Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[InvincibleCakeEater]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

Sarah Palin? NOT ELITIST! 150,000 on outfits? Pocket money, homie.

I heard that tonight PJ. Nieman Marcus? Saks? Whats the matter with Target or Walmart like where real americans shop. why not kill and skin a moose? Oh well, $150m less for negative ads about Obama.

FWIW, two people I know were on the fence a month ago about this election and in the aimed-for demographic of McPalin - well both of them mentioned being disgusted by McPalin's campaign conduct, but even more pissed by their friends that are McPalin people that continually harass them with ACORN, Ayers, Muslim, abortion stuff. They both are def voting Obama.

these feces flung by McPalin gets blown right back in their face.

Are you two kidding me? Do the two of you buy your business suits at Target or WalMart?

[Insert eyeroll smilie here.]

They probably don't, but I doubt they're buying $6,000 suits either.

[Freed Roger]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

Sarah Palin? NOT ELITIST! 150,000 on outfits? Pocket money, homie.

I heard that tonight PJ. Nieman Marcus? Saks? Whats the matter with Target or Walmart like where real americans shop. why not kill and skin a moose? Oh well, $150m less for negative ads about Obama.

FWIW, two people I know were on the fence a month ago about this election and in the aimed-for demographic of McPalin - well both of them mentioned being disgusted by McPalin's campaign conduct, but even more pissed by their friends that are McPalin people that continually harass them with ACORN, Ayers, Muslim, abortion stuff. They both are def voting Obama.

these feces flung by McPalin gets blown right back in their face.

Are you two kidding me? Do the two of you buy your business suits at Target or WalMart?

[Insert eyeroll smilie here.]

who wears a business suit anymore?

[fulldeck]

Are you two kidding me? Do the two of you buy your business suits at Target or WalMart?

[Insert eyeroll smilie here.]

They probably don't, but I doubt they're buying $6,000 suits either.

I also assume they aren't running for VP of the US.

[ghostrunner]

Regarding Palin, did anyone see the CNN interview she gave yesterday? She wasn't being grilled on foreign policy, but she was like a different person. She seemed comfortable and relaxed. Fairly straightforward answers and none of the winking, cutesy stuff. Most of what I saw was about her personally and her work as a Governor. I'm not sure how the rest of it went.

[Tarver]

The McCain campaign should never have allowed this to slip out, as it looks terrible considering the current state of our economy and the image Palin is trying to project.

That said, Fulldeck's point stands. Do you not expect these people to look their best?

[InvincibleCakeEater]

Are you two kidding me? Do the two of you buy your business suits at Target or WalMart?

[Insert eyeroll smilie here.]

They probably don't, but I doubt they're buying $6,000 suits either.

I also assume they aren't running for VP of the US.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you were appalled by Bill Clinton's $200 haircut in 1993.

[indyredbird]

I think corporate taxes are a bit high, 2nd highest in the world I believe.

Just thinking out loud here, but the US has the largest GDP in the world (for now) and the largest national debt in the world as well.

Is it that big of deal that we ask the rather profitable corporations to pay the second highest rate in the world to maybe keep that debt from increasing even more? I understand that there's a delicate balance that tips the scales towards stiffling new business.

The whole American economy is pretty eff'ed right now, and it's not just about the banks/mortgages/credit crisis. The fundamentals, as McCain likes to call them, are NOT strong, IMO. We've become a merchant economy that relies upon hypercapitalism. The manufacturing base is withering away. If you take a look at where global manufacturing has shifted to, you also see some of the strongest growing economies in the world. We need to fix the system to where we're the manufacturers again.

I think you just made the arguments that justify lowering the corporate rate. But if you want to reduce the debt, then lets do it. Both candidates want to increase spending, McCain seems less to me (again the lesser of two evils) Its true we have lost our manufacturing. People need to think of the big picture when buying that foreign car, all the cheap crapt form China. We have already lost the electronics and textile industry, and autos will be next. Yes the Japanese are assembling cars here, but the design, engineering are done in Japan mosty, and they set up Japanese suppliers in the US to buy parts from.

I think the fundamentals were realtively strong, the US workforce is extremely productive, the inflation rate was relatively low, interest rates low, the unemployment rate was pretty decent. The rising gas costs seemed to me to put the economy is a tail spin, which brought on the mortgage crisis.

I don't think I did. We have remarkably profitable corporations, and they do just fine paying the tax rate that they do. Lowering the rate (like lowering the individual tax rates) will do nothing but cut revenue the government is bringing in.

As far as cutting spending, neither is going to do it. As their proposals go, you have to take everything with a grain of salt. Democrats propose things all the time that never get implemented--nobody is going to be able to agree enough on national health care, etc. over the next 4-8 years for a program to be set in place. Republicans tend to be penny wise and pound foolish--see the remarkable run-ups in debt during Republican tenures, mostly due to outlandish military spending.

I also don't think that the gas prices led to the mortgage crisis. The extreme debt bubble in this country was eventually going to burst. I don't think this is nearly the end of it. Both the government and most of America's citizens need to learn to live within their means. Nobody wants to do it though, and I have a tough time believing it will happen no matter who is elected president. Furthermore, a good portion of our economy depends on people living above their means. The profits are in retail. Gotta keep those cash registers ringing. Even if it means that the government prints money it doesn't have to give to consumers to spend (again).

Yes there was a huge debt bubble, I guess my point is that huge and sudden increase in gas prices popped it.

Higher tax rates do not necessarily mean more tax revenue. I think if corporations paid less tax rate, they could invest in growing their business even more. Growth means more revenue, more jobs, and actually more taxes paid.

[fulldeck]

Are you two kidding me? Do the two of you buy your business suits at Target or WalMart?

[Insert eyeroll smilie here.]

They probably don't, but I doubt they're buying $6,000 suits either.

I also assume they aren't running for VP of the US.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you were appalled by Bill Clinton's $200 haircut in 1993.

Honestly, I never heard a thing about it. I was overseas at the time and newspapers didn't waste their time on such meaningless stories.

[Popeye_Card]

Higher tax rates do not necessarily mean more tax revenue. I think if corporations paid less tax rate, they could invest in growing their business even more. Growth means more revenue, more jobs, and actually more taxes paid.

Or just more profits. Or higher CEO pay.

What you've stated is of course part of the foundation of the Republican economic platform. But I don't agree that it works in practice.

[docellis]

....Palin doesn't have national exposure (such as running for national office for a few years), but that's all Obama has. Four years ago he stated he didn't have the experience to run for president in 2008. All he's really done since then is, well, run for president. At least Palin is running for a pretty blah job for the time being. Obama's running as the top dog.

I really don't think that Obama understands foreign policy at all, and the Iran comment about it being a small country that's not a threat to the U.S. is just one example as well as him flipping on conditions for meeting with Ahmadinejad. (Another example of him stating his beliefs until someone has to come in and correct him.

It seems like there have been posts that details lots of legislation that Obama has passed and posts the detail some pretty impressive accomplishments on all levels - but you keep saying he has done nothing but run for president.

Palin doesn't even have the most basic knowledge about the constitution or the role of VP or well...anything except Alaskan things.

As far as foreign policy, I was under the impression that Obama was the candidate who knew who the most powerful person in Iran was, while John McCain did not. I could be wrong about that though.

I think McCain/Palin running the country is pretty frightening.

McCain "was never good at the economy" and Palin doesn't even understand what her job would be.