Endorsement of John McCain

[BearChick]

The Galveston Daily News, much to my surprise, honestly, came out and endorsed John McCain this morning. I really agree with their assessment and thought I'd share. I bolded one part that made me laugh--but in all seriousness, I agree with what they're saying there.


We recommend John McCain

By Dolph Tillotson
The Daily News
Published October 21, 2008

The Daily News recommends Republican nominee John McCain for president in 2008.

We base that recommendation on McCain’s proven track record in national defense, his legislative leadership ability and fiscally conservative economic policies. For moderates who seek measured steps back toward the middle of the American political spectrum, McCain is the right choice this year.

He represents a middle ground between George Bush-Karl Rove on the right and the ultra-liberal polices of Barack Obama and the current leadership of the Democratic Party.

America, we believe, is ready to elect a black candidate, and Democrat Barack Obama has proven himself an attractive, charismatic and successful campaigner. That’s is the main reason he is the favorite in the race for president as this is written.

However, where one ordinarily fears that candidates will fail to honor their campaign promises; in Obama’s case we’re fearful he will do exactly as he says.

Obama has based his campaign upon the notion that American needs a major overhaul, dramatic change. He believes in higher taxes and big-government solutions to nearly every problem from health care to the economy. He thinks America should send its enemies in Iraq a definite timetable for withdrawal, whether or not Iraq is secure.

We don’t see it that way. Certainly there are problems that need fixing — health care, the economy and America’s slipping esteem around the world.

However, we believe that the changes needed are measured and thoughtful, not revolutionary. We trust McCain’s long experience and proven ability to make the right choices without upsetting much of what works about America in the process.

These are the reasons we support McCain:

• He’s a brave and decent man, and he has sought through a long career in public life to do the right thing, often when it put him at odds even with his own party bosses.

• McCain’s military background and his understanding of military issues make him most likely to sort out a workable solution to the long, costly war in Iraq. What’s needed is resolution, not surrender and retreat.

• McCain promises no tax increases, where his opponent believes many people and small businesses in America just aren’t paying enough. We think the government should economize, not America’s small businesses. Higher taxes won’t help a struggling economy get back on its feet.

• McCain represents a new beginning for moderate to conservative Republicans who have seen their party shanghaied by hard-right social conservatives. McCain gives voice to the common man’s call for solutions that are both tolerant of others and based on old-fashioned common sense.

This year, McCain is the right choice for president of the United States.

http://galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=6c8287d736d4d0be

[atxtraveler]

Nice. But what about change for change's sake?

[atxtraveler]

The opinion has been voiced that Obama is sending his youth movement out to end women's suffrage...

uPcthZL2RE

[nein51]

How is this possible? This shows an interesting phenomenon. Clearly the island as a whole is not full of McCain supporters...but the ones who read [the newspaper] probably are...

[The Banterer]

Nice. But what about change for change's sake?

They're gonna call it reform and make pit bulls start wearing lipstick.

The reasons that the article gives are full of generalities and totally subjective remarks. The part that the OP bolded is really where the meat of their reasoning is. They couldn't care less who the GOP nominee is, they just don't want Obama. There's nothing wrong with that, but I wish they had been more honest in their list of reasons.

[BearChick]

It's an editorial, which by definition is generalities and subjective remarks. Did you miss the bulletpoints at the end? Those point to the reasoning.

It's interesting because Galveston is NOT a Republican town. Not even close.

[Volunteer]

Wow, at least one newspaper is actually listening to what these candidates say and is actually considering their record. Most other media, and much of electorate, sadly, is not.

Change. We need change. That is the Obama specificity.

[Volunteer]

They're gonna call it reform and make pit bulls start wearing lipstick.

The reasons that the article gives are full of generalities and totally subjective remarks. The part that the OP bolded is really where the meat of their reasoning is. They couldn't care less who the GOP nominee is, they just don't want Obama. There's nothing wrong with that, but I wish they had been more honest in their list of reasons.

Other than some vague thought of change, what do you believe the reasons for supporting Obama might be? Obama's entire campaign strikes me as chock full of generalities. Maybe I'm missing something.

[nein51]

It's interesting because Galveston is NOT a Republican town. Not even close.
That was my point, Galveston is overwhelmingly minority, which tends to be a democrat voting group. However, the paper knows where the bread is buttered and that the "average" Galvestonian (if that is the term) is darn sure not a paper reader.

[Bexar Fan]

This election really is a choice between McCain,who many feel should have become president eight years ago, and Obama, who many feel should become president eight years from now. The rub is that more voters certainly seem to be betting on hastening the future's arrival than on clinging to the past. Pretty vague, but that is the gist of what I am hearing for reasoning.

[quash]

The rub is that more voters certainly seem to be betting on hastening the future's arrival than on clinging to the past. Pretty vague, but that is the gist of what I am hearing for reasoning.

Not that vague. Clinging to the past means you agree with where we are now, so you vote for McCain. If you don't like where we are you vote for Obama (and any one seriously interested in the specifics of the Obama campaign can waste an afternoon on his campaign site, it's chock full of specifics) or you write in Ron Paul or vote for another 3d party candidate.

[The Banterer]

It's an editorial, which by definition is generalities and subjective remarks. Did you miss the bulletpoints at the end? Those point to the reasoning.

It's interesting because Galveston is NOT a Republican town. Not even close.

I was specifically talking about the bulletpoints.

[The Banterer]

Other than some vague thought of change, what do you believe the reasons for supporting Obama might be? Obama's entire campaign strikes me as chock full of generalities. Maybe I'm missing something.

Healthcare, position on diplomacy, helping out the middle and lower class financially, and a belief that he will handle the ecnonomic situation better (however ridiculous that may be, since if a President is handling the economy, we're in bad shape).

I would hold journalists giving endorsements to a higher standards in justifying their support than the average man or woman on the street. Among the bulleted reasons, the only one based on anything of substance is the tax issue, which offers a mischaracterization of Obama's stance.

BTW, my position in this thread was never that Obama supporters were more knowledgable or insightful on the issues of the election, just that this specific endorsement rings hollow due to it's particular lack of insight.

[nein51]

Not that vague. Clinging to the past means you agree with where we are now, so you vote for McCain. If you don't like where we are you vote for Obama (and any one seriously interested in the specifics of the Obama campaign can waste an afternoon on his campaign site, it's chock full of specifics) or you write in Ron Paul or vote for another 3d party candidate.
So, in your opinion McCain is really just like Bush? I find that ironic since for years he was considered RINO. He is far too left for me but compared to Obama, McCain is a far right winger.

I want some changes...but not in the form of glorified socialism and income redistribution.

BTW, once we implement these entitlement programs how do we get rid of them? Think carefully since some are still around from the "chicken in every pot" era.

[Texas Golfer]

Not that vague. Clinging to the past means you agree with where we are now, so you vote for McCain. If you don't like where we are you vote for Obama (and any one seriously interested in the specifics of the Obama campaign can waste an afternoon on his campaign site, it's chock full of specifics) or you write in Ron Paul or vote for another 3d party candidate.

So you're buying into the "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush's 3rd term" rhetoric. I thought you were smarter than that.

[quash]

So you're buying into the "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush's 3rd term" rhetoric. I thought you were smarter than that.

I didn't say that, I was responding to another post. But McCain is clearly more like Bush than Obama is. To me, they're both more alike than different, thus my remark about voting for a third party candidate.

[quash]

So, in your opinion McCain is really just like Bush? I find that ironic since for years he was considered RINO. He is far too left for me but compared to Obama, McCain is a far right winger.

I want some changes...but not in the form of glorified socialism and income redistribution.

BTW, once we implement these entitlement programs how do we get rid of them? Think carefully since some are still around from the "chicken in every pot" era.

I didn't say, nor do I believe that McCain is just like Bush, but he's certainly more like Bush than Obama is.

As for the RINO/maverick stuff if you use Nexis to search for "McCain maverick" you don't get a match until 1999. He went up against his party in McCain Feingold; his party was right.

[atxtraveler]

Personally, I like working for my own money and having a decision in which organizations I give money to...

I lived in Australia where they took 50% of my paycheck out every month. No thanks to Obama and socialism.

Seriously... work for a living people.

[ChipOC]

I didn't say that, I was responding to another post. But McCain is clearly more like Bush than Obama is. To me, they're both more alike than different, thus my remark about voting for a third party candidate.
McCain is clearly against the spending that Bush has supported. That is a key difference. Obama, not so much. Earmarks galore with That Guy, only with higher taxes.

[The Banterer]

Personally, I like working for my own money and having a decision in which organizations I give money to...

I lived in Australia where they took 50% of my paycheck out every month. No thanks to Obama and socialism.

Seriously... work for a living people.

My biggest issue with McCain is that he seems to be almost as much a socialist as Obama. Socialism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Marxism (which is probably what people should be accusing Obama of, think of the impact that would have), and McCain has voted at least once to circumvent the free market in a huge way at the cost of the taxpayers. Necessary or not, the bailout is pure socialism, much more than Obama's healthcare plan would be.

[atxtraveler]

My biggest issue with McCain is that he seems to be almost as much a socialist as Obama. Socialism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Marxism (which is probably what people should be accusing Obama of, think of the impact that would have), and McCain has voted at least once to circumvent the free market in a huge way at the cost of the taxpayers. Necessary or not, the bailout is pure socialism, much more than Obama's healthcare plan would be.

Except that few people know about either candidates to begin with, so even fewer of those would know what Marxism is....

[KellerBear]

I can't wait 'til after the election when all we do is argue about how whoever is President hasn't changed a thing...

[Bexar Fan]

Except that few people know about either candidates to begin with, so even fewer of those would know what Marxism is....
Hmmmm....Marx......isn't he the guy that helped Al Gore invent equality?

[ChipOC]

Hmmmm....Marx......isn't he the guy that helped Al Gore invent equality?
No, he was one of a couple of funny brothers.

Banterer's last post was pretty solid.

[Volunteer]

Healthcare, position on diplomacy, helping out the middle and lower class financially, and a belief that he will handle the ecnonomic situation better (however ridiculous that may be, since if a President is handling the economy, we're in bad shape).

Obama's "tax reduction" for the middle and lower classes sounds appealing - if you're in the middle or lower class. The problem is he's going to raise taxes on the top 5% of wage earners. These are the folks that drive the economy so when they have less money to spend they will also have less to invest. Ultimately this will almost certainly result in a reduction in jobs. The results are not so good for the middle and lower classes. I believe that this reduction in jobs will actually make Obama's tax increase revenue negative - i.e., the federal government will take in less tax revenue. That will not be so good.

I would hold journalists giving endorsements to a higher standards in justifying their support than the average man or woman on the street. Among the bulleted reasons, the only one based on anything of substance is the tax issue, which offers a mischaracterization of Obama's stance.

The paper was right on target in terms of Obama's tax proposal. It's not the 1 or 2 person small business that drives employment in the economy. It's the 10-100 person company with sales of around $2 million to about $50 million. Many, if not most of these companies are privately held sub S or LLC organizations where net income flows directly as ordinary income to the owner. Obama's proposed tax increase will hit these businesses right in gut. There will be less growth. And it involves more than just a couple of businesses - it involves hundreds of thousands of businesses with millions of employees.

BTW, my position in this thread was never that Obama supporters were more knowledgable or insightful on the issues of the election, just that this specific endorsement rings hollow due to it's particular lack of insight.

Not that vague. Clinging to the past means you agree with where we are now, so you vote for McCain. If you don't like where we are you vote for Obama (and any one seriously interested in the specifics of the Obama campaign can waste an afternoon on his campaign site, it's chock full of specifics) or you write in Ron Paul or vote for another 3d party candidate.

Voting for McCain has nothing to do with voting for the past. It has everything to do with voting for the future of the country. Just as an aside, I have read most of Obama's position statements. IMO they remain quie vague. They do manage to outline proposals but offer only vague ideas about how they are to be financed.

[The Banterer]

Healthcare, position on diplomacy, helping out the middle and lower class financially, and a belief that he will handle the ecnonomic situation better (however ridiculous that may be, since if a President is handling the economy, we're in bad shape).

Obama's "tax reduction" for the middle and lower classes sounds appealing - if you're in the middle or lower class. The problem is he's going to raise taxes on the top 5% of wage earners. These are the folks that drive the economy so when they have less money to spend they will also have less to invest. Ultimately this will almost certainly result in a reduction in jobs. The results are not so good for the middle and lower classes. I believe that this reduction in jobs will actually make Obama's tax increase revenue negative - i.e., the federal government will take in less tax revenue. That will not be so good.

I would hold journalists giving endorsements to a higher standards in justifying their support than the average man or woman on the street. Among the bulleted reasons, the only one based on anything of substance is the tax issue, which offers a mischaracterization of Obama's stance.

The paper was right on target in terms of Obama's tax proposal. It's not the 1 or 2 person small business that drives employment in the economy. It's the 10-100 person company with sales of around $2 million to about $50 million. Many, if not most of these companies are privately held sub S or LLC organizations where net income flows directly as ordinary income to the owner. Obama's proposed tax increase will hit these businesses right in gut. There will be less growth. And it involves more than just a couple of businesses - it involves hundreds of thousands of businesses with millions of employees.

BTW, my position in this thread was never that Obama supporters were more knowledgable or insightful on the issues of the election, just that this specific endorsement rings hollow due to it's particular lack of insight.

This small business argument confounds me. I don't understand how small business owners will be hit comparatively harder than anyone else making over $250,000/year. The only difference is that they have the option to fire people to make up for their lost income.

I'm not an expert in business, and I don't pretend to be, but I have my doubts that Obama's raise in taxes would cripple economic growth. If we look at the Bush tax cuts, they basically did jack to spur substantial economic growth, especially when compared to the economic growth under higher taxes in the 1990s. There are a lot of variables when it comes to growth, and taxes seem to be one of the least important of them, as economic good times are just as capable of occurring under high taxes as they are low taxes.

BTW, the mischaracterization I was talking about from the original article is that they basically painted Obama's plan to be some sort of vengeance on the wealthy, French Revolution stuff, when it's really closer to Utopian Marxism (though not to say it falls entirely in line with Marx's vision).

[nein51]

More importantly, why are we cutting taxes at a time when the government is running a massive deficit?

We NEED less government spending and I dont think there is a candidate that can offer that right now.

[The Banterer]

More importantly, why are we cutting taxes at a time when the government is running a massive deficit?

We NEED less government spending and I dont think there is a candidate that can offer that right now.

Bob Barr. I completely agree with everything in your post.

I think it's time to reject the notion that we only get two choices for the most important leadership position in the world. I know that Barr isn't going to win, but if more people start supporting 3rd party or independent candidates, then that will encourage even more people to do it.

[Volunteer]

This small business argument confounds me. I don't understand how small business owners will be hit comparatively harder than anyone else making over $250,000/year. The only difference is that they have the option to fire people to make up for their lost income.

I'm not an expert in business, and I don't pretend to be, but I have my doubts that Obama's raise in taxes would cripple economic growth. If we look at the Bush tax cuts, they basically did jack to spur substantial economic growth, especially when compared to the economic growth under higher taxes in the 1990s. There are a lot of variables when it comes to growth, and taxes seem to be one of the least important of them, as economic good times are just as capable of occurring under high taxes as they are low taxes.

BTW, the mischaracterization I was talking about from the original article is that they basically painted Obama's plan to be some sort of vengeance on the wealthy, French Revolution stuff, when it's really closer to Utopian Marxism (though not to say it falls entirely in line with Marx's vision).

Please take a look at the impact of Bush's early tax cuts - federal tax revenues significantly increased.

Remember also that when he took office we were in the beginning stages of a significant economic slow down. Then came 9/11 and the 2002 stock market crash (some of this was driven by the dot com bust). Historically the Dow was at 11,700 in January of 2000 and was at 9,600 on September 10, 2001. On September 21, 2001 the Dow dropped to 8,200 and recovered to 10,000 by January of 2002 - some called this a "Dead Cat Bounce". By October of 2002 the Dow was down to 7,286. So basically the Dow lost about 35% in less than 2 years.

Umemployment was at 5.8% in 2002 and had dropped to 4.6% by 2006. Job creation during the Bush presidency was extremely solid.

Bush took over just as we were entering a very sick economic period and without his tax cuts the economy would have been much much worse. He gets lambasted but the fact is that he did yoeman's work with his tax/economic policy for the first 5 or 6 years of his presidency. However for the past couple of years he's spent way too much money - well, he and our beloved congress have spent way too much money. But this hasn't caused the crisis we're in now - it didn't help, but it isn't the primary reason. That is reserved for the democrats with their stupid desire to fund crappy credit arrangements, and for the banks that decided they could abandon all their senses when looking at loan applications.

The worst thing we can do is raise taxes when we are in the midst of a major economic slowdown. And that means raising taxes on anyone.

We need to encourage, not discourage, investment. Making money takes risk. If we lower the reward then we reduce the number of folks willing to take the risk. Less money invested = fewer jobs.

[Volunteer]

Bob Barr. I completely agree with everything in your post.

I think it's time to reject the notion that we only get two choices for the most important leadership position in the world. I know that Barr isn't going to win, but if more people start supporting 3rd party or independent candidates, then that will encourage even more people to do it.

First of all the 3rd parties need to nominate someone other than a nut. Perot? Nader? FlipFlopBARR? These guys are terrible.

[Wacoso]

This small business argument confounds me. I don't understand how small business owners will be hit comparatively harder than anyone else making over $250,000/year. The only difference is that they have the option to fire people to make up for their lost income.



So you'd rather me fire someone at my business, and I'm firmly in the 250+ a year business, than employ someone and keep them off welfare, in their own house, paying taxes, etc...?

[The Banterer]

So you'd rather me fire someone at my business, and I'm firmly in the 250+ a year business, than employ someone and keep them off welfare, in their own house, paying taxes, etc...?

No, I'm opposed to raising taxes, I just don't understand the argument that small businesses will be hit harder than other businesses. They just have a choice in whether to be hit equally the same as a salaried worker, or they can choose to pass the tax increase onto their employees/customers.

[The Banterer]

Please take a look at the impact of Bush's early tax cuts - federal tax revenues significantly increased.

Remember also that when he took office we were in the beginning stages of a significant economic slow down. Then came 9/11 and the 2002 stock market crash (some of this was driven by the dot com bust). Historically the Dow was at 11,700 in January of 2000 and was at 9,600 on September 10, 2001. On September 21, 2001 the Dow dropped to 8,200 and recovered to 10,000 by January of 2002 - some called this a "Dead Cat Bounce". By October of 2002 the Dow was down to 7,286. So basically the Dow lost about 35% in less than 2 years.

Umemployment was at 5.8% in 2002 and had dropped to 4.6% by 2006. Job creation during the Bush presidency was extremely solid.

Bush took over just as we were entering a very sick economic period and without his tax cuts the economy would have been much much worse. He gets lambasted but the fact is that he did yoeman's work with his tax/economic policy for the first 5 or 6 years of his presidency. However for the past couple of years he's spent way too much money - well, he and our beloved congress have spent way too much money. But this hasn't caused the crisis we're in now - it didn't help, but it isn't the primary reason. That is reserved for the democrats with their stupid desire to fund crappy credit arrangements, and for the banks that decided they could abandon all their senses when looking at loan applications.

The worst thing we can do is raise taxes when we are in the midst of a major economic slowdown. And that means raising taxes on anyone.

We need to encourage, not discourage, investment. Making money takes risk. If we lower the reward then we reduce the number of folks willing to take the risk. Less money invested = fewer jobs.

The effect of tax policy on the economy isn't nearly as strong as other factors, like interest rates or purchasing power. Ultimately, I believe that Obama's tax increase wouldn't have nearly as grave effects on small business's as you do. The tax increases wouldn't have an immediate affect on the vast majority of small businesses. The only businesses that would really be hit hard enough to make a difference are those already hanging on by a string, or those whose owners have very short-term concerns. By the time that the tax increases start to creep up on more small businesses (still probably not anywhere near a majority), a rejuvenated middle and lower class (by virtue of Obama dishing out the dough) would have time to make an impact in market growth.

Would some small businesses struggle? Yeah, but probably not any more than they would in an economy where significant portions of the population are afraid to spend money on luxury goods.

Like I've said, I don't think raising taxes on anyone is a good idea, nor do I think lowering taxes is a good idea for the forseeable future. However, I don't think that either move would, by itself, have terrible impacts on the economy.

[Wacoso]

No, I'm opposed to raising taxes, I just don't understand the argument that small businesses will be hit harder than other businesses. They just have a choice in whether to be hit equally the same as a salaried worker, or they can choose to pass the tax increase onto their employees/customers.
The reason we are hit harder is due to the fact that we run a tighter budget. Small businesses don't have flexibility to just hire and fire. We get our employees, train them, and need them. You don't put someone on the street unless they are stealing from you or don't perform.

[canuckbear]

Personally, I like working for my own money and having a decision in which organizations I give money to...

Seriously... work for a living people.

Atex,

Sorry to quote you again, but you hit the nail on the head.

The American Dream used to be work hard and make money. The new dream is to make money by working hard not to work.

[Volunteer]

The effect of tax policy on the economy isn't nearly as strong as other factors, like interest rates or purchasing power. Ultimately, I believe that Obama's tax increase wouldn't have nearly as grave effects on small business's as you do. The tax increases wouldn't have an immediate affect on the vast majority of small businesses.

This is an interesting opinion. Certainly interest rates play a role - but interest rates tend to have more impact on capex spending and not so much on the the existing level of employment. Clearly a lack of capital investment will likely lead to a lack of increase in the number of employees- but it will not necessarily lead to a reduction in staff. Purchasing power is driven by employment. As employment goes down so does aggregate purchasing power. As aggregate purchasing power drops so does employment since the need for goods and services is lower.

I fear you are severely underestimating the negative impact that increased taxes play on all businesses (small, large and in-between). And with Obama we get the dreaded double whammy - increases on ordinary income AND capital gains taxes. Business owners will be hit with higher taxes on ordinary income. To make up the loss of income business owners will look to reduce cost. The "low hanging fruit" in cost reduction is labor cost. Cut staff and the savings are immediate. You can absolutely count on the fact that higher income taxes will cause business owners to reduce staff. It's always been that way.

An increase in capital gains tax hurts in a couple of significant ways:


There is a proclivity to hold on to investments rather than "cash out" to avoid the tax. This reduces the amount of available capital in the market.

Investors that do decide to cash out of investments pay a higher tax rate which means they have less to invest on future opportunities.


[/LIST]

The only businesses that would really be hit hard enough to make a difference are those already hanging on by a string, or those whose owners have very short-term concerns. By the time that the tax increases start to creep up on more small businesses (still probably not anywhere near a majority), a rejuvenated middle and lower class (by virtue of Obama dishing out the dough) would have time to make an impact in market growth.

Every business gets hit hard, not just those hanging on by a string. The point I believe you're missing revolves around the term small businesses. We're not talking about the single proprietorship ship here, we're talking about the larger enterprises that actually employ people. They're the businesses that get hurt and they're the businesses that drive employment.

Yep, everyone is going to get around a thousand bucks to spend. That'll be gone in about a month and what we will the economy have left? Nothing. We handed out $600 to each person a few months ago and what good did that do? Not much.

There isn't going to be a rejuvenated middle and lower class. Sure many of these people are going to get a little money from the government but it ain't going to be enough to change their lives and many are going to lose their jobs. It is ridiculous to even consider raising taxes in a economic slowdown. It sounds good if you're going to get a little cash, but it's economic suicide.

Would some small businesses struggle? Yeah, but probably not any more than they would in an economy where significant portions of the population are afraid to spend money on luxury goods.

Small businesses don't just sell luxury goods.

Like I've said, I don't think raising taxes on anyone is a good idea, nor do I think lowering taxes is a good idea for the forseeable future. However, I don't think that either move would, by itself, have terrible impacts on the economy.

If Obama gets elected I feel sorry for those folks looking for employment. It's going to be tough - at least it will be if he is able to implement his plans. I'm glad I won't be in that position.

And lowering taxes right now would be a great shot in the arm for the economy. Especially if you lowered the tax burden on those folks that could actually make difference in spending and investing.

[nein51]

Taxing the rich to give to the poor, very Robin Hood. In school districts in Texas this has been a miserable failure by the way and in some cases the gaps have actually widened.

The problem with taxing the rich more is that they just find more creative measures by which to hid their money.

[Texas Golfer]

Taxing the rich to give to the poor, very Robin Hood. In school districts in Texas this has been a miserable failure by the way and in some cases the gaps have actually widened.

The problem with taxing the rich more is that they just find more creative measures by which to hid their money.

The DNC's version of Halloween (click on picture).