McCain vs Obama

Lurker said:
McCain has not been "Senator" McCain since around 2001. Since then he has been "Presidential Candidate" McCain. No maverick. More classic politician.

You know, I used to believe in this "Saint McCain" business back in the time of Bush's first election. Frankly, looking back I am not sure what I was buying. McCain is more of an opportunist than a maverick. Sorry, that is how I see it.
Click to expand...

No, that's fair. The man has had his integrity slowly beaten out of him over time.
 
A few that spring to mind.

No stimulus.
US auto companies would be closed.
No health care bill at all.
No Lily Ledbetter act.
No Mathew Shepard act.
No cash 4 clunkers.
No money for alternative fuels.
No money for high speed rail.
No attempt at all to close GITMO.
No troops home from Iraq (what, McCain would honor the SOFA?).
Vice President Palin.
No stem cell research.
No repeal of the AIDS travel ban.
No benefits for same sex couples in government jobs.
No release of torture documents.
No increase in our national popularity around the world.
 
Kestrel said:
Would McCain's economic advisers have pushed a program like Cash for Clunkers or done anything else to support the auto industry?
Click to expand...


I would hope not. “Cash for Clunkers” was a fraudulent scam, that destroyed far more wealth than it helped create, and left the economy as a whole poorer than before. See The Parable of the Broken Window.


Kestrel said:
Without active intervention, Ford would be the only surviving US auto manufacturer and unemployment would top 10%.
Click to expand...


If GM and Chrysler were salvageable, then there are methods through the bankruptcy process to put them back into business. If these companies were so far gone that they couldn't survive that way, then it's time to let them die.

Whatever jobs might have been lost by letting these companies fail are nothing compared to those that have surely been lost as a result of the damage that the “Cash for Clunkers” scam did to the economy, not to mention all the other revenue-wasting scams that this administration perpretrated.
 
quixotecoyote said:
The health care bill we actually got is more similar to McCain's idea than Obama's, which cheeses me off given it's why I voted the way I did.

Obama hasn't done much on the economy that wasn't already in motion before he took office, and he's going to renew the Bush tax-cuts, just like McCain would. So, not much difference there.

We'd probably be slower in withdrawing from Iraq, but Obama hasn't issued an order ending DADT, he hasn't fixed the "enemy combatant" ******** that Guantanamo symbolizes (or Guantanamo for that matter), and off the top of my head I can't think of an actual issue he's acted on that McCain would have done differently.

Give me a strong primary candidate against Obama in 2012 and I'll vote for him/her.

eta:But hey! Despite being indistinguishable from their canditate on the issues, the Republicans tell me he's a far-left socialist, so I guess I got the candidate I really wanted after-all. Hey, and I didn't even think one was running at the time.
Click to expand...
Odd right? Considering the fact Obama's trying his best to kiss Republican :rule10 and not distance himself from Bush's policies by any wide margin you would think the Repubs would appreciate him. :boggled: But nope. He's a far-left Socialist, communist, marxist, anti-american muslim. :rolleyes: As much as i'm disappointed by Obama I don't doubt for a second he would be better then the alternative. Maybe not by as wide a margin as I would like but we can only speculate.
 
Unabogie said:
A few that spring to mind.

No stimulus.
US auto companies would be closed.
No health care bill at all.
No Lily Ledbetter act.
No Mathew Shepard act.
No cash 4 clunkers.
No money for alternative fuels.
No money for high speed rail.
No attempt at all to close GITMO.
No troops home from Iraq (what, McCain would honor the SOFA?).
Vice President Palin.
No stem cell research.
No repeal of the AIDS travel ban.
No benefits for same sex couples in government jobs.
No release of torture documents.
No increase in our national popularity around the world.
Click to expand...

No repeal of the Mexico City policy (gag rule on condoms attached to foreign AIDS aid)
 
And the current make up of the Supreme Court would have a decidedly different character.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Whatever jobs might have been lost by letting these companies fail are nothing compared to those that have surely been lost as a result of the damage that the “Cash for Clunkers” scam did to the economy, not to mention all the other revenue-wasting scams that this administration perpretrated.
Click to expand...

Why should the US care about lost chinese jobs?
 
"Cash for clunkers" is being held up as a successful program? Really? :boggled:
 
WildCat said:
What was successful about it?
Click to expand...

The US car companies were about to go under and with them tens of thousands of jobs would have been lost. Cash for Clunkers pumped money into the economy, put more fuel efficient cars on the road, and helped stave off the collapse of the auto industry. And it cost less than a month in Iraq. Sounds like a good deal to me and I wish it were made permanent. But then again, I have long been a fan of targeted credits and incentives like this.
 
Unabogie said:
The US car companies were about to go under and with them tens of thousands of jobs would have been lost. Cash for Clunkers pumped money into the economy, put more fuel efficient cars on the road, and helped stave off the collapse of the auto industry. And it cost less than a month in Iraq. Sounds like a good deal to me and I wish it were made permanent. But then again, I have long been a fan of targeted credits and incentives like this.
Click to expand...
It didn't sell any extra cars, it simply moved demand forward. And the unintended consequence of destroying the older cars was that used car prices increased by 10% as there were fewer used cars to meet demand.

So wealthy people who could afford new cars got a discount, those who couldn't afford new cars had to pay much more.

I had no idea you supported subsidizing the rich.

eta:
No great insight was needed to realize that Cash for Clunkers would work a hardship on people unable to afford a new car. “All this program did for them,’’ I wrote last August, “was guarantee that used cars will become more expensive. Poorer drivers will be penalized to subsidize new cars for wealthier drivers.’’ Alec Gutierrez, a senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book, predicted that used-car prices would surge by up to 10 percent. “It’s going to drive prices up on some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road,’’ he told USA Today. In short, Washington spent nearly $3 billion to raise the price of mobility for drivers on a budget.

To be sure, Cash for Clunkers gave a powerful jolt to car sales in July and August of 2009. But it did so mostly by delaying sales that would otherwise have occurred in April, May, and June, or by accelerating those that would have taken place in September, October, or later. “Influencing the timing of consumers’ durable purchases is easy,’’ Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl wrote a few days ago in a blog post looking back at the program. “Creating new purchases is not.’’ Of the 700,000 cars purchased during the clunkers frenzy, the estimated net increase in sales was only 125,000. Each incremental sale thus ended up costing the taxpayers a profligate $24,000.


Even on environmental grounds, Cash for Clunkers was an exorbitant dud. Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program cost no less than $237 per ton. In contrast, carbon emissions credits cost about $20 per ton in international markets.
Click to expand...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...10/09/01/clunkers_a_classic_government_folly/
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
It didn't sell any extra cars, it simply moved demand forward. And the unintended consequence of destroying the older cars was that used car prices increased by 10% as there were fewer used cars to meet demand.

So wealthy people who could afford new cars got a discount, those who couldn't afford new cars had to pay much more.

I had no idea you supported subsidizing the rich.
Click to expand...

According to whom? Are you contending that wealthy people sell their used cars on Craigslist instead of trading them in? I'd be curious to see the data on that.

But what's wrong with moving the demand forward if demand was already lagging and the car companies were about to fold? How many used cars would those out of work people buy? Are you taking that into account as well? I had no idea you supported putting the auto companies out of business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom