US Election. - Page 9

Mickey fears that Obama might inflict irretrievable damage but ignores how current path only smacks of a one-way ticket to lasting economic catastrophe, with more hardship for millions.  Even if only a small part of Obama’s outlook bears fruit, what real choice is there? The intelligent candidate offering solutions or the one basically assuring more abject failure, albeit coated with nationalistic apple pie. Even McCain himself seems at times unsure whether he’s the man for the job. I don’t even want to contemplate understudy Palin! Founding Fathers included bright sparks, Mickey, but lived in a different age, whereas the Supreme Court is forever too conservative to bring about the changes needed; you can’t deal with today’s realities by forever reaching back into the past! Let’s be grateful that the final choice remains with the people.

You forgot to mention that 15% of the population, about 45 million from memory, are without any health insurance at all KTF. Wouldn’t be so sure either about all deceased estate wealth already having been taxed, particularly where the richer ones are concerned, or where gotten through various shady doings. Had a young bloke approach me only the other day: his old man had never paid a cent of tax his whole life but left him a small fortune in real estate – what to do … At least your article got one fact right RPK: Kenya really is in Africa!

 When has raising taxes exponentially ever created prosperity?  Anyone who thinks Obama will not have to implement an extremely large tax increase to accomplish all he's promised, and all the plans the Democrats in both houses in congress have, is naive beyond imagination.  He's just not telling people what he must do, except in vague, "do your fair share" language.  And, as I've said repeatedly, it's not healthy to have all branches of our government controlled by one party, we need checks and balances.  Do I think McCain has some magic wand to wave that will get us out of this mess?  No, my parents didn't name me Pollyanna.  That said, Obama himself has said as recently as 2004, that he lacks the experience to be a presidential candidate.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM&feature=related

Do I think Palin could step into the Presidency with ease on January 21st?  I wouldn't bet on it.

We've got a mess in our political theater, but we have only ourselves to blame.  Too many people vote because of sound bites, and due to this, we have two less-than-perfect people running, one of which WILL be elected in only a few days.  However, McCain is experienced, and he's actually a centrist, which hasn't endeared him to his base, but it should make him a more palatable leader to both sides of the political sphere in the long run.  He won't gut the military at least, like Carter did in the past, and he will be less of an attractive target for those who don't like us to test in the coming months.

As far as uninsured people in this country go, we need an overhaul of the insurance system, and we need to get juries to quit handing out astronomical malpractice settlements to greedy lawyers.  Our legal system has been corrupted for years.  

I'd love to hear what you mean by the Supreme Court being "too conservative".  I think they lean towards radicalism, considering some of the things they've done recently (ruling that private property can be turned over to developers if a locality thinks they'll get an increase in taxes from the transfer, for example).

Increasing taxes creates prosperity? Not the least, a necessary evil more like. Of one thing I’m sure: no need to explain to you how citizens look to their government for a variety of services etc, and that the goodies don’t come free. For me personally, the less government the better! You’d probably agree that the US is living way beyond its means, much or most of it credit-driven and expended on non-productive consumer goods, and has now for decades. You can fool the free market self-adjusting mechanism, or capitalism, for only so long. Wall Street dances of courses to a slightly different tune; Ford or American Express sack thousands of workers and shareholders more likely than not figure it’s great, but such hardly benefits the broader economy (or government revenues).

I’d be surprised indeed if Obama told the truth (if he knows his audience and as bright as I think he is): he means to get elected – the professional politician’s first imperative. Not much mention by him or McCain either of the 60 trillion dollars worth of unfunded pension/Medicare commitments or ongoing trade deficits etc! Or precisely how assuming billions worth of problematic mortgages isn’t going to bleed the public purse. (Financial institutions, government and householders will exit winners all? Some trick!) With benchmark interest rate already down to one percent, he either resorts to pump-priming the economy by running bigger deficits (with higher taxes likely in future years, whilst scarcely dealing with underlying problems), raises taxes and/or cuts spending drastically. (Cutting military expenditure strikes as a fairly attractive and ready option – the eternal butter versus guns debate?) Carrying on as before promises an even worse economy (and more extreme remedial action down the road) and shakier US dollar. Generally I’d agree that the more checks and balances the better. Under the circumstances though, having both Houses under Democrat control may be just what’s needed; using similar rationale as justified 700 billion rescue package? McCain may possess centrist leanings that endear internally but has in the past displayed less enticing traits as well. Fully agree with your remaining comments.

You forgot to mention that 15% of the population, about 45 million from memory, are without any health insurance at all KTF. Wouldn’t be so sure either about all deceased estate wealth already having been taxed

There have been so many political threads that you must have missed my comments on the 45 million uninsured. Anyway, let me repeat - it is morally indefensible for a nation such as the US not to have some sort of safety net that ensures that ALL of its citizens receive at least some level of healthcare if they are uninsured.

I don't know of any reliable statistics as to the extent of estate wealth that has been accumulated through non-taxed income. But to the it occurs, the answer is to close loop-holes that enable high income earners to avoid paying taxes. Frankly, the notion of having to pay estate taxes and fill up the government coffers - essentially to take away from a future generation the monetary success of an individual/s - strikes me as being socialistic.

And, as I've said repeatedly, it's not healthy to have all branches of our government controlled by one party, we need checks and balances.

Mickey, I agree with you. Now did you feel the same way when Bush took office and the House and the Senate were in the control of Republicans? I am a little conflicted because at a fundamental level, I believe accountability is enforced by throwing out of office non-performers - whether Democrats or Republicans. With the record of the past eight years, by almost any objective measure, the Republicans do not deserve to hold office. Even Newt Gingrich a year or so ago said the slogan he would recommend for the Democrats this year would be: "Had enough?"

I would not mind seeing the House in the control of the Republicans and the Senate controlled by the Democrats. The Senate has to approve judicial appointments and we cannot risk having the Republicans making more judicial appointments consisting of right-wing idealogues especially on the Supreme Court. The presidency should not go to McCain because he has displayed appalling judgement on key issues.

Call me un-American, but I'm ticking off one box on my ballot this year - the one that says "democrat" .Every single republican in this district (and state) has got to go; they have blindly rode the Bush gravy train to nowhere for their entire tenure never listening to one single thing their constituents asked of them.  They have become the brunt of jokes and anger by all but die hard republicans. Bye bye...............

 KTF, I think a balance in the 3 branches is essential.  That said, the Republicans have NEVER, EVER in modern history held a "bomb-proof" majority in the Senate.  If the Democrats get a 60 vote majority, as could happen, we would truly be looking at a totalitarian situation.  In fact, the republican majority has always had moderate and even liberal members, who voted with democrats more than I care to remember.

"With the record of the past eight years, by almost any objective measure, the Republicans do not deserve to hold office."

Once again, please reference the bare majority, and Harry and Nancy's perpetual charges of "you must be bipartisan", and the  unfairness of republican bills.  Come ON, if you say the republicans didn't try to get things done, you've been asleep.

Republicans voted by themselves to name buildings after Robert C Byrd?  Please.  And, the infamous, "no child left behind" was Bush's pride and joy because it was done jointly with Senator Edward Kennedy (Not R-Mass).

We began this stock slide about 1 year ago, kiddies.  Do you think you can come up with what the difference has been in our 3 branches of government?  Hint - it ain't a republican majority in either congress or senate, that's for sure!

If the Democrats get a 60 vote majority, as could happen, we would truly be looking at a totalitarian situation.  In fact, the republican majority has always had moderate and even liberal members, who voted with democrats more than I care to remember.

Mickey, the last time the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority was when Carter was elected. It did not mean a whole lot because the Democratic Senate did not see eye to eye with Carter. So I don't equate a filibuster proof Senate with a totalitarian situation.

Yes, there have been moderate Republicans who have helped temper the more right-wing elements in their party but by the same token there have been Democrats who have done the same with the more radical elements in their party. The mistake people make is to view either party as a monolithic in terms of their philosophy.

My view that the Republicans deserve to be thrown out of office is based on a simple concept of accountability - chalk it up to my corporate background where I terminated people who did not perform and fully expected that the same would happen to me if I failed to meet objectives and goals.  I  think the Republicans have done an abysmal job when it comes to everything from foreign policy  to the economy. Simply put, they deserve to be held accountable and the way that is done in a democracy is to replace the party in power. I would feel the same way if it were the Democrats who made a mess of things.

If Obama wins - and that is a very big "if" because I don't view this as a given - and Democrats win more seats in the Senate and House, the thing that they need to guard against is hubris. I truly believe that was the undoing of Bush and the Republicans in the House and to a lesser extent the Senate.

An article well worth reading in a conservative publication.

www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm