Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & the Economy
A number of folks have been submitting topics that indicate that they want to have a serious discussion on the issues surrounding this election. Since we're under a week now, I've decided to run a series of discussion stories to give you guys a place to discuss the issue. So here's the first one: The Economy. It's the biggest topic these days, eclipsing even war as the most important issue to most Americans. But how will that affect your choice next week? And why?
I hadn't noticed
We need more posts like this, ones for open discussion. Maybe once every couple weeks for feedback on the site.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works? All I've seen is platitudes and empty stateents from both of them.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
None of the three candidates on the ballot here have demonstrated that they have solutions that fit within the limitations of federal government dictated within the US Constitution.
As such, I'm writing in "none of the above". The state board of elections has affirmed that they are going to disregard write-in votes for any of the people that I would like to write in, in spite of the state constitution's demand that all votes be counted.
Lots of money moving around. If you're quick you can catch some of it - or lose everything.
Me, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing - go to work and pay my bills and tough it out.
The election? I'll be glad when it's over and everybody can shut up about it. Whoever wins is in for a lot of stress.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Well, for those of you that might think to argue in favor of "conservative" liberals or Reaganomics, check out this interesting graph that illustrates National Debt by president. While it's not always true that the president can control spending (it's mostly congress & senate proposing them), it sure does nullify any idea that Republican presidents spend less than Obama.
They're both going to spend the hell out of our money. The only difference might be whether it comes from us or gets put on our nation's maxed out credit card.
Neither of them are going to solve the economic problem. This economic downturn is too deep and complicated for it to be put down as Bush's fault or for either of them to solve. So it's not going to affect my vote, what's done is done. How they propose to handle it sounds fairly similar--more preventative regulation. And I'm pretty much all for that. Who's the dumbshit that was allowing institutions to hand out loans to people without even checking their income level? Yeah, laissez faire is great and all but in its purest form idiots will ruin things. Need a happy middle ground.
My work here is dung.
I read in a very important email that Obama may be a crypto-marxist and may have converted to judaism during his teenage years :~( When this is revealed it will blow the lid off of civilization.
I'm a small government person. At least that's what I would prefer. However, we haven't seen anything like that with this Republican administration and I see no reason to believe that we would see it with another one. In addition to that, we've just effectively taken ownership of several incredibly large entities and in effect, nationalized them. Because of these reasons, I see no prospects of smaller government from either party. This removes my one philosophical reservation about voting for a democrat. Therefore, Obama.
-JWR
The party who cheats the most will win. Elections are only interesting when both parties cheat because only then is it a close call, with 1,000,000,000,000,000 votes going to one side and 1,000,000,000,000,001 going to the other... you never know how close to the edge to cut it, so it's always a thrill ride.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Are you going to vote for Barack Obama or are you a racist?
I don't care a whole lot who wins, if it is a fair election. That said, from what I have been reading, the republicans have pulled out all the stops in suppressing voters in groups that are polling strongly pro-Obama (e.g., active duty military, students, minorities.)
Who ever does win will not be able to keep election promises since the economy is probably going to keep getting worse.
Speaking of the economy, I think that the only real money that the government should spend is on critical infrastructure (education, roads, defend our borders in the least expensive way possible, support local agriculture and in general push local sustainable business and infrastructure,...) Notice that I did not include government sponsored health care (would be nice if we could afford it though.)
I think that it is obvious that the "being an empire" thing is not worth the money that it costs.
It constantly surprises me how a third party can't put up a palatable candidate. If the libertarians could drag up their version of Obama, they may actually have a seat at the table. Instead they keep coming up with old white guys.
Too many Americans wind up settling for the "lesser of two evils," and this is the ultimate election for that, I think.
... so this week's shenanigans won't change my vote.
That said, from 2002-2006, the Republicans were in charge of every branch of government, and for most of the Clinton years controlled congress. Their achievements are a matter of public record.
While they'd like to blame the current economic meltdown on Democrats from the '70s, it's obvious to me that the current mess springs directly from the spate of deregulation that's taken place over the last 14 years. The Republican party is responsible for that.
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works?
Nope. One says "we'll just give people money, that'll fix it!" and the other says "we'll just cut taxes on businesses, that'll fix it!"
I just hope that whichever candidate wins realizes that he does not have a "mandate" from the people to implement every policy idea, and swing far to the extreme positions of his party. This is going to be a very close race, and he will have wound up being elected by just a slight majority of the fraction of the eligible voting population that bothered to actually vote. Almost nobody who votes for a candidate agrees with him on every single point; it's quite possible they disagree on everything but one or two issues.
Point is, winning by a tiny fraction does not mean everyone wants radical "change". 90% might indicate that, but 50.7% doesn't.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
...start actually fixing problems.
Or do you mean continue rolling over for other people's interests, since you effectively said, "I don't care"?
I'm learning to flint knap so that I will have the skills I need to make it in the new economy. I am also working on learning how to build an atlatl.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The most illuminating moment on this issue for me came during the first presidential debate. The moderator essentially asked, "What would you give up from your fairy tale budget, since we are going to have a staggering deficit in 2009?" McCain, a fiscal conservative at heart but with near-zero knowledge of economics, offered to freeze spending, except for defense (his specialty). Politically impossible with a Democratic Congress, but at least he realized the magnitude of the problem. Obama, a fiscal liberal who paid attention when Cheney said "Deficits don't matter," wouldn't really cut anything. I got the impression that he knew 2009 would be rough, but he just didn't care, because if he cut spending somewhere fewer people would vote for him. Honestly, there isn't that much the President can do about the economy in the short term. It's their unwillingness to talk about anything beyond November 5 that has me troubled.
Neither major party candidate has mentioned addressing the crushing national debt or deficit spending. If I'm going to listen to platitudes, I want to hear about reducing spending and paying down the debt, not battles over who gets tax cuts.
12:50 - press return.
The economy is a no brainer for me, and I'm not going to duplicate long posts I've already made elsewhere, but it works like this: Bush broke the economy, plain and simple. There were probably other factors, but everything he did only made it worse. McCain voted with him 90% of the time, especially on the economy. People are under some delusion that under a republican president they'll pay less taxes. Not true. Unless you're rich (and if you're not sure, you're not) you'll pay less taxes under a democratic president. But also, paying less taxes doesn't make you richer. if you pay less in taxes, but more in property taxes, mortgages, and gas prices, then where is the savings? And if gas prices rise, then so does transport and your dollar is worth less. And that makes you poor as well. Hell, i'd vote for obama even if he were raising my taxes. I might shell out a hundred extra bucks in taxes, but if I make it up in savings spread out over the year, then good for me.
Seriously, I see the trouble with third parties right now that we don't attack on the ground, so to speak. I find it odd how many people will banter on about McCain this and Obama that but couldn't tell you who their state and federal senators and representatives are or if they're even up for election. These soft targets is where the third parties need to make some headway. Third party supporters would do much better to throw a few bucks to the local and state candidates than they would be to throw it at the presidential candidate but I don't think most supporters do that.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The media have been at best negligent in reporting on the economic issues at hand. At worst, they have been complicit.
The causes of the housing bubble and meltdown aren't a secret. The identities of the people that have been calling for investigation and oversight aren't secret. The names of the people that have blocked every attempt to address the problem for the last 5 or 6 years aren't secret.
Why does the news media consistently accept the bald lies of the people responsible? Why don't they bother telling people the truth?
Does anyone really believe that if the roles of the parties were reversed there wouldn't be serious investigation?
See that "Preview" button?
Nobody's vote counts, and as soon as we realize that we can start actually fixing problems.
So your purposed method of fixing the problems is to allow the same asshats to keep getting re-elected year after year because you don't bother to vote or get involved?
It takes courage and conviction to resist the "vote or die" crowd, but it MUST BE DONE.
Yeah, it takes a lot of courage and conviction to sit on your ass watching American Idol instead of taking 15 minutes to go to the polling place and vote.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Both of the major party candidates have the problem that they view the problems of the economy as something that can be fixed by spending money they don't have. The more the government intervenes, the worse for the economy in the long term. Both candidates supported the bailout boondoggle. McCain's main virtue as a candidate is that he's a different party than the one that will control congress, so that he's less likely to actually spend his money- but that didn't stop the Democrats & Bush from getting together to ram the bailout plan down our throats so it only goes so far. Obama's main virtue is that maybe if we get a few years of unified government it will be so clear to everybody that his fiscal policies suck that we'll get an actual fiscal conservative (whether it be Republican, Libertarian, or other) electing in four years. It was putting forward a fiscal "moderate" like Bush instead of someone who actually cared about spending and then presenting him as conservative that helped us reach the insane spending we have today- we haven't had a good choice on fiscal matters in a long time. Sane fiscal policy isn't cutting taxes and raising spending, it's cutting spending to the point that things are at least balanced, then trading off more cuts with the economic benefits of paying down the debt or cutting taxes.
I will vote for McCain.
I don't trust the Dems not to raise taxes on everyone. Obama already said Social Security was going up, that's a tax increase on all working people. Every time the Dems have said they were going to raise taxes on the "rich" in the last 36 years (my working life), my taxes have gone up. I have yet to make $50K in a year. The last thing this country needs is having the top 3 spots in the hands of Obama, Reed, and Pelosi, I have trouble imagining anything worse.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Your favorite candidate is absolutely terrible and will completely destroy our country. If they are elected we'll all end up subsistence farming and living in tent cities. I can't believe you would vote for them. Why do you hate America?
I find it somewhere between hilarious and deeply disturbing that People can get up there and call Obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people, while at the same time supporting the buying of banks by the federal government, which actually is socialist.
How is taxing rich people any more socialist than taxing the middle class? Were trillions of dollars in debt, this money is going to come from somewhere.
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place? If we want to pretend to be capitalists we have to let businesses fail from time to time, especially when they bring it upon themselves with poor business practices like risky lending, and aggressive mortgages. Now GM is looking for a handout because they can't make a car that anyone wants and somehow thats the tax payers fault. (Meanwhile there's more Honda and Toyota manufacturing in the US than there is US manufacturing.)
It seems our whole economic system is unsound. Its all based on retail sales of mostly useless crap that is designed to fail or has planned obsolesence so you have to buy more. We hardly manufacture anything stateside anymore.
I suggest that we actually start focusing on high tech manufacturing. The stuff that can't be done on the cheap by unskilled labor.
Eschew Obfuscation
It seems obvious to me. They've got this 80 year old cancer survivor, and a very inexperienced (in politics) governor from a state that has it's own rules about most things that are very different then other states.
Why would they try to loose? The economy is in the toilet, the US owes trillions, the US has a very poor foreign image. The Republicans have just decided to let the Democrats deal with the mess. Then for 4 years everyone is getting good and pissed at the Democrats for the lack of jobs, money, government safety nets of any sort (because there is no money for it).
After 4 years, the Republicans can come swooping back in to "save the day" from those socialist Democrats who obviously can't run a country.
Studies and practical experience from other nations have shown time and again that decriminalization, treatment of addiction as a disease and that legal, heavily taxed, responsible use of drugs is far less destructive to society as a whole than a quixotic war to abolish demand for the substances. We live in an era of out of control deficit spending, Afghani warlords funded by heroin money, America losing ground in the economic, political and scientific sectors, and deteriorating infrastructure at home. All that said, how can we justify continuing to spend billions of dollars on prosecuting otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying Americans for victimless crimes? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for prosecuting intoxicated drivers, those who distribute to the underaged, and so fourth; that's exactly what we do with Alcohol. But, I don't see the difference in an adult having a drink vs taking a hit in the privacy of their own home, if they aren't doing anything stupid while under the influence. The government mandating what substances are "OK" and which are "bad" is just another form of government interference and power scope creep. Remember, the war on drugs has been shown to have next to no bearing on the level of demand for the substances in question. Indeed, at most it can hope to reduce supply, which just increases the price for the remaining supply, thus increasing incentive to provide more supply, and so on. You can't fight the market forces with money, and all the treasure we spend on attempting to only ends up enriching the cartels and warlords, many of whom are the same ones we are going after in this "War on Terror". If we want to "win" the "War on Terror", we need to take the funding away from the warlords, and the way to do that would be to start farming poppy in the USA, regulate the usage of the derivative substances, and eliminate the middle man. The prices would drop, and the warlords would lose their cash cow. So, why are we still fighting the War on Drugs? Why is no one talking about ending it?
Additionally, it was mainly Democrats in the late 90s who pushed for banks to give more risky loans, which is one of the major causes of the economic turmoil today (it's certainly not the only cause).
I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to here, but the claim that the Community Reinvestment Act caused this mess has been thoroughly debunked, largely because most of the subprime mortgages were made by relatively unregulated mortgage brokers not regulated by the CRA, rather than banks. Also, the rate of subprime lending for loans made to satisfy the CRA was comparable to the rate for loans in other locations.
If you are instead referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was created and pushed through Congress by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton, so both parties would be guilty there.
I am officially gone from
Most people are sick of the Bushes, the Amadinajhads, the Limbaughs, O'Rilleys, etc. of the world making irrational decisions and offensive statements based on the good book of their God and their hunger for power without doing much of anything to protect, maintain, or elevate the quality of life of the common person.
Here in the US, the reason we have the right to bear arms is because the founders of the Constitution essentially said "If we fuck up, take us out." - point being, the government should act in your benefit only, as that is the way it was intended when it was founded.
Conservatives have proven time and time again they don't think about consequences, and they assume what is good for them is what is good for everyone. I don't know about you, but when I vote, my vote is supposed to count for ME and what benefits me, but also what benefits everyone else around me and everyone else in my country. (Side note: A healthy economy and NOT pissing off the rest of the world with military occupancy is good for my country)
After hearing all this neocon rhetoric over and over and being disgusted (Ann Coulter especially comes to mind), I can't say with any kind of conviction I can morally support anyone with opinions like that.
They've made irrational choices, they've been WRONG plenty of times, and they've outright LIED to us to further their own agendas. Not that liberals don't have some folks who are downright nuts, but by and large the conservative movement has proven itself to be untrustworthy on several fronts and, quite frankly, un-American.
(Disclaimer: Discussion thread. The preceding is my humble opinion.)
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The US is *bloody broken* after 8 years of "conservative" rule, including six years of absolute power, something the "liberals" haven't had for 30 years or so.
Whether liberals are better or not i don't really know. What I do know is of course the average person is going to be pissed at "conservatives". They've sent the US spiraling downwards in a way not seen since...well the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire.
In any case I spend a lot of time on this site and am rabidly moderate and in reality it's about 50-50 liberal/conservative these days. 8 years ago it was a little more slanted, though then it seemed to be wide eyed radical libertarianism that dominated here.
The funny thing is, and I keep noticing it every single time a "conservative" posts, they always whine on about how they'll be modded down by the "liberal whatever", etc etc. But get modded up at about the same rate as anyone else! You lot really seem to a have a *major* persecution complex which is bloody BIZARRE given that it's your party that's been running the US and setting the political discourse for nearly a decade.
You really are all starting to sound like a bunch of bloody whingers.
Man up.
P.S Current US "conservatives" seem more like ultra radical idealists than anything related to conservatism but whatever.
This is the dumbist thing I've heard out of the McCain campain - dumber yet is that people are swayed by it.
Obama's politics aren't even very liberal. If you look globally to other modern democratic nations in europe and elsewhere the democratic party looks like other countries conservative party (and the republicans, they are like right wing nationalists).
We have no viable liberal/progressive party in the USA comparable to what has had a large hand in shaping every other modern democracy. Obama's record hardly shows anything other than mainstream Democrat voting. The only person in all of congress that is label-able as a liberal is Denis Kucinish - he is 10 times more liberal than Obama. And he isn't even close to being a Marxist.
Dumb, just plain Dumb
(BTW, Marx is still an important part of the Social Philosophy discussion and syllabus, Being called a Marxist should be about as scary as being called a Nietzschen or Kierkegaardian - quite silly to use as a derogatory term)
You say that rich people are rich because they make themselves that way. Yet McCain's policies reflect Reagan's "trickle down" philosophy which patently does not work. Rich people are rich because they don't fritter their money away, you just argued your own point away.
Think of these rebates as a form of economic convection, the money being spent and rising up to the rich. If you give people that are not shrewd with their money some extra money, they will spend it freely, injecting that money into the economy, thus stimulating it. It's fairly easy to figure out how this is going to work.
As well, this implication that Obama is a socialist for backing a progressive tax system but moving some numbers around to try and give the little guy a bit of a break is ridiculous. He is raising taxes back to the level that they were at under Clinton, and they are LOWER than they were under George H.W. Bush and Reagan. If anyone is a socialist (and a hypocrite by extension!) in this race it is Sarah Palin who supports massive taxes on corporations with little or no taxes on citizens in Alaska, yet they give out ~$2,000 rebates to everyone regardless of if they work or not. Maybe you should be decrying Palin as being un-American!
Seriously, instead of repeating talking points back and forth, why not do some actual reading about the issues and form your opinion based on that.
I do know is that this talk of un-Americanism would do Joe McCarthy proud.
I'm against Obama's plan to give tax rebates to people that do not pay federal income taxes. I'm sorry, but, if you get a rebate for something you didn't pay for, that isn't a rebate, it is welfare and income redistribution.
I don't like how Obama is planning to turn Social Security into a progressive pay system like income taxes. This is a major retooling of the system. He wants lower income people to start paying less of a percentage (possibly down to a zero point?) yet still recieve full benefits. This is an interesting article describing what BHO is planning to do with SS.
On the other hand, with McCain, he's wanting to start taxing heath benefits on employees rather than let them pay those premiums pre-tax. That BLOWS.
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That he was a little more American
Oh, blow it out your fucking ass. His life story isn't sufficiently "American" for you? I thought being an American was all about overcoming obstacles/adversity and being successful?
not half-Americans or whatever.
I wasn't aware of a blood requirement to attain American citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
Hmm. Born in Honolulu. Seems like he's an American to me......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Everybody wants redistribution of wealth! We just want different distributions (the large portion going to ourselves and those most like us). I will support a candidate that redistributes wealth.
If we want to be fair, however, every American citizen deserves the same, right?
So I also will support a candidate that will also redistribute:
1. organs (not everybody has good kidneys!!)
2. children (let everybody share the responsibility of shaping the future generation!)
3. good looks (it's not fair that some people look more attractive than me. Plastic surgery and/or masks for all!)
4. land (the only thing worth fighting for!)
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
I'll prefix my comments on the economy by saying I'm an American living and working abroad in the financial sector. So I work with some of the issues haunting the global crisis every day.
Direct blame for the mess lies first and foremost with credit ratings agencies (Standard & Poor's, Moody's, Fitch, et al) and credit insurers (like AIG). They continued to provide strong ratings to mortgage-backed securities without considering the ripple effect a housing-market slump would have. Secondly, blame should fall on US regulating agencies (like the SEC), which failed to place adequate restrictions on mortgage brokers. And lastly, blame should fall on politicians for failing to address the problem of excessive consumer and corporate debt. For years the world has known that America's debt-fueled economic growth was unsustainable. And yet for the past six years, few regulative measures were introduced to increase banks' capitalization ratios. Republicans seem more to blame here, as the six years of deregulation were largely Republican sponsored, but Democrats haven't been much better on this issue.
The Bush administration is not directly responsible for the current financial crisis. Note, however, that the Bush administration's spending spree of the past 7 years has put the government in a decidedly weaker position to now deal with the financial crisis. The government is now much more leveraged than it was when Clinton left office, meaning the Treasury has less flexibility to control markets. The USD is in real danger, and the only reason it hasn't collaped is that there's no alternative currency that investors can run to (Europe is hurting just as bad right now as the USA). The War in Iraq was never worth bankrupting our country.
Let me repeat that...
The War in Iraq was never worth bankrupting our country.
The US national debt has increased in excess of USD 500 bn per year since 2003 and broke through USD 10 tn on September 30, 2008. That means USD 33 000 of debt per resident of the USA, or some 70% of GDP!!!!
In 2000 it was just USD 5.7 bn (58% of GDP) and was on its way down.
I don't credit Clinton with producing the strong economy of the time, and am neutral on the net effect of his tax increases, but I do believe one of his administration's best moves was to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
Make no mistake, the USA is in a very difficult position right now, and its global power is diminishing measurably by the hour.
Economic and foreign policy should be THE deciding factors in the coming election. Completely forget about welfare, abortion, gay marriage, global warming, immigration, job outsourcing, socialized healthcare, agricultural subsidies, AIDS, the war on drugs, executive pay, intellectual property, and religion in the classroom. If the American population realized how dire the situation is right now, these would be non-issues in this election. Real issues like the war on terror, dependence on foreign hydrocarbons, education spending, political reform, antitrust regulation, and social security are important, but should take backseat to the two most pressing issues today: foreign policy and the economy (i.e. eliminating the credit crunch).
Issues like interrogation techniques, warrantless wiretapping, and incarceration of enemy combatants without trial should never have been issues in the first place. Suspected terrorists, both at home and abroad, should receive the same protections that any American citizen receives. Period. I'm still terrified that some Americans think otherwise, and absolutely horrified that some politicians agree with them. Warrantless wiretapping is absolutely disgusting, especially considering the FISA already allowed for a court order to be obtained up to three days after wiretapping had commenced. When voting, choose the smartest candidate you can based on the two most important criteria: foreign policay and the credit crunch. For any intelligent politician, the issues of interrogatio
And that is exactly why I'm voting against Obama and McCain. They're both running on an arrogant "I will fix the economy" platform. I'm voting for someone whose platform is more like, "I will try to stop the government from doing obvious harm to the economy, or if I can't do that, I'll at least veto Congress' attempts to further harm the economy." That's an honest and achievable goal.
Of course, my goal of electing such people, probably isn't so achievable. ;) Most of my fellow Americans want a planned economy, since the Soviet system demonstrated such strength and utterly crushed America to finally end the cold war. I don't quite understand their argument, but that's what it is.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The historical data shows that government spending goes up with Republican administrations, and stays constant or goes down with Democrats. Don't look at what they say-- look at the graphs.
It's not often mentioned, but a huge part of the current crisis is runaway government spending, which spiked to record levels under the Bush administration (much of it due to the war, of course-- "this war will pay for itself," they told us).
The Republicans criticize the Democrats for "tax and spend" policies, but the Republican policy, going by what they do (instead of what they say) is "spend spend spend spend spend." They don't bother to tell us, but spending money isn't a "tax cut"-- what it is is a tax on the future.
Anybody remember the surplus under Clinton?
BTW, I love how the moderators mod according to their Operating System bias, which is an obvious abuse of power. That's why discussions of Operating Systems don't belong here.
simon
Where are you voting? My ballot had 13 candidates for president on it (with matching VP candidates all, so I didn't miscount).
And I am as pleased as can be that my next door neighbor has indicated that he is going to throw his vote to one of the 11 "also rans" instead of to Obama.
You in a maze of twisty passages, all alike. You come upon two level 5 presidential candidates.
Now roll for initiative.
Your second sentence is in opposition to your first.
Let's remember that Barr was the author of the "Defense of Marriage Act"; he radically opposed medical marijuana laws, going so far as to create the "Barr Amendment" that prohibited future laws that would "decrease the penalties for marijuana or other Schedule I drugs" in Washington, D.C.; proposed that Wiccans be banned from the military; and voted for the Patriot Act and for the Iraq invasion. He was the leading cheerleader for impeaching Clinton over a blow job, but said that as of this summer it's too late to impeach Bush for his crimes against the Constitution. ("Hey, you've really been ruining the country and violating the most fundamental law of the land! We're going to give you just half a year longer to keep it up!")
He claims to have changed many of these positions within the past few years. Maybe so. But he was either ignorant enough or dumb enough to buy into them a few years ago. In the former case, there's no excuse for an adult college graduate to be that ignorant; in the later, it's not like IQ radically increases in adulthood. (Unless maybe he had a brain disorder that's been treated?)
I'm really disappointed in both the Libertarian and Green parties this year for running washed-up bottom-of-the-barrel nutjob major-party politicians who are recently converts to their respective new parties. Being in a solid blue state (Maryland) I usually like voting for third-party candidates, since it won't effect the outcome of the election and might help ballot access next time around. But I can't in good conscience vote for either Barr or McKinney.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I find it somewhere between hilarious and deeply disturbing that People can get up there and call Obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people, while at the same time supporting the buying of banks by the federal government, which actually is socialist
You're actually right, but its the kind of socialism first described by Alexander Hamilton, rather than Karl Marx.
The dirty secret of American capitalism is that America has always been a socialist country when it comes to home ownership via central banks. Republicans and Democrats have created a system that is inherently socialist at the top and privately owned at the bottom. Like many things American, it anticipates some social ideas, and is a compromise that is ugly on the surface but works very well.
Everyone gets to own their own home, but the government gets either the benefit of property taxes and stability back, or, in the worst case, assumes the risk of the mortgages. Democrats want to bail on the bailout and this basic economic crisis and their role in it, and, if anything finally proves that Bush is an idiot, it was his utter failure to see that if he had claimed responsibility for this mess, then he could have also claimed responsibility for its successes, thus accepting the social goodness of putting 50 million people into homes.
I mean, really, after 30 years of putting people into their own homes, the government is only on the hook for a trillion dollars. Let's, see, a trillion dollars and a few tough weeks on the stock market for pulling people out of the slums and into nice little houses. That's a damned good deal compared to some other stupid stuff we've spent a trillion dollars on.
This is my sig.
Inexperienced Governor? Remember that Palin has more executive leadership experience than Obama. Obama has 295 days in the Senate. That's 9 1/2 months of legislative experience without a single piece of significant legislation to show for it. If you are going to condemn Palin for lack of experience, than you should be voting for McCain because the Democratic nominee has NO executive leadership experience.
Legislative seats (either state or federal) are certainly NOT "soft targets". The great majority of them are carefully gerrymandered to maximize reelection of the incumbent party. The only elected positions even close to level playing fields are city or county-wide offices like mayor (e.g. Gayle McLaughlin in Richmond).
I've heard this statement many, many times. I have seen zero evidence that it's an accurate assessment. I can flush these people out with two words: medical marijuana. Add in prostitution, pornography, gay marriage, stem cell research, and you have a handful of areas in which their preferred government is far from small or non-intrusive. The "conservative" approach to habeas corpus, torture, and secret prisons is the opposite of small government--it's flat-out totalitarian. So my problem, in a nutshell, with conservatives is not that they are conservative, but that they are liars.
Sticking to the economy. I don't think either candidate gets "it". A few things that need to happen IMO for the economy to not only make a rebound but to also be strong fundamentally
1) Outlaw sub prime loans(i.e any loans that have significant bumps in the interest rate or require a significant down payment on those loans.
2) Pay down the national debt. High debt devalues the dollar and increases inflation.
3) Of course we have the distressing situation of American automobile manufactures cut jobs faster than new industries can replace them. Much of this is self inflicted. They should have been converting current vehicle line ups to to hybrids a long time ago. I like the idea of moving to a "green" economy where new jobs a re created in the search and production of cleaner and more efficent products.
It is with some hesitance I say this I am a Republican(albeit a liberal republican) and veteran of the USMC. I think we need to cut our defense budget as much as possible. Close all bases overseas Korea, Okinawa, Japan, those native people don't want us there we pay a lot of money to be there and the actual people who serve there don't like it there either(with some exceptions of course). We have the technology and ability to quickly moves forces to any location on the globe from the US.
Of course I am still in favor of combing the through other branches of the government to look for instances of fraud, waste and abuse and looking for way to make things run more effiecently.
Regarding Social Security we should get rid of the 92K cap. and consider raising the age benefits take effect.
One last thing regarding National health care, I am not opposed to the concept in and of itself I only worry about the tax implications. If it can be done with minimal effect on taxes then it should be done.
That's my take.
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
He devised, organized and ran perhaps one of the most brilliant campaigns in history. He took down the Clintons and the DLC in the primary election. He has managed what will be over half a billion dollars in donations. He hired some very smart advisers too. Good managers (which a president essentially is) know that it is important to hire smart people and trust them; Obama seems to understand this.
Early on in this election season, when asked "how would you act as president", Obama answered "look at how I run my campaign".
Works for me.
If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid get the majorities they hope for.
And they get their guy in the white house - a major radical agenda will be pushed.
They are the extreme left wing of the party and the leadership.
McCain is a moderate republican and would not have congress on his side.
His agenda won't go far.
If you are going to condemn Palin for lack of experience, than you should be voting for McCain because the Democratic nominee has NO executive leadership experience.
If that is your sole criteria, McCain has no "executive leadership" experience either.
I would also point out that Obama has run a national campaign that unseated the Clinton political machine, and managed it very intelligently. If the way he has run his campaign is any indication of how he would govern, I would say he has clearly demonstrated his executive leadership capability.
Palin/McCain, not so much.....
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
USA pop. projected to grow to about 450 mil (50% increase) by 2050 which will make everything below worse
World oil production by 2050 to be about 25% of current rate -- not a pretty picture especially when the third world can't afford fertilizer and transportation of food
Baby boomers leaching off the economy as a greater fraction of the population (me included)
Politicians afraid to ask any real sacrifice of us
Ideas for sacrifice: make cost of living for Social Security about 1% less than actual (for 2009 4.8% vs 5.8%)
Increase tax rates on those who can afford it. Note Bill Gates has about a billion shares of Microsoft stock which pays 52 cents a share dividends which he pays 15% tax on. Likewise for many other folks, just look at company annual reports at what these folks get paid.
Declare energy emergency and push nuclear, wind, geothermal power. We are going to need this power for transportation.
Maximize use of electrically powered trains for transportation.
65 mph speed limit
Cut cost of medical care by setting max price on drugs. No coverage for Viagra.
Just wishing of course since about half the country is listening to Joe the Plumber for advice.
The economy WILL bounce back. What we're going through is big and scary, but for every person (or company) that made big, crappy decisions in the last decade, there is another person (or company) that was smart, saved money, and will swoop in to buy whatever Person/Company A can no longer afford to maintain, be it a house or a bank. So overall, we'll be fine.
But the war... I really don't see why we should be spending billions of dollars to make the whole world hate us even more, no sense mentioning all the lives lost on both sides.
Q1: why are we fighting this war?
A1: Because of 9/11.
Q2: THEN WHAT THE FUCK DID WE DO TO PISS THEM OFF SO MUCH THEY FELT COMPELLED TO FLY PLANES INTO FOUR MAJOR BUILDINGS? I don't think we're making it any better.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Economists need to learn the lesson structural engineers learned in 1940, when the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed.
Structural engineers used to pride themselves on designing funicular structures - maximizing utility with the minimum amount of material. The Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse changed everything. Ever since, structural engineers have recognized that safety, not maximizing utility, is paramount. Building codes now universally require that structures be overengineered.
Now, where is the politician or economist who will publicly state that we should design our economy to be safe, rather than maximally productive? Even in the face of potential economic collapse, all we hear about are bandaids and growth, growth, growth. Anyone who would propose limiting growth in order to provide greater resilience would be tarred, feathered, and flogged.
Why is it so anathema to talk about safety nets? Why, for example, is it so evil to consider that the reason we need universal health care isn't because it's the most productive way to run our economy, but because we should all feel comfortable that basic humans needs will be met, no matter what the goddamn economy is doing? Perhaps economies of scale point to the need for uber-banks; but maybe instead of creating institutions that are too big to fail, we should consider that efficient or not, too big to fail is simply too goddamn big. On and on. Everything in the name of efficiency and productivity; nothing in the name of resilience and safety.
Every politician I've seen to date has been too chicken shit to state obvious truths. I think that's not really their fault, because the system they live in demands it if they hope to ever be elected. I'm voting for Barack, because reading between the lines, I think he gets it. At least more than McCain. McCain has some good local perspective on a few things, but he's just not a big-picture meaning-of-life kind of guy. He might know how to help businesses, but he just doesn't get the point of it all. Try to imagine McCain sitting poolside at a resort sipping a margarita, for example. I can't. To me, that's a fatal flaw.
Option A, Obama and the Democrats:
Option B, Plain, er.. McCain and the Republicans:
The bottom line is that the President is really a face for the country and appoints judges. I think Obama's fresh perspective will make the rest of the world happier (important for our trade relationships, etc.) and his likely choice to leave God out of the courtroom and put Man there instead will be our best bet.
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
You'd be exempt from paying tax on capital gains from small business investments. Such an exemption would encourage investors to buy equity to help finance start ups rather then buying equity in big corporations. In a way, it would dampen the need for small businesses to get loans for capital improvements.
Obama's philosophy is things work better from the bottom up rather then trickling down from the top. Make life easy for those with the least and they'll have a better time making a go of things and moving up the ladder.
Regan, and by extension Bush and the republican party, is about the idea that if you make things easy at the top, there will be more incentive for people to move up. The idea is that you provide a nice carrot at the top of the ladder, and everybody will want to climb up.
When this election is over, I believe history will show this election is the rejection of Regan theory of trickle down economics. We've tried it, and it just doesn't seem to work.
Will bottom-up economics work better? Will our nation have more success by making it easier for people on the bottom rungs in hopes they move up? Only time will tell...
http://www.pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm
In reality, most polls in 2004 showed BUSH to be ahead of Kerry.
I'm still puzzled on how this myth even started, but it's rather clear that for the most part the Polls in 2004 were CORRECT.
It seems to be at the heart of all things political and I can't tell if this is a culture war or a simply a genuine academic disagreement over economic theory:
Is there any definitive answer to whether trickle down economic theory works?
Does flat or regressive taxation make sense to encourage economic growth? Just like many other issues I tend to think the answer lies in the grey areas that our polarized political system seems to ignore.
I see this primarily as a balance between social welfare (not the government program) and economic growth. There's plenty of discussion around this comment but is there any real sense by the crowd here whether these two elements (society's welfare and economic growth/sustainability) are at odds with each other or if this is just more political rhetoric?
JGG
One thing people keep forgetting about is the government is of the people. We elect representatives to do the people's bidding. In theory I know but it happens a lot more than anyone really understands. It has been shown several time if people get up and go vote change does happen. The problem is people as a rule are no longer being responsible for their deeds, words or actions. Take this thread here people are already using tried old quotes, blaming other people and what not. No one is really stating what NEEDS to be done. A much smaller government, lower taxes, limits on power by the elected AND non-elected appointees. And there needs to be punishment IE the bailout should have never happened the banks needed to fail, if they were ever going to, and yes that means people loose there jobs, people loose their money yes bad things! Everyone must understand bad things happen, I don't want them to, but they must when bad ideas fail then they are not allowed to propagate into bad messes for everyone. Look at history banks have failed before, economies have come and gone it is all part of life. Failure weeds out the bad it has to. If we don't get rid of the bad all we are left with is very poor. Does this mean people might get booted from their homes yes! Does this mean people might loose their jobs yes! Does this include me? YES! I have lost jobs before due to companies going out of business but here sit at another job. I am the baseline if I can do it anyone can and if anyone says they can't leave them behind. People have to learn to stand up for themselves. Voting is always important not just this year but always. Be something not a nothing.
Nonsense. There cannot ever be a completely free market. In any game, there have to be rules, and referees to enforce the rules. Without rules, someone invariably will do something extremely anti-social. That ruins the game, and then no one else will be willing to play.
Imagine what your neighborhood would be like if robbery and burglary were not illegal, or if there were no police to enforce those laws. I sure wouldn't want to live there.
In an economic market without rules, someone steals the money, and then the game is over. In a securities market without rules, worthless securities will be sold, the sellers will abscond with the proceeds, and then no one will be willing to invest any more. In banking without rules, some bankers will collect lots of deposits, and then just lock the doors and retire. After a few bankers do that, no one will be willing to put their money in a bank.
Rules and referees are essential in any game, including the game we call "investing".
If you read history, you will discover that Europe had a recession every few years and a depression about once a generation, for hundreds of years. That instability was caused by the absence of rules and referees in this game. The Great Depression was the last big depression, during which rules were put in place to help prevent another melt down.
The recent melt down is caused by deregulation. Many of our financial market regulations were repealed after the Republicans gained control of congress in 1994. Most of the rest were repealed after GWB became president. The SEC stopped enforcing the rest of the regulations, and went to a "voluntary compliance" model, in 2004. Three years after enforcement ended, we had another major melt down.
Every game must have rules, and referees to enforce the rules. And, the referees have to be willing to actually blow the whistle. Without rules and effective referees, people get hurt, then the game is not fun any more, and no one will play.
So we're on the brink of a recession/depression and the Economy is more important than the war. The Economy has ALWAYS recovered, and I am 100% sure it will recover again(Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if it never recovers), but the people at war are permanently dead. Why are we placing a temporary problem before a permanent one? Money can be earned, but we can't revive the dead....
Okay, so you think the majority of the voters are racists. Right now it looks like you're wrong, which is fine by me.
So they think he's a good candidate, but they won't vote for him because he's the wrong colour? Doesn't say much for your friends, does it?
His name is Obama. Changing his name in some not-particularly-clever way tends to be a red-flag that what you have to say won't be particularly insightful or worthwhile. As for media coverage, I've heard plenty about both of these guys in the media, or are you going with the "liberals control the media so McCain can't get a fair shake" angle?
There's that stupid name thing again....Anyway, he has an economic plan, he has intentions regarding the war in Iraq, he has positions on the job market, and on and on and on. Are you simply unaware of what his positions are and unwilling to learn, or are you purposely ignoring them so that you can use the "empty suit" phrase.
So, first he's an empty suit that isn't going to change anything, but he's apparently going to change social entitlements, which you don't like either. At least this is something that we can work with, item, you don't like Obama because you don't approve of social programs to help the infirm, which includes yourself. Fine. Oh, and did I mention his name is Obama? You can stop typing after the second a.
Okay, so what are the secret plans? And also, how small a business was this that you spent 20% of your time in "our offices in the North"?
Obama. His name is Obama. Anyway, in what way do you feel he's like Carter? You're throwing out a comparison with no supporting argument.
Just because you personally seem to be unaware of his positions and unwilling to find out what they are doesn't mean they don't exist. Laziness or ignorance, which is it?
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
To try and motivate the Republicans. Heh, neocon nutjob... that's a funny statement of Palin. She is the epitome of the liberal women's movement. She isn't the stay-at-home mom while the hubby works. She went out and worked and achieved, kids be damned.
With 9/11 we watched as the Bush administration tightened government control over many different areas of civil life. Something that normally we don't like to see Republicans do (they tend to lean towards less government). But the people issued a mandate that 9/11 MUST NEVER happen again (which is impossible), so freedoms were restricted in a vain attempt to discourage the immoral behavior of terrorists. Such is the way it works when you try to change people using the law.
So... it's a weird election. Looking at McCain's plans (which tend to change over time), it appears that he's wanting to let us control more of our money... including areas of health care, etc. People are tired though... and in a way, they don't really want their money, they'd rather pay extra to have the government control their lives. Obama says he can deliver that in a way that will make everyone "happy".
In a way, Bush is more of a pro-socialism Democrat.... his administration has increased a lot of regulation. In fact, I'd argue it was so strong, that it was no wonder that the deregulation of some of the banking/loan rules was so well received by Republicans and Democrats alike (until it was abused... money/power can corrupt good morals).
Personally, I don't think either candidate knows what to do. I predict that under Obama we'll have more government regulation (which as I said, makes sense to the lazy... we may be very "happy" for awhile). Not certain what we'd have under McCain. I think both are fairly unpredictable. Neither is a good leader. Both are extremely arrogant and proud of themselves.
I vote we vote to postpone the vote and see if we can get some good candidates to vote for.
I read a lot on Economics because I intend to go back to school and get a PhD so I can teach during my retirement years. Paul Krugman, recent Noble winner, wrote a book called, "The Accidental Theorist." Now Paul is surely a Democrat, critical of right-wing politics, and inclined toward a liberal government, but he still sounds like a conservative when he talks about Economics. Why? Because there exist some discovered economic principles, proven over time, that even the most liberal Economists don't dispute. The problem is, neither Congress nor the Executive Branch listens to Economists. In the past, when they listened to Milton Friedman we got taxes taken from our paychecks, and when they listened to Alan Greenspan we got pretty good money management. Score: 1 1.
(To ward off a minor distraction; it was Congress, not Alan Greenspan, who dictated the "easy money" policies for sub-standard mortgage loans which precipitated our current situation.)
This election, is probably better analyzed by Sociologists than Economists. The models of crowd behavior certainly show what's going on better than any analysis of public economic opinion. Most of the population is woefully ignorant about even the most basic Economics principles. So, by pandering to the crowd's superstitions, candidates get elected on the size of their fans, not the issues. Here is a nice little article for those with the motivation to read it:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa594.pdf
For those of you who would criticize me for being a libertarian (small "l"), you might like to look at this chart:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/
There is a link on this page to the original article by Paul Graham.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
A better example of single-party government is hard to find, and you want more? Switching which party is in charge won't improve things; forcing the parties to compromise might. If nothing else it will slow them down.
Read this article from an intellectually honest democrat.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Debunked you say?
Legislative changes 1992
Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[7]
In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.[18][19] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.[20]
In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[21][22] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (âoeHUDâ) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[19] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[23]
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities.
The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
It amazes me how little most U.S. citizens know about their government, and how little they care. Politics is certainly not a primary interest of mine, but I educate myself about what's happening.
Rolling Stone magazine has an article about vote stealing in 2008: Block the Vote: Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president? That article is also available as a PDF file.
The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law has another article: Voter Suppression Incidents 2008. A PDF is available.
Neither of those articles discuss how votes are stolen using computer fraud. Slashdot has run 17 stories in 2007 and 2008 about computer vote fraud and electronic voting, listed here in reverse order by date:
West Virginia Voters Say Machines Are Switching Votes.
Black Box Voting 2008 Election Protection Toolkit
How To Spot E-Vote Tampering?
Hard Evidence of Voting Machine Addition Errors
New Jersey E-Voting Problems Worse Than Originally Suspected
The Cost of Electronic Voting
Sequoia Vote Machine Can't Do Simple Arithmetic?
Ohio Investigating Possible Vote Machine Tampering Last Year
Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries
Ohio's Alternative to Diebold Machines May Be Equally Bad
All Fifty States May Face Voting Machine Lawsuit
Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election
Re-Vote Likely After E-Vote Data Mishandling
A Flawed US Election Reform Bill
House To Vote On Paper Trail and OSS Voting Bill
U.S. To Certify Labs For Testing E-Voting Machines
U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines
Really? Did you use Obama's own calculator?
As occurs under some other political systems, I firmly believe the U.S. needs to have on every ballot "None of the above". In essence this would allow the citizens to issue a vote of "no confidence" in the candidates, and cause the system to "reboot" to provide more acceptable choices.
My own prediction is that given a "None of the above" option, a slim majority of all incumbents would find themselves out of work.
All to often, and I believe it is absolutely true in this case, the electorate is voting for the "lesser evil" among the AVAILABLE candidates. (In my opinion voting Libertarian doesn't accomplish the "None of the above" action, as it requires the voter to ignore the Libertarian candidates platform. It also raises the very real possibility that you end up with a candidate becoming elected, for whom no one REALLY voted FOR. This is not a solution.)
My children have hanging in their school halls George Washington's farewell address. I have pointed out the passage warning against parties more than once. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript
My personal, and usually pessimistic, view is that neither of the current candidates can prevent our country from sliding into either a depression (deflation), or hyper-inflation. Either are equally economically devastating. I also hold the view the U.S. is in many ways already a "third world country", and this condition will only worsen.
Ultimately, and I hope I'm wrong, I believe I and or my children will experience a second American Revolution. I hope it's relatively bloodless for my children's sake, but I see little hope of avoiding such an event in my children's lifetime.
Oh, my prescription regardless of party is to excise the Corporatism from the current political establishment. NO Corporate influence, no lobbyist, nothing even remotely like the current afflictions of our existing system. One citizen, one vote, no recognition of other than citizens by any elected official for the simple reason that entities other than citizens are not represented by the Constitution.
Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
This is a conservative talking point that's long been refuted.
Attempts at "redistribution" do not address the mythical lazy guy on the street. Those people exist, sure, but they're a relative minority. The endemic problem is much larger in scale - namely the fact that certain people start behind, whether due to their upbringing in a lower class neighborhood/family or lack of education or simple lack of job opportunities in their area. It's the same thing with affirmative action - it's not as if people are running around rejecting African-Americans from higher education willy-nilly, it's an attempt to cushion the overall trend and provide a more level playing field. Conservatives love to point to individuals, both those who haven't done well due to some perceived laziness or something, as well as those who "have the American dream", but it does not address the overall trend.
Obama does not take this on directly because doing so would be an implicit admission that "redistribution of wealth" is a good thing, which the Cold War mentality has taught us Is Inherently Bad despite the fact that associating this scheme with socialism is pretty out-there and equating communism with socialism is about the same.
No, we aren't seeking investors? Why would we be? The nature of our business doesn't require investors, and I'm guessing the majority of businesses are in the same situation.
I didn't say I was opposed to paying for this. Absolutely I'd support this if I knew the money was being spent wisely.
However, I want to see the government forced to manage its finances in the same way we're all forced to do so. Up until now the government has been operating like a pathetic welfare case who knows that next check will always be coming in.
As I've stated, the Republicans have made an absolute mess of things. They've spent at an alarming rate. The terrorist attacks and the war are a flimsy excuse for how utterly wasteful they've been. And yet they have the balls to come back now and insist that they're going to cut spending and taxes. So you won't get a disagreement from me here.
Beyond that, however, what incentive does the government currently have to cut waste? And I don't mean cutting entire programs. I mean doing careful accounting to identify waste at all levels. Buying overpriced equipment and services, eliminating inefficiencies, cutting staff that's just sitting around doing nothing, things like that. Deal with government agencies enough and the waste becomes glaringly obvious.
And to your last point, that's a huge generalization. So I'm supposed to believe that all wealthy people have gotten to that point on someone else's back? What happened to the notion of hard work?
I've got friends who through persistence and dedication are earning a comfortable living. Are you suggesting that they screwed someone to get to that point.
And are you also suggesting that somehow the poor have all found themselves in that situation by accident? It was all a matter of luck?
At the other extreme I've got friends who in high school, decided hanging out with friends and having a good time was more important than school work. Some of them managed to graduate, but just barely. Years late I've run into a couple of them working at some local retailer almost certainly barely managing more than minimum wage. I also have friends who have put themselves into serious debt because they spent way beyond their means. Was that bad luck, or poor decision making?
Granted, it's not entirely their fault. I blame the parents for not kicking them in the ass and giving enough of a shit to ensure they stay in school.
So it goes back to my point about education. The parents and children alike need to be educated on the importance of education, hard work and planning for the future. They need to be self-sufficient, not depend on the government for handouts. Wealth redistribution doesn't work.
It's as simple as that, and frankly I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.
Just throwing out fuel for the fire: The Obama Tax Plan
- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.
- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.
- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
- The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000.
:
I drank what? -- Socrates
So, Greenspan who ran the government monopoly of money supply, was a libertarian? I had no idea.
... However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he actually believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.
Actually, yes. Greenspan is well-known to have been a lifelong libertarian. The man was a close personal friend of Ayn Rand, for gods sake. Wikipedia:
During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan continues to advocate laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious, given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation.
This is why it was shocking to many when Greenspan made the concession before Congress last week that his ideological model of how the markets worked was flawed.
Exactly. As someone wise once said, "The best government is that which governs least." I'd much prefer gridlock to one party having control of everything, regardless of which party it is. The people who cry "BUT NOTHING WILL GET DONE" miss the entire point. The less government does, the better.
Making fun of dumb people since 2009
Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?
42% of the budget goes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, but presumably most of that money came from direct contributions not income tax.
Dividing your tax among the remainder:
I think the elections are now mere formalities.
The democratic and republican parties are mostly just fountain heads for corporate interests primarily, and secondarily places where people can believe democracy is taking place because they can "vote".
Look what is happening now. We just created a 4th branch of government, and nobody even batted an eyelash.
This fourth branch is far more powerful than the other 3, and the people in this branch cannot be voted out of office.
I am of course talking about Paulson and his Goldman Sacs cronies in the Federal Reserve.
I think personally it is time to start over.
Peacefully if possible.
If not, so be it.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
13. I go first? Great.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
That's registration fraud, not voter fraud.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
Of course, they are required by law to turn in all registrations they receive. They are only allowed to flag registrations that they have reason to believe are fraudulent.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's also interesting that I can tell your political leanings from the articles you cite. It's all about "voter suppression," most instances of which are better known as enforcing the law and trying to prevent fraud.
Nothing about Obama's extensive voter suppression during the primaries to steal the nomination from Clinton. Not enforcing the law types, but dirty tricks to single-out Clinton supporters and keep them from voting. Nothing about ACORN committing massive registration fraud either.
Ever tried giving to charity? Then you can target the specific individuals, groups or unfortunate circumstances you want to positively affect, eliminating the expansive government overhead and waste inherent in such programs. There are even charity ratings sites that tell you how efficiently any charity gets your money to those who need it.
You can give your money away much more intelligently than the government can.
1. Most of the "rich" being targeted aren't CEOs. 300 million US Citizens, assume 200 million are tax payers? The richest 5% of them are 10 million people and their children... Their are ONLY 500 Fortune 500 CEOs, and ONLY 500 S&P 500 CEOs.
None of the ultra-wealthy Wall Street and London traders who put us in the fucking mess we're in were technically CEOs; but, thanks to submissive right wing morons like yourself, they will be able to enjoy most of their ill-acquired wealth tax-free while the taxpayers are footing the bill for their Ponzi schemes.
Consider this: from the 40's to the mid 60s, the top income tax rate in the US and most western European countries was above 80%; and yet that was the time when those economies grew the faster.
The rich doesn't care about your jobs. They will happily give it to enslaved kids in a remote country if it can buy them another yacht. They are not your friends. It's cute of you to think of their welfare; they certainly don't give a fuck about yours.
Fairly straight shooter on economics: http://www.dark-wraith.com/ Dave
It doesn't matter to me who wins - neither candidate has the answer to the economy's current ills because the President is only one part of many that affect the economy.
I tend to think that a monolithic Democrat government will ultimately end up raising taxes and social spending while cutting military spending, resulting in large deficits.
I also tend to think that a divided government will ultimately end up leaving taxes alone, raise social spending and leave military spending unchanged, resulting in large deficits.
Neither one will do anything for the economy, which has to just let market forces sort things out. About all the government can do is make things worse - having lived through Nixon's wage and price controls, and having studied the Great Depression and other panics, recessions and depressions, I see that the federal government can do much to create a shallower but much longer crisis at the expense of a fairly short, deep crisis.
Either way, it doesn't matter to me. My job is safe, I make a comfortable living, but not enough to get hit by Senator Obama's tax hike. I won't see any of Senator McCain's tax cuts, either. I guess I'm too average.
Winning my vote that is. A few months ago, Obama voted for the FISA bill and at the time, I thought he had irrevocably lost my vote. I care about my privacy and in judicial redressal when the government steps over the line. I tuned myself off this election and decided to just vote downticket if there was someone interesting there that I agreed with.
However, I watched the last debate along with a couple of friends. I realized that it would be criminal to let this old angry coot into the White House along with his ditzy sidekick who is more suited to a late night comedy show than the serious business of governing, especially when we are in such a mess. There was a time when I used to find McCain's gestures and way of acting appealing. Even supported him then. However, its clear he has gone senile since. Joe the Plumber does not even have a license to be, ahem, a plumber. He makes nowhere close to the amount of money he would need to buy the business of his employer. And his employer does not want to sell it. The fellow even thinks Social Security and the progressive income tax are socialist ideas. They might well be, but its about the only certainty that people retiring these days can count on.
Plus, I am completely ticked off by McCain's antics - he attacks Obama personally almost all the time, and never gets specific how his tax plan is simply = Obama for middle class / 3 + tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. I can understand how it is impolitic to defend tax cuts for the wealthy in this environment, and why McCain won't come out and say that is what is fighting for. However, that kind of a weasel is not the McCain I knew back when I voted for him.
I am still not happy about Obama's FISA betrayal, but the fellow puts specifics on the board in explaining why he thinks he is better. I do not agree with all of his positions, but at least he is not hiding his plan behind the smoke screen of character attacks on his opponent.
I will be voting early for him to avoid any creative ideas the local Republicans might come out with on suppressing the vote on the 4th.
Between the two major candidates there's just not enough difference between them to effect my vote.
True there is not much difference, but there is some difference, and that is actually important. Large amounts of change can happen in two ways:
We can slowly, incrementally progress towards the desired changes, carefully redirecting our society's momentum in a long slow curve. This is how our two party system has slowly evolved the government throughout history. We did manage to get out of McCarthyism and Prohibition, so all of our evolution is not doom and gloom, and has been fairly peaceful within the country.
The second way is to make a drastic change quickly, with the very real possibility that society will spin out of control. The Civil War is an example of what happens with a large change that comes about faster than it can be assimilated by our society. The violence surrounding so much of the Equal Rights movement indicates that those changes were pushing the limits of our culture's maneuverability. Those were good and necessary changes in our society, but the speed of change came with a price.
If you want to end the War on Drugs, look at which of the two viable options is more likely to end pointless ego wars and vote accordingly. You won't be able to buy or sell marijuana legally anytime in the next four years, but the choice America makes in this election will have a strong influence on legalized marijuana in the next twenty years.
We are all just people.
She is the epitome of the liberal women's movement.
[citation needed]
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities.
The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
That's only one part of the puzzle here. Yes, the CRA encouraged more risky loans, but that alone wouldn't have caused the problems. The banks aren't stupid and they don't plan to lose money on their loans. Nobody forced them to make the loans. They'll only make those risky loans when they think they are covered by insurance. That's what AIG was doing with credit default swaps.
The problem there was that those were deregulated back in late 2000 by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed AIG and others to insure these securities without any disclosure or even a capital reserve requirement, things that are standard for insurance companies.
So, thinking they're covered, the banks start throwing money at everyone, and raking in huge profits on these securitized loan packages that nobody seems to really understand even now. They did it for the same reason that they always do things. Profit. Unfortunately, when the housing market went south, AIG had no way to cover those securities, and thus the banks were screwed.
Compound that with the problems with the ratings agencies and their symbiotic relationship with the financial institutions, the problems with trading software, the rampant speculation even by large institutions, bizarre assumptions about the housing market, and other issues that we probably haven't figured out yet, and you can see that it's not nearly as simple as pointing at the CRA as the source of the problems.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
it's only a distraction away from the real issue of prohibitions against consensual acts and abusive authority
I agree that this issue would be very important, if we could be sure that we'd be around in 50 years. However, my reading of climate science puts that very much in doubt. It would seem to me from rapidly mounting evidence that if we don't take immediate, profound action on environmental issues, there will be no more consentual acts by anyone. Here is a quick introduction to global risk management, although the presenter has since addressed the underlying questions in great and depressing detail in related videos. Of course, if he's right, then our best chance is to boot the corporations out of the government.
Big business will continue to run the government no matter who wins
I disagree on this one as well. Look at whence the two hopefuls are getting their money. McCain's comes largely from corporations, which is pretty much business as usual. But Obama's comes more from normal citizens (a July report put Obama's mean donation around $68 to McCain's $5754 (allowing for loopholes)), and there's a very interesting breakdown of what kinds of citizens here: McCain's individual donors tend to be CEOs and corporatists (and a smattering of the usual rednecks), whereas Obama's tend to be, well, everyone else. A week-old look puts McCain's median inidividual non-loopholed donation at the limit of $2300, compared to Obama's median, perhaps a little under $200. So it is very reasonable to hope that Obama will answer not to corporations but to the people.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Why do I always see PREGNANCY listed as an unexpected unanticipated unplanned thing? It's not freaking rocket science. Birth control methods are so effective and cheap nowadays there really is no excuse for getting pregnant when you don't specifically want to. Never was there a better example of "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail!"
If you have a kid when you aren't capable of supporting them you should be brought up on child neglect charges immediately after the birth. Getting pregnant and then having your life circumstances change beyond your control is acceptable but having a kid by "accident" should be criminal.
We did manage to get out of McCarthyism and Prohibition...
No we haven't. They both simply been more finely tuned to specific targets. McCarthyism hit the liberation movements in the sixties and the Muslims today. Alcohol prohibition netted too many good ol' boys, while today's drug laws nail the poor and minorities. And openly so. But make no mistake McCarthyism and Prohibition are as strong today as they ever were. And the civil war(oxymoron, if there ever was one) goes so far beyond the subject of slavery that it was hardly the real issue behind it. It wasn't a "cultural" war. It was as economic as all others are. A speed bump in the building of an empire.
You won't be able to buy or sell marijuana legally anytime in the next four years, but the choice America makes in this election will have a strong influence on legalized marijuana in the next twenty years.
Not so likely as long as we continue to be distracted by false "crises". Every effort is being made to dumb down the internet into TV in the name of "think of the children". We got "terrorism", an economic "emergency", "OMG! Idol's been canceled!"
It's might be easy for some to say "be patient" because they don't feel the effects directly. In the meantime there are innocent people rotting in prison right now. Some will die there. Thousands of families are being broken by gangland violence(Just another form of terrorism), all fomented by prohibition, not drug use. They should just be patient? Maybe if all of society got a taste of what they go through, we just might see the light and put an end to it a hell of a lot quicker. Unfortunately society's reaction is to become more fascist and demand more of the same. Right now the profit margins derived from prohibition are just too high to give it up so easily, so it won't go anywhere very soon. And the prison industry is the new slavery. BUT! I actually do have faith, but it sure does hurt to see it grind on so slowly. As a victim of the process, I did get a taste of what it's like. So...Sorry if I appear to be a bit impatient.
What?
Enforcement is good. Selective enforcement is of course wrong.
The many allegations were officially made by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, and they are far worse than any allegations I have seen against Republicans.
Did I say voter fraud? No, I don't believe I did. I guess this kind of fraud is okay with you though, as long as it serves your purposes.
so you are saying that because someone was getting paid per registration, and this person filled out a couple of cards fraudulently, that acorn is now a dangerous and criminal organisation? please. if anything, it makes the contractor in breach of his/her contract, and possibly up for prosecution. nothing to do with acorn.
i realise this internet we have encourages free speech, and i would never try to oppose that, but come on dude. put your prejudices aside before you make bold sweeping statements about a third party.
So it is very reasonable to hope that Obama will answer not to corporations but to the people.
Possibly so. We'll just have to wait and see if he gets elected. So far his record indicates he's been pretty much a team player on the things that matter to me. And remember, big money does not play nice with rebels. And besides all that, the general public is fairly reactionary, otherwise people like Bush would never have won in the first place, especially a second time, so I'm just as concerned about populism as I am about corporatism.
What?
Ever tried giving to charity? Then you can target the specific individuals, groups or unfortunate circumstances you want to positively affect, eliminating the expansive government overhead and waste inherent in such programs. There are even charity ratings sites that tell you how efficiently any charity gets your money to those who need it.
You can give your money away much more intelligently than the government can.
There are three problems with this:
First, you assume that a cause you support *has* a charity that's more efficient than the government. I note that you imply that inherent waste & overhead are a government problem but don't look at whether such problems apply to smaller charities. Nor do you discuss the differences in economies of scale between a small operation and a national operation.
Second, under this system only the most popular causes will receive adequate funds and other groups may slip under the cracks. The Federal government is limited in its actions by the 14th Amendment's requirement to provide equal protection under the law. Private charities are under no such obligation.
Think back to the 1950s, before the Civil Rights movements. Do you believe that poor blacks got as much charity and assistance as poor whites? Under a purely voluntary, charity-based system, unpopular groups may end up getting far less support than they may deserve based on their need.
Today, we see much of the same targeted, exclusionary approach in charities based on religious beliefs that turn away homosexuals or other "undesirables" or who require one to buy into some of their teachings before receiving benefit (or at least take advantage of a person in a vulnerable place). Just look at Scientology and Narconon.
Third, I have never once seen someone able to seriously argue that if you remove $X million dollars in federal taxation that $X million dollars (or more) will flow into charities for the needy. Taking away government social programs will NOT result in an equivalent amount of help coming from the private sector (and now out of the generous, goodness of people's hearts instead of from the filthy, grubbing government). All people are saying when they say, "Let the people choose what charity to give to," is really, "Let the people choose to say, 'Screw you, panhandlers,' and not give to any charity. I can obviously make better use of my money than those people, or they wouldn't be asking for it."
Frankly, the social costs of the alternative are why we have programs like Social Security in the first place. We didn't come up with a government program to give money to old people just because we wanted to get rid of the existing charity system. We did it because the old system was wholly inadequate and the social costs of an impoverished and unable to work segment of society (which we will all one-day join) was considered intolerable.
Same as the social costs of people unable to afford healthcare today. It's a drain on the economy and productivity as well as just being inhumanly callous to let people be sick because they're afraid that they can't afford to be well. We're the only wealthy nation that ignores this problem, and it's shameful. If the private charity system were working as people pretend it will, then we wouldn't even be *having* this discussion. End of story.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The real question: will CONGRESS listen to the people? Remember all the president has is the veto in these cases. Keep in mind it is still the same majority that has been there for the last two years and I, frankly, haven't noticed too much difference from the previous 6 years. So far I am not too impressed by the leadership(either party) in either house. The financial crisis was precipitated by carelessness and special interest influence. Responsibility can be attributed to members of both parties over the last 15 years.
or the CEOs of most of the companies out there. It was the fundamental nature of our monetary system and banking itself. It is built into the fabric of our society. Has been for centuries.
e.g.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html
and/or:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436258345
But hey look. There's an election coming! Maybe something will change. LOL.
Deleted
Depends on what kind of dangerous you're talking about. I'm not thinking any kind of violence.
Couple? There are thousands. There were several thousand in just one instance where ACORN employees went to jail.
Let's see... an organization repeatedly violates federal laws and despite assurances leaves in place the exact system that promotes the law breaking (pay per registration) and miserably polices itself. I'd say RICO applies so, yes, criminal.
(3) I don't consider water under MY ground to be public property. *I* was the one who spent $5000 to drill a well into the ground and tap the reservoir, therefore the well belongs to me. The reservoir is runs under several of my neighbors' property as well. If they want access, let them build their own damn wells.
Same argument applies to any coal I find on MY land, or trees growing on MY property, or cows grazing on MY grasses. This is PRIVATE property, not public. I paid $130,000 for it, and it belongs to me, not you.
Other people have pointed out that in many jurisdictions, you would simply be wrong about that water legally. Others have also pointed out that logically and ethically, that's not right either because you are taking the water from under *their* property as well. If they "build their own damn wells," then you're now in a potential tragedy of the common situations if all of you overuse the reservoir. This is why we have the aforementioned legal separation of aboveground and underground property rights.
You note that you "paid $130,000 for [your land]" and thus it belongs to you. Who did you pay that money to, and why do you think that they had the right to sell you the subsurface and water rights attached to it? What gives them (or you) the right to claim as personal property materials shared by all (like water flowing underground) or materials you are incapable of making use of (like coal buried where you can't access it)? What is the moral and philosophical foundation of that property right you claim, and why is it superior to the claims of others? Why do you deserve to able to claim that water and coal?
These are important questions to answer before simply claming, "Mine!" and expecting that claim to be good against the world.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
True if we were talking ONE acorn employee. Maybe even 2 could happen in different states. 3 convictions in 3 states for voter fraud by the same organisation is starting to become less "it's just the employees". How many does ACORN have ?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003982533_acorn30m.html?syndication=rss one instance, 7 defendants, at least 3 guilty, All ACORN, Seattle
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/missouri-acorn-voter-fraud-scandal.html another, 16 defendants, all guilty, All ACORN, Kansas City
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3433 Ohio, 600.000 fake votes
In the conviction (first article) these people state that ACORN management specifically asked them to do this. But don't worry. Obama is giving them "at least 10%" of the $700 billion bailout package. Surely that'll improve their behavior, right ? But it's possible that he just doesn't know, right ?
possible as in "it's possible you get hit by a meteor right now" that is.
A very good point. However, one other thing the president can do is bring eloquence to the table. Obama has that in spades as well as more than average good sense, and I dare to hope that they will give him more power than just a veto.
I don't think he's perfect. I just think that the chances of him affecting things for the better are nonzero, which is more than can be said of McCain.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
....The Federal government is limited in its actions by the 14th Amendment's requirement to provide equal protection under the law...
So you are equating "protection under law" with handouts and forced wealth redistribution? That idea was foreign to most, if not all societies until Carl Marx and those of like mind came along. Before then, charity for the less fortunate was an individual choice rather than a societal coercion. The second commandment God gave was to love your neighbor as yourself. In the early days of our country, most people, even if they did not believe in the Bible personally, gave at least some lip service to that by freely giving to the needy either directly, individually, or through the churches or other faith based organizations.
As for taking care of the old folks, that has for millennia been the responsibility of the next of kin, usually the children. Nowadays we have to send the police after selfish men, just so they will take care of their own children and their mothers, not to mention their aging parents. Human selfishness is a social cost no government can wholly counteract.
Before health insurance was invented, doctors were less money hungry and were interested foremost in the health of their patients, not whether a given patient was able to pay. Many of the old country doctors would treat indigent people for nothing, because in those days people became doctors in order to serve their fellow human beings, rather than having a way to make a big income. Their hippocratic oath still was paid attention to. Therein it says something about not doing harm. Does that harm include taking a person to the cleaners financially?
All theory is gray
If you take out the massive (and I mean massive) ground game.
If you take out his ability to leverage modern technology (do McCain supporters get text messages from their campaign reminding them of key dates?)
If you take out his ability to raise money from small donors and use it to drown out the competition (sounds like capitalism + democracy to me!)
If you take out his oratory skills
If you take out his sane policies
If you take out his levelheadedness.
If you take out all those things, yes, you are probably right, Obama is only brilliant because of these untalked about fear baiting strategy you talk of.
You pick a well thought out, moderate view
There is only one moderate view: it's none of your damn business if gay couples decide to get married, anymore than it is your business that inter-racial couples get married, which also used to be illegal.
Every time someone professes to be an Obama supporter, ask them to name/describe three of his policies. Out of several dozen people I've asked, every one of them tells me he's the new hope, that he's a stable guy, that he's not old... and ONE has been able to actually name three policies. Obama has perfected saying absolutely nothing and all indicators imply he's going to win because of it.
Then you're an idiot that hasn't talked to very many people. Quick, name all of Woodrow Wilson's cabinet members. If you can't do it right now, off the top of your head, it means they didn't exist.
McCain pisses off the liberals by being a conservative, the conservatives by being a free thinker and made the mistake of picking a VP who keeps having opinions about everything, whether they fit the platform or not... and is on course to lose because of it.
More garbage. McCain pisses people off because he's an incompetent flip flopping hot head who can't make a single attack on Obama that doesn't blow back into his hypocritical face.
And Palin? She makes George W. Bush look like a knowledgeable, experienced polititican.
You should probably watch the second debate, then. Compare the two candidate's answers the following question (trimmed for space, full text of debate here:
Brokaw: There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?
McCain: I think you can work on all three at once, Tom.
[...]
[W]e can do them all at once. There's no -- and we have to do them all at once. All three you mentioned are compelling national security requirements.
Obama: We're going to have to prioritize, just like a family has to prioritize. Now, I've listed the things that I think have to be at the top of the list.
Energy we have to deal with today [...]
Health care is priority number two [...]
And, number three, we've got to deal with education so that our young people are competitive in a global economy. [...]
Note which candidate prioritized and which one didn't.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
and both suffer from the delusion (common in managers) that if they don't know much about it, it nevertheless can't be too complicated.
[Citation needed]
Obama has a history of calling up knowledgeable people and asking them for advice, like when he called up SEC chair Bill Donaldson over a year before the financial markets collapsed:
Nope. I'm guessing your aren't from the US. I'm guessing by 'social numbers' you are meaning our Social Security numbers, and no, those have nothing to do with voting. You don't have to have one to vote.
Actually, even when voting in person, there is very little required to prove who you are. Some states have enacted requirements to show photo id, but, some have stuck that down as unconstitutional. Where it has stood as law, is where the law had stipulations that allowed to give poor people an id for free, etc.
But, with an absentee ballot, there is actually very little proof needed. I filled one out, and I think at the most I might have had to have a 'witness' sign on a line that I was who I said I was. I don't remember exactly if I had to do that..I know there was a place for someone to sign.
But yes...it is generally that easy. That is why voter fraud IS important. Hell, it is hard enough keeping illegals here from voting...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So you are equating "protection under law" with handouts and forced wealth redistribution?
No. I'm saying that when we have handouts and forced wealth distribution, we don't get to choose favorites and let the scary brown people or the people with funny hats or the pagans, the gays, or whoever we (as a people) don't like today all go hang because they don't go to the same churches as us or have the same skin color as us or vote for the same candidates that we do.
The second commandment God gave was to love your neighbor as yourself. In the early days of our country, most people, even if they did not believe in the Bible personally, gave at least some lip service to that by freely giving to the needy either directly, individually, or through the churches or other faith based organizations.
And if they were doing such a great job of it, we wouldn't have Social Security today. Can you deny this?
As for taking care of the old folks, that has for millennia been the responsibility of the next of kin, usually the children. Nowadays we have to send the police after selfish men, just so they will take care of their own children and their mothers, not to mention their aging parents. Human selfishness is a social cost no government can wholly counteract.
This is why we cannot rely upon the kindness of neighbors to replace the government. While the government cannot wholly counteract human selfishness, it is in a far better position to mitigate it than small organizations that rely on its opposite. Not only was it ineffective in the 30s, but it would be even more disastrous today.
Before health insurance was invented, doctors were less money hungry and were interested foremost in the health of their patients, not whether a given patient was able to pay. Many of the old country doctors would treat indigent people for nothing, because in those days people became doctors in order to serve their fellow human beings, rather than having a way to make a big income. Their hippocratic oath still was paid attention to. Therein it says something about not doing harm. Does that harm include taking a person to the cleaners financially?
I would agree with the sentiment, but healthcare has changed significantly from the time when old country doctors could carry all the tools of their trade in a handbag and in their heads. If an indigent person has come down with MRSE, a regiment of vancomycin will cost $70/day (plus hospitalization expenses). That comes down to a cost of about $1600 for a full treatment regimen. An MRI machine can cost $2 million to install and $800K/yr to operate. Etc.
While doctor's fees are very high in the US, a lot of the cost of modern healthcare is equipment costs that simply won't go away. Not only can't we rely on doctors to do "the decent thing," like they used but, but we can't even fairly ask them to. Other costs like administrative overhead (particularly from dealing with multiple insurance carriers) and malpractice costs (particularly compensatory damages) could be greatly reduced in a public system in a way that charity-driven operations could not.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So far, the Democrats (who look to have a handy majority) are already meeting in committee and having SERIOUS discussions about taking 401K money and putting it back into Social Security.
With a majority in the House and Senate, and a Democratic President appointing the next two Supreme Court Justices, I'd say we're in a for a long strange time for many years to come, if Obama wins.
If McCain wins, he's forced to possibly replace the Justice who's 88 years old and waiting for a Democratic President before he retires, and he's also forced to appoint a fairly middle of the road Justice or they won't make it through the Democratic Senate. Seems a lot more sane to vote the dead-lock to me, than to vote for far left-wing majorities and no veto power.
People want to vote Obama because they LIKE him, that's fine... but they are ignoring the realities of the checks and balances built into the system which will be negated, and the results will be some really insane laws and changes. We'll see if they like their "real Change that's not a slogan".
+++OK ATH
And the Democrat (yes, Democrat) who brought the suit is a tin foil hat nut job.
But the arguments against this suit amount to saying that nobody, and no entity, in the country has standing. Kind of strange that a constitutional requirement can't be enforced.
Still, Obama's stubbornness in keeping the records sealed doesn't lend itself well to his trustworthiness and claims to desire openness. I bet the simple fact is that it will show the birth certificate Obama released as being a forgery, and that will hurt his credibility.
A very good point. However, one other thing the president can do is bring eloquence to the table. Obama has that in spades as well as more than average good sense, and I dare to hope that they will give him more power than just a veto.
He had the lack good sense to belong to a racist church for about 20 years. Some, reason he never noticed the church was a racist organization. He never noticed ACORN was breaking the election laws. He never noticed that he campaign paid the ACORN group money. I wonder did he notice that he was an lawyer for the ACORN group? Tim S
That's only half the story.
The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis
For the first time in a long time, the Fed Funds Rate was lower then inflation. That is to say, the Real Fed Funds Rate was negative. You couldn't afford to not get a loan! Naturally, this increased the money supply (by definition), and combined with new types of loans that we had never seen before (AIG was the biggest victim of this) because of certain deregulation (another thing we saw during the great depression as you pointed out), it caused borrowing, more money was invested in things you might use a loan for, say, houses, and prices went up. The new money filters out through the economy, rich down, turning good decisions at the time to bad ones (and causing accusations of greed), then when energy and costs of living go up, people couldn't afford to continue payments, and all of a sudden, prices pop.
The last time the Fed Funds Rate was this low was the 1970s. The time before that, the 1920s. Perhaps there is a connection?
The Housing Bubble in 4 Easy Steps
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Yes, I hold it against him that he belonged to a church. All churches are racist, or close enough: "Here's what we believe. We offer no proof. But if you don't believe it too you aren't one of us." But good luck finding a politician who doesn't belong to a church in this rationality-forsaken country. Americans, I've noticed, tend to be indoctrinated pretty early, never having a chance to learn reason before they're brainwashed by whatever religious organisation did the same thing to their parents. You see, humans all have a deep-seated tendency to be impressionable when they're young, and a good thing it is, usually. Some of us, the best of us, can realise our childhood biases and overcome them. But such people are few and far between.
Does Obama still belong to that church? Or did he, upon noticing that it did not respect his personal ethics, leave? If he stopped believing in god or the tooth fairy or what-have-you, then kudos to him, but those who can give up that children's tale after having been brainwashed since childhood are truly marvelous.
As for ACORN, why should I believe you over anyone else? I don't know firsthand what happened, but I find this just as credible as any other source, and vastly more credible than the people running the GOP anti-Obama spin campaign, whom I know for sure have repeatedly lied ("Obama wants to raise taxes on middle class families" etc), exaggerated trivial facts beyond absurdity ("Obama had an acquaintance when he was 7, who later became a terrorist. Cool!" etc...), and, having no message of their own, have done nothing but incite fear, suspicion, and hatred against the "uppity nigger." If you actually still believe their spin machine, I'd love to know why.
If you want a shit-flinging match, you probably ought to name a candidate more ethical than Obama. Ron Paul probably qualifies, but I don't believe that any other current candidate comes remotely close. If you're interested in the truth, you should fling all shit equally, try hard to find what washes off, and see which candidate really ends up smelling the worst.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
In the normal view of politics, Democrats are leftist, Republicans are right. Democrats *generally* agree with socialism as a solution, Republicans don't. Centrists might go either way.
I'm a SLIGHTLY right of center, centrist... who likes to vote either to dead-lock the system (so they HAVE to work together and insane ideologues aren't in FULL control), or anti-incumbent... as in "Well, I don't know who this moron is, so he must not be representing me very well, or something great would have come out of his being in office."
When you say "things staying the same", what particular "things" are you talking about? Let's have a real conversation, not a platitude phrased in the form of a cliche'.
Reality is: Change happens no matter who is President.
The things a PRESIDENT has control over are vetos over BAD legislature, and Supreme Court appointments.
They have influence but NOT CONTROL over all this stuff BOTH idiots are promising the public.
The public apparently didn't pay attention in "Social Studies" or "Civics" class. Or they just like the rah-rah and can't be bothered to stop and think very often. Probably both.
As far as the 90's go... 90-93' was G. W. Bush, and 93 through the turn of the Century was W. J. Clinton, so I'm not sure what your point is. Want to make a real assertion about what you think happened with real details?
If you want to go back that far, we could go ALL the way back to Carter and the laws and systems that essentially FORCED banks to lend to 30% more people than they ever had before under the banner of Fannie Mae "guarantees" which were EXTENDED under Clinton... everyone's enjoying pointing at the Republicans saying their lack of oversight is "causing" the current credit/finance problems, but no one wants to go back and point out that 30% of the people who HAVE loans, simply should NOT. They never could afford them, and still can't.
That particular fiscal disaster is NOT over yet. People who HAVE to move to follow a job or whatever... is a LARGE percentage, and they're going to be in serious pain for years to come, trying to get banks to accept their short-sales, or paying off huge losses in the property they never should have purchased in the first place.
Ahh well, I'm just a spectator, and trading the market whether it goes up or goes down. The best rallies always happen during a bear market... down down down we go... normal 7 year cycle... recession's just starting. Get used to it. Neither Obama NOR McCain can stop it.
I just feel that under Obama, we'll see some really bad legislation passed along party lines, and he will be forced by his party to swallow hard and sign it, even if he is a good person and disagrees with it. At least SOME of it.
+++OK ATH
Wrong. The panic of 1907 is exactly same as today:
A Republican moralist in the White House.
War fresh in [public] mind.
Immigration fueling dramatic changes in society.
New technologies changing people's everyday lives.
Business consolidators and their Wall Street advisers creating large, new combinations through mergers and acquisitions, while the government was investigating and prosecuting prominent executives--led by an aggressive young prosecutor from New York.
The public's attitude toward business leaders, fueled by a muckraking press, was largely negative.
The government itself was becoming increasingly interventionist in society and, in some ways, more intrusive in individual life.
These are views from 1907. See the similarities?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer