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.
This is a serious question because I really don't see any policy differences from what McCain is proposing compared to what Bush has been doing. Are there any?
There are many issues where the policies of McCain and Bush differ.
For example, most of what the Obama campaign has focused in the past few days has been trying to assimilate McCain into the next Bush on Economic policy.
Bush's Economic policy: Tax cuts across the board, increased government spending with uncontrolled earmarks. It's also very important to note that Bush tookover in a decent economic environment which is traditionally a time when government should balance the budget and prepare for the next economic downturn (which is inevitable in Capitalism). Bush had the wrong strategy for the time with no fiscal restraint. In many respects he was quite liberal in spending, which is far more similar to Obama than McCain.
McCain's Economic policy: Tax cuts across the board, decreased government spending with an automatic denial of any bill with an earmark that needlessly increases government spending. It's essentially far more conservative position meant to decrease government spending. It's also important to note that in this time period where the economy is growing very slow or even shrinking, that now is the time where tax cuts are needed to spur economic growth.
So when I look at economic policy and the positions of McCain, Obama, and Bush. Those for increased spending and a larger federal government are Bush and Obama. Those for tax cuts and decreased tax revenue are McCain and Bush.
That's why Bush's economic policy was such a flop, it was the wrong strategy following the 1990s and it was incompatible in spending vs. taxation. You can't increase spending like Obama wants to do without increasing taxes. But it's also why McCain's policy is the best policy to move forward, by decreasing taxes to once again spur on the economy, while raising taxes with our current economic condition could have a similar result to the Carter administration.
There are many, many other issues where they also differ when you look at the policies. It's just a failing argument to try to equate Bush to McCain with the sheer number of disagreements they have had over the past few years, and compare McCain's plans to what Bush had done.
To move on from Economic Policy into Foreign Policy ...
Bush's foreign policy since the beginning of Iraq has been flawed. It's true that Bush and Rumsfeld apparently had no clue what it took to win a war. They just kind of threw the troops in there, undersupplied and unmanned in many ways. It wasn't until they started to listen to McCain's plan for the surge that even Obama admitted has succeeded beyond anybody's wildest expectations.
The underlying theme again, is that Bush is unprepared for the challenges of foreign policy. Perhaps he didn't have enough experience before he was thrown into the oval office, very similar to complaints heard of Obama, in fact, both even avoided military service. In many ways it really seems like the Democratic equivalent to Bush is Obama, except for Obama went to Harvard and Bush went to Yale. The truth is that it's a dangerous world with a lot of people out there that want to kill Americans and the only way to gain a realistic view of foreign policy is to spend many years forming it as McCain has done in the senate.
McCain has actually been in combat situations, been in the senate many years and is considered an expert on many foreign policy situations. It's true that when formulating a foreign policy situation, just as Giuliani commented on Obama regarding Russia, next time he should just call John McCain, and I would take it further to state that before we got to where we are, Bush should've called McCain. Obama, just as Bush, has a lot to learn in methods of how the UN Security Council works (and the fact that Russia has a veto).
I can go on, what's next, social issues, energy? In energy they're also remarkably different. Bush is slowly coming around to Global Warming but has never supported any form of energy other than the oil companies. McCain has led the charge in the Republican party that Global Warming is real and it's here. He's for so many new, green technologies that Bush never supported such as wind, solar, geothermal, and other hybrid technologies in addition to an all of the above approach with drilling and clean coal technology. In many ways, if McCain is elected that would be the dream of an environmentalist because we'd have both major parties in the US supporting the environment and looking to fund renewable sources of energy. This was another huge point of contention between McCain and the Bush administration.
There are many issues where the policies of McCain and Bush differ.
For example, most of what the Obama campaign has focused in the past few days has been trying to assimilate McCain into the next Bush on Economic policy.
Bush's Economic policy: Tax cuts across the board, increased government spending with uncontrolled earmarks. It's also very important to note that Bush tookover in a decent economic environment which is traditionally a time when government should balance the budget and prepare for the next economic downturn (which is inevitable in Capitalism). Bush had the wrong strategy for the time with no fiscal restraint. In many respects he was quite liberal in spending, which is far more similar to Obama than McCain.
McCain's Economic policy: Tax cuts across the board, decreased government spending with an automatic denial of any bill with an earmark that needlessly increases government spending. It's essentially far more conservative position meant to decrease government spending. It's also important to note that in this time period where the economy is growing very slow or even shrinking, that now is the time where tax cuts are needed to spur economic growth.
So when I look at economic policy and the positions of McCain, Obama, and Bush. Those for increased spending and a larger federal government are Bush and Obama. Those for tax cuts and decreased tax revenue are McCain and Bush.
That's why Bush's economic policy was such a flop, it was the wrong strategy following the 1990s and it was incompatible in spending vs. taxation. You can't increase spending like Obama wants to do without increasing taxes. But it's also why McCain's policy is the best policy to move forward, by decreasing taxes to once again spur on the economy, while raising taxes with our current economic condition could have a similar result to the Carter administration.
There are many, many other issues where they also differ when you look at the policies. It's just a failing argument to try to equate Bush to McCain with the sheer number of disagreements they have had over the past few years, and compare McCain's plans to what Bush had done.
Thanks! You have a good point with the spending cuts - McCain has talked about that. Are there other economic differences?
When you say "It's just a failing argument to try to equate Bush to McCain with the sheer number of disagreements they have had over the past few years, and compare McCain's plans to what Bush had done." I totally agree with this if you are talking about McCain 2000 but do you sincerely believe that this is still the case with all the 'adjustments' he has made in his positions for the 2008 campaign.
To move on from Economic Policy into Foreign Policy ...
Bush's foreign policy since the beginning of Iraq has been flawed. It's true that Bush and Rumsfeld apparently had no clue what it took to win a war. They just kind of threw the troops in there, undersupplied and unmanned in many ways. It wasn't until they started to listen to McCain's plan for the surge that even Obama admitted has succeeded beyond anybody's wildest expectations.
The underlying theme again, is that Bush is unprepared for the challenges of foreign policy. Perhaps he didn't have enough experience before he was thrown into the oval office, very similar to complaints heard of Obama, in fact, both even avoided military service. In many ways it really seems like the Democratic equivalent to Bush is Obama, except for Obama went to Harvard and Bush went to Yale. The truth is that it's a dangerous world with a lot of people out there that want to kill Americans and the only way to gain a realistic view of foreign policy is to spend many years forming it as McCain has done in the senate.
McCain has actually been in combat situations, been in the senate many years and is considered an expert on many foreign policy situations. It's true that when formulating a foreign policy situation, just as Giuliani commented on Obama regarding Russia, next time he should just call John McCain, and I would take it further to state that before we got to where we are, Bush should've called McCain. Obama, just as Bush, has a lot to learn in methods of how the UN Security Council works (and the fact that Russia has a veto).
I can go on, what's next, social issues, energy? In energy they're also remarkably different. Bush is slowly coming around to Global Warming but has never supported any form of energy other than the oil companies. McCain has led the charge in the Republican party that Global Warming is real and it's here. He's for so many new, green technologies that Bush never supported such as wind, solar, geothermal, and other hybrid technologies in addition to an all of the above approach with drilling and clean coal technology. In many ways, if McCain is elected that would be the dream of an environmentalist because we'd have both major parties in the US supporting the environment and looking to fund renewable sources of energy. This was another huge point of contention between McCain and the Bush administration.
I totally agree that Bush was over his head and that McCain is and always has been more qualified than Bush on foreign affairs. However, I am not seeing actual policy differences in what McCain is proposing going forward verus what Bush has been saying.
I also have not seen the evidence so far that Bush actually listened to McCain on the surge and that is where the idea was originated. I do think that McCain was calling for more troops all along prior to the surge and that he played an important role in supporting the surge.
I don't see the differences on energy policy NOW, there used to be before McCain's 'adjustments' for 2008, but I don't see them now.
The global warming point is a good one - that's true.
Thanks! You have a good point with the spending cuts - McCain has talked about that. Are there other economic differences?
While I believe that's the main extent of their difference, I would also submit that it's a very important difference. Increasing government spending while decreasing taxes is foolish and illogical, and has gotten us too far in debt. Decreasing government spending is the only way out of the hole. Many would also argue that in a traditional Capitalistic economy, the government's main role is to increase taxes and create a surplus in good economic times, and decrease taxes and increase spending in poor economic times. It's a very solid point, IMO, to say that Bush has a sound economic strategy, he just applied it at the completely wrong point in history, and that led to disaster. I would also say that for Obama and McCain, I don't think either one will realistically cut taxes for anybody. They'll use Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, or a laundry list of other reasons as to why they're unable to cut taxes after being elected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightofcenter
When you say "It's just a failing argument to try to equate Bush to McCain with the sheer number of disagreements they have had over the past few years, and compare McCain's plans to what Bush had done." I totally agree with this if you are talking about McCain 2000 but do you sincerely believe that this is still the case with all the 'adjustments' he has made in his positions for the 2008 campaign.
I'm not totally convinced that McCain's platform has changed as dramatically over 2000 to 2008, as much as his talking points have changed. There are definitely some leanings to the right such as opposing the Bush tax cuts, and now wanting to keep them so as not to essentially raise taxes. But if you examine a number of issues more closely such as abortion. McCain has in 2008 stated he is pro-life over and over, but still opposes a constitutional amendment to ban abortions, and believes it is acceptable in rape and incest occurrences. So his talking points have changed on many issues, but I still believe when you compare McCain and Bush, you are talking about a Fiscal conservative, social moderate in McCain, and a Fiscal liberal who has greatly increased spending, and a social conservative in Bush.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightofcenter
This is a serious question because I really don't see any policy differences from what McCain is proposing compared to what Bush has been doing. Are there any?
There are few to none. I guess Bush is for torture and McCain is against it but other than that, I know of none!
You know I am far from an economist, but I can certainly understand the whole premise behind cutting taxes to encourage more growth. Makes perfect sense to me as long as spending is cut as well. Now, I have only looked over McCain's voting record on economic issues in the most cursory manner and in no detail, but off hand, I didn't see anything that boldly stood out other than his crusade against earmarks. As you mentioned that you are doubtful that Obama or McCain would cut taxes for a variety of as yet unseen reasons, and I suspect you are right. However both of these guys will not and I guarantee with a months salary, cut spending in any meaningful manner.
As far as foreign policy, I do see differences between Bush and McCain and McCain is indicating that he will be even more committed to an imperial Presidency than even Bush as been. While folks may argue my use of terms, truth is that the United States is completely and utterly dependent upon foreign energy, foreign currency, and even goods and food. To ensure that the American standard of living remains, we are forced to have a foreign policy that goes to any lengths to ensure that these things remain flowing in as they are and we use militarism to do this. I see only a mildly lessened view of this by Obama as Joe Biden has carried the internationalist torch for some time now. The biggest difference I see is that Obama will talk to our adversaries before entering into conflict, McCain will likely just do it.
I totally agree that Bush was over his head and that McCain is and always has been more qualified than Bush on foreign affairs. However, I am not seeing actual policy differences in what McCain is proposing going forward verus what Bush has been saying.
I also have not seen the evidence so far that Bush actually listened to McCain on the surge and that is where the idea was originated. I do think that McCain was calling for more troops all along prior to the surge and that he played an important role in supporting the surge.
While McCain may not have been an actual advisor or on the Bush cabinet, if my memory was correct, McCain was a vocal critic of Rumsfeld and was calling for a surge several months before that was the plan implemented by Bush. I actually believe that it was first put forth by General Petreus, immediately pushed by McCain (and very few others), and eventually adopted by Bush. As far as actual policy differences, I think that's a very tough issue to discuss because Bush does not appear to have a consistent foreign policy. We are talking to North Korea, not to Iran, we are talking to Russia, not to Venezuela. It's hard to compare Bush's policies to McCain's or Obama's when Bush just kind of plays it by ear. One thing I do believe is very telling is that the Bush cabinet on such matters is purely Republican, while McCain has promised a bipartisan cabinet with a number of Democrats, Independents (Lieberman I assume), and Republicans all.
Now that there is a Democratically controlled congress, one could easily view the election regarding foreign policy as more of a decision between, do you want the Democrats to make the decisions? Or do you want compromise. It's very interesting and nothing that I believe anybody on this website can claim to know the best answer. Should we be as eager to talk to our enemies as Obama wants? How would that appear to our allies? For instance, if we talked more to Russia could only good things happen, or would it be seen as weakness and cause Georgia, and the rest of the region to bend to the will of Russia? Would Obama be viewed as somebody that could be rolled over and avoid war at all costs? Would McCain be too eager for war (of course which would require Congressional approval)? It's quite fascinating when you look at all the dimensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightofcenter
I don't see the differences on energy policy NOW, there used to be before McCain's 'adjustments' for 2008, but I don't see them now.
The global warming point is a good one - that's true.
While Bush has mentioned many new hybrid and Green technologies, I believe there is a disconnect in the Bush platform and what has occurred. Bush talked a lot about alternative fuels, but mainly focused on ethanol subsidies for energy independence which frankly isn't enough. If you look closer at McCain vs. Obama on energy, the only real difference that I can find is that McCain is for more nuclear power plants and more drilling in addition to wind, solar, ethanol, etc.. One could easily look at Obama, and say he is now very similar to a conservative position in wanting more drilling and more green technologies. Energy is really an issue that is becoming more bipartisan, but at more of a moderate position than Bush's track record has shown, and I would argue that McCain and Obama are far more similar to each other than either is to Bush.
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.
