Well, Kissinger's "out of the box" quote is pretty clear. And I should have caught myself there, but I didn't. This, to me, asks the question of why McCain thinks [edit: correction, thanks Kasz] presidential talks are so much more dangerous than Secretary of State talks.

But that would be me shifting the debate. Looks like I don't have a leg to stand on as far as the definition of preconditions, even if I still think it's a reasonable interpretation.

Which means I proved you wrong after all! "Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P"

I WIN!

Actually, Obama is still $200 billion ahead plus whatever McCain spends on health care. 

It's a good start, though.  We're making progress.  On the other hand, it's hard to say how much of this will materialize -- aside from the well-known fickeness of campaign promises (on all sides), there's the fact that the economic meltdown and bailout is going to push some stuff on the back burner no matter how sincerely it was originally promised (February in the case of the health care thing).  A few days ago , if not before, Obama said as much. 

I appreciate your effort but I think we need to decide whether the spending comparisons can actually be done in detail.  I'm sorry if I have asked the impossible.  I should have considered this first. 

(P.S.  On a totally unrelated note, did you look at who was getting the bulk of the tax cuts?)

Final-Fan said: Well, Kissinger's "out of the box" quote is pretty clear. And I should have caught myself there, but I didn't. This, to me, asks the question of why McCain thinks Secretary of State talks are so much more dangerous than presidential talks. But that would be me shifting the debate. Looks like I don't have a leg to stand on as far as the definition of preconditions, even if I still think it's a reasonable interpretation. Which means I proved you wrong after all! "Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P" I WIN!

You mean why he thinks presidential talks are more dangerous then secretary of state talks?  Something to do with the head of the country legitamizing it or something...

I don't know... I don't agree but a lot of people do on both sides of the Isle.

Hilary Clinton made a big deal about it in the primaries saying that Obama's foreign policy plan would legitmize the worst enemies the US has.

Also apparently talking without preconditions with Iran would be breaching UN resolutions.

""Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions.
...
They [resolutions] were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council.
...
Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions..."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/152710/075

Final-Fan said: Well, Kissinger's "out of the box" quote is pretty clear. And I should have caught myself there, but I didn't. This, to me, asks the question of why McCain thinks Secretary of State talks are so much more dangerous than presidential talks. But that would be me shifting the debate. Looks like I don't have a leg to stand on as far as the definition of preconditions, even if I still think it's a reasonable interpretation. Which means I proved you wrong after all! "Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P" I WIN!

I concede =P

Until either campaign revises there plans we have to take them at their word at what their budgets would be. 

Even if you were going to cut so much for "overpromising" it seems like nothing more then bias to just assume Obama is "overpromising" more then McCain.

I think it's very possible to track down about what each of their stated government budgets are going to be but it would take more research then i'm willing to put in right now.  I'd have to look harder at for example their energy plans, for example.

As for the tax cuts... yeah... and it generally fits with my own thinking on taxes.

When times are bad and unemployment is high... cut the tax of buisnesses and the rich as they can use that money to create more jobs that people need do to the high unemployment.  Not always great jobs... but there jobs.  Keep the companies up so more jobs are lost.

When times are good... tax the crap out of said companys since they can afford it.

Raise taxes on companies when the economy is bad and they either have to cut jobs or go out of buisness putting everyone out of work.

Lower taxes on companies when the economy is doing good and they get new profit expectations that are higher and feel a need to hoard more money... and also have to get greedier to meet those goals leading to them taking riskier moves and getting unbalanced.

Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Well, Kissinger's "out of the box" quote is pretty clear. And I should have caught myself there, but I didn't. This, to me, asks the question of why McCain thinks Secretary of State talks are so much more dangerous than presidential talks. But that would be me shifting the debate. Looks like I don't have a leg to stand on as far as the definition of preconditions, even if I still think it's a reasonable interpretation. Which means I proved you wrong after all! "Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P" I WIN! You mean why he thinks presidential talks are more dangerous then secretary of state talks?  Something to do with the head of the country legitamizing it or something... I don't know... I don't agree but a lot of people do on both sides of the Isle. Hilary Clinton made a big deal about it in the primaries saying that Obama's foreign policy plan would legitmize the worst enemies the US has. Also apparently talking without preconditions with Iran would be breaching UN resolutions. ""Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. ... They [resolutions] were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council. ... Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions..." http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/152710/075

First off, she said nothing of the sort in that video unless I am truly made stupid by how tired I am right now.  She said that it was a mistake to PROMISE those talks ("blanket commitment") without knowing whether they would be worthwhile for the US.  And it's pretty debatable IMO that saying in that debate that he would be willing to talk equates to a promise to talk. 

As for the second part, the UN Security Council resolutions in question demand that Iran suspend and/or explain those parts of its nuclear program which seem strongly suggestive of nuclear weapons development, and let in the inspectors required by the NPT.  I'm not sure how snubbed all those parties would really be about talking with Iran on those subjects before it actually stops/starts doing those things, but I'm far, far from an expert in these things so please explain to me why we would offend them with (not necessarily unilateral) talks.  I'd be surprised if there weren't UN resolutions regarding North Korea that weren't met when talks were being conducted with that country. 

(BTW, it was your source's source that actually had info on what the resolutions were.)

(1)  Of course.  I'm just concerned that we'd be putting lots of time and effort into something rendered moot anyway. 

(2)  I never suggested that McCain wouldn't be cutting stuff from his plan in response to the same situation that's causing Obama to warn he'll probably cut stuff from his. 

(3)  I agree, except that I don't think they will have concrete numbers for everything, not even necessarily ballpark  numbers.

(4)  I'm pretty sure those numbers were for personal/family tax rates.  I understand that some small businesses are filed under the individual's income, but I don't think the impact will be huge and anyway they can always switch to filing as businesses, being smart businesspeople. 

However, in addition to these tax plans, McCain also wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, which would certainly affect businesses.  Make no mistake, that is a monstrous tax cut and I for one think it's too big.  But then, I'm no close student of economics.  On the other hand, I'll take bets with anyone who says it'll be easy to raise taxes again when Wall Street is solid again. 

He also wants to give additional tax cuts like "first-year deduction" of all equipment and technology purchases, and a "Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D". 

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0b8e4db8-5b0c-459f-97ea-d7b542a78235.htm

P.S.  It also says "John McCain believes it should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes", but even though I'm speaking from total ignorance at the moment, I'd be extremely surprised if this was anything more than an empty statement made for the sole purpose of making Grover Norquist cream his pants.  OK, too graphic, and I'm kind of joking, but does anyone know if that is an even remotely realistic idea? 

Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Well, Kissinger's "out of the box" quote is pretty clear. And I should have caught myself there, but I didn't. This, to me, asks the question of why McCain thinks Secretary of State talks are so much more dangerous than presidential talks. But that would be me shifting the debate. Looks like I don't have a leg to stand on as far as the definition of preconditions, even if I still think it's a reasonable interpretation. Which means I proved you wrong after all! "Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P" I WIN! You mean why he thinks presidential talks are more dangerous then secretary of state talks?  Something to do with the head of the country legitamizing it or something... I don't know... I don't agree but a lot of people do on both sides of the Isle. Hilary Clinton made a big deal about it in the primaries saying that Obama's foreign policy plan would legitmize the worst enemies the US has. Also apparently talking without preconditions with Iran would be breaching UN resolutions. ""Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. ... They [resolutions] were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council. ... Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions..." http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/152710/075 First off, she said nothing of the sort in that video unless I am truly made stupid by how tired I am right now.  She said that it was a mistake to PROMISE those talks ("blanket commitment") without knowing whether they would be worthwhile for the US.  And it's pretty debatable IMO that saying in that debate that he would be willing to talk equates to a promise to talk.  As for the second part, the UN Security Council resolutions in question demand that Iran suspend and/or explain those parts of its nuclear program which seem strongly suggestive of nuclear weapons development, and let in the inspectors required by the NPT.  I'm not sure how snubbed all those parties would really be about talking with Iran on those subjects before it actually stops/starts doing those things, but I'm far, far from an expert in these things so please explain to me why we would offend them with (not necessarily unilateral) talks.  I'd be surprised if there weren't UN resolutions regarding North Korea that weren't met when talks were being conducted with that country.  (BTW, it was your source's source that actually had info on what the resolutions were.)

Don't you think that knowing for a fact such meetings were going to be beneficial to the US would be a precursor to some kind of condition or deal already hammered out before meeting?

She says herself that she doesn't want to be used for Propaganda.  She says similar things in later quotes, but it's the earliest one i found.

As for the second part, we didn't have unilateral talks with North Korea to my knowledge.  Korea kept asking for them and Bush said no.

Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Well, Kissinger's "out of the box" quote is pretty clear. And I should have caught myself there, but I didn't. This, to me, asks the question of why McCain thinks Secretary of State talks are so much more dangerous than presidential talks. But that would be me shifting the debate. Looks like I don't have a leg to stand on as far as the definition of preconditions, even if I still think it's a reasonable interpretation. Which means I proved you wrong after all! "Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P" I WIN! You mean why he thinks presidential talks are more dangerous then secretary of state talks?  Something to do with the head of the country legitamizing it or something... I don't know... I don't agree but a lot of people do on both sides of the Isle. Hilary Clinton made a big deal about it in the primaries saying that Obama's foreign policy plan would legitmize the worst enemies the US has. Also apparently talking without preconditions with Iran would be breaching UN resolutions. ""Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. ... They [resolutions] were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council. ... Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions..." http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/152710/075 First off, she said nothing of the sort in that video unless I am truly made stupid by how tired I am right now.  She said that it was a mistake to PROMISE those talks ("blanket commitment") without knowing whether they would be worthwhile for the US.  And it's pretty debatable IMO that saying in that debate that he would be willing to talk equates to a promise to talk.  As for the second part, the UN Security Council resolutions in question demand that Iran suspend and/or explain those parts of its nuclear program which seem strongly suggestive of nuclear weapons development, and let in the inspectors required by the NPT.  I'm not sure how snubbed all those parties would really be about talking with Iran on those subjects before it actually stops/starts doing those things, but I'm far, far from an expert in these things so please explain to me why we would offend them with (not necessarily unilateral) talks.  I'd be surprised if there weren't UN resolutions regarding North Korea that weren't met when talks were being conducted with that country.  (BTW, it was your source's source that actually had info on what the resolutions were.) (1) Don't you think that knowing for a fact such meetings were going to be beneficial to the US would be a precursor to some kind of condition or deal already hammered out before meeting? (2) She says herself that she doesn't want to be used for Propaganda.  She says similar things in later quotes, but it's the earliest one i found. (3) As for the second part, we didn't have unilateral talks with North Korea to my knowledge.  Korea kept asking for them and Bush said no.

Firstly, I would like to know why everything is bold now. 

(1) I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Your usage of "precursor" in that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

The issue as I saw it was that he was allegedly promising to talk to those countries even if it woudl do us no good and embolden them.  Whatever "preconditions" means among diplomats (see my exhange with Sqrl), Obama has since made it clear that he wants low-level talks to at least see if they are genuinely going to negotiate.  I don't think that having a deal in place before he even goes there is a necessity. 

(2) And the above sounds pretty darn similar to Clinton's "presidential envoys". 

(3) Is Obama specifically talking about unilateral talks?  If so I am much mistaken, as the post you quoted makes clear.  The US would be taking the initiative but I see no reason why other parties wouldn't be welcome to participate.  IN ANY CASE, the point is still that talks took place even though North Korea was in massive violation and no one cared.  If anyone claims to care if we do it with Iran and make progress I predict it will be for domestic political gain.