Yes it does bother me.. that 5% helps to employ the other 95%.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmKowalski
End of story.
Printable View
Yes it does bother me.. that 5% helps to employ the other 95%.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmKowalski
End of story.
It's not invalid; and I take it you've never run a business by your previous posts about gross income vs net income.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmKowalski
you are partially right; but it's something you have to experience as a business owner to really understand how that effects you and what the real figures look like.
edit: I should elaborate.. Many small businesses these days are service oriented. In a service oriented business; which many are, where you don't have an inventory.. where you may not have a large office space.. where you might not have the same deductions as say a grocery store or a product based business.... You will take the hardest hit. Because the difference between Gross income vs Net income is not huge..
Even people who are independant contractor based employees and pay their own taxes can attest to this.
For obvious reasons, I don't plan on discussing my resume on here so I will just advise you to read up Obama's tax plan instead. It's online. Actually, I'm just going to let this thread drop - I spend enough time discussing politics out here in the real world - I come to cannabis.com to discuss... well.... cannabis :-) I just keep getting sucked into these political threads because I have a strong aversion to misinformation, misunderstanding, and manipulative propaganda - that's why I'm an athiest and it's also why I'm a progressive. ;-) Unfortunately, it also makes it difficult for me to just ignore threads like this.
I think the point of "Joe the Plumber" in the original Fox News story was that he supposedly pwn3d (I don't realy know what that means) Obama because he claimed he personally represented a person who was going to be hurt by Obama's tax plan. That was his whole value --- he put a face on the issue, just a regular plumber guy who was going to be denied the American Dream. And that is also the reason McCain brought him up at the debate as well --- to personalize the issue.
For McCain, it wasn't about the question Joe asked Obama, it really was about Joe the person as an example.
So when the person Joe the Plumber who is going to be harmed by Obama's tax plan really turns out to the Sam the Unlicensed Plumber who actually benefits from Obama's tax plan, it does sort of invalidate the value he had to McCain.
When you put a real face on the people making more than $250,000 a year or the business owners whose businesses clear a net profit of more than $250,000 a year, it is not ordinary Joes struggling for the American Dream like this guy. Most ordinary Joes struggling for the American Dream like this guy do not clear $250,000 a year and would see a benefit from Obama's tax plan. 95% of American would see a benefit from Obama's tax plan. This guy actually puts a face on the people who would be helped by Obama's plan.
No one is telling you to leave the thread, and no one asked for your resume. I didn't realize asking if you've ever run a business would give away so much insight that we could track you down. It was a yes or no question; the fact that you elude it is questionable but that is your right and I'll just make no assumptions since no information was given. FYI, I'm agnostic.. I'm logical; however I fail to see the relevance of our beliefs in god or lack there of, but thank you for that tidbit of information I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmKowalski
It would be interesting to see your rebuttal especially factoring in gross income vs net income considering service oriented businesses; which many are these days, and the fact that they indeed do not have as many deductions as you would like to believe. Taxation eats into any type of expansion they may want to give; or perhaps giving their employees a small raise, or maybe they have 4 employees.. make 300k and wanted to give them all a couple of hundred dollars as a bonus, which would be eaten away under Obama's Plan. Furthermore many small business owners pay themselves a salary and put money back into the business as well. Net Income doesn't factor in entire salaries that you pay your employees; another reason why the 3-4% increase over 250k Net Income is so critical.
Fact is that you raise taxes on business.. and business slows down as well as the economy. You put more money into the pockets of business and you give them the ability to expand and grow their business. Which in turn will help generate more income and again will help the government receive the exact same amount of tax money as if it had raised taxes.
And you've only had 17 posts of which 8 are in this thread and about 4 in other threads are cannabis related. Find a balance. I participate in all forums; the politics forum just happens to be the most active. I'm sure you'll find that to be true also.
It's taken a while to find a balance of refraining and jumping in when I feel it's relevant. Something that I still from time to time overstep the line I drew for myself.
This board doesn't have the strongest politics forum; I simply am here to help explain or stop misinformation. I keep my real politics talk onto 2 other forums explicitly for politics; which I can't name or else this post will be deleted.
But for those folks who want to make 250k or more in their business.. they get a slap in the face because they know they'll be punished for doing well. That's a great incentive to want to do better for yourself or your company.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
And whether McCain used it as a political tool (which was obvious that he did and you can't really blame him for doing so during an election. This is politics after all) doesn't matter. What matters is what the American people percieve... much as they perceive Bill Ayers as not a big deal because his crime was 30 years ago; but if he were behind bars they would perceive him completely differently.
"Now in reality; your local corner store probably makes about 250k if it's in a busy area.. and you see this is not a very large business."
- i know you understand this but i want to clarify something:
that $250,000 refers to taxable income, not sales...assuming a 10% net income after inventory, wages to the owners wife and child, rent, supplies, utilities, service contracts, depreciation, etc, that corner store would have to be generating sales of about $2.5 million a year, or about $7000 per day (assuming it's open 360 days a year)
that's pretty good for a corner store...i bet most corner stores don't generate that level of revenue:
BizBuySell - Liquor Stores For Sale
It was an example and probably a poor one at that.. which you took out of context to construe for your own means.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
GOOD JOB :thumbsup:
I'm not an expert on taxes, and I'm not going to deny that the cost of taxes cuts into the bottom line, which it obviously does. But I'm not sure I believe everytihg you said here is correct. I think things like the salaries, raises and bonuses you mentioned are deducted from the taxable income of the business. And a lot of the cost of expansion that you mentioned can also be deducted and depreciated over time as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
It's a deduction; but for instance if you pay someone 35k... that doesn't equate to 35k back into the pocket of the business or even necessarily take 35k off their net income.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Also deductions and depreciation don't help businesses to get funds needed initially to expand. Raising their taxes would further make this difficult.
The simple fact is that SOMEBODY is going to have to pay these taxes. We have a $10 trillion debt, and budgets keep growing. At this point, higher taxes is not as great a threat to our well-being as the huge debt. The Repubican ideology has shifted away from the idea of true fiscal responsibility to emphasize only the low taxes side of the equation. If you are going to keep taxes low, you also need to keep spending low, and you also need to have low debt. The governemnt has shown itself incapable of keeping spending low, and the debt is already high, so we will need tax money to pay for those two things.
This is why I actually think that Democrats are really more fiscally conservative than Republicans. The Democrats are honest about the idea that if we really want to have government spend money on the priorities that Democrats represent, then it will require tax money -- Democrats pay for the things they buy. Republicans are not honest about that. Republicans cut taxes while simultaneously increasing spending and just pile on the debt. Now we are getting to the point where that accumulated debt is a real threat to our prosperity --- it is definitiely a far greater threat to our prosperity than raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year.
Taxes or no taxes, The guy is a jackass. On Roe vs Wade:
"Health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything."
Any woman should be very afraid of this statement. I suppose he will get to decide what " health of the mother" means?
Hmmmmph!!!!!!:mad:
Well, of course it doesn't put the $35k back into the pocket of the business owner. That is the cost of doing business, and there is no tax plan that could change that, including zero taxes. And I think if they pay a $35k salary, it DOES take $35k off their net income.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
How is that you can make a statement along the lines of, "Yes it does bother me.. that 5% helps to employ the other 95%. End of Story"
thats not the end of story. Restaurants which you reference as going to be one of the harder hit, will do just as well if their patrons have more money to spend. We have watched the trickle down theory FAIL MISERABLY, its time for some TRICKLE UP!
The tone in this thread is almost unbearable. Insinuations being flung about "questionable" replies, and total post counts....
Get a grip. I understand it is going to be a hard and long 18 days...its always difficult waiting for change, when it is not quite ready to happen for another little while.
I thought this was one of the things that will hurt McCain the most. The way he said it was horrible. He used his fingers and did "air quotes" around "Health" of the mother, as if it was a joke. The Supreme Court agrees that the health of the mother must be considered in any abortion law, as do most of people who are not on the extreme fringe of the abortion debate. The kind of sneering and sarcastic way McCain referred to women's health was very off-putting.Quote:
Originally Posted by happiestmferoutthere
I notice your thread is particularly aimed at me yet I am the only person currently in the dialogue arguing my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
FYI; under Obama's tax plan people making between 19k and 67k in Obama's tax plan will get about $567 and $1042 respectively.. Divide this by your number of pay periods. Which I get paid weekly so that's 52..
567/52 = $11/week
1042/52 = $20/week.
Which is $40/$80 a month on the low/high end.
Do you honestly think that extra $40/80 is going to help people go to resturants more and leave bigger tips? Probably not; they will go out probably at the same frequency they currently do.. and leave the same amount of money they currently do.
The truth is that cutting taxes for the working class does not reap as great a benefit as cutting taxes for businesses.. who can lower costs of products.. who can choose how to distribute the extra income they get; which may include hiring an extra hand.
On the opposite end of the spectrum it could result in a job being lost. So do you want more money in your pocket or risk the chance of being one of the people who are likely, when taxes are raised on businesses, to lose their job.
shrug.. making 19k/year is better than making 0k a year even if I pay a little more in taxes.
Fact is that both plans offer tax cuts; which are cuts that Bush implemented and regardless of what either candidate says.. are being expanded upon or altered.
It's also interesting to note that McCain, Obama, and Clinton all opposed the Bush tax cuts and now are trying to expand upon them during the election year.
As Candidates Warm to Bush Tax Cuts, Economists Warn of Long-Term Effect - washingtonpost.com
so instead of everyone jumping down my throat why don't we look at this for what it is.. We are paying less taxes, even in the working class, than under Bill Clinton's administration. Why is everyone so up in arms against McCain who would want to further lower the income tax on businesses. We are already paying lower taxes than we did 16 years ago and they will go down even further regardless of which candidate wins the office.
The Tax Foundation - Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush
It's not like the working class has been footing a higher bill; it's the contrary, we're paying less than ever.
Less taxes = more business = more net income = same or more amount of tax revenue generated for the government without hurting working class or businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
And I strongly agree with low spending and this is something that has been irritating me for YEARS!!! Ever since the last year or so of Bush 41's administration up till today. Spending is definitely out of hand.
Fiscally conservative would require for them to stop making so many social programs. Not that they aren't needed but honestly they go overboard wit them.Quote:
This is why I actually think that Democrats are really more fiscally conservative than Republicans. The Democrats are honest about the idea that if we really want to have government spend money on the priorities that Democrats represent, then it will require tax money -- Democrats pay for the things they buy. Republicans are not honest about that. Republicans cut taxes while simultaneously increasing spending and just pile on the debt. Now we are getting to the point where that accumulated debt is a real threat to our prosperity --- it is definitiely a far greater threat to our prosperity than raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year.
Fact is that both parties increase spending... hell look at Nancy Pelosi adding an extra 150billion to try to do another stimulus package.. WE JUST HAD ONE.. which I also thought was a stupid idea. The first stimulus package made sense because we had a fairly healthy economy that was just on a decline.. now we have an economy that is pretty hurt (not horrible.. but beyond the help that little $300/600 checks can provide). People are not going to spend this money or put it back into the economy. They are going to hold onto it instead preparing for hard times; which isn't a bad thing but the idea here is to try to prevent the economy from GETTING to that point. I'd rather the government do something with the 150 billion that would aid the economy and prevent it from ever reaching "hard times".
Both parties are out of control and it is undeniable. Some things I stand up for in the republican base because I have conservative views.. this doesn't mean I have modern day republican views.. but when they are wrong I do call them out on it as I see fit.
Democrats and Republicans a like are out of control and honestly have us held hostage by this 2 party majority system.
This is why I think the tax arguaments are generally political red herrings. I've been paying taxes for several decades now under many different adminsitrations and congresses and tax codes. Every election there is a huge argument over who is going to raise taxes and who is going to lower taxes as if it is the most important thing in the world. My experience has been it matters very little to me and how I live my life. We've had these hard fought increases and decreases during my working career, and honestly it made so little difference in my paycheck, that I didn't even notice it.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
The example above shows how tiny the difference would be under the Obama plan from the current plan. The differrence betwenn Obama's plan and McCain's plan is even smaller. For most people, it won't mean a thing.
what about the people making 68K - 249K. Why only use the low end? That does not seem rationale. Using your numbers...fill in the blanks.
100K a year =
249k a year =
Now as for people spending the money, and going out to eat. I am not talking about the tips. I am talking about the business owner making money. In the restaurant business in particular, peoples perception of the economy has as much to do with actual wealth in deciding whether they go out to eat or not.
"I notice your thread is particularly aimed at me yet I am the only person currently in the dialogue arguing my point."
uh yeah. your the one arguing your point and that is why i am referring to your argument. Whats the problem?
The only thing I care about in regards to taxes is when concerning business. Business is the only place where numbers are typically big enough where a 2-3% tax decrease could be a significant amount that might result in cheaper products, some new jobs or maybe a few extra benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
As long as we stay somewhat close to our current tax brackets (for most working class americans) then I don't see a need to lower taxes among the majority of the working class.
Is a company really going to lower the prices of a good or service because they get a tax break?
hell no
If one company doesn't, another will. It's about $$.Quote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
Because your argument seemed to target the working/middle class. Which the majority of the middle class are in that tax bracket, but since you insist I'll fill in the blanksQuote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
100K a year = $1009 under McCain and $1290 under Obama.. Divide by 52 and figure out the amount that'd be weekly on your check.
249k a year = $7800 under McCain and $12 under Obama.. This is where things start to seem off, but we are starting to delve into Business income at this point which really skews it. When people see 249k they think of individual income not realizing small business is lumped in here as well.
Feel free to scrutinize. I anticipate you will.
For the majority of the middle class it would be an extra 40 to 80 a month. The economy is not so great right now. So regardless of the tax cuts; by your logic, it won't really make sense if they got a tax cut in if they decide to go out or eat or not. Even if it did.. the extra 40/80 doesn't make a large enough difference to where there would by a pyschological effect when they look at their pay check. I fail to see the point of your argument.Quote:
Now as for people spending the money, and going out to eat. I am not talking about the tips. I am talking about the business owner making money. In the restaurant business in particular, peoples perception of the economy has as much to do with actual wealth in deciding whether they go out to eat or not.
There's not a problem except that I'm probably the only person who holds some conservative beliefs that's viewing the politics forum at this particular time; but thank you for taking time out to tell me to shut up in a round about way. Unfortunatley it won't work. :thumbsup:Quote:
"I notice your thread is particularly aimed at me yet I am the only person currently in the dialogue arguing my point."
uh yeah. your the one arguing your point and that is why i am referring to your argument. Whats the problem?
A perfect example is to look at competing gas stations at opposite sides of the road on a freeway.Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
They will match each others prices as soon as the other one drops it; however if you drive further down the road and you find a gas station with no surrounding competition you'll find that they do not lower their prices when the two competing gas stations do.
It is all about the money.. and money does not have to do with increasing costs.. you can make more money by increasing the volume of which you do business.. which can happen by lowering prices.
The point of the argument was that in knowing they were paying less taxes they may spend more money. Thats all. As far as the state of the economy, yes this will prevent people from spending more money on non necessities. Things are looking grim. Fact is a lot of business will close their doors. As they should. we have grown too fast and there is too much credit, and most folks have some debts. So the fact that people are going to be spending less money that they don't even have is not always a bad thing. And business' will suffer and Darwinism will prevail.
"but thank you for taking time out to tell me to shut up in a round about way. Unfortunatley it won't work. "
please dont try and explain how i tried to tell you to "shut up". Ridiculous. Overly defensive. I was asking for explanations, and making them. Instead of agreeing to disagree you seem to take the route of confrontation instead. Remember these are ideas we are discussing not each other. Its not personal. I respect the fact that you are one of the few proud folks hanging onto the sinking ship, but lets not get personal.
is it ridiculous?Quote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
uh yeah. your the one arguing your point and that is why i am referring to your argument. Whats the problem?
Your statement insinuated that since I'm the only one arguing from my point of view that it was irrelevant/moot. You're the one that took it personally.
And I am debating with you.. you keep bringing up points and I counter them. There is nothing wrong with that; and saying I should agree to disagree when you insist that you're right would require me to concede. Which would not be a negative thing if there were other people participating in this thread that was from the conservative base; however if I conceded then everyone posting in the thread would be patting each other on the back because you share the point of view of the political left; which again is not a bad thing provided you have another person providing contrast to your view.
What's the point in carrying on a conversation where there is no diversity in opinion. Or perhaps that's what you want?
Who knows.. I certainly don't know what you or anyone here wants. I'm just participating in a thread.
ps: thanks for the positive rep.
:hippy:
In the case of distributive justive, inequality is justified when it benefits the least well off, thus the 95%.
Your statement insinuated that since I'm the only one arguing from my point of view that it was irrelevant/moot. You're the one that took it personally.
Honestly i have no idea what you are referring to. I am a plain speaker and was not insinuating anything. How could the number of people arguing a certain point having any bearing on it's validity? I can only assume that i have been misunderstood. Whether this is due to my lack of concise explanations, or a certain prevailing defensiveness in the political forum, i do not know.
I actually already stated that i respect your ability to share your opinions. What i dont respect is when you turn personal and question people's validity based on post count numbers and what forums the posts are in.
Anyway this is a touchy time to be on these forums and as my words are being misrepresented i am going to go and continue to learn how to grow the herb in the hopes that i can produce medicine up to the standards of which i enjoy.
I hate to drop out now that we are getting into the "you made it personal," "No YOU made it personal" portion of our debate, but I've got a camping trip to get to. See you all next week!
oh boy.. whatever floats your boat. I could personally care less. It seems like no matter how I word it to express why I'm in this thread you will construe it to be a personal attack. Fine by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
Have a good day.
where are ya going camping? car camping or back country camping?
sort've related.. I've only been camping once in my life and never gone again. I got lice that one time I went camping. I think I was about 12 years old. I'm sure I got it from another kid that was there.. but still; it left a bad taste in my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
I do however like to go out to the lake and fish and cook out on an open fire.. RAWR!
after years of being trapped inside, my kids finally got old enough to sleep in a tent in a campground a few years ago...the first few trips were nightmares, but we kept at it until they got used to it and now camping trips are the highlight of their summers...we bought a 10 man tent at costo for $250...it's a piece of crap, but it's big enough to stand up in, and there's enough room for two queen sized air mattresses and all the backpacks/boots/clothes
cooking outdoors over the open fire, smoking pot, and drinking beer in the rainforest is AWESOME! it's too farking cold and wet now though, so i'm going to kallyfornia to throw some money at the US economy...i hope they still have beer and pot down there
$40 to $80 would definitely help me out monthly. It would pay a bill or two and free up some money so I can go buy food and maybe have a little fun every once in a while. Right now I'm so up tight with my money that I really don't get the chance to have the fun some people do.
I really do not see how giving businesses tax cuts will help me out. Sure they may be able to lower prices because of less tax, but they will probably just keep the extra profit. People are just too greedy. So as long as we are scraping by enough to buy there products/services, they could give a fuck less as long as they have their two escalades, ferrari, and mansion. Yet they wine because taxes may increase. Damn, they may have to wait an extra few months to get that lambo that they wanted. All because they don't want to help out with the debt of the country that allowed them their riches in the first place. I want my tax break so i can actually have a chance at living at least a little more comfortably. Right now I'm pretty much a slave along with 95% of america.
You said it.. too greedy. I'm not sure what your situation is in regards to what is necessary in your life and what is not but if $40/80 is going to make a difference then there's a chance that you're living beyond your means. Going out when you can't really afford it, buying an item/toy when you shouldn't be. Hitting up the movies when you should stay home, buying services when you should be pinching pennies.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaySin
Then again you could be bed ridden for all I know and it could be justifiable; fact is this, we are currently paying lower taxes than we did 16 years ago. Either candidate is proposing tax cuts and we will be paying even less regardless of who is elected.
You talk about greed.. companies give people jobs, benefits and will price their products accordingly so long as their investors are protected and the profit line is good. Without investors or these companies we would not have many of the luxuries we take for granted today. With everything there is Balance... however many people wish to switch the balance and force the small businesses and large corporations which currently pay over 90% of the tax revenue and force more onto them. This will hurt their profits; which in turn will lead investors to sell off stock.. which will hurt them even further forcing them to cut jobs, raise the price of their product or whatever else they can do to protect their profits. Companies don't make goods out of charity. They make products and put time into research for their investors. Their obligation is to the company and to investors, not to the everyday citizen nor the employees that work for them. Their job is to make money.
You're willing to risk increasing unemployment rate increase because you want $40/80 more a month.
To me that seems like greed; but again the situation changes given certain circumstances. You may legitmately need that money but the majority of Americans are not in that boat. The majority of Americans live far beyond their means and are poor with budgeting their money.
I choose trying to keep unemployment rate down/fight it as opposed to putting an extra 40/80 bucks into american's pockets every month.
I will add this:
I do think the CEO's and boards of these companies are wrong when they give themselves these massive bonuses or give themselves huge raises. The money that's used to give themselves raises and bonuses should be used to lower the cost of one of their product lines or given back to investors in some form.. either a dividend or rebate or something similar.
I don't agree with what the high ups do to further themselves; but at the same time I don't think taxing these corporations and small businesses is the answer. Because ultimately they will still take what they want by hurting the people down beneath them.
I never used to be living beyond my means. Yet I work more and have less bills and it's still hard for me to afford to live. I had to move out on my own and I've cut back on much of my needless spending. I have one credit card to be paid off then all my debts will be taken care of. With gas going down that will probably help tremendously. I just hope it will stay down.
There is the answer I was looking for. I guess with all that has been going on it's hard for people to see passed Obama's lower tax for %95 of america. Not to mention worry about whether a tax cut for businesses will actually turn into a trickle down effect or not. I guess everyone feels that the government has been turning their back to the country and just wants change and Obama seems to be the biggest change.
Whoever gets elected, I really hope that things get better. Cause right now I may not be poverty stricken, but it would be nice to be able to afford to actually save some money or even be able to finish college.
I'll just write in Ron Paul. That's what we need to do, start a movement instead of play the politics game.
I'd say you've got that backwards. McCain seemed to roll his eyes and show a lot more frustration when challenged than Obama did. The funny thing about what you said is I was talking the my mother yesterday, who I watched the debate with, and we were discussing how bad of a poker player McCain would be for just this reason. I personally thought that McCain put out a good effort, but Obama still took the win. What I cant stand about McCain is how tries to explain his ideas, it may be that he is simply a bad speaker, but everytime I listen to McCain I walk away feeling like I was just spoken to as if I were a child. McCain is a war hero, his policital stances dont lessen my respect for him in that regard, and sure he's a "maverick", but I just wish he wouldn't talk so much about how his opponent palls around with terrorist's, or is involved with voter registration fraud, and tell us SPECIFICALLY what he's going to do. His rhetoric sounds good too, because John McCain knows how to fix the economy, and John McCain knows how we can win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and John McCain knows how to creat jobs, and reliable alternative energy, and a newly structured housing market. But since his nomination I haven't heard him be very specific on how. Obama does this sort of thing too on occasion. However when Obama speaks, he speaks to the people in an inteligent and professional way. That shows me that not all American politics has turned into a game of deception and special intrests, also I feel that he will possess a much more respectable reputation along with more successful diplomacy. McCain lost the debate, and I hope the election, for just this reason. His campaign centers simply on how bad a president Obama would be, and they have been doing this by trying to expose the "real" Barack Obama. A person who die hard conservatives have created by using word manipulation on facts, and his ethnicity. Obama has better plans, a better head on his shoulders, and a better group of strategists. McCain is strongly supported by a large part of America that will never vote for Obama because of his "real" side. These ideas are enforced by both GOP candidates, and that's why these people say he is a secrete muslim who hates America and is ready to overthrow the government and destroy our nation from the inside in 3 weeks. This kind of ignorance baffles me, and at the same time shows us how some parts of this country are populated by ignorant people. Religion, race, and money are three things that dominate our government today. I want to raise my children in a country that is dignified and open enough to elect a president even if he was muslim. With that said, Obama won because he displays more professional and presidential qualities. I respect McCain, but my common sense leans towards Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
how is mccain a war hero?
Yeah, this is why no one wants to give them anymore breaks. So really, if they get higher taxes under Obama it is their own fault for being greedy bastards.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
However, McCain wants to lessen regulation while Obama wants to reinstate regulation. Regulation would probably prevent them from giving themselves these huge bonuses instead of lowering the price of goods.
To answer the last question, McCain isn't a war hero. He just plays that card to try and win votes for no good reason. For all we know, being a POW could have fucked him up in the head and now all he wants is revenge. Although, it could also have straightened him out to realize that war should be the last ditch effort. Although, it does seem like he would be a little too eager to use force.