Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Liberty]

Yeah, I'm apt to be a very Teddy Roosevelt / Andrew Jackson type politician. I'll speak my mind, let people know where I stand, and treat them according to their own merits rather than making mass generalizations about them because of where they're from or what party they belong to. I'll be honest and candid when I can be, and I'll do whatever I can do to make sure I'm prepared to intelligently discuss whatever's on the table.

Of course, I'll more than likely be a Republican, so I guess your mind is already made up, eh?

Who knows? What do you expect from a kid - that he remain there even later in his life? Didn't think so. You've got my vote. Then again, in twenty years Icould wind up the Obama to your Mccain - LOL! Whoops, left myself wide open on that one. Oh well, you deserve a freebie, have at it.

[Liberty]

Speaking of a freebie, Mike, check this out - darn it, now we have to hash it out, oh why didn't I keep this to myself...

http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/14377

[Liberty]

Guys, check this one out - whoa! Can you imagine the cat fight?

Clinton-Obama, Obama-Clinton
How they could run together and take turns being president.
By Akhil Reed Amar
Posted Friday, March 21, 2008, at 6:45 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2187034/?GT1=38001

When Hillary Clinton recently floated the idea of choosing Barack Obama as her running mate, she won political points without being taken seriously (especially by Obama). The primary season has turned into the kind of slog and slugfest that makes opponents more opposed to each other, not less. But humor me, for a moment, and imagine that the kind of reconciliation that would allow them to be running mates is possible. Not to mention the best outcome for the party.

But which should it be: Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton? In fact, voters in November could actually endorse both versions of the ticket—truly, two presidents for the price of one. How? The Constitution's 25th Amendment allows for a new paradigm of political teamwork: The two Democratic candidates could publicly agree to take turns in the top slot.

Adopted in 1967 in the shadow of John F. Kennedy's assassination, the 25th Amendment allows presidents unilaterally to transfer presidential power to their vice presidents and enables presidents, with congressional consent, to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency should one arise. By creatively using the constitutional rules created by this amendment, the Democrats can, if they are so inclined, present the voters in November with a new kind of balanced ticket.

Here's how it would work: In August at the Democratic National Convention, the party would nominate one candidate for president and the other for vice president in the time-honored way. In their acceptance speeches, the nominees would announce that they intend to alternate. For example, they could tell the voters that the person heading the Democratic ticket would, if elected, take office in January 2009 but would serve as president for only the first three years of the four-year term. In January 2012, the teammates would use the 25th Amendment to switch places, and the person elected vice president would assume the presidency for the final year of the term. There is nothing magical about these dates. Almost any date would do. For maximal democratic legitimacy, however, the candidates should inform the voters before the election of the specific date when their planned shift of power will occur.

Of course, if this dream team proved popular in office, the teammates could run for re-election in 2012. This time, it might make the most sense for the ticket to be the inverse of 2008. Thus, the person at the bottom of the 2008 ticket could top the 2012 ticket. If re-elected, our initial-VP-turned-president might then serve until, say, January 2016—four consecutive years in all—and then our initial-president-turned-VP would resume the top spot for the final year of the second term. (Thus, this person, too, would end up serving four years, albeit not consecutively.)

And here's the icing on the constitutional cake: Nothing in the 25th Amendment or elsewhere in the founding document would prevent this team from presenting themselves to the electorate in similar fashion in 2016. If the voters were to endorse the pair yet again, then at this point one of the teammates would have been elected twice as president and would become ineligible in any future presidential race; but the other teammate would in fact remain fully eligible to run in 2020. With the result that, if voters so chose, the teammates could, between themselves, share power for a total of four full terms. (Under the 22nd Amendment, no person can be elected to the presidency more than twice; and under the 12th Amendment, vice presidents must meet the same eligibility and electability rules as presidents.)

Ticket-flipping, then, provides a brilliant way for the Democrats to leverage the advantages of incumbency after 2009 so as to stretch their potential presidential tenure over the ensuing 16 years rather than the standard eight. The arrangement requires two strong candidates, each of whom is very plausibly presidential and each of whom has a large and intense political base, whose enthusiasm would be needed to assure success in the general election. This year the Democrats are blessed with two such powerhouses.

Which of the two candidates should top the ticket in 2008? Whoever ends up with more delegates at the convention. But if the two can privately—or even publicly—agree now to run as a true team in the general election, both will have ironclad incentives to play nice in the remaining primaries and caucuses and at the convention itself. If you're ready to dismiss out of hand the idea that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would ever agree to run as a team, here's my argument on why they might find doing so to be in their mutual interest. Each will want to head the ticket, but because the person on the bottom will also become president if the pair wins in November, competition for the top spot will be far less likely to spiral out of control in the turbulent weeks and months ahead. And so for the party, the benefits are manifold: A dream-team, turn-taking ticket would ensure that the Democrats' two most popular leaders and their supporters behave themselves and then truly unite. Moreover, the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so tiny that it would be perfectly principled to tell voters that the ticket will flip at some specified post-inaugural date.

Exactly how does the Constitution enable a sitting president and vice president to trade places? Whenever a president resigns, the vice president automatically becomes president, as when Richard Nixon stepped down and thus made Gerald Ford president in 1974. Under the 25th Amendment, the new president, in turn, picks a new vice president, subject to congressional approval. President Ford picked Nelson Rockefeller to be his vice president, and Congress said yes. Here's the twist: The 25th Amendment would allow the new president to pick the old president as the new vice president. Voila—the ticket, flipped! As long as the Congress approves, the 25th Amendment would thus enable the president and vice president to switch seats in a nimble transaction that could be completed in less than an hour.

As a matter of democratic principle, Congress should approve such a deal, given that the American voters would have blessed it long in advance, in the presidential election itself. But suppose a pigheaded Congress refused to play along, for example, because it was controlled by Republican naysayers. No matter. Instead of formally resigning, a president could accomplish the flip on his or her own, simply by transferring presidential power to the vice president under a different section of the 25th Amendment that allows the president unilaterally to transform the vice president into the "Acting President." In 2002 and again in 2007, George W. Bush used this section to hand over power to Dick Cheney before undergoing brief anesthesia. When Bush recovered, he resumed the reins of power.

To be clear: At every instant, America would have one and only one person acting as president and formally in charge. Hand-offs of power between teammates would occur much as they have when incumbents traditionally leave office, as when Reagan yielded in 1989, at the end of his second term, to his own handpicked running mate, the first George Bush. The 25th Amendment was specially designed to facilitate easy transfers of power back and forth between presidents and vice presidents. Its full potential to create a different kind of teamwork at the top—and to launch a new kind of presidential election strategy—has yet to be fully appreciated. Thanks to this amendment, the Demoocratic Party need not tear itself apart in trying to choose between two historic firsts. Instead, Democrats can offer the voters both—the first black president and the first woman president—via the first truly balanced presidential ticket.

[Ghost]

OK, now that everyone has calmed down i will continue. On a side note, mike you should list sources if you are copying and pasting.

As for McCain's record:

• Loss of economic strength leads to losing military strength. (Dec 2007)
  
• Republicans have forgotten how to control spending. (Nov 2007)
  
• Congress spends money like a drunken sailor. (May 2007)
  
• Veto all pork-barrel bills and announce pork spenders. (May 2007)
  
• Use veto power to reduce government spending. (Jan 2000)
  
• Distribute surplus: 23% tax cuts; 62% Social Security. (Jan 2000)
  
• $9B of pork in current budget bills; cut subsidies. (Oct 1999)
  
• For Balanced Budget Amend., & off-budget Social Security. (Jul 1999)
  
• List of budgetary spending priorities. (Jul 1998)
  
• Supports Balanced Budget Amendment. (Jul 1998)
• Apply surplus to Social Security, Medicare, tax cuts & debt. (Jul 1998)
  
• Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
  
• Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
  
• Maintain & enforce existing spending caps in the future. (Sep 1998)
  
• Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
• Every time US went protectionist, we paid heavy price. (Oct 2007)
• Supports ethanol, but by exporting, not by subsidies. (Oct 2007)
• Against foreign sales corporations (offshore tax breaks). (Feb 2000)
• Substitute trade treaties for protectionism. (Jan 2000)
• Admit China to WTO based on their concessions. (Jun 1999)
• Free trade with any country except security risks. (May 1999)

These points all seem pretty sensible, especially considering the time frame and context of the votes. His record is often mixed in terms of the "issues" such as "Is he environmentally friendly?" However, in light of his votes, it is clear that he actually reads the measures upon which he's voting and votes according to the content rather than the taglines of individual measures.

As for McCain, I come from the sort of background that sees it as a positive for a leader to appoint experts to make recommendations in their field of expertise. No one can be good at everything, nor should they try. I would love for once to see a President appoint someone with an outstanding record of economic understanding to his cabinet and then listen to him (or her).

The next section will be on foreign policy.

That is a pretty weak record. if you actually look at the points there is little substance.
It largely revolves around, we are spending too much. Ive made bold most of the ones that are simply the same thing stated over and over. Nothing wrong with saying too much is being spent. Its just the list looks substancial when it is not.
EDIT: it wont bold all the ones i want for some reason even though the HTML is there. but you can work it out. its most of it.

There isnt anything more than a couple of points that you could define as policy as such is there.

Now to copy and paste the actual list of Obamas economic record.

Source:http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

• Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq. (Feb 2008)
  
  Isnt that the truth.
• Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights. (Feb 2008)
• More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008)
• Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high. (Jan 2008)
• Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs. (Jan 2008)
• Help the homeowners actually living in their homes. (Jan 2008)
• Bankruptcy bill pushed by banks &. (Jan 2008)
• Lack of an energy policy is a financial burden. (Jan 2008)
• Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out. (Dec 2007)
• Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them. (Dec 2007)
• Take China "to the mat" about currency manipulation. (Dec 2007)
• Rejects free market vision of government. (Oct 2007)
• Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages. (Aug 2007)
• Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending. (Oct 2006)
• Bush's economic policies are not working. (May 2004)
• Supports federal programs to protect rural economy. (May 2004)
• Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
• Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)

Now if you look at that list it looks like hes actually saying something. Which he is, it might not be amazing,it isnt but its a damn site more comprehensive than the list for McCain. Its more diverse and shows more understanding. I mean there are specific issues there for a start.

[Ghost]

As for the comment i made on the middle east.

The middle east is a problem because you need to resolve the Iraq issue and not let it drag on for years.
Obamas plan is to bring all the Muslim leaders together and get them working together to help make Iraq stable. They can use their influence.

Lets look at Obamas real policy for Iraq.

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

-------------
Al Queda will find it hard to establish bases when the troops leave, they are only tolerated because they are attacking american troops.
If you understand the differences between muslim sects then you will know that Iran is not helping Al Queda, in fact they hate each others guts. And you will know the main insurgent groups in iraq also hate Al Queda.

Even now they number less then 1000 in iraq.

Taken from the recent Larry King live interview on CNN.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...20/lkl.01.html

"The least bad option, I believe, is to begin a phased redeployment, send a clear signal to the Iraqi government it is time for them to stand up and negotiate the kinds of agreements that can stick and stabilize the country, to get the neighbors in Iraq involved -- and that includes not just our allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but also Iran and Syria.

And to get the international community involved in creating a humanitarian assistance program, to have an international war crimes commission that can monitor any efforts at ethnic cleansing inside the country and that we would still have a strike force that would go after any attempts to create al Qaeda bases in Iraq. Now is that going to be an ideal situation in which all the parties in Iraq have suddenly magically agreed? Of course not. And I don't know what "The Washington Post" thinks is going to happen if we just stay and continue in the same process we are now.

There are no magic bullets here. But what we can do is at least put some pressure on the Iraqi government to make sure that we start seeing some changes."


" What we can do is start engaging all folks in the region around a plan to stabilize. And what we can do is start reducing the enormous toll on both military families and on our treasury, so that we can refocus attention on what should have been our focus in the first place -- going after bin Laden, going after al Qaeda, focusing on Afghanistan, which has become more violent than at any time since 2001. That's my plan. That, I think, is what ultimately is going to make us safer.
"

"Look, the -- you heard, I think, the other day, Senator McCain confuse al Qaeda with Shia radical militias inside of Iraq. The president makes the same error. He keeps on conflating al Qaeda with all that's going on inside of Iraq. In fact, Iraq is a majority Shia country that is violently opposed to al Qaeda. The Sunnis inside of Iraq are now opposed to al Qaeda.

There's no doubt that al Qaeda would try to get another foothold in there. But to the extent that we've brought Sunnis in and got them to buy into the central government, we can start making some progress.

In fact, that's part of the reason that violence is down. Not only have our troops performed magnificently and done everything we've asked them to do, but you've also got Sunni tribal leaders who have rejected al Qaeda and, in fact, are trying to cooperate. So the notion that al Qaeda would run roughshod over Iraq is just not correct. In contrast, you do have safe havens for al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That we know. We know for certain. The Taliban has strengthened itself. They're using the funds from the heroin trade in that region to help finance much of what they're doing. And we're seeing more suicide bombs, more violent attacks. It's starting to creep into the rest of Pakistan.

We know that's where the people who killed 3,000 Americans are located. And we have not been focused on that because of our obsession with Iraq.

So my argument about withdrawing out of Iraq is not because I don't think that we can sustain this current burden indefinitely -- although, the fact is that will break the bank eventually. We can't keep on spending $200 billion a year or $150 billion a year in Iraq.

It's not just because it is straining our military and military families in extraordinary ways. It's also because it's not the best strategy to deal with terrorism, which should have been our focus from the start and has unfortunately been diverted into an effort in Iraq that has been counterproductive to that effort."

[jubaji]

[LIST]
[*]Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq. (Feb 2008)

Isnt that the truth.

Um, no, it isn't.

[Ghost]

Obama foreign record:

• Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)
• Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)
• Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)
• President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)
• Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)
• China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)
• Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)
• Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)
• No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)
• Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)
• Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)
• $50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)
• No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)
• My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)
• China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)
• Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)
• No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)
• Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)
• Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)
• FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)
• Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)
• Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)
• Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)
• Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)
• Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)
• US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)

McCains record from the same page:

No circumstances where president can disregard treaties. (Dec 2007)
Maintain Cuban embargo; indict Castro. (Dec 2007)
Situation in Pakistan very serious, but not nuclear threat. (Oct 2007)
Naive to exclude nukes; naive to exclude attacking Pakistan. (Aug 2007)
We have good reason to expect solidarity of our allies. (Aug 2004)
Suu Kyi and the people of Burma will rule themselves someday. (Apr 2004)
Overthrow “rogue” governments to keep Americans safe. (Feb 2000)
Our conscience influences US intervention, as in Rwanda. (Feb 2000)
Africa: Money for AIDS would be lost to corruption. (Jan 2000)
Concern over Chechnya spreads to Caucasus oil reserves. (Jan 2000)
Russia: Sanctions until Putin exits Chechnya. (Jan 2000)
IMF’s Russia policies bad, but agency is OK. (Oct 1999)
Urge Japan to open economy to ensure Asian recovery. (May 1999)
Clinton abandoned framework of “assertive multilateralism”. (Apr 1999)
Korea: ease starvation, but avoid war during death throes. (Apr 1999)
Cuba: No diplomatic and trade relations. (Jul 1998)
China

Support the One-China policy, don’t weaken it. (Mar 2000)
$1M political donations by Chinese Army should not be legal. (Jan 2000)
China: Advocate for political reforms, and guard Taiwan. (Jun 1999)
Inaction on spying led to Chinese nuclear improvement. (May 1999)
Engage with China as they become a great power. (Apr 1999)
Voting Record

Pay dues to UN after UN reforms. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo. (Jan 1994)
Libyan disarmament was a CIA success story. (Mar 2005)
Impose sanctions and an import ban on Burma. (Oct 2007)

I personally think both records are OK, i think McCain needs to open up to the idea of talking to other leaders even if he doesnt agree with them.

You know we should actually start comparing thier policies rather than their records. it would be more interesting and more relevant than this.

[Ghost]

Um, no, it isn't.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/iraq.costs.ap/index.html

"In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion -- or more -- by 2017.

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say."

[DickHardman]

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say."

thats the real threat to our country.

[jubaji]

[*]More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008).

Classic 'closing the barn door after the cows are gone' empty political rhetoric. Mere talk at best, destined to get swallowed up in any legislative action to follow, and justification for the growth of government and market meddling at worst.

[Ghost]

LOL, you know mike we could still be discussing this in 4 years time when whoever wins is up for re-election. This can take ages, typing up bits on every point just goes on and on, ill try and summarize or something in a bit.

Why the comments on command economies?

I was under the impression we were going to discuss each candidate independently, but since you want to allow comparing and contrasting, let me ask some questions about Obama specifically. This statement:



Is at best purely speculative. You aren't telling us what the issues are that is shows an understanding of, nor what evidence there is of Obama's ideas being more effective. You're just saying "It's better" and asking us to accept that on your word alone. So that I am not playing favorites, let me explain why I think McCain's positions (and voting record) are more solid. Please note that I am going to explain the issue itself, its effect, and why the position taken by McCain represents a solution. I will not ask anyone to accept such a weak and unfounded argument as, "This is better."

The basics:
There are three aspects to a government's ability to improve or influence the economy. They are fiscal policy, monetary policy, and regulation. Fiscal policy involves the government's tax policies and budgeting to allocate resources most effectively. Monetary policy relates to the control the government (or the Fed) exerts over how much actual money is in circulation. When we make policies that require huge outputs of cash that exceed income, the Fed basically prints more money and puts it into circulation. This devalues the currency according to the basics of supply and demand. Finally, regulation is anything to do with the government's establishment of rules to protect consumers, fair trade, and the balance between labor and capital.

The types of economies that you hear me referring to are free market economies and command economies. In a free market economy, individuals and businesses make the decisions about how money and goods are exchanged. Supply, demand, profits, costs and margins are the predominant factors. Command economies are controlled by the government. The State itself controls the flow of goods, the distribution of resources, and makes all of the decisions about how money and goods are exchanged. Command economies almost universally fail because they do not take into account the laws of supply and demand.

Moving on...

McCain's position on Earmarks and Pork Barrel spending has consistantly been oppositional. (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde...b-7ec3db088fc9) He opposes such earmarks and spending because it a legislative way to circumvent the taxation and budget process, in effect turning our free market system into a command market system. This is constitutionally contrary to what our goverment is supposed to do, and while not specifically prohibited in the Constitution, it is clearly not the intent of the design of the legislature. Taxation, budgeting, and the free market are far more desirable in the long run than are regulation or the production of more money for circulation. That is not opinion, and is borne out in every historical example conceivable from the early days of monarchy to the fall of the Soviet Empire. Even China moved away from a command economy to a free market one, and that was the deciding factor in thier current economic prosperity. McCain's position on earmarking, then, limits the government's ability to sneak in spending and it limits the "command economy" power of the legislature. More of his positions add to that and fall under the same category, such as:

Tax cuts (ie a progressive tax that relieves pressure from the poor and working classes) http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde...b-7ec3db088fc9 allow what is called demand-side economics (the opposite of Reagan's supply-side or "trickle down" economics to take effect. In other words, it puts more money in the hands of consumers, and it does it without introducing unsupported currency into circulation. However, McCain also recognizes the importance of the supply-side economic considerations, which primarily drive investment, innovation, and growth at the national level. While opposing subsidies and needless tax breaks to large, wealthy corporations (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde...b-7ec3db088fc9), he also recognizes the need for allowing those same corporations to respond freely ot the demands of the market. This from On The Issues:
More deductible expensing of equipment investments. (Feb 2008)
Cut corporate income taxes to keep jobs here. (Jan 2008)
People worry about corporations unduly influencing elections. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 61% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


Bolded are those items that directly impact corporations and their ability to make profits in spite of taxation measures that are to their disadvantage. His 61% record is, put another way, middle of the road, which means he neither votes in the interests of large corporations OR against the interests of large corporations. In other words, he keeps the field level for consumers that decide demand and the corporations that control supply.

This is getting long, so I'll hit one more high point.
In the arena of fiscal policy (remember, that's the one that we can use to exert the most control at the least expense), McCain had this to say:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=ddbd0e0d-cadd-4235-ae5e-133831ddb46d&Region_id=&Issue_id=1172f761-a830-4020-ae1b-7ec3db088fc9

He pointed out the usual earmarks, pushed for fiscal responsibility (showing that he understands that it is in this area that we get the best return for the lowest cost), and urged the government to exert itself toward a responsible approach rather than trying to regulate the economy (command economy) or just simply print more money (monetary policy). McCain, through the examples listed has shown that he not only grasps the mechanisms of economic policy, but also understands the free-market model and acts with the fairest and best interests of both consumer and provider in balance. He also shows that he understands that bad monetary policy or over regulation leads to a command economy, which is both slow to respond and completely ineffective.

These are not terms I created. They are defined in almost every political science and economics class you'll find. They are also not my definitions. The definitions were borrowed heavily from a college course I took (I don't have the textbook or I'd give you a citiation) and can be verified almost universally. The fact that command economies fail is also not an opinion. it is a fact that is well illustrated by every modern economy in existence. Examples of command economies include North Korea and Iran. The former USSR was also a command economy. China was formerly a command economy. All of these have collapsed entirely, and have resulted in mass poverty, famine, and all sorts of other human tragedies. Only those that have changed (Russia and China) have survived and flourished.

To close this out, McCain's economic policy may sound like he's beating the same drum to you, but if you look at the facts, he is hitting different parts of a larger issue. He's addressing the three key factors in economic policy, he's recognizing the impact nd consequences of each, and he is advocating an emphasis on the one approach that gives us strong results with less suffering. Does he have all the answers? No. But is this "bad policy" or "weak understanding?" Absolutely not! In fact, it is quite the contrary. By McCain's policies alone, the US economy would see a gross increase in revenue of nearly $12 billion dollars in JUST the elimination of pork barrel spending, an increase of over $119 billion dollars a year in parochial programs and grandfathered aid packages to corporations that no longer need them, and a net increase in demand-end (that's all of us consumers) income of between $700 and $7,000 per year depending on the income bracket.

Obama's numbers come close to that, but are more damaging in the long term because of the inflation and devaluation of currency his programs would cause and because of the centralization (ie. command economics) his programs would pass on to the government instead of the market. This is evidenced by his isolationist attitude toward free-market economics and his regulatory approach to the economic policies he would put into effect. If you like, I will explain those in equal detail, but I thought I'd give you the chance to respond first.

[jubaji]

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say."

No one is arguing the cost, but deficit spending doesn't prevent current funding. There is no one-to-one relationship in the actual functioning of government.

A huge deficit is not a good thing of course and is a growing problem over time, but the kind of talk that says "If we didn't have NASA sending the shuttle to space we could feed the homeless" is not accurate.

[Ghost]

P.S.
The money for the Iraq war, contrary to popular opinion, is not being footed by the people in its entirety. The Iraqi government is incurring a debt the same way other nations do when they go to war for/with one another or assist in rebuilding efforts. This might take a long time to explain, though, so go do some research on your own. I've given more facts, more substance, and more accuracy in my last post than this whole damned thread combined and I'm tired.

P.P.S
I hope you people understand how labor intensive writing like that is. I basically just composed a college level poli-sci paper for free just so you all would be able to better judge the issues this election! And I'll keep right on doing it, because I love you people and I want you to be informed. Carpal tunnel be damned.

What you mean the debt that the Bush administration wiped out last year?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/17/iraq.main/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration formally canceled Iraq's $4.1 billion debt to the United States on Friday and urged others to do the same to help the country rebuild."

[jubaji]

[*]Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out. (Dec 2007)

That is commentary, not policy.

[Ghost]

That is commentary, not policy.

Very little of this record comparing is about policy tbh.

ah mike this will take time, breakfast time for me its nearly 9am here, will reply later.
will work on a reply, if i have the strength left.lol