Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing

I just got done perusing the section of John McCain's website dedicated to the economy. It sounds great:

• Make gas cheaper
• Make gas cheaper
• Make gas cheaper
• Save mortgages

Wow! I want cheap gas!

What is John McCain's plan for this? I'm supposed to say something witty here, but there's nothing to say. The problem is, he doesn't have any actual viable solutions for making gas cheaper. If you read his site, you get the impression that being the president gives you a magic wand to cast spells on OPEC. Unfortunately, some people are actually buying it.

I understand the willingness to succumb to a hope that a candidate can magically accomplish things, I really do. But I've never seen a more obvious attempt at pandering in my entire life.

The painful reality of John McCain's economic plan is that he has no idea how to pay for anything. His website says the following (I've made all quotes red, sort of like the Unites States' check register):

John McCain Will Help Americans Hurting From High Gasoline And Food Costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices.

That sounds great but, how? How are we, who have a flagging dollar, supposed to make this reduction in gas prices. Better yet, how do YOU, John McCain, plan on making that happen?

From his site:

John McCain Will Stop Filling The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To Reduce Demand. International demand for oil is bolstered by federal purchases for the SPR. There is no reason to fill it when oil is so expensive; the overall SPR is of adequate size, and when it places further upward pressure on prices.

So what he is saying is, we are already at the mercy of countries that hate us, but we should stop stockpiling reserves. What happens in a real war? What happens if OPEC finally decides to really start price gouging? Then we are at the complete mercy of their whims. I am by no means a protectionist, but I am also pessimistic about our relations with the largest oil producing countries.

By stopping the filling of our reserves, McCain's plan serves to increase our potential reliance on foreign oil. It is a classic pandering band-aid plan. Its sole purpose is to win an election. If we are to reduce gas prices, we must reduce demand, which will succeed in giving us more bargaining power.

McCain also proposes a "gas tax holiday" which is another shiny gimmick to get votes, but will do more harm than good according to every major economist in America. It's like giving away a free toaster with the purchase of a Mercedes Benz, it's a crude ruse to get your vote.

Check it out here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3038243520080430


John McCain has even more plans to get votes:

John McCain Is Proposing A New "HOME Plan" To Provide Robust, Timely And Targeted Help To Those Hurt By The Housing Crisis. Under his HOME Plan, every deserving American family or homeowner will be afforded the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home's market value.

So we're going to save families' homes by bailing them out with federal funding. It sounds great. How does John McCain plan on paying for it? This genius idea:

John McCain Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) – a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under McCain's plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 – a real tax cut for working families.

I'm confused. We're going to keep Bush's tax cuts, eliminate the AMT, and lower coprorate taxes by 10%, right? So now the question becomes, where does McCain plan on getting the money to bail out homeowners? Better yet, where does McCain plan on getting funding for the military to keep us in Iraq for 5-100 years?

Cutting taxes sounds great to the average American, but what's the point of having a little more coin in your pocket if the dollar isn't worth anything? Is it worth sacrificing our education, roads, and military just to save the middle class a small amount? The lost benefit to the nation as a whole far outweighs the immediate benefit to the middle class. Simply put, I'd rather pay a little more in taxes in exchange for armed forces that are actually properly equipped.

All that John McCain proposes to do is spend money and cut taxes. I have a news flash, you plunge us into ever increasing national debt by continuing to spend without paying for it. It's no wonder that our nation is credit-sick, our government leads the way!


















We have soldiers in Iraq with no body armor, and John McCain wants to cut taxes? We are trying teach our citizens to be credit-smart.....by raising the national debt? It just doesn't make any sense. John McCain has a bunch of great-sounding ideas, but no concrete way of making them come true. He's like a 15 year old with an American Express. He wants to spend with no plan on paying it back.

How about being fiscally responsible for once? If we can't afford a war, get out of it! McCain calls Obama a "tax and spender." I'd rather have a "tax and spender" than a "spend and spend and spender."

No Country For Old Men

I realize that it has been a while since I entertained the masses with a post, and I apologize for the delay. I have been waiting, like everyone else, to see what Hillary would do. Now that she's out of the race, I have decided to write about the upcoming general election.

I meet people every day who do not "like" Barack Obama. Some don't like him for specific reasons, others just harbor a suspicion about him that they cannot explain. I cannot, however, find a single person who is excited about McCain as a candidate. Even the conservative radio hosts don't have much love for him. Doesn't anyone see how preposterous it is to vote for a man that you do not like, based solely on the fact that he represents "your" party? For years now, McCain has been a thorn in the side of republicans. He has been a republican (in name only) who has espoused more liberal ideals than any other republican.

It is only now, because he is the republican candidate, that McCain is changing his stances on issues in order to appeal to voters. McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."
Now, McCain wholeheartedly supports these tax cuts, saying that they help America.

Which is it? Are the Bush tax cuts good or bad? I guess it depends on whether or not you have to answer a constituency or are instead trying to appeal to a republican ideal. Along the same lines, McCain voted against repealing the estate tax, but now he wants to keep the elimination permanent. Again, how can you vote against something but then say that you support it?

Now, McCain is talking about cutting the corporate tax rate by 10%. I must be missing something here but, how can we continue to cut taxes and still be able to afford anything? I mean, taxes are not just to bloat government, they're to build schools, maintain roads, and support our military. It's funny that a man who is adamantly pro-war in Iraq and Iran wants to cut taxes, thereby reducing our tax revenue and, consequently, the amount of money we can use for national security.

Where does John McCain think that the $527 billion we have spent in Iraq comes from?

So, you have a man who doesn't understand economics, but purports to have a firm grasp on national security and foreign policy. Does being a prisoner of war somehow qualify you to be the commander in chief? Does being held captive translate into good foreign policy? The man is a powder keg, ready to explode into rage at any time. Do we as Americans really want a loose cannon in office AGAIN?

John McCain's understanding of foreign policy is apparently that we should joke around about bombing countries, or that we should be in Iraq for 100 years. Maybe that is the foreign policy of the republican party, but I doubt it. He criticizes Obama for proposing to meet with foreign leaders "without conditions," but what exactly is the problem with that? According to John McCain, we should continue to ignore the countries who don't like us, and be increasingly exclusionary. To me, that sounds like terrible foreign policy.

How many people really think that a 70 year old man can revitalize America's global image? It's time for us to wake up! This pattern of electing old cantankerous men needs to come to an end. People look at elderly people and they see wisdom, but anyone can tell you that elderly people also resist change, regardless of its potential benefit. Older people cling to old ideals, some of which are outdated and must change. Our ideals in America have been to do whatever we want and not face any consequences. We are reaping what we have sown. All it takes is the ability to say, "I will not vote a party line simply because my father does." It is time to critically analyze who can best reshape how the world views the US. It's time to say that it's ok to vote across party lines if that is what it takes to give us the much needed shot in the arm that we so desperately require.

I implore everyone to look closely at McCain and Obama. What will you see in McCain that you like? I can see nothing. Being a prisoner of war and an old man do not qualify you to run the country. It's time for radical change, not stagnant policies.

Repudiate Repudiation, Mr. McCain.

Has anyone heard the word repudiate more frequently than in this presidential election? Seriously. Google it. I'll wait.


See what I mean?!? Sure the first few links are for definitions, but after that, all you see is McCain and Obama. Repudiate Hamas, repudiate Wright, repudiate liverwurst, repudiate repudiation.


We really have reached the ultimately politically correct election. The standard for this election is to find something that your opponent clearly opposes, but attack him for not "repudiating" it in no uncertain terms.

It's like when Obama debated Clinton. He said that he "rejected" Farrakhan's endorsement of him. Does that leave any doubt as to his feelings? To any logical person, the intent is pretty clear, but in the ever increasing passive-aggressive race, Hillary decided it was not enough. She told the moderators that Obama rejected the comments, but he did not "denounce" them. Senator Obama quickly responded with (and I paraphrase) 'Fine, I reject AND denounce' Farrakhan's endorsement.


Give me a break! To think that we now have to use two, three, or maybe even four synonyms to say one thing is ridiculous!

Now McCain wants Obama to "repudiate" Hamas. He is bringing up a quote from Ahmed Yousef that says "We like Obama and hope that he will win the election" to which McCain responded "It's indicative of how some of our enemies view America. And I guarantee you, they're not going to endorse me."


Forgive me for being stupid, but at what point does someone saying that they support you mean that you solicited or even welcome said support? I mean, if we're going to get down to it, McCain SOUGHT OUT the endorsement of John Hagee, a clear bigot and all-around weirdo.


That being said, the larger meaning in that statement is that McCain is offering more of the cowboy, my-way-or-the-highway style of foreign policy that Bush has given us for the last 8 years. It wouldn't surprise me if every leader of every organization outside the US desired a president with more of a compromising attitude than Bush or McCain. To demonize Obama because someone within a Palestinian terrorist organization likes him is ludicrous. Let me also remind everybody that John McCain sought out John Hagee's endorsement, knowing full well that he said that New Orleans deserved Hurricane Katrina for "a level of sin offensive to God."

So, Mr. McCain, why must Obama "repudiate" some unsolicited endorsement from a wacko, when you SOUGHT OUT an endorsement from a wacko. Let's stop playing these political games and get down to policy. Instead of trying to make people think Obama is somehow viewed as a terror ally, why don't you tell everyone why you asked an offensive man for an endorsement? Why don't you also tell everyone how leaders worldwide are hoping that anybody but you takes office, because they want a leader who will not use America to police the world?

Mr. McCain, it's time to get past this petty passive-aggressive style of politics. If you want to say something, don't just dance around the issue. Instead of attempting to call out your opponent by demanding they "repudiate" someone, why not tell us how you really feel? Instead of trying to be the nice, politically correct guy, why not say what you actually mean? Instead of insinuating things, be a man and come out and say exactly what you think. If you really are the bold, resolute leader that you claim to be, prove it. Dancing around issues by floating out vague suggestions about your opponent is the kind of timid politics that tells me that you are in no way qualified to run this country.

Am I right? Am I Wrong? Leave a comment and let me know.

End of rant.