The media should fear this, but they don't, they let it happen with a word

[IDrinkaRum]

And who would you want during that hypothetical crisis? A man who has an obvious temper tantrum problem, who's joked in a not-so-joking way about bombing antagonistic countries, whose VP pick has flat-out said on national TV that *she'd* start trouble with a major nuclear nation if she could and who has obvious ties to an apocalyptic church that believes in subjugating women and gay people and destroying the earth so that their bastardized version of God can come back to rule?

Or a man who has consistently displayed a calm, cool, rational head during a pressure-cooker of a campaign, a man who surrounds himself with likewise-similar and intelligent people, a man who isn't afraid to sit down and talk with people first before resorting to a carpet-bomb 'strategy' in order to solve problems?

I'd vote for the person who didn't vote against spending more money on the troops that are already fighting in war and who needs that money for more supplies, etc. Obama voted to deny those much needed funds to keep our people safe over in Iraq.

Also, I'd vote for the person who didn't have a 1/2 hour "love fest" infomercial which cost a lot of money trying to convince the people of the U.S.A. that he'd be able to take our money and use it "wisely".

[CancelMyService]

Just for the record, Obama (and other folks who voted against spending more money in Iraq) did so because the Bushies wanted no oversight on how the money gets spent, ie: another blank check that ends up mainly in the hands of companies that have ties to people in the Administration.

Anyone who wanted accountability didn't want to hand billions more to people who can't keep track of the hundreds of billions they were already handed, and now they get painted with the same old "OMG TROOP HATER~!" brush.

Also no one who's outraged by Obama's vote seems concerned on why the troops don't have enough supplies when we're already spending $10 billion a month over there. Guess there hasn't been a sufficent right wing talking point for that one yet.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'd vote for the person who didn't vote against spending more money on the troops that are already fighting in war and who needs that money for more supplies, etc. Obama voted to deny those much needed funds to keep our people safe over in Iraq.

Just for the record, Obama (and other folks who voted against spending more money in Iraq) did so because the Bushies wanted no oversight on how the money gets spent, ie: another blank check that ends up mainly in the hands of companies that have ties to people in the Administration.

Anyone who wanted accountability didn't want to hand billions more to people who can't keep track of the hundreds of billions they were already handed, and now they get painted with the same old "OMG TROOP HATER~!" brush.

Exactly. Dollars to donuts, that money wouldn't have gone towards the troops; it'd have gone towards Halliburton or Blackwater (*shudder*) or something like that.

Also, I'd vote for the person who didn't have a 1/2 hour "love fest" infomercial which cost a lot of money trying to convince the people of the U.S.A. that he'd be able to take our money and use it "wisely".

I didn't see the infomercial myself. But the money for it? Came from his campaign funds - funds that were donated of free will by his supporters: the average American out there. Not taxpayer money. And it's hard to believe that the people donating to his campaign don't realize that that donated money is going to be spent on campaign expenses, including advertising - that's what campaigns are. Annoying, yes, but that's the way the game goes, and if it means we finally get a president who doesn't have his head up his ass then I'm willing to put up with it.

[Boozy]

Anyone who wanted accountability didn't want to hand billions more to people who can't keep track of the hundreds of billions they were already handed, and now they get painted with the same old "OMG TROOP HATER~!" brush.

And it worked, which still sort of amazes me. What a coup for the Bush administration; to be able to shovel billions of tax dollars into the hands of their pals at Halliburton, with no accountability whatsoever, and no one could even question it without being labeled a troop-hating, traitorous, unpatriotic son-of a-bitch.

Governments used to have to be sneaky about giving money to their cronies. Now they do it in plain sight. I don't know which is worse, really.

[AFPheonix]

And it worked, which still sort of amazes me. What a coup for the Bush administration; to be able to shovel billions of tax dollars into the hands of their pals at Halliburton, with no accountability whatsoever, and no one could even question it without being labeled a troop-hating, traitorous, unpatriotic son-of a-bitch.

Governments used to have to be sneaky about giving money to their cronies. Now they do it in plain sight. I don't know which is worse, really.

I think the latter scares me the most, simply because it means the public is either so apathetic that they don't care, so blind that they still don't notice, so jaded that they've come to expect it, or a combo of all three. In any case, it's a problem.

Obama & the Democrats =/= Robin Hood. I have a distinct distaste for those voting Obama saying that if others don't vote for him, then they're racists.

The only people I hear saying that are fringe extremists. Just about every post on this board has been a well-reasoned argument for him. I'm not seeing quite the same for the other candidates, frankly.

[Girly]

First, about the newspapers. Obama's guys kicked them off, but let Jet and Ebony magazine reporters on the plane that were NOT on the plane previously:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...off-obama-jet/

You probably won't like that link since it came from the Washington Times, which was one of the papers kicked off, but oh well.

Second, regarding the taxes. I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't realize how much in taxes the "rich" already pay. I work at a CPA firm (read: NOT H&R Block), and I do taxes. Rich people's taxes. Trust me, they pay a heck of a lot more than you do. Rich people are also the ones that own the companies you work for. Do you want to guess what will happen if you raise their taxes even MORE? They'll close their companies, consolidate, or move them offshore. Think they won't? They are doing it already.

Basically, if your business is making money, you get fucked, no matter what you try to do. You can pay yourself more... but then you have to pay more in payroll and income tax. You can buy more stuff, but now you have to pay more in property taxes. You can give it away to charity, but the cap what you can give (which most 'rich' people hit anyway, which makes sense seeing as how they are the ones that have the money to give...)

You keep taxing these people, and they are going to just say forget it. They already are saying that. They are cutting jobs, and making one person do the work of two and three people. You want to stand there with your hand out wanting to get some money off a rich person because 'since they make more money they should have to pay a LOT more than anyone else!!!' Well, they'll take their money and move. And now their company is overseas, the 100 people they employed are now UNemployed. Everyone else now has to pay a little more to pay for their unemployment benefits. Other companies rates go higher, so they have to pay more. They start laying off people because they just can't take it anymore. Those people go on unemployment, and other companies now have to pay more. Vicious cycle anyone?

You can't keep taxing and keep taxing and keep taxing someone and just expect them to bend over and take it. At some point they are going to say Fuck this. Stand up, and leave.

[AFPheonix]

But they aren't going to be taxed any more excessively than they were before Bush and Co. came in. Further, our tax rates for the rich in this country are far lower than any other developed nation.
As for the newspaper thing, it's not like Obama can prevent them from covering him. Look, they still wrote that piece, right? They just get to fly their own asses to wherever they're going.

Jobs currently are getting cut from various sectors because of many reasons, primarily economic slowdowns. It's not solely because of taxes. Reaganomics have proven to not work and have widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Socialized democracy (which our country dabbled in with the New Deal) has proven itself to work well. I think we could easily adapt it to work for us, too.

[IDrinkaRum]

AFPhoenix - 2 items from the New Deal that are still with us are Social Security and Welfare.

I might be imagining things, but haven't we had discussions that Welfare isn't fair and should be abolished because it's so fraught with abuses?

And Social Security? We've been complaining about that for the past 10 years or so. The young don't want to pay into it because there won't "be enough" for them when they get old (it'll all be eaten by the Baby Boomers).

What did we do before the New Deal happened? We got help from our families mainly, I believe. No one thought the Government was there to pick us up and help us out.

[Sylvia727]

And Social Security? We've been complaining about that for the past 10 years or so. The young don't want to pay into it because there won't "be enough" for them when they get old (it'll all be eaten by the Baby Boomers).

This link is just the first one I found, but it attributes the social security crisis to the fact that politicians took the money out of the social security fund and left worthless IOUs, which is the reason I always heard for the crisis. The main problem isn't the generational size differences, although that's certainly an exacabator. The main problem is politicians and their piss poor money management skils. The system itself isn't broken. It would have worked if the money had been used for what it was intended for.

ETA: I finished reading that article, and it was written in 1999. This link was written in October, and while it doesn't cover the cause extensively, it does mention "negative cash flow" which means money was coming out of the fund faster than it was going in. Again, piss poor money management skills.

[AFPheonix]

Who's saying welfare should be abolished? If you want to see a lot more homeless and hungry people, sure, go for it. I myself actually have a bit of a social conscience.
Besides, don't you use public funds for medical care for your daughter? Don't knock it if you take advantage of it.

[Arcade Man D]

This link is just the first one I found, but it attributes the social security crisis to the fact that politicians took the money out of the social security fund and left worthless IOUs, which is the reason I always heard for the crisis. The main problem isn't the generational size differences, although that's certainly an exacabator. The main problem is politicians and their piss poor money management skils. The system itself isn't broken. It would have worked if the money had been used for what it was intended for.

ETA: I finished reading that article, and it was written in 1999. This link was written in October, and while it doesn't cover the cause extensively, it does mention "negative cash flow" which means money was coming out of the fund faster than it was going in. Again, piss poor money management skills.

Er.... actually, according to GAO predictions, the most DOOOOOOOOOM~! has the SSA running out of money in.... 2050, IIRC.

Also, the way to fix it? Up the cap on SSA-taxed income by about 20-50k. Then you have enough flow to take care of the boomers, and everyone after them. (Social Security taxes only take into account the first X amount of income, not the whole check.) (Posting this while getting ready for work, so can't look this up right now.)