OBAMA OR McCAIN POLL. VOTE!!!!

[ramoine]

You talk about taxing the big corporations and the stalling of the economy ?
Have you seen how much C.E.O' s are making , while the companies are either in Bankruptcy or the stocks have fallen and they're laying off workers .
This is just the last 7 years I'm talking about . No Bush has not taxed them , but the economy is stalled and going into a recession .
Stocks may fall, but execs' pay doesn't - USATODAY.com

Surge in US jobless to 5.5 per cent prompts sharp falls on Wall St - Business News, Business - The Independent

Biggest jobless jump since '86 — Wall Street sinks - Yahoo! News

I'm not sure what historical data your referring to , but read those and then tell me we should not do anything but keep giving big companies more tax breaks and promoting job exportation to India , China and Mexico .

I also could go on and on , but I read the news and the news ain't good .

[4x4Balls]

im not TOO familiar with McCain's military record, but why does everyone seem to think being a POW means you deserve to be president? It has nothing to do with anything. Sure we are thankful for his service, as we are of the service of all Americans who risk their lives to defend our country, but that doesn't really "qualify" you to be president. War has changed tremendously since John McCain served. Older isn't always better.

[1stToyo]

Originally Posted by 4x4Balls

im not TOO familiar with McCain's military record, but why does everyone seem to think being a POW means you deserve to be president? It has nothing to do with anything. Sure we are thankful for his service, as we are of the service of all Americans who risk their lives to defend our country, but that doesn't really "qualify" you to be president. War has changed tremendously since John McCain served. Older isn't always better.

With all due respect 4x4...What "qualifies" Obama to be president? Of course constitutionally both are qualified, but if you strictly look at their resume's...

[ramoine]

I'm not sure , other then he has supported increases in funding for the V.A which was a long time coming .
But I think if Obama is elected look for this guy here to be in his cabinet , he also had a son serving in Iraq .
Senator Jim Webb : Virginia
His credentials are good as well .

[sxd45]

What qualified bush? Oh yeah his dad used to be president and his brother was the governor of Florida, guess thats all he had to put on his resume.

[ramoine]

Originally Posted by 1stToyo

With all due respect 4x4...What "qualifies" Obama to be president? Of course constitutionally both are qualified, but if you strictly look at their resume's...

The fact is that niether have any experience leading our country , you cannot base experience on how long they have been in the Senate , or the Military .
What this will come down to for me is whom do I think will have a better chance of bringing about change and working with both Parties with more enthusiasm .
Who has been looking at the real picture of the economy and has a voice not from the lobbyists on K street , but from the voices of Americans that work in this country , serve our military , and have not been in the buisness of following a failed presidency .

[4x4Balls]

Originally Posted by 1stToyo

With all due respect 4x4...What "qualifies" Obama to be president? Of course constitutionally both are qualified, but if you strictly look at their resume's...

its not just about resume's though. the president doesn't need to have any military experience as far as im concerned. thats why we have generals. presidents dont go to war with their armies and lead the battle like they did in the old days. If this was 200 BC Rome, the president's military experience would be important to me. But its not. The President's job is to govern the country. If there were elections for Generals, and we had a say in the matter of who is appointed, THEN military records and credentials would be important.

McCain and Obama will never ever see war. They will never fight with anyone, so why does it matter that McCain was a POW? Were trying to get AWAY from war. What better way is there to avoid war, then to make someone president whose never served in one?

[ramoine]

Originally Posted by sxd45

What qualified bush? Oh yeah his dad used to be president and his brother was the governor of Florida, guess thats all he had to put on his resume.

Don't forget GM of the Texas rangers too ! LOL !!!

[1stToyo]

Originally Posted by ramoine

Don't forget GM of the Texas rangers too ! LOL !!!

Or top executive for one of the largest states in our union.

[ramoine]

Originally Posted by 1stToyo

Or top executive for one of the largest states in our union.

Yes , I forgot about that one .

[4x4Balls]

Originally Posted by ramoine

What this will come down to for me is whom do I think will have a better chance of bringing about change and working with both Parties with more enthusiasm .
Who has been looking at the real picture of the economy and has a voice not from the lobbyists on K street , but from the voices of Americans that work in this country , serve our military , and have not been in the buisness of following a failed presidency .

this is the best post made so far.

[ramoine]

Thank you .

[DocWard]

Let me see if I can respond to a few of the comments.

Originally posted by Nukedog:

Oil is traded in US Dollars on the stock market. Oil is high because our dollar has lost 30% of it's value in the last few years because we pump $3 BILLION a month in a war that is played out beyond repair. mcCain says we can be out by 2103!!!! WTF!!! Obama says we can be out in 18mos. Neither can be done as they say but NOW is a time for change from the war monger old white guys (and i am a white republican) so that the WORLD will have more resolve in our true intentions. Time is for change and change needs to happen this time...

As for the dollar, and its current weakness, it is not solely the war that contributes to it. In fact, there are a huge number of factors more relevant than the war. For instance, have you considered the fact that one of the reasons the dollar is low is in order to combat the artificially low Chinese currency? I'm no economist, and don't understand the intricacies, but with one of the world's fastest growing economies keeping their currency low on the world market, they have the ability to do further damage to our own, helping their exports gain even more popularity.

Several other factors come into play--when foreign investment looks to the equity within our system is one, the Middle Eastern consideration of adopting the Euro as a standard instead of the dollar is another.

The only way the war is creating a problem is by increasing our deficit spending, which wouldn't be such a problem if the President had insisted that Congress show some fiscal restraint, particularly when it was Republican controlled. This is my main gripe against Bush. If you will recall, McCain was one of the only voices on the Republican side calling for restraint, which endeared him to the left and to the media up to the point that he got the nomination.

As for the war being "played out beyond repair" and being in Iraq until 2013. Taking those two in order, why do you say it is played out beyond repair? We had a steep learning curve in Iraq. We won the war quite handily. Winning the peace has taken a change in the way we do things, adapting to the culture, working within the various ethnic groups and mediating between them, while at the same time fighting against a new type of Guerrilla. Yet, we are doing it. We hear more daily about the successes within Iraq, about the government and military, police and security forces taking the forefront, and our military being able to step back and our losses being lower. We hear about the caches of weapons that are being found because we are gaining the trust of the Iraqi people.

As for being there until 2013, WWII ended in 1945. Over sixty years later we still have a presence in Germany, Europe, and in and around Japan. There was a cease fire agreement reached in the Korean War in 1953, yet we are still there. Why is it inconceivable that we would have a presence in Iraq for an extended period of time?

Let me tell you something that you may not know, but is there for the finding if you research it. The U.S. has a bad reputation among the Arab countries. We are seen as untrustworthy to our allies, and weak when push comes to shove. We have been seen to abandon our goals when given a bloody nose, in Lebanon and in Somalia, among other places. We have been seen as unwilling to commit ourselves putting our money where our mouth is, as in the Shiite uprising in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War. We have been seen as being able to be held impotent by those willing to attack us in the right way, as in the Iranian hostage crisis, and numerous terrorist attacks. Leaving Iraq now, before the mission is complete--especially when we are making progress--reinforces that notion and emboldens those who would strike against us.

I have a daughter that is 14 and a daughter that is 11. While they would only have to fight if they so choose, many in their generation could be called to fight if we retreat prematurely. Obama says we can leave in 18 months. He doesn't discuss the consequences of doing so.

[DocWard]

Originally posted by 4x4Balls:

I'm not TOO familiar with McCain's military record, but why does everyone seem to think being a POW means you deserve to be president? It has nothing to do with anything. Sure we are thankful for his service, as we are of the service of all Americans who risk their lives to defend our country, but that doesn't really "qualify" you to be president. War has changed tremendously since John McCain served. Older isn't always better.

Let me see if I can help out with this one too. Being a POW doesn't mean one "deserves" to be President. However, when I look at John McCain, and what he endured, and how he endured it, I see a person who acted with the utmost of character and honor under the most extreme conditions and the worst forms of torture one can imagine. Do some research and find out why McCain doesn't have full range of motion in his shoulders, being barely able to lift his arms above shoulder height.

But let's go beyond that. After his return, McCain attended the Naval War College, and then served as the head of the Navy Senate Liaison office for about five years before going to Congress and then the Senate itself. It isn't his time as a POW alone that makes me say he knows the military.

Obama, on the other hand, has less than a full term as a Senator. He does however, have two autobiographies, and a willingness to jump ship from his church of twenty years in the name of political expedience. So, I suppose we can chalk another one up in the character department for McCain as well.

Originally posted by ramoine:

Most of the big oil companies have offshore corporate headquarters and pay very little taxes for drilling rights .

You've just stumbled onto one of the arguments for the Fair Tax, but I really don't want to lose focus and go down that road at the moment.

The top incomes in this country are taxed at a lower rate , who says this ?
Only the second richest man in the world Warren Buffett

This article has been making the rounds for several years now, and the first thing that I always think when I read it is why the hell does Warren Buffett only pay his secretary $60,000 per year? Beyond that, did you actually look at the link I posted? I suspect not. If you would, you would see the actual percentages of money paid by the top one percent paying income tax, as well as the remaining brackets.

What percentage would you have the top earners pay? Here is another little secret. Warren Buffett's secretary has to earn money. In so doing, her contribution to the economy is to pay her bills, purchase goods, and perhaps have a mortgage. Mr. Buffett doesn't have to earn money. He has a net worth in excess of 50 Billion dollars. His contribution to the economy is capital for creating employment opportunities for others, like his secretary. Along with others like him, when taxation becomes excessive on him, he can slow his use of his wealth to make money, and work harder on protecting what he has. The result? If it isn't obvious, less capital going into the system, less money for jobs. If you don't believe me, take a look at the historical precedents of prior tax cuts. As I mentioned, check Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush.

The only reason Bush wanted to open up ANWR , was after Cheney had meetings with all the big oil companies .

And if you read the article, you will notice that the details of those meetings haven't been released. So you are reading into it a nefarious scheme to bilk taxpayers. It is just as plausible that the energy executives showed concerns about the market with China and India on the horizon, the refinery issue, as well as the super tanker issue I mentioned, and pointed out that a small area on a barren patch of tundra, close to existing pipeline facilities could be a good idea in the interim. Come to think of it, that is more plausible than a plot to bilk the taxpayers, it just takes a little logic.

The more you make the more tax breaks you get , and why in the heck are we giving tax breaks to oil companies that make 20 billion in profits ?

Again, what happens to those profits, and who suffers when they are taxed? Not the CEOs. Not the employees even. The shareholders, including teachers, law enforcement and others whose retirements are based on mutual funds and stocks. Oh, and lets not forget the retirees. Finally, the consumer pays. Why? Because a corporation has the ability to pass along taxes to the consumer.

The fact is that niether have any experience leading our country , you cannot base experience on how long they have been in the Senate , or the Military .

Surely you are kidding. You can't rely on their experiences in life as a predictor of how they will do in the presidency? You can't look at the knowledge they have gained, the contacts they have made, and how they have handled themselves as a predictor? I suspect that you can.

What this will come down to for me is whom do I think will have a better chance of bringing about change and working with both Parties with more enthusiasm .

Change for the sake of change is the worst reason I can think of to do something different. Without a clearly articulated direction, why the change is needed, and how the proposed change is going to positively effect that stated need, then change can most certainly make things worse.

If I think you check, McCain has the far longer and more extensive track record of working across the aisle with Democrats, much to the chagrin of fellow Republicans and to the joy of the Democrats and the media, at least until he became the presumptive nominee. Their switch on McCain has been Orwellian in nature.

Who has been looking at the real picture of the economy and has a voice not from the lobbyists on K street , but from the voices of Americans that work in this country , serve our military , and have not been in the buisness of following a failed presidency .

I can just about guarantee you that Obama is not listening to the voices of the majority serving in the military. As for the rest, if you think Obama hasn't had dealings with lobbyists, hasn't listened to their opinions, and hasn't had contributions made to his campaign, then we should probably stop the discussion here.

[Smed]

Yes McCain was a POW - but that is not why I am saying that he is better qualified. He was also in the military, but that is not why I am saying he is better qualified. At the very least though, those things should not be the negatives that some here are trying to imply.

Take those 2 things out of the equation and he is still VASTLY more qualified and knowledgeable then Obama. I know Obama is very good at milking the disgruntlement created by GW Bush - but that does not give Obama substance, it simply makes him an oportunist.

He is promising you change... like I said before, I want change too. I think you ahve to be careful with "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" kind of thinking though.