Obama, McCain roll through western swing states

Sunday 26th October, 02:15 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 77 Total Comments Show All

Sarge at 09:31 PM JST - 26th October

Sez - There's nothing wrong with my math. if the average American was paying $4 for gas 2 months ago, he/she can pay $2.75 now.

Hotbox08: "Sneaky Palin"

I thought it was "Rogue" Palin.

Sushi: "I'm hearing McCain may lose Arizona."

I'm hearing Obama may lose the election.
adaydream at 09:36 PM JST - 26th October

McCain should roll right on home to his rocking chair.

He can and remember all his mavericking. heh...heh...heh < :-)
sailwind at 09:50 PM JST - 26th October

Sez,

For example, in the three paragraphs that you excerpted, you might try to state your objections to Obama's intent as the author describes it. What exactly do find so problematic? that Obama wants us to provide a bigger safety net for Americans? that he wants workers to have jobs with incomes which support their families and allow their children to improve themselves?

I think this quote by Thomas Jefferson sums up my objections pretty well.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

I do expect to counter-argument that Obama's tax and economic plan will not take from the mouth of labor and bread that it has earned but just only on the top 5 percent. I'm not buying it at all, after all our Government just passed a 700 billion bailout and stuck all of us with the bill. I think I can trust for the most part for Government to screw up most everything they promise on doing for the people and in the end getting stuck with an even bigger bill. The bail-out is a prime example, and no Sez this is not a Republican / Democrat thing.

We have a big bloated Goverment that has to be reformed and once again be accountable to the tax payer for the mess they have made with our money, (just another reason the top 5 percent isn't just going to willingly let money they can shelter available to Uncle Sam, I know I sure wouldn't after what they've managed to accomplish with the revenue they are getting now!).

This should be job one for the next President before he even thinks of trying to enact any new ambitious social programs. Get our Government back under control and instill some fiscal sanity, in short LEAD again and set the example for the country to follow. Then you just might get the top 5 percent to cough up a little more because they see the Government can be trusted to actually do a good job with the nations purse.

We can't afford idealism right now in the next Administration it will not pay the bills we have already incurred, we need to address the problems that we have now and solve them and after that job is done only then should we start to look at how best to move our country forward toward a better social compact that would be acceptable to all of us as Americans.

I have much more to say on this but I'll leave it at this for now as I feel you might be starting to catch my drift as to my position on dare I say it 'nanny state' like Government programs and how Uncle Sam manages them once they in place.......Badly very Badly.
goodDonkey at 10:07 PM JST - 26th October

Sailwind,

One quick question. Should our government have purchased the large banks as the Bush administration did that were ready to dissolve?
SushiSake3 at 10:17 PM JST - 26th October

Joe Biden wrapped up his 170th interview on Friday night after being picked by Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, the Savior of the Republican Party, has appeared in only a handful of interviews, been trashed for her performance in nearly all of them, totally ridiculed on Saturday Night Live (and subsequently driven ratings for the show out of the stratosphere), spent weeks turning down interviews, been found to have violated ethics regulations in Alaska, billed GOP donors for $150K in clothes, cosmetics and a 'celebrity stylist' (no doubt she needs an image makeover to substitute for her complete lack of substance), and to cap off yet another great week for the McCain-Palin ticket, news has just rolled out that she is resisting advice from 4 Bush-handlers who have been instructing her.

The Obama-Biden victory on Nov 4th rolls yet another step closer :-)
Sarge at 10:21 PM JST - 26th October

"Joe Biden wrapped up his 170th interview on Friday night"

Palin concedes "The Most Interviews" contest.

"Palin... totally ridiculed on SNL"

Oh, well, that would definitely disqualify her from being vice president.
sailwind at 10:27 PM JST - 26th October

Sailwind,

One quick question. Should our government have purchased the large banks as the Bush administration did that were ready to dissolve?

On principle no. On a moral obligation to ensure people who through no fault of their own other than being encouraged by the Government to take out home loans that they never should have been never given in the first place. On the moral obligation that these very same people might now very well end up on the street without shelter. Yes.

Imperfect solution and a solution to put it in old Navy talk, sucks. And is just another reason we need to work on the mess we've got now instead of any new social programs in the near future. I have to be honest it's kinda mindboggling to me in the first place that we should even be considering anything else on the National plate except getting our house back in order after our national credit card, easy mortgage binge, all that was encouraged by Uncle Sam to keep the inevitable recession that we are now seeing at bay as long as possible.

Both parties are equally to blame as both benefited mightily from staving off the recession to their respective constituents all those years to get re-elected.
SezWho2 at 10:30 PM JST - 26th October

Sarge,

You got the first part right. The average price declined by 25%--over 25% actually using your figures. The part that you got wrong was here:

But just 2 months ago they had the money to buy $4 gas. Wow, I didn't know the average person's disposable income has dropped over 25% in 2 months.

Your math is right only if all of a person's disposable income is spent on gasoline. I'm not sure you mean disposable income. For example, the cost of the gasoline that you spend driving to and from work is not disposable income, but a necessary expense. But let's let that go.

Let's suppose that we are considering that all gasoline expenses are taken out of disposable income. And let's further suppose that gasoline expenses amount to, say, 20% of that income. Then a 25% reduction in gasoline prices is good unless your disposable income has decreased more than 5%: 25% of 20%. So a 5% drop in disposable income would constitute hardship.

But lets take it a step further. A lot of people don't have so much disposable income. Suppose your disposable income after food, clothing, shelter, work expenses, and taxes amounts to, say, 20% of your entire income. A 5% decrease in disposable income would generate a decrease in income of only 1%: 5% of 20%.

So disposable income would not have to decrease by nearly as much as you say in order for gasoline still to be burdensome. So, I still think your math is bad. But more than that, you have avoided all my points. It's not that people's income is lower, but that they don't have any.
SezWho2 at 10:50 PM JST - 26th October

sailwind,

The quote from Jefferson is false on its face. The sum of good government consists in much more than simply not taking from labor what it has earned. Good government must ensure a stable society with opportunities for its citizens. Good government must provide for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Good government must regulate commerce. Unfortunately, good governments must build and maintain armies. There are a host of things that good government must do and unregulated private contractors do not get the job done.

You refuse to believe Obama perhaps because you have the notion that anyone who espouses social programs must of necessity increase taxes and increase the debt. After all, that is what those with idealistic, socially-oriented programs do, isn't it? Tax and spend? Yet you will credit McCain because you have the notion that the lowering taxes and reducing the size of government is good and those who espouse that are "realistic". And yet look at the administration that have said exactly the same thing while increasing the bureaucracy and increasing the debt.

So, it's fine with me if you don't believe Obama. I don't believe McCain. It is actually McCain who is pursuing idealistic (ideological) solutions with respect to the economy. Those have failed and I don't think we need stronger doses of medicine that didn't work.
JoeBigs at 10:56 PM JST - 26th October

I must give you kudos as always Sarge, you try to see that bright light at the end of this dark tunnel for the Republicans. At this rate your party will soon lose both the House and the Senate not to mention the White House.

Too bad McBush picked such a poor speaker that she sank him.

If only she had the smarts to not stick her foot in her mouth. Your only hope is that maybe all the voting machines in the US break down for the exception of those in Texas. Then your party will win.

But at least we can say that this fun ride the Republicans have been on is almost over. To bad for the American people it was not over 4 years ago.

If only Kerry would have pulled out that victory 4 years ago. Maybe just maybe this great land would be better off than it is now.

Oh well, the good thing for some of us is that we are in Japan and not riding that crazy train back in the states.

Bravo zulu to you Sarge, I respect you for your hope and will, but at this time you of all people know it is all but over. I know you would never admit it, I would not either if I were in the shoes you wear.

But oh well, in the words of that famous American commentator, Live long and prosper! LOL

Alaska!!!!!LOL

Moderator: Please do not refer to McCain as McBush.
goodDonkey at 11:12 PM JST - 26th October

sailwind,

We should not be worried about the working poor, working 40 hours a week or more, who don't have enough to eat along with paying for shelter and heat? Most of the poor in America are working poor. Are we still subsidizing sugar beet farmers? I know we were for a very long time and I don't know that we still aren't. We have had corporate welfare for a long time under Republican plans. I am not for mass government give-aways. I do find it appalling that we do not make advanced education more affordable. That will always be my pet peeve. I believe everyone can learn and that it would immensely help our economy. While in Germany I saw how their competition in education was reduced. There was a lot less ridicule of those who could not advance in the traditional intellectual areas. Their technical education was not seen as the last resort for those who were stupid. Of course this is now known around the world and praised. I believe it is best to help people help themselves. But we really do pamper some companies in America. There will always be corruption if you try to help the poorest of the poor. It is just too easy to do. I would love to see the Federal government arrange food stuff items to get to more pantries. But someone would find a way to sell huge pallets of food to someone undeserving and pocket the money. I don't think we can use corruption as an excuse not to attempt to get food to everyone in need. That is no excuse for people going hungry. And I will admit that the bottom line for me is that nobody should go hungry. Lazy people should at least be able to go to a soup kitchen for sustenance. That is incredibly cheap.

I have not signed on to giving people who did not pay taxes money from the government. But that pales in comparison to the $700. billion bailout, the bank purchases and the unneeded war that sucked up hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. I do believe the main reason for handing money to people who did not pay taxes is to stimulate the economy. It is the quickest way to inject an influx of money into a struggling economy.

I just want things to be put into perspective. And above that all this lying about Obama being a socialist is ridiculous. Like I said on another thread if it is political rhetoric to win a campaign it is one thing (whether it is honorable is another question) but to try to sell it as truth on these threads is outright dishonest. I don't want to call Bush a socialist; I think he did the right thing. But I have to use him as a comparison to say what he did is the most socialistic activity that our government has engaged in, in decades. Government ownership is the truest form of socialism. Again, I believe it had to be done. I believe a depression is not an option.
Betzee at 02:20 AM JST - 27th October

Meanwhile the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's biggest newspaper, has endorsed Obama:

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Since his early acknowledgment that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

I think that's the way "real Americans" will see it too. Having a mercurial personality does not make one a maverick. McCain has been all over the map; remember his attempt to paint Obama as a celebrity? Pretty funny in light of the fact his highest pay campaign staffer is a make-up artist. This reflects a poor sense of priorities as the economic crisis deepens.

Obama just kept honing his message in the face of guilt by association smears. He could have made something of Todd Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party which in the mid-1990s approached the government of Iran about using some of its UN time to make an international pitch for independence. "The First Dude" would face grave difficulties in getting a security clearance, yet he would be the husband of the Vice-President????

By not getting down in the mud and going tit for tat, as many people wanted him to do, Obama demonstrated he's the guy you want to lead in a crisis, focused and calm.
Nessie at 08:17 PM JST - 27th October

You can call it Nanny State if you like.

Who's been expanding government, particularly presidential power for the last eight years? And this after Clinton cut back welfare state. Plenty of nannies in the GOP.
SezWho2 at 12:35 PM JST - 29th October

Nessie,

You'll get no argument from me on the expansion of power. But it seems to me more like big brother than a nanny state. McCain tries to leverage the nanny state notion. Obama, I think, is speaking into the silent outrage at the creeping big-brother-ism.

It's all Newspeak to me.
Nessie at 02:34 PM JST - 29th October

You'll get no argument from me on the expansion of power. But it seems to me more like big brother than a nanny state.

Yeah, a bit of both. Big brother if you're a peon. Nanny state if you're rich or a business.