29
   

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

 
 
Asherman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:09 pm
@JTT,
Let's just keep this nice and simple. Palin's "dirty laundry" compared to Obama's "dirty laundry". Palin's experience, or lack thereof, compared to Obama's lack of experience. One has finagled his way to the top of the ticket, and the other was plucked from relative obscurity to be Vice-President by a national hero. One talks change, and the other has actually risked their political career to make change.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw brickbats.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:12 pm
Also when Obama compared his experience to Palin's he stated it like this:
Quote:
“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said.


And while he claims running his campaign gives him superior executive experience to hers (and presumably the necessary experience to be President), he sort of omits the fact that she had to run a successful campaign to become Mayor and also a successful campaign to become Governor of Alaska with a $10 billion budget and responsibility for about 24000 employees not to mention ability to supervise people in charge of critical services and the National Guard.

But running a campaign qualifies you to be President. Really? Wow. I too can be president. I can start campaigning today and have more than four years solid executive experience by 2012! Who knew?

Seriously, I don't think "sexist" sounds like a word Palin would use in defense of herself. I, and many others, though recognize it when we see it and have used it quite a bit on her behalf.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:50 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:


Debra Law wrote:
Let's see. Palin claims that she has more executive experience than Obama. When Obama responds by comparing his experience to hers, she calls him sexist.


Wow, your so blind with hatred you can't even use basic reading comprehension. And you're a lwayer? Scary. It's like you aren't even trying to look at anything with any semblance of education or intelligence.

You do realize that Fiorina is not Palin right? I mean you are capable of making that distinction, right?

Then, Obama has the distinction of comparing her being a mayor to his running a campaign? Why not use her term as Governor instead? I suppose that would be too difficult for the boy wonder...


And you're ignorant. I don't find that "scary," I find that sad. When a principle authorizes his/her duly appointed agent to issue a press release, the agent is conveying the principle's message.


0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Actually, the Democrats have controlled the Congress since the last major election, and this Congress has done virtually nothing. The Democrats in Congress even before that did everything in their power to derail every initiative the Administration asked for. No Administration, by either Party, can enact even the most essential legislation in the face of determined opposition.

Congress has sat on its hands and feathered its nest for over two hundred years. Getting elected means keeping the constituency happy, and that always has meant pork. Politicians in both Parties have been guilty of that, and of placing Partisan politics above the common good. Occasionally in our history, Congress rises above it's venial nature, but not often. Congress historically gets behind the national effort when the nation is under attack and our military is bleeding on foreign soil. The Democratic Party has in large measure adopted a defeatist approach to the use of our military forces against Extremist Islamic Radicals.

The change that Obama seems to promise is to withdraw American might back within CONUS, no matter what the probable result might be. Leave Iran to develop nuclear weapons and to dominate a strategically important region. He apparently will avoid confrontations, so if Russia wants to reoccupy Georgia, Turkistan, Lithuania, Lativia, Poland, etc., an Obama Administration will respond by wringing its hands. Obama wants change, like trusting Kim Jong-Il to keep his promises. Obama, like many Democrats, wants to change things by redirecting all that money the U.S. spends on the military to pay for increased federal social programs.

Of course, the military budget can never pay for all the promises that Obama makes, so he promises to change the way Americans are taxed. Tax's will have to be increased dramatically, but Obama claims that "average" Americans won't suffer from increased taxation. Only the "rich", only businesses will have to face an increased tax burden. Sure, kill the goose for the golden egg. Make it more difficult to make a profit by increasing overhead, and business stop doing business. Entrepreneurs, the backbone of our economy, are already so hemmed in by regulation and taxation that its smarter to get out of business than to start one. Small businesses and wage earners will bear the brunt of Obama's grand schemes.

