I will take the "Bad" and the "Ugly" of McCain, with his experience, knowledge and outstanding economic policy over the inexperience of Obie ANY day of the week.

I think there's a lot more of the "bad" and "ugly" of McCain than is being "broken down" in this post.

jen, you should really take down that terrorist fist-bump avatar. It's un-American.

Sorry, I have nothing of substance to add--I will be so happy when this election is over. This quote is amusing to me though:

"But her effect was supposed to be three fold-- a woman and feminist for life, she'd pick up disgruntled Hillary supporters, an avowed Christian, she'd consolidate and energize the religious right, and with her youth and self described Mavericky ways, she'd counter Obama's fresh enthusiasm."

I'm a feminist, religious, a Hillary supporter (not very 'disgruntled', though), and young, and...yeah, she doesn't do it for me. Hillary vs. Palin? Nope...

Mykie, lighten up, it's a joke. Bleeding heart liberal feminists like me are supposed to be the overly-PC ones with no sense of humor, remember?

I'm amazed that a Clinton advisor is saying that about Barak. It gives us fiscal conservatives some hope. Not everyone on the "left" is buying the whole redistribution of wealth idea from Obama.

so bad and ugly

"I think there's a lot more of the "bad" and "ugly" of McCain than is being "broken down" in this post."

Yeah pretty sure some things have been left out.

Instead of discussing the material given, people decide to slam Obama...RIGHT!?!

Would it be better if we just slammed McCain? Do you agree with what Obama has said about raising taxes on the "rich" and giving more to the poor?

tiabia..thats how it always is.
when they post something bad about McCain that happens.
funny enough when something is posted about Obama you never see people saying.."oh but what about this or that".

the redistribution of wealth "meme" in itself is a lie/talking point crafted by the mccain campaign to "send a shiver" down your spine. taxes are by their very nature a redistribution of wealth. mccain's tax plan (and bush's before) redistributes the wealth in our country from the middle class to the top 2%. if you are ok with that - vote for mccain.

one last time - if you make LESS THAN $250k a year, obama will NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES.

He has said that, but he has also said that "rich" was $200k, and then later said "rich" was $150k. His definition of what is rich keeps going down.

one last time - if you make LESS THAN $250k a year, obama will NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES.

Hmmmm, bold doesn't make the statement any more true.

Actually, it would be better if you were to discuss the topic at hand. Do you agree on what has been posted here as good (McCain's economic plan), the bad (the negative Campaign), and the ugly (the Palin pick).

"Political perennial Dick Morris (who advised Bill Clinton) has a piece this morning called "Undecideds Should Break for McCain." Morris says, "Obama's professed pursuit of "social and political justice" through "redistribution of the wealth," is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth."

Wasn't this part of the post? Is that not up for discussion?

I don't know of any point in modern times where every person paid the exact same in taxes regardless of income. So taxes are always going to be on a sliding scale.... those that can afford to give a little more usually do. And the country prospers when this happens.

Obama's plan essentially goes back to the rates that Clinton had. Remember, that was back before Bush drove us into economic catastrophe.

I love that folks are trying to paint Obama as Robin Hood. The numbers just don't support that notion.

First - yay! Finally a discussion about economic issues!

"Obama's plan essentially goes back to the rates that Clinton had. Remember, that was back before Bush drove us into economic catastrophe."

I take issue with both of these statements.

First - Obama's plan wants to take us back to the INCOME tax rates that happened under Clinton. There are many other factors at play here - look at the capital gains taxes and corporate taxes.

Bush was not soley responsible for the current economic crisis. There were a lot of people in BOTH parties that got us in our current fix.

And I just wanna say - I don't think anyone will care that their taxes haven't been raised if they don't have a job or high inflation hits.

Except Bush didn't drive us to ecconomic catastrophe, just as Clinton didn't tax us into a wealthy society. He decimated the military via the defense budget to manufacture an income, at the expense of our defense (and my parent's jobs). I'd like to discuss the causes of this, but it's obvious that we are stuck in the Blame bush rut, so let's go on to something else.

As far as taxes go, in the last 8 years th amount of taxes collected by the government has gone up, because of the Bush tax cuts. Do you really think they'll continue to increase if we tax the groups of people who use that money to employ the lesser fortunate?

And yes - yesteryear - your income taxes will not go up. But the capital gains tax will affect a lot of people (retirees, entreprenuers, people who save, anyone with a 401(k) or IRA) - regardless of their income.

Thanks UnDave - you took the words out of my mouth!

First, Em, that wasn't meant for you.

Second, someone said that Obama Bashing was going on. I don't see it. I see a comparison being made, but no bashing.

Unless you mean that I used the term Obie to refer to him. It's not personal, it's called easier to type.

dave. look at the official press release on the tax cuts. you can't make something that's already TRUE more TRUE!?

kranky - all of those people you cited would have to make over $250k a year to see an increase - on capital gains, business tax, income tax, everything. again, i'm quoting from the actual tax plan. obama's made this point repeatedly.

Boy, they sure did miss a lot of the bad and the ugly.

"terrorist fist-bump." Em, you slay me. I say anyone who doesn't write me in as president is un-American; I don't participate in such unpatriotic activities as said fist bumps

I didn't realize Obama was the American version of Robin Hood.

Yesteryear - somehow my previous post got lost, so I apologize if this shows up twice.

Thanks for pointing out that fallacy in my argument. I truly appreciate it - I do not like misstating facts, and you are correct (I did a quick internet search), that is his current stance, though it was not in the past.

Why did Obama change his mind? Probably because it has been shown that when you raise taxes, revenue for the government starts going down. Riasing the capital gains tax on wealthy people will hurt the government's revenue - that's been shown in the past.

Is there a time in history where the kind of tax program that OBama is proposing has actually worked?

I didn't realize Obama was the American version of Robin Hood.

me neither...honestly.

Whats so difficult about O's tax plan? I find it to be great. I see it as..if i were to fall under the "rich" category I wouldnt mind paying a little more on my taxes! I have a problem with people who make much much much more than me and pay the same amount on their taxes. Sometimes even less.

*Sigh*

If everybody cared so freaking much about experience, they'd vote independent. Palin and Obama are both considered "inexperienced", so why don't you vote Nader? He's been running through the political fields for years upon years.

But yea, the point is, everybody is so quick to point the fingers, but has anybody stopped to think about the real freaking issues? What is best for the U.S.? Is it banning abortion so we can raise taxes to take care of more children that surface in foster care? Is it lowering taxes for those of us in the income bracket that seem to have the higest instance of forclosure so we (those constituents) can afford their mortgages?

Or is it mandating a certain percentage of jobs being kept in the U.S. so our people here can even have some sort of steady income instead of living paycheck to paycheck?

What the hell is it? What is the real issue? Because for some reason, when I hear Republicans versus Democratic debates, it always is talk of the ex-beauty pageant/weather girl turned governess with guns versus the potential muslim converted radical christian church attending half-black guy who's relatively new to senate?

You want to talk about inexperience? Lets talk about our forefathers. George Washington NEVER had senate experience. Hell, there was no senate when he was president. The checks and balances system didn't come around until later. He didn't have experience governing anybody. Yet, he helped establish this nation to be what it is now. Hell, he fought in a bloody war to make this country what it is now.

Yet, you don't hear anybody complaining about that, do you? How about does anybody question our current Commander in Chief's ties to an ex-cocaine farmer who is now the leader of Columbia? And that doesn't sound terroristic to you?

I think its funny how the U.S. is quick to call someone a terrorist and dangerous and radical because they don't follow the norm. Cuba doesn't have a freaking millitary, yet people seem to have a problem with this little island nation who's population is half of that of Queens, NY.

At this point, I am now airing my disgust and disdain for airheads who are commenting on the political process. Its one thing to toss out a few jokes and play a few dirty tricks, but to instead base your entire campaign on trying to badmouth the opponent is beyond ridiculous for grown-ass people to be doing. Its funny how Hillary Clinton has been the only one fully chastized by both sides for doing such a thing, yet, for some freaking reason, other parties are not taking the hint and continuing to slander instead of talk about whats really important.

So I don't give a crap if you're Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, VooDoo, Catholic, Baptist, or Atheist...honestly because this is a free freaking country founded on the principles of religious freedom as well as freedom to do what the hell you want to do with your life, your body, and your money. So you can be what the hell you want to be as long as you can protect my liberties, my money, and my body from harm, from filth, from corruption, from things that no longer make it mine.

That, my friends is what a true American leader should be able to do.

[steps off of soapbox]

I've just now caught up on the comments, so the eye roll was for me?!? YAY! I now feel like an official member of the CitizenSugar team.

Sorry. Carry on.

AMEN LADY!

There's bad and ugly about both candidates. I refuse to believe that only McCain is being victimized.

"I have a problem with people who make much much much more than me and pay the same amount on their taxes. Sometimes even less."

Is this your impression, or do you have a source to back up this statement?

I can trot out some facts that show a completely different story. The wealthy pay a much, much higher percentage of all taxes brought into the government than the rest of us pleebs.

As shown in an earlier post, I am happy to admit when I am wrong (well... more like will do so when forced to do so). So being it on.

"He has said that, but he has also said that "rich" was $200k, and then later said "rich" was $150k. His definition of what is rich keeps going down.

one last time - if you make LESS THAN $250k a year, obama will NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES.

Hmmmm, bold doesn't make the statement any more true."

Totally, Dream.

About media coverage: McCain's not the one who had to endure endless news cycles of WRIGHT WRIGHT WRIGHT AYERS AYERS AYERS MUSLIM AYERS WRIGHT WRIGHT WRIGHT.

From what I can remember, also, McCain coverage was a lot more positive (or at least indifferent) before he revealed his campaign's ugly, manipulative, arrogant side by announcing Palin as his VP pick.

You're right, Jude but now the MSM is the devil's advocate.

As far as I know, Obama's tax plan would repeal the Bush tax cuts, which would leave people paying similar rates to what they paid under the Clinton administration.

Which left us a nice big surplus for W's administration to squander.

And the news about McCain, although not "GOOD", has never attacked him as a person. The "MSM" have questioned his logic in his VP pick, as well as questioning the long-term effects of his economic plan, and his volatile nature in foreign affairs. But never has McCain's patriotism or even religion or associates been called into question.

, jen, not only did you get an eye roll meant for you, but you also got me, who jumped the gun and thought the eye roll was for me. Eye rolls for everyone!

"What the hell is it? What is the real issue? Because for some reason, when I hear Republicans versus Democratic debates, it always is talk of the ex-beauty pageant/weather girl turned governess with guns versus the potential muslim converted radical christian church attending half-black guy who's relatively new to senate?"

Love it, ladychaos.

i thought this post was about mccain

Jude -

That isn't the whole story of Obama's plan. Take a look at his spending proposals, as well as other factors in play during Clinton's administration that led to the surplus. (For example, UnDave's observation about military spending. Also, last time I checked, the unemployment rate was higher under Clinton than it is today. People who aren't working don't pay taxes.)

It's a complicated issue, but increased taxing and increased spending have never helped our economy.

Not to mention all this Socialist crap that Obama is receiving when Palin is the gov of one of the MOST socialist states in the union:
http://teamsugar.com/group/2385592/blog/2440509

I'll see if can ask some friends send me their paychecks to back up what I say....
I guess you really cant state anything on here without haveing something to show for it or you'll get eaten alive..

The New Yorker on Obama's Tax plan:

The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obama’s proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush’s tax cuts expire on schedule. Obama would use some of the added revenue to give a break to pretty much everybody who nets less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. The total tax burden on the private economy would be somewhat lighter than it is now—a bit of elementary Keynesianism that renders doubly untrue the Republican claim that Obama “will raise your taxes.”

[haveing something to show for it or you'll get eaten alive.. ]

Yep -- they do that!

I am confused about Obama's tax plan. When he says that $250K a year is the cutoff, is that per person or per household? If per household, that could obviously affect a lot more people, as two people with low-six figure salaries are not exactly "rich", especially in high cost of living areas where I live. If anyone knows if it applies per person or per household, please post!

h t t p://w w w.barackobama.com/taxes/ (without the spaces -- or just copy everything after (www.) and that will work too)

I have to LOOK it up..but i thinkits 200k per person or 250k per houshold.

From the site:

* Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
* Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
* Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.