McCain's trend

[balthazar]

>>"...does anyone think that McCain running as the "not Barack Obama" candidate will work?"<<

Does anyone think that BO running as the "not Geo Bush" candidate will work ?? The guy was up by around 16 points a few months ago; WTH is happening ??

Bush's name is mentioned by BO as often as McCain's is; is he confused about who he's running against ??

To answer the question: Yes; I do believe some of those who have looked deeper into BO's background & associations, beyond what they read from the ubitquitous liberal mainstream media conglomerates, will vote 'not BO'.

[loki]

and the fact that BO said he wouldn't run a smear campaign... more of his ads are smear ads compared to McCain's ads. BO has said a lot, judge him by his words and actions.

If i wanted to vote against someone, i'd vote for McCain, but "everyone" seems to be voting for the candidate as a way to vote against something/someone. I wish this would change, but it only would when the third parties are equally included in campaigning/debates.

no more voting for the lesser of 2 evils...please America.

not picking anyone out, just what seems to happen, generally.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm voting for Obama for his tax plan. I'm voting for Obama for his calm, cool, consideration of facts and willingness to hear both sides. I'm voting for Obama for his greater interest in alternative energy. I'm voting for Obama for his emphasis on diplomacy. I'm voting for Obama because he is against a federal marriage amendment.

[loki]

The development is coming at a snails pace in university research labs. Put the R&D of Honda, GM, Ford, or Toyota behind it and it'll go much faster.

You're right about PBMRs not being new technology, but they require a large upfront investment (and the changing of U.S. law) in order to come to fruition.

Cutting government spending is a different thread entirely. We already collect tax on non-renewable energy. I would increase that tax and dedicate that increase to spending on renewable energy development.

so are you saying you want them to have a shared R&D, competing R&D, or a centralized R&D?

I know you mean well with this idea, but some things you can't solve/accelerate with just throwing "free" $$ at it. i believe the best gov doesn't give anyone favors.

[Drew Dowdell]

so are you saying you want them to have a shared R&D, competing R&D, or a centralized R&D?

I know you mean well with this idea, but some things you can't solve/accelerate with just throwing "free" $$ at it. i believe the best gov doesn't give anyone favors.

I would want a alternative energy Manhattan Project.

[Drew Dowdell]

HAHAH

[loki]

HAHAH

that's nice. lol

edit: is that what they call carbon offsets?

Edited September 19, 2008 by loki

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Did a bit of updating to my Vote McCain thing.

[loki]

olds

I don't understand the "real cars" part of your sig?

[gm4life]

Obama won't want you to have real cars. He wants you to have a hybrid like him, and boring 100hp &#036;h&#33;-boxes that go 0-60 in 12 seconds. He took it from my sig. I have since changed mine. Obama wants us to fill up our tires and get a tune up. He has no decent energy policy that involves any kind of off-shore drilling.

Why do I support John McCain? I believe in him, and his record of reform, his record of putting his county ahead of himself, he served this country, he is a man of honor. He doesn't wants us to HOPE for change but vote of it. He wants to do off-shore drilling to actually help the average American with struggling gas so we don't have to drive 100hp &#036;h&#33;-boxes. He wants to cut everyone taxes and encourage growth in the economy. Instead of taking from everyone and stuffing it right back into the goverments pocket. He was right on the surge. Obama was wrong, infact he said it wouldn't work. Without people like McCain we would not be in a position to be pulling our troops out, now that job is done. For Barack it is easy to look back and say it worked, John McCain had the vision to support it and help get us out of Iraq. Sarah Palin is also a proven reformer and took on big oil and gave a cut of the profits back to her people. She helped stop the bridge to no-where once she found out her people didn't want it. Barack Obama is upset because John McCain is just John McCain he isn't a traditional politcian nor is Sarah Palin, because they have a record or reaching across party line and getting stuff done. Obama has a problem making a decision and standing up and being counted, something McCain never has had. Obama was suppose to run a clean campigen and be the politcian above politics. Nope, he is right in there with McCain fighting like a dog. Typical old-fashioned politcian whom wants to impress the media (whom I hate) and keep Washington happy. Same old tune, with a new twist.

[gm4life]

Vote for McCain. Why? Because as he has grown older he has seen the need to put others before himself. As a result he will probably be more inclined to disregard his own party in order to get things done because what the hell, he probably wont have to run for re-election (and hell if he ends up being really popular he can probably just run as an independent and still win if the republicans wont have him on a ticket). Think of your grandparents, in their old age they probably don't spend a whole lot or do too much, they end up thinking of their families more and helping them out. Well think of McCain as this nations grandfather, a man who will think of other before himself. His stance on the surge proves this, everyone said this would kill any chances he had of being a presidential nominee, that he would be committing political suicide by backing such an unpopular thing. But here we are now, the Surge has for all intents and purposes been an success. It is through this that i believe McCain will truly put the interests of our nation before any personal or Republican interest of his own. He is a strong supporter of Capitalism and deregulation, he has also seen how deregulation can go wrong and i believe McCain is the type who learns from him mistakes, so you can expect him to walk the fine line between economic freedom and government regulations.

McCain's ideas for educational reform seem like they may actually have some merit behind them. McCain's ideas would foster an air of competition between schools, his proponetism of school vouchers is rather odd cause thats usually against republican stance on that issue, however the way he has portrayed it as being a tool to increase overall educational value does seem like it may very well prove to be effective. This seems to be a better plan than has been carried out under the last 2 presidencies, which is essentially just to keep throwing money at the education system which, since this is still a problem, clearly has not worked.

McCain has said that he would install constructionist judges into the supreme court. These selections are vital if we wish to remain being ruled under our constitution.

McCain would offer plenty of experience in the realm of foreign relations. Despite how the media has portrayed him, he is not a warmonger. He will ensure that we leave Iraq honorably and victoriously. I HIGHLY doubt he would seek a war with Iran unilaterally. He would likely considerably step up efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and to go after Osama through somewhat more legal means than just barging into Pakistan uninvited. McCain has seen war, he knows how devastating it is to both soldiers and their families. He will work to ensure that our military remains the strongest in the world, able to confront any problem that is needed. This military, of course, never actually needs to see conflict, but the mere presence of it is enough to have leverage in foreign policy.

McCain brings to the presidency the ability to work between parties. Now you may say that his record when it comes to passing bills that he has worked with democrats with is poor, well that is true, but the legislature was also dominated by Republicans at that time who would have nothing to do with anything that wasn't strictly on their agenda. McCain will take into consideration good ideas from both Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

McCain may not be an economic genius, but he did point out 2 or so years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would cause havoc on the financial industry if regulations weren't enforced and if nothing was done about them. Well here we are 2 years later with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac on the taxpayers dime, maybe someone should have listened to the committee he was on. Additionally McCains tax plan would pave the way to increased investing, something that will be greatly needed in the upcoming months and years. Lower tax rates on capital investments equals more people investing. Of course, this investing needs to be carefully monitored least we end up with another housing/energy bubble. McCain's tax cuts will promote increased job growth as those with money tend to be the ones that spearhead new businesses. In 1980, when the top tax bracket was 70%, the top 1% of Americans contributed a mere 20% of our governments total revenue. Now that same top 1% contributes 60% of our governments total revenue with a top tax bracket of 39% i believe. Although in all honestly, i cant see McCain giving any more tax cuts, he will probably just re-instate the Bush tax cuts in order to start lowering the debt.

Since Alternative energy and sustainable fuels seems to be a hot topic this year, McCain is rather odd in that he is a republican that would like to preserve our planet, i wouldn't say he is so much an environmentalist as he is a naturalist. He, like Obama, calls for a Cap and trade system to reduce our emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and a further goal of 60% below 1990 emissions by 2050. McCain is an "all of the above" type when it comes to energy, he is a supporter of Nuclear energy as we transition ourselves (or perhaps develop better nuclear power) to a sustainable, clean energy system. Additionally, McCain has promised to increase government investment into creating Clean Coal power plants, while they may not be quite as clean as other alternative energy types, they will help to preserve America's use of our most abundant energy source in a clean and somewhat environmentally fashion.

Finally, McCain is committed to the free market. Although he has seen first hand the problems that deregulation can cause, he is still committed to creating an efficient marketplace with the minimum possible regulations in order to protect America's citizens. McCain realizes that government bailouts does nothing but encourage inefficient business practices (although it has come to my attention that he apparently supports giving the Big 3 loans??) and as such does not believe that the government should be bailing out any more failed financial systems.

McCain believes that Americans should be more active within our nation, whether that means community service, joining the army, peace core, etc. However, he believes that these programs should be created by the citizenry as private insitutions, because anything the government can do, the private sector can likely do better. As such he would help foster the creation of these programs, but not as a direct government program. These would be programs that are driven by volunteers and private donations, not programs that are created by coercing citizens to pay for them (in the form of tax dollars).

Country First.

There you go Satty, a purely positive post on what i find some of McCains strong points. I could probably come up with more, but seeing as how this is basically the first positive post in this entire thread (that directly related to one of the candidates) i find this a sufficient start.

Great post. Many of those are reason why I am voting for him.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

On a side note, i know Ron Paul is rather bitter at McCain and well... everyone... at the moment, but i believe that WHOEVER becomes president, would be greatly served by having Ron Paul on as an adviser or cabinet member or something as it relates to the Economy. Ron Paul is an excellent business man who is even better at predicting the future of our current economic tracks.

As an even smaller side note, I've noticed that amongst young kids, there seems to be a rather large sized Libertarian streak of people. Hopefully these are the ones that will inherit and bring the GOP into a more popular/rational stance.

[Drew Dowdell]

Obama won't want you to have real cars. He wants you to have a hybrid like him, and boring 100hp &#036;h&#33;-boxes that go 0-60 in 12 seconds. He took it from my sig. I have since changed mine. Obama wants us to fill up our tires and get a tune up. He has no decent energy policy that involves any kind of off-shore drilling.

I wish I could make some of this text blink for you so you'll see it.

From Barack's website:

"Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

* Increase Fuel Economy Standards. - Obama and Biden will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.

* Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.

* Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.

* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. - Obama and Biden will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama and Biden will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.

*A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases. - Obama and Biden will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.

*Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas. - An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. "

-----------------------------------

The man drove a 300C until very recently when he bought a token hybrid. He's not going to take away your "real" car.

[Drew Dowdell]

As for your response to my sig. I'm not "hoping" for a better economy. I just know that a president who willingly admits to know nothing about the economy, introduces a tax plan to prove it, and has the scorn of Warren Buffett, Alan Greenspan, and Ron Paul over economic issues is NOT going to help the economy.

Consider this, if McCain's ideas are "bold leadership", that means Herbert Hoover was a visionary.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Consider this, if McCain's ideas are "bold leadership", that means Herbert Hoover was a visionary.

From Wikipedia:

In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin,[19]conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction." Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.

For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[20]

These policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken later as part of the New Deal. Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[21] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

Well this is a bit of a shocker, apparently Hoover WAS the visionary! And apparently FDR was a flip flopper of the greatest magnitude and a hypocrite! gasp!

as one can see:

The economy was beginning to rebound by 1933, the last year of Hoovers office at the height of the Great Depression, was this due to FDR's new deal? or was this due to the market slowly pulling itself out? During FDR's reign, government deficits rose rapidly, by the height of WW2, government debt was 109% of our GDP (of course this is unfair to cite a number from the mid 40s, WW2 was massive and required massive spending).

Now, seeing as how this is eerily similar to now, and how there is evidence to suggest that FDR's programs THEMSELVES did relatively little to stimulate the economy as a whole (given that it appeared that the economy was generally looking to be at the very least leveling off when FDR came to power), why do you feel Obama's will fare any better? If the Deficit is your #1 priority, how can you agree with policies such as these? Do you want the vast majority of our economic growth to come from the government? to come from an institution famed for wasted money and inefficient practices? To add fuel to the fire, the supreme court at the time kept declaring several of FDRs programs to be unconstitutional (apparently capitalism was in the constitution back then), which means that even as these programs are being undone/redone there was still growth.

Year......................................................... Income / Expenses / Flow

1930 ............................................................................... 4,058 / 3,320 / 738

1931 ............................................................................... 3,116 / 3,577 / –462

1932 ............................................................................... 1,924 / 4,659 / –2,735

1933 ............................................................................... 1,997 / 4,598 / –2,602

1934 ............................................................................... 2,955 / 6,541 / –3,586

1935 ............................................................................... 3,609 / 6,412 / –2,803

1936 ............................................................................... 3,923 / 8,228 / –4,304

1937 ............................................................................... 5,387 / 7,580 / –2,193

1938 ............................................................................... 6,751 / 6,840 / –89

1939 ............................................................................... 6,295 / 9,141 / –2,846

As you can see, throughout much of the depression, spending was considerably higher than the income recieved, for comparison here is the current overlays.

Year.......................................................... Income / Expenses / Flow

2000 ............................................................................... 2,025,457 / 1,789,216 / 236,241

2001 ............................................................................... 1,991,426 / 1,863,190 / 128,236

2002 ............................................................................... 1,853,395 / 2,011,153 / –157,758

2003 ............................................................................... 1,782,532 / 2,160,117 / –377,585

2004 ............................................................................... 1,880,279 / 2,293,006 / –412,727

2005 ............................................................................... 2,153,859 / 2,472,205 / –318,346

2006 ............................................................................... 2,407,254 / 2,655,435 / –248,181

2007 estimate ................................................................ 2,540,096 / 2,784,267 / –244,171

2008 estimate ................................................................ 2,662,474 / 2,901,861 / –239,387

2009 estimate ................................................................ 2,798,307 / 2,985,473 / –187,166

2010 estimate ................................................................ 2,954,724 / 3,049,085 / –94,361

2011 estimate ................................................................ 3,103,554 / 3,157,328 / –53,774

2012 estimate ................................................................ 3,307,324 / 3,246,306 / 61,018

Of course, with our new financial crisis, these numbers are incorrect. They should now be far more dramatic.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[ehaase]

I'm voting for Obama for his tax plan. I'm voting for Obama for his calm, cool, consideration of facts and willingness to hear both sides. I'm voting for Obama for his greater interest in alternative energy. I'm voting for Obama for his emphasis on diplomacy. I'm voting for Obama because he is against a federal marriage amendment.

I am voting for Obama for the first four reasons.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ricer, that was one of the very last things the Hoover administration did after trying to cut taxes to start the economy.

Did you just admit, an provide proof, that raising taxes during a down economy won't hurt the economy at all?

I believe that Obama will responsibly withdraw us from Iraq and allow us to cut the 1/2 trillion we're spending there every year. McCain's tax cuts are irresponsible and will get the country further in debt.

[Robert Hall]

I am voting for Obama for the first four reasons.

+1. Rationality over rhetoric. Rationality over dogma.

[balthazar]

>>"Obama and Biden will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on."<<

If this is true, can we ask questions?

Is there any oil there? Is there enough oil there?

Will the cost of extraction/transport makes it much more expensive when it gets to the pump?

Why is Congress opposed to swapping out current leases for other, much greater-potential acreage? Why do they continue to oppose drilling using this transparent tactic, period?

Fact- Oil is in favor of drilling- they have stated that before Congress.

Fact- many states have unequivocally opposed drilling; my dumb-a$$ed multi-millionaire Gov is whipping up the fear-mongering to oppose it.

Fact- Oil is paying untold millions? / billions? in leasing this acreage.

Question- why is Oil throwing this money away instead of doing what they've expressed they want to? Having more oil reserves per company would increase their marketshare- willfully refusing that is diametrically opposed to success. What piece is missing from the equation?

Is it known that oil lies under all 68 million acres, because it's certainly spoken of as if it is. What has Congress said is the reason Oil is not drilling?

Simple acceptance of 'they lease the land but are not drilling' is not enough.

[gm4life]

* Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.

Uhhh sounds to me like he would like to. The goverment can't tell people what to buy. You let the market decide that. Sounds like he wants me to drive a hybrid (and that won't happen).

Obama has been becoming more mainstream if he got the nod to pick up Hillary voters and I know what his first energy plan was. The guy is scary and uses the fancy words people what to hear. (emotional) John McCain tells us what we need to hear. (factual) Say what you want liberals vote with their hearts and repubilcans wiht their brains. On the surge alone that would be enough of a reason to vote McCain-Palin.

[Satty]

How man American soldiers have died since the surge? How many would have died if we had pulled out and let Iraq settle their own civil war that we started?

And Obama wants to put more hybrids on the road, I'm willing to bet McCain does too, Obama just wants to help domestic automakers put those hbrids on the road. Have you seen any hybrids on any dealer lots? Probably not, because they sell about as soon as they're unloaded, if they aren't pre-sold, so the market is obviously there for hybrids, domestic automakers aren't able to make as many of them as Toyota.

[siegen]

* Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.

Uhhh sounds to me like he would like to. The goverment can't tell people what to buy. You let the market decide that. Sounds like he wants me to drive a hybrid (and that won't happen).

Obama has been becoming more mainstream if he got the nod to pick up Hillary voters and I know what his first energy plan was. The guy is scary and uses the fancy words people what to hear. (emotional) John McCain tells us what we need to hear. (factual) Say what you want liberals vote with their hearts and repubilcans wiht their brains. On the surge alone that would be enough of a reason to vote McCain-Palin.

They can't tell you what to buy, but they can influence buying trends by providing tax credits for the plug-in hybrids, like the Volt. And 1 million of them by 2015 isn't really that much, considering that number will start building in 2010 with the Volt and Pious plug-in hybrids (essentially 200,000 per year from 2010 to 2015, to oversimplify it, I know it would be more on a curve, with a relatively small number sold in 2010, and building up to 2015). That's a very small percentage of the total number of cars sold every year, and is well within the production abilities of GM and Toyota alone, not to count the various other manufacturers that will be releasing plug-in hybrids before 2015.

Regardless of who's voting for who, you seem to have this idea that the two candidates are so incredibly different. In reality, they are not too dissimilar, aside from the various issues that they have differing ideas on. Is the line "I'd rather lose the election than the war" in any way a factual statement, or is it purely aimed at taking advantage of American's pride as Americans? Is it not also just political fluff?

[Satty]

Haven't we learned over the last few months that letting the market regulate itself is a really horrible idea?

[Robert Hall]

(factual) Say what you want liberals vote with their hearts and repubilcans wiht their brains.

The fact of Bush getting elected twice points out the fallacy of that argument, though. Only an idiotic public could have elected the American Idiot.

Also, please use a spell checker...it would make your arguments more coherent.

Edited September 20, 2008 by moltar

[loki]

Ricer, that was one of the very last things the Hoover administration did after trying to cut taxes to start the economy.

I believe that Obama will responsibly withdraw us from Iraq and allow us to cut the 1/2 trillion we're spending there every year. McCain's tax cuts are irresponsible and will get the country further in debt.

he was providing more proof that the next president always gets the benefit of an upswing in the economy (even small) and is attributed to the that next president.

we'll still have a embassy bigger than the Vatican there most likely, and troops to guard it.

it still scares me that BO has said nothing is off the table concerning IRAN....yeah yeah, he wants to "talk". that isn't a promise he will and anything useful would come out of it.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

he was providing more proof that the next president always gets the benefit of an upswing in the economy (even small) and is attributed to the that next president.

we'll still have a embassy bigger than the Vatican there most likely, and troops to guard it.

it still scares me that BO has said nothing is off the table concerning IRAN....yeah yeah, he wants to "talk". that isn't a promise he will and anything useful would come out of it.

Actually i was showing what loki said, as well as showing that massive deficit spending can increase GDP, but at the risk of, oh i don't know INCREASING OUR DEBT.

besides FDR accused Hoover of being too big a DEFICIT spender, that he was TAXING people too much. one of his aids accused Hoover of being a SOCIALIST? and what does FDR do? he continues and massively expands on the programs employed by Hoover.

There is still no proof that the economy wouldn't have begun its uptick with or without FDRs New Deal.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[gm4life]

I don't use a spell checker and nor do I care. :AH-HA_wink:

[pow]

They can't tell you what to buy, but they can influence buying trends by providing tax credits for the plug-in hybrids, like the Volt. And 1 million of them by 2015 isn't really that much, considering that number will start building in 2010 with the Volt and Pious plug-in hybrids (essentially 200,000 per year from 2010 to 2015, to oversimplify it, I know it would be more on a curve, with a relatively small number sold in 2010, and building up to 2015). That's a very small percentage of the total number of cars sold every year, and is well within the production abilities of GM and Toyota alone, not to count the various other manufacturers that will be releasing plug-in hybrids before 2015.

Regardless of who's voting for who, you seem to have this idea that the two candidates are so incredibly different. In reality, they are not too dissimilar, aside from the various issues that they have differing ideas on. Is the line "I'd rather lose the election than the war" in any way a factual statement, or is it purely aimed at taking advantage of American's pride as Americans? Is it not also just political fluff?

In terms of energy and transportation (what the car enthusiast in me is most interested in), both candidates have similar goals and rhetoric, but in terms of actual policy proposals, Obama at least details how we're going to achieve these goals of reduced oil consumption, increase alternative fuel usage, minimize energy speculation, etc.

Both McCain and Obama support flex-fuel vehicles and alternative fuels - according to his website, McCain "believes they should play a greater role in our transportation sector" and "McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs," which is nice, really, but his beliefs and calls alone won't guarantee that the cars we drive will indeed take such fuels. Obama, according to his website, will work with Congress and auto companies to specify a deadline (end of his first term) for mandatory FFV capability.

McCain "believes alcohol-based fuels hold great promise as both an alternative to gasoline and as a means of expanding consumers' choices", but at the same time he wants to "eliminate [ethanol] mandates, subsidies, tariffs, and price supports." Obama, on the other hand, "will require at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030", by investing federal resources, "including tax incentives and government contracts, into developing the most promising technologies and building the infrastructure to support them." Another interesting bit of policy: Obama "will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard ... [which] requires fuel suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years," or in other words, incentivize private investment in advanced biofuels (the only way to reduce carbon in fuel).

Obama's energy policy was also unique in that it proposed legislation to regulate and close loopholes on oil futures trading, though recently McCain has jumped on that bandwagon as well.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_e...eech_080308.pdf

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/P...618454bb82d.htm

Edited September 20, 2008 by empowah

[pow]

They can't tell you what to buy, but they can influence buying trends by providing tax credits for the plug-in hybrids, like the Volt. And 1 million of them by 2015 isn't really that much, considering that number will start building in 2010 with the Volt and Pious plug-in hybrids (essentially 200,000 per year from 2010 to 2015, to oversimplify it, I know it would be more on a curve, with a relatively small number sold in 2010, and building up to 2015). That's a very small percentage of the total number of cars sold every year, and is well within the production abilities of GM and Toyota alone, not to count the various other manufacturers that will be releasing plug-in hybrids before 2015.

Speaking of plug-ins, and influencing buying trends by incentives, they're actually quite similar here. Yes, McCain has his $300 million prize to whoever develops the perfect battery, and Obama has his 1 million by 2015 plan - but both favor tax credits for plug-in hybrids and electric cars.

McCain "will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car, encouraging automakers to be first on the market with these cars in order to capitalize on the consumer incentives." Obama's is similar (up to $7,000), plus $4 billion in retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for US auto companies.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Speaking of Gramps and the Auto Industry, I just saw a video of him being booed, and UAW workers shouting "Obama 08, Obama 08, when Gramps and his Stepford wife came to visit. It looked like the inside of the Orion plant. That put a smile on my face.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Ricer, that was one of the very last things the Hoover administration did after trying to cut taxes to start the economy.

Did you just admit, an provide proof, that raising taxes during a down economy won't hurt the economy at all?

I believe that Obama will responsibly withdraw us from Iraq and allow us to cut the 1/2 trillion we're spending there every year. McCain's tax cuts are irresponsible and will get the country further in debt.

1931 ............................................................................... 3,116 / 3,577 / –462

1932 ............................................................................... 1,924 / 4,659 / –2,735

1933 ............................................................................... 1,997 / 4,598 / –2,602

The income tax hike was enacted in 1932.

Given the revenues, it is clear that raising the taxes in a bad economic time did VERY LITTLE on the bottom line other than placing increased burdon on people who would create jobs. FDR utilized extreme deficit spending which made the GOVERNMENT the leading provider of jobs, which is grossly INEFFICIENT, it lead to large GDP growth because of the TONS of DEFICIT spending that was going on. Once WWII broke out in Europe, manufacturing was making lots of stuff for Europe, and Europeans were borrowing US money to buy US things, which lead to the boom in GDP at that time.

Plus, you know, FDR criticized Hoovers deficit spending, and then brought deficit spending to unheard of levels during his own tenure.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

* Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.

Uhhh sounds to me like he would like to. The goverment can't tell people what to buy. You let the market decide that. Sounds like he wants me to drive a hybrid (and that won't happen).

Obama has been becoming more mainstream if he got the nod to pick up Hillary voters and I know what his first energy plan was. The guy is scary and uses the fancy words people what to hear. (emotional) John McCain tells us what we need to hear. (factual) Say what you want liberals vote with their hearts and repubilcans wiht their brains. On the surge alone that would be enough of a reason to vote McCain-Palin.

1,000,000 plug in hybrids on the road by 2015 shouldn't be difficult at all. If GM, Honda, Ford, and Toyota each produce 100,000 per year, they'd hit the mark in 2.5 years. There are plenty of people who want to buy plug in hybrids, they may not be members of this board, but they're out there. Remember, not everyone is a car enthusiast.

[Drew Dowdell]

Now that's what I call a bounce!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

A "trepidatious" McCain supporter who also happens to be an economist (i really cannot tell of what school of thought he subscribes to?)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/mccain-economics

Its an interesting viewpoint if nothing else. I would love to hear him explain how Bush's tax cuts make our tax system more progressive (am i missing something or what? is it because the top 1% now pay 70% of income taxes rather than a mere 20% in 1980?)

And Obama is only getting a bounce because the vast majority of Americans are ignorant about the economy and believe that protectionism is their savior.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

And Obama is only getting a bounce because the vast majority of Americans are ignorant about the economy and believe that protectionism is their savior.

Protectionism? Like trillions of dollars in bailouts? Or maybe Obama is getting a bounce because Americans realize that McCain was part of the deregulation that helped cause this mess in the first place... and that McCain has the author of the deregulation bill as his economic advisor.

Actually, I'm more inclined to believe that the dip in that graph was McCain's bounce and now things are returning back to the statistical "norm". Palin's luster is wearing off substantially as she's gone from a +17 favorable rating to a -1 favorable rating in just 7 days.

[Drew Dowdell]

A "trepidatious" McCain supporter who also happens to be an economist (i really cannot tell of what school of thought he subscribes to?)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/mccain-economics

Its an interesting viewpoint if nothing else. I would love to hear him explain how Bush's tax cuts make our tax system more progressive (am i missing something or what? is it because the top 1% now pay 70% of income taxes rather than a mere 20% in 1980?)

He's basing it on an incorrect assumption because he was fooled by percentages. The rich have gotten richer while the poor <and middle class> have gotten poorer. Tax brackets have adjusted upwards but wages have been stagnant or deflating.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'd like to point out that the crisis we're in is not one of liquidity but on of solvency. If you're Lehman Bros./etc and you've already lost so much money that you're insolvent, you're not going to be paying any taxes anyway. A tax cut won't help you.

The only way to stop this mess is to stop the foreclosures in the middle and lower classes. Once that shows signs of stabilizing, the pressure will come off the banks. Lowering the taxes on the middle and lower class will help them to better be able to pay their mortgage, thus the rich investors will get a return on their money. The rich will have to wait a few cycles, but they'll eventually get the money anyway.

[balthazar]

>>"McCain has the author of the deregulation bill as his economic advisor."<<

Barry had James Johnson involved in his VP vetting campaign. Johnson was CEO of Fannie Mae throughout the '90s, and was accused of received loans directly from Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial... of course, implicated in the U.S. subprime mortgage lending crisis.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report from 09-04 found that during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A '06 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

He stepped down this summer to 'avoid creating a distraction to BO's campaign'. No worries; there's a whole warehouse of people to keep him company.

The mention above of Franklin Raines is timely, he is the most recent acquisition by Barry as an economic advisor. Raines has in his resume the reassuring distinction of having been an associate director of economics under Carter. On 12-21-04, Raines accepted what he called "early retirement" from his position as CEO of Fannie Mae, while SEC investigators continued to investigate alleged accounting irregularities. He is accused by the OFHEO, the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of abetting widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses.

In '06, OFHEO sued Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as 6.3 billion.

Civil charges were also filed against Raines and two other former executives by the OFHEO in which the OFHEO sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused. On 04-18-08, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, Fannie's former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie's insurance policies. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. The stock options however have no value. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 million of "other benefits" said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses.

A "paltry settlement" in light of the fact that Raines's compensation was over $20 million in '03 alone. Also in the settlement, Fannie paid a record $400 million civil fine.

In 06-08, the WSJ reported that Raines was one of several public officials who received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo). He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae and earning tens of millions.

This is one of Barry's economic advisors. Funny, I thought he was an innate genius RE the ecomony relative to McCain. Not only is he not, he picks some reall winners.

Of course, Barry himself was also involved in a sweetheart real estate deal with good friend & next-door neighbor Antoin "Tony" Rezko, convicted in '08 of 16 of 24 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, & corrupt solicitation. Rezko is currently in prision, awaiting trial on more charges of wire fraud & passing bad checks in casinos.

Obama, while working for the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, represented Rezko's real estate front company and helped them get more than $43 million in government funding. Obama also urged city officials to support of a low-income senior citizen development project headed by Rezko and partner Allison Davis. The project received more than $14 million in taxpayer funds.

In return, Resko was the first contributor to Barry's political career, eventually contributing a quarter million by Barry's accounting.

This is EXACTLY the sort of cronyism and back-room criminality bullsh!t that Barry (dubbed 'The Messiah' by admitted friend, career racist and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakahn) is supposed to deliver us from. Fat f*cking chance of that.

I don't care what sort of magic dust economic charts he puts out there to grease his own skids with, it's all, and always, about stuffing your buddies pockets and making deals. I'll give him one credit, he's damned good at hiding & shrugging damning information off, but I'm not sure that's something we should be looking for in a President. The nation has never before been so deep in the dark about a Presidential candidate.

No Change, No Hope here.

[Satty]

Keating Five

Anyways, Newsweek has an article on the candidates cars. The Obamas have 1, McCain has 13, including 3 golf carts with doors (Gems) and a VW convertible.

[Intrepidation]

I'm disappointing that Obama "ditched" the 300C for the Escape simply because the greenie weenies were bitching about it.

Although I'm somehow not surprised the for McCain was caught in another lie:

One vehicle in the McCain fleet has caused a small flap. United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger, an Obama backer, accused McCain this month of "flip-flopping" on who bought daughter Meghan's foreign-made Toyota Prius. McCain said last year that he bought it, but then told a Detroit TV station on Sept. 7 that Meghan "bought it, I believe, herself." (The McCain campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

[Satty]

The man is old, he probably just forgot buying it.

[Intrepidation]

The man is old, he probably just forgot buying it.

[loki]

Protectionism? Like trillions of dollars in bailouts? Or maybe Obama is getting a bounce because Americans realize that McCain was part of the deregulation that helped cause this mess in the first place... and that McCain has the author of the deregulation bill as his economic advisor.

is it really a lack of regulation or lack of oversight of current regulations?

i think it's horribly funny that "they" are looking at whether short selling should be illegal. i'm sure it does hurt people occasionally, but one could say that's what the market is for, so strong and weak companies can be prodded as such to test them. this is just socializing risk more and could take away "market selection".

is there a theory of market selection yet? if not, can i propose it?!

[FAPTurbo]

Man, at least the American election is vigorous, and has issues to debate.

In our election, we're still busy trying to decide whether our PM looks good in a blue sweater or not... http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4579/102768

For what it's worth, his opponent has donned a RED sweater in retaliation.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Man, at least the American election is vigorous, and has issues to debate.

In our election, we're still busy trying to decide whether our PM looks good in a blue sweater or not... http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4579/102768

For what it's worth, his opponent has donned a RED sweater in retaliation.

Well, God Save the Queen

Another interesting read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...e_doesnt_w.html

Edited September 21, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Oracle of Delphi]

The man is old, he probably just forgot buying it.

Poor old Gramps, he can't remember when he had his last bowel movement either.

[Satty]

Obama's plan is almost revenue neutral, Micky's reduces government revenue significantly, is that whats best for the country when the taxpayers are about to be put on the hook for $700,000,000,000?

Edited September 22, 2008 by Satty

[Robert Hall]

Poor old Gramps, he can't remember when he had his last bowel movement either.

I've read Cindy has short term memory issues, from the drugs...I read an article here about she has for years been bad about paying her numerous speeding tickets, forgets them.

[Robert Hall]

Obama's plan is almost revenue neutral, Micky's reduces government revenue significantly, is that whats best for the country when the taxpayers are about to be put on the hook for $700,000,000,000?

And besides that $700B, there is the $171B a year to maintain 8 more years of 'all war, all the time'.. add in an extra $100-200B per year if we start a war w/ Iran (which is likely the next on the list--or is it Pakistan? They seem to have a lot of Islamic Jihad lunatics).

This country is in the sh*tter right now...it will only get worse before it gets better. The 'downward spiral' continues...

Edited September 22, 2008 by moltar

[gm4life]

I know everyone thinks Obama can handle the economy, hate to say it neither one has the kind of knowledge I think a prez should have. Having said that if there is one whom has a plan that is closer to actually working it is McCain. Honestly when you look at this alone Frannie Mae and Freddie Mack gave Obama 80K for his campigen while McCain got a mere 20K gee I wonder whom has the "big boys" on there side. Just saying a pancake has two sides. I have a hard time trusting a man whom says one thing in San Franisco about "us" (middle class American's) and then says something totally different when the people he just knocked are around. You might not agree with McCain on the issues but you have to give him this, that he is a man of his word and is honest. Obama has the words but I question his ability to back it up...