Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

Charles79 · Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:45 pm

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 346):
Well it looks like the cost of Obama's Berlin escapade is quite large: $700,000 for sound,

Well, if it's their money they can spend it whichever way they want, can't they? This is as ridiculous as the left arguing over Palin's wardrobe--it's the party's money and they can spend it as they see fit. We have bigger issues to discuss than the parties' expenses.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 346):
Oh, and it seems that the income tax hike level has been reduced now to $120K. Anyone
want to pick the date when it goes below $100K.

Judging by the way neither candidate would commit to reduce spending it looks like a hike in taxes for everyone is very likely. I wouldn't put much weight on the promises of either one.

PSA727 · Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:11 pm

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 350):
Judging by the way neither candidate would commit to reduce spending it looks like a hike in taxes for everyone is very likely. I wouldn't put much weight on the promises of either one.

Yes, but this is Obama's mantra: Tax cuts for 95% of workers. Now I don't believe him for
one second. Never in my lifetime has a Democrat President, coupled with a Democrat
Senate and House has resulted in tax cuts (or reduced spending for that matter). Even Bill
Clinton in '92 promised middle-class tax cuts, but ended up raising taxes in his first years
as President because he was worried about the budget deficit (which was a lot less than it
is now, moreover, we now have a national debt of over $10 trillion). Now add the rising
unemployment rate (which means less tax revenue), and tax cuts for anybody seems like
an outright lie, not a campaign promise.

Charles79 · Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:57 am

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 351):
Now add the rising
unemployment rate (which means less tax revenue), and tax cuts for anybody seems like
an outright lie, not a campaign promise.

Likewise for McCain's "promise", where he intends to lower taxes across the board.

Let's face it, in this election we are voting for the team less likely to screw up. If we were to believe in their words then unicorns would be studied as part of the animal kingdom!

Dreadnought · Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:34 am

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 352):
Let's face it, in this election we are voting for the team less likely to screw up.

You are right, with the exception of one wild card, if McCain wins. That is a reformation (or rather a reengineering) of government which McCain has promised to do with Palin in charge. Now that is a hell of a tall order, and it has never been done before. Certainly, any proposals she will put forward will be blocked by a Democratic congress, but if the proposals are solid enough and believable enough, they might become a basis for a republican sweep of congress in 2010, if republicans unite behind the platform and promise to implement it - a New Contract With America. It would signal a return of the Republican party from neo-conservatism (which is a combination of liberalism and conservatism) to true fiscal conservatism.

Yes, that's a lot of ifs, but a reengineering of government is an absolute necessity. Our federal government is out of control, and an Obama presidency will just increase the job to be done later. For all the talk about 'Change', I have not heard anything from the Obama camp about improving government efficiency or effectiveness.

FlyPNS1 · Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:54 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 353):
That is a reformation (or rather a reengineering) of government which McCain has promised to do with Palin in charge.

Here's the problem with this.

Palin's not competent enough to try and reengineer the federal gov't. She'll get eaten alive. Her schtick might work in Alaska, but DC is a whole different ballgame. Palin can't even handle an interview with Katie Couric, nevermind taking on the lobbyists and DC power players. Not to mention that Palin has yet to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the economy. This ain't Alaska, you can't just raise taxes on the oil industry and buy off your constituents.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 353):
Yes, that's a lot of ifs, but a reengineering of government is an absolute necessity.

I agree, but I don't see McCain and Palin doing it. McCain's ability to manage anything is questionable at this point. He's done a miserable job managing his campaign and has surrounded himself with a lot of clueless people.

Dreadnought · Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:03 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 354):
Palin's not competent enough to try and reengineer the federal gov't. She'll get eaten alive.

You think she'd be alone? An administration includes thousands of people, and some of them would be dedicated to this. The VP simply chairs the group that would work on recommendations.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 354):
Not to mention that Palin has yet to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the economy. This ain't Alaska, you can't just raise taxes on the oil industry and buy off your constituents.

The irony is striking;

You can't just raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% and buy off your constituents - but someone is trying exactly that anyway...

Aaron747 · Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:50 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 355):
An administration includes thousands of people

The RNC employs thousands of people yet they've completely failed to go after key groups of voters for at least the past five years. The McCain campaign had a number of solid choices for VP and they picked one that drove a wedge straight through the old Republican guard and the simpleton neocons and lost most independents who swing right in the process.

In short: they have a hell of a lot of work to do. Kevin Madden (ex-Romney's campaign) made a very good point on a GOP roundtable on CNN this evening when he said the party needs to align on the three basic tenets that got Reagan's transformative years through. It's about ideas, not individuals.

baroque · Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:53 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 336):
So you must consider highways and air traffic control and FDIC insurance to be nannyish.

Absolutely Tugger, get tolls introduced on them ALL pronto. Think of the tax reductions you could release. None of this monopolistic ownership of transport by the state - get competing highways rolled out ASAP. Way to go!!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 353):
Yes, that's a lot of ifs, but a reengineering of government is an absolute necessity. Our federal government is out of control, and an Obama presidency will just increase the job to be done later. For all the talk about 'Change', I have not heard anything from the Obama camp about improving government efficiency or effectiveness.

That is interesting. So the "Decider" is deciding is presiding over an out of control government. Why does he not decide to control it?

Puzzled of Pennsylvania.

DocLightning · Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:57 pm

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 352):

Let's face it, in this election we are voting for the team less likely to screw up.

I voted for the team who I thought actually seemed interested in fixing the problem. I don't know if they'll succeed, but it's at least their goal to fix it.

RJdxer · Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:02 pm

And now word that guns sales are spiking nationwide on fears of new gun restrictions if Sen. Obama is elected. I guess that's one way to fix the economy and not just in Pennsylvannia either. I wonder if Bible sales are up as well?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...y.php?storyId=96344507&ft=1&f=1003

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/co...02.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=6

http://www.wcti12.com/PrinterFriendl...2D2056817825&recordsource=NEWS2008

Dreadnought · Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:10 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 359):
And now word that guns sales are spiking nationwide on fears of new gun restrictions if Sen. Obama is elected.

In the venture capital world where I know a lot of people, a lot of LPs (Limited Partners - the investors in venture funds) have announced their intention to reduce their commitments to VC funds if Obama wins, due to expected tax increases on capital gains - which is the chief attraction of VC.

VC directly funds the employment of nearly 1 million Americans and funds the creation of companies that need more money than entrepreneurs can scrounge from their family and friends, but are too risky for banks and other creditors. Apple, Federal Express, Compaq, Sun Microsystems, Intel, Microsoft and Genentech are famous examples of companies that were VC-supported during their development.

FlyPNS1 · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:35 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 355):
You think she'd be alone?

No, but someone has to provide a vision and leadership and Palin doesn't have it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 358):
I don't know if they'll succeed, but it's at least their goal to fix it.

If it was his goal to fix things, you would think he wouldn't have supported the "bailout" package. McCain's plans are just to repeat the past 8 years and hope that lots of Walmart jobs will somehow make everyone wealthy.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 360):
In the venture capital world where I know a lot of people, a lot of LPs (Limited Partners - the investors in venture funds) have announced their intention to reduce their commitments to VC funds if Obama wins, due to expected tax increases on capital gains - which is the chief attraction of VC.

There seemed to be plenty of VC capital in the 90's when we had higher taxes. Any hair-brained IT company could get VC funding and no one seemed afraid of the tax man.

mdsh00 · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:41 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 359):
I wonder if Bible sales are up as well?

Are you really afraid the boogeyman (Obama) is gonna come and take your Bible away from you?
rotfl

dc863 · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:48 am

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 362):
Are you really afraid the boogeyman (Obama) is gonna come and take your Bible away from you?

Nah just my hard earned money.

Dreadnought · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:51 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 361):
No, but someone has to provide a vision and leadership and Palin doesn't have it.

Says you. I think she does.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 361):
There seemed to be plenty of VC capital in the 90's when we had higher taxes.

In 2000 there was an estimated $15 billion invested in VC companies in the US. In early 2008, the numbers we saw were close to ten times that figure.

StuckInCA · Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:25 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 364):
In 2000 there was an estimated $15 billion invested in VC companies in the US. In early 2008, the numbers we saw were close to ten times that figure.

How was the average American doing in 2000? In 2008?

I'd guess most people, if not considering life position based on age (in vs out of college, etc) we're better off in 2000. I know I was.

Aaron747 · Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:37 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 364):

Says you. I think she does.

Peggy Noonan, and the Reagan generation, don't:

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things...

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing...

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html

RJdxer · Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:52 pm

And now how about this for change? Lets bankrupt an industry!

http://www.wsaz.com/political/headlines/33726759.html

The full version is here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

Shame the SF Chronicle decided to with hold the news. Makes you wonder what the LA Times has in it's drawers that they aren't sharing.

Charles79 · Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:53 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 358):
I voted for the team who I thought actually seemed interested in fixing the problem. I don't know if they'll succeed, but it's at least their goal to fix it.

That's pretty much what I did, and also voted based on ideology. I always stood closer to Obama because of his socialist ideals but he failed to close the deal because of his lack of experience and questions about his character (as Aaron747 pointed out, the fact that he left his church for politics was controversial at the least). But as the McCain campaign grew more and more negative in its attacks and the true Palin surfaced I knew I had to make sure to stop them from getting into the White House. In essence is not a vote for Obama but a vote against McCain.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 359):
I wonder if Bible sales are up as well?

I'm sorry but that is non-sense. Obama is a religious guy (too much for my taste to be honest), why would the Bible be at risk? Please explain.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 367):
And now how about this for change? Lets bankrupt an industry!

I think it has more to do with protecting our environment RJ. Even McCain cares about the environment, so one way or the other new laws are coming to that effect.

N867DA · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:01 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 367):

Shame the SF Chronicle decided to with hold the news. Makes you wonder what the LA Times has in it's drawers that they aren't sharing.

Quoting SFGate.com:
Obama sat with The Chronicle editorial board Jan. 17 for the interview, and it has been available in its entirety on the newspaper's Web site since it took place in San Francisco during the Democratic primary season. In his wide-ranging session with the paper, the Democratic senator from Illinois spoke about his energy plan and an "aggressive" cap-and-trade policy, and spoke about coal technology.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i?f=/c/a/2008/11/02/MNTL13SU6S.DTL

Your own source says it has been available to the public since it was done. How are they withholding anything?

FlyPNS1 · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:26 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 364):
Says you. I think she does.

Based on what?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 364):
In 2000 there was an estimated $15 billion invested in VC companies in the US. In early 2008, the numbers we saw were close to ten times that figure.

Can you provide some support for this assertion?

Here's what I found: http://www.nvca.org/ffax.html

Dreadnought · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:32 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 370):
Can you provide some support for this assertion?

Here's what I found: http://www.nvca.org/ffax.html

Just presentations I have sat in on, which include numbers from more than only NVCA members. It's a fuzzy world, as information is not required to be shared, unlike publicly traded firms.

Those NVCA numbers are definately only a piece of the overall market. Many big VCs I know are not even members.

Tugger · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:43 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 367):
And now how about this for change? Lets bankrupt an industry!

http://www.wsaz.com/political/headlines/33726759.html

The full version is here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

Shame the SF Chronicle decided to with hold the news. Makes you wonder what the LA Times has in it's drawers that they aren't sharing.

First:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 369):
Your own source says it has been available to the public since it was done. How are they withholding anything?

And second, if you listen to the whole of what he is saying, he is NOT saying he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, he is saying that if a company builds a coal fired plant that does not utilize "clean coal" technology, the same thing that McCain is pushing for, that the power plant will go bankrupt due to the costs of a carbon cap and trade, again something that McCain also supports:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

McCain would say the same thing as Obama is saying here, if a coal fired power plant were built nowadays and without any "clean coal" technology, it would go bankrupt. This is simply due to the modern cost of doing business in a cap and trade world.

I mean what would happen to a modern jet if it were built with Stage 1 (or Stage 2) category engines (if its market included the USA and Europe)? Think it might fail in the market? Think the company that built it might go bankrupt? Would anyone be wrong in saying so publicly?

Tugg

RJdxer · Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:01 pm

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 368):
I'm sorry but that is non-sense. Obama is a religious guy (too much for my taste to be honest), why would the Bible be at risk? Please explain.

I guess I have to make better use of the sarcasm smiley.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 368):
I think it has more to do with protecting our environment RJ.

And I'm all for that. But in essence again what he is doing is redistributing the wealth. In this case he'll suck the coal industry dry to try and promote alternative forms of energy that have yet to prove to be as cost efficient as coal.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 369):
Your own source says it has been available to the public since it was done. How are they withholding anything?

There is no mention of his energy policy regarding the coal industry which to say the least will impact far more people than any ruling in Nevada or how fmr. President Clinton feels about it. Which do you think is more important to the voter? You have to go through 25 minutes of the tape before you hit the revelant part. That is effectively hidden, or withheld if you will, from the average person. After listening to the entire tape, if you weren't frightened of his monetary policy before, you ought to be after listening to this. Not only that but the sheer arrogance of the man is almost unbelievable.

Charles79 · Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:33 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 373):

I guess I have to make better use of the sarcasm smiley.

Alright, guess I missed the joke!

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 373):
In this case he'll suck the coal industry dry to try and promote alternative forms of energy that have yet to prove to be as cost efficient as coal.

I think you have your response at the end of your statement..."as cost efficient as coal". Again, this is not about cost or an industry, it's about protecting the environment. Environmentally friendly practices are not necessarily cheaper than the current methods but that's the whole argument, it's about making the green alternative more attractive than the more damaging one. And yes, imposing taxes or requiring expensive cleaning processes is one way to do it. Same concept has been used in other countries where they tax petrol to the point that people find it cheaper to use mass transit alternatives instead of driving their own car.

RJdxer · Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:36 am

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 374):
Same concept has been used in other countries where they tax petrol to the point that people find it cheaper to use mass transit alternatives instead of driving their own car.

Then that is just a good way to break the economy. We all saw what happened when gas shot up to $4.00 a gallon not to mention JetA prices going up as well. To implement his strategy of "bankrupting" coal fired power plants does not leave a whole lot of options since he is not a proponent of nuclear either. Yes you want to try an protect the enviroment but at the end of the day you still have to be productive and if you have one of the most plentiful forms of domestic energy placed squarely off limits, that's going to be very hard to do.

baroque · Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:51 am

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 374):
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 373):
In this case he'll suck the coal industry dry to try and promote alternative forms of energy that have yet to prove to be as cost efficient as coal.

I think you have your response at the end of your statement..."as cost efficient as coal". Again, this is not about cost or an industry, it's about protecting the environment. Environmentally friendly practices are not necessarily cheaper than the current methods but that's the whole argument, it's about making the green alternative more attractive than the more damaging one.

I don't want a long tangential argument on the subject, but someone needs to look up mercury emissions from coal fired power stations and the high jinks that have been going on in relation to certifying mercury levels in some coals, notably a major source from Texas!! It is also useful to reference the work of Bob Finkleman on illnesses caused by arsenic in Chinese coals.

http://www.military-medical-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=1057

For a very brief summary.

Some of his papers have the most ghastly photographs of sufferers from various coal ash related ailments, happily for your tender eyes, they are in journals not available without a subscription.

As Charles implies, you need to consider system costs, not just input costs. I work on coals, and many of them are just not nice, not nice at all. Most are not too bad, but some that are nasty are in intensive use.

Tugger · Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:53 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 375):
Then that is just a good way to break the economy. We all saw what happened when gas shot up to $4.00 a gallon not to mention JetA prices going up as well. To implement his strategy of "bankrupting" coal fired power plants does not leave a whole lot of options since he is not a proponent of nuclear either. Yes you want to try an protect the enviroment but at the end of the day you still have to be productive and if you have one of the most plentiful forms of domestic energy placed squarely off limits, that's going to be very hard to do.

Actually you're wrong. Oil did not break the economy, the economy broke oil.
Oil (gasoline) use remained essentially unchanged until the price began to approach $5.00 a gallon. It was one of the things that surprised people, that we really didn't change our habits that much.

It was when the housing market collapsed that everything began to change. Once people were and/or felt poorer (couldn't refinance the house, or take out equity, or the home value declined) spending habits changed and driving modes changes (from SUV to the "other" higher mileage car in the garage). Then the financial wreck occurred and slaughtered the ability of companies to get loans and everybody started pulling in their bets and production. Energy trades were unwound and options were called requiring more stocks to be sold into a declining market and the economy softened reducing over all energy demand in the USA. Which in turn crushed the price of oil (for now).

You know the story.

Tugg

Charles79 · Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:19 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 375):
To implement his strategy of "bankrupting" coal fired power plants does not leave a whole lot of options since he is not a proponent of nuclear either.

There you have a point, you have to introduce environmentally friendly measures slowly so as to not destroy a particular industry on one blow. Going back to my tax on petrol example, you couldn't implement it overnight, at least not in a country like the US where for millions of citizens the car is a necessity rather than a luxury due to our poor planning and uncontrolled urban sprawl. What you do is that you implement tighter emission rules to take place in stages over several years. Then you introduce incentives for folks to buy more economic cars or to take public transport. At the same time you invest in public transport so that people have a convenient (and affordable) method to ditch the car to commute to work. Once that's done you can start taxing the petrol for private punters to gently suggest (force) them to use the car only for special occasions/recreation and commute in a tram/bus/train/bike, etc. If you are concerned about the oil-dependent businesses then you can tax only petrol but not diesel (for truckers' relief), you can leave JetA untouched, etc.

In this vein I highly doubt that Obama (or McCain, whomever wins) would simply "bankrupt" the coal industry overnight. They will surely have advisers to tell them better, if not they'll have strikes and protests that will.

RJdxer · Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:31 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 377):
Actually you're wrong. Oil did not break the economy, the economy broke oil.

You evidently haven't bought a lot of food lately. SUV's trucks, heavily horsepowered cars were all suffering way before the housing credit collapse in October. Energy prices were peaking in July/August. Airlines announced capacity reductions to begin in the third quarter which was well before the credit collapse.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 378):
They will surely have advisers to tell them better, if not they'll have strikes and protests that will.

You would hope but he has been touting his cap and trade system since before the primaries so I would be surprised to see him change it now.

Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

RE: Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net