http://www.slate.com/id/2195464/

'Both the NYT and the Post front new polls about the
presidential race. The Post shows Barack Obama leading John
McCain by eight points nationally. Those polled said Obama
is far more able to deal with the economy, the deficit,
immigration, and social issues like abortion and same-sex
civil unions. But McCain pulls even with him on
international affairs and national security.'

It's the economy, stupid, again:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/its_the_economy_1.html

So if you think John McCain will be the best leader as far as keeping our nation secure and best able to manage the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nothing else matters to you, then he's your guy.

But if you care about anything else, maybe you should take a look at someone other than McCain.

Like Barack Obama, for example.

And, Obama has an extensive economics background? What?

Mccain MUST put Romney in the VP slot for the economy aspect.

Tax Tax Tax.
What economic solutions is Obama running on? Does he have an actual plan?
Tax Tax Tax.

If your idea of an improvement of the economy is the socialization of health care, the penalization of free enterprise and the taxation of the middle class into oblivion while the expansion of social services and entitlements increases at an alarming rate then Obama is your man.

Government intrusion into the business world is NOT the answer and history will show you that it almost always has a negative and lasting effect.

I do care about other things, like not having socialized health care or more government power period. I care about taxes and a few other issues.

Those are reasons that I will not vote for Obama. McCain has plans to help the deficit such as cutting out earmarks completely.

I guess it depends what areas you believe are most important to you.

Maybe Romney isn't as successful at economics as some might think:

http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/02/romneys_economic_claims_challe.html

Also, managing a national economy is a lot different than managing an economy for just one state.

If thats the case, then how does Obama have experience managing a national economy?

Let's put one of those evil NeoCon as VP then, they know how to manage money.

Had to edit because some people may think I was attacking a certain group of people. We all know who a NeoCon is, it's another term for people that live in Israel. It's the good way to attack an ethnicity.

Again I ask, what specific platform is Obama running on that will cure our slow economy? Bueller..Bueller..Beuller?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Rumsfeld, who is a NeoCon, did a great job managing the Iraq War.

Billions and billions of dollars later, we are still in Iraq.

And Bush Jr., a NeoCon, has done a great job for this economy!

He spends more than a French hooker in a perfume factory (my apologies to the French).

Obama is planning on giving us all alot of money, I just wonder where he plans on getting it all. Maybe he owns a field of pots of gold or has a money tree. He is the golden child after all. Actually, he just plans on tax tax taxing the same people that hire you and I for jobs.

New government programs, increased spending, new social programs, giving money back to the people, eliminating taxes for a few, increasing global aid with the Global Povery Act. That is sure a big spender there. Glad we don't have an overspending issue in government already.

Funny. After skimming through that page I noticed that for a good many of those points Barak plans to "provide funding" or "double spending" for one initiative or another.

How's he gonna do that?

Ouch! Your wallet hurts.

The more control over the free market economy that the government has the less free it becomes.

Yeah I wonder why we are in the deficit that we are in since all Bush has done is spend governtment funds on defense...................isnt it easy to talk and talk but when it comes down to actually doing I think that we all have to work collectively...........meaning this America the land where people have a say in the matter of the government and with that said why dont you do more than talk about what Obama is going to do and be a proactive participant in trying to voice the voices of the unheard and disenfranchised..............its cool that we are debating but this only can go so far it nitpicking instead of giving solutions to what needs to be done.................what do you think Sen.Obama and Mc Cain should do to move America forward..............you seem intelligent why dont you give us your plans instead of just complaining.................

Remove all government subsidies first of all.

Institute a Fair Tax, where everyone pays the same percent in taxes. A truly fair system.

Truly cut pork spending in Washington. Something that ALL politicians have been invovled in, including Obama.

Eliminate no-bid contracts. The food service for Congress is always in debt because most Congressmen never pay bills. Bring in a private company to supply food and make those poor Congressmen on the hill pay for their meals.

Remove restrictions on drilling and exploration for all sources of energy, coal, oil, natural gas. This will create massive amounts of job opportunities, lowering unemployment. And, of course build new refineries.

Build new nuclear facilities.

Give corporate/big business tax incentives if they invest heavily in alternative fuels. And, give general tax incentives as well for research and developments of products that will have a huge impact on large amounts of the US population, such as new plastics, new drugs, and stuff of that sort.

Eliminate a minimum wage. With it increased now if forces small businesses to fire young workers, hire less, reward good employees less with wage increases, reduce benefits, and so forth. The market and employees will set a good market wage for job starters in lower fields of business.

K im going to dissect this in little parts...........

K on government subsidies what type do you mean..............some of these subsidies is to keep the economy ( when it was good) at equal standing............

Next fair tax so you want a tax for the rich and the poor to be the same regardless of the income level...............isnt that a little ridiculous...........so the rich once again stay rich and the middle class and lower class stay at their level.........


K I totally agree with you on the pork spending and I think there should be a salary reduction on any politicians who are already at the millionaire status.............or no salary at all since its a civic duty

On the fact of privatizing the food service i believe that wouldnt eliminate anything but it would actually make it worse..............too many private industries have exploited the government (case in point Halliburton).........not liking that idea

K on the minimum wage theory that is textbook macroeconomics and it hasnt been working.........eliminating the minimum wage would only lead to more unemployment...........if you think that then my recommendation is to set minimum wage at a level of experience meaning there should a guide book that would advise a reasonable wage for each job criteria (in a general since) and it should fit with the economy in every 4 years............as living conditions should rise so should the minimum wage criteria..................

Anyways im off to class so this was a fast little critique but I will give more feedback later...............

Why should those with more have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

How would the elimination of the minimum wage increase unemployment?

Since Haliburton is profitable that makes them bad? The contracts that have been awarded to Haliburton have been contracts that no other contractor could undertake. That to me sounds like a pretty darned good business model. If they charge too much then it's only because their customer (your government) is willing to pay for it.


Any subsidies that are designed to give those with less more is not fair. It creates class warfare. As Americans we ALL have the same opportunities. End of story. If you want it you can get it. There are many many success stories of those who started with nothing who now are wealthy to prove my point. I'm not in the "more" or "less" catagory but do not feel as if I need additional subsidies or incentives to better my situation. If I want more money it's as simple as putting in the sweat needed to earn more.


How about term limits for house and senate! That'll cut pork barrel spending.

Yes, please take Mitt Romney. He is such a loser.

Resurrect and vote for Louis Abolafia: "What have i got to hide?!"

Few years ago the American dollar was higher than the Euro ,the oil was $ 13 a barrel , and the consumer was able to shop easily . In few years a huge change and the worst is still to come .

Let me address this in a methodical manner................


Actually I do believe there should be a cut in pork spending but that like I said could be solved in part by eliminating salaries of anyone in Congress who is assumed to be a millionare.........its a civic duty and if an individual really is about the country's welfare that should then be that helping instead of milking in the system..........


Alright on the fact that you actually assume that we all come on the same footing I think there you are wrong............as a woman i dont even get paid the same as a man............a womans rights were only given to us in the past 40 and more odd years ago...........

The fact that I am obviously black (this isnt a race card) issue we just were allowed to drink out of the same water fountains about 50 years ago............also the fact that I am immigrant from another country and I had to learn first English (as well as my parents and siblings) is another obstacle all together..........

By the way government subdizies were given in the wake of the Great Depression and it was used to stimulate the economy..........mind you im not even talking about welfare yet.......but farms were left to run when farmers couldnt do it no more so the government stepped in to help so that we could all eat..........also at that time we govt funded things such as construction of bridges and highways not only to help out the economy by giving people jobs but it sure helps us to travel when we most of us dont even know where half the highways and bridges were constructed..............as for welfare give me a break what civilized (thats what we call) ourselves would let people starve and give no health care of children in need..........see why do people think that welfare is for adults when it is intended to help children who are improverished...............you cant live off welfare and anyone who thinks they think they can I used to work for the county and I know better...........

Oh on Halliburton wow its ok for a company to exploit the govt when its at war and pretty much take funding off of the people who need it most which is the veterans............I know of people who came back from the war and were denied benefits and these are the men and women who are protecting me and you.........and for me to say oh yeah take it from our troops because you belive limited govt is a hypocracy........when Enron was profiting from people by raising up energy prices and the big wigs getting off scott free is that ok to you ..............when did money give you the right to take people for granted and exploit the system at what ever cost...........


Eliminating the minimum wage for good would actually have a major effect on the economy...........minimum wage comes from the legacy of unions and labor laws since back in the day they only served to promote big business...........the minimum wage was a govt standard to give the disenfranchised a shot at at least a decent wage and some Fairness in the market..........so you say to hell with that............this really means to regress instead of progressing and what will happen is that the jobs will be so low of a wage no real person with a mind will want to work for such mediocre wages and the unemployment would go up and here comes the kicker then people will choose to go on welfare...........

By the way the old economics model is faulty and any economist at this time and age will tell you.............scholars and economists see that they have to change their views on the neo-classical theory which states the market without govt interference will stabilize itself.........well that little theory didnt work in the Great Depression and it is only working now because of the govt safety net such as the Fed Reserve which keep the market at a level that we wont ever have to see the market collapse ever again.............But what im referring to now is the Keynesian Model which believes that govt in times of financial upheaval should bail the market out.........as the Fed Reserve is doing with some of the banks now...........this Keynesian model is what is saving our market today...........