U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[PanzerJaeger]

So, were did you get your information?

More importantly, where is Obama going to get the money for all of his promised spending plus tax cuts for most Americans.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Both of those links refer to the same speech, a speech delivered more than 6 months before the Iowa Caucuses (and safely before the Iowans were really listening) as a response to the first stages of the "surge" effort in Iraq. I don't view this as much more than campaign "positioning," a possibilty raised by Mr. Kagan in his commentary piece in the first link. I'm more likely to view this as a political stance then a real statement of intent. Obama's record suggests a fairly orthodox Democrat party stance with very little in the way of a Leiberman factor.

Consider this.

The largest budgetary expenditures are to service the national debt, to provide for Social Security payments, to provide for welfare and Medicare/Medicaid payments, and to fund the military. Smaller, though measurable, chunks go to pay farm subsidies and education subsidies etc.

Of these, given his record as a legislator, his overall political stance, and the support/direction of his party, just where do you think Obama will make the adjustments needed to balance the budget?

[woad&fangs]

Maybe the $30 billion per month* that is being poured into Iraq


*random # I made up off the top of my head

[m52nickerson]

More importantly, where is Obama going to get the money for all of his promised spending plus tax cuts for most Americans.

Repealing the tax cuts for people making over 250K per year, plus the money saved from pulling forces out of Iraq. Yes he will still have a short fall for everything he wants to do, but it is a start.

Both of those links refer to the same speech, a speech delivered more than 6 months before the Iowa Caucuses (and safely before the Iowans were really listening) as a response to the first stages of the "surge" effort in Iraq. I don't view this as much more than campaign "positioning," a possibilty raised by Mr. Kagan in his commentary piece in the first link. I'm more likely to view this as a political stance then a real statement of intent. Obama's record suggests a fairly orthodox Democrat party stance with very little in the way of a Leiberman factor.

Of course you are entitled to your view, but do you have anything to back that up with? If not it seems that his "positioning" is the close thing to intent we have.

As for the balance budget, I don't know how he would do it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Repealing the tax cuts for people making over 250K per year, plus the money saved from pulling forces out of Iraq. Yes he will still have a short fall for everything he wants to do, but it is a start.

So all the funding for his massive health care plans, expanded entitlements, military expansion, college tuition payments, Afghani surge, tax breaks for those making under 250k, etc is going to rest on the shoulders of those making over 250k a year - supposedly only raising their taxes from 35 to 39.5%? Quite a shortfall, indeed.

(Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. )

[CountArach]

(Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. )

Fear my righteous indignation!

[m52nickerson]

So all the funding for his massive health care plans, expanded entitlements, military expansion, college tuition payments, Afghani surge, tax breaks for those making under 250k, etc is going to rest on the shoulders of those making over 250k a year - supposedly only raising their taxes from 35 to 39.5%? Quite a shortfall, indeed.

(Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. )

I will not pretend to have all the answers. Obama is going to have a hard time delivering on all he wants to do. He may have to wait until Iraq and Afghanistan are settled. To have the extra money.

I try not to believe that Obama can walk on water and heal the blind. I support him because his plans and ideals fall closest to my own.

[Marshal Murat]

Hey, I've got a good analogy.

Obama=LBJ

One proposes to launch a sweeping overhaul of the nation to assist the poor.
The other launched a 'War on Poverty' reducing overall poverty by 5-9%

Both have wars distracting them from actually accomplishing their goals.

[seireikhaan]

. (Thanks for replying without the righteous indignation I've come to expect from certain mammals in this thread. )

Play the ball, Panzer, play the ball.

I will say, this is the sort of thing that we can't truly understand or know how politicians will do if elected President. The overall grand scope of things is too big and detailed for 95% of Americans to honestly care to evaluate, and thus, nobody is going to pressure either candidate to attempt to show what their exact planned budget would be/would have been to show their commitment/lack of commitment to a balanced budget. Especially given when you have two Senators, neither of whom have any record of budgeting like a governor would. Not that being a governor is an automatic indicator of financial prudency, of course, especially on a national scale.

