A bit late....but did anyone watch the debates on friday night?

I am an Obama supporter, I believe in his ideas for the US and would like to seek an end to the war immediately....Obama is also generally more for the middle class and is more in touch with common US people.....McCain came out as an attack dog...awfully condescending.....still most of America thinks it was a tie. Putting my bias aside, I admire McCain's tenacity and fighting instinct which showed his sense of urgency and that he really does want to be in the office. Too bad his policies are wrong and he's a republican and he made the worst pick of VP in the history of the US I think.

That's just my opinion though........who else watched it and any thoughts?

J

Not sure where you are reading it was a tie, as every where I've seen stated that McCain won the debate, but nowhere near the margin he should have (considering it is McCain's strong point and Obama's weak). Maybe that's why some others are calling it a tie?

I did think Obama was a bit disrespectful by constantly refering to McCain as "John"... I'm sure that Obama supporters loved that kinda thing, but not sure really how that went over with independents.

I didn't see McCain as condensending, however i know that there are polls that show that most people do. McCain has always been a bit rough in his speech in debates... he always looks very uncomfortable in them.

Looking forward to seeing that muppet Palin getting ripped apart by Biden on Thursday...if he doesn't say something completely boneheaded in the process.

EdelBrock

How about John McCain avoiding eye contact with Barack. This was clearly pointed out by the media. As you said, Barack referred to McCain as "John" because moderator Jim Lehrer was encouraging the candidates to interact with each other as much as possible, and Barack eventually warmed up to that....John did not. John did look stiff, uncomfortable, angry, bitter, almost like he was looking down at Barack by not even acknowledging him or making eye contact with him at any point. McCain was also sarcastic when talking about meeting with leaders of foreign nations and did not really give a solid answer about what he was going to do about this economic crisis that the US of A is in. I watched the debate on MSNBC and their post coverage had several analysts which many agreed that it was essentially a draw, including the lovely Norah O'Donnell. Yes it was McCain's strong suit, foreign relations, but Obama was calm, relaxed, and showed tremendous grace under pressure......

Either way cannot wait for Joe Biden to tear Sarah Palin apart on Thursday night.

J

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: Looking forward to seeing that muppet Palin getting ripped apart by Biden on Thursday...if he doesn't say something completely boneheaded in the process.

Joe Biden is known to put his foot in his mouth a lot, but Sarah Palin is an idiot. The Katie Couric interview is priceless. Implying that you have foreign relations experience because Alaska is close to Russia insults the intelligence of the American people....all people really.

Sarah Palin is evil, she's a religious fanatic, as right winged as you can get.....and really really stupid.

J

I thought McCain looked comfortable when talking about his strengths, and seemed to be drawing on past experience in the Senate while giving his answers. McCain looks uncomfortable when he has to play this partisan game thou. He has sold himself out to win so he has to play that simple minded brand of partisan polictics, play the right wing game plan, while also trying to say he will stop the partisan politics. He is a sell out, but I think he rationalizes that it is best for the country if he wins. MCCain often looks quite pained by all this bullshit.

I was disappointed with Obama because he usually sounded like he was just reciting prepared paragraphs that he had memorized, McCain sometimes sounded fresher. Obama was not bad, but rarely stood out in the debate, I had higher expectations. The problem with Obama is that he has to condenscend to the lowest common denominator white vote cause he is so afraid of scaring them off. Gore and Kerry had the same problem and just ended up aloof, geeky, and wishywashy. At least Obama is much more likeable, he has to avoid ending up tiptoeing around every issue like Gore and Kerry and looking like a pussy.

No Holiday wrote: EdelBrock

How about John McCain avoiding eye contact with Barack. This was clearly pointed out by the media. As you said, Barack referred to McCain as "John" because moderator Jim Lehrer was encouraging the candidates to interact with each other as much as possible, and Barack eventually warmed up to that....John did not. John did look stiff, uncomfortable, angry, bitter, almost like he was looking down at Barack by not even acknowledging him or making eye contact with him at any point. McCain was also sarcastic when talking about meeting with leaders of foreign nations and did not really give a solid answer about what he was going to do about this economic crisis that the US of A is in. I watched the debate on MSNBC and their post coverage had several analysts which many agreed that it was essentially a draw, including the lovely Norah O'Donnell. Yes it was McCain's strong suit, foreign relations, but Obama was calm, relaxed, and showed tremendous grace under pressure......

