McCain’s plan, to buy bad mortgages from people who can’t afford them, and then have the home owners pay back the new market value, is a give-away to foolish speculators. Obama’s right to hit him on the bail-out to banks, but Barack’s silence on the give-away to foolish home-owners is worrying (if predictable).
The latest news from Treasury, that the government is considering using the $700 billion to buy stock instead of subprimes, is promising. I’m glad someone is reading this blog!
Watching now. Both candidates are taking turns saying stupid things. Really annoying, especially considering how important some of the issues are. Also annoying, considering how candidates seem intent on pulling idiocy from the teeth of sense. Barack Obama’s comment on the Chamber of Commerce is a perfect example of this.
The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting thinks the government should offer a $300 million prize to the person who can develop an automobile battery that leapfrogs existing technology.
The prize would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country.
In a speech being delivered Monday at Fresno State University in California, McCain is also proposing stiffer fines for automakers who skirt existing fuel-efficiency standards and incentives to increase use of domestic and foreign ethanol.
The $300 million bounty on a new feat echoes the Ansari X-Prize, a financial award given to the first successful commercial spaceflight. Indeed, McCain’s plan is similar to the official Automotive X-Prize, which would give a far smaller amount to the creator of an environmentally-friendly car. I don’t know whether the Ansari X-Prize’s success would translate into better car battery life, but it seems that the downside is small and the upside is great.
Still, an “X-Prize for Electric Cars” should be only part of a broader push to get us better technologies. Other approaches include granting permanent residency to foreigners to graduate with PhDs at U.S. R-1 research institutions, as well as abolishing affirmative action. (So far neither candidate has pledged to do these things.)
Recent posts by Soob and Stephen Pampinella have got me thinking about how well the Iraq War has been going in the past year, and how Afghanistan has steadily deteriorated.
It now appears that my criticism of our early Iraq War (have less troops, like in Afghanistan!) was dangerous misinformed. Indeed, one of the reasons I so admire John McCain is that he was right in arguing for mroe troops, and I was wrong in advocating less.
But was McCain right on Afghanistan as well? Did he argue for a “Surge” in Afghanistan similar to our “Surge” in Iraq?
Of course, this analysis by Adam of The Metropolis Times assumes some consistency between Obama’s record as a Senator and his record as a President. Still, it’s informative:
The Metropolis Times: World Hunger…. Still Around
There are a lot of issues to consider this November, but global poverty should be near, if not at, the top of everyone’s list. Research your local candidates to determine who to vote for. The Cato Institute has done our work for us when it comes to the Presidential candidates, tracking Congressional votes and assigning representatives spots on a free trade matrix.
John McCain has voted against trade barriers 88% of the time, and against trade subsidies 80% of the time. He is a solid Free Trader, and has kept to that position throughout the campaign.
Barack Obama voted against trade barriers only 36% of the time, and against trade subsidies exactly 0%. This puts him in the Interventionist area of the matrix, exactly the opposite of a Free Trader.
Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, voted against trade subsidies 93% of the time, but voted against trade barriers only 17% of the time, making him an Isolationist.
Cynthia McKinney, a possible Green Party candidate, voted against trade barrier 31% of the time and trade subsidies 74% of the time, also making her an Isolationist.
The choice seems pretty easy. Assuming that vote records and stated positions line up with future Presidential behavior, an Obama victory would be a tragedy for the starving poor of the world, while a McCain victory would help economic growth in areas that need it most.
Support the developing world. Support Africa. Vote McCain.
While Clinton and McCain have done the hard, behind-the-scenes work that’s important to get things done, Obama’s camp engages in the audacity of nothingness. From Obama hyping “a speech that he gave in 2002” to his supporters complaining that McCain did not praise him enough, Obama has done a lot of things other than hard, behind-the-scenes work.
Props to Weekly Standard for linking to the video on Obama’s “high-falutin'” rhetoric.
McCain urged Congress to institute a “gas-tax holiday” by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.
At the very point when the market is sending signals to consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles and the United States Treasury is increasing its borrowing to fund McCain’s War surge, McCain want to make gas cheaper so people will keep buying SUV’s and cut income to the Treasury so we will have to borrow more from the Chinese government. Back in February during a Republican Debate, McCain said he was going to cut wasteful spending so much that we would no longer have to borrow from the Chinese. He’s a magician!
Two politicians, neither of whom I want to be President, are both clear strategic thinkers. Either of them would be a good leader in the Global War on Terrorism
Both presidents have displayed a commitment to peace and the rule of law in removing authoritarian governments. Their leadership has allowed millions in Georgia and Ukraine to reclaim their democratic system and to build a society based on law and individual rights.
We believe that the actions of Presidents Saakashvili and Yushchenko testify to the power of peace and human rights in their battle against oppression. Recognizing these men with the Peace Prize would honor not only their historic roles in Georgia and Ukraine, but would also offer hope and inspiration to those seeking freedom in lands still denied it.
The peaceful revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine are heartening. It shows the continual yearning of eastern Europeans for democracy. From 1989 to 1991 they threw off the bonds of Communism. And now they are liberating themselves from goonish Russian influence. Perhaps soon the peaceful revolutions will spread to Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Muscovy itself.
Good for them. For the Clinton and McCain for coming together to reward them. And good for the world.