I found that comment very interesting. Mind sharing why you think this is the case? At least in my case I don't think its easy to decide which to vote for.. if anything, McCain is more fit to lead.(sorry, John, you don't have a chance in hell of winning this one...)
I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.KungFooMasta wrote:McCain is more fit to lead.
I guess I'm more aligned with McCain in terms of his foreign stances, and the fact that McCain actually served in the military and was a prisoner of war for 5 years make him more credible in my eyes.I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.
On a single issue, in other words? Do you agree with his direction for domestic policy? Economic? Environmental? Is his the face you want other world leaders (indeed, the citizens of the world) to see and associate with the United States?KungFooMasta wrote:I guess I'm more aligned with McCain in terms of his foreign stances, and the fact that McCain actually served in the military and was a prisoner of war for 5 years make him more credible in my eyes.I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.
Wow, also Berlusconi here in italy said that he would cut any tax that he could think, he promised a thing like 200 billions € less taxes... and now that life's cost is augmented by 3.8% after 2 months, all I can say is LOL.warmi wrote:Economic?
Bush = more spending, no new taxes
Obama = more spending, back to the 70s style taxation.
McCain = less spending, no new taxes.
Personally, I think the choice is pretty clear.
It is not distorted.Sure, distorted black/white view makes every decision process crystal clear.
Then where do you propose the money come from? It sounds like you're saying, "Obama wants to do something, and has outlined a way to pay for it."The difference between him and Bush is that Obama is willing to drastically increase the taxation to pay for all that stuff.
It is not about my personal economic interests - I can take care of these just fine.Please don't vote someone only because you personal economic interests.
If you believe that campaign promises become law in more than 5% of the cases, you need to revisit your civics lessons.warmi wrote:It is not distorted.Sure, distorted black/white view makes every decision process crystal clear.
Take a look at Obama's campaign summaries.
He is basically proposing a whole list of new , very expensive programs - whatever you call them ,they have to financed somehow.
The difference between him and Bush is that Obama is willing to drastically increase the taxation to pay for all that stuff.
Last I checked, the top US federal tax rate was 38%. That doesn't include state and local income taxes, nor does it include any number of excise and sales taxes -- which everyone pays regardless of income, and which is why Fair Tax is the best bet in the long run (except that as an elected federal official, you can't play one class off the other by sleight of hand with income tax code antics, which is the oldest profession in this country, next to...)betajaen wrote:You think 1/5 is bad, according to this article I recently read, Britons could be taxed up to 45%.
Insane.
The economy does what economies do.Not that new taxes would save us anyway. The economy seems to be on a huge nosedive.
Yeah, right.Considering that we've spent all of our money on the Iraq war (China's money, actually), it's nonsense to think that taxes shouldn't be increased.
That’s not the point. We don’t need any new programs. We need to get rid of existing ones and save money, not to spend more.Then where do you propose the money come from? It sounds like you're saying, "Obama wants to do something, and has outlined a way to pay for it."
They can submit budgets until the cows come home -- Congress doesn't have to approve all or even any of it.warmi wrote:They do submit a budget though don't they ?Appropriations are enacted by law. Presidents don't make laws. Congress makes laws. Ergo, Presidential campaign promises are worth the paper they are printed on.
And don't forget about a presidential veto.
Nothing really wrong with that.syd wrote:KungFooMasta wrote:I guess I'm more aligned with McCain in terms of his foreign stances, and the fact that McCain actually served in the military and was a prisoner of war for 5 years make him more credible in my eyes.I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.
