Me too. I'm a democrat for McCain. This isn't about party lines. It's about who's best for the job. I still maintain it's Hillary (who does not want to ban games, no matter how much some lie she does), but if not her than McCain.

Barack is all about words and media love not about policies.

I think most people who say Obama has no policies have not bothered to look at his policies, and expect him to explain every detail of his policies during every speech.

He wants to complete revamp health insurance, allowing people to choose the same type of coverage that Congressman receive and to stop insurance companies from discriminating against people who have medical conditions already. He also wants to give extra tax credits to pay for health care (as does McCain).

He wants to reform the tax system so that corporations can't take advantage of every loophole in existence to avoid paying taxes, which is the fiscally responsible thing to do when our deficit is spiralling upwards to a DANGEROUS level.

He wants to repeal the majority of the Bush tax cuts, because they have cost the country more than the ENTIRE Iraq war. Don't believe me? Go look at the numbers yourself.

He wants to invest heavily in domestic energy, especially renewable energy. He is also for some level of offshore drilling. I disagree with him in not promoting nuclear energy.

I am not saying all of you are guilty of this, but most of you saying Obama doesn't have good policies have probably not actually looked at his policies. Here they are, in black and white, taken straight from his website. If you want to say he does have bad policies, at least READ them:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

I wouldn't call those policies. It's not really explained how he'll pay for these things, most are just more lofty goals with no real plan to implement them.

And wow, what great plans he has for MY MONEY. Big government getting it's hands into EVERY ASPECT of our daily lives. I'm sorry, but every government insitution I've ever visited, from the DMV, to social security offices, courthouses, etc has been poorly run, inneficient as hell, incredible wasters of money, etc, etc. All the problems government is currently trying to fix GOVERNMENT CREATED IN THE FIRST FREAKING PLACE! Lofty, impossible goals sound good on paper, but once the beaurocrats get their hands on this (which they will, Jesus-bama can't run all this by himself), it will be nothing but big crap from big government. Obama is young and a dreamer. He is well intentioned and I have no personal problem with him, he seems like a nice enough guy, but he is a tax & spend liberal who thinks governemt is the answer to all our problems (many of which, ironically, were created by government in the first place). The tax increases needed to pay for all this will far outweigh the 'benefits'... they always do.

My favorite promise: cut CO2 emmissions 80% by 2050. Great, by that time he won't be in the oval office anymore. How? not really explained. Typical over the top campaign promises.

Actually he has explained how he will pay for most of those things in many of his speeches.  He said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts and close a lot of the corporate loopholes.  Considering the Bush tax cuts have cost us more than double the cost of the ENTIRE Iraq war, his proposals are entirely feasible.

So presidents shouldn't try to set long-term goals?  I think it is completely realistic to admit you can't do everything you want in one term, but that you should start a legacy, much like what Clinton was trying to do to reduce the national debt.  Unfortunately, Bush derailed that pretty quickly.

It's kind of tough to say what the Bush tax cuts really cost, and if they actually did cost us anything. Revenue to the government has actually gone up since the tax cuts because the economy improved after the early Bush term recession (which was a combination of cyclical factors, as well as the attacks of 9/11, Bush had not been in office long enough to have caused the first recession). It could be argued that the economy would not has improved as well or as quickly, so revenues would have stayed flat even with higher taxes. Because there's no way to determine what would have happened without the tax cuts, this remains a matter of opinion rather than fact. I believe the tax cuts stimulated the economy, and the increased revenue from a better economy negated the lower tax rate, resulting in no loss to government revenue, this is backed up by the numbers.

However, if you believe that the economy would have recovered the same without the tax cuts, it would make sense that they did cost the government money. Either way, it comes down to unproveable opinion.

I agree to some degree, and I wouldn't be complaining at all if the Bush adminstration were willing to keep its budget within a reasonable margin (first adminstration to break a $1 trillion budget AND $2 trillion budget).

My main concern is the immediate impact those policies had on our country, the ballooning national debt.  Obviously if we weren't spending so much we wouldn't need to have high taxes, but when we ARE spending that much, we should have higher taxes. 

That is how European countries have done things for centuries, higher taxes when they are at war, lower taxes when they are not.