Good post Megawatt, but yet many don't understand that Obama's nothing more than another politician making promises he can't keep. It should be clear by now especially after these past two weeks of bailout plans that nothing moves ahead without Congress, the Senate and the President agreeing. Obama can't change healthcare or at that create universal healthcare because he says he can, nor can he make tax cuts without cutting programs that are essential for working people. It’s amazing to see how blind people are by supporting Obama, but if these same people are foolish enough to elect Obama I cant wait to see who they will blame!!!

I am only resposible for my vote, but I can promise you I will never vote to elect
OBAMA BIN LADEN.

This guy has lied so much about his heritage and beleifs that he doesn't even know who he is anymore. He has promised tax cuts to middle class americans, while also stating that he will have to increase many of the taxes paid by middle class americans. This guy talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Sharalyn - the last person we need now as president is Obama. I am not thrilled with McCain at all, but ... something old, something new ...

(This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of user agreement.)

passing this piece of garbage bailout bill was/is an act of national suicide! electing obama on top would just put icing on now stale, crumbling cake.

our lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves for considering the american pulbic so stupid that we would support this garbage bailout.

best way to express dissatisfaction with elected officials is to UNELECT them! if you've voted yes for this unconscienceable, garbage bailout bill, i will be voting for your opponent when your up for re-election.

there is no justification for this bill. none.

Actually - both candidates are advocating extension of the Bush Tax cuts and one is allocating the cuts and %'s different than the other. McCain is keeping it roughly the same as Bush, Obama is pushing to give a higher % to the middle class - which would be more inclined to spend the extra $ than the top elite $$ earners - which I agree with this - same as Warren Buffet has this position. (especially since everyone wants and seems to have to have these cuts - I don't agree with them, but if it is a "must" then give it to those who will spend every penny, not just line the coffers of the elite savings accounts)

Obama has given vision on how he is going to pay for this by changing some of the tax code to advocate that loopholes are closed for corporations that are pushing jobs abroad. And the 10 Billion cut from Iraq - most of the spend would be re-allocated to finish the war in Afghanistan.

As for finishing the job in Iraq - even the top General is advocating for more troops and such in Afghanistan currently - not Iraq.

As for the payroll tax - this would be for those who make $100 K range or above - not too many in San Angelo have to worry about that....

I still say vote for Ron Paul on a write in - just for the premise. The republican party has to get back to it's roots, not keep up the morality push they have had for the last 10 years or so (Newt's Contract with America).

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7...

Well - if you looked at the bigger picture, it could be seen that we need to free the credit markets to keep feeding this "ID society" Everyone seems to purchase on the wants vs. the needs - we need to get back to sensible spending from the Government down to the individuals.

When ATT is having issues getting $$ out of the markets based on how tight the lending practices are now - you have to be inclined to state - they might have something here back at DC. I don't agree with adding the fluff - but that is part of the way stuff works back at DC. Sure wish that Line Item Veto was legal....

Name calling really helps your "argument" Can you really say that we could do worse than the current administration. A monkey in a suit could do better than that. NOT to change would be the mistake. Glad that you haven't lost any money or a job in the past 8 years. perhaps you are one of the lucky few. I can't afford more of the same for 4 months let alone 4 years. Sorry that you have a problem with democrats, we don't like you much either, it's just most of us have more class than to say it to you.

Mega - this is a very good chart for you to look at -

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/...

Average earnings in San Angelo - sure it has changed some - but not much from this last census.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2001/oes_7200.htm

And BTW - since I agree with a balanced budget this quote really sticks out to me. I don't agree with passing on larger and larger debts to the children and grandchildren, etc..

Take note - McCains is the greater of the 2 evils in growing the deficit - a delta over Obama's by almost 1.2 Trillion dollars!

"Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years."

Jb in 1992 then candidate Clinton promised a middle class tax cut that never appeared while he was in office. O'Bama's tax cut will be another campaign promise that will never materialize. It is just more of the scorpion and the frog. If he gets in and tries to enact all his promises, he will never cut taxes. This is not because he thinks higher taxes bring more money into the government unless he just doesn't pay attention, but he wants the government in control of more money for fairness across the spectrum. O'Bama has alredy said he will not implement his tax increase on the "rich" if we are in a recession at the time? Why not if it is good for the country? The reason is he knows it will hurt the economy and put us into tighter financial problems. He knows we must have a vibrant economy if he wants to cover any of the $1,000,000,000,000,000 in new socialists programs he wants. Why not pay attention to socialism failing everytime it has been tried? The USSR collapsed but is now forgetting what caused it. China has moved toward capitalism because the people had no reason to work harder for nothing. There will never be successful socialism because no one has the reason to excel if there is no payoff to it.

Trickle down is a greed based philosophy "I need more" (have not seen it work to date - we have had 8 years of it). I really don't like either of the tax cuts that either are proposing - BTW. I would prefer finding some program cuts and pay off all of the debt, then you can start looking at cutting taxes. In my opinion this could help more than a tax cut based on OIL pricing is based on the value of the Dollar. If we had less debt, our dollar would be worth more and the cost of Oil would decrease. Not only that - we would be able to buy more with the dollar.... longer term thought instead of short term need for a few more bucks in the pocket today....

And as a quick follow up = borrowing all this $$ from foreign nations is more of a threat to national security than Korea / Irag / Iran & all of the other combined. WE should be focused on fiscal discipline, finding oil and natural resources in the US & developing next generation power sources to ensure we are a sovereign nation - and tax cuts should not be even a consideration at this point.... gotta fix the problems of the sillyness that have been policy for the last 8 years...

http://perotcharts.com/

Sure wish that Perot would had won back in 1992... we might have had some of the changes we need to keep moving ahead. Listen to the video!!!

or steve forbes...........((i'm a huge forbes fan))

My premise is more that we all can help to contribute to get us out of this huge debt. WE should stop the tax cut fluff and focus on program changes, allowing the Bush tax cuts to cease, pay off the national debts and keep focused on shrinking this huge machine back at DC. I also think we should shape our tax policy to have the best outcome for the US - not with a global perspective, but one that is US centric - and I don't think that Trickle down has ever worked for but a few individuals.... Can you point any areas or times that it has? Remember, governments role is for the many - not just a few... not to say that I don't believe in capitalism, but if you part of the elite - you can always hide your $$ by spending it as a business expense..... thus "Stimulating the economy" and you don't have to pay it out with national income taxes

watt - I have not thrown names or slants on your positions - you have yours, I have mine. My ideals are closer to what Republicans had before they took up the Newt ideology - and like to see things for what they are. I don't think that playing we just keep cutting taxes thought has brought anything - but a huge debt. It might be good for you and I, but it is not a long term vision of what life is going to bring. Remember - babyboomers are retiring and this expense will cause a big blow - based on few tax payers, etc. Time for everyone to get past the "ID" and focus on the reality of what should be - at least in my opinion.

Watt - I think you became offended with my posts when I indicated the tax cuts did not make sense, nor does trickle down economics. IN a consumer based economy - the more that have $$, the more spend that $$. I personally don't like either McCain or Obama, just don't like seeing posts that don't have the relevant facts around the situation. I'm voting for R Paul based on his libertarian ideology, not his wimpy style.

Obama/Biden Will win the election. Get used to it. For those of you who voted for bush twice, do you really need a third time to get it? Lemmings.

I am simply amazed at how uninformed some of these posts are, spouting trite political cliches and talking points as original thought or fact.

jb - the 'fault' in your theory is that you didn't finish it far enough to see it's failing point. the more than have $$, the more spend that $$ BUT they have less and less to spend it on because the production cannot possibly keep up with the spending! rather than re-investing or increasing the size/production of their businesses, that money is forced to go out in salaries, benefits, taxes and the like.

you just don't follow it out far enough......

you do have a good point with this one - you would have to spend and govment would capture taxes in the future point for the larger business based on the employee, etc.. hopefully by that point, you would be making so much that you would not worry much about the tax stuff - but in reality - we all, no matter how much we earn - are focused on what we can't capture based on "Robin Hood = The US Government".

O'Bama's change seems to be to the Carter years of raising taxes on the producers in the country while taking that money and giving it to people that do not pay taxes. O'Bama promises a middle class tax cut but I have heard this before, in 1992 from Clinton. It never happened and most likely never will under a democrat. Not since Kennedy has a democrat ever fought to cut any taxes, just to tax one group and hand it to someone else. And all of the 10 items in the contract with America were voted on as promised, most of which dealt with government spending. I think it was 5 in some form that became law. The money in Iraq is still an investment to our security. And the only reason O'Bama can even discuss a draw down in troops in Iraq is that the fight is being won. I am sure you see it differently. but I want the line in the sand drawn in the middle east not the US shoreline. The war in Afghanistan needs to be dealt with but some of our allies are not as willing as they need to be. The place where the republicans really needs to get back to is being fiscally responsible, which sadly they abandoned after Newt left. If we get government spending under control, then we can get back to paying down the national debt and not trying to institute more ways to build beauracracies to flush away more money.

Evidently, based on the VP debate, the McCain/Palin ticket will be a third Bush term. She (Palin) could not offer one differentiating item from the present administration. Are we supposed to just say "the fundamentals are fine" and just move on? Give me a break.

Trickle down economics gotta love it unless you're like me, got trickled on for 12 long years under Reagan and Bush uno.

The drumbeat continues, since the Republicans continue to spread misinformation, slogans and rhetoric...Palin on at least 4 separate occasions dodged questions with "I'd like to get back to energy" statements and also lied, chronicled here: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/...

The blind leading the blind.

Its simple. If you want more pain - vote McCain.
If you are better off now than you were eight years ago Congratulations! Miracles do happen!

McCain's choice of Palin is similar to an old man going to a strip club and picking a woman who smiles while she talks - the world is full of them.

Why should he? The present administration has decimated it, so he's already ahead of the game.

Well we have heard what we need to do. Talk is cheap. I say who is willing to go back to a 1 car family? Who needs more than that. Growing up I don't remember ever having more than 1 car, or a cell phone or mp3 players or needing to go to a gym to exercise or more than 1 TV. One was what we used to get along with. Now every person in the house NEEDS? a car, a cell a TV in their room. We all have become slobs, lazy talking slobs. But talk is cheap.