What change will Palin and McCain deliver? - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Si modo · #76 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobot

The gist of your defence here is that he took these first positions 26 years ago and had changed with the times since then, right?...

I can usually count on you to miss gists. You did.

CorpMediaSux · #77 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

OK. Again. For the MILLIONTH Time. Can someone who believes McCain will bring about "change" explain three economic policies that will differ between him and George Bush.

Historybuff we've already talked earmarks and factcheck.org has debunked the "Earmark" cutting idea as untenable and basically voter pandering, so please don't bring it up. Or do and we can debunk it again. So other than the false earmark cuts, what new economic policies will John McCain institute?

Chocobot · #78 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

I can usually count on you to miss gists. You did.

I doubt i missed, i just caught you out.

Its just that you mentioned 26 years ago repeatedly. If you meant after then yopu would have said.

Angry American · #79 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oreo

Angry--You might want to consider what kind of change is voting for President Bush's energy plan, giving tax breaks & subsidies to large oil, & voting for the bridge to no-where? -Barack Obama & Joe Biden voted for these. John McCain voted against them.

Is this the kind of change you want? You obviously support the Obama ticket.

BTW--Former democrat presidential nominee John Kerry, sought out John McCain to be his V.P pick in 2004. (I would guess that John McCain, according to John Kerry really does not represent a 3rd term for President Bush.)

Well for the sake of accuracy, John McCain didn't cast a vote for H.R. 3058, and the bill contained a lot more than the "Bridge to Nowhere."

During the debate of H.R. 6--ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, I don't see McCain debating about giving subsidies to oil companies; most of the debate centered around global warming. In fact McCain had his own amendment cosponsored by Lieberman that he was pushing for. Here's some interesting debate against the McCain-Lieberman amendment by another republican, Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK].

Quote:

.... Let's now go to the economic impacts. This is probably one of the things that really should be considered more than anything else at this point because people think if there isn't going to be any great economic impact, why shouldn't we go ahead and do it. I am using here not S. 139, the bill we discussed in October of 2003, because this one is a little bit less than that. It is a little more modest. Enacting the McCain-Lieberman bill would cost, according to Charles River Associates, the U.S. economy $507 billion in 2020, $545 billion in 2025. Implementing Kyoto would cost the U.S. economy $305 billion in 2010, $243 billion in 2020. Under Kyoto, for the average family of four in America, it would cost them $2,700 a year. This bill will only cost them $2,000 a year. So maybe that isn't quite as bad as it would have been otherwise.

The bottom line: It is very expensive. And that is not just Senator Inhofe talking. We are quoting CRA, which is the recognized authority, like the Horton Econometric Survey that talked about how it will affect the rising cost of energy, electricity, gasoline, how much it costs a family of four. It would be very detrimental to our country.

In terms of jobs, enacting the McCain-Lieberman amendment would mean a loss of 800,040 jobs in 2010 and 1.306 million jobs in 2020. This is down a little bit from the full-blown Kyoto, but 1.3 million jobs is significant.

In terms of energy prices, McCain-Lieberman would increase energy prices in 2020 by 28 percent for gasoline, 20 percent for electricity, 47 percent for natural gas, and much more for coal.

Just a few minutes ago, the Senator from Arizona talked about the National Academy of Sciences. What he was referring to is a press statement. It was not a report. Their last report states as follows:

There is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. A casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases and the observed climate change in the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The IPC Summary for Policymakers could give an impression that the science of global warming is settled, even though many uncertainties still remain.

So much for the National Academy of Sciences. ...

GovTrack

Things are never as black and white as they seem, when put into context.

Can you point me to the part of the bill that you find objectionable?

There are a lot of good things in that bill, and your President (I assume you voted for Bush, forgive me if I'm wrong) signed it into law.

Si modo · #80 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobot

I doubt i missed, i just caught you out.

Its just that you mentioned 26 years ago repeatedly. If you meant after then yopu would have said.

"Caught you out"?

Reading is fundamental. There is a difference between saying "26 years ago" (which I never said, thus yet another strawman of yours) and reference a timeframe of 26 years.

But, that would be irrelevant to my gist. Here, I'll repeat the last lines of my post. Maybe you'll actually comprehend:

Quote:

Voting is a partisan game that can be played both ways, especially when two senators are in the running. This is why governors usually fare better against senators or reps. in presidential elections.

historybuff · #81 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

OK. Again. For the MILLIONTH Time. Can someone who believes McCain will bring about "change" explain three economic policies that will differ between him and George Bush.

Historybuff we've already talked earmarks and factcheck.org has debunked the "Earmark" cutting idea as untenable and basically voter pandering, so please don't bring it up. Or do and we can debunk it again. So other than the false earmark cuts, what new economic policies will John McCain institute?

In your own mind you debunked it. How is proving that it saves millions debunking it?

historybuff · #82 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

OK. Again. For the MILLIONTH Time. Can someone who believes McCain will bring about "change" explain three economic policies that will differ between him and George Bush.

Historybuff we've already talked earmarks and factcheck.org has debunked the "Earmark" cutting idea as untenable and basically voter pandering, so please don't bring it up. Or do and we can debunk it again. So other than the false earmark cuts, what new economic policies will John McCain institute?

And just to shut you up (not that you'll ever admit you're wrong)

1.

Quote:

John McCain is calling for National Commission on Workplace Flexibility and Choice. This Commission would bring together a bi-partisan set of leaders representing workers, small and large employers, labor, and academics. The Commission would make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs.

There is no current commission, so that is a new proposal.

2. He supports Nuclear energy, which would make energy cheaper.

3. And finally...

Quote:

A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction. A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs. After the completion of a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, we will propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs

There. That's three. Now go and tell us how this is bullshit as well and convince no one.

California Girl · #83 (**permalink**) 09-11-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

IT seems like McCain is borrowing a line from his competitor, telling us how hes gonna fix washington and make it work, through reform.

What exactly is this change?

I don't think the 'change' agenda is unique to Obama - pretty much every damned election has had it's fair share of the 'change' claims. McCain didn't 'borrow' it from Obama.... it wasn't original to start with.

However, let's for argument's sake, say that you're right. Since Obama's been banging on about 'change' - I would have thought that I'd be able to outline what his idea of 'change' is before McCain even jumped on the bandwagon.

As always, with the Junior Senator from Illinios, it's smoke and mirrors.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode