McCain v Obama

Everything Political

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby MikeJamieson » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:33 pm

There's a lot there of useful points to address, so thanks because it
helps those of us examining the issues in preparation for canvassing
(our local Issues in a Nutshell meetings to start up again on July 8th
here in Reno).

Just picking one item now, re: cost of enhancing energy efficiency of buildings:
Page 7 of his energy pdf addrsses much of that, including his proposal
to "flip incentives to energy utilities: .....will work to 'flip' incentives to
state and local utilities by ensuring companies get increased profits for
improving energy efficiency, rather than higher energy consumption.
Currently, utilities make profits when consumers purchase more energy,
and when consumers purchase energy at peak times when energy prices are
higher because of greater demands on the system. This decoupling of
profits from increased energy usage will incentivize utilities to partner
with consumers and the federal government to reduce monthly energy
bills for families and businesses. Obama will provide early adopter grants
and other financial assistance from the federal government to states that
implement this energy efficient policy." There are three other aspects discussed
for that section.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA


Re: McCain v Obama

Postby MikeJamieson » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:58 pm

Obama got off some great lines in Las Vegas the other day, related to energy
policy and some of what McCain has said related to energy:

http://tinyurl.com/612m72/

For example, in noting McCain's observation about offshore oil drilling having
a positive psychological impact, Obama observed that in Washington speak
that means it polls well.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Photo (includes me)

Postby MikeJamieson » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:31 pm

Last Monday, a "Unity" press conference was held in Reno at the Washoe Dem HQ (Reno).
There, Hillary leader State Treasurer Kate Marshall endorsed Barack Obama. Assembly leader
Sheila Leslie at podium.
I'm on the far left, head bowed (as if in prayer, I guess).
Photo by local activist/volunteer (Edwards, then Obama) Ursula Sindlinger.

Image
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:43 pm

A little camera shy there Mike? :) Good on you for getting involved…

Hey Ray, believe me I absolutely understand where you’re coming from and you’re right… it’s campaign politics as usual and Obama does come across as naïve and what he ideally would like to be able to make happen clearly conflicts with reality but…

[and this is a big BUT for someone like me who’s a hard-core conservative and absolutely despises the far-left liberal agenda]

…I have to look at what I perceive to be the man’s character. Do I think he will do (or try to do) the right thing when given a choice? I could be absolutely wrong and the first thing he does when he gets in office is lock up whitey but judging by his actions so far, when given the choice of taking the high or the low road in his battle with the Clinton Machine for example, he’s taken the high road for the most part in my opinion… and won! [for that alone we all should be eternally grateful lol] That says a lot to me and may be a good indicator of what he’ll do when the inevitable you know what hits the fan in Washington.

Will he be able to pay for ANY of his broad sweeping social programs? No.

Will he be able end to the war in Iraq? Not right away.

Will he be able to stop Global Warming? What global warming?

Will he be able to significantly raise taxes? Depends on how many Republicans get elected to Congress in lieu of a viable Republican presidential candidate. [hint]

Will he be able to change Washington in four years? Not much if at all.

Will he be able to change anything for the better? Maybe.

Will McCain be able to change anything for the better? Business as usual.

Does McCain represent me as a conservative? No.

[his unforgivable sin IMO was the Kennedy-McCain “Amnesty” bill]

I say give the man a chance… let’s see what he can (or can’t) do. He’s got a lot to live up to and a lot of responsibility hanging over his head (indeed the weight of History) and maybe just maybe a Black Man being elected President may help turn the tide against Blacks suppressing Blacks if nothing else.

Personally I take campaign politics with a huge grain of salt… as far as I know nobody has ever been elected by not telling people what they want to hear. What I look for is Leadership skills… or in the case of Obama who’s relatively young, leadership potential. I could be wrong but I think it’s far more likely for Obama to get in there and admit we’re f*cked than McCain is.

There I said it…

[besides wouldn’t it be nice to be the criticizer instead of the criticized for a change] :wink:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Anti-Obama bloggers stifled by Blogger Host

Postby MikeJamieson » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:50 pm

Apparently (or obviously) many people who have been reading a variety of anti-Obama
blogs hosted by Blogger have been clicking on the Objection Flag at the top, causing
Blogger to suspend functions of many of these blogs until they can be reviewed:

http://forestwanderernotes.blogspot.com/2008/06/flagging-bloggers-blogs.html

The reference to PUMAs is explained here:
http://blog.pumapac.org
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby MikeJamieson » Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:09 pm

Hi, Access Denied.

After some significant time around this guy, I became extremely calm and confident re:
his ability to lead the nation. And, I had time around all the Dem candidates (except for Gravel).

The job is going to be really tough, no doubts about it.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Barack's Honeymoon is over:Flip-flop season has begun

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:32 pm

Now that Barack has secured the DEM nomination, the same, tired, old political script now calls for a "re-centering" of his views in the run-up to the general election. And sure enough we see it occurring already... we have seen his "softening" of his stance on Iraq, which is really a minor issue compared to the fact that he will, one day, have to admit that the "surge" has worked. But now his most staunch liberal supporters are complaining of his latest flip-flop (excuse me, "re-centering") on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act where he voted for a bill that continues telecom company immunity...something he had always said he was against:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/ ... index.html

BTW, I should point out that I am not necessarily singling-out the DEMs here. The "tired, old political script" I am talking about has always been invoked by either party whenever the party nomination has been a close race. It is simply a feature of the political landscape... one must distinguish themselves from their opponents within their party during the primary season, and then one must "re-center" after the nomination is secure to attract enough of the opposing party's voters to win the general election. I hate it when the Repubs have done it, but this election season it is the Dems who must invoke the script. I am only pointing out to those who vote Dem that you will be disappointed as a result of this script. And the vehement "Hillary-only" supporters will now have even more vindication to switch their vote to McCain..although on this issue McCain will most surely not be interested in exposing the telecomms to litigation for the participation in the FISA.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Politics in the Op-Eds

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:18 pm

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21 ... -to-obama/

Opinion piece by presumptive GOP nominee is rejected by paper's op-ed editor — a former Clinton aide — who tells McCain to write article that 'mirrors Senator Obama's piece'


Is there any doubt to the clearly left-leaning politics inherent in the New York Times? Moreover, what happened to the days where journalists did not "direct" the content they reported on... but rather just reported it and tried to remain unbiased? Granted this is an Op-Ed column, so we are talking opinions. But that doesn't mean editors are not acting with bias towards one person's opinion, and protecting that person (Obama).

When you read the actual Op-Ed submittedf by McCain, it is clear that he is just asking Obama to admit he was wrong in many of his statements about "the surge". Of course, the Liberal Machine wants to protect him from ever having to make such an admission....so they muzzle McCain and tell McCain how he should write an Op-Ed:

“I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the op-ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach,” Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote the campaign via an e-mail later distributed by McCain’s team.


Just like a Democrat...always telling people what they should do. So rare that they do it themselves!
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby Access Denied » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:49 am

Hey Ray, I hope you don't mind but I merged a couple of yours and one of Mike's posts related to this election into this thread for easy reference.

Anyway, seems nobody wants to debate politics… what’s up with that? :)

Me? I’m just glad Hillary was defeated. :D

After that I lost interest… I’m pretty sure Obama’s got it in the bag.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Beware Obama's "Tax The Rich" Rhetoric

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:56 pm

Access Denied wrote:Hey Ray, I hope you don't mind but I merged a couple of yours and one of Mike's posts related to this election into this thread for easy reference.


No problem. And allow me to continue Obamawatch '08! :D

This morning I have more facts and evidence that would totally destroy the claim that "the rich don't pay their fair share." It may also cause one to really question whether "taxing the rich" is going to solve anything...or take us back to the Jimmy Carter Economy...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216596 ... pa_mostpop

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.


But....but....but... how can that be? Clearly this goes against the liberal rhetoric we have always heard about them being "tax cuts for the rich"! :shock:

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.


Well, Mr. Obama? You didn't get your degree in economics, did you? ;)

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.


Facts confound liberal rhetoric again.

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.

This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.


Liberal rhetoric would hope you believe their claims that the Bush tax cuts caused our current economic problems. In fact it was just the opposite... they pulled us OUT of the slump we were in at the end of the Clinton administration. And the slump we are in now was from too many banks lending too much money to people who were too stupid to know what "rate adjustments" were or how they would impact their future.

The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.

This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.


Again, this is not rhetoric. Those are cold, hard numbers from the last 8 years of economic performance and tax revenue. Of course, the Liberal Rhetoric Machine will never touch these facts.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Beware Obama's "Tax The Rich" Rhetoric

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:39 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:This morning I have more facts and evidence that would totally destroy the claim that "the rich don't pay their fair share." It may also cause one to really question whether "taxing the rich" is going to solve anything...or take us back to the Jimmy Carter Economy...

Well, the top 1% may be paying more under Bush then they did Clinton but the point is moot at this point don’t you think? Apparently they’ll be paying a LOT less if McCain gets his way and a little more if Obama does…

A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (revised June 20, 2008)
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicat ... ?ID=411693

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a "current policy" baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $300 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $1.0 trillion (if fully phased-in and permanent), a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan. As noted, both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes-Obama probably more than McCain.

The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

The good news I suppose is under either plan 99% of us will be paying less…

Image

[actually 4/5 of us]

Now whether or not we’ll be able afford to buy anything more with that extra income I’m not sure… somehow I doubt it. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Barack's Honeymoon is over:Flip-flop season has begun

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:11 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Now that Barack has secured the DEM nomination, the same, tired, old political script now calls for a "re-centering" of his views in the run-up to the general election. And sure enough we see it occurring already... we have seen his "softening" of his stance on Iraq, which is really a minor issue compared to the fact that he will, one day, have to admit that the "surge" has worked. But now his most staunch liberal supporters are complaining of his latest flip-flop (excuse me, "re-centering") on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act where he voted for a bill that continues telecom company immunity...


Yep. And the "recrafting of Obama" continues. He won the DEM nomination by crafting himself to be further to the left of Hillary, hence his "change" motif. Our course, he doesn't want us to notice as he changes his opinions about "change" to move more to the center, so he can hope to claim some of the fence-sitters who don't want a Lefty Liberal. I think the "change" moniker is talking more about how often Obama changes his position than it represents any kind of change he will bring to Washington. The only constant about Obama is his change of position! :shock:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/ ... index.html

Obama says offshore drilling stance nothing new


Oh really? LOL
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby torbjon » Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:33 am

AD wrote:
as far as I know nobody has ever been elected by not telling people what they want to hear.


isn't that IT in a nutshell? These people do polls and focus groups, get the numbers and buzz words, determine what we want to hear on an Emotional level, calculate who the 'undecided' and 'swing votes' are and determine what They want to hear on an Emotional level, and then feed back our Emotional fears and desires to us.

When is the last time any of us has heard a candidate speak logically and rationally about a subject? Scratch that, a candidate who Won?

The other day I respectfully requested that folks please take a peek at Century of the Self by Adam Curtis. Folks have looked at that post / request but No One has commented with a Yea or Nay... why?

Ray, you of all people should have a peek, it's System Analysis on an Organic Level. Truly beautiful, truly poetic, utterly horrifying.

I'm a little disillusioned... I perceive ALL of you as being smarter than me, especially in the political arena, but the conversations here tend to be more emotional than rational.

If any one of these candidates came here and used their 'election tactics' to promote a 'ufo encounter' we'd all cry Hoax, Foul and Nutjob, and you Know it.

"Lower Taxes"

I'm sorry, what? Emotionally that makes me feel all warm and nutty crunchy inside, I get a yummy all over when I hear "Lower Taxes"...

Now 'splain to the dumb white boy in cold hard rational logical Scientific Terms WHY "Lowering Taxes" is not only good for ME but good for the entire country and tell me Exactly how that works.

What's another yummy floating around... oh ya, I'm going to Fund a Super Smart Committee that will Find a way to pull Free Stuff from its Fanny and Magically Make America a Better Place.

oh ya, I'm hooked alright, I want some of that magic free fanny stuff for me too. Lots of it.

Why, that's Exactly what Billy Clinton said about the Welfare system and Health Care, isn't it?? Just get me into office and I'll whip out my Magic Thingy and Wave it around and Beef up Welfare and Shape up Health Care Ya Baby!!

Oh no, waitaminit, I'm gonna Cut Welfare and Scrape Health Care and Raise Taxes and the only person getting the Magic of my Thingy is Monica, sorry folks, I inhaled.

Bernay may be dead but he's still calling the shots. Try and nail your pet candidate down, try to get honest to gods Facts and Figures that can be measured and peer reviewed. Each one of these people is nothing more than your average Nut Job with a Wild and Crazy Story.

"I'm going to lead you to a Better Place" (aka Reptilians Ate My Homework)

That's a pretty Far Out claim. Far Out claims require some pretty hardcore Evidence.

Remember, Chorlton is watching and he's no snoozer.
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby Chorlton » Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:10 am

Surely this all comes back to that old one liner?
"If you can see a Politicians lips moving.....he's lying"
Then theres that wonderfull US sentence:
Plausible deniability........I LOVE that.

Here in the UK before an Election, the parties publish a 'Manifesto' setting out what they intend to do.
Basically its a litany of lies. Because, for every party other than the one thats actually in power, they havent the faintest idea of total budgets and complete fiscal policies as well as having zero knowledge of all the 'under the table' deals the Government has done with Unions, other governments etc.

New Labour (spit spit spit) promised the UK people, verbally and in their manifesto a vote on European Union. We still havent got it after 11 years. We were promised a vote on a New 'Treaty' and on ratification. That never happened. We have been promised a vote on Eu Monetary Union. That hasnt happened. Its all lies.
They tell people what they want to hear, what makes them feel safe inside, Than when they get into power say "well we said that before we knew the facts...... the last Government derailed it with the Civil Servants and anything else they can get away with. So in reality, they say one thing and do another.
To be fair to New labout (spit) they did do some of the things in the manifesto, but only the realy 'Feel Good' things.

For years I have been seriously considering challenging the Government that wins power, over Manifesto promises, because to me I just dont think its legaly, or morally right to promise millions of people, things which they are plainly unable to do. Maybe in 2010 I might just do that.

I also seriously object to a UK government giving Millions in aid and promising Millions in Aid to Afghanistan, Iran Africa and any other country when we have schools that are falling apart, hospitals that have to close because the local health Authority cant afford staff and old people who die of cold during the winter.
Oops !m off on one arent I?

As for telling lies to people, I think its the first thing in any potential politicians 'to learn' book for all governments in the world. 'Learn to tell lies whilst looking and acting sincere'
The next Lie they learn is:
No more Taxes.
=D> =D> =D> =D>
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: McCain v Obama

Postby ryguy » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:43 pm

1. No Bush
2. No Hillary Clinton.

All's good. Either Obama or McCain will do fine (although Obama will clearly do much better....lol).
And the next time anyone votes for an illiterate Frat Boy, they should be shot. It's going to take us decades to recover from the messes this spoiled-rich-boy-from-a-rich-old-oil-family created.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron