Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Foreign Policy: Obama plans to, unlike Bush and McCain, meet with our adversaries in an attempt to change relations between the countries. This does not require appeasement, only a charismatic speaker with a willingness to extend the olive branch before the bayonett given cooperation from the other side. Obama's not going to try to talk peace if someone is going to hurt us, but if someone is simply unfriendly, talking can't hurt, and in fact, hasn't been tried for quite a while. War in Iraq: Obama will carefully remove forces from Iraq, a move he's been calling for, and he is now recieving support for from Iraqi leaders as well as leaders here at home. He will then focus troop efforts on Afganistan where Al Quieda is believed to be headquartered. McCain seems insistant we continue a stay in a country that doesn't want us. Energy: Both candidates will offer change here, Obama will offer more renewable energies and avoid our addiction on oil, whereas McCain will focus more on Nuclear power and oil which is NOT renewable. Healthcare: Millions of americans are in a state of poor health coverage, Obama has offered a solution that is not free, but affordable quality healthcare. McCain's solution amounts to very little more than what we are already pursuing. Education: Obama is trying to find a way to help people attempting to afford college and get out of the bottom rung, by helping them pay for it if they serve their country. He also wants to use a more comprehensive way to rate teachers other than standardised testing. McCain's plan is our current system, pushed harder.
One thing Obama brings to the table that McCain doesn't is me. Not one of me but millions of me. People who have a renewed patriotism in their country and are more than the uninformed teenager in Orange County. I'm 18, in the cornhusker state, I'm not old enough to drink, I'm a cashier at a department store. I shouldn't think my vote matters. But Barack Obama has changed that. I think that just might be the most important change of all.
-Bush's years have been a disaster in fiscal terms. The administration decided to cut taxes while fighting two wars. As a result, Bush inherited a surplus of over $100 billion from Bill Clinton but has run up the largest deficits in history. Under "save the best for last," or for the next guy, it has recently come out that the current budget forecast is for a deficit of about half a trillion dollars for FY 2009. And that doesn't even count the costs of the wars.
While the GOP, including the McCain campaign at the convention this week, sounded the call for lower taxes, the actual record of the last eight years is not so clear. If you're at the top of the income heap, you did great under Bush. Otherwise, you got your $300 check a while back, but you might have noticed that the property taxes in many places went up by a lot more than that. In large part because Bush's budgets cut aid to cities and states and they had to make up the difference.
Obama's tax plan actually calls for lower taxes for many working Americans, 95% or so, and many commentators and economists note that his proposal gives most people a lower federal tax burden than McCain's. McCain also proposes to tax health insurance benefits, and for those lucky enough to have them that means paying taxes on several hundred dollars a month in "income" that is not money you actually receive.
It's often argued that Obama will "cripple the economy" but history suggests otherwise. Over the past 60 years, economic growth has been twice as high during Democratic adminstrations than Republican. More importantly, from my point of view, income distribution has been much more equal. From 1945 to 1973, the Democrats held the White House for most of the time, and even the Republican presidents governed in a more liberal manner. During that time the real income for all segments of American life rose dramatically. Since 1973, the real wages of the bottom 60% of wage earners have stayed flat or gone down. The major exception to this is the second Clinton term, when real wages went up fairly well. Since 2001, while productivity is up 20%, the real median wage is down. Pay at the very top has soared. The compact that existed, work hard and you will be treated fairly and share in the gains your labor has created, has been broken by Republican economic theory. McCain promises more of the same theory, Obama does not. Historically Obama's version of economics has been more beneficial, and also more fair.
-McCain is being completely disingenuous on the drilling issue. His campaign has fostered a myth, apparently now believed by large numbers of Americans, that offshore drilling will create significant price drops soon. It won't. The process takes years of geological studies and test runs, and it would be 10-15 years before a drop of oil appears. Even then it would not amount to more than 1% of global output, and would not offset the rising demand in India, China, etc. Given the industrialization of these huge nations, oil will become scarcer. And, while Republicans like to ignore or belittle it, the scientific community and the rest of the world see that global warming is increasingly a threat. We fall behind in developing alternative technologies and improving our infrastructure at our peril. Not to mention the obvious fact that oil dependency places us at the mercy of some unsavory nations, including a newly belligerent Russia. We need a long term solution, and drilling is not it. While McCain and Palin said that "of course" they don't think drilling is the only answer, and they will pursue alternative sources, a look at McCain's actual 25 year record in Washington shows that he has not done so.
The war in Iraq is a disaster and Obama was correct on that from day one. He opposed it at a time when it was not popular to do so, and when few Democrats did so. While McCain would like us to think that all is well, it really is not. There has been a dramatic decrease in violence, due in part to the surge and in part to the Anbar Awakening, which (contrary to McCain's claims) came well before the surge. But the political situation in that nation remains unstable. While McCain would like nothing more than for people to think the Surge is the only thing that happened in Iraq, it is not. This war has been going on for 5.5 years, we have lost over 4,000 people, the Iraqis have lost far more than that. It has cost $10 billion a month that could have been spent on our roads and collapsing bridges, or improving our train network. Or on schools, healthcare, job retraining, better conditions at Walter Reed. Countless things.
The war was also entered under false pretenses. They said it was WMD, still haven't found them. They fomented the idea that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Not true. And it's rank hypocrisy. Saddam was an SOB, but that didn't prevent the Reagan administration from giving him a medal (Rumsfeld, 1983) and providing virtually his whole army when he was willing to fight Iran. He was an ally until he wasn't. But this was never about the freedom of the Iraqi people. McCain led the drumbeat for this war and has supported it from the start. They said it was mission accomplished 5 years ago, and it wasn't. He should be held accountable for the costs of this war in life, treasure, and good will. While the GOP doesn't think it's relevant for the US to be liked in the world, it is. Having the respect and trust of allies is important. More importantly, McCain should be held accountable for supporting Iraq and taking his eyes off the prize in Afghanistan, where the Taliban actually did provide sanctuary to Al Queda. They were chased from there in 2001 but now they are back in force, which is bad news. Obama was right on that one too.
From everything I have seen, Obama is thoughtful and understands the stakes. McCain has been claiming foreign policy expertise, but he was wrong on Iraq, does not know that Iran is Shiite and Al Queda Sunni, said that Iraq borders Pakistan when they are 1,500 miles apart, and has repeatedly referred to "Czechoslovakia" though the country ceased to exist in 1993. I think Obama is more qualified than McCain to lead our foreign policy forward.
Then it comes down to values, and I share Obama's. I support inclusion and tolerance. I do not want someone else's religious beliefs imposed on me. And I think it is a travesty that we have over 45 million people in the richest country in the history of the world without health insurance. In the past year, the numbers dropped from 15.8 to 15.3 percent. Why? Because of an increase in children, mostly, enrolled in GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. Every other first world nation has universal coverage, and most of those systems work quite well and cover everyone for far lower cost than here. The GOP raises the spectre of anything government being bad, and tells tales of waits and such abroad, but I know a number of people in these countries who have had no bad experiences that I haven't had with my private insurance here. And I have to pay $200 a month for mine, not counting what my employer pays. Obama has a comprehensive plan for universal coverage, it's about time, and McCain offers more of the same policies that are not working.
I could go on but this is too long already and it's late. In short, I believe that Obama represents an exciting, thoughtful approach to problems we have either too long ignored or have newly created in the past eight years. Depsite the maverick image, and the speech repudiating Bush, McCain does not offer any actual policies that differ from the trainwreck we've seen since 2001. Obama does, and they are in plain detail on his website for anyone to see. Contrary to GOP claims, he is not saying "change, change" without specifics. He has given more specifics than just about any candidate for the presidency, and I believe the specifics he proposes will get the country back on the right track.
Good stuff!! I am hoping there will be more traffic in the Am for these thread but i would have forgotten to post if I had not stayed up and done it this evening.
Well, this is a response to ocexpo's post in the McCain "state your case" topic - per tluv's request I'm posting it here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocexpo
McCain is a maverick. He has a record of crossing party lines to get things done, and does not engage in standard party bickering. He has worked with Ted Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats to work on bills that were not popular within his party, and he did it because he believes in compromise rather than party bickering.
