Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course the problem with that is that after a few times people may just focus on what the word "fundamentally" means and realize the statement isn't as crazy as it first sounded to them.

That's not the problem. That gives too much credit to the people, I think, to assume that they can/will care to actually parse a quote and think about what a politician actually said instead of what the pundits all tell us he said.

But I see another problem. If Obama does not soon propose a sound-bite ready solution* to the problem, then the contrast simply becomes "John McCain actually thinks that you will have a job and a house four years from now, while Obama acknowledges that you and your children will be living in a box under the bridge and that it is all Bush's fault."

The out-of-touch meme is a good one for Obama because it touches on McCain's age indirectly. But if he thinks that he can stop there, he is mistaken. John McCain tends to be "out of touch" in ways that are optimistic about America and its power. And, at the end of the day, we are optimistic people. If Obama's message becomes "John Mcain is out of touch because he is too sanguine about the present and the future," then Obama will lose.


*Yes, I know that any "solution" to this problem is far beyond what the chief executive can do. But you can say that about most of the things we expect the President to be able to do. Indeed, one of the ironies about the whole thing is that which the President actually does we tend to ingore but the things over which he has very little control, we place at his doorstep. But that is a post for another day.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yes, of course - but the standard Republican rhetoric would be "replace the existing regulations with new ones that keep government out of the private sector." To my ears, those lines are pretty generic for a GOP candidate.

so what - you're going to let these firms self-regulate? that's a recipe for disaster - they'll all sit around circle-jerking and paying lip-service to regulations in order to make more $$

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

lol - less regulation is what got us into the current problem though cronin. and saying it's outdated and needs to be overhauled seems to indicate that you want to replace the existing regulations with new ones, doesn't it?

Which regulation exactly would have prevented this crisis? The Fed has been very lax here, but that's not exactly something that regulation would have fixed. I guess you could have outlawed subprime and ABM loans as well as required more down payment, but, aside from being hindsight is 20/20, I'd think that the investment banks would have found a way around that as well.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which regulation exactly would have prevented this crisis? The Fed has been very lax here, but that's not exactly something that regulation would have fixed. I guess you could have outlawed subprime and ABM loans as well as required more down payment, but, aside from being hindsight is 20/20, I'd think that the investment banks would have found a way around that as well.

There are some regulations that were done away with over the past decade or so, as well. It's not all about the lack of new regulation, but the removal of past regulations under the guise of the industry regulating itself so well that oversight was no longer needed. Enron blew up because deregulation let them play a new game. Financial industry melting down can be traced back to the deregulation push as well. Time and again, mega corporations demonstrate an inability to regulate themselves.

Absent of any outside controls, many of these corporations will go for money, money, money and just hope for the best. If they fail, so be it. Few of the people involved in management probably had much money invested in the company anyway. It's all-win for them if it works out with little to lose if it doesn't. It would be nice if we could get shareholders and boards that were truly interested in doing their ownership and oversight thing out of this, but it seems most of those folks don't feel like paying attention to the big picture either.

[sterlingice]

All credit to Flasch, ISiddiqui, and larrymcg for their exchanges over the past couple of pages

SI

[Flasch186]

Im still kind of in shock over the efforts to stymie the investigation though, ive just been trying to be a little more level headed...For the last few hours anyways.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

There are some regulations that were done away with over the past decade or so, as well. It's not all about the lack of new regulation, but the removal of past regulations under the guise of the industry regulating itself so well that oversight was no longer needed. Enron blew up because deregulation let them play a new game. Financial industry melting down can be traced back to the deregulation push as well. Time and again, mega corporations demonstrate an inability to regulate themselves.

Absent of any outside controls, many of these corporations will go for money, money, money and just hope for the best. If they fail, so be it. Few of the people involved in management probably had much money invested in the company anyway. It's all-win for them if it works out with little to lose if it doesn't. It would be nice if we could get shareholders and boards that were truly interested in doing their ownership and oversight thing out of this, but it seems most of those folks don't feel like paying attention to the big picture either.

I keep hearing about removal of past regulation that caused the credit crunch, but which ones? It seems to me that the blame doesn't really fit. Some people talk about repealing Glass-Stegall, but that dealt with commerical banks and these are investment banks which are really going under.

So the question becomes which regulations were repealed that led to this? It seems more like new regulations should have been written in the late 90s, early 2000s, but there was no political will on both sides for it. This crisis was ultimately caused by investment banks thinking they had a great idea to make money on real estate and were horribly wrong. The only regulation that really could have prevented that is stuff that we now know in hindsight (banning ABM loans and subprime is a start).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Why are you so in shock? There's no question that its political theater from both sides. I really don't think the Obama campaign would be acting any differently were the shoe on the other foot.

It isnt so we dont.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

It isnt so we dont.

Boldface choice of words duly noted. Interesting that a equitable purveyor of truth would choose the pronoun 'we' when discussing how the Obama campaign would react in this situation.

[Buccaneer]

Regarding the economy, you cannot paint things in a simplistic, broad brush. A lot of it depends on where you look and at what sector you look. Comparatively, Colorado is doing very well, while Michigan sucks. Energy and environmental industries are doing very well, while auto and certain manufacturers are not, generally speaking. Beneath that to the financial and banking sectors, I don't know, it depends how many stupid short-term decisions they made during the selective housing bubble.

[Flasch186]

the we meant all of us, human beings, you, me, Ronnie dobbs, Arles, Glengoyne, my mom, SD, 3R, SO, RS and your momma too. That's what you get when you try to say 'what s/he meant was' instead of taking it as is.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I vote to keep things that way, thank you very much.

Bucc, you do realize that Democrats are nothing more than mini-Republicans and as such, simply act as buffers and enablers to their behavior? We haven't had an actual opposition party in a while. I used to subscribe to exactly your viewpoint, but when both parties are essentially the same, what's the point?

[Flasch186]

oh no, ive watched closely all of them since the Clinton campaigns. Bush 1 only stood out due to the 'read my lips' stuff. However that doesnt mean I think the behavior is ok nor good for our country, on both sides. I understand JonIMGA's POV but that doesnt mean I agree with it but at least I understand it and perhaps that's been the issue is that I do not subscribe to that line of thought and hold out hope that not only can a campaign not subscribe to it, but also win. W proved that not to be the case (not saying the other side subscribed to my line of thought either) in winning with a dirty playbook. Im hoping someday we wont have to have these sort of campaigns and get disgusted today with the way theyre run.

[sterlingice]

It's odd. After the "Palin honeymoon" wore off, we've kindof gotten back to business as usual. The "minefield" we were talking about a couple of weeks ago has significantly lessened in strength. So, we're onto whatever the next few flavors of the news cycle are.

There are three things that have stuck out in my mind over the last week or so with regards to quotes and campaigning. Again, I'm trying to look at them from a purely academic and campaigning standpoint- how they affect politics, not the validity of the statements or attacks on either side's beliefs.

(1)
There hasn't really been much comment on the military service of the candidates. Don't get me wrong- we all know McCain and his military credentials and trials. However, I remember in 1992, there were a lot of attacks on Clinton for being a draft dodger. Heck, in 2000, Bush used his time in the national guard to go after Gore and his time as a journalist. And then in 2004, it was again Bush and Kerry got hamstrung with the "swift boat" attack. I'm pretty sure Obama hasn't had any military service but we haven't heard anything about that.


(2)

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If I was Obama, the next few weeks would be one big loop of a commercial. "John McCain says the economy is fundamentally strong"

(insert loop of Lehman Brothers failing, AIG Bailout (use terms like "unprecedented federal bailout")..

I know Obama already has an ad out about this. But what was McCain thinking?

[quote = President Hoover, in a press conference on October 30, the day following the Stock Market crash]
The fundamental business of the country, that is production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis. [/quote]

I'm paraphrasing, but Olbermann mentioned a couple of nights ago that there should be a book handed out to all political candidates about what not to say and quoting Hoover in bad economic times would be near the front.


(3)

This one draws from previous (recent) history as well as now. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, yes this Douglas Holtz-Eakin who is McCain's chief economics advisor, stupidly holds up his Blackberry and basically pulls an Al Gore invented the internet moment. I mean, it's almost identical. They're both horribly misinterpreted in what was saying

Really? Who is stupid enough to make this quote? Who even thought this was a good idea, to make this point? I know everyone remembers "Al Gore invents the internet".

Gore's exact quote: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." And it referred to his sponsoring of legislation to help fund and open up the internet, which he did do.

The quote by Holtz-Eakin was: ""He did this" (holding up his Blackberry). "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years -- comes right through the Commerce Committee -- so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create, and that's what he did." (In a more snarky post, I'd go into how he didn't have nearly the influence Gore did on the internet or about how the credit he was being given was for deregulation of said industry on a day when he was calling for more regulation of another, but another day and another time...)

Both refer to a prominent technology that neither meant to take credit for.
Both refer to legislation aimed at funding and/or promoting said technology.
And, most of all, both will be (or were) misquoted in the following days of the quote and campaign.

And this isn't even a far flung surrogate but someone fairly close to him doing this. How can this even happen?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Well, let's just say McCain was a bit pissed off at Holtz-Eakin for doing that, from what I've read.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This one draws from previous (recent) history as well as now. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, yes this Douglas Holtz-Eakin who is McCain's chief economics advisor, stupidly holds up his Blackberry and basically pulls an Al Gore invented the internet moment. I mean, it's almost identical. They're both horribly misinterpreted in what was saying

Really? Who is stupid enough to make this quote? Who even thought this was a good idea, to make this point? I know everyone remembers "Al Gore invents the internet".

Gore's exact quote: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." And it referred to his sponsoring of legislation to help fund and open up the internet, which he did do.

The quote by Holtz-Eakin was: ""He did this" (holding up his Blackberry). "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years -- comes right through the Commerce Committee -- so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create, and that's what he did." (In a more snarky post, I'd go into how he didn't have nearly the influence Gore did on the internet or about how the credit he was being given was for deregulation of said industry on a day when he was calling for more regulation of another, but another day and another time...)

Both refer to a prominent technology that neither meant to take credit for.
Both refer to legislation aimed at funding and/or promoting said technology.
And, most of all, both will be (or were) misquoted in the following days of the quote and campaign.

SI

While we're at it, I think we need to revoke the credit that Dwight Eisenhower gets for the Interstate highway system. I've never seen any photos of him pouring the concrete or laying down the ashphalt, so his involvement was minimal at best.

[sterlingice]

But that's my point- obviously neither Gore nor McCain (by proxy) were trynig to take credit for literally inventing or, in the case of Eisenhower, building something- just for funding the infrastructure.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, let's just say McCain was a bit pissed off at Holtz-Eakin for doing that, from what I've read.

He was much more pissed off at Fiorina for saying Palin and later McCain, Obama and Biden didn't have the experience necessary to run a major corporation. I would have loved it if the follow up to that was, "Well exactly what experience do you need to run HP into the ground?"

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I would have loved it if the follow up to that was, "Well exactly what experience do you need to run HP into the ground?"

Or Lucent?

(p.s. I *hate* Carly)

SI

[Flasch186]

Must see TV.

Palin to field voters' questions for first time - CNN.com

Palin to field voters' questions for first time

GOLDEN, Colorado -- After several joint campaign appearances with Sen. John McCain, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ventured off last week into solo campaign territory that was tightly controlled -- no questions taken.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speaks in Golden, Colorado, Monday.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speaks in Golden, Colorado, Monday.

But for the first time since becoming McCain's running mate, Palin will take questions in an open forum from voters alongside the Arizona senator on Wednesday.

But Palin's solo debut is a case study in her appeal and in the McCain campaign strategy to keep her on a careful script.

Palin's two rallies out West were tightly controlled events. In Carson City, Nevada, on Saturday, Palin furiously signed autographs longer than she spoke.

In Golden, Colorado, on Monday, signs that voters brought to the rally were not allowed in. But yellow signs in the crowd were distributed by the campaign. Video Watch more on Palin's solo campaign appearances »

Palin spent this past Sunday in Denver out of sight, meeting with aides and staying away from the traveling press.

As for reporters following her around, they're still trying.
Don't Miss

More and more, Palin appears to be honing her policy positions without getting too specific.

"Our regulatory system is outdated. ... Washington has ignored this. Washington has been asleep at the switch and ineffective," she said Monday.

It's a taste of the reform message McCain advisers call the key to winning, and the biggest bonus of adding a Washington outsider to the ticket -- especially in the anti-establishment Rocky Mountain states. Video Watch Palin lash out on Washington »

It was her first foray at campaigning alone since being minted as McCain's running mate.

At the campaign event in Carson City, Palin added fresh fodder to her now familiar stump speech -- what she'd like do in the White House.

"My mission is energy security and government reform," she said.

Palin also got a big response for a new swipe at Sen. Barack Obama:

"Our opponent wants to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes ... and raise investment income taxes."

Independent groups say that's a stretch, arguing that most Americans would get a tax cut under Obama's plan.
advertisement

But lines like that are drawing crowds along the campaign trail with newly enthused GOP voters and even some conservative Democrats such as Gayle Loughridge.

"I haven't been political my whole life, and Palin has got me energized. Got me up at 3:30 this morning just to hear what she has to say," she said.

[Flasch186]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain « - Blogs from CNN.com

Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain
Posted: 10:45 AM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston
Lynn Forester de Rothschild was a strong supporter of Clinton's White House bid.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild was a strong supporter of Clinton's White House bid.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

Forester is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world. She is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Forester is a member of the DNC’s Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York.

Bolded to show that I find it funny for her to call basically anyone an elitist. Maybe she means Obama's a uber-elitist.

[larrymcg421]

Rasmussen: Mccain 48-47
Research 2000: Obama 47-45
PPP (D): Obama 48-46

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I keep hearing about removal of past regulation that caused the credit crunch, but which ones?

Good question. If I had the resources to conduct the research, I would do it right now. I don't know what it was called, but I understood (and easily could be wrong) that there used to be more restrictions on the kind of transactions that investment banks could engage in.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain « - Blogs from CNN.com

Bolded to show that I find it funny for her to call basically anyone an elitist. Maybe she means Obama's a uber-elitist.

Though I'm not surprised that you tried to evoke class warfare with your comment, I really don't think this carries a hill of beans of worth. Political endorsements, outside of the rare exception, usually don't sway the electorate all that much. As polarized as this election is, I'm be shocked if anyone was swayed by this announcement.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Though I'm not surprised that you tried to evoke class warfare with your comment, I really don't think this carries a hill of beans of worth. Political endorsements, outside of the rare exception, usually don't sway the electorate all that much. As polarized as this election is, I'm be shocked if anyone was swayed by this announcement.

whatever, i wasnt trying to evoke anything outside of humor. Are you Oliver Stone or something? Like the 'we' comment above that you spun into some treasure map instead of looking in the mirror and realizing that we both have 2 eyes. Do yourself and me a favor and read my posts, initially, as vanilla and then ask me questions if you aren't sure my intent so we dont get into the 's/he meant it to mean' stuff you love.

