By increasing the deficit less than McCain's proposal. Bloomberg reported about McCain's proposal that he has insufficient cuts to offset his spending increases "[e]conomists and nonpartisan analysts say his numbers don't add up." They went on to report "McCain's spending cuts, combined with increased revenue from economic growth, total $1.5 trillion over eight years, leaving a $1.8 trillion net increase to the national debt" and quoted Joel Slemrod, an economist specializing in tax policy at the University of Michigan, as saying, "This is really a massive increase in the deficit." Another quote (Republicans like to discuss the increases from Obama without the corresponding and offsetting taxes and spending cuts: "The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama's proposals could cost the government up to $2.9 trillion in revenue over 10 years. McCain's could cost as much as $4.2 trillion."
Typical political forum. First of all there is the unknowable opinion and speculation that white voters arn't voting for Obama. Then there is the typical response of putting up the three most out landish people that are voting for McCain which are white. Neither opinions and speculations show any evidence and importance whatsoever in defining who is going to vote for whoooooooo. No i am rambling and no i am officially throwing this thread in the trash because it belongs no where but there. Let me ask you all of a question. Imagine your a fundamental investor at a mutual fund. I know sounds scary but just try it. In order to speculate on whether a company is going to go up or down in the next coming years they observe the important aspects of each company. Simply observing useless jargon and pointless opinions of certain companies through individuals that are uneducated about the company is a losing strategy.
See how slanted that crap is.. They spoke of democrats and people from oregon the most ass backward liberal state in the union. So we have some of the dumbest libs on et here - attempting to put down real observations because. I suspect most of them don't have a pot to piss in. What you are not getting is I am married have kids and choose to live in areas with good public schools. Housing is therefore expensive and you need to making good money. People who make good money and live in the suburbs are mostly republican, most frequently white and frequently in the expensive suburbs mostly well educated. These educated people rarely vote for democrats. If you wish to argue with my observations break it down. Show me stats of who college educated voters supported in the last presidential election... Then show me stats for post grads. I could give two shits about how it breaks down within the democratic party.
San Diego is a red city, even though California is a blue state. I had a friend who was a high level staffer on Bill Clinton's re-election campaign before he moved out here to San Diego. He moved here a little before the Bush/Kerry election. So I asked him if he was working on the Kerry campaign and he said he wasn't. I thought it was surprising but I didn't press for details. A few weeks later I brought it up again and he said he was leaving San Diego because he simply could not get a base of Democrats together here, the city was too conservative. That's just one person's perspective, like the OP is just one person's perspective.
by the way props to hughb on letting the libs on this board in on something they did not understand. If the libs on this board were to get out of their housing projects and run down apartments they will realize that the liberal policies supported by their liberal city politicians drove people with money and education out to suburbia. . it should also be noted - I suspect Obama will get some votes from educated people who were once Reagan republicans... What I take issue with is democrats acting like they are the "educated " party. I have seen no legitimate stats which support that claim 1 day before the election. The sites which try to make those claims seem to argue percent of educated democrats vs. percent of education republicans. Which if you think about it supports my contention. Why? because they are manipulating the data. Why not just give us the raw data. How many americans with college educations are dems vs reps. or how many with grad degrees? How many are not government workers? etc.
Who "voted for war"? Iraq was ALL Bush... his personal war... at the expense of the American people. At the rate you're spewing crap, suggest you change your name to "bigdaveLOAD".. as in PANTLOAD~!
Oh yeah, like the people are going to rise up against the Gummint and demand we withdraw from our "war on terror"...