unfortunately I believe that the drop in oil prices is an indication of how deep and long the recession will be. But there is no fix for this situation that does not involve some pain.

Corporations control the things we buy. When corporations get taxed, they pass it on to the consumers by raising the prices of their items. it's actually simple economics...

Now, you can go Carl Marx on their ass and control the prices of products, but i like progression in materialism... and communist doctrines don't help technological advancement.

Gas prices have plummeted. now, if you tax the gas companies more, the gas prices will go up. I think anyone who has a use for gas isn't going to find that helpful for them.

You are wrong AND I am greedy, not BECAUSE I am greedy. Who are you to tell me how much is enough and who are you to put your sticky little fingers in MY pocket and steal money I have worked for and earned. This whole premise is un American.

You say we are a country which believes each person is created equal. But the guy who put that into our collective psyches didn't mean it. Thomas Jefferson clearly meant that all white, propertied males are created equal. He owned slaves which does not promote equality. He wrote draconian slave laws for Virginia that punished runaway slaves including their lives so he did not believe that we all had an equal right to survive. Tax breaks as social engineering are meant to encourage a desired action, usually job creation, Research and Development, environmental goals, etc. Are they abused or written poorly? Of course! But taking my money to give to someone else is not American. What is my incentive to excel if the fruits of my efforts are taken from me?

We can and should tighten up or eliminate corporate welfare but if you institute near universal welfare to replace it, it is the end of America. But we all want new energy sources explored. Some of us want Global Warming corrected. We want new drugs discovered. Those are the things that corporate tax breaks bring you. Why spend billions that might or might not ever produce a dime? I am a stockholder. Over 60% of American Households are stockholders. If you are not one of them, seriously, you should contact me so I can show you how you can afford to be part of that investor class, whatever you make. Do I want my investment spent on efforts that might never produce a return on my investment? The government can influence the country by incentivizing your actions. The way they do this is tax breaks. For example, they want you to buy a house so they give you a tax break on your mortgage interest payments. I bet you are in favor of that. The issue is not who deserves it or has a right to survive. The issue is what does the most good for the country in achieving its goals. The nation and society has rights too. Tax breaks for corporations are not to enrich the rich. It is to develop medicines to cure YOU. It is to develop wind energy to reduce YOUR dependence on foreign oil. It is to get a job for YOU to work at. Taking money from me and giving it to you is just European socialism. You will turn us into France. Where mobs of young people burned huge parts of the country because of no jobs.

Damn right I am greedy. I don't let crooks come into my house and steal my belongings. They might be poor. They might have hungry children. But they do not deserve my money. I am happy to pay my taxes. I believe in this country and know I must pay my fair share. I am philanthropic and invest in places that support the nation's economic infrastructure. I do not have money stashed offshore, own property offshore and I drive an American car. I do not short stocks because although I think it is a valid investment style, I do not bet against the US. I invest in the dollar (which is the ONLY place i am making money right now). And now you tell me that a mommy state is going to take my money and give me back an allowance which they determine is adequate for me and give the rest to someone who might be a drug dealer, might drive a foreign car, might do nothing to improve the nation, their community, or society at all.

Everyone should have the right to survive. I agree. Everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY to succeed. But this whole class warfare of the Obama campaign is a direct return to the battles of the Sixties.

I have no problem paying more taxes, I really don't. If it goes to paying down the debt, I am OK with it. If it goes to a massive infrastructure project, I am OK with it. If it goes to a well thought out and comprehensive plan to deal with entitlements, I am OK with it. But is it really hard to understand why I don't want mommy Obama to take my money and give me an allowance and keep some and give you some? Do you not understand why I am opposed to that? If you really don't understand how I feel, you should read Ayn Rand. Either Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. It is totally over the top, not to be taken literally, but it illustrates why I object to your version of this country and why it is counterproductive and Anti American IMO.

