I am not phased by your hyperbole, Iraq is something we are already in--I think it's best that we leave it in a sustainable state. What McCain is going to do is ask his generals how long they think they should stay in Iraq, which is a smart idea. You know, actually asking the only people who know what's going on what to do? We are already in Iraq, that is a fact, we have to go from there and take the most progressive steps towards a stabilized future--a more economically efficient Iraq which is not ruled by a tyrant will benefit all countries that do buisiness with it.
And just so we're clear--businesses are what employ people, the middle class and the lower class. Those rich buisinesses are the ones who have shown a penchant for success, they are the ones that are most likely to spend that money wisely and invest it back in their buisiness, to hire workers, to buy other peoples products. You see the small picture, the truth is that when a big shipping company is buying the software you wrote or when a restraunt chain is buying the tomatoes you grow, everyone profits. If there is anyone we want to provide an incentive to expand and grow--it is sucessful businesses. Also, who do you define as "rich"? Obama would slap an increase to the capital gains tax on anyone who makes over $250,000.
Finally, the country isn't SERVING the rich, the top 5% pay about 60% of federal income taxes, the top 5% are those that make over 145K annually. Is it fair that a lot of people who had great ideas and ended up making a lot of money have to give 35% of it away while others who were not as successful only give 25%? Don't tell me about this country catering towards the rich--the rich pay MORE than their share, who are you to say it is fair to take away more of their money simply because they are successful?
The main hard point is that profitable businesses create profit for others. The other just as important social point is this: Is it fair to take away money from the rich and spend it on some pork barrel the latest senator introduced to get re-elected, and maybe spend a little bit of it to improve the welfare of some people whom may be very unfortunate, or may be just plain irresponsible?
I do not understand either of the parties--one is for certain social freedoms, but does not believe that we should have the freedom to spend our money on whatever we want. The other believes we should have the freedom to spend our money on whatever we want, but does not believe in those same social freedoms.