[Vegas Vic]

What States are Really in Play?

The McCain convention bump seems to be subsiding, and the tracking polls suggest the national race is back almost dead even. Part of the recent movement may well be attributable to the financial crisis gripping Wall Street, and the fact that for not the first time, a sensible McCain statement on the economy is being distorted by Obama and his many media flacks as evidence that the Arizona Senator is out of touch.

The fundamentals of the US economy are strong, as McCain argued: 94% of workers are employed, inflation last month was 0.1% (the big drop in oil prices of over $55 a barrel helps, saving consumers between $20 and $30 billion each month), and GDP grew by over 3% last quarter. When Franklin Roosevelt took office and said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, he was applauded for his statesmanship and leadership.

A leader in a time of crisis tries to settle the ship and restore confidence. That is what John McCain is doing, but he gets no points for it. You are supposed to walk among the unemployed, and show that you share their pain, and charge that their problems are caused by George Bush, or this year, Bush-McCain. That is what Barack Obama does, and for this, he gets the attention and approval of the punditry hacks or giants (pick one) like Joe Klein and Frank Rich.

In terms of political momentum, when the topic being debated is national security or social issues and values, McCain benefits. When the topic is a souring economy or financial crisis, Obama wins. So this week, it is Obama's week to ride with the tide.

One of the reasons the Obama campaign has been so flummoxed by Sarah Palin is that every day Palin is the story, which she has been for close to two weeks, is a day when the Obama campaign is off message. The New York Times, boiling with rage at the new interloper who offers a different version of feminism than the only one allowed to be respected in its pages, has provided a huge boost to the McCain-Palin campaign with its army of "investigative reporters" digging for trash in Alaska.

The Times' pursuit of Palin resembles their feeble and failed four month attempt to tar John McCain earlier this year as having been an adulterer with a lobbyist. The John Edwards adultery story, which was real, was never of interest to the New York Times. Sinners can only be registered Republicans, and after all, Edwards only began his affair when his wife's cancer was in remission, demonstrating what a prince of a man he really is.

The state polls, which tend to lag the national tracking polls by a few days, have been more favorable for John McCain the last few days, reflecting his slightly stronger position since the convention and the Palin pick. But even if the latest state polls overstate McCain's numbers a bit due to the lag, they do reflect the new shape of the race.

The best news for McCain is that he has opened a solid lead in Florida (27 Electoral College votes) of 5 points or more in every recent survey, and has built a modest lead in Ohio (20 Electoral College votes) of 3-4 points in every recent survey but one (Quinnipiac). Obama ran poorly in Ohio in its March primary, carrying only 5 of 88 counties and losing the state to Hillary Clinton by 10%, despite coming in with all the momentum and a huge financial advantage. Many registered Democrats in Ohio are not political liberals and share more cultural values with Sarah Palin than Barack Obama. The condescension the Obama campaign has demonstrated toward blue collar voters will not help it in Ohio come Election Day. It is telling that in one recent survey, 31% of Ohio voters said they best relate to Palin, about 20% each to McCain and Obama, and barely over 10% with Biden. If Ohio and Florida are McCain states (and Ohio is certainly not yet "done" for McCain, as Florida may be), there are few ways for Obama to reach 270 Electoral College votes.

Assuming Obama holds all the Kerry states, not nearly so certain anymore, Obama begins with a likely pickup of Iowa and its 7 Electoral College votes. He would then need 11 more. In the latest Rasmusssen surveys, Obama trails in Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), and is even in Virginia (13). These are the four tossup states where his chances to turn a red state blue are the best. Admittedly, McCain's lead in the Western states is small -- 2 to 3 points in each case. For Obama to win, he will need to pick up Virginia, which has not gone Democratic since 1964, or Colorado and one of the smaller Western states to win. Colorado has been a reliable GOP state in recent years and Nevada has been in the McCain column pretty much all year.

The Obama campaign has bragged of its superior ground game and how that will deliver victory, and in a very close state race, it could help. However discussions with campaign professionals in Virginia and Ohio suggest that the Obama ground team, mostly passionate young out of state workers, are not connecting very well with local voters, even registered Democrats, many of whom are for more culturally conservative than the propagandists for Obama. There is the possibility of a backlash against the harassment, as occurred with Howard Dean's yellow jacketed throng in Iowa in 2004. The McCain team, thanks to the Sarah Palin selection, now has its own energized army of field workers -- but they tend to be in-state people talking to their neighbors, arguably a more effective approach than the one Obama's campaign has chosen. In Ohio in 2004, the Bush ground game won the state and the election for him.

At one time, the Obama team talked of 22 targeted states, then 18 (14 of them Bush won states), but now the real number is smaller than that. And the good news for the McCain side is that they have a real shot in many more Kerry states than they did a few months back. The latest Rasmussen survey has Pennsylvania (21 Electoral College votes) even for the first time all year. It is hard to see how Obama wins the presidency if he does not win the Keystone state. Pennsylvania is another state in which Obama was buried in the primary, despite a huge spending advantage over Hillary Clinton. Like Ohio and Michigan (17), the state has many registered Democrats who hunt and who are regular church goers, neither of which demographic segments provide fertile ground for Obama, who does best among African Americans and very highly educated secular whites who do not own or use guns. If McCain wins Pennsylvania, he will almost certainly also win Ohio, which is historically about 4-5 points friendlier to the GOP than Pennsylvania.

Other blue states now clearly in play include Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), and Michigan (17). I am very skeptical that McCain can win New Jersey (15) despite two recent polls showing him only 3% behind (others show him further behind) or Washington State (11), where two recent polls give Obama a 2-4% lead. Oregon (7) may be a slightly better prospect, given its recent voting history, but is still a long shot for McCain.

Many of Obama's once-targeted red states are now safely in McCain's corner. These include Montana (3), North Dakota (3) Alaska (3), and Georgia (15). North Carolina (15), Indiana (11) and Missouri (11) do not look too promising for Obama either. Of course, if the race breaks hard for either candidate in the last month, such that the current near-deadlock in the national popular vote becomes a 5% or greater margin of victory, then some of the second tier targets may come into play. But they won't matter. If Obama opens up a 5% national lead, he will win Ohio, and Virginia and Colorado. If McCain opens up a similar sized national lead, he probably wins Michigan and Pennsylvania. Neither candidate would need any other states from the other party's column -- these would amount to gravy, allowing the winner to claim a mandate.

The race is close to a national tie in the popular vote, in the number of safe electoral college votes for each side, and in the number of tossup electoral college votes that are blue or red. We have in other words, a 50-50 race.

That situation is markedly better for John McCain than his prospects have been for most of the year. He has not won, but he is very much in the game. The debates, the fallout from the politically motivated investigation in Alaska, and the luck of the draw -- what makes news in the weeks before Election Day -- will determine the outcome of the race.

What States are Really in Play?

[SirFozzie]

Gee, Vic, bias much?

[Galaril]

Not to get off the main topic here of partisan fighting but....this is a real question and one that seriously with the economy really worries me. Is it really true that McCain is planning to have our healthcare benefit taxable income? If so I dont understand why more people aren't mentioning it or bitching about that? I guess it wouldn't have much hope of being passed by a Democrat controlled Hill but it looks like the republicans at least have a shot if you believe the polls of taking back the legislative majority from the Dems. I am honestly asking this question in aconstructive and with no partisan intent here. If the Dems were going to pull this I wouldn't vote for them for this one reason.

[Flasch186]

McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax


The campaign cannot yet project how many taxpayers might see their taxes go up, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain’s top domestic policy adviser. But Mr. Holtz-Eakin said in an interview that for some, Mr. McCain’s health care tax credits would not be large enough to compensate for his proposal to eliminate the tax breaks afforded to workers with employer-provided health benefits.

On stops in Florida and Pennsylvania this week, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has emphasized a free-market approach that he said would lower health care costs and make insurance affordable.

To do so he is proposing a major tax change that he hopes will make the insurance marketplace more competitive and less expensive in part by encouraging more people to buy health insurance on their own instead of receiving it from their employers.

The 71 percent of insured Americans who get their health coverage through their employers now enjoy a significant advantage because the money spent by employers on their health coverage is excluded from their taxable income. If employers chose to pay that share of a worker’s compensation as wages rather than benefits, the income would be taxable.

The exclusion costs the federal government more than $212 billion a year in income and payroll taxes, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. That is more than the cost of the deductibility of home mortgage interest, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

The tax treatment of health benefits has been criticized as both discriminatory and regressive, and some analysts believe it encourages workers to buy more coverage than they need, driving up health costs.

To end the disadvantage to those who do not buy insurance through employers, Mr. McCain proposes to eliminate the exclusion of health benefits from taxable income. In exchange, he would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 to single people and of $5,000 to families, with the goal of stoking competition in the individual insurance market. The elimination of the exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign, and that money would pay for the tax credits.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin calculated that workers in the top income tax bracket would have to pay more in taxes if their employers have been contributing at least $14,285 toward a family insurance premium. Nationwide, the average cost of a family policy is $12,106, with employers paying $8,824 of that amount.

While the change would primarily affect those with gold-plated insurance policies, health analysts point out that middle-income workers with conventional coverage could conceivably pay more in regions where insurance costs are high. Over time, that might depend on how the tax credits are adjusted for inflation, a detail Mr. McCain has not discussed.

Gary Claxton, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research group, said that about 6 percent of insured employees worked for companies where the average employer contribution met the threshold set by Mr. Holtz-Eakin. Mr. Claxton said he could not project how many of those workers are in the top tax bracket and would pay higher taxes.

Interviewed on his campaign bus Wednesday afternoon, Mr. McCain said: “I’m giving them a $5,000 refundable tax credit. I believe that that takes care of the overwhelming majority of Americans.”

Charlie Black, a senior adviser to his campaign, who was also on the bus, acknowledged that some would pay more. “It would be a very, very small percentage of people,” Mr. Black said, “and they would be people who are getting a plan that’s way beyond what regular people have.”

Mr. McCain has said he would maintain the Bush-era income tax cuts and support other tax reductions, and he has pledged repeatedly that he would not raise taxes. “Do you mean none?” Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, asked in a March 16 interview.

“None,” Mr. McCain replied.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said Mr. McCain’s health proposal does not contradict his tax pledge because the government would gain the same amount of revenue by ending the exclusion as it would lose by granting the tax credits.

“He has said that he is in favor of a tax code that is fairer, simpler, flatter, more pro-growth and more internationally competitive,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “There’s nothing about revenue-neutral tax reforms that’s inconsistent with his position.”

Some scholars say otherwise. “Anyway you cut it, if you make health benefits subject to taxation, that’s a tax increase,” said Jonathan B. Oberlander, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You can argue with lots of merit that it’s a responsible increase, that it takes away an inequitable exclusion, but it’s still a tax increase.”

On the Democratic side, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York also wants to change the tax treatment of employee health benefits, though not as radically as Mr. McCain. She has proposed limiting the exclusion for those earning more than $250,000, about 2 percent of workers. Under her plan, which would raise an estimated $2 billion to support universal health coverage, high earners would pay taxes on the part of employer-provided health benefits that exceed a standard policy. Mrs. Clinton has not defined where that limit would be set.

Her Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, has not proposed changing the tax exclusion.

McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax - New York Times

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Not to get off the main topic here of partisan fighting but....this is a real question and one that seriously with the economy really worries me. Is it really true that McCain is planning to have our healthcare benefit taxable income? If so I dont understand why more people aren't mentioning it or bitching about that? I guess it wouldn't have much hope of being passed by a Democrat controlled Hill but it looks like the republicans at least have a shot if you believe the polls of taking back the legislative majority from the Dems. I am honestly asking this question in aconstructive and with no partisan intent here. If the Dems were going to pull this I wouldn't vote for them for this one reason.

Yes. There will be a corresponding tax credit, but for some families it won't cover the cost of the tax. Worse, there is no mention of scaling for the actual inflation of insurance costs, so as costs go up the tax credit will cover less.

I don't understand why this hasn't been the feature of an a national ad. It would be a little bit of a distortion, but I have to think, "McCain wants to tax your health benefits," would be an effective attack.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

There hasn't really been much comment on the military service of the candidates. Don't get me wrong- we all know McCain and his military credentials and trials. However, I remember in 1992, there were a lot of attacks on Clinton for being a draft dodger. Heck, in 2000, Bush used his time in the national guard to go after Gore and his time as a journalist. And then in 2004, it was again Bush and Kerry got hamstrung with the "swift boat" attack. I'm pretty sure Obama hasn't had any military service but we haven't heard anything about that.

The difference is that Barack Obama was born in the 60s and was only 14 years old when the Vietnam war ended. He has never been eligible for conscription.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax - New York Times

Well I see that would fuck me. Since my employer pays about 9000 dollars of my health coverage. So a 5000 dollars tax credit won't cut it. I mean from the numbers given for a avergae family plan at $14000 dollars annually even a $10000 dollar tax credit won't do it. It is a cleverly worded explanation but that is just wrong.

[Flasch186]

Even GOP says McCain must accept earmarks - Yahoo! News

Even GOP says McCain must accept earmarks

Martin Kady II Wed Sep 17, 5:42 AM ET

Out on the stump, John McCain gets wild applause each time he promises as president to veto every spending bill that contains an earmark.

But McCain will find it almost impossible to live up to his vow, and gridlock would result if Congress refused to go along with such an executive branch power grab.

And that’s what members of McCain’s own party are saying.

“I don’t think it’s the right approach,” said Rep. Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican who has spent three decades on the House Appropriations Committee. “I haven’t done an earmark I wouldn’t be happy to have spread all over the front pages of the paper.”

Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), a former Appropriations Committee chairman, warns that both parties in Congress would protect their power against a no-earmark policy.

“The Constitution is very specific and very clear about who appropriates money,” Young said. “Not all earmarks are pork-barrel spending.”

McCain has billed himself and his running mate as mavericks who will stand up to foolish spending.

The campaign has pitched Sarah Palin as a governor who said “no thanks” to an earmark for Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere,” although press reports have established that she supported the earmark before she opposed it.

Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican and member of the Appropriations Committee, says he understands McCain’s desire to crack down on wasteful spending and kill the latest “bridge to nowhere.” But if a McCain administration suddenly started shooting down every spending bill, lawmakers on both sides might revolt.

“The realistic outlook is for a great reduction in earmarks and a real discussion about earmarks,” Kingston said.

Because Congress has failed again to finish its spending bills on time, the new president will likely receive a new omnibus spending bill just after taking office. If McCain makes good on his campaign promise, “he could veto it, and we’d probably override” the veto, Kingston said.

Or, if there aren’t enough votes to override a veto, “it could be like 1995,” when the government shut down, says David Williams, vice president of policy for Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group.

The promise to veto any bill with congressional earmarks doesn’t take into account executive branch earmarks, which come by the scores in the president’s annual budget request. McCain has not promised to get rid of the executive branch’s line-item spending requests.

“What we would be doing is handing over all of our authority to the administration,” said Kirstin Brost, a spokeswoman for House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.). “We’d be saying the White House, in its judgments, would decide what every community in America needs.”

McCain is not new to this earmark debate. It’s one area where he can still legitimately claim the maverick label. For years he has taken to the Senate floor and read long lists of ridiculous-sounding earmarks and clashed with Republican earmarkers such as Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

And his campaign isn’t backing away from the promise that he’ll veto any bill with earmarks, even if it would create a massive showdown in his first days in office.

“He’s someone who dedicated his career to taking on the status quo and fighting an earmark process that breeds corruption,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said when asked Tuesday about congressional resistance to an earmark ban. “If they’re worthy [projects], then they can be approved through an open process.”

But as many veteran lawmakers point out, for every far-flung Alaskan bridge project or hippie museum, there are dozens of other earmarks that are politically palatable, like military base housing improvements, levee upgrades and Veterans Affairs hospital wings.

And many of these are never requested by the executive agencies or the White House.

Young points out that it was one of his earmarks back in the early 1990s that created the National Bone Marrow Registry. And the Predator drone — an unmanned aircraft critical in the war on terrorism — was created by a congressional earmark.

“What a President McCain could do is make Congress pay closer attention to earmarks,” Young said.

Even the watchdog groups, whose sole existence is to track and criticize earmarks, admit that McCain’s promise would be difficult to carry out.

“It’s going to be a challenge,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks government spending. “It’ll be a game of chicken [with Congress]. If he’s elected, he could claim a mandate on earmarks.”

But that mandate would run smack into a handful of unmovable objects on Capitol Hill, especially in the Senate, where old bulls like Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and former Chairmen Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Stevens (R) have shown no inclination to give up earmarks.

All of these senators are known as fierce defenders of the constitutionally granted power of Congress to appropriate money.

And they’re all well known for their earmarks.

“The idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful executive bureaucracy is more trustworthy than the elected representatives of the people when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars challenges the most basic tenet of our political system,” Byrd said in a statement. “An earmark is an economic need that many times falls between the cracks of the Washington bureaucracy. When that happens, the people we represent cannot call some unelected bureaucrat in the White House budget office.”

Regula, a longtime appropriator who has been in the minority, the majority and back in the minority in Congress, says the endgame is simple — a compromise with the new president, whoever that is.

“There are a lot of campaign promises that will come up against reality,” Regula said. “It’s one thing to go and say it on the trail. It’s another thing to do it in the real world.”

Did McCain say "every"? I dont know if paid enough attention to remember him saying "every". Anyone?

[larrymcg421]

More polls...

Gallup: Obama 47-45
Hotline/FD: Obama 45-42
Ipsos: Tie 45-45

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Even GOP says McCain must accept earmarks - Yahoo! News



Did McCain say "every"? I dont know if paid enough attention to remember him saying "every". Anyone?

The whole earmarks crusade is a sham. First, there just isn't that much money tied up in earmarks when compared to the deficit. Second, there's no way any President would veto all earmarks as things like aid to Israel are earmarks. Third, eliminating earmarks won't necessarily reduce spending by a penny. Fourth, all eliminating earmarks will accomplish is shifting spending decisions from the legislative to executive branch.

There's a lot of waste in the government and reducing that waste is worthwhile, but earmarks in and of themselves just aren't a big issue.

[JPhillips]

Everything that was bad is good again.

[larrymcg421]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fiorina’s comment called ‘Biden-like’ « - Blogs from CNN.com

(CNN) — Top McCain-Palin official Carly Fiorina is facing criticism from some within the campaign for a day of what they call "very Biden-like" comments, after the former Hewlett-Packard CEO told two separate interviewers that neither member of the Republican ticket would be capable of running a company.

Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden is noted for his off-the-cuff gaffes.

Asked by a St. Louis radio station whether she thought Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin could run a company like Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina responded: "No, I don't.

“But that's not what she's running for. Running a corporation is a different set of things."

Asked about that remark on MSNBC, she made the same unprompted assessment of the GOP presidential nominee. "I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation."

She also said she did not believe Democrats Barack Obama or Joe Biden had the right business background either.

But with the economy center stage in the campaign, the words that gave Democrats easy fodder to attack the Republican ticket.

A top McCain official contacted by CNN said, on condition on anonymity, "No big deal, but not how you get on the surrogate all-star team. Very Biden-like."

“This campaign source said Fiorina would be discouraged from additional media interviews.


Another top campaign adviser was far less diplomatic.

"Carly will now disappear," this source said. "Senator McCain was furious." Asked to define "disappear," this source said, adding that she would be off TV for a while – but remain at the Republican National Committee and keep her role as head of the party’s joint fundraising committee with the McCain campaign.

Fiorina was booked for several TV interviews over the next few days, including one on CNN. Those interviews have been canceled.

A third source said "it was another bad day for her, and important people are mad because the timing is horrible… But I would not necessarily buy the Siberia storyline."

Fiorina has forced the campaign off message before. In July, she told reporters women often express frustration over the fact many health insurance plans cover Viagra but not birth control medication.

"Let me give you a real, live example, which I've been hearing a lot about from women. There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth control medication. Those women would like a choice," she said.

It was a topic McCain wasn’t as keen to talk about. "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," he said, when reporters asked if he shared that view.” That comment, and the pause that preceded it, captured headlines for days.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Everything that was bad is good again.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why NR went with that particular phrase as the cover. It's not sarcastic, it's not poking fun at Obama. It truly does seem to say "Hey, look! We've got OUR Obama now!"

I would have gone with "Not 'The One'. One of Us." or something along those lines.

[Flasch186]

She's probably right about all 4 candidates for office, Romney mightve been the most qualified to run a corp the size of HP. I can see how strategically it is 'fodder' for the pages but Im fairly certain that she isn't wrong in her estimation.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

For the life of me, I can't figure out why NR went with that particular phrase as the cover. It's not sarcastic, it's not poking fun at Obama. It truly does seem to say "Hey, look! We've got OUR Obama now!"

I would have gone with "Not 'The One'. One of Us." or something along those lines.

It certainly does kind of take some steam out of the 'one' argument although Im not sure NR is read by the masses either, so it may not hold the same weight.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

She's probably right about all 4 candidates for office, Romney mightve been the most qualified to run a corp the size of HP. I can see how strategically it is 'fodder' for the pages but Im fairly certain that she isn't wrong in her estimation.

Well, what's really funny about her comment is that the person who ran HP into the ground is going to tell us who's qualified to run a corporation.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well, what's really funny about her comment is that the person who ran HP into the ground is going to tell us who's qualified to run a corporation.

wasn't she the same lady who was taping people or something like that? Very true but I think she's right that none of them could run a HP size company....along with her

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some disappointing news if true. It appears that the Iraqi oil service contracts that went to the Chinese were originally going to the U.S. until Democratic senators Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill decided to request that hydrocarbon laws be put into place in Iraq. The Iraqis were scared off by the ensuing fuss and handed the multi-million dollar contracts to Chinese firms.

No Oil for Blood

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Not to get off the main topic here of partisan fighting but....this is a real question and one that seriously with the economy really worries me. Is it really true that McCain is planning to have our healthcare benefit taxable income? If so I dont understand why more people aren't mentioning it or bitching about that? I guess it wouldn't have much hope of being passed by a Democrat controlled Hill but it looks like the republicans at least have a shot if you believe the polls of taking back the legislative majority from the Dems. I am honestly asking this question in aconstructive and with no partisan intent here. If the Dems were going to pull this I wouldn't vote for them for this one reason.

I wanted to bump this one more time to see if I can get anymore opinions on this especially from McCain backers to explain if thye are ok with this.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Some disappointing news if true. It appears that the Iraqi oil service contracts that went to the Chinese were originally going to the U.S. until Democratic senators Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill decided to request that hydrocarbon laws be put into place in Iraq. The Iraqis were scared off by the ensuing fuss and handed the multi-million dollar contracts to Chinese firms.

No Oil for Blood

So?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I am really holding out hope that, during a debate, Palin is asked whether humans and dinosaurs once lived side by side.

Hah. If they can't prevent the question, they should try to make sure it is one of the first so they have more time to get beyond it.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Some disappointing news if true. It appears that the Iraqi oil service contracts that went to the Chinese were originally going to the U.S. until Democratic senators Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill decided to request that hydrocarbon laws be put into place in Iraq. The Iraqis were scared off by the ensuing fuss and handed the multi-million dollar contracts to Chinese firms.

No Oil for Blood

You left out a key point. They didn't request hydrocarbon laws (which infers an environmental angle), they requested a hydrocarbon revenue sharing law, which was something that was brought up before the invasion as a way to pay for it by the administration, and even post invasion as a way to keep Sunnis/Shias/Kurds all happy with their fair share of the proceeds.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I wanted to bump this one more time to see if I can get anymore opinions on this especially from McCain backers to explain if thye are ok with this.

I'm a moderate who will likely vote McCain at this point. I don't agree with the taxation of the health benefit, but I also am pretty sure that there's not a chance in hell that the Republicans would ever be able to pass a law that's structured exactly as McCain has suggested. There would be a lot of negotiations to adjust that credit according to need rather than a flat credit. The end result would likely be more rules without any substantial additional revenue for the government.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Isn't it still awfully early in the game to be playing this card?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Cafferty: Obama: Race a factor? « - Blogs from CNN.com

"The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im still kind of in shock over the efforts to stymie the investigation though, ive just been trying to be a little more level headed...For the last few hours anyways.

Missed this earlier. I still think that the investigator should step down. That was the easiest thing for me to argue from the other side, because I guarantee you liberals would be livid if Biden was being investigated by someone who said the result of the investigation could be an "October surprise." French should step down, and then it would be much harder for Palin to argue the investigation is partisan, and would look much worse for dodging it.