Either way cannot wait for Joe Biden to tear Sarah Palin apart on Thursday night.

J

First MSNBC is 'factual news' for the leftist, just as Fox News is 'factual news' for the rightist. Of course those on that network will slant in more in favor of thier own guy. I watched mine on CSpan, no bullshit coming from there, then followed it up with CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

Like O_o stated, Obama did stick to cue cards. There were little suprises or new info coming from either candidate that really could make the debate worthwhile for most of the watch. True McCain didn't say much of substance on the economy, but neither did Obama for that matter.

It was noted by CNN that a candidate naming the opposing candidate by first name has never been done in the history of presidential debates, so it is a big deal and not him trying to 'open' up into a classic debate (as MSNBC has tried to slate).

The only part of the debate that was worthwhile was when McCain talked about Russia and the issues brewing in that area. An intellegent response, much more than I think anyone expected... funny how Obama had a 'deer-in-the-headlights' look when asked if he agreed, to which he did, but you could tell he had no idea what he was really agreeing with.

While McCain should have hit this one way over Obama's head, out of three 'debates' so far, McCain has taken all three (as stated by CNN). He's barely beating him, but a win is a win. We'll have to see what happens in future debates... the VP one probably has more impact in this election than others I would imagine...

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: Looking forward to seeing that muppet Palin getting ripped apart by Biden on Thursday...if he doesn't say something completely boneheaded in the process.

yes tho I do admit that if it anything like last Saturday's "Saturday Night Live" open-it will be a hoot. That was classic

Tina Fey For President

EdelBrock wrote: Not sure where you are reading it was a tie, as every where I've seen stated that McCain won the debate.

EdelBrock wrote: While McCain should have hit this one way over Obama's head, out of three 'debates' so far, McCain has taken all three (as stated by CNN). He's barely beating him, but a win is a win. We'll have to see what happens in future debates... the VP one probably has more impact in this election than others I would imagine...

Maybe in that alternative universe that Republican inhabit, this debate was a win for McCain.

In THIS universe, however, CNN called it a tie, and the public opinion polls chalk it up as a win for Obama:

No clear winner

Given McCain's continuing drop in the polls, and his supposed "foreign policy expertise," Obama holding his own in the debate is a McCain loss.

Then there's the matter of who the public thinks won the debate:

Round 1 goes to Obama

Of course, that's only in tne real world. In the Republican alternate reality, deregulation works, the economy is strong, Saddam had WMDs, and John McCain won the first debate.

ummm.. well I'm not going by an article written by one individual's feelings on the matter, but by the board of after the debate of CNN analysists and contributers. The ones I give most respect to, David Gergen (who has a subtle left leaning), and Ed Rollins (who is more right leaning) both mentioned that it was a win for a McCain... and John King (who never gets involved in politics, and only the numbers) stated it was a McCain win, but that it was not as strong as as they think he needed and since Obama didn't allow a large win made it a possible tie.

Your article shows the numbers are all jacked up:

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey is not a measurement of the views of all Americans, since only people who watched the debate were questioned and the audience included more Democrats than Republicans.

Yes, there were more Democrats than Republicans watching. But of those who watched-- the only possible group who could actually form an opinion on "who won"-- the majority gave the victory to Obama.

Personally, I didn't have a clear sense that either candidate "won" the debate. However, given that McCain needed a clear and convincing victory in this first debate, and given that he didn't get that clear and convincing victory, it's a loss for McCain, even if they more or less tied.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Personally, I didn't have a clear sense that either candidate "won" the debate.

Would you even concede if it were a clear victory? I think not...

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Personally, I didn't have a clear sense that either candidate "won" the debate.

Would you even concede if it were a clear victory? I think not...

Of course I would.

But it wasn't a clear victory. John McCain really didn't impress me in the debate. Neither did Obama. McCain is a foreign policy expert largely because he says he is. It should have been quite easy to shut him down, but Obama didn't do it to the extent that would make it clear that Obama was the clear victor. But then again, McCain didn't shut Obama down either.

ShugZV wrote: Politics is for Pussies.

McCain's so called "foreign policy" experience consists of him being in the army and being a POW for 6 years. While I do not support McCain as a presidential nominee I do admire the sheer determination to survive for so long under those conditions. It does show that he is mentally strong in some ways. However, I disagree with McCain's foreign policy opinions. During the debates he insisted that General Patraeus still believes that Al Quieda has a base or a large presense in Iraq. When was this ever proven? In Afganistan that's another story. Al Quieda and Osama Bin Laden are still in Afganistan alive and well, and the Iraq war was more of a distraction from us seizing those directly responsible for 9/11, as well as killing and wounding thousands of american lives and sucking up taxpayer money like a vacuum cleaner every month. Obama pointed this out several times. Sounds like Obama is more aware with foreign policy than McCain, no?!

J

No Holiday wrote: McCain's so called "foreign policy" experience consists of him being in the army and being a POW for 6 years. While I do not support McCain as a presidential nominee I do admire the sheer determination to survive for so long under those conditions. It does show that he is mentally strong in some ways. However, I disagree with McCain's foreign policy opinions. During the debates he insisted that General Patraeus still believes that Al Quieda has a base or a large presense in Iraq. When was this ever proven? In Afganistan that's another story. Al Quieda and Osama Bin Laden are still in Afganistan alive and well, and the Iraq war was more of a distraction from us seizing those directly responsible for 9/11, as well as killing and wounding thousands of american lives and sucking up taxpayer money like a vacuum cleaner every month. Obama pointed this out several times. Sounds like Obama is more aware with foreign policy than McCain, no?!

J

Actually his foreign policy 'exepertise' comes from more than a POW experience. He is a ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, and as such he has traveled alot throughout the world talking to world leaders for years. Obama made one round trip meeting people this year, to cram his studies. So McCain legitimately has more foreign policy experience than Obama.

On Al Queda, you are taking words out of context. There WAS a large Al Queda presence, but the surge pushed them out. As for proof, Zaraqawi had lots of letters not to mention arabic recruiting websites that mentioned this. Here's one letter: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/872354/Zawahiri-s-Letter-to-Zaraqawi

and for the record, Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan not Afganistan right now.

Ed Rollins on the debate:

Most viewers called it a draw or gave a slight advantage to Obama.

although, i take polls with a grain of slot most of them have Obama handily beating McCain.

Experience is so overrated.Look at the mess that Rumsfeld and Cheney got us into and they have been around since Tricky Dick. I want a President who has nuanced point of views and not to be anti-intellect.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Personally, I didn't have a clear sense that either candidate "won" the debate.

Would you even concede if it were a clear victory? I think not...

Of course I would.

But it wasn't a clear victory. John McCain really didn't impress me in the debate. Neither did Obama. McCain is a foreign policy expert largely because he says he is. It should have been quite easy to shut him down, but Obama didn't do it to the extent that would make it clear that Obama was the clear victor. But then again, McCain didn't shut Obama down either.

Only one time did McCain shut down Obama, and that was when he talked about Russia. Obama had a cue card answer and McCain's answer showed knowledge of the area and the issues brewing there:

EdelBrock wrote: Actually his foreign policy 'exepertise' comes from more than a POW experience. He is a ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, and as such he has traveled alot throughout the world talking to world leaders for years. Obama made one round trip meeting people this year, to cram his studies. So McCain legitimately has more foreign policy experience than Obama.

That's travel experience, and it's travel experience on the wrong committee. If you want Foreign policy "experience" (as distinct from "expertise"), you serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. I can just imagine the kind of "foreign policy" this country would have under a President who thinks service on the Armed Forces Committee is Foreign Policy "Expertise".

Now, if you want "expertise," on the other hand, you do the hard work of studying, thinking, and writing about foreign policy, usually in pursuit of an advanced degree. Through that process, you develop your own expertise.

i had no clue until i watched the debate that McCain was a pow. . He seems to be running on the past.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Actually his foreign policy 'exepertise' comes from more than a POW experience. He is a ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, and as such he has traveled alot throughout the world talking to world leaders for years. Obama made one round trip meeting people this year, to cram his studies. So McCain legitimately has more foreign policy experience than Obama.

That's travel experience, and it's travel experience on the wrong committee. If you want Foreign policy "experience" (as distinct from "expertise"), you serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. I can just imagine the kind of "foreign policy" this country would have under a President who thinks service on the Armed Forces Committee is Foreign Policy "Expertise".

Now, if you want "expertise," on the other hand, you do the hard work of studying, thinking, and writing about foreign policy, usually in pursuit of an advanced degree. Through that process, you develop your own expertise.

Which is why I put expertise in quotations as I don't think it is expertise, rather as I stated in my last sentence of that paragraph it is more correctly experience.

EdelBrock wrote: Only one time did McCain shut down Obama, and that was when he talked about Russia. Obama had a cue card answer and McCain's answer showed knowledge of the area and the issues brewing there..

You think McCain shut Obama down. I don't. What McCain did very well was parlay his experiences traveling to the region into a sense that he understands the issues through personal experience.

That personal experience gave McCain a nuanced answer, but he also began with a disingenuous response. He knows very well who began the aggression in South Ossetia, and yet he rebukes Obama for calling for restraint on both sides. McCain may understand the situation in Georgia, but he's also dishonest about it when it suits his political goals.

No Holiday wrote: McCain's so called "foreign policy" experience consists of him being in the army and being a POW for 6 years. While I do not support McCain as a presidential nominee I do admire the sheer determination to survive for so long under those conditions. It does show that he is mentally strong in some ways. However, I disagree with McCain's foreign policy opinions. During the debates he insisted that General Patraeus still believes that Al Quieda has a base or a large presense in Iraq. When was this ever proven? In Afganistan that's another story. Al Quieda and Osama Bin Laden are still in Afganistan alive and well, and the Iraq war was more of a distraction from us seizing those directly responsible for 9/11, as well as killing and wounding thousands of american lives and sucking up taxpayer money like a vacuum cleaner every month. Obama pointed this out several times. Sounds like Obama is more aware with foreign policy than McCain, no?!

J

Umm, Sen. John McCain was in the Navy.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: Looking forward to seeing that muppet Palin getting ripped apart by Biden on Thursday...if he doesn't say something completely boneheaded in the process.

Biden WILL say something boneheaded AND he will get caught checking out her arse. :D :D

Tex wrote:

No Holiday wrote: McCain's so called "foreign policy" experience consists of him being in the army and being a POW for 6 years. While I do not support McCain as a presidential nominee I do admire the sheer determination to survive for so long under those conditions. It does show that he is mentally strong in some ways. However, I disagree with McCain's foreign policy opinions. During the debates he insisted that General Patraeus still believes that Al Quieda has a base or a large presense in Iraq. When was this ever proven? In Afganistan that's another story. Al Quieda and Osama Bin Laden are still in Afganistan alive and well, and the Iraq war was more of a distraction from us seizing those directly responsible for 9/11, as well as killing and wounding thousands of american lives and sucking up taxpayer money like a vacuum cleaner every month. Obama pointed this out several times. Sounds like Obama is more aware with foreign policy than McCain, no?!

J

Umm, Sen. John McCain was in the Navy.

I actually preferred what Obama had to say about Russia and thought McCain was a dick for calling him naive. Do you really want a 72 year old man as president with a vp who is stupid, religious, and ultra republican???? And with this economic crisis we are going through right now, why would we want someone in the white house who is from the same party as the administration that put us in this predicament in the first place? Remember: McCain has a record of agreeing with Bush 95% of the time. In other words, McCain would be Bush II (Bush III actually). But it sounds like you're a republican EdelBrock. I am not. I do not believe in giving big corporations, CEOs, and the wealthiest of the wealthy tax cuts while excluding the other 95% of the country.

J

Its no secret on NOOL that I'm an Independent that is Republican leaning. Your reasons for not voting for McCain aren't yer own though... yer just reeling off rhetoric... give me something with some substance, something to sink my teeth into. The "Bush for another 8 years" arguement is so paperthin, if you don't reel off rhetoric and actually do some of your OWN research by votes on measures and bills you might be surprised in what you find.

What I find annoying is NOT people that vote for an opposing party, but do so by rhetoric and won't go outside thier comfortzone by ACTUALLY giving the other candidate a chance.

EdelBrock wrote: Its no secret on NOOL that I'm an Independent that is Republican leaning. Your reasons for not voting for McCain aren't yer own though... yer just reeling off rhetoric... give me something with some substance, something to sink my teeth into. The "Bush for another 8 years" arguement is so paperthin, if you don't reel off rhetoric and actually do some of your OWN research by votes on measures and bills you might be surprised in what you find.

What I find annoying is NOT people that vote for an opposing party, but do so by rhetoric and won't go outside thier comfortzone by ACTUALLY giving the other candidate a chance.

I do my research. I watch the news just like you and I listen to what top political analysts say. I have been following the campaign very closely and know where Barack stands on issues and I know where John stands on issues.

