Please tell me why? (you're voting for McCain)

[WDRacing]

At this point in my life for only a couple of reason I'm leaning towards Obama. Mainly because I'm for getting out of Iraq as soon as possible. I also fear that having a Republican in office will make things in Iran escalate and or lead to invasion of them next.

These reason are my own and I don't want YOUR opinion on them.

I am not a Democrat...I have always been a Republican until most recently when I became an Independant. I usually don't like what most Liberals think or what they stand for. But in this one instance I think that the Republican choice for President isn't worth getting my vote.

All I want is for a few of you guys to explain to me why McCain is a better choice. Don't use military experience or mention he's more qualified. That does not matter to me in even the least bit. I want you to explain why his plan is better for me and my family.

For me the Iraq war and the 'War on Terror" are the most important goals, with energy coming in second. I already have a house and a VA loan I can use when I move next. So that situation doesn't bother me in the least.

So please...educate me.

WD

[rn79870]

While you're at it, I'd like to hear what makes people believe that McCain has the ability to lead a country with a failing economy. Most of us depend on this economy and it represents our deepest concern. Could someone point out what McCain can offer in this regard?

[AZhitman]

Haven't we beaten this horse?

"Failing economy"?

Chicken Little is BACK in the building. Grab an umbrella.

[rn79870]

Okay, let's talk about this;http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/...d.htm

***Edited.I should add that McCain went to war for this country and risked his life for it. That makes him a hero in my book, even though his military career has some "blemishes" about it.

[AZhitman]

So please...educate me.

WD

Since experience doesn't matter.... and age is no more or less important than race... and I've watched Senator McCain's work locally...

ColdZero stated it perfectly for me: Because his beliefs and vision are more closely aligned with mine.

Simple.

Perfect? No. Sufficient? Yep.

Here's a good example, for those of us who are married:

You'll hear people say that there's one perfect person in the world for you.

Well, guess what? Those people are idiots.

It's a mathematical and logistical impossibility to meet and evaluate every one of the billions of "eligible" potential spouses in the world.

We choose one who we feel most compatible with, from a VERY, VERY limited pool of "candidates". Most of us date 10, 20, maybe 30 people before we close the deal. We build upon that.

Is it perfect? Not likely. Is it better than an "arranged marriage" or sitting around bemoaning the lack of "perfect" choices? Hell yes.

We choose the one who's most closely aligned with our way of thinking, and try to live with their flaws. It's worked for marriages, and it's worked for elections.

[96Qowner]

McCain is simply my man. I wanted him in 2000, but Bush won the nomination. Too bad for everyone, yes?

I like McCain because he isn't a one-dimensional Party loyalist. He has always gone his own way, often to the high distress of Republican Party leaders and officials. This, to me, is a sign of leadership, not followership - something that is necessary in a Chief Executive who is supposedly setting the course for the nation. He doesn't pander to constituencies. He is not beholden to the religious right. While I would prefer a Governor, McCain has 23 years of experience in the US Congress, enough to observe problems and issues in the Executive Branch.

I like the way he's able to be honest about his political views and convictions. During the 2000 campaign, he was well-known for sitting down with the press in his plane and holding long candid discussions. Those of you who are new to politics probably don't know any of this, and have only seen how McCain has flipflopped this year on some of his views. But I've watched his career for over ten years, and that's just not typical for him. There are political necessities.

McCain knows everyone in Washington - all the players - the people you need to go to, to get things done. He's both feared and respected by his opponents AND his allies. He himself is one of those players. If he wants a bill passed as President, he knows who to threaten and who to cajole. He has had long-time associations with the very people he'll need for his cabinet.

You don't want to talk about the war, because Obama has no clue whatsoever about that, but remember that McCain's father and grandfather were high military officers, and knew the important political people before McCain himself needed to. McCain grew up knowing these people and listening to them. He has lived all over the USA and in several foreign countries.

McCain has served on Senate committees for decades, has had the battles, and has won his share of them. He has a strong reputation for doing what he thinks is right, and has formed alliances with the opposition on many successful efforts. McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman, The Gang of 14, etc.

He's exactly what this country needs right now. NOT a partisan, successful at getting things done by reaching across the aisle. All things VERY valuable for a President.

(And he's running against a liberal freshman Senator with no experience or qualifications for the job.)

[rn79870]

His long time associations also include people sent to prison for fraud. It includes an Arizona newspaperman who fraudently set himself up as a war hero. Sometimes being associated with "the old guard" has as many problems as it has benefits. This is where change comes in.

McCain knows the people to go to to get things done? That would be a real advantage. It begs the question; why hasn't he?

McCain is better able to handle the war? I disagree. The Iraq war is one of the problems killing our Economy. It needs an immediate plan for resolution. There is no longer any doubt that the Iraq War is a strategic disaster for the United States. But it has also been an economic disaster. To date, the government has spent more than half a trillion dollars on the war, with another $70 billion already allocated for 2008. This doesn’t touch on the cost of lost lives.

With just the amount budgeted for Iraq in 2007,( $140+/- billion), the government could instead have provided Medicaid-level health insurance for all 45 million Americans who are uninsured. What's more, we could have added untold elementary and secondary schoolteachers and built hundreds of schools in which they could teach. We could have added police and fire protection to areas in need of them. We could have invested in alternative fuel research. And so on.

But the economic consequences of Iraq run even deeper than the squandered opportunities for vital public investments. Spending on Iraq is also a job killer. Every $1 billion spent on a combination of education, healthcare, energy conservation and infrastructure investments creates between 50 and 100 percent more jobs than the same money going to Iraq" What do we have to show for our “investment” in Iraq. A failing economy.

Ending the war in Iraq and reducing pentagon spending to reasonable levels will bring those war dollars back home. McCain has no real plan to do this. I’m hoping Obama’s plan works. I doubt a ex-military person will look at the conflict as anything other than a military problem. We need a change in that outlook. We need a resolution.

96, you talk about experience as if it comes from merely being somewhere for a period of time. But the issues facing the country are new and unique, and haven't been faced in the past. The economy is among the biggest problem, and you've provided no evidence that McCain has a viable economic plan. What is McCain's plan for restoring the economy to the pre-Bush level?

[WDRacing]

I only asked because I feel like I need more information. Perhaps I hate him unjustly...maybe he had a bad day when I listened to him speak.

Where exactly does he stand on the War?

[AZhitman]

His long time associations also include people sent to prison for fraud.

Beats the hell out of associations with mobsters, murderers and terrorists.

McCain knows the people to go to to get things done? That would be a real advantage. It begs the question; why hasn't he?

He's not the President, Bobby.

The Iraq war is one of the problems killing our Economy.

Fail at understanding economics. The war isn't "killing" our economy. It's a Perfect Storm of SEVERAL factors, but you don't want to learn, you just want to rehash easy emotionally-charged snippets.

All this yammering about McCain's "lack of a plan", yet you're refusing to read any source that outlines one, because it's "biased". Where's BO's economic "plan"? Aside from "bring troops home now at all costs", which isn't an economic plan, and not the RIGHT answer either.

[AZhitman]

You'd think the Lefties would embrace someone whose thumbed his nose at scores of prominent Republicans... Nope. Interesting.

But when their own "crown king" moves to the right, they all fawn and gush at his "reaching across the aisle".

Whatever.

He's becoming almost as fun to dice up as Algore was.

[skylndrftr]

AZ in all fairness as far right as Obama has moved, McCain has moved further.

Qowner, I would have voted for 2000 McCain this year, but 2000 McCain isn't running. The guy running now played lap dog for the man who did utterly shameful things to him 8 years ago.

I dislike both candidates but I think McCain is out for revenge and for himself not for the country. I do believe that Obama has good intentions.

[WDRacing]

Fail at understanding economics. The war isn't "killing" our economy.

I think he was referring to the huge increase in national debt. We owe China a pretty substantial amount these days.

He also believes that our economy would have been better off if the money we're spending in Iraq were spent on energy improvement and the other supporting infrastructure (police, fire, education).

It's impossible to argue that we wouldn't be better off financially if we weren't at war. We're not cranking out planes and tanks like WWWII so the people aren't seeing more jobs.

But war is hell and hindsight is a motherfvcker. Yeah the war was run badly, took to long and the end game isn't really in sight. But that's the nature of the desert people right there.

[rn79870]

I only asked because I feel like I need more information. Perhaps I hate him unjustly...maybe he had a bad day when I listened to him speak.

Where exactly does he stand on the War?

Brian, that was not only a fair question, it is one that is on everyone's mind. With respect to the McCain supporters I've waited 12 hours now for one of them to step up and explain his position on the war. I suppose he's changed from his initial "we'll be there another 5 to 10 years" but I haven't looked. (or has he?)

In all seriousness, Prior to addressing his stance on the war, I'd like his supporters to explain;

John McCain illegally interfered with federal regulators investigating the savings and loan scandal when McCain was named as one of the Keating 5, a group of lawmakers under investigation for their relationship with one of the biggest corporate criminals of the 1980s.

Or perhaps;

The right has been going nuts over the McCain lobbyist scandal and how evil the New York Times is, but thanks to the DemRapidResponse Channel on YouTube, who dug up some CNN clips from the 2000 presidential campaign, we are reminded that George W. Bush went after John McCain for the very same issue that he and the GOP are now attacking the Times for in 2008 — lobbyists.

Finally, On the war....;

March 12, 2008 | The most important thing about the endorsements proffered to John McCain by George W. Bush and evangelist John Hagee last week was McCain's reaction to them. The freshly minted Republican nominee for president, who has had harsh words in the past for both Bush's policies and evangelical "agents of intolerance," meekly accepted their support. He knows he cannot win in November if the evangelicals and pro-war conservatives stay home.

Note: pro-war conservatives. That really says something.



John McCain and George W. Bush want to spend "a trillion dollars in Iraq over the next 10 years."Cite: http://www.politifact.com/trut...s/398/

Even Hillary saw the flaw in McCain's logic when she said;"You know, Sen. McCain said the other day that we might have troops (in Iraq) for 100 years..."cite: http://www.politifact.com/trut...s/288/

AND MY FAVORITE...

"John McCain says it's okay with him if the U.S. spends the next thousand years in Iraq."Cite: http://www.politifact.com/trut...s/384/

There Brian, I've stepped up and tried to answer your question. I think the answer to your question is that McCain wants to be there (in Iraq)somewhere between 5 and 1000 years.

Maybe a McCain supporter can counter this with a clear statement that shows McCain doesn't intent to keep the war machine running.

[Cold_Zero]

Maybe this will be a simplified analysis of contributing factors that has lead to the 'failed Economy':

1. Dependency on Oil- Steady increases in prices and now spike in oil prices on the futures market.2. Home Mortgage Scandal3. Ensuing Credit Crunch4. 1990's-2001 Enron5. 1999-2002 WorldCom Scandal6. 2001- 9-11 Occurs7. Deficit Spending for Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Have I missed anything?

I am sure these are ALL GW Bush's fault.

The reason why I am voting for McCain? Personally, I am not a big fan of John McCain. I am still trying to ease into voting for the man. But here are a few reasons:1. John McCain has 70-80% voting record issues that I tend to agree with. That means about 1/3 of the time he votes against what I believe. I dont even need to go through this exercise with Obama. 2. John McCain has been good on the 2nd Amendment. I just finished up (again) an interview published in American Rifleman Magazine with the NRA-ILA asking John McCain 2nd Amendment related questions. 3. Obama has been talking about 'Change,' while McCain has been talking about 'Reform.' McCain has always expressed the need for cutting Governmental Spending. I love this idea as in the less money that the Government spends the better.4. Obama's vision for a 'Greater America' is Incongruent to what my vision for a 'Great America.' This goes back to the liberal ideology that America is a 'mean' and 'bad' place and needs to be changed to make it better for everyone. How do you make America a better country? To the Liberals and Obama:A. Cave to 'Liberal Guilt.' Apologize to the world for being successful economically, the more sorry the better. B. Work with the UN to solve the world's problems. Being bound domestically and externally by a den of snakes that harbors and perpetuates people that want to destroy America and its sovereignty is not my idea of good policy.C. Stop the war in Iraq and turn around and spend the money that we were spending on domestic projects. This sounds great on the surface, but Run Away Spending whether Domestic or External is not good Stewardship!D. Punish the successful in this country by taxing them to death, then turn around and re-distribute the wealth. I have enjoyed my 'Bush Tax Cuts.' I personally see them EVERY year on my taxes. I am afraid that these will go away. But Bud, Obama wants to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, how can you say this? Because Obama coupled with a democratically controlled Congress will raises taxes on the middle and upper classes. There will be no control and no end to taxation. This is evidence in Congress's wish to tax Big Oil's "Wind Fall Profits." I in turn would love to tax "Congress's Wind Fall Profits."5. While I don't necessarily agree (100%) with the politics of either candidate you have to look at who the candidate will pander to. Personally, I would rather vote for John McCain that will pander to the Religious Right, the conservatives or even Libertarians. I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama that will pander to the Liberal Left. Again, their vision for America is incongruent with my vision of America. I myself believe that America IS a "City on a Hill" and a "Beacon of Hope," with the caveat that we always do better to make this country and the world a better place. It sickens me that we gauge the world's view of the Untied States by going into the coffee houses in Damascus and pulling out some guy named Muhammad and asking him his perception of the United States' foreign policy in Iraq. No offense Helio. 6. I do not want to return to the era of Clinton Foreign Policy where everything is run by the lawyers, all foreign policy is conducted on World public opinion and we just lob a few Tomahawk Missiles at a terrorlst camp and call it a day. The USS Cole was bombed, the African Embassies were bombed, the World Trade Center was bomb, the Khobar Towers were bombed and we sent FBI agents to track down the terrorists around the world. What did this yield us? 9-11! During the 1990's we couldn't send our troops anywhere and when we did we either had to worry about the 'tuck and run' foreign policy of our government or our country being laughed at. You know. Everyone is keen to point out that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. What No One here points out that the United States under the command of General Wesley Clark, the United States not only bombed Belgrade, Serbia on false pretenses, but bombed the Chinese Embassy and invaded Kosovo. How would you like it if Russia incited rebels in Mexico to cause problems in Arizona? Then when the United States cracked down on them, Russia bombed the **** out of Washington DC and invades Arizona? Then when Arizona declares its independence, Russia and the majority of the World rushes recognize it. You would be pretty indignant right? Arizona is a sovereign state of the United States of America. For all the ****ups that were done under the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration was far worse. I am not even going to talk about Somalia.

I am sure you guys are going to jump my case for not necessarily what I say, but what I dont say. You are going to extrapolate my arguments out and ridiculous conclusions and put words into my mouth. So be it, I know its coming and actually, I dont have time today (at work) to write an exhaustive apologia of my views here. Brian wanted to know why we were voting for John McCain.. here it is.

Obamanomics- You make... We spend it!

bud

[rn79870]

Bud, you don't seem to attach much concern to the current problems with the Iraq war and it's financial bleeding of the American people. Am I missing it?

For this post lets assume what you said is true. That being the case, (with respect to the two candidates spending), Obama wants to spend the same trillion to benefit the American people, whereas McCain wants to spend more on the war machine. Let's leave it as simple as that. The money is being spend either way...

Tell me, which one really benefits your family the most? Which one places America in a higher regard with respect to world opinion? Which one is productive? Which one allows a response to international emergencies when there might be a legitimate use for the American military? (I.E, keeps the military from being spread too thin).

One way or the other, taxes are going up. The current administration, and likely the (if he wins) McCain administration are still running up a debt that needs to be paid. The taxpayer is going to be paying for all that. What do you want for your money, bullets or schools?

[Cold_Zero]

Bud, you don't seem to attach much concern to the current problems with the Iraq war and it's financial bleeding of the American people.

Bob,While some would say, "Fighting Islamo Facism overseas so we dont have to in the United States."

[I don't subscribe to the mantra that America must never be attacked again at any cost. Not that I want another attack, but I dont think the cost of being attacked is worth our personal freedoms.]

Others say, "If we leave them alone they will leave us alone!" "Why can't we spend the money for the war in Iraq on the people of the United States."

On the surface Bob, spending money domestically looks good and sure would benifit my family. But out of control spending is not good for anyone. Right now, my daughter's libabilty on the National Debt is $31,034.65 and climbing. This issue may be a wash as far as Obama and McCain is concerned in my view. I dont like it at all. Maybe I should vote for Ron Paul.

While I dont agree with your methodology on the war, I was always of the view that, "We helped create the problem of Saddam Hussein, we should help take him out." But Bud, arent your concerned about the Bush Administration lying to you? NO, because Government seems to keep lying to us. Ask Ron Brown and Vince Foster about our glorious government.

[rn79870]

Haven't we beaten this horse?

"Failing economy"?

Chicken Little is BACK in the building. Grab an umbrella.

Greg, you still miss the point. A half trillion, soon to be a trillion dollar debt due to the current and, if you get your way, the next administration is more than the economy can handle. Where do you think that money is going to come from? How is it that you believe the taxpayer is going to pay this off without additional, or higher taxes? Seriously, how do you propose to pay for it?

Step 2. Every tax dollar paid for a war is a dollar that does not stimulate the economy. It is, in this case, it's a wasted dollar. It doesn't return cleaner water, cleaner air or newer schools. It doesn't reward teachers who excel in their art. It isn't available to finance medical programs for children who lack the resources to grow up healthy. It doesn't finance research and development of alternate energy. It doesn't stimulate jobs or business growth. In short, the American people are supporting a monster and that monster IS having a detrimental effect on our economy.

Don't worry about taxes going up Greg, they most certainly are, regardless of which candidate wins. Our choice is whether we want a return for the money or not.

[rn79870]

Bud, At some point in time we need to step back and tell Iraq that they are responsible for their own security. We've given them the tools, and the training to do that. Why not tell them that in January they assume complete responsibility for their country, and that we wish them the best.Isn't that what it's been about from the start?

I'm really coming across more anti-war than I am. I support our military and our troops. I just happen to believe it's time for them to come home.

I'm always interested in the "fighting terrorism" argument because it is a valid one. However, what terrorlst are we fighting? Maybe if we would spend a billion dollars in getting bin Laden we'd be ahead in the battle, but that hasn't happened. Perhaps we're fighting terrorism everytime someone goes through a security checkpoint or boards an airplane. Maybe the money spend on the war would be better spend on security and security technology, at least that benefits Americans.

BTW, I believe the figure provided is that the war in Iraq is costing each family $100.00 a day. That's $700 a week. How many breadwinners earn less than that and support their family?

[Cold_Zero]

Bob,Iraq responsibility- I dont necessarily disagree with you man. But I have not drank the coolaid from the US Mass Media that we are doing more harm in Iraq than good. Fighting Terrorism-I have always been of the opinion that offering $25 million (plus extra $2 million) was never enough. If you offered $1 Billion, tax free no questions asked, you would have Osama Bin Laden in the lobby of the J Edgar Hoover building in DC. Deficit Liablity-I took those numbers from Tom Coburn's website which shows the National Debt over 9 trillion dollars and the cost per citizen over 31,000.bud

[rn79870]

Those deficite numbers are correct. They are for every man, woman and child in the US. It's more than many families make in a year, and it will have to be paid back at some time. Scary thing to leave to your children isn't it.

[Cold_Zero]

So my family liability is $93,103.95.

[rn79870]

Yes. And it's increasing by over $100.00 per day. What could you do for your family with a spare 100 grand - That would buy a lot of braces and pay for a large chunk of tuition wouldn't it?

Instead, with the way Washington works, we'll just pass the debt off to our grandkids who will receive absolutely nothing for the .5 trillion dollars spend so far in Iraq. It isn't a pretty picture.

[96Qowner]

Step 2. Every tax dollar paid for a war is a dollar that does not stimulate the economy. It doesn't stimulate jobs or business growth. In short, the American people are supporting a monster and that monster IS having a detrimental effect on our economy.

Actually, war is usually a stimulant to the economy. I think part of the confusion and disagreement is that a lot of folks just don't have any history of bad times. They actually think we're in bad times now. The money and lives spent in Iraq and Afghanistan are small, compared to past times.

At any rate, there is very little difference now between McCain's plans for Iraq and Obama's. Within a couple years, all our combat troops will have been withdrawn and permanent bases established, as in Korea, Germany and Japan. Obama's latest of several iterations is that he hopes to have combat troops withdrawn by the end of 2010, if the generals agree with him. McCain is wiser than to give our enemies a timetable, but he says he expects to finish Iraq during his term in office.

"So, what I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as President. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things. I am presumptuous enough to think I would be a good President, but not so much that I believe I can govern by command. Should I forget that, Congress will, of course, hasten to remind me. The following are conditions I intend to achieve. And toward that end, I will focus all the powers of the office; every skill and strength I possess; and seize every opportunity to work with members of Congress who put the national interest ahead of partisanship, and any country in the world that shares our hopes for a more peaceful and prosperous world.

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co....html

Keep in mind that we would be a lot farther along in Iraq, if the Bush administration had increased troops levels in 2006, two years earlier than we did, as McCain wanted.

"WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ

Office of U.S. Senator John McCain

For Immediate ReleaseThursday, Nov 10, 2005

To enhance our chances of success with this strategy, and enable our forces to hold as much territory as possible, we need more troops. For this reason, I believe that current ideas to effect a partial drawdown during 2006 are exactly wrong. While the U.S. and its partners are training Iraqi security forces at a furious pace, these Iraqis should supplement, not substitute for, the coalition forces on the ground. Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators, and counterinsurgency operations teams. Our decisions about troop levels should be tied to the success or failure of our mission in Iraq, not to the number of Iraqi troops trained and equipped. And while we seek higher troop levels for Iraq, we should at last face facts and increase the standing size of the U.S. Army. It takes time to build a larger army, but had we done so even after our invasion of Iraq, our military would have more soldiers available for deployment now."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...1.htm

Obama, meanwhile has only ever wanted to quit. He wanted to quit in 2004 and 2005, in 2006 and 2007, and now he just wants to quit. It may or may not have been a good idea to invade Iraq, toss Sadddam out and certify that there were no WMDs, but we'll never know what might have happened had we not invaded. And .... I'm also not terribly impressed with a supposed leader whose only plan is to quit when things look bad. That, frankly doesn't sound like a "leader".

Have any of you ever tried to accomplish something really difficult? When does quitting enter that picture?

[Cold_Zero]

I agree it isnt a pretty picture for my child's and (hopefully I have) grand children's futures. But I fail to see how voting for Obama fixes this problem. This is what we as a country currently owe. If I vote for Obama I dont get $100,000 back nor do I get to keep $100,000 of my own money. The birds wont start chirping and the sun wont just magically come out with Bob Marley in the background. No, the way I see it is that Obama will just shift the spending from Iraq to domestic pet programs. Programs that I dont necessarily agree with. Why should I be on board with that?

[AZhitman]

The fact that Bud kicked the CRAP out of a ton of Libbie arguments, which didn't warrant a rebuttal, tells me I don't have anything further to say in this thread.

When the best comeback to a beautifully-written and well-supported missive such as Bud's is the equivalent of "but wut about teh WAR it costs so much moneyz!?!?"

SCREW THE GODDAM WAR, BOB. WE'RE THERE. GET THE HELL OVER IT. YOU'D HAVE SUPPORTED IT WHEN IT STARTED TOO. LEAVING WITHOUT A WELL-DEFINED STRATEGY IS UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON BY PEOPLE SMARTER THAN US AS DUMB.

ENOUGH WITH THE GODDAM WAR. WE GET IT. YOU'RE A PACIFIST. CRIPES.

[Cold_Zero]

Step 2. Every tax dollar paid for a war is a dollar that does not stimulate the economy. It is, in this case, it's a wasted dollar. It doesn't return cleaner water, cleaner air or newer schools. It doesn't reward teachers who excel in their art. It isn't available to finance medical programs for children who lack the resources to grow up healthy. It doesn't finance research and development of alternate energy. It doesn't stimulate jobs or business growth. In short, the American people are supporting a monster and that monster IS having a detrimental effect on our economy.

Don't worry about taxes going up Greg, they most certainly are, regardless of which candidate wins. Our choice is whether we want a return for the money or not.

While you have a point, money that is spent domestically to stimulate the economy by the American Public goes much further into the economy and is re-spent, than money that is spent by the Federal Government. Again, the Democrats would rather spend 'Your Money' through the Federal Government (in the form of Pet Programs and Pork Barrel Spending) than to give it back to you for YOU to spend. There is nothing wrong with clean air, clean water ways, research for alternative fuels or cures for illnesses. This inside of itself will not create jobs nor stimulate the economy either.

[AZhitman]

Don't worry about taxes going up Greg, they most certainly are, regardless of which candidate wins. Our choice is whether we want a return for the money or not.

On that topic, I could give a damn. I'll just work a little harder. That's what rugged individualists do. They "make it" even when things get worse. They don't whine, they don't whimper.

Doesn't mean we're not looking for the cause of our hurt, and it doesn't mean we won't kick it in its a$$ when we find it - It just means we take care of business rather than standing on a corner holding a damn sign.

I get a pretty good deal for the taxes I pay.

Maybe I'm just an optimist.

Hmph. Imagine that. An Independent, slightly right-leaning, freedom-loving optimist.

Weird.

[rn79870]

Hmph. Imagine that. An ultra-conservative right wing extremist.

Weird.

I corrected a few spelling errors for you Greg...

[AZhitman]

Greg, you still miss the point.

Every tax dollar paid for a war is a dollar that does not stimulate the economy.

Again, econ fail.

While I concur the current "war" is not the absolute BEST use of our tax dollars in regard to economic stimulus, please try to comprehend WHY your second comment is completely and utterly wrong.

Follow each dollar. Dollar by dollar. Where it goes, whose hands it passes through, and where it "ends up".

Report on my desk by 5.

[Cold_Zero]

Also, If we are so concerned about the 'money pit' in Iraq and not getting an investment in return for our efforts.

Go to your local Western Union Kiosk on a Friday and count the number of Mexicans that queue up to send money back to Laredo, Juarez, Oaxaca... You want to talk about the largest transfer of wealth to outside the United States that may be tax free? That is money that is CERTAINLY NOT being spent in the United States Economy local or nationally.

Comeon guys. Dont come from California or Arizona, but I live in Indiana and I have even noticed this.