Who are you voting for:Obama or McCain

[AUlostchick]

<p>I encourage everyone to look at this chart in the Washington Post which shows a comparison of McCain and Obama tax plans.
[Obama</a> and McCain Tax Proposals - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html]Obama”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html)</p>

<p>IMO, if you’re making $600,000+ a year (which is only 1% of the nation anyway), you better effing be paying a crapload more taxes than me or my family who are making <$30,000.</p>

[Myrmidon73]

<p>

IMO, if you’re making $600,000+ a year (which is only 1% of the nation anyway), you better effing be paying a crapload more taxes than me or my family who are making <$30,000.

</p>

<p>Well, that’s obvious. The question is WHY are they paying SO MUCH more?</p>

<p>Also, how does Obama still maintain a net loss in tax revenue while trying to institute all his programs?</p>

[peter_parker_1]

<p>Not spending $568 billion in Iraq over the next 8 years.</p>

<p>How’s that for starters.</p>

[sleepyman]

<p>Obama’s tax plan is supposedly only going to raise the rich’s tax from 35% to 39%, which was the same as Clinton’s taxes.</p>

<p>I’m sorry if someone takes the effort to look that up and I turn out wrong, I think I remember hearing it from the news.</p>

[ElectricTech]

<p>That’s what I heard as well.</p>

[tiff90]

<p>Neither tax policy will pass as is, and BO’s current policy addresses the financial situation, which means when the economy bounces back the middle class and most Americans will have increased tax rates. Regardless, his tax plan defies the teachings of economics.
I don’t agree that BO’s plan includes giving money to people who do not pay income taxes. His policies will increase gov spending, and he has stated he is not committed to a permenant withdrawl from Iraq, meaning if, after the troops leave, Iraq destabilizes, he will re deploy troops. The spending will drastically increase if he keeps his word and attacks Pakistan, and a safe withdraw in Iraq would be compromised. Him stating that he would militarily strike Pakistan if they do not allow us to hunt down terrorists when they border and committment to militarily supporting American interests abroad is a failed nation building, interventionist foreign policy.
Anyways, what does everyone think about forcing people to provide proof of identification in order to vote? Voter fraud has become prevelant the last few years, or perhaps just more visible, and I actually had difficulty regustering because someone else attempted to use my information to register, and it was a big mess. It’s supposed to be strict in OH, but they never even asked for my proof of residency today, and early voting opens the door to potential fraud.</p>

[mydixiewrecked]

<p>Obama won.</p>

[Nickel_Xenon]

<p>[President</a> - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/]President”>President - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com)</p>

<p>Now to wait for the polls to close. Man I’m so excited.</p>

[AUlostchick]

<p>Obama effing wins!</p>

[mydixiewrecked]

<p>Told ya ;)</p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>

Obama wants me to pay full health coverage for my employees and give them 3 additional paid sick days, which I should have been doing earlier.</p>

<p>This will obviously cost me money. But in order to maintain my current lifestyle (5 filet mignots every friday night and a new car every year) — I will have to lay off 3-5 of my loyal, lifelong trusted employees. Yes, I am a dum f&&ker! And a true Republican.

</p>

<p>Why should the employer be paying full health coverage? Why should they get more leave? Where does it say he is extremely wealthy? This is a very ignorant post.</p>

<p>

soccer guy, are you from Pittsburgh?
I love the trib, read it online everyday.

</p>

<p>nope… and I am angry your steelers demolished my redskins =(</p>

<p>

IMO, if you’re making $600,000+ a year (which is only 1% of the nation anyway), you better effing be paying a crapload more taxes than me or my family who are making <$30,000.

</p>

<p>even if they paid the same percentage (which they don’t), they would still be paying a crapload more takes than you.</p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>

Not spending $568 billion in Iraq over the next 8 years.</p>

<p>How’s that for starters.

</p>

<p>Hey not bad! Except he just voted to spend $700 BILLION over the course a few months on wall street.</p>

<p>Most of the troops were going to be home in the next 4 years regardless of who was elected. If you think they will all be home b/c Obama is elected, you are severely misguided.</p>

<p>But, how about the “civil defense force that will be as well funded as the US military.” Where is the funding coming for that? I am eagerly awaiting it.</p>

<p>Also, since you missed it earlier:

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he’s promised to do “line by line,” he still doesn’t pay for his list. If he’s elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he’s facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

[Reality</a> Check: The Cost Of Obama’s Pledges, CBS Evening News: If Victorious, Barack Obama May Find Fewer Resources Than He Needs For His Campaign Promises - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories]Reality”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories)</p>

[Myrmidon73]

<p>Well good luck to Barack. </p>

<p>I’m interested in seeing what he changes, and what repercussions they have. I’m a little concerned with the current Senate makeup, although I’m happy that the dems don’t have a 60/40 majority. That would be the really scary thing.</p>

[discoball]

<p>I highly doubt John McCain would have brought the troops home in 4 years. He said that he would spend as much time as he needed to in there, up to 100 years.</p>

[sleepyman]

<p>McCain wouldn’t have been able to decide whether or not troops would be staying for 100 years, even if he had a clone who lived that long. But yeah hunting down one man is wasteful, pointless, and won’t stop the “evil doers”.</p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>

I highly doubt John McCain would have brought the troops home in 4 years. He said that he would spend as much time as he needed to in there, up to 100 years.

</p>

<p>Not all, but a good portion. When is the last time you saw Iraq on the front page? Things are winding down there.</p>

<p>

But yeah hunting down one man is wasteful, pointless, and won’t stop the “evil doers”.

</p>

<p>umm… please tell me you aren’t saying the US should not be trying to find and kill Osama. Please tell me that’s not what you meant and I misunderstood.</p>

[discoball]

<p>

Not all, but a good portion. When is the last time you saw Iraq on the front page? Things are winding down there.</p>

<p>umm… please tell me you aren’t saying the US should not be trying to find and kill Osama. Please tell me that’s not what you meant and I misunderstood.

Just because it’s old news doesn’t mean it’s still not happening. The government is still spending a massive amount of money there - money that could be put towards healthcare and education.</p>

<p>Please don’t tell me that you think the US is hunting for Osama in Iraq.</p>

[tetrahedr0n]

<p>

Not all, but a good portion. When is the last time you saw Iraq on the front page? Things are winding down there.

</p>

<p>Aww that’s cute. Better tell our service-men and women over there that they have no reason to worry anymore, forget about the possibility of dying this week and those dead bodies we sent home last week that it’s all good, it’s winding down. </p>

<p>

Hey not bad! Except he just voted to spend $700 BILLION over the course a few months on wall street.

</p>

<p>Whoa… that’s amazing. The other candidate supported the exact same bill. Oh, and he actually suspended his campaign to try to get it passed the first time around. Maybe McCain supporting it = all good, Obama = tax and spend liberal, omg! Brilliant argument.</p>

[ledwards1109]

<p>soccerguy, your message is false.</p>

<p>just because Iraq is not on the front page of the paper does not mean that people are not dying and we are not spending billions of dollars a month to be over there. How can you tell things are winding down? Do you live over day and know that car bombings are stopping? McCain has made many references that he will take as long as need be to get out of Iraq. </p>

<p>Obama! Get Some</p>

[peter_parker_1]

<p>I don’t agree with the $700 bailout, but both candidates supported it.</p>

<p>And the big difference: It was spent to fix the AMERICAN ECONOMY.</p>

<p>We are spending a sh&% ton of money on “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (don’t laugh too loudly). I don’t care about Iraq! Only the war industries do.</p>

<p>Soccerguy: Why are there child labor laws? Why are people required to receive overtime pay for working over 40 hours? Why does OSHA and safety laws exist? Why are workers not required to work on federal holidays? Why are their sexual harassment laws? This seems like a lot of ‘add-ons’ the federal government is forcing employers to implement - yep they are big bullies trying to protect your rights, aren’t they?</p>

<p>Soccerguy, I think the next time you get sick and miss a class, you should be expelled from university. I mean, c’mon, it’s the not the school’s f-ing problem.</p>

<p>But in summary: Obama won, and your complaints are simply that and will fall on deaf ears. have a nice day</p>