Free Dating Site    

If this election has gotten to the point where pigs are wearing lipstick, we are in for a very long 5o+ days.

You can thank John McCain for that.

Business: I want to see the government take a hands off approach to business. Evolve or die is the mantra in the business world.

if there was a candidate that stood up, and stated "The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we should use it as our guiding principals for running the Federal Government, I would vote for them in a New York minute."

if there was a candidate that stood up, and stated "The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we should use it as our guiding principals for running the Federal Government, I would vote for them in a New York minute.

Current bank failures? (Don't forget Fannie and Freddie)

Bob Barr for the Libertarian Party has some good points, but his behavior while a representative of Georgia was a great source of embarrassment.

I have not heard about a bailout for the big three.

Dragonpat asked:
I will turn the question back on the origianl poster, can you give me an unbiased reason to vote for whom ever? I mean tell me honestly with out party line phrases just how either one of these two will do any good for this nation? Can you tell me how if i live in a state that is either blue or red, my vote really counts for anything?

no1shero said:

I am sorry, but mayor of a town of 7,000 and governor for 20 months of a state of about 700,000 does not give me an ounce of faith in her.

So what you are saying is that her becoming governor is not an achievement and should be ignored? I am sure the people of Alaska get a warm feeling when people talk down about them. I mean after all, they do have most of our oil. Which brings me to this question...

Exactly, what does a community organizer do?

Seattle Rain.. The Green Party Candidates are McKinney-Clemente

The only real positive change we'll ever see in Washington will happen when... neither Democrats nor Republicans hold a majority

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010. The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans in a web of pointless complexity and higher taxes, but a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive.

In the past year, the federal budget deficit has ballooned, and, more worrisome, large projected increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will put unprecedented demands on federal government revenue sources in the coming decades.

Fundamental reform of our tax system is one way to resolve these problems, but, at least in part because reform creates both winners and losers, the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously.

In several important ways, the candidates’ speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we’ve outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible.

If federal spending evolves as CBO predicts, the proposed tax cuts would add to those deficits and substantially increase the national debt. Senator Obama’s plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the ten-year cumulative deficit by about $3.6 trillion to $5.9 trillion; Senator McCain’s plan would boost it by $5.1 trillion to nearly $7.4 trillion.

Adding to their plans proposals made in stump speeches but not confirmed by campaign advisors would lower the cumulative deficit over the decade slightly to $5.4 trillion for Obama and raise it to almost $11 trillion for McCain. Beyond this, the health proposals and campaign promises not in the official descriptions could increase the costs still further.

Each candidate claims that he will rein in spending more than his opponent. Senator McCain points to the proposals made by Senator Obama for expansions in health care, education, and infrastructure. Senator Obama says that he will cut military spending by extricating us from Iraq sooner than Senator McCain would.

Bringing the federal budget into balance would, however, require unprecedented spending cuts under either candidate’s tax plan. For example, given the tax cuts described in his stump speeches, Senator McCain would have to cut federal spending in 2013 by more than 25 percent to balance the budget.

Finally, Senator McCain’s advisors have pointed out that the budget situation could improve if his proposals lead to more economic growth. However, if the tax cuts substantially raise the national debt, the increase in borrowing by the federal government could crowd out private investment and consumers’ purchases of homes and durable goods, which could slow the economy.

More government debt eventually translates into higher interest rates, which discourage business investment and consumers’ demand for homes and such durable goods as automobiles, or into increased debt owed to foreigners, which mortgages the nation’s long-term economic future. And if swelling deficits are closed by future tax increases rather than spending cuts, we impose much greater economic costs of taxation on our children and grandchildren than they would face if we do not enact tax cuts today.

If growing deficits eventually require draconian spending cuts—a stated goal of those who adhere to the “starve the beast” theory of government—then vulnerable populations may lack essential services; critical infrastructure investments for roads, bridges, and dams may be deferred; and the national defense may suffer.

Under either Senator Obama’s or Senator McCain’s plan, however, the debt would likely continue to rise as it has over the past eight years, even under the CBO’s relatively optimistic assumptions about spending. Senator Obama’s plan would add $3.6 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain’s plan would add $5.1 trillion. This does not include the cost of expanding health insurance coverage...

Given that demands on the federal government are likely to exceed historical levels in 2013 (CBO projects spending at 20.9 percent of GDP), these estimates imply that both plans would require substantial cuts in spending to balance the budget if all of the proposed tax cuts were enacted.

In several important ways, the tax plans described in the candidates’ speeches and on their web sites differ from the plans as we’ve outlined above and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain’s proposals on the stump are often far more sweeping than the more measured options outlined by his campaign. Senator Obama also often proposes new taxes on high-income households to extend Social Security solvency, but his staff insists that no specific policy exists.

...if swelling deficits are closed by future tax increases rather than spending cuts, we impose much greater economic costs of taxation on our children and grandchildren than they would face if we do not enact tax cuts today.

...the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously...