John McCain vs Barack Obama Mega-Politic-Thread of super fun awesomeness.

[Summa]

well fit im not saying the SPS is good to go as of now, im saying it should be funded considerably. and ideally the launch costs would be null because the moon has 95% of the materials we need.

wark still dodging my questions i see

and i heard this from a lady in the Obama camp on The Colbert Report last night so i did some research. she said that over the past 60 years people have done better under democrats as opposed to republicans, so i investigated. best i could find in a year to year breakdown is the value of houses which if anything, our housing market is usually a good indicator of our economy



President: Harry S. Truman 1945-1952 (only have from 47-52 b/c of post ww2) (Dem) avg %growth - 7.916666667
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1960 (Rep) avg %growth - 6.3125%
President: John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 (Dem) avg %growth - 5.5% (gave 63 to jfk)
President: Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1968 (Dem) avg %growth - 8.9%
President: Richard Nixon 1969-1974 (Rep) avg %growth - 7.3% (gave 74 to nixon)
President: Gerald Ford 1974-1976 (Rep) avg %growth - 13%
President: Jimmy Carter 1977-1980 (Dem) avg %growth - 13%
President: Ronald Reagan 1981-1988 (Rep) avg %growth - 8.4375%
President: George H.W. Bush 1989-1992 (Rep) avg %growth - 5.75%
President: Bill Clinton 1993-2000 (Dem) avg %growth - 7.875%
President: George W. Bush 2001-2007 (for this chart's purposes) (Rep) avg %growth - 4.86%

Democratic avg: 1.827% + .635% + 1.712%+ 2% + 2.423% = 8.597%
Republican avg: 1.443% + 1.251% + .743% + 1.929% + .657% + .972% = 6.995%

true in terms of housing growth, whether you trust this or not is your call, but hey the 60 years of post WW2 era points in democratic favor (and that doesn't take into account 2008 which could drop the republican % by around .2-.5%)

[Kolar]

To limit the right of gun owners and/or the proliferation of guns in the US is no where near as bad as infringing on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has already ruled placing restrictions on gun ownership and possession is not unconstitutional but you would never see a Republican candidate stand up and say gun possession/ownership is a factor in gun related crime.

[kthx]

Just so we can see that the graph you posted is stupid, while showing you why Barack Obama doesn't have any change for America at the same time, I now bring you.. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Carter became the front-runner early on by winning the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. He used a two-prong strategy: In the South, which most had tacitly conceded to Alabama's George Wallace, Carter ran as a moderate favorite son. When Wallace proved to be a spent force, Carter swept the region. In the North, Carter appealed largely to conservative Christian and rural voters and had little chance of winning a majority in most states. He won several Northern states by building the largest single bloc. Carter's strategy involved reaching a region before another candidate could extend influence there. He traveled over 50,000 miles, visited 37 states, and delivered over 200 speeches before any other candidates even announced that they were in the race. [33] Initially dismissed as a regional candidate, Carter proved to be the only Democrat with a truly national strategy, and he eventually clinched the nomination.

The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

"What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months."

In 1977 Carter had convinced the Democratic Congress to create the United States Department of Energy (DoE). Promoting the department's recommendation to conserve energy, Carter wore cardigan sweaters, had solar hot water panels installed on the roof of the White House, had a wood stove in his living quarters, ordered the General Services Administration to turn off hot water in some federal facilities, and requested that Christmas decorations remain dark in 1979 and 1980. Nationwide controls were put on thermostats in government and commercial buildings to prevent people from raising temperatures in the winter (above 65 degrees Fahrenheit) or lowering them in the summer (below 78 degrees Fahrenheit).

As reaction to a perceived “energy crisis” and growing concerns over air pollution, Carter also signed the National Energy Act (NEA) and the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). The purpose of these watershed laws was to encourage energy conservation and the development of national energy resources, including renewables such as wind and solar energy.[36]

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. There was also a growing federal budget deficit which increased to 66 billion dollars.

The 1970s are described as a period of stagflation, as well as higher interest rates. Price inflation (a rise in the general level of prices) creates uncertainty in budgeting and planning and makes labor strikes for pay raises more likely.

In the wake of a cabinet shakeup in which Carter asked for the resignations of several cabinet members (see "Malaise speech" below), Carter appointed G. William Miller as Secretary of the Treasury. Miller had been serving as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. To replace Miller, and in order to calm down the market, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.[37] Volcker pursued a tight monetary policy to bring down inflation, which he considered his mandate. He succeeded, but only by first going through an unpleasant phase during which the economy slowed and unemployment rose, prior to any relief from inflation.

Led by Volcker, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate from 10 percent when Volcker assumed the chairmanship in August 1979 to 12 percent within two months.[38] The prime rate hit 21.5 percent in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[39] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.[40]

I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy... I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might. ...

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning.

I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel... I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation.:[42]

During his first month in office Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion. One of his first acts was to order the unilateral removal of all nuclear weapons from South Korea and announce his intention to cut back the number of US troops stationed there. Other military men confined intense criticism of the withdrawal to private conversations or testimony before congressional committees, but in 1977 Major General John K. Singlaub, chief of staff of U.S. forces in South Korea, publicly criticized President Carter's decision to lower the U.S. troop level there. On March 21, 1977, Carter relieved him of duty, saying his publicly stated sentiments were "inconsistent with announced national security policy".[58][59] Carter planned to remove all but 14,000 U.S. air force personnel and logistics specialists by 1982, but after cutting only 3,600 troops, he was forced to abandon the effort in 1978.[60]

Carter lost the presidency to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. The popular vote went 50.7 percent, or 43.9 million popular votes, for Reagan and 41 percent, or 35.5 million, for Carter. Independent candidate John B. Anderson won 6.6 percent, or 5.7 million votes. However, because Carter's support was not concentrated in any geographic region, Reagan won a landslide 91 percent of the electoral vote, leaving Carter with only six states and the District of Columbia. Reagan carried a total of 489 electoral votes compared to Carter's 49.

While Carter kept his promise (all 52 hostages returned home alive), he failed to secure the release of the hostages prior to the election. While Carter ultimately won their release, Iran did not release the hostages until minutes after Reagan took office. In recognition of the fact that Carter was responsible for bringing the hostages home, Reagan asked him to go to West Germany to greet them upon their release.

Perhaps you should understand that.. republicans have to go back and remove all the stupid shit democrats did during their presidency before things can get back to normal. that is why a graph like that doesn't work.. and doesn't the history of one of the worst presidents in United States history sound very familiar to you? Rose from an random political figure to presidential candidate in 9 months.. wanted to make us conserve energy.. tried to force us to comply to "too cold too hot" temperature laws... it is so similar it is scary.

[kthx]

I know that McCain is no Reagan either but, I wanted to post what happened under a solid conservative president, when he had to clean up a liberals mess, one who has like thinking with Obama.

Domestically, the administration favored tax cuts and smaller government, introducing the largest tax cuts in American history. The economic policies enacted in 1981, known as "Reaganomics," were similar to those of supply-side economics and advocated free markets. The policies aimed to reduce the growth of government spending through tax cuts, as well as reduce regulation and inflation. It is arguable, however, to what extent they were achieved. As well as the economy, Reagan ordered a massive buildup of the military amidst the Cold War.

In dealing with foreign affairs, the administration was steadfastly anti-communist, employed a foreign policy of “peace through strength,” and played a major role in the end events of the Cold War. Reagan met with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev four times, aiming to shrink both the US and USSR's nuclear arsenals. The events contributed greatly to the end of the Cold War, occurring in 1991, after Reagan left office.

Reagan's presidency was known to many as the "Reagan Revolution," as proponents stated that America's morale had been restored and the Cold War largely ended. Reagan himself left office with a 64% approval rating, one of the higher approval ratings of departing presidents.
Contents

Reagan was an advocate of free markets and, upon taking office, believed that the American economy was hampered by excessive economic controls and misguided welfare programs enacted during the 1960s and 1970s. Taking office during a period of stagflation, Reagan said in his first inauguration speech, which he himself authored,[1] "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." His first act as president was to issue an executive order ending certain price controls. His economic policies, similar to supply-side economics and dubbed "Reaganomics," achieved a 25% cut in the federal personal income tax, moderate deregulation and tax reform, which he believed would remove barriers to efficient economic activity. After a sharp recession, a long period of high economic growth without significant inflation ensued.

Despite Reagan's stated desire to cut spending, federal spending grew during his administration. However, economist Milton Friedman points out that non-defense spending as a percentage of national income stabilized throughout Reagan's term, breaking a long upward trend; the number of new regulations added each year dramatically decreased as well.[2]

One of Reagan's most controversial early moves was to fire most of the nation's air traffic controllers who took part in an illegal strike. Reagan strengthened Social Security to make it solvent longer by cutting disability benefits, and survivor benefits, and by increasing the FICA payroll withholding tax. He also took tough positions against crime, declared a renewed war on drugs, but was criticized for being slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic.

In foreign affairs, Reagan initially rejected détente and directly confronted the Soviet Union through a policy of "peace through strength," including increased military spending, firm foreign policies against the USSR and support for anti-communist groups around the world. Reagan later embraced and negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, a reformer, and together they contributed greatly to a peaceful end of the Cold War.

As Reagan was the oldest person to be inaugurated as president (age 69), and also the oldest person to hold the office (age 77), his health, although generally good, became a concern at times during his presidency. His age even became a topic of concern during his re-election campaign. In a debate on October 21, 1984 between Reagan and his opponent Walter Mondale, panelist Henry Trewhitt brought up how President Kennedy had to go for days on end without sleep during the Cuban Missile crisis. He then asked the President if he had any doubts about if or how he could function in a time of crisis, given his age. Reagan remarked, "I am not going to make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," generating applause and laughter from the audience. Mondale (who was 56 at the time) said years later in an interview that he knew at that moment he had lost the election.

Sad how times have changed..

[Fit of Rage]

Sadder how the times have changed and some people still can't let go.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. There was also a growing federal budget deficit which increased to 66 billion dollars.

Sounds curiously like the current Republican administration, minus perhaps only the double-digit inflation.

[Summa]

thank you for the history lesson, although it in no way discredits 60 years of evidence in the democrats favor, and as for your "republicans clean up democratic mess" argument, most republicans %ages trail off @ the end of their tenure. and btw the graph isn't stupid, many economists have said that the housing market is the truest tell of how the united states economy is doing


as for how you painted reagan: negotiating with hostile foreign powers and choosing diplomacy over action (sounds like obama), tax cuts (you mean like the ones obama said hed give 95% of the country?); i would say the reagan you painted a picture of sounded more like obama than mr. mccain (whos tax cuts are impossible if he doesn't want to massively increase our debt)
EDIT: working to get us out of a needless war rather than keeping us in one for another 50-100 years

[kthx]

He negotiated with foreign powers by telling them that we weren't going to lay down and take it, and if they started any shit, we would destroy them. Reagan destroyed the former soviet unions economy through his tactics. And that graph is stupid because it doesn't figure in inflation. Besides, the "truest measure" of the U.S. economy is the markets. And you can't tax the rich, they own the businesses and corporations, and they will just pass the costs to the consumer. I don't see why people don't understand this.. If you raise taxes on someone who makes 300,000 dollars a year to (what obama wants) nearly 65 cents if not more on the dollar. Then that person has a lot less money to employ people, and to make up the cost to continue his lifestyle, he will just find ways to pass that cost to you. Which in the end is the same as taxing you. On top of this.. it isn't hard to get ahead in America.. people do it every day, all you have to do is be creative, be smart, be hard working.. what gives you the right to demand money from the people who worked their asses off to get the money they have. The exceedingly rich will stay exceedingly rich under Obama, but they will just move their money out of the country, furthering our economic demise. The somewhat rich will lose a lot of money in taxes, and will move their businesses elsewhere or raise costs, which will further the demise of the economy. The exceedingly poor will be looking for jobs, but so many corporations will be moving out of America, much more than is happening right now that there will be massive job loss. Obama's ideas are the same economics that caused generations of Americans to despise Jimmy Carter. And they are basically running the same election, with the same ideas, only America has changed so they can't see through the political garbage that the media on both sides gives to us to swallow.

[Summa]

who knows how obama's economic plan will play out, maybe it will fail (i dont think it will, but you can). but i can tell you right now how mccain's economic plan will: just like bush's. he has no way to pay for these reactors, oil rigs, and his permanent base in iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes significantly like he says he will. welcome back to bushonomics: cut taxes and increase spending -> largest debt per capita in nation's history. i will take anything over that.

[kthx]

Obamas WONT work, because you can't tax your way out of a recession. Raising taxes, no matter which group you tax won't help. And McCain will have tons of money to build the coal and nuclear plants, because he will let us drill for oil, and refine our own oil, which will create REAL jobs, which will create MORE taxes not higher taxes. After he brings in the same amount of money as Obama does through "raising taxes on those damned rich people who made money in America and won't share it with us sad face" then he will build coal and nuclear plants which will make America energy independent so we won't have to burn gas for anything but cars, which we can slowly start gearing to be ran off natural gas and eventually something else. But we will be a rich country, overflowing in cheap, abundant energy which we can then sell to other countries.

[HateTheFake]

well fit im not saying the SPS is good to go as of now, im saying it should be funded considerably. and ideally the launch costs would be null because the moon has 95% of the materials we need.

wark still dodging my questions i see

and i heard this from a lady in the Obama camp on The Colbert Report last night so i did some research. she said that over the past 60 years people have done better under democrats as opposed to republicans, so i investigated. best i could find in a year to year breakdown is the value of houses which if anything, our housing market is usually a good indicator of our economy



President: Harry S. Truman 1945-1952 (only have from 47-52 b/c of post ww2) (Dem) avg %growth - 7.916666667
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1960 (Rep) avg %growth - 6.3125%
President: John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 (Dem) avg %growth - 5.5% (gave 63 to jfk)
President: Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1968 (Dem) avg %growth - 8.9%
President: Richard Nixon 1969-1974 (Rep) avg %growth - 7.3% (gave 74 to nixon)
President: Gerald Ford 1974-1976 (Rep) avg %growth - 13%
President: Jimmy Carter 1977-1980 (Dem) avg %growth - 13%
President: Ronald Reagan 1981-1988 (Rep) avg %growth - 8.4375%
President: George H.W. Bush 1989-1992 (Rep) avg %growth - 5.75%
President: Bill Clinton 1993-2000 (Dem) avg %growth - 7.875%
President: George W. Bush 2001-2007 (for this chart's purposes) (Rep) avg %growth - 4.86%

Democratic avg: 1.827% + .635% + 1.712%+ 2% + 2.423% = 8.597%
Republican avg: 1.443% + 1.251% + .743% + 1.929% + .657% + .972% = 6.995%

true in terms of housing growth, whether you trust this or not is your call, but hey the 60 years of post WW2 era points in democratic favor (and that doesn't take into account 2008 which could drop the republican % by around .2-.5%)

actually if i remember economics class correctly they say it takes 6 years for the president to effect the economy

[Fit of Rage]

then he will build coal and nuclear plants.

Lost me right here. I'm not fucking voting for that.

[Fit of Rage]

actually if i remember economics class correctly they say it takes 6 years for the president to effect the economy

So that would mean that 2002 -> 2008 yeah, Bush did some stupid shit in 2002 apparently.

[kthx]

Lost me right here. I'm not fucking voting for that.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal.htm
(This post still mentions global warming like it exists.. even though it would be a global cooling if carbon dioxide were being spit out in harmful doses to the planet, but it explains it somewhat.)

The United States of America has the largest coal reserves, with approximately 27% of the total proven world reserves.

Thats because you are a dumbass.

[Kolar]

This:

http://www.awwa.org/publications/Mai...emnumber=39815

And this:
"A 2003 study conducted by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Greenhouse gases, found that the cost of building a shell-designed IGCC that doesn't capture carbon could cost $1,371 per kW. A comparable system that captures carbon could cost $1,860 per kW."[7]


If any solution doesn't lower the cost of generating energy that it is not worth exploring. This idea of protectionism of some job markets given the possibility that new technology (if implemented correctly) driving down the cost of energy goes directly against your supposed position on the economy, that of a free market. If something drives down costs and is more efficient then we should use it, not because it will save the planet or because it will save some jobs. But if it saves the planet in the process that's a bonus.

[kthx]

Ok listen, I don't want the air to look as bad as it does in China over here in America, and I understand the pollution is real, and acid rain is real, however I also understand the global warming is false. I am all for finding better ways to do the things we do now, but I don't want to see my country weakened to a point where we are at risk from other nations because someone thinks that mother earth is too fragile for us to drill in. And.. I don't really catch what your saying there at the start.. the whole idea of a free market is to promote competition that leads to technology discoveries, and lowers prices naturally, without the government having to be involved.. Clean Coal is an important discovery because.. it is a coal plant, which still supplies the U.S. with 50% of the energy we need, that will be easier to be approved to build due to the more ecologically friendly technology in it. More energy is cheaper energy, no matter how much it costs to produce a KW of it.