excellent, but do you think thats what the public thinks it is, as presented by our Pols? The term is horribly mis-understood...
and misapplied.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

ageed.....and they need to lower the repatriation tax on overseas funds brought back to the US etc...imho.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Even though Bush beat Gore on issues and likeability i do agree that personality is very important.

I don't see McCain as too likeable, he can be very nasty and mean when he loses it, so i think Obama is a clear favorite right now.

Apart from on Iraq or terrorism/foreign policy in general i agree.

But that's mainly because in these polls when asked who they trust more the right will just say neither.

They are indeed times well. But not for the election but the continuation of the policy of keeping folks locked up, harsh interrogation and no civillian rights for terrorists. And that's irrelevant of whoever wins.

II don't think its very hopeful when you are running on a platform of class division and all that entails...higher taxes for the same “sect” of flks that never seem to have their lot improved no matter how much money you throw at them...and that the government is the answer for everything, that’s a loser...nurturing? I call it suffocating.
And many feel the same, as that’s one reason why we aren’t seeing who would have been, replacing Gore in 2004, or someone else, now... ......

I liken it to, talk radio....the lib talk radio grp’s doesn’t gain much traction, their, messages are almost invariably negative....the only reason npr is on the air is because the government props it up...

Running on change means describing almost everything in a light of negativity, that can be a loser unless you are especially adept at message and really are the real deal with a real message and proven belief and actions of such (his record does not speak to non partisanship), not the same old, same old, and frankly, Obama will be exposed as the same old same old.....no better than his opponent on core issues that sway voters...


the election will shift gears radically once Obama takes out hillary...and we’ll see, liberal to the core, with the added dimension of the war. For which he DID NOT have to put his vote to a test, because he wasn’t in the senate.....though he DID vote to fund it.......you’ll hear a lot about that come nomination time.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I hope he owns up to it, once questioned, and won't be yet another dodger like Kerry. People hate that.

My biggest worry about Obama is that he may turn out to be all happy smiles and platitudes. I understand that people certainly like positivity, right now, and that's his appeal. Hillary and McCain come off as complete sourpusses.

But, our next President simply cannot be a cheerleader. And,I remain unconvinced about any of them.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Well, what the public thinks is often completely insane, so I'd have a hard time using it as a gauge.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

It's not a free speech issue at all, its a contractual issue.
McCain signed an agreement, that he would limit his spending, in return for being in the Federal campaign financing system.

Then he used the promise of Federal Funds to secure a bank loan, which under the law is the same as taking the Federal funds.
Now he's saying he never took the money, but it's right there in his loan agreement, to use federal funds to pay off the loan if his candidacy fails.
And that triggers the provision, that he can't leave the system.
If anyone should know campaign law it's John "McCain-Feingold" McCain.

To leave the system, he needs the FEC to vote to allow him to leave, and there isn't an FEC that can do that, right now.

So you can see this as government gone crazy, or, if you are into personal responsibility, you can see it as a complete lack of financial management, someone who doesn't know how to control spending, running into a situation where he can't just ignore the limits, that were set long ago, before he had spent a dime.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Awesome! The discussion's going so well I think the overwhelming rationality on both sides scared the crazies away.

This is a legitimate concern about Obama's plan to tax corporations that do not hire American employees. They might choose to leave the country or charge higher prices to consumers. But there's a reason Walmart still exists. It didnt' start out making a huge profit. But it eventually, by sheer market share, was able to force its suppliers to provide goods at a low price and, unfortunately, exploit their workers within an inch of American labor standards. In an America with the kind of tax structure that Obama proposes, someone will choose to not pass the price onto consumers and risk lower profit to offer a bargain and increase their consumer base. And frankly, I think that's a good thing.

America is a capitalist nation, but everything is bad in excess. And what we have in excess right now are CEO and upper level salaries in proportion to worker wages. That's just a fact. We would not have stagflation (a combination of inflation with lower consumer spending, according to the Fed chairman's speech today). In fact the inflationary pressures on the economy right now will eventually force corporations to lower their prices and no doubt they will hire American workers to give them the tax breaks that will make lowering their prices more economically advantageous. Corporations who are penalized for not hiring American workers will become even less competitive in terms of prices, because they will be forced to raise prices.

And can someone explain to me what's wrong with penalizing people who don't contribute to the economic livelyhood of the country in which they live and take advantage of? It's a little ridiculous that people accept this. They talk about the importance of loving America, what about loving the American people and demanding that those who benefit from this great country, also serve it.

In fact, this relationship between service and benefit is the at the base of Obama's campaign. Examine, for a second, his proposal for college tuition grants. Throughout the 90s, the Clinton administration was unable to convince the Republican Congress to make the financial burdern on college students lighter. Republicans always shot it down as part of the welfare state.

However Obama has a really interesting twist on his 4,000 credit for every college student. In exchange students have to engage in community service. I'm not sure the specific hourly amount, maybe something along the line of a typical probation sentence, 100 hours. I think that's really smart and the kind of thing people can get behind. I've never thought that people hated taxation, they just hated wasteful taxation. I think most Americans can support a "tax" program that results in every college age kid doing service in their communities. What's the downside to that?

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Last time I checked, no one is forced to work at Wal Mart. If the Wal Mart employees are not happy with their wages and benefits, they are free to work somewhere else.

Ultimately they have the responsibility for their own lives (we all do!). It is not the governments job to get them a raise. They can either increase their value to their employer, find another employer that will pay them more, or start their own company.

Life is ultimately a choice between either taking personal responsibility for everything in your life or being a victim of circumstances. In my experience, people that do not have goals end up working for those of us that do have goals.

Obama seems to have the most appeal to the goalless "victims" across the land that do not accept responsibility for the choices they have made. The kind of people that always blame someone else for their own circumstances. He offers hope and comfort and of course his mantra- "CHANGE" to these hoards of wandering generalists.

Ultimately, Obama is making promises that he simply cannot keep. People cannot look to others for change, it is an 'inside' job. It is up to each individual to change.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama we will be getting a President for the first time who was born outside the lower 48 states. That in itself is interesting.

I think it ultimately comes down to what the country is facing this Fall. If we still have an economy that's in recession, or has the impression of being in recession, than we clearly have a Mommy problem. If, for whatever reason, we do end up having an outside threat, then we all know that there's a Daddy issue on hand. I think it's sad that the American people are so short-sighted that they vote for a President based on circumstances at the moment rather than looking at the big picture, but what can you do?

I personally like Obama better than McCain simply because I'm sick and tired of the Old Guard (one of the reasons I don't like Hillary Clinton). The Cabinet members of the Bush administration all served in some capacity in administrations during the Cold War, and they brought the same mentalities with them. They tackled terrorism as if it was some overwhelming evil force like the Soviet Union that required a massive military to counteract. We've seen the results of that attitude, it clearly didn't work.

I think this country needs to find its moral bearing once again. We need to stop acting like the bully of the world and start acting like the benevolent superpower instead. We're not going to get that with a Republican President.

Our current President was a cheerleader

Um actually? If you "checked" my post, you'll realize that I didn't critic Walmart. Rather pointed out that their strategy for success could work for business' who received tax breaks to employ American workers. What's so wierd is that alot of the critics of Obama often choose what they want to hear about his ideas, rather than considering his policy proposals. Why is that?

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

You wrote that Wal mart has been able to That is clearly a criticism of Wal mart.

So why are we not discussing Obama's policies in more depth? I 'd love to do that. Then we could see what I and many other people already know - Obama's policy proposals are really just the same liberal programs that every other liberal proposes, albeit in a shiny new wrapper. There is not a wit of meaningful difference between Obama's tax and spend programs and Hillary's. When you compare the two, you are dancing on the head of a pin.

SO yeah, I'd love to discuss Obama's policy proposals and discuss them exhaustively and in-depth. Then we'll see if there is any evidence that his proposals are anything other than 'the same old, same old".

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

Alex, I don't how you could have read my post so closely to be able to pull out the one critical sentence I write about Walmart, but somehow miss my long discussion of Obama's policies. I have a hard time believing you'd "love to do that" when you ignore an opportunity to respond to the portion of my post that addresses Obama's policy.

The title of this topic is Obama v. McCain: No Labels. And that's intentional. It's not really an argument to just say "it's liberal." The label "liberal" is just a word with multiple definitions, and thats just in terms of the dictionary. When you get into politics that word has so many other reasons. As does "conservative". You should be able to articulate the problems within his actual policy proposals themselves. I'm not interested in dismissing you, McCain or the Republicans as "simply conservative" because that doesn't get us anywhere. It puts a label on things and allows us not to talk about actual issues. I suspect you'd much rather scream about "liberal tax and spend" then talk about specific policy proposal.

If I'm wrong then prove me wrong, go back to the post that you took my sentence about Walmart and engage the issues I raise about the potential for Obama's economic plan to stimulate the economy (it's post #23).

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Comparing the policies of candidates in great detail is an exercise in navel gazing.
Whoever wins in November, you can be sure that the detailed policy statements will not be what emerges from the process congress goes through to make laws.

The real substantial difference is in the broad direction they will pull the Congress.
I wouldn't expect McCain to get very much of his agenda enacted, he would more or less be a brake on change, vetoing Democratic initiatives and having his own proposals reworked into something acceptable to a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, and it would have to be a very broad coalition to overcome the power of the Democratic leadership, (read: lots of pork for Democrats who lean right, and as long as we're dishing it out, plenty for the GOP)

OK, that's on the small chance that McCain wins.

If Obama wins he's got to filter his program through the Democratic Congressional leadership, keeping the blue dogs on board and avoiding filibusters, which means that what he's talking about and what emerges from the process are only going to bear a vague resemblance.

The only substantive point is that Obama will put a leftward pull on the country and McCain would pull to the right.

The tax cuts expire, there is no way they are going to become permanent, but there is also no way that they aren't replaced but changes in the tax law, that will leave taxes somewhere in between where they are now, and where they were in 2001. With either candidate in the White House, the top marginal rates will go up, just a little more so with Obama.
With either guy, the middle class will retain most of the cuts, and might even get more.

The biggest difference will be in Iraq policy, McCain would keep more troops in Iraq longer.
On the deficit, Obama would run smaller deficits, and generally manage the finances better.
Personally, I think the country would be better off with Obama than McCain, because there is a lot of stuff that needs fixing, and that means a president that puts in long hours. We've seen what a part time president can do, and I don't think that at his age McCain could be a full time president, he would have a shorter workday like Reagan or Bush, rather than a long workday like Bill Clinton.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address