[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="Thechaninator"] Lets see, Obamas 2 biggest changes are definitely nationalized healthcare and withdrawal from Iraq, of course his ideas and such are all readily available on the internet for YOU to go look yourself insead of trying to judge him based on the media stuff.
Oh and yeah Mccain is a downright awful choice for pres. Tax cuts are bad and possible war with Iran is HORRIBLE. There is also the whole issue of him admitting he has a lack of economic knowlege and we are currently heading towards a depression....
yoshi-lnex
Let's get a few things straight. Socialized Healthcare is a BAD idea. Look at the horrible state of our public education. Now imagine that instead of doing something simple...like correctly calculating the amount of change a person needs when the register is having a bad day is a triple heart bypass or a lung transplant.actually all the best elementary and secondary schools in the world are public education schools in other countries, as are health care systems, ours are amoung the worst in the developed world, and just need reform, nationalized health care can do that.Leave them their schools. It isn't working for us. As for health care, McCain's support of a public private system with tax subsidies to buy on the open market not only helps people afford the health care they need, but let's them have a choice (a vital part of any democratic society) and best of all lets the market determine the most efficient allocation of resources. This is vastly superior to the government breadlines for a triple by-pass that will insue when government red tape gets thrown around the industry.
Next, both candidates have the same stance on Iraq, but are spinning to two different ways. They both want to withdraw! Obama wants to push "getting out" but he can't do it without stability and the extraction process will be long and slow. McCain is emphasing "stability" and the extraction process will be long and slow. We won the war back in 2003, we installed a stable government capable of defending itself, so why are we still there? We are spending money that we don't have(this makes me think it's ironic when republicans say democrats favor big government when republicans spend far more, getting us trillions more in debt this time around), and wasting lives for something we've already accomplished.I didn't realize that you had access to the military status reports! Since we're sending troops over to drink mai tai's, eat figs, and play botchi ball, maybe we should call them back. OH WAIT! It isn't stable! They can't defend themselves! And what we really want to do is put some new schmuk in power so that we can head home knowing full well that we'll be back in 20 years, only this time they'll have bigger weapons! You seem like like history, check out Saddam's rise to power!
McCain (who is catching flak for opposing tax cuts then saying he'll keep the tax cuts) has not changed his stance. He opposed the tax cuts before they were inacted. Now that they are mostly spent, he realizes that is would be foolish to overturn the cuts and take back the money that the American people have already spent leading to hard financial times and more foreclosures which would push the current economy (not a depression...barely a recession...and a natural part of economic stability) into a serious downward spiral. Actually obama wanted to cut taxes for the poor and middle class (the ones who need it) not the rich...The amount of money you'd save is minimal. It's easier to get 1 dollar from a million people than a million dollars from 1 person. If you look at the demographics, there is no way to reasonable tax the "rich" people to a point where you'd make up the funds you're giving to poor and middle class citizens. What you WILL do is create dependency in the poor class, lower the benefits of moving from middle to rich, and find out that the rich got that way by making smart investments! Rich people know how to handle money, including how to keep as much of it as possible - donations, tax exempt investments, etc. Not to mention that this creates a mentality in the poor class that rich people are at fault for their situation.
It sounds to me that he has a better grasp of economics than 50% of the presidents we've ever had. lol, he said he wanted to make housing loans have 0% interest rates and have actually said it's something he needs to work on publiclyyeah, that is pretty dumb. Certainly better than Obama! right, the one who took economics in harvard... And what's more, both presidents are going to have a staff dedicated to the economy! Obama isn't going to spend his time crunching numbers on how a 5% grain subsidy decrease is going to effect the production of grain in 2011! Finally, the real impact that any single person...even the president...can have on the economy is minimal. There are too many other factors to directly correlate him to the economy.
This article is more liberal BS to avoid the real issues and hide the weak platform of the democratic party. They're running on a "grass is greener" stance and not addressing real issues. Now you're just making things up at this point, the main issues being iraq, the economy and alternative fuels, the democrats have been much more clear on what they intend to do if obama is put into office. The Iraq plan and the economy plan are both bad plans, alternative fuels isn't a real issue at this point (gas is reacting naturally to the market and now that it's causing pain to consumers there is room for the market to change and a new entry to come in. The government doesn't need to puch anything and a new product will become available. The only reason to MAKE it an issue is to gather easy votes and then have a claim that you created a great program. It's the same stance that swung the Congressional Majority and Congrsee has been at a near standstill since. They basically come in, take role, and break for lunch! Nothing gets done! You really need to study what congress does more...they do alot more than you seem to relize. Please read on. Congress is purposefully dragging their feet and wasting time and resources so that they don't have to compromise.The speculation is that they're waiting for the election to avoid a veto. Even if this is the case, why should Congress "an organization that is dedicated to helping it's constituancy" worried about vetos? Well...how about the crackdown on earmarking? How about the idea that these bills aren't effective?
So wouldn't we want a president who has expetise in reaching across the aisle? Who can find the middle point between parties and help the greatest amount of Americans? Well, the republican party has been the party that divides america since '68 when they tried to turn the public against blacks to get the vote, and history repeated itself when the republican party did it again in '04. Bush said he'd reach across the aisle, and look how that turned out, he divided the country more than ever, now I would not call any republican a polititian who reaches across the table, because history will show that's anything but true. Past results are not a viable indicator to the future. Obama is a died in the wool dem and knows that he can do whatever he wants because he has the majority in congress backing him up. McCain has shown repeatedly to be too liberal for republicans and too conservative for democrats. He is the more moderate of the two and has a history of reaching across the aisle. Obama does not.Or do we want to bring the "new guy" because he's "new" and says he's "different" even though he went to the same schools, had the same upbringings, votes the same as the rest of his partyyou mean harvard? Why is going to the best school in the world a bad thing now? point being, he isn't "different", and comes from a party that has a tough time working with ITSELF! Um what? If you've followed the voting record in cogress the last few years, you'd see that they're much more unified on votes than the republicans. I was speaking of the recent primary race, but if you prefer a mob mentality in your legislative body... much less the republicans in congress. Or better yet! comes from a party that doesn't even trust the american public and their own party to pick it's own candidate, but instead relies on a handful of elite to steer the candidate choice! Michigan and florida cheated, that's why their votes were not fully counted...and you should know, that's how primaries work, the republican party has the same system set up. Seriously, you need to take a political science class... Again, you went in the wrong direction. I'm referencing the super delegates i.e. the elite of the party who are created MORE equal than the rest of the nation.
Log in to comment