McClain isn't a popular man even with career GOP politicians. Why is that? I suggest it's because he has a long reputation for putting the nation's interests above the interests of elected and appointed politicians. He has fought corruption wherever its been found, regardless of which Party is involved. He has been tireless in trying to cut wasteful spending that has as its principle purpose getting politicians reelected. He has stepped across the battle lines to enlist the support and aid of the opposition party to enact campaign reform. When the Congress on both sides of aisle became disenchanted with the way things were going in Iraq and wanted to get out as quickly as possible without regard for the consequences, it was McCain who called for the military surge that turned the situation around. McCain stood up and voted against Regan, and he has opposed Bush as well. McCain is not a grandstander, like most politicians.

He isn't a perfect man, but no one is. He knows war, and its costs better than most, so when McCain calls for the use of military force it is because he truly believes it is necessary. He is a maverick alright, he still holds close the fundamental values that made this nation great. He still believes in self sacrifice, honor, loyalty and courage in a world that has become soft and unwilling to take responsiblity, or risks when they are called for.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:57 pm
And, McCain/Palin supporters and leaners, bookmark this one to use the next time somebody tries to claim that Obama shuns the big money donors in favor of nickle and dimes contributed by the grass roots on the internet:

Quote:
Bon Jovi and his wife, Dorothea, hosted more than 100 people for dinner on their mansion lawn by the Navesink River in Middletown, N.J. The price was $30,800 a person, to be divided between the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

"When I look at Barack, I see an old man," Bon Jovi said in introducing his guest. Obama is 47, Bon Jovi is 46.

Obama spoke for about eight minutes before greeting guests individually. He vowed to fight Republican attacks on his character and background more fiercely than John Kerry did in his losing campaign four years ago.

"We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about," Obama said. "I don't believe in coming in second."
http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/bon.jovi.obama.2.811125.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:00 pm
@Asherman,
Good analysis Ash. Sadly few who need to read it will do so and even fewer will understand what it is that you are saying. The ONLY chance the Dems have to make their candidate(s) look good against McCain/Palin is to paint them as "McSame" however dishonest it is to do that.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:15 pm
@Asherman,
Simple has always more than filled the bill for you, Asherman.

"The other was plucked from relative obscurity"

Now that's an understatement. And yet, WHAT a plus. How do you ever come up with these incisive analysis?

There's no risk in a Republican breaking the law to advance their career. You lot slurp it up.

And this national hero crap, please. You've sat, eyes all a mist while honest John has reveled you with stories of his derring do. He got medals for nothing other than being a POW. Yup, he's real Audie Murphy. You talk yourself into this nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:37 pm
I wonder who can read the following and NOT find it thought provoking? Especially the last line? "This is an election, as the Democrats have realised all along, about an America on the cusp of change. With the moose-hunting, establishment-taunting Mrs Palin at his side, Mr McCain might represent a bigger change than the one that his opponents are offering. "

Quote:
So let's stipulate one obvious and important piece of wisdom about US elections. The choice of a vice-presidential candidate rarely makes much of a difference. . . .

This one, to be fair, could be different. For at least the next few weeks the press will follow Mrs Palin's present and dig deeper into her past, still hoping for some morsel of stupidity or evidence of cupidity to doom her. But in the end, barring such a discovery, this is still an Obama-McCain contest.

But let me try to explain why Mrs Palin, whatever impact she might have in November, may be a figure of real consequence in our lives.

It's partly about what she represents and partly about what she has already done, but mostly about where she and her ilk might take the Republicans - and possibly America.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left falls again and again into the old trap of underestimating politicians whom they don't understand. From Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to George Bush and Mrs Palin, they do it every time. Because these characters talk a bit funny and have ridiculously antiquated views about faith, family and nation, because they haven't spent time bending the knee to the intellectual metropolitan elites, they can't be taken seriously.

So the general expectation was that Mrs Palin would stumble on to the stage in high heels, clutching her sprawling, slightly odd family (five children! how weird), mispronounce the name of the Russian Prime Minister, mutter a few platitudes about God, and disappear for ever to a deafening chorus of sniggers.

No one paid much attention to the fact that she had been elected governor of a state. Or that she got to that office not because, unlike some politicians I could mention, her husband had been there before her, or because she bleated continuously about glass ceilings, but by challenging the entrenched interests in her own party and beating them. In almost two years as Governor she has cleaned out the Augean stables of Alaskan Government. You don't win a statewide election and enjoy approval ratings of more than 80 per cent without real political talent.

Never mind all that. She didn't have a passport! She was a former beauty queen! It was so axiomatic that she was a disaster that I was told by lots of savvy men - with deliciously unconscious sexism - that the real problem was what the choice said about Mr McCain and his judgment: cynical, irresponsible, clueless. It was as if Mrs Palin wasn't really a human being at all, but an article of Mr McCain's clothing that showed his poor taste, like wearing brown shoes with a charcoal suit.

So here's why she matters.

First of all she offers an opportunity for an ailing Republican party to reconnect with ordinary Americans. She's conservative, but her conservatism is not that of the intolerant, uncomprehending white male sort that has so hurt the party in recent years. She is much closer to a model of the lives of ordinary Americans - working mother, plainspoken everywoman juggling home and office - than any Republican leader in memory.

The contrast with Mr Obama is especially powerful. The very fact that Mrs Palin didn't go to elite schools but succeeded nonetheless - the very ordinariness with which she so piquantly jabbed Mr Obama on Wednesday - is what will make her so appealing to Americans. And as a pro-life conservative she debunks in one swoop the enduring myth that all women subscribe to the obligatory nostrums of radical feminism.

But there's more to it than that.

The Republicans have decided that they are not going to make the mistake Hillary Clinton made and run against the effervescent Mr Obama on the premise of experience.

Experience hasn't got Americans into a very comfortable place. They want change. Before he signed up to some of the less attractive Republican attitudes this year, Mr McCain's career had embodied that change - the anti-establishment candidate running against his own party. Now he is joined by a woman who, in her short career, has done the same thing.

Democrats think that Mr McCain, with the social conservative Mrs Palin, will launch an old-fashioned culture war at them, using her appealing manner to drive a populist assault on the familiar Republican issues of God, guns and gays.

Perhaps this Manichean interpretation will prove true. But I suspect that it misses the real appeal of the Republican team. The opportunity for McCain-Palin is not reaction, but reform - a reform rooted in a distant conservatism that could be due for a comeback

Hailing from Arizona and Alaska, the Republican ticket has a chance to rekindle a western conservatism different from the old Yankee paternalist sort or the Bible Belt version. They like their guns out there (some still kill their own food) and they are pro-life and deeply pro-America, of course. But at a time of grave challenges, the themes of economic freedom and opportunity, the resistance to the idea that government holds all the answers, could resonate with voters.

This is an election, as the Democrats have realised all along, about an America on the cusp of change. With the moose-hunting, establishment-taunting Mrs Palin at his side, Mr McCain might represent a bigger change than the one that his opponents are offering.

Whole essay here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4677799.ece
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
Drill baby, drill.


heh.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 06:56 am
@Cycloptichorn,
"A new national poll puts Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain in a dead heat - 42 percent to 42 percent - as they begin their two-month sprint to the Nov. 4 presidential election."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/05/MNJ412P0NG.DTL
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 07:02 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law Says: Let's see. Palin claims that she has more executive experience than Obama. When Obama responds by comparing his experience to hers, she calls him sexist.

You twist the facts.

Obama initially described his experience as a commuity organizer as comparable to that of a Mayor. That comment by Obama was an insult to the thousands of Mayors of small towns.

Not diminishing Obama efforts, but Mayors are responsible for :
Town Budgets
Town employees
Police/Firefighters
Roads and infrastructure

Most importantly, they are ELECTED by the people.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 08:45 am
Ultimately, after the media and the numbnuts run out of insults, slurs, and smears, the voters will hopefully turn back to the issues before they make up their mind who to vote for.

Here's an interesting piece from Forbes Magazine comparing the tax policy of the two Presidential candidates:

Excerpt: Ironically, today it is the Republican John McCain who is proposing the tax policies of President Kennedy, which led to the economic boom of the 1960s, rather than the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. Indeed, what Mr. Obama is proposing is the opposite of Kennedy's tax policies. . .

. . .On both taxes and spending, the contrast between these two candidates could not be greater. And Mr. McCain would seem to have the popular stance on both scores in the current political climate. His campaign should be centrally focused on these issues, not on distracting personality debates.


Quote:
John F. McCain
Peter Ferrara 08.29.08, 6:00 PM ET

The best components of John McCain's campaign are his tax and budget proposals. These are crafted to counter our currently wobbly economy and restore economic growth. So why on earth doesn't he talk about them more?

On taxes, America suffers from the second-highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. American corporations face a 35% federal tax rate, averaging 40% with state income taxes. In contrast, the average corporate tax rate in the European Union has been slashed from 38% in 1996 to 24% today. Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%, which has caused per capita income to soar from the second lowest in the E.U. 20 years ago to the second highest today. Corporate tax rates in India and China are lower as well.

How are American corporations supposed to compete? How are they supposed to provide good jobs at good wages while paying tax rates that are two-thirds higher than their competitors, and more?

Mr. McCain addresses this problem directly by proposing to slash the federal corporate-tax rate from 35% to 25%. He also proposes immediate expensing for capital investment, which means that capital costs can be deducted in the year they are incurred, like all other business expenses, rather than spread over many years under arbitrary depreciation schedules. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, as Mr. McCain has pledged to do, would leave the top individual income-tax rate at 35%, the capital gains and dividends tax rates at 15% and eliminate the repetitive death tax. He would also double the personal exemption for children and other dependents from $3,500 to $7,000.

Mr. McCain proposes to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally adopted as a mechanism to ensure that a small number of the richest Americans pay at least some tax. Because it was never indexed for inflation, today it imposes sharp, surprise tax increases on the middle class in the highest-tax states. Since it was never intended to be a big tax increase on the American people, Mr. McCain argues it should be eliminated. He also pledges to ban taxes on the Internet and on cell phones, consistent with his longstanding record.

These policies seem to be exactly what the economy needs. Besides eliminating the huge competitive disadvantage for American corporations internationally, these policies would spur investment. This would shore up the dollar, leaving the Fed more room to boost the economy. New and existing businesses would surge and expand hiring, producing more jobs and higher wages.

Barack Obama, by contrast, seems to have proposed tax-rate increases for just about every federal tax. He proposes to increase the top two individual tax rates. He would increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%. Ditto that for the tax rate on dividends. He has proposed Social Security payroll tax increases of 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year (that would have a minor effect on the long-term Social Security deficit while arbitrarily punishing these families with effective negative real rates of return from Social Security). Mr. Obama's health plan would also impose a new payroll tax on employers. He would reinstitute the "death tax" (estate tax) with a top rate of 45%. He has also proposed several increases in corporate taxes, including a "windfall profits" tax on oil. Nothing Obama said in his speech Thursday night changed these troublesome proposals.

Mr. Obama's protectionist trade policies would also result in higher tariffs. In contrast, Mr. McCain has even proposed tax cuts here, pledging to repeal the 54 cents per gallon tariff on sugar-based ethanol, as well as sugar import quotas, which should help to lower prices for gas and food. Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain also favors the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, which would primarily remove tariffs on American imports into that country, with barriers to Colombian exports in America already almost completely removed under the Andean Trade Preferences Act. Mr. McCain's longstanding support for free trade would also seem to be far better for the economy than Mr. Obama's protectionism.


Whole article here:
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/08/29/mccain-obama-taxes-oped-cx_pf_0829ferrara.html
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:19 am
@Foxfyre,
As the previous article is lengthy and somewhat tedious to read, here is a summary.

American corporations 35% federal tax rate averaging 40% with state income taxes.

Average EU corporate tax rate 24%; 12.5% in Ireland. India and China have lower rates too.

McCain proposes to slash federal corporate tax rate to 25% along with expensing for capital investment (allowing capital costs to be deducted in the year they are incurred.)

McCain proposes to make current tax rates permanent: Top individual income-tax rate 35%; capital gains and dividends rates 15% and eliminate repetitive death tax. In addition he proposes to double the personal exemption for children and other dependents from $3,500 to $7,000.

McCain proposes to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally adopted as a mechanism to ensure that a small number of the richest Americans pay at least some tax. Because it was never indexed for inflation, today it imposes sharp, surprise tax increases on the middle class in the highest-tax states.

McCain also pledges to ban taxes on the Internet and on cell phones, consistent with his longstanding record.

These policies seem to be exactly what the economy needs. Besides eliminating the huge competitive disadvantage for American corporations internationally, these policies would spur investment. This would shore up the dollar, leaving the Fed more room to boost the economy. New and existing businesses would surge and expand hiring, producing more jobs and higher wages.

Barack Obama proposes to increase the top two individual tax rates.

Obama would increase the capital gains and dividends tax rate by 33%.

Obama has proposed Social Security payroll tax increases of 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year

Obama’s proposed health plan would also impose a new payroll tax on employers.

Obama would reinstitute the "death tax" (estate tax) with a top rate of 45%.

Obama has also proposed several increases in corporate taxes, including a "windfall profits" tax on oil.

McCain proposes cutting numerous tariffs.

Obama proposes no cuts in any tariffs and several higher tariffs.

McCain favors the Columbian Free Trade Agreement
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:30 am
@Foxfyre,
Somehow you forgot to add -

Obama will cut income taxes for 90% of people.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:33 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Somehow you forgot to add -

Obama will cut income taxes for 90% of people.

Cycloptichorn


And if he raises enormous taxes otherwise as described, that will help those people how?

It's like Fred Thompson quipped in his convention address. Obama seems to think you can take water out of only one side of the bucket.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:36 am
@Asherman,
Quote:
Actually, the Democrats have controlled the Congress since the last major election, and this Congress has done virtually nothing.


Please. The Republicans have filibustered every single bill in the Senate. They have used the filibuster dozens of times more then any Senate in history has during a session. This makes it extremely difficult to get bills passed; 60 votes is a large amount to overcome, when you only have 50 seats in the Senate.

In the house, the Republicans have used every trick and gimmick they can in order to stall business. They call for adjournment four times a day, every day, which much be voted on each time. They use legislative tricks to get bills held up.

Bush has vetoed several bills the Congress has passed.

For you to blame the Dems for not doing anything? It betrays a pure ignorance of the actions of this Congress, of the actions of the Republicans in obstructing any votes, and just shows what an uninteresting partisan you are, Ash. You obviously have not done any real research into what actually went on in Congress. If you like, I can provide facts and figures showing just how obstructionist the Republicans have been, much, much more so then the Dem congresses of the past.

Your trickle-down economic arguments are as tired as they are trite. During the 90's, we had the sort of taxes that Obama is proposing now; and businesses weren't exactly fleeing the country.

Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:39 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Obama would reinstitute the "death tax" (estate tax) with a top rate of 45%.


I make it a point not to accept such articles as fact, so I did some research and found an analysis [urlhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693]here[/url]. I havent read all of it, but struck on this little bit in the first few paragraphs.

Quote:
Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama.


The Tax Policy Center is what factcheck.org uses, so I figured it should be credible. Still looking.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:39 am
@Asherman,
I forgot to mention: you list off a huge amount of quibbles you have with the Dem Congress. But McCain isn't running for Congress, he's running for the Presidency, so how does he represent a change from Bush? It is inaccurate to say that the Dems have controlled Washington since the last election; the Executive branch wields far more power then the Congress under our modern system.

You should attempt to show how he is going to reform the Executive branch, if you truly want to make the case that he is going to reform Washington. I suspect you, like the other Republicans on this site and elsewhere, will be purely unable to make that case. For McCain does not represent any real change from Bush at all.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Asherman should limit his opinions to buddhism which he know very little.
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:41 am
@FreeDuck,
That's cool. I would probably put confidence in competence of a Forbes analysis way ahead of the Tax Policy Center, but I do think both economic plans should be scrutinized carefully and thoroughly discussed.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/02/2022 at 03:51:04