Over the past several months I have noticed a trend with McCain. He seems to move more and more towards Bush's polices. Much of what he has said seems to parallel Bush's own words. In the past McCain has been a harsh radical republican. But nows seems to be drifting toward the middle of the road. Much like Bush in 2000 to win against Al gore. This brings up some questions is McCain putting on a act? If elected will he go back to the radical republican he has been in the past? Bush certainly did when he was elected and I for one do not want another Bush like candidate in office. Which is what McCain is looking like more and more each day.
McCain is promising to change this and fix that. But we all know that republicans never change anything and if by some miracle they do. It always turns out bad. (ex.Stock Market crash, etc) McCain's health care plan is most likely one of the biggest jokes ever conceived. It would eliminate the tax breaks afforded to workers with employer-provided health benefits.In exchange, he would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 to single people and of $5,000 to families, with the goal of stoking competition in the individual insurance market. The elimination of the exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years. The problems with this plan is that if you have a severe injury and rack up a hospital bill over the 2,500 or 5,000 you get stuck paying the remaining balance. In the words of a great man "You would be better off if he came to your doorstep and pissed on you feet."(Lewis Black)
Let's take a look at McCain's Iraq war plans shall we. Over all they are not much different then Bush's. McCain wants us to send over 100,000 more troops. The total amount of troops we have in the Military is 1,426,705. With much of them stationed on bases overseas and a good portion serving as National Guard and Coast Guard. Having 280,000 in Iraq will put a serve strain on our Military. Which leads to the question will McCain start the draft. The answer is looking more and more like yes.
McCain, two months ago said he would raise taxes on the upper classes to aid the middle and lower classes. But now he says he will not. In fact he wants to eliminate much of the taxes put on the upper classes. which surprise! Is what Bush has been doing since elected. Yet another act that seems very Bush like.
Can McCain be an effective President? Well if you have seen the last six speeches your answer to that question is most defiantly no. He had to be corrected by a aid not once but three times in one of those speeches when he said that Iran had been funding certain Terrorist groups. Which is a completely false statement. That his aid tired on several occasions to correct him on but he seemed unable to grasp this concept. In another speech he stood in front of a closed factory and then tired to tell us that our economy is fine and we are not in a depression. Oooooh that's right I said it. The bad word among politicians. But if you look at our economy that's what we are in. In fact the Fed said they will no longer cut rates anymore because we can no longer afford to do so.How bad is our economy when we can no longer afford to cut rates. The republicans seem to be in denial.
Overall as a candidate McCain is simply a carbon copy of Bush himself. This is not what our country needs. We need a forward thinker which the republican party seems to lack. It's not their fault their republicans. That's nothing new. In fact there hasn't been a new idea in that party since Taft was in office. A democrat is what we need and a democrat is what it will be.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think for a young democrat you're doing very well. You have statments that range from inconsistencies to outright lies. I find this almost ridiculous but definitely funny. By the way that's the spelling of definitely. Just to torture you, read this: http://progressiveu.org/111321-you-elected-them
They're ALL putting on an act. And all presidential candidates who have come before them were putting on an act. It's what they do to get elected.
I am a Democrat, but I disagree with your assessment of McCain. If he were to win, I think he would be MUCH better than Bush has been, because I get the impression he is, at least, a man of some integrity. That said, I really hope he doesn't win, but I may change my tune if Hillary gets the nomination. I question her integrity. Integrity is my big issue this year.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
admire his integrity at least as much as you do...
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/81342/
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Hey, thanks for that link. Man, I wish the Dems would quit going after each other and start shedding some light on McCain's skeletons.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
After reading your comments about Republicans, I came to the conclusion that you need to burn your history books. Republicans never change anything? What about Calvin Coolidge's decision to cut taxes in 1920's, which resulted in one of the greatest periods of economic growth in American history (i.e. the Roaring Twenties)? Or that Coolidge opposed Woodrow Wilson's idealistic interventionist policies? Have you forgotten that it was two Republicans - Eisenhower & Nixon - who got us out of the wars in Korea & Vietnam, respectively? Upon leaving office in January 1961, Dwight Eisenhower warned against the "Military Industrial Complex." Yet it was a Democrat - Lyndon Johnson - who gave the Military Industrial Complex the war they wanted (Vietnam). Ronald Reagan brought about another period of tremendous economic growth during the 1980s. His policies also led to the eventual demise of the Soviet Union (i.e. the Evil Empire). In contrast, the late 1970s were one of the worst periods in American history. Our economy was in the tank, there were gasoline shortages, urban decay was at an all-time high, & Islamic fundamentalists in Iran seized our embassy & took over fifty Americans hostage. And who was president during this time? Why it was Jimmy Carter, a Democrat!!! The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on Carter's watch, & his response was to.....boycott the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow. Way to show those commie bastards, you friggin' peanut farmer!!! Today, Carter is a messenger boy for Hamas.
You can't blame Herbert Hoover for the 1929 Stock Market Crash. There was no government regulation at the time. What you can blame him for is raising taxes (the 1932 Revenue Act) & imposing tariffs (the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) as a means of correction. The Stock Market Crash sent our economy into a deep recession. Hoover's responses to the crash are what brought about the Great Depression. Even though Hoover was a Republican, his policies were......shall we say Democratic? Herbert Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce under Calvin Coolidge. "Silent Cal" had said of Hoover, "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."
I agree, the Republican Party has had some swell impacts on society. But I don't think your citations of history are that one-sided. What do you think of my attempt to balance your argument?
The 1920s resulted in one of the greatest periods of economic growth in American history for one reason--low taxes? What about the post-war boom, a demobilized public with money in its pockets b/c of soldiers? Didn't government imposed infrastructure play a lofty role, employing people to work during that decade?
The Depression was the result of solely regulation? What about stock market speculation--the stuff that's landed the current housing bubble?
Lyndon B. Johnson's war policies deserve as much mud as you can throw at them. They represented the same sort of pre-emptive Republican regimes that we currently undertake.
I submit that Ronald Reagan's so-called devolution of government, while he built up the "military industrial complex" (you mentioned it) was as pointless as the Peanut Farmer's boycott.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
There was actually a "Mini-Depression" after the First World War (1920 - 21). Many of the soldiers that you believe contributed to the economic growth of the 1920's actually died of the flu epidemic after they returned from Europe. So Calvin Coolidge's tax cut & government downsizing were the main reasons for the massive economic growth of the 1920's.
My comments about the Stock Market Crash & the Great Depression were simply in response to youngdem's belief that Republicans were solely to blame for the Stock Market Crash.
Aside from the current administration, what other Republican "regime" has engaged in pre-emptive war (you did say "regimes," which is plural)? It's usually Democrats who are interventionists (Woodrow Wilson in World War I, FDR in World War II, Harry Truman in Korea & JFK / LBJ in Vietnam).
Ronald Reagan's military build-up & tough stance against the Soviet Union resulted in a crippling blow to Communism. In other words, Reagan's eight years in office did more to turn the tide against Communism than the previous seven administrations combined. Reagan held a simple yet effective belief when it came to dealing with these scumbags: "They lose, we win." As far as Reagan's military build-up being as pointless as Jimmy Carter's Olympic boycott, you might want to ask the people of eastern Europe about that. For the better part of fifty years, they lived under brutal Communist rule. Or do you see the collapse of the Berlin Wall as a bad thing?
I don't see anything wrong with government downsizing. As Reagan said, "Government isn't the solution the problem, government IS the problem!!!" Our government is not supposed to take care of people from the cradle to the grave. If that's the kind of government that you want, then go live in Europe. This country was founded by people who were trying to get away from that kind of government!!! Our Constitution begins with the words, WE THE PEOPLE, not THE PEOPLE UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
Calvin Coolidge when elected put in to effect the famous republican Trickle down theory. Giving huge tax breaks to the uppers class. This in turn was supposed to give the lower classes more money. This was the republican way of fixing the economy. The money never got to the lower classes and the economy sank lower.
Herbert Hoover then ran his election based on fixing the economy . He then in turn gave more tax breaks to the upper classes and borrowed money from the bank system to repay the national debts that we owed our selfs. This was one of his biggest mistakes. It put the entire bank system into a frenzy because that money was never re payed.
This was the start of the Great Depression. The banks had to stop lending money out. Spending by the public halted. The market crashed and the public began rushing the banks. taking their money out and forcing the banks to close. This was about the time when FDR was elected and he began the public works project and started the FDIC to protect the public and the banks.
Our economy began to recover. Then ww2 broke out because of the Great Depression . This actual helped our economy recover faster because more jobs were available.
My comments about the Stock Market Crash & the Great Depression were simply in response to youngdem's belief that Republicans were solely to blame for the Stock Market Crash.
I see what you're trying to justify. You mentioned the Stock Market Crash. I wasn't trying to catch you or anything. But I'm curious, because you mentioned government regulation had no effect on Black Thursday, what do you think caused it?
Aside from the current administration, what other Republican "regime" has engaged in pre-emptive war (you did say "regimes," which is plural)?
Lets start with a President who produced Big Stick Diplomacy and revived the Monroe Doctrine at an unnecessary time in our history (Theodore Roosevelt). And we move on to today's threats of pre-empting Iran and other countries that develop nuclear power. A new breed of neo-con is campaigning for political office these days-- One that not only believes democracy is what every country in the world NEEDS, but one that sees privatization and profit as worthy ends of interventionalism and imperialism.
I don't consider the politicalization of war as a constructive debate. Show me ANY candidate who supports war and a bloated defense spender (From Ronald Reagan to the contemporary Hillary Clinton on the senate defense committee) and I'll tell you they don't represent my fiscal beliefs.
Our Constitution begins with the words, WE THE PEOPLE, not THE PEOPLE UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
Why do you think government has expanded then? Do you think people might express a likeness for their "socialized" schools, their "socialized" libraries, their "socialized" fire department, their "socialized" police department?
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Forgive me for not responding to you sooner. I've been unemployed for a while now, & it's been difficult to find work. Forty years of bad trade policies will do that to you!!!
What do I think caused the '29 Stock Market crash? It was a combination of speculation & people borrowing money to buy stocks. This created an economic bubble, which eventually burst. At the time, there was no government regulation over the Stock Market. If it had existed, would it have prevented the crash? Probably, but that's not the point. Shouldn't people have been smart enough to realize that borrowing money to buy stocks is not a smart financial move? We do pass ourselves off as being the most intelligent creatures on the planet. It would be nice if people used that brain power when it came to handling their finances. You mentioned the present-day mortgage crisis & how it relates to the Stock Market crash in an earlier reply. My guess is that you think predatory lenders were taking advantage of naive home-buyers. I have a different take on the subject: How smart are you acting if you're buying a house that you know you can't afford? I've been renting an apartment for several years now. I would have loved to have bought a house a few years ago. However, when I looked at my finances, I realized that I can't afford it. And now if the Democrats have their way, my tax dollars will be used to bail out those who were in the same financial situation that I was, but didn't come to the same conclusion.
The Monroe Doctrine has been embraced by both Democrats & Republicans. John F. Kennedy invoked it in 1962 while discussing the threat of Communism spreading in Latin America. As far as I'm concerned, no one carried out "Big Stick Diplomacy" quite like Woodrow Wilson. It was Wilson who sent the Marines to Haiti in 1915. He feared a growing German influence over the tiny island nation. Couldn't this action be considered in line with the Monroe Doctrine? In his book, THE MYTH OF THE GREAT WAR, author John Mosier described Wilson as an Anglophile. So while we were officially neutral during the first three years of World War I, Wilson didn't seem to have much of a problem with Great Britain raising enormous sums of money for their war effort on the New York Stock Exchange. And while Wilson decried the sinking of the Luisitania by a German U-Boat in 1915, he didn't seem to mind the British Navy's blockade of German ports, which resulted in starvation among the civilian population. It's no wonder that Germany questioned our neutrality. In 1918, Wilson sent American troops to Russia, as that country sank into revolution. I wonder how many Americans are aware of this little footnote from history? I smell research-paper topic!!!! American troops would remain in Russia until 1920. So what should we call Woodrow Wilson, a liberal Democrat, or a neo-con? It seems to me that George Bush is only taking a page from Wilson's playbook. John McCain isn't running for George Bush's third term. He's running for Woodrow Wilson's fifth term!!!!!
Government has expanded because socialism does have its appeals. The message of socialism is as follows: Why take care of yourself when government can do it for you?
Many people have fallen into the trap of socialism. However, the principles of socialism weren't the ones that this country was founded on. The United States was founded on the ideals self-determination & self-rule. We've lost sight of these things. However, we can still get back to those ideals. As far as the socialized schools, libraries, fire & police departments go, are saying these things didn't exist before socialism took hold? I'll bet you these institutions functioned better prior to the New Deal & the Great Society also!!! By the way, socialism might not have come into being here if Herbert Hoover hadn't responded to the Stock Market crash in the manner that he did. Economists advised him not to do anything (i.e. to let the market correct itself). However, Hoover didn't listen to them, & he issued tariff & tax acts. Foreign countries responded with their own tariffs on American exports, & the Great Depression ensued. This paved the way for FDR & his New Deal.
Forty years of bad trade policies will do that to you!!!
Well, I'm sorry that insane trade policies like NAFTA have kept you away from debating online. I'm glad you're back.
Shouldn't people have been smart enough to realize that borrowing money to buy stocks is not a smart financial move?
Absolutely. People like you should be commended for living your means. That type of responsibility is indeed important. It kind of plays into this blog I wrote recently (http://www.progressiveu.org/152632-hard-money-conundrum)
I have my own theories about the bill that was supposed to revitalize the American economy, but I won't go into them. Let's just say I'm about as disgusted with it as you are.
So what should we call Woodrow Wilson, a liberal Democrat, or a neo-con? It seems to me that George Bush is only taking a page from Wilson's playbook. John McCain isn't running for George Bush's third term. He's running for Woodrow Wilson's fifth term!!!!!
That's an interesting statement. I like that (please write a blog about that history, I'll read it). But why can't we drop the party labels and revoke all of these actions? Do you actually support McCain as you say, running on Woodrow Wilson's 5th?
I'll bet you these institutions functioned better prior to the New Deal & the Great Society also!!!
By functioned better do you mean relieved people from poverty? Did you ever see the poverty rates prior to the Johnson's Great Society programs?
I believe dutifully in the New Deal. In fact, I'm employed by an off-shoot of that era, the Montana Conservation Corps. I work hard and the country benefits from the challenges and successes that I have. Isn't that what life in America should be about?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
I'm all for dropping party labels. However, you were the one who referred to "neo-cons" running for public office now. George Bush's foreign policy is pure Woodrow Wilson, despite the fact that they are perceived as being at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Let's just say that both major political parties have failed this country miserably. I've voted for third-party candidates in last two presidential elections, & it looks like I'll be doing the same in November. I don't support John McCain. His positions on illegal immigration & free trade couldn't be more different from mine. I may either vote for Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) or Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party).
I'm not sure what the poverty rates were like before the Great Society programs came into being, but I do know that the current poverty rate is around 13%. In other words, one out of every eight Americans lives at or below the poverty line today. We've thrown trillions of taxpayer dollars at the problem over the past 40+ years, & it still hasn't been resolved. One of the primary reasons for the Great Society's failure is that at the same time these programs went into effect, Congress passed - & LBJ signed - the Immigration & Naturalization Act (1965). So at the same time that we've declared war on poverty, the immigration floodgates are opened for the third world. How are you going to end poverty if you keep bringing in more & more poor people? It's like trying bail out a sinking ship with a dixie cup. I read somewhere the LBJ - in his memoirs - regretted signing the Immigration & Naturalization Act, because he realized how damaging it would be to this country. Another reason for the Great Society's failure is that it fails to take human nature into account. If you're going to give people money for nothing, what's their incentive to go out & get a job & better their lives? Welfare benefits are handed down like an inheritance item when a recipient passes away.
There was a government program that would have done a better job of alleviating poverty than the Great Society, & it came out 100 years earlier. It was called Reconstruction. Had it succeeded, it would have reformed southern society after the Civil War & given African-Americans more rights. Unfortunately, Reconstruction was subverted by southern Democrats, & African-Americans had to wait 100 years for the Civil Rights movement.
There was no income tax prior to 1913. About one-third of the government's revenue used to come from taxes collected on the sale alcohol. Therefore, the government was loathe to proscribe the sale alcohol, despite calls from some quarters to do so. Once income taxes came into effect, Uncle Sam had an even larger source of revenue coming in. So Congress had no problem passing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and enacting the Volstead Act (1920).
When the income taxes first went into effect, the rates at which the wealthiest Americans were taxed was excessive. By 1918, it had reached 73%. In 1916 there were 206 incomes of $1,000,000 or more. The next year there were only 141, and in 1918, but 67. In 1919, the number declined to 65. In 1920 it fell to 33, and in 1921 it was further reduced to 21. Guess what happened? America went into a "Mini-Depression" (1920 - 21). The Revenue Acts lowered the top tax rate to 25% in a series of reductions that started in 1921 & ended in 1926. Guess what happened? Revenues shot up from around $720 million in 1921 to over $1.15 billion in 1928. And the 1920's were one of the greatest periods of economic growth in American history. That's the "Trickle Down Theory" for you.
Oh, and 18th Amendment wasn't repealed because there was tremendous public outcry to do so. It was repealed because the government was desperate for a source of revenue. During the Great Depression, revenue from income taxes fell dramatically. In fact, between 1930 & 1932, they declined almost 50%. As for the "Trickle Down Theory" being a cause of the Great Depression, it should be noted that John F. Kennedy - a Democrat - also cut taxes in the early 1960's. Did we sink into depression then? My parents tell that the 1960's were very good years, economically speaking. Did we sink into depression when Reagan cut taxes in the 1980's? I remember the 1980's, and I always had money in pocket in those days. Here's a question for you: In what year did Americans have the highest level of disposable income? Answer: 1984
You said that the Great Depression was THE cause of World War II. Really? That was the ONLY cause? I'll grant you that it may have been a contributing factor. However, here are some other "possible" causes for you to consider:
1. The Versailles Treaty
2. The Concordats that the Vatican signed with Germany
3. Failure on the part of America, Great Britain & France to act when Germany began to re-arm in the 1930's
4. Japanese Imperialism
Here are some "possible" causes for America's entry into the war:
1. America imposing embargoes of oil, steel & rubber on Japan in the late 1930's (because of Japan's conduct in China)
2. The Lend-Lease Act
3. The US Pacific Fleet moving from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in 1940, which Japan saw as provocative
Please click the reply button so that we know who you're talking to.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I was responding to youngdem's post from Saturday (5/10).
Sorry... I thought I'd ask because I didn't feel you'd answered any of my pompous pontifications.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
McCain is much more liberal than President Bush. Given his stances in action, rather than recent words (which is what this 'move to the right' has been), he is much more on par with Senator Lieberman.
This is a great election for anyone liberal. If you are a hardcore liberal bordering on socialism, you have Hillary. If you are a fan of more hard Marxism, you have Obama. If you are a squishy liberal (most, I think), then you have the option of voting for McCain.
Now, if you are a strong conservative..... well, hmm... I guess there's always 2012 to look forward to.
If you want a big business candidate you have Hillary Clinton (check out fortune magazine's article) and McCain (check out this article--http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/81342/). If you wanted a true progressive populist candidate, that's unfortunate because John Edwards didn't have a chance because we don't have one national primary.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Well, Big Business isn't by nature 'evil.'
They were all 'small business' at one point.
That said, anyone who thinks that Hillary or Obama are just too far left for them (I actually don't meet many who know what they even stand for, except that they don't like the war and want to give out 'free' healthcare), they have a liberal republican named McCain that they can vote for.
As for John Edwards, he wanted mandated universal healthcare and, when pressured about it, admitted that he'd force people to get health checkups and go to the doctor for preventative medicine.
I don't know about you, but when a lawyer who made his millions in malpractice suits wants to force people to go to doctors more regularly, all I see is dollar signs for fellow malpractice lawyers.
No thanks, I like freedom.
I reckon it's yer own freedom to dismiss preventative care if that's yer prerogative.
I'd love to hear you argue that money=speech and that corporate influence on our representatives leads to a healthy, educated democratic society...
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
It isn't about deciding to engage in preventative care or not. It is about being allowed to make that decision.
It is wise to engage in preventative care. That does not mean that it is the government's job to force that upon us, or require that you pay for my healthcare.
As for corporate influence on government, I don't know that it is a good thing, but any corruption needs to be fought. That doesn't mean that we ought to punish a business for being successful.
To suggest that someone is 'too successful' is little more than justified jealousy, and to further suggest that such an individual or business ought to have to suffer (I.e., pay extra taxes) due to being successful, that is little more than egotistical vengence.
Given that the top 10% or so of wageearners in America pay half of the nation's taxes, I would put forth that they're paying MUCH more than their fair share. We ought not punish success..... in the same way, we also ought not reward sloth.
Fight against dependence upon the government. Dependence is slavery. Freedom is the goal.
I've heard that enthralling speech delivered by Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand before that. Thank you.
To suggest that someone is 'too successful' is little more than justified jealousy, and to further suggest that such an individual or business ought to have to suffer (I.e., pay extra taxes) due to being successful, that is little more than egotistical vengence.
What I'm interested in seeing is a fair playing field that we haven't seen since the 1960s. Large corporations were not punished for the money they payed back to society. I submit that part of the reason a large corporation like WalMart becomes so successful is because they use the United States Commons-- you know, our air, our water, our judicial court system, our educational system that provide them with a mindful workers-- at a higher rate than does an average American citizen. Therefore I look at it from the standpoint of--they use it, why don't maintain it...?
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
LOL... I'm definately not a Ron Paul fan.
I don't believe that his foreign policy will do anything except get us killed.
If you saw the amount of taxes that Walmart pays on a regular basis, your eyes would bug out of your head. People like to pick on big businesses, but the truth is, they pay a LOT of money in taxes every year.
Look up what they pay out in a year before you go demanding more from big business.
Would you agree that the 1960s were a prosperous time for business and many levels of income among citizens?
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.