Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Nitack]

Yes, Nitack, we all understand the problem. But, do you understand the choice needed to fix it? Take a look at your suggestion:

 

You do know that 8 years ago we had a candidate who offered to do this exact thing... yes? A "Surplus Reserve Fund" :eek2: And now you claim neither party has the sense to do this :( Amazing.

 

GWB was by far not an ideal president, in fact he is probably the worst ever. You also have completely left out the part about 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the Mortgage Meltdown. There were no surpluses after 9/11. I don't agree with the war, but that was a major reason why any sort of reserve fund could not be established.

 

You're clearly throwing around blame every which way from where it belongs. If history is any guide then Dems will do a fine job with this economic crisis, and the country knows it. Our collective memory is not that short.

 

~modest

 

I think you will look back and see that this is a false statement. Despite your ardent support for the dems, especially the Clinton years it seems, they are not all the grand. The policies of the Clinton administration set the stage for our mortgage meltdown. They demanded that banks put aside lending standards that had developed over decades in order to finance more home buying for otherwise unqualified buyers. The nail in the coffin was the deregulation by "W" that took away the remaining check to keep things from spiraling out of control. There is plenty of blame to go around, and the Democrats deserve their fair share.

 

Perhaps, but in the three examples I listed, the government must act to provide these things.

The local government cleans the water and processes sewage. You pay for this so essentially the government is taking your money to provide clean water for many Americans.

 

Negative. Plenty of people use a well/septic setup. The government provides them with nothing. Those individuals pay for the well to be dug, the septic field to be set up, and to maintain everything. Lets look at this... If clean water were a "right" in your example... what happens if you can't pay your water bill? If it were a guaranteed and protected "right" then the company could not shut off your water. No, municipal water is a service that you pay for, not a right.

 

Likewise, the government maintains armed forces. Yes, if the Canadians invade (I am in Minnesota) I have the right to defend myself. But the government also has the responsibility to defend me. Again, you are paying for this (which I appreciate:)).

 

Freedom is an intrinsic right, every person has it just by being born. A military is established to protect the right you already have, not to establish that right.

 

No, I got it from the commercials which you are saying are lies. My question, which I apparently didn't word very well, was which part of that is a wrong?

 

I see the merits of the Obama plan, he is looking to offer a government subsidized plan for those who can not afford to purchase their own health care. My problem with it is that he is basically looking to establish something along the lines of how Medicare Part D was set up. My problem is not with his plan, I see the noble sentiments, my problem is with the fact that we can't afford the current system. Medicare will be BANKRUPT by 2018, that means we will have to draw money from the general fund or raise payroll deductions. Now Mr. Obama is proposing that we essentially expand that plan to include everyone. It will only put us into the financial red faster.

 

You are absolutely correct, and I never said it did. Other things need to be done to bring spending under control. We did it in the 90s, I don't see why we can't do it again.

 

It is not really as simple as that. There are different pools of money for spending. The spending that they brought under control in the 90's was the general fund. SS and Medicare/Medicaid deductions go into different spending pools or trust funds. Those programs have had a surplus every year for a very long time and rather than having that money be kept where it should be, the government has taken that money and written an IOU to the trust funds. We are very soon going to no longer be in the black with either fund and then it comes time for the government to pay back what they borrowed, out of the general fund. That means money has to be taken away from every other government expenditure to pay back those debts. DoD, Health and Human services, Department of Education, Agriculture... everything. Or, they raise taxes/lower benefits in order to not have to pay back the IOU. This IOU is the 10 Trillion dollar debt that you always hear about.

 

Here is what most people don't get, back in the 90's the general fund was in surplus, but rather than pay back all the money that had been borrowed, the legislators either cut taxes or expanded programs. Despite the raving Democrats in the forum who won't face up to that fact, it is a fact. The government owes a crap load of money to the American public in the form of Social Security and Medicare that was promised to them as a trade for paying out of every pay check earlier in life. But the government robbed those funds to pay for all of the programs that they wanted to run that had nothing to do with SS or M/M, think DoD, HUD, Welfare, etc.

 

If you consider taxes as 'thievery' then I again don't see why you single out one canidate over another. Your taxes under McCain will most likely be higher than they would be under Obama.

My answer to you is this...

Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality.

Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University

 

I think your initial unspoken assumption is incorrect. Your assumption is that Obama is a proponent of the socialist/populist movement.

 

Must I bring up the infamous "spread the wealth around" comment?

 

Using your definition, Obama has never promoted the idea that everyone is entitled to the same standard of living. In a recent speech, he very specifically spoke of personal responsibility and hard work.

I agree with you that a high school drop out should not expect a high standard of living. But not everyone that did work hard always gets a fair shake. Medical bills are a huge contributor to bankrupcies. The cost of healthcare is one of the reasons our auto companies are in such bad shape. And society as a whole, in my opinion, benifits when we give everyone an equal opportunity to make something of themselves.

 

I see your points here, and agree with them, but have a much different view point on the causes and solutions. Everyone should be given the chance to make life better for themselves, but that does not necessarily mean that taking away from what some one else has earned is justified.

 

Medical bills. I think the entire system needs an overhaul, but I approach it different than everyone else. Our system was much more functional as a fee for service system. You paid the doctor directly for his service, you paid the pharmacists directly for his service/medicine. Insurance developed when you started finding stories of people unable to get treatment for conditions if they did not have the cash up front.

 

My OPINION, is that if we could (however it is realistically impossible now) return to a fee-for-service system, with a cap at say $1k per year that anything above that was funded through payroll taxes, we would be in a better position. People like me who see the doctor once a year at most, would not waste money on insurance, people who used it frequently would pay more of their fair share, but not be forced into bankruptcy to receive treatment.

