<p>I agree. I don’t think they will. If they are that staunchly liberal I don’t think they will view McCain as moderate enough. I think some will do it out of sheer spite and stupidity…but not enough to make a difference. I may not agree with the liberal agenda anymore than some of agree with the conservatives but we have to stay true to our beliefs…</p>
<p>It’s amazing, pmrlcomm, how people on both sides of the political equation will vote against their beliefs. And for what purpose? If one is more-or-less conservative, then issue-wise, the only choice would be McCain, regardless of whether one agrees with him on everything. If one is liberal, then Obama is the only choice.</p>
<p>Yup. The only exception I can see is from those that vote on a singular issue (I despise those narrow-minded people). If immigration were your hot button and you voted for whichever candidate matched your thoughts there regardless of everything else for example. I don’t think there is any 1 issue so important that I would disregard all of the other candidates stances.</p>
<p>That’s a good point, and I agree completely. The thing that puzzles me is, what single issue could cause a liberal-leaning Democrat to jump from Clinton to McCain? Personally, I’ve always viewed Clinton and Obama as far more alike than different, policy-wise. On the other hand, Clinton and McCain had several major differences. Sometimes I just don’t understand what people are thinking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but the rub here is more-or-less conservative. And the real question is what the independents will do.</p>
<p>The fact is on foreign policy Obama is with the vast majority of the nation and his position is actually fairly stock conservative. The point of the interchange above with Mapesy was that McCain’s foreign policy is radical, utopian, and not at all conservative. The Bush I Administration saw that.</p>
<p>On economics matters and taxation, again, Obama adopts the “radical” position that tax cuts for the wealthiest among us that were enacted at a time when our nation was going into war and into horrible debt should not be renewed. Previously there had never been a tax cut, always raises, during wartime and everybody was expected to sacrifice. Republicans and Democrats had voted for the tax cuts to sunset. In terms of prudent economic management, this is actually centrist, if not conservative. The middle class would have their taxes reduced. The vast majority of the nation will be with this position when they realize what it is.</p>
<p>The same “journal” that gave Obama the most liberal senator rating in 2007 consistently had rated him far less liberal in other years. And guess what? In 2004, it magically named John Kerry the most liberal. Of course, these labels are used endlessly by the Republican campaign because that is there purpose. Give me a break, Barack Obama is less liberal than Russ Feingold or Bernie Saunders? What a crock. And even in the edition it rates Obama, it allowed that Hillary Clinton had made significantly more “liberal” votes. Running a campaign, Obama wasn’t there for several votes. McCain wasn’t there enough even to be rated.</p>
<p>Yes, I noticed that same thing. How very convenient that a conservative “journal” named Obama and Kerry the “most liberal” senators–the very year they became the Democratic presidential nominees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Im voting on a singular issueforeign policybecause it has far-reaching and long-term significance for the United States on many levels. It not only affects our relationships with other countries (often with unintended consequences), but it also has a huge impact on the fiscal health of the United States. The US budget deficit is bleeding red ink, in large part because of the Iraq War. This has serious fiscal implications for the United States going forward. Were putting a huge burden on the shoulders of our children. </p>
<p>By the way, I consider myself a fiscal conservative.</p>
<p>
I don’t know what a “true conservative” is. Whatever. One’s voting choice is not limited to McCain or Obama, Republicans or Democrats, in this or any other presidential election.</p>
<p>I fall on the libertarian side of the ledger and have voted for third-party presidential candidates since 1984. A few years ago, I changed my lifelong party affiliation from Republican to Independent, entirely out of disgust at the current direction of the party. I find little appealing about traditional Democratic party policies on domestic spending issues; but the Republicans, despite their talk, have proven to be prolific spenders–the only difference being that they like to print money to cover their expenses. I find nothing appealing about McCain, particularly his interventionist, preemptive war foreign policy. Mapesy, in the last post, expressed my sentiments exactly. Foreign policy initiative is most important to me in a president, budgetary initiative more so at the local and congressional level.</p>
<p>So call me one of the dismayed (ex-) Republicans:
[Dismayed</a> Republicans emerge as Barack Obama supporters - Times Online](<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4138151.ece]Dismayed”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)</p>
<p>I’m equally appalled by this administration’s assault on civil liberties and “enhancement of executive power in the guise of fighting terror” as I am by the Republicans’ fiscal irresponsibility in general. </p>
<p>Obama strong points that appeal to me: A thoughtful temperament, discomfort about compelling people to buy health insurance, possible sympathy for school vouchers, the ability to speak publicly in a way that actually communicates ideas, a fresh approach to problem solving, a stated commitment to government transparency. I’ll likely vote for him, as will many other current and former Republicans I know.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, I’m probably a two-issue gal. Iraq and the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>
It probably makes you feel better to put on your tinfoil lined hat and listen to the sermon from Limbaugh or Coulter about your tax dollars are all being given to “crack whores on cocaine” by “libuhruls” and to project that as a justification for uncritical support for not repealing the Bush tax cuts, but in fact what the neo-cons in Washington have done since 2001 is steal $1.7 trillion from our kids and give it to the favorites of the Republicans.</p>
<p>It’s not “us vs. crack whores”, it’s “Leona Helmsley’s dog vs. our kids.” But that’s not as fun to think about, is it?</p>
<p>Actually whatever Leona Helmsley wants to with her dog is just fine with me. It’s her money. Sycophants are living off of your and my money. I’m glad that’s ok with you…it’s not ok with me. For the record I haven’t listened to Rush since about 91 and that I know of, I’ve never listened to or read anything by Ann Coulter. I prefer to do my own thinking reading to form opinions. If they happen to coincide with some right-wing whacko at times then so be it. I’m sure there are plenty of things I think or believe that some left-wing whacko would like as well…so be it.</p>
<p>I just like that you are so blinded by your hatred for the republicans that you can just ignore facts. We support an awful lot of folks who are perfectly capable of working but prefer to stay at home and live off the government checks. Go to any economically blighted area, look around and see your tax dollars at work…</p>
<p>I try not to think of it as “sycophants living off your and my money.” It’s more like, we are a very special, unique country that takes tremendous pride in looking after the less fortunate among us. True, we muck it up and get it wrong, but the ideal is a noble one. Much better than: “I’ve got mine, to heck with you!”</p>
<p>I would have no issue if the system were structured so that people really were helped. Unfortunately it isn’t. The resources are wasted. I don’t “have mine” anyhow. I’m like most others where I’m a paycheck away from destitution myself. The difference is I bust my rear every week to make enough money to avoid it. Nothing less should be expected of any other able-bodied person. They don’t deserve your or my money.</p>
<p>There are plenty of us middle-classers perched on the edge of financial ruin, depending on which way the economy goes over the next year or so, so I feel your pain! … I also agree with you about wishing for a well-structured system that really helped people get on their feet–we’ve made a discouraging mess of this over the years, though with the best of intentions. </p>
<p>I’m not sure how to solve the problems inherent in our current set-up. I certainly don’t have faith in passing the job on to the private sector, where the “bottom line” might take precedence over “helping” people. … I’ve been a social worker in the past and saw plenty of “able-bodied” people down on their luck through no fault or character flaw of their own, and sometimes for extended periods of time. These people need–and deserve–a helping hand. To turn our backs them would be downright un-American.</p>
<p>I just have to think the whole thing worked better before the government stepped in. There was a time when those who were in need had churches or other community organizations. Now that the government has decided to take our money and handle it, less of it gets to the intended targets and there is no sense of gratitude, only entitlement.</p>
<p>pmlrcomm, you actually know next to nothing about “Crack whores”, welfare, poor people, or the “folks who are perfectly capable of working but prefer to stay at home and live off the government checks.” - Simple fact, and you know it. You just throw out factoids you assume are true and go from there to whatever conclusion you want. More importantly, I seriously doubt that you could estimate even a remotely accurate ballpark figure for what share of the taxes you and I pay which goes to funding those “welfare checks.” </p>
<p>But obsessing about people on welfare is just an excuse. It’s easier to be sanctimonious and prop up a straw man to sneer at than it is to face the stark reality of the actual consequences of the policies you have supported. The tax cuts took billions of dollars away from our children and gave it to people with more money than they could spend in a lifetime. About a trillion dollars this decade alone out of our children’s pockets and distributed to a group of people with average incomes over a million dollars a year. The idea that the money they earn is simply “theirs” and that they have no responsibility to the nation which created the economy which enabled them to earn it, which pays for the infrastructure which supports it, the policing agencies (including FDA, SEC, CDC, EPA and all the rest) which protects it, and all of the other functions which have enabled the wealthy to become wealthy, and that those who have the most haven’t benefited the most from the services provided by our nation to make that income possible, is just sad. </p>
<p>So go ahead - obsess over the “crack whores” you’re just sure are stealing your money a hundred bucks at a time. It will help you ignore the fact that you have aided and abetted the republicans stealing your children’s money by the billions. Hey, in the meantime, you can always sneer at the lazy bums on welfare to make yourself feel even more superior. But the “crack whores” didn’t put our nation in debt - the Republicans did.</p>
<p>Well, weve talked about everything else. Now its time to talk about money.</p>
<p>Many pages ago, BedHead said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then parent2noles responded:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Mudders_Mudder said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, a strong case can be made that the Iraq War is directly or indirectly responsible for ALL of those market events. Rewind back to the years just before the invasion of Iraq. At that time, the Fed was in the process of lowering interest rates in response to the collapse of the dot-com investment bubble. The decision to push interest rates well below the rate of inflation, however, was at least partly because the Fed was acutely conscious of the inflationary consequences of the Vietnam War. The fact that the Fed kept interest rates abnormally low for such a long period of time (as the war droned on and on) led to the rise and fall of the housing market and contributed to the decline of the dollar.</p>
<p>To finance the war, the United States sold hundreds of billions worth of Treasury bonds to overseas investors. The vast amount of bonds flooding the market had the immediate effect of devaluing the dollar, as did the billowing budget deficit. (The massive sale of T-bonds to overseas investors has placed the United States in an extremely vulnerable and dangerous position should foreign nations decide to dump their bonds.)</p>
<p>To top everything off, the Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the Iraq War has added up to $35 per barrel of oil because of decreased stability in the Middle East and a loss of Iraqi oil production. Other economists say the decline of the dollaras shown above, also partly attributable to the warhas negatively impacted oil prices.</p>
<p>pmrlcomm said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You want to know where the money is going, pmrlcomm? Last November, the Senate released a report estimating that the Iraq War is costing the United States $400 million per day. Its a simply staggering sum.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>And since the $400 million a day is accrued as debt, it becomes a tax raise – on future generations. If you are against raising taxes for no good reason, you’d best look beyond the bogey women of crack whores and look to the Iraq War.</p>
<p>Yeah. No way any democrat had anything to do with any of it. Democrats don’t do those kind of things. </p>
<p>I’m not obsessing over anything. I’m a pretty laid back individual. If 1/10th of 1% of the tax dollars go towards people who are able but unwilling to work it is too much. </p>
<p>I never said the rich didn’t have a responsibility to this country. Where do you come up with these stupid-a** things? Their only responsibility to this country, like yours and mine, is to pay their taxes. I don’t know why you think, since they make a lot of money, they should be any more morally or socially responsible than anyone else. </p>
<p>And just because you are the one being sanctimonious here…</p>
<p>[The</a> Chronicle, 11/23/2006: Charity’s Political Divide](<a href=“http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm]The”>http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm)</p>
<p>[Arthur</a> C. Brooks on Charitable Giving & Barack Obama on National Review Online](<a href=“http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmMxMDk1MDNlMjI2NTQwYmE5NjEwZTJkZTM2YjRiNzI=]Arthur”>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmMxMDk1MDNlMjI2NTQwYmE5NjEwZTJkZTM2YjRiNzI=)</p>
<p>The National Review is not an unbiased publication.</p>
<p>In the Chronicle article the writer points out that Democrats tend to give less to faith-based charities than Republicans do. That certainly holds true in our household, where we donate regularly to such pagan organizations as Special Olympics, the American Cancer Society, the ASPCA, and MADD. On a recent Habitat for Humanity build in our town (oops, religious-based!), the place was literally crawling with socialists, commies, sixties hippies, and Mao-reading left-wing radicals. You know … those hypocritical, Godless Democrats who shamelessly hoard their money instead of giving to the poor. … Guess we’re all pretty good at being sanctimonious.</p>