McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama

[CARLHAYDEN]

That much has been made abundantly clear, but then there's the question of Obama being any better.

There's no possible way I would consider McCain better on the economy...if Obama wasn't advocating raising taxes on the rich in the middle of an economic downturn.  We have enough trouble with investment dollars sitting on the sidelines as it is.

To be frank with the current deficit and current account deficit figures, and McCain's nearly deranged fiscal promises to cut taxes or give gazzillion dollar balances to any group I would consider Obama better even if he was promoting a 35% Capital Gains tax and I am a day trader. McCain  would be a continuation of the supply side economics that agree rapidly turning us into an economic basket case.

The markets are smarter than high schoolers, they respond to sane fiscal policies altogether more than the micro incentives if they are surrounded by nonsenical policy. That's why Clinton's tax increase in 1993 set off the largest economic expansion in history, and Bush's have driven the economy further into collapse. Clinton's showed the grown-ups were in charge, Bush's that ideological children with no sense were. McCain for his part understood that at the time. He's just "forgotten" it. If he remembered that opposition I might be able to force myself to vote for him over Obama. Now I can't understand how anyone who cares about the country or economy could.

As for investment dollars, the opposite is actually the problem. The bear stearns bailout, and controls on short selling is forcing billions into worthless financial stocks. The government has created a massive bubble and the best performing stocks of the last month all have negative equity and should not exist as companies. But because there are rules in place making it impossible for them to fail, everyone is dumping Microsoft to buy Washington Mutual. Watch, all the administration has done with its bailouts is create a much more massive bubble that is going to burst this fall. They should have taken over Bear Stearns and Fannie Mae. It would have been bad for the economy in the same sense taking over Northern Rock was for the Brits, but every major British bank is turning a profit this year because they got the message that their shareholders and execs would be ruined if a they didn't cvlean up their act. And their property collapse was worse than ours. Instead here we have given billions of dollars to the same executives that caused this mess. It would be a good thing if we cooled off buying of worthless stocks, and quite frankly McCain is just going to create more bubbles.

Ah, yes, higher taxer are better taxes as they somehow magically increase propserity.  Imagine how well off we could be if we simply doubled taxes.

Now, there are those who might suggest that we might want to contain expenditures, but that is a concept which escape liberals.  However, the truth is that the economic expansion we had in the mid though late nineties was because Congress (in a rare example of integrity) kept the growth of expenditures down.

Also, there we a number of reforms in government programs in the mid nineties (which liberals would like to forget, or at least not mention) which helped the economy.

A thoughtful fiscal policy (dealing with expenditures as well as revenues), coupled with a prudent monetary policy, and integrated with a reasonable regulatory policy can help us achieve properity.
Simply imposing tax increases, is, well, dumb.

[Beet]

That much has been made abundantly clear, but then there's the question of Obama being any better.

There's no possible way I would consider McCain better on the economy...if Obama wasn't advocating raising taxes on the rich in the middle of an economic downturn.  We have enough trouble with investment dollars sitting on the sidelines as it is.

To be frank with the current deficit and current account deficit figures, and McCain's nearly deranged fiscal promises to cut taxes or give gazzillion dollar balances to any group I would consider Obama better even if he was promoting a 35% Capital Gains tax and I am a day trader. McCain  would be a continuation of the supply side economics that agree rapidly turning us into an economic basket case.

The markets are smarter than high schoolers, they respond to sane fiscal policies altogether more than the micro incentives if they are surrounded by nonsenical policy. That's why Clinton's tax increase in 1993 set off the largest economic expansion in history, and Bush's have driven the economy further into collapse. Clinton's showed the grown-ups were in charge, Bush's that ideological children with no sense were. McCain for his part understood that at the time. He's just "forgotten" it. If he remembered that opposition I might be able to force myself to vote for him over Obama. Now I can't understand how anyone who cares about the country or economy could.

