Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Barack Obama: We Can't Afford The Bush-McCain Economy

jedreport.com — This was awesome -- Barack Obama tying John McCain and George Bush together on economic issues and framing the election as a choice between a new direction and the Bush-McCain status quo. The best part of this is that he hit a populist note, but it didn't feel forced. This was authentic Barack Obama, hitting on the issues the Americans care about m

Bury

preneel 68 days ago, made popular 68 days ago

1658 diggs
digg it

436 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

jedreport, on 07/30/2008, -44/+36Barack Strikes Back Against McSame As Bush!
- jmpeagle, on 07/30/2008, -2/+26thank you guy whose name is the same as the website
  - PabloMac, on 07/30/2008, -3/+9He's probably preneel, too.
  - canyoudiggitman, on 07/30/2008, -9/+15What we can't afford is ALL THOSE ***** TAXES!
  - bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -9/+5You're right, Canyoudiggitman.
    
    We should just keep sticking things on a "credit card" we refuse to pay off instead.
    
    I mean, it's working GREAT so far!
- jabberwolf, on 07/30/2008, -22/+17Nice Even though EVERY ***** ECONOMIST AND ANALASIST says Obama will screw up the economy with his plan to raise taxes.
  - PacManDude, on 07/30/2008, -14/+12lefties don't care what this guy does or says, they want him in, no matter what.
  - jmpeagle, on 07/30/2008, -7/+9if you think there is any general consensus among economists, you are fooling yourself. You have economists with PhDs who write great papers that are from the far left, far right, libertarian, etc.... There are plenty of economists out there who want more taxes...just look at Princeton Prof. Krugman. There is no doubt he is a smart guy. He got his PhD from M.I.T. and has been of the faculty at Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University. Yet there are equally smart people who think his ideas are wrong. There are different schools in economics. The pro-market, perfect information, limited government intervention was is the Chicago school.
  - jabberwolf, on 07/31/2008, -6/+4Sorry let me correct myself....
    Almost every MAINSTREAM economist and analysist think that Obama will screw up the economy.
    
    Yes there are the ultra libertarian and ultra Marxist groups out there, but just about every economist down the middle actually shows fear, when it comes to Obama's plan.
  - ELCad, on 07/31/2008, -1/+5Which economist? Got some names?
  - evandyk, on 07/31/2008, -2/+0The silence is deafening...
  - didiman, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3jabber is correct, Obama's solution to every problem is to raise taxes and let the government "fix" it. It would be a disaster beyond anything we have ever seen.
  - wolfe86, on 08/06/2008, -2/+0I thought this might be of some help.
    
    analyst (plural analysts)
    
    1. someone who analyzes
    2. (mathematics) a mathematician who studies real analysis
    3. (computing) a systems analyst
    4. (psychiatry) a practitioner of psychoanalysis
    5. a chemical analyst; a financial analyst; a business analyst
    
    See also:
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling
- saxmaster, on 07/31/2008, -10/+4FUZZY MATH ALERT. The income of the family has been declining while individual incomes have been increasing. Why? Smaller families, more divorce, kids moving away sooner.
  Don't be fooled by that crap.
richirwin, on 07/30/2008, -59/+40What we can't afford is the republican corruption!

Jack Abramoff Scandal

Pleaded Guilty
Jack Abramoff
Robert E. Coughlin II
Italia Federici
J. Steven Griles
Will Heaton
Adam Kidan
Bob Ney
Tony Rudy
Michael Scanlon
Roger Stillwell
Neil Volz
Mark Zachares

Convicted
David Safavian

Under Investigation
John Doolittle

Charged
John Albaugh

Named, Not Charged
Ed Buckham
Tom Feeney
Ernest Istook
Kevin Ring

Others
Grover Norquist
Susan Ralston
Ralph Reed
Louis P. Sheldon
Bob Schaffer

Duke Cunningham Scandal

Pleaded Guilty
Richard Berglund
Duke Cunningham
Mitchell Wade
Thomas Kontogiannis
Robert Fromm

Convicted
Brent Wilkes

Indicted
Kyle "Dusty" Foggo
John Michael
Brent Wilkes

Miscellaneous

Pleaded Guilty
Claude Allen
Larry Craig
Lester Crawford
Shaun Hansen
Vernon Jackson
Chuck McGee
Brent Pfeffer
Allen Raymond

Indicted
Tom Delay
Bernard Kerik
Rick Renzi

Convicted
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
James Tobin

No Contest
Brian Doyle

Under Investigation
Jerry Lewis
Don Young

And let's not forget...

Bob Allen
Glenn Murphy - (President of Young republican National Federation)
Mark Foley (the godfather of republican scandals)
Scott Eller Cortelyou
Mark Paschall
Gary Miller
Brent Wilkes
Kyle "Dusty" Foggo
Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari (Michael Mixon)
Pete Domenici
J. Steven Griles
Robert Regola
David Stockman
Robert Vellanoweth
Rick Renzi
Mel Martinez
David Huckabee (son of Mike)
Bruce Weyhrauch
Pete Kott
Michael Cole
Patrick McHenry
Jim Gibbons
Chris Healy
Ted Klaudt
Mark Tate
Thomas Ravenel
Ken Calvert
David Vitter
Randall Tobias
Harlan Ullman
Lisa Murkowski
Coy Privette
Michael Flory (another Young Republican!)
Ted Stevens
John Boehner
Alan Fabian
Angelo Cappelli
Roger Stone
Mark Deli Siljander
Timothy Goeglein
Felipe Sixto
Tony Krvaric
Vito Fossella (NEW)
Scott Bloch (NEW)
Gary Ostrow
Capt. Andrew Douglas Franz
Martin Ozinga III
Bruce Barclay
Matthew Joseph Elliott
Robert A. McKee
John David Atchison (John David Roy Atchison)
John Bryan
John R. Curtin
Richard Curtis
Donald Fleischman
Larry Dale Floyd
Ronald C. Kline
Joseph M. McDade
Patrick Lee McGuire
Jon Matthews
Joseph Monteleone Jr.
Armando Tebano
Mark Pazuhanich
Bobby Stumbo
John Collins
Mark Seidensticker
Philip Giordano
John Gosek
David Swartz
Edison Misla Aldarondo
John R. Curtain
Howard Scott Heldreth
Dennis L. Rader
Nicholas Morency
Tom Shortridge
Mike Hintz
Peter Dibble
Carey Lee Cramer
Donald "Buz" Lukens
Richard A. Delgaudio
Mark A. Grethen
Randal David Ankeney
Dan Crane
Robert Bauman
Jeffrey Patti
Marty Glickman
Howard L. Brooks
John Hathaway
Stephen White
Earl "Butch" Kimmerling
Paul Ingram
Kevin Coan
Andrew Buhr
Keith Westmoreland
John Allen Burt
Keola Childs
John Butler
Richard Gardner
Merrill Robert Barter
Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr.
Parker J. Bena
Larry Jack Schwarz
Robin Vanderwall
Mark Harris
Jon Grunseth
Nicholas Elizondo
Russell Harding
Richard A. Dasen
Brent Schepp
Jeffrey Kyle Randall
Jeffrey Nielsen
Larry Corrigan
Lou Beres
Randall Casseday
Robert Holland
Tom Adams
Tom Randall
Vern Buchanan
Christopher Ward
Randy Scheunemann (chief foreign policy and national security adviser to John McCain)
- darkciti2, on 07/30/2008, -3/+7Nice list !
- AresDiggs, on 07/30/2008, -5/+11How long have you been waiting for the right time to post that?
- patpl22391, on 07/30/2008, -10/+24As if a Democrat list wouldn't be just as long.
  - bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -8/+7Show us then.
  - bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -6/+4Here's another list of your "defenders of all that is moral".
    
    http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
  - xine13, on 07/31/2008, -4/+7Whoa, that made me nauseous. Republicans aren't fit to scrub my toilet.
  - richirwin, on 07/31/2008, -3/+7Feel free to post it, champ.
    
    Or are you just going to make vague accusations, like most republicans.
    
    I think that's all you've got, sport.
    
    Digging you up to keep you visible.
- mrsteveman1, on 07/30/2008, -1/+9You're supposed to play cheesy music when you roll credits like that so people stay in their seats.
- veijeri, on 07/31/2008, -2/+7Why anyone would bury this is beyond me.
  - lamiaconfitor, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3We have to protect our Holy Republican overlords, or else the gays will take over the country!
- xine13, on 07/31/2008, -2/+5They're trying to bury you. I guess repukes are ashamed.
  - bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6Wouldn't you be?
  - diggdowner, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2I just don't like scrolling down for one reply...
alapoet, on 07/30/2008, -38/+50"We can't afford to keep doing more of the same thing, and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America!" ~ Obama
- Barackalypse, on 07/30/2008, -28/+74And yet he's proposing $343.6 billion in additional federal spending every year, that sounds like the same old crap to me. I predict right now he'll handle the economy just as well as he handled telcom immunity in FISA, he'll talk about doing something different, but he'll fall right in line with the Washington crowd like he did on FISA and on the Patriot Act re-authorization.
  http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
- LeeSoong, on 07/30/2008, -0/+25What the USA needs is an amendment forcing a balanced budget:
  
  1. Collect Annual Revenue
  
  2. Pay some Debt
  (it's bigger everyday: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ )
  
  3. Whatever is left over, that you can spend.
  
  Say goodbye to multi-billion blank checks, and the national debt.
  
  What happens if the USA defaults on all that debt and the Dollar becomes worthless?
  - Chappync, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Maybe we could stop all foreign aid? That might help... if we called in the loans we have out we could pay off what we owe perhaps?....
  - Digger1123, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3I think it would be a start not to allow pork, which Obama is a fan of, being the recipient of infinite times more pork than McCain last year.
  - breadfred, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1@Chappync: Foreign aid comes with some caveats. For instance, it has to be spent on American corn, American weapons, American advisers - you get the idea. In truth, foreign aid can be seen as subsidising the American farmers and other producers who benefit from these deals.
  - AvangionQ, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1"What happens if the USA defaults on all that debt and the Dollar becomes worthless?" ... historically speaking, when economies fail, governments fall or are overthrown through violent revolution ... given a choice, I'd rather not see history repeat itself again ...
  - RogueGenius, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1A balanced budget? You mean like when Clinton was in office? Crazy talk.
    
    Now if you don't mind I'm going to a church is Knoxville.
- rz8472, on 07/30/2008, -9/+11Obama makes a great point about median wages being down $1000 over the last 7-8 years. What could have made this even better would be pointing out - in a statistical way - that inflation for goods and services such as food, healthcare, and gas is skyrocketing.
  
  IN EFFECT, purchasing power is NOT down by $1000, but more like 2000, 3000, or even more.
  - saxmaster, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4NO NO NO.
    FAMILY income has decreased. Personal income has increased.
    Why?
    Fewer people live under the same roof these days. This is a sign of high divorce rates and increased prosperity which allows people freedom to choose to live alone.
  - rz8472, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1That's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard, and it's false. Divorce rates have been decreasing -
    http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/us-marr ...
    
    'Increased prosperity' as you put it shouldn't have much effect on divorce rates anyways. IF anything, divorce rates would RISE because increased familial tensions over monetary issues would compel more people to divorce.
    
    And you still don't account for the skyrocketing cost of goods.
  - saxmaster, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3According to that chart, marriage rates have been decreasing at the same rate as divorce. You can't get a divorce unless you're married, but you can have kids and never get married. Household size HAS decreased.
    Cost of goods may have increased, but quality has increased also. Air conditioning in cars used to be a luxury feature, now it's standard. Technology costs are constantly decreasing while technology is improving. Meanwhile wages are increasing. I don't see a problem.
  - Digger1123, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4And somehow raising taxes is going to help people make back those $1000, I am not believing it. And the reasons the cost of goods is going up is because Obama and a few of his Democrats are not allowing us to drill at home, contrary to what 75% of what the people in this nation want.
- ObamAmerican48, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1I'm not understanding your post re: this article.
- wangalicious, on 07/31/2008, -1/+0To me that statement is comical coming from him (He's totally not taking us down a similar path that McCain would take us down anyways).
- robbielaney, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3So his plan to raise taxes via the repeal of the Bush tax cuts is better financially for Americans. You lost me there. Some of you should wake up. Repealing a tax cut = tax increase. Bottom Line.
McDiggity, on 07/30/2008, -11/+109Anybody who thinks that 1/2 TRILLION dollar deficit is heading in the right direction needs to have his credit cards taken away, not be elected president.
- pintomp3, on 07/30/2008, -3/+91/2 trillion vs 3 trillion. thank you two-party system.
- Crimsoneer, on 07/30/2008, -5/+10Nobody is arguing the current system is good...we're just arguing that change for the sake of change isn't necessarily better.
  - Blankcheque, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3So "staying the course" is the way to right the ship?
    
    When we're going broke as a nation, our economy's on the verge of collapsing, there are no more good paying jobs left, since we're a "service based economy" Which translates in to "Would you like fries with that?" Economy?
    
    When our education system is failing everyone, when the only thing we've got going for us, is our inexplicable ability to manufacture bombs that can pinpoint a gnats pecker to with in 100 paces, change for "changes sake" isn't for the better?
    
    What would you propose we do then?
- subliminali, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2i'd be willing to bet that Mccain has never used credit cards so crisis averted there.
  - Olfster, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1I woudl concur.
  - Loonacy, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1He has aides that use credit cards for him.
ozekii, on 07/30/2008, -17/+77I think maybe I am confused here. Doesn't the Congress control the budget. Sure the president submits a request but its up to Congress to control this budget. It's like me complaining that my checking account is out of balance because my daughters allowance request was to high. Sure she may ask for the pony but she gets the puppy instead, fiscal responsibility. I don't care who the Joker in the big seat is Congress has a responsibility to the people.
- wild, on 07/30/2008, -6/+17congress takes 60 votes to pass anything. A 50/49/1 split doesn't get anything done.
  - MrFurious2k, on 07/30/2008, -7/+17So you're saying that because the Democrats don't have a super-majority, they're not responsible for fiscal mismanagement or the bills that come out?
  - Rudegar, on 07/30/2008, -10/+3and the reps seem to still keep voting with bush removing all Congress power
  - Rippleeffect, on 07/30/2008, -2/+12If that was the actual dem/rep ratio, I'd agree, but its not.
  - prahareturns, on 07/30/2008, -0/+5Gridlock in congress is ultimately a good thing. It prevents bills from getting rubber stamped. I would hope that you would agree that having a single party control the executive and legislative branch caused the unraveling of the the Republican party. The Democrats are on pace to gain control of both branches of government and will inevitably drive us further in debt and maintain the same financial path the Republicans started. Increasing taxes on the rich will not fill the gap in spending. Hard choices must be made that are politically unpopular. We must decrease spending immediately and ensure that our current programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid remain solvent.
- fuzzynyanko, on 07/30/2008, -3/+7How often do they get war appropriation measures sent to them? If they don't pass them, they get seen as "you don't support our troops". However, Bush has the power to veto.
  
  It's both the President's fault and Congress.
- SocialPoison, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3Oftentimes the budget bounces a bit, but at the end of the day it's the Prez that puts it together. Congress (as we've seen) will buckle. If they don't, they're seen as obstructionist. Funny, eh?
- nmessick, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2Your exactly right. The president sets the direction, congress ultimatily desides what happens. Heck most every state in the country runs a deficit and Bush has nothing to do with them.
n1eb, on 07/30/2008, -67/+88Hey Barack, I can't afford YOU! We're taxed enough, quit trying to raise our taxes! When you add state and local taxes to the bill most of us work for the Government from January through May before we get to work for ourselves. The U.S. Constitution isn't a worthless piece of paper written by guys with funny hair, it's the law of the land! Show me where it says you can steal money from one person and give it to someone else. It's not my job to pay for my neighbors healthcare, food, rent, housing, and overall well-being. "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- gr3yn3t, on 07/30/2008, -27/+6is this sarcasm?
  - akchrs, on 07/30/2008, -5/+13no
- Jo9100, on 07/30/2008, -39/+41You are totally right. Spending cash on education and health is so irresponsible. Spending even more on war makes much more sense. Damn you are right.
  - willrs, on 07/30/2008, -14/+37oh, but living off welfare, and having the government do everything for you isn't irresponsible?
  - sealbeater, on 07/30/2008, -11/+33How about leaving me the option to decide what my money is spent on? Don't take money from my pocket period, regardless of what it's being spent on. The more we spend on health and education, the worst healthcare and education get.
  - n1eb, on 07/30/2008, -11/+33Hey genius, we spend more on health and education than we do on war. And that doesn't include Social Security and welfare.
  - dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -5/+26Is the government really doing such a great job with the money it is already spending on education and health? Has the average dropout rate in urban areas significantly dropped (especially for "minorities")? Are our public hospitals considered that best in the world?
    We already pay a huge amount towards health and education, and aren't seeing the return on it. I think that the No Child Left Behind Act wasn't the right solution, but at least they tried something besides just throwing money at the problem.
  - loki49152, on 07/31/2008, -7/+16He is totally right. The government interfering in things it has no business touching, like education and health, *is* completely irresponsible.
    
    Spending money on war? That's the one thing from your list that actually *is* the government's job.
  - metaliq, on 07/31/2008, -4/+4I say we look at the best countries in the world and see what they're up to.
    
    Hey Norway, Denmark, and Iceland: What are the taxes in your countries? Where is it spent? How happy are your citizens?
    
    Oh? What?
    Social Democracies?
    
    Might have to whoop out the ol' google machine and figure out what that even means...
    
    (Or we can default and say something along the lines of "STUPID LIBERAL SOCIALISTS!" but that would just make us look stupid and ignorant for criticizing them)
- neonoodle, on 07/30/2008, -17/+7If you're afraid of surviving because you're paying for your neighbors healthcare, then you CAN afford Barack Obama because as a poor person, you won't be taxed more. If you CAN'T afford your own healthcare, then it will be a good thing when Universal Healthcare will have you covered. It's pathetic that the wealthiest people pay less taxes than the poorest.
  - ewagnerjr2000, on 07/30/2008, -3/+17What are you talking about, poor people don't pay taxes and those who do pay a much lower percentage than those making more money. The government penalizes you if you are successful.
  - angryfirelord, on 07/30/2008, -1/+11Hmm, not really. Maybe if it was single-payer I'd look more favorably to it, but Obama wants to integrate it with the insurance companies. That essentially removes any competition aspect of it and gives the government full control over the health care insurance industry. I really don't want that, especially since the government can't even pay down social security.
    
    Read this article first: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
  - dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -0/+9The problem is that the idea of who is "rich" is arbitrary (and, in this case, political). A person who saves for several years and buys a few gasoline stations or a restaurant franchise may clear $250,000 a year, but if they worked their asses off to earn that, are we saying they don't deserve to make that much?
  - pbd1637, on 07/30/2008, -2/+14So what you're saying is that we tax the rich for health-care and education and everything until there are no more rich people. Then who will the government tax? Or do you think all they will have to do is print more money and give it away?
    WAKE UP! The top 1% of the wealthiest people pay 40% of the tax revenue. This comes from the government accounting office. How do you figure that the "wealthiest people pay less than the poorest"? Poor people don't pay any taxes because THEY ARE POOR!
    (you dolt)
  - RogueGenius, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Don't ever bother reading anything from lewrockwell.com. I've been referred there several times and it's always the same, easily debunked crap. I think it's one of those crazy Ron Paul site that thinks the wrong side won the Civil War.
  - KJSatz, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1pbd, the wealthiest 1% also makes about 25% of all income in America.
- briankoenig03, on 07/30/2008, -18/+6"It's not my job to pay for my neighbors healthcare, food"
  
  Myself, and many others, have decided that the above qualify as necessary for "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", and that it is therefore worth paying my taxes to provide "certain inalienable Rights" to my less-fortunate American brethren.
  After all, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That's its job. I have decided that providing healthcare is a "just power" and worthy of my tax dollars.
  
  We may disagree there, but I am well aware that our Founders were not just "guys with funny hair." Just because I support something progressive doesn't mean I don't acknowledge and respect my American predecessors.
  - dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -1/+8You make a point about the founders, but I don't think you are thinking this through correctly. Even through the 1850s, the idea of "public works" (such as federal funding for roads) horrified the federal government. Now, although I'm somewhat conservative, I do support projects such as the Interstate Highway system, which helped expand the economy enough to pay for their construction (or should have, if they weren't built to fall apart after a maximum of 20 years).
    However, the federal government has a BAD track record with large projects (look at, say, cost overruns in the Defense department). With that track record, why should I think that the government is competent enough to take over health care? While I don't mind the general idea of publically funded health care, I really don't have enough confidence in our government to do it.
  - n1eb, on 07/30/2008, -2/+2Well, I guess I'll just have to hope that there are more people that agree with me than agree with you.
  - briankoenig03, on 07/30/2008, -2/+1@n1eb "Well, I guess I'll just have to hope that there are more people that agree with me than agree with you."
    
    Fair enough :).
- WasabiBomb, on 07/30/2008, -16/+9McCain wants to raise taxes on something like 99% of the population- everyone under the top 1-2% of the population will actually pay LESS in taxes with Obama in office.
  
  http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/tax ...
  - Digger1123, on 07/31/2008, -0/+5McCain is not going to raise taxes, he is going to lower them. If someone was smart they would make a universal rate, instead of this ***** the rich mentality.
  - KJSatz, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1McCain lowers taxes for everyone...Obama raises taxes for the top 1-3% and lowers them for everyone else. Under $150000 Obama has lower taxes than McCain.
- theutopian, on 07/30/2008, -10/+5"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
  
  Regards, The Constitution, 16th Amendment
- Lloydinator, on 07/30/2008, -19/+7Oh so I guess your saying that there should be no tax cuts for the poor and middle class, but tax cuts for the wealthy, like what McBush wants to continue?
- pintomp3, on 07/30/2008, -9/+4if you make over 600,000 i have little sympathy for you. otherwise, obama will be cutting your taxes.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story ...
  
  perhaps you are just speaking up for the rich folk. you don't need to, they have enough representation.
  - n1eb, on 07/31/2008, -2/+9I'd rather that tax money be in the hands of the person that earned it over the government, no matter how much he makes.
  - WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4Well, duh, n1eb, we all do. However, taxes are a necessity. Good luck running a country without 'em.
  - pintomp3, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4@n1eb the top 10% pay 65% of all taxes while owning 71% of all the wealth. what's wrong with them paying their share?
  - floorman56, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2You are aware that also includes small business? and they may use your job to cover that tax increase
- asauterChicago, on 07/31/2008, -8/+13> Hey Barack, I can't afford YOU! We're taxed enough, quit trying to raise our taxes!
  
  Funny, if your worried about raising taxes then you must be in the upper 1% of income, making a million+ a year. I have little sympathy for those making over a million dollars a year complaining their paycheck isn't big enough.
  
  http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/tax ...
  
  If, however, your making under a million a year, you will actually receive a tax break. Oh, and if you vote for McCain, and your making less than a million a year, then you're royally screwed.
  - n1eb, on 07/31/2008, -6/+4Upper 1% starts at around 250k, not 1 million. The highest tax bracket - currently at 35% which Obama wants to raise to 38% starts at 357k (this is also not 1 million).
  - asauterChicago, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Good job on reading that link their, N1eb. Everyone making under a million dollars a year will receive a tax break under Obama's plan.
  - nmessick, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1You can't raise spending, and give a tax break at the same time. The more they spend, the more they take... and even if they tax busineses that comes out of your pocket has higher cost of good and more jobs sent overseas where the cost of doing business is not so gosh darn high.
    
    Brack may claim he is going to give us a tax break, EVERY person running for congress says that. Stop being a sheep and listing to what he is saying, and take a look at what he wants to spend vs what he plans on bringing in.
  - ironclyde, on 07/31/2008, -2/+8Well, putting me in the upper 1% was the greatest thing Obama has done for me. Apparently, if the Bush tax cuts only help the 1%, I must be in that 1% because they helped my family out tremendously (I make under 6 figures).
    
    You should be worried about your taxes... do you own a house? Do you have medical expenses? Obama wants to get rid of all itemized tax deductions. That means no more mortgage interest write off. That means no more charitable donation write off, that means no medical expenses write off. That means no child care write off. Explain again how this HELPS the average Joe?
    
    Obama wants to raise capitol gains tax on investment dividends from 15% to 35%. Forget saving for retirement -- oh yeah, you won't need to..the government will take care of you! Tax us out of affording retirement and health care so we HAVE to take the government handouts (and thus submit to their control)
    
    A lot of these politicians seem to have some fairly upper crust friends (including themselves on some occasions). I find it hard to believe that they would change the tax law to actually HURT themselves or their friends in the upper tax brackets.
    
    Think people.
  - winampman2, on 07/31/2008, -4/+3OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES. PLEASE READ these credible sources.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_T ...
    
    @ironclyde
    Where do you get your 35% number? I would guess someone who is pro-McCain lied to you. Obama is absolutely not going to raise capital gains tax past what Bill Clinton had, which was 28%. Please do some research and read the links above before you vote for McCain.
  - RogueGenius, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1ironclyde,
    
    I don't mean to dispute you, but if you made under 6 figures like you say, the there is no way in hell Bush helped you. You must have cheated on your taxes because it's people like you (and me) who have to shoulder the lions share of the tax burden. That is just a fact anyway you slice it. If 40% is payed by the people who can afford it (ie the rich), and the poor pay basically nothing, then guess whose holding up the remaining 60%?
  - ironclyde, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1My source on the 35% was the WSJ.
    
    And the bush tax credits gave me an additional 4 deductions for my children.
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/102.htm ...
    
    I don't have time to find the links, but the tax burden is skewed very much toward the high income earners (something like the top 10% earners pay 80% of the tax burden). I'll post the link when I find it again. It was the new report from the IRS.
- ltethe, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6My dad had an interesting idea. Taxes would would work the same, except for one caveat... YOU got to tell the government where to spend the money. Somewhat unwieldy in practice, but it would dry up the funds for the war real quick like.
  - sodade, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2I've always thought that would be the only way to make people feel good about their (particularly federal) taxes. Look, I know digg is all ayn rand, but I personally don't mind the idea of paying federal taxes if I know that they are going into things that will improve America. That's because I actually love America.
  - ltethe, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3I'm all Ayn Rand in principle... All about picking myself up by my own bootstraps and all that... Why should I have to take care of my neighbor, why should the government steal from me to provide for the bum down the street, etc. etc...
    
    But if we're any sort of pragmatic, and can look even a couple of weeks into the future, we do have to understand that social programs are necessary so the lynch mob doesn't come for your ostentatious ass.
    
    I guess, to put it in such a way that my conservative friends can understand... A certain level of social welfare is necessary to keep the bottom rung of society from deciding to revolt, and burn your estate down.
    
    That's why taxing the rich makes sense, it's a protectionism tax, issued by the government, to ensure the millions of poor don't stampede all over your well to do face.
  - Stormwern, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1@ltethe That's how democracy works when it works.
  - Stormwern, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1" A certain level of social welfare is necessary to keep the bottom rung of society from deciding to revolt, and burn your estate down."
    
    Yes, if only there was a way to pacify the poor so we could let them starve to death without any consequenses for us.. Get yourself a consciense sicko.
  - ltethe, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2The suffering of individuals concerns me. The suffering of the masses do not. I simply articulate what most people find socially unacceptable to voice.
    
    I have friends on low rungs of society, their suffering is of great importance to me. The millions of poor and disenfranchised are a logistics problem, important because of the stresses they put on the social fabric. But if you are asking me if numbers on a pie chart pulls at my heart strings. They do not. Suffering is part of the human condition, and greatly enhances our own existence. Without a human connection, a name, a story, a person, the suffering is simply statistics on a graph, and should be treated as such. Like a word problem that needs solving; hardly useful to throw emotions and judgements at. You wouldn't get passionate about a word problem in a textbook would you, nor would you get angry at those who attempted to solve it through logical means.
    
    I would argue that my ability to see social welfare as simply a tool to a bottom line, is a lot more useful then your impassioned, yet misplaced idealism.
    
    You would do well to soften your language. At the end of the day, I'm the kind of conservative that you have hope to find common ground with.
    
    If I was a radical environmentalist, I might argue for a LOT of people to starve to lessen our impact upon earth.
    
    Remember that ideals are guiding lights. But you can't reach the stars anymore then you can reach ideals. They are simply points in space to help plot a course of pragmatism.
  - sodade, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1*****
- SpinningHead, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Hah! Seems handouts are OK for oil companies and friends of Bush getting no bid contracts in Iraq. As a tax payer, Id like to see some money back in my community. Of course, we dont need to be taxed. Elect McCain and we can just keep borrowing from China. We will all have lots more money....of course it wont be worth anything anymore.
  - ironclyde, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1What about the subprime lending bail out congress pushed through, where a good chunk of the money is being donated back to said congressmen to fund their campaigns? Our tax dollars at work...
- WarfareArtist, on 07/31/2008, -6/+1Are you making more than $200k/year?
  If Obama's tax plan is executed as he laid out, only that portion of the population is going to get a tax hike.
  What was that? You can't afford your country club and designer clothing? Ow No!
- NightVortez, on 07/31/2008, -1/+10I love how there are people who are against increased taxes unless it happens to someone else. The upper class deserves to keep the fruits of their labor just as everyone else, why penalize them for being successful?
- codez1, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Easy guys - I live in a country (Denmark) where we pay around 50 % of our income in taxes. Then you can talk about high income tax :-) The price of fuel is also double of the price in the US (even after the rise you guys have faces in the last months) - then you can whine...
  - euphoriadj, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1actually we do end up paying between 50 to 60 percent going to taxes. Yours just goes directly to taxes where ours goes through a corporation or two before the government gets it's hands on it
    
    And just because something is unavoidable doesn't make it a good thing.
- MindyB, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Unless you earn more than $250,000 per year, under Obama's tax plan you will NOT BE TAXED! YOU WILL RECEIVE A TAX BREAK!
  The only ones who will receive a tax increase (which is more of an equalizing factor) are those earning OVER $250,000 per year--those are the people that Bush has helped by lowering their taxes so much that they often pay less than the average American.
  Stop believing McCain's lies and read the actual plans, you will be able to see a clear difference. Obama's plan will help the middle class, McCain's plan will hurt the middle class.
SethEllis, on 07/30/2008, -14/+32Ugh this one is so hard. Who am I supposed to believe? The wall street journal? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427 ... or the Jed report?

Maybe both of the economic policies suck...
- JoeVet, on 07/30/2008, -18/+9Since the WSJ is now another radical right wing mouth piece, thanks to good 'ol Rupert, I'll go with the Jed report.
  - angryfirelord, on 07/30/2008, -6/+13So wait, if it's radical on the right, it's wrong, but if it's radical on the left, it's correct? Your logic makes perfect sense....
- rald84, on 07/30/2008, -7/+8pro-tip: the iraq war sucks more money than any domestic spending you can dream up. multiply that by 100 and you see where we stand.
  - Digger1123, on 07/31/2008, -3/+1National healthcare would cost more in a year than the Iraq war has in over 5.
- skiboy352001, on 07/30/2008, -6/+8Since the writer of the WSJ op-ed piece is tied to big oil and other corps, as well as an advisor to Rudy Giuliani's failed bid for the Republican nomination, I would say there needs to be more than a few grains of salt tossed in his direction.
- jabberwolf, on 07/30/2008, -6/+9"Wall street Journal is now another radical right wing mouth piece" ??!?!?
  Guess what they dont care if you are a satanist mass murdering marxist evangelist.
  They just care what is best for the economy and will make everyone the most money.
  
  They also dont really care much about politics. They are one of the very few well written papers that deliver ALL the facts and leave the opinions to the OPINION PAGE. What a ***** concept !!
  
  But even this opinion page, gives stats, number, sources, and adds it up for everyone to see that Obama's plan sucks!
  
  "the iraq war sucks more money than any domestic spending you can dream up. multiply that by 100 and you see where we stand."Um the trade balance, monetary transfer for oil, gas, and heaps of everything else DWARFS the Iraq war. The losses from the housing market is a HUGE disease that makes the Iraq war seem like a sneeze.
  So if you wanna compare please do, you will see how sadly inaccurate you are.
  - metaliq, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2They just care what is best for the economy and will make everyone* the most money.
    
    *them
- Kjoery, on 07/30/2008, -4/+8The WSJ article was written by Michael J. Boskin. At the bottom of the article in big, bold letters at the bottom:
  
  Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
  
  How did the economy do under H.W. Bush? There's already an obvious motive for bias in the article, but I'm not an expert in economics by far, so I have no idea whether the arguments are sound, or whether he's twisting the truth.
  - ELCad, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Hoover Institution? Now that's a name in economic policy that you can trust.
  - LiberalKid, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1Epic burn by El Cad.
- OC73, on 07/31/2008, -5/+5Go with the WSJ.
- DrVonNugent, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Excellent counterpoint.
- sheasie, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4I think your conclusion is basically correct: both policies are academically irresponsible. However, Obama has the charisma to (1) encourage consumer confidence, and (2) rally the rest of the world to support America, once again. McCain would not be able to accomplish either of these two, critical tasks. As such, while McCain will continue to rely on delusional arrogance to support his spending package, Obama seeks to inspire a new wave of optimism and support for America, worldwide... to support the spending he is proposing. (And while that kind of thinking is retarded at the personal/household financing level, it does actually make sense at a national/geopolitical level.)
- MindyB, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1How about reading the policies of both candidates? Not through the wall street journal or any other third party source, but go to the sources directly, each candidate has their plans on their web sites. I am sure you can figure out how to get there, yes?
damian7, on 07/30/2008, -13/+2No *****?
JoeVet, on 07/30/2008, -12/+15But the GOP are the fiscally responsible ones! /s
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3As someone who mostly supports the GOP (smaller government, etc), even I call ***** on that one.
- nosliwm, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
  
  ... good one.
- Olfster, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Good thing you put in the /s Now I don't need to write as much. lol.
- euphoriadj, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1politicians do not make for responsible people they make Janus faced popularity contest winners.
trumpcard, on 07/30/2008, -37/+32McCain isn't Bush.
- damian7, on 07/30/2008, -12/+15The only difference is age.
- ronbeck, on 07/30/2008, -7/+2LOL, i couldn't stop!
- Lloydinator, on 07/30/2008, -10/+16You're right. McCain is worse.
- ArchangelZLT, on 07/30/2008, -10/+5Now Obama isn't Hussein, is he?
- jabberwolf, on 07/30/2008, -13/+10They dont have the same economic policies.
  
  Obama wastes money and wants to raise taxes to waste more. Rember Obama voted to have the Alaskan bridge to nowhere, Mccain didnt.
  
  Maybe because Mccains is on a ton of pork barrel busting committees.
  
  And Obama, he doesnt even know what committee he is on!
  - SocialPoison, on 07/31/2008, -0/+8Sources for... well any of that?
- fuzzynyanko, on 07/30/2008, -5/+13McCain supports a lot of Bush's foreign policies, which are party responsible for high oil prices and the dollar value dropping.
  - Digger1123, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1You mean the demand outstripping the supply is responsible for the high oil prices. Maybe if the dems would allow the US to tap he natural resources we would not be in this problem. Obama actually likes gas at $4, he just wanted the raise to that price to be more "gradual".
  - LiberalKid, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3You mean if we spent four years building oil drills as a temporary fix to an ever-growing problem. People have this belief that there's an unlimited amount of oil to be found in the world, there isn't. There's a reason we need alternative energy sources.
- OC73, on 07/31/2008, -1/+7I wish.
- richardstaboner, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2McCain != Bush? As in they aren't the same person? Holy *****! I was way confused there. Thanks 'my friend'
MrFurious2k, on 07/30/2008, -37/+64If all the social policies Obama has suggested were passed, it'd take almost 70 cents out of every dollar made to pay for it. That's absolutely incredible.

Frankly, we ought to be working together to eliminate the government waste and removing government interference and subsidies... not finding ways to further interject government into our daily lives.
- Tyrghast, on 07/30/2008, -8/+16If we perform a significant downsizing on the defense industry (which we could, to the tune of a few trillion big ones) and put that money toward social reform, bingo!
  - WasabiBomb, on 07/30/2008, -9/+9Yeah, that's what people like MrFurious seem to keep forgetting. Under Obama, 98-99% of the population will actually end up paying LESS in taxes than under McCain.
    
    Or we could elect yet ANOTHER "fiscally responsible" Republican- and continue to cut taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the middle, and continue to spend ourselves into further deficit.
  - dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -7/+5Okay, are you saying that the Defense INDUSTRY needs to be downsized, or the Defense DEPARTMENT? There's a significant difference there.
    I assume that you mean the DEPARTMENT. However, can you give examples (leaving aside the Iraq War, which I'll say was fought and paid for VERY stupidly) of what the defense department should have chopped? Even during the "Peace Dividend" period of the early and mid 90s, there were situations like the Balkan War which required our assistance.
    You need to think through and support your arguments somewhat better than you are already doing.
  - Tyrghast, on 07/30/2008, -1/+4Both. They both live off government money. My dad is an employee of lockheed martin and I would shut down his branch in a heartbeat. I'm sorry but we aren't in the cold war, and even in our weakest hour no country poses a threat to us. The only threat to this country are our own apathetic, ignorant, zealous citizens.
  - Digger1123, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Why the hell does everyone hate the rich. If anything the rich should pay less taxes to reward them for being successful. There is no way in hell they should be paying more,
  - LiberalKid, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Your totally right we should tax the poor instead, because they can totally afford it and it will be more lucrative in the end.
  - blackdude, on 07/31/2008, -3/+1"If we perform a significant downsizing on the defense industry"
    
    We need them bad right now... Since we don't have money power we need to just keep bullying people.
    
    What they need to do:
    -Get rid of the projects and food stamps. Really... why do we still have this retarded program?
    -Cut certain taxes and push more towards our debt
    -Cut social benefits
    -Regulate Corps more thoroughly & require less work for more pay (cuts companies profits but increases economic stimulus sie more time to waste more money and feel more comfortable about worknce workers hav)
    -Get rid of all this pork barrel spending
    -Get the ***** out of Iraq
    -Okay... maybe we should close a couple of our bases around the world; we need to keep security and defenses tight at home though, I don't want my family to be vulnerable. So I guess yea, cut spending on certain defence areas.
    -Let the market fend for itself and stop bailing out mortgage companies. People who make mistakes need to suffer, so all of us won't with taxes.
    
    I bet i've said some pretty crazy stuff to some people. I don't really care but it general, everything that can be cut, needs to be cut. I don't really like either candidates, they both seem like the same person with different backgrounds. The way I see it is that America is at a tipping point, and neither of these candidates are really interested in making good but drastic policy changes. I can see China overtaking as the worlds superpower eventually if this keeps up, Obama and McCain both seem to be on the right track for that.
- phrenzy, on 07/30/2008, -8/+1070 cents of every dollar?
  
  Source Please.
  - z1freeride, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427 ...
- theutopian, on 07/30/2008, -7/+10You pulled that number out of your ass. Care to prove it?
  - winampman2, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4He obviously pulled that number out of his ass, and he still gets dugg 20 times. Come on, Digg. You know better than to believe the ***** that gets spread around the internet these days.
- bigcynic, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4We could afford a whole lot of social policies if we stopped spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined.
- ObamAmerican48, on 07/31/2008, -6/+2"If all the social policies Obama has suggested were passed, it'd take almost 70 cents out of every dollar made to pay for it. That's absolutely incredible." Not. Wait. Do you make over $250000/year?
  
  Don't be ignorant.
  - CaptainShaun, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1What if he does make over $250000/year?
- kosser, on 07/31/2008, -4/+3obama = socialism. obama voted yes for fisa bill, obama has zbigniew brzezinski as his strategist, zbigniew brzezinski = evil just google him, obama voted yes for appropriating the war Twice, obama wants a 1 million child army ??!?!? did i make that up, no. If we keep voting for the lesser of the evil, the man behind the curtain wins every time.
Theod48, on 07/30/2008, -8/+13well the bad news is that the president himself doesn't have that much to do with the economy as our world becomes more of a global market, it ain't just America thats hurting right now.
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -2/+5The U.S. is the biggest economy out there, and the argument could be made that we are dragging the world down with us. However, I could make other arguments such as blaming the current oil prices on India of all places, which is about to introduce a very cheap car that will add millions of new consumers of gasoline. Or other arguments.
  - Theod48, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1yep and china's catching up ;)
s0m31john, on 07/30/2008, -22/+10Because socialism is cheap.
- pbd1637, on 07/30/2008, -4/+3No. We pay with our freedom and liberty.
  - chinaman1212, on 07/30/2008, -2/+3Right. but we should pay people to be poor.
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -5/+1Did you think of that one all by yourself?
  - pbd1637, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1At least I think. Apparently all you know how to do is follow.
    Go to Moscow and ask them if they think socialism is so great. And after you get there, do us a favor and stay there.
  - RogueGenius, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Why is it the people who cry "think for yourselves" the most... Well, they cry "think for yourselves" the most? You know, like an unthinking mantra. And the ALL say it. Exactly the same thing. In lockstep.
    
    Why is that?
- enantiodromia, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2oh right, scary Socialism is beating down our doors to corrupt our youths and take away our guns! hide the children!
NotGibbwake, on 07/30/2008, -36/+25There is no difference between Obama and McCain on the issues. They are both pro war socialists. Obama is suggesting significantly more government than mccain, so who the hell is he to say something like this?

Fascist pattern.

populist -> change -> not so popular -> more change -> dangerous.

"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," -Barack Obama

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." -Obama 7/2/2008 Colorado Springs. If this isnt a stasi, this is a draft!

YES, Vote for some of that CHANGE. Obama is just as insane as McCain, dont vote for either if you have any dignity left. He is a demagogue, he will say anything to get elected. Stop buying his BS. The stasi quote above was removed from his official transcript, but is in the video.

Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power.

Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won public office in a contested election. His guru and controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago. All indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a quarter century ago. Trilateral Commission co-founder Brzezinski wants a global showdown with Russia and China far more dangerous for the United States than the Bush-Cheney Iraq adventure.

Obama's economics are pure Skull & Bones/Chicago school austerity and sacrifice for American working families, all designed to bail out the bankrupt Wall Street elitist financiers who own Obama. Obama's lemming legions and Kool-Aid cult candidacy hearken back to Italy in 1919-1922, and raise the question of postmodern fascism in the United States today. Obama is a recipe for a world tragedy. No American voter can afford to ignore the lessons contained in this book.

http://www.bravenewbookstore.com/product_info.php? ...

Want to set your AC under 72? Not with Obamas CHANGE. Want to fight in Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan instead of just Iraq? You'll get it with Obamas CHANGE Sick of the middle class? So is Obama! Itll be destroyed with some of his awful CHANGE!

"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," -Barack Obama http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61626§ion ...

Obama The Dummy - Brzezinski The Ventriloquist By Webster G. Tarpley 5-19-8 http://www.rense.com/general82/obm.htm

WASHINGTON, DC -- In my book Obama The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, I argue that presidential candidate Barack Obama is a wholly owned puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his associates of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller. As some have noted, Brzezinski has been attempting to conceal his actual domination of the Obama campaign, for which he is the chief guru and controller. Now a rhetorical outburst by Obama on the campaign trail in Oregon has once again pointed to the reality that Obama is a ventriloquist's dummy, with the Russia-hating fanatic Brzezinski, a barbarous relic of the Cold War, acting as the ventriloquist.

At a recent campaign stop in Oregon, Obama stated: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. If India and China's "carbon footprint gets as big as ours, we're gone." (AFP)

This remarkable statement reveals the true program of a future Obama administration: savage austerity, brutal economic sacrifice, and a massive further reduction in the standard of living of the depleted and exhausted US population as demanded by David Rockefeller, George Soros, and Obama's Wall Street backers. This will be done under left cover through a global warming tax, a third world solidarity tax, and other demagogic frauds, with the revenue going to bail out Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase. The tired, discredited post-9/11 "war on terror" slogans will be dumped. ..continued here http://www.rense.com/general82/obm.htm

* Obama once said that the issue of gay marriage should be left up to the state. But now he opposes a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.
* The messiah once opposed the Republicans (later adopted by Bill Clinton) welfare reform plan, calling it "disturbing." Now he embraces it.
* He was against granting immunity to telecom companies that aided our government in eavesdropping on telephone messages to and from known terrorist operatives overseas. Now he is for granting this immunity to the evil telecom corporations.
* Some time ago Obama said that he wholeheartedly supported the ban on the private ownership of guns in Washington DC. Then, after the Supreme Court came down with their ruling last week, suddenly Obama is a supporter of the people's right to keep and bear arms.
* Earlier this year Obama said that he was going to accept public financing of his presidential campaign after the convention. Now that he has seen he could get more money from private contributions than he would from public financing, he changed his mind.
* NAFTA? Barack was going to immediately renegotiate all of the evil NAFTA treaty. Now ... well, let's just say "not so much."
- phrenzy, on 07/30/2008, -10/+3grow the ***** up.
- heyblue, on 07/30/2008, -7/+4You forgot the "/sarcasm" tag at the end of your post. I hope.
- Lloydinator, on 07/30/2008, -4/+5Ok, your trying to make the point that Obama and McCain are the same, yet you attack only Obama. Hmmm. BTW, you have not provided one solid evidence that they are the same. No sensible person ever says that McCain and Obama are the same. Obama's purpose is not to denounce the thought of war, but to denounce the thought of UNNECESSARY war. When you try to make the claim of flip-flopping on Obama's part, politicians are free to change their views slightly, but not extremely like what McCain does all the time. Politicians should be able to remember that Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border and that Chechoslovakia is obsolete. I bet your one of those people who wanted a certain person to win but is trying to down a certain politician because he won fair and square.
- pintomp3, on 07/30/2008, -3/+6you are using rense as a source? seriously?
  
  Jeff Rense is an American conspiracy researcher and radio talk-show host of the Jeff Rense Program, broadcast on US satellite radio via Genesis Communications Network (GCN) and Internet radio.[1]
  
  Rense's radio program and website, Rense.com,[2] cover subjects such as UFO reporting, paranormal phenomena, distrust of people that are Jewish, tracking of new diseases & possible resultant pandemics, environmental concerns (see chemtrails), possible evidence of advanced ancient technology, geopolitical developments and emergent energy technologies, complementary and alternative medicine among other subjects.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Rense
- jpete71chevmal, on 07/31/2008, -4/+1NotGibbwake for President!
  
  Barring that, Vote Ron Paul!
- flashthom, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2You are a little kooky, NotGibbwake.
- bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Jeff Rense is a second rate Art Bell.
  
  *****, even WorldNutDaily is a better source than Rense.
  
  And that's not saying much.
Barackalypse, on 07/30/2008, -29/+68Perhaps someone can explain to me how Obama's $343.6 billion in new federal spending represents a new direction on the economy. Obama makes McCain sound downright frugal for suggesting only $68.5 billion in additional and useless bloat.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
- WasabiBomb, on 07/30/2008, -11/+10Stop spending money on a war we don't need, for one.
  
  McCain wants to decrease taxes on the super-rich AND keep fighting a war that's destroying our economy. THAT'S why Obama's a better choice.
  - angryfirelord, on 07/30/2008, -7/+17No, Obama has full intention of continuing the war, just like McCain. The only difference is that Obama will redeploy some of our troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    
    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
  - Barackalypse, on 07/30/2008, -7/+6Sorry, the Iraq war costs $720 million a day, thats only $263 billion a year, that still leaves Obama with $80 billion in additional spending, assuming he totally ends the war (and you should know he's already backpedealing on his "firm" withdrawal date already). Nice try though.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  - WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -5/+4Whereas McCain wants to increase taxes on the middle class and below... AND keep the war going. Oh, and he'll also be decreasing taxes on the wealthy. "McCainalypse", is more like it, even if it doesn't roll so trippingly off the tongue.
  - bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2@angryfirelord
    
    You mean deploy them where they should have been in the first place?
    
    Oh, the horrors!
- Lloydinator, on 07/30/2008, -7/+3Rebuilding the economy has a price. That 343.6 billion is better than the billions more McCain wants to spend on Iraq.
  - Barackalypse, on 07/30/2008, -2/+7You don't rebuild the economy by taking out loans, funneling the money threw a bureaucracy, and then handing it out to people who didn't earn it in the form of entitlements. If you want to stimulate the economy, let the people keep their money and give them an incentive to invest it (like perhaps permanently lowered capital gains taxes).
- Spoomeister, on 07/30/2008, -6/+5Because it's outweighed by billions saved in ending other programs (i.e. the Iraq war)?
  - Barackalypse, on 07/30/2008, -3/+5The Iraq war only costs $263 billion per year, assuming Obama would actually fully end it, he's still proposing $80 billion in extra spending. Sadly your talking points don't match up with the actual costs, but nice try though, slipping that in as if Obama would actually end the war and as if the savings would actually be enough to cover his massive entitlement expansion.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
- sheasie, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3Obama proposes spending in other areas that will actually pay off, like education reform and alternative energy initiatives (vs. spending on an war that has failed, and produces no fruit). Also, Obama proposes additional taxes on corporations and the wealthy (vs. McCain who is resisting any change to the current tax structure, which favors historic profiteering by an elite few). Bottom line: spending is not the problem - the problem is that Bush/McCain simply want to spend it all on themselves (and their rich Suadi friends), whereas Oabama wants to invest in America.
  - Digger1123, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Everyone says alternative energy is the way to go because it will take 4 years to get the oil from under the gulf of Mexico to the refineries, but alternative energy takes a hell of a lot more time to get from the drawing board to the market.
  - jsebrech, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1An alternative energy plan is the only way to go for the long term. Do you deny this? All of the problems in the middle east can be led back to two root causes: too much oil money in the hands of dictators, and the creation of israel. We can't do anything about the second, but we sure can fix the first. Get the oil money out of the middle east, and you'll see peace there within a reasonable time frame, out of necessity, not out of coercion.
- rhodydog, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Stop spending the money on the war, that will save quite a bit.
- diggrnumber1, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4both candidates' budgets suck more than you could imagine:
  
  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive ...
  
  "The Republican candidate's tax cuts alone would increase the debt by $5 trillion by 2018, compared with $3.4 trillion for Obama, says the Tax Policy Center, another nonpartisan group."
  - soapyeyejoe, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2That's the problem, they don't care about balancing the budget, they only care about promising more military power and/or social programs to make people happy and get votes.
- kencurran, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Well, the idea is the war and useless investments in companies that don't need the help seems to be the reason he can do such a thing. If you keep the Iraq War running with McCain, it's more money.
species, on 07/30/2008, -16/+40What I think will be interesting is when Obama gets elected and the economy doesn't turn around. Obama has no more to offer Americans than McCain does. We need a real candidate that will get the government out of our business. The republicrats have nothing to offer America but the same thing.
- Lloydinator, on 07/30/2008, -6/+5You can only make that judgment when that time comes. But for now, just listen to the candidates and vote for whoever you believe is best suited to turn around the economy.
  - species, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4I tend to not listen to what candidates say, I like to read what they write. And I have read quite about from both candidates and can say with 100% certainty that they would both be bad presidents.
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -1/+9Neither party, as it stands now, has much to offer. You're pretty much stuck with your own interpretation of who is the lesser evil.
  Democrats seem to like expensive social programs, which often have dubious return value. Republicans supposedly want to lower taxes and get the government "out of your business" (except, I'll admit, if you happen to be a "gay american"), but you wouldn't notice that from the current crop.
  I've made my decision on who the lesser evil is, but I can't say I'm 100% happy with them.
  - SpartanErik, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Sadly enough over the years we've only had candidates that were the lesser of two evils..
    
    Whatever happened to landslide victories of good people?
  - species, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3@SpartanErik last time that happened was when Reagan took office. Haven't had a good candidate since, and we're unlikely to have one anytime soon. The problem with the two major parties is that they're more concerned with winning elections then they are with actually doing anything that it leads to a political system where nothing gets accomplished.
- mlirblur, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Then vote for Bob Barr if you want the government out of your business.
- CaptainShaun, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4I'd say with proposed higher capital gains tax (28%!!!!) Obama stands to scare away business/investors more than any nominee in recent times. You think the economy's bad now, with all the investment overseas? Try upping the capital gains tax to 28% and watch it tank.
pell, on 07/30/2008, -17/+17Not entirely related, but the thing I like best about Obama is his website. He seems to be "web 2.0" and understands (or atleast his people do) the modern trends and trends of the future. McCain doesnt even know how to use a computer. In my opinion thats a pretty important thing to progress FORWARD instead of stumbling around in the past.
- patpl22391, on 07/30/2008, -8/+14OMG BARACK MY ROCK OBAMA COULD PLAY VIDEO GAMES WITH US WE COULD TOTALLYZ BE TIGHT. HE WILL BE THE C00L3stt PreSidenTNT EVAAA!!! MCCAIN THAT OLD FART COULDN'T RUNA COMPUTER So BIVOIUSLY HE isNT" QUALIFied tO beo PREsidentTt!!
  
