Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[UK]

Five interesting NY Times articles I can't find much fault with.

David Brooks: The Social Animal

Bob Herbert: She's Not Ready

Paul Krugman: Blizzard of Lies (I know, it's Krugman but it still rings true)

McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions

Gov. Palin’s Worldview

*Edit: I just noticed that you might have to be signed in to the NYT site to see the articles but I'll go ahead and leave these up anyway.

Here's one from my favorite author/writer of the last 15 years: Thomas Friedman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opini ... ref=slogin

[cardsfansince82]

That youtube SNL clip doesn't work for me but it's up on hulu

http://www.hulu.com/watch/34465/saturda ... llary-open

[Michael]

Right now it looks like McCain is going to win. Unbelievable.

[GatewaySnayke]

Right now it looks like McCain is going to win. Unbelievable.

What happened?

[BW23]

So now that the debate comes back onto issues, you run away. You're okay with arguing with people and getting personal as long as it doesn't have to do with issues. But when it comes to people criticizing your beliefs, you throw a fit and call it a waste of time. I was framing the mindset of people who are opposed to Obama's views and now you're all butt hurt. God forbid should someone criticize your beliefs, but you can call liberalism all the names in the world.

I challenged your stances. I'm so sorry, once again, for trying to actually debate with you. You can dish it out, but the moment anybody challenges you, you start crying about it. I didn't insult you. I attacked you on the issues. Guess that's not okay. This [expletive] liberal thread is so silly. And a waste of time.

You're not challenging or debating issues. I don't care if people criticize my beliefs. You're "comebacks" were on the level of a 5th grader. You're flaming. You're picking fights. If you want to discuss things like a mature adult, then do so. If not, and I haven't seen any evidence that you're capable of it, then I guess it's business as usual.

[BW23]

Just taking from BW's list, are these really the issues that Christians care most about. Sanctioned killing of human life, allowing people unfettered ownership of the means to kill, opposition to government lending helping hands to people in need, you're against government involvement in funding education and healthcare. I mean what exactly does compassionate conservatism mean?

I support people being responsible for their actions. Liberals don't.

And, FWIW, I don't believe I mentioned being against government involvement in funding education. I don't believe I even mentioned the word healthcare at all. But thanks for completely distorting what I said. I'd expect nothing less.

[GatewaySnayke]

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008 ... ontin.html

The McCain Tax Increases--Continued

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor, is an honest man--which means he's something of a liability on the Straight Talk Express. A few months ago, he admitted to my colleague, Michael Scherer, that Barack Obama's economic plan would reduce taxes for most people. And now, in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, he makes it clear that the next President is going to have to raise taxes.

"If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," he tells Miller...and then he immediately makes it clear that the "spending side" part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf.

"It's arithmetic." Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that "the pressure are there" to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control. Miller does the arithmetic: that's an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)

It should be noted that Obama's proposed middle class tax cuts are nearly as foolish--and unlikely, in the long term--as McCain's, although Obama claims to pay for them by closing corporate loopholes and raising the top marginal tax rates to Clinton-era levels.

But it's John McCain who has opposed any and all tax increases, sort of--as I reported yesterday, McCain would tax employer-provided health care benefits. (He would also raise energy costs significantly with his cap-and-trade carbon emissions reduction program.)

Miller concludes:

So why does tax-cutting mania persist among Republicans, I asked Holtz-Eakin, the McCain adviser--given...that, as Holtz-Eakin himself explain to me, taxes soon have to go up substantially in any event?
"It's the brand," he said, "and you don't dilute the brand."
Miller's book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, will be published by Holt in January 2009. I'm about halfway through reading an advance copy and, as is always the case with Miller, this is a smart, sane and extremely well-written account of our current economic mess.

Update: What Holtz-Eakin admitted to Scherer was that the Obama's plan represented a net tax reduction over ten years.

[Jocephus]

Just taking from BW's list, are these really the issues that Christians care most about. Sanctioned killing of human life, allowing people unfettered ownership of the means to kill, opposition to government lending helping hands to people in need, you're against government involvement in funding education and healthcare. I mean what exactly does compassionate conservatism mean?

I support people being responsible for their actions. Liberals don't.

thanks for clearing that up

[GatewaySnayke]

Just taking from BW's list, are these really the issues that Christians care most about. Sanctioned killing of human life, allowing people unfettered ownership of the means to kill, opposition to government lending helping hands to people in need, you're against government involvement in funding education and healthcare. I mean what exactly does compassionate conservatism mean?

I support people being responsible for their actions. Liberals don't.

Who are these evil liberals?

Don't be dumb! They are the same ones who want to arm Muslims, give 40 acres and a mule to sexual predators, 80 hours of community service to rapists and not sentence people to death.

Just kidding. I have no idea what he was talking about.

[BW23]

Just taking from BW's list, are these really the issues that Christians care most about. Sanctioned killing of human life, allowing people unfettered ownership of the means to kill, opposition to government lending helping hands to people in need, you're against government involvement in funding education and healthcare. I mean what exactly does compassionate conservatism mean?

I support people being responsible for their actions. Liberals don't.

Who are these evil liberals?

Those that support many welfare programs, those that are pro life, those that are against gun control, those that are against stiff penalties for crimes, etc.

clement's trying to bash those of us who are compassionate conservatives for not supporting these types of things...when many do. However, I don't think it's necessarily government's job to do so. I spend my life helping those who are much less fortunate than I am, and I've given up a ton of money (rejecting job offers, for example), to do so. I spend everyday working to get people off of welfare. I work with supplying food banks. I do many other things. It's what I choose to do. I just don't think government should be in that business, in most cases.

Now, I realize "less government" is mostly a fairy tale now, but I still cling to that.