McCain leadin both Hillary and Obama in National poll

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

It's pretty irrelevant as it stands ...because it boils down to choosing the lessor of two evils. If McCain is going to continue in the direction Bush has us, the American voters won't vote for him...period.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

1992...

[GaryC 7]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

It's pretty irrelevant as it stands ...because it boils down to choosing the lessor of two evils. If McCain is going to continue in the direction Bush has us, the American voters won't vote for him...period.

Really?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

None of the candidates appear to have particularly detailed plans at this juncture - McCain included. In fact, his idea of dealing with the credit crisis is to scrap all regulation of the financial sector. Which puts him at odds with the Treasury.

I expect that we'll be hearing more detailed plans when the election begins in earnest.

Personally - I don't believe Iraq will be a big issue, given that its one of the major reasons for GWB's extremely low job approval ratings and also because I don't think too many people believe that there's a particularly quick solution for that problem.

[GaryC 7]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

1992...

Yep, Bush lost because he broke his promise of "no new taxes".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

It's pretty irrelevant as it stands ...because it boils down to choosing the lessor of two evils. If McCain is going to continue in the direction Bush has us, the American voters won't vote for him...period.

Really?

Yes, really.

[GaryC 7]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

It's pretty irrelevant as it stands ...because it boils down to choosing the lessor of two evils. If McCain is going to continue in the direction Bush has us, the American voters won't vote for him...period.

Really?

Yes, really.

Not like you I am not going to make a blanket statement like that. Look at it this way, Obama has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. McCain is more of a centrist than a rep. When the dust settles and Obama is the nominee there will be a lot of Clinton supporters that will not vote for Obama. Now if the rep candidate were a hard for right winger I could see you may have a point. But even listening to some people here say they would consider McCain shows that he will garner enough of the dem votes to swing it to our side.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not like you I am not going to make a blanket statement like that. Look at it this way, Obama has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. McCain is more of a centrist than a rep. When the dust settles and Obama is the nominee there will be a lot of Clinton supporters that will not vote for Obama. Now if the rep candidate were a hard for right winger I could see you may have a point. But even listening to some people here say they would consider McCain shows that he will garner enough of the dem votes to swing it to our side.

McCain has already buried himself with the issue of the economy by saying he would continue many of Bush's economic policies. I hope he wouldn't, but as it stands, he's made no distinct separation from himself and Bush...and strategically so, because that's how he managed to get Bush's endorsement. That close alliance to Bush is what will do him in.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not like you I am not going to make a blanket statement like that. Look at it this way, Obama has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. McCain is more of a centrist than a rep. When the dust settles and Obama is the nominee there will be a lot of Clinton supporters that will not vote for Obama. Now if the rep candidate were a hard for right winger I could see you may have a point. But even listening to some people here say they would consider McCain shows that he will garner enough of the dem votes to swing it to our side.

McCain has already buried himself with the issue of the economy by saying he would continue many of Bush's economic policies. I hope he wouldn't, but as it stands, he's made no distinct separation from himself and Bush...and strategically so, because that's how he managed to get Bush's endorsement. That close alliance to Bush is what will do him in.

He has asked GWB to go out on the campaign trail with him - at the very least that will make a lot of people uneasy - especially the swing voters and likely think twice about voting that way, given that both parties aren't exactly singing the president's praises.

An endorsement from that guy is a political albatross.

[HAL 9000 96]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

1992...

Yep, Bush lost because he broke his promise of "no new taxes".

Clinton didn't exactly run on a lower taxes platform.

[GaryC 7]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

To bad history isn't voting. The last election we had the Iraq war and Bush won. So much for your theory.

It's the economy, stupid (not directed at you, Gary). I'm willing to bet on it...people will be voting for change. Once McCain is squared off against the Dem. candidate, his support behind Bush's failed policies will do him in. He has basically said to the people, if you want more of the same, vote for me, yet nearly 75% of American population believes we going in the wrong direction. That's not theory...that sound rationale.

What should be the real issue of the 2008 presidential election is being lost in the noise of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama fracas. According to polls, three-fourths of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is an astounding statistic. At other times and in other places, revolution would be in the air.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8350

If the subject is the economy what will the dems solution be? All I hear is more taxes. I can't think of something that will put people that are already hurting off more than talk of taking more money from them. That will not resonate with people.

1992...

Yep, Bush lost because he broke his promise of "no new taxes".

Clinton didn't exactly run on a lower taxes platform.

He lost because the reps were unhappy with him because of the tax thing. I was here and remembered the flap it created.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

To be saving "thousands" each year from Bush's tax cuts, you'd have to be rather rich (in or upwards of the 85th percentile of earners, i.e. making 154K-374K with an average of 217K a year). If you're making less than 75K a year, you don't even save 1K in taxes a year on Bush's cuts. I understand that you like all things Bush (with the exception of his stance on illegal immigration) but let's try and have an honest debate here.

[mawilson 2,133]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

I googled Bush Tax Cuts and found this link:

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

No idea whether the "myths" and "facts" are true or false, but it's still interesting.

[mawilson 2,133]

Here's a better link:

What the Bush Tax Cut Means for You

According to the above,

27% rate goes to 25%

30% rate goes to 28%

35% rate goes to 33%

38.6% rate goes to 35%

The existing 10% and 15% rates remain unchanged

Without further action by Congress, rates will revert to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% after 2010. The 10% rate would disappear altogether.

At Long Last: Marriage-Penalty Relief

For years people have griped about having to pay higher taxes just because they got married. The new law doesn't completely eliminate the so-called marriage penalty, but it does deliver meaningful tax savings to joint filers and married persons who file separately from their spouses. Relief comes in the form of expanded 15% brackets and larger standard deduction amounts. The standard deduction for joint filers is now exactly double the amount for singles.

Examples:

1. Single, age 60, $30,000 income including $3,000 of dividends

Old tax: $3,031

New tax: $2,681

Savings: $350

2. Unmarried head of household with one child under 17, $30,000 income

Old tax: $1,435

New tax: $1,035

Savings: $400

3. Married with two kids under 17, $50,000 income

Old tax: $2,678

New tax: $1,545

Savings: $1,133

4. Single, no kids, $50,000 income

Old tax: $7,686

New tax: $7,360

Savings: $326

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

6. Single, no kids, $100,000 income including $3,000 of dividends, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $18,813

New tax: $17,302

Savings: $1,511

7. Married with two kids under 17, $300,000 income including $10,000 of dividends, $50,000 of itemized deductions (before phase-out rule)

Old tax: $69,607

New tax: $62,687

Savings: $6,920

Looks like the Bush tax cuts affect everybody, not just the super-rich.