United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by KidRock
You're crazy if you think we will have the full force we have in Iraq right now still there by say 2012..we will still and always have troops there, but the war will not be costing us the same it is now within the next 4 years.

We won't have the same force there by January, I hear.

What's your point?

My point is the math in that posting is off by almost a factor of 10. It then doesn't address the money saved from pulling out of Iraq and other foreign affairs and funding being cut for unnecessary programs, both under Obama's plan. So, no, under Obama's plan, money would actually be SAVED compared to McCain.

You'd have to be crazy to think McCain will bring the troops back as fast as a democrat, especially when WarCain could possibly start another war or two. (Have you even listened to some of the war mongering putrescence that has exuded from his mouth?)

But it isn't a quick and easy pull out. If Kerry would have NOT lost the election in 2004, we wouldn't be spending nearly as much as we are right now in Iraq, that's for sure.

To put it matter of factly, McCain's "troop withdrawal" plan (if you can even call it that) is much more conservative than Obama's.

What is McCain's timetable or benchmarks for withdrawal? What about Obama's?

Now, if you'd like, you can argue the fundamental error in the math and reasoning behind that article you posted because we have fully tangible numbers to work with on and not two politicians campaigning rhetorics.

Yeah, some money will be saved under Obama's plan, and we'll see some tax breaks, but as he raises taxes on the wealthiest people and the businesses, they will in turn raise prices on our goods, groceries, and gas.

Middle america will get screwed, because the businesses will just pass the cost on to us.

👇

I'm curious. Elaborate on the economics of how increasing e.g. Cindy McCain's taxes on her personal income will amount to Hensley & Co. charging more for Budweiser.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah, some money will be saved under Obama's plan, and we'll see some tax breaks, but as he raises taxes on the wealthiest people and the businesses, they will in turn raise prices on our goods, groceries, and gas.

Middle america will get screwed, because the businesses will just pass the cost on to us.

👇

But...you're forgetting that the middle and lower classes are the ones who buy the goods.

The idea is to give the largest group of "actual" buyers more disposable income to pour into the rich's businesses. It's supposed to even itself out and allow the majority of the people to become happier with more "stuff" because "stuff" is what captilism is about.

Under trickle-down economics, we have to rely on the altruism of the rich to cut costs to match the money gained from a negative adjustment to the taxes that they pay out. Do you really see a "change board" cutting costs for a product or service faster than you or I going and spending the extra $100 we get to keep a month? Exactly. (Lord knows both you and I could use an extra $100 buck a month. 🙁 )

But...

Both policies fail. 😄 👆

BARDOCK's plan is the best plan. Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Cut the taxes for all climes of income and let all benefit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then we are on the same page.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, I'm a retard who believed AC's stupid accusation just because it's against you. That's what I am.

I know.

Good to know you're making sense again.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Good to know you're making sense again.

Am I just supposed to accept that?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Am I just supposed to accept that?

You are the most unreasonable person to have ever existed on these boards.

Does this make you proud?

realclearpolitics now has McCain with a +20 pt lead in the electoral map.

A poll from the state of Minnesota (long thought to be a sure-shot for Obama) released today shows a tie, putting this state in play also.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Originally posted by sithsaber408
realclearpolitics now has McCain with a +20 pt lead in the electoral map.

A poll from the state of Minnesota (long thought to be a sure-shot for Obama) released today shows a tie, putting this state in play also.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Do we have to have "the polls are meaningless right now" conversation again?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Do we have to have "the polls are meaningless right now" conversation again?

Electoral map polls aren't meaningless.

they're still only a snapshot in time.

They're the snapshot to speculate about though; alongside news, commentary, interviews and press releases...

Everyone knows that the only poll that matters is the one in November (although early voting begins soon iirc) that doesn't mean discussion can't be had of what the current polls are.

That being said, I'd advise the Republican supporters that this is likely still a post-convention bump; amplified by a consolidation of the Republican rightwing, which previously hadn't been too affectionate of McCain. Likewise the "panic" of the Obama campaign, as it's being portrayed, to this flip in the polls and Palinmania seems incredibly overly reactionary.

Originally posted by KidRock
Electoral map polls aren't meaningless.

Before the debates they are.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Before the debates they are.

They are probably more important after the debates, but they still aren't pointless before them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Everyone knows that the only poll that matters is the one in November (although early voting begins soon iirc) that doesn't mean discussion can't be had of what the current polls are.

Originally posted by Strangelove
34 states allow early voting.

How early do they allow it to happen?