Since he has never led anything, why is Obama qualified to be President?

what? there's a financial crisis? i thought mccain said the economy is doing great. this is a nation of whiners. stop whining!

 

look what the "qualified" george w. bush has done.

this country is freaking bankrupt, and mccain is gonna make it worse. i want my dollar to have value again.

 

That dog's not going to hunt this time.

 

lowering taxes ON THE RICH most certainly does NOT "stimulate the economy."....it doesnt help when the top 2% or 3% of the population controls 80% of the wealth

raising taxes probably has more to do with paying off trillions of dollars of WAR DEBT and BORROWING FROM CHINA FOR EIGHT YEARS...you cant cut taxes, while fighting a war. bush is the only president who has done that, and look whats happening.....i'd also be nice to go after the guys who attacked us, but thats another story for another day.

 

I have a bad habit of playing down to my competition.

 

hillary did not receive more votes than Obama, and it is only one of the things in this thread that shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about. the other is that you said Obama hasn't even passed significant legislation.

You can vote for McCain all you want, but at least be an informed voter. You make yourself look like an ill informed jester ranting about things you know nothing about.

You can take the advice and help your image, and self, or not.

Obama wins popular vote
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/hillary-clinton-did-not-win-th.php

As for legislation Obama has taken a leadership roll on let's look. Even Palin believes it's great legislation. She just doesn't know enough to realize it's already been passed.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yEXlROKR6dg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yEXlROKR6dg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And before you bash the source realize that the real source is Palin and the Transparency act co-sponsored by Obama.

 

Texx - First of all, he is not going to raise taxes on the middle class which the majority of America is. Secondly, the tax talk thing is getting redundant. Common sense states that wars, infrastructure, debt, etc. have to be paid for some how. The "raises taxes" line is really getting played out. I cannot understand how republicans plan to pay for anything if all they want to do is cut taxes "across the board". Big business has been given a free ride for the last eight years. If their taxes has to be raised to lower mine, then so be it. The current administration has screwed the middle class over now its time for the fat cats to pay the piper. For the first six years the republicans controlled everything and Bush did not veto anything. So my question to you is, how can you support a party that has essentially bankrupted America?

 

thank you!

Some people dont understand this, tis a shame.

 

Texx - I worked for AIG for over 6 years. The stock I have through them took an absolute beating. I worked for IBM for over 5 years, I have invested alot through the ESPP through IBM. However, the capital gains tax that you speak of does not help me "middle class and most other middle class" pay the bills on a day to day basis with my 2 soon to be 3 kids. If capital gains is increased, then so be it. Obama has proposed setting it back to the levels that Clinton had them at. You remember when we had a balanced budget dont you. That doesnt sound so bad to me... Next republican talking point please...

 

Bigtexxx - don't be afraid to pay your fair share to keep our country running at optimal efficiency.

Remember, Country First

 

Huh? Cutting taxes for the middle class RESPONSIBLY "Which Obama Proposes" is what i support. I am tired of people using the "he will raise taxes" line. I am informed about what both of them propose. See Tex, I am not rich by any means but at the same time I do know that there is a way to cut taxes and a way not to cut taxes. I know that paying taxes is a neccessary evil. We just have to hold those in office responsible for how they spend our tax dollars. McCain and the republicans have helped WallStreet for the few and to the tune that the country is broke. Obama understands that you have to take care of Main Street for the health of the economy and for the country as a whole to prosper. Eitherway, I could go on and on about the difference. If you cant tell by looking at the last eight years then there is nothing I or anyone on this board can tell you on why you should support Barrack over McCain.

P.S. I do appreciate the fact that you brought up a good debatable issue. Kudos to you...

 

Do you understand how capital gains taxes work. 50% may own stocks but contrary the line of bull you are pushing not everyone who simply "owns" stock pays capital gains.

I believe you know that which puzzles me. Why would want to make yourself look like you know less than you do?

 

As a Rice alum, I'm sure you've battled Princeton envy in the past. That's good, 'cause you'll need to draw on that experience when you get PrincetOWNED on the economy.

When a Republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom--a difference of 1.5 percent per year going from the bottom to the top quintile in the income distribution. The situation is reversed when a Democrat is in power: those who benefit the most are the lower income groups. If you are in the bottom quintile, the difference between having a Democratic or a Republican president in office is an income gain (or loss) of more than 2 percent per year! Strikingly, compared to Republicans, Democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups (although the difference is statistically significant only for lower income groups). link



In Unequal Democracy Princeton's Larry Bartels lays out quite clearly that nearly every American benefits more from a Democratic run economy. You can see a panel discussion here, or you can read the NY Times synopsis.

So you're left with one of two options.

1. Admit that the GNP and real income rises more under Democratic presidents, especially for those who need it most. And therefore, Democrats are better for the economy.

2. Insist that your portfolio is the only indicator of economic health. Which means, in effect, you would rather see the vast majority of Americans live a poorer quality of life so you don't have to pay taxes on stock dividends.

I look forward to you supporting your argument with comparably credible empirical and analytical support or admitting defeat by either ignoring this post or replying with empty sarcasm, TIA.

 

I've referenced the Princeton trend above...and I think this table just illustrates it perfectly.

 

bigtex getting his economics 101 lecture here..