Why are you voting for McCain / Obama?

[Jennay]

I plan to vote for McCain because I think he will stand up to terrorists better than Obama. If we don't have a free and safe country to live in, all the other issues will be meaningless.

[Jugglin'5]

The other reason that 6 to 1 ratio may be suspect, is that it may just mean that wealthier military people prefer Obama. Most military families don't have tons of disposable income. Or that those who support Obama are just generally more excited about him than those who are planning to vote McCain (which I think is definitely true).

[JudyJudyJudy]

Ok, let me rephrase my answer to the OP's question so as not to offend Pro-choicers (not my intention):001_smile:

 

I am voting for McCain because He is AGAINST abortion (outrightly)

I am NOT voting for Obama because he is NOT against abortion.

I truly appreciate your trying not to offend; I say that sincerely. However, what you said here may not be true, either. While I can't know what goes on in Obama's mind, I know what goes on in my own mind, and I personally am against abortion. However, I recognize that it isn't my right to make that choice for someone else; therefore, I am pro-choice.

[CAMom]

Obama's socialistic leanings (wealth distribution, taxes on rich) give me cause for grave concern.

 

:iagree:

 

But I don't know if I can stomach voting for McCain either.

[kokotg]

The other reason that 6 to 1 ratio may be suspect' date=' is that it may just mean that wealthier military people prefer Obama. Most military families don't have tons of disposable income. Or that those who support Obama are just generally more excited about him than those who are planning to vote McCain (which I think is definitely true).[/quote']

 

I believe the figures only include contributions of more than $200, because that's when the law requires you to start reporting who's giving what. But the same figures for Kerry vs. Bush were that Bush raised $1.50 for every $1 Kerry raised, so it's a very big turn around from 4 years ago.

[Jugglin'5]

I believe the figures only include contributions of more than $200, because that's when the law requires you to start reporting who's giving what. But the same figures for Kerry vs. Bush were that Bush raised $1.50 for every $1 Kerry raised, so it's a very big turn around from 4 years ago.

 

 

Yeah, but, like I said, many , many conservatives are just voting against Obama, not for McCain. I'm not voting for either.

[Erica in PA]

I want to hear reasons why you are impressed with either candidate!

 

I'll vote for McCain. He wasn't my choice in the primaries, but of the two candidates I think McCain would be the better president. I like that he has extensive experience and has accomplishments to his name. He's not a "yes-man". He's an independent thinker. He was well known as a maverick, often going against his own party to build consensus, and to get things done. (Of course, all that good will is now forgotten by the press and by Democrats who used to respect him, now that he is running against Obama.) I have sometimes disagreed with actions he's taken, but I haven't doubted that he's a man of depth and principle, not to mention courage. I like his positions on abortion, foreign relations, the economy, taxes, etc.

 

When I think about it, there isn't actually a single area where I agree with Obama more than McCain. The only things I prefer about Obama over McCain are his personality and speech-giving ability... and obviously I'm not going to vote for a president based on those things.

 

As far as VP goes, McCain is not going to choose anyone that I disapprove of enough to make me vote for Obama instead, so I can say with assurance that I'll vote for McCain either way.

 

Erica

[kokotg]

Yeah' date=' but, like I said, many , many conservatives are just voting against Obama, not [i']for[/i] McCain. I'm not voting for either.

 

yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you--I think you're right both that the figures are most accurate at capturing higher income levels and that it's about enthusiasm level (in fact, the same study showed that military personnel gave more to Republicans overall, but more to Obama when you just compared presidential candidates). I was just pointing out that it's a phenomenon new to this election year.

[Jugglin'5]

yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you--I think you're right both that the figures are most accurate at capturing higher income levels and that it's about enthusiasm level (in fact, the same study showed that military personnel gave more to Republicans overall, but more to Obama when you just compared presidential candidates). I was just pointing out that it's a phenomenon new to this election year.

 

Gotcha. :)

[Beth in SW WA]

The long term capital gain tax rate in 2007 (and for several years prior) was 15% as was the qualified dividend tax rate. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, it will be 0%, yes, zero. The Bush tax cuts expire after 2010.

 

Google this:

 

obama capital gains increase

[tibbyl]

My point was that when the rate is zero, the only possible change is an increase. I am familiar with Obama's proposed taxation.

[Johanna]

I respectively see your position. We can agree to disagree. :)

I am not the debating type (just no good at it)lol

 

 

I always vote Conservative pro-life.

Obama clearly doesnt fit that category for "me" and "my conscience" so this is why i have to vote for McCain (sure wish Huckabee was in the running though, as he was definitely my favorite!)...

[Tree House Academy]

We are a Republican voting household - McCain will get our votes. That said, I fear for the future of this Nation.

[Beth in SW WA]

My point was that when the rate is zero, the only possible change is an increase. I am familiar with Obama's proposed taxation.

 

The rate is NOT zero (I have my recent tax return to prove it).

 

Obama's proposed taxation is why I'm waiving the McCain banner.

[tibbyl]

The rate is NOT zero (I have my recent tax return to prove it).

 

Obama's proposed taxation is why I'm waiving the McCain banner.

 

The long term cap gain rate will be zero for 2008 but limited to taxpayers who qualified for the 5% long term cap gain rate in 2007. Still a higher bracket taxpayer can transfer appreciated stock to children who are in lower bracket to take advantage of the loophole.

 

The LT cap gain tax rate for sale of appreciated capital assets for 2007 was a flat 15%, which is a favorable rate. (Actually, for lower bracket taxpayers the 2007 cap gain tax rate was 5%. Collectibles and certain property subject to recapture are taxed at different rates. But gains from sale of typical investments such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. were taxed at a flat 15% in 2007 and 5% for those in lower bracket.)

 

You could not possibly have filed your 2008 tax return yet since the year is not over.

 

Thus, if you wish to sell any appreciated capital assets, it would be wise to do so in 2008

 

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/capital_gains_and_losses_turbotax/article

 

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html

[kokotg]

The rate is NOT zero (I have my recent tax return to prove it).

 

Obama's proposed taxation is why I'm waiving the McCain banner.

 

It WILL be zero for some investors next year:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2007-06-15-mym-capital-gains_N.htm

 

Now, it's certainly true that Obama favors a more progressive tax structure than McCain. That's one of the standard differences between Republicans and Democrats. The overwhelming majority of American economists agree with Democrats, and so do I. Obviously, if you feel strongly the other way, then you're more likely to vote Republican. Incidentally, I've always thought capital gains rates were weird. Since the argument against a progressive tax structure that I hear most often is that it isn't "fair," I don't get why the same people argue that you should be taxed at a lower rate for investment income than for the money you actually worked for.

[Krista in LA]

I'm not voting for either one, but I just read this article about when people were asked what they liked or didn't like about either one of them they had very generic type responses. This is on a conservative website, but I didn't find the article itself to be negative or positive about either candidate.

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/08/21/the_presidential_race_that_hasnt_started

[PariSarah]

I am pro-life across the board. I am pro-life when it comes to unborn babies. I am pro-life when it comes convicted prisoners even though my flesh SCREAMS for revenge I pray hard against that urge. I am pro-life in that I think our men and women in uniform should be treated as a precious resource and their lives should not be squandered on vague causes. I am pro-life in that I think all members of society should have access to quality healthcare and not have to choose between medicine, food or rent. I am pro-life in that I think our nations financial treasure would be better spent making sure our bridges do not fall into rivers then blowing up someone else's bridges.

 

I am for strong public schools, voluntary preschool programs, healthy environments.

 

Now, who on earth is there for me to vote for with my wish list?

 

You're just going to have to run yourself.

 

You'd be the candidate to meet my wish list! :D:D

[Beth in SW WA]

 

The LT cap gain tax rate for sale of appreciated capital assets for 2007 was a flat 15%, which is a favorable rate.

 

AMEN! And I'd like it to stay there. Which is one reason I support McCain.

 

You could not possibly have filed your 2008 tax return yet since the year is not over.

 

My recent tax return was for 2007.

QUOTE]

 

 

Tibbyl,

 

Are you a CPA?

 

I'm just a humble small business owner trying to make a living, trying to keep 30 employees on the job w/ excellent pay, medical benefits and safe working conditions.

 

I don't know the tax code like you do. I just know what hits my pocketbook every year.

[Peek a Boo]

Nah' date=' we need Peek at the State Dept. She can be a special forces commando diplomat sent in for the tough guys like Putin. She can argue them under the table and have them cowering in no time. Then she can call the President and say, "No problem, sir. Here - Putin gave me the keys to his Nuke launcher thingamajiggy."

:D[/quote']

 

 

HEY! I saw that, lol.... ;)

 

I had been ignoring this thread since i wasn't voting for either, but it's amazing what turns up when you do a search for your handle......

it gives me another opportunity to address stuff like this:

 

[disclaimer: I do NOT expect to "see eye to eye" on this issue with most of you, and that's ok. But i do expect that a statement made publicly should be ready to be addressed publicly. If you want to offer a reply, you certainly can, but I don't really expect a discussion --I'm just posting the opposing opinion for lurkers who might not have considered the issue as deeply as others have. But I will certainly jump at a discussion if you choose to carry one out :D ]

 

Yes I suppose it is. I define it as: human life is precious and that the freedom to choose is one of the basic human rights that we are all entitled. And that the choice is up to the individual and not up to people that have absolutely NO business in the decision. Furthermore, I always find it very interesting that the same people that *TEND* to fall into the "Pro-Life" category...are also PRO- death penalty....and ANTI- social services. So, apparently, they feel that the only life worth protecting is that of the unborn.... just an observation though....:glare:

 

I think that there are extremely few people that are actually pro-abortion...and I think that the idea that all or even most pro-choice people are also pro-abortion is ludicrous to say the very least. :glare:

 

Except your statement left out a very important phrase:

"human life is precious and that the freedom to choose TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN is one of the basic human rights that we are all entitled."

:001_huh:

because human life is precious it's ok to kill it on demand?

or only SOME human lives are precious?

 

It helps keep the discussion more clear if you define explicitly what that "choice" is.

 

i happen to believe that we are not entitled to a "basic human right" to kill another. I find it ironic -if not ludicrous- that one's unflinching support of a right to kill is deemed "pro life." and I do agree about the discontinuity of the label being used on just fetal rights. more in a reply to Colleen somewhere else......

 

I'd also point out that every study I've seen shows that the single strongest factor in a country's abortion rate is NOT the legal status of abortion in that country but the availability of contraceptives. I'm very interested in reducing the number of abortions in the US, and that's one of the reasons I'm wary of McCain, who has a long record of voting against measures that would make contraceptives more accessible. Plenty of people who are against abortion think a legislative path to reducing their number isn't the most effective one.

 

 

But for many of us, seeing a reduction in abortion isn't really the issue --it is simply a symptom of the bigger issue: an inherent respect for LIFE itself. One that many contraceptives work against. If it was just about reducing abortions, I might agree with you.

 

It matches my belief that these people are all about the "quantity" of life and care not one whit about the "quality" of life.

 

Why don't groups like Operation Rescue actually do something for babies after they are born? Because they don't care. Once that baby is here, their work is done. And society shouldn't help because they don't want their tax dollars going to social services programs. Oh no. That's giving the undeserving a free ride, in their eyes.

 

There are these groups for the begininng of life and the end and they care not a bit about consequences. They are all about numbers. :glare:

 

Jen

 

 

Hm. So you are completely unaware of all those charities and places that will actually take in and counsel women and children? There are TONS of Crisis Pregnancy centers that not only encourage the saving of TWO lives, but also offer support, food, clothing, money, and other resources to help mothers care for or adopt out the child. They are also offering ongoing counseling for moms who were given their abortions and sent home. Talk about picking up the slack from a lack of "care".....

 

"Society" is absolutely interested in seeing Life taken care of, and we can start a new thread about "undeserving" that can include everything from lazy people to corporate welfare. But if you take a glance through many threads here you will find that MOST people who prefer to not encourage social programs have no compunction about recommending it for kids and people who really need it. You might want to watch your sterotypical and blanket statements.

 

i already addressed quantity vs quality in another thread, but I think it bears repeating:

 

you call it a "quantity vs quality" argument when it really isn't that. I have no interest in seeing any ol' quantity of life --i just want to see a deeper respect for the life that IS already created. And I absolutely agree that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. i just don't believe one should have the right to decide what happens to ANOTHER's body. Especially when that other person's LIFE is on the line and determined by either convenience or "quality."