I would like a straight answer from the non-rabid people here

[SAWYER]

No rabid righties or lefties need input your BS


Where do the candidates really stand on the issues? I have heard and read so much conflicting things on the issues I don't know what do believe

 

[mugs]

Which issues?

 

[GTKeeper]

Are some issues more of THE issues for you than others?

 

[Farang]

There are web sites devoted to this if you do a Google search. I don't think anyone here is going to take the time to explain every issue to you.

 

[SAWYER]

Why not, they ramble on for pages and pages about much less

 

[OrByte]

pick an issue, research it.

Text

 

[Moonbeam]

I've done all the research and am unbiased. Obama is the best on important issues. His only down side is that he's black and a Muslim terrorist. But McCain was turned Soviet in a Viet Nam prison and that's much worse.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
No rabid righties or lefties need input your BS


Where do the candidates really stand on the issues? I have heard and read so much conflicting things on the issues I don't know what do believe

I don't think there is much difference in their espoused policies:

1. Taxes? Obama is going to give 95% of people a tax break. Geez, that sounds like a Repub platform to me. McCain, he offers tax cuts too.

I don't see much real difference in their *advertised* tax policy. I suppose a legitimate question may be can we trust these candidates to actually follow through?

2. Energy. Since Obama has publicaly agreed to pursue nuclear, the only difference I see is drilling. Oil prices have now fallen to the mid- $60's so expanded drilling has lost much allure for me (at $140 I find expanded drilling very attractive). At even a $100 per barrel the money the fed gov would have gotten from their share of royalties could have been used to fund alt energy research, but at $65 and falling it may not be worth it now. However, I would open areas to exploration (this requires some drilling) so in the future we can respond more quickly if need be.

Again, I suppose there is some question if Obama was truthful about nuclear.

3. Immigration/border control. Nobody's had a comment and we know what McCain's previous position was. I see no difference here, none public anyway.

4. Iraq, I don't see any real difference - just the rhetoric. The *ball* is in Iraq's court regardless of what the candidates say. So, I don't see much difference here either.

5., UHC, more accurately *universal health insurance*. I suppose there is a legitimate difference here. But I myself have not studied it sufficiently to describe them. I have not done so because, for one thing, no matter what they claim I believe when it comes out of Congress (no matter Obama's or McCain's proposal) it'll look so significantly different as to render current plans obselete.

IMO, the most sigificant differences are not their advertised policies on what we call the "big issues".

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Fern hasn't had his rabid shots yet.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Why not go to their websites and read?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Sawyer
No rabid righties or lefties need input your BS


Where do the candidates really stand on the issues? I have heard and read so much conflicting things on the issues I don't know what do believe

I don't think there is much difference in their espoused policies:

1. Taxes? Obama is going to give 95% of people a tax break. Geez, that sounds like a Repub platform to me. McCain, he offers tax cuts too.

I don't see much real difference in their *advertised* tax policy. I suppose a legitimate question may be can we trust these candidates to actually follow through?

2. Energy. Since Obama has publicaly agreed to pursue nuclear, the only difference I see is drilling. Oil prices have now fallen to the mid- $60's so expanded drilling has lost much allure for me (at $140 I find expanded drilling very attractive). At even a $100 per barrel the money the fed gov would have gotten from their share of royalties could have been used to fund alt energy research, but at $65 and falling it may not be worth it now. However, I would open areas to exploration (this requires some drilling) so in the future we can respond more quickly if need be.

Again, I suppose there is some question if Obama was truthful about nuclear.

3. Immigration/border control. Nobody's had a comment and we know what McCain's previous position was. I see no difference here, none public anyway.

4. Iraq, I don't see any real difference - just the rhetoric. The *ball* is in Iraq's court regardless of what the candidates say. So, I don't see much difference here either.

5., UHC, more accurately *universal health insurance*. I suppose there is a legitimate difference here. But I myself have not studied it sufficiently to describe them. I have not done so because, for one thing, no matter what they claim I believe when it comes out of Congress (no matter Obama's or McCain's proposal) it'll look so significantly different as to render current plans obselete.

IMO, the most sigificant differences are not their advertised policies on what we call the "big issues".

Fern

IMO, you can't begin to understand the differences in the choices by just looking at 'the main issues'.

Consider what voters were able to judge Bush on during the campaign of 2000, versus what his actual policies were.

The many things Bush did that are so opposed, were pretty much all not main 'campaign issues'.

The closest one I can think of was his tax cut, which was much different in the campaign described as being paid for with a fraction of the budget surplus going to pay for it.

So it's worthless to just look at that. You need to look at the larger party agendas, the ones they don't advertise, who backs them.

Did you know Bush, for example, would implement a radical ideology in government that viewed regulation as bad, and that he'd hand over the regulatory positions to the very industries being regulated, with all the problems that caused? No, but you know the Republican ideology.

I don't think Fern's summary is quite right - for example, his nearly equating Obama and McCain on taxes ignores the big difference Obama raises that McCain wants to give $300B more to the wealthiest people and corporations, while Obama will tax the top 2% with an increase in the top rate on income over $250K from 36% back to the Reagan level of 39%. He doesn't note McCain wants to start taxing employer-paid healthcare benefits (average value $12000), which may cause many to lose the benefit, and to offer a $5000 credit.

But again, my larger point is not to try to 'base it on the issues' alone.

You could not have anticipated Bush's making the US a nation that tortures, that would start an aggressive war, the corruption of the Justice Department with US Attorneys being told to prosecute false cases against Democrats shortly before an election or not to go after corrupt Republicans, from 'campaign issues'. You need to look at the larger ideologies and histories.

 

[OCGuy]

Why would you start a thread that 90% of P&N cant participate in?

 

[sonambulo]

Originally posted by: mugs
Which issues?

Sawyer. I don't know if there's a way to make this any bigger, flashing and have your computer scream it at you so I'm just going to bold it instead.

 

[Vic]

The only issues which McCain has genuinely and TRUTHFULLY differentiated himself from Obama are abortion and Iraq. And I'm pro-choice and knew that Bush was lying about the WMDs before we even attacked.

On everything else, McCain is basically a big govt liberal running under the Republican banner, with a religious right extremist (and her socially authoritarian policies) as his running mate to keep the base happy.

 

[boomerang]

Issues? Here's what you need to know.

They both are waging expensive campaigns and owe a lot of favors.

Top priority #1 will be to repay those favors while making the American public think they're looking out for their best interests.

Once they get in office, they're going to realize just how much deep doo-doo we're truly in and all of this rhetoric about what they planned to do will be forgotten. There won't be money available for any of it. They know this already, but they like to put a positive spin on things.

Starting one month after they take office, their top priority will be to do whatever they need to do to get elected for another term. Or perhaps their legacy (a term which makes me want to stomp on kittens when I hear it) or their presidential library will take precedence.

They just spent untold millions to get a job that pays $400K a year, so I guess the dental plan is pretty good. Unless there's another reason they wanted the job. Why you would go to all that effort for a lousy paying job where you work 24/7? Must be a reason, now what in the world could it be?

What I'm trying to say is there is little if any difference between the two. They'd really like you to think there is, which explains most of the lies we've been hearing for the past two years.

Don't be concerned about issues.

 

[nageov3t]

the biggest issue that's determining my vote right now is gays in the military and the awful, awful policy that is DA/DT. Obama's come out against it and, while he's hedged his bets and has to content with the anti-gay factions of the democratic party (see: the congressional black caucus), he's at least offering more hope on changing that than McCain, who isn't even entertaining the idea of reform.

 

[bctbct]

McCain tricked a plumber into campaigning for him.

Said plumber cant afford to pay his taxes while McCain puts a $1200 shirt on his new sidekick.

Dems will spend the money here, Republicans will spend the money on blackwater and Haliburton.

Thats all I need to know, hope that helps.

Oh yeah, a republican senator just got convicted of accepting $250,000 of house upgrades from big business that he was required to report and pay tax on....he didnt.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: bctbct
McCain tricked a plumber into campaigning for him.

Said plumber cant afford to pay his taxes while McCain puts a $1200 shirt on his new sidekick.

Dems will spend the money here, Republicans will spend the money on blackwater and Haliburton.
.

So Obama is going to stop sending money to mercenaries and Hailburton?

 

[rudder]

Illegal Immigration:

Obama stands for... hmmmm McCain stands for hmmmmmmmmmm....

Oh wait... neither candidate will discuss it for fear of angering the hispanic voters or angering the majority of Americans who are against illegal immigration.

 

[justly]

I have to agree that you need to be more specific about the issues you want to know about.
That being said some of the biggest issues for me are inflation, job growth/minimizing or even reversing outsourcing of jobs and a enenrgy stratagy that reduces forign dependence.

Neither one directly addresses inflation so the only way to evaluate this is to look at what policies they propose that can cause inflation. IMO Obama is far worse on inflation due to his policy to massively increaseing minimum wage. I'm sure some will counter that this is a good policy, and it is if you work for minimum wage (and especially have a long term fixed rate loan, like a home loan) then raising minimum wage should look good as this will make your income increase faster than inflation (while your long term loan payments will stay the same, making for less of an impact on your pay check). On the other hand everyone (even the minimum wage employee) will suffer the inflation that a minimum wage increase will cause. This inflation will pull more people down a rung on the economic ladder by reducing the buying power of a dollar, the help it provides to a minimum wage employee is only temporary lasting a few years and being less benificial each year. For those people that think I am selfish or uncareing, I did not oppose adjusting minimum wage to compensate for inflation on july 24, 2008 or the increase scheduled for july 24, 2009 just the massive increase Obama proposes.

Both have a plan for job growth and minimizing or reversing outsourcing , McCain wants to reduce business tax and capital gains tax to attract businesses to America and promote American business growth, and develope all forms of American energy including alternative energy, nuclear and drilling for more American oil. Obama wants to spend $150 billion over ten years (if I remember correctly) at developing alternative energy but doesnt seem as enthusiastic about nuclear or oil drilling, and proposes a $3000 tax relief to companies for each new full time American employee a company hires.
The downsides to these approaches could include (on McCains side) a market driven move to alternative energy (wich could be slightly slower) and people being unhappy about building nuclear plants, drilling on American soil, or people with enough money to invest and businesses not getting taxed more (on Obamsa side) a $3000 tax relief by itself is not incentive to hire someone unless the economy is growing to begin with (kind of like how you can save money buying something you dont need, just because its on sale), spending $150 billion, having reservations about developing nuclear and drilling for oil, increasing capital gains tax, and no tax relief unless new full time employees are hired.

Energy development is covered above.

 

[BoomerD]

You're FAR more likely to get "non-rabid" answers to this by posting in OT than you will here. Rabid seems to be the common standard for most posters in P&N.

Now, send ME the COD5 code...

 

[ProfJohn]

This is simple.

Anything and everything they say on the campaign trail is bogus.

If you really want to know what they believe look at their records.

McCain is a conservative with some populist views.
Obama is a left wing liberal.