I've been doing some rescearch on all of these arguments and latly im tired of people just saying stuff Mcain has been in congress and a rep he knows wha the is doing as of obama his is very good as well so there for why argue their both well put and good for all people. this time of year people start to get all hurt for on preson i should know i go to school in arizona, coolidge high there fore my vote dose not count

McCain's tax plan is better because of the simple fact that redistribution of wealth, I feel, will further hurt our country. The Democrat/Liberal idea of taxation is going from the bottom up. Meaning tax the rich more and more and give the money to the lower class and eventually the money will circulate back up to the wealthy and big businesses. The Republicans/Conservatives believe, give tax breaks to the big companies and as a result they'll expand thus creating more jobs and strengthening our economy. The problem with Obama's tax plan is that its too risky for todays world economy. The U.S. has to now compete with countries like China, India,etc. where products can be made A LOT cheaper. So far two of my family members who were supervisors of their departments, lost their jobs because of the company moving the departments to India, where the company can save 6 CENTS per book printed (Comes out to be about 59 million dollars per year in savings, just for the two departments). If Obama taxes the big companies, whats to stop them from going overseas? Obama promises tax breaks for companies who don't ship jobs overseas, but whose going to pick up the tab for those tax cuts? The Middle Class.

-With big tax increases on companies, just means HIGHER PRICES.

-Do you like paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas? Well, I can't wait to see what it'll be with Obama's tax plan.

-Obama's plan is also going to make it harder for people in the middle class to move up because as soon as anyone works their way up to making a salary of $250,000, they will be rewarded with a huge tax. So for all middle class better keep your salary below the mark.

You clearly know a lot better then me what your talking about so I'm not even going to try to respond because I fear I will look like an idiot.

what I am watching for is a return to "normal" in the investment markets. I don't intend to reinvest copletely in the equity market until I can make sense of the action. I was encouraged when the market seemed to be reacting to actual news like retail sales and employment figures. Too much of what is happening is still driven by fear and aversion and confusion. Most are on the sidelines. Normally I LOVE a period like right now as traders make money on volatility, not necessarily long run bull markets. But frankly I just don't have the stones it takes to bet the courage of my convictions. I nibble some but not enough to make serious money.

This brings us back to oil and the recession. A recession is a lack of growth. As I am sure you can guess, I believe that Obama is anti growth. I believe that is weighing on the market. We are also getting bad financial data. The price of oil has halved while the market has just crashed. Normally that huge correction in oil would be cause for a huge upwards move but it had no effect on the stock market. Now Joe sixpack (or the plumber) typically looks at the Dow Jones Industrial and uses that rise or fall as an indicator of how the economy did that day or week. I wonder how many of them know that it is only 30 stocks or who can name 5 of them or realize that despite its name, it has few industrial companies in it. What more sophisticated investors look at now to see when it is safe to go back in the investor waters is the spread between corporate bonds and government bonds or TBills. Investing in government securities is one step from bills under the mattress. Those spreads are not even close to telling us to jump in.

Around the world central banks have dumped somewhere between 4 and 7 trillion dollars of liquidity into the global economy depending on which article you read. Sounds like huge amounts doesn't it? What if I told you we still have a 50 trillion dollar time bomb out there? We have yet to see defaults on credit cards, auto loans or institutional defaults on credit default swaps. Oil has halved and pump prices have dropped by . . . 1/3 so far?? But no one feels more secure. Not Main Street Not Wall Street and not the investors who straddle the two. December retail sales will suck mightily because of lack of consumer confidence. Because of screwy energy policy (corn based ethanol) food prices are ridiculously high. So the middle and lower classes are being crushed by a double whammy. Stagnation of wages and inflation of prices for the most basic of goods, gas and food. Throw in easy credit tempting them to make stupid decisions ad they are in bad shape. But little of this is Bush's fault. His biggest problem is that he spent all of his political capital on the war and lacked the juice to get anything else through. This is similar to Clinton, post Lewinsky. He DID try to stop the GSE abuse and Republican did hold hearings on the abuse. Democratic leadership stymied it all. You can go on You tube and see the glowing words Dems used to describe the actions which led us where we are now. You can go there and newspaper archives and see ACORN organizers rush banks scaring and intimidating customers to extort banks to make sub prime loans. Those are the same types of efforts that Obama wants to force on us. They have their grounding in the same radical ideas. People like me with our money on the sideline just plain aren't going to jump back in over our heads with this radical socialist agenda facing us. If you don't believe me go try and explain why bond/TB ill spreads are still out of whack, why the market wont come back and why consumer confidence is still in the tanks. We are going to go from Republican control of government leading to spending like drunken democrats to a socialist Democrat running the deficit through the roof. Obama on his website has admitted that his tax plans will NOT raise as much money as current tax laws. Yet his budget shows increased spending. We are in for trouble no matter what, as I described with the yet to blow bombs waiting. But we have a choice between a guy who is admittedly not an economy wonk and one who is risking the whole system on a socialist agenda. I think it will be a long time until confidence returns to the point that the economy functions normally. The incredible drop in oil prices accomplishing nothing in our confidence is a warning sign. Trading is light daily so the activity is people like me nibbling cautiously, not folks sure the market has bottomed and plowing back in full strength. .

i gave him options, i didn't say what he would do. please stop making ASSumptions.

and no, it's actually most obvious that corporations pass TAXES onto consumers. savings are savings, they do what they want, but when the government taxes them, it's like taxing the customer. they will pass it on.

said that if he wants to control the prices of the market, that would be communism. otherwise, prices will just go up when he taxes the coprorations.

Redistribution only works if everyone does their part and not everyone is doing their part right now.

That is called socialism and it does not work.

good way to put it. Doesn't mean I am right just because I am more familiar with the subject matter. feel free to dig into it and question me on anything I said.

not according to Obama's website where he admits his plan would collect LESS revenues

what's funny is that you said taxing corporations 3-5% will actually end poverty.

only two things that will end poverty:

1. Communism, which will also eradicate material and technological progression

2. a disease that wipes out half of mankind (most in the poverty areas of course).

a strong market benefits all of the people. this is because it creates expansion, more jobs, lower prices and better benefits for the consumer (such as better quality products and material/technological progression).

i do not want pure capitalism, but i do want a powerful market, because we are the market. pure capitalism is the anarchy of economics, which i don't support (because Wall Street will cease to exist if that happens).

Obama doesn't plan on just doing a minor tax increase, he plans to "redistribute wealth". that is what will weaken the market, cause inflation, and decrease employment. as employment decreases, more people will need government aid. as the government gives it, it will basically be a vicious circle.

lies, damn lies and statistics. The article presented the statistics it was based on. The issue is what you accept and what you don't accept. Your opinion is not based on statistics. Statistics do no prove what level of income is ludicrous or if ANY level is ludicrous. That is your opinion and you can't "prove" it one way or the other. Fair is not something that can be proven by statistics. Our difference in opinions have nothing to do with statistics. I am against redistribution of wealth. You are for it. No stats will prove one right or the other wrong. Besides, if you cared about the argument instead of your silly games, you would not be distorting my words and going for cheap debate points instead of arguing what you believe. I do not have to listen your imperious demands and commands. I give the reasons for my opinion. You want statistics? I don't care. You do not get to dictate rules to me. Unlike you, I am not trying to win a game. I am here to discuss what I believe. You don't believe or agree? Who cares? My responsibility is to state my opinion and give the reasons I hold those opinion. I answer the questions of those who truly question me or who want to know more. I do not have to entertain self impressed smarmy pissants who merely want to antagonize and play little games.

the difference between a poker game and the market is that you have to bet in a poker game in order to stay in it. in a market, you make some in order to pay some. it's just a circle. yes, there are those who decide to work on being rich, and they do it, but everyone else still has money. there are those who are fortunate, but in a capitalist progression system, that is the cost. there are those who make the wrong decisions in life and suffer harshly for it. but most people in the world are fine, but of course, we need watch dogs to make sure corporations are safe from corruptness. or else it leads to communist ideas such as wealth redistribution which in whole leads to no progression at all.

we are a capitalist system because we plan for progression and we know the psyche of man. yes, the watchdogs fucked up, but choosing an extreme such as wealth redistribution only hurts us more. what we need is a way to help the very corporations who's pain hurts all of us. as long as we keep the market strong, our entire system is strong.

that was the fault of the watchdogs who didn't oversee the loans. the whole point of safe guards is to make sure bad loans aren't given. but since they were poor sympathizers, they didn't worry about the big picture. it was their secret way of wealth redistribution that ended up fucking all of us over.

Obama not only wants to redistribute wealth, but he wants to increase government spending. all this does is weaken capitalist progression and makes everything more expensive. in the long run, all it will be seen in history is the reason why inflation has skyrocketed.

why should there be a limit on how much you can make but not on how much the government can take? In the 2006 IRS data, the latest available, the richest 1% (those making above 388,806.00) pay 40% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% pay THREE percent. The 2003 Bush tax cuts caused the largest INCREASE in taxes paid by the richest 1% in the last 40 years. Those people do not likely need social security or Medicare/Medicaid which is what payroll taxes largely fund (inadequately I might add as both are on the brink of insolvency) along with withholding for income taxes so that payroll taxes are merely paying for services needed by the poor, not the rich who pay the most for it. Personally I would means test Social Security but it is hard for the Dem Party to call for this considering the bogus and deceitful way that FDR sold the program as an "insurance program"(calling social security taxes a "premium" etc).

I do not mind paying into social security which i never expect to get back and for Medicaid which I never expect to use. I do not mind paying for social programs. I am happy to pay the costs of living in America which makes possible the life I live. But to take money from me to just give it to someone else is wrong. The wealthy have ALWAYS paid a disproportionately large part of the burden of paying for this country. But who the hell do you think you are, dictating to me what is ludicrous income? It used to be that all Americans aspired to being rich. Now apparently most aspire to being on welfare. You are being disingenuous to the point of lying when you ask if it isn't right for the rich take a larger burden. They already do and always have. That part is fine. They do and should pay to support the country. But pure socialist redistribution of wealth (obama telling "Joe the plumber" he wants to spread the wealth) is NOT OK and not American and no, that is not an acceptable reason to take more of my income away.

So you find it preferable to have a permanently entrenched welfare state? The richest man in this country came from an upper middle class family but nothing to predict being, at 52 the richest man in the country. Number two was born into a run of the mill middle America, middle class family and his main inheritance was the stock market as his father was a stock broker (in 1930, hardly heady days for wall street!). Number three was born in the Bronx to an unwed, 19 year old mother. There is your entrenched aristocracy. Next comes the Walton family who obviously inherited great wealth. Next, Michael Bloomberg was the son of an accountant. Pretty tame middle class stuff there. The Koch brothers inherited a nice size company from their parents, and turned it into the biggest private company in the world. Hardly unearned wealth when they totally out did the work of the previous generation. Michael Dell started a business out of his dorm room and dropped out of college. We know the story of Paul Allen, no inherited wealth there. The Google guys? Brin was a Russian emigre, son of a college professor, and Larry Page also was the son of a college professor in Michigan. There is your entrenched aristocracy. Looks like a meritocracy to me.

Out of luck? You are being doubly disingenuous. If they get hurt go to the hospital, get cared for and never pay for it. The rich taxpayers pay for it. If they lose their job they go on welfare, collect disability, sue the deep pockets whether it be the insurance company or the employer. Out of luck?This is already the dream state of the poor. The standard of living for our lowest paid is higher than most any other nation on earth. Poverty is not a virus that can be cured. It exists in any economic system. We are moving towards universal health care. It is inevitable. I wish the two sides would just get together and trade privatization of social security for universal health care already and get the battle over with. That is what Gingrich and Clinton would have done, indeed tried to do if you believe the author of "The Pact".

so more government spending? so how much of that money is going to the middle and lower class? if you're saying that all of the money taxed isn't going to the other people, then prices will go up higher than the lower and middle class are redeemed. so, they end up getting screwed even more.

good job.

so what you're basically saying is that it would all cancel eachother out. well, the middle class still suffers because they reap the least of the benefits... but otherwise, all wasted effort... alright.

Norway: Large amount of brutal slayings from Satanists.

yes, it's stealing. just admit that you want the government to steal from the wealthy. it would be a lot easier to support your beliefs if you just admit that taking half of someone's income is stealing.

and i guess you just can't put pieces together at all.

1. Obama wants to tax corporations

2. all that'll do is raise the prices of goods that MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS PEOPLE WILL SUFFER FROM

3. the only way to stop the raising of prices is to control the price

4. if Obama is fine with the prices raising and millions of Americans paying more... alright.

5. if he isn't, he would have to control price... which is DING DING DING, communist.

basically, through his tax plan, he either lets the middle (mainly middle) and sort of lower class suffer, or he controls the market prices (which is communist).

this explains it

You are saying that the U.S. has a "mix" between socialism and capitalism and that they both would fail so we have to keep the "mix". Way may not have "pure" anything but this "mix" argument proves to me that you don't know what your talking about.

"trickle down" is a myth used by libs to attck republicans.

Okay, so when its all said and done barack wants to help some Americans and Senator John McCain wants to help all Americans. Obama would have you believe that helping everyone is unrealistic, or that McCain would only help the rich. Those things are not true.

I know you hate to let facts get in your way and trip you up but the deregulation bill everyone is blaming is Gramm's bill which CLINTON voted into law, not Bush. The current problems were caused directly by Democrats BLOCKING regulation. You have it all wrong . . . as usual. Darn those pesky facts for getting in the way again!

And where did you make up this silly idea that Europeans companies are more efficient? We make them more efficient by taxing our companies. Look at the productivity numbers. Our workers are more productive than ever. But the COMPANY cannot be as effective because of artificial burdens imposed by taxation. The last time this happened Reagan corrected the unfair advantage that foreign companies had and it resulted in a decade of growth that ended with the 2000 tech bubble busting.

This whole idea that our economic planning has failed is a joke. The economy will go up and down no matter what system is in effect. It is just the nature of things. The systemic problems with our economy are not trickle down related. They are caused by politics interfering. If it wasn't for congressional muddling, the falling oil prices would already be solving the economic jitters. If it wasn't for congressional interference with energy policy, we wouldn't be driving up food prices with a silly plan for ethanol. If food and energy costs were back to normal, inflation would not be crushing the middle and lower classes. So our probs are not economic theory but, as usual, regulatory interference. Congress crushes us no matter what system is in place economically.

i never compared OBAMA to communism. I said that if he wants to control the prices of the market, that would be communism. otherwise, prices will just go up when he taxes the coprorations.

simple economics.

Could you explain this reasoning? Sounds interesting.

Rush Limbaugh:

"You are handing out candy on Halloween. Obama rings the bell on your door. He says, "Since you have enough money to be handing out candy, I'm here to take your 401(k). Trick-or-treat." There are any number of ways to explain this, ladies and gentlemen."

John McCain's plan can connect with people like Joe the plumber. He will not raise taxes, while Obama will raise taxes by $3 trillion.

Don't buy into the "Obama will only raise taxes on families making over $250,000" crap. Obama is going to overtax the corperations. However, the corperations don't pay their taxes, YOU DO!

In Obama's "secret" way he's going to raise everyone's taxes by doing what I just said. He absolutely is not pro-lower class, and he isn't pro-upper class either! Obama will overtax this country into another great depression and we must avois this from happening.

Vote McCain Palin 2008 if you want lower taxes!