Listening to Obama's speech, some of his plans for his presidency struck me as the kind if thing we in Europe hold as self-evident but which will most likely ensure the election of John Mccain:
Universal health care
Access to a college education for every young person willing to serve his community or his country
Why these measures trigger such instant revulsion in a large segment of the American electorate I do not know. If our American friends here would care to explain, I'd be grateful.
Earl, I don't know if your knowledge of macro-economics is such that you can vouch for the fact that Obama's plans are no more than smoke and mirrors pie-in-the sky. I don't know enough, wish I did, to be able to say if lowering taxes to 90% of working families, reducing capital gains tax for small businesses while taking away tax breaks for large companies is feasible in view of America's massive foreign debt and with an eye to humanising the lives of the poor and the middle class. Will it really bankrupt the richest country in the world to have its citizens covered by health insurance and to give all its brighter kids a whack at college?
We can talk long and emotionally about the characters of these 2 candidates, the shennanigans they get up to, the type of wives they have, but looking at their actual plans is perhaps more relevant?
Please Con, BenT, Brick et al, when you have the time, would you answer some of my questions?
Also, would you answer something * I asked about a few days ago?
On and for the record guys, you don't have to answer, it's just that I am more interested in your ideas about policies than your character appraisals.
* Then again, is it realistic in this global world of ours to expect elections to be a strictly national affair? The famed links between the Bush family and the Saudis come to mind. As does Haliburton. Or business leaders contributing heavily to campaigns. With money made in international endeavours, money made in cooperation with foreign business leaders who have their own special interests. With money streams having become truly international, can and should we expect our elections to remain strictly national?
Above examples are no direct campaign contributions perhaps, but doesn't it essentially amount to the same thing?
Foreign money influencing a local election.
Is it something to be fought or something to be recognised as a reality?
Listening to Obama's speech, some of his plans for his presidency struck me as the kind if thing we in Europe hold as self-evident but which will most likely ensure the election of John Mccain:
Universal health care
Access to a college education for every young person willing to serve his community or his country
Ah, were it only so that he spoke thus.
However, I heard this part of the oratory, and I believe he said "...willing to serve his community or the government."
There's a world of difference; we already have too many serving the government.
I think there's a problem with a candidate accepting foreign funds to fight a U.S. campaign, that it is illegal to do so. Just a possible detail of U.S. law, that, but it still matters if I am right in thinking that this is so.
You are certainly much too young to remember (Why use a butter knife for flattery when a trowel will do?), Juud, but Nixon got himself in terrible trouble long ago with his funding, when he weaseled his way back into the hearts of the voters with his "Checkers" speech. Check that one out if you like.
We have had trouble with public health care for years, mainly because the American Medical Association has a very powerful lobby poised to squash flat any candidate who pushes mandatory health insurance. They trot out the usual blather about how it's "socialist" so that candidate X is now espousing the same thing them Commies have.
The AMA is like the gun lobby and the religious Right, just another special-interest group most sane politicians try to avoid upsetting. In the States you stand a good chance of being shot and then dying from lack of care but at least we have plenty of folks ready to pray over your corpse afterwards, there is that...
For that matter, we had years of talk-talk-talk about saving fuel yet there is this huge loophole for gas-guzzling SUVs plus the U.S.A. has the lowest fuel taxes in the developed world, I think. Funny thing that, no one having the guts to put some serious program in place to cut fuel consumption, the profits of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler and the sacred and God-given right of each and every American to tool around in grotesquely large vehicles. Could be that it is because making that move would be political suicide, I don't know...
First is the length of time the process goes on for - must be unbeaten in the world.
Second is the sheer number of people that turn up for the speeches/presentations. Are they all that keen on politics, or is there some additional motive?
Basically, I am philosophically opposed to the notion of the government taking over because the government - any government tends to be too unwieldy, risk-averse, and cater to the lowest common denominator thus lowering the quality of the care or slowing/stopping the amazing progress made in medicine and medical research.
Quote:
Access to a college education for every young person willing to serve his community or his country
"Access" is available now. State and federal government financial aid is readily available especially for lower income applicants. Uncle Sam doesn't provide much for those that come from wealthier backgrounds. Add in scholoarships, grants, and the like, not to mention the old-fashioned work one's way through college are all routes available today. Adding yet another massive government program simply isn't needed. It makes good sound bite and talking points however.
