I'm watching, with precious little enthusiasm. I'll post thoughts on both debates later tonight. Live blogging isn't going to work this evening.
Have at it in the comments for now.
UPDATE: I'm not even going to say much about this one.
McCain was much better than the first two gatherings. The seated format presented a better visual comparison between the candidates than the other stages, especially in the joke that was the Brokaw-moderated "town hall."
Yet, despite McCain's improved performance on the economy and drawing contrasts with Obama, is still seems like too little too late. To the undecided, low-information voter, Obama appears calm, confident, and has pretty-sounding plans for the economy, health care, and energy policy. McCain is not as crisp and reassuring.
That factor, plus the physical contrast between the two, would be a handicap in this race regardless. But, the mood of the electorate simply magnifies the problem. Instead of going on, let me just quote from a Politico post making news today, itself quoting a GOP consultant reporting on the results of a focus groups of independents reviewing a potential TV ad attacking Obama:
Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....
It's a reminder that the non-political junkie makes voting decisions very differently than eager consumers of the blogosphere. It doesn't always make sense. It isn't always ideologically coherent. Nevertheless, it is what it is.
More importantly this race is now very simple. The lay voter sees the economy in trouble after eight years of a controversial President of one party. Result: they vote for the other party's guy. If the parties were reversed it would be much the same story (see Carter, Jimmy).
The race may tighten up some - maybe - in the next few weeks. Yet, the current dynamics of the race sure make it exceptionally difficult for any Republican to win the White House, let alone one running a notably imperfect campaign.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 15, 2008 06:27 PM | Email ThisHairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on October 15, 2008 06:37 PMBefore correcting himself, did McCain say that Palin is a "Breast of fresh air."
Posted by: bananaland on October 15, 2008 06:52 PMHow can anybody support that lying b*st*rd? If the DNCMSM wasn't flacking his every move and flub and ignoring to cover his every lie.
Posted by: G Jiggy on October 15, 2008 06:53 PMMcCain (referring to Obama): "...Senator Government..."
Posted by: AudacityWatch on October 15, 2008 06:54 PMMcCain started pulling it together and has been nudging this into the direction he'd prefer to go while Obama is just hanging onto the bumper hoping for this bus to slow down. Best by far showing despite the verbal gaffes.
**Freudian slip alert**
McCain just called Senator Obama "Senator Government"
You get em John!!!
Posted by: Doug C on October 15, 2008 06:56 PMBut, watch MSNBC and CNN focus on how McCain called Palin a "Breast of fresh air" before correcting himself. (I swear that is what I heard, but maybe I just have a dirty mind).
Posted by: bananaland on October 15, 2008 07:07 PMHe needs to be hit hard on the Ayers point (anyone aware of the phrasing in Obama's book that sounds like Ayers may have been a ghost writer?). The America hating Rev Wright was totally ignored (only a fool would believe he went to that church for 20 years and didn't know what it was about). If Obama can be caught with Ayers actually writing his book, the whole "sat on a board with him" and "lived in the neighborhood" goes out the window, and Obama gets exposed for the socialist fraud he is.
I appreciated the abortion and joe the plumber points... but he could have been MUCH more passionate about it.
If McCain looses.. I hope Palin comes back in 4 years. The left hates her so much, that she has to be good for the country.
Posted by: Jimster on October 15, 2008 07:34 PMI was pleased that he finally brought up ACORN, but he failed to follow-up effectively on it.
His defense of his followers was needed, but he failed to bring up the fact that the folks who yelled "terrorist" and "kill him" were referring not to Obama, but to Ayres.
Too bad he either didn't or couldn't bring this game to the last three debates.
Posted by: deadwood on October 15, 2008 08:34 PMMcCain did well when he railed about the biggest growth in spending since LBJ, but he missed an opportunity to warn about united gov't. History shows that when one party controls Sen., House, and White House, spending skyrockets. I guess it is anathema to concede that the other party will control Congress, but there is no other venue to get the point out to as many people as the debate, and he desperately needs to get it out there.
Posted by: russell garrard on October 15, 2008 08:40 PMAs Senator and President, either way, these two bums will run this country in to the ground.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 15, 2008 08:42 PMHe jabbed and sparred but after landing each blow failed to go for the KO. Obama ran out the clock and rope-a-doped McCain.
Prediction - popular vote 56% Obama, 43% McCain. Obama wins 355 electoral votes. Senate goes 62 Dem. 2 supremes retire in 2009. D.C. made 51st state with 2 more Dem. Senators in 2011.
Game over.
Remember- he practically had to fly coach into New Hampshire. Look how that turned out.
Posted by: Andy on October 15, 2008 09:05 PMDuffman, with ACORN involved the link you post re: Ohio surprises you....how?
Posted by: Dave on October 15, 2008 09:14 PMAs a D, I would beg to have her run again at the top of the R ticket, as often as possible. Why? I think that would mean that she'd have to provide lots of "verbage" (her word, not mine). Unscripted "verbage" doesn't seem to be her strong suit, although she is good at making up new words, among other things.
Imagine. McCain running the country just like this train wreck of a campaign.
Face it.
I truly believe McCain would make such a bad president, he would make even the lying chimp look good. Not that's pathetic.
Thank god this bloodbath is almost over. I would feel sorry for Johnny Mc if he wasn't so damn dangerous.
I just love the "government is the problem" mental disorder, spoken of above. If the Republicons worked to fix our governments problems, instead of looting all they could for their K-Street buddies, and defense contractors, we may begin to respect them once again.
McCain's negative campaigning shaved 5 points off every Republicon's numbers running for office. It made independent voters sick. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but he is so stupid he (and Norm Coleman) doesn't even understand America moved past the Rovian politics of lies, division, and hate of 2000, and 2004, and want something completely different. You know. The stuff OBAMA is campaigning on, reaching out in every way possible, considering what is coming from the other side.
My god. This is so sad. And to think, the few good things McCain had accomplished in the past will be forgotten, and only this train wreck of a campaign will be his legacy.
Maybe he should bring up Ayers, and Acorn some more. Democrats need more independent votes!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on October 15, 2008 11:26 PMThat you might believe (I can't use the word "think" since you have yet to show you're capable of "thinking") that anyone givers a rat's ass WHAT you think is, admittedly, beyond me.
Posted by: Hinton on October 15, 2008 11:30 PMDoes that mean Joe the plumber going to forego a job that pays $280,000 because he has to pay an extra $900 a year in taxes?
Posted by: Just Asking on October 15, 2008 11:56 PMAlso good job on the arrest of Jerome Corsi in Kenya!
Barrack answer the Acorn question!
Barrack why can't we say Hussein.
The CHICKENS are Cooooommmmmminnnngggg Home to roost.
Vote for BHO at your risk.
I am voting against the media as much as for McCain. I have had it with them. Obscene all of them. Cowards all of them.
Obama wants to raise taxes, yet the democratic run state of Michigan gives tax breaks to keep failing car manufacturers..... sounds familar a few years ago around here.
He is talking the Clinton lie-- no tax raise and when elected raise them (to everyone). And with a probable Dem's
overwhelming control - a very likely outcome.
I wanted to see fire and brimstone, I wanted to
see a man who could look into the eyes of a young
slick cocky used car salesman type character and
say experience over youth everytime, a spine over smoke. All I got was the warmth of a light bulb of a good idea getting ready to get shut off.
Kind of like another candidate we know. B-uh-rack Obam-uh
Oh, and speaking of new words, can the rest of us get directions to "new pennsylvania"?
I can only guess that it's one of the 10 additional states in the union that Obama is aware of, but the rest of us rubes aren't privy too. Thanks in advance.
Bob Schieffer did not bring up gun-control, on which Obama is vulnerable, but he did spend plenty of time on abortion, on which McCain is vulnerable. Nor did any of the other debates mention gun control or Heller. Bias, maybe?
I heard an NRA ad on the radio today that just said something vague like 'your rights are under attack.' They are barred from mentioning McCain or Obama because of McCain's campaign reform law. It would be ironic, and poetic justice, if McCain's own law cost him the election by squelching the freedom of speech of those who would like to speak up for him.
Posted by: russell garrard on October 16, 2008 07:32 AMPat Buchannan raised this issue (I know you probably don't watch that network either). His point was that without the economy tanking, this would be a close 2-3% race. I somewhat agree with this also.
What I don't fully agree with however is the fact that it is just party or just the economy. For example, if the Democratic nominee was, say, Kuchinich (God forbid), he wouldn't have been able to be in the same position that Obama is in. There is a minimum threshhold required for the candidate to meet to even get a seat at the table. Obama met it through his battle with Hillary. I will even admit that Obama the candidate at the start of his campaign 18-20 months ago, would probably not met the requirements to sit at the table. You also need to consider the fact the way things worked out that it was Obama and not Hillary at the table, given the economy tanking.
This is where I go back to second guessing my stance in January where on the Republican side I preferred McCain and Huckabee over Romney. My feeling at the time was Romney couldn't win. I thought McCain would focus on the issues and not turn into a mud-slinger. McCain, however, chose to hire Schmidt in June and because of this move and picking Palin instead of Romney, proceeded down his current campaign narrative. McCain and his campaign staff's decisions need to also be held into account here, not just the economy or the party he runs under. My guess is Romney would have ran a lot different campaign and given the economy being what it is, it would have also been a lot closer.
One final note: As much as McCain wants to toot his horn on the town meetings idea (i.e., the tone would have been different if Obama had just agreed to the town meetings), it is evident that when both of them are together on stage, Obama wins the intangible issues. Obama raised his ready to be President standard greatly, given the times, by his calm presence on the stage. McCain, who wears his heart on his sleeve, couldn't help but let his contempt shine through. He keeps coming across of the "grumpy-old-man" or "get-off-my-grass-neighbor" when on stage with Obama. More meetings where there styles are contrasted would not do McCain any good. McCain's rolling of the eyes and "air-quoting" statements are equivalent to Gore's exhales in his debate against Bush. Add to this his meaningless wandering in the town hall meeting, one sees that McCain is better on his own in the town halls than paired with Obama.
This is just my viewpoint.
Posted by: tc on October 16, 2008 07:47 AMGood god it's amazing to see seemingly rational persons completely turn reality upside down in their blind affection for an individual. Obama has run the most negative campaign in history culminating in a surrogate comparing McCain/Palin to a racist Democrat Governor from the 1960's Bull Connor. Or the Palin is a C**T t-shirts the moonbats are churning out. If you turned the channel from MSNBC and Keith Slobberman, you might get the bigger reality picture.
"For example, if the Democratic nominee was, say, Kuchinich (God forbid)..."
Obama IS Kucinich in ideology...the only thing different is the skin color and one claims to have been visited by space aliens- other than that, they're a difference without a distinction. I sense a Man-crush here.
"McCain's rolling of the eyes and "air-quoting" statements are equivalent to Gore's exhales in his debate against Bush."
I guess Obama's shaking his noggin in denial when confronted with facts or snickering in disdain as McCain made a point doesn't count for the true Obamaphiles. His natural arrogance exudes in his non-verbal cues and I'm glad they show them for the American people to see this disingenous imbecile speak with eloquence and then listen with a child-like "not me" countenance when he knows he's lying his arse off. Did he not start his Illinois senate seat out of the house of Ayers? He said "that's not True".....he's a lying dog as most every news organization has said it is true.
I wish I had more time to continue, but I don't. Put down the damn Kool-aid and start living in reality and Not Obamavision people.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 16, 2008 08:32 AMRE:On Most Negative Campaign
This one is hard to defend or counter with out what you are defining as negative campaign and "most". McCain did try to hammer Obama with this last night in regards to $$ spent, which in and of itself is true. However, given the overall spending this election cycle, this isn't necessarily a good measure, let alone inflation and the fact that media today is different than it was 30-40 years ago. There was a Wisconsin (University?) study the analyzed campaign commercials and did state that all (I don't know if they unequivocally stated 100%) of McCain's ads the last two weeks have been negative.
Additionally, in regards to what constitutes a negative ad, do you consider pointing out opponent's positions and impact on voters to be negative? What constitutes fair and what constitutes not fair in your mind? Without these definitions, like I stated, one can not defend or rebut your argument.
Finally, while we think today's climate is negative, the historians that have studied elections, like in the 1900's state that while today is negative in our current mindset, it really pales when compared to some of the races then.
RE: Incidentals, mannerisms, etc.
I do agree that Obama also had some cheesy moments. The head bobbing looks like he is agreeing with McCain, but then his response is counter to his display. What matters, however, is not what you or I think, but what does the undecided voter think. On this account, the narrative from them is Obama's coolness even in face of attack and McCain's grumpiness and apparent disdain for Obama when on stage. McCain wears his heart on his sleeve. It comes across as such, which given the current mode of the country is not what they are looking for. Look, one of the admiring and enduring aspects of Ronald Reagan, was his demeanor on stage. His "aw-shucks" and "there-you-go-again" demeanor helped move voters and not just policies alone. McCain (and the Hannity's of the world) have been trying to paint Obama as some out-of-touch and dangerous person, but when placed side by side on the stage, this narrative doesn't come across. McCain at one point almost got Obama to break (like he did in the NH Debate with Hillary with his "nice enough" condescending response), but in the end he couldn't break him.
You also forget last weeks wandering around while Obama was talking. I thought the Conan O'Brien bit on this will go down as the most humorous parody on this "oops" moment for McCain.
Posted by: tc on October 16, 2008 09:04 AM"54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
Well..Duh. The Bush Administration and the GOP have completely FUBARED our economy...greatly diminished our global prestige, and spent our blood and treasure on an unnecessary war. McCain & Palin are aslo Republicans, who believe in the same failed philosophy that got us into this mess. There is a reason why the Democrats are also projected to sweep the House and Senate races. We're FED UP with the GOP.
"The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack.""
Again, no surprise there. Like many voters, she's not letting herself be diverted by social or religous differences, and is concerned with temporal matters that directly affect the prosperity and well being of herself and her family. Religious beliefs like abortion are only a small part of the "big picture".
Posted by: Proteus on October 16, 2008 09:06 AMhttp://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/mccain-to-acorn-you-are-what-m.html
Posted by: Tin Foil Hat on October 16, 2008 10:00 AMMcCain says mother will have to die rather than get an Abortion...what a great way to blow your appeal to those independent women and Hillary supporters.
McCain can't believe he's running negative ad's...wow how out of touch is he? Apparently Sen. McCain also thinks we can wipe out trillions of dollars of W's debt in 4 years...fat chance the way the election is going.
Funny to hear McCain say Palin knows more than anyone about kids with Special Needs, medically speaking she really doesn't. Kid's going to grow up and you'll really need to know a hell of a lot more about Special Needs kids than you do when your kid is a mere 4 months old. Right now Trig acts just like any other baby.
Sen. McCain really need to quite looking so angry, his eyes just about pooped out of his head during the small biz health care part. He also flip-flopped right there on stage when he said no litmus tests, but wait there will be one and it's Roe v. Wade.
Overall it was Sen. McCain's best debate so far but it was also his most temperamental. He did really well at putting Sen. Obama on the defensive. He appealed to the base but lost the moderates. In the end Sen. McCain's closing statement looked like a General forced to retire against his will...so sad to see Ol' Sen. McCain go down in flames like that.
Does that mean Joe the plumber going to forego a job that pays $280,000 because he has to pay an extra $900 a year in taxes? -Posted by Just Asking at October 15, 2008 11:56 PM
How sad that you koolaid drinkers can't think for yourselves.
It's not about just Joe the Plumber. It's about that socialistic trickle DOWN taxation.
Maybe Joe won't be in that over 250K income yet, BUT his suppliers will be, the manufacturers of those supplies will be, the suppliers of the raw materials for those manufacturers will be and the transportation companies for the suppliers, the manufacturers, the suppliers of raw materials will be. Think Atlas Shrugged and the Twentieth Century Motor Company.
The really fun part will be when Joe the plumber realizes that it's actually more beneficial for him to be a failure. That, instead of "[putting] his blood and sweat into his work," he can get the same result by being, as Obambi so eloquently puts it: "the guy behind him."
"THAT WON'T HAPPEN!!!!!" shriek the socialists. Yes, it will. Given the choice between working and not working, and getting the same result either way - needs met, bills (say, health care) paid for, education, subsidized housing, public transportation - which do you think a person is going to pick? Work, or not work?
From what I've read, Obama wants to raise taxes on those making $250,000 a year and more.
Oh, that's just great. So, instead of crippling the plumber personally, you'll cripple everyone he relies on for his trade. You'll tax the trade masters and educators who teach him his trade. You'll tax the publishers who print and distribute the materials he relies on to learn (and continue learning) how to do his job. You'll tax the manufacturer of the parts he needs to buy in order to do his job. You'll tax the retailer who sells the parts that allow him to quickly and efficiently do his job. And after a year or so of that, you know what'll happen?
All those people will move offshore. And why shouldn't they? You're de facto punishing them for their success. And soon enough, you won't HAVE any $250K+ people to tax. So what will you do? Lower the ceiling. Rinse and repeat.
And how long until the plumber is the ceiling? Well, nevermind - we don't really have to worry about that. We'll have suffered complete economic collapse by that point.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 16, 2008 01:27 PMCuriously enough, I was on worldnetdaily today and read up on Obama's efforts with Odinga. I can't vouch for the veracity of the charges since it dealt with Corsi, but there was an interesting point.
Obama has supersaturated the market with ads and the ads are now being to be less visible. I.E., that is losing the bang for the buck.
Anyways, they are reporting the Alinsky method of winning an election that Obama has perfected. The goal is to project an aura of invincibility as to the outcome (ergo, plans for the first 100 days to start immediately after the election and the big election party). Tingles up leg and all that sort of stuff.
He advised Odinga to carry on as if he was the frontrunner even if the polls showed him behind.
Notice the similarities. The Alinsky and Ayres way.
Posted by: swatter on October 16, 2008 02:15 PMSounds like you're bitter that McCain hasn't quite gotten this message. Meanwhile the RoboSmear calls go out.
Notice the similarities. The Alinsky and Ayres way.
Ahh yes, when you have no other options play the fear card. Mrs. Annenberg seems to be paying Mr. Ayers salary while giving lots of money to GOP candidates. Now tell me why does the GOP and Sen. McCain continue to take money from people who employ domestic terrorists? Never had a problem with it before.
Alisky, *yawn*....he's the Pat Buchanan of the left-wing. No one cares.
And why shouldn't I be afraid of socialism? Your guys are plotting the first 100 day agenda starting the day after the election? Your guys are seriously bragging they are going to get a filibuster proof Senate majority plus major pickups in the House? What kind of legislation do you think they are planning? You really believe the garbage that only those above 250k get more taxes? Grow up, kid!!
Read about the 200+ billion earmark/pork barrel package being call a "Stimulus" package that won't work?
For months, I thought the guy was an 'empty suit'. Man, was I ever wrong!! This guy has been a major player trying to redistribute wealth. That is socialism.
In other words, it is the reverse of the Ginrich revolution except this one will be on steroids.
Posted by: swatter on October 16, 2008 03:26 PMDon't believe anything Obama says? Sit back and wait. He will do what he says. He'll inherit the worst mess ever -thanks W! - but he'll get it at least back on the rails.
What's up with all these "secret" plans of McCain's? There's an economic one, one to get Osama. Where was he the past 6+ years with these great plans?
As someone said, the die is cast. A smarter campaign might have done a lot better but I think the operative word is change and McCain is not change. Obama is.
Posted by: westello on October 16, 2008 03:53 PMThe problem you have westello is to decide which of the candidates and parties would be more likely to continue having the federal government own the banks rather than getting out of the business when the economy and crisis is over. As I understand it, there is a chance the government can turn a profit.
I know my answer, but I will await your reasoning why you hate McCain.
Posted by: swatter on October 16, 2008 04:26 PMGood for you, personally I just hang up regardless of party.
And why shouldn't I be afraid of socialism?
Why should you think we're even entering Socialism? I mean the fact is we're already here and it was implemented by a Republican President (oops, wrong party).
We currently have the largest US Govt. in history...this was implemented by a Republican President.
The state is nationalizing private companies...this was implemented by a Republican President.
The state is buying stakes in private companies...this was implemented by a Republican President.
I'm sensing a trend here.
Your guys are seriously bragging they are going to get a filibuster proof Senate majority plus major pickups in the House?
Odds of filibuster proof Senate seems extremely unlikely. I'm guessing Dem's get 57 Senate seats max. I'd vote Sen. Murray out in a second just for the sake of maintaining balance if the GOP ran a serious candidate against her. 2000 - 2006 proved what undisciplined extreme partisanship looks like, I don't think the country wants to go back to that anytime soon.
You really believe the garbage that only those above 250k get more taxes?
I haven't seen a reason not to believe it. I think if the party respects the President and the President keeps the party in check via veto power & strong leadership we will be fine. The American public has a Constitutionally given referendum in 2 and 4 years time to say they don't like the way the country is being run.
This guy has been a major player trying to redistribute wealth. That is socialism.
Depends, Pres. Bush redistributed wealth back to the top of the food chain with his trickle down economic plan. Your fears are totally unfounded....look at Pres. Clinton, I bet you never expected a Democrat to sign NAFTA and brought you the WTO much to the chagrin of the Left. What Sen. Obama seems to be proposing is letting Bush tax cuts expire and making it so that the majority of the people who work everyday and generate the majority of commerce in this country take home a lit bit more of their paycheck. That can be used to pay for that heating oil bill, your mortgage payment, a new HD plasma TV, it's up to the individual to set their priorities. Looks a lot like trickle up economics rather than trickle down.
What Sen. Obama is NOT proposing is having the state take ownership of private industry which is the very definition of Socialism. Nor is Sen, Obama having the state set the price of goods, or having the state tell you what you can and cannot spend your money on. That's socialism.
In other words, it is the reverse of the Ginrich revolution except this one will be on steroids.
Well you have one man to thank for making it all possible, President George Walker Bush (aka #43). You should take it up with him, I seriously don't think the Democrats have the means or the actual popularity to screw up the economy as bad as GWB has. This is more like a boomerang effect, I suspect in 2 to 4 years the country will return to it's happy centrist middle ground.
No kidding. Quick grasp of the obvious, Dick Tracy. It's exactly what we fear.
I notice with all his blathering the obfusCATOr didn't bother to refute the facts of Obambi's trickle down socialism.
Meanwhile the RoboSmear calls go out. Posted by Cato at October 16, 2008 02:37 PM
Pigs Fly: MSNBC says Obama ran 1,342 negative adds compared to McCains 8!"
"It's not about just Joe the Plumber. It's about that socialistic trickle DOWN taxation."
If so, wouldn't the reverse of this be the tax cuts that Bush put in place in 2001 and 2003? The idea is to create more businesses, more manufacturing jobs, more employment, more security all around. But where are these manufacturing jobs?
"All those people will move offshore. And why shouldn't they? You're de facto punishing them for their success. And soon enough, you won't HAVE any $250K+ people to tax. So what will you do? Lower the ceiling. Rinse and repeat."
And guess what the companies have already moved offshore. Manufacturers, printers and the like have moved overseas. Not just because of taxes, but for the cost of labor, resources. Can we reduce taxes far enough where they will stay and do business here? Instead we would need to attract them with things not available elsewhere, better infrastructure, smarter work force. Not punishing them for success but investing for the future. Tax money used towards laying down fiber optics, and education? It's unfortunate that we have spent so much money already on 2 wars. But if you would rather, believe that economic collapse will hinge on 3% extra tax and not on mistaken priorities.
""THAT WON'T HAPPEN!!!!!" shriek the socialists. Yes, it will. Given the choice between working and not working, and getting the same result either way - needs met, bills (say, health care) paid for, education, subsidized housing, public transportation - which do you think a person is going to pick? Work, or not work?"
There will always be those who would rather not work. Those are not the same people who wouldn't mind paying an extra $900 to be making $280,000 instead of $249,000.
There are plenty of incentives to live above the bottom rung. Live in their own home instead of renting in a subsidized housing community. Take the bus because they want to not because they have to. Get laser eye surgery instead of glasses.
Posted by: Just asking on October 16, 2008 06:32 PMYou're damned right.
And guess what: ther REASON is that the US has the second highest corporate taxes in the WORLD. Japan is #1.
There are countries like China and India that are actively wooing companies not only with low corporate taxes but with incentives. A publicly traded corporation has a fiduciary duty to thier investors and it is in the interest of those investors that they are striking the best financial deals they can.
As long as the liberals keep punishing corporations with ever higher taxes those companies will continue to flee.
As long as corpration struggles under onerous union demands they will continue to flee.
I don't blame them. I wouldn't want my hard work spit upon, I wouldn't want my productivity subverted or punished either.
Laser eye surgery is the single most potent example of the free market system available today. It is also the single most potent reason for freedom in health care rather than socialist nationalized medicine.
Laser eye surgery is a choice for people to make to use their disposable income. Competition in the feild has driven the price down from over $5000 to under $800. The technology has not only advanced but blossomed. The care and the environment of the surgery is impeccable.
And all without any government and/or insurance interference.
I WANT that for my healthcare. I WANT to choose based on MY needs.
I want that for the companies I invest in.
And, importantly, I want that very same thing for all the stupid sheep that fight so hard against it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 16, 2008 06:58 PMYes, because both had experience RUNNING AN ADMINISTRATION. Neither of the current candidates do.
@42 "Those who support McCain cannot fathom that some intelligent and informed individual could possibly ever choose Obama over their candidate."
That's true. Because you would think these supposed "intelligent and informed individuals" would be able to look at the Obamunist's tax plan and realize it's based on Marxism. And he wants to implement a form of government--Socialism--that has ALWAYS ultimately failed. You would also think these same "intelligent and informed individuals" would recognize an inexperienced, empty-suited fraud when they see one.
Posted by: Dave on October 16, 2008 11:16 PMYou mean like when that locquacious idiot, Slo' Joe Biden, speaking in Athens, Ohio yesterday said:
"John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs, j-o-b-s, jobs.
Uhhh.....Joe...that's FOUR letters!! Moron. Now, stand up, Chuck! Let's all stand up for Chuck.
What's that you say? You didn't hear about that? Of course you didn't. Because it was not Palin. The media is only allowed to report on Palin's supposed gaffes.
I really don't think you want to get into a comparison between Biden and Palin when it comes to saying dumb things. When it comes to stupidity, Biden wins hands down.
Posted by: Dave on October 16, 2008 11:30 PMSee! Now this is why it's scary that there are people voting for Obama. They fail to understand his tax plan. Joe said his BUSINESS would be making $250,000, from which he would have to pay salaries, insurance, overhead, etc. His actual INCOME would be nowhere near $250,000. When his BUSINESS taxes are raised that simply means he might have to employ less workers, AND, pass the "savings" on to the consumer. Somebody explain to me again how this "trickle up" thing is supposed to work? Because I can't recall the last time that someone that pays NO TAXES was able to provide jobs for someone else.
Posted by: Dave on October 16, 2008 11:39 PMWhoa! Hang on! I thought that was the rule? No one is allow to look The Messiah directly in the eye. Doing so makes Barry look like an ordinary man. And we can't have that.
Posted by: Dave on October 16, 2008 11:46 PM