Economic plans of mccain and obama

<p>So as we all know, the economy seems to be the most important issue to Americans this year.
Here's what they have on their website if you're interested.</p>

<p>Barack</a> Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Economy</p>

<p>John</a> McCain 2008 - John McCain for President</p>

<p>I was wondering who you guys think has the better plan. Lets keep this strictly objective. In other words if you're going to pick a reason give clear evidence to back up that reason. I'm personally asking this because I'm having a tough time deciding which would be better and would like to see some input. Thanks.</p>

<p>I feel that John McCain has the stronger plan, mainly because Obama's is plain nonsensical. It's a bunch of things he plans to get done strung together with no funding. It is unrealistic. Things have to come from somewhere, and you can't just keep piling costs on the so-called "rich" while lowering costs on other parts of the population. The US just does not have that much money.</p>

<p>Of course, neither of their plans is wholly in tune with what they'll actually accomplish, but meh, they're politicians and gotta get elected somehow. Throwing out downers certainly isn't the way.</p>

<p>McCain's makes much more sense. I frequently wonder if anyone in Obama's campaign has ever taken a basic economics course. Windfall profits tax, less free trade, and a slew of other things. Really, how stupid is that? If I were old enough, I'd vote for Obama, but certainly not for his economic policy.</p>

<p>I personally favor Obama's. Recent analyses have shown that McCain's plan will cause the deficit to increase by $5 trillion by the year 2018 while Obama's will cause it to increase by $3.8 trillion. Neither of them will reduce it, sadly, but McCain's increases it by more with less benefits to us.</p>

<p>McCain's plan is at varying degrees vague, self-contradicting, and downright crazy. Obama's page tends to be more specific. For example, compare "John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump" to "Obama will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies. The Fund will have a peer-review selection and award process based on the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund, a state-level initiative that has awarded over $125 million to Michigan businesses with the most innovative proposals to create new products and new jobs in the state."</p>

<p>McCain seems to have little knowledge of history. Lowering taxes has never resulted in increased revenue, and yet McCain says that by lowering taxes he will balance the budget by 2013. Well, analyses show that his plan will increase the deficit by $5 trillion by the year 2018.</p>

<p>Clinton added a bunch to the deficit and then balanced it at the end and they caused the recession of 2001. </p>

<p>As for you word on McCain, I dont think so.</p>

<p>National</a> Ledger - Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote</p>

<p>2008</a> Presidential Candidate Spending Analyses</p>

<p>McCain is currently higher rated than Bob Barr
NTU's</a> Fiscal "Snapshot" of the 2008 Presidential Race</p>

<p>Obama's plan is simply genius. Look at all the change. Its not like its straight out of Lenin's playbook or anything. Seriously, tell me, how is this man not a messiah yet?</p>

<p>You don't need to take my word about McCain... you could look it up: An</a> Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans</p>

<p>Obama voted to give big oil tax breaks. McCain did not.
Obama</a>, McCain diverge on solution for energy woes - Yahoo! News</p>

<p>
[quote]
Seriously, tell me, how is this man not a messiah yet?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stop strawmanning because you can't defend or praise McCain. Nobody is calling Obama the messiah except for insecure conservatives scared of Obama's ability to draw hundreds of thousands of eager supporters.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Obama voted to give big oil tax breaks. McCain did not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wait, I thought Obama was a communist for proposing a windfall tax? Now you attack him for allegedly giving big oil tax breaks? Make up your mind.</p>

<p>Obama voted for Cheney's energy plan, but criticizes McCain for supporting the plan. McCain voted against it. </p>

<p>The windfall tax is a joke. The big oil companies percentage of profit is less than Google, Microsoft, LG, etc.</p>

<p>When Obama voted for it most of the provisions that Cheney supported had been stripped out.</p>

<p>How about this? Ever since McCain did a 180 degree turn on offshore drilling, oil interests have contributed up to $2 million to his campaign.</p>

<p>But I'm just being cynical. It's probably just a phenomenal coincidence.</p>

<p>I can think of a few other people who have drawn very large crowds. Their first names were Mao, Adolf, etc. Am I just whistling dixie in the dark?</p>

<p>McCain's tax cuts and military spending will probably be more expensive than UHC.</p>

<p>Hey, iloveagoodbrew, how about Kennedy? Or Roosevelt, with his fireside chats? Not all popular people are evil.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Kennedy? Or Roosevelt, with his fireside chats? Not all popular people are evil.

[/quote]
And Clinton. ;)</p>

<p>2008</a> Presidential Candidate Spending Analyses</p>

<p>Environment and energy:
Obama: $56.489
McCain: $56.481</p>

<p>Obama clearly has the edge. :)</p>

<p>On a serious note, I'd be interested in seeing how the spending relates to possible changes in taxes. Wouldn't he have a lower deficit when this is taken into account? Of course, these are two different issues (spending vs. deficit), but still interesting. Thanks for the link.</p>

<p>Obama's health care spending will keep people healthy and able to contribute to the economy hth.</p>

<p>The health care will also raise taxes, thus making it harder for small business to open. Remember self employment taxes are usually double the state tax. Current businesses will then struggle more. In the end, the health care will hurt our economic growth just like it has done to the European states and Canada.</p>

<p>The system in the UK and Canada are failing the left just doesn't want you to believe it.</p>

<p>Record</a> numbers go abroad for health treatment with 70,000 escaping NHS | Mail Online
National</a> Statistics Online</p>

<p>IBDeditorials.com:</a> Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits</p>

<p>Remember State mandates make healthcare more expensive. Not cheaper</p>

<p>States</a> Make Health Care More Expensive, Matthews Claims
Is</a> Execessive Health Care Regulation Hurting Uninsured?</p>

<p>Imagine if the govt controlled itself, how bad would that be. Oh we already know. Look at Europe and Canada.</p>

<p>All in all I have never seen the reason for "Robin Hood" mentality. It just doesn't make sense to me. I see absolutly no reason why the rich should give to the poor, the poor who did not work for that money they didn't earn it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can think of a few other people who have drawn very large crowds. Their first names were Mao, Adolf, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Godwin's Law. You lose. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It will also raise taxes, thus making it harder for small business to open. Current businesses will then struggle more. In the end, the health care will hurt our economic growth just like it has done to the European states and Canada.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Economic growth is important, but achieving growth is not the sacred goal of government. Hell, why don't we become like China, adopt totalitarian capitalism and abolish minimum wage? I'm sure that will spur growth as well.</p>

<p>The fact is that there is an unconscionably high level of uninsured in America. That needs to taken care of, period.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It just doesn't make sense to me. I see absolutly no reason why the rich should give to the poor, the poor who did not work for that money they didn't earn it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stop worshipping at the Altar of the Almighty Dollar. A person's salary is not a representation of how valuable they are to society. Yes, it reflects achievement and diligence, but it also reflects a lot of luck as well. Besides, a healthy nation benefits everybody. Or are you one of those short-sighted and selfish libertarian types who think that they shouldn't have to pay taxes despite hogging the roads and calling the police whenever a burly-looking black guy walks by their house at night?</p>