Quote:
Earl, I don't know if your knowledge of macro-economics is such that you can vouch for the fact that Obama's plans are no more than smoke and mirrors pie-in-the sky. I don't know enough, wish I did, to be able to say if lowering taxes to 90% of working families, reducing capital gains tax for small businesses while taking away tax breaks for large companies is feasible in view of America's massive foreign debt and with an eye to humanising the lives of the poor and the middle class.
Nice promises to make, but the reality is that any such action requires Congressional approval and allocating of the funds. Won't happen even from the Democrats - too many local oxen will be gored.
Quote:
We can talk long and emotionally about the characters of these 2 candidates, the shennanigans they get up to, the type of wives they have, but looking at their actual plans is perhaps more relevant?
Absoulutely. And thus far, he's been long on speeches and short on solid proposals. As well as constantly 'refining' his positions. Nothing wrong, by the way, with shifting one's opinion, but I'd prefer it be prefaced by either "I don't know" or a "I was wrong." Both are lacking.
*
Quote:
Then again, is it realistic in this global world of ours to expect elections to be a strictly national affair?
Yes.
Is it something to be fought or something to be recognised as a reality?
I disagree with your phrasing of the questions - profit made internationally being used in campaign contributions being the same as foreign money going directly into a campaign.
It is illegal, it should be fought, it should be publicized if accepted by either campaign.
The conventions strong resemble those massive church congregations we see in the US; the onlooks tremoring, crying and seeking hope and salvation from some fantastic orator who promises them the world. In reality they can't change much at all but seem to make people feel better about the status quo.
State supplied universal healthcare works very well in most countries. Why should it be that the most vulnerable get left without while the least vulnerable get the very best care? I know it is very American to oppose 'big' government (even though the US government and it subsidiaries are about the biggest you can get), but it is far from true that government supplied support is necessarily poorer and less efficient than private support and dogmatically sticking to such a view will not improve the situation.
As for Obama delivering on the pledges, its a bit of a cheap shot to simply say they are lies and hardly a good reason to not give him a chance.
You mock us both for a political and religious aspect, but doesn't that go against your 'let a country do as it will' mantra?
Besides, I can't see your faint scorn really changing us.
A degree in politics? How's that working for you? And do you feel better for advertising that fact? Doesn't you having a degree make you somehow 'better' than the poor downtrodden masses that you care for? It doesn't reek of "I know better what's good for you?"
Neat trick to be one of the ones making the decisions. Very 'social' of you.
I know it is very American to oppose 'big' government (even though the US government and it subsidiaries are about the biggest you can get), but it is far from true that government supplied support is necessarily poorer and less efficient than private support and dogmatically sticking to such a view will not improve the situation.
You have more faith in my government than I. Such an undertaking would be a monumentally expensive f*ck up. Take the Department of Homeland Security as a case study. I would argue that its mandate is far simpler than health care, yet it is not exactly a paragon of government efficiency.
Unfortunately, I agree with you about the size of the US government.
Subsidiaries? ?Que?
Quote:
As for Obama delivering on the pledges, its a bit of a cheap shot to simply say they are lies and hardly a good reason to not give him a chance.
"Cheap shot" to not give one I disagree with a chance at holding national office?
I think not. It's called politics and the vote. You must have missed class that day.
but it is far from true that government supplied support is necessarily poorer and less efficient than private support and dogmatically sticking to such a view will not improve the situation
Tell that to those in the UK on NHS waiting lists, being denied medication because it is too expensive, or those contracting MRSA while in hospital. Please keep the government out of my life.
Alaska governor Palin selected as McCain's VP running mate.
Brilliant political move. I bet a fair share of the former Hillary-ites will flow towards this with an eye to having Obama defeated so that Hillary can run in 2012 and take her 'rightful' place in the White House.
Among Palin's bio: "She is a lifelong member of the NRA and her hobbies include hunting and fishing."
edited to add: Ozzy, saw your post after I hit 'transmit.'
I respectfully disagree. Romney's very liberal views and subsequent 'changes in attitude' during his own Presidential run were boat anchors for him. Also, the Morman 'thing' would not have worked for the vast majority of Republicans.
I would have shied away from him on the first point. The second is a wash for me personally.
Just over the page I thought you were in agreement that the democrat/republican conventions were 'hell' - we are both mocking them are we not?
The outcome of this election does concern non-Americans and therefore we should be able to comment. For one; unlike the UN where we technically have at least some voice in world proceedings, when the single global superpower (the US) makes increasingly unilateral decisions, outside of formal institutions, that have massive repercussions on the world outside its borders, we don't get any say at all. These choices affect us all, be it on the environment, torture, or terror. As long as the US claims to represent the 'free world', the free world should be allowed a view. At the same time the world is arguably in a somewhat perilous state; worldwide opinion polls seem to indicate that the substantial majority of its inhabitants feel the politics of current administration are moving us towards the abyss rather than away from it, and are in marked contrast from views held before Bush came to power. Besides, whatever is being said here is still a long way from justifying invasions, coups, dictatorships or torture, which as you know is the issue that really puts my nose out of joint. If you want to pick apart UK politics, be my guest.
I don't give a toss about the degree (never bothered with my graduation ceremonies and would be hard placed to find my certificate) - anyone with half a brain, an open mind and a willingness to read books could have got one, as most people these days do. But if someone is going to lecture me on utterly incorrect definitions of 'totalitarianism' and 'dictatorship' (accompanied by hypocritical comments about how both are justified when exercised by the US but not by others) then expect a short response. If I were to spout an incorrect knowledge of chemistry I would happily stand corrected if the chem.graduate or scientist informed me I was wrong - I wouldn't throw the toys out of the pram and start getting stroppy about it.
It is one thing to be opposed to Obama based on policy, but your opposition to him and Clinton seems to be purely dogmatic, the arguments created or manipulated to fit the dogma. As a result, finding fault with him is reduced to convoluted yet unsubstantiated claims about how he is being economical with the truth, or now that his mother is not as all American as she is apparently claimed to be. I have yet to get my head around that one and it is such a piece of 'swiftboating', it is pretty clear that the Republican campaign machine can't attack him on his substance or his promises.
Nope. My opposition to Hillary is along very personal lines. I simply despise her and her coterie. She is a socialist disguised in a (large-ish) pant suit.
Obama has very few policies in play by which to judge him. The ones he has put forward have either been subject to constant 'revision' according to whatever the latest poll has been, or against what I believe is best for the country and me.
I make no statement that you shouldn't comment (don't tell me or any American how to vote according to your desires), I simply chided you for mocking both some aspects of US religion and politcs.
I actually agree with you on both points - the conventions are the worst sort of showmanship, and the 'mega-churches' here are unseemly to me as well.
Both are very American as are many other forms of political expression and religious or non-religious expression. I draw the line at religious Semtex vest-wearers, so I guess I'm no better than you at criticism of things that aren't mine.
As to the 'we have an interest, indeed, should have a say in the US election process because we are so affected by it' argument, I say, "Sorry, should've tried harder to emigrate and become a US citizen." Otherwise, you attend to your government and their following the US' lead in the world or not.
*Of course, it's really pointless. We, via the CIA, will put in power whomever we want in any other country. Or maybe even our own.
Er, I didn't mean that the Tim guy was going to be McCain's pick, I, err, hum always knew it was going to be Sarah Palin, yeah, I just, hum, spelled her name wrong and it just looked like I said it was going to be Tim Pawlenty.
Obama's campaign has already released the attack dogs. They have issued a statement along the lines of; McCain picks woman who has only been a mayor of a town of 9,000 and has only been Governor for two years. Of course they also added that standard dogma of; "She is under control of Big (evil) Oil Companies".
Now that is really rich coming from the candidate who has only actually served 147 days in the US Senate, made one speech and co-sponsored one bill in those 147 days. As for the Big (evil) Oil Companies she has actually fought Oil Companies in Alaska as Governor and won.
This will be very interesting. Young candidate picks old fart running mate, old fart candidate picks young running mate. I just hope to hell she is not an lawyer.
Okay, just checked, she is not an attorney.
Now that's got to be a first, both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates of one of the two major parties not attorneys.
Last edited by con-pilot : 29th August 2008 at 20:37.
Linear Mode
