quote:One way [McCain] wants to increase the use of foreign ethanol is through the abolition of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which is cheaper and far less energy-intensive to produce
I'm not sure I like the elimination of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. It may be cheap, but wouldn't it pretty dramatically hasten damage to the rain forest there? Those types of areas, as I understand it, are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth. It doesn't sound like a good trade off.
Other than that, though, it's good to see McCain addressing these issues.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think the better solution would be to give the tax credits to the car manufacturers themselves. They can fully realize the benefits, collect full value, and then drop the price of the car accordingly, which will make it much more affordable to regular people. It's either that or I find a rich friend to cosign with so they can write me a check after I buy it.
Isn't that what the proposal is? According to the part you quoted:
quote: Finally, McCain discussed a 'Clean Car Challenge' that would "provide U.S. automakers with a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they develop and sell."
quote:The tax credit sounds good but, I don't think it'd do much. Tax credits only work for people who pay enough taxes to get the money back. McCain is offering tax credits for so many things, who but the uber wealthy will actually pay enough taxes to actually collect on all these things? Someone making $25K a year isn't going to get enough out of a credit like that to make buying such a car affordable. It's the problem with offering $5K tax credits for health care to the poor when the poor pay few or no taxes.
That depends on how the credit is designed. Some tax credits, such as the EIC, are "refundable" and can reduce tax liability below zero. These types of credits aren't limited by how much tax one earns.
Do you have some information that the credits proposed are not refundable? I've been very annoyed with the coverage of tax credits in this campaign because the articles seldom mention this aspect of the plan. And it's crucial.
Edit: plus, what dkw said.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry dkw. I actually read three or four different articles on McCain's proposal, and most of those I read said that he was offering the credits to consumers, not the manufacturers. I'm going to have to look into that and report back, because there seems to be conflicting info.
Dag, my understanding of credits is that they reduce your total tax. So that if you pay $3K in taxes, a $5K tax credit would just reduce your taxes to zero, and you'd get that $3K back in cash, but you can't get more than you pay in from a tax credit. But I'll be the first to admit that tax law isn't my forte.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, my understanding of credits is that they reduce your total tax. So that if you pay $3K in taxes, a $5K tax credit would just reduce your taxes to zero, and you'd get that $3K back in cash, but you can't get more than you pay in from a tax credit.
That's correct for some tax credits, not others. My complaint with the coverage is that it almost never makes it clear what type of tax credits are being discussed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For every automaker who can sell a zero emissions car, we'll commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be; the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
On credits: Ah okay. I didn't know that. And I agree, the coverage often sucks. It's those details that could make or break the actual usefulness of many of these proposals for the majority of people.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: McCain's words specifically:
quote:For every automaker who can sell a zero emissions car, we'll commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be; the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
Well that could certainly go either way. He needs to clarify.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure I like the elimination of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. It may be cheap, but wouldn't it pretty dramatically hasten damage to the rain forest there? Those types of areas, as I understand it, are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth. It doesn't sound like a good trade off.
Other than that, though, it's good to see McCain addressing these issues.
The usual sugar-cane plantation sites over here in Brazil are, generally, far away from the rainforest, whose biggest predators, nowadays, are ILLEGAL loggers and cattle dealers. Ethanol is a major fuel option over here since the 70's. Today it's waaaaay cheaper than gasoline.
Oh, yes. See... I'm all for preserving my country's endangered rainforests. Heck! I "preach" a lot about that in my classes and to people in general. Still, it never stops to amuse me when American or European people, who already destroyed their own forests decades (or centuries) ago talk about undermining my country's newfound economical growth under the (usually bogus) premise of enviromentalism (most peopple do not utter such nonsense in good faith - which I believe you really did). What can I say? Stop drilling (and excavating) Alaska, already!
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has asked top contributors to help his former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, retire her debt, an Obama campaign source said Tuesday.
Obama did not direct members of his National Finance Committee to contribute to Clinton's campaign, the source said, but asked them to do so if they were so inclined.
Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination this month.
She has amassed a campaign debt of about $22 million, but about $12 million of that is money the New York senator loaned to the campaign herself.
Individual donors can contribute $2,300 to individual candidates.
Interesting move. I'm not sure exactly what the desired message is: "we're on the same side, we help each other"? I just hope people don't see this as a pity move by Obama.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not pity, pragmatic. There's been talk about him doing it since before she conceded. If she has to focus on fundraising to pay off her debt, she can't focus on campaigning for him. If his donors help her pay if off she'll be a lot more motivated to help get him elected. Especially since if she doesn't pay back the part she loaned herself before sometime in August she loses all but $250,000 of it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Helping someone who has $100 million pay off her debts is just about the lowest priority I can come up with.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It must be hard to fundraise to pay off debts. I can't imagine what an effective "pitch" would be.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
She doesn't have $100 million. She's made $108 million over the past 8 years. I imagine she's spent some of that on, say, her house in New York and townhouse in DC and a bunch of pantsuits, among other things. And even if she had it, her debts are going to basically equal a quarter of that. I would have a real hard time paying off debts equal to a quarter of my net worth, and probably wouldn't be able to pay off debts equal to a quarter of my income for the past 8 years.
Granted, we're talking about vastly different amounts of money, and she probably can afford to lose the money she's loaned her own campaign. Especially since Bill is probably going to continue pulling in huge speaking and consulting fees for the forseeable future. But I can understand her wanting to not loan her campaign any more money to pay off debts. . . I think it's reasonable for Obama to ask his large donors to consider donating to her to cover the $10 million or so she owes other people. The request only went to people who have already donated the maximum to his campaign, so presumeably they are people who can afford to kick another grand or two to her. I get Obama's fundraising emails, and I've certainly only gotton ones asking for more money to him, nothing for her.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Y'know, he's probably a good part of the reason Bush won in 2000. And he's continued to run in election after election, long after there was anything to be gained from it beyond stroking his own ego.
But I think this is the first time I've really wanted to say: Nader? Shut the hell up.
This is not helpful to the nationwide discussion. It's tacky, insensitive, and stupid. Do you have so little of merit to say for yourself that you're attacking a candidate for not echoing you?!
posted
I'd have more respect for Nader if he would run for government offices other than President. Try to get a governorship or a become a congressional representative, go for something that he might have a shot at winning instead of being a candidate just to have a soapbox.
quote:"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader told the paper in comments published Tuesday.
"Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards,"
I agree, and I'm glad Nader spoke up. I'm also shocked that nobody has spoken out about this. Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yep. If I wanted to support Hillary, I would have given her money before.
Thank you. Word for word that was precisely my response when I first saw her plea for money. What in God's name would I give her money after she failed when I never wanted to give her money to help her win?
Eduardo -
I don't know, most of what I read on Brazil, other than illegal logging is that an area of the size of Massachussetts disappears every year (or so) due to slash and burn tactics used on the Amazon to clear more land for farmers. Vast tracts of new farm land crop up every year where there wasn't any before. And yeah, I can easily see how it'd look pretty silly for a nation that has clearcut its way from coast to coast to lecture another country about deforestation, but there's two things to that: 1. Two wrongs don't make a right. It was stupid of us to do it, and we'll pay local consequences for it. 2. Climatologically, your forests are more valuable than ours. The value of the Amazon as a carbon sink is dramatically more important than the forests of the American east or even more so than Alaskan forests.
To be fair, I'm perfectly okay with coming to some sort of international agreement whereby Brazil gets some sort of compensation or benefit from keeping the Amazon intact. Once it's gone it's gone, and it's your demand for more exports and ours for imports that's fueling the deforestation as much as anything else.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh one more thing. I think it's Noemon that's the big Sam Powers fan, but either way I think you'd all appreciate this article she wrote for TIME magazine on American leaders dealing with enemies abroad.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thank you. Word for word that was precisely my response when I first saw her plea for money. What in God's name would I give her money after she failed when I never wanted to give her money to help her win?
I might have made a donation back in March to get her to drop out sooner. A pity she never tried that as a fund raising tack. 'I'll suspend my compaign as soon as I've raised enough money to pay my debts'. I bet it would have been popular enough to crash her fund raising web page.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still, it never stops to amuse me when American or European people, who already destroyed their own forests decades (or centuries) ago talk about undermining my country's newfound economical growth under the (usually bogus) premise of enviromentalism (most peopple do not utter such nonsense in good faith - which I believe you really did). What can I say? Stop drilling (and excavating) Alaska, already!
Eduardo, You do realize how utterly obsurd that is? America and Europe aren't monolythic creatures. Its not as though we think and act in unison first destroying our own habitat and then chiding others for doing the same.
The Americans or Europeans who are gungho to drill and excavate in Alaska are almost never the same people as those who are trying to halt destruction of tropical rainforests. Those who are destroying North American Temperate forests by over logging, are not the same people who are worried about destruction of tropical rainforests.
I have donated money to groups who work to preserve Tropical Rainforests in places like Brazil. I've donated alot more of both by money and time trying to preserve forests and wildlands in North America. The only thing I have in common with the people who destroyed the forests of the US and Europe, or the people who want to drill the Alaskan wild life refuge or strip mine Montana, is that we were born on the same continent. I can't see that this makes me responsible for their actions or a hypocrit because I'd like to see other places in the world avoid similar mistakes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, as I said, I'm all for Rainforest preservation, and I did mention that I believe people here are talking in good faith (although many others, unfortunately, have a hidden agenda in their 'protect the Amazon' statement). The most important part in my post is that, usually, sugar-cane farmers do not burn the Amazon because the best areas for such plantations are elsewhere in Brazil. It would be nice if all enviromentalists were as you, but it just isn't true. Anyway, sorry if you found fault in my previous statement. My bad.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"DON’T fault Charles Black, the John McCain adviser, for publicly stating his honest belief that a domestic terrorist attack would be 'a big advantage' for their campaign and that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination had 'helped' Mr. McCain win the New Hampshire primary." "...McCain terror expert...former C.I.A. director James Woolsey...cheerleader for Ahmad Chalabi...who helped promote phony Iraqi W.M.D. intelligence in 2002."
posted
Can someone explain to me is so awful about Wesley Clark's comments which McCain attacked and Obama rejected?
quote: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not,' " Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences either nor has he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable point to bring up if people are talking about experience. I do think military service is a plus for a president, particularly because it usually means a bit more understanding of what war really is before getting the country into one. But it seems to me that McCain's senate experience is much more relevant than his POW experience.
I don't see why this should be a closed topic. If anything, McCain and his campaign should treat it as an open door to have a discussion on why military experience matters and what a person gains from it - I don't think that's a hard thing to convice people of, and it seems a better reply to Clark's comments than dismissing them they way they seem to be. But I'd really like to hear from someone who feels differently on this, because I feel like I'm missing something here.
posted
I agree with you. We have gotten really touchy, though, and anything that looks like he is dissing someone's military service is problematic for Senator Obama since he hasn't served int the military and is already fighting the "unpatriotic" rap. I think General Clark has every right to bring this up.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see nothing wrong with those comments. He basically just said that being a POW doesn't qualify McCain to be president. Which it really doesn't.
And he said it after praising McCain and his service and saying he was a hero... I don't get it.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was slate that said that this campaign seems to be the umbrage campaign. Personally, I am getting sick of it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was hoping that Obama wouldn't reject his comments. I think what Clark said was perfectly fair, and actually respectful all things considered.
It's a perfectly valid point to bring up, and just goes to show, like kate said, how touchy we are, and how scared everyone is of being painted as unpatriotic. It also goes to show, I think, that military glorification is a part of our culture now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course, belittling the service of democrats is fair game.
Just because a member of McCain's Truth Squad used to be a Swift Boater does not mean McCain agrees with them. And besides, the Swift Boaters were about bringing forth truth, whereas Clark is just trying to make McCain look bad.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
posted
The Christian right is going to be really confused this election. McCain is kind of leaving them in the dust, maybe his VP pick will pander to that group- but especially his renunciation of several prominent pastors' (John Hagee and the like) endorsement of McCain.
And then you have Barack Obama started to try and get more evangelical votes. Since most of my friends and family are unequivocal members of the Christian right it's interesting to see that really none of them like McCain, but don't know what to think of Obama.
That's the most fascinating part of this election to me, but that's for religious reasons more than it is for political ones.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Christian right is going to be really confused this election. McCain is kind of leaving them in the dust, maybe his VP pick will pander to that group- but especially his renunciation of several prominent pastors' (John Hagee and the like) endorsement of McCain.
And that'll get even MORE interestig if he picks Romney as his running mate. They'll be baffled.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Huckabee might be a somewhat safe choice though for that regard- I don't know too much about his other credentials and how he'd fit with the McCain campaign and message.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And that'll get even MORE interestig if he picks Romney as his running mate.
While I agree, for me it would simplify things as I wanted Romney in the first place. Huckabee always seems a little out there with mis-placed priorities to boot.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN's political ticker is starting to really annoy me. Every day this week that I've opened up CNN the headline has either read "New poll shows troubling signs for Obama" or "New poll shows worrying trend for McCain." After a couple of them, you start to wonder if ANY of them matter if it's just going to bounce back and forth every day.
I feel a little special as Michigan hasn't really been bombarded with a lot of ads in recent years, but we've been carpet bombed by Republican ads lately, and a smattering of Obama ads too. There's a tv version of the web ad that's been airing that portrays McCain as the savior of the environment and Obama as unwilling to do anything for innovation. It leaves me seething every time I see it. It says Obama is against cutting the gas tax, which is true, but doesn't mention any of the couple hundred economists who say that it's a bad idea because people will just drive more and drive the price back up. It says he is against nuclear power, which is just a blatent lie. He doesn't love it, but he realizes it'll probably be necessary. It says he is against innovation, but he proposed a $150 billion energy initiative to get us off oil and into future energy products. An idea that McCain attacked. And Obama has said no to OCS drilling because there are a lot of unused leases that oil companies aren't drilling on, it won't yield results for a decade, and I can't think of a single state that is clamoring for a repeal of the moratorium. It's just such a dishonest ad, and I'm surprised to see him come out with such a dishonestly negative ad so quickly.
Now I'm wondering what's out there with Obama's name on it. Anyone catch any bad Obama ads on TV?
In other news Obama will be holding his acceptance speech not at the 20,000 seat convention center where the Democratic National Convention is, but instead at the 75,000 seat Invesco Field where I think the Broncos play. While it might seem a no brainer that he'll be able to fill all the seats, I wonder if that'll be the case. It's summer in an outdoor stadium with a dynamic and popular figure, so maybe. He filled 20,000 seats easy here in Detroit. I suppose if they don't charge, or don't charge much, for tickets to get in, they won't have a problem.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CNN's political ticker is starting to really annoy me. Every day this week that I've opened up CNN the headline has either read "New poll shows troubling signs for Obama" or "New poll shows worrying trend for McCain." After a couple of them, you start to wonder if ANY of them matter if it's just going to bounce back and forth every day.
Yeah, this far out I don't think that the polls aren't really worth paying attention to.
quote:I feel a little special as Michigan hasn't really been bombarded with a lot of ads in recent years, but we've been carpet bombed by Republican ads lately, and a smattering of Obama ads too.
That's interesting. From what I've read, McCain is out-spending Obama by quite a margin on TV ads in Missouri, with the airwaves saturated with McCain ads and there just being a few Obama ads here and there in amongst them. I wonder what the Obama camp is up to; they certainly have deep enough pockets that they could be matching McCain ad for ad if they wanted to. I wonder if this is part of some strategy on their part, or if there is some fumbling going on in terms of putting together a strategy for the general.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, this far out I don't think that the polls aren't really worth paying attention to.
I agree. And the analysts even say so. Historically polls this far out are wrong as often as they are right.
quote:That's interesting. From what I've read, McCain is out-spending Obama by quite a margin on TV ads in Missouri, with the airwaves saturated with McCain ads and there just being a few Obama ads here and there in amongst them. I wonder what the Obama camp is up to; they certainly have deep enough pockets that they could be matching McCain ad for ad if they wanted to. I wonder if this is part of some strategy on their part, or if there is some fumbling going on in terms of putting together a strategy for the general.
It's curious. From everything I've read McCain is way behind Obama in terms of organization. I think it's possible that Obama just doesn't want to spend the money this far out, he'd rather wait until people start to pay more attention. But he's still spending big chunks of money, mostly in states that didn't get a lot of attention during the primaries. He spent a lot of time im Missouri, and he has Claire McCaskill schilling for him whenever she's home. She apparently is gaining a lot of importance pretty quickly for a freshman senator.
I have seen a few Obama ads, just not as many as McCain. But Obama is pushing for a 50 state strategy this time around, which McCain can't hope to keep up with. It's possible that a lot of his money is going right now to places he didn't see a lot of during the primaries, and is thus keeping away from places that already know him well.
Here's some pretty big VP news: Webb says no to being VP. With Webb out of the running, that really widens the guessing game. I think that pushes Biden, Richardson and Sibelius into the top three most obvious choices.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I saw that bit about Webb on TPM earlier this afternoon. Interesting, eh? Sebelius is definitely the person I'd like to see in the VP slot, but I feel like either she or Richardson would be good choices. I'm not so sure about Biden. On the one hand, he's got a ton of great experience. On the other hand, he can barely open his mouth without sticking his foot in it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Webb has plenty of time to run for higher office if he so chooses to. He probably felt that this wasn't his time, and it might be a good choice, as the Republicans would be sure to hit the Dems for running two first term senators on the same ticket.
I agree about Biden. He DOES speak rather...candidly. Sometimes I appreciate the straight talk he gives, or at least the bluntness of it, but it'd likely offer up too much ammunition to the opposition. I agree on Sebelius. I think electorally she brings women and the midwest to the table, but I think Richardson is just the better VP. I think his vast international, domestic and executive experience make him the perfect second in line in case anything happens to Obama. I think they are both responsible choices, and I think they'd both do a great job of filling in any gaps that Obama might have in his own experience.
DK -
I don't count the job thing. He works a summer job, it might me mildly dishonest if you take "worked my way through school" to mean that he worked a job while he was taking classes, but this isn't a vital matter of policy OR of personal history, and as such, the distinction doesn't much matter to me, which is why I didn't include it when I brought up those others.
But the "lame claim" one certainly looks weak. And that isn't going back that far, it's only a couple weeks ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama may not have the experience of being shot down while flying a fighter plane in Vietnam, but he now has the experience of a forced landing in St. Louis during a July heat wave.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But the "lame claim" one certainly looks weak. And that isn't going back that far, it's only a couple weeks ago.
Agreed. Obama's decision to not accept public financing was made out of political expediency, and nothing else. His attempts to frame it as anything else are just spin.
[Edit--I can't really blame him for going with the private financing, but I was a bit saddened to see him do it. I really liked the idea of he and McCain going toe to toe on equal footing, and the winner becoming so by virtue of the strength of his arguments. We've been over that, though.]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a clip where Obama raised his hand that he supported public financing for elections. Is there any other evidence that he had committed to using public financing for his campaign? His raising his hand in response to that question doesn't say to me that he agreed to USE public financing, only that he supported its existence.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |