Attention Comparison Shoppers!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Found this at the following website:

    Hope for someone it proves worthwhile. For me, I saw a lot of the same things on both sides. Also in every catagory the size and scope of gov't increases in some capacity. Seems to me, if you took all these things, took the names (candidates) off and took off the specifics (I'm being very kind using that word here) and replaced them with generalizations, it might be hard to figure out which one is the democrat and which one is the republican. At the end of the day, IMHO not that much if anything will really change at the federal level.


    Know the Candidates and the Issues

    McCain: Taxes

    Will make permanent most of the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the AMT, reform the estate tax, cut corporate income taxes, create a new, permanent R&E tax credit, raise the dependent child exemption, close corporate tax loopholes, and create an alternative tax system with fewer rates and deductions.

    Obama: Taxes

    Will renew the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000, offer new tax credits for workers and homeowners, eliminate income taxes for many seniors, make permanent the R&E tax credit, expand the EITC and saver's credit, and close corporate tax loopholes.

    McCain: Healthcare

    Will replace the current employer healthcare exclusion with a flat refundable tax credit for those who purchase insurance, while implementing measures to reduce healthcare costs such as prescription drug reimportation, tort reform, better Health IT, and more consumer driven medicine.

    Obama: Healthcare

    Will move toward universal health coverage through mandates for employers and children as well as large public subsidies while enacting measures to reduce healthcare costs such as prescription drug reimportation, better Health IT, and incentives to increase efficiency.

    McCain: Social Security

    Will reform Social Security in a bi-partisan manner, or by submitting a comprehensive proposal for an up or down vote if necessary; opposes increasing taxes and supports private accounts to complement, rather than replace, Social Security.

    Obama: Social Security

    Will raise additional Social Security revenue by applying new taxes to income above $250,000 and will reform Social Security in a bi-partisan manner; has ruled out privatization and opposes raising the retirement age or cutting benefits.

    McCain: Energy

    Will implement a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gasses with both auctioned and freely distributed permits, encourage energy conservation and diversification, and end several energy subsidies.

    Obama: Energy

    Will implement a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gasses with fully-auctioned permits, fund the development of new and better green technology, and end tax subsidies to oil and gas companies.

    McCain: Other New Spending

    Will increase the size of the military, develop a missile defense shield, and reform unemployment insurance.
    Will introduce a number education reforms, while doubling basic research, growing the size of the military and increasing foreign aid.
    Spending CutsWill eliminate all earmarks, freeze discretionary spending for a year, reform the defense procurement process, and cut wasteful spending.

    Obama: Other New Spending

    Will delay the NASA Constellation program, eliminate the guaranteed student loan program, cut earmarks, reduce wasteful spending, and realize savings from ending the Iraq war.
    Budget Process ReformWill make budget rules more balanced, require a 3/5 majority to raise taxes, and seek a line-item veto.
    Will re-instate pay as you go (PAYGO) rules to restore fiscal discipline.
  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    According to an op-ed in Bloomberg, the next President will need to be an FDR. Let's see, FDR who expanded the size and scope of the federal gov't, who created the seedbed of gov't entitlement through Social Security and who broke a nearly 200 year bedrock principle of Constitutional law when he began the direct taxation of the labor of the average American that not only grew out of the SS tax but then in 1942' with the Victory Tax Act that was to become the withholding of income tax at the wage level that we now have today. Blame Bush and the repubs. for killing the Middle Class with all their adventures but it was FDR who laid the foundation and wrote the book on just how to make that happen!

    What will our new FDR that we elect put into place that becomes a societal monster for our grandchildren in 70 years?

    Don't you even for that brief of moment wonder why a business/fiancial information organization would advocate for someone to vastly expand the roll of gov't when it can be literally shown that it was previous expansions that created the mess we find ourselves in now? But wait a minute, business, especially Big Business opposes Big Gov't! That's only true when they don't control it! Gov't is the only entity on the planet that people except and expect to use the one thing that no one else can.

    FORCE! What could be better for business when they can harness that power for themselves and then monopolize the economy and society according to their will. Think Third Wave for example.

    This is where business is at or are the words of Woodrow Wilson in 1907' proving more and more true as we slowly peel back the layers to reveal transparency.

  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Another interesting piece on the election.


    This quote from the article above is just for you. I highlighted the specific part.

    This comes from someone who is pro-union and considered a true progressive liberal. As libertarians and paleo-cons are doing with Progressive/liberals, maybe you need to rethink (I know you already are and have been:wink2:) the dark side!

    The myth that libertarians (in the true 18th century classical liberal tradition) believe in business run amuck is exactly that, myth. Libertarians want to break the back of mechantilism and business monopoly and re-instate free markets and middle class enterprises and small business which is what made Ameirca great. Individualism is even at the heart of libertarian and anarcho-libertarian Free Market economics which is at the heart of a healthy American Middle Class. We both believe in many of the same things and same goals, we've just learned to fire the Fox that others have hired to guard the henhouse and like true free men, guard the chickens ourselves. Funny how the missing chickens stop when you do that.

  4. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Here is a little comparision.

    O'Reilly explains why Obama is wrong on Iraq
  5. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Besides having a last name that reminds us that venereal disease is alive and well, Cockburn seems mostly focus on critiszing the Democratic party for failing to provide a progressive alternative for the Republican Party of old. So he turns to his attention to third party types such as Nader and Paul (who in his mind can do no wrong) and directs his ire at mainstream alternatives. He once befriended an odd fellow by the name of C. Hitchens and he maybe a closet Scientologist, which only IMO confirms his "out of the box" lust for controversy which produces great material for this author to over-analyze. However, I have to disagree, this most anticipated build up to this Nov's general election has not been dull, slow at times, but not dull (unless your sitting at a McCain Town hall Meeting:sleeping:).

    As far as your last paragraph, besides the myths, since the 18th century the Libertarian party themselves has expanded into multiple choice categories. You now need to specify what kind of Libertarian your siding with. Maybe I'll make up my own OBTW.... Walmart Sucks!
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I think there are as many types of libertarian as there are protestant denominations!

    It's another reason I've come to not believe in a libertarian party itself anymore but others feel otherwise obviously. When I speak of libertartian, I do refer in many ways t othe 18th centruy classical liberal tradition from which ironically the bedrock of paleo-liberal civil liberties and the economics of paleo-conservative share a common father. And there are overlaps between the 2 as manifested in the diverse backing of the Ron Paul effort. There will be libertarians who will back Nader.

    However, I also share a further tradition of anti-federalism in the Patrick Henry tradition in opposing the Constitution itself. The mandate at the time was not to create a Constitution but was to amend the Articles of Confederation in some problem areas. I tend to agree that we should have never formed a larger federalized nation, if you will, but rather maintain smaller indepentant societies that were self governed but bound together by free economic trade between us and the common connection of self defense. That said, at this point in time, a gov't that lived confined within the framework of the Constitution would ironically be a real blessing.:happy-very:
    That also speaks saddly from my POV of how far off course we have gotten and that was the fear of the anti-federalist of what would ulitmately happen in the end. I think we have to admit at this point that they got that one right!

    To boil it down, how can you set economic policy that works for everyone when in say Nancy Pelosi's district there is only about 30% to 35% property ownership and then in say former speaker Hastert's district, an over 70% property owenership. I saw this comparison elsewhere and consider a valid point. One is very urban and the other is I would say more rural but then we expect the Congress to set a policy that is fair and equitibal to all concerned and still address the specific small problem in asmall locale. We set national policy because of a local issue? Then we are shocked and outraged when Congressional policies not only fail but create unintended consequences that force Congress to constantly revisit and revist an issue and never see ultimate success. The bigger and further from the problem you get, the more variables come into play that adversely effect the outcome. How many of us have seen UPS set corp. policy because of some issue at a few of the larger hubs and this negatively impacts working life at so many smaller operations across the country. Maybe a closer to home example might make a better point. Now I'm waitng for one of you to ask me if I'm against large regional, national or even global corporations like say a UPS. I dare ya to ask. Double Dare ya!

    Large scale democracy, as beautiful as it sounds, as wonderful as the ideal may be IMHO will just ultimately never work and those who managed via power to control the pursestrings will benefit and then force the others out of power to pay for the burden. Our society in that vain has many victims in our wake to testify to that fact.