Grading on a Curve in America: the VP Debates
October 3rd, 2008
Daniel Eran Dilger
America is torn between two identities. We like to think of ourselves as smart when laughing at the foolish behavior of others, but we also express disdain for the smug elite. We like to think of ourselves as fair and compassionate team players while also being rugged free market individualists. What exactly are we, apart from being wildly contradictory? The carefully prepared vice presidential debates highlighted and mirrored our nation’s identity. Was it flattering?
.
The Science of Opinion.
Americans struggle to express faith and reason at once. It is political suicide to express a lack of religiousness, yet we also demand that leaders be rational and base their decisions on facts.
A recent scientific study suggested that political opinions and our general outlook on world affairs is not simply learned behavior, but is strongly associated with physiological traits present at birth. We are, in effect, born with a moral framework that structures how we will see the world. It is therefore no surprise that, just like other aspects of personality, political views are often expressed as sharp contrasts between generations.
The benefits of diverse political views are essential to survival. If everyone in a community were wildly liberal, experimental risk takers, society could easily fall prey to unrecognized lethal threats. If they were all rigidly conservative control police, everyone would be locked in a perpetual stalemate of panicked fear and drawn guns.
And so it is that we blend and balance our liberal dreams with our conservative fears to make sure that society doesn’t rush outside of the boundaries handed down to us by our parents without thoughtful caution, but that we also measure and challenge and question our beliefs and our understanding of the world to make sure what we know is based on reason and not just a perpetuated historical error.
The Strength of Weakness in Democracy.
This interplay of conservative values and liberal reexaminations culminated in democracy as a grand political experiment. Extreme conservatives have ruled as cool, ruthless dictators that perpetuated unconscionable crimes; extreme liberals have destroyed order in society to introduce horrific experiments in inhumane chaos.
In a democracy, liberal and conservative leaders must work together through shared efforts that challenge each other’s views in order to balance power and hold extreme policy shifts in check. This system is inherently weak. The United States can’t decree the construction of massive public works projects with the brutal efficiency of communist planners, nor can it make decisions on the use of natural resources and industry and the military with the cold authority of fascists.
Instead we have a squabbling government that deliberates and compromises to find complex solutions to difficult problems, balancing the needs of urban and rural areas, rich and poor people, workers and managers, renters and homeowners, factories and farms. It’s messy and complicated, slow and inefficient, easy to complain about and hard to understand sometimes, but the alternatives are simply unthinkable, as the past century has presented in tragic detail.
The Strongest Threat to Democracy.
The American system is easy to exploit. Elected officials can lose sight of the people they are supposed to represent when money gets in the way. Conversely, elections can be dumbed down into marketing slogans so that voters are only selecting an image that does not reflect policy and viewpoints and substance, so that they end up electing a series of figureheads who are then played by unelected ventriloquists behind the scenes.
In order to elect representatives that the population collectively can reach a consensus on in an aggregated vote, those voting must be informed about the people they are selecting between so they know what actions they will take and how they will guide the economy, prepare for future risks, and balance the demands of citizens.
Not knowing the truth or being given false information about candidates is the worst possible threat to democracy. As our political system gathers cruft and as special interests subvert the government to serve the needs of moneyed stakeholders rather than serving the people, democracy shifts from lofty political experiment in the balance of power into a sham formality layered on top of an increasingly rotten system. Decayed democracies provide a fertile bed for the rise of radical dictators and rabid revolutions.
What Did the Debates Say About America’s Democracy?
Heading into the vice presidential debates, many expected fireworks, with both Senator Joe Biden being known for making clumsy misstatements and Governor Sarah Palin as having a reputation for giving glassy eyed blank stares interrupted only by nonsensical strings of prepared phrases that bear little relation to the question asked.
Neither managed to embarrass themselves badly during the debate. Biden seemed to cut his comments too short, but appeared to deliver the message the Barack Obama campaign wanted to get across: John McCain would be four more years of George Bush. Biden pointedly avoided direct criticisms of Palin and instead repeatedly directed his complaints at McCain’s voting record. At one point, Biden responded to Palin’s talk by saying, “I didn’t hear a plan.”
Palin worked hard to present herself as capable to go head to head with a more experienced politician, someone who she had earlier described as giving speeches while she was in grade school. She turned on the folksy charm and described herself repeatedly as a small town mother. She even made the comment that fundamentalist enemies present a threat to “women’s rights,” a curious comment from an evangelical fundamentalist who had just days before told her interviewer that she would oppose a woman’s right to morning after contraceptives even if the woman had been raped by her own father.
When speaking on social issues, Palin describes her views as personal opinions, and has become increasingly insistent that her own opinions would not impact her ability to “tolerate” the views of others. At the same time, Palin is also clear that she wants to overturn Roe v Wade, indicating that her personal views are not simply convictions, but her intended policy for the nation. Why the cagey subterfuge? Because Palin and McCain are working to court the favor of right wing extremists who favor Dominionism: the overthrow of the secular US government with a religious one.
McCain is hardly religious. He’s a craps gambler and a philanderer who had a falling out with the Reagans after he dumped his first wife after cheating on her with a much younger model, who he then married only to have to cover up her drug use and get her off on drug-related felony charges. His original stance on social issues, including abortion, put him at odds with the religious Republican base and cost him the nomination in 2000 when he ran against Bush.
Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone
That’s the Ticket.
Eight years later, McCain recognized that he could not run on the Republican ticket without accommodating the religious right, which clearly played into his pick of Palin as his running mate. Palin turned out to be more than McCain bargained for. Her small town religious roots were tied up in a church where the pastor she credited with getting her elected as governor excises demons and brands individuals as witches who must be chased out of town.
Palin is embroiled in multiple scandals from an active investigation of her Troopergate allegations of improper use of executive power to taking expensive gifts in the model of indicted Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.
As for her qualifications, Palin lacks any record outside her state. She has served as governor for 20 months over a state with just 650,000 people, fewer than the inhabitants of the 7×7 mile city of San Francisco. During that time, Alaska was awash in oil money to the point where the state pays its residents annual dividends rather than collecting taxes. Palin has no foreign policy experience and demonstrates little curiosity about the world outside her small town, where she continued to live even as governor.
Palin’s mysterious selection as McCain’s running mate leaves a lot unanswered. Besides being an attractive and folksy figurehead to “energize” the religious base excited about her pentacostal background, what does Palin offer McCain? Deep insight into where 4.3% of the country’s oil comes from? An outsider perspective of average Americans, where “average” means being millionaire in a state that pays every citizen and their children thousands of dollars annually in oil money dividends?
Open to Debate.
Political pundits were quick to shower Palin with praise for not delivering any confused gibberish or lengthly blank stares during her debate as she regularly has in her interviews with the press. But in reality, Palin only delivered carefully rehearsed segments that often bore little correlation with the questions she was asked. The format of the debate had also been simplified for Palin so she could avoid being presented with any direct challenges or questions to respond to from Biden.
All Palin had to do smile and deliver prepared lines, something she was qualified to do with her background as a sportscaster. However, as vice president, or acting in the role of an emergency president, Palin will be called on to do more than deliver carefully rehearsed lines she’s had the time to practice for weeks. This wasn’t really a debate expressing the mind of Palin, but a sham presentation of what the McCain ticket wants to show voters.
Biden was quick to answer moderator questions and articulated his ticket’s platform, ranging from tax policy to explaining his position on the Iraq war, diplomacy in the Middle East, economic regulation, and investment in the country’s future. He challenged McCain’s position in foreign policy and economics, repeatedly pointing out that there was little real difference between Bush and McCain.
Palin delivered a series of prepared responses including the complaint that Biden was focusing on past mistakes rather than future plans. She sidestepped comparisons with Bush without presenting any real policy differences, only acknowledging that mistakes were made and that her ticket promised change described only in generalities that sounded like they were written by Ned Flanders.
Palin also avoided any strong comments on social issues, managing to agree with Biden on support for gay rights to hospital visitation, insurance, and other civil matters. In an earlier interview, Palin spoke of a female friend who was gay but “not her gay friend,” whom she described as having made “a decision I wouldn’t have made” to be gay. If Palin disagrees with the scientific and medial community on the nature of sexual identity, how can she be qualified to make policy decisions on civil rights? Would she be taken seriously if she had said ‘African Americans choose to be black, a decision she tolerated but wouldn’t have made herself’?
Palin also talked about wanting to limit spending and the size of government, only to go off on a tangent about the importance of education and paying teachers well. You can’t have small government taxes and big government services at the same time, unless you live in oil-subsidized Alaska, or ring up massive deficits, or both as Palin has as a small town mayor. Palin doesn’t seem to see the problem in speaking enthusiastically about shrinking and growing government in the same breath.
Palin also spoke of a ‘passion for diplomacy’ she got from meeting Henry Kissinger, only to denigrate Obama for considering the idea of starting or continuing talks with enemy nations, something Kissinger has supported since the presidency of Richard Nixon, where he pursued a policy of détente involving talks with the Soviet Union and China in the early 70s. Palin also delivered the line, “Some of these dictators hate America and what we stand for. They cannot be met with. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.”
How about saber rattling with Russia: is that dangerous?
The War
On the war in Iraq, Biden stated, “Barack says its time for them [Iraq] to spend their own money, have the 400,000 military we’ve trained for them begin to take their own responsibility, and gradually over 16 months withdraw. John McCain, this is a fundamental difference between us: we will end this war; for John McCain there is no end in sight to end this war. Fundamental difference: we will end this war.”
Palin briefly hit bottom in a four second pause before responding, “your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq. And that is not what our troops need to hear today that’s for sure and it’s not what our nation needs to be able to count on.” Palin voiced support for having no plans to leave Iraq until “the Iraqi government can govern its people, and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people, and our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met.”
The commanders “are knowing again that we’re getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that’s within sight,” Palin said. She also seemed to describe Vietnam as a victory in stating that McCain “knows how to win a war.”
Mavericks Outside the Law
Palin also repeatedly sought to brand herself and McCain as mavericks, but Biden replied, “Look, let’s talk about the maverick John McCain is. And again I love him, he’s been a maverick on some issues but he’s been no maverick on things that a matter people’s lives. He voted four out of five times for George Bush’s budget which put us half a trillion in debt this year and over three trillion in debt since he got there. He has not been a maverick in providing healthcare for people. He voted against including another 3.6 million children in coverage of an existing health care plan in the United States Senate. He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college, he’s not been a maverick on the war, not been a maverick on virtually anything that generally affects the things people really talk about around the kitchen table.”
Palin also made odd references about looking into ways the power of the vice presidency could be expanded, and endorsed Dick Cheney’s description of the vice president as being outside the executive branch and therefore above the law regarding rules pertaining to the security of classified information. That controversial comment by Cheney last year was later backpedaled by the Bush administration, making Palin’s agreement with it even more embarrassing. In contrast, Biden described Cheney as “the most dangerous vice president in American history.”
When interviewed earlier about the worst thing Cheney has done as vice president, Biden answered, “I think he’s done more harm than any other single elected official in memory in terms of shredding the constitution. You know — condoning torture. Pushing torture as a policy. This idea of a unitary executive. Meaning the Congress and the people have no power in a time of war.” Palin’s answer to the same question: “I guess that would have been the duck hunting accident — where, you know, that was an accident.”
Presidental Questions, – CBS News
Eh for Effort
After two humiliating weeks of increasingly bad poll numbers along with the embarrassing interviews Palin gave where she consistently talked in circles to fill space while ignoring questions, spoke around issues with strings of simple prepared political jingles, and found herself at a loss to name any Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade and separately to name any newspaper she’s ever read, her carefully prepared performance at the debate was a high point for the Republican ticket in comparison.
The folksy charm was no doubt injected intentionally, but it could only have been a distraction from her performance as a vice presidential candidate to anyone who wasn’t already sold on her. Is America really finding it acceptable to replace serious candidates who are informed and aware of the world around them with a celebrity figure who can barely recite her lines?
The debate revealed a few new perspectives into Palin: her desire to expand the power of the vice presidency and her intent to keep playing up the role as a Middle American, middle class soccer mom in an after school special farce about running with a man twice her age for the highest office in America. How exactly she plans to usher in her maverick changes and “clean up Washington” is hidden away in piles of folksy talk about generalities. It’s almost if we’re being treated at too dumb to know.
What is most disturbing isn’t that Palin has extremist religious or conservative views, but that American as a whole isn’t outraged that their system of democracy is being mocked by a flippant candidate who is quick to toss out snappy sitcom style insults at her opponents, who chooses to speak in a grating tone that comes across as insincere populist pandering, and who issues contradictory blather without any cues that suggest either embarrassment or an awareness that she’s saying nothing.
America seems to be stuck within a reality TV contest, viewing Palin as just another eccentric character looking for an American Idol break or a Bravo channel modeling gig. As the economy enters crisis, serious diplomatic challenges loom, and the country staggers away from eight years of a disastrous presidency, an illegitimate war started on a lie, the international embarrassment of war crimes, torture camps, and a president who acts like a hungover dropout on probation, it’s not just scary that Palin could potentially win, but a national disgrace that she is on the ballot.
Other articles on current events:
The Big Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Attack
Osama Bin Laden’s Dream of US Economic Collapse
You Know the Drill?
Ten Striking Parallels Between Microsoft and John McCain
Obama’s Apple, McCain’s Microsoft: the Politics of Tech
Terrorist Criminal Links to the Presidential Candidates
Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas.
Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It’s also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
 | Daniel Eran Dilger is the author of “Snow Leopard Server (Developer Reference),” a new book from Wiley available now from Amazon as a paperback or digital Kindle download. |
Links:
Amazon | Facebook | Twitter
Bookmark: Del.icio.us Slashdot Digg
RSS feed for comments on this post
TrackBack URI for this post
76 comments
Denying a woman an education, a vote, an opinion and a life, is a different level of discussion to one about abortion. So no, not curious really.
Your post will no doubt stir a hornets nest and so detract from your really excellent Apple posts. Couldn’t we have an RDPM.com for this stuff to avoid the confusion?
But it’s your site and you can do what you will. But, when you write your book about Apple, Dan, just make sure you don’t include the political stuff, or I will vote with my wallet…! All the best.
You really hate her, don’t you?
[I don't hate Sarah Palin any more than I hate Steve Ballmer or anyone else I might criticize. I think its a total cop out to try to dismiss my factual criticisms of Palin by suggesting I must have an emotional rage or disgust for her personally.
Palin has a charming likable presence. The problem is that she is an embarrassment to the Republican ticket and by extension, to Americans who take the election and the nation's democratic ideals seriously. The fact that Palin, like Ballmer, is so ready to misrepresent the truth and ignore reality to speak in smoke and mirrors generalities says a lot about what McCain thinks of Americans.
In Palin's case, the potential for damage go far beyond that a bumbling CEO might do. So while I sometimes secretly cheer for Ballmer to bring Microsoft's monopoly crashing down due to his own arrogant hubris, hoping for the same from Palin--a landslide of defeat that wipes out the cynicism and phoniness from conservative American politics and replaces it with something more serious--is not as satisfying because Palin is one stolen election and a 73 year old heart attack away from being installed as president of the US.
What I feel is not hatred, but an uncertain fear and a strong shame that the country is being made such a joke on the world stage. I think Palin is also mocking women to an embarrassing degree. Imagine if Obama dragged along a phony assortment of black stereotypes to his debate, speaking in slang and wearing oversized gold chains and throwing out gang signs. That might appeal to and entertain a small margin of MTV wiggers, but would have been grossly inappropriate and shameful. Palin's put upon "mommy" act with folksy "don't ya know" Fargoisms was just as calculated and similarly embarrassing. I certainly don't hate her for it; I'm just very disappointed that she has chosen to drop the bar so low.]
Palin is the new Bush. Not the discredited Bush widely hated now – but the folksy, affable, endearingly out of depth Bush of 2000 who steamrollered McCain, unstuck Gore and wrecked the Clinton legacy.
Outside of America: people scratch their heads at how such characters could have been elected. The western world is after all liberal democrat. But that’s because we out here don’t often really look at red state America. We think it’s all progress, power and technology. Sure: but what about between the coasts?
Everything you’ve just said about Palin is precisely what makes her appeal to the undereducated, bitter and (around every election time) paranoid Middle American swing voters who are the people who decide. American demographics has given them this power. Give a well dressed carrot the Democratic nomination and New York and California will vote for him! Same applies for barking mad Republicans on the blood red states. Ultimately democracy is all about the pivot of the seesaw. That pivot lies in Ohio, Nevada and Iowa. She speaks to that electorate.
I agree she’d be a terrible president just like George W. But we don’t matter. We follow politics, we read between the lines of their speeches and we take the effort to care. That’s no democracy! Democracy is, alas, Joe Sixpack’s prejudice and Hockey Mom’s fear.
BUT there is hope for Obama this time round. As the last folksy, celebrity who happened to be a Democrat to win the White House so famously and rightly said: its the economy, stupid.
Hear, hear. I think you hit the matter dead on at the end: we as a country have decided reality is a reality show, and therefore the most wacky (or horrifying, depending on your point of view) person running should win.
I think you and I agree about exactly where this country is headed if we keep up that attitude!
Daniel-
You are obviously a very intelligent person. You eloquently describe our political system and what I too believe is the “strongest threat” to it: “Not knowing the truth or being given false information about candidates ”
I’m not “excited” about McCain/Palin but, IMHO Obama is not even nearly representing all that he would do as President. According to voting record he is the farthest left leaning Democrat; yet on the campaign trail he is promoting actions that are closer to the center-left.
As much as I hate our choices, they are what they are. Obama is not trustworthy. I believe that many of the things that he is saying he does want to do will yield long-term damage to our economy and government. But I’m less concerned about even these things than I am about what he will do that he is NOT saying.
This election is about choosing the lesser evil, and it is McCain.
Dan, despite the usual dissenter’s voice “OMG another POLITICAL POST, dan! How DARE you! I’m definitely not going to read this ANYMORE!” or something to that effect – it’s curious, though, for the political post is clearly identified as such, and people may choose not to read it, but whatever – despite this,
Congrats. An excellent summary of the problems that america faces today.
I must add, so that right wingers don’t get offended by dan’s post and my remarks, that the sitcom issue that you refer to, the IDOL’s contest that is so blatantly a joke on all americans, that I’d say exactly the same thing were it the liberals who had done this stunt.
But it is not, and there’s a reason for it. Generally, conservatives pander to the “real people”, the people that make america great, working people, the everybodies of this nation. Liberals tend to pander to those who think know better, to more sophisticated folks. So it’s obvious that this “dumbing down” had to come from conservatives, while liberals tend to get their candidates the label of “elitists”, who are accused of not being in touch with people.
What’s worrying is that the conservative technique worked with Bush, twice! Liberals had to water down their elitist crap if they wanted to get into power, and so since Al Gore, which in my view is an elitist snob of the worst order (I hate the guy, so sue me), dems went to Kerry, which was slightly better, and now Barack, who tells a story of his life as being in perfect synch to what is the american dream.
I hope that the what seems to be a complete landslide of Obama in this election turns the GOP away from the IDOL idiocy and waters it down. Because if not, this thing will become a full-blown idiocracy.
Heaven help us if Palin becomes president–worse, in many ways, even than McCain, who is scary enough already. (What makes his policies different from Bush, and why so many distortions from him?)
And if McCain becomes president, the odds of Palin having to take over–either permanently or during a temporary medical crisis, are frighteningly high.
Contrast this with the smarter policies of Obama, and the judgement he showed when picking Biden instead of some publicity stunt (which is exactly what Palin was–and that’s NOT serving the country).
Obama’s not the ideal candidate, just darned close. McCain and Palin are nightmares we don’t need.
Obama was graded on a curve against McCain in the first debate.
I enjoyed reading this, but the characterization of liberals as risk takers and conservatives as risk averse, while more or less traditional, is an extravagant claim, especially when tied to a thesis about the survival of communities.
There’s a pretty obvious counterexample to this latter claim. The US is an oddity among the western democracies, being much much more conservative and authoritarian (in the social psychological sense) than the others (even those in the Anglosphere). In fact, where you live is probably the most liberal place in the US, and it still strikes me as being fairly right wing in many ways. If it were true that liberalism were risky to social cohesion, then very liberal countries like the Netherlands or the Nordic countries would be unstable societies. Yet all of them are far more stable societies than the US with a much lower level of social conflict and crime. Even the extremely attitude to drug use in the Netherlands has not led to social disaster. The US is the most conservative and arguably the least socially stable.
Moreover, conservatives tend to score more highly on the dogmatism trait than liberals. While dogmatism can help keep a society stable it can, as we know, also lead down more dolorous paths, and it is of little utility in our fast-changing society.
But there is not much evidence and little reason other than politeness to assume that those of each political persuasion are necessarily of equal benefit to every society. It would be a remarkable coincidence if that were true.
Peace
L
“extreme liberals have destroyed order in society to introduce horrific experiments in inhumane chaos”
Calling people like Stalin, Kim Il Sung and Mao “liberals” is misusing that term horribly. It’s hard to think of less liberal people, frankly.
[I had in mind the Khmer Rough, but also Mao.
I think your identification of "liberal" as being centrist and intellectual is a product of a world where extreme conservatism has become the new mainstream. Achieving sensible regulation, middle class tax policy, and living wages has become branded as "extreme liberalism," when in fact it is very centrist.
Liberal means open to change. The most liberal politicians in America seem right of center in Europe. Real extremism in liberal/leftist thought isn't about dropping failed drug policy or providing health care and education. Extremism in leftist ideology is setting up work camps and killing off the educated so you can perform wild experiments on social reeducation that destroy social structure.
That has resulted in horrific atrocity, and is the real extreme in liberal politics. Extremist conservatives want to install Sharia-style religious law and a tazer police state. If you allow them to redefine centrist normalcy as an "extremist liberal idea," then their fascism begins to look palatable.
We need to get real and define the far extremes accurately. When we do that, the dirty words of socialism and liberal begin to look ridiculous. Our freeway system is socialist. Public schools are socialist. Fair wages and civil rights and social justice are liberal ideals that most Americans hold as important.
America doesn't have extreme liberals in government. San Francisco doesn't even have anything approaching extreme liberals running the City. When Obama can be described as a liberal extremist for pushing for the rights of the middle class and lowering taxes on 95% of Americans, something is wrong with the definition of "extremist."
Allow extremists to redefine the vocabulary and centrist normalcy becomes a vilified crime. ]
Hey, but both candidates for presidents and vice’s agree in one point perfectly! They want your money! 700 bln or whatever is currently on the table. Isn’t it something to celebrate? Don’t worry, there will be more.
Communism, fascism, nazism are all some sorts of socialism.
And “democracy is the road to socialism” as Karl Marx said.
[The Bush Bailout is certainly a scary number, and the idea of handing banks a blank check to pay off those most culpable is disgusting on many levels. However, non-action isn't really an alternative. The house democrats are trying to support this by adding enough oversight to make it work, while the house republicans are working to pin this on the democrats as socialism.
It remains Bush's Bailout, caused by Bush's Economic Policy Failure. Calling it socialism at this point is rather pointless. Yes, it does sound communist to privatize the secondary mortgage industry and take over banks. But this isn't socialism: under socialism, people benefit from assumed risks and rewards. This is simply fascism, where the government serves industry instead of the people.
Throwing around loaded words and turning "socialism" into a negative simply because the republican Bush administration has made a very dangerous play to shore up its financial disaster is not useful. What needs to be talked about is what is happening, and what is likely to happen, and how damage can be minimized at this point. Sitting back and throwing around political buzzwords is not useful.
The US is not at risk of a communist revolution, and the idea is completely absurd. The country clearly needs oversight of banking regulations and a house cleaning of secret corruption. Are you sure you want to call the rule of law in financial markets "socialism" because it benefits the middle class? Because that makes you sound like a liberal thinker. ]
As Presidential candidates, both Obama and McCain are brought in to policy discussions, the most recent of which is the total meltdown of the global economy, basically the result of bad “sub-prime” housing loans, and with it the USA’s status as a world leader.
For an indication of McCain’s experience in dealing with a sub-prime mortgage crisis (then known as a Savings & Loan scandal) see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
McCain was one of only two US Senators in the “Keating Five” gang of conspirators who kept their jobs after being accused of corruption. Keating himself did five years of jail time.
Lousy Flanders!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ
Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the rest.
The problem, as noted by Steve jobs, is that 40% of Americans read one book or less – a year.
America , like all western countries is full of village idiots who can be persuaded to believe anything.
There is no democracy where stupidity rules.
Reality of life has gone – the distance between most people and their food supply, for example, is so large that soon they will be eating sawdust and loving it.
Give up your food production to Big Business, let Chinese slave labor produce your goods and soon you will be unable to think beyond the TV screen. Oops, it already happened.
Good article, Dan, if a little too easy on the unpleasant moron Palin.
I believe the center (soccer moms) has decided our most recent elections proof being Bush’s successful “your children are at risk from terrorists” 2004 campaign. However the center voters are not moderates, voters that share a mix of liberal and conservative views but people that really don’t pay much attention to politics at all until each election is right upon us. They are busy with their lives, working raising families and politics is something to decide come election day. So the fate of our nation is in the hands of the least engaged and informed. In a nation where 60% of the adult population believe in Guardian Angels and an even higher percentage believe there is a man in a place called Hell that is responsible for all the worlds evil (another bizarre concept) who happens to be red, brandishes a pitchfork and is called The Devil it is no wonder cute reassuring sound bites from politicians like Sara Palin are welcome and comforting. Liberal or conservative we all have to agree that fairy tales about good vs evil do not make for sound foreign policy and complicated problems like the banking meltdown are not fixed with simplistic folksy speak.
I find McCain’s selection of Palin to be an insult to my intelligence. The trick of replacing one intelligent woman (Hillary) with one bumpkin (Palin) really wasn’t that effective. I think less of McCain now for attempting such a ploy. He clearly doesn’t have a great deal of respect for the voters if he thought they would be fooled. I went from plain not wanting him to be elected outright resenting him.
Does it not also sound strange to hear the republicans aligning themselves with average middle class people saying we’re not going to allow ourselves to be taken advantage of again.
YOU ARE THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT HAPPENING THE FIRST TIME! You don’t get to say that.
Daniel, your first 8 paragraphs are perhaps the best “bringing together” of our country’s diverse political opinions that I have ever read, and it was certainly your most objective political commentary that could benefit all of us with an understanding of why our political differences are not a bad thing but good.
Unfortunately, your piece — which could have been remembered as a lesson for all American generations — thereafter spiraled downward into a partisan tirade.
People you are fooling yourselves into thinking that either of these candidates really represent change. If you want to endorse voting for Obama because McCain is just four more years of Bush, then you have your head in the sand. Obama’s choice of running mate is for one of the most partisan and entrenched of the Washington establishment. Obama’s Biden is simply the Democratic version of Bush’s Cheney. Neither of these presidential candidates are for real change, because neither of them are talking about the real issues that are plaguing our country.
1) THE FEDERAL RESERVE
The Federal Reserve is misnomer. It is not a federal organization. It is an independent organization of bankers, established early in this century by a manipulated vote in congress lobbied by bankers. And yet the Federal Reserve today is an independent organization that has unbelievable power to control our economy. Instead of allowing our economy to naturally balance itself out — which it would do — the Federal Reserve places band-aids on the economy to direct it the way it sees fit, ultimate benefitting banks but only causing more problems for our economy in the long-term from its artificial manipulations. The establishment of the Federal Reserve to be granted such power over our economy is unconstitutional.
2) THE GOLD STANDARD
The American Constitution requires our currency to be backed by gold. It is unconstitutional to print money not backed by gold. Is there any wonder about the state of our economy and the value of the dollar? Congress and the Federal Reserve do much to facilitate this unconstitutional activity to benefit themselves in the short-term but doing so at the detriment of our economy — printing money not backed by gold.
3. THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
The constitution does not allow the federal government to tax our income. The Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. Most people can’t imagine abolishing the federal income tax for reasons such as “how would we finance the building of our highways or the establishment of our schools?” But the federal income tax does not finance the building of highways or the establishment of our schools, your state taxes do. The reality is the federal income tax is a tax levied by the federal government that gives it enormous power. It is a tax that keeps wealthy people in office and gives the power to the federal government to control people. This is not how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government; they are certainly rolling in their graves at the idea of personal jeopardy for not paying a federally mandated income tax. They did not authorize it; it is simply unconstitutional.
I am telling you neither of these candidates — Obama nor McCain — are addressing these issues. These are the issues of real change. The candidates we have before us are for the continuance of the Washington establishment. Whatever change either of these candidates stand for is minor not radical. And yet it is not radical to want to demand our federal government to operate in abidance by the constitution.
There is only one candidate who has taken a stand for the constitutionality of these three issues, and that candidate has been Ron Paul. And yes I know, unfortunately, in our political system, he has no chance of winning.
[Ron Paul is smart and articulate and presents some interesting ideas. He has been completely ignored by the Republican party in the same way that Ralph Nader has been ignored by the Democrats. Both offer wild, sweeping changes that would overturn the status quo, but both are so far from the political center of the US that, as you note, they have no chance at getting elected right now.
However, electing Obama as a self-funded (via individual campaign donations) reformer rather than the next Bush/Clinton machine delegate will break a lock on big market campaigns and sham politics. That will open the door for the discussion of real issues.
Obama promises to put legislation and lobbyist details on the web and get people interested in politics again. If Ron Paul's core issues on money policy are sound (and I don't have the expertise to comment on them), this openness and the break from special interest back room dealing will give those concepts an audience.
On the other hand, the election of a phony conservative figurehead and a manufactured ditzy running mate who will continue the Bush secrecy, power grab, and cabal politics of Cheney will only dial back the US that much further into feudalism, Crusades and Inquisition.
There's no room for Ron Paul's thoughtful idealism and challenging ideas in a world where contrived bullshit substitutes for a political process. So if you really want to see Ron Paul's ideas gain any momentum, you have to vote for liberal openness rather than McCain's pseudo-conservatism that Paul himself said he could not endorse (in part due to McCain's reckless "bomb Iran" comments). ]
Regarding “Komor”’s remark:
“Communism, fascism, nazism are all some sorts of socialism”
Clearly you are ignorant of all the above, I I suspect you merely parrot what you’ve heard. Thanks for embarrassing yourself so publicly.
Because Palin and McCain are working to court the favor of right wing extremists who favor Dominionism: the overthrow of the secular US government with a religious one.
EEEEHHHHHHHH (Loud buzzer sound)
Wrong Answer.
Give up on this fundamentalist crap. Those extreme conservatives are no worse than the extreme liberals with whom you associate. Don’t whitewash your own crazies by just looking the other way. Stones… glass houses…
[It is inappropriate to invent "crazies" and suggest I associate with them. What exactly do you have in mind, communist revolutionaries? I don't speculate whether you are part of the KKK or associate with people who fire bomb family planning clinics, so don't throw baseless, outrageous hyperbole in my direction. Palin on the other hand is all over the Internet praising and crediting her political success on a pastor who hunts witches and she has entertained the demands of her evangelical friends who sought to censor books from her small town library.
Palin doesn't just "know some people with extreme views," she has encouraged and participated with movements from radical religious fundamentalists who do faith healing and roll on the floor from demons and Holy Spirit to Alaska Secessionists, who are against the US. That is relevant to her policy sense, not an imagined personal attack I invented to make her or you look bad.]
Eight years later, McCain recognized that he could not run on the Republican ticket without accommodating the religious right, which clearly played into his pick of Palin as his running mate.
Wrong Answer.
McCain would have preferred to pick the liberal Independent Joe Lieberman. Lieberman was a Democrat before the Democrats run against him for being too moderate. I personally feel Lieberman is too liberal to be candidate for VP from the republican party. I would have supported McCain in this attempt at real game change. However, the real conservatives wold not. Don’t crucify the moderate McCain that we have a 2-party system.
One moderate President with one conservative VP would still be better than two extremely liberal President & VP.
[McCain is no moderate, he's a Bush clone war hawk. Palin is not conservative, she's a blindly fundamentalist big spender who has never had to make fiscal decisions tougher than taxing record oil profits, big deficit spending as a small town mayor on unnecessary and poorly planned projects, and wild spending of huge pork barrel federal money grants on a state already swimming in oil money. How is any of that conservative?
What's next, are you going to give everyone in San Francisco $2,500 cash every year and spend lavish federal dollars on unnecessary projects in the City and then call it conservative politics because we cut our own taxes while bathing in federal handouts? ]
Palin is embroiled in multiple scandals from an active investigation of her Troopergate allegations of improper use of executive power to taking expensive gifts in the model of indicted Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.
Wrong Answer.
Palin spoke out against these abuses that she was witnessing and caused Republicans with a long-held grip on power to fall from office and go to jail. I can only applaud that. Most Americans would agree.
[Palin spoke out against her own criminal actions? Or are you talking about her "wait and see" comments about Stevens' trial? Ted Stevens is a close ally of Palin; her copying the same crime he is accused of (taking gifts as influential bribes from well heeled constituents) is hardly excused by her own hypocrisy in running a campaign for AK governor on a platform of cleaning things up among other corrupt Republicans.]
An outsider perspective of average Americans, where “average” means being millionaire in a state that pays every citizen and their children thousands of dollars annually in oil money dividends.
Wrong Answer.
Only in Daniel’s head (as well the crazed heads of other extreme liberals) are middle class folk who travel (you might say interstate-emigrate) to Alaska to bust ass at blue-collar worker are the elite rich. Trust me, there are many more elite folks here on Wall Street than there will ever be in the state of Alaska. The elites are in New York, Los Angeles, and Washington DC, and they’re contributing $millions of dollars in funds to Obama ( with absolutely no strings attached.. wink, wink). (Remember all those Wall St and Fannie Mae types and their contributions.)
[Come back to Earth. Palin is worth well over a million and has an estate with a private plane in front of her house. Yet she represents herself as a struggling everyman's wife who worries about health care. That's complete fiction. The fact that there are working class people in Alaska who may even work for Palin is wildly irrelevant.
Also, Biden described his working class roots but said he now lives in a big house and has a comfortable lifestyle. He says he understands trial and adversity, and he's been wiped out a number of times. He did not pretend to be a coal miner or WalMart employee. The fact that elite New Yorkers are among those contributing to the Obama campaign (perhaps out of arrogant disgust for how badly Bush has destroyed the economy and the country's standing in the world) has nothing to do with Palin's grossly hypocritical phony portrayal of herself as a commoner when she is really rich and privileged and syphoning off extra money as a per diem for living at home at governor. ]
And finally, dan all your talk about abortion and gay rights.
EEEEHHHHHHHH (Loud buzzer sound)
Wrong Answer.
These are just wedge issues that the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals use to polarize the electorate, and distract from real issues.
[Civil rights matters that affect the majority of Americans are not wedge issues. Flag burning and adultery trials and climate change doubting and Freedom Fries are wedge issues. More than half of the US are women, and at least 10% of society is directly affected by gay rights.
Civil rights is not an "extreme liberal" matter. I do agree with you that extreme conservatives have polarized the electorate with raging ignorance about subjects like stem cell research. If you view embryos as abortion, that is a valid debate, but attacking stem cell research itself is grossly ignorant, because the embroys they use are discarded byproducts of fertility clinics that will otherwise be destroyed. The extremist conservatives would never attack fertility clinics, as that would be politically unpopular among rich Republican women who desperately want to conceive a baby. But they're happy to vilify science for working towards medical cures from the discarded "life" from fertility clinics. That's just gross hypocrisy and political posturing that is indefensible. This same "culture of life" also supports the death penalty and sending soldiers to die in an illegitimate war that is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
You have the balls to suggest that "extreme liberals" will damage the country? ]
For example, 1) the $2 Billion dollars/day negative trade & account balances between the US and the rest of the world. It’s draining our wealth and our future competitiveness.
[Eight years of Bush delivered that.]
2) That our educational system is becoming average for most and failing our most challenged. Our future innovation as a country will suffer from our decaying educational system, and from our xenophobic immigration policies. China and India are already graduating many more engineers and computer scientists than the US and/or Europe.
[Eight years of Bush delivered that.]
3) Our non-existent and therefore nonsensical immigration policies. I know of smart people who just moved to London or other places, rather than deal with the mess that is INS and Homeland Security today. Great international students are going elsewhere because of visa issues or the fear of them. Great professors likewise. Bankers and executives in the private from, including Silicon Valley, are having a hard time to gain admission to the US with working privileges.
[Eight years of Bush delivered that.]
4) Trade unions are no longer representing our neediest, and lowest paid workers, but much better paid industrial workers (auto, etc) who are becoming increasing priced out of the global markets for goods, in part because of stupid rules from collective bargaining.
They also represent government workers’ rights the interests of the taxpayers and our future competitiveness as nation. Public service workers are too easy to hire, too hard to fire, work inefficiently and collect mega retirement benefits that will in the not too distant future bankrupt many states.
Trade unions represent teachers against the interests of our kids. They help to rid our educational system of innovation. They make it hard to get rid of bad burned-out teachers. They make pay inflexible and reward only years in service, instead of results and ability. This has a paradoxical effect of pushing out many bright individuals, who are paid much better in the private sector for much less responsibility. Many of who are left are the tenured incompetents and the deeply dedicated who are handicapped at every step and rarely rewarded for their extra efforts. (see #2 above).
Our competitiveness as a country is being assaulted and we’re worried about who’s folksy, who winked, who wants to mainstream gay rights and abortion rights, instead of our core national fundamentals that are in jeopardy of eroding. Those who are gay or who were aborted would have the most at stake at polarizing the rest of the electorate.
[Eight years of Bush delivered that.]
By I say, forget these polarizing issues. Let’s get down to the basics and make our country great again.
[More years of Bush are not going to deliver that.]
qzg nailed it. Why, for the love of christ, can’t dems pick up a book on economics. I want so bad to elect the party that enjoys sex AND money. One activity can be done regardless of who gets in power, so I end up voting pocket book issues. I vote the economy.
I also agree with Realtosh who’s much shorter post illustrates why moderate fiscal conservatives can see through some of Dan’s arguments. I would add that I still favor public education because I’m more pragmatic than idealistic and if not for free public schools, I shudder at what some in our society would be doing with their numerous, unwanted children. Thank god the public school system, with all its flaws, at least caters to some of our least ambitious’ desire to shirk their parental responsibilities.
With 2 kids in public school, I can say unequivocally that we’ve not only dumbed it down so no child is left to feel bad, but also linked passing these kids with receiving $. So what do you think the schools become good at? Right. Human Nature wins again. We pass kids who cannot read or do basic math or point at the U.S. on a map. When I receive my child’s report card, I’m stunned at what it says. It contains nothing that resembles the output or abilities of my child (who’s naturally a genius). He’s 8, loves math, is very good at it, and his report card says he need to work on addition up to 13. What does that even mean? We’ve also emasculated males in our public school system. The little pamphlet ‘books’ they are forced to read are stunningly boring for a boy. It’s so PC and empty and uninspiring.
Ok, back to the economy. We need low taxes. Bush’s legacy will be overspending. With our rapacious govt., it’s looking like spending is the key at this point and going forward. After all, Clinton was lucky to slam us with massive, painful tax hikes during the .com boom. And even at that, the party came to an end the same way they always do. High taxes are bad for the economy. Low taxes are good. But Clinton made good on that peace dividend and cut our military drastically. Gore cut a bit of fat out of the govt. as well. Clinton was also a free trader, championing NAFTA and other agreements, which greatly helped our economy against the headwinds of high taxation. Derivatives and shady accounting practices and outright fraud were brewing underneath this retroactive tax burden, but the results of that wouldn’t be felt for a while longer, to be blamed on the sitting Repub president.
Against common cries of tax revenues plummeting by the left, Bush’s low taxes grew treasury revenues to record levels, much higher than even those that understand economics predicted. Meanwhile, nothing was done on entitlements and medicare, the 800 lb elephant of the budget. 9/11, 2 wars, hurricanes, and nation building and a housing bust to top it off in the end left us with a limping econony. Now we have Dems running for Prez proposing the LARGEST entitlement program in the history of this country, coupled with massive tax hikes. Although Obama has said he may have to rethink portions of that strategy.
On other issues, the ever-thoughtful Obama has become a republican. He’s for drilling, low taxes (ala Clinton’s middle class tax cut that never came), free trade (after he personally goes through the agreements line by line), and a strong military response on the table in case Iran gets the bomb. Plus he speaks well.
I’m not sure what he’ll do when actually elected into the comforting arms of a dem congress, but I suspect it’s not good. Small business owners, especially, are biting their nails as the proposals are going to be painful. Someone has to pay for all the candy when a huge chunk of our tax base pay no federal income tax at all.
I wish McCain had picked Romney as a running mate. I don’t like to be winked at during a serious debate. I think you should adopt the correct facial expressions when speaking about war or $700 billion dollar bailouts. I think Palin is folksy, but I’d prefer thoughtful and articulate. Did she score well? Yes. I question McCain’s judgment as well on this. But I also question Obama’s judgment in who he aligned with on his way up. Does he have a friend that loves America or hasn’t bombed something? I’m still waiting. It’s not guilt by association so much as guilt by participation.
I hold two opposing views. Like Steve Jobs, I don’t have a lot of faith in groups yet I can appreciate the individual. We have pockets of stunning stupidity in this country. Yet we also have the most entrepreneurial, innovative, and productive people on Earth. Granted, many of our brightest are immigrants, something we are taught to fear by the far right.
So maybe the glass is half full. But it’s piss. If the intelligent among us who crave high tech, enjoy the disposable income to buy Apple’s fine products, and generally have a broad world view and read Dan’s excellent RDM cannot discern which articles are about politics and which are about computers from the glaringly obvious titles, then what hope do we have?
For Dan: I spent 4 hours at the dentist the other day, which was pure torture, followed by not eating for 24 hours. I nearly lost my mind. Then I thought about your idea and felt much better. So thanks!
Gus’ 2nd corollary to Godwin’s Law (also known as “Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies”) states:
“As an online political discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Ron Paul approaches one.”
[If bringing up Nazis and Ron Paul is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Seriously, I think bringing up Godwin's Law is just an unfair attempt to stifle Nazi Analogies by people who aren't so good at Nazi Analogies. What's next, a prohibition on Car Analogies? Or Analogies? I'd be in big trouble, and so would Jesus. ]
Realtosh: One moderate President with one conservative VP would still be better than two extremely liberal President & VP.
Saying Obama is extremely liberal doesn’t make it so. If you compare the way the two candidates have actually lived their lives, Obama is far more conservative than McCain by almost every metric. Obama has been married only once to a woman he clearly still loves, is a self made man who started out near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, has a very calm even temperament, has two charming daughters, one house and is careful and deliberate in all his decisions.
Contrast that with McCain who has been married twice (to two beauty queens) chose a beauty queen as his running mate (the man has issues) dumped his first wife for a sugar momma, makes reckless and impulsive high drama decisions, is a legendary hot head, and changes his core beliefs whenever required to pander to the largest segment of voters (see Bush Tax cuts, immigration, pandering to the extreme religious right, financial regulation etc)
Despite McCain’s snide little “Obama doesn’t understand the difference between strategy and tactics” jab at the debates, Obama presents a highly strategic plan for America’s future while McCain offers us little more than side shows and prime time dramas.
If you compare their character and the way they choose to live their lives, Obama comes across as far more grounded than McCain. Obama is mostly steak with some sizzle thrown in while McCain is mostly sizzle with a tiny bit of steak.
@ kt
“steak and sizzle”
ROTFLOL
But enough of this destructive politics and character assassination.
[That's all you ever offer]
What are the man’s positions/ What is his record? What causes does the man champion? This questions should apply to either candidate equally.
I’ve attacked Obama, but only because his rhetoric may not match up with his policy, his record, and therefore what he’ll likely do as President. Nothing more. Nothing else. I just point out the contradiction, and hope that the candidate would clear it up. I also suggest reasons why it might not in his political interest to be clear.In contrast, it is in the voters interest to know what we’re getting. The coy ambiguity is good for Obama, not so good for America.
[The only coy ambiguity is your references to problems with Obama without ever stating what they are apart from being "extremely liberal!!!!" This is getting old. Put up or shut up.]
We already had a young inexperienced Presidential candidate, that picked an older partisan Washington insider as a VP. That Bush-Cheney thing didn’t so well. Why do some want to try again? Opposite end of political spectrum. Same potential mess.
[What a joke you are. That was your party. Bush brought no vision. Cheney brought no experience outside of cronyism. That was your joke ticket. Now you're saying more of the same with an old angry man backed up by a joke half his age?]
I’d rather my President have experience, and the VP do the on the job learning. On the job learning doesn’t go so well for US Presidents. There’s too much on the line.
We might not have known better 8 years ago. But we should have learned by now. Fool me once… Fool me twice….
[Clearly you are a fool all around. Please stop the nonsense trolling. ]
I say REFORM is our most pressing issue.
Throw the bums out. Start over with fresh blood (the only reason I like Palin at all). Get rid of special interests, on both sides. McCain has been the most consistent voice on ridding politics of the influence of special interest; in part from his lessons from the Keating scandal. But whatever the reason for his fervor, McCain wants to fix a system that is very broken. Everyone else is trying to game the system for their specially connected interests.
Let’s make government for the people, not the politically connected.
[Right, because McCain's crony-phony campaign full of lobbyists isn't "politically connected". ]
@ kt
“Saying Obama is extremely liberal doesn’t make it so.”
Why is it only extreme liberals take umbrage when others point out his liberal score card?
Don’t take my word on this matter. Go ask any liberal friends. Look up the liberal score cards on liberal organization’s websites. They’re the ones who gave Obama the “most liberal” label and score card.
It was reported in the press long before it was used by others politically.
[You are establishing that you are completely unable to have a discussion. You respond like Palin. When kt took issue with your comment and laid out an argument against it, you responded with a name calling attack "extreme liberal!" and bluster about unquantifiable "most liberal!" nonsense. You didn't respond to anything kt said.
All you can do is, like Palin, pick up another note card full of jingo-attacks and begin reading it off. It's all you ever do: attack and call names and then inject barbs about how you don't like being labeled and attacked. You don't offer any reason or discussion. You don't bring up interesting alternative views. You're just a record player of right wing jingoism. It's very tiresome. Change this. ]
@Etreiyu
So which one of them is not?
“Palin is also clear that she wants to overturn Roe v Wade, indicating that her personal views are not simply convictions, but her intended policy for the nation.”
Why are conservative views personal views, but liberal views are what’s best for the nation? Palin wanting to overturn RvW is her view on what is best for the nation AND (it can be both) her personal view.
I’ve never been a fan of people who claim one thing, but do another.
BTW —- love your blog, and even though we disagree on quite a bit politically (based on your posts alone) – I enjoy reading your blog. People who cry “stick to apple” — eh — pay no mind. I like reading the different viewpoints. If I only hear like-minded thoughts, how can I ever grow?
Hi Dan;
I don’t mind your political commentary- as it is your opinion, and not necessarily factually based, after all. We are all thinkers, and can either agree or disagree.
Where some may be upset- is that your technical analysis is SO accurate, with real empirical data and facts to back up your statements- this contrasts your political commentary. Even though your emotions do come through when talking tech., it’s appropriate, as it is backed up and seen as real “righteous indignation” against the machinations & subterfuge of the Microsoft potentate.
With the politics, everyone is expecting real analysis, and instead we are getting editorial commentary and opinion with no real substance. It doesn’t bother me; just beware, that what you have built up on one hand, may be detracted from on the other hand.
As an example, rather then prop the failed government, of which both parties are responsible, lets talk truth all the way. Who created and is responsible for Freddie & Fannie? Who created this banking problem in the first place? Who is responsible for encouraging & rewarding risky behavior in society and now the financial markets? Unintended consequences. Young people don’t understand this… sometimes good intentions fraught with emotion are later greeted with unintended consequences. That’s fine, but speak truth… this is the only way to learn and avoid making the same mistakes over again.
Speak truth; what are “change & hope”? The government certainly can’t give either. “We” are the economy, “We” are the controllers of our “change & hope”; to depend on the government for this is to give up our personal freedom, rights, & human dignity.
Let’s be honest; the legislative branch (controlled by ultra liberals) are just as culpable as the lame duck executive branch. When the liberals took control of congress & the senate, they made the same empty promises of their predecessors; nothing has been accomplished, more of the same corruption and plain incompetence.
Another example- let’s be honest; which candidate has yet to explain his ties to known terrorists? Explain that away. Don’t get me wrong; I am not for either candidate, I’m just illustrating, that if you want REAL change, we all have to stop our blind, and yes- religious- support in our individual parties and politicians. You want to be credible? Lay it ALL on the table, where ever that is. Don’t justify, deny, or defend; simply speak truth. The truth is the greatest defender, anyway.
It would be great, Dan, if you wrote some real political analysis; research and explain how government is supposed to work according to the constitution, then contrast how it works in reality. Explain the relationship between the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches… not too many people really understand it. Explain why lobbying is both good & bad. Explain how laws are passed. Explain what “pork barrel” spending is. Explain the history of slavery- no holds barred- name names and the political affiliation of both sides…. explain the irony in this- how the democratic party still “owns” the black vote, as they did in their plantation days of the democratic south. Go into it all- good and bad of both sides, and all affiliations; dig deep & speak truth- I dare you. Anything else is meaningless and simply ends up being shaded lies justifying & propping up past mistakes & failures.
You want real change? Speak truth & cut through all the FUD; be party agnostic- be a human being.
@ “RealTosh”
Why is it only extreme liberals take umbrage when others point out [Obama's] liberal score card?
Why is it that extreme right-wing pseudo-conservatives always think that anyone who disagrees with them is “an extreme liberal”? Accusations and baseless (that means ‘unsupported by facts or argument’) assertions HAVE NO WEIGHT – though, of course, they don’t teach that in the EIB School for Dittoheads.
If you want to be taken seriously, say something that at least *sounds* like you thought about it.
Dan -
Looks like the shout-monkeys are out in force, posting the by-now-typical-&-expected swill. Hope they don’t deter you from offering your views on the campaigns, despite their trollish ways! Don’t despair by their attacks: they have no substance, relying on volume, shrillness & condescension instead of any rational process.
Just remember – even the biggest monkey will run out of poo eventually! Keep the faith!
“High taxes are bad for the economy. Low taxes are good.”
And someone claimed that Obama doesn’t understand economics. Sheesh. In the real world countries with much higher taxes produce a much higher standard of living. Even Canada consistently beats the US in this regard. These countries have more efficient economies than the US (they are better at converting economic activity into human welfare – in the case of Canada, consistently better).
Any real economist can tell you that tax is simply the portion of our income we spend collectively, rather than individually. The reason we have tax is because individual (market) spending sometimes produces inefficient outcomes due to collective action problems. This is called market failure. The things we in modern societies pay tax to fund are largely things that are subject to market failure (security, education, health care, etc.). The basic truth is that markets are efficiency promoting institutions only sometimes, and other times cause grotesque inefficiencies.
Lowering taxes willy nilly just means leaving more to the market, and that often produces market failures (this is why Americans pay far more as a percentage of GDP for health care than countries with public health care and receive worse coverage). Thus, lower taxes are often bad for the economy.
Anyone who doesn’t understand this basic economic truth has no business debating about tax. Unfortunately, that includes most of the Republican Party.
@ Etreiyu
Your images are so colorful. ROTFLOL
I’m perfectly happy to out a conservative that conservative think tanks have labeled the most conservative. I would hope that commenters wouldn’t comment on it just for the sake of commenting.
I went to Obama GOTV meetings and an Obama rally. All I’m saying is that the rhetoric and the politics didn’t match.
If he were scored most conservative by conservative groups and he had centrist rhetoric I would be equally disappointed to learn that he was a neocon and would say so.
[All of your talk about "most liberal" voting records is unmeasurable talking point fluff. There is no way to quantify what you're talking about. "Most liberal" in an environment of quasi-fascism isn't very liberal. The Bush dominated Congress hasn't voiced any liberal-oriented dissent. They didn't move to impeach him for high crimes. The democrats put aside any challenges to Bush and have kowtowed to the right of the middle. They were elected to stop the war and impeach Bush. They didn't promise to do either, but the those who voted in a democratic majority expected that. So to crow incessantly about how Obama is more liberal and active than a bunch of spineless turkeys who have really done nothing but meekly push for consensus is ridiculous. You have never articulated the dangers you are fretting about. What liberal crisis will Obama usher in? Fair wages for labor? Middle class tax cuts? ]
As it is, his politics are more liberal than his rhetoric. I don’t use the liberal term as a pejorative. I use it as a description of politics. I’m Ivy League educated so I’m steeped in liberal values. All of western civilization is based on liberal values. What I’m talking about is the liberal politics of the day — the socialist tendencies of government needing to take care of everyone’s needs. I’m perfectly happy with our liberal values of democracy and our freedoms of speech and association, etc.
Obama speaks about personal responsibility in the same vane as Bill Crosby, which I agree is important. But then his politics is about government “investment” in social causes. Let the government do this, let the government pay for that.
[Government does have role to invest in things. It already does! Bush has been investing trillions while going deeply in debt. The problem is that the Republican administration is investing in worthless ashes. American infrastructure is crumbling, jobs are going overseas, American kids aren't getting a competitive education, the health care system is failing while Medicare pays for billions in fraudulent claims.
It is simply irresponsible and asinine to suggest that the federal government go away to suit your Republican ideals after the Republicans have rung up a staggering national debt, squandered the Clinton legacy, ruined the economy, left the country's infrastructure to rot, left the nation unprepared for national emergencies, squandered the military in an illegitimate war, and reorganized commerce to favor companies that move their assets offshore to avoid paying equitable taxes.
It's easy to make simpleton leaps of logic that the "government" should let the free market do this an that, but your turn is over because your choice has destroyed the country, the economy, our reputation internationally, the future of our children, and our competitive edge. The ideology you have supported has failed miserably.]
I would be also be upset with a candidate that spoke the hopeful message of Obama and was against free trade (rats Obama’s against free trade) or was against a rational immigration policy, like the right wingers, or didn’t want to pursue alternative energies or recycling, etc.
I’m an equal opportunity hypocrisy outer. If a conservative had made the same comment about an ultra right-winger not being a conservative, I’d be the first to jump and say “boo.”
[What ever. Liberals don't resort to specious jingoism. Democrats have never tried to redefine conservative as a dirty word. Your party has done that itself. Rampant hypocrisy and a lie of a platform.
Bush was elected to stop sex in the White House and stop "world building" and international peacekeeping in Kosovo. He turned around and allowed the nation to run on a criminal spree, killing and torturing Americans, spying on Americans, creating a climate of fear, letting the nation go to pot while he went trillions in debt to China so we could destroy hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq based on a lie.
That's your Republican values in action. McCain is even worse; he supports new wars before even getting elected! Bush didn't run on a platform of attacking Iraq in 2000. McCain is as immoral as any pseudo-christian right winger. He's angry and hostile and dangerous. That's what you support: further destruction of the country so you can prevent "rampant liberal action" such as living wages for laborers and the end of tax cuts for big oil's windfall profits.
You can't articulate and defend what you believe. All you can do is repeat jingo ideas that redefine everything you disagree with to be "evil." There's nothing intellectual or wise or fair or even classically conservative about that. Your preoccupation with branding everything you don't support as "evil" is, incidentally, what makes you a neocon, even if you don't like the label.]
@ Lee
If you want to talk about successful socialism forget Canada, they’re more like a glorified 52nd state.
Look instead at Scandinavia.
For example, in Denmark they have tax rates that top out at more than half of your income go into the state kitty. They have clean streets and great public transportation. They have half-year paternity leave for expecting fathers/ fathers of new-borns. Some companies increase that privately to 1 full year of getting full pay and no work. Spending time as a family. And they’ve been investing in alternative energy industries. Their unemployment rate is 1.6% Makes those US 4% unemployment rates not seem like full employment as we’re all taught in economy after all.
Let’s dig a little deeper.
Here’s a bit from an article in the International Herald Tribune bby the title. “High income taxes in Denmark worsen a labor shortage.” I’d add the link but Dan probably won’t mod the post, but you can google it.
“As a self-employed software engineer, Thomas Sorensen broadcasts his qualifications to potential employers across Europe and the Middle East. But to the ones in his native Denmark, he is simply unavailable.
Settled in Frankfurt, where he handles computer security for a major Swiss corporation, Sorensen, 34, has no plans to return to the days of paying sky-high Danish taxes. Still, an unknowing headhunter does occasionally pass his name to Danish companies.
“When I get an e-mail from them, I either respond negatively but politely,” Sorensen said. “Or I don’t respond at all.”
Born and trained at Denmark’s expense, but working – and paying lower taxes – elsewhere in Europe, Sorensen is the stuff of nightmares for Danish companies and politicians searching for solutions to an increasingly desperate labor shortage.
People like Sorensen, and there are many, epitomize the challenges facing the small Nordic country, long viewed across Europe as an example of how to keep an economy thriving and a society equal.
Young Danes, often schooled abroad and inevitably fluent in English, are primed to quit Denmark for greener pastures. One reason is the income tax rate, which can reach 63 percent.”
I personally know individuals who this affects. So I just googled it (tax rates denmark) and this was the top story. Perfect explanation. The story is much longer, but this captures the essence.
1.6% unemployment because the tax rate is scaring off many of the best and brightest young executives. Over there, patriotic means to leave or to get stuck.
I was there not long ago, so I can attest to their great infrastructure and socialist benefits. It seems like a little Utopia. But then again, I was just visiting and didn’t have to give up most of my salary to the government.
Lee,
Why do you think all the innovation occurs in America? Capitalism, free markets, a govt. that gets out of your way as much as possible, low taxes. Think of low taxes as INCENTIVE to work hard. Low taxes also encourage risk taking.
High taxes imply that the govt. knows best. In America, having politicians make your choices on how to live and what’s good for you is not very popular.
Sorry…I’ll keep my horrible standard of living in America as I pursue the things that make me happy, without govt. stealing from my pocketbook.
Was it my imagination? Or did I hear her say “nucular”?
Not exactly distancing herself from Bush.
So my point is that although I’m eager to knock the neocons off their perch, I’m not at all eager to embrace liberal politics.
Anyone who feels a need to fit me into either cohort, has a very limited cerebral flexibility.
Say it isn’t so, there you go again, Joe, I mean daniel.
We got here after 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton. They have contributed equally to not giving us solutions.
For example, the immigration problem dates back to the 80’s since the (last) amnesty. We gave everyone here a free pass to stay. Then we didn’t adjust the amount of legal immigration to fulfill our needs to additional labor and skills. We just looked the other way while many “undocumented workers” just flowed across our borders like found gold. Clinton didn’t fix this problem that Bush inherited. McCain had been advocating a rational immigration policy since before he ran for President in 2000, which means in was during Clinton’s Presidency. Bush inherited that problem. He tried multiple times to push immigration policy. He was nailed by the liberals saying it wasn’t enough. He was nailed by the right-wingers saying it was too much. A coalition of the most liberal and the most conservative killed any chance that Bush had to get any new immigration policy passed in the Congress. McCain was with the moderate liberals and the moderate conservatives trying to join the President in issuing a rational immigration policy.
See liberals and conservatives can both be obstructionists.
Clinton had the good fortune of having a Republican congress, for most of his time in office. They kept him in line fiscally, and allowed him to be part of one of the greatest expansions in our country’s history. I’m ashamed that they didn’t do the same for Bush. Damn those neocons and their political tentacles.
Unfortunately, if Obama wins which is likelier by the day, he will have a Democrat Congress, which have had a multi-decade record of not having having fiscal control. Dem Congress with Dem Congress is a dangerous combination. Maybe, we’ll get lucky that Obama and the Democrats will overplay their hand, and there will be a radical change in Congress in 2010.
Republican Congress with Republican President didn’t work. Democrat Congress with Democrat President doesn’t have much chance of being better. God save our country, cause we’re making a mess of it.
@ shiver me timbers
The American Constitution requires our currency to be backed by gold. It is unconstitutional to print money not backed by gold.
Both you and Ron Paul need to
a) review the Constitution, and
b) read the Supreme Court finding in Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871)
(the link for b: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=79&invol=457, and the most relevant passage:
“We are not aware of anything else which has been advanced in support of the proposition that the legal tender acts were forbidden by either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. If, therefore, they were, what we have endeavored to show, appropriate means for legitimate ends, they were not transgressive of the authority vested in Congress.”)
The idea that the Constitution requires a gold standard is only about 140 years out of date.
Dan,
Could you post outside of others’ posts? I always miss the good stuff looking for slight differences in the text from prior posts.
What the hell is a jingo?
nelsonart said:
“What the hell is a jingo?”
jingo: a vociferous supporter of policy favoring war, esp. in the name of patriotism.
Lee made an interesting point, but went off the rails when he started talking about Netherlands and their stability. Liberals don’t have as many children. You can’t have long-term have stability with an elderly-heavy population. Especially a society with an expensive welfare state.
Dan,
As a Catholic Conservative, factually many of the comments you make are true. While our philosophies are different I look forward to next time I’m in San Francisco having a beer or coffee with you and debating these subjects.
Keep up the good work.
I dislike hypocrisy.
The VP debate had 2 candidates. Feverishly, both tried hard to burnish their middle class image.
One is criticized for being “a millionaire”, even though she is the daughter of two school secretary and a science teacher, who moved their entire family during her lifetime to Alaska looking for a better life , from rural northern Idaho.
The other candidate, Biden, likely had a similar scrappy humble background to riches story.
But somehow it’s wrong that the Palins have money because they worked hard for their money, working a small family fishing operation; while it’s ok for Biden to have gotten rich on his Senate salary. That’s obviously superior morally and ethically.
Hypocrites!!!! Hypocrites!!!! Hypocrites!!!!
You guys have a double standard in all of your criticism.
At least I call them all bums on both sides. You guys call one half evil, while the other side with whom you agree make doo doo that smells like roses.
I have stated clearly many times that have problems with both right-winger neo-cons and extreme liberals. I have clearly shown that although I am extremely disappointed in the neocons’ hijacking of the agenda, that I am not prepared to accept a wholesale change to liberal ideology. There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to adopt a liberal agenda. Not wanting a liberal agenda does not make me a neocon, it makes a rational being.
I am not a moron. Your characterizations are much less than flattering. Just because I know that I don’t agree with a liberal/ socialist agenda, you crucify me repeatedly. At least I have the courage to speak up. I have given example after example over the course of 2 weeks, where my positions depart from both right-wingers and liberals, yet you acknowledge none of it, trying to reduce my criticism to mere name calling. Many of the same of you have complained that my comments are too long and too detailed.
You nuts keep saying that I’m just name-calling and that I don’t give examples. It’s not my fault that you hypocrites don’t read the many examples that I wrote.
It’s not ok for any of you to complain that I don’t give examples on one hand, then complain that my posts are too long and give too much detail on the other. It’s just like the Windows shills to argue both sides of the same argument to argue for their own position against all reason.
Hypocrites!!!! Hypocrites!!!! Hypocrites!!!!
Just because my positions are different than yours makes me no less a human being than yourselves. Why are some of you you so challenged that I disagree with your echo chamber?
It is good to hear various points of view. They help illuminate your own positions, and force you to hold more rational positions, not just emotional reactions.
Maybe I was wrong to think that a rational discourse was possible on this blog with the obvious bias that has been present all along.
Obama says,”There is not a liberal America. There is not a conservative America. There is just the United States of America.” Then if you look at his policy, his record, and his platform, you see that it is a fairly traditional liberal Democrat platform. Any sane moderate would be justifiably disappointed, after getting their hopes all worked up. I guess it is too much for unabashed liberals to accept at face value. Right-wing conservatives would not have been disappointed because they would’ve known better than to have any hopes that a Democrat would be able to have the best answers.
Being more moderate, and hearing the rhetoric, I allowed myself the luxury to hope that Obama would truly be post-partisan. My research seems to indicate the opposite, yet I hope that I’m wrong. I hope that Obama will truly be post-partisan. Luckily, with so much post-partisan rhetoric, hopefully, we’ll be able to hold Obama to his message.
On a side note to our European readers:
Some may be confused by the liberal democrat label. In many European countries that label applies to center left and in some countries center right parties. In fact, I’ve voted for a center-right party that was known as the Liberal Democrats a few years back in Europe.
In the US, liberal Democrats are at the socialist end of the spectrum. For them, there isn’t a problem for which the government doesn’t have a solution.
Sorry for the interruption. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
As is the fact that Obama was second in the amount of money it received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why? What made him so special. I can understand why Dodd was number one. Perhaps we will learn before the election.
Your right and Obama is the perfect example. He uses the slogan of “Change” while his background suggests otherwise. Obama has advanced by conforming the Chicago politic machine unlike Palin, who advanced by challenging the corrupt Alaskan Republican machine. Throw in some creative sets, custom logos, soaring rhetoric and some fireworks and you have a classic example of what you just stated. He talks about “Change” then chooses a Washington insider. He tries to compare McCain to Bush, then votes with Bush on the Bailout. We are about to elected the most inexperience candidate who has not been thoroughly scrutinized.
No, Democrats are the cause! This is one case in which the Democratics can take most of the credit for this financial mess. The Bush administration attempted to impose more regulation back in 2003 only to be stopped by mostly Democrats (with some Republicans) such as Dodd, Frank and many more. If fact, Republicans many times tried to impose tough regulation to only be rejected by Democrates in Congress. The problem lies in Government, not deregulation or free markets. They were run as a private company to make money for the shareholders while being subjected to the political needs of Congress with taxpayer subjected to the risk. Because they were GSE, they were not subject to normal market forces. Democrats used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to push their agenda of increasing home ownership to low income people, even if they couldn’t afford it. In turn, the GSE’s pumped more money to the Democrats in part to stop any further regulation (it also help Democrats get votes to keep them in Congress too). Bush’s fault lies in the fact that he didn’t stand up and fight the Democrats in Congress much the same way he fought against them in their dangerous timeline pullout policy for Iraq.
[Not sure who you're trying to convince here, but the country and the world is pretty clear on who is to blame for Bush's economic ruin and the Bush Bailout. Even the RNC carefully made no mention of Bush (outside of his wife's speech.)
You might better invest your breath in posting McCain=Change somewhere that the people are stupider. McCain is a cancerous cranky old version of Bush. He's in rapid slide mode. At this point I'm pretty sure McCain is going to lose. But in any event, you're barking up the wrong tree to suggest up is down here. ]
Oops, previous paragraphs were response to follow statements. Your statements didn’t show in my previous post.
[Elected officials can lose sight of the people they are supposed to represent when money gets in the way.]
[Conversely, elections can be dumbed down into marketing slogans so that voters are only selecting an image that does not reflect policy and viewpoints and substance, so that they end up electing a series of figureheads who are then played by unelected ventriloquists behind the scenes.]
[It remains Bush's Bailout, caused by Bush's Economic Policy Failure.]
the jingo ate cho’ baby
Jingo bells
Jingo bells
Jingo all the way
It’s pretty clear that FM and FM were primary causes of this mortgage mess, with the Dems lapping up contributions all along the way.
Here, let me quote Clinton in a recent interview:
“I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
And a little more:
Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities “ill-advised.”
There is plenty of blame to spread around, but certainly more goes to ill advised liberal policies that aimed to get people who couldn’t afford homes into homes.
On the other hand, we’ve made money on the past 5 ‘bailouts’ and it’s likely we will make a little return on this one as well, assuming the market recovers and the credit tightening eases.
At that point, the Dems will reverse course and attempt to take credit for the ‘crisis.’
“Why do you think all the innovation occurs in America?”
It doesn’t. You just think it does because many Americans automatically think that everything good comes from the U.S.
“Capitalism, free markets, a govt. that gets out of your way as much as possible, low taxes. Think of low taxes as INCENTIVE to work hard. Low taxes also encourage risk taking.”
Again, if you don’t understand what market failure is, you have no business talking about tax, because you simply do not understand why we pay tax. We pay tax because markets don’t work efficiently to provide many of the goods we need.
Higher income people pay higher taxes because if we had a flat tax rate, it would cause massive social problems as people at the low end would be hit hard.
It’s not rocket science. Every developed country has a welfare state and a progressive income tax. It’s not a conspiracy – it is done this way because it works.
“High taxes imply that the govt. knows best. In America, having politicians make your choices on how to live and what’s good for you is not very popular.”
That’s because the government does know best in certain circumstances. Or rather (to be more accurate) in certain circumstances individuals may know their own situations best, but their aggregate decision making makes them worse off than if they allowed themselves to be compelled to take another option. It’s called a collective action problem and is a basic economic concept. As I said, if you don’t understand collective action problems, you don’t understand why we pay tax, and if you don’t understand that, you have zero to contribute to the debate.
Canada is not the 52nd state, nor are the Europeans in some terrible trouble. The right have been saying this for over 4 decades now and their dire predictions never come true. The “brain drain” is my favourite. It’s a pathetic partisan exaggeration.
The United States has the highest GDP of any nation, yet it produces a lower standard of living for its citizens. It’s a textbook case of an inefficient society.
Lee,
I don’t think many Americans would trade with Europeans. We like our big homes and abundant property, big screen HD LCDs, Apple Computers (invented here) with those fast Intel CPUs (invented here) that run both Windows (invented here) and OSX (invented here).
Americans don’t particularly like to save, but that hasn’t done Japan a lot of good. Turns out, spending is good. It makes our economy hum. It creates a demand that is satisfied by many entrepreneurs seeking to profit handsomely.
We all understand where govt. provides for the masses. We get roads and national defense and certain broad social programs. Also, unless I don’t know my math, we have a progressive tax system now, and have for quite some time.
All I’m saying is lower taxes are better than higher taxes. When taxes are too high, it discourages people from taking on risk. There goes your innovation (and jobs).
I’m sure there are measures where many countries beat us. They have free health care, a populace that has abundant free time, perhaps enormous natural resources and a smaller population. Who knows. Canada is a nice place, for sure. I’m glad you like it. They come down here, to America, where our innovated, invented here, worldclass medical procedures offer care they cannot get up there. Especially if time is of the essence.
Don’t be jealous of us. We like Europe. We like Canada. We are glad they are moving in our direction. Emulation is flattery.
They come down here, to America, where our innovated, invented here, worldclass medical procedures offer care they cannot get up there. Especially if time is of the essence.
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
@ nelsonart
“On the other hand, we’ve made money on the past 5 ‘bailouts’ ”
Sorry to beat up on one of the few non-liberal-echo-chamber voices on this blog, but this doesn’t sound right.
We lost bundles on the S&L Bailout.
Warren Buffet seems to think that if the Treasury buys the bad mortgage securities at market value, that the taxpayers would likely earn a profit on the $700 Billion expended buying these currently toxic securities. Warren even said that he has appetite for taking 1% of the US Treasury Bailout Pool, as an investment.
The best thing we can do as taxpayers would e to take Warren Buffet up on his offer. Let Warren Buffet participate in the recapitalization of the financial sector, plus offer this potential investment to other billionaires as well an investment funds and pension funds, so that we can make some money back from this mess. But only if Warren Buffet has some skin in the game. 1% would be $7Billion of Bershire Hathaway money invested. That sounds like the right amount for Warren Buffet to have a vested interest to make sure that Bailout actually does right by the US taxpayers.
(You see I’m always very protective of the US taxpayer.)
As a UK Conservative, I found Dan’s discourse on the American political situation most informative. And he uses facts wherever possible to support his views (unlike other participants on this forum). It’s great that he takes a stance unashamedly too!
I enjoy the technical articles too, including his uncompromising stance on MicroSoft and journalistic hacks,
@ LuisDias
“They come down here, to America, where our innovated, invented here, worldclass medical procedures offer care they cannot get up there. Especially if time is of the essence.
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!”
You may laugh, but it’s true. As you can attest, in most countries with socialized medicine, a natural market of medical insurance has sprouted up to give those who can afford to pay a higher level of care than is available from the public health care system.
Luis, tell us. Isn’t it true that many of not most of the best and highest-paid white-collar jobs in your country come with medical insurance. I know of many folks living in you city who tell me it is so. I also know of many people who have to wait months or years for procedures, that were deemed medically necessary. But then again they were provided free by the government.
Neither system is better than the other necessarily. I predict that most industrialized countries will have a blend of socialized and private medicine. Those countries with socialized medicine will continue to develop private medical insurance. The US will likely continue on its’ creep toward further provision of medicine through government. Over time, the two systems will move toward each other.
Here in the US, we don’t invest enough in preventive medicine, and we don’t make health care available equally to all of our residents. But we do have the best, most innovation healthcare in the care in the world. The most monied classes from many countries come to the US for healthcare procedures. Likewise, many lower income (middle class) folks will travel abroad to get elective procedure done for much less than in the US.
But that is no reason to “BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!”
Not seeing to points that the others are making is to limit what one can learn from others.
@ gus 2000
“Jingo bells
Jingo bells
Jingo all the way”
ROTFLOL
I’m sorry that this is part of the name calling that is coming from some of our more liberal adherents on this blog, for which there is a double standard, but..
[Jingoism is a description of the content free, buzzword-based (Socialist!! Liberal!!) non-argument rhetoric gushing you engage in. It's not name calling to label your style as short on meaning and long on emotionalistic pandering.
You do nothing but call names, attribute motives, and stuff words into the mouths of those you disagree with, without making any effort to understand their position. That's why I have a hard time taking your comments seriously. If you want to be part of the discussion, you have to participate, not just copy/paste in talking points from some extremist blog and try to drown out others by sheer volume. ]
This was funny as hell. Thanks.
“Luis, tell us. Isn’t it true that many of not most of the best and highest-paid white-collar jobs in your country come with medical insurance.”
I wouldn’t know. As you clearly say, it’s a “white collar” job thing, and I’m definitely one of those. It says nothing really. That money can buy you things is a truism.
“I also know of many people who have to wait months or years for procedures, that were deemed medically necessary. But then again they were provided free by the government.”
I’m not going to defend my country, that suffers from greater evils than “socialism” or “capitalism”. But, taking your point, you see, here we have a choice. We can decide to pay more and get private health care (which isn’t the beautiful landscape many people paint), or simply go to the state health care. It has faults? Of course it has. But the situation is very complicated, it has its roots in the heterogeneity of the economic landscape, corruption, etc., and to simplify it to a “state vs private” is, well, simplistic.
The core concept of market failure should be evident in health care plans. While some one buys a health care plan, all is roses and we have rights to everything. When you do have medical issues, the health care companies will assist you. The problem is that when someone stops being a case of profit for the insurance health company, there is a strong motif to “drop” him/her. People in very bad shape will not have the energy to fight the disease and the medical health company at the same time. People will then pay everything they can to save their asses, even if they were covered (but somehow the company had written a subliminal exception, or finds one, or creates one) thus ruining personal wealth.
This is not rocket science. It’s bound to happen. State health care is not perfect, no one said it is. It has failures too, inefficiencies, relaxation, lack of ambition, etc.
Still, to state that the US care is better than the canadians, is so mind blowingly ignorant that I can’t type anything else than a big LOL
edit: “As you clearly say, it’s a “white collar” job thing, and I’m definitely not one of those. (Wish I was!!)
You write
“We can decide to pay more and get private health care (which isn’t the beautiful landscape many people paint), or simply go to the state health care. It has faults? Of course it has.”
Sounds much like what I wrote earlier…
“Neither system is better than the other necessarily. I predict that most industrialized countries will have a blend of socialized and private medicine. Those countries with socialized medicine will continue to develop private medical insurance. The US will likely continue on its’ creep toward further provision of medicine through government. Over time, the two systems will move toward each other.”
I was just making the point that some folks say my dog is so much better than your dog (from both sides of the health care divide). Both styles of health care have pluses and minuses.
I didn’t mean to attack you necessarily. I just used your laughter at a true statement — that many folks do come to the states for medical care — to make a greater point — about so many people just saying mine is better than yours, or laughing at the other guy’s dog — does not contribute to as fruitful a discourse, as we all deserve here.
Socialist medicine is no panacea. I just happened to know some problems about the system over there so I shared them. I do not use that to mean that our system doesn’t have problems, just that we can’t afford to laugh at the other guy’s dog, without understanding what works and doesn’t work with each system.
I can point out lots of problems in the system over here:
1) We don’t spend enough on preventative medicine.
2) We spend too much on procedures.
3) Our specialist make too much money.
4) while our general practitioners don’t make enough, and are overworked.
A family doctor in a sole practice needs to work 70-80 hours/week in most cases, sometimes more. Between scheduled office hours, hospital rounds, checking in on patients in the hospital (or at hospital as our Brit friends say), taking calls day and night from sick patients, etc, etc. They hardly see their own family, and often only see their kids in bed sleeping.
We have a procedure driven health care system, because procedures drive revenue. For example we’ll spend more than $70,000 to move people’s teeth around in their mouth so that their teeth “sit better” in their mouth.
I’ve looked in my own mouth. My teeth are also grating a bit and wearing a bit unevenly. But my vanity isn’t such that I need an expensive surgical procedure to relieve self-esteem issues that I may have or not. (Disclaimer, I make no implications about anyone else’s need for medical care, or psychological state. I just use this example which can be seen through multiple points of view.)
I would rather spend that money on childhood healthcare, preventative screening for chronic disease, nutrition and health education. But that’s just me.
Calling for more of this expensive health care for everybody that the government is going to be on the hook for, is just going to lead us further down our trail to national bankruptcy.
We do need to find ways to provide better primary care and preventative care to as many of our population as we can. But the notion that we all deserve expensive medical procedures because we were born in the US, or happen to live here at this moment, instead of Botswana or El Salvador, is not at all clear.
We need to fix some fundamental aspects of our health care system before we start asking the federal government to pay for even more of this often misdirected health care.
For example, Michael Bloomberg (lifelong Democrat turned Republican to run for Mayor of New York turned Independent to see about his chances at running for President) as Mayor of New York outlawed smoking in public places like restaurants and workplaces. He then outlawed trans fat in foods served in NY restaurants or sold in NY stores. He has also pushed some preventative measures that some of our more conservative constituents might not be too excited about.
Bloomberg did more with these simple measures to improve health care outcomes of many New Yorkers than almost anything else done by anyone else in government, in medicine, or in public health in many years.
Again in you’ll have civil libertarians on the left, and the deregulation get government off our backs restaurant associations on the right to oppose these pragmatic steps, before the results came in. There was increased traffic in New York’s restaurants after they became smoke-free.
Blommberg is also fiscally prudent. He runs the City like he was running Bloomberg LP, his information company that he started when he was fired from Wall Street, and with which he made $Billions.
Although, he’s a bit too liberal in his social policy for my taste, he’s the kind of candidate that I would support, because he makes the tough choices and pragmatic decisions that lead to better quality of life for citizens and a government that doesn’t live beyond its’ means, in a manner that is not partisan.
@ Realtosh,
Yeah, the accepted cost of the S&L to taxpayers accumulates to roughly $153B. I had read that statement about the final profit for the last 5 bailouts from Ric Edelman, where he obviously factors in profit not available to the govt. as a whole.
Actually, I’m not quite sure how he arrives at that statement, but he’s no dummy, so I emailed him for clarification. If I get a chance, I’ll spurt it out somewhere else or if you want, I’ll email you.
I agree with Luis and Realtosh that some form of govt. provided care is probably the direction we are headed…Medicare/aid already does some 30% and we aren’t getting great CARE for our overspending on this important area. But we are getting world-class technology and discovery, even if it’s horrendously expensive.
The evil of it is the same concept (incentive… or motive for profit) that creates these great discoveries is also the barrier to availability due to the high cost.
We have too many inefficiencies. I read on Wikipedia that about 50% of out health dollars vaporize in the labyrinth of insurance companies, legal abuses, govt. deliver inefficiencies, etc.
We can do better. No one should be wiped out financially from illness in this country. But whatever we end up with, the best solution will probably be forged out of a republican congress/dem president.
On taxes: no one knows that magical point where we maximize revenue. Substitute ‘price’ for tax and you can readily see how it works. You can raise prices and sometimes revenues go up. Sometimes your overshoot and people CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR and total revenues (TR) decline. Sometimes you can have a sale and TR increases. That’s the beef with taxation.
I think Bush’s tax cuts unleashed a lot of capital gain activity and encouraged a lot of small businesses to take the plunge. I don’t think we need tax relief at the very top, but it’s hard to give to those in the 250K-1M zone without also giving to those in the stratosphere.
No one liked Clinton’s retroactive hikes. They were too high. As a part owner of a financial services firm, I saw much ‘blowback’ from those high taxes. Much of which we are paying the price for now.
For the liberals who hate admitting that they are liberals:
[This kind of trolling is why you are no longer welcome to post. You're citing a right wing publication to explain why Obama is "rated" as liberal-for-american-senator? What's next, an exposé written by vampires about how Obama walks out in the sunlight during the day?]
“when the National Journal released its 2007 vote ratings– which ranked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) the ‘most liberal senator in 2007…’ ” (I removed the link because of discriminatory moding policy on this blog.)
The following are the “Composite Liberal Score” and the “Liberal Ranking Among All Senators” for 2 example Senators.
Hillary Rodham Clinton Barak Obama
Score Ranking Score Ranking
2001 76.3 25th -
2002 86.7 12th -
2003 88.8 8th -
2004 71.0 34th -
2005 79.8 20th 82.5 16th
2006 70.2 32th 86.0 10th
2007 82.8 16th 95.5 1st
“A March 4, 2004, Wall Street Journal editorial read: “The National Journal, a center-left magazine, reports that Mr. Kerry had the most liberal such record in the entire Senate last year, to the left even of Ted Kennedy.” Additionally, a July 7, 2004, Wall Street Journal editorial stated: “The National Journal reports that in 2003 [then-Sen.] Mr. [John] Edwards [D-NC] had the fourth most liberal voting record in the Senate (after only Maryland’s Paul Sarbanes [D], Jack Reed of Rhode Island [D] and Mr. Kerry himself).”
Don’t blame the messenger. If you a have a beef with the scoring or ranking take it up with the National Journal. It’s not make cause what liberals consider to be liberal or not. It is also not my cause that some liberals don’t accept their own badge. Further, it is not my cause that many, if not most Americans don’t feel themselves to be liberals politically, and if given a non-disguised choice will usually choose against liberal policy.
Don’t take my word on this matter, but my guess is that the National Journal is trying to embrace the liberal term, which some of you hate when associated with liberal policy.
Better to ask why do our primary party elections chose such extreme candidates for national office, on both sides. This is not a Democrats are evil statement. Although, the Democrats never fail to chose among the most liberal candidates for President each election cycle, the Republicans also chose Bush instead of McCain 8 years ago. Even though Bush wasn’t the most conservative candidate running, he did open the White House door to neocons, which turns out to have been worse.
Imagine how different our world would be, if McCain had won. Since the neocons attacked McCain throughout the primary election cycle that there is no doubt that they would’ve on the outs in a McCain administration. Rumsfeld and Cheney would’ve never stepped foot in the White House. Powell wouldn’t have left after the first term. He and McCain are on friendly terms, and have worked together over the years for the good of our country.
Bush didn’t control the undue influence of the neocons until it was too late. Without the neocons walking freely through the White House, we wouldn’t have rushed into Iraq recklessly. America and the world would be in a very different place today.
McCain is playing into the hands of the same neocons as Bush.
I see the right wing rushing to the conclusion that if only they had elected McCain in 2000, all this evil of Bush wouldn’t have happened… SO LETS TRY MCCAIN NOW!
This would make more sense if the same people who discovered this ploy hadn’t been cheerleading for Bush over the last 8 years. What happened four years ago when you were all telling us what an excellent job Bush had done? Clearly, you’re not a very reliable source for guiding the direction of the country.
McCain probably would have made a better president than Bush in 2000. He wasn’t 73 then, hadn’t dropped all of his principles to pander to the extreme elements of the right, including the war mongering neocons, and in 2000, the country wasn’t aware of how disastrous the McCain/Phil Gramm policies of “deregulation at all cost” would ultimately turn out to be.
However, a hypothetical 2000 race between the slightly more moderate McCain and Al Gore would likely have gone to Gore as incumbent without the Republicans tapping the extremist right in a coalition play. McCain would have lost Florida without Bush’s vote destruction.
Rather than using the 9/11 tragedy as a springboard for trying to take over the Middle East by invading Iraq, Gore would likely have united the nation in efforts to target terrorism where it was actually centered. Base on the intelligence already gathered by the Clinton administration (and ignored by Bush), the attack may have even been prevented.
The US would have have trillions more to invest domestically, trillions less debt to China, 4000 more living soldiers to defend the country, 30,000 fewer disabled veterans to apologize to, no international scandal involving torture camps and war crimes, and an economy based on clean energy jobs rather than a house of cards debt market related to securitized mortgage packages.
The same things can be said about Democrats winning in 2004. The problem in both elections wasn’t Bush, it was the Republican party corrupted by neocons.
McCain and the Republican party are still corrupted by neocons. Another four years of fear, torture (McCain voted against then voted for torture), and dead wrong economic policy won’t make up for 8 years of Bush, it will compound the disastrous debt Bush started.
Daniel: Even your speculation is becoming nauseating. You have no idea whether or not Gore/Kerry/pick-your-democrat-of-choice would have done a better or worse job than the current administration. Chances are, they wouldn’t have. Also, I’d love to see this ‘Clinton intelligence’ that nobody, including his wife, paid any attention to when the US decided to go into Iraq.
McCain is a moderate Republican- he says so, and his record backs him up. He has always been against torture- he has voted that way, and he explains why in his book. So you’re dead wrong on those issues.
As far as the economy goes- you’d be best off blaming Frank, Dodd, Obama (thanks to his ties to Acorn and campaign contributions from the now defunct FM/FM) and pretty much the rest of the Democratic party- they constantly fought against the numerous warnings from the Republicans over the past decade, including legislation attempts from McCain and Bush (gasp! Bush warned about the impending economy collapse? Yep, dozens of times- all blocked by the Dems.).
You Dems can fight for entitlement programs and wealth redistribution all you want, until you realize that it just doesn’t work and will only make things worse. Will Obama still raise taxes on ANYONE once he takes office? Will he come through with his promises to the middle class? No, he won’t. Just as Bill Clinton didn’t when he took office in ‘92. Look up the facts folks, before you pass judgment. It’s a shame- I thought Daniel was such a good tech writer. But his recent opinionated political diatribes have got me wondering…
[You are unable to cite specifics because you are wrong. Repeating generalities about "wealth redistribution" is not the same a citing facts. The reason Clinton was unable to cut taxes was the larger than expected deficit he inherited from Bush Sr. The tax breaks offered by Bush Jr. were only possible because Clinton turned the economy around. Bush has since driven up the deficit and killed any hope of a balanced budget.
Meanwhile, he has redistributed wealth to overwhelmingly favor the politically connected and has penalized the middle class with high energy costs rather that pursing domestic alternative energy. Your position doesn't even make sense, even if you could articulate it.]
@nelsonart:
“We have too many inefficiencies. I read on Wikipedia that about 50% of out health dollars vaporize in the labyrinth of insurance companies, legal abuses, govt. deliver inefficiencies, etc.”
This is the closest statement to the truth that I’ve seen on any public forum/blog that I’ve read in the past year or two. I’ve said this before- people in this country want great healthcare no matter how they get it. The insurance companies are responsible for the direct cost to consumers/businesses, NOT doctors, hospitals, etc. The insurance companies, including the Meds, pay the doctors/hospitals whatever they wish to, based on some formulas that they have devised over the years. They profit nicely- for example, in Pennsylvania alone (the state in which I practice medicine), the private insurance companies have $6Billion in their coffers. That’s your money folks! They’re raping the public left and right. What’s more is, trying to get the money from them is worse that pulling teeth- we have employees whose sole job in our office is to harass the insurance companies for the money that they owe us. We’re about 2 months out in our A/R, which isn’t bad overall compared to the rest of the country. There are many more issues involving the insurance companies, but I won’t bore you.
Last point- one of the major cost contributors is medical malpractice. Too many lawsuits, too much defensive medicine, outrageous med/mal insurance rates. Neither candidate for pres has a perfect health plan, but conspicuously absent from Obama’s is any kind of tort reform. McCain and the Republicans have fought for tort reform for years. Don’t expect ANY form of tort reform from Obama- he’s a liberal Civil Rights attorney. The ABA has him in their back pockets, just as they did the Clinton’s.
[When asked by Fox News for an example of crossing party lines when Rebublicans offered a good idea, Obama answered, "I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left," referring to the February 2005 vote for S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act.]
jdoc,
I agree. One walk downtown and you can see where our health care dollars are going. The largest buildings are insurance companies. They have rigged the game so that instead of spreading risk, they get to pick and choose who they cover and what they pay out.
The health care system is so clogged up because of these huge players that in order to fix it, it’s going to take tort reform, massive insurance reform, medical malpractice reforms, and a serious look at preventative care and laws to reign in false advertising by fast food, tobacco companies, and even the vendors in our kids’ schools. And there’s probably quite a few that I left out.
Dad, as far as Clinton having some special information that could have/would have prevented 9/11, why didn’t he make a stink? As with Kosovo, was he worried about his polling numbers? I question this whole concept because Clinton had Osama in his sights and decided not to take him out. So cheerleading about killing Osama, at least from Bill, seems a bit disingenuous.
Bush was our Jimmy Carter. No one can deny that. But to put the label on all repubs seems silly and shortsighted. There are repubs that are fiscally conservative and socially sorta liberal. Whatever the case, we do better with true moderates.
Lastly, this utopia that you speak of that’s just a democratic vote away – maybe we’ll get the chance to see just what the Dems are capable of, since they could have ample power to cram their agendas through congress. I’m not holding my breath. Robbing the productive among us to pay for the slackers doesn’t sound like a winning combo. Yes, that’s oversimplification, but if I’m going to get taken to the cleaners, my behavior will change. I will lay off, cut back, reduce benefits, etc. Whatever it takes to maximize my return for my time. Multiply this a few million times over. Economic hardship.
[Yes, it is an oversimplification to describe providing tax relief to 95% of middle class Americans as "robbing the productive to pay for the slackers." Do you think that the top 5% of the nation is "producing," and that 95% are slacking? Maybe you should reexamine who does the work, and who sits around on top of a pyramid of legal tax havens and loopholes while making money off money. The current economic crisis is rooted in deregulated sham inventions of the securities markets, not real productivity.]
Did I just call Dan Dad? Oops.
Dan, I regularly consider your articles as the standard by which I hold other writers to. Your political posts however, lack that excellence you posses about technology. Maybe politics is one area you should avoid since your image is not enhanced in belittling the views of others you don’t understand.
Many voice their opinion but fewer have understanding and wisdom. We should strive to broaden our scope by learning from failed societies in history. What made this country great was its distrust of government by the limiting of its powers and enhancing personal liberty as expressed in the constitution. There is far more wisdom in the average man than most experts are willing to acknowledge. Only a people of self discipline will we be capable of self government. As morality declines, external rule and slavery will rise.
Have we lost so much integrity that we will also forfeit our right to self govern? We either master ourselves or we will become mastered. Are we really that ignorant that we seek external (governmental) solutions to all our problems?
[When you talk about "personal liberty," are you advocating the kind of civil rights that the Bush administration has taken away? And when you describe "self government" and "morality decline" are you repudiating the three trillion dollars of unaccountable spending of the Bush administration, its pushing of an illegitimate war that has killed 3,000 US soldiers, wounded tens of thousands of our soldiers, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, state sponsored torture camps, and so on?
When you talk about "seeking external (governmental) solutions to all of our problems" are you referencing Reagan's plan to do nothing to help the economy and push businesses to solve the problems themselves, a complete 180 from the Bush Bailout seeking somewhere around a trillion dollars of debt relief for unregulated banking disasters?
If you're going to call me out for a "lack of excellence" in my comments on current events, please at least articulate what exactly you are talking about, because that's the conversation I'd like to hear.]
Dan,
Explain why the Democrats obstructed legislation that would have created appropriate regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that would have curtailed FM/FM involvement in risky mortgage products. It was the liquidity caused by these quasi-governmental entities with the full backing of the Federal Treasury and the US taxpayer, that created this whole mess, that we’re now dealing with.
[No it wasn't. Republicans are trying to blame the poor for taking out loans they couldn't afford, but the problem is banks extending risky loans and then securitizing those debts and setting up unregulated fictional accounting methods for creating fake value and hiding debts. This is the same thing Enron was doing, which McCain supported as a gift to his (second) wife. McCain has pushed a deregulation agenda throughout his career.
You can copy/past in all the right wing lies you want, but McCain wasn't trying to regulate FM/FM, nor did he understand the economic problems - HE POINTEDLY SAID SEVERAL TIMES ON VIDEO THAT HE HAS NO REAL UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ECONOMIC ISSUES. Trying to give him credit as being the regulation savior that the democrats denied is just more of the raging bullshit you spew so frequently.
The democrats retroactively screwed up the economy in two years while the all powerful Bush White House passively allowed them to do all this? Right. The Republicans have controlled the country over the last 8 years and obstructed Clinton in his second term with their hypocritical moralist bullshit. Suddenly the results of all their failed policies fall upon the democrats? Your hyperbolic nonsense would be entertaining if if wasn't so scary. ]
Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac give so much money, to the tune of millions of dollars to US Senators and Representatives? These legislators have the power to set the rules by which FM/FM operated. (Now that it’s toolate, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac need a massive bailout, and are expected to be phased out of existence over the next few years.)
[So FM/FM gave money to Obama to get the Bush Bailout? What planet are you from?]
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barak S D-IL $105,849
4. Hillary Clinton S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
6. Bennet, Robert F S R-UT $61,499
7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000
8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991
Includes contributions from PACs and individuals. 2008 cycle totals based on data downloaded from the Federal Election Commission on June 30, 2008.
[source: opensecrets dot org]
(Furthermore, fully 16 of the top 25 recipients in the past 10 years are Democrats. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shared their dirty money with both Democrats and republicans, but they knew who they could count on for favorable legislation and for protection from sensible legislation.)
[Look at who everyone is giving money to, including Microsoft: the Democrats. Because its obvious the democrats are going to storm the Senate and very likely take over the White House. Why do you find this pattern of campaign donations difficult to understand? ]
The Democrats always resisted any any and all restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Reasonable restrictions would’ve prevented this mortgage collapse and the financial sector meltdown. This would be an example of appropriate regulation where it counts.
[More unsubstantiated misinformation. The economic crisis comes from deregulated markets where Republican greed got out of hand, not from Democrats working to put the middle class in houses. As a greed infatuated, blind Republicant all you can do is spin things around. The truth is pretty obvious. Bush's failed policies, supported overwhelmingly by McCain, have come to roost.]
All this talk on deregulation is so misleading. The last thing our economy needs is lots of new regulation legislation. It would be sufficient to cut out the loopholes by regulating all financial institutions with the same rules (similar to the London scheme of financial regulation), and to reverse the lax enforcement and to reverse the leverage limits increased by the SEC in 2004.
[You don't seem to understand that regulation is the rule of law. Markets can't operate without laws, which history clearly demonstrates. Republicans always create economic depression when given the opportunity to control the entire government because their greed is too insatiable, nearly as bad as their contempt for working people.]
Our mess was almost entirely caused by
1) Primarily that the Fannie Mae /Freddie Mac quasi-governmental entities provided the backing of the US taxpayer and with it the liquidity for risky mortgage securities that made this whole mess possible.
[Totally wrong. There is not any explicit US backing of the secondary mortgage market, and who knows what you have in mind with "risky mortgage securities." You're talking out your ass again. ]
2) SEC extended investment bank leverage from 12 to 1 to 33 to 1, making investment banks bets and debts larger, and their required capital reserves smaller. Wall St sliced and diced this risky FM/FM paper and spread it all around the global financial system.
[SEC relaxed regulations due to pressure from the Bush administration, Phil Gramm and John "fundamentally a deregulator" McCain. ]
3) Also hedge-funds were largely unregulated, holding only money of high-net worth individuals gave them a loophole since “rich folks didn’t need to be protected from their bad investments”. They could make bets of whatever risk without any regulation.
[SEC relaxed regulations due to pressure from the Bush administration, Phil Gramm and John "fundamentally a deregulator" McCain. ]
To avoid this mess we needed to have severely curtailed these quasi-governmental entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) ability to diversify into risky mortgage products, which McCain tried to limit, but the Democrats blocked.
[More bullshit. The SEC relaxed regulations due to pressure from the Bush administration, Phil Gramm and John "fundamentally a deregulator" McCain. ]]
We also need to make sure that rules are the same across the board for all financial institutions. There should not be special exemptions for investment banks, nor hedge funds. The SEC not only allowed investment banks to increase their leverage ratios but than were very lax in reviewing and investigating their activities.
Regulation should be more uniform across all types of financial institutions, and enforcement should not be lax.
[So now you're rooting for Obama? Maybe you should spend three days working on your note cards before you Palin it all out for us.]
But at the core, the reason why all these risky bets were made by so many was because of the implied guarantee of the US Treasury made by the FM/FM participation in this secondary market securitization of mortgages.
It’s still possible that we’ll make money on the $700 Billion bailout, but then have to turn around and pay most of it back to honor guarantees made by Fannie or Freddie. History will call this the Fannie and Freddie Bailout and Meltdown that nearly (I use the term nearly with a bit of hope not.) takes out the global finance industry and risks another Global Depression.
[Wrong.]
The same guarantees that helped safe mortgages cheaper, also helped risky mortgage be investable.
All these Wall St guys (and investors around the world) thought they had a sure deal.
1) Fannie Mae implied a federal guarantee
2) Wall St firms purchased insurance on these bets (investments) to hedge the risk. That’s what took AIG out. (It’s like double insurance.)
3) Housing values had never declined nation-wide since the Great Depression, so it made it seem that these bets were unlikely to ever sour and use either the federally-backed FM/FM guarantee or additional private insurance.
[Wrong. The problem was that the Bush administration didn't do anything to help create new jobs or industries or ways to grow the economy, so over the last 8 years since the tech boom nobody invested in anything outside of housing. And nobody thought that housing could ever go down. Bush beat out democratic plans to invest in clean energy because that was a threat to his big oil plans. McCain has the same ignorance in economic matters. He admits he knows nothing about the economy and what to do about it. All Palin knows how to do is tax record oil profits that burst out of the ground in Alaska. They're economic losers. The US can't afford another 4 years of irresponsibly ringing up China credit card debt at the hands of out of control Republicans trying to finance our children so they can topple regimes and make things go from bad (Iraq under Hussein) to worse (Iraq under warlords and fundamentalist clerics) ]
Being in essence backed by the federal government, these bets seemed so sure to the investment bankers, that they levered as much as their limited capital reserve restrictions allowed.
[Wrong, they were never backed by the government. They were simply not regulated because of the Bush/Gramm/McCain deregulation policies. Now the Bush Bailout is trying to finance our kids to pay for reckless profiteering by renegade maverick investors flouting the rules.]
Without the implied guarantee of the federal government these investments would’ve been seen for risky bets they were. Too bad the Democrats blocked every attempt to put reasonable controls on Fannie Mae at every turn.
[Repeating lies does not make them the truth.]
Seems like McCain had a better clue on how to prevent this mortgage mess than the Democrats, who are now screaming “deregulation, deregulation, the sky is falling.”
[McCain's own mouth reveals he knows little about economics. The day the market crashed he was repeating his idiot line about the "fundamentals of the economy being strong."]
It would take a bit of integrity for those individuals who received so much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dirty money in political contributions to acknowledge that their obstructions of appropriate controls on FM/FM had a central role to play in creating the dynamic in which
1) mortgages wold get risky,
2) Uncle Sam would be on the hook for it, and
3) these otherwise risky bets would then be palatable for investors all across the financial markets.
It is easier to point fingers than to have serious reflection and self-examination.
[WTF? The Republicans - LIKE YOURSELF - are the ones scrambling to blame everyone else. Your hypocrisy and dishonesty are so over the top it is simply ridiculous. Obama and the Democratic congress have supported Bush's Bailout in efforts to resolve the prospects for economic ruin. Trying to blame them for Republican failed policies and then blame them for working to solve it under the plans set out by the president is jawdroppingly... well it's right up your alley. ]
Dan, care to join our rational discussion, rather than just fall into predictable ranting about it must be the Republicans fault because it would be easy to tar and feather them as the deregulation guys. Dan, I challenge you to resist the urge to just name call, help create a safe environment for much needed reflection and self-examination on the Democrat tendency to favor government solutions for all societal ills.
[You have proven yourself to be a lying coward who throws out names and accusations for hours and then when your rants are outed for the nonsensical rabid garbage that they are, you cry foul and try to make yourself out to be a victim. I asked you in a private letter to stop trying to monopolize the comments and shout down others with your rants. You do not participate in conversations, you only go on and on with your own ideas, and then attack anyone who presents something else. You don't really present criticisms or take issue with anything specific in my articles or in others' comments, you simply post up rambling rants that belong in your own blog. They're not comments, they're just essays you want to me to publish. Guess what? No more. I'm putting you in the Urban Bard file. I asked you nicely to stop shouting down everyone else with your unrelated stuff, now I'm canceling your content. Everything from your IP will be terminated as fast as I can terminate it. Sorry it has come to this, but when you ignore me, I ignore you. ]
I used to think debates were a good idea. But know they simply have become a way to spit out scripted statements that have nothing to do with the questions asked.
I sat watching the last debate and wanted to scream. At one point Palin made comments about how badly off people are today. Did anyone mention that Reagan asked “are you better off than you were four years ago?” Why is it now okay to say how bad the economy is and use it as a defense of the same party that got us there?
Palin is a joke. As extreme an editorial writer as Frank Rich is, there may be some merit in his theory that the ultra conservatives are hoping for Palin to take over because they believe McCain will never survive a full term. Just because she didn’t come across as an idiot does not mean a victory.
@Realtosh’s last comment,
Well now you’re talking. Nice post. I’d also like to hear a rebuttal of that.
@Realtosh: Well said. The evidence is irrefutable. The Dems have been caught red-handed (Obama is second on that list of recipients from FM/FM with $123,000+). But give the Dems and Obama credit for successfully (thus far) passing the blame to the Bush administration. The people seem to believe them. What’s more disgusting though is the blatant denial and lashing out from the Dems- Pelosi gives a scathing and immature speech on the congressional floor, blaming the Bush admin and Repubs for this current economic mess, and Frank gets on O’Reilly and completely denies any responsibility for the current economic situation. Takes some balls, but it seems to be working for them.
[Honestly, I do like to argue. And I appreciate that many readers know more than me about a lot of topics and can correct me when I'm wrong, or offer a viewpoint that is often at least as equally valid as mine in cases where we both might have differing views of the same thing.
I learn as much from people who comment as I do in researching the stuff I write. I totally disagree with the rant you are agreeing with, but I'm canning the "Realtosh" account and not any others because I learn lots from conservative readers who post their opinions and outlook, while Realtosh's long winded, off topic rants are really just trolls that expend too much of my time to refute. He can post them to his own blog if he so chooses. I appreciate you and others taking the opportunity to express your views succinctly and without the black-and-white, up-is-down off topic rambling. ]
Daniel: Thanks for the comments. I try to add constructive comments as best I can. But I’m just disappointed that the current economic situation hasn’t been researched a bit more, both by some on this blog and by you. The evidence is pretty clear. It’s hard to think that the same folks who skewered the Bush admin over the reasons for going into Iraq (bad intel, greed, oil, etc) would turn a blind eye to the REAL reasons we’re in one of the most devastating economic situations in this nation’s history. Hypocrisy at the very least. I currently have over 40 or so documents/research pieces on my iDisk- topics ranging from medicine to the economy to past convention speeches, etc- all related to this political. I’d be happy to post them if anyone is interested.
I’d be happy to post them if anyone is interested.
Jeebus! Anyone else wants Dan’s space to publish their political rants?
No, not on Dan’s space… I could post them on a separate page.
You must log in to post a comment.