Obama doesn't need Penssylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, or Ohio to win. McCain needs all 4 just to have a chance, but he won't be getting Pennsylvania or Ohio.

Actually, Obama's winning without those two, too. He has 311, without NC or GA.  Even if he loses PA and OH, he still has exactly 270, with out any toss ups.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Yeah it can't help that he actually has a plan for the economy and cares about the middle class either. Geesh, he sure is a ruthless unfair candidate isn't he?

When u tax capital gains, corps pass increase prices on to the consumer. It is economics 101.  In summation, you are hurting the long term growth of free markets by voting BO.

So what? Economics will also not permit someone to overcharge for something people are willing to pay for. Supply and demand is the basic principles of capitalism isn't it? So if someone is overcharging for something, demand goes down and so does their revenue.

It's not like Obama is raising taxes to some historically unprecedented levels. If people have no money they can't contribute to our economy in the first place. When the bottom falls out, those falling bring down the rest of the economy with it. Saying that a few people help keep the bottom for starving/dying/off of medicare and welfare is wrong is stupid to me.

Raising taxes will help us help our country, and the money the rich give up in taxes they will eventually get back through the economy. However, if this recession hits hard and long their money and companies aren't going to be making money anyways.

Corporations are going to save a ton of money with his health care plan...

People do realize that in classical economic theory, if you have a free market no companies will see profit in the long run above the standard interest rates. The only way companies can see profits higher than that is to become a monopoly/oligopoly there are two ways to become one, a) innovate product or marketing or b) be in cahoots with the government.

a) is alright, this is how MS became one (but not how it maintains it's monopoly status).

b) can be alright, if it is a natural fit (power companies and other utilities). The problem is that (for example) health care or defense contracts are not competitive because it has pushed out competition through government interference.

In other words, capital gains beyond the minimum taxable bracket is not a natural economic occurrence, economics 101.

Why are capital gains relevant to corporations "passing increased prices on" to anyone?  As I understand it, Capital gains are GAINS on INVESTMENTS like stocks.  Considering the fact that the capital gains tax is already lower than the income tax in many cases and higher in no case (including all proposals I'm aware of), I don't see the problem.  (Anyway, I'd think that in the current stock market situation people would be happy just to HAVE a gain in the first place.) 

If companies are going to be assholes to their customers because they want to make MORE profit, that's not the fault of (reasonable) taxes on profits, that's the fault of companies being assholes.  At least that's the way it seems to me.  I'm sure you have paid much more attention to the capital gains issue than I have, so please explain why you believe my position is incorrect. 

Why should the capital gains tax be lower than the income tax?  (Let alone ZERO as your post seems to imply you would want!)

Get your economic mumbo jumbo out of here mister, especially the bolded parts!

I should have been clearer.  I meant Obama doesn't need a single one of those states.  Or a single toss-up for that matter.  With his solid leads (5% and up) he already won.

I'd vote to kill the free market if I had the chance.  Survival of the fittest works for hungry fish and monkeys, but it's not good for humans.  Thanks to that one tiny flaw in Alan Greenspan's free market ideology, we might actually have a REAL free market soon, in which we're only bartering with guns and gasoline and have no currency.

What about something in the middle, where people have encouragement to be productive but we still help each other out?

See, this is where you and I disagree Rubang, full out communism isn't the answer either. We need something workable (like our current system mostly is) and not ideological.