I’ll be working out some thoughts here and responding to the so-called “debate.”
Barack Obama said we can measure our economic fundamentals by the middle class? Like… the proletariat? Okay…
“Because of the lax regulation…” – are you kidding me? When the Democratic Congress blocked bills calling for this? HIS party was directly responsible (given there were Republicans that did the same), and he’s shifting the blame.
“We’d all like to lower taxes on everybody…”
Obama deflects the charge of his earmark requests to the charge of McCain cutting taxes from the richest (who by the way put a good amount of money into taxes as it is).
“Closing corporate loopholes” – is supposed to bring in all of this money to pay for 800 billion in new spending for social programs… but those numbers haven’t been proven. On either side.
McCain – “There’s the issue of responsibility.” – right on. And he talks about Eisenhower. Shows he *knows* Eisenhower’s middle name. He sees the need to hold people accountable. I like responsibility. Obama’s socialistic plans skirt that.
I’m happy for fiscal responsibility and conservativism as well.
Lower taxes on large corporations so they can make jobs!!! It’s true! Look at history.
I love how apparently oil companies are the devil.
Obama’s “energy independence” plan is going to take 10 years. He says it’s something that must be done. Except in 10 years. Not quite fast-tracked right?
Why does college need to be affordable for everyone? So that everyone can get a mediocre education? I mean, I’ve been told by people how lousy a bachelors is today. The exact phrase was “A masters is what our parents’ bachelors was.” Great idea Obama.
HE’S NOT ASKING BUDGETS BARACK! He wants to know if you’re going to change your overall strategy and policies based on the market crisis.
Barack. That is not the question. Answer the questions. The lesson of Iraq is not “Should we have even gone to war in Iraq?” It predates what you could have learned.
Why does Obama get so pissy?
“Uh Jim, lemme just make a point. I’ve got a bracelet too. From Sergent… uhhhhuh… from the mother of uh Sergent…” – nice way to stumble. And he’s just said that the President gives meaning to the solider’s death… are you kidding me?
Barack says McCain is right a lot. But he also keeps saying it’s the same thing as the last 8 years but doesn’t actually explain what that is. Quit with the hollow language.
What powers does Obama think the President has??? The President isn’t a monarch or a czar (though it seems that could happen soon).
Thoughts On Our Rights
A lot of people in my generation (many people I work with, went to school with, am good friends with) have a socialistic view of how society should work. In many ways it’s pretty utopian. It says that we need to give our money to the government so that the government can serve as mother to the populace.
In the terms of healthcare, the idea is that we need mandatory insurance coverage for everyone. It’s sort of like car insurance in a lot of states. It’s mandatory for everyone with a car. Except that the government doesn’t help me out with that.
It seems similar to the idea that if I haven’t written a check then I haven’t paid for it. We want to pay for everyone to have mediocre healthcare instead of making healthcare cheaper.
From the National Review:
The health-care debate has centered on the uninsured. That so many people do not have health insurance is a consequence of foolish government policies: regulations that raise the price of insurance, and a tax code that ensures that most people get their insurance through their employer. If you don’t work for a company that provides health insurance, you’re out of luck. People locked out of the insurance system still have access to health care. But they often end up in emergency rooms because they did not receive preventive care.
For most people, however, it is another aspect of our employer-based health-care system that causes the most trouble: the insecurity it creates. People worry that if they switch jobs, they will lose their health insurance. They worry that their company will cut back on health benefits. Universal coverage is not necessary to address these worries. Making it possible for individuals to own their health-insurance policies themselves, rather than getting them through their companies, would solve the problem. It would also reduce the political momentum behind socialized medicine.
Most universal-coverage plans accept the least rational features of our health-care system — its reliance on employer-based coverage and on “insurance” that covers routine expenses — and merely try to expand that system to cover more people. Republicans should go in a different direction, proposing market reforms that make insurance more affordable and portable. If such reforms are implemented, more people will have insurance.
Some people, especially young and healthy people, may choose not to buy health insurance even when it is cheaper. Contrary to popular belief, such people do not cause everyone else to pay much higher premiums. Forcing them to get insurance would, on the other hand, lead to a worse health-care system for everyone because it would necessitate so much more government intervention. So what should the government do about the holdouts? Leave them alone. It’s a free country.
I would also suggest reading this article. Need some more reading? 1 2 3 4 5
See, while there is this overlying idea that all of these government programs are going “help people” what they are doing is infringing on liberty and destroying American freedom. I am now required to have healthcare? What if I want to choose where I go? Oh wait, but this is about the minority populace percentage that doesn’t have healthcare. We need to give up our civil rights (which, by the way, many have fought and died in the past to gain for themselves, or to preserve for others) in order to give them a value-added service.
Or we could make healthcare cheaper. Make it affordable. And spend taxpayer money on creating jobs and job training and preparation and training for that small percentage. That would provide them with upward mobility and the opportunity to become middle class or higher.
And we still would keep civil liberties!
Now, the question has been posed to me in this comment:
p.s. the constitution doesn’t mention education either — do you disagree that that’s a right?
No. I don’t think it’s a right. In fact, I agree with Mr. L that most public education is lousy and is most likely due to it being generic and government run. Obama’s campaign has put forward the idea to make college accessible and affordable for everyone. College and University then becomes another High School.
I attended public school from 2nd grade through 6th grade in Southern California. I have experienced the good and the bad. But when, in 7th grade, I was sent to a private Christian school, I found out how far behind I was in the curriculum.
When I graduated from private high school and went to a private liberal arts college I was shocked to find how far ahead I was. Taking general education classes such as Intro to Arts (Fine Arts requirement), Western Civilization (History 101 requirement) and Research and Writing (English 101 requirement) I found it hard to concentrate because the material was so basic. Things these college freshman and sophomores should have learned in high school just weren’t there.
I worked at Old Navy in West Virginia just after getting my bachelors. It was the only job I could get right out of college that wasn’t sales or telemarketing. I quickly moved up the ladder and won over my bosses. One day I had the opportunity to meet the district managers and one of them, a guy in his late twenties, asserted that today’s Master’s is to us like a Bachelor’s was to our parents. And I believe it’s very true.
American citizens are required to pour money into mediocre programs that just barely get by, whether they agree with it or not. And that is an encroachment of civil liberties.
This is gonna be long:
Ok, first off I’m realizing with your links and comments that we have a different idea of UHC at the moment. I’m using UHC the way Obama has been using it, meaning “access to healthcare for all,” which I still believe is a universal right, and I would hope you would think the same when I use the word “access”. I’m not necessarily talking about “free” healthcare, and I’m definitely not talking about mandatory. In the general scheme of things, I think everyone should be able to access healthcare, despite their income. And not waiting until they end up in the emergency room, or are in labor, which is what that “law” you were talking about has to do with. We should be able to deal with these issues before they get there. I’m talking about making our healthcare better, and accessible to all.
You should probably read Obama’s health plans before you attack it as socialist, and before you make comments like: “I am now required to have healthcare?” Because you’re not… no one is—(except children, his only mandatory plan) and privatization of the healthcare system is still a priority for Obama— he’s much more capitalist than you give him credit for— (in fact, these candidates are almost boring they’re so similar in economic issues.) His plans involve existing healthcare reform, (including allowing state plans for healthcare, a health insurance oversight committee, and cracking down on malpractice issues.) and a hybrid of federal and private resolutions to the problem of the uninsured.
Still, I would like to know what you believe is a universal human right, and why? If you don’t want people to become lazy, why don’t you fight your own house fires, or arrest your own criminals, gather your own water, place your own electric lines? Why are these things ok for the government to do, but nothing more? I’m just curious. In my opinion, those services allow you to live happy, healthy, productive lives. Now, when everything is privatized, it unquestionably leaves people behind, because more and more people can’t afford services offered by greedy capitalists. Just as you assert that “there is no such thing as fair trade” I say there is no such thing as a free market. It’s obvious in light of recent events that some form of intervention is necessary to make sure people aren’t taken advantage of. That’s the extent of my socialistic tendencies – basic safety net policies that limit those who get abused and exploited by the system.
Education is a vital part of that safety net, and of the well being of any society, and is typically a “way-out” for a lot of poor families. The reason “today’s Master’s is to us like a Bachelor’s was to our parents,” is because the standard of education is higher, not because a bachelor’s degree is somehow less effective. I don’t believe that somehow you must have quality or quantity, and I’ve worked in the public schools enough to know that there still are quality schools in the US and most people are committed to making them better. It is a states-rights issue, but all states have agreed on access to education as a basic right. As far as college education goes, I don’t agree that somehow this is also seen as a right for all— the prices are just too high, even in public colleges, to allow everyone a chance at that. So, I’m sorry if you had a bad college experience, but that has nothing to do with “education as a right” or “government intervention” since you paid for a “private” school. In fact, it would be a failure of capitalism, since you should have taken your money elsewhere, but didn’t. You can’t blame “the system” for that one. That was just a bad choice. However, I didn’t mean to make this argument about education, what I meant was, just because it’s not in the constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right. And the idea that access to education is not a right everyone should be allowed is just preposterous to me. Can you imagine the alternative? The complete privatization of education? The effect that would have on our nation? Prices would skyrocket even worse than they are right now. At least now you have a choice to pay or not. And your educational experience is based on what you decide. I don’t see how you can have any problem with that.
Finally, it seems odd to me that suddenly you’re so concerned about “freedom and liberty” which recently have become buzzwords to fit a certain agenda. This administration has infringed more on liberty and freedom than any before it using our tax dollars for their own schemes. Yet, you allow that encroachment for buzzwords like freedom, democracy, war on terror, etc. I would allow it for people. Maybe we’re not that different…(?)
Now to comment on your “live blog”:
Honestly, I’m kind of disappointed. You say you long for a fair and balanced discussion of the issues and then you make statements like this:
“Uh Jim, lemme just make a point. I’ve got a bracelet too. From Sergent… uhhhhuh… from the mother of uh Sergent…” – nice way to stumble.
…never bringing up the much more obvious and crippling stumble of Mccain and “Ahmad-jin-uh, mehdjinda-hinjinduh-dad.” Even Mr. L. mentioned that.
Or how about? :
“HE’S NOT ASKING BUDGETS BARACK! He wants to know if you’re going to change your overall strategy and policies based on the market crisis.”
Cmon, be fair. Neither candidate said anything significant on that question, they both dodged it, because neither of them know what that’s going to look like. McCain’s answer was budget-based as well, and Lerher had to ask the question three times to both of them but you never mention that.
I mean, it was fairly obvious where you leaned, but come on, you can’t attack “emotion-driven Obama supporters”, after a heavily-biased post like that. It waters down your credibility, that’s for sure.
Also:
“Barack Obama said we can measure our economic fundamentals by the middle class? Like… the proletariat? Okay…”
Yeah Joel, that would be the temperature gauge on our economy. You don’t have a healthy middle class, you don’t have a healthy economy. That’s economics 101, man.
I’m not sure what you mean by:
““Because of the lax regulation…” – are you kidding me? When the Democratic Congress blocked bills calling for this? HIS party was directly responsible (given there were Republicans that did the same), and he’s shifting the blame.”
Are we talking about the bills Bush and Mccain put forward in 2003 and 2005? Because that would be a Republican controlled Congress, besides the fact that those bills never even made it to the voting floor.
“but those numbers haven’t been proven. On either side.”
Nice. There’s the bi-partisan, unbiased look I was hoping for… even if it was just three words out of 1,500.
“McCain – “There’s the issue of responsibility.” – right on.”
Is this responsibility on making sure corporate CEOs get punished for greedy and unnecessarily risky business practices? Because both candidates agree on that concerning this crisis. Still, at this point, McCain is sharing Obama’s platform, since regulation is Obama’s area, not McCain’s. Though it looks like most agree enough to make sure this bill isn’t a final paycheck for CEO’s and that punitive measures are taken.
“Lower taxes on large corporations so they can make jobs!!! It’s true! Look at history.”
Show me history… economic downfall and republican leadership go hand in hand. History shows Democratic Presidents have brought better economic climates consistently for years. Trickle-Down economics is a paper-napkin idea that just doesn’t work. You should know that by know, we’ve been doing it for years and look where we’re at.
“I love how apparently oil companies are the devil.”
Well, I’d say charging $4.00 a gallon while sitting on a surplus is something Satan would appreciate. Both candidates know enough to make sure they’re denouncing the oil companies, but I highly doubt McCain and his VP “The oil princess” will follow through with that if elected.
“Obama’s “energy independence” plan is going to take 10 years. He says it’s something that must be done. Except in 10 years. Not quite fast-tracked right?”
How fast is McCain’s plan? Or… Palin’s I guess I should say… Drill here drill now? Try, drill now, but see less then 3% of our oil in 10-15. There’s no “fast-track” that’s faster than 10 years— the US just doesn’t have the infrastructure for it.
@ryan:
Just a couple things, now. More after work.
Finally, it seems odd to me that suddenly you’re so concerned about “freedom and liberty” which recently have become buzzwords to fit a certain agenda.
Actually, I’ve written loads of essays on this over the years. So it’s not a new thing for me, even if it’s new to this blog.
How fast is McCain’s plan? Or… Palin’s I guess I should say… Drill here drill now? Try, drill now, but see less then 3% of our oil in 10-15. There’s no “fast-track” that’s faster than 10 years— the US just doesn’t have the infrastructure for it.
Do you want me to compare and contrast every policy? You’re certainly not doing that yourself yet insist on taking me to task for not doing so.
nope, just that one policy Joel— you made the comment as an attack on Obama, and I’m just pointing out that’s an incredibly flawed attack because there is no faster timeline, and the fact that you would make a comment like that suggests to me that you don’t really get it, both the issue facing our country and what your candidate says about that issue. Here, I’ll help you out (spoiler!!! McCain’s plan = 2025-2030):
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771-aec271bf823e.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/26/mccain-vows-us-energy-independence-by-2025/
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/the-daily-mcb-5.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YzTRsMpddQ
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/05/17/john-mccains-green-credentials-were-developed-by-an-active-energy-lobbyist/