if you were recently laid off from a somewhat well-paying job because the company you worked for went kaput and became unemployed in Fairfax county area, who are you better of voting for? Obama or McCain?

(the business was so bad that your company's chief rival competitor also went out of business at about the same time)

I guess it depends on which candidate you believe will have a direct impact on making sure the business you work for is run properly.

Did you know, you can put a summary of the post in the title. No the entire post in the title.

You fail, again

The president of the United States does not dictate your personal ability to obtain employment. The same number of jobs that are open in this weekend's paper will be the same as the weekend after the election.

If you're unemployed, make sure you have temporary health insurance and start sending resumes.

Stop expecting the government to do something for you individually, and vote for the person who you think will be best for the country as a whole.

Ask yourself who caused the economic situation that led to your company going out of business.

Decide whether you believe ideological pundits trying to say the "democrats" were able to do all of this in 18 months on the hill, or if the republicans who had control of the hill since 1995 and the white house since 2001 might have had more to do with it. Do you want to think it's all Clinton's fault, even though Bush had 7 years to reverse the policies, instead of passing the largest entitlement program since 1972 (medicare prescription drug program)?

It all depends on how much information you go out and get yourself, instead of being fed by Fox (they'll tell you to vote for McCain) or MSNBC (they'll tell you to vote for Obama). Don't listen to either of them, use your internet connection to seek out your own information.

vote for OBAMA please,
We will take care you (the working class) if you are unemployed due to Bush's policy we will help you with spreading the wealth, increase your welfare, increase your food stamp and taking care your health plan. So you don't have to worry anything, just let us (the new "CHANGE" goverment) taking care all your troubles.

I see that Bob, the faux Republican, has weighed in. Vote for the candidate that will support the small businesses that create the jobs. You will be better off in the long run if you are employed, rather than taking a one-shot handout from Obama.

BTW, despite what Bob says, the housing/economic troubles started in the 1970's with Jimmy Carter's Community Redevelopment Act, which started the ball rolling on banks giving loans to folks who had no business buying houses (because they could not afford them). This notion was pushed by Bill Clinton, who wanted 70% of the population owning, never mind if they couldn't remain solvent. Freddie and Fannie forced banks to make loans to bad risk folks, by threatening to not buy up and bundle the banks' mortgages. Freddie and Fannie were/are run by Clintonites (e.g., Franklin Reigns, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson) who also happen to now be Obama supporters. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (chairmen of the respective banking committees in congress and senate) looked the other way as bad loans were being made, all the while accepting large amounts of cash from Freddie and Fannie. Chris Dodd even got a sweetheart loan from Countrywide Mortgage for $800k.

Now I ask you to put on your thinking cap. If any Republican had been responsible, don't you think the lamestream media would have been shouting it from the rooftops this last month or so? Republicans, including Bush and McCain, warned about the impending crisis many times. McCain even tried to address it with legislation, but guess what? The democrats in Congress would not hear of it, so nothing happened.

God help me if Obama gets elected. This post might just get me an IRS audit. At the very least, my records will be sifted through by Gerry Connelly using government computers.

Optimist Wrote:
>> the candidate that will support the small businesses

I was talking to a friend of mine on Sunday. He owns a roofing business up in PA, employs 4 full time roofers, plus some younger guys who work part-time on weekend jobs. He told me that he basically never had a problem with the taxes he's paid, in fact, his taxes will go down under Obama, and so will the taxes his workers pay. He said the biggest issue has always been getting enough work. Times are getting tough, and people are putting off getting roof repairs because they don't have the cash right now. Taxes aren't hurting him, it's the fact that a growing number of homeowners aren't willing to spend the money. That's the reason he lays people off, not because of taxes (which will go down for him under Obama). I also have a cousin who owns a painting/wallpapering business, with like 3 people on his payroll. I've never heard him complain about taxes. What he does bitch about is not having enough work- people just don't have the extra money to be spending on new wallpaper and painting. He's also an Obama supporter, but I think mainly because Bush has been such a failure.

So don't go thinking that somehow McCain is a champion of small businesses- he's not, and alot of those guys know it. Small construction outfits would love it if middle-class homeowners had more money to spend. That is how they earn their livings.

Vote for obama. He wants to lower taxes for the middle class no raise them like john mcsame and sarah faillin

In general, McCain's policy is business friendly and will create more jobs, if you believe in supply side economy. Obama's policy redistributes wealth around, so lower income people will have more money to spend and create opportunities for business, if you believe in demand side economy.

In short term, you might be better off voting for Obama because the democrats will extend the unemployment benefits. But if you were working in health care, big oil, telecoms, you might want to reconsider Obama because he is not friendly to these industries.

meeper please - I don't think either candidate is the champion of small business - both cater to moneyed political interests. But there is no way in heck that any middle class person's taxes will be reduced under Obama. Refer to Greg Mankiw's econ blog - http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/ - and his post of 10/26. The blunt fact is that with heavier taxation people produce less and work less hard. And with 1 percent of the population paying over 40 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent paying over 70 percent, it is a risky strategy to disincent the group that is carrying the freight.

McCain's policy will create more jobs, just like Bush's policy has.

Prosperity is just another tax cut around the corner.

Greg Mankiw was an economic advisor to the Bush administration. Given our current state of affairs, I'd say he did a pretty lousy job.

+1

Thanks for the link, very informative. I didn't know McCain's health care plan is targeted to the middle class and low income people and may reduce the tax benefits of rich people until I read this blog. Now it looks to me Obama's attacks on McCain's health care plan are disingenuous.

Too bad it takes a chart to explain McCain's health plan. And for most American voters reading a chart is above their heads, thanks to our wonderful public school systems.


meeper please Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meeper please - I don't think either candidate is
> the champion of small business - both cater to
> moneyed political interests. But there is no way
> in heck that any middle class person's taxes will
> be reduced under Obama. Refer to Greg Mankiw's
> econ blog - http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/ - and
> his post of 10/26. The blunt fact is that with
> heavier taxation people produce less and work less
> hard. And with 1 percent of the population paying
> over 40 percent of the taxes, and the top 10
> percent paying over 70 percent, it is a risky
> strategy to disincent the group that is carrying
> the freight.

Meeper - please. Mankiw's views differ little from other respected economists. And you have fallen into an intellectual trap - by impliedly admitting that something is "wrong" with a policy that disincents work and productivity. There is nothing "wrong" with it - France, by way of example - does just that - and has considerable trouble affording it (jobs are nearly impossible to come by in France) - but it is a way of life some choose. It is an issue of choice. So the issue is one of culture - do we want to be more like France - or do we want to continue with the intense and competitive culture of innovation we have here? Like France - we have some large groups of people that live dysfunctional lives and don't produce much if anything - the jury is out as whether it will work here - but that is the choice. And it doesn't help to inform people wrongly - Obama will raise taxes on middle class people - we just have to ask whether we will like what we get in return. This is not a left vs. right diatribe - but one must recognize redistribution of wealth brings with it both economic and cultural changes.

No, it actually has nothing to do with culture or France, and everything to do with 8 years of failed economic policy by the Bush adminstration, which John McCain perversely sees as a working solution.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with a dumb, straw man argument about France.

And as far as the "intense competitive culture" you are referring to, is this the same culture that just got a trillion dollar bailout? I would not characterize that as intense, or competitive, not in any sense whatsoever.

Meeper - please - it is not a dumb straw man argument. France is indeed a culture and country that redistributes wealth. That is indeed what we are voting for with considerably higher taxes. Not a bad or good thing - but it is what it is.

And by far and away the largest cause of the trillion dollar deficit is our entitlement programs. No other source comes close. And they are politically untouchable - as even the tepid attempt to reform social security demonstrated. So given that these huge drivers are untouchable, I am not sure that casting the question in partisan terms gets you anywhere. No administration is touching entitlement programs - Republican or Democrat - they will leave it to our grandchildren to solve - unfortunately.

And the causes of our current predicament are too complex to lay blame on only the Bush administration. To do so belies a simplicity in thinking that is facile. If compelled - and I mean compelled to simplify - one would cast blame on the left for pushing a dreadful policy of pushing government sponsored easy credit (under the guise of home ownership) to large groups of people that could scarcely afford to be borrowers, and then one would rightly blame the Bush administration for failing to properly regulate the vast amount of leverage out there - particularly in unregulated hedge funds - that only fueled in a completely irresponsible way the proliferation of unwise loans and investments. There are other causes too, including variants in the business cycle, a Wall Street culture that has overpaid people without significant moral hazards to obtain (both houses in Congress have contributed to that as well as a failure in corporate governance generally that permits non-performing management to enrich themselves), and an overall hubris - whether it be borne by Barney Frank or Chuck Shumer (no problem with Fannie and Freddie) or by the Fuld of Lehman Bros., that complex financial engineering can overcome extremely high risk economic arrangements. This doesn't square with the blame everything on Bush meme - but is far closer to the truth.

The current economic problem is a tall order for any President. Obama is really smart - the question at hand is whether in the first 100 days he is willing to cast aside his emotional beliefs and be a truly good technician (and hire a really good bunch of technicians) to address these problems one by one. Nothing would silence a highly skeptical earning and productive class more than his doing just that. And he should refrain from raising taxes right away - even if he believes it needs to be done in the long run. Historically, raising taxes in the teeth of a recession is really risky.

And a caution about dumb straw man statements. Some just might have a heck of a lot more education than you do. And I mean a lot more.

Listen dumbass, it's just a stupid & fucked-up scare tactic to mislead idiots into thinking that a shift back to our previous tax rates is somehow going to turn us into a country that alot of rednecks hate for reasons so dumb they're not worth mentioning. It's no more "redistributing wealth" than it is to bail out the banking system or to use my tax dollars to hand out tax breaks to billion dollar companies.

Now take this over to off-topic where it belongs, there are plenty of political threads over there.

Optimist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> God help me if Obama gets elected. This post
> might just get me an IRS audit. At the very
> least, my records will be sifted through by Gerry
> Connelly using government computers.


Your tin foil hat is rusting. You know about the conspiracy to audit you, so you obviously aren't blocking the CIA brain waves with your worn out tin foil hat.

You should make a new one.


I'm only a "faux republican" to you because I don't repeat the Fox News and talk radio talking points. I'm not a far-right wing nut, so therefore I'm not a republican. Why is it that in order to be a "true republican" anymore, you have to have been holed up in a bunker with rations and ammunition stacked to the roof during the clinton administration and the Y2K doomsday?

Meeper - lousy education - leaps to conclusions - lacks intellectual depth, and on and on and on.

Please - get an education - quit being so conclusory, and develop a skill to engage in discourse, and have at least some sense of economics, even if of a Marxist bent.

Being an ill educated moron doesn't wear well on you. Can you be any less persuasive.

Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Yeah, nothing shows your educational prowess more than telling people we will become like France because you read it in a blog somewhere.



meeper is wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meeper - lousy education - leaps to conclusions -
> lacks intellectual depth, and on and on and on.
>
> Please - get an education - quit being so
> conclusory, and develop a skill to engage in
> discourse, and have at least some sense of
> economics, even if of a Marxist bent.
>
> Being an ill educated moron doesn't wear well on
> you. Can you be any less persuasive.

meeper is wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meeper - lousy education - leaps to conclusions -
> lacks intellectual depth, and on and on and on.
>
> Please - get an education - quit being so
> conclusory, and develop a skill to engage in
> discourse, and have at least some sense of
> economics, even if of a Marxist bent.
>
> Being an ill educated moron doesn't wear well on
> you. Can you be any less persuasive.

I'm curious; what do you do for a living? What is your age, race? Where did you graduate from? What did you study while in college? Are you married? Do you have kids? What are your hobbies? Favorite places you go to eat or drink?

What you wrote about France was also heard in McCain's speech. You must know it takes a moron to repeat a moron. Education has nothing to do with the arguments put forth in this thread nor does it have any effect on the choice a person makes picking their president. People vote in the candidate who they believe will benefit them the most. You're attacks about someones education due to their views are completely false. The attacks you made towards "themeeper" are false due to the lack of proof you have made against his reasoning, for favoring a candidate. If you are going to attack someones education please support you're insults with informative facts. When you told him to get an education you accomplished nothing, but to show us all that you cannot uphold an argument and that you resort to your last "guns" and make offensive attacks.

meeper is wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meeper - lousy education - leaps to conclusions -
> lacks intellectual depth, and on and on and on.
>
> Please - get an education - quit being so
> conclusory, and develop a skill to engage in
> discourse, and have at least some sense of
> economics, even if of a Marxist bent.
>
> Being an ill educated moron doesn't wear well on
> you. Can you be any less persuasive.


When insulting another's intelligence or education, it is generally a good idea to use proper grammar.

Firrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> People vote in the
> candidate who they believe will benefit them the
> most.

Exactly the selfish thinking of today's liberal voter. What's in it for me, me, me? To hell with what's good for the country.

You've got it all backward. Liberals represent "we". Republicans represent "me". It's always been that way. My taxes, my guns, my cheap access to credit lines to borrow what I can't afford - this goes for Wall Street, especially.

"Liberals represent "we"."

I would dare say liberals typically represent "them," as in those that don't want to work, those that are some how less fortunate than "us," and those that weren't able to achieve the same level of success of those "me's" you accuss Republicans of representing.

So, Mr(s). Milkshake, if you are one of "them," then, yes the Liberals represent "we."

Also, I would argue that Replublicans, from from representing "me," represent "our" as in, "our rights," "our freedoms," "our guns."

If you like having the government all up in your business, go ahead, vote liberal.

Another stab at the failed democrat policies of pretzel logic.

Nope Flavored Milkshake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've got it all backward. Liberals represent
> "we". Republicans represent "me". It's always
> been that way. My taxes, my guns, my cheap access
> to credit lines to borrow what I can't afford -
> this goes for Wall Street, especially.