overnight. As for "senseless wars" (since Iraq isn't a war, and neither was Afghanistan, let's call them "engagements"), kindly recall Bosnia and Mogadishu. Although both encounters were very brief and the former ended rather pleasantly, how would you ignore that?

But back to Obama. I'm sorry, kids, but I can't trust the flaming tirades of a man who can't answer a question straight (for reference, recall his thirty-second, "um... uh..."-filled response during the Las Vegas debate to the question of driver's licenses for illegals) or who has no economic backing, experience, logic, or anything, really, aside from a cutesy slogan and a pseudo-populist mentality. I can't wait for him to get eviscerated by McCain during debates, not because I like Ol' John, but because I think it will be hilarious, since Obama fails unscripted.

Cheers!

1: If you dont vote, you shouldnt complain because you didnt take your opportunity to voice your concerns.

2: McCain is a flip flopper. There should be another group of "Swift Boat Vets" just to point out his hypocrisy.

3: Military experience doesnt = foreign policy plans and a good sound blueprint to quelling the world's fall into disorder.

4: It isnt the social stances he's taking that are of concern. It is his further appointment of a more conservative Supreme Court than we have at this very moment (which is majority conservative). They will be the ones revisiting social decisions by past Supreme Courts trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban gay marriage outright along with others.

5: Obama's tax plan is designed to roll back the tax cuts the Bush Administration put in place, it does not add any new taxes on the upper class thus far. It also seeks to lower taxes on the upper middle, middle and lower classes. Those plans may cancel eachother out, but in the end, those who can afford to pay more should pay more. It would suck, but it helps the majority and would restore the middle class.

Damn, I wanna go on but I'm too lazy. Visit realclearpolitics.com to set your own record straight.

[AKammenzind]

1: If you dont vote, you shouldnt complain because you didnt take your opportunity to voice your concerns.

2: McCain is a flip flopper. There should be another group of "Swift Boat Vets" just to point out his hypocrisy.

3: Military experience doesnt = foreign policy plans and a good sound blueprint to quelling the world's fall into disorder.

4: It isnt the social stances he's taking that are of concern. It is his further appointment of a more conservative Supreme Court than we have at this very moment (which is majority conservative). They will be the ones revisiting social decisions by past Supreme Courts trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban gay marriage outright along with others.

5: Obama's tax plan is designed to roll back the tax cuts the Bush Administration put in place, it does not add any new taxes on the upper class thus far. It also seeks to lower taxes on the upper middle, middle and lower classes. Those plans may cancel eachother out, but in the end, those who can afford to pay more should pay more. It would suck, but it helps the majority and would restore the middle class.

Damn, I wanna go on but I'm too lazy. Visit realclearpolitics.com to set your own record straight.

1. Or you realize that your vote doesn't count for anything because no matter who you vote for, the government still wins. Or you don't vote because you do not approve of the system, and don't wish to further it by becoming a participant.

2. What politician isn't a flip-flopper? And looking at McCain's service record, I can't really see swiftboating him as a valid tactic...

3. Noone has a real plan to save the world. Obama certainly doesn't, seeing as he barely has any solid plans for domestic issues, at least so far as I've heard (other than 'Change', whatever that's supposed to mean...)

4. No argument there.

5. Any way you cut it we're being fucked over by the government. Really, we're just arguing over which color dildo we're going to sit on.

Just my .02

[jezter6]

5. Any way you cut it we're being fucked over by the government. Really, we're just arguing over which color dildo we're going to sit on.

QFT!

In the end, it's more of a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. Both are going to be bad for some parts of this country, but it's a matter of who is poised to do less damage to the whole.

Change for the sake of change is damaging. A candidate with a congressional majority who wants to enact buttloads of law is dangerous to all of us.

I'm voting for the person who doesn't want to make law. The last thing we need in this country is MORE government wrecking our lives.

[nestormakhno]

Which is why we shouldn't even be there now. It was stupid to even go in. Last I checked Obama was the only senator to step up tp bush and say NO we should not be invading with no behalf.

I completely agree that we should leave iraq in a better state then when we got there. just seems like its not going to happen. iraq is a quagmire...always has been. Dont know if there is much the U.S can do to make it a "democracy".

I was trying to read this post to the end, but that particular part inflamed me. Boulder, if you're going to sing his praises, check your facts. Obama wasn't even in the US Senate when the vote went down. What he may or may not have supported or thought is, therefore, completely irrelevant.

On the subject of McCain vs. Obama, I despise both, and will therefore abstain from voting. I live in California, so my "voice" doesn't count, anyway. The bulk distribution of electoral votes here will mean that Obama will probably capture all of California.

McCain is very much out of touch with reality. This is the first time in forever that he remembered that he's a member of the Republican Party and should probably stop trying to separate himself from it if he wants its support. The only problem is, he has changed his positions and flip-flopped to a point of extremely transparent pandering, which, I think, should be insulting to the GOP (as McCain now thinks that they can be bought with a simple change of ideology). Provided that he evens out toward November, McCain stands to ride the coattails of his military service right into the White House. Say what you will, but certain facts are undeniable:
1.) Americans, statistically, find him trustworthy, and he has shown himself, in the past, to be different from the rest of the GOP
2.) He has - yes - experience, and I believe that he will take a hard line in foreign policy that Obama could never have fathomed
3.) He has gracefully - and, thankfully - kept his hand out of social policies, which means that abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc will probably remain untouched for the duration of his presidency

Obama, on the other hand, is the rockstar agent of this ambiguous "change." Change looks great on paper, but he has no substance of any sort to back it up. I read his "platform," the one that was released at the start of the primaries. It was an embarrassment to a capitalist nation, and could be summarized in one sentence: "I will tax the shit out of you so that someone who has the bodily capacity to work doesn't have to." He said nothing of revising the welfare system, which is a disorganized, incoherent drag on our budget. Instead, he plans to socialize health care and give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Thanks, Barack, but no thanks. I don't work in America so that I have to undergo income leveling. I can move back to Europe for that. Also, why should I pay, through taxes, for someone who doesn't pay taxes? Sounds like racketeering to me.

His energy plans are even more laughable. He can pimp the Prius Mentality all he wants, but at the end of the day, he wants to tax oil companies. Where do you think that tax is going to go, Jimmy Carter? Surely, it can't go to the consumer! That would make far too much economic sense. The Scotsman was right: with Obama in office, gas will skyrocket.

In defense of the drilling: Ted Stevens has been writing odes about drilling Alaska for the five thousand years that he's been in Senate. The people of Alaska support it as well. Why have we not lowered our dependence on foreign oil by drilling our own? Because the hippies of California have deemed it that an energy crisis is much less severe than the death of the three caribou that inhabit the drillable grounds. We should drill not because we don't have enough oil (we do; at present, supply and demand intersect at $60 a barrel; the problem is the market speculation), but because increasing the supply of oil would automatically make oil futures less profitable to speculators.

Oh, Obama's foreign policy. This one makes me warm inside. He called Israel a stain on foreign relations (good job, dufus, for shitting all over the Jewish lobby, a MAJOR contributor to elections). He wouldn't know what to do with Iran if Ahmadinejad wrote him an instruction manual. And the war in Iraq? It's at a standstill. The US government overlooked a tiny issue when the war was started: that Saddam Hussein was, ironically, the only stabilizer in the region. Now, there's a full-blown civil war and we can't do anything about it. The only option is to Vietnamicize the hell out of there, before our debt escalates even more.

This one is for Boulder again: There's a popular, CIA-based theory (and I mean, from people who have worked for the CIA and no longer do, despise the organization, write angry memoirs, etc) that it was Clinton's continued negligence toward funding more Middle East-based programs for the CIA that caused 9/11. Even in 2001, there were very few people in the Agency who spoke Arabic. That doesn't happen overnight. As for "senseless wars" (since Iraq isn't a war, and neither was Afghanistan, let's call them "engagements"), kindly recall Bosnia and Mogadishu. Although both encounters were very brief and the former ended rather pleasantly, how would you ignore that?

But back to Obama. I'm sorry, kids, but I can't trust the flaming tirades of a man who can't answer a question straight (for reference, recall his thirty-second, "um... uh..."-filled response during the Las Vegas debate to the question of driver's licenses for illegals) or who has no economic backing, experience, logic, or anything, really, aside from a cutesy slogan and a pseudo-populist mentality. I can't wait for him to get eviscerated by McCain during debates, not because I like Ol' John, but because I think it will be hilarious, since Obama fails unscripted.

Cheers!

1: If you dont vote, you shouldnt complain because you didnt take your opportunity to voice your concerns.

2: McCain is a flip flopper. There should be another group of "Swift Boat Vets" just to point out his hypocrisy.

3: Military experience doesnt = foreign policy plans and a good sound blueprint to quelling the world's fall into disorder.

4: It isnt the social stances he's taking that are of concern. It is his further appointment of a more conservative Supreme Court than we have at this very moment (which is majority conservative). They will be the ones revisiting social decisions by past Supreme Courts trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban gay marriage outright along with others.

5: Obama's tax plan is designed to roll back the tax cuts the Bush Administration put in place, it does not add any new taxes on the upper class thus far. It also seeks to lower taxes on the upper middle, middle and lower classes. Those plans may cancel eachother out, but in the end, those who can afford to pay more should pay more. It would suck, but it helps the majority and would restore the middle class.

Damn, I wanna go on but I'm too lazy. Visit realclearpolitics.com to set your own record straight.

1. Re-read the part where I said that I don't vote, because I live in California and my vote doesn't matter, anyway. Also, I refuse to support either candidate and my "complaining" about them is a justification for my abstinence from the electoral process. Last I checked, "complaining" was still legal. By the way, don't confuse voting with voicing concerns. Neither party - and, in a fairly absolute sense - neither candidate addresses my concerns. I can voice them all day long, but the bottom line is that the Midwest still runs this country. Look at how diligently both Obama and McCain are trying to appeal to them.

2. McCain is a flip-flopper and Obama is some kind of clearly-defined godsend. Obviously. Considering that Obama can barely summon up enough of a platform to answer a question, considering that he doesn't know his head from his ass and is now recanting most of what he said before the primaries, because those things were so ignorant and stupid that his advisors are wondering how someone could've thought to say that, and considering that you need to first have a firm position to then turn to another one to be a flip-flopper, Obama is clearly superior. For some reason, this strange, candidate-praising trance is only present in Obama supporters. It's like his very palpable pitfalls don't exist.

3. I didn't say that military experience was tantamount to foreign policy experience. The fact that McCain has ANY kind of experience already makes him superior. Obama served in Senate for all of four years before running for president. He barely voted for anything. How are you going to tell me that a person who has worked in an "industry" for a longer period of time is less qualified than someone who got there basically yesterday?

4. Usually, when a person presents a clearly-defined social agenda, that's when you worry about supreme court nominations. I have a feeling that if McCain won office, the last thing he would care about would be to continue the Bush Legacy. He's being a hooker, not a retard.

5. Rolling back a tax cut, as you have romantically termed it, is the same thing as increasing taxes. Unfortunately for Obama, before his brilliant, Robin Hood-esque plan comes to fruition, the middle class will be taxed even harder. Albeit the Ricardian Equivalence proves that tax cuts go to savings, rather than consumption, it's important to note that a tax cut indicates higher taxes in the future. And before Obama can start to allocate funds for his utopia, he will need to tax everyone more to balance the budget. And believe you me, it'll be a while before the progressive income tax becomes more progressive so as to fuck over the rich and help the poor. Plus, a lot of his tax incentives - like completely cutting them for people over 55 - are totally unrealistic.

Please, please go on. That's the whole point of lively debate

[Hookah_Bob3]

5: Obama's tax plan is designed to roll back the tax cuts the Bush Administration put in place, it does not add any new taxes on the upper class thus far. It also seeks to lower taxes on the upper middle, middle and lower classes. Those plans may cancel eachother out, but in the end, those who can afford to pay more should pay more. It would suck, but it helps the majority and would restore the middle class.

Firstly, Obama intends to increase the upper bracket income tax to the highest the country has ever seen (or most countries have ever seen) and yes, the rich pay more, but why should they have to pay a higher percentage than the lower brackets? Flat tax + sales tax is where it's at. It's not about who makes more, it's about who spends more

[jezter6]

Firstly, Obama intends to increase the upper bracket income tax to the highest the country has ever seen (or most countries have ever seen) and yes, the rich pay more, but why should they have to pay a higher percentage than the lower brackets? Flat tax + sales tax is where it's at. It's not about who makes more, it's about who spends more

I see it as 'who spends less' - and by that I'm talking about candidates and overall policy. Sure, taxes kill ALL of us. I think that overally we're (as a whole) taxed ungodly for every little thing in this country, and the states are jacking up taxes as well.

I'm more concerned with a candidate who expresses ideas of spending less as a business unit (the federal government) to match what is coming in via taxes. I do not support a candidate who is talking about increasing external aid funding by 150 billion dollars for other countries, when I'm joke as a broke being taxed out my behind. I do not support candidates who are looking to expand welfare and other 'free government money' programs for people who do not want to work or are breeding out of control.

I do not care about inner city projects where everyone lives on welfare with 9 kids. I do not think I should have to pay to support those kids, when I have my own to support and I am having to give my own family less money in return for giving someone who chose to have 9 kids and live off of my hard earned cash while they sell their food stamp money for crack.I know it happens because I've seen it happen. I've seen people who get free government healthcare lie to doctors about ailments to get pills to use recreationally or sell on the street for bigger better drugs. Who is paying for that? I am, and I'm tired of it.

[Hookah_Bob3]

Firstly, Obama intends to increase the upper bracket income tax to the highest the country has ever seen (or most countries have ever seen) and yes, the rich pay more, but why should they have to pay a higher percentage than the lower brackets? Flat tax + sales tax is where it's at. It's not about who makes more, it's about who spends more

I see it as 'who spends less' - and by that I'm talking about candidates and overall policy. Sure, taxes kill ALL of us. I think that overally we're (as a whole) taxed ungodly for every little thing in this country, and the states are jacking up taxes as well.

I'm more concerned with a candidate who expresses ideas of spending less as a business unit (the federal government) to match what is coming in via taxes. I do not support a candidate who is talking about increasing external aid funding by 150 billion dollars for other countries, when I'm joke as a broke being taxed out my behind. I do not support candidates who are looking to expand welfare and other 'free government money' programs for people who do not want to work or are breeding out of control.

I do not care about inner city projects where everyone lives on welfare with 9 kids. I do not think I should have to pay to support those kids, when I have my own to support and I am having to give my own family less money in return for giving someone who chose to have 9 kids and live off of my hard earned cash while they sell their food stamp money for crack.I know it happens because I've seen it happen. I've seen people who get free government healthcare lie to doctors about ailments to get pills to use recreationally or sell on the street for bigger better drugs. Who is paying for that? I am, and I'm tired of it.

I completely agree

[Bulldog_916]

The whole welfare system wasnt designed to help those people. The welfare system was designed for people who were laid off or cut from their jobs and they are having difficulty finding new ones. The system does help those people you speak of, but if unemployment and welfare help just a fraction of the people starving in this country I consider it a successful system. Just because you dont have to look at them as you pass by the ghettos of this country doesnt mean we dont have people who are starving. I dont want this country, the greatest one on the planet to turn into fucking Africa but instead of just black people starving, it's white AND black people. Do you? Do you want people in this country to starve? It's a fucking cold day when you put your shoe on the face of someone who's dying of starvation and we DO have them here, and you push their heads further into the dirt. And guess the fuck what? We also have people in this country who have never had to visit a food bank in their lives having to go to them now. Food banks all over this country are running out of food when they never did before. It aint just people who reproduce like fucking rabbits who need this crap. It's turning into an ever growing number of working people just like you. So before you slam on the welfare system from your perch up in the hills, consider not just people who are getting it but dont deserve it, but people who need it and may not have it in a country ruled by you. I'd rather have it in place in case I EVER need it. Because if it isnt there, then I turn into one of those starving saps. It's a different world when just a few things go wrong and they snowball and throw you into complete depression. I hope to hell you never have to go through that, but if you do, you might change your mind.

[anathema]

bulldog: i can almost guarantee you that california's electoral votes are going to the democratic party so it's safe to say, your vote for president is insignificant, that's why the candidates don't spend as much time campaigning in california, they are trying to get the swing votes that do matter.
through some exaggeration you make a good point to jezter6.

jezter6: you can express your concerns to your senator and representative congressman. it is congress who spends your taxes.

then there's also the idea (schools or prisons) that if you don't help or try to feed these people, they'll resort to violence to get money/food/drugs. not everything goes your way, if it did, then it would be a monarchy or everyone is the same person.

[jezter6]

The whole welfare system wasnt designed to help those people. The welfare system was designed for people who were laid off or cut from their jobs and they are having difficulty finding new ones. The system does help those people you speak of, but if unemployment and welfare help just a fraction of the people starving in this country I consider it a successful system. Just because you dont have to look at them as you pass by the ghettos of this country doesnt mean we dont have people who are starving. I dont want this country, the greatest one on the planet to turn into fucking Africa but instead of just black people starving, it's white AND black people. Do you? Do you want people in this country to starve? It's a fucking cold day when you put your shoe on the face of someone who's dying of starvation and we DO have them here, and you push their heads further into the dirt. And guess the fuck what? We also have people in this country who have never had to visit a food bank in their lives having to go to them now. Food banks all over this country are running out of food when they never did before. It aint just people who reproduce like fucking rabbits who need this crap. It's turning into an ever growing number of working people just like you. So before you slam on the welfare system from your perch up in the hills, consider not just people who are getting it but dont deserve it, but people who need it and may not have it in a country ruled by you. I'd rather have it in place in case I EVER need it. Because if it isnt there, then I turn into one of those starving saps. It's a different world when just a few things go wrong and they snowball and throw you into complete depression. I hope to hell you never have to go through that, but if you do, you might change your mind.

To put it coldly and blutly, I'll answer one of your best questions. "Do you want people in this country to starve?"

YES. If it means ME and MY family can eat, then yes. But when I'm eating ramen noodles because I can't afford groceries and my money is going to someone else, it's hard for me to sit back and be greatful for the system. I'm where I'm at because I have a J.O.B. - these things that are at every McDonald's in the country.

Sure, there are people that have fallen on hard times that wouldn't normally, but personally - it sucks to be them. These people need to rely on family and friends to help in the time of need and not get free paydays from our government. Sure, while only SOME people abuse it, the fact of the matter is the system is designed to perpetuate "free money no workey" mentality.

But in the end, if I have to choose between me and my children eating, vs some other family somewhere else - I'm sorry but I'm not giving what I have away so some other family can live better than me because our federal government decided to increase my taxes to give them better food.