obama or McCain

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

McCain supports drilling to supply more oil, but we should be working toward dumping less carbon in the atmosphere, not more.

That oil will be drilled no matter what, if only for future production of plastics and other petrochemicals.</p>

[vonlost]

<p>

That oil will be drilled no matter what, if only for future production of plastics and other petrochemicals.

But we should not be accelerating the rate of carbon extraction and dumping.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

But we should not be accelerating the rate of carbon extraction and dumping.

If oil is $200/bbl no one is going to care about the rate of carbon extraction. They will care about the cost of plastic, jet fuel & food. And they will want the government to do everything in their power to alleviate it.</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>I am watching a replay of BO and HRC in Unity NH today. I am totally amazed that people call this man a good speaker!! </p>

<p>He has no clue! Hillary is tolerating him from what I can tell. This man is a pompous ass. He is pandering to every different interest in the audience. </p>

<p>He doesn’t even pronounce all his words… </p>

<p>I know I am knit picking here.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>RatedPG - I totally agree. I can barely stand to listen to him myself - in fact, I can’t! I don’t know how he got such a good reputaton as a speaker.</p>

<p>I don’t like what he says and I don’t like how he says it!</p>

<p>Sorry Obamaniacs, but he’s just not good.</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>I don’t know how he got such a good reputaton as a speaker.<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Probably from the striking contrast to GW Bush. After eight long and inarticulate years of listening to him mangle the language, even Elmer Fudd starts to sound eloquent. Anyone who can speak in complete sentences and finish a thought without his brain locking up will sound like Winston Churchill compared to our current president.</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>">>I don’t know how he got such a good reputaton as a speaker.<<</p>

<p>Probably from the striking contrast to GW Bush. After eight long and inarticulate years of listening to him mangle the language, even Elmer Fudd starts to sound eloquent. Anyone who can speak in complete sentences and finish a thought without his brain locking up will sound like Winston Churchill compared to our current president. "</p>

<p>Fine, I accept that, but it doesn’t mean we all have to roll over and play dead and vote for the man for president of the United States of America !!.
Come on!</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>

Anyone who can speak in complete sentences and finish a thought without his brain locking up will sound like Winston Churchill compared to our current president.

</p>

<p>coureur–You got that right!</p>

[TerpDad]

<p>How many times have you seen someone hit the lottery and turn around and lose it all? There will always be a % of the population who will always be poor. Is the government to blame ? no Is it the government’s job to provide equal opportunity? yes The rest is strictly up to the individual, his capabilities and the decisions he makes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when the rich buys a yacht or whatever he helps employ many skilled laborers. They pay taxes on the purchase. Consumption fuels the economy. Increase in taxes reduces jobs by reduction in spending. So if you 're poor and uneducated why are you a victim? How have you been treated unfairly? Opportunity exists for all in this great nation! If your are one of the lucky ones to call America your home the battle is half won the rest is up to you!</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

That oil will be drilled no matter what, if only for future production of plastics and other petrochemicals.

</p>

<p>

But we should not be accelerating the rate of carbon extraction and dumping.

</p>

<p>Back in 2003, scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that “oil and gas will run out too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios to materialise”:</p>

<p>[‘Too</a> little’ oil for global warming - 05 October 2003 - New Scientist](<a href=“'Too little' oil for global warming | New Scientist”>'Too little' oil for global warming | New Scientist)</p>

[bz2010]

<p>From Fortune Magazine</p>

<p>[What</a> Obama means for business - Jun. 23, 2008](<a href=“What Obama means for business - Jun. 23, 2008”>What Obama means for business - Jun. 23, 2008)</p>

<p>A few Highlights:</p>

<p>

Therefore, he argues, business should support Obama’s plan to shift the tax burden toward the wealthy and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.50 over two years (under current law it goes to $6.55 in July). </p>

<p>…</p>

<p>Obama was so tightly aligned with labor leaders, embracing a legislative measure to promote union organizing, that it’s still hard to find any points of disagreement.
…</p>

<p>But to encourage a transition toward alternatives, Obama favors legislation that would make fossil fuel more expensive. Doesn’t that mean more pain to come under an Obama presidency? “There is no doubt that in the short term, adapting to this new energy economy is going to carry some costs.”
…</p>

<p>His critics say that, unlike Reagan or Clinton, there’s not much that is daring or innovative in his economic policies. The core of Obama’s economic plan is </p>

<p>(a) more government spending: $65 billion a year for universal health insurance, $15 billion a year on alternative energy, $20 billion to help homeowners avoid default, $60 billion to bolster the nation’s infrastructure, $10 billion annually to give students college tuition in exchange for public service, and on and on; </p>

<p>and (b) shifting the tax burden upward: ending the Bush tax cuts on families making more than $250,000 and raising payroll taxes on those same higher-income earners (the latter meant to bolster Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age). Middle-class earners would receive tax cuts, and low-income seniors would pay no income tax. Combined with a tax rebate as part of this new $50 billion stimulus plan, he argues, putting more money in the hands of middle-class consumers will help them cope with the income squeeze as well as rising energy prices. </p>

<p>Obama also wants to raise a range of other taxes on business and investment. He would increase the 15% capital gains tax rate - probably to 25%, according to advisors, though he excludes small businesses and new ventures from the tax altogether. He would raise the dividends tax, reinstate a 45% tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million, and close $1.3 trillion in “corporate tax loopholes.” The thinking behind those tax hikes comes in part from Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who has studied behavioral response to economic policies. Goolsbee believes the Republican argument that lower tax rates - by spurring investment and productivity - end up generating more revenue than they lose is overblown. (He notes that Obama wants to go back to the rates of the '90s, when the economy was booming.) Instead, he believes the tax code should be used to ease financial pressures on the middle class.
…</p>

<p>At the center of Obama’s plan to help ease the middle-class crunch would be a requirement that nearly all businesses provide health insurance or contribute to a government-backed “purchasing pool” that includes private plans and one public plan like Medicare. Since there is no mandate that adults buy insurance (as there was in Clinton’s plan), critics note that healthy young people will opt out altogether, making an expensive government program even more costly. (Obama says he will pay for the program by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.)

</p>

[milkandsugar]

<p>Oh boy, doesn’t look good.</p>

[tega]

<p>

Obama jumped right into the antitrade waters with Clinton, calling NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake” - even though a 2005 Congressional Research Service study showed the pact had a mild positive effect on the U.S. and Mexican economies. Obama’s own advisor, Goolsbee, had argued that America’s wage gap was the result of a globalized information economy - not free trade.

</p>

<p>

With the primary contest over, I asked Obama to clarify his remarks on NAFTA. “I think that sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he concedes. Did his? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself.” During a debate before the Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama said, “We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out” to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA. Now, however, he says he doesn’t plan to unilaterally reopen NAFTA, that he had just spoken with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that morning (Harper had called to congratulate him on the nomination), and that “I’m looking forward to a conversation with him. I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.”

</p>

<p>

Free-market critics look at his varied plans to raise taxes and pronounce him hostile to wealth creation and market growth. And in a small but telling episode during the Indiana primary, his campaign used a 2007 Fortune cover story - “Business Loves Hillary” - to attack Clinton, as if “business” were a dirty word, not the nation’s economic engine.

</p>

<p>Is this guy going to honor any of his promises? How can we differentiate heated rhetoric from what he actually believes? </p>

<p>Obama, just plain bad for the economy, entrepreneurs, and business.</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>

$20 billion to help homeowners avoid default

</p>

<p>No way anyone should get gov’t money to avoid their mortgage mess. No one forced them to sign the papers.</p>

[vonlost]

<p>

Back in 2003, scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that “oil and gas will run out too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios to materialise”:</p>

<p>‘Too little’ oil for global warming - 05 October 2003 - New Scientist

</p>

<p>That shows that scientists can be wrong, or that coal wasn’t considered, or ???. A report yesterday said there may be no arctic ice by the end of the summer.</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>

Is this guy going to honor any of his promises?

</p>

<p>There’s really no way of knowing for sure if any political leader will honor his/her promises. … Remember Bush’s first-term pledge that he would approach foreign policy with humility? Hmmmm. … </p>

<p>

…government spending: $65 billion a year for universal health insurance

</p>

<p>That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me, considering that we currently “invest” what–around $10-billion a month?–in Bush’s ill-conceived war. Universal health care of some sort, education, and repairing our disintegrating infrastructure–all are better things we can do with the money now being sucked down the black hole of Iraq.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Just some info for y’all:</p>

<p>[Obama’s</a> for Equal Pay, Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males – 06/30/2008](<a href=“http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080630a.html]Obama’s”>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080630a.html)</p>

<p>

While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men. </p>

<p>That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>bz–I’d have to see this same info from a site other than this one.</p>

<p>From Wikipidia:</p>

<p>

The Cybercast News Service (also CNSNews.com) is a conservative news website operated by the Media Research Center. It was founded on June 16, 1998 under the name “Conservative News Service”; “Conservative” was changed to “Cybercast” in 2000 after the MRC was unable to trademark the name “Conservative News Service.”

</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Ok - Hindoo. But other news sources may not care enough to investigate or report on something that would make Obama look bad.</p>

<p>And facts are facts, truth is truth, regardless of the source. </p>

<p>Are you suggesting that the source is not credible (“lying”) JUST BECAUSE it’s “Conservative”?</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>

Are you suggesting that the source is not credible (“lying”) JUST BECAUSE it’s “Conservative”?

</p>

<p>I’m not saying that, bz. It’s just that the source is a self-proclaimed “conservative” news outlet. I’ve looked at their website and they have a definite bias. If one read this site for political information, one could come away with the idea that liberals are a pack of lying hypocrites–which, of course, I don’t happen to believe. I suspect that self-professed “liberal” sites would be be just as likely to present skewed reporting on conservative candidates and issues.</p>