Who are you voting for:Obama or McCain

Student Lounge College Life
181

<p>soccerguy, before you throw numbers at us, it would do you well to really check those yourself. the heritage foundation is a conservative organization with a significant bias toward traditional supply-side economics. of COURSE they're going to conclude that obama's economic plan is worse than mccain's.</p>

<p>so on one hand, we have the heritage foundation, claiming in this study that supply-side economics are going to fix the economy, and that obama's plan is significantly less effective than mccain's.
on the other hand, we have reality and the results from the last eight years, showing that trickle down theory doesn't really work at all.</p>

<p>that link shouldn't convince anyone at all--unless you provide an unbiased source, this sort of 'evidence' one way or another won't say anything at all. but hey, if you want to go throw meaningless sources around, here's one for you:
Examining</a> America's presidential candidates | Examining the candidates | The Economist</p>

182

<p>Il be voting for Chuck Baldwin.</p>

<p>As for the sex thing a few pages ago, I have to say there is no reason to have sex unless you want children. I cant see any other reason for it. sorry.</p>

183

<p>Haha, I love what some of these people have to say about Obama...</p>

<p>YouTube</a> - Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08</p>

184

<p>
[quote]
I cant see any other reason for it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Bummer...</p>

185

<p>well to be honest I don't want kids so I honestly never plan to have sex.</p>

186

<p>"Everyone knows that when you have sex, you could get pregnant. If you are not prepared for that chance, don't have sex."</p>

<p>I am prepared for it. In case of pregnancy, get abortion. so you can go on driving your car and I'll go on having sex lol</p>

187

<p>It's amazing how a society that places such a high value on life is largely supportive (yes, there a lot of pro lifers) of abortions.
Or how people are using abortions because they can not act responsibly (in most instances, yes, there's rape/incest/etc). But, then again, as our society becomes more liberal, personal accountability starts to wither away.</p>

188

<p>
[quote]
It's amazing how a society that places such a high value on life is largely supportive (yes, there a lot of pro lifers) of abortions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Very simple explanation - its hard to agree on when life starts</p>

189

<p>why does it matter when life starts, we can assume that the second the sperm hits the egg, it starts.</p>

<p>if its after that point its murder.</p>

190

<p>
[quote]
why does it matter when life starts, we can assume that the second the sperm hits the egg, it starts.</p>

<p>if its after that point its murder.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thats a bit contradictory dont you think? Actually, I have heard the point argued quite well that even if life did begin at conception, abortion should still be allowed. There are equally good arguments on the other side. Like I said, its not a cut and dry issue.</p>

191

<p>
[quote]
I am prepared for it. In case of pregnancy, get abortion. so you can go on driving your car and I'll go on having sex lol

[/quote]
</p>

<p>exactly, you get an abortion. WITH YOUR OWN MONEY, NOT MINE!</p>

192

<p>Howard Dean, 2005: We need more than one party in charge. As an American, it is better when parties share power.
Transcript</a> for May 22 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC</p>

<p>Howard Dean, 2008: Looking forward to one party rule.
Dean:</a> One-Party Rule Would Rule - Roll Call</p>

<p>... is this the change we can believe in? Or are we believing in different change?</p>

<p>
[quote]
soccerguy, before you throw numbers at us, it would do you well to really check those yourself. the heritage foundation is a conservative organization with a significant bias toward traditional supply-side economics. of COURSE they're going to conclude that obama's economic plan is worse than mccain's.</p>

<p>so on one hand, we have the heritage foundation, claiming in this study that supply-side economics are going to fix the economy, and that obama's plan is significantly less effective than mccain's.
on the other hand, we have reality and the results from the last eight years, showing that trickle down theory doesn't really work at all.</p>

<p>that link shouldn't convince anyone at all--unless you provide an unbiased source, this sort of 'evidence' one way or another won't say anything at all. but hey, if you want to go throw meaningless sources around, here's one for you:
Examining America's presidential candidates | Examining the candidates | The Economist

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know what the heritage foundation is, and it's no secret. Thankfully you put up a link that says "liberals like Obama more than McCain", which is right up there with the New York Times hard hitting analysis today that "As gas prices go down, driving goes up!" Possibly there is a economic model that would predict this...
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/30gasoline.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/30gasoline.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>so, the extra $700,000 that Obama wants to take away from the "rich"... how many jobs that pay $50,000 can you make from $700,000?</p>

<p>Wouldn't it be better if the "poor" people had a shot at getting this new $50,000 job, than just getting a bigger handout? Hell, 40% of Americans DON'T PAY ANY TAXES! Personally, I think that is ridiculous. They should at least pay a few hundred dollars. Then they can contribute to the system instead of just draining it.</p>

<p>Whether you like it or not, the "rich" drive the economy. They create jobs. They expand their business. They need to buy more office space when they do well, creating more jobs in the construction business. More jobs to paint their new office. More jobs to carpet the floor. More jobs for everyone.</p>

193

<p>on a completely different subject, as much as I am against the bailout that just happened, I am also against a "main street bailout", and I found this hilarious:</p>

<p>"where's my bailout?"
YouTube</a> - Where's my bailout?</p>

194

<p>I think some confusion stems from the fact that we (young adults) hear $250,000 and think that makes a family well off. Frankly it depends a great deal on where you live. My family lives just outside of NY city. We are not living the grand life by any means. There are 4 kids, 1 in college and I'll make the 2nd next year. My mom also continues to take graduate courses because it will increase her salary. We need cars because public transportation is not good in this area. Utilities are high here like everywhere else. My father works 2 jobs, my mom 1. We take care of our aging grandmother. I drive a 1999 prism LOL! My parents do not drive BMW's...honda baby. We take 1 vacation a year to the NJ shore...not the south of France. We live in a small cape cod style home. Life is expensive. I guess what I'm trying to say is that $250,000 does not make a family rich in this part of the country. Comfortable, sure...most of the time...but not rich.
Having said all of that I am torn about who I would vote for if I could vote (18 this Feb!). I am socially liberal but taxing the "rich" goes against my grain. We are not rich. If my car dies tomorrow, it would be a financial hardship for my folks to buy me another one. I work 20 hrs a week to pay for gas and things I want/need like clothes so my folks don't have to. We are not rich...
I think when we get out in the world and start working hard for our $$$, we'll feel differently about this Robin Hood stuff BO is talking about.</p>

195

<p>hayze- You may not be living a rich lifestyle, but on the income distribution chart, you're family makes 8x national average. Life is expensive. Sucks for the poor, or even middle class, doesn't it? And think, 50% of families are making less than 1/8th your families income- many that wish they could own a house, a car, feed their kids, afford medical insurance but it's out of their reach. If BO is able to raise the minimum level of comfort for a large portion of the population, even if it means lowering the lifestyle of the wealthy a tad, then I can't see why it's such an awful idea...</p>

<p>On the bailout- Depends on implementation. If the loans are carried out such that the country receives a profit, hey why not. That requires greater knowledge and experience in the financial markets than anyone on this forum probably has. </p>

<p>On abortion- Look up George Carlin on Pro-Life on YouTube.</p>

196

<p>I understand that the rich should pay more in taxes than the poor, since they tend to use more government resources. But where is the logic of taxing the rich at the higher rate? Is it solely based on the idea of diminishing marginal utility or wealth? Or are there other reasons as well? I'm just curious.</p>

197

<p>yes but how does taxing us more not hurt us? Why is hurting us ok? To help others who are hurting? He perpetuates this idea that we have extra that can and should be spread around by taxing us further. We are already taxed at a higher rate. It doesn't make sense to me. Dad works 2 jobs. We are not on easy street yet we are expected to do more. How do we continue to pay our mortgage and increasing school and property taxes with the federal government putting their hands in our pocket to help the poor guy? You want to help the poor then teach them how to help themselves, not rely on others to pay their way. BTW, my dad has always worked 2 jobs. This time his second job is hauling golf bags up and down a golf course. Poor folks can learn to carry bags too. It is grunt work but it helps pay the bills.</p>

198

<p>Teaching the poor to help themselves costs money too. Where's this supposed to come from?</p>

<p>Why have 4 kids if you can't support them? Why live in a high cost of living area if it's such a hardship? These are choices that were made.</p>

<p>And if working 2 jobs and hauling bags up and down a golf course can get anybody $250k, I'm sure they would. Find me somebody who's poor that would turn that down.</p>

199

<p>There's always this myth that the poor / struggling somehow don't work as hard. I doubt that applies for even half the cases.</p>

200

<p>There's always this myth that the rich somehow don't work as hard. And that they somehow were born into wealth, don't work and haven't worked for their money, and sit on their piles of money and count it all day.I doubt that applies for even half the cases.</p>

<p>Especially when many over the $250,000 are doctors, surgeons, lawyers, hospital vice presidents, who easily work 40+ hours a week. That is also the combined family income.
The reason the rich earn more money is because in most cases they perform skills that very few in society have, and they've paid for law school/med school out of pocket.
I mean Obama and Michelle both complained about the burden of THEIR student loans only a few short years ago when they were in the top 1% income wise, Michelle magically earned a 6 figure raise when BO won a seat in the senate, and live in a $1.65 million, 6 bedroom house. But I mean they are totally "taking a smaller piece of the pie so others can have a bigger piece."
Why should those who work hard be punished, especially when BO's tax plan calls for not only excusing certain groups from paying income tax (which is already the case under the Bush tax cuts), and give them an additional tax break check, paid for by the middle and upper class? The middle class is going to continue to sustain a heavy tax burden. BO also wants to re institute the "death" tax(because it's somehow fair to tax a house that one paid taxes on their entire life) and RAISE the capital gains to 20% at a time where investors are already weary.
So the lower classes should theoretically be rewarded because they are poor? And the rich should be punished for being successful?
Doesn't sound very democratic to me.</p>