![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teddywolfSo, I have spent some of my spare time today comparing the stated platforms for John McCain and Barack Obama. There are some similarities at points in their platforms, but not on all points by any stretch. Additionally, some items are given greater weight by one candidate compared to the other on the candidates' website. I have not gone into exhaustive depth on them, admittedly, going with more of what is easily findable on from the front pages of their websites. I have also kept to a few issues of particular interest to me. Either or both candidates might have additional information buried somewhere. A buried platform which is not in easy access is not something I would personally consider a strong commitment to a platform.
On Energy:
McCain lists his top energy priority as expanding domestic exploration and production of non-renewable energy resources.
His next listed priority is changing the trasportation sector by changing what kind of vehicles are on the road and what we use to fuel them - presumably, not the energy resources listed as his first priority.
His third priority is 'green' energy. Specific research into 'clean' coal (a non-renewable resource), specific increases in nuclear power (non-renewable as we practice it in the USA) and a specific R&D tax credit all come before renewable energy resources such as solar and wind, which get lumped together with non-specific goals.
Energy efficiency is fifth on his energy priorities list.
Obama lists his plan more as a comprehensive, using more bullet points than paragraphs, but giving specific goals. Immediate-term goals are economic relief from high energy costs. Short (first term) goals are increased electricity from renewable resources and increased energy efficiency.
Both candidates list tax credits for hybrids and zero-emission vehicles, with Obama having a more aggressive credit. Obama has a strong plank for energy efficiency with specific goals, which would reduce reliance on the energy grid. McCain has a good plank for modernizing the current energy grid.
Neither candidate specifically lists increased aid for for mass transit in traffic-choked areas in the energy section, which is a disappointment.
My choice? Obama has the edge on McCain, but he should take a good look at the grid update that McCain proposes. I believe we need more emphasis on good, reliable, comfortable, fast public transport.
On Health Care:
McCain proposes expanding access to private insurance, including a tax credit to help pay for premiums if you aren't employed or opt out of employer health care plans.
He supports a privatized non-profit organization dealing with the current uninsured and underinsured in the country, contracting with private insurers for coverage.
He also wants tort reform, saying that any case where a doctor went through proper procedures should be thrown out.
Barack Obama wants to expand access to public insurance, giving private individuals the option to purchase the same kind of coverage he and McCain get as Senators.
He supports plan portability and rules that would keep private insurance companies from denying care based on medical history, and require them to give the same level of care as the public insurance currently enjoyed by himself and McCain.
He wants a federal oversight/watchdog group for private insurers.
He also supports expanding public insurance for the young and the poor, and removing the block on Federal bargaining with drug companies to lower costs.
Both candidates say they want to rein in costs and encourage choice. Tort reform has not reined in costs in any way at all, as medical malpractice costs have skyrockets in the face of flat judgments and flat legal costs. Both candidates talk about wanting to help deal with the skyrocketing rates of autism in the US, but Obama has more initial details. Obama also has a stated commitment to Americans with disabilities.
Neither candidate lists actual universal health care, which is a disappointment. While Barack Obama does have a plan to get more doctors into the health care system, it does not address the critical shortage of general practitioners we currently face. John McCain does not even have that much.
My choice? Obama has the edge on a comprehensive plan to cut costs and give better care, but not as well as true universal health care would.
On Education:
McCain mentions that public schools are not working, thus we need to give all schools a chance to educate all children in American. In short, he supports a voucher program but has no significant changes listed otherwise for the casual observer.
Obama also mentions that public school are not working, and goes into metrics showing why we have poor starts and poor results. He has a comprehensive plan for public education that includes measuring performance, helping poor performers instead of punishing them, starting education early and continuing it through at least the community college level.
My choice? Obama, hands down. His proposals make sense in terms of fixing the system and attempting to help with higher education for all.
On Poverty:
Only Barack Obama actually has a poverty plank, and while it is not what, say, Denmark or Finland has, it is considerably better than nothing. It includes a partial tax credit for Social Security taxes, which has become a regressive poverty tax, along with other tax incentives for the rising population of lower to middle class families, and other items to help with families and communities.
Obama is my choice for dealing with issues of poverty.
My overall thoughts? McCain does have a few good ideas, but most of what he proposes are items from the right wing that have not worked: reducing taxes on corporations but not on the poor; oil and gas exploration and drilling that won't do anything about dependance on non-renewable resources; cut more taxes and give more money away. I do, admittedly, like the prize for a long-range fully electric vehicle. Still, he mostly does not cut current programs and wants to cut taxes, meaning spend and starve.
Obama has a considerably better plan for most Americans on almost every count I can find. He wants to reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, who have had decreasing wages and significantly increasing costs over the past 7 years, but increase them on the wealthiest, who have gotten by any measure significantly wealthier in the last 7 years. He is looking to spend money to jumpstart the economy by handing money to the poorest - the people most likely to spend - while getting us out of a war which is costing us over $10 billion per month. He is looking to streamline costs and increase some programs, but matches this with decreases in other spending and increases on taxes on the rich.
To my wealthy friends: I am happy you are wealthy, I truly am. You are my friends and I wish the best for you always. I hope to be wealthy one day myself, and I will be happy to pay high taxes once I get there as I will still have plenty left over. I view my taxes, when spent well, as an investment in my family, my neighbors, my friends, my neighborhood, my city, my state, myself and my country. I am not happy when my taxes are spent unwisely, such as on an unnecessary war. If you do not care for any level of taxes at all, well, I will have to agree to disagree with you there; but my friendships are not built on tax policy :-)
To my libertarian friends: I am sorry, but we do have conclusive proof that sometimes the free market is a considerably more expensive and less efficient choice than a government program. Healthcare, energy, water and prisons are several notable ways where government either provides a higher quality of service (prisons a la breakouts), a better price for that service (water in many places), or both (water in many more places, healthcare and regulated energy).
Mr. Obama has a lot more particulars for programs. A great deal of his spending increases are covered by tax increases on those most able to afford them and cutting costs in useful ways, such as insurance and tax paperwork - quite possibly all of them, in fact. I do not have the time today to measure the full costs of each candidates' program; sorry.
On Energy:
McCain lists his top energy priority as expanding domestic exploration and production of non-renewable energy resources.
His next listed priority is changing the trasportation sector by changing what kind of vehicles are on the road and what we use to fuel them - presumably, not the energy resources listed as his first priority.
His third priority is 'green' energy. Specific research into 'clean' coal (a non-renewable resource), specific increases in nuclear power (non-renewable as we practice it in the USA) and a specific R&D tax credit all come before renewable energy resources such as solar and wind, which get lumped together with non-specific goals.
Energy efficiency is fifth on his energy priorities list.
Obama lists his plan more as a comprehensive, using more bullet points than paragraphs, but giving specific goals. Immediate-term goals are economic relief from high energy costs. Short (first term) goals are increased electricity from renewable resources and increased energy efficiency.
Both candidates list tax credits for hybrids and zero-emission vehicles, with Obama having a more aggressive credit. Obama has a strong plank for energy efficiency with specific goals, which would reduce reliance on the energy grid. McCain has a good plank for modernizing the current energy grid.
Neither candidate specifically lists increased aid for for mass transit in traffic-choked areas in the energy section, which is a disappointment.
My choice? Obama has the edge on McCain, but he should take a good look at the grid update that McCain proposes. I believe we need more emphasis on good, reliable, comfortable, fast public transport.
On Health Care:
McCain proposes expanding access to private insurance, including a tax credit to help pay for premiums if you aren't employed or opt out of employer health care plans.
He supports a privatized non-profit organization dealing with the current uninsured and underinsured in the country, contracting with private insurers for coverage.
He also wants tort reform, saying that any case where a doctor went through proper procedures should be thrown out.
Barack Obama wants to expand access to public insurance, giving private individuals the option to purchase the same kind of coverage he and McCain get as Senators.
He supports plan portability and rules that would keep private insurance companies from denying care based on medical history, and require them to give the same level of care as the public insurance currently enjoyed by himself and McCain.
He wants a federal oversight/watchdog group for private insurers.
He also supports expanding public insurance for the young and the poor, and removing the block on Federal bargaining with drug companies to lower costs.
Both candidates say they want to rein in costs and encourage choice. Tort reform has not reined in costs in any way at all, as medical malpractice costs have skyrockets in the face of flat judgments and flat legal costs. Both candidates talk about wanting to help deal with the skyrocketing rates of autism in the US, but Obama has more initial details. Obama also has a stated commitment to Americans with disabilities.
Neither candidate lists actual universal health care, which is a disappointment. While Barack Obama does have a plan to get more doctors into the health care system, it does not address the critical shortage of general practitioners we currently face. John McCain does not even have that much.
My choice? Obama has the edge on a comprehensive plan to cut costs and give better care, but not as well as true universal health care would.
On Education:
McCain mentions that public schools are not working, thus we need to give all schools a chance to educate all children in American. In short, he supports a voucher program but has no significant changes listed otherwise for the casual observer.
Obama also mentions that public school are not working, and goes into metrics showing why we have poor starts and poor results. He has a comprehensive plan for public education that includes measuring performance, helping poor performers instead of punishing them, starting education early and continuing it through at least the community college level.
My choice? Obama, hands down. His proposals make sense in terms of fixing the system and attempting to help with higher education for all.
On Poverty:
Only Barack Obama actually has a poverty plank, and while it is not what, say, Denmark or Finland has, it is considerably better than nothing. It includes a partial tax credit for Social Security taxes, which has become a regressive poverty tax, along with other tax incentives for the rising population of lower to middle class families, and other items to help with families and communities.
Obama is my choice for dealing with issues of poverty.
My overall thoughts? McCain does have a few good ideas, but most of what he proposes are items from the right wing that have not worked: reducing taxes on corporations but not on the poor; oil and gas exploration and drilling that won't do anything about dependance on non-renewable resources; cut more taxes and give more money away. I do, admittedly, like the prize for a long-range fully electric vehicle. Still, he mostly does not cut current programs and wants to cut taxes, meaning spend and starve.
Obama has a considerably better plan for most Americans on almost every count I can find. He wants to reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, who have had decreasing wages and significantly increasing costs over the past 7 years, but increase them on the wealthiest, who have gotten by any measure significantly wealthier in the last 7 years. He is looking to spend money to jumpstart the economy by handing money to the poorest - the people most likely to spend - while getting us out of a war which is costing us over $10 billion per month. He is looking to streamline costs and increase some programs, but matches this with decreases in other spending and increases on taxes on the rich.
To my wealthy friends: I am happy you are wealthy, I truly am. You are my friends and I wish the best for you always. I hope to be wealthy one day myself, and I will be happy to pay high taxes once I get there as I will still have plenty left over. I view my taxes, when spent well, as an investment in my family, my neighbors, my friends, my neighborhood, my city, my state, myself and my country. I am not happy when my taxes are spent unwisely, such as on an unnecessary war. If you do not care for any level of taxes at all, well, I will have to agree to disagree with you there; but my friendships are not built on tax policy :-)
To my libertarian friends: I am sorry, but we do have conclusive proof that sometimes the free market is a considerably more expensive and less efficient choice than a government program. Healthcare, energy, water and prisons are several notable ways where government either provides a higher quality of service (prisons a la breakouts), a better price for that service (water in many places), or both (water in many more places, healthcare and regulated energy).
Mr. Obama has a lot more particulars for programs. A great deal of his spending increases are covered by tax increases on those most able to afford them and cutting costs in useful ways, such as insurance and tax paperwork - quite possibly all of them, in fact. I do not have the time today to measure the full costs of each candidates' program; sorry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-10 01:36 am (UTC)Let us say you have 5 people earning $24,000 a year each and 1 person earning $120,000 a year. Basic expenses are a much higher percentage of income for the people earning $20,000 - rent of, say, $800 a month, food of $300 a month, energy of $200 a month, transportation of $100 a month and communications of about $100 a month. This is $1,500 a month, or 75% of their gross income, and this does not include health costs, which are commonly on the order of, say, $300 a month between personal contributions and co-pays.
By comparison, the person earning $120,000 has a mortgage of, say, $5,000 a month, food of $750 a month, energy of $400 a month, transportation costs of $250 a month and communications of $200 a month. This is $6,600 per month, or 66% of their gross income. Their insurance costs are approximately the same, so $300 a month.
The people earning $2,000 a month have about $200 a month in discretionary income. If they have any big expenses they are out of the running for anything fun for months. The person earning $10,000 a month has $3,100 a month in discretionary income, and is generally much better able to absorb the shocks of a big expense even with higher expenses. The person with the high income may earn just as much, but also has more disposable income than the other five people combined.
Societal stability is a prime duty of government, balanced against ensuring personal privacy and liberty. If each of the above people loses everything owing to societal stability going poof, the people earning less generally have fewer possessions to lose and do not have to rebuild to anywhere near the same degree as the person earning much more. As such, the person earning the most has a much greater stake in ensuring society stays stable.
Does this mean the people earning little should not pay anything in taxes? I am inclined to feel that taxes, in addition to their usefulness in allowing for communal projects, also contribute to personal feelings of investment in society - even if that feeling is only to gripe.
At the same time, getting support from society when one is in definitive need, including in terms of reduced taxes, likewise makes sense to me in terms of compassion. I'll post my views of charity another time, but part of it is in terms of making sure people do not feel beholden.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-10 01:13 am (UTC)I am admittedly displeased with Obama as the Democratic Party choice in that he was the most conservative of the candidates on the stage with the possible exception of Mike Gravel, and I recognized this at the time. However, I consider Obama to be a considerably better candidate than McCain - Obama is looking to reverse many of the worst abuses of the Bush Administration, while McCain is looking to continue many of those same policies. The Iraq War comes to mind, as does tax cuts for the richest.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-10 03:40 am (UTC)A dead or dying fetus inside a woman is literally a toxic situation, and is life-threatening to the woman. Pregnancy IS lethal in some cases, and so can childbirth be. Mr McCain, Mr Scalia, Mr Thomas, Mr Kennedy, Mr Alito, and Mr Roberts have not personally and never will be pregnant, but they regard their opinions and their objections based on their religion which is not that of everyone ESLE in the USA that induced abortion should not be available to women in the USA.
McCain said outright he would appoint more judges like Alito. Torquemada was more tolerant and concerned for the wellbeing of women and people not of his own religion....
McCain's treatment of his first first, dumped when he got out of the Hanoi Hilton for the rich younger non-crippled Trophy Wife McCain was screwing around with in what probably was NOT an open marriage, was vile. His treatment of his current wife is vile, insulting her crudely in public--thous she gets no points for accepting that sort of abuse.
And what about the Keating 5, has that been all forgotten?... and apparently there is a big flap in Ohio, where McCain insisted the DHL be sold to a German company.... and now DHL is going to be merged apparently with another freight company and FIVE FIGURES of jobs in one location in Ohio, are about to evaporate... with McCain not the slightest bit interested or sympathetic about the situation.
He's corrupt adulterated scum and pure poison to the ideas of life, liberty, the pursuit of any happiness except his getting HIS rocks off and such and the hell with the women he's ejaculated in, and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And oh yeah, he's at least as much of an oathbreaker and liar as the schmuck in the White House is... "uphold and defend the Constution of the United States of America...." he swore that oath when commissioned out of the Naval Academy, and again when elected....
Obama's only singly an oathbreaker--anybody who voted for that FISA bill exterminating the Fourth Amendment, IMO is a traitor.