My expectations were that it was going to be pure entertainment with little substantive content...certainly true of Palin but I came away with a lot more respect for Biden. He was incisive and clear without resorting to the
condescension of the past or compromising his message, all without making one of his characteristic gaffes
(this has to be one of the best).
Both parties were very cordial-great to see politicians strongly disagreeing without getting nasty.
I don't know if "this is most important election of [our] lives", but there are certainly enough pertinent issues afloat (hot damn! the House just passed the bailout) for me to hope that the purple states head to the voting booths in November.
17 comments:
I voted for Obama-Biden last night. And for all the other Federal Democrat candidates too, except the Illinois State representative for our district. The Republicans squandered my confidence in 2004, and I am not voting for another one until the party produces a candidate who doesn't spew rhetoric like an ex-Confederate fire-earter (yes, talking about Palin again). Oh, say it ain't so Joe.........
"You're plan is a white flag of surrender." No, you brain-dead, power hungry Alaskan wannabe, it's acknowledging that unless a people has an interest in republican, democratic government, there's no sense in pouring American money into the sand. You know what the democratically-elected government does to journalists who exercise freedom of the press? Shoots them. Yes, shoots them. The same government that American troops prop up every day. What the entire Middle East needs is hardcore Taliban government, until the people become so sick of it that they are willing to do something to improve their lives their selves.
Mom, how can you even think about voting for someone who is going to continue to send American teenagers into the desert to die in a worthless cause? How can you agree with supporting the Roosevelt Big Business Republicans? Teddy claimed to be a "trust buster," but he was actually virulently opposed to labor organization. The Republican-backed large corporations have been siphoning jobs out of the US and into third world countries, claiming that it is somehow good for our economy. I've had it. Give me socialism, and a really big stick. No more mr. nice guy toward big business. End the war in Iraq, and make the wealthy pay the same percentage of tax as the middle and lower classes.
I'll cease my rant for now.
Watched two minutes of the VP debate and almost gagged in outrage. I hope Palin chokes on her lying redneck rattlesnake tongue. Republicans a trying to sycophant (yes, I made a verb out of a noun) with social issues while changing exactly NOTHING about the government and economy.
I am not voting.
Why is it a good thing that the bailout passed?
Why?
What state are you registered in? This is the THE time for young voters to have a voice, and you're throwing it away? Seriously?
I think you will be very disappointed if you think Mr. Obama is going to make any real changes. His plan for education ("Create more schools so they can do a better job!") is a disaster. He will not be able to end the war, despite what he says now, because as soon as all hell breaks loose with US withdrawal (and you know it will) he will cave and send more troops to "keep the peace". Don't kid yourself, he will. And he will send them to Afghanistan too. If I really believed Obama would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else on the globe we ought not to be, I would vote for him, but I don't think he has the guts to do it.
And taxing the rich sounds good; but if you do the math on all the programs he wants to run, everyone's taxes will be higher, which they will be anyway. Who do you think is paying for the "bailout"? The "rich" already pay a higher tax rate. The problem is, they have lots of deductions and benefits. Have you heard a single word about eliminating those?
Remember that even with a Republican president in office, it has been a Democratic-controlled congress that has voted for the war (Obama voted for it too, remember), and for big business, and turned a blind eye to the mismanagement of public money by corporations like Fannie Mae and friends.
I will say this for him: Obama is very, very good looking.
"Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq."
I took that from Obama's campaign website. Here's what McCain thinks:
"John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.
The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home."
I've spent a considerable amount of time around Pashtuns now. Self-righteous, audaciously arrogant, quarrelsome people. More cantankerous than the Israelites marching into Canaan. The war in Iraq was a hideous mistake. I think the war in Afghanistan was justified, but that it is a huge mistake for us to stay there. Obama at least thinks that a permanent American presence in Iraq is out of the question. If you notice, McCain's position carefully makes room for that.
Obama wants to regulate the economy
and stabilize taxes. Again the campaign promise: Under the Obama Plan:
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit."
Now, ANY tax plan will have to clear the House and the Senate, so I don't see why either party is really worried about the other's plan for taxes. In the end, the wealthy are still the best-represented group of Americans (and thus are usually white to boot-:P) in Congress. So anything that really stings them doesn't stand a chance of making it through.
Oh, Obama has not voted for the Iraq war. He was still a state legislator, but opposed the war from the outset.
Obama will not be able to deliver on all of his promises. No candidate ever does. However, his plans and desires are right for the country. McCain and his brain-dead hick of a running mate's thought processes, ideas-everything connected with their campaign promises-are no departure at all from Bush's fiscal and military policies. Sure, McCain'll occasionally say that Bush was wrong on something, but come on. He has to say things like that in order to sound credible, but he doesn't mean it when he does. Obama is an idealist. He will try to bring change. And who knows. Give the young man a chance: he might just be able to deliver.
By the way, and just for the record, you made an erroneous assumption. I never said I supported John McCain!
Hm. Third parties don't stand a chance in this election.
third parties haven't had a solid chance in presidential elections for most of the past century.
A few years ago Whitney got ~15% of the votes for governor (I voted for him) which was a big deal because the Green party became a recognized party in Illinois (Blagojevich still won handily)... it's much harder for independents to achieve unity and recognition on issues for nationwide elections...I know maybe one person who's voting for Cynthia McKinney for president.
why throw your vote away on this one? those of you in purple states (Tim?) should lose a little of the pessimism.
There's no point in me voting. I'm registered in Illinois which will most certainly go to Senator Obama. What voice do I have? He certainly doesn't represent me: he stands against almost everything I stand for; he's going to be another tax and spend Democrat and rape the economy like Clinton did. I can't vote for Ron Paul because he's not running, so it's only a question of how I'm throwing away my vote.
Republicans and Democrats do not represent me. The only man who did shot himself in the foot because he made himself look insane.
What do I have to vote for?
What do you stand for that is diametrically opposed to Obama's policies/voting record?
It was Republican policies from the '90s that got us into the financial mess we're in now, not Clinton. And I doubt Obama could do much worse than Bush in terms of financial entanglements.
Yeah, your vote doesn't matter all that much if you're registered in Illinois. Sad that you're turning into one of those "fuck it" curmudgeons before you hit 20, though.
You can vote for whoever you want. Illinois has a "write in" option on the ballot.
It was Clinton's administration (and the White House) that pushed for Fannie Mae to expand subprime loans. These are facts and you may look them up. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a good record of fiscal responsibility since Herbert Hoover. Ronald Reagan bailed out the Savings and Loans industries in the 80s because he didn't want a depression on his hands (which President does?) which makes the present and future crises all the more severe. Obama and McCain both voted for the bailout; they will both suppport the economically blind policies of the past decades. What will really help the economy - elimination of deficit, creating a spending cap, destroying the Federal Reserve, and removing government intervention in the economy - neither of these candidates will do.
Obama's economic plan will slaughter small businesses. Their income is not divorced from their corporation's income (you only get that kind of bonus if you get large enough) and a small business owner making $500,000/year will get killed. Obama is another tax and spend Democrat; just more Marxist to gain support from the middle class. After all, the rich can afford it. Right? Be patriotic! Pay high tax rates!
Further, he does not support school choice, private schooling, or homeschooling. He will not fix Social Security. He will not end the Drug War. He does not support gun rights (probably for the same delusions that lend support to the Drug War). He supports abortion and opposes same-sex marriage (C'MON! get your priorities straight, man!), little different from the morality-legislating Republicans. He knows nothing of economics.
Most of these apply to John McCain to a lesser degree. I can vote for neither of them in good conscience. Now my only decision is what to do with my useless ballot - do I piss on the system and vote for Paris Hilton (she'll paint the White House pink!), something ridiculous like that, or disenfranchise myself?
It makes no difference. Democrats differ from Republicans only in degree. Should the government intervene in the economy? The argument is not "yes" or "no", it's "how much?". Should the government legislate Christian morality? Again, "How much" is the question in this election.
Politics sicken me. Politicians are all the same, and Obama will be no different. In eight years he and his party will be just as bloated and sickening as George Bush and the Republicans. He is no Messiah.
Ultimately, I'm politically apathetic (and before age twenty, alas!) because politics cannot solve man's fundamental moral problems. I will not vote until there is a candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience.
It's too bad that I'm apathetic but until politics produces someone genuinely virtuous and who understands economics, I will be disenfranchised. So be it.
It is naive and silly to hold out on participating within the system until your ideal candidate appears and inspires you to vote. That's like clamoring for chocolate cake in refusal of everything else when your choices are either rye or moldy bread.
On his economic policies, Obama's plan doesn't overtax the rich and penalize them for their wealth, it simply restores a parity and removes their tax breaks.
Obama's nonsupport for same sex marriage is purely semantic. He thinks that civil unions with all the legal rights that entails should be granted to consenting adults. The word "marriage" is a religious word best left defined by religious communities, not the federal government. This should apply to hetero unions as well.
The drug war? Obama's shifted position reflects the realities of the modern political environment.
In 2004, he said that the war on drugs was an utter failure and that marijuana needed to be legalized.
His running mate, Biden, has been a proponent of all kinds of anti-recreational drug usage legislation, including imposing stricter sentences for cocaine possession.
Politicians have to make position concessions to be successful, especially in anticipation of nationwide elections.
How many baby boomers do you think support marijuana being legalized and would vote for a candidate that did?
The Democrats will not be able to fundamentally fix the financial system by championing Main Street capitalism vs Wall Street capitalism. Both are different sides of the same coin. We will continue to get ourselves into these messes if we keep legislating our faith in the fairness and efficacy of deregulated globalized markets.
Even so, I'm not convinced that a difference of a few degrees is entirely inconsequential. If a difference of a few degrees keeps us out of another badly planned war, that's worth a vote.
You are right; politics will not change human nature. Yet some systems are better than others in dealing with social realities. Legalizing abortion made a difference for women, and legalizing marijuana would redirect some of our legal energies to more pertinent problems.
A better world is possible.
Regarding economics, we will continue to get into these messes if we continue to place our faith in government intervention. It is that simple. Whenever the government intervenes (S&L bailout in the 80s, thank you Mr. Reagan, Fannie Mae subsidizing in the 90s, thank you Mr. Clinton)it screws over the economy sooner or later.
The free market is the most efficient tool at allocating and distributing capital. It is the sole cause for our progress from misery and barbarism to prosperity and civilization. Nations such as India and China which allow the markets greater freedom are experiencing a boom of prosperity to all their citizens.
the "immoral" actions of a free market are not a problem in the former, they reflect man's problems, problems which government cannot by nature solve.
To make it perfectly clear: I will not vote for a candidate that does not support the free market. I will not vote for a candidate that supports abortion. I will not vote for a candidate who will maintain the drug war. If that makes me too radical to vote, so be it. I'll piss on the system and vote for porn stars until a candidate more or less equal to Ron Paul appears.
I could be mistaken however. I have expected Obama to win the presidency for over a year; his victory next month will not surprise me in the least. If he manages to shrink the government, reduce taxes across the board (not just for the middle class), and changes his mind on abortion, I'd support him. Hell, I'd even vote for him in 2012.
"the immoral actions of a free market are not a problem...they reflect man's problems which government cannot by nature solve"
Are you serious? That is laughable.
The "free market" is the reason why healthcare in the US is so unaffordable, why insurance companies can deny coverage to people "who have a history" of cancer and other illnesses.
The free market commodifies basic necessities and delivers to the highest bidder.
Privatization has not been "the sole cause of our progress from misery and barbarism to prosperity and civilization". Good god, man, look at Dickens' England.
Look at Bolivia-one of the most privatized nations in the world, with 70% of its people living below the poverty line-and the village of Cochabamba, which privatized its water supply in '99 at the behest of the IMF and US water companies. The price of water soared-with the average citizen making less than the equivalent of $60/month, their water bills went above $20/month.
Incidentally, the Cochabambans unified and in solidarity demanded that the Bolivian government end the contract with the US company, which it eventually did.
That is the glory of capitalism-turning water into a commodity the poor of the world cannot afford.
Dickens' England is a great example. Industrial Revolution era Europe and the U.S. were far better than what happened before. Kids worked 16 hours a day in factories instead of starving to death from famines.
It is common to blame capitalism for all sorts of "immoral" actions, but these are usually the product of either government interaction or man's corrupt nature. Capitalism qua capitalism is purely amoral, and is simply the most efficient cause at allocating capital. If men were more moral they would use their capital less selfishly. But even angels could not make socialism work.
Industrial Revolution countries are interesting because to argue that families were worse off than before is absurd - why would a family move from the country to the city, from better to worse, and not head back? The truth is that prior to Industrial Revolution (surely the among the greatest technological breakthroughs of our history) and prior to liberated markets, much of mankind lived in precisely the wretched conditions experienced by the poorest people today. These people live in nations with unstable government, intense government regulation or control, or poor moral character.
Regarding Bolivia and the water, there's probably more to it than you told me; I'm not quite convinced it's because the evil bourgeoisie was oppressing the proletariat.
The laws of economics properly understood are laws of human nature. Humans act for the sake of the perceived good and capitalism reflects that. As a nation industrializes, everyone prospers; some now, some later.
If the government is more efficient at some things, why is it not more efficient at others? Why is the free market better at making refrigerators and pencils but the government is more efficient when it comes to mail? Why do we have these government-enforced monopolies on electricity and water, denying competition? How can we rationally draw a line between pure socialism (Marx, Engels, etc. Russia) and free market capitalism (Menger, Mises, Rothbard, Hayek)? I am convinced we cannot. Either capitalism is right or it is wrong.
If you can explain in detail (maybe we should take this to email) how the free market is insufficient for prosperity, I would listen carefully.
Post a Comment