<p>^^^ my exact point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For starters: McCain voted against Title X, legislation providing low-income women access to subsidized breast and cervical cancer screenings. … He opposed the Family Medical Leave Act. … He voted no on a 2005 amendment (sponsored by Hillary Clinton) to expand access to family planning, contraception counseling, and preventive health care services. … He has long opposed Roe v. Wade. … He has opposed expanded stem cell research. He has opposed comprehensive sex education. … He voted against a law that would have allowed crimes based on gender and/or sexual orientation to be prosecuted as hate crimes. … He opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as well as a Federal increase of the minimum wage.</p>
<p>For those of you who are anti-choice/pro-life, I can understand how you would appreciate one or two of his political stands. But some of the others? </p>
<p>Here’s a great website which, I think, is non-partisan.</p>
<p>[Project</a> Vote Smart - Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Officials](<a href=“Vote Smart | Facts For All”>Vote Smart | Facts For All)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If “trickle-down” economics works, then I hope someone can explain to me why the US median income has stagnated while the poverty rate has risen since its implementation 20+ years ago?</p>
<p>Mapesy, they won’t, because they can’t. Even the furthest right of the right wing economists disavow “trickle down” as a theory because they don’t want to be laughed at.</p>
<p>The part you’ve left out is that since Reagan’s “voodoo economics” were sold to a gullible public over 25 years ago the exact opposite has happened: prior to 1980 the economic “rising tide” did in fact lift all boats - everyone got better off over time. Since 1980 none of the increase in the nation’s wealth and income has “trickled down” below the 75th percentile - with most of it going to the top 1%. There’s plenty of data confirming that fact, it’s hardly a secret for anyone who is willing to look at the facts.</p>
<p>But repeated propaganda trumps data with most of the people, most of the time.</p>
<p>The gap between the rich and the poor under Reagan grew dramatically. Read “Sleepwalking Through History,” by Pulitzer Prize winner Haynes Johnson.</p>
<p>“then I hope someone can explain to me why the US median income has stagnated while the poverty rate has risen since its implementation 20+ years ago?”</p>
<p>Uh…can you say “undocumented guest worker” ?</p>
<p>I think Galbraith described trickle down economics best - something to the effect of “if you feed a horse enough oats, some will pass through to feed the sparrows.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That argument doesn’t hold water.</p>
<p>Take poverty, for example. After President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” in the '60s, the US poverty rate declined markedly before leveling out in the early 70s. It remained steady until the Reagan years, when it showed a pronounced increase. Then, during the Clinton presidency, the poverty rate once again declined, before rising again with the Bush presidency. </p>
<p>After 1947, median income in the US rose steadily until 1980 when “trickle-down” economics policies were implemented. Since then, there has been almost no growth in median income, with the exception of the Clinton years.</p>
<p>Do you believe “undocumented guest workers” were a problem in the early Reagan years when poverty rates began rising and median income leveled off? There were only an estimated 5 million UGWs in the US at that time. I don’t believe that’s a statistically-large-enough population to alter the factors that might influence poverty and median income levels.</p>
<p>McCain makes no mention of rail in the section called “Reforming Our Transportation Sector” on his campaign website. In the past, he has denounced Amtrak as a “symbol of government waste”:</p>
<p>[McCain’s</a> agenda on Amtrak - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/01/mccains_agenda_on_amtrak?mode=PF]McCain’s”>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/01/mccains_agenda_on_amtrak?mode=PF)</p>
<p>mapesy - from reading the article, it appears that “spendthrift” McCan didn’t want to throw taxpayers’ money at an inefficient private enterprize.</p>
<p>Is the government responsible for subsidizing every private business venture in this country?</p>
<p>bz, which private business ventures do you think the government should and should not subsidize? We already subsidize nuclear power, oil, ethanol, auto manufacturers, and air travel in a variety of ways. Rail travel is the most energy-efficient way to move people from place to place. Seems to me that if we’re going to do more than just give lip service to carbon emissions reduction, rail would be a better canddate for subsidies than some of the other ones we’re propping up.</p>
