Obama vs. McCain (Clinton, Republic, Lincoln: mortgages, unemployed, tax)

[Marie'sBees]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

Want what's best for our country? My vote goes to ucfjtm...

So, when and where are you running for office? Seriously, you very well stated many great points here. Thanks.

You beat me to it! I'd vote for him too!

[ShadowCaver]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I have some issues understanding a sentence made by a poster when they make four separate points.
With that being said I don't think McCain is necessarily adressing such issues like: Illegal Immigration, NAFTA, Borders, and Outsourcing of Jobs. I think many voters care about these issues, but neither candidate is tackling them too much. I think Obama wanted to penalize employers who outsource American jobs overseas.

After Bill Clinton, etal. opened that door very wide, and dangled various other carrots for such to succeed... but then years later when others are paying for such actions, the original creator of this mess is not remembered. Please read the following, history is so rich:
Clinton signs China trade bill, - October 10, 2000
Clinton Announces Plan to Reward Companies that Create U.S. Jobs | Politicususa [esp. 6th paragraph]

Other points:
(a) for better/worse, the companies that operate w/in our borders are highly regulated - environmental, safety, accounting, etc etc. More regs are not necessarily more better - there becomes a point when it becomes too expensive to operate/produce here, instead of making somewhere else and then shipping it.
(b) with these regs most times are also added additional fees and/or taxes and/or costs [overhead/burden] - this drives up the overall cost that company pays to produce/operate.
(c) as a nation, for the most part [and too often] we buy the least expensive item, which is produced usually overseas, neglecting the nearby item that is few cents or dollars higher which was made in US - if/when there is such an option - even given the quality differences [no, not talking automotive here, just regular consumer goods,,, like Target, Wal-Mart, Sears, etc.].
(d) not being anti-union, but when so many companies are tied to a contract/work force that (1) restricts them from being able to rapidly change w/ the dynamics of the world dynamics, and/or (2) allows workers to build "x" amount of parts [some quota], and then BS the rest of their shift, such makes it extremely difficult for a firm to be profitable.

So, given those points, an American company trying to operate in our borders has what options? Not defending 'em all, or saying that the companies in and of themselves ain't making boneheaded decisions, but these aspects also come into play, and need to be realized. The world, the players, the economy, the markets, they are all constantly changing, in a very dynamic fashion, and are all quite complex, interwoven in ways that unfortunately takes years to comprehend - and that is sometimes only after the root causes and truths are revealed, as there is so much BS and smoke screening and lobbying and related crap that goes on that majority of public have no clue what's going on behind the doors and under tables. Part of that is our own fault, as we look/hear at just the sound bites, the headlines, instead of digging down into the behind the scene realities, searching for the who's, what's, why's, where's, and potential repercussions. Shame that we can't/don't use our resources/intelligence/time wisely to understand more... just take the BS fed to us for granted.

[Northwoods Voyager]

Excellent post, ShadowCaver! It is unfortunately too true. Many times we have been in stores and search in vain for a product that has been made here in our country. We watch our pennies, however we would much prefer to pay those few extra pennies/dollars for a superior product made by our fellow Americans. And not to be 'off topic' here, afraid of what the impact will be if Sen. Obama does win this election and we are saddled with the Presidential and the Legislative branch being of one political party.

We have made our minds up and it will be Sen.McCain. I am thinking of our children and grandchildren. We believe in the good old work ethic. Don't give me a handout, just give me a hand if and when I may need it and show me what my options are. If I choose not to seek being responsible for my self, why should you?

I'm beating a dead horse here, I know, but again folks, give me a fishing pole and teach me how to fish. You don't need to keep giving me your fish.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

After Bill Clinton, etal. opened that door very wide, and dangled various other carrots for such to succeed... but then years later when others are paying for such actions, the original creator of this mess is not remembered. Please read the following, history is so rich:
Clinton signs China trade bill, - October 10, 2000
Clinton Announces Plan to Reward Companies that Create U.S. Jobs | Politicususa [esp. 6th paragraph]

Other points:
(a) for better/worse, the companies that operate w/in our borders are highly regulated - environmental, safety, accounting, etc etc. More regs are not necessarily more better - there becomes a point when it becomes too expensive to operate/produce here, instead of making somewhere else and then shipping it.
(b) with these regs most times are also added additional fees and/or taxes and/or costs [overhead/burden] - this drives up the overall cost that company pays to produce/operate.
(c) as a nation, for the most part [and too often] we buy the least expensive item, which is produced usually overseas, neglecting the nearby item that is few cents or dollars higher which was made in US - if/when there is such an option - even given the quality differences [no, not talking automotive here, just regular consumer goods,,, like Target, Wal-Mart, Sears, etc.].
(d) not being anti-union, but when so many companies are tied to a contract/work force that (1) restricts them from being able to rapidly change w/ the dynamics of the world dynamics, and/or (2) allows workers to build "x" amount of parts [some quota], and then BS the rest of their shift, such makes it extremely difficult for a firm to be profitable.

So, given those points, an American company trying to operate in our borders has what options? Not defending 'em all, or saying that the companies in and of themselves ain't making boneheaded decisions, but these aspects also come into play, and need to be realized. The world, the players, the economy, the markets, they are all constantly changing, in a very dynamic fashion, and are all quite complex, interwoven in ways that unfortunately takes years to comprehend - and that is sometimes only after the root causes and truths are revealed, as there is so much BS and smoke screening and lobbying and related crap that goes on that majority of public have no clue what's going on behind the doors and under tables. Part of that is our own fault, as we look/hear at just the sound bites, the headlines, instead of digging down into the behind the scene realities, searching for the who's, what's, why's, where's, and potential repercussions. Shame that we can't/don't use our resources/intelligence/time wisely to understand more... just take the BS fed to us for granted.

.
+1
Excellent points ShadowCaver. I think we can all agree that Clinton signed some pieces of legislation that were definitely pro-growth, but not for the best interests of many middle class and working class Americans. Another item that I despised was NAFTA because that has now opened a huge can of worms including the development of the Superhighway corridor. (This was another one of the small reasons why I moved away from the middle of the country. The NAFTA Superhighway will likely be built right near or on top of the Kansas City metro area). However, history does some strange things to us. Everything seemed to be going well in the 1990s and many people did not give a second glance to some of the legislation that was passed.

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by ucfjtm

Thanks.. I'll state again, does Obama have the guts to veto something the Democrat party passes through House and Senate? I seriously doubt it. I'd feel a hell of a lot safer with McCain in office to say "no" to something like this:
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks | workforce.com

Basically, Democrats, led by McDermott and Miller, want to seize all of our 401k accounts and essentially force us to pay 5% into it each year (with no mention of employer-matching payments). They want to remove the *optional* status of even choosing to have a 401k for employees, thus making it another mandatory "Social Security" tax program. (Funny, Social Security started off as an optional program too..) They'll pay us 3% over inflation on it, and add in around $500 a year. They want to take it over so we no longer have a choice of how to invest it - I personally like spreading my 401k into various mutual funds I trust. I *know* over a 10 year period, my investments will be well over 3% over inflation. This is another case of the government using another excuse (current stock market crash) to take more control over our money.

This is EXACTLY what I don't support Obama in office. He won't say no to another outrageous program that his fellow Democrats support! If the House & Senate pass something like this, I'm *IMMEDIATELY* pulling all my money out of my 401k and investing it directly into my own mutual funds & index stocks. We don't need the government taking over our investment options, especially when they can't even manage our previously-*optional* program called Social Security correctly.

Obama says he won't raise taxes to 95% of Americans. However, a plan like this is essentially giving ALL Americans a 5% tax increase on "Social Security/Government Retirement Account" payments. The supporters of this takeover (McDermott and others) even state they're doing it to make more tax revenue! I don't trust anything either party does, which is exactly why I don't want either party to have full control of the government.

Thoughts on this 401k takeover? Keep in mind that the stock market averages around a 10% growth per year over a given decade.. that's around 7% over inflation, not 3% that this government takeover offers.

Whoops! Meant to add this link as well - it explains the 401k replacement "plans!":
House Democrats contemplate abolishing 401(k) tax breaks - InvestmentNews

[GetmeoutofAR]

Just a few more weary days and then.............................................

[northbayeric]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

.
+1
Excellent points ShadowCaver. I think we can all agree that Clinton signed some pieces of legislation that were definitely pro-growth, but not for the best interests of many middle class and working class Americans. Another item that I despised was NAFTA because that has now opened a huge can of worms including the development of the Superhighway corridor. (This was another one of the small reasons why I moved away from the middle of the country. The NAFTA Superhighway will likely be built right near or on top of the Kansas City metro area). However, history does some strange things to us. Everything seemed to be going well in the 1990s and many people did not give a second glance to some of the legislation that was passed.

The NAFTA superhighway! If that thing sees the light of day, it's "League of Palin Voters" to "Say It Ain't So, Sarah" in a New York picosecond for me!

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by northbayeric

The NAFTA superhighway! If that thing sees the light of day, it's "League of Palin Voters" to "Say It Ain't So, Sarah" in a New York picosecond for me!

Look at the bipartisan support for NAFTA.. even with the unpopularity of NAFTA and the idea of NAU amonst most Americans, I highly doubt either party is going to stop what benefits big business..

[tambre]

Here's a new look at the candidates:


YouTube - Obama and McCain - Dance Off!

[Ciaerin]

i will repost what ive said before on another thread..... the 2 party system is whats wrong with america today. they have no far of repurcussions.

in my opinion this is why the two party system is still in place... you settle for the lesser of two evils. i honestly think its time we bust up this "good ole boy" system and vote in someone that may have been a stretch to get in because the dem/rep blew them out of the water in money/ads/backing etc.... . do you know how hard it is to get on the ballot if your an independant? its almost impossible in some states. if your a rep/dem you do not go through the rigorous things others do. just my 2 cents i will also be voting indy this year. i refuse to allow my vote to assist the dems/reps again.

DOWN WITH THE 2 PARTY SYSTEM!!!!!