Buffalo Rising Online

Sally,

Wow, who ever thought that the election would go up for grabs and that Obama would have to be concerned about New York State?

F#@% Obama

so because sarah palin looks like a stripper and john mccain got his ass kicked for a bunch of years that makes them worthy of being president? id rather hear ONE plan they have to change the hole this country is in thanks to their party

they are talking about the opening of a political office.. nothing about the candidate... way to get off topic.

By the way, where is McCain's office?

McCains office is in one of the senior housing complexes owned by BMHA. It is the only place he is expected to get votes, so it is pretty strategic on his part.

^ and that is why it wasn't covered in Bro...

Of course McCain's office is in the burbs. Why would he try to reach out to people living in the city when his policies would do nothing to help them.

so because sarah palin looks like a stripper and john mccain got his ass kicked for a bunch of years that makes them worthy of being president? id rather hear ONE plan they have to change the hole this country is in thanks to their party

Can you tell us the Obama / Biden plan?

I love how this article is written as politically neutral as possible, and yet--predictably--some people chime in with their idiotic two cents. And Blov, there's an Obama office in practically every larger American city... just as there's a McCain office in practically every larger American city.

Also, is it just me, or does this country still seem completely polarized politically? This campaign, from both sides of the fence, has gotten really ugly. I really wish the public would hear more about the issues, and thereby become more informed about the "change" they want to vote for. Personally, I can't wait for the debates!

Buffalo needs to get behind Obama. Just think of all that welfare money that is going to funnel into the nation's second poorest city.

Kooks, as far as the "hole" that the GOP has gotten this nation into the last 8 years, I ask you one thing. Did you feel the great econimc boom there in Buffalo during the Clinton administration? All I hear is about this great econimic, social, and cultural boom going on in Buffalo recently. If this is so true, why isn't everyone in Buffalo jumping on the Republican bandwagon???

And, predictably, I've already received two "one star" ratings on my comment above, even though what I said endorsed neither campaign. Sigh... as John Mellencamp sang, "Ain't that America?" :-)

georged- The largest expansion of the economy in history was under the Clinton administration. No brag, just fact.

I don't question this blackrocklifter. We could also debate who should recieve credit for this, and the factors that went into this particular resurgence of the 90s. Remember, things looked pretty good under Coolidge and the Harding admins as well during the 1920s. My point was that Buffalo and WNY was one of the few places in the nation that didn't see any of this expansion in the 90s. Actually the city and area took major steps backwards. Since everyone seems to be talking about this recent Buffalo Renaissance on this blog, why wouldn't they keep the energy going with the GOP in power?

What is the point of BRO posting this story?? Sounds like a leftist thing to do..if they are going to be fair, then also post an article on McCain and his office, and if there isn't a local office, then the next closest one to the area. Long story short.....stay out of the political arena!!!!!!! Stop the sexist comments on Palin...the more you libs do that, the more you stoke the fire for the women voters out there. Obama's plan is to raise taxes....that always works, great idea oh yeah, and create a bigger, fatter gov't so that it can do everything for everyone and then we will evenutally be a socialist country!

georged- The largest expansion of the economy in history was under the Clinton administration. No brag, just fact. - Blackrocklifer

Yes, and this also led to a huge economic collapse due to the lack of governance and poor policy on behalf of the Clinton adminstration. The mortgage crisis today can be traced back to changing mortgage restrictions and governmance to increase home ownership. The tech boom collapse and enron can be traced back to poor oversight from that administration. Rampant growth of DoD contracts, mostly left unchecked, are a result of Clinton.

I am not supporting Bush, but Clinton was no god of politics if you know what I mean.

"Obama's plan is to raise taxes....that always works, great idea oh yeah, and create a bigger, fatter gov't so that it can do everything for everyone and then we will evenutally be a socialist country"

-Your taxes are only going up if you make more than 250k....otherwise you are actually going to have your taxes lowered more with obamas plan than mccains. I didnt mean to sound sexist when i said palin looked like a stripper...it was in response to buffalostan saying how beautiful she was. Why is it of any importance how she looks? I care more about her passion for earmarks and shady dealings that finds her involved in court cases in her own state. Anyways...i guess this has turned into a rumble of stuck up conservatives vs. radical hippie librals....haha november cant come soon enough!

I agree with Tony31280 that issues should be the focus instead of non-issues like where campaign offices are located. I disagree that the above article is as neutral as possible, but there's no reason that a blog like Buffalo Rising should stay neutral or balanced. BR should feel free to openly support whichever candidate they favor. Comments can provide as much balance as anyone wants to write.

kooksapalooza, your first comment asks for one plan of McCain-Palin but here's three:

1. drill here, drill now - increase in America, much more than Obama proposes to do, the drilling of oil and natural gas

2. start adding nuclear plants again, which Obama opposes even though it's proven zero-CO2-emission technology widely used in Europe

3. match everything Obama wants to do for wind power, solar, biofuels, battery-powered cars, and conservation

In short, an "all of the above" approach which in the long run will add supply to world energy markets and counter balance the growing influence of OPEC and Russia

Two more as a bonus:

4. not raise taxes on job-creating "rich" business owners as Obama proposes to do (yes, job-creating small business owners often have $250K+ income, that's the motivation for taking financial risks)

5. promote school vouchers as an optional alternative to public school system monopolies

and in #1, McCain would allow more coal mining than Obama wants

Nice post whynot, that was a point I was making with my references to the 1920s and Coolidge. There are many similarities to the 1920s boom and then crash to the late 90s unchecked market and subsequent problems we are facing today.

All this aside, i always get a kick out of both blue collar rust belt democrats and minority democrats. I like asking them both what have the democrats done for you? Never did understand why they follow that party like sheep. Both candidates are getting huge contributions from big business, and therefore will become their lackeys when elected. the nation needs a complete overhaul of how election campaigns are run. Until then, there will be no "change", as Obama seems to love to say.

Given the anti-union, anti-tax, anti-wastful government postings that appear here, it would not surprise me if more posters voted for Mcain than Obama.

kooksapalooza - There are not enough people making over 250K to give everyone else a tax cut. So this is just BS pandering. It is more likely that the Peace Bridge will be built than this ridiculous tax proposal happening.

It is sad when people make assumptions from either side of the aisle... Obama isn't nor ever has been a mulsim. He just have a culturally arabic name. Happens when your father was muslim. Do you think everyone name Chin or Kyoshi is Buddist or a Shinto?

It is also funny how even when he comes our and says that he is not going to raise taxes for the middle class but repeal the bush tax cuts that only applied to the rich. No one bothers listening. Everyone should go to,

(a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/">Politifact and see who is blatantly lying about what on either side. How about people doing some research for themselves about the issues and stop listening to the campaign adds and the crap news. Notice which side lies more than the other... go.. I dare ya.. But you won't because if ANYTHING is apparent in America today and this Election is that the truth is irrelevant..

whynot... isn't less regulation and government oversight what republican's want MORE of? so you are saying because Clinton acted like a republic small government guy that it lead to the collapse..

sbrof, Clinton will not get the accolades he does now when historians really get to evaluate his presidency, which takes years to do. He basically did nothing as president, in a time when the cold war was over and the technological boom hit. He kicked the can with Al-Queda, doing nothing, and sat back and got rich on his own inside info. Even Al Gore somehow got in on Google stock at the right time. Coincidence? I think not.

georged - one really good thing that Clinton did was to push NAFTA. Can't think of a piece of legislation that benefits Buffalo more than NAFTA. But unfortunately, Obama and the others are prisoners of the stupid unions and they want to renegotiate it. I say stupid, because lots of these unions don't understand that without exports, their members will be unemployed.

His other good piece of legislation was welfare reform, but that only happened because of the Republican Congress.

Clinton is totally obsessed with his legacy. Historians do not judge presidents by the economy, otherwise Coolidge would be one of our greatest presidents and FDR one of the worst. Clinton will go down as one giant mediocrity. And he knows it. And it's killing him.

Ruby, he also had the Family Leave Act, which was a good piece of legislation. To be honest with you, I am not too sure that NAFTA was any big win for Buffalo. If anything, it made more companies look to Mexico than it did with stimulating anything that goes on between the US-Canadian border. Its not like the US-Canada trade wasn't already functioning prior to NAFTA.

I agree with the rest of your Clinton evaluation, especially the part where he legacy is killing him personally!

Regardless of who wins life will go on, I believe the people of this country will determine our success or failure and not who is commander in chief. Having said that I am tired fo hearing about how Obama represents change. I suppose if you mean a non-white, very inexperienced politician, then yes he represents change but if that´s the criteria I might as well run. If you are going to talk about a breath of fresh air and change show me why, give some examples. According to Obamas brief record there is nothing there that is noteworthy as representing sweeping change or new ideas. Just to say that you are for change without actually backing it up really holds no weight. Stand for something, rock the boat, draw your lines, show some backbone.....which candidate does that sound like to you?

People need to start voting for themselves instead of blaming everything on the governnment, take your future in your hands and make your own way.

buffalo339 is correct that neither one is a party of fiscal conservatives and small government.

However just because both parties favor big govt and neither party as a whole has a good record for controlling spending, that doesn't mean there's not a difference in degree of how McCain and Obama would try to grow spending. In the senate, one of them has strongly opposed a lot of spending programs and the other hasn't. As candidates, one of them is proposing a lot more new spending programs compared to the other. It doesn't require party labels to figure out which is which.

Paul - You lose credibility when you lump issues like tax policy and energy in with the Muslim and stripper topics: '...who looks like a stripper, who's not a Muslim, tax cuts, drill-drill-drill mantras, and nuclear silver bullets are meaningless'.

Nobody said nuclear is a silver bullet, so that's a lame straw man argument you make. Tax policy is meaningless? Yeah, sure.

If offshore drilling isn't cost-feasible, as you say it isn't, then why not lift all bans on it? If oil cos really won't won't drill offshore, as you say they won't, why have any bans?

Why not allow more offshore drilling as McCain proposes and see what happens eventually? Same with onshore drilling too, in Alaska and other western states. Nobody knows for sure, but these might be important sources in the long term, especially if oil prices rise a lot down the road which might encourage exploration you say is too expensive.

For our economy to keep growing, more energy is needed. Why do many U.S. politicians often demand the Saudis increase their oil production when we're not willing to at least try more drilling here, onshore and offshore?

There's pipelines being built all over the world. Yeah, they're all terrorism threats as you note. So are oil tanker ships, gasoline delivery trucks, petroleum refineries, on and on. Terrorism sucks but things can be repaired and rebuilt if they have to, including pipelines.

Re. nuclear, all the problems you list are potentially workable. Yes we can, or yes we can't? Other nations are using it more than the U.S. There's no reason it couldn't help a lot in the U.S. too - as one piece of the puzzle. There are no silver bullets. Federal legislation can be attempted to make it happen more than it is.

Template for political conversations: :

I am a (Choose one) Democrat / Republican and I think that the (choose opposite party) Democrats / Republican are incompetent and unqualified because (enter the last thing you read on the Internet or heard on CNN / FOX).

My party is better than the other party because we the other party has a long track record of not looking out for the good of America. They continue to mismanage tax dollars and focus on the demands of special interests and lobbyists. They talk a lot about Change but refuse to commit to how they will change. The (choose one) Democrat / Republican candidate is not experienced and they lie. Just look at their congressional voting record and you will see what I mean.

I don't agree with everything my party says, but they are much better than the (choose one) Democrats / Republicans , because they are looking out for my interests.

(enter rhetoric that you read on glossy flier you received in the mail, or comment that like minded friend sent you via email last night.)

(throw in zinger about the vice presidential candidate that you read on Craigslist)

The (choose one) Democrats / Republicans are going to run this country into the ground if they take office, and I am concerned about this. If (enter candidates last name) is elected then I will have to move to (choose one) Canada / Mexico.

Paul - 1. China, France, Canada, S Korea, India, Russia, Slovakia, Japan, Argentina, Finland, Taiwan, and Ukraine are all in the process of building new nuclear plants now instead of waiting another 12 years as you say should be done due to obsolescence issues. They obviously disagree with you. Potentially workable could mean using similar approaches to what one or more of those nations do for each problem you listed.

2. Offshore drilling and conservation can both be done. No one thing will solve everything, so it's puzzling why you're tying those two issues together. But it's good you favor lifting the ban. Pelosi and Obama, are you reading this?

3. Tax cuts are part of tax policy, and your 16:50 comment included tax cuts in a list of things you wrote are meaningless, along with a candidate's appearance and religion. Now this time, it looks like you're now saying tax cuts are harmful and taxes should instead be raised, but correct me if I'm interpreting you wrong. That's saying something different than 'meaningless'. We'll disagree whether it's a good idea to raise taxes overall. Tax rate increases don't always increase revenues, and tax rate cuts don't always decrease revenues. There's always unintended consequences of tax rate changes up or dawn, and many interactions with other aspects of economic policy (trade, entitlements, monetary policy, etc.) No doubt spending will grow overall inevitably, but some spending items will be cut. These are all issues that elections affect, a little at a time. They aren't meaningless in the same sense as superficial things about candidates are.

Get your facts straight on the taxation policy.....not just on people making over $250K.....he wants to raise the capital gains tax and the payroll taxes (i.e. remove the cap on social security portion of FICA & the threshold is only about $100K).......so it will affect alot of people making less than $250K....think about next time you go to sell a stock....think about it next time he throws more $ into the welfare program with no output of any kind...God forbid you empower the people on welfars and at least have them do something in return for receiving a handout...and on oil, the prices decreased just from the negative publicity against the speculators (which was part of the reason it went up)....so just to begin drilling will have some impact, even if its not extracted and refined yet.

BASICALLY, BRO....PLEASE DON'T POST ANY POLITICAL CRAP LIKE THIS STORY...YOU GET PEOPLE IN THIS CITY OFF ALL OF OUR MAIN FOCUS (THE BETTERMENT OF THIS GREAT CITY OF OURS).......DON'T PUSH ANY AGENDAS, HOWEVER SUBTLE RELATED TO POLITICS!!!!

Lightofthemoon - Good posts, but keep in mind that there are many sides to these issues. You cite one perspective on each, there are numerous sources that counter each of your points and citations from agenda oriented groups.

The blindly loyal voter is no worse than the uneducated voter. You've done a great job of furthering your view, but keep in mind that CNN is no less biased than Fox or MSNBC. We are so focused on pushing weak agendas on non-issues that we lost the concept of what politicians are supposed to be doing for us.

On a different note, I am honestly surprised that there are devoted republicans reading BRO. I thought that this website was overwhelmingly read by very social minded democrats who hate the wealthy, big business, cars, and white people.

"God forbid you empower the people on welfars and at least have them do something in return for receiving a handout"

1. There's nothing empowering about being forced to work by the state. In fact, that is one of the most disempowering things I can think of. Examples of actual attempts at empowerment might include job training or education. You know, commie ideas like that . . .

2. Obama will win in New York. Our opinions, and those of tens of millions of other citizens, are essentially rendered meaningless by our electoral system.

Paul - You remind me of your fellow Californian RonR.

1. No, I won't decide the waste storage location in a BR comment. McCain supports the Nevada concept. If some alternative is better, so be it. Just because it's dragged on for years doesn't mean it can never be solved. Yes we can! Look again at how many other nations continue to build nuclear plants, including such socially and environmentally conscious nations as Canada and Finland. If Canada and Finland can deal with the storage problem, there's no reason the U.S. can't. Yes we can!

2. I thought we agreed about lifting the ban, yet you're still arguing. Yes, onshore and offshore drilling are long term issues and not a silver bullets. So what? That doesn't make it meaningless. You say offshore won't happen unless oil exceeds $150. Some Buff State professor posted a graph on BR a few months ago which predicted $500/barrel which seems insane in the time frame of his graph but who knows. It might go back to $150 or more within a few years.

I won't try to guess why McCain voted for those things you asked me about. I never said he's perfect, just that he's better than his opponent.

Yes other things should be done too including conservation, solar, hydrogen cars, etc., none of which are silver bullets either. Enough with phony false choices.

Who knows what reserves might still be discovered if restrictions are removed? Consider the huge discoveries Brazil recently found offshore. Refusing to use American resources, off or onshore, while begging OPEC to increase their production doesn't make sense.

3. RonR, I mean Paul, you write 'I didn't say tax cuts are meaningless'. You wrote at 16:50 - 'Talking about who has an office where, who looks like a stripper, who's not a Muslim, tax cuts, drill-drill-drill mantras, and nuclear silver bullets are meaningless considering the realities of the economy and pending technologies.'

See those two short words you wrote after Muslim and before drill? One starts with t and one with c. Now look for that longer word starting with m and ending with less. Just before it is the word are. Don't go all Clinton on us and say it depends on what the meaning of are is. Seriously, it's ok to just say you wrote it but didn't mean to, or didn't recall. It's ok, we all say or type things accidentally sometimes. Doesn't make you a bad person. But to keep denying it is silly. It's just a blog.

I don't know how any one in this area can vote for democrats. They have done such a great job ruining things here and in the state. I also can't believe this was a post. Actually I can believe it. While I see fault in both parties we need to mix more republicans in to have some checks and balances in this state.

Saying something isn't meaningless but is meaningless to talk about is an interesting distinction, way over my head to gasp that.

I favored more drilling before McCain did, so maybe he got his talking points from me. Certainly i didn't get them from him.

These are all long term issues. Storage has to be resolved by making more progress on the Nevada plan or something else. That's obvious. That's part of what McCain should be judged on if he wins. He's not president yet. There's no reason to say it's impossible just because something has dragged on for years. The fact remains one candidate is proposing a push to build new nuclear plants (among other things) and the other candidate is opposed.

I'm a little puzzled why the federal deficit and debt is being made to sound so high: ' With a trillion-dollar deficit, tax cuts are not the way out toward fiscal responsibility.'

The federal deficit isn't a trillion dollars. In fiscal 2007, it was $163 billion. Probably with slower growth of revenues it will be worse in 2008, but nowhere near a trillion. As a percent of GDP it was on a good decline as of 2007 for four consecutive years.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8792/11-2007-MBR.htm

From above: 'The federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $163 billion in fiscal year 2007, $85 billion less than the deficit incurred in 2006. As a share of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the 2007 deficit was 1.2 percent - down from the 1.9 percent recorded in 2006.'

As percent of GDP, the deficit got smaller each year from 2004 (3.6%) to 2007 (1.2%), also shown at link above.

In historical standards, neither the annual federal deficit nor the total cumulative federal debt are currently at historic highs as percent of GDP. Far from it. And again, raising tax rates doesn't necessarily increase revenue. Cutting tax rates doesn't necessarily reduce revenue. Googling around for a chart of total federal debt as percent of GDP shows the early 1960s, total federal debt was similar to today's as percent of GDP. A famous supply side tax cut happened back then, which helped grow federal tax revenues. So it's just not true to say the current size of the deficit or total federal debt means that tax cuts are impossible. Whether they're a good idea is a different matter, but they're possible and both candidates have them on the table in different forms, so it seems to me a meaningful issue. Maybe not a great BR issue until the Grace vs Gilbert matter is settled, but one issue for voters to consider. As Colin says NY state has probably already made up its collective mind but we can help affect popular vote bragging rights or outrage.

"I don't know how any one in this area can vote for democrats."

Because they believe in evolution? Because they don't hate gay people? Because they think it's nuts to fight a war against a tactic?

There are plenty of reasons. They may not apply in your case, but they exist just the same.