Surely you're familiar with McCain's 95% record of voting with Bush....if you are referring to the 5% of the time he opposed Bush it would be far and few in between. And that's not rhetoric...that's fact. McCain agreed with Bush 95% of the time on issues and bills. Look it up.

I agree with Barack Obama's stance on ending the Iraqi war, I disagree with John's.

I agree with Obama's stance on regulating business so we never have to face another financial crisis like this current one again John believes in deregulation....you should know that. He also believes in lowing taxes for big corporations....he admitted it during the debate.....I don't agree with that.

I agree with Obama about the need to make Healthcare affordable for everyone John wants to deregulate the health care system and give families money to decide if they want health care or not...again, don't agree

I have a mind of my own, EdelBrock. Yes I consider myself a liberal democrat, but I agree with Obama on just about all the issues. I only listed some examples. By all means be an Independent, but don't assume i'm just spewing rhetoric. I've done my research and I know who is right for our country.

J

No Holiday wrote:

I do my research. I watch the news just like you and I listen to what top political analysts say. I have been following the campaign very closely and know where Barack stands on issues and I know where John stands on issues.

Surely you're familiar with McCain's 95% record of voting with Bush....if you are referring to the 5% of the time he opposed Bush it would be far and few in between. And that's not rhetoric...that's fact. McCain agreed with Bush 95% of the time on issues and bills. Look it up.

Well that's spin talk. He has voted alongside Republican line 95% of the time, and Obama has voted along Democrate lines 97% of the time. McCain voted has been as low as 77% alongside Bush. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html

I agree with Barack Obama's stance on ending the Iraqi war, I disagree with John's.

ummm... this is Obama's biggest farce. He stated he would end the WAR in Iraq, but what he's not telling you is he still plans on having 30,000-50,000 troops still in place there (numbers that were derived from John King from CNN). Ending the war is a play on words... because OFFICIALLY the war in Iraq is already over, we are in an occupation (by UN definitions of war/occupation). He'll end the "war" but not the way he's leading people to believe....

I agree with Obama's stance on regulating business so we never have to face another financial crisis like this current one again John believes in deregulation....you should know that. He also believes in lowing taxes for big corporations....he admitted it during the debate.....I don't agree with that.

Neither candidate has any real world solutions to the current problem and this is stated by almost every unbiased political contributer on CNN or BBC.

Look more into lowering taxes on big corporations. It sounds at first like giving the big guy more breaks and hurting the little guy... but look at cause &effect... if you tax a large corporation more, do you really think they will be the one given the burden? Something tells me they'll pass it on to the little guy, and make even more profits while doing it....

I agree with Obama about the need to make Healthcare affordable for everyone John wants to deregulate the health care system and give families money to decide if they want health care or not...again, don't agree

I think "making it afforable" is the whole problem, Obama's healthcare system isn't affordable to the nation (100 billion a year)... someone needs to pay the ticket... how is it goig to be done? Tax the rich... yeah that's not gonna work...

"Look more into lowering taxes on big corporations. It sounds at first like giving the big guy more breaks and hurting the little guy... but look at cause &effect... if you tax a large corporation more, do you really think they will be the one given the burden? Something tells me they'll pass it on to the little guy, and make even more profits while doing it...."

EdelBrock.....they won't pass the burden on the little guy if there is proper REGULATION, which is what Obama is pressing for, and which is what McCain is generally against. That's the whole point of Business Regulation....to make sure that the "big guy" doesn't screw the "little guy" over for profit. And big corporations make enough profit (well excluding many banks as of recently) do they really need more breaks when middle class workers are struggling month to month to pay the bills and feed their kids.....I respect your opinions but I disagree with many of them....at least when it comes to politics. But I guess that's to be expected since I lean to the left and you tilt towards the right.

J

No Holiday wrote: "Look more into lowering taxes on big corporations. It sounds at first like giving the big guy more breaks and hurting the little guy... but look at cause &effect... if you tax a large corporation more, do you really think they will be the one given the burden? Something tells me they'll pass it on to the little guy, and make even more profits while doing it...."

EdelBrock.....they won't pass the burden on the little guy if there is proper REGULATION, which is what Obama is pressing for, and which is what McCain is generally against. That's the whole point of Business Regulation....to make sure that the "big guy" doesn't screw the "little guy" over for profit. And big corporations make enough profit (well excluding many banks as of recently) do they really need more breaks when middle class workers are struggling month to month to pay the bills and feed their kids.....I respect your opinions but I disagree with many of them....at least when it comes to politics. But I guess that's to be expected since I lean to the left and you tilt towards the right.

J

Again, momentarily it sounds good... but again, cause&effect. Taxes on corporation will increase the costs of making the product. Two bad things happen here:

1. The costs are more so the corporation will show, through legitimate numbers to thier regulator, that they need to raise the price of thier goods, to keep the business running. The regulator will agree. Effectively passing on the taxes to the consumer.

2. Higher taxes on corporations will force them to look further into overseas production, where the taxes are cheaper. There already is a shift overseas, but there are goods where transportation, tax cost and desire to stay in the US will be shifted further. Raise taxes, loose businesses, which looses employment, and ships our money to other countries worsening our economy. Not to mention higher regulation will equate to more costs, further forcing the move.

This isn't rhetoric I'm speaking, but simple economics.

It would be nice to be able to regulate, enforce, and tax the hell out of the rich... I'm not against that part; its the part where it will further degrade our economy... and it won't be the big hurting, rather the little guy.

and don't get me wrog, its not like I'm defending McCains economic policies... both candidates have nothing great in thier economic packages... they both need a huge revamping...

EdelBrock wrote: because OFFICIALLY the war in Iraq is already over

So they officially declared war on Iraq?

EdelBrock wrote:

No Holiday wrote: "Look more into lowering taxes on big corporations. It sounds at first like giving the big guy more breaks and hurting the little guy... but look at cause &effect... if you tax a large corporation more, do you really think they will be the one given the burden? Something tells me they'll pass it on to the little guy, and make even more profits while doing it...."

EdelBrock.....they won't pass the burden on the little guy if there is proper REGULATION, which is what Obama is pressing for, and which is what McCain is generally against. That's the whole point of Business Regulation....to make sure that the "big guy" doesn't screw the "little guy" over for profit. And big corporations make enough profit (well excluding many banks as of recently) do they really need more breaks when middle class workers are struggling month to month to pay the bills and feed their kids.....I respect your opinions but I disagree with many of them....at least when it comes to politics. But I guess that's to be expected since I lean to the left and you tilt towards the right.

J

Again, momentarily it sounds good... but again, cause&effect. Taxes on corporation will increase the costs of making the product. Two bad things happen here:

1. The costs are more so the corporation will show, through legitimate numbers to thier regulator, that they need to raise the price of thier goods, to keep the business running. The regulator will agree. Effectively passing on the taxes to the consumer.

2. Higher taxes on corporations will force them to look further into overseas production, where the taxes are cheaper. There already is a shift overseas, but there are goods where transportation, tax cost and desire to stay in the US will be shifted further. Raise taxes, loose businesses, which looses employment, and ships our money to other countries worsening our economy. Not to mention higher regulation will equate to more costs, further forcing the move.

This isn't rhetoric I'm speaking, but simple economics.

It would be nice to be able to regulate, enforce, and tax the hell out of the rich... I'm not against that part; its the part where it will further degrade our economy... and it won't be the big hurting, rather the little guy.

and don't get me wrog, its not like I'm defending McCains economic policies... both candidates have nothing great in thier economic packages... they both need a huge revamping...

You are right in that INCREASING corporate taxes can lead to those repercussions. I'm not asking for corporate taxes to be increased. I just don't think it's fair to cut corporate taxes and not for the struggling middle-working class. McCain was proposing corporate tax cuts because according to him "US corporate taxes are significantly higher than other countries"....And yes I know about moving headquarters overseas and hiring foreign employees to do the same job Americans would do but for a fraction of the payroll. I'm not saying tax the hell out of corporations, i'm just saying don't give them any more stupid breaks and don't let them move their headquarters to another country so they can avoid more taxes and keep our economy in the shitter.

You sound like you believe in the concept of "Regeanomics"....the trickle down effect....If you provide plenty of opportunity and growth for major corporations and cut their taxes more and regulate them less, all that extra profit they make will go into creating more jobs, lower prices on their product, etc........I think history has taught us that this "Trickle Down Economics" approach does NOT work! Corporations abuse these priveledges more often than not when the government turns their head the other way. Have you seen Michael Moore's first documentary Roger and Me? A perfect example of this. You have to put the money into the common people, for they are the majority of the country, and if they have more money, they will spend more, therefore strengthening the economy.

J