Ogre Forums

[moderator note: split from "IndependenceDay" topic, where this wildly-off-topic tangent was growing legs...]

(sorry, John, you don't have a chance in hell of winning this one...)

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.

KungFooMasta wrote:McCain is more fit to lead.

I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.

The fact is, we've had 8 years of George W. Bush, and by and large, the nation is fed up with it -- even those who voted for him. McCain, Obama talking points aside, is "guilty by association", simply because he's a Republican and so is Bush. Bush won initially because "he wasn't Clinton" (and Gore, by association, was).

Regardless of "qualifications to lead", John McCain is not going to win in November unless someone finds Barack Obama in bed with three underage boys and a child-porn studio in his basement. It's actually a beneficial side-effect that Barack Obama is such a good, calm speaker and a much better candidate for "statesman", which is what the nation needs right now.

I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.

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.

KungFooMasta wrote:

I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.

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.

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?

Well like I said I'm not set on who I'd vote for, but yes, some of the other areas like environmental I agree with as well. I still have time to figure it out.

And just to point out the obvious, Obama is a candidate who makes nice speeches and has a good image, he hasn't demonstrated any capability of anything that would make him a good president, unlike other candidates.

Sorry for hijacking, but its off topic, right? I'll quiet down now.

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.

warmi wrote:
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.

Sure, distorted black/white view makes every decision process crystal clear.

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.

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.

Please don't vote someone only because you personal economic interests.

PS: Bush, with his "more spending and no taxes", got China to own 60% of USA's public debt.
why for you, even if they regularly broke human rights, have hundreds of atomic bombs, censor internet and USA-based companies, noone puts them in the "axis of evil"?

Sure, distorted black/white view makes every decision process crystal clear.

It is not distorted.

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.

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.

Not that new taxes would save us anyway. The economy seems to be on a huge nosedive.




Also, China is pretty shitty to its own citizens, but as far as I know they haven't done much in the way of state sponsored terrorism. Maybe I've just never heard about it.

The difference between him and Bush is that Obama is willing to drastically increase the taxation to pay for all that stuff.

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."

Also, what mysterious and expensive programs are you referring to? No offense, but so far it sounds like a Limbaugh broadcast.

Please don't vote someone only because you personal economic interests.

It is not about my personal economic interests - I can take care of these just fine.

It is about the government interfering with my ability to take care of myself , by forcing me to fork over more and more of my money to pay for some vaguely defined "common social good".

Wouldn't tax codes and yearly budgets precisely define these programs? What's vague about them?

about 1/5th of every paycheck of mine goes towards taxes of some sort. Its ridiculous how much money gets taken out. I'm working hard, and the result is that other people who make lots of mistakes can still get funding to continue living their lifestyle. I'd rather we not raise taxes more.

You think 1/5 is bad, according to this article I recently read, Britons could be taxed up to 45%.

Insane.

warmi wrote:

Sure, distorted black/white view makes every decision process crystal clear.

It is not distorted.

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.

If you believe that campaign promises become law in more than 5% of the cases, you need to revisit your civics lessons.

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.

betajaen wrote:You think 1/5 is bad, according to this article I recently read, Britons could be taxed up to 45%.

Insane.

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...)

If I could vote, it's a vote for Obama.

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.

They do submit a budget though don't they ?
And don't forget about a presidential veto.

Not that new taxes would save us anyway. The economy seems to be on a huge nosedive.

The economy does what economies do.
This is not the first time, nor will be the last.

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.

Yeah, right.
We are talking here mere pocket change compared to the size of the budget. What we are spending in Iraq is nothing compared to domestic spending.

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."

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.

Generally the only way the government can help in a recession is to get out of the way.

KungFooMasta wrote:

I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.

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.

warmi wrote:

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.

They do submit a budget though don't they ?
And don't forget about a presidential veto.

They can submit budgets until the cows come home -- Congress doesn't have to approve all or even any of it.

The power to spend federal tax revenue is 100% within the control of Congress.

And any veto can be overridden with enough support.

syd wrote:

KungFooMasta wrote:

I in turn would be interested in your rationale for that.

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.

Nothing really wrong with that.

The guy went thru hell and he refused early release (due to him being the son of the admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet) until all
the POWs captured before him were freed.

While it doesn't directly relate to his potential for being a good president, it does testify to his character and ability to handle stressful situations.

He was supposedly tortured, and yet supports torture when it's done by the U.S.

That doesn't sound like a great candidate to me.

the logic is funny.

Idea: Mc Cain has a better foreign policy
Argument: He served the army and was prisoner of war five years