Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

[got tonkaed]

if you have an idea for how exactly china isnt going to become a superpower, i think you could make a lot of money off of it.

[InkL0sed]

if you have an idea for how exactly china isnt going to become a superpower, i think you could make a lot of money off of it.

Sadly, my only idea rips off the Enquirer -- if we (Americans) all plan to jump in the air at the same time, we can tilt the world off its axis, therefore dooming China!

[IBleedGreen18]

you need a president with the spine to raises taxes and slash spending.

So are you buying into Obama's bs line that raising the capital gain tax will increase the amount of revenue the government pulls in...even thought it's been proven time and time again that lowering it brings in more revenue than raising it?

Or does it depend on what's going on on Wall Street at the time?

idiots

Even if that's true -- and it's debatable, despite many peoples' insistence that they are absolutely right -- which is better for the economy: a war in Iraq for the next century, which is costing us 18 million dollars an hour, and increasing our debt to the likes of China (thus giving us less and less leverage with them), not to mention the lives lost in the whole affair, or pulling out of Iraq in about a year?

Idiots indeed.

Nail on the head.

McCain is a fiscal conservative who favors a trillion dollar war. Does that seem paradoxical to anyone else but me???? He won't be able to cut spending if he "stays in Iraq for another hundred years if necessary." The economic situation of our country is falling apart right now and it needs to be remedied quickly. John Mccain is a great American, but seems to be pushing a plan which is far less sustainable than either of the Dems healthcare plans, mostly because he as a republican refuses to raise taxes even if they need to be raised in order to fund your programs (or war in his case).

[DRoZ]

Well, at least you admit McCain would be a horrible President, but the idea that Obama or Hillary would be just as bad is ridiculous. McCain fails with his stance on the war, and honestly, the war is THE most important issue. Even more than the economy. People don't seem to realize that the reason we are in a recession is because of this war. Any candidate that doesn't acknowledge that shouldn't even be considered, no matter his/her other policies.

As for China, do you have your head in the sand or something? China and Russia both prevent the UN from passing a resolution to establish sanctions on Iran (I think...). China supports the Sudanese government -- you know, that one committing genocide in Darfur? China persecutes the minorities within its own country (Tibetans, practicers of Falun Gong, etc). The Chinese basically do not understand the meaning of human rights. At the same time, it seems that they will become a power on a level with the US very soon. We cannot afford to let them go on unchecked as a super-power with their track record.

It seems as though Hillary and McCain's stances on the war are one in the same, although Obama seems as though he would want to pull out the troops (I do commend him for it), I am not sure he would or even could, I am almost positive congress would not approve of it any time soon. I agree/disagree about the war and the economy, you see bush had it half right too... He lowered taxes and increased spending which is outright retarded. So I think we are in a sort of a stalemate in Iraq and if my government has shown me anything, I am sure they will keep throwing money at it no matter who the president is. So if taxes are raised and the spending stays the same or increases then our economy will be in the toilet for quite some time to come.

With china I understand that they will be/are a superpower, however I dont know what kind of leverage you think we could have on them, or what we would be able to do with it. They obviously couldn't care less about anything we or the un have to say, and they havent for quite some time.

[muy_thaiguy]

Hey, I proposed Chuck Norris to go over to China to kick those guys asses and tell them straighten up.

[jay_a2j]

None of the above.

[got tonkaed]

None of the above.

oh rly sir.

how have you been

[Hologram]

Well, I'll either be voting in advance or while I'm at boot camp, so I won't exactly have the most recent news/character reviews. But as it stands, I don't really like any of them. I'm thinking about voting third party come general election (registered independent, so I don't get to vote in the primaries), but if I don't find a candidate that isn't stupid/radical, I'll probably go with Obama. I mean, we need a smart person for a change.

[strike wolf]

I agree with Hologram that I don't think any of them are great choices. So until further notice I'll be voting for anyone but Hillary.

[greenoaks]

bush's tax cuts should be the first thing gotten rid of.

then raise the taxes on fuel. it will decrease the use of gasoline and encourage alternative fuel research & production, possible making the US a global leader in this area. whoever owns the technologies is going to be sitting on a gold mine of global royalties.

[Frigidus]

None of the above.

We miss you jay. Also, no surprise.

[DRoZ]

bush's tax cuts should be the first thing gotten rid of.

then raise the taxes on fuel. it will decrease the use of gasoline and encourage alternative fuel research & production, possible making the US a global leader in this area. whoever owns the technologies is going to be sitting on a gold mine of global royalties.

Please explain how raising taxes is going to help our economy. I agree with finding alternative fuels, as long as they aren't things like ethanol, which has been a useless, unefficient, costly (in both the actual production, as well as decreasing corn production which is increasing nearlly all grocery costs) and our government is forcing the gas companies to produce this worthless junk.

[got tonkaed]

I posted a pdf before (which was promptly criticized by btownmeggy for having models that were too long reaching) that essentially claimed that if the bush tax cuts were to continue, we would be forced to service our debt at a rate that even the US gdp would not be able to stand.

Part of sound fiscal policy is that if your going to cut taxes, you have to cut spending too...

Which part hasnt occurred during the current presidency...

[greenoaks]

bush's tax cuts should be the first thing gotten rid of.

then raise the taxes on fuel. it will decrease the use of gasoline and encourage alternative fuel research & production, possible making the US a global leader in this area. whoever owns the technologies is going to be sitting on a gold mine of global royalties.

Please explain how raising taxes is going to help our economy. I agree with finding alternative fuels, as long as they aren't things like ethanol, which has been a useless, unefficient, costly (in both the actual production, as well as decreasing corn production which is increasing nearlly all grocery costs) and our government is forcing the gas companies to produce this worthless junk.

to balance the books or in this case the budget.

you have been racking up a debt for so long that the interest bills are enormous. that is money that does not get spent on your economy. it is just as much of a waste as paying interest on a credit card.

if you don't raise taxes you have to cut spending by a greater proportion. that means cuts to health, education and wages. cuts to all those things hurt your economy. a sicker workforce, a dumber workforce & government employees having less to spend or fewer of them, most likely both.

reversing bush's tax cuts will not be the end of the world, clinton proved that when he increased the taxes on the wealthy, undoing the much of the damage done by reagan & bush snr to the economy.

[barterer2002]

I wonder why the founding fathers didn't trust the masses to make intelligent choices in elections

[got tonkaed]

I wonder why the founding fathers didn't trust the masses to make intelligent choices in elections

probably had something to do with the fact, that voting rights was one of the hypocrisies of their time that they couldnt quite escape.

[Dancing Mustard]

None of the above.

Ron Paul!!!!1

[DRoZ]

Tax cuts have the ability to increase tax revenue (depending on what the extra income per taxpayer is spent on). The tax cuts of the 80s to the 90s doubled the countrys tax revenue. As long as the economy is thriving then more taxes would be coming in. My fear is that raising taxes on income and gas would create a larger economic slowdown, which would hurt business, which would hurt employment and in turn continue to damage the economy. If people dont have jobs then the government doesnt get their taxes.

As long as spending is cut then we would all be in good shape. Unfortunately no one is going to do that. McCain and Hillary want to keep throwing money at Iraq(McCain may even want Iran). Hillary and Obama have both had nationwide healthcare plans. Hillary and Obama have also voted for almost every increase in government spending, the only one I can find that they didnt was Vote 181 from last may. They have also voted against cuts in government spending(at least the votes I can find). So unless you know something about one of these people that I dont, then they are ALL going to increase spending no matter what they say otherwise.

[greenoaks]

you are living in fantasy land. supply side economics do not work.

Reagan proved that.
the economy shrank after he introduced the cuts by 2.2%. the worst since the great depression. the budget deficit blew out as a result.
Goerge Bush Snr proved that.
by the time he left office, the deficit since reagan was sworn in had jumped from $994 billion to $4.3 trillion in just 12 years.

Clinton proved that when he throw out the economic policies of his predecessors.
inflation dropped to 2.5% (averaged 4.7% under reagan/bush), economic growth jumped to 4.0% (averaged 2.8% under reagan/bush), 18 million new jobs (the highest level of job creation ever recorded) and turned the annual deficit of $290 billion into a $127 billion surplus.

for every measure on the economy Clinton's policy of increasing taxes on the rich kicks arse over Reagan's/Bush Snr's/Bush Jnr's policy of reducing taxes on the rich.

[savant]

ah, Laffer's curve and macroeconomics.. gotta love it!

[protectedbygold]

I suggest we put the 3 of them on a reality tv show like Survivor. If McCain wins the Reward Challenge he gets a new box of band-aids for his face or something like that. Hillary would get a box of tissues for whenever she cries. Obama would be allowed to push a button that would shock Jeremiah Wright every time he opens his mouth. The possibilities would be more entertaining than any one of them.

[DRoZ]

you are living in fantasy land. supply side economics do not work.

Reagan proved that.
the economy shrank after he introduced the cuts by 2.2%. the worst since the great depression. the budget deficit blew out as a result.
Goerge Bush Snr proved that.
by the time he left office, the deficit since reagan was sworn in had jumped from $994 billion to $4.3 trillion in just 12 years.

Clinton proved that when he throw out the economic policies of his predecessors.
inflation dropped to 2.5% (averaged 4.7% under reagan/bush), economic growth jumped to 4.0% (averaged 2.8% under reagan/bush), 18 million new jobs (the highest level of job creation ever recorded) and turned the annual deficit of $290 billion into a $127 billion surplus.

for every measure on the economy Clinton's policy of increasing taxes on the rich kicks arse over Reagan's/Bush Snr's/Bush Jnr's policy of reducing taxes on the rich.

My example of reagans tax cuts were just to illustrate how lowered taxes could yeild higher tax revenues (which it did). The deficit grew because of reagans spending... Not because of the tax cuts.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

for every measure on the economy Clinton's policy of increasing taxes on the rich kicks arse over Reagan's/Bush Snr's/Bush Jnr's policy of reducing taxes on the rich.

You don't think the rich are paying enough already? Look at taxes from this past year....the top 50 hedge fund managers from Enron combined paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of tax paying American's combined.....yeah, sounds real fair to up it even more

[InkL0sed]

for every measure on the economy Clinton's policy of increasing taxes on the rich kicks arse over Reagan's/Bush Snr's/Bush Jnr's policy of reducing taxes on the rich.

You don't think the rich are paying enough already? Look at taxes from this past year....the top 50 hedge fund managers from Enron combined paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of tax paying American's combined.....yeah, sounds real fair to up it even more

I would also hazard to guess that they have more money than the bottom 50% of tax paying Americans...

[greenoaks]

for every measure on the economy Clinton's policy of increasing taxes on the rich kicks arse over Reagan's/Bush Snr's/Bush Jnr's policy of reducing taxes on the rich.

You don't think the rich are paying enough already? Look at taxes from this past year....the top 50 hedge fund managers from Enron combined paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of tax paying American's combined.....yeah, sounds real fair to up it even more

of course that's not fair.

the masses should be grateful they are no longer slaves. just because they are still paid an amount equivalent to what it would cost to feed and clothe a slave is no excuse for them to shirk their responsibility of paying taxes equivalent to that of a free man.

and of course i was joking when i said the rich should not be required to pay more in taxes even though they make their wealth off the backs of the underpaid masses.