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

[Vedubin01]

It was not until Joe the plumber, did America hear Obama openly admit that he was for spread the wealth. A socialist idea. Back in 2001 he made these same statements. I think when his transcripts are released and his thesis papers are opened up you will find that his thinking is more along the lines of the Marxist and Socialist ideas. The people that he associates himself with are influences. Just like you are influenced by people here on R3v. The old saying you are what you eat or you are who you associate yourself with is true. Obama is someone new that not much is known. The more you find the more it leans to these thoughts of Socialist and Marxist views.

He has proven if your not for him, his media campaign will cut your balls. You will be silenced and disguarded as a right wing nut tied to the BUSH administration.

I do not understand how many will shut off and not look into the substanence of this political views, ideas and promisses! It truly amazes me that the radical left that wants peace and love is more violent than their right winged counter part.

[Jonny Cash]

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.

What "market" are you talking about?

Dont beleive everything you read on the internet/See on TV.

Id love to know how old some of you guys are. Better yet, who's teaching you this stuff.

[Collin]

America has a socialist party, Obama is not their candidate.

What is the $700 billion bail out, if not socialism?


Anyone watch It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia this week?
Charlie: "Since when do we have to pay for health care?"
Mac: "Ya isn't the government supposed to pay for this shit?"
Charlie: "What are we living in some kind'a socialist country?"
Mac: "I don't pay firemen to put out fires!"

[DarkWing6]

OK, so if I don't call it socialism will you explain to me why "spreading the wealth" will ecourage people to work hard?

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.



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!"

Their opinion of socialism is based on a stereotype that was created 50 years ago for the Cold War.

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.

[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!"

[Vedubin01]

Henny Rollins said it best!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[DSP74]

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

[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.