Look at it this way.

McCain will keep taxes the same or cut them. No more money out of your pocket that already is taken out.

Obama has sworn to raise taxes so that means more money in the governments pockets and less in our pockets.

A Vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes.
A vote for McCain is a vote for no new taxes or less taxes.

...and if you were a one-issue voter that would be enough information. McCain has been extremely hawkish on Iran and almost everything else, Obama hasn't. So you could equally say 'A vote for McCain is a vote for more disastrous, expensive (in treasure and blood) foreign wars and balloning national deficits, and a vote for Obama isn't'. And so on...

What is the tax rate in Australia? All I can tel you is that most of us don't care for the American tax rate. But you make a good point.

The inoome tax here varies according to income, I think the highest rate is about 45% which is promised to be reduced.

Tax rates 2007-08
Taxable income
Tax on this income

$1 – $6,000
Nil

$6,001 – $30,000
15c for each $1 over $6,000

$30,001 – $75,000
$3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000

$75,001 – $150,000
$17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000

$150,001 and over
$47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000


It gets quite complicated, there is a 10% GST on most things, and that is not the whole story.

>>Hmm - why do we have to deify 'our' guy and demonise the 'other' guy? McCain is an angel and Obama is a babykiller? Gimme a break. They're both men - good but flawed.<<

“ ‘our’/’other’ “ guy? No, no, Bravus.

In the general, I urge a write-in for jasd

You’d be surprised to find what others of McCain’s fellow POWs have to say... and as for ‘bama; well,

ummm, “infanticide”. Infanticide is still infanticide, yes? and its definition is still very narrow, yes? Kill baby...

Matt 19:17 ...[there is] none good but one, [that is], God:

You’ll note in the above that I take exception: there is “flawed” and there is “flawed” – and ne’er its excuse is met – one wishes.

It is beyond the pale to excuse such deviancy with a political expediency, “Gimme a break.” :-o

Per "one-issue voters:

I could live with the one issue of real qualification - as opposed to qualification-by-text.

>>Obama is pro-choice and will fight any attempts to restrict abortion.<<

Are you aware of procedures used to abort a child? Um, um, um..., infanticide?

>>So was Bill Clinton.<<

Bubba was pro- a whole bunch of unsavouriness. That would not, imho, justify such as the position ‘bama takes on infanticide – by whatever euphemism employed.

>>However in Obama we see a consistency.<<

Uhh, Stalin was “consistent”. It’s said that ‘bout 50,000,000 of his own could testify to that.

>>He has always been pro-choice. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has flip-flopped on the issue.<<

At least, one might argue that Bubba was right, mebbe, half the time; whereas, ‘bama can be said to be wrong – what? 100% of the time?

>>So while we may disagree with Obama's position, at least we see a sign of character in his consistency.<<

Shane, please review what you’ve had to say ‘bout ‘bama’s character vis-à-vis his weaseling positions concerning the logorrhea of his ... mentor.

Sheesh! don’t mind me, I’m quite the cynic where a media-defined or articulateness is purported. Like we really need a POTUS who speaks numinally, “Change is good!” “Hope is good!” “Come together!” “Past is now and the future is present!” “Disburse what’s left of American assets to the world!” – well, forget the mirrors, one begins to see the smoke, yes?

>>During a presidential campaign, a discussion about abortion and judicial politics is healthy. I am not sure this is the best thread or forum to get into that. One might start a thread in the World Affairs or Politics forum.<<

Yes, you may have a point there, however, you’ll notice that your comments provided segue for mine – though, indeed, it may be that these issues might be better relegated to a censored thread.

>>I hope to see Obama go on O'Reilly's show too.<<

Indeed, providing he can gin-up a bit of substance beforehand.



>>This is a guy (McCain) that really does know how to reach across the aisle.<< [ed.jasd]

Boy-o-howdy, does he ever! even so much, as is said, to have sent out feelers exploring a change in party twice and threatened to become an Independent on another occasion. McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, and McCain-Feingold –are several incidents that come to mind of –

reeaaachhhhing...................

Good, bad, or numbingly wrong-headed?

If you're interested in consistency, you should read the May 9 interview of Arianna Huffington on how no one seems to have noticed McCain's about-faces on various issues since the year 2000. (read it at www.democracynow.org) Maybe you like the new McCain, or maybe you don't, but one thing is sure -- he is not the same McCain as he was a few years ago. I used to like and respect him, but I now find little to like or respect.

It seems in Australia you are at least able to see a clear plan, although as a retired person in America, I have nothing to complain about, thanks to some very providential answers to prayer.

"But God said to him, You fool! This very night they [the messengers of God] will demand your soul of you; and all the things that you have prepared, whose will they be?
So it is with the one who continues to lay up and hoard possessions for himself and is not rich [in his relation] to God [this is how he fares].
And [Jesus] said to His disciples, Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious and troubled [with cares] about your life, as to what you will [have to] eat; or about your body, as to what you will [have to] wear.
For life is more than food, and the body [more] than clothes"
Luke 12:20-24 AMP
Regards!

I've always wondered why when one gets further evidence, it is uncool to shift position. One politician, by those terms, who couldn't be persuaded he needed to change position was "Der Furher".(SP) As I recall that inability cost 50,000,000 lives. Thank God for those politicians who are humble enough to admit a reason is good enough to move toward change.
I'll take experience any day, over articulate maneuvering to explain away their flaws.
Just one man's vote.
Regards!

The National Enquirer (a gossip tabloid) has more credibility. Let's at least try to use sources that have a shadow of credibility.