Obama vs. McCain (St. Louis, St. Joseph, Clinton: transplants, real estate, city hall)

[GetmeoutofAR]

Im so sick of the election crap. I can't wait till election day. Its just like 2004. The democrats hate the GOP and the GOP thinks that the democrat is satan's spawn. With the GOP its always about "morals" and "values" and when they have nothing left to turn to they bring up the abortion issue. Are there any independents out there?????People who back McCain are scared of Obama pure and simple. Don't let them fool you. They think hes a muslim and a terrorist who is gonna sell our nation short. But guess what? If it was Hillary or John Edwards or Bill Richardson it would be the very same thing. It was the same thing with the GOP in 92, 96, 2000, 2004. So im just sick of it. I've been Republican my whole untill this election and ive seen it so many times i just have to vent sorry...

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

Are there any independents out there?????People who back McCain are scared of Obama pure and simple.

Yes, us Independents are here, and we rarely ever like one major party in full control of House, Senate, and White House. The Democrats will definitely have the House & Senate. Being so, many of us are forced at gunpoint to very reluctantly vote for McCain simply because the thought of a Pelosi-run government is sickening. Don't fool yourself either.. Obama is the Democrat party's puppet, not the other way around. He will never say "no" to Pelosi and Reid.

Your view of Republicans is rather generalized, since many Republicans and Democrats don't fall into these generalizations that the other side portrays them as. Many people firmly are against "spreading the wealth around" through government means, whether a Republican or Democrat President is in charge - as Bush was when the first "stimulus checks" went around and these people were upset with the concept. That's one reason some back McCain even though they find Obama a likable guy - they don't want full Democrat control of the government. Others don't think a guy with the least experience in a presidential candidate in the last 100 years is the right person for the job, regardless of party. (I'm not defending Palin on this either, but she's not at the top of the ticket.) I could go on, but there are far more reason people are not voting for Obama or McCain than those generalized points the other side is throwing.

I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay marriage. I'm anti-tax & spend. However, I'm also pro-small government.. and we know THAT'S not going to happen under the Pelosi/Reid administration (with an Obama figurehead).

Thus, your point about being non-supporters being scared of Obama for being a "Muslim" or "terrorist" is proven untrue. It's the unchecked Pelosi/Reid vision of America that moderates and Independents are scared of.. the only thing Obama has to do with it is he won't lift the veto pen against them.

[GetmeoutofAR]

Originally Posted by ucfjtm

Yes, us Independents are here, and we rarely ever like one major party in full control of House, Senate, and White House. The Democrats will definitely have the House & Senate. Being so, many of us are forced at gunpoint to very reluctantly vote for McCain simply because the thought of a Pelosi-run government is sickening. Don't fool yourself either.. Obama is the Democrat party's puppet, not the other way around. He will never say "no" to Pelosi and Reid.

Your view of Republicans is rather generalized, since many Republicans and Democrats don't fall into these generalizations that the other side portrays them as. Many people firmly are against "spreading the wealth around" through government means, whether a Republican or Democrat President is in charge - as Bush was when the first "stimulus checks" went around and these people were upset with the concept. That's one reason some back McCain even though they find Obama a likable guy - they don't want full Democrat control of the government. Others don't think a guy with the least experience in a presidential candidate in the last 100 years is the right person for the job, regardless of party. (I'm not defending Palin on this either, but she's not at the top of the ticket.) I could go on, but there are far more reason people are not voting for Obama or McCain than those generalized points the other side is throwing.

I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay marriage. I'm anti-tax & spend. However, I'm also pro-small government.. and we know THAT'S not going to happen under the Pelosi/Reid administration (with an Obama figurehead).

Thus, your point about being non-supporters being scared of Obama for being a "Muslim" or "terrorist" is proven untrue. It's the unchecked Pelosi/Reid vision of America that moderates and Independents are scared of.. the only thing Obama has to do with it is he won't lift the veto pen against them.

I basically agree with everything u just said. Obama will just be a puppet they can control. Now im more confused than ever. Im seriously thinking about not voting. Im in a bad mood

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

I basically agree with everything u just said. Obama will just be a puppet they can control. Now im more confused than ever. Im seriously thinking about not voting. Im in a bad mood

Yep, another lesser of two evils election. Of course, "evil" isn't the right word, which is why it's a metaphor.. I must explain this before some die-hards flip out.
Obama is not the most liberal Senator, but he's to the left of the center of his party. Pelosi is Stalin in comparison. McCain has gone against his party with Democrats on important issues in the past, so feel he'd be an "acceptable" compromise here. He'll veto the crazy bills Pelosi/Reid manage to get passed, but he'll allow the Democrat-passed bills that are reasonable for the good of the nation. McCain can't be Bush 3 when Democrats control House & Senate since McCain can't create laws. He can only approve/veto what Pelosi/Reid pass. I'm not worried about Palin taking over if McCain can't continue - she won't be able to create/change laws without the Democrat-majority Congress first approving a bill.

If the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, I'd be MUCH more likely to vote Obama instead. However, there's virtually no chance of having a Republican majority over the next 4 years, so McCain is a safer vote for the majority of the country.

[GetmeoutofAR]

Originally Posted by ucfjtm

Yep, another lesser of two evils election. Of course, "evil" isn't the right word, which is why it's a metaphor.. I must explain this before some die-hards flip out.
Obama is not the most liberal Senator, but he's to the left of the center of his party. Pelosi is Stalin in comparison. McCain has gone against his party with Democrats on important issues in the past, so feel he'd be an "acceptable" compromise here. He'll veto the crazy bills Pelosi/Reid manage to get passed, but he'll allow the Democrat-passed bills that are reasonable for the good of the nation. McCain can't be Bush 3 when Democrats control House & Senate since McCain can't create laws. He can only approve/veto what Pelosi/Reid pass. I'm not worried about Palin taking over if McCain can't continue - she won't be able to create/change laws without the Democrat-majority Congress first approving a bill.

If the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, I'd be MUCH more likely to vote Obama instead. However, there's virtually no chance of having a Republican majority over the next 4 years, so McCain is a safer vote for the majority of the country.

You probably just made the best case for voting for McCain ive heard yet. I like really like reason and logic. Im just so sick of this mudslinging im about to hurl

[tambre]

Originally Posted by northbound74

Sure, why not. Everybody should get tax breaks. Personally, I like a flat, across the board tax, that is the same rate for everybody. It's the only true fair tax out there.
Aside from that, we should massively cut back all the useless spending, and make people take care of each other on a one-on-one basis. Cut out the inept, always-and-forever corrupt government middle-man. We could rely on families, churches, private charities... whatever floats your boat. Those things aren't always perfect, of course, but they beat the ever-lovin' daylights out of bureaucracy.
We might become humans again.

I agree on cutting back on useless spending. Sorry, but when people are starving, I'm not so interested in finding out about the genetic diversity and migration habits of the sea sponge, or whatever strange pork barrel giveaway is being dolled out.

Not sure what that income cutoff would be, but those living within or close to the poverty level spend every dime on survival needs. When they pay income tax, the rebound affect is that then we have more social services needed to provide for their basic necessities. More social services equals more government. More government equals more taxes.

Multi millionaires and billionaires don't need a tax break. The trickle down for Joe the CEO, is stimulating the economy by buying a new house in the tropics, a new jet, trips to Europe, etc. They also manufacture many of their products overseas using cheap labor or child labor. My husband and I are in the 28% tax bracket, why should a billionaire pay 15%?

IMHO, small business owners that are represented by Joe the Plumber's American dream would not be able to afford to hire and insure their workers. They will instead pocket the profit, hire two part-timers, instead of one full timer, maybe a few illegals, and not have to pay workers comp. either. This pollyanna belief that Joe the Plumber will create jobs and stimulate the economy is idealism and a fantasy based on the belief that people are inherently altruistic, not inherently selfish. This is not what I've experienced in my 30 years of working for a living.

As far as the dems controlling everything....Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the most ineffective governmental droids that I have ever seen. They have accomplished nothing that they promised (end the war in Iraq). GOP doesn't need to worry about them. They are pretty ineffective.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I expected more booing for Palin at Scottrade, but it was mostly silent. Some cheers and clapping.

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by tambre

I agree on cutting back on useless spending. Sorry, but when people are starving, I'm not so interested in finding out about the genetic diversity and migration habits of the sea sponge, or whatever strange pork barrel giveaway is being dolled out.

Not sure what that income cutoff would be, but those living within or close to the poverty level spend every dime on survival needs. When they pay income tax, the rebound affect is that then we have more social services needed to provide for their basic necessities. More social services equals more government. More government equals more taxes.

Multi millionaires and billionaires don't need a tax break. The trickle down for Joe the CEO, is stimulating the economy by buying a new house in the tropics, a new jet, trips to Europe, etc. They also manufacture many of their products overseas using cheap labor or child labor. My husband and I are in the 28% tax bracket, why should a billionaire pay 15%?

Exactly. Things like flat taxes and sales tax are a retrogressive tax on the poor and lower middle class. If you are making $10/hour and have a couple kids, every dime you have will be spent on rent, food, and gas. Taxing these people more puts them in even worse shape than they already are. If you are making $300k a year, a 5% increase in taxes means you may have to keep your BMW an extra year before getting a new one, but you'll still have plenty of food in the fridge. Are they "lazy" for only making $10 an hour? Some, maybe, some, no. Does every millionaire work for their money or are some just lucky or inherited it? Probably a little bit of both. A complete flat tax would be very unfair, as people with six-figure and higher incomes would get HUGE tax breaks, at the expense of the lower- and middle-classes who are having a harder and harder time getting by as it is. That, I consider to be very unfair.

I'd personally be for a much simplified income tax system, where people making a household income under a certain amount (say, $25k for a family of 3 or 4) pay zero income taxes, and then have closely-spaced income tax brackets for people making more than that (so there aren't huge jumps in taxes if you make lets say $49,999 a year compared to $50,000). Cut out all the other tax crap, the complicated tax code, and all the loopholes that allow people to evade paying billions in taxes at the expense of the rest of the honest taxpayers. Also, the size of the IRS could be drastically reduced, saving even more of the taxpayers dollars.

Edit:
After thinking about this a little more, I think a tax on disposable income is probably the most fair a tax system could be. This way, people spending every dime on the basic necessities of like such as food and shelter won't be unfairly burdened by a retrogressive tax system, and as the tax slides up on the income scale, people who have more money for non-essential items pay more tax. This would minimize the amount of "pain" caused by taxes as much as possible, and be much more fair than a pure flat tax. Closing up all the loopholes in the tax code would instantly increase tax revenue and lower the tax burden for everyone, except for those who had tax experts and lawyers helping them evade the same taxes the rest of us pay.

[southernfried]

AS I siad on another post I hope everone get what they are want!!!! Read between the line the count down has begun!!!!!

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Sarah Palin dropping the puck.

YouTube - Sarah Palin Drops Puck in St. Louis 10-24-08