More McCainocrats

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

However, mark my words--neither candidate will follow through on their promise to withdraw. It's just not feasible or smart.

You're absolutely right, and this is the reason I don't get overly worked up over campaign statements to that effect.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am starting to wonder if you are paying attention to the candidate's actual policies or just repeating talking points you hear on tv. Which of Obama's economic policies do you take issue with? Please be specific. I assume you are referring to policies on which he and Clinton differ (given that you find her policies "fairly good"). Clinton will have a difficult time defending an interest rate freeze (which Obama opposes).

Don't confuse lack of time in national office with lack of intelligence or lack of understanding of the economy. McCain has openly stated he doesn't understand the economy. I would be thrilled with a forum that pitted Obama's knowledge of the economy against McCain's.

And yes, you are most certainly "misremembering" Obama's statement on Iraq as well. Far from "100 days," he has said 16 months after taking office he hopes to have all troops home. He always follows that up with his statement that he can't guarantee they will all be withdrawn in 16 months because a lot can happen between now and his first day in office. He also notes that as the process begins, he may need to revise the time frame depending on what he hears from the generals as they go through the process. In reality, his position isn't that different from Clinton's on the war.

Clinton has such a high negative reaction among so many people that her mere presence in the race diminishes the policy gains on Iraq and the economy that the Dems hold on Republicans. The Clinton name is far from popular in the military. Clinton's "experience" card is currently being torn to shreds. Clinton puts the Democrats right where they don't want to be- in a battle for the same states Dems won in 2000 and 2004 and in a close fight for those they narrowly lost. Obama opens the map up, forces Republicans to defend areas they haven't worried about in years, and creates the possibility of a blowout. In terms of electability, it isn't even close.

My concern with Obama's economic policy relates more to my concern with Obama in general--pie-in-the-sky promises without specifics. Universal health care, Obama style, will be EXTREMELY expensive, and to my knowledge, he has yet to address how he's going to pay for this. All I can find with any sort of specificity is estate tax cuts and some vague language about eliminating "tax credits that have outlived their usefulness". So, please tell me--what gets you so excited about his economic plan?

I don't like the interest rate freeze idea, or any kind of government bailout for that matter (which both Clinton and Obama support).

I swear I'm getting that 100 days from somewhere. Maybe start withdrawals within 100 days? Even 16 months is unreasonable, and it looks as if Obama's already laid out his retreat path from his promise. His position isn't that different from Hillary's? Well, maybe not what he truly intends, but his promises are certainly different.

Maybe you're right regarding the political specifics you outline. I'm admittedly not an expert at this kind of thing, and the argument was around electability. But again, you're glossing over the pastor Wright issue. This is not going to die. He was a freakin campaign advisor. Are you kidding me? And I can't even imagine how "typical white person" is going to played and replayed over the next seven months.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I swear I'm getting that 100 days from somewhere.

You are correct. His original goal was to begin withdrawal in the first 100 days and to have all combat troops removed from Iraq by the end of 2009. This was during the very beginning of his presidential campaign, in the spring of 2007. It was the central component of his campaign-stop rhetoric. I heard it in person. By later in the year, after military analysts said his original plan was not possible, he said his phased redeployment would take 16 months, minimum. Now he and Hillary both seem to avoid specifics in favor of a safer commitment to withdraw as quickly as is both feasible and prudent.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That is just a major sticking point, not the only sticking point. ... But yes, what scares me the most is his foreign policy.

Interesting comment, considering this comment of Obama's:

"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan ...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080329/D8VMRMA80.html

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Interesting comment, considering this comment of Obama's:



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080329/D8VMRMA80.html

What makes that so interesting?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

My concern with Obama's economic policy relates more to my concern with Obama in general--pie-in-the-sky promises without specifics. Universal health care, Obama style, will be EXTREMELY expensive, and to my knowledge, he has yet to address how he's going to pay for this. All I can find with any sort of specificity is estate tax cuts and some vague language about eliminating "tax credits that have outlived their usefulness". So, please tell me--what gets you so excited about his economic plan?

I don't like the interest rate freeze idea, or any kind of government bailout for that matter (which both Clinton and Obama support).

I swear I'm getting that 100 days from somewhere. Maybe start withdrawals within 100 days? Even 16 months is unreasonable, and it looks as if Obama's already laid out his retreat path from his promise. His position isn't that different from Hillary's? Well, maybe not what he truly intends, but his promises are certainly different.

Maybe you're right regarding the political specifics you outline. I'm admittedly not an expert at this kind of thing, and the argument was around electability. But again, you're glossing over the pastor Wright issue. This is not going to die. He was a freakin campaign advisor. Are you kidding me? And I can't even imagine how "typical white person" is going to played and replayed over the next seven months.

Obama has given several specifics about how he would pay for his proposals. He has indicated he will roll back the Bush tax cuts (effectively raising the top marginal rate for the wealthy), will consider a raise in the capital gains tax, will eliminate much of the spending associated with the Iraq war, will streamline the government in many areas (just last week he was talking about the stupidity of the federal government having so many employee credit cards without utilizing the negotiating power the government should have with the credit card companies), has discussed eliminating overlapping regulations from different federal agencies (mentioning specifically, for example, many of the overlaps in the securities industry), etc. I just don't see how people can continue to claim he gives no specifics with a straight face. You may want more specifics, but to single Obama out as having given fewer than any other candidate is simply disingenuous. What specifically will McCain do?

The Wright issue was not helpful for Obama, but his poll numbers have INCREASED since then (in particular after his speech on race). If it had have come out a few weeks prior to the election in November, it would have been crippling. As of now, it was dealt with, and more people watch his race speech on Youtube than Wright's lunatic rants on Youtube. It isn't the issue Republicans want it to be, and McCain isn't in a position to make it an issue (what with Falwell's position on McCain's staff as an advisor, among others).

I think prominent Republicans are promoting Clinton because they have arrived at precisely the same conclusion I have: Obama is far tougher for McCain in the general election.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What makes that so interesting?

JFK and Reagan's foreign policies do not match the kind of policies Obama has been talking about. Both are closer to McCain than Obama, so it's odd to me that he would espouse them.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

JFK and Reagan's foreign policies do not match the kind of policies Obama has been talking about. Both are closer to McCain than Obama, so it's odd to me that he would espouse them.

You are seeing what you want to see.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Obama has given several specifics about how he would pay for his proposals. He has indicated he will roll back the Bush tax cuts (effectively raising the top marginal rate for the wealthy), will consider a raise in the capital gains tax, will eliminate much of the spending associated with the Iraq war, will streamline the government in many areas (just last week he was talking about the stupidity of the federal government having so many employee credit cards without utilizing the negotiating power the government should have with the credit card companies), has discussed eliminating overlapping regulations from different federal agencies (mentioning specifically, for example, many of the overlaps in the securities industry), etc. I just don't see how people can continue to claim he gives no specifics with a straight face. You may want more specifics, but to single Obama out as having given fewer than any other candidate is simply disingenuous. What specifically will McCain do?

The Wright issue was not helpful for Obama, but his poll numbers have INCREASED since then (in particular after his speech on race). If it had have come out a few weeks prior to the election in November, it would have been crippling. As of now, it was dealt with, and more people watch his race speech on Youtube than Wright's lunatic rants on Youtube. It isn't the issue Republicans want it to be, and McCain isn't in a position to make it an issue (what with Falwell's position on McCain's staff as an advisor, among others).

I think prominent Republicans are promoting Clinton because they have arrived at precisely the same conclusion I have: Obama is far tougher for McCain in the general election.

I have heard him discuss the Bush tax cuts. I haven't heard the capital gains tax increase, but it doesn't surprise me. Neither idea is wise during a recession, and shouldn't score him big economic points, if the economy is truly the focus of the election as you claim.

The Iraq war is being financed almost entirely on debt, so that will give him almost no additional revenue. Additionally, he's not going to withdraw nearly as quickly as promised--already discussed this.

So we're left with: (1) raising taxes on the rich and those who invest in the economy during a recession and (2) getting better credit card deals to pay for a massive universal health care program. I get it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Raising taxes is not a good thing. Raising capital gains taxes is a worse idea. Why discourage investment in the economy?