You are a republican.

I had enough of Obama the day he chose Biden for VP. I think Biden is a great person and will be a great VP. But I saw how hollow Obama's 'Change' slogan is. If he was really about the change, he would have chosen someone who is fresh like himself, not someone who has been a "Washington insider" for 35 yrs, the term he used to use for Clinton. It is a shame that this country was not able to have a strong woman like Clinton for president. After Clinton, the next strongest person is McCain and that's who I choose. BTW, I also define myself as a true democrat.

McCain ALL the way!!  I was for Obama who I thought was the lesser evil until he started flip-flopping and back tracking on all the promises he's made.  Most importantly, Obama's tax policy is gonna ruin the nation.  In the 80s, right after the stagflation years induced by the oil shock (worse than today's oil fiasco in real terms), the Reaganomics policies (the brainchild of the Monetary guru and Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman...Rutgers in the house), applied by Fed Chairman Volcker saved this nation from the doom and gloom scenario.  How was this done?  Through massive tax-cuts all over and the govt trynna step back instead of getting involved in everything like the commie states (the type that Obama would want us to have).  Investors need to be given the incentive to work harder and corporations need to be coaxed to keep more jobs here by making it cheaper for them to operate within the US (rather than seek lax governments abroad with double digit unempoyment who would do anything to make it cheaper for them to build their production plants there).  How can this incentive be brought about?  By lowering taxes NOT raising them!!  The Fed has been extremely dovish for the past year and a half now lowering the Discount Rate (effectively the Fed Funds in that process) but if tax increases comoes to play, then the Fed's hands would be tied!  How lower could they go?   A negative real rate of interest would prevail like in the Japanese scenario...The Liquidity Trap that all rational economists would want to avoid at all cost. 

BTW, I  used to think Buffet was all that but after his support of hiking taxes (especially with the recessionary woes we face right now), I feel that guy is one stupid egomaniac.  He prospered under the Reaganomics policies and now he wants to change that?  All I can say is that, the old egomanical fugck is prolly trynna hold onto his seat of remaining the richest cat in the US by curbing the incentive and growth in income of other hhigh-rising hedge-fund/Banking billionaires...A 45% tax on capital gains?  WTF??  This is insane!

Income Taxes were first levied in the US as a temporary measure: To finance the Civil War and it has stuck ever since (even in decades when there were no wars).  Same with the telephone surcharge, etc that the govt charges us on which was supposed to be for only a coupla years.  Ain't it just friggin insane??

Here's what Reaganomics did for the US (as per the Cato Institute):

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

Hate saying this but Republicans have ALL my support and I'd donate to the McCain Fundraiser if I ever decide to donate to any of the 2 candidates...I say NO to socialists and commies!!

Samsara: 

I should remind you Paul Volcker was appointed by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat President. Yes, I know US economy was in shambles during Carter era, but you should give him credit for appointing Volcker who turned the economy around.  Another great Fed Chairman was Alan Greenspan who lasted all through Bill Clinton era and beyond.  US economy in Clinton era was in the peak, never seen since 1920s.  You sure have not  forgotten that, have you?  Let us give credits to Democrats for that!  If you are still enjoying low mortgage interest for your home, credit goes to no other than Bill Clinton!

I do not know much about Cato Institute.  I am no economist either.  But does the Cato institute say which President had the largest budget deficit?  Which President had surplus budget?  Which President had lowest unemployment rate?  Which President had lowest mortgage rate?  If I remember right, it was Reagan who ran the country on largest credit in the history.  Bill Clinton balanced the budget and had flourishing economy that we are still enjoying.  The oilman Bush messed that all up.

Since you appear to be a knowledgeable person, can you give me a list of reasons why should I vote for McCain?  How his economy policy differs that from Obama's?  I am a lifelong Democrat, never voted fo Republicans, but I am seriously thinking not to vote for Obama this year.  But I am not finding concrete reasons to vote for McCain either.  His statement that he would like leave US soldiers for 100 years in Iraq makes me sick!  We are already draining $1 billion a month to finance this unpopular war in Iraq and he wants to continue that for another 100 years?  I and many of my Republican friends like to see Universal health coverage; McCain is silent on that issue.  How is he going to turn the economy around from where we are now? He appears to be wishy-washy on his policies!

Madhesi, you defn have never had any economics classes, have you??  If so, the theory of economic lags would've made you realize that what you just said was the most ignorant statement anyone's ever heard.  The Clinton era was economically more on the uptrend than the Sr. Bush's era because of the end of the Gulf War.  Historically, anytime a War in the US was over, the country experienced higher growth than during decades of no armed conflict...Same scenario applies today, once the Iraq War is done with, the trillions in fiscal spending that took place in infrastructure is gonna come home to roost and we'd defn see growth if history is to repeat itself again.  Know that Economic Lags defn helped Clinton here, ain't no doubt about it.  Correspondingly, this helped Fed Chief, Greenspan be able to make the US economy more robust than ever. 

BTW, since you mention Volker as being appointed by Carter and you call Greenspan a great Fed Chairman...Did you know under who's administration was Greenspan appointed?  Under Senior Bush, man!!  And for all you out there who do NOT know how Fed Govs are chosen, the fact is that the President has NO hand in this!  The Prez can appoint the Treasury Chief but NOT the Fed Chairman and his Governors.  Another fact to ponder upon for anyone with no Economics 101 basics: The whole Interest Rate game (therefore the low mortgage rates which you say We enjoy) are decisions made by the Fed ONLY...No President has ever ben able to decide for the Fed Chief.  That is why the system has worked so well.  The Prez and his Treasury Secretary decide on Fiscal Policies ONLY whereas the Fed decides the Monetary policies (interest rates, printing $$, etc.)!!  So, with this said, Greenspan and NOT Clinton deserves credit for our low mortgages.

Finally, I don't care if you vote for Obama or the Republicans...And I don't need to convert you either like all those Obamaniacs out there.  I'm giving you my reasons why I think he is the wrong choice.  And you talk about Universal Health Coverage?  Give me a break!!  Obama's heath care plan was WORSE than what Hillary proposed but he undeniably was able to pull wool over the voters' eyes by proposing change in the political system and a break from Washington Insiders...What happened now (6 months later)??  He has chosen one of the GREATEST insiders to be the Veeps: Joe Biden who has been in Washington for the past 35 yrs or so!  If this whole thing ain't a farce, what is?? 

you defn have never had any economics classes, have you??  [no, i have not] If so, the theory of economic lags [ i have heard about it] would've made you realize that what you just said was the most ignorant statement anyone's ever heard. [i am not the only one making this statement.  several economists agree Clinton era was the best in almost 100 years. ] The Clinton era was economically more on the uptrend than the Sr. Bush's era because of the end of the Gulf War.  [ So you agree economy boomed during Clinton !!! Btw, economy was in downturn when Sr Bush left whitehouse and that was one of the reasons why he lost re-election.] Historically, anytime a War in the US was over, the country experienced higher growth than during decades of no armed conflict...[ how long it took economically recover after Nixon ended Vienam war?  i am just curious..] Same scenario applies today, once the Iraq War is done with, the trillions in fiscal spending that took place in infrastructure is gonna come home to roost and we'd defn see growth if history is to repeat itself again.  [i hope so .. i keep on telling this to my wife . have patience and wait for the war be over.. good days will be back ..again ..] Know that Economic Lags defn helped Clinton here, ain't no doubt about it.  [so, give credit to Jimmy Carter too for starting recovery process by Paul Volcker who was appointed during Carter administration.. Reagan took the credit for recovery started by Carter.  isn't it?] Correspondingly, this helped Fed Chief, Greenspan be able to make the US economy more robust than ever. 

BTW, since you mention Volker as being appointed by Carter and you call Greenspan a great Fed Chairman...Did you know under who's administration was Greenspan appointed?  Under Senior Bush, [it was under Reagan in 1987, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan] man!!  And for all you out there who do NOT know how Fed Govs are chosen, the fact is that the President has NO hand in this!  The Prez can appoint the Treasury Chief but NOT the Fed Chairman [ The chairman is appointed for a four-year term by the President of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_Federal_Reserve] and his Governors.  Another fact to ponder upon for anyone with no Economics 101 basics: The whole Interest Rate game (therefore the low mortgage rates which you say We enjoy) are decisions made by the Fed ONLY [ I know ..]...No President has ever ben able to decide for the Fed Chief.  [I know ] That is why the system has worked so well.  The Prez and his Treasury Secretary decide on Fiscal Policies ONLY whereas the Fed decides the Monetary policies (interest rates, printing $$, etc.)!!  So, with this said, Greenspan and NOT Clinton deserves credit for our low mortgages.[ I agree .. but, as always, sitting president gets the credit/blame for economy, depression, recession, etc, not fed chairman..  it is the president who takes the blame if fed chairman makes bad decision .. it is President who will be mentioned in the history books 50 years later, not fed chairman.]

Thanks for your opinion. By the way, my question to you as to why should i vote for McCain was genuine one, not sarcastic!  i am still looking for a reason to vote for him.  I am not Obamian .. i voted for Hillary ..I still could not figure out why anyone voted for Obama..

Madhesi

I wanted to add my two cents to see if it makes sense. This is one example why I like McCain although I am a democrat.

When both [McCain and Obama] were asked: "When does life begin?", Mr McCain immediately said: "At the moment of conception".

Mr Obama first said that answering the question was "above my pay-grade" before adding that he was in favour of legal abortion "not because I'm pro-abortion but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways."  (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7575808.stm )

Although I don't agree with McCain's answer, what I like about him is that he is so clear about his stance and he is not trying to please his listeners. Obama's answer clearly shows that he is trying to please his listeners. The problem with this is that I don't know where he stands and as a result, I can not trust him.

The second example, as I mentioned above, he talked about change, but chose a washington insider for VP. So I can never trust Obama.

Of course, Samsara likes McCain because Samsara makes more than 250,000 so he's worried about Obama's plans to raise taxes for those making more than 250k means that he'll end up paying more taxes if Obama gets elected in Nov. that is a valid concern for people like Samsara.

theo, for a question as deep as "where does life begin?", what does McCain do? he doesn't even think for sometime before answering that question which shows how he might handle other situations too.. without any forethoughts, that's not how wise, educated people give answers. McCain's answer might sit well with uneducated ignorant Americans but for someone who likes to think deeper about life and it's origins, the question is very complicated and requires a lot more contemplation.

Theo:

I agree with you completely. After the interview, I am all for McCain and i had not even noticed him earlier. He sounded so truthful in his answers and was very much to the point. In current times US needs a president like him who is a quick thinker and a decision maker. Even Obama's reply of who he would chose for counseling was so 'pleasant-sounding' and i really do not know what he believes in and what he is for? Hope McCain wins the election this year!

Do you guys know that one of Obama’s half brother is at Kenya living on less than $1 a month.  Obama is running his campaign with a promise to make 300 millions of American life better, now how can I believe him when he has done absolutely nothing to make his own brother life better?  I like democrat’s principle and I’m not trying to be negative against Obama, but his word just does not match against his past. 

casey, for a cat who lives in Toronto, your analysis of American politics just blows my mind away...Listen, even the peeps I know who make $25K per year are voting for Obama!!  Anyone with half an economic understanding and the implication of tax increases on our economy will know why Obama's tax policy is bound to fail bringing about the downfall of all our social programs along with it.  The govt will end up losing more $$ in the long run...This is the sad irony behind raising taxes!!  BTW, with all the jobs that will be shipped overseas, decrease in foreign investors because of a 45% cap gains tax (who make up 25% of Wall Street value = US companies) and the incentive of firms to hold their plants here due to these increased taxes, how on earth in the Long Run could we see the various welfare programs, etc that the govt currently has still be funded??  Man, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of high school droupouts as the rhetoric and economic theory they know is way below a 9th grader's.

Madhise says: I know US economy was in shambles during Carter era, but you should give him credit for appointing Volcker who turned the economy around

Madhise, lil know-it-all wankers like you crack me up to no avail.  You agree in my later posting that you knew that the Prez has no hand in appointing the Fed Governor.  HAHAHAH   In hindsight, even a monkey can be correct.  Just goes on to prove the rhetoric and the low-level comprehending abilities that I'm trynna correct here.  Atleast admit you were wrong, son!!

You next say: Which President had surplus budget?

I sincerely hope pseudo economists like you understand that with a surplus budget comes about a strong US$.  And with a strong dollar comes about lower exports which means less demand for US manufactured goods…What happens then??  Unemployment due to weakening demand!  We are already in a recession and a strong dollar now would basically kill the little growth we will experience for the short run.  Basic 101s and yet you are a proponent of a Budget Surplus.  Listen, the only reason we are not in the recessionary nadirs today is because of the WEAK US$.  Though the Dow may be 11,500 points today in nominal terms, taking into consideration the strong US$ policy we had until 2001 would wipe this figure by about a half in real terms.  Imagine we had a strong dollar and a surplus budget, then what??  We’d see capital flight overnight from all the foreign investors on Wall Street since the Dow would now be close to the 6,000 levels instead. 

You finally say: so, give credit to Jimmy Carter too for starting recovery process by Paul Volcker who was appointed during Carter administration.. Reagan took the credit for recovery started by Carter.  isn't it?

How many times do I have to say you that Reagan’s recovery process was not created by Carter.  Did Carter even start a War for that (like the Senior Bush did under which Clinton basked all the glory)?  Or what majot Fiscal spending did Carter ever undertake during his tenure??  Listen, Reagan heeded advice from the great Friedman and decided to opt for Friedman’s theory and implement it in the US.  This was the policy that made the US rebound from the stagflation days!!  No wonder its called Reaganomics (or Voodoo Economics by the Sr. Bush) and not Carteromics!!! 

I wish you’d all have done some basic readings on economics rather than have me give a lecture here.  Seems like I’m providing a free service for the peeps with rhetorics of high-skool dropouts.  Wouldn’t wanna do that at all…Like my main man, Lord Keynes said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”