He has indeed worked with the other party, but so has Obama. He also has a history of rising above the usual party mud-slinging, but that to me was rather underscored by the snarkiness of Palin and the rancor of Romney, Giuliani et. Al at the RNC. And this was at an event that was supposed to gain votes beyond the RNC base, knowing that people from every persuasion would be tuning in. Then when he gave his speech, he threw around the "change" word while going over the same tired old talking points. It may have hooked you, but it rang hollow to me.
Quote:
McCain has a record of leadership. He has helped to author, had his name on, or cosponsored over 100 bills during his carrer.
Without necessarily refuting that McCain has demonstrated the ability to lead, at least in the past, it's like saying that the Dallas Cowboys have been to more Super Bowls than the Carolina Panthers. One's been around for a lot longer than the other.
Quote:
Obama has only cosponsored 2 bills but never introduced one himself.
Patently false. He also overcame porkers Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd in passing a bill for a searchable database (http://obama.senate.gov/news/060909-bloggers_help_o/ - broken link) for, to keep it brief, pork. Obama has brought home some bacon himself, but he hasn't been hiding from it. One thing that I do like about Obama is his call for transparency in government, something sorely missing from the Bush administration. And Sarah Palin's refusal to talk to the media thus far isn't signaling to me that a McCain administration is necessarily going to be any different.
Quote:
McCain has served his country, and truly knows what it means to be an American. At his convention, the people chanted "USA" rather than "McCain" like at the other convention because it is the party of patriots with a great patriot at the top of the ticket.
I'm not going to question John McCain's patriotism or his service, but at the RNC I watched, I did hear chants of "John McCain! John McCain!" - so, wrong there. They did chant "USA! USA!" - I remember hearing that at WWF wrestling events too. Hacksaw Jim Duggan even led the chants. This is pretty superficial. I won't even get into the "hot VP." And people call Obama supporters shallow.
Quote:
McCain does NOT want to punish the wealthy and businesses at their attempt at the American Dream. Taxing already overburdened small businesses and corporations will drive them to close altogether or leave the country, a concept Obama doesn't seem to understand.
Bush's celebrated tax cuts have been disproportionately aimed at the wealthy. Mainly, Obama sounds to be mainly in support of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. A lot of claims about Obama on taxes seem to be disingenuously false, as were many otherthings said at the RNC. I'm weary of lies from the GOP, and frankly, this convention did nothing for me there.
Quote:
McCain was RIGHT in his quest for a troop surge. He has TREMENDOUS foreign credentials, which are greatly needed in such a dangerous world.
Quote:
One thing you cannot say about Bush is that after 911 (which I put the blame for that on Clinton who cut $35 billion from defense systems during his presidency) we have never been attacked.
Clinton's hands are hardly clean, but the president on September 11, 2001 was George W. Bush. And apparently they had the means to go right to Afghanistan and get the War on Terror in full swing in the immediate aftermath. What was stopping them from being on top of things so much on September 10? How in the hell does an airliner fly that low and close to the Pentagon? Why were we caught sleeping? These are not Clinton questions.
Quote:
Had an Obama or Gore been president, we would have been attacked again without question.
You know this how? Do you also know who would've won the 1994 World Series if there hadn't been a strike?
McCain is a pro life, a stance I share with him. Think about it this way, had Obama's mom gotten an abortion because she was a young mother (as many young mothers do), the "beloved King Obama" wouldn't even be here right now. I am fine with things like birth control and "morning after pills" but once a baby is there, I believe it has rights.
The party of "small government" should not be in the business of telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body. I do not get some perverse feeling of joy in hearing about an abortion, and odds are Mrs. jfre81 will never have one, but we both support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Fault me for all you want on it, but I do not consider an embryo or a barely-formed fetus to have the same status of a fully-developed child. Once it gets to a point that it could be viable outside its mother's body, we might be talking about something different. At that point I can't say I support elective abortions as a general rule. You've had enough time to figure out whether to go through with it or not. I don't believe in forcing through a pregnancy out of rape or incest, as it would result in a child who has no chance at all of a normal "traditional" life. The rapist daddy isn't going to be in the kid's life - he should be in prison - and incestuous births can result in birth defects.
Also, I know lots of young mothers, and abortions are still the exception to the rule, no matter what you've been told.
Obama's record on abortion also seems to be distorted by people. The link also explains the "present" votes in the Illinois legislature - apparently voting "present" on legislation considered to be flawed is common there.
Quote:
McCain wants to make English this countries OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. This is one of the main reasons I am a republican to begin with. Our nation needs to be an english speaking country for the sake of unity. I am very at odds with McCain on immigration, but I do think we have a better hope of "putting off amnesty" under McCain. Since he wants to build the wall first, we have time. Obama wants to get those people legalized as fast as he can to admit millions of new democrats into the system.
The notion that McCain wants to make English the official language is, again, patently false. He has opposed it for a long time, and it would reek of pandering to change his position on it now.
The move to make English the "official language" would be symbolic at best, considering all official business in this country is conducted in English. You may not agree, but I think that the Founding Fathers would have made English the official language in the early days of this country if that was their intent. Remember that there were loads of Indian languages still being spoken in the land then.
There are several other countries that have no official language - Australia, perhaps the most US-like country outside the US itself (and maybe Canada), also conducts its official business in English without "officializing" it formally and it seems to get along just fine not doing so. And you might be surprised to learn that Mexico has no formal official language either.
Quote:
I have NO DOUBT that John McCain will reduce the wasteful government spending, and I know Sarah Palin will be on his side on conquering our way oversized government. It is ridiculous how oversized our government has come (and it is more broken than it has ever been).
As president, the only thing he can do regarding legislation is veto it, and to do so he would have to veto an entire bill. The line-item veto has been declared unconstitutional for the president. And judging from the Congressional election polls which strongly suggest a Democratic majority in both houses, there is a chance that a McCain veto could get overridden. And don't think that Republicans with whom the "maverick" has butted heads with won't necessarily go against him as president. As for Sarah Palin, her pork in Alaska has been targeted by McCain (broken link) in the fairly recent past, she supported the Bridge to Nowhere and only began "opposing" it after Congress had already decided not to approve it. In other words, only after it was a moot point.
Quote:
I dont think America is a system of social welfare where the poor can just be handed money just because they make none of their own. We shouldn't have people in this country that leech of the American people. Obama almost promotes those social programs. John McCain tries to solve those problems by enriching job avaliability to put people into society instead of throwing them money as a band-aid.
I honestly agree here, and Obama has not been very clear with his intentions regarding welfare. I am not opposed to people getting help if they are willing to meet halfway and find work (provided they are healthy enough to work). Social Darwinism runs counter to the whole "American dream" concept where everyone has a shot to succeed.
Quote:
Our economy is in the tank, and Obama's programs will undoubtedly increase unemployment, cause rampant inflation, etc. Taxing people in this society to death does NOT work. John McCain knows that "indirectly" taxing the people is the same as taxing them. When you tax businesses more, that tax is passed on to the consumer who, in turn, ends up paying more for that product. It will be DEVASTATING to the lower class if we do this. They cant afford goods, could you imagine if everything around them goes up in price because Obama has taxed the parent companies from where they buy there goods to death?
Under Bush we have basically become a corporate welfare state, and under Bush the economy has gone in the tank. Say what you want about this Democratic-controlled congressional cycle - this house of cards started being built long before it came into place. From what I can gather, any increases in corporate taxes will be in the form of closing loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts expire - putting us basically back into the 1990s, when corporations weren't exactly going under left and right and the country was in much better economic shape than it is now.
Care to cite what programs exactly and detail how they will cause unemployment and inflation (which have occurred during the Bush administration, obviously)?
Quote:
Energy independence does NOT come from cutting off oil altogether, that will not work and Obama knows it. McCain has it right. We need to drill HERE AND NOW! While we continue to develop the technologies needed to be more "green" we cant just eliminate all of our oil consumption, and anyone who thinks it will be a "1 day change" like Obama proposes is sorely mistaken. McCain's plans aren't a quick solution, they will take time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Oil is traded on the global market. People don't understand that if there's more drilling, it's highly possible that American oil would end up going to China and India. Nobody considers this.
And of course it would take years before any effects are felt, long after this election cycle is in the books. People act like it's going to lower oil prices tomorrow.
There is no such thing as "energy independence" as long as we're burning fossil fuels, any more than there's such a thing as a Santa Claus. That's lost on the average American voter, but it's surely a good manipulation point. People were hoodwinked into thinking that invading Iraq would mean cheap oil for all of us. D'oh!
The whole "foreign oil" dependence thing is talked about too much. What about how nothing is manufactured here anymore? We're dependent on China for goods, India for customer/tech support, Mexico for cheap labor. Economic sovereignty is a pipe dream that exists only in the minds of election strategists and the slack-jawed imbeciles they succeed in manipulating.
Sorry for the bit of invective toward the end, I suppose. I just get a little tired of the "DRILL BABY DRILL!" (was this chant another show of patriotism at the RNC?) line being put out there as the magic bullet for the energy crisis. Both sides say they have a plan, however they differ. Obama has waffled on it some, but has indicated that he is not entirely opposed to drilling if it's part of a larger energy plan. In short, we are not going to drill our way out of the problem. Also, remember as oil is traded on the global market, OPEC may simply cut production to offset the American oil being put on the market. They're OPEC. They won't be undersold. This is capitalism, buddy.
Quote:
One misconception is that McCain doesn't support a "comprehensive medical reform" bill, which is totally false. He wants EVERYONE to have access to healthcare, but he doesn't want it to be under a government beurocracy (sp?). His plan is to give people vouchers to access the healthcare programs and doctors that are best for each family rather than one large government run health care system. After all, isn't it already a pain in the a** when we have to deal with the government? Could you imagine how much more difficult it would be if we have to turn to our government for our healthcare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheissues.org, McCain on Healthcare
John McCain: "A: The real question is: How are we going to keep health care costs down, because we have the highest quality of health care in the world in America today?"
First of all, the "highest quality" only applies to those Americans who are fortunate enough to have adequate health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheissues.org, John McCain cont.
And unlike the Democrats, I'm going to preserve that quality of health care, and at the same time stop the inflation & the skyrocketing costs of health care. And there's a couple of principles:
* To make the recipient of the health insurance much more responsible in health-care costs.
* To address wellness & fitness.
* To give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go anyplace in America to acquire the health insurance policy that best suits their needs.
* And, if they've got money left over, then invest it in a health savings account.
First of all, it sounds like his plan consists of a box of Band-Aids. What exactly does he mean by "making the recipient of the health insurance much more responsible in health care costs?" Does he mean making them pay more? And $5,000? I guess if something serious happens to somebody, God help them, right? $5,000 is a drop in the bucket. That's five CAT scans, basically, never mind the cost of anything else. Health care costs are sky-high, including prescriptions.
If universal healthcare (say, like Canada's - and it's not the free ride (http://www.healthandmen.com/2008/04/25/oh-canada-tell-us-what-you-think-of-canadian-health-care/ - broken link) it's made out to be here in the US) isn't the answer, there needs to be an answer found. The American healthcare system, as it is, is a sick joke. No pun intended, because it's not funny. It is downright embarrassing. When I hear of people bankrupting themselves because they get sick - I won't mince words here - it makes me start questioning what's really so great about this country. Call me unpatriotic if you want. I couldn't care less.
Quote:
McCain/Palin, the REAL change Washington needs in 2008!
I find it comical that a 72-year-old man - mind you, one whose candidacy I supported in 2000 - who's been in Congress for the last 26 years is purporting himself to be the candidate of "change" - which in itself is an implicit indictment of Bush and the GOP which has controlled Congress for the majority of his time there.
This is not an endorsement of Barack Obama; it's just a counterpoint to a post. However, honestly, just having researched some of this, I've learned enough about Obama that I have to wonder about some of the motivations behind some blatant falsehoods being spread on here about him.
Obama will change things for the better. It will be like the 90's under Clinton after the Reagan/Bush Sr. years. Fight of all, the economy will improve and unemployment will reach a new low. The overall morale in the U.S. will be better, and our relations with other nations around the world will improve again. There will be a lot more peace. Obama isn't necessarily going to suddenly withdraw our troops from Iraq, but a little at a time. He will fight the war on terror and hunt for Osama Bin Ladden. Also, the strategy will be a lot better.
platforms dont have to be complex and lengthy to be good. the only issue for my country is the war. if the war does not stop, we go broke very very soon.
all other issues can be resolved or not resolved later. but without money we are dead in the water. vietnam with sand, DOD is in the white house with its feet up on the furniture, throw him out.
I think the biggest thing for me is the Supreme Court Justices. I think there will be three during this presidential term. That is a huge deal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
