Who are you voting for?

[Repugnant Abomination]

My guess is because he has money now, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Mr. Blonde]

As much as i'd hate for it to boil down to something like that, as I consider UB a good friend, the timeline suggests it to be the leading factor. I mean, his main arguments ARE about the economy; and I've never known UB to be extremely political until just these past couple months, but maybe I just never noticed.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Stolen from joerogan.net


Go to http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ if you want to see a decent (I didn't say 'good' or 'great') source. This whole area is complex, and it is key to look at one and exactly one thing at a time. The first article is useful, and shadows all my points (I swear, they are the ones mencea-ing me).

As of right now - here's what you've got when looking solely at personal income tax - which is worth looking at on its own. It is the single biggest source of federal income - around 45% (vs. 14% from corporations - though keep in mind that many small/mid-sized businesses end up in the personal income tax bucket - that number should only be around 34% vs. 25%):

- Obama will give a bit back to people below 200/250K (single/married), and take a bit from those above.

- McCain will give a bit (a smaller bit) back to everyone. 2K under Obama will end up around $700 under McCain. However, everyone gets something back - including the top earners.

- Obama will increase gov revenue by around 600B over the next decade. McCain will decrease by almost the same amount during that period.

- Now before you think that means: McCain equals smaller government... it doesn't. That just means McCain equals higher deficit spending, specifically around 5 Trillion additional (for him) vs. 3.5 Trillion additional (for Obama) over the next decade (which is, by comparison to the last decade, not all that bad percentage-wise).

Their approach to _every_ other area of taxes is quite similar to the above. Overall, Obama plans to set the stage (for his successor) for deficit reduction by culling the defense budget and going to war less often. McCain just wants to get us down to a reasonable bleed rate (as compared to Bush). It will take either of them 5 to 8 years to accomplish either goal (which could easily end up identical on paper - they differ in direction now - but reality will likely bring them closer together over time).

That isn't to say that the differences don't matter overall - they do and will. But the differences on taxes is little more than rhetoric. It isn't about taxes, it is about the areas where they will cut spending and where they will actually stimulate real growth (not hypothetical economic shifting - not McCain's rehashed trickle-down or Obama's help-ya-brotha plans).

It is about war and about getting businesses to stay (or come to) american soil (which does relate to taxes, but not as directly as people think). Everything else is largely moot.

Obama says he is going to spend less on defense, and pull out of Iraq quicker (note that pulling out 30% quicker is a LOT of money) - and that's where most of his 3.5T deficit will get made up. McCain has illustrated no believable method for making up for his 5.0T deficit plan as of yet (I do mean "as of yet" seriously - additional real-world tactics are the things that McCain and Obama will float out in the last two months of the election). On the flip-side, Obama has a bunch of areas where he wants to spend more money - whereas McCain pretty much wants to leave shit alone. So Obama's smaller deficit number could easily become bigger than McCain's if they both do what they say they want to.

(They both actually say a lot more than that about revenue increases or spending cuts, but all of it is horseshit. e.g. Obama isn't going to pick up billions closing corporate loopholes, and McCain isn't going to grab billions by generating growth by giving millionaires an extra 10K a year... yadda yadda. Unless they can show exactly where they're getting the money from, then discard everything they say.)

[Heaven Can Wait]

Again stolen.



Obama is going to raise your taxes if you are an individual pulling more than 200K or a family pulling more than 250K. Every individual below that would get a tax cut.

By the time the world ends in 2012, if you make 80K - you will see about another 2K a year in your pocket as compared to now. If you make 1M - you will lose about 20K from your pocket as compared to now. The other numbers are pretty proportional (people that make 20K a year will see a few hundred, people that make 350K a year will lose a couple thou). That gives the fed around an extra 600B over the next decade (not per year, but overall).

Which isn't shit in terms of the big picture.

If you compare the size of the increase to the size of the overall economy - you can see that this increase is actually pretty fucking conservative. It can't hang with the actual largest one (1942, yo - which was a 5% increase by my ratio). It can't hang with Clinton's '93 (which was around .5%)... it is only around .3%. Which isn't top-20 in terms of ratio, let alone one of the biggest in history.

Guess what - the amorphous blob is so big - .3% doesn't give him much cash, neither candidate has a plan that would have any substantial effect on the deficit, and neither would do much to increase economic growth in terms of the tax breaks they give. Taxes are not an issue - neither side is touching them substantially in a way that will change anyone's life or will significantly affect the deficit. Obama is basically giving 10 people 2K for every 1 person that loses 20K, because he feels that the people on the bottom need the money more. But is 2K or 20K going to significantly change those people's lives? Fuck no.

Taxes are a non-issue - a shiny object for the rats to look at. Obama is tweaking taxes to give the bottom 90% a few crumbs, that's the only difference. McCain and Obama both have the same plan for taxes: to leave them about the same.

And guess what: that is arguably a good move. They are both planning on doing basic triage - stopping the flow of blood, stabilizing the deficit, and removing this element from the economic equation for a while. With all the other elements of change that are going on, this makes some sense. Both also plan on cutting spending in other areas, but also at a very conservative pace. This makes sense because giving a bunch of people a few extra thousand doesn't mean shit if gas and food go up again by the margin they just did over the last decade... it is giving someone a cookie while their pants are on fire.

The blob is defining most of the strategy faggots. Look to the war, future wars, internal morale, food/gas (and related) prices, and foreign relations as the only real issues - the rest is vapor.


And who are people putting their money on?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...875VIJDcq3FOKg

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/31/news...ions/index.htm

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

So why are you a republican?

I wouldn't say that I am. At least not in any static, unwavering sense. This election I'm going to vote for the Republican because I believe he will be vastly better for the wealth of America than the Democrat.

And another reason I care so much is because I've got $60k on McCain to win the Presidency. But it will be more than that before election day.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I wouldn't say that I am. At least not in any static, unwavering sense. This election I'm going to vote for the Republican because I believe he will be vastly better for the wealth of America than the Democrat.

And another reason I care so much is because I've got $60k on McCain to win the Presidency. But it will be more than that before election day.

I really haven't been keeping up on the financial end as much as I should have, and that's my fault. Regardless, I find it strange that its the main thing you're focusing on...what about everything ELSE, more on a humanitarian issue that needs to be taken care of not only in this country but the entire world? In that end, Obama seems to be the best candidate for the job, sir.

One could make the argument "America is the most powerful nation in the world; we can't help everybody else without the financial power to do so.

While this is true, it hasn't exactly been helping the past 8 years, and doesn't look to be changing over the next. One of the main reasons I'M not voting for McCain is because, as cliche as it sounds, we NEED a fucking change dude.

[Ugly Bastard]

IMO, all issues (humanitarian, gay rights, abortion, etc, etc, etc, etc) are given WAY too much attention in the Presidential election relative to economics and foreign policy. We can't expect to help others unless we are a strong, prosperous nation. And we can't expect to be a strong, prosperous nation if we institute taxes that will hinder peoples' incentive to generate jobs and efficiencies in society.

Hot-button issues like abortion get a lot of attention because it's an easy issue to understand. It's hard for most people to have an educated argument about economics, but anyone can argue about abortion. It makes people feel good and important to argue about stuff like abortion, but at the end of the day, it's just really not a major issue. Hell, it's not even a minor one to be honest. Roe vs. Wade is not going to get overturned. And even if, by some completely unforeseen longshot, it is overturned, worst case scenario is that you have to go to NYC to get an abortion. I just want to say to all these dumb whores who like Obama, "don't worry sweetie, you can still be a slut and get an abortion under a McCain administration... no need to cripple daddy's ability to pay for your 5th year of undergrad in the process."

[Mr. Blonde]

hahahaha


i could honestly give a shit about abortion. i'm talking about actual issues. poverty, third world malaria and aids relief, disease research, etc. our priorities as a nation are pretty fucked up imo.

[Repugnant Abomination]

UB makes some good points.

But foreign policy, the issue McCain is suppose to be the strongest in, is one of the main reasons I'm not voting for him. I think the guy has a overly simplistic view of international relations, similar to GWB, in that you're either with us or against us. I don't think he cares, or will try nearly as hard as Obama to bring Europe into international conflicts. I think he has a cold war mentality, and will be too eager to confront Russia with force. I think he wants to stay in the middle east indefinitely. I don't like that he's not willing to negotiate with nations that aren't our "friends", i.e. Iran, Venezuela, etc...

Don't get me wrong, McCain WOULD protect America, but in my opinion his temper, combined with a strong military mind set, would isolate us more than integrate us with our allies. He's too confrontational. Obama understands that we can make progress by talking to our enemies and that diplomacy should be absolutely exhausted before we use violence.

Lastly, and I might be the only one who feels this way but whatever...Like it or not McCain is 72 years old. The dude has lost a step, and will continue to lose a step at an exponential rate. It's simply the aging process and something we're all going to have to go through. And what scares me to death is what if he croaks? It's very possible given his hard life, advanced age, and dealing with the stress of the job. Then we'd have Sara freaking Palin as president.

[Heaven Can Wait]

UB what do you think of the stuff I posted? The issue of tax-and-spend Democrats versus borrow-and-spend Republicans?

also

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Then we'd have Sara freaking Palin as president.

WOOT

[Repugnant Abomination]

Quiet, you.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Who would you rather do?
JFK -or- Palin

[Repugnant Abomination]

Cheney.

[Orgazmo]

rambutan

[Heaven Can Wait]

http://au.video.yahoo.com/watch/3460540/9638914

[Ugly Bastard]

Turns out Obama is a founding member of a group that pays college kids for their radical, communist-slanted protests for social change against capitalism and white male dominated society.

LOL... the Democrats nominated a fucking Black Panther as their Presidential candidate. How stupid are they?

http://nobamablog.com/the-obamas-sta...-hitler-youth/

[Cocktooth]

Actually it turns out Palin has said that god wanted this war. God wanted 4,200 soldiers to die. What started that??? 9-11. So obviously god wanted 3,000 people to die on that day!!! Obviously according to Palin, God plays a HUGE part into all of our lives. Regardless of beliefs. UB, explain. I know as a better like yourself, when Tony Dungy thanked god for winning a game, you tried to explain that god had nothing to do with it. Now your VP canidate is saying God had everything to do with a War....HMMMMMMMMM

[Repugnant Abomination]

Country first.

[Ironic Mustache]

rt

[Ironic Mustache]

Originally Posted by Shaw

God wanted 4,200 soldiers to die. What started that??? 9-11. So obviously god wanted 3,000 people to die on that day!!!

[Repugnant Abomination]

Nice.

You know, at least the members Obama is apparent funding to end white, patriarchal dominance is dealing with something real, whether you agree with them or not. Palin is just off the wall crazy.

[Ugly Bastard]

Crazy hot...

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Crazy hot...

QFT.

It's actually kind of ridiculous how attracted I am to this woman. I feel like I'm in that Seinfeld episode, where his dick is playing chess with his brain. On the one hand she repulses me as a person, but on the other hand she is a powerful milf.

The rage I would hate fuck her with would be epic.

[Cocktooth]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

QFT.

On the one hand she repulses me as a person, but on the other hand she is a powerful milf.

Soon to be a Gilf.