Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think Obama is basing a lot of his proposals on cutting the expenses in Iraq, and using that money to fund all those social programs.

Personally, I'd fix Social Security, and FULLY adopt the universal health care plan that was proposed a while back which would end up saving over 1 trillion after 10 years.

Both Hillary and Obama are only using certain parts of it.

I think the problem of "half-measures" is a big one--and it sounds like you'd agree with me that tinkering around the edges of a U.S. Health care system that is basically rotten to the core will achieve nothing except making it rotten to the core and really expensive. I would favour blowing it up and starting over, personally--but I think after Hillary's experience in the 90s, Dems are a little gunshy about big ideas in the area of health care. What they seem not to realize is that Americans are (IMO) much readier for big changes in health care now than they were then, so the political will should in theory be much greater.

As for social security, how would you fix it? It's an entitlement program predicated on an out-of-date demographic reality. I'm not usually one for scrapping government programs (I loves me some big gummint! ) but it may be time to start looking at other options in this area, ones that are more targeted to need or something.

[Azure]

What else can you do but scrap it?

Same with the existing health care system, scrap it as well. Although, the government run system seems to be the best option for most people. Which isn't saying a lot.

All 3 candidates are predicting too many 'half measure' solutions to the important problems. I'm with DFF on this, none of the candidates are particularly appealing.

Maybe once the real election campaign begins, they'll propose some 'good' solutions to the problems facing the US. I'm not very optimistic though.

We can blame the media too, to a point. They're not forcing the candidates to provide answers to the 'tough' questions. Even the debates have become ridiculous.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know where your number comes from--a link would be nice. In the meantime, if you think Obama is fiscally irresponsible, you might check out factcheck.org's take on McCain's budget plan:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_part_ii.html

Turns out McCain wasn't kidding when he said he knew nothing about economics....

I dislike McCain, but I don't know why factcheck is using guesswork to make economic projections. Those are not facts.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I dislike McCain, but I don't know why factcheck is using guesswork to make economic projections. Those are not facts.

What do you mean, specifically? The business about Capital Gains taxes?

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What do you mean, specifically? The business about Capital Gains taxes?

The paragraph that explicitly says "While there’s some guesswork about how their policy pronouncements would play out"

That and the economics lesson about the gas tax pandering.

McCain is admittedly clueless about economics, but probably not much more clueless than the other candidates.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

The paragraph that explicitly says "While there’s some guesswork about how their policy pronouncements would play out"

That and the economics lesson about the gas tax pandering.

McCain is admittedly clueless about economics, but probably not much more clueless than the other candidates.

You mean this?

While there’s some guesswork about how their policy pronouncements would play out, the TPC has calculated that under a scenario like the one the Democratic contenders have suggested, Americans would pay $1.1 trillion more in income and estate taxes over 10 years than they would if all 2001-2006 tax cuts were extended and the estate tax was repealed permanently.

Well, that isn't factcheck.org's guesswork. The guesswork is the Tax Policy Center's, an unrelated think tank. Most projections like this do involve some guesswork. But really--so what? Are you saying the number is more like 900 billion? 1.5 trillion? I think the lesson here is that the Bush tax cuts cost the government a lot of money--and given their impending fiscal crisis that's pretty significant. Besides, the same article cites numbers from The Internal Revenue Service, the Brookings Institution, the Office of Tax Analysis, and the Congressional Budget Office. So I think they have their bases covered.

As for the economics lesson, I think it's pretty sound. The "gas tax holiday" is a pander, pure and simple. Even if it did influence prices at the pump, it would still be a pander--the fact that it won't makes it even worse. Factcheck.org doesn't do original research--they sum up and analyze research done by other policy institutes, and they're usually pretty careful. It's one of the more reputable sources on the web.

And I do agree that many politicians are clueless when it comes to economics--but I happen to think McCain is more clueless. At a certain point it's just a matter of opinion, though.

[HotHotHeat]

I think it's important to keep in mind that what Bush considers good for the economy isn't what most Americans think is good for the economy. His policies have pushed big business and wall street exactly where they'd like to be...The problem is that he's gone too far, and didn't take into account the degree to which consumer spending impacts an economy...Or the manufacturing division...Which is pure stupidity. McCain has little to no knowledge of the economy, and he's going to surround himself with the same advisors that the Bush admin has used...AKA big business lobbyists with a PhD. Obama seems to understand the root problems of the economic down turn better than McCain. I'm not even commenting on Hillary, she's done.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You mean this?
Well, that isn't factcheck.org's guesswork. The guesswork is the Tax Policy Center's, an unrelated think tank. Most projections like this do involve some guesswork. But really--so what? Are you saying the number is more like 900 billion? 1.5 trillion? I think the lesson here is that the Bush tax cuts cost the government a lot of money--and given their impending fiscal crisis that's pretty significant. Besides, the same article cites numbers from The Internal Revenue Service, the Brookings Institution, the Office of Tax Analysis, and the Congressional Budget Office. So I think they have their bases covered.

They are questioning his ideas, not his facts, and that's all I'm saying. Why is a fact checking site making predictions?

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As for the economics lesson, I think it's pretty sound. The "gas tax holiday" is a pander, pure and simple. Even if it did influence prices at the pump, it would still be a pander--the fact that it won't makes it even worse. Factcheck.org doesn't do original research--they sum up and analyze research done by other policy institutes, and they're usually pretty careful. It's one of the more reputable sources on the web.

And I do agree that many politicians are clueless when it comes to economics--but I happen to think McCain is more clueless. At a certain point it's just a matter of opinion, though.

I agree the gas tax holiday is nothing more than pandering. Again, I wasn't expecting a lesson in economics from a fact-checking site.

Price cuts would spur greater demand for gasoline, but because the summer gas supply is already fixed, consumers would end up bidding gas back up to its old price.

C'mon it looks like a third grader wrote that.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Obama seems to understand the root problems of the economic down turn better than McCain.

What do you mean? What do you consider to be the root problems that Obama understands?

I don't think any of them understand any of it, and that's the problem.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Really? I like all three! It's been win-win-win for me for a couple of months now, and I'm thrilled about it.

Someone with a brain is going into the White House. They all have their warts, but each and every one of them is a massive upgrade over the Bush administration.

Can't argue with that, but I still think there has to be better out there somewhere...someday.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You mean this?

Well, that isn't factcheck.org's guesswork. The guesswork is the Tax Policy Center's, an unrelated think tank. Most projections like this do involve some guesswork. But really--so what? Are you saying the number is more like 900 billion? 1.5 trillion? I think the lesson here is that the Bush tax cuts cost the government a lot of money--and given their impending fiscal crisis that's pretty significant.

Nobody knows what the optimal tax rates are, and the problem is not the revenues, it's the expenditures. Look at the Treasury Department's tax collections over the past 20 years and you will see that 2007 was the highest.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I think it's important to keep in mind that what Bush considers good for the economy isn't what most Americans think is good for the economy. His policies have pushed big business and wall street exactly where they'd like to be...The problem is that he's gone too far, and didn't take into account the degree to which consumer spending impacts an economy...Or the manufacturing division...Which is pure stupidity. McCain has little to no knowledge of the economy, and he's going to surround himself with the same advisors that the Bush admin has used...AKA big business lobbyists with a PhD. Obama seems to understand the root problems of the economic down turn better than McCain. I'm not even commenting on Hillary, she's done.

Wanting to spend more money than everyone else does not qualify as 'understanding' how the economy works.

The problem with Bush, just like many other Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, is that they refuse to erase the deficit and begin paying down the debt.

Spending is, and has been out of control for the past 8 years during the Bush administration, and it doesn't help to annex the military/intelligence community/budget like Bush1/Clinton did, because you end up with 9/11. Of course, it didn't help to create another division(DHS)....and spend even more money like Bush 2 did either.

So you're stuck somewhere in the middle.

Your Obama love is pretty ridiculous is you think spending almost $300 billion 'more' on the federal budget each year qualifies as 'understanding the economy.' Especially in a country where the federal debt already exceeds $9 trillion, and the deficit runs in excess of $300 billion each year. Not too mention the horrendous problems with the Health Care system, Social Security and many other social programs. I agree with IFF, completely. Proposing 'half measure' solutions does not 'fix' the problem. In other words, simply throwing 'more' money around, which is exactly what Obama is suggesting, is NOT fixing the problem.

Like IFF said, a lot of Obama supporters are going to be pissed off when he does become elected, and not everything that he touches turns to gold. The next President will most likely face some of the biggest problems in the history of the US, and as far as I'm concerned, what each of the candidates have shown during the primaries only solidifies my view that none of them have ANY real solutions to those important problems. Every single one is just throwing around useless rhetoric to try and win votes.

Face it, outside of Obama proposing to spend even more money than Hillary, there are exactly the same on many issues. So, it certainly isn't his 'stance' that is winning him the primaries. Of course, if the average American would actually bother to 'look' at his stance, his viewpoint on numerous issues, and realize that his solutions are to be quite blunt, pathetic, he won't be winning. Nor would Hillary, and neither would McCain. But then again, the average American is more worried about rhetoric and 'feel' good speeches than real solutions. So I fully expect another Presidency where 'half measure' solutions and more taxpayer money to be thrown around uselessly trying to fix every problem that comes around.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Can't argue with that, but I still think there has to be better out there somewhere...someday.

Simply being 'better' than the Bush administration doesn't make any of the candidates 'good.'

If all people want is 'better' than Bush, well they're certainly going to get 'better.' What they're not going to get is someone who will actually 'fix' the problems.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

you think spending almost $300 billion 'more' on the federal budget each year qualifies as 'understanding the economy.'

I'd love for you to point out where I said that.

Yep, democrats spend more historically, congratulations on your analysis.

He still understands the economy better than McCain. . .I have no doubt that will be proven during the Presidential debates. Whether he demonstrates that day to day during his campaigning isn't an issue of if he has the understanding, it's spoon feeding uneducated Americans things they like to hear.

Your obsession with cutting down American politicians is getting tiresome...We get you don't like any of the candidates (other than Ron Paul I'd assume...Who I actually agree is exactly what the US truly needs)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

They are questioning his ideas, not his facts, and that's all I'm saying. Why is a fact checking site making predictions?



I agree the gas tax holiday is nothing more than pandering. Again, I wasn't expecting a lesson in economics from a fact-checking site.

Price cuts would spur greater demand for gasoline, but because the summer gas supply is already fixed, consumers would end up bidding gas back up to its old price.

C'mon it looks like a third grader wrote that.

When a candidate proposes three major tax reforms (eliminating the Alternative-Minimum tax, extending the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers including those earning over $200,000 and raising the estate tax exemption) then I think estimating the total cost is fair game for a fact-checking site. One problem voters have is that candidates throw around spending and tax cut proposals and never really go into the nitty-gritty of what it will cost. They've done this by consulting a range of sources, and have come up with an educated guess, which is just about the best anybody can do.

I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. It sounds like you're annoyed by the economic analysis of the gas tax holiday, even if you actually agree with what they say about it--so confound it all, I just don't know what it is about this that has such a bur in your saddle.

As for your critique of the article's writing style--well, opinions on that sort of thing differ. At best it's a red herring, though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I'd love for you to point out where I said that.

Yep, democrats spend more historically, congratulations on your analysis.

He still understands the economy better than McCain. . .I have no doubt that will be proven during the Presidential debates. Whether he demonstrates that day to day during his campaigning isn't an issue of if he has the understanding, it's spoon feeding uneducated Americans things they like to hear.

Of course you have no doubt. You're the prime example of someone who has an Obama love-fest going on.

To be blunt, I think the guy is a moron as far as economical and domestic issues are concerned. There is a time to 'spend' more money....now isn't that time.

But for someone who promises 'hope and change'....he sure is in tune with the rest of Washington. Spend, spend, spend....

Your obsession with cutting down American politicians is getting tiresome...We get you don't like any of the candidates (other than Ron Paul I'd assume...Who I actually agree is exactly what the US truly needs)

Ron Paul is about as far away from Obama on politics issues as you can possibly get. Yet you think Obama is 'good' for the US, but Ron Paul is exactly what they need?

Weird.

[Nehkara]

Delegate update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1718
Obama 1909 (191 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1443
Obama 1612 (169 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 275
Obama 297 (22 ahead)


Obama opening up a wider and wider lead, seemingly growing daily.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

When a candidate proposes three major tax reforms (eliminating the Alternative-Minimum tax, extending the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers including those earning over $200,000 and raising the estate tax exemption) then I think estimating the total cost is fair game for a fact-checking site.

Naah no bur in my saddle now. The idea that tax cuts might "cost" the government just rubs me the wrong way. Whether the federal government receives more or less revenues is irrelevant to me because it's not their money to begin with.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Naah no bur in my saddle now. The idea that tax cuts might "cost" the government just rubs me the wrong way. Whether the federal government receives more or less revenues is irrelevant to me because it's not their money to begin with.

That's a fair point.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ron Paul is about as far away from Obama on politics issues as you can possibly get. Yet you think Obama is 'good' for the US, but Ron Paul is exactly what they need?

Weird.

I'd also like to hear more about how someone thinks the furthest right wing and the furtherest left wing candidates are the two best choices.