This country cannot afford another 4-8 years of economic mediocrity. McCain's current platform clearly shows he abandoned his more sensible liberal positions of the past for the republican party line on taxes, economics, and military spending.

Democratic presidents preside over stronger economic growth, including but not limited to higher growth in GDP, employment, the stock market, corporate profits and compensation. Obama will be no different in that sense as he will generate billions in additional tax revenue while cutting taxes more than McCain for over 80% of families (with AGI over $10k/py). [Tax Policy Center] This puts tax cuts where they have the most effect, in the hands of those with a higher marginal propensity to consume and higher overall marginal utility per tax dollar saved. [Presidential Economics] [Adler & Lebang]

The downside to economic growth is obviously the rising inflation and interest. However, the solution to reducing inflation and interest seems to be gridlock, not a Republican president.

What this country needs right now is a strong economic expansion which is more likely to come from Obama, and if interest rates and inflation rise too high, we'll need gridlock, but that should be in the form of a Republican congress and democratic president.

For example, look no further than the after tax income distributions of the candidates tax plans, which were debated in detail at todays Tax Policy Center between the Senior Economic Advisers of the Obama and McCain campaign:

Obama-vs-McCain-tax

Which one do you think will benefit the economy more? The one which puts cash in the hands of those with a higher marginal utility per tax dollar saved while adding billions more to the revenue base, or the one which concentrates the bulk where the marginal utility is the least while adding 100 billion to the debt each year?

McCain's position since 2004 has been to withdraw if a sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, which is exactly what is occurring right now. Will McCain hold true to his word, and shift his Iraq policy to match Obama's support for withdrawal? Or will McCain contradict himself because he believes he will gain more politically by weaseling out of his rather definitive position, posted below:

"PETERSON: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

PETERSON: A second and final question from me. As you know—

McCAIN: By the way, could I— if we do it right, that's not going to happen, but we will be there militarily for a long, long, long time."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/

Iraqi National Security Advisor al-Rubaie:

"We aspire to reach to the 18th province before the end of this year. God willing all provinces will be under the control of the Iraqi security authorities before the end of this year"

Iraq hopes for full security control by year-end

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080716/wl_nm/iraq_dc_11

TO wit, McCains tax plan would require 80%+ of taxpayers to pay more than under Obama's tax plan.

Yet McCain said recently: "If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Senator Obama is your man. The choice in this election is stark and simple. Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won’t."

I guess McCain wasn't talking to the over 80% of Americans who would pay more taxes if McCain were elected vs Obama?

Even many of those in the top quintile may experience a greater increase in after tax income from electing Obama over McCain. The majority of the top quintile are made up of business owners. While republicans argue tax hikes trickle down as costs to consumers, that is specious reasoning, and is clearly not true when businesses are growing income which exceeds the additional tax cost. Business certainly don't pass tax cuts on to consumers in the form of lower prices either. The fact is, Democratic administrations and their Keynesian influenced fiscal policies have consistently governed over higher increases to GDP than Republicans and their laissez-faire liberalism. Thus the entrepreneurs and executives in the top quintile could gain more in income growth than they will lose to addt'l tax costs, because compensation and corporate profits tend to grow much faster than GDP during an expansion. Companies like Google stand to gain more financially from an improved economy under Obama than an irresponsible tax cut from McCain which causes inflation and makes the economy even worse.

After reading an interview with Oil CEO Jim Hacket at kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot, I found that whenever Jim actually answered the questions directly, he agreed with the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Admin (DOE-EIA) reports on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS Case]. However, whenever a question required him to either take a definitive position against DOE-EIA findings or admit the falsity of his own claims, he avoided directly answering the question.

Q:"How long would it take to bring some oil online if we go to the Outer Continental Shelf?"

ANSWERS
OIL CEO:"Generally five to seven years from the initial leasing until you actually have production"
DOE-EIA::"Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017"
Consensus: at least 5 years from initial lease

Q: "why are these senators saying it would take five to ten years and the price impact wouldn’t be felt until 2030?"

ANSWERS
OIL CEO: "Well I think that the price would adjust actually as soon as you started drilling it. There’s a psychology with regard to speculative elements in any commodity market, whether it’s grains, or metals, or oil and gas. If the world really felt that there were plenty of places to go look for oil and gas, the markets would start trading as if that were a reality...Every time we go and find new resources, we find there are more than we thought there were."

DOE-EIA: "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Disagreement: While the Oil CEO's argument is based largely on the psychology of speculation and 'really feeling like there is plenty of oil', the closest he gets to providing any objective analysis is his claim that we will find more oil than we think is there, a claim which can hardly be considered an empirical fact. The DOE-EIA analysis in contrast makes its case objectively based on empirical facts and projections using accepted theories of economics and statistics.

With respect to the DOE-EIA finding that "any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant", the methodology and data are available online for criticism, yet the conservatives and oil execs have yet to provide a reasonable counter argument explaining why the finding is wrong.

This makes me wonder if Jim Hacket has a signed copy of 'The Secret'... His argument sounds like it came from the book itself: If we just really believe that there are plenty of places to look for oil, then the markets will trade as if it is true, and when we actually go and look for it, we will not only find it, but more than we ever expected to find!

It's the best way to win. The bottom line is that a $500+ to $85 million finance advantage will far outweigh in benefits any minor damage the character attack being staged by republicans could have.

Obama didn't promise to take public financing. He promised to pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee, and he stipulated conditions that have not been met by McCain, and are not likely to be possible given the current state of the public finance system.

One of the conditions Obama set forth was that candidates would be able to effectively reign in 527s and keep them from interfering with the campaign. It is now estimated that $500 million or more may be spent by 527s on this election, the only way to counteract that effect is for the actual candidates to spend more than the 527s. There currently is no way for this one of Obama's conditions for taking public financing to be met.

McCain violated his own McCain-Feingold campaign finance law during the primary: unlike Obama, who merely promised to consider public financing under certain conditions, McCain actually committed to and benefited from the public financing system. After he saw he could raise more than $54 million, he tried to illegally opt himself out without approval from the FEC. The FEC issued a warning about going over the $54 million cap. His official commitment allowed him to obtain a loan by promising to get public financing, and to bypass signature collection and get onto the ballots automatically. I suppose you could say he abandoned his 'principles' for whatever thats worth. The salient point is any criticism of Obama's so called flip flop can be mitigated by the fact the McCain not only promised to do public financing then backed out of it, he actually entered the system then tried to illegally opt himself out.

The way Obama has financed this campaign privately, with 1.5 million individuals making small donations, is far more inline with progressive ideals than restricting himself to a broken public system which allows interest groups to dominate election advertising. This way the millions of small donors have a chance to outweigh the heavily funded interest groups for a change.

The mistake Obama made was not a broken promise to americans to take public financing (McCains claim), because he never made that promise. The mistake was going on the record too early with what he thought at the time was the most viable plan. Once he realized that his conditions would not be met, namely stopping the 527s, and that he could be likely to raise a billion dollars on his own through millions of small donations, the correct decision was to reject public financing. Similarly, once McCain realized he could raise a few more million, he tried to opt himself out of the system he already committed to and benefited from without the FECs approval.

Side by side McCain and Bush propose the following false dilemma:

Either we open up offshore drilling by providing drastic increases in funding to our coastal states in incentives and to deal with the inevitable environmental degradation
-OR-
We sit back and watch the cost of energy in the US rise as the price of oil continues to rise on the world market.

This dilemma is false. The real question is:

Should we make a drastic increase in federal funds (per McCain) to our coastal states and bear the cost to clean up the inevitable environmental degradation, in order to execute a plan which at best can be expected to only increase world oil supply by 0.2% in 2030?

The reasons the Bush/McCain dilemma is false are not limited to the following:

We do not have to sit back and watch the cost of energy rise. There are other options we can pursue to reduce to cost of energy in the US. It is not a matter of drilling offshore or doing nothing, it is a matter of looking at the array of possible policy actions and, given finite funding, wisely choosing the best investments to fund. For example, Gas/Diesel/Biofuel hybrid electrics which get 200+ miles per gallon are available right now and w/ investment from US gov't could not only start effectively reducing our dependence on foreign oil within a couple years, but are also a bridge to a long term energy solution. Whether you support that or not, the fact remains that if you believe the only solution we currently have is to drill offshore you are demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of both the problem and that potential solution. To wit:

Opening up offshore drilling will not reduce the cost of energy in the US. A projected 0.2% increase to world oil supply in 2030 is insignificant at best. That amounts to being guaranteed to stay in the red for 22 years then most likely remain there because this will never pay for itself. Ironically, it is analysis and stats from the Bush's own DOE supporting this assertion.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

IMO insignificant may actually be an overstatement considering 0.2 million barrels per day is merely 0.2% of the total of 85 million barrels per day in current world oil production.

Bush and McCain chose to promote this false agenda as a ploy to convince voters McCain has a good energy policy when in reality the idea is nothing more than a kickback to oil companies who support his election. McCain will continue the Bush Energy policy that has cost the US billions while the oil companies set records w/ billions in profits.

Again the actual dilemma we face can be stated clearly:

Should we make a drastic increase in federal funds to our coastal states and bear the cost to clean up the inevitable environmental degradation, simply in order to execute a plan which at best can be expected to only increase world oil supply by 0.2% in 2030?

The only reasonable answer is no.

INCOME TAX

Overall Strategy
OBAMA: progressive taxation, tax poor/middle classes less and upper class more, stop wasting billions in Iraq
MCCAIN: flat taxation - leave tax cuts for upper class, then eventually move towards taxing all taxpayers at same rate, keep wasting billions in Iraq
Drac: Progressive taxation is simply more reasonable than flat taxation. Obama's plan will generate more tax revenue and support a more equitable distribution of wealth. McCain's revenue reducing tax policy contrasts with his promise to stay in Iraq as long as he's willing to produce intelligence which states there are a few people running around Iraq calling themselves al Qaeda. How can he reconcile these dogmatic approaches? Obamas plan just makes more sense (not that it is the perfect plan, just that it's better than McCains which isnt saying much at all).

Specifics:

under $75k
OBAMA: cut taxes
MCAIN: same
Drac: cutting taxes for those who's taxes represent the highest % of disposable income currently makes better sense than not doing so. Positively effects millions of lives while not costing the gov't much revenue.

$75k-$250k
OBAMA: same
MCCAIN: same
Drac: candidates agree

$250k+
OBAMA: raise by 3%
MCCAIN: same
Drac: raising more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on the wealthiest 1% of americans by 3% is a good idea.

SENIOR CITIZENS <$50k
OBAMA: eliminate taxes
MCCAIN: same
Drac: Drac: eliminating taxes for the elderly frees up their money and takes financial burden from families who have to support their aging relatives.

PAYROLL TAX
OBAMA: eliminate cap for those making over $250k per year, provide $500/$1000 credits to reduce payroll tax liability
MCCAIN: same
Drac: raising the cap will have negative consequences on the people making over $250k (about 1% of workers), but it will increase tax revenue. this is necessary to provide the tax credits to effectively lower payroll tax liability of most americans.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX
OBAMA: 20%
MCCAIN: 15%
Drac: We are currently on the left side of the laffer curve, and studies show raising capital gains tax to 20% would increase revenue without discouraging investment. Ignoring this is a bad idea, especially given McCain's desire to continue wasteful spending while siumultaneosly reducing tax revenue, particularly the wasteful Iraq war he seeks to prolong indefinitely. By raising the tax back to 20% some studies estimate that an additional $100 billion in revenue could be generated for the federal government without reducing investment.

SPENDING CUTS
While Obama and McCain both propose their fair share of spending cuts, and Obama has more spending planned than McCain domestically, these facts are overshadowed because McCain wants to continue spending billions on the Iraq war and wishes to increase military spending to continue expanding the war on terror. As far as offering a balanced approach to budgeting Obama is clearly the more desirable candidate.

Mr. Nice: "i think the fact dawkins in all his programs and interviews seem to emphasize to people and tell them that it is so obvious with the ludicrousness of religion and interviews people who believe in ghosts and so on, and try to reason with them as to show the nonsensicalness (<made it up, not sure if it exists) of their beliefs. i think this does not work as it does not really stimulate thinking and ends up trying to show people the idiocy of some peoples beliefs forgetting that people already know what the people believe in."

I can appreciate this point. I feel that explaining the unreasonableness of religion is only effective with those who are willing to adopt a rational attitude, and those are few and far between amongst the truly religious. In my experience, the most logical way to explain religion is also the most effective way to minimize the degree to which people hold such beliefs, that explanation being this:

Religious experience, particularly the common elements experienced across all religions, and not so much the actual explicitly stated beliefs, are caused by a natural hijacking of normal cognitive processes. These cognitive processes have typically evolved for another purpose which aided the adaptive survival of our species, only to be hijacked by religious thought at a later time. People tend to "talk" about religion meeting vague metaphysical needs, but in reality religion is actually "used" in concrete situations that stimulate our natural cognitive processes, religious thought being the response. The "religious experience" is merely a hijacked response to concrete situations which stimulate natural cognitive processes.

Examples are too numerous to mention, but some general ones are:

1. Close association between religious ritual participation and our evolved natural group affiliation.
2. The role of our evolved coalitional thinking in creating religious identity.
3. The specific role of death and dead bodies in religious thinking.
4. The role of our evolved fear of sickness causing pathogens in supporting religious purity rituals.
5. The drive to abide by religious laws without exception or empirical explanation, and many other behaviors characteristic of obsessive compulsive disorder.

Mr Nice said: "another problem is the way dawkins is calling people towards atheism. the fact that science is a logical way to approach things. and it is. but calling people towards atheism in such a manner can turn atheism into something more organized, and having something more organized can lead to a complacency in thinking, and fall into all the traps religion have fallen into, but nnot as much worse. the way dawkins has categorized atheism and what it is and the role of it, he has made it seem as so if someone was to question science, they would be shot down. i think the 'scientific method' should be open to criticism and people like dawkins should advocate rather than make it the absolute position in ones thinking."

 
Here I cannot agree with you. Richard Feynman famously said that "science is organized doubt". IMHO religion is the opposite - organized certitude. There is no complacency in science, because that violates the scientific method, of which the fundamental mechanism is imagination and criticism, complacency being fatal to both. If a scientist is complacent, he or she isn't practicing science. Dawkins understands this and makes this clear in his arguments - it's a central theme of his attacks on religion and one I support.
 
If I were to criticize Dawkins, I would ignore your last point, and take your first point to the conclusion that Dawkins should focus more on highlighting the natural hijacking of cognitive processes that take place in actual religious behavior, and spend less time responding to the imaginative conjectures explicitly declared by the religious in their often pitiful attempt to explain the metaphysics of their religion. Nietzsche hits it on the head by saying faith is merely a guise for the domination of instincts. It is such pitiful behavior that when Dawkins attacks them it seems unfair and can even illicit a response of pity for his targets. Highlighting the natural hijacking instead serves to avoid debating the reasonability of peoples imagination and lessens the negative limbic response. It also does well to explain why the actual religious experience is so similiar across religions, whereas the explicitly stated metaphysical beliefs vary drastically even within subsets of a single religion, let alone across entire religions.

AT&T claims that it now wants to begin filtering all traffic on its networks in order to fulfill some vague sense of moral duty in stopping internet piracy. At last months economic conference in Switzerland, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said the company was evaluating whether to monitor Internet traffic as part of an effort to stop the illegal sharing of copyrighted music and videos. He likened his company's role to that of a bystander watching someone steal a DVD. "Do you act?" he asked.

This has many attorneys scratching their heads, because in 1998 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed due to millions in special interest money from AT&T and others, legislation which eliminated any responsibility of AT&T and other communication providers from policing their networks for illegal activity, in order to protect them from liability when their networks happen to be used for illegal purposes. Now, they seem to have made a complete 180, and have a desire to actively police their networks. However, the legal implications here don't have me scratching my head, but looking at the obvious motive: corporate profit. AT&T once spent millions to protect themselves from this liability, now they are willing to take on this huge financial risk; there must be a financial gain at stake or it wouldn't make any sense. Corporations themselves are amoral profit seekers, and a large corporation like AT&T would never sacrifice profits merely to execute some vague sense of morality for which they have aboslutely no legal obligation. While the beneficial morality of a small business owner and their small place in the market often result in moral behavior on their part, a large amoral corporation with vast resources can no longer be restrained by the morality of a few (often immoral) people with financial stakes in the corporation.

Mark McKenna, an assistant professor of law at nearby St Louis University, agrees with me: "It strikes me as unlikely that that's their real reason," He thinks AT&T is trying to determine which groups could be charged for their use of AT&T's networks. Framing it as a battle against piracy just makes it easier to swallow, he said. "These other justifications are opening the door to do what they really want."

The reality is that AT&T is desperate to violate net neutrality in their amoral pursuit of corporate profits. They're now focusing more of their vast resources towards the strategy of turning a free and democratic internet into a corporate feudalistic intranet, for the express purpose of AT&T making more profit. As support builds in Congress to outlaw any direct violation of net neutrality, amoral AT&T appears to be ramping up efforts to sidestep the law under the false guise of morality.

AT&Ts latest faux reason is nothing but pure irony. Under the guise of their false morality they've expressed desire to filter all traffic to determine its source, which is the obvious first step to charging traffic based on its source and where it's headed, i.e. if it's not originating from an AT&T customer or heading to an AT&T customer they will treat it like internet piracy and slow down or block the traffic completely. It's pure irony, for a corporation so desperate as AT&T to subjugate the free and democratic internet, to be claiming the impetus behind this nefarious goal is actually to promote justice by stopping internet piracy. No reasonable person will believe this.

Looking through their transparently disingenuous excuses, the gist is that AT&T wants to swashbuckle, pirate, hijack, and outright block the free-flow of information on the internet under the false guise of policing people who download mp3s and watch videos on youtube - as if these people were even remotely as dangerous to our open society as AT&T. Despite their patently obvious profit motive, they're bold enough to publicly deny their sudden 'attack of morality' is in pursuit of profit. Forgive me if I don't find too compelling such vague appeals to morality from an amoral and quite powerful profit seeking corporation like AT&T, who has a long track record of seeking profits while ignoring consumer demands for quality and fairness. In reality, AT&T simply wants to be the only one selling mp3s and videos on the internet, shutting down any and all file sharing or posting services, while at the same time charging people for access to the internet to use their paid counterpart to these now popular services. Bye bye free democratic internet, goodbye uninhibited cultural and small business growth, hello fascism and corporate feudalism. It's beggining to even seem possible that AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon would be willing to single handedly cause the crash of the internet economy and a nationwide recession in their attempts hoard more money for themselves.

Not only do we need to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR 5353) introduced by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), but we need to oppose any attempt by AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and others to move towards their ultimate goal of destroying freedom of information on the internet for the express purpose of generating more profit.

Online Small Business Must Support Net Neutrality