Obama, McCain prepare for final debate

Wednesday 15th October, 06:29 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 124 Total Comments Show All

adaydream at 05:14 AM JST - 16th October

Sarge - I'll take you up on a rebuttal. In Smart Money's article of 1/25/2008 it says that this tax rate game played by corporations is crap. There are loopholes and places that they hide it that individuals don't have. So your 30+% tax rate is poppy-cock. < :-)

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/
yabits at 05:16 AM JST - 16th October

I see yabits can't refute anything in the Nordquist article either.

Nordquist has been thoroughly refuted by the events of the past two years. Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

I'll bet you voted for W twice, didn't you? (See Lincoln's quote above.)
Sarge at 05:57 AM JST - 16th October

Heh, I see yabits STILL can't refute anything in either article.
yabits at 06:03 AM JST - 16th October

To the educable, refutation abounds.
adaydream at 07:09 AM JST - 16th October

I'm looking forward to seeing tonights debate. Supposedly McCain is supposed to start dishing it out to Barack tonight. His supporters are pissed off because he's not bringing out the big guns.

Problem is, John McCain is all used up. He has nothing to go after Barack about except the William Ayers stuff and you can only scream Bill Ayers name so many times in a debate.

His "My friends" has totally become a piece of sandpaper to most. They don't believe that he's sincere when he says it.

His swinging his little fist always makes me smile. Just beating the air, just beating the air. Almost like a cartoon character, maybe Popeye even.

Have a great day. < :-)
teaabe at 08:02 AM JST - 16th October

will the U.S. be prepared if McCain actually wins? the closet racist vote is much more pervasive than it seems.
Sarge at 08:23 AM JST - 16th October

Come on, yabits, surely you can find at least one lie/falsehood in at least one of those articles?

daydreamer - "He has nothing to go after Barack except the William Ayers stuff"

Oh, he's got a lot to go after Barack. Barack's campaign has approximately four more hours of life. He had a good run.
Nippon5 at 08:24 AM JST - 16th October

Yabits Im still waint on the answer of how his plan is a neutral paygo plan when it increses the debt? Maybe you just misunderstood what he said, maybe he said he will get paid in gold....

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750updatedcandidates_summary.pdf

Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion on top of the $2.3 trillion increase that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts for the next decade (see Summary Deficit Table)

Both Candidates are going to increse the debt, not lower it.. Both are going to lower taxes and decrease the amount of income the goverment makes, while both plan to increase spending...

Vote Barr he at least has a mathimatical correct plan that shows a decrease in spending and a decrease in the debt... But hey why vote for a guy who isnt in one of the two moron parties...

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/spending-economy/
Betzee at 09:45 AM JST - 16th October

under a tax and spend Obama Reid Pelosi administration?

The alternative, of course, has become “spend and borrow” which is much worse. If people aren’t being asked to pay for it, there is no need for extended public discussion about the merits of whatever public money is going to be spent on. Such was the case with GWB’s prescription drug plan for seniors. Given the speed with which it was rammed through Congress, few noticed it was the biggest new entitlement program in several decades. Or that it was written by someone who immediately returned to the private sector as a lobbyist for the drug companies. Having been implemented, it’s going to be very hard to change; but surely Uncle Sam should be able to get a discount rather than paying retail for bulk purchases of an item which will be in increasing demand as the US population ages?

How many jobs will be going to places like English-speaking Ireland (corporate tax rate 11 percent) because our Dem-controlled Congress wants to keep America's corporate tax at 39 percent or even higher?

Such comparisons take us down a slippery slope. Specifically, this sort of thinking encourages corporations to play off localities in search of the best tax deal. Hollywood has attempted to do this; asking the state of California to match the subsidies offered for location filming by various Canadian provinces (as well as Australian states).

Filming creates a lot of jobs; the crew needs to be feed and housed, for example. But should taxpayers have to offer tax rebates to an industry where those at the top earn megabucks to ensure whoever gets the catering contract is a member of our community? We said “No,” a decision I agree with.

More generally, the situation the US confronts was identified in a book published in the early 1980s entitled The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities by Mancur Olson. In essence, the North Dakota native argued the longer a society enjoys political stability, the more likely it is that powerful special-interest lobbies will emerge seeking benefits for some sub-set that makes the whole less efficient economically. Translation: more energy goes into getting a bigger slice of the pie than enlarging it. Because it’s an indictment not only of corporate lobbying but labor unions as well as groups like the AARP, the book is non-ideological. Not to mention, right on the money.

At the time this was written it painted an accurate picture of Great Britain. I don't think the US has reached this point yet; but our high level of both public and personal indebtedness certainly has opened the door to economic decline wider.

The silver lining of this financial crisis, from the vantage point of one who is largely insulated from its effects, as well as the prospect of an Obama victory, is that it offers the prospect of overturning a lot of dated assumptions.

We will be reappraising the proper role of the state in the marketplace for some time. I don't think anyone has the answers, or at least I would be suspicious of anyone who claimed to. But we will be able to ask a lot of questions which formerly would have been dismissed. I look forward to that.
yabits at 10:53 AM JST - 16th October

Yabits Im still waint on the answer of how his plan is a neutral paygo plan when it increses the debt?

Go back and read the thread. In it, you'll see that I said that McCain's plans increase the deficit FAR greater than Obama's plans. One of the main reasons that Obama's plans don't contribute as much to the debt as McCain's is because of PAYGO.

Obama is inheriting a massive deficit from Bush, and it will take far more than four years to bring us back to anything close to the surplus that Bush inherited and then squandered away.
Nippon5 at 12:41 PM JST - 16th October

Yabits said: More conservative nonsense. McCain's proposed plans will make the deficits FAR larger than Obama's.

**I know you said this but you also stated he is a paygo **

yabits at 09:20 PM JST - 15th October

Can you show me something tht has either one going neutral_?

Obama-Biden are publicly on record for a reinstatement of PAYGO rules. What more evidence do you require?

So if we make statements that he is PAYGO and Neutral then we now must admit he isnt PAYGO and neutral since his plan increases the debt...

Yabits said.

>Obama is inheriting a massive deficit from Bush, and it will take far more than four years to bring us back to anything close to the surplus that Bush inherited and then squandered away.

who ever wins is getting a debt created by all of goverment and if they wanted to they could create a budget that doesnt increase the debt, but they dont want that...

You also realize even under Clinton we had debt right, we never had a suplus he used the extra moeny above the budget for other items and not debt reduction, during Clinton the Debt actually increased.. . Date--------------Amount in debt 01/04/1993 4,167,872,986,583.67

01/04/2000 5,758,316,426,486.15

that seems to be a trillion six increase during Clinton....

Heres a link for ya to the info.. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
yabits at 05:44 PM JST - 16th October

Nippon5 writes "that seems to be a trillion six increase during Clinton."

Why don't you list the yearly deficits starting with the one Clinton inherited in 1993? I think it will prove my point. Why did the level of federal debt decrease by just over 2% in 2000, if there was no surplus? You actually seem to believe that Clinton could have turned the whole thing around in his first term so that actual deficits turned to surpluses earlier. (Incredible.)

You claim that whoever wins is getting a debt created by "all of government." Sorry, what you say appears to deny the fact that one party has been responsible for turning the surplus situation achieved in 1999-2000 -- and the projected future surpluses -- back into deficit spending. You can believe whatever fantasy you want to otherwise.

Lastly, PAYGO is an effective way to try to achieve budget neutrality for any proposed programs. If you can't understand that, I'm not sure what more I can do for you.
yabits at 05:48 PM JST - 16th October

Nippon5 writes: "who ever wins is getting a debt created by all of goverment and if they wanted to they could create a budget that doesnt increase the debt, but they dont want that.."

LOL!! Oh yeah? With GDP growth headed towards negative territory and the financial world melting down around us, you actually think such a thing is achievable? What economists are you listening to? Besides Bob Barr, that is, who is no economist.
Nippon5 at 09:31 PM JST - 16th October

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/budget_hero/

Here so you can try to balance it.

Its a game
Nippon5 at 09:33 PM JST - 16th October

yabits...

you defend the undefendable and thats cute, but trust me if you think you cant balance a budget you cant do anything for anyone...