logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> WAS it the economy, stupid?, (and is that so unfair to McCain?)
EuroBlack
post Nov 7 2008, 03:01 AM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



(of course, the title should have been: "WAS it the economy, stupid?". My bad.)
I guess this is pretty self-explanatory, I'm just wondering if would Obama ever have won, had it not been for the credit crisis.


Question for debate:

Shouldn't McCain have won the election, since only the credit crisis made him lose it?
Why or why not?

Bonus question 1:
Was McCain latched fairly or unfairly to Bush' economic policies, since everyone knows he's really just a moderate Republican? Why?

Bonus question 2:
If you think McCain was unfairly latched onto Bush's economic policies, by Obama, since McCains campaign promises of tax relief for the wealthy and Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc, what does this say about McCains moral fiber, his character?

This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Nov 7 2008, 03:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 9)
La Herring Rouge
post Nov 7 2008, 04:12 AM
Post #2


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 367
Member No.: 1,955
Joined: December-7-03

From: West Hartford, CT
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



It's possible that the economy would have nailed him no matter what he did, history dictates that.
But his campaign was so poorly run that it is impossible to tell. Because they feared losing the base his advisors targeted them fiercely.
Liberal scare tactics, the Palin selection, and jingoism all turned off the moderates (light democrats and republicans, and independents) who loved him in the past. Had he gone with his 2000 platform we might not be celebrating our first black president.
As a 2000 McCain supporter and an independent I can tell you for certain that, seeing the yahoos supporting him in videos and at his rallies I had no intention of associating myself with him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Nov 7 2008, 05:07 AM
Post #3


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,456
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Shouldn't McCain have won the election, since only the credit crisis made him lose it?
Why or why not?


McCain wasn't doing well before the economy tanked, so I don't think that was it. But it was unnerving to me just how close the election was, considering all of the positives of Obama's campaign and the negatives of McCain's campaign. In a room of 100 voters, only 4 voters changing their vote puts McCain on top. To me, the choice was clearer than that on party affiliation alone, even without counting the economy. After eight disastrous years, 46 out of 100 voters voted to keep the same party in the White House. That is incredible to me. (Of course, I had the same reaction in 2000 and 2004.)

Bonus question 1:
Was McCain latched fairly or unfairly to Bush' economic policies, since everyone knows he's really just a moderate Republican? Why?


Bush has economic policies? I thought he just let the financial industry do whatever the hell they wanted.

McCain endorsed Bush in 2004 and voted with him 90% of the time. I don't know how much he actually agreed with Bush's handling of the economy, but that record doesn't exactly scream disapproval.

Bonus question 2:
If you think McCain was unfairly latched onto Bush's economic policies, by Obama, since McCains campaign promises of tax relief for the wealthy and Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc, what does this say about McCains moral fiber, his character?


I thought McCain kowtowed to the Republican Party machine when he endorsed Bush in 2004. He lost a ton of respect when he did that. LHR was right when he said that McCain was widely liked and admired in 2000 - I'm sure if we could go back in time, he would beat Bush in a landslide, maybe a shutout. And since Bush almost beat Al Gore, McCain probably would have won fair and square. I don't know if he is a different man now, but he has made some lousy decisions since that time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Nov 7 2008, 06:11 PM
Post #4


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,976
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



Shouldn't McCain have won the election, since only the credit crisis made him lose it?

Well, that's almost true. It was McCain's reaction to the credit crisis that made him lose. The most pivotal moment came in those now-famous seven words: "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." It was at that point that he could have won the election, or lost it (as it turned out, obviously), depending on the path he chose from there. Those, more than any other words he spoke throughout the campaign, were the ones that got him into the most hot water, and those, more than any other words that EITHER candidate spoke, were the truest words of the entire campaign.

Now he could have followed up by issuing a robust defense of his point, which would have highlighted the important philosophical differences between not only McCain and Obama, but between conservatives and liberals in general. Instead, he backpedaled, and offered up a clumsy defense that he was only referring to the workers, which nobody bought. He lost the election at that moment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 7 2008, 06:28 PM
Post #5


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Nov 6 2008, 10:12 PM) *
It's possible that the economy would have nailed him no matter what he did, history dictates that.
But his campaign was so poorly run that it is impossible to tell. Because they feared losing the base his advisors targeted them fiercely.
Liberal scare tactics, the Palin selection, and jingoism all turned off the moderates (light democrats and republicans, and independents) who loved him in the past. Had he gone with his 2000 platform we might not be celebrating our first black president.
As a 2000 McCain supporter and an independent I can tell you for certain that, seeing the yahoos supporting him in videos and at his rallies I had no intention of associating myself with him.


I agree... had 2000 McCain showed up, I might have voted for him. Of course, that was a McCain in the primaries... who knows if something would've changed my mind during the time leading up to the general.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Nov 7 2008, 06:56 PM
Post #6


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Liberal scare tactics,

It's not a "scare tactic" if it's based in fact.

Bush and McCain seriously wanted to privatize (major parts of) SocSec and Health Care.

Let's face it, the whole conservative economic ideology is based on giving the rich guys more and more money and then prayer that they'll do the "right thing": create jobs.

This .... is seriously flawed logic.

It's not even a theory. This is proven over the last 8 years and we as Europeans are losing our savings because of it. Yes, we shouldn't have followed blindly. True that. That one ... is all on us.

Where in the world has this trickle-down-make-the-rich-richer ideology EVER worked? And I don't mean for just a decade, but for a minimum of 2 generations.

We need a stable system. How americans were suckered into hating government ... it's one of those things that history will have to figure out, but probably will never.

This blind following of a flawed ideology with disastrous consequences, does remind me of Hitlerian Germany ... a little. The similarities end there, and quicly. What it most resembles, however, is Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 7 2008, 07:56 PM
Post #7


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(EuroBlack @ Nov 6 2008, 11:01 PM) *
(of course, the title should have been: "WAS it the economy, stupid?". My bad.)
I guess this is pretty self-explanatory, I'm just wondering if would Obama ever have won, had it not been for the credit crisis.


Question for debate:

Shouldn't McCain have won the election, since only the credit crisis made him lose it?
Why or why not?

Bonus question 1:
Was McCain latched fairly or unfairly to Bush' economic policies, since everyone knows he's really just a moderate Republican? Why?

Bonus question 2:
If you think McCain was unfairly latched onto Bush's economic policies, by Obama, since McCains campaign promises of tax relief for the wealthy and Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc, what does this say about McCains moral fiber, his character?



Should have McCain won? Well thats a matter of opinion but I say yes based on his polices, and experience.

Was McCain unfairly latched to Bush regarding the Economy? Oh absolutely, no doubt about it, in fact he was latched to Bush in every conceivable way with nearly every issue. Its the primary card the Democrats had to play and I'm convinced its the primary reason Obama won as well.

What we have is a shaky economy and the two primary candidates both had plans that are less than perfect, but when looking at a side by side comparison of both their plans you can gather the following...

Obama's overall spending plan calls for 200 billion more a year than McCains, and would increase annual federal spending by about 100 billion a year from current levels......... http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=...p;org_name=NTUF

Obama'a tax plan is dubbed on his site as an "overall annual tax cut" In other words the amount of tax reimbursements he says he will give to the middle and lower class exceeds the amount of money that will be obtained by raising taxes on the richest 5% of Americans. This is stated on his website......... http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

"The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000."

Long story short, based on his plans he will increase spending yet somehow lower taxes! It makes no sense to me. Where will that money come from, thats the key question? Will his plan evolve over time? Will his definition of rich drop as time passes, or will he stick to this plan and increase the national debt by billions more?

People call McCain's plan giving tax breaks to the wealthy and not the lower class, and this is so far blown out of proportion it's ridiculous. Under Bush the richest 25% of the nation pays 85% of Americas income tax. The bottom 50% of the nation, income wise, only pays 3% of this nations income tax.....

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/novem...-pays-the-taxes

That is our current tax plan, after the Bush tax cuts. Thats what McCain would have continued to do with the exception of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 Percent. The United States has the worlds highest Cooperate tax rate by the way....... http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html

In conclusion what we have are two individuals with plans they cant explain how to pay for, but Obama's makes the least sense economically speaking and I don't see how he would even begin to pay for his plan as stated. No doubt it will change.

Ironic thing is that Obama has used the economy to compare McCain to Bush despite all of this, yet people are happy to drink that koolaid. Why?

Well because McCain is a Republican, Its not much more complicated than that, and like any other Republican that ran in this election apart from Ron Paul the Democrats would have been able to dedicate this election to comparing that candidate to Bush. That was their strategy and they played it out to the fullest. Beneath all of this McCain was easily the second most moderate Republican candidate that ran in this election. Its in his history and it remains true of him today. Take for example that bail out bill that passed, he was a huge supporter of that plan which by the way saw the most opposition within the Republican party.

I think he got elected in the primaries specifically because he was one of the most favored Republican candidates by the liberals, because he was one of the most moderate. Conservatives figured they needed a candidate that was not "far right" to have any chance of appealing to independents. Looking at the way the election turned out I believe we would have done better with someone who didn't end up supporting this bail out bill. Although McCain is more fiscally conservative than Obama, I believe that move ultimately hurt him in this election process, and im not sure how much his moderate history was able to help him.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 7 2008, 08:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Nov 7 2008, 09:10 PM
Post #8


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,456
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 7 2008, 03:56 PM) *
I think he got elected in the primaries specifically because he was one of the most favored Republican candidates by the liberals, because he was one of the most moderate. Conservatives figured they needed a candidate that was not "far right" to have any chance of appealing to independents. Looking at the way the election turned out I believe we would have done better with someone who didn't end up supporting this bail out bill. Although McCain is more fiscally conservative than Obama, I believe that move ultimately hurt him in this election process, and im not sure how much his moderate history was able to help him.


Net, do you think that Democrats were voting in Republican primaries? Or that Republican voters were actually considering how popular McCain was among liberals??? No chance. This was a big primary for Dems, not a foregone conclusion, like in 2000 (when Gore was in and I was free to vote against Bush smile.gif ) - we stuck to our own primaries. McCain got elected in the primaries because he was chosen by Republican voters to be their candidate, period. And they voted for him because the other candidates were all flawed. Liberals had nothing to do with his nomination.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 7 2008, 09:21 PM
Post #9


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Nov 7 2008, 05:10 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 7 2008, 03:56 PM) *
I think he got elected in the primaries specifically because he was one of the most favored Republican candidates by the liberals, because he was one of the most moderate. Conservatives figured they needed a candidate that was not "far right" to have any chance of appealing to independents. Looking at the way the election turned out I believe we would have done better with someone who didn't end up supporting this bail out bill. Although McCain is more fiscally conservative than Obama, I believe that move ultimately hurt him in this election process, and im not sure how much his moderate history was able to help him.


Net, do you think that Democrats were voting in Republican primaries? Or that Republican voters were actually considering how popular McCain was among liberals??? No chance. This was a big primary for Dems, not a foregone conclusion, like in 2000 (when Gore was in and I was free to vote against Bush smile.gif ) - we stuck to our own primaries. McCain got elected in the primaries because he was chosen by Republican voters to be their candidate, period. And they voted for him because the other candidates were all flawed. Liberals had nothing to do with his nomination.


No Democrats probably were not voting for McCain in the primaries in any significant numbers, which I never said. In most states they would have had to of registered as Republicans to do that anyway. However I do believe that the conception by many conservatives was that we needed a candidate that had a history of breaking with Republicans, this because of how unpopular Bush was. Ive heard conservatives say this, not to mention that I thought myself early on that McCains moderate record could help him in this election. Turns out that logic was off. The ® is what ended up mattering in the end, and this election was a loss for McCain primarily because of party affiliation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Nov 7 2008, 09:44 PM
Post #10


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



First off, the Pink Floyd crowd is decidedly progressive, so big irony there.

Then:
Only on a very few matters (ALL unrelated to the economy) did McCain go up against bush. On more than 90 percent of the economic/tax issues he voted WITH Bush on the economy and he still believes in trickle down economics. (After TWENTY-EIGHT years of proving that point wrong. Yes, Clinton was pushed into that position too, albeit in the role of the less enthusiastically executor of those views.)

See my thread Obama IS your Momma, part deux , where I state that McCains tax plans are actually kinda insane. He would grow the deficit with 1.5 TRILLION MORE than Obama, with little to show for, except loads of tax cuts. At least Obama could point to higher education levels, with a potential for future economic growth. All mccain would have done, is make China and Big Corp richer. (See the parallel between Bush, Big Oil and the Saudis here? mad.gif)
So how you maintain that mccain is actually the more responsible person, is beyond me.

Furthermore, let's get real about capitalism here. It's not in the interest of the rich business owners to create more jobs, it's in their interest to replace jobs by machines or other, cheaper labor in China.
Jobs ... that's just a happy side effect, to be worn as an accessory to a charity event.

If the rich would get the chance to make a bigger profit by moving their business to Cheapy Chinee, they would. Oh wait .... THAT ALREADY HAPPENED!!

QUOTE
People call McCain's plan giving tax breaks to the wealthy and not the lower class

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but let me point out this: If you give tax breaks to both the middle class AND those earning over 250K or even those earning over 2 million, you are ACTUALLY stealing from the poor to give to rich (do the math). Now, I don't know about you, but I call that sickeningly unfair. The reason we cherish Robin Hood was that he was the first to reverse that.

And no one has explained to me why people who earn 10 million or more actually NEED a tax break, in a country that has ridiculously low taxes to begin with. All the OECD countries that have low taxes resemble 3rd world countries much more than rich countries. Germany, Sweden, etc. actually LOOK rich: good roads etc in the WHOLE of the country, not just a few parts.
And they might have higher unemployment (not now actually), but they all suffer and celebrate together. The concept of solidarity is sorely lacking in the American political landscape. It's me me me me and my taxes.
Also, Canadians, Japanese, Europeans are per capita healthier than Americans and pay less for it. Now, if you wanna live in a country with a huge divide between rich and poor, up to you, but I'm not, and I'm betting that most Americans don't want that either. (Insert lame cultural war reference HERE)

The destruction of the middle class by Reagan and his start of labeling govt as the enemy is what the real tragedy of the last 28 years is.

And while I agree with you that Obama ALSO comes up short with money for his goals, he comes up short MUCH LESS than mccain, and he has actually something to show for. After eight years Obama will leave the country in debt, with a deficit, but with a highly educated, healthier populace, and better infrastructure.

8 years of mccain would have brought more wars, a poorer and unhealthier middle class, more homelessness, but with a really, really wealthy upperclass.

McCain really didn't know sh||te about the economy, and he is as DEEPLY UNCURIOUS about that, as was Palin about everything else except shooting moose from a plane, getting preggers and oil.

McCain was chosen because he DIDN'T represent the red meat repubs. the repubs wanted to move to the middle. Repubs are not all that dumb, they wanted electablity. But he, petulant about the party's refusal to let him have Lieberman, picked Palin out of spite. Well, he sure showed them!

Moby, the artist, said about that last night, that when Mccain thanked Palin in his concession speech, all his friends jumped and shrieked with joyous agreement.

Obama was the creation of both bush and limbaugh and his demonisation of HRC badly backfired, it made the Dem voters believe, that the moderate black guy was not only kinda fresh, but also such a moderate that he was more ... electable! Not unlike Repubs at all. wink.gif

Obama is gonna disappoint blacks hugely by not naming an African-American to either the State Dept., Finance, Defense or AttGen.
Even if Powell would be so right to be on State Dept.
Obama is gonna appoint African-American to lower level cabinet posts, sure, but I for one, expect ot be sorely disappointed by Obama's willingness to appease the repubs.


This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Nov 7 2008, 10:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: May 27th, 2018 - 11:42 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.