Why McCain Won

What would happen if mccain stole the election? Disaster for this country and it's people, that's what! Depressing, horrible thought. We better hope this country is smarter than that!

Looks like we've got some LIVs in this thread. Joe the Plumber is your leader!

In the election booth, the older white vote will defeat Sen. Obama as it has defeated Democrats ever since Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights laws in the sixties and thereby lost the racist wing of the Democratic party forever. The polled voters might say they do not and will not consider race as a main issue, but in the voting booth race will be the only issue. The racist soul of older white American voters will elect Sen. McCain. Despite his mentally challenged running mate, despite the failure of the Republican agenda and the abject failure of this Republican President in every possible way: McCain will win simply because he is white. The white man will win again against a black man. The will of the older white voters will prevail. This election will probably be the last victory for white supremacy, but it will still be a victory.

From a steadfast republican, if the republican candidate was Michael Steele, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Its not the skin color, its the despicable people that would be running the gov't. Pelosi, Frank, Dodd.Snakes in the grass who WILL take everyone's money under the guise of "it's neccessary that we support everybody" eventually 3-4 years there won't be anyone left to tax.

Wow, what a liberal way of interpreting a McCain-Palin victory. I am tired of being considered a racist if I vote for McCain-Palin. So, I guess it's fair to say anyone voting for Obama is an ageist and sexist? According to your viewpoints I would be correct in saying this. McCain is 72 and Palin is a woman and that scares the liberals, but because Obama is black, you have to throw in the "race" card. That is typical liberal thinking...

Oh and by the way, I am a minority...Native American heritage. Obama isn't getting my minority vote...I'm voting for McCain-Palin because I believe any election is about character over content, not color or race.

Wow, what a liberal way of interpreting a McCain-Palin victory. I am tired of being considered a racist if I vote for McCain-Palin. So, I guess it's fair to say anyone voting for Obama is an ageist and sexist? According to your viewpoints I would be correct in saying this. McCain is 72 and Palin is a woman and that scares the liberals, but because Obama is black, you have to throw in the "race" card. That is typical liberal thinking...

Oh and by the way, I am a minority...Native American heritage. Obama isn't getting my minority vote...I'm voting for McCain-Palin because I believe any election is about character over content, not color or race.

I agree with ComDent - what an assumption! that a white Republican will only vote for McCain because he/she is racist! What a lot of bull. We don't like Obama's policies, his way of thinking. If he were a Republican, I would vote for him. This has nothing to do with skin color (get over it), and everything to do with his viewpoint.

This is real simple economics. How many full-time employees with benefits does a person with a $50,000 income personally employ? For most, none. How many does a person with $250,000 employ? One less under Obama's tax plan, two less if you include Obam'???s health plan.

Obama's ill-conceived programs will require him to tax, and his health care plan alone is a substantial hidden tax on all business, large an small. In reality, it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

What do you really know about Obama's economic philosophy? Since he has never run a town, state or business, he has no record to look at. Oh, he has made lots of promises, but given that he broke his promise to be limited to public campaign funds, you cant put much faith in that, and there will be no means to keep those promises anyway.

But you do know that Obama, along with his democratic buddies in Congress, personally and professionally advocated for a residential housing policy favoring forced sub-prime lending, which subsequently resulted in massive defaults and foreclosures, leading to your loss of significant equity value in your home, to the point that it destabilized your banks, which panicked the stock market, which wiped out your savings.

Look and listen to Obama for yourself. Obama in this video, addressing his community activist work and his work representing ACORN in litigation against the banks and relating to the Community Reinvestment Act, and addressing the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as those actions relate to the destruction of our economy by causing the current real estate and subsequent financial crisis, states that, and I quote:

"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."

Acknowledging the catastrophe, but as apologist for the Democrats, Obama then offers this justification.

"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."

Yah, great idea. Economically unsound, but embraced by Obama. Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" we find learned that Obama really is as radical as his early political acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, etc., and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1224202058898429

Comment: The Kennedy tax cut.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

About half way through the article.

"President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year . In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.
The Kennedy tax cut set the example that President Ronald Reagan would follow some 17 years later. By increasing incentives to work, produce, and invest, real GDP growth increased in the years following the tax cuts: More people worked, and the tax base expanded. Additionally, the expenditure side of the budget benefited as well because the unemployment rate was significantly reduced.
Using the Congressional Budget Office's revenue forecasts (made with the full knowledge of the future tax cuts), revenues came in much higher than had been anticipated, even after the "cost""of the tax cut had been taken into account. Additionally, in 1965--one year following the tax cut--personal income tax revenue data exceeded expectations by the greatest amounts in the highest income classes.
Testifying before Congress in 1977, Walter Heller, President Kenned''s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, summarized:
What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today's terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.
Did the tax cut pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did."