obama or McCain

[pmrlcomm]

<p>I love how everything was peachy with the gov’t until 8 years ago…lol</p>

[tega]

<p>

Obama’s plan would increase taxes for only the wealthiest Americans. I doubt there are many taxpayers at those income levels who are paid by the hour.

</p>

<p>His definition of wealthy is a couple making $200,000 (or $250,000) or more.</p>

<p>This means that a New York city firefighter with a 10 year experience, and his Nurse wife, also with 10 years experience will be affected by this policy. These people are your average hard working blue collar New Yorkers.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

Government is very inefficient right now because it has pass its economies of scale, so increasing taxes is not going to address the deficits problem.

</p>

<p>

The question to answer is, where do we reduce spending? A giant whack off the Iraq War budget would be a good start.

</p>

<p>The Bush wartime tax cuts are a major reason we have such a huge budget deficit in the first place. The Iraq War has been financed entirely by borrowing, mostly from overseas investors like China. We’ll be paying for this war for decades to come in the form of interest payments on borrowing, as well as for disability and healthcare for veterans. One well-known economist believes the true cost of the Iraq War may reach $5 trillion.</p>

<p>Our children will pay dearly for the fiscal mismanagement of the current administration. The fiscal deterioration in the US brought about by the Bush wartime tax cuts will reduce the future ability of our government to finance basic services such as education, health, research, and basic infrastucture.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Well, Obama certainly isn’t the one to fix anything:</p>

<p>He will hog-tie business:</p>

<p>

Sen. John McCain is a career-long free trader, consistently voting against trade barriers and subsidies. Sen. Barack Obama, although possessing a shorter voting record, puts greater restrictions on his support for free trade and favors a time-out on new trade agreements and extensive review—and possible renegotiation—of existing ones.

</p>

<p>Or maybe you don’t think business and trade has any impact on the economy.</p>

<p>So just in case that doesn’t stifle the economy enough, he will take away funds from those who just might invest:</p>

<p>

On fiscal policy, Sen. McCain wants lower taxes while Sen. Obama proposes to shift the tax burden to wealthier Americans.

</p>

<p>And if that isn’t enough to put us down the tubes:</p>

<p>

According to the National Taxpayers Union, Sen. McCain has endorsed $68 billion of additional government spending per year and Sen. Obama has called for nearly $344 billion of bigger government.

</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

He will hog-tie business:</p>

<p>Sen. John McCain is a career-long free trader, consistently voting against trade barriers and subsidies. Sen. Barack Obama, although possessing a shorter voting record, puts greater restrictions on his support for free trade and favors a time-out on new trade agreements and extensive review—and possible renegotiation—of existing ones.

</p>

<p>Free trade agreements should be periodically reviewed and renegotiated. As NAFTA has proved, FTAs can be directly responsible for job losses, rising trade deficits, and declining relative wages of US workers, among other things. In the past, other trade agreements have lifted barriers for imports coming into the US, while neglecting to ensure that trade barriers for US exports to those countries were eliminated. The US would be foolish not to review and renegotiate agreements when necessary.</p>

<p>Free trade agreements might not matter so much in the future, anyway. With the price of energy expected to remain high for the foreseeable future, we could very well experience “reverse globalization.” </p>

<p>

So just in case that doesn’t stifle the economy enough, he will take away funds from those who just might invest:</p>

<p>On fiscal policy, Sen. McCain wants lower taxes while Sen. Obama proposes to shift the tax burden to wealthier Americans.

</p>

<p>So you’re a believer in supply-side economics, or “voodoo economics, as Bush I called it. Supply-side theorists believe tax cuts yield higher tax revenues, which, in turn, spur investment that leads to a booming economy. We’ve been testing the theory since the Reagan era, so what do think we have to show for it besides a massive budget deficit, a weak dollar, and an economically-stratified society in which the poverty rate has risen and median income has fallen, even as the economy as grown? You might want to read up on what some former supply-side economics supporters–who are now jumping ship–have to say about it.</p>

<p>As for taking away funds from those who might invest in the economy, did you know that new money flows are increasingly going into commodities and non-dollar denominated foreign assets instead of US stocks? Wealthy Americans are also less likely than middle- and lower-income individuals to spend earnings, instead preferring to reinvest earnings in investment accounts. This is a problem because spending spurs economic growth.</p>

<p>

And if that isn’t enough to put us down the tubes:

</p>

<p>Depends on your perspective. Many middle- and lower-income Americans think we’re already down the tubes.</p>

<p>

According to the National Taxpayers Union, Sen. McCain has endorsed $68 billion of additional government spending per year and Sen. Obama has called for nearly $344 billion of bigger government.

</p>

<p>Starve the beast:</p>

<p>[2008</a> Presidential Candidate Spending Analyses](<a href=“Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union”>Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union)</p>

<p>McCain still hasn’t said how he intends to pay for his proposed healthcare program, so those figures aren’t included in your figure of $68 billion. The cost of continuing the Iraq War, at $10.3 billion a month, is likewise not included.</p>

[Hondu]

<p>"Several of Congress’ most prominent Jewish members are set to go after John McCain on an issue of perceived strength: his proclaimed “toughness” in dealing with Iran.</p>

<p>On Thursday, Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Ben Cardin, alongside more than half-a-dozen members of the House of Representatives and the National Jewish Democratic Council, will host a press conference highlighting a vote McCain made that helped corporations like Halliburton continue doing business with sanctioned countries like Iran.</p>

<p>The vote, McCain’s critics argue, demonstrates a strand of political hypocrisy – on the campaign trail, the Senator has repeatedly called for divestment from Iran – and pokes holes in his attacks on Barack Obama.</p>

<p>“John McCain has been arguing that he is Mr. Tough Guy on Iran,” said Ira Forman, Executive Director of the NJDC. "At the AIPAC conference he talked about how he would introduce stronger sanctions and boycott measures. He’s also saying Obama is na</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Thanks Mapesy for your issues-focused response.</p>

<p>

Free trade agreements should be periodically reviewed and renegotiated.

</p>

<p>Agree. Just because someone is in favor of Free Trade, doesn’t mean he doesn’t think the FTAs should be periodically rexamined. It’s Obama’s lack of support for free trade in general that needs review. But I also agree that FTAs that don’t level the playing field for U.S, products aren’t worth anything for us.</p>

<p>Your point about “reverse globalization” is well-taken.</p>

<p>

so what do think we have to show for it besides a massive budget deficit, a weak dollar, and an economically-stratified society in which the poverty rate has risen and median income has fallen, even as the economy as grown?

</p>

<p>Don’t forget, we’ve had some pretty big variables introduced over the last decade (9/11, war, Katrina, etc.) which have taken a pretty big toll on keeping things in check regarding gov’t spending. In spite of that, however, our economy has remained strong. I am worried about the falling dollar tho’. </p>

<p>I’m just not convinced that Obama has the first clue about how to deal with all the issues facing our country. And for one thing, McCain has such a reputation for trying to eliminate wasteful spending, that I’m sure he’ll go over the budget w/ a fine toothed comb & trim away a lot of pork projects & other such waste. McCan’s been around, he knows people. I’ve heard him say he’d put the head of FedEx in charge of FEMA. It just seems like he’d have the best team to work for him & knows enough not to be mislead.</p>

<p>

McCain still hasn’t said how he intends to pay for his proposed healthcare program,

</p>

<p>Well, it isn’t going to be provided by the government, so I don’t think it’s part of his budget.</p>

<p>

The cost of continuing the Iraq War, at $10.3 billion a month, is likewise not included.

</p>

<p>McCain is the one who will ensure a proper resolution to the whole thing - so it will be over sooner w/ less risk of MORE cost in the future. How much will it cost when Obama has to turn around and send everyone back into Iraq a SECOND time? Let’s resolve this thing once & for all and get our people home FOR GOOD! </p>

<p>Also, please note, those figures posted above called for * additional * spending above & beyond what is already being spent now. That $$ being spent in Iraq isn’t going to just stop the moment Obama would be inaugurated.</p>

<p>All things considered, it should be obvious that a McCain administration is going to spend less & limit the growth of government more than Obama - or is that what you want - more government intrusion into your life & taking more of your money to do it?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>"As NAFTA has proved, FTAs can be directly responsible for job losses, rising trade deficits, and declining relative wages of US workers, among other things. "</p>

<p>Do you have any data to support this view?</p>

[mapesy]

<p>fundingfather:</p>

<p>

Do you have any data to support this view?

</p>

<p>[The</a> high price of ‘free’ trade](<a href=“http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147]The”>The high price of ‘free’ trade: NAFTA’s failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation | Economic Policy Institute)</p>

[tega]

<p>

…Wealthy Americans are also less likely than middle- and lower-income individuals to spend earnings, instead preferring to reinvest earnings in investment accounts. This is a problem because spending spurs economic growth.

</p>

<p>Savings (I am referring to all investments) also spur economic growth. We need entrepreneurs to get access to capital to be able to bring their ideas to the market. If you are consuming all your disposal income without savings, you will eventually have to start borrowing to keep your consumption to the level you are accustomed to (if inflation is zero percent, you wont have to worry about this). Having savings will cushion you against this because the return you get from your savings will be greater than inflation, so you wont be affected a whole lot by all the uncertainties in the market. </p>

<p>This is what is happening to the country now.</p>

<p>You can read up more on Iceland; they financed their boom through consumption by borrowing heavily, as a result, their currency has depreciated more than the dollar. They don’t have enough savings to cushion them against unfavorable borrowing conditions like what we are experiencing right now. </p>

<p>The current savings level in this country is very low (it would have been lower if rich people were also consuming a lot more of their income), so a lot of bonds the government sells is being bought by China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and most of the countries flooded with cash as a result of the commodity boom. It is this low level of savings that can potentially hurt the country more than the low consumption by the rich.</p>

<p>Consumption and savings are both necessary for economic growth.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

The current savings level in this country is very low

</p>

<p>tega, Many economists feel the personal savings rate calculation uses outdated methodology. For example, many Americans own stocks, mutual funds, 401ks, and IRAs, but they’re not considered when calculating the personal savings rate. In 2007, the net wealth in the US (or the total value of all assets, including stocks, bonds, bank accounts, houses and retirement funds, after subtracting debt) was approximately $54 trillion–$16 trillion higher than in 2003. </p>

<p>If my own family were to exclude our investments in 401ks, IRAs, stocks, and mutual funds, we would probably have a very low personal savings rate. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.</p>

[tega]

<p>Yes, I am one of those who think the saving rate calculation is outdated. I consider all the things you listed as part of savings, I consider all forms of investments as savings. </p>

<p>The net wealth has increased because the rich have gotten richer and they are also investing more of their wealth. </p>

<p>I am not worried about the top 50%, I am worried about the bottom 25%, like a family member of mine with no 401K, IRA, no personal savings, and high credit card debt. These people don’t have any form of investment at all, and I think we should be worried about it because they wont be able to withstand a continued decrease in our economy.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

I am not worried about the top 50%, I am worried about the bottom 25%, like a family member of mine with no 401K, IRA, no personal savings, and high credit card debt. These people don’t have any form of investment at all, and I think we should be worried about it because they wont be able to withstand a continued decrease in our economy.

</p>

<p>Exactly!</p>

<p>And it’s a direct result of the supply-side economics policies of the past 20 years that I’ve just been talking about. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting nowhere.</p>

[JLennonSaysStop]

<p>We got screwed this year. We had some great people, like Ron Paul for instance (sorry haters), but they all got overshadowed by “the woman” and “the black man”. I do love Obama, but what it is that I love about him are his speeches… and that’s pretty much it…</p>

<p>Nonetheless, McCain is a war vet who was in a Vietnam prison longer than Obama was in the senate. That’s about the only thing going for him because his policies are crap. So are Obama’s, though.</p>

<p>Jee…</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>mapesy,</p>

<p>EPI isn’t exactly an unbiased source for such analysis. For every left-leaning organization that says NAFTA was bad, there is a right leaning one that says it has helped. Here’s another view:</p>

<p>

Let’s start with the fact that Texas’s growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn’t play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama’s claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation’s top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

[Texas</a> v. Ohio - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450306595906431.html]Texas”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450306595906431.html)</p>

[Anonymous_abc5468705898663bacfe643d507d017]

<p>Ron Paul was by far the best choice.</p>

<p>But he didnt win because the media blocked him out.</p>

<p>He was a strong libertarian running as a republican, he was about cutting taxes, promoting smaller government and inhancing civil liberties(a quality that almost no republicans have had in the past few years). In the past i tended to lean democratic because i thought they were the freedom fighters…until i discovered libertarianism.</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>

Ron Paul for instance (sorry haters)

</p>

<p>I never hated Ron Paul–I agreed with him on Iraq!</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

Exactly!</p>

<p>And it’s a direct result of the supply-side economics policies of the past 20 years that I’ve just been talking about. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting nowhere.

Umm, low savings rate is due to supply side economics? No IRA/401K is due to supply side economics? Absurdly low savings rate is due to supply side economics?</p>

[mercymom]

<p>Current economic conditions for Texas, Houston in paricular, are excellent. Lots of jobs, affordable housing (they had no bubble so had no burst), even the low dollar seems to be working in their favor.</p>

<p>[Gross:</a> Houston, We Have No Problems | Newsweek Voices - Daniel Gross | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/142633]Gross:”>Gross: Houston, We Have No Problems)</p>

[vonlost]

<p>McCain supports drilling to supply more oil, but we should be working toward dumping less carbon in the atmosphere, not more.</p>