GatewayRedbirds.com

For the sake of the country, I really hope this is not a close election.

If somehow McCain ekes out a close victory, because of all the polling that has been done, there will be a lot of people who will wonder how in the world it happened. And of course many, especially those who feel most disenfranchised, will conclude that there is some corruption in the system.

And if somehow Obama ekes out a close victory, because of all the attention McCain and Palin (and Fox) have given to the whole Acorn issue, a lot of conservatives and middle-Americans will feel that Obama won with a bunch of fraudulent votes cast in the cities.

If Obama wins by 100 electoral votes however, which is very possible, I think these kinds of voices will be muted. (obviously McCain has no shot at winning by 100 electoral votes)

clement wrote:For the sake of the country, I really hope this is not a close election.

If somehow McCain ekes out a close victory, because of all the polling that has been done, there will be a lot of people who will wonder how in the world it happened. And of course many, especially those who feel most disenfranchised, will conclude that there is some corruption in the system.

And if somehow Obama ekes out a close victory, because of all the attention McCain and Palin (and Fox) have given to the whole Acorn issue, a lot of conservatives and middle-Americans will feel that Obama won with a bunch of fraudulent votes cast in the cities.

If Obama wins by 100 electoral votes however, which is very possible, I think these kinds of voices will be muted. (obviously McCain has no shot at winning by 100 electoral votes)

This has crossed my mind a million times before. I hate to say this because it sounds like I'm making early excuses, but if Barack Obama loses this election, I don't think it will be an honest loss. Last year, Real Clear Politics predicted TWO states wrong. And it wasn't by much and it was due to lack of polling -- Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Right now, Obama has double digit leads in Pennsylvania and Virginia, a sizable lead in Colorado and a moderate lead in Ohio and Florida according to Real Clear Politics, Pollster and 538. If somehow, every single polling agency manages to fail, an astronomical fail, since every single polling agency has Obama trending with leads in those states, something extremely fishy is going on.

John McCain has to find some way to win PA while holding OH, MO, FL, NV, NC and IN. And Obama just has to win one of those swing states to ruin McCain's chances or more simply, hold PA in which he holds double digit leads, as I mentioned before. If McCain wins all of those swing states, it's going to be a bloodbath as far as charges of disenfranchisement and such go.

I've always wondered why so many celebrities were overwhelmingly liberal when they actually stood to lose a great deal financially (realizing there are many other agenda items). I've come to the conclusion that when people, and this includes us ordinary folks, have a 6 mos. emergency fund and a substantial retirement investment, they realize we aren't competing or subsidizing less fortunate people. Instead, it's a moral imperative to pay taxes to care for the less fortunate.

clement wrote:

cards2468 wrote:I have no idea what McCain claims Obama will run the national debt to, I got those numbers from the head of the economics department here at SLU. They made a model that's based on his tax plan and McCain's tax plan, McCain comes out to a little more than $4 trillion added to the nat'l debt, Obama comes in just under $4 trillion, of course I suppose Obama could change this by not following through with his proposed tax cuts or by jacking them up after lowering them.

But see, that's part of my point (and frustration). Now you say very clearly that both McCain and Obama are making proposals that are incredibly fiscally irresponsible, which is what presidential candidates always do unfortunately. (though in fairness to both of them, they are promising increases to the debt that are still less than what W gave us)... But when you make your point you only mention how Obama is going to raise the debt by $4 trillion, when really both are going to do so. I mean, is the fact that McCain's numbers come out a tiny bit more favorably really swaying your opinion on which candidate is more fiscally responsible?

I don't know where you're getting this from me, I think you might have me confused with somebody else. I think both candidates are fiscally irresponsible, the question is what they're spending this money on.

pop_haines wrote:

planet pujolsian wrote:I've always wondered why so many celebrities were overwhelmingly liberal when they actually stood to lose a great deal financially (realizing there are many other agenda items). I've come to the conclusion that when people, and this includes us ordinary folks, have a 6 mos. emergency fund and a substantial retirement investment, they realize we aren't competing or subsidizing less fortunate people. Instead, it's a moral imperative to pay taxes to care for the less fortunate.

Yay, planet!

I'm NOT competing. I'm helping, and I have been for years.

This is the essence of liberalism and why it is such poison to the
likes of Rush. As soon as the curtain is pulled back, the Wizard
of Oz loses his power.

We should hook up as long as you don't have moobs and aren't balding, pop!

cards2468 wrote:

clement wrote:

cards2468 wrote:I have no idea what McCain claims Obama will run the national debt to, I got those numbers from the head of the economics department here at SLU. They made a model that's based on his tax plan and McCain's tax plan, McCain comes out to a little more than $4 trillion added to the nat'l debt, Obama comes in just under $4 trillion, of course I suppose Obama could change this by not following through with his proposed tax cuts or by jacking them up after lowering them.

But see, that's part of my point (and frustration). Now you say very clearly that both McCain and Obama are making proposals that are incredibly fiscally irresponsible, which is what presidential candidates always do unfortunately. (though in fairness to both of them, they are promising increases to the debt that are still less than what W gave us)... But when you make your point you only mention how Obama is going to raise the debt by $4 trillion, when really both are going to do so. I mean, is the fact that McCain's numbers come out a tiny bit more favorably really swaying your opinion on which candidate is more fiscally responsible?

I don't know where you're getting this from me, I think you might have me confused with somebody else. I think both candidates are fiscally irresponsible, the question is what they're spending this money on.

Okay. I probably assumed more than I should have. Thanks for clearing it up.

I was listening to the radio earlier today ( i forget who) and a point was raised about Obama's $250k cutoff. That number has significantly different meaning depending on what part of the country you live in. In parts of California that maybe buys you a modest house. Here in Indy that buys you a good house with a yard, two cars, and at least one college tuition. Has Obama made any reference to this?

ghostrunner wrote:I was listening to the radio earlier today ( i forget who) and a point was raised about Obama's $250k cutoff. That number has significantly different meaning depending on what part of the country you live in. In parts of California that maybe buys you a modest house. Here in Indy that buys you a good house with a yard, two cars, and at least one college tuition. Has Obama made any reference to this?

It is indeed an issue, and no I don't think he or any candidate ever has made an issue of cost-of-living differences when it comes to taxes. It's probably worth thinking about as an issue, though I'm not sure we want to create tax incentives for people to move to more desirable, but more expensive areas of the country. Also, our tax code is so complex as it is, I'd be very against doing anything that makes it more complicated before it was first greatly simplified.

Either way, $250,000 as an annual salary is a lot of money. Only a few percent of people earn that much. If someone in California is making $250K and not happy with the size of the house they can buy with it, I'd be more inclined to just tell them to find a job in Indianapolis.

clement wrote:For the sake of the country, I really hope this is not a close election.

If somehow McCain ekes out a close victory, because of all the polling that has been done, there will be a lot of people who will wonder how in the world it happened. And of course many, especially those who feel most disenfranchised, will conclude that there is some corruption in the system.

And if somehow Obama ekes out a close victory, because of all the attention McCain and Palin (and Fox) have given to the whole Acorn issue, a lot of conservatives and middle-Americans will feel that Obama won with a bunch of fraudulent votes cast in the cities.

If Obama wins by 100 electoral votes however, which is very possible, I think these kinds of voices will be muted. (obviously McCain has no shot at winning by 100 electoral votes)

I've given this a little worry too. There will be commotion from whichever side that loses if its a close election. It may not initially be a huge ruckus, but the media will be all over it adding fuel to the fire, until it is. I try not to think about what would happen. 2000 will be nothing by comparison.

clement wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:I was listening to the radio earlier today ( i forget who) and a point was raised about Obama's $250k cutoff. That number has significantly different meaning depending on what part of the country you live in. In parts of California that maybe buys you a modest house. Here in Indy that buys you a good house with a yard, two cars, and at least one college tuition. Has Obama made any reference to this?

It is indeed an issue, and no I don't think he or any candidate ever has made an issue of cost-of-living differences when it comes to taxes. It's probably worth thinking about as an issue, though I'm not sure we want to create tax incentives for people to move to more desirable, but more expensive areas of the country. Also, our tax code is so complex as it is, I'd be very against doing anything that makes it more complicated before it was first greatly simplified.

Either way, $250,000 as an annual salary is a lot of money. Only a few percent of people earn that much. If someone in California is making $250K and not happy with the size of the house they can buy with it, I'd be more inclined to just tell them to find a job in Indianapolis.

I guess I should have asked if it's ever been addressed, because it does seem significant to me. I suppose deductions for mortgage interest go part of the way in addressing this. Really home/rent prices are the only area where the differences are so stark. Food, gas, and everything else is pretty much the same wherever you go. All the same, the mortgage payment is the biggest bill most people pay all month, and it affects how and when you pay for everything else.