Ginger,
I am glad enlightened me to the fact that this junior politician stills hasn't paid off his student loans, I was not aware of that. So if the guy, a millionaire, cannot even manage his money well enough to pay off his student loans, you expect him to be able to manage the finances of this entire country. Thanks again for pointing out his inadequacies. Thanks for the laugh.

So what if McCain married a wealthy woman? Sounds like jealousy. But lets, see. One house in Phoenix (a condo), a ranch in Sedona (2), a place in DC for him (3), she bought a place for the daughter who just graduated college (4), a condo she has for sale (5), a place at the beach in CA (6), another place at the beach investment (7). What's the big deal it is less than 15% of her net worth.

Obama paid off his college loans with the proceeds from his book.

Question I have is why does Obama get at least $50,000 per year from a pension from the IL senate. He wasn't there that long!

McCain = 26 YEARS in Senate + 6 Years in Military
Obama = 143 DAYS in Seante + 0 Years in Military

McCain is not trying to “turn Sen. Barack Obama into a presumptuous, elitist, celebrity.”

He’s pointing out that the starry eyed morons that gush all over that empty suit have made him a celebrity.

Just more proof that the libs don’t have a clue.

HickFromSticks: Exactly! Everytime Obama says something to the effect "...and lets not forget John McCain was there for 26 years of blah blah" what he actually is doing is reminding me that he hasn't enough experience to lead our country. I like Obama's motivation. He is a great motivational speaker. I like his enthusiasm. But so far, he hasn't shown me he can actually lead our country and the plans ...err "change" that he has talked about all seem like it is going to raise my taxes or cost me more...and I am tapped out. They don't make sense. What I am even more fearful of, is his lack of foreign experience, I'm not sure he has the knowledge to protect our country the best it can. I agree people want change, I am just worried of the kind of change he might bring; it may not be the change we really wanted. He is too far to the left for me. While I may not agree 100% with McCain, I do feel a little "safer" with him.

suzyQ: One thing many people do like about Obama is that he's trying very hard to change politics for the better. He's not leveling cheap, petty attacks on his opponent's character. For example, dalearch refers to Obama supporters as "starry eyed morons" and "libs," and calls Obama an "empty suit." That's a wonderful demonstration of what's wrong with politics today: name calling and insults rather than intelligent thought.

Also, if you actually look at the candidates' plans, you'd see that Obama has proposed no new taxes-- income or payroll-- on anyone making less than 42,000 a year, and the number is only that low if you parse every possible alternative he's discussed; the cut-off in his official policy statements is closer to $150,000. I'm not wild about some of his positions, but let's at least get the facts right.

dsbsh:

I will agree with part of what you wrote…the fact that there is no intelligent thought on the matter.
For instance, why should one segment of the population have their taxes raised – and not everyone? Why should I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than other people?

How intelligent is it to penalize the very people that are industrious and start new businesses which create new jobs? Why take away their incentive?

Once again: No civilization in the history of mankind has ever taxed itself into prosperity. It is not possible. It can’t happen.

Yes, Bush and Reagan have traveled Europe to adulations and waving flags, etc. They were Presidents of the United States of America, NOT a candidate who seems to think of himself as not only the nation's, but the world's choice. Heck, he even had a makshift presidential seal on his podium earlier this year.

I am still curious to find out SPECIFICALLY what kind of "change" we can "believe" in. So far all I have heard is a bunch of sound-bite rhetoric, that Obamamaniacs are eating up when they are not fainting. His tenure in Illinois was unremarkable, and his 143 days on The Hill have not been noteworthy either, folks.

dalearch: Was that so hard? Were the insults necessary, and did they accomplish anything other than to demean those who don't agree with you?

On the merits: First, right now many of the wealthy (not all of them of course) actually pay less taxes as a percentage of of their income, and that gap has increased dramatically in the past decade. Why? The payroll tax structure and other loopholes not available to everyone. Second, and more important, it's a myth that increasing taxes on the wealthy means taxing those who are more industrious, or create more jobs. Most job creation in the U.S. comes from small and start-up businesses, not the largest businesses or the wealthiest individuals. That does not mean simply increasing taxes on the wealthy is sound policy-- I'll agree with you a bit there-- but neither is it true that cutting taxes for them is the answer either; taxes are only one small part of economic policy. Which brings me to point #3: the periods of greatest economic growth in the U.S. (since the Depression) have occurred in periods of higher, not lower taxes. And the supply-side theory does not hold up to the historical record either. Tax policy needs to be fair, and it's a good debate to have. My only point was that we discuss the facts and not throw insults around.

DADicated: Just because you haven't seen policy details on TV-- most of the TV media would rather talk trivia and the horse race rather than have to think and talk about issues-- doesn't mean they aren't there. Many candidates, not just Obama, speak in general terms. But the details are there. Obama, more than any other candidate this election cycle except Edwards, has presented detailed proposals-- in major policy speeches and on his website. McCain has outlined some proposals on his website too. Both are worth checking out.

As for giving speeches out of the country, McCain gave one in Canada on June 20-- paid for by his campaign. Is it worse if the candidate attracts more people? Because that's the only dfference. There probably should be a policy that presidential candidates don't give campaign speeches out of the country, but why does only Obama get attacked for what both candidates have done?

DADicated, I find it quite refreshing to see one of our guys go overseas to waving American flags and cheers rather than burning flags and protests like Mr. 25% approval rating gets when he does his foreign country jaunts.

And how wonderful is it to see our soon to be President, able to not embarrass us all by giving back rubs to European Leaders or spit on foreign heads of state while talking with his mouth full. Mr. Obama even has a handle on the English language unlike our current leader.

For all his "so-called" inexperience he sure can handle himself well in foreign affairs!

John McCain on the other hand doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shia and thinks Czechoslovakia is still a country and believes Al-Qaeda is being trained by Iran, (which made Joey Lieberman have to whisper in his ear that terrorists not Al-Qaeda was the right response).

Barack Obama has hundreds of pages of policy papers on his web page for those that think he is an empty suit. He covers everything that any American would be interested in as far as where he stands on any issue.

I wonder where Obama stands on the simple issue of Patriotism? well, let's see.... He will not say the pledge of allegiance to the flag and the very country he wants to lead. He still will not honor those who've fought and died for his freedoms by honoring the flag of this country by placing his hand over his heart..... His idea of Patriotism sounds little skewed to me.

You want some examples of Obamas plan for change? First, he won't wear a US flag pin (because of his hatred for the country), then when there is public outcry over it he "changes" and begins wearing one. Then, he was very happily attending a church for many years, then when HIS church was exposed as a place of racism and hatred for this country, he "changes" and denounces it and it's Pastor to make people believe he doesn't agree with the message of HIS church. He is a self-described "huge fan of the rap singer Ludacris for years" listening to his disgusting, hate-filled music all of the time. Then, when one of this singer's disgusting pieces of trash songs is exposed and brought into the limelight and we get to see the kind the kind of music Obama enjoys listening to, he "changes" and denounces him...

He is a "man of change" alright....he changes everytime someone exposes the kind of racist and hate filled messages he believes in.

First of all, yes Obama's mother divorced his father, when he was 3 or 4 BUT she did remarry by the time he was 6, so as for him growing up in a single parent home, DIDN'T HAPPEN. He attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia until he was 10 and then moved back to Honolulu to live with his grandparents. So please, with all of your poverty talk, look it up on wikipedia, and quite frankly, from all of the moving around he did after he graduated, there had to be some money coming from somewhere. Especially if he STILL has student loans.

Now for all of his 143 days of experience in the IL senate, his ZERO military background, as well as again a zero foreign policy, I for one do not feel he is ready to lead a country. Just saying.

Poor, Dear Rax, you actually believe all those email smears against Senator Obama! That is really too bad and so sad that you belong to the 12% of people who still buy into the lies being told no matter how many times they have been debunked by the press and others.

I did a little more research and found that Obama has served 2 consecutive terms in the Il senate, lost the 3rd run, but won the 4th term. Now, where does the 143 days come in? I'm confused.

No doubt the HickFromtheSticks was referring to Obama’s service in the US Senate. Are you really suggesting 3 terms of service in the Illinois senate qualifies someone to be POTUS? In other words, you would support Charlie Shields, for example, for President of the US based on his experience in the Missouri senate?

Oh, absolutely not! Not my intention at all Mr. Allison. All I was saying is that I don't get where people are saying he's only had 143 days of experience when he's actually had almost 10 years.

I personally do not believe that he has enough experience to lead the US. He is not informed enough, and has obviously not put himself out there to gather the experience or information needed to create any kind of foreign policy, which in the next 10 years will be vital. I'm not saying that he needs to go enlist in the military immediately, but he needs to understand that America as a whole is a proud country, and proud of it's heritage. That is something he has time and time again thumbed his nose at. If he has no idea what America stands for how in the world is he going to represent our country anywhere. His credibilty will undoubtedly be in question should he get elected, almost immediately.

MODem- are you kidding me? You think Obama has the US covered when it comes to foreign policy because he can chew with his mouth closed? And as for the flags waving, please. Oh, wait, where's that lapel pin? And what's he doing during the US National Anthem? Looking around for.....the absent lapel pin? But you are correct when you say he speaks real nice.

Ginger,
That is a big difference between you and I. I do not get my information second hand from the media,I research, I watch LIVE video, I watch LIVE press conferences and THIS is where I see the things I speak of. I purposely watch these LIVE events because the media cannot edit out the "real" Obama they don't want the world to see. Don't get mad at me because your shephard is such a lousy candidate for the job. He reminds me of a little boy walking around the house in his father's shoes....no matter how hard he tries, he just doesn't fit the part.

Rax-- Sorry, but there's no way you're getting this kind of information first-hand. Obama routinely leads the pledge at campaign events; the most recent time was shown shown on CSPAN, MSNBC and CNN earlier this week. Your claims are pretty close to verbatim from a couple of spam e-mails that have been circulating for over a year, despite being proven bogus. And if you truly believe wearing a lapel pin = patriotism, that's just sad. If anything, lapel pins have become a distraction and a way for public officials to play patriot rather than acting like one.

JFK had far less government experience than Obama. FDR had no military experience, yet he did ok in WWII. Biographers of both point to intelligence, disposition, managerial and leadership skills as their keys to success as presidents. There's no way to know for certain whether Obama has the same abilities-- experience is a legitimate concern-- but simply counting days or pointing to a lack of military experience is dumb.

Dsbsh,
I am not one of those individuals who gets there news through email, nice try though. I have seen Obama with my own eyes standing like a statue at events during the pledge and the playing of the national anthem. If you've seen it lately then it is simply one more "change" he has performed to passify Americans. The problem is that not all of us are so gullible to believe it is sincere.
And it is certainly not "dumb" to use a combination of Obama's minimal leadership experience and his total lack of military experience as justification for not voting for him. Let's say that you were the manager of a company and two people came applied for a specific job. Would you likely hire the one REAL with experience or the one who has little to none, but puts on a really nice slide presentation? This analogy is pretty much what we are looking at today. The "dumb" way to look at it is to believe simply becasue this windbag can talk a good talk that he has what it takes to perform the duties properly.

McCain has nerve alright and all of the right kind.
Obama's inexperience and belief that the expanded role of government is good thing is not what our country needs.
And on the issue of judgement there is absolutely no comparison. Whether you look at the Rev. Wright issue or how Obama conveniently changes positions the message is clear - He does not show the leadership qualities sufficient to be president.
The coming election will be frustrating for me as I believe the current administration has in general been a disaster to the country and change is needed. Unfortunately the type of change I am looking for will not come from the rhetoric of speeches and government expansion. Rather, it will take an individual with the tenacity to say no when appropriate and experience to not make changes solely for the appeasement of political ambition.

Rax-- Well, I'd start by removing from the hiring committee anyone who repeatedly insults one of the applicants. Lack of experience is a legitimate concern, but speaking skills equals "windbag?" You just can't help yourself, can you?

As for the pledge issue: (1) unless you've been attending the events live or watching CSPAN, what we see is filtered, and depending upon which network you're watching, edited (Fox News and CBS are the worst) to present a false picture of the candidates. I've been following media coverage of the campaign (all candidates) for over a year, and regarding Obama and the pledge, you are wrong. (2) Regardless of (1), are you seriously trying to argue that a candidate for President of the United States isn't patriotic? Doesn't love his/her country enough because he/she doesn't wear the right lapel pin or stand the right way during the pledge? Step back and think about it; that's not only ridiculous, but it's an insult to democracy and public service. Being a good American is about deeds, not slogans or buttons.

So now our live broadcasts are being filtered.....and you call me ridiculous? I assume by "deeds" you mean examples like Obama attending a church that preaches hatred for the white race as well as hatred toward the very country we live in? Or deeds such as planning to institute a plan to tax hard working Amercians who make a good living to support those who refuse to get off their butts and provide for themselves? Yes, I believe "Windbag" fits Obama perfectly.

Wind·bag /ˈwɪndˌbæg/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wind-bag] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Informal. an empty, voluble, pretentious talker.

News programs routinely take 10-60 minute interviews, speeches, etc., and edit them down to 1-2 minutes; and filter down candidate statements to 10 second sound bytes. This is news to you? Who is being ridiculous? Two well-documented examples: (1) On July 22, Katie Couric's interview with John McCain included a cut & splice job which removed the Senator's false statement claiming that the Troop Surge caused the so-called Anbar Awakening in Iraq, which actually started months before the Surge. Rather than air his comment, or even simply leave it out, CBS combined portions of his answers to two earlier questions to make it look like he gave a different answer. (2) On July 2, Fox & Friends aired pictures of two New York Times reporters which had been photoshopped to yellow their teeth and push back their hairlines.

As for taxes, of course some wealthy Americans work hard, but your talking point is silly. Do you really believe that those making over $250,000 are hard-working, while all those who make less are lazy freeloaders? Because Obama's tax proposals target those above $250,000, in fact are only roll-backs of tax cuts they (but no one else) received, and the tax cuts he's proposing are focused on the middle-class, working poor and energy efficiency stimulus plans. Where are his proposals for givaways to lazy freeloaders? Did you make them up or get them from someone else? I am not saying I agree with all of Obama's proposals, but I'm at least willing to state the facts honestly, rather than relying on talking points, generalities and insults.

Yes, dsbsh, I DO believe most all (not some) people who EARN over a quarter million dollars annually are hard working. I imagine they are willing to work over 40 hours a week and have taken the initiative to educate and improve themselves and keep their nose to the grindstone. I'm not sure why only one segment of society is referred to as the "working class." There is such a mentality in this country that the "haves" do not deserve what they have achieved and the "have nots" deserve a "fair share" of the efforts of others. Others' wealth should not be a basis for hatred. It should be a goal to strive (and sacrifice) for.

Before you start ridiculing me, I am not a part of the wealthy 2% of the country. I'm just a middle classs (maybe even lower middle class) guy who does not expect handouts, entitlements, or other people's money and pity.

Taxation is nothing more than a wealth redisribution system designed to turn this great country into the world's largest assisted living center.

Do you understand what LIVE means? I do not mean interviews that were taped, edited, and then shown. I mean LIVE as in happening right before your eyes....
Also, why do you assume that everyone who makes $250K didn't earn it? Is it not possible for someone to work hard and become successful enough to earn that kind of money? Hundreds of thousands of people abuse governmental programs and take advantage of the system causing it to be bled dry of resources and unable to actually help, yet you feel these people deserve even more handouts and more programs that they can take advantage of?

DADicated: I don't ridicule anyone's opinions; I try to discuss the issues intelligently. Ridicule should be reserved for those who rely on insults rather than facts and/or deliberately ignore the facts that don't fit their beliefs (You haven't done either in this discussion.) I do not think, nor did I claim, that those who make over $250K are undeserving; some of them are, but that's true in any income bracket. What I wrote was that it's not true that ONLY those who make that much are hardworking. If you look again at what I wrote, I think you'd see that. People choose careers for many reasons, and income isn't the only measure of merit. In addition, the wealthy currently have disproportionate influence over government, and have as a result received the lion's share of beneficial government policies, including tax breaks, in recent years. Exxon-Mobil gets billions of dollars in tax credits while making record profts, yet that doesn't seem to concern you the way billions of dollars to the hardworking poor who suffer disabilities does. I don't deny (or like) those who rely on handouts without trying to help themselves. But that doesn't mean all beneficiaries are undeserving. (I also disagree with your sweeping claim about taxes: they provide roads, police, the military, and other necessities that do more than distribute wealth; you might even say they maintain the environment for those to earn their money.) My other point to Rax, however, was entirely different and far more modest: I merely said that Obama has not proposed increasing such programs, as he claimed. But I've accepted that Rax is going to believe what he wants-- about me, about Obama, about anyone who doesn't agree with everything he says-- regardless of the facts.

dsbsh:

Don’t confuse higher tax revenues with higher tax rates. Raising taxes will undoubtedly raise tax revenues – but lowering taxes which spurs more discretionary spending which spurs more new businesses which generates more tax revenues – in my opinion works best for our economy.

Many people will argue that the greatest economic expansion of all time was during the Reagan years where taxes on the upper income bracket were cut from 70% to 28%.

On August 7 you stated “Also, if you actually look at the candidates' plans, you'd see that Obama has proposed no new taxes-- income or payroll-- on anyone making less than 42,000 a year, and the number is only that low if you parse every possible alternative he's discussed; the cut-off in his official policy statements is closer to $150,000.” On August 9 you raised the figure to $250,000. You wrote “Because Obama's tax proposals target those above $250,000”

Which is it?

If you go by his proposals as a candidate, it's $250K; $150K was a typo-- my bad, and I appreciate you pointing it out. If you parse every vote he's ever cast as a Senator, you can claim that he's voted (once) for legislation that would have raised taxes on singles making $42K (the figures for couples and families is much higher).

Lowering taxes can spur more short-term discretionary spending... in the lower income brackets. It does not do so for the more affluent, who have received most of the cuts under Bush, and history shows that the supply-side theory simply doesn't work in the real world. Reagan's tax cuts did not result in significant job creation or net income increases for most Americans, plus they exploded the deficit so badly that he ended up raising taxes a couple of years later. In fairness, his cuts were also probably a long-term factor in the tremendous economic expansion we had in the 1990s, as was Clinton's stimulus plan. But tax policy is only one, often small, factor; the growth in the 90s was driven by the tech and telecom boom far more than tax policy.

I am concerned that Obama's tax plan looks like it will expand the debt even more. We already owe $9 trillion; pay-as-you-go should be the threshold. McCain is actually worse on this issue, but I'm not happy with Obama's accounting either.

According to my figures, from November 1982, when Reagan's economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years.

Job growth in the Reagan years was just over 2% per year, roughly the rate of population growth, which is average for the 20th century (Johnson 3.8%, Carter 3.1, Clinton 2.4, Kennedy 2.3, Nixon 2.3, Reagan 2.1, Bush I 0.6). Besides, the two biggest reasons for expansion of the workforce in the 80s had nothing to do with tax policy: baby boomers coming of age and women entering the workforce. In any event, those 18 million jobs pale compared to the 24 million created during the 70s. It's not a bad record, but hardly the tremendous economic booms of before and after, particularly considering the harmful effects of deficit spending were felt well past his term.

dsbsh:

This is exactly why I try to stay away from percentages. They can be very misleading.

More jobs – in hard numbers – were created during the Reagan years than any prior administration.

I think both percentages and raw numbers need to be considered. Hard numbers can also be misleading; population growth is always relevant, and the fact is the potential workforce expanded in the 80s because of women and boomers coming of age (had much more impact than tax policies on job growth). But if you want to focus just on hard numbers, there's still those 24 million jobs created in the 1970s, compared to 18 million in the 80s.

We could argue endlessly about the numbers. But I appreciate the discussion; I wasn't aware that as many of the jobs created in the 80s paid as well (and your figures on that match what I found).