  BOROCKA OBAMANIAAA 2008 YAY! CHANGE CHANGE!
  - willrs, on 07/30/2008, -5/+5please die.
  - Lloydinator, on 07/30/2008, -3/+2I think you've been spending more time thinking about you and Barack playing video games together than paying attention to your English teacher.
  - QuadZeroRoute, on 07/30/2008, -3/+4willrs please die.
  - mwrl, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2willrs please die.
    
    seconded
- jabberwolf, on 07/30/2008, -4/+10Yeah so long as he can text,
  Um you DO KNOW OBAMA DID NOT MAKE HIS OWN WEBPAGE!!!
  
  What a bunch of ***** Obamatards!!
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -1/+6Yeah, some kid should ask him at a "Town Hall Meeting" if he prefers HTML 4.0 Strict, or XHTML 1.1, etc. ANYONE can hire a company to make a cool looking website.
  I agree about McCain not seeming overly technically savvy, but how do you know he doesn't know how to use one? If he has admitted this publically, I've missed it.
  - ltethe, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzi9cXgmhyc&feature ...
    
    There you go.
  - runCMD, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1and now he does. Amazing how experience works in your favor. Live and learn. Live longer ... learn more.
- fromaworld, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2You think he understands that stuff? Yea right. He just has good people working for him.
- bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1I'll bet he can use "the Google".
  
  McCain is still having his wife teach him how to turn on the damned machine.
- ReallyFunGuy, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0Yea, because Obama totally coded the site himself.
  This comment is so stupid in multiple ways.
  "web 2.0" facepalm.jpg.
- ironclyde, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1ok.. so he's got someone on his web team that knows AJAX. Hardly a credential for leading the country.
- 2612, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1"The thing I like best about him is his website" I think that says it all.
felon, on 07/30/2008, -21/+18...and Obama wont spend more than McCain? This is why we need someone like Ron Paul =)
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -8/+5Ron Paul is NOT the second coming. It really annoys me to see all these college students falling over Rep Paul, while at least some of them are receiving federal financial aid. Rep Paul does not support this, or any other spending not specifically authorized by a certain 200 year old document.
  I respect him for standing firm for these beliefs, but he certainly is not perfect.
RickScarf, on 07/30/2008, -16/+24The democratic Congress is to blame for our budget. Bush does not have the authority to spend one dollar without Congressional approval. I don't support Bush, but at least don't blame the guy for this.. he has enough to be at fault for already.
- theutopian, on 07/30/2008, -10/+4Wrong. The President can veto anything Congress sends his way.
  
  They can overrule him, but rarely do because they don't have a big enough majority in congress.
- pbd1637, on 07/30/2008, -4/+7Although the democrats don't care about anything but how to spend our money, the republicans had 12 years in office, six with a republican president, and domestic (not counting the war) spending went up every year.
  Vote for some one else.
- pintomp3, on 07/30/2008, -3/+5you realize that the democrats have only had a majority for the past two years, right? the previous 5 were republican controlled. even now, the democrats don't have a veto-proof majority.
- gimpbully, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2no, but he had the power to lock up congress until he got his way. He just kept vetoing and claiming the democratic congress consisted of terrorists until he got his way.
akchrs, on 07/30/2008, -24/+40I can't afford the Marx/Obama economy. Obama just doesn't get it, this is why he is slipping in the polls.
- WasabiBomb, on 07/30/2008, -14/+6McCain wants to have us pay MORE in taxes than Obama proposes, AND wants to keep us in a war that's eating up our economy. I can't afford to suffer through another so-called "fiscally responsible" Republican term.
  
  Oh, and Obama isn't "slipping in the polls"- if he was, McCain wouldn't be so scared.
- theutopian, on 07/30/2008, -12/+10Last time I checked, Obama wasn't calling for a global revolution of the proletariat against the middle classes.
  
  Actually read Marx before you compare someone to him.
  - vexingmodstwo, on 07/30/2008, -4/+7Not in those words, no. But when he talks about raising taxes, he is pretty much saying that since that's who will get squeezed the most: the middle class.
  - malex, on 07/31/2008, -3/+5Obama will cut taxes for the middle class.
    http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/tax ...
  - vexingmodstwo, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6If you raise taxes on the job producers, the tax cuts for the middle class don't mean anything since the job producers can't afford to give raises, hire more people, etc.
    
    It isn't rocket science.
  - megahan, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3What I think you are overlooking is the obscene amount of profit that has been earned by the "job producers" in the last 15 years.
    
    Surely, you can't deny that there is a growing disparity between the super rich and the super poor in America.
- jabberwolf, on 07/30/2008, -8/+13"McCain wants to have us pay MORE in taxes than Obama proposes, AND wants to keep us in a war that's eating up our economy."
  Actually false, and perhaps knowingly a lie!
  Obama wants to raise taxes on anyone making 250,000 or more ( that is any entity) including sole and partnership businesses. He will destroy small businesses. He has a so-called "windfall" benefits that have soooo many loopholes only snakes and crooks will likely benefit.
  
  Obama will try and pass a bill that redoes the taxe scheme while our economy free falls, and it will be too little too late, while people get tax benefits but are out of a ***** JOB or are being payed less!!
  
  Obama doesnt agree with a SURGE in Iraq ( that worked) and he admits it.
  But Obama does agree with a SURGE in Afghanistan - because that will work?!
  
  Mccain wants to finish with IRAQ first because, yes he's old, but so are many of us that remember the 1st Iraq war. We left that a ***** and unfinished and we are back again. Leaving it undone won't work a second time. Only retards dont learn from history.
  
  "Last time I checked, Obama wasn't calling for a global revolution of the proletariat against the middle classes."
  Actually yes he was !!
  "MORE REDISTRIBUTION, higher taxes on the rich, raising taxes, capital gains, corporate taxes, windfall taxes, Social Security taxes." - This at Berlin speech.
  His whole plan is to be more social, and quote " MORE REDISTRIBUTION".
  
  I think you better get back to school and read about Marx once more!
  - WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -4/+4Whereas McCain wants to raise taxes on everyone who makes LESS than $250k, which is something like 98-99% of the population. Look around you- how many people fall into that category?
    
    If your company will be "destroyed" by having your taxes increased by the minor amount that Obama wants to increase them, then I suggest that your business was going to fail, anyway.
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -8/+6Argh. I utterly and completely HATE stupid sound bytes such as comparing Obama to Karl Marx. For one thing, Obama isn't nearly the writer or thinker Marx was.
  Think for yourselves, people, in something besides sound bytes.
- caramba420, on 07/30/2008, -4/+1http://unastronaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/120 ...
  - fromaworld, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1This drawing is completely inaccurate. First off, it doesn't take into account the party of the congress.
    
    Secondly, its wrong by calling this the national "debt". Its deficit... If you cant' even understand the difference between the national debt and deficit then you probably shouldn't vote in the next election.
  - caramba420, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1"This drawing is completely inaccurate."
    Your argument does nothing to challenge the accuracy of the claim.
    "First off, it doesn't take into account the party of the congress"
    Ok, this would mean that the data was MISLEADING, NOT INACCURATE. The difference between deficit and debt is largely academic. Clearly, any debt that payed for by revenue in a timely fashion is not a problem. Any budget deficit becomes debt. Perhaps somebody who doesn't know the definition of accuracy shouldn't be voting in the next election.
    
    Ahhh the old "Democratic Congress strawman." First off, it is normally convention for the president to send a budget to the House, who will either approve it, approve it with changes, or send it back. Let's go back and run down how this happened in the Clinton years with a GOP controlled congress:
    
    Clinton: *sends budget to house*
    House (GOP Majority): *Heavily Changes*
    Clinton: *vetoes*
    House (GOP Majority): *Passes again*
    Clinton: *vetoes*
    House (GOP Majority): *Passes again* "If you veto this we will shut down the government"
    Clinton: *vetoes*
    House (GOP Majority): *shuts down government*
    House (GOP Majority): *Passes budget closer to Clinton's original proposal*
    Clinton: *signs*
    
    *Greatest period of American prosperity in History*
- pintomp3, on 07/31/2008, -4/+3According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story ...
  - vexingmodstwo, on 07/31/2008, -3/+1The people who make the least hardly pay taxes as it is...
  - WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Try telling that to those taxpayers, vexing. 22% of $40k HURTS a lot more than 22% of $300k.
  - vexingmodstwo, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1It's better than not having a job at all or having their bosses not be able to afford giving them a raise.
  - gimpbully, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1so there's a concept called 'scale' at work here. When you make less, you pay less. That doesn't mean you pay a smaller ratio, it just means you pay less. These people still pay taxes that hurt them, arguably, more than those with means. I'm fairly astounded that would need to be explained..
- rhodydog, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1You don't get it, now get back to doing your homework, it's almost bed time you know.
cons3rvativ3, on 07/30/2008, -17/+23Neither of these candidates has any clue about the economy. McCain wants to make sure the wealthy stay rich and Obama wants to raise taxes during a period of recession. Neither strategy is what we need, anyone who has taken any course in economics would know this. The thing is, this universal healthcare will make it even worse. Government will run the healthcare system like medicare and social security, inefficiently, and thus driving up costs, which will be strapped to the middle class in the form of higher taxes. That will create an even larger difference in wealth between the rich and poor. Obamanomics is stupid and McCainomics is stupid.
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -2/+3Thank you. The point is that neither of these men are trained economists, but they sure want us to think they are experts on what is right for the economy. Finding a balance between the programs people want government to provide and an "acceptable" tax rate is not a job for a generalist, which is what elected officials are.
- saxmaster, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2At least McCain admits to not understanding economics. Obama thinks he understands it, but he's dead wrong. The income of the American family has been declining as individual wages have been going up. Why? The family is getting smaller. People can afford to get divorced, live separately, move away from home earlier. Don't let fuzzy math fool you.
  - cons3rvativ3, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0I agree. Completely. Glad to see there is still intelligent people on here.
- megahan, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Wow! Some random guy has our economic system all figured out, AND has all of the solutions! Plus, he's smarter than two senators!
  
  That's awesome! Thank you, random guy on the Internet! Now can you solve the mid-east crisis?
angryfirelord, on 07/30/2008, -14/+22Both candidates suck raw eggs on the economy. McCain will simply decrease revenue even more while increasing spending. Obama will raise taxes on quite a few goods like coal, oil, gas, etc. and on other forms of income (so some more revenue will come in) , but will increase spending dramatically with more government programs. Either candidates is going to increase the deficit, make no mistake about that.

This is why we need smaller government. By ending the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, homeland security, and a lot of other projects, we will be able to pay off the deficit. But as long as the size of government increases, more money will be borrowed, and the deficit will continue to go up.
Pillage, on 07/30/2008, -8/+28No ***** he would say that. What do you think he is going to say? "My opponent's plan is better than mine" Come on people: Remove your heads from your asses.
soopafly, on 07/30/2008, -22/+15Obama > McCain
- caramba420, on 07/30/2008, -5/+3Ok...but why does Obama keep wanting us to "move in nude erections?"
  - bjornski, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Why are you always thinking about boners?
  - caramba420, on 07/31/2008, -1/+0He's the one who said it, not me.
petaganayr, on 07/30/2008, -12/+1I love lamp!
afflusso, on 07/30/2008, -16/+32Obama is just exploiting Bush's unpopularity and the poor economy (can I blame him?). He's trying to sound like he's for change, but this clip is just an example of how he is purely politically driven. The poor economy isn't all Bush's fault. Obama needs to explain how he would have done a better job if he had become president 8 years ago. I don't think he would have.
- richardstaboner, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Give him a Delorean and 1.21 gigawatts.
- bwilkes, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1I can promise you Obama would not have randomly chosen to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq after a couple planes full of Saudi Arabians slammed into the Twin Towers. So that right there would save... about 3 Trillion Dollars.
stormofswords, on 07/30/2008, -16/+11Tax and spend? ***** that! BORROW AND SPEND! FROM OUR COMPETITORS!!

Republicans in 08!!
- howea, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2I see what you did there
Clearfire18, on 07/30/2008, -16/+24The idea that we can afford a Obama economy is actually more hilarious than a McCain economy. To my knowledge the only ones preaching something close to sanity on the economy is libertarian Barr, and the now GOP rejected Paul.
- augustcandi, on 07/30/2008, -8/+2not when your ending a war with obama or even having a war with obama..he wont lose our dollars..bush has and mccain will..even if he doesnt try too
  - Clearfire18, on 07/30/2008, -1/+4He won't withdraw from Iraq (at least not fully), and if he does he'll start more wars in the middle east. This plus him and the "yes sir" Congress will ramp up domestic spending faster than ever.
    
    No he won't "lose our dollars", him and the federal reserve will just print record amounts of greenbacks out of thin air till we reach hyperinflation and everyone starts wiping their ass with them. Its that or we'll be taxed back to the stone age to cover his programs. Hallelujah I feel the change, more big government.
  - supertaliman, on 07/30/2008, -3/+2The record amounts of printing out of thin air has come from the Bush administration, I fail to see your point. To the so called "Small Government" that you preach is quite idiotic. The Bush administration has shown us that it's secrecy and the illusion that they are "Small Government" has made the government bigger than ever in terms of how it reflects on society. And can you prove that withdrawing from Iraq will start more wars in the middle east? The same excuse was used for Vietnam, we all saw how that turned out.
- jabberwolf, on 07/30/2008, -0/+8Actually Paul cant stand Obama's plan. He says its a failure!
  He doesn't like Mccain's as much but Obama's plan is a recipe for disaster!
vexingmodstwo, on 07/30/2008, -22/+17Obama has no credibility with me and a growing percentage of the voting public. Why? Because he doesn't have the experience necessary to know what he's talking about and his arrogance turns people off. He can't change that no matter how many pretty speeches he delivers.
- augustcandi, on 07/30/2008, -7/+3I dont know how anyone can speak and claim "growing numbers"..haha thats a joke!
  
  also errogance is a joke too cause he doesnt have it..but even if he did...just shows your priorities...you choose presidents over errogance instead of policy...why are you here on digg? since your not into news and facts
  - vexingmodstwo, on 07/30/2008, -4/+7If you don't think Obama is arrogant, you've been chugging the kool-aid.
    
    And I choose my President based on experience in executive office first. Neither candidate has that so the next metric for me is a Congressional record. Obama loses there with me.
  - fuzzynyanko, on 07/30/2008, -1/+5Seems like the foreign leaders he was hanging out with had some of that Kool-Aid as well.
- caramba420, on 07/30/2008, -6/+3You're right...he doesn't have the experience. What we need is someone that got shot down in a plane 40 years ago. That's all the preparation you need to be president. Who cares if you think Pakistan and Iraq share a border? As long as you spent 6 years in a cage, you're qualified in my book.
  - fromaworld, on 07/31/2008, -1/+5Idiot. John McCain has been a senator for over 20 years.
    
    How long has Obama been a senator? Oh yea. Not even one full term.
- pintomp3, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4is that the new talking point? how many mccain action center points did you get for that?
sealbeater, on 07/30/2008, -13/+26So, what's different about Obama? What is he going to do to change it?
- dartmanx, on 07/30/2008, -2/+13That's exactly it. He's going to change it. What's the matter? Don't you support change?
  - SpartanErik, on 07/31/2008, -0/+5Looks like you forgot the sarcasm tag
- PricklyPoo, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3I'd say he's going to hope it.
- thailand1972, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Obama sounds good, wears nice suits and smiles alot. Honestly, stop asking for more than that!
BotchaMcCoola, on 07/30/2008, -10/+5He gets good marks for agreeing with Libertarians.
- CaptainShaun, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Obama agrees with Libertarians?
jmpeagle, on 07/30/2008, -9/+7uh...isn't populist a bad thing? I don't think Obama would characterize themselves like that. Bill O'Reilly calls himself a populist. Anti-gay marriage bans, government funding of Christian organization, protectionism of American companies and profits are all populist. Populist is looking at the world myopically and screwing over later generations like Bush has done.
- zaptoman, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Please do the world a favor, and attend some form of schooling, lest you get it here on Digg.
godseyeview, on 07/30/2008, -17/+12McBama.. ***** THING SUX!!!
jcm267, on 07/30/2008, -23/+28We can't afford Obama's economic policies.
- caramba420, on 07/30/2008, -5/+3http://unastronaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/120 ...
  - fromaworld, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4Are you going to reply to everyone's comments with that completely inaccurate graph?
  - caramba420, on 07/31/2008, -3/+1Are you going to reply to my nuts on your chin, bitch?
  - logandurand, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Your graph shows that both democrats and republicans increased the debts. At the most, all you've proven is that democrats are less bad than republicans. However, you ignore the fact that the budget is controlled by congress, *not* the president. Why don't you update your graph to show party control of congress, then get back to us.
  - manamizer, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2but are you going to reply to his nuts on your chin?
  - caramba420, on 07/31/2008, -1/+0"However, you ignore the fact that the budget is controlled by congress, *not* the president."
    BZZZT Wrong!
    
    Here's the first two sentences from the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on the US Federal Budget:
    "The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President submits to the U.S. Congress. The President's budget submission outlines funding recommendations for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. "
    
    Also, there are many recommendations made by the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Budget and Management, both cabinet departments. The GAO and CBO also make recommendations, but do not have nearly as much influence. Usually, any changes that Congress makes to the budget are relatively minor.
    
    Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
- pintomp3, on 07/31/2008, -5/+5how many mccain action center points do you get for that?
koicho, on 07/30/2008, -10/+5Amen!

Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Good speech!
Lloydinator, on 07/30/2008, -11/+4This is great news for John McCain!
forgottenhope, on 07/30/2

Barack Obama: We Can't Afford The Bush-McCain Economy