The final "Who are you going to vote for" poll

[Maluco]

Just remember that the Bush tax cut drops off in 09! So factor that back in!


And with that degree you are working on.... dont work so hard. Because you would be helping those that rather smoke pot and play Xbox than get off the sofa and work for a living!

yep, here comes the "re"-"dis"-"tri"-"but"-"tion" some of you will only understand when it is too late...

vote for change - vote democrat - vote liberal - vote anti-bush - vote pro Obama - vote liberaal - vote different- - - - - - HOWEVER, can you/did you vote for the whole idea that you believe in?

[h0lmes]

How can you support Obama and Capitalism in the same breath? Socalism (spread the wealth, which Obama is openly on board with) is the opposite of Capitalism. Socialism allows people to sit on their ass while Capitalism makes you actually work and earn your money. Those in real need will be taken care of under a Capilaistic society. Join me and smaller gov't on our quest to make America actually care about taking care of itself and not live off of others.

Most if not all European countries would laugh at our idea of "Socialism". Obama's views are so right of theirs it isn't even funny. You are so scared of "socialism" but you have no reason to be. I have taken entire classes based on the subject and have written term papers on it. Socialism is inevitable and the closer we get to a global economy the closer socialism gets.

People need initiative I 100% agree but in this country right now it is so hard to do so. Even in this time of economic hell, the richest people are still making money. ExxonMobile just recorded the highest profit in HISTORY. Yet us bottom 99% are hurting more than ever. The last 8 years with Bush have been nothing but manipulation of our money and our civil rights and it is time for change. Spread the wealth is necessary and inevitable you might as well welcome it.

[DarkWing6]

First of all...this is not about ME. That would be selfishness. I am in this for what is right for our country, for our economy, and according to the Constitution. (edit) And in the end the purchasing power of my dollar that I do keep will be much stronger if you are not taxing the rich as much as you can. Business built this country and it is what makes this country great. You discourage that and you will have problems. Why should I work hard if Obama will just hand it to me?

Look at Obama's PERSONAL giving record. It is terrible. Does he really care about the sick, needy, and poor? McCain has given his life to this country and I don't doubt that he would do it as the President. I have strong concerns about where Obama would like to take things.

I'll quote this here because I think you missed it.

Most if not all European countries would laugh at our idea of "Socialism". Obama's views are so right of theirs it isn't even funny. You are so scared of "socialism" but you have no reason to be. I have taken entire classes based on the subject and have written term papers on it. Socialism is inevitable and the closer we get to a global economy the closer socialism gets.

Can you explain why we have to become Socialists because there is a global economy? We are already in a global economy and Obama's plans to "bring jobs home" isn't going to do anything other than damage our relationships with other countries and is not promoting the inevitable global economy. Capitalism promotes economic growth. Enabiling people to be lazy and spreading the wealth of those that work hard does not promote economic growth.

People need initiative I 100% agree but in this country right now it is so hard to do so. Even in this time of economic hell, the richest people are still making money. ExxonMobile just recorded the highest profit in HISTORY. Yet us bottom 99% are hurting more than ever. The last 8 years with Bush have been nothing but manipulation of our money and our civil rights and it is time for change. Spread the wealth is necessary and inevitable you might as well welcome it.

This isn't economic hell. Things are a bit tighter becasue we are all being forced to live within the means that we actually have. The market is correcting itself and we need to too.

The underlying theme to that statement is that if we are being corrected it means we are doing something wrong. Our current generation has been living off of the Baby Boomers that actually worked for their money. We don't realize that our parents didn't always have a house, 3 cars, money to go on vacation, etc. They worked through tough times, but we all feel that the second we are 18 we should be driving $40K+ cars and owning a nice home.

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant.

Also, you are voting for a guy that wants to increase the size of government (aka - one of the most ineffecient, wasteful organizations in the world). That means he will need more money to run his larger poorly run organization. When you dont have to actually work for the money you are using for your expenses (aka taxes) you tend to not work too hard. Privatize, privatize, privatize! That is your solution. The government wasn't designed to have tons of programs here and welfare there. Read the Constitution and let me know what it says about the duty and purpose of government.

[ragged325]

I think the general idea I'm hearing from the Republicans (over and over) is that the Republicans will take care of the economy and when the rich get richer, so will everyone else. With the Republicans in charge, people will have an incentive to strive harder and the equality will be restored to America. Take a quick look at the following information, and then ask yourself if you are likely to be better off personally with a Republican president:

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

Ask yourself, based on historical evidence, if the hard workers and risk takers of the country are better off with a Republican president?

The magazine the Economist recently endorsed Obama (http://www.economist.com/world/unite...tures_box_main). I liked this aside:

"And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?)."

[drift]

Lunch break yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJohfS4vTQ&feature=related

hehehhehe

[Ral]

Ragged, the first link is a joke. And I read the economist article, and find myself in agreement with much of what they say. (political votes aside.) But, if/when Obama wins it will be a good thing for the country and world initially. For a time, America will be once again more or less united and enjoy the prestige we have lost over the last 8 years.

However, something will happen. Another attack, another huge hit to the economy (most likely brought about by Obama's policies, or his inability to stand up to a Democratic congress) or a domestic crisis that will test Obama. And he will fall short. The Obama maniacs and much of the world have built him up as a savior, as something greater than a mere man. And when he is forced to make an unpopular decision with the world, or when America learns he cannot solve their problems, they will turn on him and he will wish he could turn the job over to someone else. The American public is very fickle, as is the rest of the world. He capitalized on this to get elected, but I don't think he'll be able to keep this going. Or, he'll be assassinated and America will be worse off because it supposedly assassinated its savior.

[DSP74]

I wouldn't give to much credit to the american people. We voted the moron we have now for a second term.

[ragged325]

Ral, please explain to me why the first link is a joke. Is the following article from Forbes a joke too?:

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_...residents.html

I can't imagine what these would look like with our current president's numbers included.

[ragged325]

Here's another:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php

The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

[ragged325]

However, something will happen. Another attack, another huge hit to the economy (most likely brought about by Obama's policies, or his inability to stand up to a Democratic congress) or a domestic crisis that will test Obama. And he will fall short. The Obama maniacs and much of the world have built him up as a savior, as something greater than a mere man. And when he is forced to make an unpopular decision with the world, or when America learns he cannot solve their problems, they will turn on him and he will wish he could turn the job over to someone else. The American public is very fickle, as is the rest of the world. He capitalized on this to get elected, but I don't think he'll be able to keep this going. Or, he'll be assassinated and America will be worse off because it supposedly assassinated its savior.

Maybe we could elect someone who we don't really expect to accomplish much of anything. That way we won't be disappointed. Do you have anybody in mind?

[Ral]

Obama still won't be able to accomplish anything other than become a figurehead, a token to make people feel good. He'll be a successful figurehead, but as a leader he will fail because he's not a leader. He is a lawyer and activist from Chicago.

McCain, on the other hand, has the experience and wisdom to lead the country through this recession and any subsequent attacks on the country. I just sincerely hope we won't have to rely on Palin. He might not have the charisma, but offers substance that Obama doesn't based on his history of military service, Senate voting record, and ability to stand up to opposition within his own party.

I for one want a President, and not a figurehead running the country. I'd rather have someone able to make tough decisions when it counts than someone who has thus far made his career by pandering, and is hiding something from the people he wants to vote for him.

[etta325]

cant vote because my registration papers got messed up and it doesnt say my real name on it.

I missed voter registration, won't be able to vote.

[Vedubin01]

Henny Rollins said it best!

[CorvallisBMW]

I'll quote this here because I think you missed it.



Can you explain why we have to become Socialists because there is a global economy? We are already in a global economy and Obama's plans to "bring jobs home" isn't going to do anything other than damage our relationships with other countries and is not promoting the inevitable global economy. Capitalism promotes economic growth. Enabiling people to be lazy and spreading the wealth of those that work hard does not promote economic growth.



This isn't economic hell. Things are a bit tighter becasue we are all being forced to live within the means that we actually have. The market is correcting itself and we need to too.

The underlying theme to that statement is that if we are being corrected it means we are doing something wrong. Our current generation has been living off of the Baby Boomers that actually worked for their money. We don't realize that our parents didn't always have a house, 3 cars, money to go on vacation, etc. They worked through tough times, but we all feel that the second we are 18 we should be driving $40K+ cars and owning a nice home.

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant.

Also, you are voting for a guy that wants to increase the size of government (aka - one of the most ineffecient, wasteful organizations in the world). That means he will need more money to run his larger poorly run organization. When you dont have to actually work for the money you are using for your expenses (aka taxes) you tend to not work too hard. Privatize, privatize, privatize! That is your solution. The government wasn't designed to have tons of programs here and welfare there. Read the Constitution and let me know what it says about the duty and purpose of government.

The thing I keep noticing about the conservative arguments is that they have absolutely no evidence, facts or sources to back them up. It's all just theory and 'predictions', based in the same anti-left rhetoric that's been around since the 50s.

You definition of "socialism" is sadly skewed. Socialism is an entire form of government, not just a tax cut. Obama isn't going to turn the US socialist anymore than McCain is going to turn it fascist. But answer me this: If "socialism" (by your definition) is really so bad, why is all of Europe using it to great success? Why do they have higher net incomes, higher standards of living and longer life expectancies? Why is their economic downturn less severe than ours?

Truth be told, you don't know anything about socialism or political theory. You're just spouting off all of the same anti-socialist stuff that was invented back in the 50s during the Red Scare.

If Obama is really a socialist, why would he be endorsed by Warren Buffet and Ben Bernanke, two of the most prominent economic minds of the modern day? Explain that to me. Why would they endorse a "socialist"?

If you can find some evidence that Obama is actually going to hurt the economy, then please, provide it. Ragged has managed to provide a lot of hard evidence supporting his point of view, so where's yours? Endlessly repeating the same tired, worn-out theories over and over with zero foundation to back them up makes you look like an uninformed, blind follower of a long disproved economic model.

Privatize, privatize, privatize! That is your solution.

Probably the most retarded thing I've ever heard, period. It's no more of a solution than, "throw money at it, throw money at it, throw money at it!"

[h0lmes]

Can you explain why we have to become Socialists because there is a global economy? We are already in a global economy and Obama's plans to "bring jobs home" isn't going to do anything other than damage our relationships with other countries and is not promoting the inevitable global economy. Capitalism promotes economic growth. Enabiling people to be lazy and spreading the wealth of those that work hard does not promote economic growth.

Capitalism needs competition to grow. This competition comes largely because of national borders. A good example right now are China and India's growing economies. These two countries have provided cheap labor which has caused jobs to move to these places and away from places like the US. There is somewhat of an economic competition going on between countries with the goal of getting jobs.

Capitalism also seeks a universality of sorts where everything is the same everywhere. Take NAFTA for example. It has established some economic standards for North America which cross international borders. This has, to some extent, erased economic borders between the countries.

Now imagine the entire World was one big global economy without economic borders. How is capitalism going to grow any larger? If the price of labor is the same everywhere on the planet, how is there going to be competition? This is when socialism will take hold because the truth is that people will unite into worldwide labor unions and slowly pick away at capital until it no longer exists.

Capitalism brings upon its own demise.


Also, this is being called the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and in some respects it is worse. The Great Depression was economic hell so this is economic hell as well.