For GOP only

[southsider2k5]

They really managed to kill ANY momentum and positive feelings behind the Democratic campaign. I would not be surprised with a McCain win in November. Three months ago I would have thought that idea was crazy.

 

As low of expectations as I have from the Clinton's a part of me almost wonders if she knows she can't win, so she is trying to give the election to McCain, that way she can run again in 2012. It makes way more sense than most other explanations of why she is still in the race.

 

[EvilMonkey]

As low of expectations as I have from the Clinton's a part of me almost wonders if she knows she can't win, so she is trying to give the election to McCain, that way she can run again in 2012. It makes way more sense than most other explanations of why she is still in the race.

Or maybe she is just staying in as a big FU to the people she feels abandoned her for Obama.

[NorthSideSox72]

total madness. energy independence is the top issue to be dealt with. too bad it won't. everyone in the Senate and House will just b**** and fight and nothing will get done.

That's the key, right there - energy policy. There is good news and bad news. Good news: many things CAN be done about it, and a positive effect could be felt pretty quickly, if done right. Also good, all three candidates are saying its a priority. The bad news is, as you alude to, it seems unlikely that Congress and/or the next President will do it well.

 

[lostfan]

That's the key, right there - energy policy. There is good news and bad news. Good news: many things CAN be done about it, and a positive effect could be felt pretty quickly, if done right. Also good, all three candidates are saying its a priority. The bad news is, as you alude to, it seems unlikely that Congress and/or the next President will do it well.

High gas prices are kind of a blessing in disguise, in a way. Americans sometimes need a good kick in the ass to get them to do something about an unfavorable situation. If we kept on having gas prices in the 1's, we'd never do anything about it. Now we have as good of a reason as any. It's kind of hard to ignore the guy in front of you when he keeps punching you in the face.

[NorthSideSox72]

High gas prices are kind of a blessing in disguise, in a way. Americans sometimes need a good kick in the ass to get them to do something about an unfavorable situation. If we kept on having gas prices in the 1's, we'd never do anything about it. Now we have as good of a reason as any. It's kind of hard to ignore the guy in front of you when he keeps punching you in the face.

Agree. SS2K5 and I, along with others, have been saying that for a while. It sucks for now, but it will probably be a benefit in the long run. Higher prices for gas, as well as the electric and gas bills at home, will make more people look at alternatives. For example, the combination of high electricity prices and now much more efficient PV solar cells mean that they may now be much more practical for people's homes. Same goes for cars - people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles now.

 

Some of you may recall, I posted a thread in here a while back laying out the math for buying a hybrid, which I then did. Well, we're probably buying a house this year, and after I do so, I'll be doing the same math for solar cells for the house. Stay tuned.

 

[Balta1701]

Agree. SS2K5 and I, along with others, have been saying that for a while. It sucks for now, but it will probably be a benefit in the long run. Higher prices for gas, as well as the electric and gas bills at home, will make more people look at alternatives. For example, the combination of high electricity prices and now much more efficient PV solar cells mean that they may now be much more practical for people's homes. Same goes for cars - people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles now.

 

Some of you may recall, I posted a thread in here a while back laying out the math for buying a hybrid, which I then did. Well, we're probably buying a house this year, and after I do so, I'll be doing the same math for solar cells for the house. Stay tuned.

It's probably also worth keeping in mind a couple other things...first, there are a lot of other ways to "Green" up a house coming on the market these days, some of which are better than others. Things like various new types of water heaters, better designs of windows, better building materials, etc, on top of the photovoltaics that are now becoming common.

[southsider2k5]

Agree. SS2K5 and I, along with others, have been saying that for a while. It sucks for now, but it will probably be a benefit in the long run. Higher prices for gas, as well as the electric and gas bills at home, will make more people look at alternatives. For example, the combination of high electricity prices and now much more efficient PV solar cells mean that they may now be much more practical for people's homes. Same goes for cars - people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles now.

 

Some of you may recall, I posted a thread in here a while back laying out the math for buying a hybrid, which I then did. Well, we're probably buying a house this year, and after I do so, I'll be doing the same math for solar cells for the house. Stay tuned.

 

Its funny because I about puked when I saw Hillary talking about moving the country off of crude oil dependacy, like there was some huge policy movement under President Clinton that did something effective. Its not really up to the President, unless that person taxes or subsidizes a particular type of energy to the point it that moves people to better alternatives. that didn't happen under President Clinton.

 

People make those kind of switches because of prices, not because the President tells them to do so.

[Balta1701]

Its funny because I about puked when I saw Hillary talking about moving the country off of crude oil dependacy, like there was some huge policy movement under President Clinton that did something effective. Its not really up to the President, unless that person taxes or subsidizes a particular type of energy to the point it that moves people to better alternatives. that didn't happen under President Clinton.

 

People make those kind of switches because of prices, not because the President tells them to do so.

I'll still say that both of the last 2 presidents have really missed opportunities to effectively do something in this area by failing to do as you suggest, adding some subsidies for wind/solar while cutting subsidies for oil, or perhaps more importantly, failed to genuinely put enough federal dollars in to developing the technology in order to get ahead of the curve while energy was still fairly cheap.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's probably also worth keeping in mind a couple other things...first, there are a lot of other ways to "Green" up a house coming on the market these days, some of which are better than others. Things like various new types of water heaters, better designs of windows, better building materials, etc, on top of the photovoltaics that are now becoming common.

Oh absolutely. For those though, its simpler a lot of the time - when its time to replace the waterheater/furnace/roofing/windows, we'll be going with the most efficient available, as long as the cost difference isn't so astronimically out of whack that we'd never see the benefit. I brought up solar cells as an example because its a much bigger deal, with a bigger up front investment, and until recently the math just didn't work very well for them in most circumstances.

 

[Balta1701]

Oh absolutely. For those though, its simpler a lot of the time - when its time to replace the waterheater/furnace/roofing/windows, we'll be going with the most efficient available, as long as the cost difference isn't so astronimically out of whack that we'd never see the benefit. I brought up solar cells as an example because its a much bigger deal, with a bigger up front investment, and until recently the math just didn't work very well for them in most circumstances.

For photovoltaics I think you're right, but even then, I think that solar water heaters have been around and working for quite some time and IIRC are pretty darn cost effective in the long run.

[NorthSideSox72]

For photovoltaics I think you're right, but even then, I think that solar water heaters have been around and working for quite some time and IIRC are pretty darn cost effective in the long run.

By solar water heaters, do you mean the ones where you run the pipe on the roof with heat-soaking coating on it? Or something else?

 

Also, one thing that is said to work pretty darn well now are those no-tank water heaters. Just uses electricity to heat the water as it heads to the location in the pipes.

 

[Balta1701]

By solar water heaters, do you mean the ones where you run the pipe on the roof with heat-soaking coating on it? Or something else?

 

Also, one thing that is said to work pretty darn well now are those no-tank water heaters. Just uses electricity to heat the water as it heads to the location in the pipes.

Yeah, what you describe. Those have been around since what, the 70's energy crisis, they work pretty well, and I think its fairly silly that more people haven't used them over the past decade or so (that's where a government subsidy check would have worked really nice!)

[StrangeSox]

By solar water heaters, do you mean the ones where you run the pipe on the roof with heat-soaking coating on it? Or something else?

 

Also, one thing that is said to work pretty darn well now are those no-tank water heaters. Just uses electricity to heat the water as it heads to the location in the pipes.

I can't remember the specifics, but I know my parents were going to have to do significant plumbing work when they looked into one of the Bosch units a few years ago. Either their main inlet or main outlet pipes weren't the right size.

 

Edit: Should we move these posts out of the GOP thread and into the energy thread?

Edited April 22, 2008 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Yeah, what you describe. Those have been around since what, the 70's energy crisis, they work pretty well, and I think its fairly silly that more people haven't used them over the past decade or so (that's where a government subsidy check would have worked really nice!)

Isn't there a tax break available for things like that already?

[southsider2k5]

Thanks to Hillary putting chinks in the Obama armor, this is the kind of stuff that McCain will be able to fry Obama on in the issues part of the race.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html

 

Obama's Tax Evasion

April 18, 2008; Page A16

 

The parsons of the press corps are furious with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Barack Obama had an off-night, so his media choir wants to shoot the questioners.

 

We thought the debate was one of the best yet, precisely because it probed the evasive rhetoric we've heard from both Democratic candidates throughout the campaign. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the exchanges between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Obama over taxes.

[barack Obama]

 

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

 

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

 

Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.

 

"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

 

 

Mr. Obama answered by citing rich hedge fund managers. Raising the capital gains tax is necessary, he said, "to make sure . . . that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free."

 

But Mr. Gibson had noted that higher rates yield less revenue. So the news anchor tried again: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up?" Mr. Obama responded that this "might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going." And then he went on a riff about John McCain and the housing market.

[Obama's Tax Evasion]

 

This is instructive. The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we'll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

 

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.

 

For her part, Hillary Clinton said that she, too, was open to hiking the capital gains tax rate, just not by as much as her rival. "I wouldn't raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all," she said. Of course, she too promised during Wednesday's debate not to raise "a single tax on middle-class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year."

 

Both candidates would have voters believe that taxes on investment income only affect the rich. But that's not what Internal Revenue Service returns show. The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

* * *

 

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

 

In other words he dodged the question, as he so often does with impunity. But thanks to Mr. Gibson's persistence, for 90 minutes Wednesday night Mr. Obama didn't get away with it. The voters learned a lot about Mr. Obama, who needs to learn a lot more about taxes and revenue.

 

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

[southsider2k5]

Thanks to Hillary putting chinks in the Obama armor, this is the kind of stuff that McCain will be able to fry Obama on in the issues part of the race.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html

 

Obama's Tax Evasion

April 18, 2008; Page A16

 

The parsons of the press corps are furious with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Barack Obama had an off-night, so his media choir wants to shoot the questioners.

 

We thought the debate was one of the best yet, precisely because it probed the evasive rhetoric we've heard from both Democratic candidates throughout the campaign. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the exchanges between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Obama over taxes.

[barack Obama]

 

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

 

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

 

Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.

 

"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

 

 

Mr. Obama answered by citing rich hedge fund managers. Raising the capital gains tax is necessary, he said, "to make sure . . . that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free."

 

But Mr. Gibson had noted that higher rates yield less revenue. So the news anchor tried again: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up?" Mr. Obama responded that this "might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going." And then he went on a riff about John McCain and the housing market.

[Obama's Tax Evasion]

 

This is instructive. The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we'll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

 

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.

 

For her part, Hillary Clinton said that she, too, was open to hiking the capital gains tax rate, just not by as much as her rival. "I wouldn't raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all," she said. Of course, she too promised during Wednesday's debate not to raise "a single tax on middle-class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year."

 

Both candidates would have voters believe that taxes on investment income only affect the rich. But that's not what Internal Revenue Service returns show. The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

* * *

 

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

 

In other words he dodged the question, as he so often does with impunity. But thanks to Mr. Gibson's persistence, for 90 minutes Wednesday night Mr. Obama didn't get away with it. The voters learned a lot about Mr. Obama, who needs to learn a lot more about taxes and revenue.

 

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

[EvilMonkey]

Obama says he can't and won't run a negative campaign. 29 minutes later....

[lostfan]

I could barely hear it but it sounded like he was talking about McCain on the economy, how is it negative campaigning if he is talking directly about the issues and using it as reasons not to vote for McCain (especially when the first half is a quote from him saying he wants to talk about the issues, and then the next clip is him doing that)? Is it negative if McCain says "Obama's going to raise taxes"? That's kind of the whole point of campaigning, I don't see any hypocrisy.

 

(Or, am I supposed to just let that go unchallenged in this thread? )

Edited April 24, 2008 by lostfan

[HuskyCaucasian]

This warrants debate:

Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/04/...al_pay_bill.php

 

[lostfan]

I kind of agree with McCain... it's not like he's in favor of lowering pay for women or something. Having that much regulation opens up a messy can of worms and could do more harm than good.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I kind of agree with McCain... it's not like he's in favor of lowering pay for women or something. Having that much regulation opens up a messy can of worms and could do more harm than good.

I see both sides. Statistically there is still a difference on pay between woman an men at the same level.

But, yea. It's a sink hole.

I'm conflicted.

[G&T]

This warrants debate:

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/04/...al_pay_bill.php

 

That article doesn't really explain the bill very well. If it all it does is change the statute of limitations, then there really isn't a great effect on business. The problem is that it doesn't really do anything for women. Democrats will be able to say they support women's equality and use it against Republicans (which appears to be what's happening). Meanwhile, the only people getting well on this bill are lawyers.

[southsider2k5]

This warrants debate:

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/04/...al_pay_bill.php

 

Are you going to start posting all of the negative McCain stories now, like you have been the Hillary stories? If you are, could you put them in a general election thread, and not here? Thanks.

[EvilMonkey]

I could barely hear it but it sounded like he was talking about McCain on the economy, how is it negative campaigning if he is talking directly about the issues and using it as reasons not to vote for McCain (especially when the first half is a quote from him saying he wants to talk about the issues, and then the next clip is him doing that)? Is it negative if McCain says "Obama's going to raise taxes"? That's kind of the whole point of campaigning, I don't see any hypocrisy.

 

(Or, am I supposed to just let that go unchallenged in this thread? )

Trying to equate John with George isn't 'going negative'? I thought GWB was a dirty word for liberals?

[EvilMonkey]

I could barely hear it but it sounded like he was talking about McCain on the economy, how is it negative campaigning if he is talking directly about the issues and using it as reasons not to vote for McCain (especially when the first half is a quote from him saying he wants to talk about the issues, and then the next clip is him doing that)? Is it negative if McCain says "Obama's going to raise taxes"? That's kind of the whole point of campaigning, I don't see any hypocrisy.

 

(Or, am I supposed to just let that go unchallenged in this thread? )

Trying to equate John with George isn't 'going negative'? I thought GWB was a dirty word for liberals?