Barack Obama Elected President!

[Wales2004]

If his reasons were fiscal related then he should continue to say so and not be apologetic about it. There's no reason to be sorry about something you think would be a financial issue for the government.

Immigration is such a complex problem with no easy fix. We're just looking at what happens when an issue is not properly addressed in the first place.

I'm not worried about higher taxes right now and I can't join in the defense of Obama's proposed policies. I guess I don't feel I need to defend them and I may not necessarily agree with them all anyway. So far nothing's going on to make me change my mind about him.

[wiccachick_1]

Let me look and see if I can find anything that specifically addresses businesses with outsourced overseas employment. I don't think I've seen anything on that specifically.

Although, I should be upfront and say I fundementally disagree with both candidates on taxes. I truly and deeply believe in taxation based on consumption instead of income tax because it would make the US the worlds largest tax shelter and businesses around the world would FLOCK to the US to do business and create a business presence here. It creates jobs, taxes previously untaxable cash flow in the country. Neither of the current candidates are proponents of the Fair Tax so for me, tax platforms are like trying to pick between Bealzabub and Lucifer.

[wiccachick_1]

I think if he felt there would be a fiscal impact that was not realized he should be allowed to say that yes, he opposed on a possible fiscal impact and that he was wrong. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Toups]

I just saw the "lipstick" comment on CNN and I had to LMAO at how the Republicans are making a huge deal of this.

"OOOHHH MY GOD!!!! HE'S A SEXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[JackPeyton]

I agree, however i also think if this was flipped the Dems would cry foul.

hypocrisy runs both ways..

[Wales2004]

If they are genuinely concened about sexism then they should put that energy into going after the makeers of those Palin action figures.

[Wales2004]

Well that ought to be easy to figure out. Did the Democrats go after McCain when he used the term in reference to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan and did they go after him when he made a joke about Chelsea Clinton being ugly?

[Roman]

Those truly are very sexist. The doll is hardly wearing any clothing! And what's with the Matrix style trenchcoat?

[George008]

I would say, yes, they did go after him. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have known about it.

[Roman]

Honestly, I can't remember any outrage because of those statements. I heard more from the comedians than McCain on either subject, but I could be wrong.

[Wales2004]

Did you know about it before I brought it up?

[Wales2004]

You're not wrong. There are things that we find out about by chance on the internet or because someone happens to mention it and for me that was one of them. This thing about Palin is in a whole different category because it's on radio, television and print. It's not some ob BTW here's what McCain said type story that you happen to stumble upon.

Clearly I have no use for this nonsense and if they want to make a statement about sexism go after those action figures. If barely dressed Palin is okay as an action figure then their application of the word "sexism" must mean anything Obama says that can be twisted and anything the media does that is seemingly unfaavorable to them. They're useless blah blah balh.

[Greg's GL]

Roman - I agree with you. Actually, this issue has hit home pretty hard for me. I'm a programmer and my company has been shifting jobs to India for over 6 years. When I started with the company, we had over 5700 IT professionals working for our company. All stateside. Now there are 1700 stateside, 2000 in India.

We have had to TRAIN our replacements on the software before we get our walking papers! I have seen good friends leave the company with a paltry 10K as part of their severance "package". And actually, the company has recently come under fire because when they built a new office in another city with the promise of hiring 500 developers by years end they got a tax break. When they didn't meet their employment goals, the city went after them (rightfully so, IMO) to pay up.

I don't believe that we should be giving tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs. Period. Usually those tax breaks come with a stipulation of requiring X number of employees hired within X time frame with X salary. If the company does not honor their agreement to do that, why should the city/goverment uphold their end of the deal with tax breaks? Anyone?

You aren't wrong.

Uh-huh. ICAM.

[wiccachick_1]

I honestly don't remember about the health care comment but I do remember backlash about Chelsea. McCain issued an apology for that one too.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elec...11480352-1.html

Here is a pretty good breakdown on McCain's basic tax plan. I still haven't seen the revenue projections fit into a budget plan for either candidate. I don't see how anyone can like or dislike a tax plan without seeing how the revenue will work within a budget. Like I said the other day, I don't want to have a large tax cut if it isn't feasible within a budget.

As for the "outsourcing" problem, I'm wondering if either candidate has given any thought to incentives for businesses that return jobs to the US instead of just increasing corporate taxes across the board? A standard tax rate for all business with deductible credits for achieving favorable American employee percentages? Rewarding appropriate business practices makes sense to me and effectively businesses sending jobs overseas would be paying a higher rate without the credits.

And while we are on the subject of taxes, I kind of have a problem with refundable tax credits that exceed the amount accrued though income deduction. In simplest terms if I am a taxpayer that owed in $500 in taxes and paid that amount (just a random figure for illustration) and there is a refundable tax credit of $1500 that I could get then I would receive a refund check of $1000.00. These are totally ficticious numbers but I would receive back $500.00 than I actually paid. I don't think a refund credit should be more than the amount paid into the system. At the very least my refund should be capped by the $500.00 paid. To do anything else seems inequitable to me. Does anyone see what I am saying?

[Wales2004]

Thank you for sharing this. I get why companies want to outsource but not only does this have an adverse effect on U.S. workers but it also turns off consumers. Technical support means nothing when you call and someone in India or some other part of the world can't grasp what your problem is (on top of the fact that explaining pc issues is already confusing for the average user) but then can't even help you after all is said and done. I know this happens with U;S. tech people as well but at least the customer doesn't have bo be annoyed about talking to someone in another country.

I think more people probably end up blaming all their pc nightmares on windows when sometimes the software they are using has some programming code fault. I had a tech tell me a couple of weeks ago that my pc had memory issues and I should try installing the software on another computer (despite the fact that I said upfront that I had tried it on three already....the fact that a tech would assume that customers have more than on pc was astonishing in itself). I want one of those jobs where I can tell people if their software doesn't work it's all vista and xp's fault so unistall it and install it on another pc.....