Slashdot Mirror
McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues
eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."
Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
John Jackson: Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!
Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
Fry: If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.
My work here is dung.
I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
One candidate has a lawyer/media executive as technical adviser, the other has a MIT computer scientist. Guess which is which
"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"
"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"
Who are you going to place more faith in there?
As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.
(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)
vociferous critics, and one of the Iraq wars biggest cheerleaders...nuff said.
Monstar L
If you have time there are some interesting points here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
I'm not voting for Obama and I'm not voting for McCain. Despite the hot air coming from both their mouths to the contrary, they are both deeply in the corporate pockets. They have taken their corporate bribes and the corporations own them.
Obama and McCain want to put potsmokers in prison. A vote for someone who wants you in prison isn't just a wasted vote, it's a stupid vote. "Vote for me, I want you incarcerated! A gambler in every prison, a pothead in every institution, a hooker or a john in every cell!"
I want to know what the Green and Libertarian candidates stances are on tech issues. Why these two parties are not mentioned in the corporate-owned media is obvious; the question is why they are being ignored by slashdot?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Barak Obama consistently evaluates situations and sets goals in a dynamic and networked way. This is how his campaign has generated such a huge response from mostly small donors. John McCain has been labeled a maverick, but has closely associated himself with conservative players and the mindset that an authoritative leader can best set goals for others.
Virginia Postrel explores the differences between these approaches in detail in The Future and Its Enemies. Al Gore, for example, appears to be future oriented because of the many apparently progressive stands he takes on issues, but Al Gore uses a top-down evaluation strategy that locks in a particular view with little input before or after. As such the future is at odds with Al Gore, and will tend always to surprise him and chafe at the positions he takes which are based on a mostly static model of the world and the options for progress it presents us.
not their campaign promises or who is working for them currently.
Granted Obama doesn't have as much time in the Senate as McCain, and Clinton doesn't compare favorably for time either but still beats out Obaman, but what does their voting record say?
Considering the fact we can look at how these people voted on many issues why would you believe their promises without comparing the two? Turning over a new leaf is more fairy tale than anything
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And what you've said, that they aren't tech fanboys, is a good thing. Or do you imagine that, amazingly enough, they'd be fans of exactly the same tech you are, and see all the Correct Solutions exactly the way you do? Ha ha, huh? Do you really want a President who not only has the power of the Chief Executive but also the arrogance to think he knows what's best for your industry?
What you want from these guys is the wisdom to see that letting folks alone to work out stuff for themselves is the best default option, and government should step in only as the utter last resort. You want them to know their own limits, to realize they're not only not experts in tech stuff, but also not experts in farming, or energy exploration and transportation, or medicine, or housing, or education, or any of the other million and a half things people do to keep the wheels humming. They're just lawyers, and if they confine themselves to drafting (or if President promoting the drafting of) well-written, focussed, modest laws that address the relatively few issues that actually can be helped with a good law...well, they'll do a lot more good than any number of demagogues and wannabe Caesars.
Stuff White People Like says white people like Obama.
He's against trade, so if you want any equipment from overseas, you might have trouble. (On the other hand, some on his campaign say he's only pretending to be against trade to fool stupid voters.) If you want packets from overseas, he may be your guy.
I can't support any of the major party candidates or Ralph Nader because I care about freedom and liberty and all of them are anti-freedom. I can't support Bob Barr either because he has no effective foreign policy plan.
Technical skill is not even close to being on my radar of what I want in a president, nor necessarily even in his/her closest advisers. In fact, I worry when the ones at the top, be it a corporation or a government, think they know more than the underlings and specialists as regards any subject, including technology. In my mind, vision, scruples and the ability to see through BS are the leadership skills I look for in candidates. And as it happens, these are actually pretty easy to discern by simply examining their track records. The hardest way to determine these things is to listen to what they say.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Politics can get pretty shallow, but there's more to it than being a bitch for the polls. I think this little Q&A is a case in point. Not the answers themselves, but the people chosen to deliver them. McCain chose a lawyer with strong connections to a major media conglomerate that many of us have reason to loathe. Obama chose a computer scientist with connections to a university that played a big role in creating the Internet. That, by itself, should tell you where there respective priorities are.
Er...who, exactly, do you think gets technical stuff done? Martians? NGOs? Neighborhood watch associations?
Nope. Corporations. You know, like Amazon.com, Cisco, Google, Sun, and a thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about until the day you sure wish you'd bought stock early in 'em.
So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests." Seems to me the only way to really advance technical interests is to advance the corporate interests of technical corporations. Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want, and, guess what, they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies. They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests.
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
What that means in practice is that tech jobs in the US will be largely filled by foreigners because is is cheaper for companies to pay employees with green cards than with cash.
That particularly cliche is arrogant, bigoted, and not even applicable here. For one thing, there are a lot of dedicated teachers out there who don't deserve to be lumped in with the clueless hacks. For another, this guy is not just a "teacher" (though I do hope he makes it to a classroom now and then), he's a scientist at a leading university, one where a lot of the technology we love so much originated.
The main-stream candidates are also more committed to maintaining the status quo. This may sound like a bad thing, but changing a lot of things all at once is much, much worse. It is a testimant to the supreme arrogance of man that almost everyone on this message-board believes they are intellegent enough to make radical, sweeping changes to the government and the economy without killing everyone.
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea. The only approach that works it making small changes over time and working toward your eventual goal. Libertarians should vote for the republican candidate, since he advocates deregulation and reliance on markets. This is not the same as making drugs and porn legal, but it's a step in the right direction.
Let's face it, Obama is the current cause-celeb so he's going to get a lot of bank from young techies if for no other reason than no one wants to be the guy who doesn't like him. I think it will come down to Obama possibly embracing more content freedom and McCain embracing more general freedom of the Internet itself. The two probably won't be far apart in tech in general.
Obama won't get my vote due to a myriad of other issues that no technology stance is likely to sway.
Both are pro rigged-trade globalists. Their loyalty is to the elite. To Joe Workingman American, it's tweedledee vs. tweedledum. Middle class has choice between
A) Lower Standard of Living and huge defecits (mccain)
and
B) Lower Standard of Living and huge taxes (obama).
Whatever.
The bigger question is who has the best health care plan.
Net Neutrality is very important and critical to preserving a free and open internet and we do badly need to make this a part of law. Barack Obama is more likely to do this. I am definitely a Obama supporter not only due to this but due to a wide spectrum of other issues as well.
The claims made by telcos are mostly lies and deception. The telcos always have been able to tier service based on overall speed, what they have not been allowed to do is effectively censor content by slowing down some sites or blocking access to them. They dont need any capability to censor content or to discriminate against certain content. The corporations agenda is simply a vieled attempt to control information flow over the internet and to block access to things they dont like and dont agree with.
Measures lesser than Net Nuetrality wont be enough to address this. Blocking access or making access more difficult to certain content is innately bad and has no place on what should be an open and democratic form of communication where everyone has equal opportunity to be heard, where things are not biased towards corporations and their content. There is no way to make discriminating against content an acceptable practice or tilting it in favour of powerful corporate interests.
It is little different from what is being done in china, It is different in name only, here we have corporations do the censorship, In china it is government, The US has a composite government consisting of corporations and the republican government which they elect and which represents their interests. The corporations are the republican constituents. When you here a republican talk about their constituents, they are usually referring to the wealthy corporate donors who got them elected and paid for their campaigns. Democrats while not always perfect are certainly have a greater propensity to represent the people and do what is in the best interests of the general population rather than of big corporations.
We complain about what China has done in censoring the internet however we would have the same situation here unless we do something to bolster the internet as a free and open medium where everyone which is open to everyone with no discrimination. The same sort of mentality and insidious objective behinds Chinas censorship and the desire of corporations to censor the internet springs from the same mindset. The corporations have been able to control the flow of information for so long, they have had a monopoly on the media and were the gatekeepers, they could control what people could see and hear and it was very difficult to reach a large number of people, very expensive, though traditional mediums, so it excluded many from being able to express their views. the internet is a democratic form of communication, it is the first time we have had anything approaching true positive free speech where anyone could broadcast their views to anyone else and everyone is on an equal footing, no matter if you are poor or are a millionaire. And if a you re a rich megalomaniac you just cant have a situation where the little people can express themselves and actually make their voice heard to millions, and where there is nothing you can do to stop this and where they basically are on an equally footing, yhou no longer have your built in advantage of traditional media which allows you to more effectively distribute your views. Thje rich hate this because they have been so long accustomed to setting the agenda and manipulating society for their own benefit. So the openness and democracy of the net scared them because they are losing power and the internet has moved us more in the direction of a democratic society, so they are now trying to find a way to desperately shut it down and turn it into some sort of corporate controlled outlet one way sort of medium just like television is, where only the corporations have any rights to express themselves and everyone else is a mindless consumer who pays their monthly satellite subscription bill to be brainwashed by c
What's up with his seeing dead people in crowds at his speeches? I know the dead vote in his town of Chicago, but I've never heard of them showing up at political rallies.
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Barack Oboma, May 26, 2008, New Mexico
Obama wants to stop the manned space program for five years and give the money to education. .01% of the each of our tax bill. Yes I will pay that much more in taxes for the manned space program. Any money saved will be spent on the back side when they try and restart the program.
Well stopping it for five years will effectivly kill it. Anybody that is any good will leave for a new job. The total amount for education if any of it gets to education will be something like
All in all a REALLY BAD PLAN.
It will put thousands of people out of work in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and California and provide little to no help with education. The whole thing reminds me of a town near where I lived. They had a huge problem with drugs and prostitution. There solution was to close the strip clubs. Well that solved.... nothing but sure sounded good.
At this point I am hoping Clinton does get the nomination.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Ubama pledged to cancel the VSE/delay it 5 years, whatever. If U think the VSE was ever going to happen, then it just means U need to get your moon fix in Chinese instead of Hindi.
McCain aughta be pretty good with morse code or the rotary dial phone. Obama, hmmm, dunno.
"Why is everyone ignoring Hillary?"
Because it's down to McCain, Obama, and McCain in a dress.
privacy should not be conceived as absolute control over personal information, but rather as protection from harms accruing from the use or disclosure of information.
Very elegant phrase that simultaneously defines the elite groupthink for the last 20+ years. Noted principals underlying this type of thinking.
-Your personal information is not yours.
-Others can (and do) do whatever they like with the evidence of your legal, financial, economic and social activities.
-Of course we mean you no harm when collecting, storing and reselling the evidence of your activities. But that doesn't mean there's any liability assumed in our activities.
It should explain the ease and speed with which the NSA/telco domestic surveilance program was established. With that kind of groupthink, it stands to reason it is the tip of an iceberg. Probably meaningless to most because they don't see the environment this kind of permissive groupthink inspires in their government.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
On every point the "last word" is either left to Obama's side, or questioned/rebuffed by the author himself. Bleah...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I would like to clarify my message a bit. When I said rich elite I was referring to certain wealthy or powerful corporations and individuals who want to control everything. I do not mean to say all wealthy are like that, some do have good intentions and have tried to do positive things, one example is Google and their attempts to keep the 700 Mhz spectrum open.
We need to have a government that that respects the freedoms and rights of everyone, not disporportionally that of some rather than others. Obama will make our priorities once again making this country better for everyone, investing in its infrastructure, in science and education, and so on, rather than getting our resources tied up in oil wars that benefit of a few wealthy corporate sponsors of Bush. We need to fund science and education so we can have the capability to develop renewable and clean sources of energy to power the future. Drilling for oil isnt the long term solution to that, and is so environmentally harmful, along with oil, we need to stop using it as quickly as possible and find a clean green source of abundant energy. This is essential for maintaining our computer tech inertia which is also energy dependant. Obama seems when it comes to energy issues and the internet seems to have a good understanding of what we need to do and should not do.
> uhm... can anyone invade us? pleeeeeasee!!!
We'd love to, but we can't afford it. After buying* Iraq with a no-down-payment sub-prime ARM and promptly having the fair market value fall below the outstanding balance on our loan, our credit is shot. Wait, am I confusing domestic and international issues again?
* (Colin Powell to Bush BEFORE Iraq war: "The china-shop rule applies: You break it, you bought it.")
Did you forget how the deregulation of the media and telecommunications industries were signed into law by President Clinton?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And this how is this different than another group of Americans who will walk up and say "ok, who was the black guy again? oh yeah" and vote for the latest idiot from the democrats?
What about the Democratic love affair with John McCain? It wasn't uncommon to hear Democrats talk about how much they liked him and how they would even possibly vote for him. Now that it's game time, it's interesting to listen to the silence.
As a white guy, I just want to vote for somebody who looks like me. Is that so hard to understand?
Dark Reflection
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues.
McCain was a graduate of the US Naval Academy so he has a bit of an engineering background. Also, as a Naval Aviator (pilot) math, science and engineering were a part of his day to day life, not in a distant sense but in a practical usage sense.
Obama is a lawyer.
I'm more concerned about knowing there aren't 57 states in the US, or that you're not seeing dead people in the audience. Get that right first, then we can talk tech...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
FTA: METHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC. Lobbyists barely contributed to Barack, compared to other candidates. The real question is more along the lines of "What cross-section of the IT world is supporting Barack?"
If they're like me, they may be included in that number. No corporation is buying my vote. I just call it like I see it.
"Little is much when little you need."
The right question is:
"Why do we have to give a crap what the grizzled old fossil, the newly-minted career politician, or the shrieking banshee have to say about technology?"
The President of the US (as well as the Congress) should have zero effect on it. He or she has one main duty: to defend the borders of the US from foreign invasion. Everything else this government does is simply meddling in the private consensual affairs of citizens or usurping the powers of local governments to set policies best suited to local culture and tradition.
That said, practically speaking, if you vote your goal should be either (a) to elect the candidate who will do the least damage to your civil liberties, on the premise that the system is salvageable; or (b) to elect the candidate who will do the most damage, on the premise that the citizen-led equivalent of a reboot (aka a "revolution") is the only way to fix the system.
Until enough people figure out that trying to ram their own preferences down the throats of people living thousands of miles away is a bad idea, we will continue to be presented with nothing but bad choices.
[ home ]
I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside.
In other words, he's a real go-getter -- it doesn't matter what he decides to get done, just that he's got the connections, the can-do attitude, and the shark skills to get it done!
Look, I can take the point that execution skills matter. The problem with this is that what we're talking about here are policy advisors, and when it comes to understanding the potential of technology, Mr. Fish is quite likely going to be limited at *best* to its value as a corporate asset. And there's little evidence McCain has the ability to pick anybody better.
By contrast, Obama's selection shows that he knows where to start for picking people who understand the underlying knowledge domain. And there's definitely evidence to suggest that Obama has the ability to pick people and build an organization that can get things done to supplement to work of policy advisor that knows what's up.
Tweet, tweet.
I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots
Given that a democrat designed the ballot and that a democratic election board approved the ballot I think it would be far more accurate to say that the democrats gave away Florida.
This is somewhat of a tangent but you should realize that the "stole the election" theme is a political strategy of the democrats, not a historical fact. To be fair, the republicans would have done the exact same thing had the situation been reversed. However according to PBS, a somewhat left leaning organization:
"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
So... you look like Mc Cain ?
If the John McCain from 2000 was running he'd had a serious shot at my vote in spite of my support for Senator Obama.
The John McCain that we all know and loved seemed to have been replaced somewhere around the 2004 election. I stopped listening to him when he started kissing Jerry Falwell's ass and went on the campaign trail for the man that accused him of fathering an illegitimate black child to torpedo his chances in South Carolina.
(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wow, you're concerned about things far more important than actual issues. That's real citizenship!
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
The simple fact is, if you kill off manned missions we'll pretty much never send a man to Mars, or colonize much (or at all) beyond the planet.
Obama has po-pohed the idea that any kind of problem can kill off everyone on earth. That I think in the long term, is a grave mistake.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nothing like judging a message by the messenger...
I prefer to analyze what they actually have to say.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You really think that Bush caused the economy to fall in the gutter? I'd REALLY like to hear the reasoning behind that.
I don't recall Bush ever requiring people to get mortgages they couldn't afford, or forcing banks to make unreasonably risky loans, etc.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Look, a candidate who can write code obviously may not have an edge over one who can't -- in fact, given the aptness of Philip Greenspun's comparison of pilots vs programmers (see here: http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/aviation ), it's entirely possible programming skill isn't a great test of broad intellectual ability. :)
But tech issues absolutely underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly have a weight equal to other big issues like foreign policy.
But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation building. Most of us have a shallow grasp of economics -- yes, even most of you Austrian school autodidacts. Same goes for health care, education, criminology, etc -- Slashdot readers may be smart laymen, but that's all most of us are in those fields.
But lots of us are IT pros. And if a candidate seems to really get it in the area where you can tell buzzspeak and platitudes from real knowledge, that tells you quite a bit about their ability to reach into an issue, understand it, and formulate a plan to do something about it.
It's worth paying attention to.
Tweet, tweet.
...shall go by the bullet.
....
Lincoln.
Kennedy.
Martin Luther King.
gitmo, abu ghraib, poland, afghanistan,
Sen. Obama, don't try to do too many good things too fast, even mistakenly.
These goons make no mistakes.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Since you bring up Futurama, am I the only one who gets a Professor Farnsworth vibe from John McCain?
...and all politicians are liars so why not pick the new color option being offered in 2008?
Blar.
See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".
I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.
All of those things have been promoted by large corporations. And all of them, have been opposed by large corporations (Apple against DRM, various large companies calling for an overhaul on software patents, etc). So why again is it you are singling out corporations specifically as being evil with no distinction?
Oh that's right, you're a loon who cannot see anything but villainy in any group of people beyond ten where money is involved. Realize that money is a tool. Realize that corporations are just another form of tool. And think to look at who wields the tools, instead of cursing the tools themselves for what the smiths hath wrought.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
are on the CFP wiki page
It was probably an amoral, dishonest and unethical 'republican' sleeper agent who registered as D in order to screw them over from the inside.
Very honorable.
Blar.
Oh really? Wow no mention of that on spaceref.com.
In fact, it seems he wants to explicitly *continue* the important programs.
But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your FUD campaign.
Hillary is a lying sh*thead. Obama is a well reasoned smart guy. Get over it.
vociferous critics, and one of the Iraq wars biggest cheerleaders...nuff said.
I've not followed him on Amtrack. But it's funny you should mention trains, since McCain was an early critic of Iraq and a backer of a plan (the surge) that actually put it back on the right track, after terrible initial mismanagement.
There were plenty of Republicans against the surge too you know. McCain is interesting because he's gone against what were considered pure Republican interests a number of times on different issues, which is why a lot of the far right have troubles with him and may or may not support him. On Iraq, you seem to be unable to distinguish between helpful and unhelpful actions there - something McCain has shown better judgement for.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There's also this story.
It's embarrassing to see McCain suddenly pretend to be an environmentalist, then ducking all the actual, technical questions.
It would be nice if he were actually against telecom amnesty, but McCain is for it, he just wants some "radical transparency" (the Microsoft gimmick?) to let us know exactly how they're spying on us.
There was a poll done on black americans and the large majority said they didn't know anything that Obama stood for, except that he was black. I don't see how this is any different than the white bigot who votes against him only because he is black.
Now what would have been interesting is if someone like a Powell or Rice had run. Would black Americans have blindly voted for a black republican?
Actually,
... sigh. I wish Obama had been a bit more rational. I don't mind him being left wing but his plans just put us deeper into debt. But I'm not all the way there yet. McCain's war plans put us deeper into debt too.
I see (in older and recent votes)
2 people who vote for things they can't pay for.
2 people who would at least THINK about national health care (but unfortunately not a rational plan)
1 person who has a tiny amount of fiscal restrait (not as much as Ron Paul... but some)
1 person who won't even consider national health care.
All three are in the pockets of corporations-- just a different set.
I'm tending towards McCain
Both political parties are destroying this country long term because neither has a any patriotism or backbone and both have sold out to corporate interests.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I think your spelling just jellomized my brain :(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So... you look like Hillary?
Why can't I have both? The computer guy for what can physically be done and the legal guy for what can legally be done.
This video is a few months old, but for what it's worth, Larry Lessig has been an Obama champion since the days where everyone thought Clinton would win in a walk; here's his written endorsement from back in November of 2007 talking about why Obama is a superior choice on the issues that matter to most copyright and technology geeks.
While some may look at long-standing policy and think things are just the way they should be, there are always others who see it as long-standing ideological oppression. Technology is not causing a re-opening of closed issues. The issues are always open and technology is just providing new battlegrounds.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I agree with Obama that open access trumps bandwidth. What's more, the loads of free content that open access naturally creates provide huge incentive to upgrade the network. Let's take the cell phone network vs. the Internet. The internet has gone from 2800 baud dial-up service on $2K+ 286 PCs accessing BBSs to Mbps service on sub $1000 computers with processing, graphics, and multi-media capabilities that far exceed what was available in professional video-editing houses just a few decades back. BBSs (much to some of our dismay) gave way to streaming video and interactive GUI applications. And not only have the prices of the devices dropped by huge amounts even in inflation-adjusted dollars, but I don't pay much more for broadband than I once did for dial-up. And today I can sign up without a contract and switch my service provider if I'm unhappy with the service (because we have competing technologies/infrastructure, cable modem and DSL, we have true competition). As for additional infrastructure upgrades, I predict people will start to ditch cable for on-demand TV via the internet. Content provides will innovate with interactive TV and targeted ads. Advertisers will get more for their money because consumers will be more willing to watch ads that they're actually interested in. These efficiencies will motivate and pay for infrastructure upgrades.
The cell phone network on the other hand started as basically your land line sans the wires and hasn't really come very far. Features added include caller ID, call waiting, text messaging, an address book and calendar on your phone that your forced to edit using the horrible UI of the phone itself. You're locked in to a contract, sometimes a multi-year contract. And your devices is tied to the service provider, so you can't take it with you. Where's the simple to implement and obvious features like being able to edit/sync/backup your address book, calendar, etc on a real computer with a full keyboard. Sure, there are better devices like the iPhone and crackberry, but they cost an arm and a leg. And you're still locked into a service provider, so why would I pay so much more for a better device when I have no control over the most important feature, namely coverage area and bandwidth. The cell-phone network is actually bunch of closed-access monopolies and though coverage area has become somewhat better, bandwidth and devices still suck eggs.
Imagine if you could just sign up for wireless access and connect any device you want to the network and switch providers any time you want to get the best performance. I think there would be a huge innovation in devices. Once more useful devices were available, content would follow. (Honestly, how many of you web developers bother with versions of your sites for mobile devices.) Once the content and devices where there, consumers would demand (and be willing to pay for) a better network.
I'm not saying the we shouldn't take caution on the legal definition of NN (I like the Limited Discrimination and Tiering one), but I think it's pretty clear that ensuring open access is the market-centric approach to this issue and letting ISPs get away with trying to exercise monopoly power by exploiting control of the infrastructure would be a huge step backwards.
Excellent point.
And then you get guys like me. I could personally care LESS about Barack Obama's skin color. Really. His ancestry is of no interest to me.
What is of interest are his positions defined by his voting record. Barack Obama's voting record is the single MOST LIBERAL of anyone in the Senate. More liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal than anyone. Even the redoutable Maxine Water of the House, who recently (and infamously) threatened to "socialize" all the American oil companies, isn't as liberal as Obama (and has endorsed Hillary Clinton).
So my vote goes to McCain. Not because I particularly like him, but because he is, by far and away, the LEAST vile and frightening of the available choices.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
With no disrespect intended, I think your support of net neutrality legislation is a bit naive. Granted, I, as many here, feel net neutrality is very important, but legislating it is not the way to go.
NN legislation is basically giving the federal government the power to regulate the internet, and while it seems good now to let them protect us consumers, it may not always be that way. All it would take would be one court case to set presidence for the entire country that not only could the government say what couldn't be censored, but also what could be. Think I'm being unrealistic? Take a look at eminent domain and Kelo v. City of New London as an example. Sure politicians will publicly denounce such misuses, but they would certainly take advantage them behind close doors.
The point is, as much as you distrust corporations, you must realize giving the government more power is not the best solution, because, guess what, the government as a whole panders to corporate interests.
As a smart guy...
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
The enumerated duties of the federal government (including the executive) are:
- Form a more perfect Union
- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
I would say that tech policy satisfies at least one of those. Note that the common defense is only one among several--not the sole duty as you claimed.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Since this election is pretty much a Republican given, vote for Huckabee! :-)
Great Idea, Lets choose our leaders based on who would be the most fun at the Superbowl party!
I mean what could go wrong?
We have the best government that money can buy.
But how many white Republicans would have voted for a black person? Carrying 13% of the national vote won't cut it (and that's assuming that every black person is eligible to vote (not true, esp. in Florida) and actually votes).
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Why does problems voting and Florida have to be a recurring theme? I'm losing faith in the state. Seriously. And it always happens when it is most important.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
You can't be sure whether a politician is really religious or not. They all have to keep up the image of being church-going Christians or they stand no chance in hell of being elected. I'd tell you my guesses but I'm in karma conservation mode right now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
For the benefit of the 99.9% of us who have never been on Amtrak, please explain why that's a bad thing.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Most liberal"? What does that even mean?
Hey, isn't National Journal the same magazine that rated John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2004? Gee, what a coincidence!
No he DID NOT say that, the senator says he would delay NASAâ(TM)s controversial moon-to-Mars program five years in order to fund education initiatives. An initiative many people at NASA are unhappy with. A typical Bush initiative."Make this thing happen, btw no real budget to help."
This is about delay the manned MARS mission, not manned space flight.
It's better to delay it and know where that money is going then to slowly strangle it and watch the money go who knows where.
There are a lot of problems that need to be solved before manned flight to Mars is even doable.
They can be solved, but the program needs a huge budget, like the Apollo programs did to get that stuff done, and I don't see anybody doing that right now.
However, lay the foundation with better science and critical thinking and it will happen.
Does Clinton have come magic recipe for solving the problems to make it happen?
This is just one issue, an issue that would be a hard sell, please look at ALL the tech. issues and not make a decision based on 1 point.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Bush #2, economy in the gutter".
Umm Bullshit.
Unemployment below 5%, inflation below 4%, and up until the past 2 months, 3-5 percent annual economic expansion (down to something about 0.8% the past 2 months, but still expanding and unemployment still very low by historical standards).
And this has been sustained in spite of a partial war-footing draining the economy of productive workers and money, and trillions of losses fromt he WTC and subsequent economic shutdown.
So Economy in a gutter? Idiot. Did you eject your mind when you signed up for your political beliefs?
I dont like Bush all that much, but to say the economy is "in the gutter" is an out and out lie.
Its every bit as good as Clinton's good years in the mid 90's.
Seems it doesn't really matter who the president is in terms of economic growth - just keep the government out of the way of the economy as Clinton and Bush II have done, on purpose or by accident.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
My vote goes to the one with the least government involvement.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Unfortunately, the larger problem is that most Americans vote nearly blindly in any case.
A voter is either voting for a particular candidate or against one or more candidates. There's nothing wrong with either approach; there are times when it is as important to keep a "bad" candidate from public office as it is to get a "good" candidate in. But how does the voter define good and bad, and determine at which point it is better to make a negative vote than a positive one?
And there's the rub. With the artificial polarization of the bipartisan system, the massive campaigning system and PR/media manipulation, there really is no way to define the candidates in such a way as to make a solidly informed vote. Candidates change their message to suit the target audience, and avoid giving concrete and unambiguous answers when they can. Promises are made which can't be backed up, mud is thrown in order to garner negative votes, and the media spins everything possible.
So in the end, how can a voter not vote blindly? I personally don't vote based on skin color, gender or age, but I can see why people do -- they are among the few facts which can't be changed as the political winds suit. And all of the candidates' personal attributes have the potential to affect decision-making. Whether or not they allow this to happen, and to what extent, is an important question.
Now, voting strictly along party lines? That's intentionally blinding yourself. And this applies equally to the candidates as to the voters.
This really bothers me.
It seems every election Slashdot has an article on which candidate is better "for the geeks." This is along with hundreds of articles about which candidate is better for X Y Z group.
This is a symptom of the sickness in our society today. Everyone thinks in terms of, "what's best for me," rather than, "what's best for our country." It is exactly the kind of thinking that led us into our current mess of endless war, deficit spending, a falling dollar and the housing crash. People voted for the candidate who said the right thing on a narrow issue rather than looking at the broad profile and thinking about how position and policy statements would affect us in the large.
It's easy to campaign to individual desires. It's much harder to campaign on the idea that together we are much stronger than we are as individuals. We've had some examples of this: Both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Lincoln. But ever since Goldwater, individualistic politics has ruled the day.
I see this attitude starting to change, but it's slow. I, along with other politically-minded people I know, have pledged to contribute our stimulus checks to funding a fall public event in St. Paul, MN that will bring this conversation to a larger group of people. The stimulus checks themselves are another symptom of the rampant hyper-individualism of our society. They send the message that you, as an individual, are more important to the economy than our combined efforts. Well, I reject that notion and what better way to make a point of it than using that money to collectively support an effort that works to restore balance among the needs of the individual and the needs of the community?
And then you get guys like me. I could personally care LESS about Barack Obama's skin color. Really. His ancestry is of no interest to me.
While skin color is not anywhere near the top of my list for qualifiers, the fact that Obama is black is a non-negligible factor in my voting for him. No, it's not morally equivalent to the opposite situation, of voting against him because of his skin color.
Gary Kamiya wrote an interesting essay on the issue.
Because there are more people in the former group than the latter.
A vote for Hillary means we're putting a Clinton back in office again.
... but I'm also deeply concerned that he'd just opt for "stay the course" politics that continued in Bush's footsteps, only under a new name.)
Our country has been 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Bush already. That means anyone younger than 21 can't even remember a time when one of those two families wasn't in power in our nation!
Given that realization, I'd have to give the nod to Obama over Clinton - just for the sake of "breaking the cycle", if nothing else! (Of course, a vote for McCain would accomplish that too
All too true. What scares me is that the "maverick" label of McCain has stuck. He's no maverick. Look at how he accepted the endorsement of nutcase pastor Hagee until he was finally called out on it. And even then, he didn't actually address the comments Hagee made.
McCain scares me because people actually believe he will be different than Bush. Remember how Bush put forth the image of his "common man" lifestyle and "compassionate conservatism." Hmm...how well does that hold up against the track record of the corporate corruption and lawlessness actively supported by his administration?
McCain has one of the most conservative voting records of anyone in the Senate but somehow people think he's a moderate.
Only Edgar Winter is that white.
I drank what? -- Socrates
And California is nothing but Surfers, Vegetarians and Movie Stars. Meanwhile, everyone in New York has a Brooklyn accent and they all subsist entirely on Pizza. And everyone in Texas lives on a ranch and raises cattle.
Florida is a very big and very diverse state. Your post is utterly preposterous. It's obvious you've never even been to Florida, since anyone who has already knows that the old people here don't even use their turn signals.
I'm not an American, so I'm not voting in this anyhow, but one of the things I saw as a possible issue was:
a) Hillary is voted in. A bunch of male bigots disrespect her because of her gender, and generally make it more difficult to get things done. To prove she's big and tough, she makes dumb decisions while at the same time pandering to the female voters for supporting "woman power"
b) Obama is voted in. From what I can tell, he hasn't really played the race card very heavily. He acknowledges his ethnic origins, but doesn't push the "not voting for me is racism" button. Various people still will not have as much respect for a president who isn't a WCM (White Christian Male), but my biggest concern is that some nutcase will come gunning for him... literally.
Obama seems like a good candidate and a decent person, I'm hoping some racist nutcase with a gun doesn't end his political career prematurely. But regardless of the risks, winning the election (hopefully) will show what his potential really is.
I guess I am calling out Democrats to a certain extent, but I am curious what their stance is on this. Thank you.
are any of them planing to fix the NMCI?
How is that any more relevant to the "who was the black guy again?" version as to the "who was the white guy again" version?
So ignorance is the best solution? Personally, I'd rather have leadership that had an "interest" in the topic, and with that would seek an informed opinion, but be smart enough about many things on their own to sort through the chaff.
Keep in mind that while there will be many available advisors and experts, there will also be a shitload of propaganda spewing lobbyists and self-supporting hypocrites offering their opinions and professional "advice" or more. Having a candidate that knows at least enough to cut through the BS and figure out who has something beneficial/interesting to add, and whom is just looking for handouts.
Shortly before the California primary I watched a couple of video interviews at Google with both Hillary and Obama. At the time I was still debating between the two. This video cinched it for me and showed that Obama clearly understands technology.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Was it just me, or did anyone else get the vibe that this article seemed slightly slanted toward Obama?
Actually, the whole pot-smoking issue has always amazed me. With all the shit that's going on, and all the major issues, I still see some of the most interest (posters, campaigns, marches, etc) going to wards getting weed legalized.
Yes, it has links to bigger issues, but it seems pretty damn sad to me that a lot of people find that the biggest political issue today is whether they can smoke a joint on the front porch of the local Starbucks. And unlike the US, enforcement is pretty low, so unless you're doing something stupid you're not likely to get tossed in jail for smoking a joint (even in public it's most likely to just get confiscated).
Ever made a mistake? No? Good. You get to bash people who make mistakes. If you have, don't. If you show me a follow-up where someone calls him on both statements, and he maintains his position, we can talk. In the meantime, understand that a 15 second video snippet means nothing.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Looks to me like Obama is pretty tech friendly in a 'gets it' kind of way.
I was certainly leaning Democratic anyway (I suppose I can't call myself an independent this year since I voted in the Primary), but it's good to know that Obama doesn't have any positions there that are going to give me hives.
McCain seems to be trying to be a Ted Stevens technologist, without admitting to it. Just because Net neutrality might inconvenience a company in some way doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and the neat theory of "We're going to hold the telecoms responsible - we just don't have any plans to investigate them" *does* give me hives.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
This does not seem like a big plus for McCain, but maybe people like what she did for HP. Or what she did to HP.
I was hoping to see some sort of table on what each side says on each issue, but this sounds more like some paragraphs naming what some advisor said. I am thinking things like religion and race are given a lot more focus than these issues and I think that's at the least, a bummer.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
LOL, the scale has been pulled so far to the right we're calling politicians "liberal" when they are not even close from a historical or global perspective. If this trend continues, your "conservative" politician today will be a "liberal" by future standards. Life needs balance. Ying and Yang. With too much on either side it becomes a recipe for disaster.
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens is considered one of the more "liberal" justices today. But when he was appointed, he was considered a "conservative" member back then.
Well...on the debt side, which do you think will be easier to fix? A botched healthcare plan or a botched war plan? So far we are going on quite a few years with no end in sight of fixing a botched war plan. I'm not fond of any of the choices but I think a botched healthcare plan is a little less disasterous at this point. That and at least we will get SOMETHING out of it even if it is less than what we put into it. The botched war plan has yet to have any kind of return and has only driven up the costs of nearly everything.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
"In terms of the candidates' broader philosophies on tech issues, Weitzner primarily relied on Obama's lengthy white paper."
:)
Did he just tell us to RTFM? Now, *there's* a candidate that understands technology
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
I'll tell you in Ohio the african-american Democrats certainly didn't blindly vote for Ken Blackwell, an african-american Republican! He only garnered 20% of the african-american vote, which while high for a Republican is only 4% higher than Bush received in Ohio during his second election.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm
A useful place for statistics-
Unemployment is BAD right now...you are correct its not as bad as right after 9/11 but its still fairly ugly compared to Clinton's time in office.
Inflation 4%? While it appears that US currency no longer reacts strongly to the market(something about Shock theory) if Gas is $4 a gallon and food prices have leapt 100-300%, other countries no longer buy our currency in huge ammounts we got a pretty serious problem on our hands.
Truly I think we are looking the same data and getting very different predictive outcomes.
The Fish-McCane-Bush strategy with respect to tech privacy and policies are come down to little more than "We will decide what we plan to do to you, we will determine what constitutes your privacy, and what of your on-line lives we will pry into or manipulate for our political adgenda. If you are part of our team, we will share the spoils with you. If you aren't well, you are s___ out of luck."
Such a policy is essential for these folks, as this has been their big lever on power for a long time now. Take that away and what is left? They must support spying on their political opponents and Americans in general just to keep up with developments taking place elsewhere. It is the only tool they have to deal with the fallout of failing policies, so its not suprising they feel they can't live without it. They offer no leadership, just pablum and empty promises they have no intention of keeping.
Until we get rid of the current republican poliltical paternal mentality of "we know best what you need to do and think", technological innovation will either continue to be stuck in a rut, dragged down by failed economic and foreign policies, or likely to take place elsewhere. Todays backtracking on Telecom immunity is just symptomatic of what we can expect in a McCane administration, just more of the McSameOLD.
Its gotten so bad that now, we even outsource extremely sensitive military technology.
Four more years of Bush/McCane and whatever technological leadership we once have had, will be hard to get back, if it will be possible to get it back at all. Its better to remove the cancer now rather than let it ravage the body politic for another four years. Who want's gas prices at $25/gal anyway, besides these guys and thier Saudi puppet masters?
soo, you're voting for Hillary, then?
"Things they can't pay for", to a certain extent assumes that you're not getting a good deal on your tax money.
National healthcare (Presuming that is what your talking about, rather than some generic strawman 'Dems will raise taxes' fit) is actually pretty easy to pay for - it's an investment strategy that saves us more as a nation than it costs.
As far as 'pockets of corporations' goes? Um - based on what? Obama at least has shown that he really *doesn't* need corporate money to get by.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Average unemployment during the Bush administration is lower (better) than average unemployment during the Clinton administration.
Source data: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
accc
Some of you may say that it is ridiculous to vote for someone who hasn't been born yet. I ask those people, "Why do you discriminate against the unborn?"
I say nothing should be censored. ISPs are a common carrier and should be prohibited from surveillance and as well as preventing from censoring anything they are carrying, just as the postal service cannot open your letters and censor them. This does not mean we give the power to the government corporations or to anyone else as to what can be censored, we need to deny the government and corporations the right to censor anything.
You say liberal like it's a bad thing.
Actually, compared to the rest of the world's politicians, Obama and the other democratic candidates actually lean towards the moderate-conservative side. Personally, whether the candidates are liberal are conservative is not important to me at this point. The important thing is the direction that the U.S. is heading. If you like the direction, vote for McCain because he has the most similar policies as the current president.
By the way, just because one small magazine said that Obama had the most liberal votes for ONE YEAR doesn't mean he is the most liberal Senator. Also, your attempt to smear Obama is pretty pathetic. It's almost Jack Thompsonesque. You might as well have said "Obama is more liberal than Pol Pot, who is responsible for massacring millions of people." It doesn't mean hes going to do something similar or worse. Your divisive attitude is quite disgusting.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
I can't speak for how black America would vote but Powell is one of the few Republicans that would have my vote in a heartbeat.
My political wet dream is him as Obama's veep for a unity ticket. It won't happen but we can dream, right?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hey, fuck you buddy
and they all subsist entirely on PizzaWell, ya got me there ;)
Your post is utterly preposterousYour post however is sheer brilliance. I'm tired of people trying to dismiss parts of the country that they don't like. All it does is divide us.
since anyone who has already knows that the old people here don't even use their turn signals.I'll attest to this, both in Florida and New York ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Obama spokesman Bill Burton replied: âoeSenator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing."
It looks like Obama stands by his statement and it is NOT a mistake. Neither he nor his staff know what Memorial Day is about. Aparently they think it is Veterans Day.
Wow, if that's the best dirt anyone has on Obama, he's cleaner than I thought!
:(
But I can't believe someone buys into that. Oh no! He can't find a magazine article that influenced him 20 years ago! What HORROR are we voting for!? He's trying to TRICK US! About ancient _MAGAZINE ARTICLES_! The EVIL DEMAGOGUE must be stopped! Won't someone PLEASE think of the MAGAZINE ARTICLES!?
Oh crap. I just hope there aren't any sarcasm terrorists to go with the cynical ones
We need a -1 ignorant option.
// The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
I did a comparison a week prior that looks at Obama and McCain's positions (and actual voting patterns) on a variety of tech positions, following Obama's quite impressive outline of tech he gave at a presentation at Google and posted to his website. Of course, I also had to string in Apple and Microsoft, and how US corporations have taken an increasing role in subverting democracy in government:
While the United States prepares to elect a new president, candidates on both sides have made interesting comments about their affiliations with tech companies and their perspective on issues facing the tech industry.
Here's a look at Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain compare, looking first at how each relates to Apple and Microsoft, how corporations are leveraging money and political power to shape public policy to fit their own interests, and followed by a look at each candidate's stance on issues related to technology.
Obama's Apple, McCain's Microsoft: the Politics of Tech
I don't understand why parent was moded Flamebait. I am not an USA citizen, I do not live in the USA; but, as everyone else in the world (maybe except some Arabic countries, China and Cuba, N-Korea...), I hear a lot (I mean a LOT) about USA politics. Again, I don't have the Average USA-citizen point of view, but from the outside, IT LOOKS EXACTLY like parent described it. I would even dare to say that we (outsiders) have a better view of the situation. The perception I have is that USA's media is a JOKE. Considerably different statistics on the same day of the same election (i.e. Bush 2K, Bush 2K4)?? Come on! You may don't agree with Parent, that's OK; but it sure as HELL makes a valid point. I just isn't Flamebait. Personally, I just think it's the most reasonable post I read today.
How can you claim that someone who spoke out against the war when it was immensely popular (and when they were in the middle of a tough senate race) has no backbone? Someone who spent years as a community organizer, keeping at it when it wasn't easy and a cushy job as a lawyer was available for the taking?
If you think Obama doesn't love his country, I suggest you read The Audacity of Hope. Certainly, he isn't guilty of blind patriotism -- but intentional blindness of any kind is a flaw, not a qualification. The partial quote "My country, right or wrong" is woefully incomplete; its ending is this: "If wrong, to be set right; and if right, to be kept right".
A person wearing blinders such that they can't see when their country is doing wrong is in no place to set it right, and is no kind of patriot compared to the person who sees their country's faults and does what they can to set it right.
Randall of XKCD had a post on his blog that first got me excited about Obama.
Here: http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/
nt == "no text"
Unless the government controls all hospitals and doctors as government run facilities and employees, it can't properly assess and control costs. You now have stress between businesses trying to take advantage of government money and government trying to force business-end regulations down businesses' throats.
Most things (sociological cultures, individual businesses, the economy at large) act like bioforms: they self-manage to an optimal state via evolution and adaptation, and you shouldn't fuck with them. Any irritation is disease or predation, and as in any biological system can create balance but cannot force optimal development via over-application.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.
2. Most of what McCain wants to do is keep the current tax rates the same.
3. Think progress is not an independent website.
His first condemnation of the war was from Senate of his state government, where it didn't matter. He flip flopped on the war during his run for Senate because the war was popular at the time. Now his finger is in the wind and he is picking his position.
"UNGH DECISION TOO HARD, USE IRRELEVANT FACTORS TO ADD WEIGHT RATHER THAN DOING MORE RESEARCH!"
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's a hard military problem, and picking the best possible solution is a difficult thing. I don't begrudge anyone the ability to revise their plans as the situation develops -- so long as the principals that plan is founded on is constant.
"Flip flopper" and "finger in the wind" just don't fly with Obama -- both of his opponents are far more vulnerable to that line of argument. Indeed, if there's one word which describes Obama's policy positions, that word is nuanced. Nuanced positions are dangerous inasmuch as they don't exactly fit either major party's template of What Their Unified Party Position Is, and inasmuch as any 30-second soundbite will be incomplete (and thus multiple, seemingly conflicting 30-second soundbites can be made about the same position without that position actually changing) it leads to allegations much like what you're leveling here. Thing is, though, just because only one or another aspect is discussed at any given time (giving the appearance of flip-flopping) doesn't mean that the complete policy and rationale isn't available up front for those with an interest (putting to rest whether any flip-flopping is actually occurring in practice). It's an unfortunate side effect -- but the real world is complex, and nuanced positions are exactly what it takes to accommodate folks coming from different sides.
1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.
Therefore, if we reduce the tax rate to 0 we should have infinite revenue. GREATNESS!!!11!!
On the other hand, maybe some research on the Laffer Curve, which is usually the basis for the "reduced tax rates = greater revenue" argument, is in order. I do not think that it means what you say it means.
When benchmarking, speed is the measure. My follow up question is, "Which candidate will get the U.S. to the Hydrogen Dollar faster?"
I think the record shows rather conclusively, that in a contest of lesser evils, the GOP-aligned have proven themselves to be the greater for the last 8 years. And as for technology policy, it certainly seems that Obama is quite a bit more rational. In fact, I'm curious what area you think Obama has been less rational. What with McCain not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shiite, accusing Iran of sponsoring Al Qaeda, declaring the Iraq war won multiple times in the past 4 years, supporting tax cuts that have been proven to be detrimental to our budget and economy... You know?
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
His point is that there is little difference between white people (of any party) refusing the vote for a black man and black people blindly voting for a black man. They are both making judgments solely on race.
Yup, happens all the time. A free market exists and thrives, then suddenly the government comes in and decides the product or service it provides is something people "need," and then regulates it, artificially increasing demand through subsidies and /or barring competitors.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)
I'm embarrassed to say I voted for McCain in 2000. Fool me once and all that.
McCain is good on two things: that the government spends too much money and that it shouldn't torture. However, he's the biggest socialist in the race, with plans to enslave all high school graduates for a period of one year in service of the government (. He's also against the first amendment, and has stated that he'd rather have a 'clean government' than the first amendment. Rah!, rah!, um, no, that's f-ing, Red China, not the USA.
Obama is only slightly to the right of McCain, hoping to engage in mass redistribution of wealth under threat of violence (paramilitary raids, imprisonment, possible death) for citizens who fair to offer up their dictated share of their personal property to the government and its 'mandatory charity' programs.
Who would have guessed a year ago that Hillary "Goldwater Girl" Clinton would be the rightmost candidate in '08?
None of the major candidates considers "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" a noble goal for a government. At least I can write in Ron Paul, but the odds are strong we'll have a real Socialist at the helm in 2009, which is astonishing. And deeply saddening to those who thought we might be able to undo some of Bush's policies in this go-around.
But to get back on topic, if anybody thinks the tech/internet sector has thrived based on government regulation, boy, there's gonna be some serious thriving ringing in the next decade.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Well, to be precise, reducing tax rates will only go so far in increasing revenue. I think you're talking about the Laffer curve, right? The problem with that kind of thinking is that it's hard to gauge where on the curve the economy currently is. If you're on the other side of the climax, reducing tax rates will only reduce revenue. And incidentally, I haven't looked up the tax revenues for the years of the Bush administration but I don't think tax revenue has gone up with his tax cuts, although the recession plays a part in that as well. Either way, your statement isn't entirely accurate, although sometimes true.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Ah - No.
Most industrialized countries run a system more efficient that what we have here, and there are a number of different ways to do so.
There is a quite useful Frontline that went over the benefits and trade-offs of several countries - Japan, UK, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Germany.
All of them had lower total healthcare costs, all of them took different approaches, and different trade-offs (and Frontline went into the deficiences of each system as well).
But yes, it turns out that systems that save you money, turn out to be easy to pay for - a strange financial that I've noticed often seems counter-intuitive to libertarians and conservatives, although I concede to having never entirely understood why.
I would suggest doing some research. You look like a putz when you make statements that something is inconceivable and stupid when people can point to obvious examples.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
you're unconcerned about your chosen candidate's intellect, honesty, and judgement
Hardly. I chose my candidate based on exactly those factors. It was OP who has a stated preference for focusing on slips of the tongue.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
On terrorism, he says he would not sit down and talk to the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority until they renounce terrorism and recognize previous agreements. But, he would sit down with Iran and Syria who will not renounce terrorism and openly call for the destruction of Israel. Iran directly funds Hamas for Pete's sake!
On taxation, he says he would raise rates on certain groups because he thinks it is fair, even if it reduces tax revenue. That isn't nuanced, that is stupid.
On the energy policy, he has supported ethanol in the past and for the future (which has increased the cost of food, caused an increase in farm land [to the reduction of forest lands], and has not and will not materially alter the price at the pump), while he plans to increase taxes on the US corporations that produce oil with the windfall profit tax (WPT). Carter put in place a WPT and it decreased domestic oil production and increased our dependence on foreign oil.
Obama is a gifted speaker, but he isn't saying anything worthwile.
FTA: "He [Fish] noted that misregulation can impede innovation, and invoked what he called the "futility principle": There are some genuine problems that are only made worse by attempts to meliorate them." ...like the Iraq war?
Not even sure what they were attempting to "meliorate" on that one aside from phantom WMDs. To their defense; the best intelligence they chose to pay attention to did indicate their existence.
McCain = 4 more years of Bush..only a little smarter but beholden to the same corporate interests and the same wrong-minded national security/diplomatic policy. Why don't we just skip the middle-man and elect Rupert Murdoch?
The "thriving free market" of insurance co's is raping us. Much like the "thriving free market" of multiple private highways, police departments, fire departments, armies etc. was also raping us, before we centralized them within state, local and fed governments. History itself contradicts the notion of free markets = always automatically awesome. That's because it's simply wrong, even if it's comfortable.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
On the other hand, Obama has a lot going for him in other areas -- technology policy, healthcare policy, government transparency, etc. Moreover, after seeing the Constitution trampled on for years, I look forward to having someone in office who taught it to law students and fought for it as a working civil rights attorney.
"UNGH DECISION TOO HARD, USE IRRELEVANT FACTORS TO ADD WEIGHT RATHER THAN DOING MORE RESEARCH!"
Awww, are you weeping because I didn't swallow the usual slashdot groupthink? I'm sorry I made you so sad.
The National Journal, the szame rag that ranked John Kerry as the "most liberal" senator back around the previous presidental election? It seems pretty obvious to anyone who pokes around in their methodology that they only reason they publish these lists is to give the right some talking points. For example, there were only two votes they scored where Barack Obama took the "liberal" side, whereas Hilary Clinton took the "conservative" side, thus earning Obama two more "liberal" points than Hilary, On one of these votes, John McCain voted with Obama, so take that as you will. Here's a source: http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/what_the_national_journal_libe.html.
And here's the methodology: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm. Some of those are quite head scratchers, for example, voting for "94/SConRes21: Raise the tax rate on income over $1 million and use the revenue to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. March 22. (38-58)" earns you conservative points. Who knew?
Anyone who thinks Obama's voting record is more liberal than Russ Feingold (the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act) has an agenda. Oh, wait. "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate." So when he wasn't running for president, they ranked him 10th and 16th; but when he announced his run they ranked him first. Yeah. I'm sure he really voted that much further to the left than the other Dems and the National Journal isn't just pushing an anti-Obama agenda. Give me a break. This is /., people are supposed to be smart here.
Care about privacy? Read this!
Everyone already knows Billary sucks. Where's the news here? She is essentially a straw-man in my book. Shouldn't you be posting on the rush limbaugh blog? For "Operation douchewad" or "operation buy me more pills" or whatever.
...is that they need to cut unprofitable lines so they can make money and get off government subsidies. But the senators from the states with unprofitable lines insist that they remain open as a condition of funding. So Amtrak is unprofitable, and needs subsidies to keep running, and....
It would be nice to have a serious candidate in the US that could be honestly called a liberal.
1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.
No it hasn't. The Laffer Curve was thoroughly discredited by the mid eighties. There was never any empirical support for it. It was classic Ricardian Vice. That is why the Reagan administration gave up on it and backed Bob Dole's Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax in 1982. The 1981 cuts created huge deficits. The Republican leadership was revolting. Dole wanted a $105 billion increase and Reagan pushed a $31.7 billion increase. However increased military spending meant still greater deficits, so in 1984 Reagan and Dole both backed another $49.3 billion tax package, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This still didn't cover the rampant spending of the mid eighties, so GHW Bush put the final nail in the deficit's coffin with the a whopping $500 billion five year tax increase package.One thing that has always bugged me is that Dole/Reagan's AMT increase did not include inflation indexing. That was the one really good thing Reagan did, end bracket creep by indexing the income tax. Because they excluded the AMT from that we now face the current AMT crisis.
There is empirical evidence that decreasing capital gains taxes can increase revenue shot term, because people hold off sales until after the new rate takes effect, increasing activity and hence revenue short term. OTOH, I haven't seen numbers on it, but I expect raising the capital gains rate would do the same thing, since there would be a rush to sell before the rate changes. Long term neither should make a difference.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
No, I just think you're a retard without a working rationalization process. Good people come in black, white, red, azn, and latina; unfortunately, so do bad people. This is the WRONG factor to use when deciding on who to put in charge of an entire country, in any weight.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
oh my. i wasn't going to say anything. - Jeffrey Mina
a) not all tax cuts benefit. Case in point, our current cuts for people who don't need it - and thus won't necessarily spend it on the economy.
b) Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, in order to balance the budget while simultaneously cutting taxes and increasing spending for the poor and middle class. Result? The first reduction of the national debt in decades, simultaneous with unprecedented prosperity for all.
2. Which means McCain will be as bad for the economy as the current President, or worse.
3. So? If you have a problem with their facts, show how they're wrong. But just because you may not like a website's politics, doesn't automatically mean their facts are wrong.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
What poll is this?
He condemned the war in the middle of a primary battle for his State Senate seat, at a time when even suggesting the President could be wrong was spun as treason. And, please show how he 'flipped' on the war during his run for Senate?
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
I really wish I had mod points. You're exactly right, and you articulated your point well.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
I don't think we could afford to add a botched healthcare plan to the budget while still paying for the botched war plan.
I don't want national (govt) healthcare like the Dems. are promoting...but, if we had to have it....well, I don't think we can pay for that AND all the stuff we currently pay, war included. Something has to give first...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The trouble is...how low a salary they are wanting to use now to define 'wealthy'.
If the current rebate checks are an indicator...like $75K as the top of the middle income level before cutting back on how much you get....
That is scary...making about $100K and over is NOT rich...in many areas in the US...you can't afford a one room studio apt on that salary...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I do that set up now...I have a high deductible policy, that has reasonable montly premiums. I stuff the limit of money I can annually in a HSA, pre-tax...and I pay my Dr. and meds with that as needed. I find that with the Dr's and tests...when I tell them it isn't going to be paid by insurance....they cut the rate they charge me.
YOu can get a much better deal this way...and I can do to any damned Dr. I want to...without consulting any HMO books, etc...
The trouble with insurance is, it is being treated as a payment plan...not insurance against disaster...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The raising of taxes even if it doesn't increase revenue, I believe, was said in the last debate and it concerned either capital gains tax or the top tax rate. He was asked the question directly and he said he would raise tax rates, even when it was shown that it would decrease revenue, because it was fair.
A lot of people were wrong about ethanol, but he still is. I agree his platform is broader than corn, but your argument is that he is nuanced and I believe here his platform is anything but. He is for every alternative to oil, if it works or not, he is going to throw government money (our money) at it. If the market is allowed to make these decisions, we should find a better alternative faster than if government chooses who wins and who loses.
Obviously we disagree but you have been a civil defender of your beliefs and I appreciate it.
democrat/republican... black/white... I still can't tell the difference.
What?
If wiki can be believed, your history of the ATM is miss dated. It originated in 70 (to hit 155 households) and was expanded in 86, after the beginning of the 80s boom.
The insurance is worse because
a) The government requires it in many cases.
b) the goverment doesn't set a rate
c) the government doesn't make it universal (so insurance companies cherry pick).
If *everyone* has to have auto insurance by government fiat, then it should be a government program.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No.
Insurance should cover what every one needs (the cheap stuff).
No insurance can reasonably cover the expensive stuff (so they cut you as fast as they can).
Random unexpected catastrophic health care- okay maybe. But chronic catastrophic health care is impossible.
Under private industry, those poeple just die.
Even under government plans, those people just die. But not before breaking the system.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Reasonable people do not believe dissent is always treason nor should they believe that dissent is better than consent. Both concepts require information and reason.
I'd need to pull up a transcript and find the specific question and answer to speak to the taxation question, so I'm not in a position to speak to that at present.This is one of those points where I'd really, really like to agree with you -- and perhaps in the days when US companies were focused enough on longer-term profits and not the immediate next quarter, I entirely would. Unfortunately, we're no longer in the days of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC; business decisions are driven by short-term share price goals, and big research projects simply aren't privately funded on the scale they once were. Until this is fixed, government intervention to funnel money into research is simply necessary. Artificially expanding markets, as fuel subsidies and quotas do, leverages more of the free-market mechanics than more traditional funding mechanisms do; it's far from a perfect mechanism, but there certainly are arguments to be made in its favor (indeed, several DARPA-funded projects which ultimately produced nothing at all come to mind as examples of government-funded research gone wrong; a research project funded via an artificial demand for the thing it seeks to create, on the other hand, must actually produce something).
Please let me apologize for folks with beliefs similar to my own who've been less than civil. I would hope that folks with a reasonable sense of civility would outnumber those who are otherwise -- if not in loudness, at least in number.
The deficit reduction under Clinton came after the Republicans took over Congress and actually stopped spending like drunken sailors (not to offend drunken sailors, they are fun in the bar).
Other major part of the deficit was the welfare reform act and Clinton's reduction in military spending. All budgets have inflows and outflows, we tend to ignore the latter.
When Bush took the oath of office, we were in a mini recession that started in (I think) November 1999. Since then we have had a natural disaster 10 times the economic impact of 9/11, 9/11, the Enron mess that lead to the larger SOX mess, and the rise of China's and India's economies that have driven oil prices to record prices. With all that has happened, I am amazed the economy is as strong as it is. Increased taxation and government regulation is not going to make the economy better.
Even when third party candidates loose, the vote whores of the major parties pay close attention to try to get that last few percent. It's probably the biggest influence your vote can have.
I really do not expect the big corporations to be the leaders in alternative fuels or to improve "fill-in-the-blank" problems of the current day. I do expect individuals and start-ups to keep pressing edges of the envelopes and finding what others believe cannot be done. It still happens and encouraging it is government's job, not picking which ones they think will succeed. People are not that smart.
Not everyone is rude, but it is important for those of us who consider civil discourse important to note civility.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that none of the candidates want to pay for war and healthcare.
I suppose you would ideally prefer that there be no war or healthcare, but if you're forced to pay for just one, the war is more expensive than healthcare, so choosing healthcare would be the better way to reduce your debt.
(Not that I can sympathize with that position. As a Canadian who enjoys public healthcare, and has known Americans who suffered due to lack of access to healthcare, I'd like to see the USA adopt public healthcare.)
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
And what the heck does it mean, anyway, to be the "most liberal?" Can you point out a conservative, so I can have a basis for comparison?
I want to: stop torturing, restore habeus corpus, get us out of Iraq, balance the budget, invest in alternative fuels, and invest some in our own infastructure. If advocating those things makes you "liberal" then sign me up for Obama. He isn't nearly liberal enough.
When "conservative" means torture, gutting habeus corpus, endless war, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, the largest deficit in US history, censoring scientific findings to meet political agendas, etc, then you guys don't have much to sell anymore.
If Obama actually advocated legislation regarding the things you complained about, please provide a link for our edification.
I used to put some credence in these "the sky is falling" predictions of jackbooted thuggery, back when B. Clinton was in office, but once I found that conservatives generally become okey-dokey with, say, warrantless wiretapping, gutting habeus corpus, torture, secret prisons, etc, as long as it's a Republican in office, then I've come to doubt their intellectual integrity a bit. Thus, I'll need a source. Thanks in advance.
I have no problem with US healthcare. I treat medical insurance as just that...insurance against a catastrophic sickness.
Otherwise..I sock my own money away, pre-tax in a Health Savings Account (HSA) which earns money (can even be invested and rolls over year after year)....to pay for regular Dr. checkups and meds.
I usually get discounts from the Dr's and labs when I say I'm paying for it and not 'insurance'.
I'd much rather be in charge of my own health, and retirement, than have the govt try to do it for me..that's for sure.
There is no lack of access to healthcare here...we also don't get put on a waiting list, if you need something done too.....I've heard the drawbacks of the Canadian and UK systems, and frankly you can have it. I already pay enough taxes...I don't need to have the govt. start taking 50%-60% of my hard earned cash for so called healthcare for all...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So yes, to support Obama only because he's black is morally no different than opposing him only because he's black. The problem here is that you have to choose your poison, and I've chosen (I hope) the lesser of the evils.
I can look at a minority with hundreds of years of slavery, oppression, lynching, and discrimination stacked against them and basically give them a pass, on a personal level, for frantically supporting one of their own. A smug good-old-boy saying "well now, isn't that racism?" may be semantically correct, but I'm not going to entertain his arguments because I strongly suspect that he is not motivated, shall we say, be an aversion to discrimination qua discrimination.
The real world wreaks havoc with philosophical arguments.
How is voting for a person entirely because of his race any less racist than voting against a person entirely because of his race?
As everybody has already observed, the two parties are almost identical - there is certainly little difference in ideology as far as I can tell, so why vote at all? well, I suppose McCain is a bit more isolationist than Obama, perhaps - who knows, really? But the differences are only skin deep, if that. Where have the big issues gone? Isn't it because you simply can't become a serious contender in politics unless you have massive financial backing? And you only get that if you appeal to the people with lots of money: the big corporations, the big churches etc. So it matters little whether 95% (or whatever) of the American population is irreligious and socialist, because only the candidates that the rich like will ever get a chance. (Yes, yes, I know, the proportion of socialists in America is perhaps not quite 95%; it was just an example).
And that is not democracy. It may look a lot like it, but it isn't; ideally, in democracy more or less all candidates have equal access to the public's attention, so people can make up their own minds about them. And of course there would be proportional representation as well. The political process might be less efficient, but experience from the rest of the world shows that it works well enough.
Is "Obama is a lawyer!" the only crack you can give in reply?
No, I merely mentioned it in contrast to McCain having a science and engineering background. Nothing more.
However, I will reply to your notion that the people he surrounds himself with are good indicators of future actions. Personally, I think they are not. First, as a lawyer Obama's core skill is to manipulate perception to advance a particular agenda. That it essentially what a lawyer does in front of a jury, negotiating a deal, etc. The truth is a secondary concern. As much as he claims to be a different type of politician, the truth is that he is not. He is merely a world class salesman. The real indicator of future actions is not what he says, it is what he has done. His voting record, not his campaign promises, not his attempts to frame issues or create an image. I am not trying to convince any to not vote for him, but for god's sake do so based on a record not the promises and spin of a campaign.
I'll go even further.
I want to ask a question of all actually.
If a scientist does an experiment and the result doesn't correlate with the predictions his preferred theory made... we expect him to revise the theory. Such a revision may vary in scope - sometimes it is merely a restriction on which cases this theory is applicable to, sometimes it's a major rewrite of what was previously believed to be a fundamental principle of how the universe worked. Einstein ended up rewriting most of Newton because and thermodynamics ended up being largely restricted to gasses and liquids because solids (at least on observable timelines) just do not work like that - my shoes are not busy rearranging themselves to be more chaotically spread about the room...
Now when a politician sees that an experiment isn't working - and changes his sociopolitical theory to adjust for this new evidence - you call him a flipflopper. Why is it that we slashdotters, all of whom have at least basic science training/interest when it comes to politics are blind to the single biggest flaw in the world's political systems - that we crucify any politician who doesn't 'stick to his guns'.
It is one thing if a politician promises to do X, and then does Y - you had that with Bush. But if a politician says 'it looks like the answer to this problem is X', then TRIES X, and comes back and says 'X isn't working, let's try Y before X makes any MORE of you suffer' - he SHOULD get a bloody medal for BRAVERY - instead of being instantly assured of losing the next election !
If anything economic and socio-political strategy is a much more complex thing than chemistry or physics. There are no universal laws for human behavior, even in groups. You have to try and draw conclusions from averages that are massively smeared out, and try and act in the best interest of the highest number of people without actually being able to conclusively predict the results of your actions.
Now, lets use a real example to clarify. So lets say a politician was asked in January how he felt about Iraq. Senator Foo is opposed to the war, always has been - he believes it to be an expensive (in money and lives) and also highly ineffective way to achieve the goal it's meant to achieve. So when asked in January he states that he would support the immediate removal of troops - all of them on a plane or a boat TOMORROW.
In February he reads a study of military withdrawal tactics citing solid historical facts that a withdrawal plan should be more spaced out, and coincide with a series of diplomatic steps to help Iraq ensure the stability of it's new government post-withdrawal. He realises that this paper raises solid points. In March he is asked about his policy toward Iraq. He states that he would like to see the immediate enactment of a phased withdrawal plan - and why he now believes this to be better.
This is NOT a case of flipflopping, this is a solid case of the exact same openmindedness we REQUIRE from scientists ! It should be lauded, not critisized !
On the other hand - if he promises to start a phased withdrawal, and then post-election refuses to do so without VERY solid evidence that ending the war would have disastrous consequences he could not have foreseen earlier - then he should be instantly barred from office for betraying his duty as a servant of the public.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Hey, you're paying those taxes anyway, but since they're going to the war, you don't benefit from them at all.
Also, both Clinton and Obama still want to support private healthcare in addition to universal healthcare, so if you're looking to have a procedure with a long waiting list, you can always dole out the cash to bypass that. Waiting lists are never really a problem for regular checkups, so you could always save your healthcare money for more important things.
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
The trouble is...how low a salary they are wanting to use now to define 'wealthy'.
If the current rebate checks are an indicator...like $75K as the top of the middle income level before cutting back on how much you get....
You're kidding me, right? I know the dollar isn't worth all that much anymore, but $100k a year is still quite a lot of money. That's $8k a month. If you have trouble finding a one room appartment for that money, perhaps you should look a bit beyond downtown Manhattan.That is scary...making about $100K and over is NOT rich...in many areas in the US...you can't afford a one room studio apt on that salary...
I make about half that, but I have no kids and no SO, so life is relatively cheap. In Orange County, what I make is barely enough to get by. 100k sounds like a lot, but if you live anywhere where earning 100k is possible, it is not.
McCain doesn't need to spend money on a Halloween mask - he just smiles when they open the door.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
But if I understand correctly, he's just as white as he is black.
How about using standard deviations per area to determine the rich and poor? No need for a national average.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Care to supply any links for your information? Mine may be inaccurate now (it is an old article) but I did bother to actually back up my statements.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Oh, it isn't. nomadic is simply under the popular delusion that only racism AGAINST blacks is "real racism". According to that philosophy it's just fine to be racist against everyone except blacks. Just evening out the historical karma, don'tcha know.
Personally, I think that making decisions based on skin color or ancestry is stupid and vile in any context, whether for or against. Just pick the best person for the job, and pay no attention to what shade they happen to come in. It's not really all that hard.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Well, in general I'm near the 30% mark in taxes....hoping I did better last year working 100% through my own S corporation...and hoping I have enough to write off to cut taxes down.
I don't want to increase that to > 50% to pay for govt funded universal care. I've worked with govt programs...and they are nothing but waste of time and great sums of money and red tape. I can't imagine we want to put the people that have mismanaged the Iraq war....fucked up the aftermath of Katrina....in charge of our very healthcare services.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You misread my post. I didn't say Reagan/Dole created the AMT. I said they created the corporate AMT. They merely widely expanded the personal AMT.
You should read that discussion between Galbraith and Krugman before making claims like "we reduced taxes in the 20s and revenue went up." Correlation does not imply causation. And as I mentioned revenues in the 80s went way down when we cut taxes and everybody agreed to responsible tax increases to solve the problem.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
I am compelled to point out that whereas a president might propose a given set of laws, budgets, and what not, it is Congress which actually approves such. Giving any president credit for such things seems a bit silly. Furthermore, if one wants to look at it this way... Who was in charge in Congress for the second half of Clinton's reign? Neither party gets a get out of jail free card. However, Tax and Spend was a democrat creation of the 80's.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
It is a lot of money. But would you call it "rich"? As opposed to "well off" or "doing well"? Bare in mind, when one says you are "rich" most people put you in the same category as millionaires and such. And no, that isn't 8K a month.. Such a person is paying at least 2,000/month in federal taxes. That doesn't count any health care deductions or state/local taxes which would likely pile on. Now 6k a month is still good money. But not "rich".
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Go take a look at how much of our money is being eaten up by the Medicare/Medicaid beast and get back to me on that. If you think Universal Health Care will cost any less, you're not doing the math. Even the War will look small in comparison in the long run.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
If you think Universal Health Care will cost more than the 3 trillion we have blown on this grossly mismanaged war adventure I think you have far better drugs than any health care plan could ever hope to offer. The "long run" required to make a screwed up healthcare plan cost more than adding a 3rd and or 4th front to this disaster is a very very "long" run indeed. My point is we can fix a botched healthcare plan FAR faster and at much less expense than we have been able to fix our current war situation, and with McCain saber rattling so much at Iran I don't think we could even hope to fix that situation anytime in the reasonably near future. But don't take it from me, McCain himself claims the 100 years in Iraq plan is a good idea.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I generally agree with the points here, but I would point out that the money sunk into insurance would be replaced with that tax. Insurance companies are no less scandelous about this kind of crap than the government could be. Blue Cross Blue Shield for example managed to deny payment to a local woman who had a miscarraige by calling it an "elective abortion" because the doctor tried to administer medication and help before the baby actually died. Through my own surgery I have learned that you have to time your major surgeries or illnesses at the proper time of the year or they stick you with crap like "well you paid last year's deductible, but this is a new year so pay up again".
Also, the only people I have actually heard bitch about the Canadian system and the waiting list and all of that nonsense are Americans that have never dealt with it. Not that it isn't bad, but I only hear people scream and moan about it that don't deal with it. The people that I know that DO deal with Canadian healthcare seem to be pretty fond of it. So the horror stories seem to be little more then right wing nonsense and cherry picking of evidence.
All in all you are right. I would rather not the government be in charge of any of this, but if they are going to take my money anyways (and they will) I would rather have them spend it on something that will at least marginally benefit someone who needs it. Them blowing all of my money on a War against (Some Word). Terrorists, Iraq, Drugs, Poverty, or whatever other clever word they come up with to waste my money on.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Good question. Possibly, if Senator Foo called a press conference to announce his change of mind, he would win respect. Usually the politician bellows his opinion in a way that suggests he's always held it.
There's another side to it. In foreign policy, we elect politicians to combat our adversaries. Unlike atoms and molecules, these adversaries have a mental model of said politician which affects their actions.
If Senator Foo advertises the open mind of a scientist, he may be telling adversaries, "attack us hard enough and I'll change my mind."
I think a nation led by scientists would be doomed, for numerous reasons.
But on domestic issues, it seems like a more scientific approach would work better. Maybe the problem is that voters have strong ideologies. So many are voting to punish the perceived villains of national life that they wouldn't welcome a "scientific" re-evaluation of the worldview they endorsed.
You are operating under the false belief that there really is a "free market" for insurance companies. There isn't really. They are heavily regulated billion dollar businesses offering a product that large numbers of people would literally die without. I honestly think we'd be better off without them entirely. And without government run health care as well. Let a real free market define the price for health care. It couldn't help but come down to levels that people could actually afford. You can't get paid if you let your perspective client die.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
What thriving free market is this then? I was under the impression that government provided all sorts of payment for care via medicaid and medicare, thus driving up demand and increasing the price. And regulations about who can provide medical care, restricting the supply and also raising the price. And regulations which serve largely to increase paperwork, thus again driving costs up. Plus limited control over what sort of payments doctors accept (if you accept medicare from anyone, then you are not allowed to provide service to someone who is eligible for medicare for cash instead, unless you haven't accepted medicare for 2 years.) Insurance is subsidized to be employer provided, reducing the ability of insurance companies to tailor payment rates to the individual's risk factors or to exclude some employees. Theare are all sorts of government interference in the market, so don't pretend it's free so you can argue that government must take control. Government regulation always leads to further government regulation to fix the problems caused by the previous regulation.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
You know, here's the thing that always gets left out of these debates. Yes, it'll cost a bloody fortune. Yes, it'll probably be mismanaged and poorly done. But leaving aside all that for a minute... Where in the Constitution is the "provide universal health care" clause?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
And you can't support Obama and also complain about spending money. The war does cost a ton of money, but whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't cost as much as Obama's plans. And that's not counting the things he'd like to do that have been tried before and failed.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You can't claim he is a supporter of the Constitution when he has no problem stomping all over the Second Amendment. The Constitution is not an ala carte menu where you get to pick and choose which rights you support and which you don't. It is all or nothing.
Either you support the Constitution, as it is written, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
As a poster above said, we may disagree, but you have been the paragon of civility. :)
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You can make up any reason to call any candidate vile and frightening. McCain scares me because he is old, has serious temper issues, and says disrespectful things to women (including his wife). He has totally flipped all his views in the past 5 years to pander to the religious right. "Conservatives" are spending more than Dems and reducing taxes causing us to go in to a deficit that is destroying our economy. "Liberals" allow for social rights and are not trying to push the Bible in to the government. And you are worried about the word liberal? Grow up. It is just a label that morons like Rush or Savage like to place on people to scare slow witted people who are too lazy to actually pay attention to the issues. I guess it works on even the supposedly intelligent people that read Slashdot.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
And Mormons were the same for Romney. Why does it matter?
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
On a side note, I rather dislike all of our choices for president. I don't want McCain. I just want Obama, the likely Dem candidate, even less. Blood sad state of affairs if you ask me.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
The thriving free market of insurance is not raping us, it is the government pumping cash into healthcare that is raping us by distorting the market.
And what does the idea of a free market have to do with police and armies? What about government centralization has purified the armies of Burma or the police of North Korea, for example? Seems to me more like the most centralized governments have the most oppressive police forces.
You would have done better to offer some specific historical examples of free-market failure. (Fire departments??)
I claim he's a constitutional law professor. That's not a debatable point, it's a fact -- and other law professors he's worked with say he's got his head on straight.
With regard to right to bear arms, his long-term goal is that local governments have the ability to enact strong gun control measures. Given that there tends to be a congruence between Libertarians who want the federal government to keep its nose out of what state and local governments can legislate in other areas (see Ron Paul's view on abortion), this doesn't strike me as exceptional. So -- I'm not worried that Obama is going to take away my shotgun or my ability to get a concealed-carry license. If I still lived in California, I'd be worried that policies Obama supports would let my state and/or local governments abridge my rights in that regard -- but where I do live, that issue is thoroughly moot. (Implementation is another thing, as well; it probably would take nothing short of an amendment to let such a thing get through without a challenge, and as such is beyond the power of any President, I don't see why you're so worried about it).
If you're going to make it black and white, though, not a single member of Congress and not a single Presidential candidate (possibly excluding Ron Paul) supports the Constitution as written -- unless you accept the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty completely outlandish. There are no more strict Constitutionalists, and certainly none of the three major candidates comes close to fitting that bill; get over it.
In voting for a black man, he's voting for a minority that also happened to be enslaved for half of the country's history, and couldn't vote for half of the time they've been free. He's voting against the social structure, not against the white race.
The social structure that he's voting against is racist towards black people (in varying degrees at different times, but this point is indisputable). If the guy voting for the white guy makes the "it's about social structure" argument, that's fine, but he's voting FOR a racist social structure. Ergo, they are not equally racist.
That doesn't make anyone right, however. But voting your conscience doesn't make you right, either.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
you just got nominated for pedant of the year.
By me, The Galactic Pedantry Society
FWIW, GHWB was also head of the CIA. It's creeeeepy. We've had the same motherfuckers crawling in and out out of our asses since the 60's, really.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I agree the party is in trouble. I'm no McCain fan so I'd caution you not to put words in my mouth. I support immunity for the telecoms because they were in a catch-22. From what I've heard domestic surveillance wasn't exactly what was happening. It was calls to and from overseas. If it was domestic-to-domestic, then I'm with ya. Net Neutrality: I wasn't aware this was McCain's stance. I'm obviously for a free internet so we agree there. The war? I'm behind it. I may not like the way it was ran but I have no issue with us doing it. It should have been done by now. Obama: Again, I'm not voting for Obama. I didn't want to get into too much of that but frankly the man fosters bigotry. He event went so far as to call small-town Americans bigots. That killed it for me. If I'm not going to vote for any bigot white or black. I realize that doesn't bother a lot of people. That's why Tom likes fat women. We're all different.
I don't want to argue these points. Nothing you say is going to make me vote for Obama. I'm not going to turn my vote on a single issue like technology. I applaud Obama for getting some of these guys involved but it's not enough for me to vote for the man.
McCain scares me more these days. Not so much during his first run. But he has become such a sellout to lobbyists and special interests its pathetic. He also intends to latch on and continue miserable failures of Bush policy. Hell the only thing I respect about him anymore is his opposition to torture, but even then he has been a bit flakey on doing anything serious about that. The wiretaps and all of that Soviet mentality crap.
I figure rather than fretting about paying taxes over what will likely be a screwup program of universal healthcare I will look at it in a different light. There is a possibility that taxes will be raised by a guy who has a pretty strong pro tech platform and is against all of this Soviet style paranoia our current crop loonies have been up to. In the end I would rather have a young idealist Jr senator that isn't a DC insider waste my money on bad ideas than to let another paranoid old guard Republican waste my money stealing my freedoms. The lost freedoms are far harder to regain than the lost dollars on a stupid government initiative. In the end I would like a REAL Republican, the old kind, the ones that supported small government, staying out of peoples personal lives, doesn't like spending government money, doesn't like taxes. The current crop are a disturbing mix of Soviet style leadership ideals and theocratic desires and the Democrats scare me a hell of a lot less than this Theocratic Soviet style Republican.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
They're insuring against sickness because it can be a disaster, even if it's cured. Say you're the breadwinner for a family, and one paycheck away from losing your house. Then your kid gets sick. If it's treated early, it can keep from being pneumonia - but if you leave it alone, it could become pneumonia and potentially kill your kid. You can't afford to pay the treatment and keep your house - so your kid lives, and now you're homeless? So you get insurance - but your insurance charges you out the @$$, and dumps you as soon as you start to cut into their profit margin with your pesky wanting-to-live-and-keep-your-house needs. Happens all the time in the US. Doesn't happen in Europe or Canada.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
That's all they do? That's funny, I thought they had this other power proscribed by the Constitution. I can't think of what it's called but I think it's a four letter word that starts with 'v' and that said power could have been used at any time in the last seven years to try and rein in spending if Bush cared about such things. Of course he showed no interest in that at all until his party lost control of Congress. I guess pork is just fine and dandy if your party is the one doling it out.
And you can't support Obama and also complain about spending moneyActually I can support whomever I want and complain about whatever I want. That's one of the perks of being an American.
And that's not counting the things he'd like to do that have been tried before and failed.You mean like trying to bring Democracy to another country at gunpoint?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, look at it this way: US median income for *family households* is 60K/yr. For married couples, $69k http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html Can you imagine raising and maintaining a **family** on 70K? From that perspective, 100K/yr *is* rich. It means you don't have to choose between a CD and a meal.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
And without that regulation, there would be no limit on what they could (and would) do.
So I do agree that we would be better off without health insurance co's entirely. But we need some way to pool money as a society to cover individual health cost, or our society will suffer.
Some treatment just costs too much money. And if our workers can't afford that treatment, they'll die. But if we distribute that cost, we can all have a healthier nation *and* economy, because our workers can live longer, produce more, have more money and time to educate themselves for shifting economic needs, etc. etc. This is similar to how we pool our money to make interstate roads, because having them benefits *all* of us rich and poor.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
McCain has one of the most conservative voting records of anyone in the Senate but somehow people think he's a moderate
He got this label back in the 2000 election, simply because that's what he sold himself as. He became an underdog candidate of little importance (overwhelmed by Bush), and was never called out on the issue, and so the image stuck.
With the image he created back in 2000, I was considering voting for him that year; but now that I know what he really stands for, I wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole. Watching him toe the party line for the last year has erased any urge I had to vote McCain.
Yeah, the voting record has been there the whole time, but the image was created before the voting record was brought into the limelight. Luckily, they cannot downplay he insistence on staying the course with the war, so at least that gets the coverage it deserves.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
The "demand" is constant, with or without "government intervention" - because people don't want to get sick and die! Medicare isn't driving up that demand - are you kidding me? How many people are like, "Oh wow! Medicare pays for cancer treatments! I don't really need chemo, but why not? Sounds fun!"
As for paperwork - like there's no paperwork for Insurance Companies? A lot of doctor offices hire someone specifically just to deal with that alone.
So if you're defining "Free Market" as "utterly without government intervention" - then ok, sure. This isn't a free market. Also, there never has been a free market in history, ever.
But if your theory is that it's nasty, mean old government regulation that's driving up health costs - that simply doesn't fit the facts.
Insurance company costs have skyrocketed since 2000. But there's been no increase in government regulation of insurance companies *or* health care in general.
What could be the difference? I submit to you that Insurance companies decided they could make more money, and then did so.
By all means, please show me some other factor that could have had this same effect. Otherwise, this is a perfect illustration of why de-regulating *this* market will not solve *this* situation. It can only make it worse.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
1. There used to be separate police departments in NYC. One for the city, and the state. If the "free market is always teh awesomest" theory was correct, this competition would have created increased efficiency, innovation, service, etc.
Instead it was so destructive that sometimes criminals escaped, because the departments were brawling in the street.
2. There also used to be multiple different fire companies in each major US city. All literal companies - privately owned and operated. Free market ideal, right? Oughta be better for everyone, right?
But they would naturally mark the buildings that hired their services. And if a building didn't have their mark, they would just let it burn. (You can still see these bronze plaques in the walls of older buildings in Boston and Philadelphia).
And if your landlord was too cheap to hire a fire company - well, you shoulda chosen to be born rich. Sorry your grandma got all crispy - nothing personal, just business.
This was destructive for the whole city *and* the cities' workers, and thus also for the cities *economies* and *businesses*. So private fire companies were abolished, and centrally run fire departments were created instead.
So, regulation of the free market in this case, was actually good for business. That shouldn't be possible according to the "free market uber alles" theory. See how that might reveal a flaw in that theory?
3. And now, armies. Let's look at nations that have multiple armies. "Free market is always teh awesome" theory would say that that'd be great for the country right? But it turns out that each army gets most interested in their own profit, and rip the country apart. From the above examples, I think you can see that a free market solution isn't always the best.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Desire may be constant, demand isn't. The whole demand curve has to shift upward if people are insulated from the price. You can't just wave this away. Medicare, by it's very nature, increases the number of people who will purchase something at a given price. That IS an increase in demand. If forced to pay for their own, some people would go without treatment, and some portion of those would suffer for it.
Yep, insurance companies have lots of paperwork too. But medicare is part of it, and has a much greater ability to get it's own way than private insurance does. A great deal of the paperwork involves supplemental insurance, which requires that the same procedure be billed to multiple entities. Would supplemental insurance even exist without employer and government one-size-fits-all healthcare?
How can you claim that there's been no increase in government regulation? Every time a new drug or treatment comes out, medicare has to decide how much they will or will not pay for it, and the FDA has to decide how available it's going to be. It's not generated by law, but by beareaucrats. It is still regulation. As a specific example of regulation that keeps prices higher than they would otherwise be, I have to get doctor's prescriptions for pharmaceuticals, regardless of the personal benefit to me or my choice in the matter. Even drugs generally recognized as safe, such as statins, are prescription only and require users to get periodic checkups to keep purchasing. Requiring additional checkups again increases the load on medical providers, which again increases prices.
As for the increase in insurance costs, medical costs have skyrocketed since 2000. Insurance costs are directly tied to it. It's not just that they could charge more money, but that they had to charge more money or go under. Yes, that means with a fixed percentage profit rate, their numerical profits go up. That's just the way things are.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
With regard to right to bear arms, his long-term goal is that local governments have the ability to enact strong gun control measures. Given that there tends to be a congruence between Libertarians who want the federal government to keep its nose out of what state and local governments can legislate in other areas (see Ron Paul's view on abortion), this doesn't strike me as exceptional. So -- I'm not worried that Obama is going to take away my shotgun or my ability to get a concealed-carry license. If I still lived in California, I'd be worried that policies Obama supports would let my state and/or local governments abridge my rights in that regard -- but where I do live, that issue is thoroughly moot. (Implementation is another thing, as well; it probably would take nothing short of an amendment to let such a thing get through without a challenge, and as such is beyond the power of any President, I don't see why you're so worried about it).
If you're going to make it black and white, though, not a single member of Congress and not a single Presidential candidate (possibly excluding Ron Paul) supports the Constitution as written -- unless you accept the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty completely outlandish. There are no more strict Constitutionalists, and certainly none of the three major candidates comes close to fitting that bill; get over it. Hmmm... Interesting.
Obama on CCW:
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." Obama on the failed AWB, 'Inaccuracies' about the Tiahrt Amendment, and 'Gun show loop hole': Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.None of that, and I imagine other examples are available, sound like he wants to "let local governments enact". That sounds like federal action to me. And comparing RP's view on abortion to Obama's view on the various "gun" issues doesn't work. No matter how one stands on abortion, there is no "abortion" amendment. One can make an argument that that particular issue is best solved at the local level. On the other hand, there is a right to bear arms amendment. Local governments don't get to stomp on that anymore than the federal one. So even if he was "only" in favor of local governments taking such actions, that still doesn't make it right. And as far as needing an amendment to nationally prohibit CCW or a new AWB, why? All it would take is a congress willing to go along with it and a Supreme Court willing to as well. No amendment was needed to pass the first AWB.
You are correct though, there are no strict Constitutionalists left. Much to all our loss. However, just because there aren't any in the current field, doesn't given those who are in the field a free pass. And that includes GWB's violations of the 4th amendment and McCain's possible future violations. No one gets a free pass.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You may not agree with him on this point -- I'm not sure I do either -- but it doesn't matter particularly much this cycle; he's got much bigger fish to fry as President, and pushing something as controversial as gun control legislation just isn't going to fly if he's going to be focusing on healthcare, education and foreign policy.
There's also no "provide public education" clause, or "provide police departments", or "provide roads", etc. We do those things because it's in our best interest, whether we're poor *or* wealthy. As for costing a bloody fortune - more than we're spending now, on insurance companies? Who are gouging all sides - patients, doctors *and* hospitals? Other nations spend half or less what we do, and their citizens live longer and healthier lives. I see no logical reason why can't do just as well as those nations, or better.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
1. He opposed the invasion of Iraq as a terrible idea.
2. Once the invasion happened, he said that now that we're there, we have to do it right. And getting it done right means having some soldiers there, for a certain amount of time.
3. After the Bush administrations rosy promises failed utterly, he stated he wanted to scale down US presence. That's still in line with point 2: doing it right.
4. More recently, as things in Iraq are clearly getting worse and our presence there is increasingly causing problems for us there, in the Middle East and around the world, he wants to more actively remove our troops. He still thinks he can do this, while doing it right - and do that much more quickly than the Bush/GOP.
All of this is consistent with positions 1 and 2. The invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea that would lead to horrible mess. Now that this mess was made anyway, we have to extricate ourselves carefully. That's just acknowledging reality, to me.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Lowering the voting age would encourage more young voters to participate. Voters who get started earlier in life are more likely to vote throughout their lifetimes. Political affiliations vary with time. Younger voters add balance to the current majority of voters who are over the age of 50 (think moral majority and what has been happening for the last 8 years). Educating young adults about the voting process encourages debate about which candidates take which stance. Debate, in case some people have forgotten, is never a bad thing. Lowering the voting age is really a win/win for everyone IMHO.
To those that would argue that lowering the age would open the door for elections to become a popularity contest (think concert appearances, candidates with MySpace pages, appearing on MTV, saying things that the young voters want to hear but don't really plan to do what they say, etc), I would argue that the current election is a popularity contest for people who don't keep track of the issues.
That's true. I don't see this as being a serious problem this term. Next term maybe. On the other hand, there are Judges to appoint, and it could be a problem there this term. I also don't think it likely that congress would send up such a bill this term. Again, next term perhaps. See H.R. 1022 for an example of a terrible law in that regard.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Whether individual States wish to "provide public education" or "provide police departments" is up to them. There is however nothing in the Constitution granting such a power to the Federal government. Most such programs/agencies have been created by abusing the Commerce Clause or the "Welfare" Clause.
As to the argument of money spent vice health of the population I don't think it is entirely a fair comparison without factoring in other variables. Do the populaces of the other countries eat substantially the same diet? Do they exercise more or less? Is their environment generally more or less healthy? What is the ratio of those who have wealth to those who don't? These are all just as important, if not more important, than how much money is spent on care.
Yes, it would likely cost most people more than they are spending on health insurance. The worst coverage I've ever had cost around $600/month. At that time that amount yearly was less than 10% of my income. A non-trivial number to be sure. However, given that would make me likely one of the "rich", according to proponents of such plans, I imagine I would end up getting soaked for more than that in extra taxes. Because nothing says fun like 40% to 50% income taxes.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Because we all share in the cost of these and other services, everyone in this country is *individually* healthier *and* wealthier *and* safer, *AND* the economy as a whole better off, *AND* the nation as a whole is more secure, both internally and externally.
Or do you just not believe that public education, police, a military, etc. etc. improve things for the whole nation? I can show you facts that disprove that belief, if facts will sway your opinion.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
France, Canada, Germany, and the British Parliament have all gone pro US in the last couple of election cycles.
In addition, as part of his description of his plan he says he will send the troops back if terrorism increases. Our military, our allies, and our enemies say that terrorist will flood Iraq if we withdraw before Iraq is stable on its own. Isn't what Obama is doing political posturing? I agree that Obama does not plan a complete withdrawal from Iraq, but that isn't what he is preaching from the stump.
Thank you for a civil disagreement. Unlike many who shout slogans, you do read and think and it is appreciated.
You use this word "liberal" as if it were a bad thing. Have you actually looked up the meaning of the word, or did you just conveniently file it under "see: Evil" and pat yourself on the head for not having a speck of it in your upbringing?
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
I have a huge problem with this "Time line" BS where it is around only to serve a political goal. None of the people advocating it would actually implement one. The entire idea behind it was that politicians know it would be impossible to pull out if we were under heavy attack so they wanted the current administration to be in a position of either losing the war (leave under attack and in effect being driven out of Iraq) or breaking a promise to the people.
You see, you don't set a time line for retreat, put it on paper, then hand it to the enemy in the middle of battle. It is the dumbest Idea ever. You will have the enemy slacking off and then right when you leave, they attack to make your retreat appear as a victory for them. This in turn bolsters their standing and increases their membership drives. That is a very dangerous thing to do considering the elements at work with the enemy in Iraq. They are using terrorist tactics, Al Qeada is known to be operating there, and the lessons of just blow shit killing innocent civilians and blame it on the good guys up until their public makes them leave will usher in an entirely new line of political objections. Instead of protesting, it would become standard to blow shit up in order to inflict your political ideals on people who didn't vote to support you.
The people in office know this. I'm talking about the democrats too. They know that even they wouldn't leave under attack which is why the dems want to push that onto Bush. It will help them get elected when a republican has to break a promise or lose a war his party stopped. They know a time line will never be followed, it is near impossible unless you have already won. Hell, look at all the roadmaps in the middle east with the Palestinian people and Israel that are broken for the very same reason. The Palestinians refuse to give in when it looks like they are retreating and Israel feels the same way. If you can't see that, I'm afraid that your probably a blinded tool.
It's an unpopular war to some, I personally think it came 8 years too late but that is a different story. Withdrawing in defeat isn't the problem I have, if we truly can't win, then we need to get out of there. But the way it is being suggested that we do it solely for political gain makes me sick. I'm not sure how anyone who supports that can hold their head up or sleep at night. It simply amazes me when I hear politicians like Obama talk about it. McCain has been railing on his for not knowing what is happening in Iraq and misrepresenting the state of things. He is criticizing him for being willing to meet with Iraq but not the soldiers in the field or the commander overseeing operations there. He doesn't even seem interested in going over to meet with the leaders of Iraq to see their perspective but he would be willing to sit down with Al Qeada to hear their's. Maybe Iraq is a guilt thing and he doesn't want to face the people he is attempting to screw. Anyone who can put 2 and 2 together can see what will happen if we up and leave- especially with we write down out plan of retreat and personally hand it to the enemy. I guess maybe that's the personal side of government some want to see, but I hope we never do.
If you compare the federal receipts with the GDP, you will see the bush tax cuts increased revenue and it will adjust for the recession because of the GDP.
Here is something from an admittedly biased site. Although the degree of bias can be argued, I think it is important to note there is at least some bias. Although, I'm pretty sure that the bias doesn't change the statement's validity. Also, they validate their short list further down on the page. If you look, it goes into some pretty good details. The one thing they are missing in this respect is a direct comparison to GDP over tax cuts in an attempt to establish whether they increase productivity or not and to find where the curve actually resided at the point of the cuts. It is still an interesting read though.
I think this is your problem: you are to proud to say "uncle."
:)
If you don't have a plan, if you don't have a goal on paper, when exactly do you decide to leave the country? Politicians ask for definable goals because the "peace" costs money, and is increasingly difficult to justify. Minor rumblings have given way to major debate, as in the last year we have seen the "peace" in Iraq give way to full-block civil war, and have seen US troop involvement baloon with the "surge."
Let me lay it out to you why you should grow a pair of balls and learn to accept defeat: this isn't some cakewalk rebuilding plan. We went into a moderately urbanized country, which was really a civil war hotspot only kept in check by a despot. Even though we freed them, we destroyed infarstructure and govenment, and half the people want to slaughter us, which makes "winning the peace" all the more difficult.
People point to Japan and say "hey look, we rebuilt that!" Sure we did, but we did ourselves a HUGE favor by backing the emperor and stifling any hints of civil war. People are a lot easier to encourage and employ when they're not shooting/bombing each other (and you).
We'll never be able to do that with Iraq, because the civil unrest is ingrained in the lifeblood of the people. The region hasn't seen a stable government and prosperity for more than a decade in the entire 20th century. The country has always been in dispuite with their powerful neighbors, and has always felt an inferiority complex over the lack of a seaport (the real reason why they want Kuwait). Numerous wars and civil movements have driven out all but the hard-core demographics, which means that only the strong survived, and instead of a mess of different religions/mindsets, you have a few that are highly polarized.
That's why we need to pick up our ball and go home right now (or at least lay out a plan to do so), and leave the fighting to the people who can't stop fighting. Iraq isn't stable, and it never will be: you have to have a foundation for stability to grow, but unfortunately the country is built on sand
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Your off a little on your impression of Clinton's tax hikes actually balancing the budget. What balanced the budget was the capitol gains cuts and the Roth IRA conversions. With a 15% max on the capitol gains, it was no longer tied to your income which mean you could actually profit from less of a gain. This spurred the selling of investments which also lead to the dot com bubble that burst to hard.
Probably the most important factor to balancing the budget was the Roth IRA conversions. The Roth IRA is basically an IRA that you pay taxes on the contributions now, then take your income from it tax exempt in the future. In contrast to a traditional IRA, you would not pay taxes now, but you would pay the taxes in the future. They gave a 2 year conversion span where you could move a traditional IRA into a roth IRA and spread the taxes owned over four year. So what we ended up with in a lot of cases it retirement accounts converting and the government recieved tax revenue from them in 4 years or less that should have been spread out of 10-20 years at some future retirement date.
Now seriously think about that. If you take the collection of income that the federal government hasn't seen in the last 15 or more years, add that to a person's regular income (which in many cases took them up a tax bracket) and collected it over the course of 4 years instead of 10-15 years at some future date, you are going to get a surge in federal tax reciepts that isn't related to any tax hike at all. Now I'm not saying Clinton wasn't behind it, I mean he signed the bills into law and all. But this conception of taxing the wealthy made things better is an illusion that your viewing. His tax increases had little to do with balancing the budget. Entitlement cuts, the capitol gains reduction, and the Roth IRA conversions was the entire driving force behind it. Clinton actually cut taxes with the Tax relief act of 97 (capitol gains and so on) because he knew his earlier hikes where causing some economical problems. Clinton actually admited that he raised taxes too high when he signed the tax relief act of 97.
I think perhaps that your problem might be not paying attention. You have brought some issues up that have already been answered except you are buying into the party line BS of "what was that?".
Lets look at a few.
The answer to leaving has always been when Iraq was stable enough that it's government could function on it's own and it could maintain it's own domestic security with help on the foreign security front. Alternatively, Bush has always said that if the recognized leaders of Iraq asked us to leave sooner, we would even though it wouldn't be in their interest. So we have two end games, a somewhat competent Iraq, or a democratically elected government saying get out. The goals have always been to leave Iraq with a competent government of the choosing of the people. The entire time table ordeal was brought into the picture for political purposes that I have described already.
But as you can see, it is working and we are winning the peace. Winning the peace is another misconception that was designed for political gain. We were there to win the peace, we where there to provide security until such time that Iraqs government could win the peace. With entire provinces starting to expel insurgents and Al Qeada members, giving coalition troops warnings of road side bombs, and pointing the finger to the people who planted them, it looks like the Iraqi government is doing just that. You see, contrary to political rhetoric, Iraq was never intended to be a province of the US. It was always intended to be it's own independent country that was hopefully friendly to the US but under it's own independent rule. This paints an entirely different picture then your "we must give up" rendition. You see, when we got the former government out and a temporary government in and had free and open elections, we had won everything we were attempting to win. The rest is aiding the Iraqi government in their jobs or duties to the people. Iraq has a long way to go but politically, they are more advanced then Germany was after WWII. Although the violence was greater in Iraq then Germany or Japan after the war, the strides in rebuilding a country was just as difficult and the outcome seems to be the same.
You are actually attempting to claim an objective that we aren't attempting to achieve is a sign of failure because we aren't doing anything towards it.
Most of the insurgents with legitimate quarrels have been destroyed, detained, or otherwise disposed of. The current crop is mainly converts and imports (including Al Qeada). The violence is dampening the efforts for a stable Iraq but Germany is a better example to compare with then Japan. Now comparing Germany also has some flaws because of the cold war and
Okay, you've got an extremely well thought-out position.
Now, face reality and sell it to the American people: convince them to pay more taxes to rebuild Iraq, because we certainly can't afford the deficits we're racking-up. Mind, do this while the country is slipping into the worst recession we've seen in 20 years. Be sure to make it plain to them that you have no idea how long it will take, and no, you cannot define quantatatively what the goal is, only qualitatively.
Still think they'll buy it? You talk about the people of Iraq having to learn to compromise, and yet you refuse to practice what you preach. "Stay the course" leaves no room for compromise, it simply means we maintain or increase our involvement at every turn.
No, we don't have to leave the country tomorrow, and yes I know, that will never happen; but until we make a move, ANY move, to reduce our involvement, as far as most people are concerned the war isn't over.
Why aren't we slowly pulling out? Why are we still surging in? And please, do tell me how you convince Americans that bleeding 500 billion dollars (with the 1 trillion mark in-sight) is worthwhile, just so we can feel better about the country we invaded once and destroyed twice.
BTW, the real reason Iraq invaded Kuwait, According to Saddam himself, was because a Kuwaiti official described Iraqi women as ten dollar prostitutes or something like that.
I hope you're joking. The claims on Kuwait go back as far as the 1920s, and are mostly about control of the inlet and islands around Umm Qasr, Iraq's sole deep-water port. The Iran territorial disputes are also about shipping rights on the Shatt al-Arab.
My whole point is that Iraq's instability is partially caused by a lack of a stable conduit for commerce - they are completely dependent upon their neighbors to reach the outside world. When you consider how unstable their neighbors are, you begin to get a feel for WHY Iraq would fight wars over something like this.
Since we refuse to fix this problem, I doubt we can introduce stability into the region in any reasonable amount of time.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I seriously question your assessment of the situation. You can't point to a few anecdotes where Iraqis turned against foreign fighters and then conclude that the situation as a whole is improving when foreign fighters never were and still aren't the major problem. The elephant in the room here is that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. Despite their rhetoric about Al Qaeda in Iraq and "other extremists," the Bush administration knows this. But instead of addressing it head on, for short-term political gain, they made the situation even worse by separating and arming both sides. All this accomplished was temporarily lowering the bodycounts so political hay could be made from the "surge." But in the long run, now that the Sunni's and Shia barely interact beyond blowing each other up, political reconciliation is even harder and their newfound weapons virtually ensure that the bloodbath everyone is worried about is inevitable.
Bullshit. First of all, the German people are totally different from Iraqis. For Iraqis (and many middle eastern societies) the scars of European colonialism run deep, which, combined with their religiosity, honor-bound warrior culture, and ethnic tensions, makes it truly unlikely that we'll have anything like the success we had in rebuilding Germany even in the most optimistic of views. Secondly, post-WW2 Germany did not have the political chaos we see today in Iraq. Sure, there were killings bombs and generalized strife for about 5 years, but nothing on the same level. What happened in Germany was a (semi-)organized resistance. Iraq today is just pure bedlam with the vast majority of the violence being not even criminal but random in nature. In Iraq most families have have had at least one relative kidnapped for ransom. Car bombs go off not in military bases but in street markets and religious ceremonies. Lastly, the foreign military presence in Germany was much larger per capita and pervasive than what we have in Iraq, even if you count our mercenaries (which do almost as harm as good). We simply don't have the number of boots on the ground required to lock-down the country and create a stable security situation. Pre-war estimates put this number as 500,000 combat troops. The only way we could achieve that number (even if it still applies; I've heard some experts who think it no longer does) is if we had a draft or an unprecedented amount of international support. Neither of those looks likely.
Iraq invaded Kuwait because of its oil and the geopolitical importance the oil gives it. Furthermore, the Kuwaitis had been building oil drills at an angle along the Iraqi border to specifically tap into Iraqi oil reservoirs, which (rightfully) upset the Iraqis. You're kidding yourself if you think an opportunist like Saddam would invade Kuwait simply over a silly insult.
And endlessly repeating the rather hollow phrase "winning the peace" isn't?
I can appreciate that you're truly interested in learning all you can about the Iraq conflict. Unfortunately, the facts referenced and even tone and structure of your post suggest to me that you only get y
The problem is that Obama isn't really a black man in that sense. He didn't grow up in that social structure. He's not really part of the minority that was enslaved and then disenfranchised. If that's the reasoning, it's faulty.
Not that people didn't get called names or get beaten up because of their skin color in Hawaii during the 1970s. I can testify to that.
I agree with that. I was just arguing that voting for a black man because of blackness is not necessarily equally racist as voting for a white person because the other guy is black. :)
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I never understood why the administration hasn't attempted to make a better case or more precisely an accurate case over there. Of course it doesn't help much when the Press seems to be against him and the democrats have pretty much painted the picture that we have lost no matter what along with anything he says or does is wrong. I actually got my information that formed my present opinion from soldiers on the ground in Iraq as well as the UN. I find it surprising that the UN is speaking favorable of the country and the situation in it seeing how they have typically acted like their foot was shoot and they want revenge or something. The UN used to appear as a worthless body that was more self serving then observant to the goals and means of why I was to understand was the foundation of their presences. However, the secretary general of the UN (top dog) Ban Ki-moon, recently was working for international economical support for Iraq in a speach he entitled A new hope for Iraq. In that speech, he notes that Iraq isn't a poor country and can bear the costs of many incentives or efforts. This brings me to the second point of your statement, I'm not exactly sure why we aren't making Iraq pay more for their reconstruction. I know the goal is to let them be in control of their defense and whatnot so the political establishment ends up gaining the needed credibility that would allow us to leave, but at this point, we shouldn't have to be convincing the American people they need to fort the costs anymore.
Please tell me what this compromise would be. Our stated goal is to provide security, relief, and support for an emerging government "of the people" that not only has to gain legitimacy by showing it's effectiveness but also by showing it can and will be fair in the process. It's opposition wants to see it's destruction so they can impose a government by force onto the people without any say from the people. Stay the course to me says that we are going to do anything possible to make that happen. Should we compromise and not do everything possible to make that happen? Should we compromise and only put a 50% effort towards helping Iraq become stable? Should we compromise and expect a democratically elected government form and have to organize and fight off all the resistance while watching from the US mainland? The fact of the matter is, the compromise you suggest isn't different Ideas being purposed that would better effect our goals in Iraq but a simple withdrawal from it to let them fend for themselves. The compromises being used to political gain by the democrats seems to be just lets them do whatever and to hell with what happens as long as we can say we pulled the troops home. The most interesting thing about a compromise is that when someone doesn't understand the mission, their solutions don't seem to be anything productive to it. That isn't a lack of compromise, it is a lack of competent ideas coming forward.
This Idea of no plan was demonstrated quite readily when Kerry was running for office in 2004. He campaigned on "I have a plan" but