<p>kluge - I actually agree w/ you that subsidizing rail travel is preferable to some of the other government sunsidization that goes on. I don’t think McCain is a big proponent of government subsidies in general, and his criticism of Amtrak stems from the fact that it was not being run very well in the first place. He later aknowledged that progress had been made in efficiency which is a good sign.</p>
<p>We also have to take all these comments about alternate energy sources & alternate travel options in context according to the time frame in which they were made (even Obama’a disdain for Nuclear power). A lot has changed recently in light of oil prices, so it’s really about where the candidates want to go from here. McCain’s Lexington Project is a good start.</p>
<p>Has Obama changed his tune about Nuclear power?</p>
<p>I did find this data recently, & was considering starting a new thread to discuss “Energy” in general where this info might be relevant, but I’ll post it here in the meantime:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All it really shows is the typical divide in American politics. Pretty much, on principle, the parties refuse to agree even when things make sense.</p>
<p>And coming back to McCain (which is what this thread is all about), he has shown time & time again that he is not going to put partisanship ahead of doing what is right for America.</p>
<p>Who in governement has done more “reaching across the aisle”?</p>
<p>Who has called out more people (in both parties) for their pork barrel programs & irrational spending?</p>
<p>Who alone called out Bush & Rumsfeld for their poor strategy in Iraq?</p>
<p>Again, we’re fortunate he is running for Prez.
OP -“Obama or McCain”.
The choice is clear.</p>
<p>The choice is not so clear to many of us! Some of us are Independents, not so hung up on “party” devotion or loyalty. We are still trying to decide who we think will make a better President. Eventually, we will all have our own reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amtrak is a government-owned corporation.</p>
<p>If the price of oil stays high as forecast, then public transportation will become a critical issue for millions of Americans. Hardest-hit will be the middle- and lower-income classes for which transportation costs are taking up an increasingly large part of their budgets. Rail is one of the most efficient and cost-effective modes of transportation that’s available on a large scale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s about leadership and vision. In 2000, McCain held the influential position of chairman of the Senate Science, Commerce and Transportation committee. I’ve been closely following news about the coming energy crunch since the 1990s, so I know for a fact that the House and Senate were aware of reports that predicted Peak Oil would probably hit in the latter part of the following decade. If McCain had leadership and vision, he would not have killed funding to Amtrak at that time. We’re paying the price for that decision today.</p>
<p>That being said, both Republicans and Democrats bear some responsibility for the energy problems we’re having today.</p>
<p>Thanks mapesy, for the info. I was thinking Amtrak was privately owned. In any case, McCain did have problems w/ the inefficiency of it & was therefore reluctant to keep throwing money at it. Give him credit for being a watchdog over the dispensation of our tax dollars.</p>
<p>There’s still time (& now more incentive) to help Amtrak along. I am surprized that McCain hasn’t mentioned anything about Amtrak in his energy plans - perhaps b/c it would be seen as a “flip-flop” which, for some reason, has become the kiss of death in campaigns these days. (Personally, I value someone who is willing to re-evaluate the issues regularly & demonstrate flexibility as warranted. I don’t advocate “flipping” just to pander - I think it has to be true pragmatism).</p>
<p>I’m going to do some research & see if there’s anything somewhere about more recent developments re: Amtrak & McCain. I agree that it is a good option for travelers & should be a viable alternative. (We’ve enjoyed our Amtrak trips). But I agree w/ McCain that we shouldn’t fund it if it’s not being run well</p>
<p>bz said, "Personally, I value someone who is willing to re-evaluate the issues regularly & demonstrate flexibility as warranted. "</p>
<p>I agree. I think Mitt Romney got a significant amount of bad press from his own party for “flip-flopping” on some issues in MA. I also think that the far left is now criticizing Obama for “flip-flopping” to accommodate some of the more moderate democrats.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how many times the word “flip-flop” will be used in the next few months! :)</p>
<p>I googled “flip-flop”.</p>
<p>Here’s a hit: [Obama</a> and McCain - flip-flop, flip-flop - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/22/obama_and_mccain___flip_flop_flip_flop/]Obama”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/22/obama_and_mccain___flip_flop_flip_flop/)</p>
<p>Obama. Im tired of Republicans screwing up our economy. Get our priorities straight</p>