Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Zythryn]

I am still amazed by the use of the term 'socialism'.

Nitack, can I ask you if you believe we currently have a socialist system?

Do you believe we will not have a socialist system if McCain gets into office?

When you say sound financial policy, what past administration do you believe is an example of 'sound financial policy'?

[C1ay]

When you say sound financial policy, what past administration do you believe is an example of 'sound financial policy'?

 

I'm thinking perhaps Coolidge...:shrug:

[Nitack]

I am still amazed by the use of the term 'socialism'.

Nitack, can I ask you if you believe we currently have a socialist system?

We have a partially socialist system that is moving more and more in that direction each year.

 

Do you believe we will not have a socialist system if McCain gets into office?

We will still have our socialist system under McCain, however he does not have plans to expand the socialist society. I don't like him either by the way.

 

When you say sound financial policy, what past administration do you believe is an example of 'sound financial policy'?

Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson... some one before FDR and the Ponzi Scheme we call Social Security.

[modest]

What might be the consequences of exiting Iraq prematurely?

 

“Premature” is probably a matter best settled in some thousand page history book in your local future library, but the consequence I laid out was a spending cut - billions per month if I’m not mistaken. It’s hard to ignore that gorilla in the room if you’re talking about the budget.

 

We are there at the request of their new government. Might a better alternative be a negotiation for that new government to step up to the plate and pay for our services?

 

Well, clearly - if we could get countries to pay us to occupy them then our economic woes are soon to be behind us. Is Sierra Leone still in need of some occupation? I hear they have diamonds. That might work out. Another good idea... we could rename Blackwater to The East India Company - give them a few countries to manage on their own and they give us the excess profits. Blimey... that might just work. Get us some plunder.

 

Electing politicians that promise to continue doing more of the same will not fix the problem. "None of the above" should really have a landslide victory this election season.

 

This taken along with your comments about the lesser of two evils (and Nitack’s comment above) is a common sentiment. But, I think a lot of people are confusing the direness of our present circumstances with the applicability of either candidate. Can Obama or McCain balance the budget in their few years at term? Clearly not. McCain’s promise to continue Bush’s tax plan makes his promise to balance the budget ridiculous. Obama recognizes that the social programs he promises along with economic woes makes balancing the budget impossible - and he makes no promise to do so.

 

But, what seems to be missed here is what would be the truly irresponsible thing... actually balancing the budget in the face of a very quickly slowing economy! The fact that neither candidate can accomplish this is not a sign of weakness of either candidate - it’s simply a reflection of our current situation. Whoever the next president will be is going to be left with the task of mitigating a disaster. Several disasters in fact - foreign policy, economic, and social. The lesser of two evils is so by default through no fault of their own.

 

If anybody here thinks they have a solution in hand then let it be known - but I fully reject that balancing the budget is what this country needs right now - and I know of no economist that has said otherwise. What we probably need most is confidence and a sense of leadership. Some of the greatest presidents this country has ever seen have taken the wheel in times of trouble - and it’s not too hard to spot greatness here.

 

~modest

[Zythryn]

I'm thinking perhaps Coolidge...:shrug:

 

Good choice, thanks for the link. There is much to like about his economic policies. There are some valid critisms of it as well, but overall, I think more good than bad.

[Nitack]

If anybody here thinks they have a solution in hand then let it be known - but I fully reject that balancing the budget is what this country needs right now - and I know of no economist that has said otherwise. What we probably need most is confidence and a sense of leadership. Some of the greatest presidents this country has ever seen have taken the wheel in times of trouble - and it’s not too hard to spot greatness here.

 

~modest

 

I think you confuse greatness with charisma... There is nothing special about Barack Obama besides the fact that he is an eloquent speaker. He has no revolutionary ideas, he is not a visionary, he has not accomplished anything remarkable during his time in congress.

 

I do have a solution :shrug:! Spending more than you take in is pure financial stupidity. There is no economist that would disagree with that. However, there are times, like now, when the government will be required to spend money that was not planned for. The problem is that in a business, you use the years where there has been a surplus of cash to build up a cushion for the unexpected or down turns. Rather than sock a surplus away for emergencies or pay down our liabilities, our politicians always want to pander to voters and either give it back (the right choice unless you owe 10 trillion dollars) or find some new way to spend the money that will buy votes for you (pork/social programs, the epitome of irresponsible financial policy). Neither dominant party would do the responsible thing given the chance. Republicans would push for tax breaks rather than pay down our liabilities, Democrats would try to spend it like a five year old who just got a dollar.

 

The real problem WE have, is that our politicians have no stake in sound financial practices. Why? Well because most of the current stock will be dead when the system melts down. So why should they care? As long as they are in office they are powerful and make lots of money. They keep buying votes in one way or another, all the while paying for those votes out of the pockets of younger, and yet to be born generations. Social Security is projected to go bankrupt by 2040 according to the latest trusties report. I will be 65 in 2045... can you tell why I am just the least bit bitter about the government stealing from me twice a month?

[Thunderbird]

Gloat now but be warned about what you wish for:

 

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” “From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

 

Obama is clearly the candidate in the current lot which promises the most benefits from the public treasury. If he gets a Congress willing to make those gifts a reality our descendants will pay heavily for our mistake.

 

 

Being a science buff I tend to study living things in a way that enables me to understand its nature. Environmental origins, relationships developed within a selected environment, cyclical behavioral patterns, so on and so forth.

 

If you can gain a certain level of insight into the nature, or intent of life you can start making tentative predictions on how they may behave in the future, or in the case of man, gain some perspective on the “why’s” that may have lead him to make certain decisions subsequently leading to a position of leadership and power. In this fascinating case a presidential candidate named Barak Obama. How can we predict how he will use this power?

 

I hear this rhetoric that Obama is fooling people into believing that government under his leadership will be able to spend taxes giving free money to people. I do not think that, nor do I think others believe that. People, a majority anyhow tend to be more realistic . This is a misunderstanding generated not on the part of Obama or his supporters, but rather on the cynical that tend to think you can always boil things down to the have and have not ratios of a limited amount of wealth and resources .

I have studied this fellow pretty closely and have had what I feel is some insights about what makes him tick as a person, what may be his nature that drives him as a leader. For starters,.. he is not your average politician. At his center is not an ambition of power elitist, but rather someone that feels compelled to reconnect to something that has been lost.

 

I remember him saying something about his past that his roots were “scattered to the four winds” after I had studied the choices in his personal path that seemed to always take the direction of a man with the need to connect and cultivate relationships on the community level. Why did he make these choices and sacrifices when he could have very easily went straight into cooperate law and become very successful attorney ?

 

A cynic would say he was only padding his resume for a higher office. I believe the truth lies in his early life experiences. loss of parents of diverse back grounds off set with the guidance of a no nonsense Kansas raised white grand Mother. I think, from what I am observing this is a man who has at his core a genuine appreciations of American values of family, diversity, relationships, and intellectual curiosity over personal power. Call be naive if you will, I could be wrong, but this is what I see. But do not misrepresent my position by assuming my intent is to gain something for nothing. Understand we are going to need to work and sacrifice collectively to rebuild the country. The work will be expected to be done by us. If you pay attention the promise has been made from this man is this... If you will work with me to rebuild this country, I promise I will work for your best interest. I’m in, 100%.

[Zythryn]

We have a partially socialist system that is moving more and more in that direction each year.

Ok, so we have a partially socialist system, we would have a partially socialist system (even if it is 'more socialist'). If you call the partially socialist system 'socialist' under Obama, why not call the partially socialist system under McCain socialists?

 

We will still have our socialist system under McCain, however he does not have plans to expand the socialist society. I don't like him either by the way.

 

Understood, but calling one socialists and not the other does not seem justified.

As for expansion, are you speaking of the universal health care? Both propose they are for different forms of universal health, although McCain's version isn't ... well... universal:shrug:

 

Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson... some one before FDR and the Ponzi Scheme we call Social Security.

 

I like what I have read of Coolidge's economics. However, any of those pretty much require a major shift and dismantalling of SS, Medicare/Medicaid and many other programs. I do not see either canidate, planning to do that. Ron Paul may have been your best bet for that route.

Given that, McCain's campaign is making major use of fear and misinformation tactics. Obama's is mainly saying, 'here is what we need to do'.

 

I would rather vote based on hope than fear.

[Nitack]

Ok, so we have a partially socialist system, we would have a partially socialist system (even if it is 'more socialist'). If you call the partially socialist system 'socialist' under Obama, why not call the partially socialist system under McCain socialists?

 

Because one would expand socialism as much as possible given the chance and the other would repeal it as much as possible given the chance. Just because I work for an organization with a particular view point or policies does not mean that I agree with them. Likewise, just because a President is serving as the head of a quasi-socialist republic does not mean that he believes in or is a socialist.

 

Understood, but calling one socialists and not the other does not seem justified.

As for expansion, are you speaking of the universal health care? Both propose they are for different forms of universal health, although McCain's version isn't ... well... universal:shrug:

 

It is justified, see my above example. As for Universal Health Care... the idea that every person has a RIGHT to health care is a horrible joke. You can not have a right to something that requires some one else to provide it to you. What good is your "right to health care" if no one wants to provide it? Will you force doctors to treat patients at gunpoint or on threat of imprisonment? Quite frankly, the entire federal budget (DoD, SS, M/M, etc) is not large enough to pay for the standard of health care we have in this country. There are limited resources, and people have unlimited wants. That truth needs to be reconciled.

 

Do you know how "Universal Health Care" works in England and Canada? If you are a 20 year old and diagnosed with a nasty form of cancer, the system will do everything possible to cure you :shrug:. What about when you are 65 though? Unless the form of cancer is trivial to cure, you will be made comfortable, but the system will not invest heavy resources into extending your life by 5-10 years. Do you think the US is ready to see Grandma and Grandpa "made comfortable" but left to die? Those are the tough discussions that a universal system requires.

 

Additionally, people calling for universal health care will see the most dramatic re-institution of a class based system that we have seen since before the civil rights movement. Why would the best doctors in the world go through the headache of being forced to see too many patients, for low reimbursement rates? Why not set up a boutique practice (these are already being set up) where the doctor gets better pay, seeing less patients and being able to spend more time with each one? It is already happening. The wealthy will simply pay the best doctors more than the federal system and we will see the best doctors gravitate towards a truly rich private sector practice.

 

Finally, most people don't understand the McCain plan considering the very well funded misinformation campaign that the Obama camp is running. McCains plan would take the tax incentive away from employers to provide health insurance and instead give each individual a more generous tax incentive. That means that your health benefits are no longer attached to your job, and that you can chose your plan, not the plan that your employer has chosen for everyone. Will employers drop plans as the Obama camp claims... yes. Why? Because individuals will be able to get their own plans independent of an employer.

 

I like what I have read of Coolidge's economics. However, any of those pretty much require a major shift and dismantalling of SS, Medicare/Medicaid and many other programs. I do not see either canidate, planning to do that. Ron Paul may have been your best bet for that route.

Given that, McCain's campaign is making major use of fear and misinformation tactics. Obama's is mainly saying, 'here is what we need to do'.

 

I would rather vote based on hope than fear.

 

This was an interesting point during one of the debates. Obama was asked how he would alter his plans given the current financial situation and in a very vague and non-committal way, his answer was that he wouldn't. You should be fair, that BOTH campaigns have been using fear and misinformation. I cited an example above about the fear and misinformation campaign that the obama camp is using.

 

Why vote based on FALSE hope? Why does no one acknowledge that we are facing a looming financial crisis that makes the last two years look like a calm breeze compared to a hurricane? We can't afford the programs we already have, and we are going to expand them?!?! How does that make sense? Where is the logic?

 

It is sad that I am starting to look forward to an Obama presidency just so that he can bring on the financial melt down quicker and then we can hopefully get back to some degree of sanity. You think right now is bad? We should all be prepared because the USA is running head long into a complete financial meltdown, depression, food shortages, food riots, poverty, unemployment, the whole shebang. I will take no pleasure in saying "I told you so", but I will do it just to drive the point home that the populist/socialist/entitlement values of people today is the cause.

[Pyrotex]

...Do you know how "Universal Health Care" works in England and Canada? If you are a 20 year old and diagnosed with a nasty form of cancer, the system will do everything possible to cure you :shrug:. What about when you are 65 though? Unless the form of cancer is trivial to cure, you will be made comfortable, but the system will not invest heavy resources into extending your life by 5-10 years. Do you think the US is ready to see Grandma and Grandpa "made comfortable" but left to die? Those are the tough discussions that a universal system requires.....

Okay. Let's say that is correct.

 

But if Grandma and Grandpa are wealthy (or they have affluent grandkids) nothing is stopping them from adding 5-10 years to their lives at their own expense.

 

Which is exactly the situation we in the USA have now. If the family is affluent or has good insurance, Grandpa and Grandpa can live another 10 years. If they aren't, they are "left to die".

 

I am not saying you are wrong. I'm not questioning your facts. What I'm questioning is the validity of condemning British Universal Health for not financing "maximum possible" life extension for Grandpa, when (1) that doesn't prevent Grandpa from paying for his own operation if he has the insurance or assets, and (2) we in the USA already live under a system (?) where if Grandpa doesn't have the insurance or assets, he also gets to be "made comfortable and left to die". Actually, with Medicare, he gets to be "made mostly comfortable and left to die slowly."

 

I think we could afford Universal Health for everyone up to 65, and leave it up to the individual to plan for their own health care after that. What do you think?

 

PS: FYI, I'm 61, have moderately severe health issues, and cannot afford private insurance after I retire.

[Nitack]

Everyone on this forum needs to see I.O.U.S.A. It is a documentary about the financial crisis we are facing that politicians don't care about/ignore in order to keep buying votes, and the general public is ignorant of or tries to ignore. We are facing a financial meltdown people. We already owe $10 trillion dollars, and that is just the government. Do you realize how much money that is?

 

10,000,000,000,000

 

That is about 72% of our entire GDP last year. Do you know how much we are paying off of that debt each year?

 

NOTHING

 

Yes our debt is in fact growing more and more every year. We owe a half trillion dollars a year just on the interest of that money we owe.

[Nitack]

Okay. Let's say that is correct.

 

But if Grandma and Grandpa are wealthy (or they have rich grandkids) nothing is stopping them from adding 5-10 years to their lives.

 

Which is exactly the situation we have now. If the family is affluent and has good insurance, Grandpa and Grandpa live another 10 years. If they aren't, they are "left to die".

 

I am not saying you are wrong. What I'm questioning is the validity of condemning British Universal Health for not financing "maximum possible" life extension for Grandpa, when (1) that doesn't prevent Grandpa from paying for his own operation if he has the insurance or assets, and (2) we already live under a system (?) in the USA where if Grandpa doesn't have the insurance or assets, he also gets to be "made comfortable and left to die". Or even worse, "made comfortable and left semi-comatose on life support for 5 - 10 years".

 

What do you think?

 

Very few people (less than 1%) have the ability to finance those kinds of treatments out of pocket. Most of those procedures and treatments are financed through our current health care system of insurance, which would cease to exist if universal health care became a reality. I get the point you are driving at, but it is an inaccurate analysis.

[Zythryn]

Likewise, just because a President is serving as the head of a quasi-socialist republic does not mean that he believes in or is a socialist.

 

Which is exactly my point. Why call Obama a Socialist?

I don't see him expanding Socialism.

 

You can not have a right to something that requires some one else to provide it to you.

So you don't believe people have a right to clean water?

They don't have a right to freedom provided by our armed forces?

They don't have a right to basic education?

 

 

Finally, most people don't understand the McCain plan considering the very well funded misinformation campaign that the Obama camp is running. McCains plan would take the tax incentive away from employers to provide health insurance and instead give each individual a more generous tax incentive. That means that your health benefits are no longer attached to your job, and that you can chose your plan, not the plan that your employer has chosen for everyone. Will employers drop plans as the Obama camp claims... yes. Why? Because individuals will be able to get their own plans independent of an employer.

 

This is my understanding, McCain will give families a $5000 tax credit for health care. Remove the tax incentives for employers so people will be encouraged to buy their own health care.

I think is is a good thing to remove the tie between a specific job and your health insurance.

However, I can't get health insurance for the price my former employer could. Removed from a system where I am part of a group, insurance companies actually would not insure me at all if it were not for a law that required them to.

 

As for Obama's plan, it doesn't destroy the current system, it builds on it. If you like your current plan you can stick with it. If you don't have a plan, it will give you options to get one.

[Zythryn]

Oh, and as for debt, yes, it is critical that we get it under control.

I trust Obama to do that more than McCain and ESPECIALLY more than Gov (I was for the Bridge to Nowhere before I was against it) Palin.

[Nitack]

Which is exactly my point. Why call Obama a Socialist?

I don't see him expanding Socialism.

 

He wants to take more money from individuals who can afford health care in order to provide it to those who can not. That is pure socialism. If you don't understand that it is a socialist ideal and goal, then there is no point to further discussion.

 

So you don't believe people have a right to clean water?

They don't have a right to freedom provided by our armed forces?

They don't have a right to basic education?

 

These issues are exponentially more complicated than you make them out to be. There is also a huge difference in your right to have something and requiring others to provide it to you.

 

Do you have a right to clean water? Yes, but you don't have a right that requires another person to supply it to you. And this one gets especially complicated when you start examining how society in general pollutes natural resources.

 

Do you have a right to freedom provided by our armed forces? You are combining two entirely different concepts, both rights. The right to freedom is intrinsic, and one of our "inalienable" rights. The right to self defense in support of that freedom, yes as well. That does not mean that another person is required to supply those rights to you. You have the right to freedom, YOU have the right to defend YOURSELF.

 

Do you have a right to a basic education? Yes, you have the right to learn. Do you have the right to require some one else to teach you, no. What if no one wants to teach you. Do they not have the right to refuse?

 

This is my understanding, McCain will give families a $5000 tax credit for health care. Remove the tax incentives for employers so people will be encouraged to buy their own health care.

I think is is a good thing to remove the tie between a specific job and your health insurance.

However, I can't get health insurance for the price my former employer could. Removed from a system where I am part of a group, insurance companies actually would not insure me at all if it were not for a law that required them to.

 

As for Obama's plan, it doesn't destroy the current system, it builds on it. If you like your current plan you can stick with it. If you don't have a plan, it will give you options to get one.

 

Wow... did you go to the Obama website to pull that sound bite? I said UNIVERSAL health care (UK style) will destroy the current system. None of what you have said changes the fact that we can't afford the current social programs that we have and will not be able to afford an expansion of it. Spout off all the idealistic rhetoric you want, it does not change the fact that none of this is sustainable.

 

While we are talking about your hero's wealth redistribution programs. Why should I have my money stolen to pay for other peoples retirements/health care/welfare? I worked hard to get through school, both in class and at a spare job. I joined the US Marines in order to get college benefits. My parents STILL had to help me out to get through school. It is no different for my parents either. How is it that the sacrifices we made and investments in our futures that we made means that we owe more? Think of a doctor or lawyer who comes out of school having lost 4-6 years of their life to more school, and most with debts in the six figure range. What is their reward? More robbery.

 

The socialist/populist movement is rooted in the idea that everyone is entitled to the same standard of living. Guess what, everyone is not entitled to the same standard of living. A high school drop out should not expect to be living the same lifestyle that I do. They did not sacrifice the years and resources that I and my family did in order to have a better life. It is not about class warfare, it is about rewarding those who had the foresight and put in the hard work in order to make a better life for themselves and their families.

[Nitack]

Oh, and as for debt, yes, it is critical that we get it under control.

I trust Obama to do that more than McCain and ESPECIALLY more than Gov (I was for the Bridge to Nowhere before I was against it) Palin.

 

Oh really? So your answer to getting our debt under control is electing a candidate who has flatly said that he wants to spend more money and it not willing to compromise... :shrug: I am not trying to be insulting here, but genuinely do wonder, have you actually researched their records and understand their policies?

 

For the record... McCain is the only one of the four that actually has a record of fiscal disciplined and trying to clean up government spending, waste, fraud, and abuse. He is also the most highly rated Senator for fiscal discipline by The Citizens against Government Waste and Abuse. His diatribes on the senate floor calling out his fellow senators for their pork are legendary. You are right, Palin is a tard and a lair. But McCain is a true fiscal conservative. His judgment (or complete lack of) in running mates has lost him any chance at getting my vote

[Thunderbird]

The presidential election

 

It's time

Oct 30th 2008

From The Economist print edition

 

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

 

 

the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

 

Barack Obama should be the next president of America | It's time | The Economist