The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Part Three

[halplm]

Ellienor, McCain's tax credit for health care, is accompanied by a a change in the benefit for health care to companies. The theory is, that people that buy their own health care, rather than get it from their work, should have the same help that companies grant their employees by doing it through them.

I personally think it is a poorly thought out plan, but it is very different than Obama's which just gives money away.

[sauronsfinger]

direct question from Hal:

Do you think it wise, that a candidate for president keep secret where $200 million came from for his campaign?

Direct answer: Yes. The donors who gave at certain levels knew they were doing so under the conditions of the law.

[River]

The logical assumption is that he has obeyed the law.

Yes, but why is he obeying the law? There must be some deep, dangerous, ulterior motive to obeying the law. I mean, really, would you obey the law if you didn't have something to hide?

This is taking a turn for the bass ackwards. Election season can't end soon enough.

Here's how the Obama campaign's fundraising calls work: you pick up the phone, some person who sounds like a student announces they're from the Obama campaign and politely asks for a pledge. However much you can give. They don't strong-arm more than that. And then they mail out their pledge sheet. They know when someone's donated before - the second call I got, they asked if I was up for another $20. The third time they called I was in the middle of wrangling pizza in and out of the oven and didn't want to talk to them, so I simply told them it was a bad time and they buzzed off.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So far as I am aware, McCain doesn't reveal information on contributors below that threshold either. If that is not true, I would be interested in seeing a link that demonstrates that.

[Ellienor]

McCain's tax credit for health care, is accompanied by a a change in the benefit for health care to companies.

I don't care what the purpose is, it's a giveaway from the government to the people.

Read this from factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... lfare.html

"McCain calls Obama's refundable tax credits "welfare," but calls his own "reform."

Where is McCain going to get the revenue to pay for his "reform", Hal? Is he going to borrow more from China, or is he going to wait for the Bush tax cuts to stimulate the economy to pay for it? (It's been 8 years, we're still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The Dow Jones is lower than when Bush took office--so when does this econonically driven tax bonanza show up?)

[Mrs.Underhill]

OK, here's more context on Biden's speech from ABC news, and with a response from Biden:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... hit-o.html

Yep, it doesn't sound that bad when not taken out of context, and most of the warnings were about economic situation, which is understandable.
Biden's reply also clarified, sorta, that he meant tests for both Obama and McCain if they were to take office, and that McCain's erratic bla-bla-bla.
And probably it will fizzle out as Biden being Biden again.

But still - makes me now question Obama's decision to bring him to the ticket.

[Holbytla]

Hey, p.s., what about the $5,000 tax credit for health care for EVERY American family?

My health plan costs about $12k per year which I receive free in lieu of pay raises over the years. McCain's plan would cost me 7 grand yearly because I know damn well I won't get the raises back.

[Cerin]

Here, I'll ask it directly. Do you think it wise, that a candidate for president keep secret where $200 million came from for his campaign?

I think the idea in funding transparency is to keep track of who is buying influence. In Obama's case, most of his contributions are from small donors. If I give $5 to Obama's campaign, there is no concern that I'm personally going to have undue influence on his decisions.

But I'm not familiar with the laws, so I probably shouldn't comment. In fact, I thought it was the law, that the source of contributions had to be revealed.

[Padme]

The logical assumption is that he has obeyed the law.

Yes, but why is he obeying the law? There must be some deep, dangerous, ulterior motive to obeying the law. I mean, really, would you obey the law if you didn't have something to hide?

This is taking a turn for the bass ackwards. Election season can't end soon enough.

Here's how the Obama campaign's fundraising calls work: you pick up the phone, some person who sounds like a student announces they're from the Obama campaign and politely asks for a pledge. However much you can give. They don't strong-arm more than that. And then they mail out their pledge sheet. They know when someone's donated before - the second call I got, they asked if I was up for another $20. The third time they called I was in the middle of wrangling pizza in and out of the oven and didn't want to talk to them, so I simply told them it was a bad time and they buzzed off.

I get emails from the Obama people asking for donation, not strong arm but polite emails asking for donations. Sometimes I donate, sometimes I don't. I have probably donated over $200 in small change though. So would I be required to add my name to the list?

[halplm]

direct question from Hal:

Do you think it wise, that a candidate for president keep secret where $200 million came from for his campaign?

Direct answer: Yes. The donors who gave at certain levels knew they were doing so under the conditions of the law.

You're not answering the question, and River was being extremely sarcastic about it, while not answering the question.

Here, I'll try again and rephrase:

Do you think it a good thing, that a candidate for president is able to hide where $200 million of his campaign financing is coming from? Furthermore, do you think it wise that when he is under no legal oblication to do so, he does hide it?

There is no intention for contributions to be anonymous, that's why you have to at least provide a name, address, and your job.

[Cerin]

But still - makes me now question Obama's decision to bring him to the ticket.

I don't think Biden's propensity for saying what's on his mind will be such a liability when they're governing (if they win). It's just that in campaign mode, everything is looked at under a microscope. I'm kind of glad that Obama looked at the value Biden would bring to his administration, over the risk he would pose as a candidate. I think that says something good about his priorities.

[Ellienor]

Well, Hal, there's a certain privacy issue. Just because I have nothing to hide from teh government doesn't mean that I want the government knowing everything about all my private e-mails and phone calls. I don't think that we have to give out all information just to prove how innocent we are.

Anyways, the Obama phenomenon of massive amounts of money from small donors is brand new and the rules were written for different times. I'm sure there will be a new look taken at this (led by Republicans) and I think it's all to the good. But hastily releasing all the records right now, willy nilly, without careful consideration of all of the issues involved, is not in the best interest, IMHO. But I have no doubt all those records will be released--and my name doppelganger will have to contend with embarrassment with their Republican cronies find that "they" contributed to the Obama campaign.

Hal, can you answer my post showing factcheck.org basically showing the fallacy of considering McCain's health tax credits different than the Obama tax credits (other than being for different purposes)?

[halplm]

McCain's tax credit for health care, is accompanied by a a change in the benefit for health care to companies.

I don't care what the purpose is, it's a giveaway from the government to the people.

Read this from factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... lfare.html

"McCain calls Obama's refundable tax credits "welfare," but calls his own "reform."

Where is McCain going to get the revenue to pay for his "reform", Hal? Is he going to borrow more from China, or is he going to wait for the Bush tax cuts to stimulate the economy to pay for it? (It's been 8 years, we're still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The Dow Jones is lower than when Bush took office--so when does this econonically driven tax bonanza show up?)

You should read the article I linked to on the previous page. It explains it much better than I can, and obviously better than factcheck bothers:

But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

But Holby is right, it's a bad idea.

But you're using the classic strategy of trying to avoid something bad about your guy, by saying the other guy is just as bad.

The fact is, Obama is presenting his plan as something that it is not. He claims it is tax cut, when it is somethign else entirely... to use his term... "Spreading the wealth around."

[sauronsfinger]

direct question from Hal

Do you think it a good thing, that a candidate for president is able to hide where $200 million of his campaign financing is coming from? Furthermore, do you think it wise that when he is under no legal oblication to do so, he does hide it?

direct answer: YES. What you are attempting to do is to take a national law which was passed in the interest of the nation by our duly elected representatives and substitute your own standard for it. Nobody has the right to do that and then claim some wrong is being done by the law being obeyed and followed.

[halplm]

So far as I am aware, McCain doesn't reveal information on contributors below that threshold either. If that is not true, I would be interested in seeing a link that demonstrates that.

McCain doesn't receive those contributions, since he took public funds, as Obama also promised to do, but didn't.

Here you can look up anyone who contributed before then in the primary:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Donors/

[halplm]

direct question from Hal

Do you think it a good thing, that a candidate for president is able to hide where $200 million of his campaign financing is coming from? Furthermore, do you think it wise that when he is under no legal oblication to do so, he does hide it?

direct answer: YES. What you are attempting to do is to take a national law which was passed in the interest of the nation by our duly elected representatives and substitute your own standard for it. Nobody has the right to do that and then claim some wrong is being done by the law being obeyed and followed.

Again, you're avoiding the question. Here, I'll make it even simpler for you:

Do you think campaign contributions should be secret?

[sauronsfinger]

How is YES avoiding your question?
YES
Y
E
S.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So far as I am aware, McCain doesn't reveal information on contributors below that threshold either. If that is not true, I would be interested in seeing a link that demonstrates that.

McCain doesn't receive those contributions, since he took public funds, as Obama also promised to do, but didn't.

Here you can look up anyone who contributed before then in the primary:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Donors/

Thanks, hal. I'll take a look at that.

[halplm]

How is YES avoiding your question?
YES
Y
E
S.

So just to be clear, you think campaign contributions should be secret?

This essentially makes them unlimited as well. Soros could give Obama a billion dollars to try and win the presidency.

You like to mention how you taught HS for 34 years. Did you never cover the problems such a structure has and would cause?

[Primula Baggins]

It does seem to include donors under $200, although the search engine is so clunky and slow that it would take some time to find them all. There is also no indication of how many hits your search is finding, or even how many pages of results there are.

It gives name, city, and amount.