As for investment dollars, the opposite is actually the problem. The bear stearns bailout, and controls on short selling is forcing billions into worthless financial stocks. The government has created a massive bubble and the best performing stocks of the last month all have negative equity and should not exist as companies. But because there are rules in place making it impossible for them to fail, everyone is dumping Microsoft to buy Washington Mutual. Watch, all the administration has done with its bailouts is create a much more massive bubble that is going to burst this fall. They should have taken over Bear Stearns and Fannie Mae. It would have been bad for the economy in the same sense taking over Northern Rock was for the Brits, but every major British bank is turning a profit this year because they got the message that their shareholders and execs would be ruined if a they didn't cvlean up their act. And their property collapse was worse than ours. Instead here we have given billions of dollars to the same executives that caused this mess. It would be a good thing if we cooled off buying of worthless stocks, and quite frankly McCain is just going to create more bubbles.

Ah, yes, higher taxer are better taxes as they somehow magically increase propserity.  Imagine how well off we could be if we simply doubled taxes.

Now, there are those who might suggest that we might want to contain expenditures, but that is a concept which escape liberals.  However, the truth is that the economic expansion we had in the mid though late nineties was because Congress (in a rare example of integrity) kept the growth of expenditures down.

Also, there we a number of reforms in government programs in the mid nineties (which liberals would like to forget, or at least not mention) which helped the economy.

A thoughtful fiscal policy (dealing with expenditures as well as revenues), coupled with a prudent monetary policy, and integrated with a reasonable regulatory policy can help us achieve properity.
Simply imposing tax increases, is, well, dumb.

Yes, because "containing expenditures" worked so well during the Great Depression...

If the economy were really going into a recession next year you will be not be seeing any tax hikes that could be perceived to exacerbate that, no matter who is President. Both parties were rushing to push money back into the hands of consumers this spring, and they're perfectly content to run up deficits during hard times to support stimulate the economy when it's in trouble.

The real question is whether economists will at some point begin to see a recession as a necessary evil to kill inflationary expectations, as they did in the early 1980s.

[Gustaf]

Beet,

that's a damn long post. I'm not gonna answer all of those points tonight. I trust that you can appreciate that. I'll just say that generally I don't blame McCain morally that much for giving himself a serious chance at his party's nomination and I don't consider the moves he made to get that to be very significant of his real views. He doesn't believe in reckless tax cuts, he believes in responsible environmental policies, he's not a religious conservative, etc.

I strongly disagree with the interpretation you talk about. With Bush's approval ratings still low and with McCain's history being what it is and especially given the likely Democratic gains in Congressional elections the presidential election will be seen as a personal vote for McCain. It will, on the contrary, show that the McCain brand of Republicanism has great potential while the Bush brand does not and it will thus help to bring a definitive end to Bushism and make the Republican party infinitely better by moving it more in McCain's direction. A vote for Obama will reinforce the extremists and hard-liners in their belief that there is no point in nominating a more moderate candidate while at the same time Obama, with his traditional dogmatic approach to all the key political issues is unlikely to bring about much fundamental change on the Democratic side. McCain is, imo, much more of a real candidate of change, because he represents substantial changes from the past, while Obama is only superficially so. And changing the Republican party in that direction would be an excellent move forward for America, imo. It would also give us divided governance, which I consider to be a good thing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ah, yes, higher taxer are better taxes as they somehow magically increase propserity.  Imagine how well off we could be if we simply doubled taxes.

Now, there are those who might suggest that we might want to contain expenditures, but that is a concept which escape liberals.  However, the truth is that the economic expansion we had in the mid though late nineties was because Congress (in a rare example of integrity) kept the growth of expenditures down.

Also, there we a number of reforms in government programs in the mid nineties (which liberals would like to forget, or at least not mention) which helped the economy.

A thoughtful fiscal policy (dealing with expenditures as well as revenues), coupled with a prudent monetary policy, and integrated with a reasonable regulatory policy can help us achieve properity.
Simply imposing tax increases, is, well, dumb.
[/quote]

Yes, because "containing expenditures" worked so well during the Great Depression...

[/quote]

Er, are you contending that federal expenditures as a percentage of the GNP/GDP didn't substantially increase during the depression?

[Beet]

Beet,

that's a damn long post. I'm not gonna answer all of those points tonight. I trust that you can appreciate that. I'll just say that generally I don't blame McCain morally that much for giving himself a serious chance at his party's nomination and I don't consider the moves he made to get that to be very significant of his real views. He doesn't believe in reckless tax cuts, he believes in responsible environmental policies, he's not a religious conservative, etc.

Here are projected government finances:



Here is what McCain about taxes, 4 days after this report:
"And I think that what we need is more tax cuts. We need to make Bush tax cuts permanent. We need to get rid of the AMT. We need to cut corporate taxes."
He also proposed to make it harder to raise taxes: It should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes.

3/5 in the House is 261 votes. Needless to say, this would effectively kill any ability by Congress to raise revenue unless the Congressional leaders of both parties agree. We are already seeing in California what happens when this kind of restriction is imposed at the state level- gridlock.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/John_McCain_Tax_Reform.htm

Looking at the chart, McCain's proposed cuts, and his proposed increase in the bar to raise revenue, how can you say it is not reckless?

Note, McCain also called himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How exactly is the McCain brand of Republicanism so different than the Bush brand? Yes, McCain has played up his maverick credentials, but look at where they actually differ. McCain's few real maverick positions (on campaign finance, immigration, global warming) are (a) going to be gutted by the justices he supports, (b) the same position as Bush's, and (c) only widely scientifically accepted, including by the Bush administration itself.

None of these are incompatibile with being a conservative Republican. McCain, who votes in Bush's support 90% of the time, has an 82 lifetime rating from the ACU, and was one of the 10 most conservative Senators in the Senate for the last 3 Congresses, is a maverick, but not a moderate. "McCain's direction" is not that different from "Bush's direction."

And I dispute that a McCain loss would not move the Republican party in a moderate direction- it would do a lot more than a McCain win. As I've said before, a Republican loss would force them to find a broader coalition of support, and for really the first time since the 1980s. That would do a lot more to move them in a moderate direction than anything else.

I don't deny that Obama is 'liberal' on most traditional issues. But it was John Edwards who was the extremist, hard line candidate in the primaries. After he flamed out, the activists turned to Obama mostly because they hated all things Clinton. And there are a few telling exceptions. He doesn't support mandates on health insurance- and he does support continuing Bush's religious charities program.

But Obama has mostly run a procedural campaign- whether you believe in it or not is up to you, but there is a premise. The political polarization in America has been driven for three decades in large part by the demonization of each side by the other. Each side has been dominated by special interest groups led by extremist leaders who would not even think of talking to each other, and the party leaders have been pushed to emulate them. When one side 'takes control' even by the slimmest of margins, they try to push through the most extreme version of their agenda with no voice for the minority, and when the other side takes control vice versa. There is very little shared space, shared values, in the discussion- regardless of whether we have divided or unified government.

This has turned a lot of people off to politics. The language and values Obama is using and the coalition he is trying to build are premised on the notion of ending this kind of procedural phenomena, that even though he takes mostly liberal positions, his implementation of these positions will be less extreme and dogmatic because it will not be driven by an unthinking hostility to the other side. Behind it all is a desire to put the Boomer polarization that started in the '60s behind us (and yes as Obama has admitted that means putting some of his own ghosts and acquaintances firmly in the past). A victory for this kind of politics will do more than anything else toward moderating the tone of our politics without necessarily assuming that the centrist position is always correct or incorrect. Again, you may agree or disagree of whether this is possible, but that is the promise. And he seems very serious (and consistent) about this, given his attendance at Saddleback, his spending in states like Montana and North Carolina, his reluctance to launch negative ads, some of his strategies, and his language.

But if you are concerned with the center as a whole (as am I), what ultimately matters more is the center in the country as a whole than within each party itself. After 8 years of a conservative Republican President, what would it say about the center of the country as a whole to have a Democratic one? In the long run it would hold up a lot better than if one conservative Republican followed another.

[Smash255]

That much has been made abundantly clear, but then there's the question of Obama being any better.

There's no possible way I would consider McCain better on the economy...if Obama wasn't advocating raising taxes on the rich in the middle of an economic downturn.  We have enough trouble with investment dollars sitting on the sidelines as it is.

The point in 2008 should be who's fault is it that the economy is in the middle of an economic downturn? The incumbent president, as far as I'm aware, isn't a Democrat

Clearly, that base low-life John McCain's character assassinations on Obama are paying off

More of the failed same John McVain? Erm, no thanks. The GOP nominee must be held accountable for what Bush less than stellar record

Dave

No, that should not be the point. And it's always just as amusing to hear you call him a "base low-life"...because of his character assasination! Lol.

If the American people are clever enough to realize that the incumbent, term-limited president is irrelevant to the election at hand I'd be encouraged. 

Well, he leaves a substantial legacy of both policy and politics which, while not decisive, form the context of the next Presidency. That said, if McCain were a real moderate (as opposed to just a "maverick") in any of the three major areas of policy (social, economic, or foreign) I would give him another look.

Unless any of the candidates is a "successor" to the incumbent he has no relevance. The idea that people should vote for the Democratic candidate just because Bush was bad is ridiculous. And Dave, like everyone else, would call it out as ridiculous if it had been an impopular Democratic president stepping down.

Now if McCain wasn't running on the exact same platform as Bush then you might have a point, but when he's running on a platform of not changing a damn thing and doing exactly what the unpopular Bush is doing well....

[Gustaf]

Well, Beet. I guess the difference between us is that you're taking McCain's accomodating the Republican base in the primaries more seriously than I am. Or at least that's one of the differences.

[opebo]

Ah, yes, higher taxer are better taxes as they somehow magically increase propserity.  Imagine how well off we could be if we simply doubled taxes.

Your argument is dumb, but lets look at the higher tax countries - mostly Western Europe.  Quality of life - best in the world.  Lowest tax countries are almost all in the 'third world' - quality of life, good only for the tiny rich elite.

Even comparing only among rich countries, the quality of life is far better in high-tax Western Europe for most people than in extremely low-tax america.

[Democratic Hawk]

A vote for Obama will reinforce the extremists and hard-liners in their belief that there is no point in nominating a more moderate candidate while at the same time Obama, with his traditional dogmatic approach to all the key political issues is unlikely to bring about much fundamental change on the Democratic side.

My perception of Obama is that of a positively liberal-leaning Christian Democrat, not some extremist hard-liner on the political left. Yes, he has a liberal Senate voting record but I don't buy it that Obama is the most liberal senator - and even if he was, that in my eyes would just to be testament to his opposition to the Republican policies he considers to be failing and dividing America

Furthermore, an Obama presidency will have checks and balances from within Congress in the form of the Blue Dogs. And that is more than I can say for the servile Republicans, most of whom, have given Bush a free hand

McCain will be a continuation of the same policies espoused by libertarian-leaning conservative Republican elitists - and that's exactly how its been with Bush and, Lord, look at the point to which he has taken the US economy. A bit more effective regulation might have averted the loss of confidence in the US sub-prime mortgage and the ensuring fallout. The debate shouldn't be whether big government or small government is best, it should be about whether government is effective or not

Than again you and I are going to perceive our favored candidates differently but when McCain gets a 100%, IIRC, rating from the Club for Growth than sends off alarm bells

As for McCain's tax plans, it is indeed the wealthiest 1% who stand to gain most. And I don't think it's them who are struggling to make ends meet in the Bush economy. 80% stand to pay less tax from Obama's tax proposals than they would with McCain's. Christian discourse be it that of social justice, premised on the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (Obama worked as a community organiser in Chicago for Catholic community-based organisation) and that of the social gospel espoused by more mainline Protestant denominations makes me very comfortable with Obama

Bush leaves America in a worse shape, economically, fiscally and internationally than he found it - and it's not Barack Obama, for the most part, who has enabled that

If Obama wins he'll be judged on his record and if its poor, he'll be out; yet if McCain messes up, it's conceivable that he'd likely be re-elected in 2012 much as Bush was in 2004

The Republican Party is never going to change for the better until such time as they take an electoral thrashing (i.e. more than just a kick up the arse that they got in the 2006 mid-terms)

As for divided government, there was a time when that was desirable - back in the days when Democrats and Republicans could work together, when each party had it's vibrant moderate conservative and moderate liberal wings and they actually spent more time in Washington befriending each other. I'd say that relations on Capitol Hill between Democrats and Republicans has deteriorated from around 1994 - when many Democrats, liberal and moderate, were replaced with fervently right wing Republicans

And given the choice between consensus-building pragmatism or conflict-driven ideological, it's the former every time. On that score, whoever the next president is, be it Obama or McCain, I hope to see being an improvement on the current appalling state of affairs. Divide and rule has been George W Bush to a 'T'

Dave

[CARLHAYDEN]

My perception of Obama is that of a positively liberal-leaning Christian Democrat, not some extremist hard-liner on the political left. Yes, he has a liberal Senate voting record but I don't buy it that Obama is the most liberal senator - and even if he was, that in my eyes would just to be testament to his opposition to the Republican policies he considers to be failing and dividing America

Furthermore, an Obama presidency will have checks and balances from within Congress in the form of the Blue Dogs. And that is more than I can say for the servile Republicans, most of whom, have given Bush a free hand

McCain will be a continuation of the same policies espoused by libertarian-leaning conservative Republican elitists - and that's exactly how its been with Bush and, Lord, look at the point to which he has taken the US economy. A bit more effective regulation might have averted the loss of confidence in the US sub-prime mortgage and the ensuring fallout. The debate shouldn't be whether big government or small government is best, it should be about whether government is effective or not

And given the choice between consensus-building pragmatism or conflict-driven ideological, it's the former every time. On that score, whoever the next president is, be it Obama or McCain, I hope to see being an improvement on the current appalling state of affairs. Divide and rule has been George W Bush to a 'T'

Dave
[/quote]

Dave,

You really have taken leave of your senses!

Obama a Christian?!?  Now, I don't mean to suggest he's a Muslim, but rather that he worships at the altar of big government.  Its interesting that you completely ignore both his Senate and his state legislative records.

You go on to get nuttier and nuttier.  You try to explain Obama's extreme left-wing record but suggesting its just an act of opposition to bush policies, which according to you are always wrong.  And of course, Obama's actions are uniting whereas Bush's are "devisive."

Then you really lose all touch with reality.  McCain a libertarian.  ROTFLMAO.  The guy hates the pharmaceutical companies, which he has publicly dubbed, "bad guys."  While there is a campaign on, he says he opposes tax increases, but, his Senate record has been one of supporting higher taxes (I prefer to look at actions rather than campaign lies for both him and Obama).  His attacks on the first amendment and the second amendment are hardly libertarian, by any rational person's definition.

Finally, you really have no idea whatsoever about what is really going on in the American campaign.  McCain is not "ideological" (he doesn't know the meaning of the word) but rater idiotlogical (i.e. he says and does a lot of very stupid things), while Obama is a left wing die-hard who merely verbally trims his sales during the campaign (if you think he is is "pragmatic" or a "consensus builder," you've been spending too much time in the meeting of the marxist-lenninist clubs).