Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[MrSaigon]

I can't help but love when Stewart gets on a roll: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_i ... t-ann.html

thats awesome

and so telling.

I missed it. But is Stewart still ripping on Obama? I hope so. I remember for the longest time he didn't, and then he started and the crowd wasn't crazy about it. I just like my political satire/humorous analysis to cover both parties.

he does still, mainly on the whole messiah thing, but it's not as frequent as the Republican ripping.

part of that is the show's inherent bias, but a good deal of it is because the Republicans and their news station are just more blatant and much easier targets.

I'd love to see the average Republican American's response/reaction to seeing a montage like that. But they don't watch TDS and the "regular" media won't call themselves or the politicians on it.

Oh, Fox News has made TDS writers' jobs the easiest gig in town, for sure. And TDS nation is definitely an Obama-nation (zing).
I just don't like seeing go one way. I haven't been able to tune in in a while, and TDS is generally how I battle the anxieties and ridiculousness of elecion season.

[Popeye_Card]

What I admire about the GOP is that they convince the common worker and even the middle class to vote against themselves financially.

How so? Because i believe that people should get to keep the money they earn and not get taxed more because they "make to much"?

How much they are taxed doesn't really make much of a difference. Tax them more, and they'll just have a higher base salary. Tax them less, and they'll just make less. The market pays what people are willing to earn as take home pay. The big number before taxes doesn't really make a difference, except to the larger corporations that are able to afford the high salaries in question.

As was posted a couple of times in this thread, the vast majority of Americans will see bigger tax breaks under Obama than they will from McCain. The only people who really feel the heat are the upper classes. Why are we so concerned about protecting them?

[Diddy]

those people are getting to keep what they earn.

I believe that the majority of people should get to keep more of what they earn because they make MUCH LESS than the few that would be affected by this.

I understand the general concept that people have a problem with. I don't get how people can sit there and be indignant when we're talking about a tiny group of people taking home a little less than they are now when what they take home in one year is already more than the vast majority of other tax payers will make in decades of work.

For the majority of tax payers they'll be getting to keep more of what they earn.

I dont believe that we should tax someone more simply because they can afford it. If voting for my beliefs means that im voting agains my best ecconomic interests then ill do that. Im not going to sellout my beliefs for a few $'s. Hopefully someday ill be rich and ill want to keep the money ive worked for. Im no socialist if i wanted that id move to sweeden.

[letsgocards89]

Class warfare is fun!

[clevername]

those people are getting to keep what they earn.

I believe that the majority of people should get to keep more of what they earn because they make MUCH LESS than the few that would be affected by this.

I understand the general concept that people have a problem with. I don't get how people can sit there and be indignant when we're talking about a tiny group of people taking home a little less than they are now when what they take home in one year is already more than the vast majority of other tax payers will make in decades of work.

For the majority of tax payers they'll be getting to keep more of what they earn.

I dont believe that we should tax someone more simply because they can afford it. If voting for my beliefs means that im voting agains my best ecconomic interests then ill do that. Im not going to sellout my beliefs for a few $'s. Hopefully someday ill be rich and ill want to keep the money ive worked for. Im no socialist if i wanted that id move to sweeden.

I understand where you're coming from and from a personal level I agree, but that's looking at it too simplistically.

Taxes aren't for the individual, they're for the masses. There are a lot of people out there who do need those extra few dollars.

[Diddy]

As was posted a couple of times in this thread, the vast majority of Americans will see bigger tax breaks under Obama than they will from McCain. The only people who really feel the heat are the upper classes. Why are we so concerned about protecting them?

So as long as someone is in the miniority we souldnt worry about doing whats right?

[Freed Roger]

This has probaby already been talked about here, but anyhow

McCain cites Palin's energy, mayoral experience
By GLEN JOHNSON – 21 hours ago

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — John McCain says Sarah Palin is a solid running mate because she's "in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply" as Alaska's governor, she has served as a mayor and the voters in her state have thoroughly evaluated her.

The Republican presidential nominee also told ABC News, in an interview Wednesday, that his running mate is capable in foreign policy matters in part because "Alaska is right next to Russia."

By contrast, McCain says, Democrat Barack Obama's accomplishments are "very meager."

And he says that Obama is vulnerable on foreign policy matters because the freshman Illinois senator has never traveled south of the U.S. border.

These reaches are almost too funny to believe. Mayor of a town of 9,000 = executive experience? Alaska is close to Russia= foreign policy experience?

The one about her energy policy background is hilarious too - Palin's experience pales when you consider we've had 2 bona fide oilmen in the white house the last 8 years. A lot of good those connections have done US. They went above and beyond her "drill drill drill" solution for our energy problems - they invaded Iraq... So much for having such "experience."

Running Alaska is so unlike the fed'l govt. With all the oil, all they have to do to balance the budget in Alaska is tax/royalty the oil a little more. Some years they actually send a surplus royalty check to Alaskans. This cushy experience runs contra to the problems she would face in DC where they have trillions and debt and billions in deficit (thanks in part to her failed GOP predecessors' regime)

[Popeye_Card]

As was posted a couple of times in this thread, the vast majority of Americans will see bigger tax breaks under Obama than they will from McCain. The only people who really feel the heat are the upper classes. Why are we so concerned about protecting them?

So as long as someone is in the miniority we souldnt worry about doing whats right?

I don't see how it's wrong. There is no undue burden placed upon them. As I said earlier, they're going to make their take-home pay one way or another, no matter how much you tax them.

[Fat Strat]

those people are getting to keep what they earn.

I believe that the majority of people should get to keep more of what they earn because they make MUCH LESS than the few that would be affected by this.

I understand the general concept that people have a problem with. I don't get how people can sit there and be indignant when we're talking about a tiny group of people taking home a little less than they are now when what they take home in one year is already more than the vast majority of other tax payers will make in decades of work.

For the majority of tax payers they'll be getting to keep more of what they earn.

I dont believe that we should tax someone more simply because they can afford it...

I agree. I also think that we should eliminate the tax loopholes so that the people who are making more actually pay what they're supposed to.

I also always like to remind people that those who will be affected the most by Obama's tax plan are the ones who hire, fire, and pay salaries to those who won't be affected by the tax plan.

In the current economic climate, I think it's a terrible idea to take money away from the people who will finance our pursuit of alternative energy sources, cleaner burning cars, hybrids, etc. There will be consequences to raising the tax rate on the elite and those consequences, imo, are potentially really bad for entreprenuership in America. Sure, the government might have more money to put into energy programs or whatever, but that turns them from private enterprise to public progams, which imo is also bad.

[arnie.k]

those people are getting to keep what they earn.

I believe that the majority of people should get to keep more of what they earn because they make MUCH LESS than the few that would be affected by this.

I understand the general concept that people have a problem with. I don't get how people can sit there and be indignant when we're talking about a tiny group of people taking home a little less than they are now when what they take home in one year is already more than the vast majority of other tax payers will make in decades of work.

For the majority of tax payers they'll be getting to keep more of what they earn.

I dont believe that we should tax someone more simply because they can afford it. If voting for my beliefs means that im voting agains my best ecconomic interests then ill do that. Im not going to sellout my beliefs for a few $'s. Hopefully someday ill be rich and ill want to keep the money ive worked for. Im no socialist if i wanted that id move to sweeden.

I understand where you're coming from and from a personal level I agree, but that's looking at it too simplistically.

Taxes aren't for the individual, they're for the masses. There are a lot of people out there who do need those extra few dollars.

plus, it's a bit naive. people in the higher classes make money as a result of governments facilitating it (through cheap loans to businesses, tax deductions, and other means). they do deserve to pay more taxes.

and that was my absolute last post in this thread. my own country is not in such great shape that i should involve myself in another's politics.