 

I have, but I don't believe you have. I believe if you do research what Obama has actually said rather than what the right wing extremists SAY he said you would be a lot less frustrated. Obama never said he was not willing to compromise and specifically stated that he would go through the budget to bring it down as needed.

I really do hope, whoever is president, that we can get the line item veto back in place as a tool they can use.

 

I actually watched the second debate where instead of answering the question of "what are you willing to compromise on in order to deal with the current financial crisis", he instead listed everything he was not willing to compromise on, which was his entire platform.

 

The line item veto is unconstitutional at the most basic level. It is a very good thing that it is gone, despite that it would help deal with some of the crap coming out of congress. The line item veto allowed the president to edit bills that were passed by congress, effectively crafting legislation, which is not a power granted to the president. The people elect congress to craft legislation, not the president. It completely violated the check and balance system.

 

I agree that McCain is the most fiscally conservative. This is one of the reasons he had the possibility of getting my vote early on. Don't get me wrong, I was leaning towards Obama, but McCain had a decent shot at getting my vote. Until he selected Palin and started the Karl Rove style campaign of outright lies and scare tactics.

Yes, Obama isn't completely clear of this either, but the level coming out of the McCain campaign is amazing.

 

Both camps have slung mud. I think that the McCain campaign was just easier to tie to Rovian tactics.

[Pyrotex]

GWB was by far not an ideal president, in fact he is probably the worst ever....

...

One thing most people forget is that GWB was not elected in a vaccuum. What we have is probably the worst presidency ever. But a presidency isn't JUST the man at the top.

 

The presidency is also the people selected by the president for all the Cabinet positions. It is also the army of people who make up the Executive staff. It is also the leaders of the party who threw their support behind the initial selection of candidates for president and VP; and who approved the strategy and tactics that got them elected; and who chose the agenda of the party platform.

 

The fact that we have a presidency that has only 28% approval reflects not just on one person, but on the entire upper echelon of the party machine that put him there.

 

It's like the old saying, you don't just marry a person--you marry into their entire family, with all their attitudes, their history and their baggage.

 

If the economy is bad, and our foreign policy is bad, and we're stuck in two wars, and SS is going broke, it's not JUST GWB's fault. Or even Karl Rove's. The party of self-reliance and personal responsibility needs to take some responsibility for what it has done, and what it has allowed to happen.

[C1ay]

One thing most people forget is that GWB was not elected in a vaccuum. What we have is probably the worst presidency ever. But a presidency isn't JUST the man at the top.

 

The presidency is also the people selected by the president for all the Cabinet positions. It is also the army of people who make up the Executive staff. It is also the leaders of the party who threw their support behind the initial selection of candidates for president and VP; and who approved the strategy and tactics that got them elected; and who chose the agenda of the party platform.

 

The fact that we have a presidency that has only 28% approval reflects not just on one person, but on the entire upper echelon of the party machine that put him there.

 

It reflects on far more than that with Congress' approval rating hitting a record low this year. Jefferson's remark in his Wall of Separation letter says it well:

 

Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts...

 

The President can only execute the laws governing our nation and our government that are written by Congress itself. Congress should endure it's own share of the blame for an era of bad U.S. politics .....

[Pyrotex]

It reflects on far more than that...Congress should endure it's own share of the blame for an era of bad U.S. politics ...

 

Well, let's see here. Hmm. Yes, you're right.

Both Congress and the Presidency have been appallingly unproductive.

 

However, though it is not in the Constitution, the Presidency has for last century or so established the priorities for Congress to work on, and has created the lines of communication necessary for the parties to work together and affect compromises.

Reagan was able to get both parties to work with each other.

So was Clinton.

But this presidency seems to be singularly unable to communicate, set goals, inspire or persuade.

[Nitack]

Well, let's see here. Hmm. Yes, you're right.

But this presidency seems to be singularly unable to communicate, set goals, inspire or persuade.

 

This President and his advisers took a my way or the highway approach. If they did not get their way then GWB would use the bully pulpit to throw a temper tantrum and blame it on the other party.

[Pyrotex]

Darn those mean ol' Democrats for not giving in, surrendering to our superior point of view, and doing it our way!!!

[Nitack]

Darn those mean ol' Democrats for not giving in, surrendering to our superior point of view, and doing it our way!!!

 

Actually I think that is exactly what he said on many occasions. Where did you pull the speech transcripts from? :eek2:

[Nitack]

Darn those mean ol' Democrats for not giving in, surrendering to our superior point of view, and doing it our way!!!

 

Actually I think that is exactly what he said on many occasions. Where did you pull the speech transcripts from? :eek2:

[Turtle]

Negative. Plenty of people use a well/septic setup. The government provides them with nothing. Those individuals pay for the well to be dug, the septic field to be set up, and to maintain everything. Lets look at this... If clean water were a "right" in your example... what happens if you can't pay your water bill? If it were a guaranteed and protected "right" then the company could not shut off your water. No, municipal water is a service that you pay for, not a right. ...

 

Well, not nothing exactly. The government provides the regulations/building codes that restrict the specifics of drain fields & wells. For example they have to be a certain distance apart, the drain field pipe must have a certain size, the amount/type of pipe is defined,, how deep the components are buried is defined, the volume of tank, etcetera. If someone does their own work & it is in violation of the code, the government can force changes, impose fines, or even condemn the property. :(

 

Oh yeah...the candidates. Johnny looked like a fool on SNL. I did read a piece (which I can't find again) saying that Letterman and some others in entertainmnet favor McCain because then they have 4 more years of jokes locked in. Apparently there's just not that much to make fun of Obama about. :eek2:

[Pyrotex]

Nitack,

It was quoted off a fortune cookie given to somebody at a $1000-a-plate Republican fund raising luncheon here in Houston some years back. :eek2: