McCain's Electability

Advocate wrote:

McCain not only wants to renew Bush's tax cuts, but wants to add another $300 Billion. He says he can eliminate the deficit by cutting discretionary spending, pork, and waste. The tax cuts will, he says, bring in more revenue.

Unfortunately, every Rep president has said the same thing, and the deficits under them continue to grow.

When a Republican fires up a scary number it always ends with a fat-cat accusation, but when a Dem does it it's implied that the sense is either responsible and/or in the interest of commuting it to save the universe. To my mind both parties are full of ****, but that's neither here nor there - problem is you're using a scary number for dramatic effect in a context to which its inapplicable. I mean, what, are taxes written in stone? Tax more, tax less, I'm not a huge fan of corporate welfare at the federal level, but they always end up taking something. Rather they didn't screw with it and give it back, but Posse Comitatus are too crazy for me, short of voting Libertarian I'm out of moves.

Anyway, what we're really talking about betwixt, spending, and the deficit, regardless of what scary number you've got a reference for (like, to say, what can you buy for the deficit?), is we've got what folk make, what folk consume and what the G consumes. One way or the other the first two are related, and for the economy to get on quite swimmingly they've got to stay linked-up and increase. So, 300 billion, 2 trillion, I'd rather have it as a percent of their take but anyway add to consumption and production will to some extent follow - the only reason not to open the throttle all the way is strain on the link - inflation. The Liberal argument for taxing folk is if the G consumes there's no inflation, and everyone stil gets what they need, but they break the link in a different way, folk drive things they didn't bring home the bacon for, and the incentive ends up being purely for non-essentials, which I mean, if we must reduce ourselves to kids in a toystore whats the point. McCain's thing, to my mind, is to choke back what the G consumes, maybe pay of some debt to strengthen the coin-of-the-realm (not half as cool as Ron Paul's method...) then use that link to let people power the economy.

If I had my druthers everyone would do for themselves or not and keep most of what they make. With growing interest in Libertarianism and agriculture being big news again after 90-years - we can make it, we can last till our currency becomes the sovereign standard again. In the meantime...

Our investment in ourselves continues to grow, only thing is we just gotta make sure we ain't bluffing. I mean, you want to make it something it ain't but when will it come back to bite us? When we can't produce to feed it and the other nations pull-confidence. If we lose our **** and they turn on us it'll be a new day anyway, I say we keep doing our thing, get built up as far as we can go, give them a reason to worry about that day too, rather than piss our pants and lose it like chumps.

0 Replies

Hanno, I have not seen any evidence that the libertarian approach works.

For example, at one time people were allowed to provide for their old age themselves. I gather that the result was a disaster, and charity did not begin to help these people. Children might, or might not, help. Thus, social security was passed without a single Rep vote. Very, very few people would now suggest the repeal of social security.

The government, just like us and any business, cannot run deficits indefinitely. Eventually, people will not loan you money (unless you turn over your first born).

McCain's approach is surely a prescription for becoming Argentina.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Hanno, I have not seen any evidence that the libertarian approach works.

For example, at one time people were allowed to provide for their old age themselves. I gather that the result was a disaster, and charity did not begin to help these people. Children might, or might not, help. Thus, social security was passed without a single Rep vote. Very, very few people would now suggest the repeal of social security.

We've got to see a lot of the same things - the disconnect must lie in interpretation. I mean, define to-work - you can't deny the functional elegance to it, people get more of what they want without someone having to tie a ribbon around it for 'em or square their vibe about it...

I've never heard of this old-people disaster. Maybe you're thinking old people running out of funds in and of itself is horrible, but just because the incontinent are people too don't mean we have to sacrifice perspective out of reverence. Who would they take down with 'em? I mean, was it a disaster or a disaster for old/poor people, and if so how much worse would it have been than the disaster of being in such a state of affairs as to be old/poor to begin with? The only functional argument I've heard for the whole pyramid scheme is that it pays off in confidence and to that I say who's confident in it except the gastropods that channel it into the home-shopping-network? I use the same argument of course in defense of the deficit, but the mechanisms by which that's an investment in ourselves are more robust. Maybe few would say to kill it outright, they know they ain't getting bought-out-plus-interest and if someone's left to pick up the tab they'd rather it be the G, but except for the afore-mentioned gastropods and incontinents, where are the satisfied customers?

Advocate wrote:

The government, just like us and any business, cannot run deficits indefinitely. Eventually, people will not loan you money (unless you turn over your first born).

McCain's approach is surely a prescription for becoming Argentina.

Thereagain, the whole currency-concept breaks down - we either got confidence or we don't. it's not as easy as paying our bills on time, although these new-fangled isolationist-Democrats might like it to be. The rest of the world don't worry me - if they turned on us we could thrive on spite - the greater danger, someone told me one time, geo-politics is about getting other people to do your thing - that gets worse if we hesitate. The big problem is if we lose confidence in ourselves - we have to have more of it and for our own reasons relative to other nations, we can never just be one of the crowd. For that to happen, number one there's gotta be proof - no one's welfare check will ever be big enough or handed over dutifully enough even if they're unable to express that fact in English - we get proof by running a country not a country club. Wish we'd have refrained from putting purple ink on the $5, but I've been pissed at the treasury for 'In God We Trust'. Number two, we gotta be able to back it up. Fact is we can, we've got roads, natural resources, labor, all ready to run on pure vindictiveness if need be - the place we lose it is on the manning profile - I never had this problem because I like my crappy jobs extra crappy, but my friends used to flip burgers one place and eat lunch at the Taco-Bell across the street. Tell them bauxite-futures or some such thing have crapped their pants they won't know the world ain't coming to an end, and rightly so. We need the G to quit bitching to industry about it's problems and either facilitate or get out of the way. Get that and it's all either confidence in ourselves and our system or nothing - we couldn't lose if we tried!

0 Replies

If the 'industry' could be relied upon to do the right thing, instead of the profitable thing, in any occasion, we would get out of their way.

But they have proven over and over again that the profit motive is the highest motive, and all other considerations run second to that.

Somebody has to represent 'all other considerations'; that someone is the government; and until business can show an ounce of social responsibility, they will play by the rules and damn well like it, or they can leave the country. My guess is practically none will leave.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Irrespective of what McCain may or may not believe or advocate, if his campaign doesn't start showing it belongs in the Big Leagues, he will lose and he may lose big.

McCain can win in November but to do so he has to:

1) Practice, practice, and practice stump speaking. He'll never match Obama but if can't improve on that debacle in New Orleans, he's finished. First and foremost, lose the creepy grin and groan of forced amusment.Secondly, get mad. McCain cannot do scolding sarcasim. Almost nobody can and he certainly can't. Thirdly, learn how to use a teleprompter. It's important enough to take the time.

2) Challenge the Obama mythos whenever possible, but do so in a clear and assertive manner - Demand that he prove his New Politics, Uniter BS with real examples of past performance, and when he tosses out crap like his trip to central asia with Richard Lugar call him on it.

3) Pound away on the fact that he was right about The Surge and Obama was wrong. Pound on what the consequences would have been if Obama had had his way.

4) Come up with a cogent economic plan that the average American can understand and appreciate.

5) Promote domestic oil drilling. The American public is feeling the burn and are ready to despoil Alaska, let alone ANWR if it will give them relief.

6) Use the "L" word with vigor. Obama is a liberal. Remind everyone; every chance you get.

7) Come down off your high horse. Remain true to your principles and don't engage in smear tactics, but you don't have to be Obama's defense counsel. He's a big boy, he can defend himself.

more later

0 Replies

Hanno, it is unfortunate that soc sec is run as a pyramid scheme. But it could, and probably will, be reformed.

Finn, what might be a winner for McCain is to accuse Obama of being an affirmative-action supporter. Reps have used that in the past very successfully.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the 'industry' could be relied upon to do the right thing, instead of the profitable thing, in any occasion, we would get out of their way.

But they have proven over and over again that the profit motive is the highest motive, and all other considerations run second to that.

Somebody has to represent 'all other considerations'; that someone is the government; and until business can show an ounce of social responsibility, they will play by the rules and damn well like it, or they can leave the country. My guess is practically none will leave.

Cycloptichorn

Define "social responsibility".
Should business be required to provide childcare?
Should business be required to provide education incentives?
Should business be required to provide "domestic partner" benefits?
Should business be required to provide vacation and holiday pay to employees?
Should business be required to provide anything above what the law requires?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the 'industry' could be relied upon to do the right thing, instead of the profitable thing, in any occasion, we would get out of their way.

But they have proven over and over again that the profit motive is the highest motive, and all other considerations run second to that.

Somebody has to represent 'all other considerations'; that someone is the government; and until business can show an ounce of social responsibility, they will play by the rules and damn well like it, or they can leave the country. My guess is practically none will leave.

Cycloptichorn

And there is your critical error. They are leaving in droves already.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Define "social responsibility".

I'll just answer your questions instead.

mysteryman wrote:

Should business be required to provide childcare?

Nope. It is unrealistic to expect business to not discriminate. Uncle Sam can reward parents for choosing to work.

mysteryman wrote:

Should business be required to provide education incentives?

Nope. Educational loans should be guaranteed to all.

mysteryman wrote:

Should business be required to provide "domestic partner" benefits?

Nope. The country is long overdue for a single payer system. Pity neither candidate could afford the political hit in seeking it.

mysteryman wrote:

Should business be required to provide vacation and holiday pay to employees?

Yep. This falls into the category of basic decency. I'd go with 3 weeks a year minus sick and personal days as a minimum, myself. This encourages planning for time off, while allowing for the unexpected illness. Much like the 40 hour work week before time and a half is required; Business needs to have a bottom level standard that is fair and required.

mysteryman wrote:

Should business be required to provide anything above what the law requires?

Nope. Silly question. :wink:

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

5) Promote domestic oil drilling. The American public is feeling the burn and are ready to despoil Alaska, let alone ANWR if it will give them relief.

Maybe somebody finally sat McCain down and talked some sense into the man? Several big fat fastballs right down the middle, and finally maybe hes decided to swing at one. Theres more to swing at, John, so get with it.

"McCain Calls for End to Offshore Drilling Ban"

0 Replies

Finn's number 1 is paramount. That was hard to watch.

0 Replies

I've got one more to add to Finn's list:

McCain, quit acting like a Democrat, Treehugger, and all the other whacked out stuff, defend Bush, defend Gitmo, defend common sense, and start standing up for constitutional principles, like not giving rights to enemy combatants as if they were citizens. Enough already! Take every opportunity to point out you will appoint decent and logical supreme court appointees that will not make law, and then do it. Remind people of the land confiscation by the supreme court for private property development, that apparently has not been developed by the way, remind people of how their lives have gotten more dangerous because of stupid liberal justices. Remind people that you are the common sense candidate that loves the country and don't want it changed from its greatness.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If the 'industry' could be relied upon to do the right thing, instead of the profitable thing, in any occasion, we would get out of their way.

But they have proven over and over again that the profit motive is the highest motive, and all other considerations run second to that.

Somebody has to represent 'all other considerations'; that someone is the government; and until business can show an ounce of social responsibility, they will play by the rules and damn well like it, or they can leave the country. My guess is practically none will leave.

Cycloptichorn
And there is your critical error. They are leaving in droves already.

'Droves,' really?

I think that what you will find is that many companies are 'relocating' their headquarters; but the investors and managers still live here in America. We can tighten up the laws on that as well. My guess is that most Americans aren't looking to move overseas so that their business can make a slightly higher profit. After all, isn't this the most desirable place in the world to live? I keep hearing that from Conservatives...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I've got one more to add to Finn's list:

McCain, quit acting like a Democrat, Treehugger, and all the other whacked out stuff, defend Bush, defend Gitmo, defend common sense, and start standing up for constitutional principles, like not giving rights to enemy combatants as if they were citizens. Enough already! Take every opportunity to point out you will appoint decent and logical supreme court appointees that will not make law, and then do it. Remind people of the land confiscation by the supreme court for private property development, that apparently has not been developed by the way, remind people of how their lives have gotten more dangerous because of stupid liberal justices. Remind people that you are the common sense candidate that loves the country and don't want it changed from its greatness.

"defend Bush"

Yeah, Mccain, please do this!

Okie, here I thought you wanted him to win.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

defend Bush, defend Gitmo, defend common sense, and start standing up for constitutional principles

That's a tough combo to defend with a straight face. It would be interesting to watch him try, though.

0 Replies

It can be done. I wouldn't dwell on Bush, but history will be kind to Bush, even if whackos aren't kind to him now.

Gitmo has saved lives. And wait until the nonsense starts with these people in the courts, which it already has begun. People will understand insanity when it happens. And perhaps the Supreme Court liberal justices, when death happens, will they take responsibility? I doubt it, but they should.

Constitutional principles places defense and national security directly in the hands of the president, and when the Supreme Court takes it away, they are overstepping their bounds. Wait until a missed communication causes death and destruction, and wait until a detainee that is freed is confirmed to be in on something big, there will be _____ to pay, and I hope they pay it, the liberals in this country that have been hounding Bush since he was sworn in, for what, political purposes, thats all, Thomas. And McCain should be pointing it out every day, and warning people every day.

If you think I am disappointed in how things are going, you are correct, and some of us won't be forgetting what has happened and who might be at fault in the future.

McCain is not a perfect solution, but he is infinitely better than the alternative, and he better start drawing big distinctions in a forceful manner in regard to lots of issues.

0 Replies

McCain's electability is looking better since folks are now
taking the time to examine Obama's record and plans.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/NOBAMA.jpg

0 Replies

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2357022777_4f1c47902f.jpg

0 Replies

okie wrote:

and I hope they pay it, the liberals in this country that have been hounding Bush since he was sworn in, for what, political purposes, thats all, Thomas. And McCain should be pointing it out every day, and warning people every day.

It's unusual that I agree with Cycloptichorn and you at the same time, but this seems to be an exception. Yes! Please make him recite these same tired old talking points again and again and again. America will be a better place for it -- just not in the way you thing.

0 Replies

Thomas, so now do you think a soldier must read a bomber his rights and inform him of his right to a lawyer before he takes him into custody in Afghanistan?

Among the effects of stupidity in the courts, will be more dead people on the battlefield, instead of people taken into custody.

This Gitmo issue is only one of many that the libs are dead wrong on, and if McCain would explain it, most people would see the obvious. Not a high percentage of people are liberal idealogues, as they are here on this forum, and so common sense can still win, if McCain would articulate it in a strong and effective way. I am not sure he has it in him, but the issues are there for the taking. He just needs to get with it.

0 Replies

McCain's Electability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know