BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone

Subject: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 11:44 AM

Partisan slanging and counter-attacks have grown wearisome, I agree. Defaming the muddle-headed is a simple game for mammaluccas, and as a mammalucca myself, I have played it exptensively. But I suggest we reserve this thread for specific discussions of policy and platform and plank, refraining from the ad hominem.

The driving issues facing us in this election and the near future are pretty well known.

1. How do we re-energize our economy
2. How do we prevent economic chaos from past mismanagement?
3. How do we address injustice in our legal and economic systems without making the cardinal sin of sliding into simple-minded socialism and suppressing initiative and innovation in individuals?
4. How do we ideally manage the health-care needs of our population, to try to ensure it is available when needed and where needed?
5. How can we turn our ewducational system around to strengthen the future generations of the country in a more competitive "global" marketplace?
6. How do we address global warming and other critical environmental issues?
7. How do we ensure the nation is independent of external controls on the energy front and wean ourselves away from non-renewable polluting energy systems?
8. Can we fine-tune our justice system to prevent mass reaction or popular stupidity from undermining the democratic system?   
9. How can we define the religion/state boundary more clearly to prevent theology or superstition from swaying the commonweal?
10. What should our tax system do, and what should it look like, to provide an balanced, ethical and adequate national budget as free from fat as possible?

There are a few others--government ethics reform, and the moral decline of media comes to mind -- but those are the major burning issues I think about when I consider the future track of the country.

Does McCain offer more viable, more robust, or more effective polciies in these areas? Or does Obama? Or someone else altogether? Which ones, and why are they better?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 11:51 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — John McCain's health plan won't lower the ranks of the uninsured. Barack Obama's fails to curb the soaring cost of health care, meaning initial gains in helping more people buy health insurance would eventually be undermined.

That's the assessment of health care economists who critiqued the plans of the two presidential candidates.

The critiques, published in the journal Health Affairs on Tuesday, reflect fundamental disagreements over how to improve access to health coverage. They also sound warnings about what could go wrong with each candidate's plan.

McCain would dramatically reshape the way millions of people get health insurance. The Republican would do away with income tax breaks for health insurance obtained through the work place, instead treating the payments as taxable wages.

In exchange, he would give people a $2,500 tax credit for individuals who buy health insurance and a $5,000 tax credit for families that do so.

The tax credit could help people buy insurance through their employer. Many would also use it buy coverage directly from insurers in the individual market. They could select from insurers licensed in any state. With more competition, costs would fall and quality would increase, McCain reasons.

Analysts writing in the journal warned against that approach.

They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain's plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market — little more than a wash.

And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode.

Another concern is that insurers would gravitate to states with less onerous coverage requirements. For example, 29 states insist insurers in the individual and small group market cover cervical cancer screenings. They could locate in states without such requirements.

Obama wants the government to subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who otherwise would have trouble affording it on their own.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions.

The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered. After all, it's largely somebody else who is picking up the tab.

"Any major expansion of coverage will be costly, and the Obama promise of affordability would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically," said the authors.

Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a "meaningful" payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange. The authors said that either way, job losses or pay cuts would result.

(AP report)

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 12:07 PM

Those are a lot of good questions, Amos.

For me, the number one issue is ending the war and withdrawing USA forces from Iraq. They went in on false pretences, it was an act of illegal aggression, and the USA should get out of Iraq and probably pay Iraq some war reparations. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul took that issue straight on and were honest about it, and have remained so.

Obama talks as if he is in favor of ending the war, but I am by no means convinced that an Obama administration would follow through on that. However, they might, I suppose.

There appears to be no possibility at all that John McCain would end that war or admit that it was wrong to prosecute it in the first place.

Therefore, reality being what it is, if I could vote I'd vote for Obama, cross my fingers, and hope for the best.

As for the various economic issues you mentioned, they are becoming more pressing all the time....but I'll leave commenting on those to others who are probably better informed about them than I am.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 12:38 PM

Not to mention that it's the Democrats who should win the election - not Barack Obama personally. And it's the Republicans who need defeating... not McCain personally, although that part would be nice...

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 12:49 PM

Well, my sentiments are with you, Mrrz. But why? What polciies or planks are the Democrats offering that will clearly improve thigns, in your view?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 01:39 PM

Compare the tax plans. Someone here criticized the Obama plan as illustrating the Democratic Party line.

Umm, yeah. That's why I vote Democrat, generally. That and the Republican Party plan, as illustrated.

The same person also criticized the source of the graph as biased, but I think the link in that case was to some other partisan site which must have borrowed the Washington Post graphic. (Of course, some would call the Post biased...) For me, I can't see how the numbers can be twisted, and other graphs of the the same topic tell the same story.

What the Post doesn't give is the net change in taxes. All McCain's changes are decreases, so, yes, he's for lower taxes overall. Sounds great, except how will he put together a budget with that much of a decrease in income?

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Alice
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:02 PM

For those who have not already read the issue positions of Obama, it has been online for a long time, and here is the link:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

LH, more on how Obama would handle the Iraq war issue is here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

There is more to read there than this, but here is a quote in part:

"Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:04 PM

Tie things in together. Right now we have a health crisis, a prisoner overage, all sorts of national disasters, houses being ruined by them, energy problems, and failure to educate the "average" student..or train them in skilled trades. Combine those problems to form solutions.

Health care: Realize changes are coming and demand is high but just not being met for financial reasons. The floodgates will soon be open and there are not enough health providers, particuarly in rurual and inner city and low-income areas, most definitely for homeless, street people etc. Find people in neighborhoods, middle-aged, young, all ages. Give them free training in health fields. Likewise skilled trades..electricians, plumbers, cement people. We keep hearing, whenever I ask why do we keep building out of not even wood but fake paper wood these days..well, that is just what we know how to do. It shouldn't take more than a few months of training to train people in constructing cement block houses. Or other forms of cement work. Oh, but it is all going to China. Well, other rocks are right here in the US. Figure out how to use them.

Anyway, get peoplle in the pipeline, with free education if they serve in certain areas or in public sector after. No nurses? There are so many adolescents picking asparagus right now who would love to be nurses. Train them in their native languages if possible. Ukranian, certainly Spanish. Wherever there is a need. If not nurses, entry level assistants or whatever.

Set up clinics all over. Give each congretation of churches of a certain size a nurse, subject to restrictions on various things of course. Have visiting nurses. Have way more school nurses.

Have plans for getting docile prisoners out of jail. They usually need housing, they will need training of some sort (which should be offered in jail). Have dormitories, highly secure, with all sorts of video cameras, check in systems etc, so neighbors are assured of their own safety and prisoners will not be tempted to relapse, form gangs, abuse each other etc. Well, separate the possibly dangerous from the docile and the docile would need minimal supervision. Have them engaged in community cleanup, forestry, repair of parks etc. if they do not have paying jobs.

Tax -- simplify. Make sure there are no tax shelters set up to lose money. Have a way simpler code. Let lower income people pay fewer taxes.

Infrastructure: use economic downturn times to improve infrastructure. Again, we should be training youth in the trades. One reason this country is falling apart. A combination of not enough skilled workers in some areas and idle young men and women at the same time. Get some sense people, especially those in education. Might not happen in my lifetime though. mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:16 PM

Energy problems...One problem is big huge parking lots. Well, for global or local warming. Restructure building codes so you can't have these endless acres of concrete. Break them up into grids with some vegetation. Oh but sap will get on my car. Deal with it. Oh but birds will sit on the bushes and poop on my car. Deal with it. Oh but bad guys will hide in the bushes. Have to have the right kind of bushes that will provide some greenery, not grow too tall and can be kept trimmed so people can not hide, also want to keep animals out. Rhododendrons would do the job here, can be quite beautiful, foliage yearround, but they do have sap problems. Too bad. At some time we have to raise grownups in this country. Get on board. Throw a tarp over your car if you have to. Also, inner cities tend to not have these huge parking areas, but they are so short of greenery sometimes. Get going on planting urban forests etc. Trees and shrubs and flowers here and there. They say it is what turned around the horrible New York tenements..Germans moving in and hanging flower pots etc. mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:16 PM

No universal and just heathcare system can be put in place through the market. The profit motive defeats it. Under te market those most n need of health cover are the most likely to be refused it or to have it priced exhorbitantly.

Even an obligation on insurers to provide universal coverage without regard to medical history at flat rate premiums will not work - because capitalists dictate the cost of supply to distress purchasers.

The only answer is a fully nationalised health service free to end users - but not supplying merely elective wishes such as boob jobs. Medical intervention should be based on a "reasonable need" criterion of prevent defensive, cost-inflating processes. Voluntary euthanasia will reduce some unreasonably expensive end-of-life procedures.

Something vaguely similar is needed for elderly care.

These measures will require tax increases on a progressive tax scale.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:17 PM

Graduated national pension

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:17 PM

Another interesting comparison: Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) page comparing the candidates on science and technology.

(This page doesn't work right using Firefox or Safari on a Mac, but you can select View, Page Style, No Style from the Firfox menu bar and get the unprettified text. Or use a different browser.)

SEA states its mission as: "to renew respect for evidence-based debate and decision-making in politics and at all levels of government."

Key areas for me where the McCain policy proposals are not "evidence-based" are sex education, and science education. That bothers me a lot.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:20 PM

Tax avoidance control. Possibly a legislated doctrine allowing the IRS to substitute simple obvious commercial transactions for any sequence of transactions or structures that appear to them to be intended to reduce tax burden. Long-arm legislation to catch offshore tax planning.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:21 PM

Economic chaos has emerged from the practice of capitalism. The first step to cure is to recognise that socialism is not simple minded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:29 PM

Abandon adversarial trial and institute investigating judges - both in criminal and civil matters. Abolish legal professional privilege and the rule against self-incrimination.

Introduce unfair dismissal and redundancy legislation.

Root and branch reform of the legislative process to eliminate pork, lobbying, and bill tacking.

Render the presidential "signing statement" unlawful.

Apply at least US domestic standards of justice, liberty, and habeas corpus to all under US power.

Abolish selective enforcement of foreign judicial awards: either a country's awards are enfored in the US or they are not.

Extradition arrangements should be truly reciprocal.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:34 PM

In the WaPo graph based on the Tax Policy Center analyisis, McCain's program offers a 4.4% cut tot hose whose income is over 4.4 million. It offers a 3.4% cut to those over 603 thousand. In the "real people" part of the distribution curve, where most salary and wage workers struggle to get ahead, the comparison is as follows:

  Income         McCain Plan         Obama Plan
  
  $160K-226K     -3%                   -1.9%
  
  111K-160K         -2.5%              -2.1%
  
  66K-111K         -1.4%               -1.8%    
  
  37K--66K         -0.7%               -2.4%
  
  18.9K-37K         -0.5%               -3.6%
  
  < 18.9K           -0.2%                -5.5%
  

Note that 60% of taxpayers are in the bottom three income brackets.

As can be seen from the above, the Obama plan makes the increases much more meaningful to those making less than 66K.

The McCain plan gives the largest change to those who make over 2.8 million. (No-one I know).


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:34 PM

Education requires liberating from the bad attitudes of both pupils and governors.

School should be entitled to require decent speech and conduct in pupils - the freedom of speech has no place for pupils in the classroom - and to exclude for breach.

The US style "test program" and parrot learning needs to be replaced with longer term goals and understanding.

Conversely, governors should have less power to interfere with teachers for private matters.

Working parents need viable state nurseries.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:37 PM

Global warming? Tax petrol and diesel. Subsidise railways. Tax air flight. Pour huge sums into underground commuter rail networks and buses. Apply congestion charges to car use in cities. Start to tax coal and oil-fired electricity plants more heavily.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:49 PM

Water? Tax water above a certain mimimum amount for daily use for families or persons. HIghly tax lawn water. Make sure there is enough for agriculture. mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 03:12 PM

HEALTHCARE (NPR)

Comparing The Plans

McCain: He would replace the current tax-free status of health insurance coverage provided by employers with refundable tax credits worth $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to help purchase insurance. McCain would allow the sale of insurance policies across state lines, rather than state by state, as is currently the case.

Obama: He would create a new plan for those who lack other access to coverage, as well as a National Health Insurance Exchange to help pool the purchasing power of small businesses and individuals. Obama would also offer a combination of subsidies and tax credits to help make coverage more affordable. He would mandate health insurance coverage for children, but not adults. Obama would create a federally sponsored health insurance plan, similar to Medicare, that would compete with private plans for those under age 65.



Morning Edition, August 13, 2008 · Health care has fallen from its status as the top domestic issue in this year's presidential campaign, but that doesn't mean voters no longer care.

A poll released last week found more than 80 percent of those surveyed think the nation's health care system needs fundamental change. Both Arizona Sen. John McCain and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are promising that, but change is really the only feature their plans have in common.

McCain and Obama have very different prescriptions for solving the problem of ballooning health care costs, says Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health politics and policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"There are many issues where Obama and McCain differ," he said. "I'm not sure there's any issue where they differ as much as this. Sometimes we complain in politics that Democrats and Republicans run to the center, and they copy each other with

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 03:45 PM

The Wall Street Journal has an essay on the two health plans:

"Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five ways:

- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.

- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.

- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.

- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.

- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.

In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.

Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.

We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are no better.

The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.

In contrast, Sen. McCain, who constantly repeats his no-new-taxes promise on the campaign trail, proposes a big tax hike as the solution to our health-care crisis. His plan would raise taxes on workers who receive health benefits, with the idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage. A study conducted by University of Michigan economist Tom Buchmueller and colleagues published in the journal Health Affairs suggests that the McCain tax hike will lead employers to drop coverage for over 20 million Americans.

What would happen to these people? Mr. McCain will give them a small tax credit, $5,000 for a family and $2,500 for an individual, and tell them to navigate the individual insurance market on their own.

For middle- and lower-income people, the credits are way too small. They are less than half the cost of policies today ($12,000 on average for a family), and are far below the 75% that most employers offering coverage contribute. Further, their value would erode over time, as the credit increases less rapidly than average premiums.

Those already sick are completely out of luck, as individual insurers are free to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Mr. McCain has proposed a high-risk pool for the very sick, but has not put forward the money to make it work.

Even for those healthy enough to gain coverage in the individual insurance market, the screening, marketing and individual underwriting that insurers do to separate healthy from sick boosts premiums by 17% relative to employer-provided insurance, well beyond the help offered by the McCain tax credit.

The immediate consequences of the McCain plan are even worse. The McCain plan is a big tax increase on employers and workers. With the economy in recession, that's the last thing America's businesses need.

Finally, Mr. McCain does nothing to bend the curve of rising health-care costs downward. He does not fund investments in learning, rewarding and preventing. Eliminating state coverage requirements will slash preventive service availability.

The high cost-sharing plans he envisions will similarly discourage preventive care. And as he does nothing about the hidden costs of the uncovered -- expensive ER visits, recurring conditions resulting from inadequate follow-up care."

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 03:59 PM

Another thing..we have children without homes and we have people with shortages of money. There should be improved foster care and adoption situations.

Also, we need to tie in economic chaos iwth social chaos and with health education and with the notion that an impoverished teen mother is a drain on the system and sometimes can but often can not raise her child in a safe and healthy environment. So that somehow has to be dealt with from a health and economic perspective. And for the record, I am not blaming the victim. I do blame enablers who keep thinking this is either a good idea or somehow just has to happen. It will, given human nature, but there have to be social barriers, and physical barriers in the form of separating boys and girls in their younger teens, and chaperoning them until they reach a certain age..certainly at least 16. Anyway, pregnancy prevention must be a priority, espeically in children and very young teens..12, 13, 14 etc. And I do not exclude older women or very rich and beautiful and socially powerful women from this either, although they probably have fewer problems and more resources. Adopt or take in foster children or do volunteer work or do something but don't bring fatherless children into the world. All sorts of problems solved right there. And quit blaming the fathers entirely. Unless it was coerced, which it very often is of course, the mother was there too and allowed the loser (sometimes) father into her life.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: irishenglish
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:07 PM

Restore the name of the US worldwide, including a reasonable withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

600 dollar tax credits sound good on paper, but when most people did not buy Ipods and flat screen tv's with them, but spent them on the heating bill and gas for the car, or a crapload of groceries, somethings gotta give. Need to lower the cost of living. I live in NYC, a high cost area for sure, but when staples like milk and bread are getting higher and higher, there's something wrong

Repair and reinvigorate our transportation infastructure. With more concern for the environment, even from people who were scoffing at such things 10 years ago, now, more than ever would be the time to look into better means of mass transportation, not just in our cities. The time to restore the once great American railway system has come in my opinion.

Stick a tongue depresser down the throats of all the big business pharmaceutical companies and such immediatly. It ain't working, and more and more people are living without health care. It is a crisis.

NASA was created to send America in to space. There was a spirit about it that was America-not how we do it, but let's do it, lets get it done. The time has come as well for a call to explore and reward anybody working towards fuel alternatives, and improving our environment in general

Just a few, in my humble opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:18 PM

MG - you cannot prevent sex.

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:44 PM

My primary purpose in starting this thread was less about "what would be ideal programs for the US?" than "what are the factual issues being presented on the campaign?"--in other words trying to get the election issues clarified as factually as possible.

I think generalized statements of broad purpose are very important, and I disagree witht hose who "accuse" Obama of being too broad and general in his statements about vision and ideal polciies. But it is also necessary to be able to say why one program or platform is better than another.

There are multiple threads afoot in which the individuals are compared and praised or condemned on the strength of their rhetoric and their personalities, and their are plenty of others over the last few years about what "ideal programs" might address.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:53 PM

You can, at least in younger children. You must. It is a child neglect and/or abuse issue. You keep them separated and you keep them chaparoned. I am not aware of other ways. I do not think you teach 14 year olds to make "good choices." You do not give them access, particularly after school. Every young teen should be accounted for at all times, by parents or in loco parentis situations. Older teens, I think you are right, but the damage is far less. mg

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:59 PM

Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

http://www.slate.com/id/2200134?nav=wp

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:55 PM

Your inclusion here of such a heavy-handed interpretation of Obama's future actions is a bit inappropriate.

Saying that one should ignore the context in which he said something is disingenuous, and misleading, IMHO. If he does win in November, he will make decisions based on the current facts. He is far too intelligent to be whipped into some kind of knee jerk response of such magnitude just because someone said he had to because he said something six months or a year earlier. Come on.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 06:07 PM

A side by side comparison of the candidates' nominal positions on science issues is interesting. Of the two Obama is far more concise and appears more knowledgeable, in my own opinion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 06:23 PM

Obama's platform on the economy is laid out on this page.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 06:32 PM

There is currently only one issue, which strangely nobody mentions.

The collapse of the American financial system.
Mr Obama and Mr McCain are completely powerless to effect any "change" on this issue. They are shown for what they are...string puppets.
Stop cheerleading for a lost cause, next time try supporting a candidate who represents real change, someone who will take on the $yStem, not apologise for it...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 08:29 PM

What the Democrats will inherit Our Cup Runneth Over

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 08:52 PM

Amos, Amos, Amos...

The Amercian people don't give a flyin' fig about issues... They just want to be entertained...

Yeah, if Obama wants to win he he going to have to tune into TV wrestling and learn up some stuff about hype... He's gonna have to become a shoe pounder like McCain...

This election has nothin' to do with issues or Obama would be up by a couple thousand points...

Rememeber the Saddleback ambush with Rev. Warren??? Well, Obam gave well thought out answers and McCain interupted Rev. Warren's questions with fist pounding answers...

This is this election... It won't matter iif the entire financial market melts down as long as the electricity is still on, the mall is still open and there is gas in the SUV... That is all Americans are concerned about and...

...sadly, nothin' else...

I wish I was wrong but McCain can shoe pound his way to Pennsylvania Avenue without one single intellegent position on any given issue...

Face it... America is sufficiently dumbed down to where it would elect Little Hawk's friggin' dashound if the mut came accross as a strong believer in whatever a dumb dog believes in...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Campaign -- On the Issues Alone
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 03:11 PM

Climate change may not be one of the key topics in the US presidential election. But it underwrites many issues that are - most noticeably oil prices, energy security and nuclear power.

So what are the positions of Democrat candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain on climate change? Here we comb various sources such as the candidates' manifestoes, their answers reported in Nature Reports: Climate Change this week, and a debate between two of the candidates' senior advisers.

On reducing US greenhouse gas emissions

Obama aims to bring domestic greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below these levels by 2050. He supports a strong limit on greenhouse gas emissions - also known as a "carbon cap" - and believes businesses should trade the right to emit greenhouse gases in a cap-and-trade scheme similar to the European one.

Unlike the European scheme, Obama believes polluters should not be given a number of free permits which they can then trade. Instead, he believes permits should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. "The choice not to auction is, in effect, a choice to give the permits to the incumbent polluters," says Dan Esty, an environmental law professor at Yale University who spoke on Obama's behalf in a debate in September. "Auctions create the incentive for people that can provide solutions to come into the market and help others solve their problems, help others not have to pay."

Obama says a carbon tax would be redundant to an effectively designed cap and says he would not pursue a combination of the two policies.

McCain also supports a cap-and-trade system. He aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. He is not in favour of a carbon tax, nor of auctioning off emissions permits from the start.

On agreeing to binding emission limits within an international treaty

Obama believes the US must rejoin the international climate change negotiations. He does not believe the US should wait for China and India to agree to binding emissions before it does so, but he believes that those nations must not be far behind in making their own commitments. Obama believes that the immediate challenge is to develop the consensus in Congress needed to cap domestic emissions, and that domestic action will strengthen the US's ability to engage the international community in the Copenhagen process set to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

McCain believes the US should not sign on to an international climate treaty unless China and India agree to participate. He also believes this is a necessary step to successfully pass climate legislation through Congress. However, McCain has said that if the efforts to include China and India in an international treaty fail, the US still has an obligation to act.

On investments into alternative and renewable energy

Obama says he will invest $150 billion over 10 years in the development and deployment of renewable energy, including a long-term extension of the production tax credit for renewable energy and the doubling of federal research and development funds for clean energy.

McCain says he will encourage a market for alternative energy technologies through cap-and-trade. He proposes to offer a $5,000 tax credit to consumers that purchase zero-emission cars and a $300 million prize for the development of battery technology that will bring plug-in hybrids and fully electric automobiles into commercial use.

On managing the costs of rising energy bills and reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Obama says he will take steps to reduce the burden of rising energy prices on US families, including an emergency energy rebate, a plan to reduce price speculation in the oil market and a programme to protect one million low-income homes from the effects of the weather.

McCain promises to use a portion of the profits generated by auctioning off cap-and-trade permits to provide relief to low-income families. But he does not support bringing in such an auction immediately.

On exploiting domestic oil reserves

Obama has reservations about drilling for oil development off US coastlines. He will however consider a package that provides meaningful advances towards a clean-energy future, while allowing for limited outer-continental shelf drilling.

McCain supports aggressive offshore drilling and plans to expand the exploration and production of domestic oil and natural gas. McCain traditionally has not supported drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, but has recently hinted that his position could change. His running mate, Sarah Palin, strongly supports drilling in the Refuge.

On coal power stations and carbon capture and sequestration

Obama would also devote part of the revenue from the auction of emissions permits to the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technology. He supports developing five commercial-scale, coal-fired power plants capable of capturing their carbon emissions and storing them away with the private sector.

McCain will commit to spending $2 billion annually to promote clean-coal technologies.

On nuclear power

Obama told Nature that it will be difficult to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power and that all-non-carbon forms of energy (which include nuclear) must be investigated. Obama does not believe that the Department of Energy's proposed underground nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for the permanent disposal of the entire nation's nuclear waste. "Let's not torque the choice toward nuclear," said Esty. "McCain favours a big commitment to nuclear power that could involve expenditures of $300 billion that may or may not be the right path forward."

McCain believes nuclear power should comprise a significant portion of US energy production. "We all know in the end, that addressing global warming is about innovation and new technologies," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, who presented McCain's views at the debate at which Esty spoke for Obama. "But there is one zero-emissions technology that's out there right now, that we can take advantage and Senator McCain believes we should take advantage of it in an aggressive way." McCain wishes to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and eventually to build 100 new plants. He believes that nuclear waste could be safely stored at Yucca Mountain.

(New Scientist website)