My Rebuttle:

I also enjoy debates. It was

1. Using Yahoo Finance, I researched the stock price of XYZ_Corp from 1992 (Clinton Era, when taxes were higher) through 2008. As Obama has stated that his tax plan is similar to Clinton's in the way that taxes would increase for certain demographics, I thought it'd be interesting to see how the XYZ_Corp stock price fluctuated between the Clinton era and GW Bush era. Surely, if taxes rise and company's lose out; then your theory holds.

January 1993: $16.21
Peak during Clinton era (Nov 98): $60.12
December 01: $40.01
Increase in stock price of approximately 150%

January 2002: $30.37
Peak During Bush era: $60.87 (2007)
Sept 08: $52.66
Increase in stock price of approximately 73%

And given that this is a consumer product, it benefits us most when the middle class has more disposable income to afford consumer products. Given that the majority of Americans fall into the middle class....Obama's tax plan would be beneficial to drive volume of our sales.

2. When rich are happy poor are happy. That is the republican viewpoint on economics. However, I do not hold the same view point. As a rich person, I can come up with wonderful business ideas; however, if the poor do not have disposable income to enjoy my product...I end up poor as well. Right now there are factors other than taxes that impact the poor more greatly than increased taxes would effect the rich. Need an example? I invite you to watch the following Video.


3. I greatly respect Alan Greenspan, a republican (who sometimes leaned independent) set economic policy during Clinton years. I encourage you to research the facts around the mortgage/credit crisis. Hopefully we can agree on a couple of factors that have caused this credit/ mortgage crisis. Speculatory residential investment purchases in 2000-2005 drove the value of property up (one source indicated that 40% of home purchases in 2006 represented investment properties rather than primary residential). It appeared to builders that there was a large demand. Hence building boomed. Laws of economics show that when supply outweighs demand, prices fall.
Thus...when demand waivered....prices dropped dramatically. This represents true capitalism. Also, Subprime Mortgages are a phenomenon of the Bush era. Subprime Mortgages represent a clever capitalists idea to get rich by giving folks what they want. While I'm not for socialism, I do expect that the government's oversight of certain industries and practices aims to protect the greater good of the people. Perhaps if regulation wasn't the key, the increased oversight should have been. Creative destruction is a key element to capitalism; however, it's intersection with the American dream has proven to be disastrous.

My lunch break is running out, so I'll resort to emotional / non-fact based arguments for the remaining points...

4. I see your point. Keeping American's healthy and well paid is costly. However, it seems unpatriotic to auction off our assets (both financial and resources) to other countries to keep prices down. Perhaps a new set of ideas (aka Change) could come up with a new way to determine the most cost effective way to leverage our resources. Another point on the concept of auctioning off our assets. We no longer live in a USA-confined economy. On one hand, we have a hot-head POTUS hopeful and a VP hopeful whose foreign policy experience rests on the basis that she can see Russia from
land in her state. Diplomacy is so essential given that we now live in a global economic environment. I simply don't trust the McCain/Palin + potential cabinet & foreign policy advisors in regards to diplomacy.

5. I expect that American government would study healthcare systems in other countries and learn. Again, it seems rather unpatriotic to look at my low-income family members and tell them that I refuse to allow my taxes to help them...errruhhh...live.

Lastly...even if I weren't GUNG-HO Obama, McCain's voting record stands against the essence of what I believe in. To better educate myself on McCain's voting record I visited On The Issues. I then had a bit fun with his positions as seen below...

-McCain Opposed Equal Pay Bill for Women, Said They ?Need Education and Training? Instead. (Women, except Sarah Palin, are generally pretty stupid. They just need to get smarter if they want equal pay).
-McCain Voted Against Increasing Benefits For Children With Special Needs In The Social Security Act. (I'd like to hear Palin's take on this).
-McCain has voted consistently against women?s health, and he supports overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. (I LOVE it when men get to dictate what I do with my body! I mean, it was the act of him dictating (pun intended) me that got me preggers in the first place!)
-McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies. (Two Words: Bristol Palin.)
-McCain Voted Against Providing Tax Credits to Small Businesses That Offer Health Insurance To Employees. (Ehhh, you?re not worth saving until you're big business.)
-Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (Because you know, a low-income mother has the time and money to hire a private tutor).
-Voted NO to protect workers? overtime rights. (Slaves didn?t get paid overtime, neither should you).
-Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (I want my gun and I want it NOW!)
-Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (If you want a gun, it totally makes no sense to have restrictions. I love it when unstable people get guns, it makes for interesting news?like Va Tech).
-McCain Opposed Extending Coverage To Uninsured Children. (This is the alternative to the pro-life position. The uninsured child might not get enough coverage to erruhh?....live).
-YES on limiting death penalty appeals (because the legal system is fair and innocent are NEVER executed).
-McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control. (After I take my Viagra, which is covered, I'm going to go populate Alaska).

Have a fantastic day,
SunFresh