McCain Trusted More Than Obama on Economy, Iraq, National Security

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

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

[GaryC 7]

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dog, that simply doesn't fly. Barack will win or lose on his own merits.

No candidate has ever won without a major party being united behind him. If Hillary sabotages him - and I've said for awhile now that she might just do that in order to secure her last hope run in 2012 - then he'd have a hard time making the finish line. He can win with the party behind him - quite easily to be honest. Without it, I don't see how he could. The only candidates that run on their own merits (without a large party apparatus behind them) are the types of Nader, Perot, Barr, etc.

[chri'stina 190]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

Thats the wrong question, the right question to ask, would it be fair for a poor or middle income family to pay most of thier income in taxes?

When I made a lower income, I hardly had to pay much taxes. I don't think people who make more money than I did should be punished for it.

[GaryC 7]

Dog, that simply doesn't fly. Barack will win or lose on his own merits.

No candidate has ever won without a major party being united behind him. If Hillary sabotages him - and I've said for awhile now that she might just do that in order to secure her last hope run in 2012 - then he'd have a hard time making the finish line. He can win with the party behind him - quite easily to be honest. Without it, I don't see how he could. The only candidates that run on their own merits (without a large party apparatus behind them) are the types of Nader, Perot, Barr, etc.

Sounds like someone is making excuses before the fact.

[Dan J 277]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

Thats the wrong question, the right question to ask, would it be fair for a poor or middle income family to pay most of thier income in taxes?

When I made a lower income, I hardly had to pay much taxes. I don't think people who make more money than I did should be punished for it.

Your missing the point.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

How is it fair that certain passive income (read dividends) is taxed flat at 15% while earned income and other passive income (read wages and interest) is taxed at rates up to 35%? How is it fair that a tax system allows a billionaire to pay a lower effective tax rate then the rate his secretary has to shoulder?

Why should the rate be higher? Because he makes more than his secretary he pays more. The higher rate is nothing more than social engineering through the tax code. It is also punishing people for being successful.

Hey, I am all for flat taxes. You just can't get that concept past the engineers of the current tax system. And trust me, those engineers aren't the poor.

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

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

[chri'stina 190]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

Thats the wrong question, the right question to ask, would it be fair for a poor or middle income family to pay most of thier income in taxes?

When I made a lower income, I hardly had to pay much taxes. I don't think people who make more money than I did should be punished for it.

Your missing the point.

No, I don't agree with the point.

[mawilson 2,133]

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

Right - because that's what happened in 2004.

[Dan J 277]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

Thats the wrong question, the right question to ask, would it be fair for a poor or middle income family to pay most of thier income in taxes?

When I made a lower income, I hardly had to pay much taxes. I don't think people who make more money than I did should be punished for it.

Your missing the point.

No, I don't agree with the point.

So if you dont think the poor people or rich people should pay taxes, how do you propose we pay for goverment then?

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

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

Right - because that's what happened in 2004.

A lot has happened in 4 years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dog, that simply doesn't fly. Barack will win or lose on his own merits.

No candidate has ever won without a major party being united behind him. If Hillary sabotages him - and I've said for awhile now that she might just do that in order to secure her last hope run in 2012 - then he'd have a hard time making the finish line. He can win with the party behind him - quite easily to be honest. Without it, I don't see how he could. The only candidates that run on their own merits (without a large party apparatus behind them) are the types of Nader, Perot, Barr, etc.

Sounds like someone is making excuses before the fact.

I'm not making any excuses. Part of Obama's job is to unite the party behind him. The question is whether Hillary will help with that effort (as the other Republican contenders do for McCain) or whether she'll continue to put her own self interest over that of the party - and the country.

Look at it this way: Do you think McCain would have a blimp of a chance if Romney and Giuliani would actively pull their factions in the party the other way? I don't think so.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I personally don't understand that just because someone is rich they should be taxed at a higher rate. The more income you make, the higher % they take? Why is that fair?

Demonizing and dividing ppl is what Dem. politicians thrive on.

[mawilson 2,133]

If the economy fully recovers by November, Barack will be in trouble.

Nonsense. The White House belongs to the Democrats this time.

Well, it's over. Everyone can relax now. Steven has made up everyones mind for us.

Don't give me credit for it. You can thank your homeboy, Gee Dubbya Bush and Co. for the landslide victory the Democrats will have in November - whether it's Barack or Hillary.

Right - because that's what happened in 2004.

A lot has happened in 4 years.

Like what? What has Bush done since 2004 that's so bad?