I did as you suggested. His paragraph on Iraq is... well, not even worth considering, due to its enormous lack of understanding and naivety. His details, including the orders to the top military brass on what to do could pass in a comedy, but not in real life.

There are lots of promises for various things, much money identified to spend, but he doesn't detail how he plans to get such funds, which only leads one to conclude he'll tax people to death... not a pleasant thought in most circles. Robbing the 'rich' to pay for programs that historically didn't do much isn't moving this country forward. I do like his idea of rewarding US companies that stay and punishing (tax-wise) companies ...

I did as you suggested. His paragraph on Iraq is... well, not even worth considering, due to its enormous lack of understanding and naivety. His details, including the orders to the top military brass on what to do could pass in a comedy, but not in real life.

There are lots of promises for various things, much money identified to spend, but he doesn't detail how he plans to get such funds, which only leads one to conclude he'll tax people to death... not a pleasant thought in most circles. Robbing the 'rich' to pay for programs that historically didn't do much isn't moving this country forward. I do like his idea of rewarding US companies that stay and punishing (tax-wise) companies that go abroad. But his idea of windfall profits isn't good at all... we (the consumer) would still pay... the companies will simply pass the taxes on consumers, creating more problems, not solving any. There are many holes, many misplaced promises and not enough details identifying exact steps of not just what will be done but how exactly it will be accomplished and paid for.

And I fully understand why - if he spells out the details of what he plans - that'll be equivalent of committing a political suicide and he isn't that naive.

I did as you suggested. His paragraph on Iraq is... well, not even worth considering, due to its enormous lack of understanding and naivety

It isn't, perhaps, just a trifle arrogant to label a Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee "naive?" That you know better, would be the implication. That is a little silly.

That you prefer another direction, I could understand. But he knows a whole lot more about it than you or I.

"Robbing the rich" - now really, the rich are going to be just fine.
"for programs that didn't do much" - like what? EIC? Reducing taxes (thereby given bread and gas and school money) to poor and middle class Americans?

Trickle down has never been show...

I did as you suggested. His paragraph on Iraq is... well, not even worth considering, due to its enormous lack of understanding and naivety

It isn't, perhaps, just a trifle arrogant to label a Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee "naive?" That you know better, would be the implication. That is a little silly.

That you prefer another direction, I could understand. But he knows a whole lot more about it than you or I.

"Robbing the rich" - now really, the rich are going to be just fine.
"for programs that didn't do much" - like what? EIC? Reducing taxes (thereby given bread and gas and school money) to poor and middle class Americans?

Trickle down has never been shown to work. It's a remarkable theory of the age of corporate boondoggle, that persuades middle class Americans to do rich American's policy fighting for them.

Republican = deficit. As WalMart says, "Always."

It's not that I prefer another direction, it's just childish to give an order to 'end the war'. That's a given when a war starts. So either he says it due to his ineptness on the subject or unbelievable amount of naivety, totally inappropriate for the guy at the helm. Either way - that's not foreign policy, it's a laughable policy, just ask Mr. Medvedev - he'll fully agree with my sentiments, although he'd gladly accept yours and Obama's take on this, makes his ambitions as simple as, well, child's play.

I do agree with you that the rich will be just fine and that's because you and I will get saddled with much of the tax burden that would be placed on them.

As for government programs be...

It's not that I prefer another direction, it's just childish to give an order to 'end the war'. That's a given when a war starts. So either he says it due to his ineptness on the subject or unbelievable amount of naivety, totally inappropriate for the guy at the helm. Either way - that's not foreign policy, it's a laughable policy, just ask Mr. Medvedev - he'll fully agree with my sentiments, although he'd gladly accept yours and Obama's take on this, makes his ambitions as simple as, well, child's play.

I do agree with you that the rich will be just fine and that's because you and I will get saddled with much of the tax burden that would be placed on them.

As for government programs being wasteful - there are tons of examples. We have totally inept education system despite a ton of money, increasingly so being dumped on education. We have tremendous amount of money dumped into inner-city districts and after decades - they show no visible improvement at all. Everything is just as beat up and dysfunctional as can be. Families are still broken, children still born out of wedlock, poverty, crime, drugs. There's zero evidence that dumping a bunch of money there is the solution to their problems.

I'm not suggesting that all government programs are useless, I'm suggesting that there's a tremendous amount of waste on things that should not be funded in the first place (like some totally useless research etc.) and others that do some good, but are being abused by recipients and then the whole inefficiency of the staffs... and on and on and on. What we need is a watchdog organization, independent one at that, that would make sure the programs that are in place aren't abused and money is spent appropriately. Then we can likely have even more assistance for less money and not raise taxes on everyone at the same time.

Like I said, if there was efficiency in place and we still needed to pay more in taxes - I'd be all for it. But to take non-working environment we

Democrats don't equal higher taxes, unless you earn over $250,000. "Lower taxes" is a Republican mantra - but you won't find it in McCain's policies.

Palin has a surplus in her budget because 85% of it comes directly from the oil industry. Alaska gives away money - $3500 to every man, woman, and child this year. It is not a result of lower taxes, but a result of fees on the oil industry, Alaska's unique money fountain, which has been that way for a long time. Could the basis of their entire economy possibly be so recent a development as to be reflective of the efforts of a 20-month governor?

Examine the data presented in the clip. If we really believe that wealth comes ...

Democrats don't equal higher taxes, unless you earn over $250,000. "Lower taxes" is a Republican mantra - but you won't find it in McCain's policies.

Palin has a surplus in her budget because 85% of it comes directly from the oil industry. Alaska gives away money - $3500 to every man, woman, and child this year. It is not a result of lower taxes, but a result of fees on the oil industry, Alaska's unique money fountain, which has been that way for a long time. Could the basis of their entire economy possibly be so recent a development as to be reflective of the efforts of a 20-month governor?

Examine the data presented in the clip. If we really believe that wealth comes from prosperity rather than from the government, look honestly to see when prosperity was most upon us.

"Tax and spend Democrats" is a Republican slogan - well sold to the American public - that conceals the fact that more Americans' incomes rise when Democrats are president. And, at the same time, deficits decline when Democrats are president.

Please, question the clichés!

What in your estimation is $250k? The way I see it - it's EVERY small business out there. That means that small businesses will all be burdened with this tax - that's NOT taxing just the rich, as Obama would like to assert. Who do you think will pay these taxes in the end? You and I of course, because the businesses will do what they've done historically, and that is transfer the burden. Is that helpful to the economy or anyone in this country? I don't think so!

Where the surplus comes from is irrelevant as long as it is legal and there's a surplus.

What do you mean by 'wealth comes from the government'? Government has NO money, unless we give it to them. Of course it comes from pr...

What in your estimation is $250k? The way I see it - it's EVERY small business out there. That means that small businesses will all be burdened with this tax - that's NOT taxing just the rich, as Obama would like to assert. Who do you think will pay these taxes in the end? You and I of course, because the businesses will do what they've done historically, and that is transfer the burden. Is that helpful to the economy or anyone in this country? I don't think so!

Where the surplus comes from is irrelevant as long as it is legal and there's a surplus.

What do you mean by 'wealth comes from the government'? Government has NO money, unless we give it to them. Of course it comes from prosperity.

As for slogans or no slogans - just look at the money Obama is planning to spend. Where do you think he can get that kind of money? I don't see any other source but taxes. It's not a slogan, it's on his web site. Deficit declined during Clinton, but it was under Republican Congress. It's the Congress which controls the purse and we've had Democrat Congress for a while now and they haven't done squat in just about any area, which explains their popularity percent. Gov. Palin, in contrast, is extremely popular in her state, as she was as a mayor.

So, forget the cliches, just look at the record, look at the performance, and public satisfaction with players at the table.

That's a mighty gamble. I'm looking at Russia rearing its ugly head and we're not done with the terror situation and if these two things turn against us due to our lack of resolve or softness (even if just a perception of such) - all of the other issues you talk about become non-issues immediately. Obama is an elitist and a socialist and that's a dangerous territory. It's easy to promise the world to the little people, when you yourself went to Harvard and live in a $1.6million house. Delivering on those promises won't be simple. Obama's diplomacy hopes won't be taken as anything but weakness in the eyes of our enemies, there's absolutely no question about that.

It's one thing to admir...

That's a mighty gamble. I'm looking at Russia rearing its ugly head and we're not done with the terror situation and if these two things turn against us due to our lack of resolve or softness (even if just a perception of such) - all of the other issues you talk about become non-issues immediately. Obama is an elitist and a socialist and that's a dangerous territory. It's easy to promise the world to the little people, when you yourself went to Harvard and live in a $1.6million house. Delivering on those promises won't be simple. Obama's diplomacy hopes won't be taken as anything but weakness in the eyes of our enemies, there's absolutely no question about that.

It's one thing to admire and try to adopt American values, but you have to take into account how others operate and I don't think he does.