McCain is blowing his election chances.

This has long been a point of debate in my mind as well as we know it is in politics and in congress. From my observation over the last few decades, it distresses me that simply raising taxes to cover expenditures may seem to be a solution, except for a couple of things. Raising tax rates do not necessarily bring about expected revenues, hello the Laffer curve again. It would be nice if we had a static economy that is not influenced by tax rates, but I don't think we do. If we did, we could simply do a simple calculation to come up with the money and the budget we wanted, but it isn't that simple.

So, we get back to the point, does spending drive taxation, or does taxation drive spending, and I think taxation drives taxation as much as the other way around. So we have a tug of war, do we attack spending by limiting taxation, or do we address the tax rate after we spend whatever we want to.

In my personal budget, there is a certain amount of spending necessary, bare bones you might say, and there is discretionary spending. Spending, especially discretionary spending is determined by income, not the other way around. So I come down on the side of first determining what tax rates are reasonable, thus determining income, and then controlling spending, especially discretionary spending, and we haven't done that. And I am not willing to fork over more money simply by virtue of the fact that government wants to spend more money. I personally can see lots of areas where spending can be severely curtailed or eliminated.

And as touched on, simply raising tax rates may not bring in more revenue, at least not as much as anticipated. And even Obama understands that in today's economic climate, he may forestall any tax rate hikes, simply due to the risk of stagnating the economy to the point of having the opposite reaction that is desired. Cutting spending is a more sure way of accomplishing positive effects in budget deficits in my opinion.

okie, It's been a debate "in your mind," because you haven't studied the history between the two parties and who was more responsible for the betterment of our country, but instead lived by the conservative creed (self-sufficiency).

That's why the middle class under Bush lost to inflation while production in this country "increased" every year since 2000, and "all" the benefit has gone to the CEOs and stock holders. The workers lost - even while working harder, and they were not the beneficiaries of that extra productive capacity.

You will not "see" what you don't want to see.

And your last point about "raising taxes may not bring in more revenue" shows you have not kept your eye on the ball. As our economy continued to supposedly 'GROW', the middle class wage earners continued to lose buying power. It's now at a point with higher cost of almost everything we purchase, it has become a struggle just to house, feed, and fuel our cars. That has impacted our economy in many negative ways while the fat-cats continued to earn million dollar salaries, benefits and golden parachutes. Your support for not transferring wealth from the rich to the poor is a very poor policy when the workers themselves continue to fall into bankruptcy and poverty, and continue to support not taxing the wealthy.

Where's your heart?

I will concentrate on one area of agreement. I have always proposed this ever since I joined this board, and before for that matter, we need to reform our laws in regard to corporations to prevent ceos from robbing the companies. We need perhaps more shareholder control instead of directors enabling the lining of the pockets of their ceo buddies that also may serve on their boards for their companies, from which they also line their pockets with outlandish compensations.

I have no problem with stockholders reaping benefits because they are the ones investing in risk, so they should bear the rewards when it pays off, just as they lose when the risk ends up failing.

I expect to "earn" a reasonable return on my investment in stocks, but I do not expect to be "enriched" by it. There is also the possibility that I can lose some or all of my investment; that's the gamble I did took much thought.

Your opinion about laws in regards to corporations doesn't hold water; you do not support taxing this ill-goten wealth which contradicts your meme.

I tend to agree. Taxes are high enough (probably too high over all). It's spending that's out of control, and more specifically it's WASTEFUL spending which is really killing things.

We should make a law that any bill that is passed must be specific to one particular item and must not contain any additional unassociated spending for pet projects. I think it's dumb that in order to get a bill through congress you have to "Buy" other congressmen's votes by allowing them to add additional items to the bill. Dumb.

It's not only the feds who continue to spend more than revenue. The only exception is that there are laws for local and state governments which prohibits not reconciling expenditures to revenue, so they end up creating all kinds of gimmicks to make it balance. The feds just accumulate the debt, while we let our government stick it to us by re-electing the same people who continues on this path. We are our own worst enemy.

That's one of the reasons why education reform has to be one of our priorities. Uneducated people are less able to select qualified leaders.

Based on the vote by the House today it like McCain has blown all chance since his influence made no difference what-so-ever.

McCain will continue with his rhetoric about his "experience and leadership skills," because Obama doesn't understand...blah, blah, blah...

You have to play the cards you're dealt. Apparently those are the only cards McCain has to work with.

The sorry thing is so many people can't see through this BS.

All while McCain is pointing to Palin and exclaiming, "but if something happens to me, this dummy can take my place."

McCain: “I Always Aspire To Be A Dictator”

Presidential nominee decries congressional rejection of bailout bill

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, October 1, 2008

During an interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board yesterday, John McCain - presumably making an attempt at humor - said with a completely straight face that he aspired to be a dictator, while decrying the Congressional rejection of the bailout bill.

“I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/mccain-i-always-aspire-to-be-a-dictator.html

McCain has turned into a psycho. It was bad enough he's senile. Somebody needs to remind him that we're a democratic republic, not a dictatorship.

McCain: “I Always Aspire To Be A Dictator”

McSAME

Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

McBushie. At least Obama has promised to restore habeas corpus. Still I think we should hold his feet to the fire on that and make sure. The Dems have bills pending on that. But power corrupts and etc.

McCain's Non-Support for Troops and Veterans: The Master List by Brandon FriedmanPosted October 1, 2008 |
On Friday, September September 26, 2008, John McCain said the following:

"I know the veterans, I know them well, and I know that they know that I'll take care of them, and I have been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans, and I love them, and I'll take care of them, and they know that I'll take care of them."
This statement--made near the end of Friday's debate--immediately infuriated veterans across America and overseas. In fact, Senator John McCain has a very clear, long, and illustrious history of not supporting troops and veterans one bit.

Now, I've seen legislative examples, I've watched the YouTubes, and I've lived this lack of support in more ways than one. But now, for the first time, I've tried to compile as much of this non-support as possible into a single document--from a variety of sources--complete with links, quotes, and video clips. It's something that readers often ask me about, so I hope this helps. I'm sure there's a lot missing, so feel free to add more in the comments. But for now, I think this should give us a good start in exposing John McCain's abysmal of record of supporting troops and veterans. Here we go:

Senator John McCain's Record on Troop and Veterans' Issues
Voting Against Veterans
The list http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/mccains-non-support-for-t_b_131046.html

McCain loves the lifers. Just don't fail to re-up before retirement. If you do that, McCain doesn't have any time for you.

It shouldn't take a Huffington to know that McCain has not supported our troops when he voted 90% with Bush who is the biggest hypocrite of the bunch. How often have we heard Bush say "support our troops" while at the same time cutting their benefits and services?

The typical conservative response has been "but he increased the budget," while ignoring simple facts like more veterans needed those same benefits and services. The conservatives are blind, they refuse to acknowledge all the reports on the mentally ill getting no services after their return to the states, many wonder homeless, and many get divorced after they return. Those are "costs" that conservatives do not acknowledge.

Also, those veteran's groups who have been decrying the Bush-McCain cuts have not been heard, and we know they will not be heard - for all its worth.

McCain has been confronted about this by a vet at a town hall meeting. I would not be surprised if this is put to him by another vet at the upcoming town hall meeting. This is one issue that will come to a head in this election.