Obviously McCain has a long record of attacking 'pork', but that alas, isn't going to be as big of a budget swing as he would like us to believe. Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that as President, he would veto any bill containing pork. If he did that, there'd likely be NOTHING done at all, and all the Democrats would (have) to do should things stay south or return south with the economy or war would be to point the finger at the man vetoing every piece of legislation, which, frankly, does neither party, nor the nation, any good in my opinion.

Obama, on the other hand, would have a much more willing Congress to work with, which of course is the ultimate tempter of more spending. Only strong discipline from Obama, as well as cooperation, understanding, and some ounce of wisdom(this latter part being particularly unlikely, in my opinion) would keep it to an even keel. Obviously he doesn't have nearly the legislative record that McCain does, but from what we do have to work with, it is quite apparent that he does indeed uphold tradition Democratic Party values of watching over corporate integrity and regulation, which I believe will add to the budget as well. For one, as an example, FEMA and especially the FDA, have been clamoring for more budget allocation to help do their jobs, though of course this doesn't necessarily translate into more success for the said commission. Of course, there's numerous other agencies would would likely want a little extra of the pie as well once the others get increased funding.

Of course, this whole issue is still way larger than either of these two political candidates. The United State's debt is so massive that the only way we'll possibly pay it back is to completely dismantle our largest social services, medicare and social security. Now, I can't give you the source, but I will try to find it, but I was informed by an individual I trust greatly that the privatization of social security, as an example, would cost the United States, up front, a sum of roughly 2 trillion dollars. Not to mention the inherent risks that are present in privatization and the transfer of so much capital in a short time. So obviously we aren't going to privatize SS, at least not in any short term future. And Medicare, of course, would be an entirely different monster to tackle, one that I honestly don't see how we could possible dismantle, but at the same time, one that is draining our long term funds at the same time.

[CountArach]

Time Gets It Right

Oh, let's just admit it: John McCain is a long shot. He's got a heroic personal story, and being white has never hurt a presidential candidate, but on paper 2008 just doesn't look like his year. And considering what's happening off paper, it might be time to ask the question the horse-race-loving media are never supposed to ask: Is McCain a no-shot?

Last week, the McCain campaign's case against Barack Obama went something like this: He's irresponsible when it comes to Iraq, naive when it comes to Iran, and a big-government liberal when it comes to the economy. But now Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has more or less endorsed Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq, forcing McCain to argue that Maliki didn't really mean it, and even the Bush administration has accepted a "time horizon" for withdrawal, if not a precise "timetable." The Bush administration has also engaged in some diplomatic outreach with Iran, just as Obama has recommended, a severe blow to McCain's efforts to portray Obama's willingness to talk as appeasement. And on the economy, a TIME/Rockefeller Foundation poll found that 82% of the country supports more federal infrastructure spending designed to create jobs. When big-government liberalism is all the rage, McCain's courage in opposing water projects or the farm bill becomes less of a selling point.

...

That doesn't mean that anything's probable. The media will try to preserve the illusion of a toss-up; you'll keep seeing "Obama Leads, But Voters Have Concerns" headlines. But when Democrats are winning blood-red congressional districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, when the Republican president is down to 28 percent, when the economy is tanking and world affairs keep breaking Obama's way, it shouldn't be heresy to recognize that McCain needs an improbable series of breaks. Analysts get paid to analyze, and cable news has airtime to fill, so pundits have an incentive to make politics seem complicated. In the end, though, it's usually pretty simple. Everyone seems to agree that 2008 is a change election. Which of these guys looks like change?

A very sensible article that just about sums things up for McCain at this point.

[Lemur]

Good article from Fareed Zakaria trying to analyze where Senator Obama stands on foreign policy. I find Zakaria to always be worth the read, even when I disagree with him.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.

-edit-

And a wonderful, must-read essay for those soft-headed enough to believe in the myth of the rational voter.

[Xiahou]

What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight.

For the record, that's simply false. I criticized pretty much every candidate including Ron Paul, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. Someone like Clinton, who already had so much dirty laundry aired, was harder for me to dig up something new on- otoh, Obama who was a blank slate coming into this was much easier to find unreported/underreported material on. Obama got a big share of my critiques, but virtually none escaped me unscathed.

Sorry for the sidetrack. Carry on.

[Ice]

For the record, that's simply false. I criticized pretty much every candidate including Ron Paul, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. Someone like Clinton, who already had so much dirty laundry aired, was harder for me to dig up something new on- otoh, Obama who was a blank slate coming into this was much easier to find unreported/underreported material on. Obama got a big share of my critiques, but virtually none escaped me unscathed.

Sorry for the sidetrack. Carry on.

That is correct as I remember you pretty much ripping on every candidate minus Fred.

[Lemur]

Obama got a big share of my critiques, but virtually none escaped me unscathed.

Well, then, I retract my earlier sentence, and would like to modify it to "the majority of your sniping was directed at Obama." Would that move this into the realm of the accurate?

[Xiahou]

Well, then, I retract my earlier sentence, and would like to modify it to "the majority of your sniping was directed at Obama." Would that move this into the realm of the accurate?

Majority? It's possible. Certainly, after the GOP field played out, I'd bet he got the majority.

[woad&fangs]

Gah, this is the second time I have seen this ad on TV. I can't believe that McCain is seriously blaming $4 dollar gas on Obama. Even more amazing is that he makes it seem like drilling in America will instantly reverse the rising cost.

[Xiahou]

Apparently, I'm not the only one focusing on Obama.

The Tyndall Report, a news coverage monitoring service that has the broadcast networks as clients, reports that the three newscasts by the networks — which have a combined audience of more than 20 million people — spent roughly 114 minutes covering Mr. Obama since June. They spent about 48 minutes covering Mr. McCain, who made the rounds of the evening newscasts in satellite interviews last week.

Of course, their coverage may have been more favorable than mine.

[m52nickerson]

Gah, this is the second time I have seen this ad on TV. I can't believe that McCain is seriously blaming $4 dollar gas on Obama. Even more amazing is that he makes it seem like drilling in America will instantly reverse the rising cost.

Wow.......I know Americans are not that stupid.

[CountArach]

Gah, this is the second time I have seen this ad on TV. I can't believe that McCain is seriously blaming $4 dollar gas on Obama. Even more amazing is that he makes it seem like drilling in America will instantly reverse the rising cost.

New York Times tears it apart:

ACCURACY Mr. Obama is not against all drilling for oil and gas, only drilling offshore, a crucial word in the debate on energy policy but one never mentioned here. Increasing domestic oil production is also by no means the only or even main road to long-term energy independence, as both candidates have emphasized on the campaign trail by endorsing alternatives like solar and wind power and corn-based ethanol (in Mr. Obama’s case) and nuclear energy (Mr. McCain). Mr. Obama, who has proposed a $150 billion decade-long government-backed effort to help develop clean-energy sources, does oppose the temporary gasoline tax rebate that Mr. McCain favors, calling it an election-year gimmick that does not bring meaningful relief to ordinary Americans. But that is a position many economists and energy experts share. Finally, even before the recent spike, oil prices had been rising for a decade, the result of a variety of political and economic factors in places as far afield as China, India, Venezuela and Nigeria. So it is difficult to understand how Mr. Obama, a first-term senator, can be held responsible for that phenomenon.

SCORECARD Aside from correctly stating current gasoline prices, “Pump” is misleading on nearly every substantive point. But it is shrewdly conceived and may prove to be effective with undecided voters upset about having to pay as much as $100 to fill their gas tanks, yet uncertain as to the causes of the squeeze on their budgets.

So, though it is completely inaccurate it may well be effective.. wow... your politics sucks...

[seireikhaan]

Gah, this is the second time I have seen this ad on TV. I can't believe that McCain is seriously blaming $4 dollar gas on Obama. Even more amazing is that he makes it seem like drilling in America will instantly reverse the rising cost.

What's been bugging me about McCain's recent ads is that he's been blatantly ripping off Thatcher's campaign slogan: Don't hope for more *insert campaign buzzword*. Vote for it.

[Xiahou]

New York Times tears it apart:

Wow, the NYT is really going out of its way to carry water for Obama isnt it?

Ok, why does Obama oppose offshore drilling? Further, if it's only offshore he opposes, where does he favor onshore drilling? Certainly not ANWR.

[CountArach]

Wow, the NYT is really going out of its way to carry water for Obama isnt it?

Ok, why does Obama oppose offshore drilling? Further, if it's only offshore he opposes, where does he favor onshore drilling? Certainly not ANWR.

The land that the oil companies already own is on-shore.

[Xiahou]

The land that the oil companies already own is on-shore.

They lease it, not own it and much of the leases are offshore.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Mr. Obama is not against all drilling for oil and gas, only drilling offshore, a crucial word in the debate on energy policy but one never mentioned here.

And, as noted, against ANWR. NYT = fail. Would drilling damage that part of the North Slope? It hasn't the other parts, and installations would be tiny on the immense area. But idiot politicians are still against it for moronic reasons.

Opening ANWR and offshore drilling in the past - which would have required a politician to have a working brain and be able to foresee what might happen (how the heck can the dems claim to have an "energy plan"?! good grief.) instead of waiting for 4.30 gasoline - would have helped make prices lower today. And those same freaking morons still argue against it because it won't come online for years.

Well yes, you cretins, but where do you think the price of gas is going to go in the future? Do you have any concept of not living in the present and maybe, just maybe, looking to future years when ANWR would be online and pumping 1MMbbl/day?

GARGGHGHGHGHHH!!!

whew.

Sorry, but I don't suffer idiots well. Also, please note that the previous was directed at anti-transportation politicians.

CR

[CountArach]

Opening ANWR and offshore drilling in the past - which would have required a politician to have a working brain and be able to foresee what might happen (how the heck can the dems claim to have an "energy plan"?! good grief.) instead of waiting for 4.30 gasoline - would have helped make prices lower today. And those same freaking morons still argue against it because it won't come online for years.

We are at the point now where within years we will almost certainly have a form of renewable energy that is efficient, if not exactly cheap. I would rather money was pumped into that than destroying the environment and continuing the world's addiction to oil. What happens after ANWR runs dry? What then? Is that when we start looking for the renewable energy?

[Marshal Murat]

After President Bush announced that he was lifting the ban on off-shore oil drilling, the price of oil has dropped. It has continued to drop. It hopefully will continue in the future. That is because the oil companies can possibly pump more oil, and get more money for it.
Oil will continue to be a source of energy even after the United States finishes her affair with it. Africa, Asia, Latin America, they still need oil for their booming (or soon to be) economies! They could pour out millions for fancy hydrogen-electrostatic-camel-dung powered vehicles and machines, or they could buy discounted equipment, no longer needed or used. Until that time, it's far better that we use national resources to keep gas low until we find a better source.

The space used in ANWR would be so very small in comparison to the large natural reserve that it is. It's pure ideology restraining the oil drilling.
USGS Confirms it

Fuel prices going Down?

[m52nickerson]

Until that time, it's far better that we use national resources to keep gas low until we find a better source.

That is part of the problem, if the prices drop there will be no demanded for a better source or sources.

Necessity is the mother of invention!

[Marshal Murat]

That is part of the problem, if the prices drop there will be no demanded for a better source or sources.

Then is it your suggestion that we artificially raise prices, create havoc, initiate a downturn in the national economy(ies) to simply create a better energy source? Or should we wait for oil to run out? Neither is the answer. The government can initiate a NASA-esque development, to prevent a future calamity. Or we could challenge China in a modern Space-Race.

[Crazed Rabbit]

We are at the point now where within years we will almost certainly have a form of renewable energy that is efficient, if not exactly cheap. I would rather money was pumped into that than destroying the environment and continuing the world's addiction to oil. What happens after ANWR runs dry? What then? Is that when we start looking for the renewable energy?

It's not destroying the environment. Did I say we shouldn't look into alternate fuel sources? No - but look where the current government policies with ethanol got us. High food prices that have pushed ~100million around the world into poverty. That's the kind of unintended consequences that comes with stupid government meddling.

That is part of the problem, if the prices drop there will be no demanded for a better source or sources.

Necessity is the mother of invention!

That's not necessity, that's a cruel burdensome decree and manipulation by government. If prices stayed low (which they won't forever of course - businessmen know that, and so would continue to invest in non-oil anyway) we wouldn't need alternate energy.

CR

[woad&fangs]

Ethanol was a crude stumbling block on the path to "green" fuel sources. Remember that Kitty Hawk only lasted 11 seconds.