A non-comprehensive arguement against Obama

[dmytryp]

You've got to give these guys (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/) credit for thoroughness:)

*This is not presented to bash anyone, to stir things up or whatever. Not everything in the link corresponds to my feelings. However, it is worth going over, especially as it contains a lot of clips from the horse's mouth (or very close to it)

Allow us to put our cards on the table at the outset: We are two young conservative journalists—both in our 20s. Unlike many of our peers, we are not swept up in Obamamania and would prefer John McCain to win the election. We’ve teamed up with seasoned blogger extraordinaire, Ed Morrissey, whose careful and thoughtful pursuit of the truth—even when it benefits his political opponents—is respected across the blogosphere. In that spirit, we are not at all interested in perpetuating lies, rumors, and innuendo about Barack Obama. Promoting such information does America a disservice, allows Obama’s supporters to justifiably cry “smear,” and damages our own credibility.

What follows is by no means comprehensive, but it does shed some much-needed light on a number of Obama’s positions, statements, and associations about which he has been less than honest. We’ve attempted to boil each issue down to a succinct explanation with an accompanying, brief video clip—often starring Barack Obama in his own words. Before pulling the lever for someone who hopes voters will ignore his paper-thin resume, unsavory associations, and hard-left voting record, each citizen has a duty to do his due diligence.

In short, we hope this “closing argument” is compelling and clear, and we encourage you to share this essay with undecided or wavering family members, friends, and co-workers.

[EriRae]

Obama's take on abortion doesn't bother me. I'm not in the top-tier tax bracket, so his tax plan doesn't bother me. Bill Ayers doesn't bother me. Acorn isn't going to get away with its craziness, so that doesn't bother me. (I mean, really, if they know these dead people will be voting in the election, they'd better keep them out of the boothes.) As a resident of the "heartland," his comments don't bother me. They ring true. I cling to my guns and my religion, and I'm still voting for Obama. I don't care what color he is. He could be a purple dragon who ran a small clan of cave dragons for one year, and I'd still vote for him.

Why? McCain's foreign policy scares me.

[dmytryp]

Why? McCain's foreign policy scares me.
Can you list foreign policy points of both campaigns, where you think they diverge and what exactly is it that scares you with McCain's?

[eldragon]

Unlike many of our peers, we are not swept up in Obamamania and would prefer John McCain to win the election.


Good for them. I would have preferred Gore or Kerry to win the last two but instead, I suffered with Bush.


That's the chance you take with democracy. Your candidate won't always win.

[dmytryp]

Good for them. I would have preferred Gore or Kerry to win the last two but instead, I suffered with Bush.


That's the chance you take with democracy. Your candidate won't always win.
What's your point (in connection to this thread)?

[James81]

Can you list foreign policy points of both campaigns, where you think they diverge and what exactly is it that scares you with McCain's?

The long and short of it:

Obama intends to be more diplomatic
McCain isn't even entertaining the idea of diplomacy. He's not even lying about it to get votes.

That's scary as hell right there.

[Robert Toy]

The long and short of it:

Obama intends to be more diplomatic
McCain isn't even entertaining the idea of diplomacy. He's not even lying about it to get votes.

That's scary as hell right there.
And if Obama's diplomatic efforts fail?

ETA: Our potential adversaries are afraid of McCain as well.

[VGrossack]

And if Obama's diplomatic efforts fail?

ETA: Our potential adversaries are afraid of McCain as well.

Obama is not a pacifist. He simply plans to be judicious about where he uses our military - Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

[James81]

And if Obama's diplomatic efforts fail?



Let's be real here...

I EXPECT them to fail. Diplomacy never affects the people you are trying to be diplomatic with...or it rarely makes much difference.

BUT...and this is HUGE...our ALLIES (who was have ostracized over the last 8 years) can get on board with us more and we can garner more of THEIR support.

Diplomacy isn't about preventing wars. It's all about getting our allies in the world on board with us. And that's about one of the most important things we can do.

[donroc]

Who can really predict accurately when unforseen events or consequences of policies often dictate the course of peace and war?

Wilson ran in 1916 on "He kept us out of War" and "He will Keep Us out of War." A month or so after his inauguration, he asked Congress to declare war.

FDR said in 1940 that he would not commit U.S. troops to "this purely European War" --which, of course said zilch about our collision course with Japan.

LBJ was the peace alternative to bellicose Goldwater who was supposed to bring on a Nuclear war.

The main thing is to be always prepared for the possibility of war while trying to maintain the peace.

[Robert Toy]

Let's be real here...

Diplomacy isn't about preventing wars. It's all about getting our allies in the world on board with us. And that's about one of the most important things we can do.
Yes, let's...

Therein lies one major issue, we would like to get our allies on board with us on OUR concerns, which may not fall in line with THEIR concerns.

Having spent a few decades outside the U.S., this translates to our allies not doing business or having diplomatic relations with anyone the U.S. does not like.

[dmytryp]

The long and short of it:

Obama intends to be more diplomatic
McCain isn't even entertaining the idea of diplomacy. He's not even lying about it to get votes.

That's scary as hell right there.
Not to derail the thread even further, but where exactly McCain said he didn't entertain the idea of diplomacy. He doesn't support talking without preconditions. Big difference. Sanctions are diplomatic means and as far as I could see, both candidates support tougher sanctions on Iran. Both support increased presence in Afghanistan. Both support dealing with Taliban in Pakistan (one way or the other). so, where is the big difference that scares you so much?

[Robert Toy]

'cause Obama said so?

[Bravo]

Not to derail the thread even further, but where exactly McCain said he didn't entertain the idea of diplomacy.

"Let’s cut off all kinds of credit to ‘em, all kinds — diplomatic, trade, you name it. Basically isolate them. Because they are in violation of solemn agreements that they entered into, concerning nuclear weapons. And so I really believe that we could have an effect on Iranian behavior." (10-3-08)

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_10624062

[dmytryp]

"Let’s cut off all kinds of credit to ‘em, all kinds — diplomatic, trade, you name it. Basically isolate them. Because they are in violation of solemn agreements that they entered into, concerning nuclear weapons. And so I really believe that we could have an effect on Iranian behavior." (10-3-08)

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_10624062
Which still constitutes diplomatic measures. What's your point?

[Bravo]

i really dont get as much fun from semantic quibblng as you.

"where exactly McCain said he didn't entertain the idea of diplomacy."

and i showed exactly what he said.

now you're saying diplomatic "measures"?

next, please.

[Williebee]

Obama's take on abortion doesn't bother me. I'm not in the top-tier tax bracket, so his tax plan doesn't bother me. Bill Ayers doesn't bother me. Acorn isn't going to get away with its craziness, so that doesn't bother me. (I mean, really, if they know these dead people will be voting in the election, they'd better keep them out of the boothes.) As a resident of the "heartland," his comments don't bother me. They ring true. I cling to my guns and my religion, and I'm still voting for Obama. I don't care what color he is. He could be a purple dragon who ran a small clan of cave dragons for one year, and I'd still vote for him.

I agree with much of what Miss Eri said. (Not sure about the purple dragon part, sorry. :) )

And, I am a resident of the Heartland. It says so right there on the local TV news banner. And what Sen. Obama said was right on target for the folks in this area, as I have said before.

As to foreign policy: Sen. McCain thinks we can "win" in Iraq. History says otherwise. He's willing to throw defense spending at the plan, and keep combat troops there "for as long as it takes". Some analysts say that same line of thinking helped to sink the USSR.

[DeleyanLee]

Obama's take on abortion doesn't bother me. I'm not in the top-tier tax bracket, so his tax plan doesn't bother me. Bill Ayers doesn't bother me. Acorn isn't going to get away with its craziness, so that doesn't bother me. (I mean, really, if they know these dead people will be voting in the election, they'd better keep them out of the boothes.) As a resident of the "heartland," his comments don't bother me. They ring true. I cling to my guns and my religion, and I'm still voting for Obama. I don't care what color he is. He could be a purple dragon who ran a small clan of cave dragons for one year, and I'd still vote for him.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, except I'm not in the heartland, I'm in the "rust belt". Obama's going to get my vote, I think, because I'm not interested in any of the other parties and voting for Obama might keep Palin away from DC.

[maestrowork]

I still don't get how voting for Obama is a betrayal to your gun rights and faith. Did I miss a memo?

[dmytryp]

i really dont get as much fun from semantic quibblng as you.

"where exactly McCain said he didn't entertain the idea of diplomacy."

and i showed exactly what he said.

now you're saying diplomatic "measures"?

next, please.
What you are trying to say is that "diplomatic measures"=/="diplomacy"? Maybe that's because I am non-native speaker, but that kind of sounds silly to me.

[dmytryp]

I still don't get how voting for Obama is a betrayal to your gun rights and faith. Did I miss a memo?
????

[rugcat]

Can you list foreign policy points of both campaigns, where you think they diverge and what exactly is it that scares you with McCain's?Specific policy points are always subject to change, but it is clear that McCain believes in a more aggressive, military based foreign policy than does Obama.

When Iraq did not behave in a way that was acceptable to us, we invaded the country. McCain was, and still is wholeheartedly in favor of that action. His only problem with it was that we did the operation badly.

Obama was, and is, against that.

Mccain is not in favor of talking to Iran, unless they accede to our demands ahead of time. If tensions escalate, he would have no hesitation in military action against them -- not as a last resort, but as a matter of foreign policy.

In reality, this won't happen -- congress will never go along with it, not after Iraq.

But it is a major difference between himself and Obama.

And how will each react when an unforeseen problem arises? Impossible to say, but I believe McCain will rely on the threat of force as his first option.

[cethklein]

ETA: Our potential adversaries are afraid of McCain as well.

They are? How do you know that?

[dmytryp]

Specific policy points are always subject to change, but it is clear that McCain believes in a more aggressive, military based foreign policy than does Obama.

When Iraq did not behave in a way that was acceptable to us, we invaded the country. McCain was, and still is wholeheartedly in favor of that action. His only problem with it was that we did the operation badly.

Obama was, and is, against that.

Mccain is not in favor of talking to Iran, unless they accede to our demands ahead of time. If tensions escalate, he would have no hesitation in military action against them -- not as a last resort, but as a matter of foreign policy.

In reality, this won't happen -- congress will never go along with it, not after Iraq.

But it is a major difference between himself and Obama.

And how will each react when an unforeseen problem arises? Impossible to say, but I believe McCain will rely on the threat of force as his first option.
That is your interpretation (with which I agree to a degree -- there is a major difference in worldview), but this wasn't the point. People said they were scared of McCain's foreign policy. The main point of my posts, that as of now, the platforms vis-a-vis foreign policy are very similar. The two differences I can see is the timetable to withdrawal from Iraq (which Obama qualified by realities on the ground -- something that effectively puts him lock step with McCain's position) and talking to enemies without preconditions (from which Obama and his campaign tried to backpedal).

[rugcat]

People said they were scared of McCain's foreign policy. The main point of my posts, that as of now, the platforms vis-a-vis foreign policy are very similar. Strangely, I agree with you. I am at odds with McCain's worldview. I'm not so much concerned with specifics of either policy, because a) those specifics can change, and b) in this country, at least, policy specifics are tailored more toward getting elected than they are to actual implementation.

But yes, I think your point is valid.

[Monkey]

The two differences I can see is the timetable to withdrawal from Iraq (which Obama qualified by realities on the ground -- something that effectively puts him lock step with McCain's position)

Actually, Obama has always said that we would have to consider the conditions on the ground. McCain, on the other hand, was firmly against time-tables of ANY sort until that view became political suicide. It was McCain that moved toward Obama's position, not the other way around.


and talking to enemies without preconditions (from which Obama and his campaign tried to backpedal).

Obama still wants to talk without preconditions. That hasn't changed.

But he wants to have the right people talking and he wants to do it when the US has something to gain.

The Right is trying to use those caveats to make Obama look like a flip-flopper.

[dmytryp]

This is my last post on the subject as to not derail the thread any further.
Actually, Obama has always said that we would have to consider the conditions on the ground. McCain, on the other hand, was firmly against time-tables of ANY sort until that view became political suicide. It was McCain that moved toward Obama's position, not the other way around.
No. His site in this campaign had a definite time table, no conditions. If you'd watch the videos in the op, you'd see that he moved to "according to the situation on the ground" only when pressed.



Obama still wants to talk without preconditions. That hasn't changed.

But he wants to have the right people talking and he wants to do it when the US has something to gain.


Bolding mine.
I don't hold this against him, Monkey. But he moved from "I'll sit without preconditions" to "the right people, after preparations". And, of course, Biden in the VP debate tried to say Obama never claimed to meet without preconditions.

[James81]

I don't hold this against him, Monkey. But he moved from "I'll sit without preconditions" to "the right people, after preparations". And, of course, Biden in the VP debate tried to say Obama never claimed to meet without preconditions.

In the VERY FIRST debate, Obama said "Of course there would have to be preparations". Watch it, you will see it.

His position hasn't changed. He's simply expained it more thoroughly as people started using it against him.

[dmytryp]

In the VERY FIRST debate, Obama said "Of course there would have to be preparations". Watch it, you will see it.

His position hasn't changed. He's simply expained it more thoroughly as people started using it against him.
What first debate? He said nothing of preparations in the Dem primaries debate. Again, watch the clips in the op.

[Monkey]

Dmy, you're right that he only elaborated when pressed.

But he elaborated on both those issues at various times, some of them quite early on. And his position hasn't changed, it's just that he pushes the main themes and not the details.

The main themes are inspiring. He can make a statement like, "I was against this war when it started, and as president, I will finish it." It resonates. It sounds black-and-white, and the public eats that stuff up.

The vagaries, the complications, the details, the grey areas...those aren't so exciting or inspiring. They're where charges of "flip-flopping" and "being soft" or "backtracking" come in. They are necessary, sure, but they don't make a great speech.

So while Obama presses his themes, he only goes into those grey-area vagaries when pressed. I think it's a lesson learned from failed Democratic candidates such as Kerry and Gore who tried to talk nuance and grey during their debates with black-and-white Republicans like Bush.

[Bravo]

to me it comes down to who will have the steadier hand during a crisis, mccain or obama?

there aren't too many differences between the two regarding foreign policy, but it is quite clear that obama is calm, collected and rational under fire, while john mccain has a reputation even among his own republicans of being an irrational hothead.

[Robert Toy]

to me it comes down to who will have the steadier hand during a crisis, mccain or obama?

there aren't too many differences between the two regarding foreign policy, but it is quite clear that obama is calm, collected and rational under fire, while john mccain has a reputation even among his own republicans of being an irrational hothead.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe he has ever been "under fire".

[Bravo]

in bosnia...?

no but seriously, at the debates he's very collected, in front of large adorning crowds, he's calm, and controls the crowds very well, and unlike john "baghdad is next" mccain, obama was level headed enough to focus solely on the task at hand.

[donroc]

A corallary to Machavelli? A ruler does not have to be cool under pressure, but he must seem to his followers to be cool. ;)

Explanation: Obama has yet to experience the pressure of the Presidency, of any elected administrative office, risking his life in combat, or being a POW.

It is a crap shoot no matter who wins the White House.

[Bravo]

the difference is that we know how mccain reacts under pressure, millions of americans saw it during the debates.

there's no doubt it took a lot of willpower to get through the torture experience, but unfortunately that has not translated to being a political leader.

[donroc]

Debating skills are better suited for speechifying in the legislative branch, but are not essential for making final executive decisions.

[ricetalks]

Yes, let's...

Therein lies one major issue, we would like to get our allies on board with us on OUR concerns, which may not fall in line with THEIR concerns.

Having spent a few decades outside the U.S., this translates to our allies not doing business or having diplomatic relations with anyone the U.S. does not like.

The U.S. seems to have a hard time not doing business with who they don't like. Didn't they sell guns to Iran in the Iran-Contra affair?

Wasn't that Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussain as he sold them arms and was, at the same time, selling arms to the Iranians as the two fought each other in an eight year war?

[tiny]

to me it comes down to who will have the steadier hand during a crisis, mccain or obama?

there aren't too many differences between the two regarding foreign policy, but it is quite clear that obama is calm, collected and rational under fire, while john mccain has a reputation even among his own republicans of being an irrational hothead.

Speaking of that.... I've heard whispers McCain might possibly suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome. Wonder if there's any sort of truth to the rumors.

[eldragon]

Speaking of that.... I've heard whispers McCain might possibly suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome. Wonder if there's any sort of truth to the rumors.
It would seem almost impossible for him not to suffer with that. Don't you think?

And while I do sympathize with McCain for what he had to go through; it's not like he a choice. Being a prisoner of war is ............not a choice. What are your options exactly?

Again, I like McCain for the most part. I like the old McCain, but not the one I've seen on the campaign trail the last few months. Not the guy who has hired the same henchmen to try to derail the Obama campaign; who suffered the same fate when Bush beat him in the primaries 8 years ago. And definitely not the man who chose Palin as his running mate. Not that McCain.

[astonwest]

The U.S. seems to have a hard time not doing business with who they don't like. Didn't they sell guns to Iran in the Iran-Contra affair?

Wasn't that Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussain as he sold them arms and was, at the same time, selling arms to the Iranians as the two fought each other in an eight year war?
We also have strong (depending on who you talk with) ties with Japan and Germany now when we were trying to blow each other to bits over 60 years ago...

[poetinahat]

Is the "non-" in the thread title an error?

[Bravo]

We also have strong (depending on who you talk with) ties with Japan and Germany now when we were trying to blow each other to bits over 60 years ago...

the difference of course being that during the iran-contra affair iran was an arch-enemy....

[Ken]

throughout the course of the campaign Obama has charmed the socks off all of us with his eloquence and appeal and he will undoubtedly be able to do the same with Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he meets with them. Gaining their confidence and good will, in seconds flat, he'll be able to get them to cave into all our demands, regarding the abandonment of their nuke programs and the like.

So Obama's diplomatic strategm is definitely the right one for him but certainly not for bulldog McCain. Put him in a room with Mahmoud and Kim and he might just rip their heads off before the meeting is through along with the heads of half the palace guards.

So bottomline, policies have to suit the individual weilding them and can not be accessed in and of themselves.

[dgiharris]

I read through about half of that hatchet job. I love taking things out of context.

For instance, Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber If you've ever listened to THE WHOLE ANSWER, it is not only eloquent, but it is brutally honest and Direct. He answered with a specific number "36% to 39% for what you earn above $250K" THREE TIMES but it took a lot of creative bending and out of context sampling to make his response to Joe the Plumber sound bad. In fact, his answer to Joe the plumber (to include his candor) is why i'm voting for him.

Abortion: I agree with him. Period. And he has the gonads to just come out and PUBLICALLY admit his views in brutal honesty. No round about pansy double talk that you get from the GOP when it comes to selecting judges, Obama answers questions candidly and that is another reason I'm voting for him

Rev Wright. Again, an out of context hatchet job, but this one is more personal. Rev Wright said some pretty inflammatory things that reflect the view of the black community. For instance, it is a well documented fact that the US government DID intentionally mistreat blacks with Syphilis and did a study on how it would effect them over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
He also said some harsh things that are true. America has done some things overseas that has come back on us. He is right. But it is a hard thing to hear. But regardless of whether I agree or not, I believe someone who was smart enough to go to Harvard is smart enough to know what to believe and what not to believe. Just because he knows someone that I may not like doesn't automatically make him unfit to be president.

The flip flopping. I'm so fucking fucking FUCKING (yes I'm being vulgar) sick of the American public being turned off by politicians who change their minds. For crying out loud, how successful would your company be if your leaders make decisions and don't change despite the changing data and conditions. For the love of all that is holy, stop playing these low IQ gotcha games. His ability to change his mind on a topic is what I like about him.

Or put another way, How well has inflexible dogma been working for us?

Yes, I'm voting for change. And if a Harvard grad with an IQ that is probably 40 points higher than the average politician's can't give it to us, than I don't know who will.

Seriously, this is another thing that drives me nuts about people against Obama. They do not acknowledge the man's intellect. He is extremely smart. He is the type of person many of us really have been hoping for. Someone candid, smart, gutsy...

His response to Rev Wright's initial public video release, his willingness to talk to us on a level that NO POLITICIAN HAS EVER HAD THE GUTS TO TALK TO US ON, was so impressive that he won me over.

Anyways, i wish people could make their points without pulling stuff out of context. The link wasn't as bad as others, but it was obvious.

Mel...

[tiny]

It would seem almost impossible for him not to suffer with that. Don't you think?

And while I do sympathize with McCain for what he had to go through; it's not like he a choice. Being a prisoner of war is ............not a choice. What are your options exactly?

Again, I like McCain for the most part. I like the old McCain, but not the one I've seen on the campaign trail the last few months. Not the guy who has hired the same henchmen to try to derail the Obama campaign; who suffered the same fate when Bush beat him in the primaries 8 years ago. And definitely not the man who chose Palin as his running mate. Not that McCain.

If he does, I would count that against him (for being president). I adore my SO, but I've seen him overreact to minor things. There's a certain lack of control in stressful situations that comes with ptsd. I just think it's interesting that particular rumor never gained any steam.

(sorry for the side track)

[Captshady]

It would seem almost impossible for him not to suffer with that. Don't you think?

And while I do sympathize with McCain for what he had to go through; it's not like he a choice. Being a prisoner of war is ............not a choice. What are your options exactly?

Again, I like McCain for the most part. I like the old McCain, but not the one I've seen on the campaign trail the last few months. Not the guy who has hired the same henchmen to try to derail the Obama campaign; who suffered the same fate when Bush beat him in the primaries 8 years ago. And definitely not the man who chose Palin as his running mate. Not that McCain.

This McCain? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvcuEqGUwmc&eurl=http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/10/this-senator-biden-is-the-man-with-steel-in-his-spine.html)

[rugcat]

For instance, Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber If you've ever listened to THE WHOLE ANSWER, it is not only eloquent, but it is brutally honest and Direct. He answered with a specific number "36% to 39% for what you earn above $250K" THREE TIMES but it took a lot of creative bending and out of context sampling to make his response to Joe the Plumber sound bad. In fact, his answer to Joe the plumber (to include his candor) is why i'm voting for him.Joe characterized his answer as "tap dancing" around the issue, with a comparison to Sammy Davis Jr. You really think that guy didn't have an agenda?

[Bravo]

If he does, I would count that against him (for being president). I adore my SO, but I've seen him overreact to minor things. There's a certain lack of control in stressful situations that comes with ptsd. I just think it's interesting that particular rumor never gained any steam.

(sorry for the side track)

mccain wont release his psychological records so no one knows, but psychologists say that 9 out of 10 POWs (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19853292) suffer from PTSD and mccain was stuck with one of the worst torturers for 5.5 years.

maybe he made it out, but who knows?

what we do know is that he has a history of being ill tempered since that time:

“F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room.” –to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), during a testy exchange about immigration legislation

"I'm calling you a f------ jerk!" he once retorted to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) An “A**hole”, Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, “I Didn’t Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger.” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)

Two former reporters covering McCain, one who witnessed the following events and one who confirmed the facts provided by the first, relayed it to me as follows: In 2006, the Arizona Republican congressional delegation had a strategy meeting. McCain repeatedly addressed two new members, congressmen Trent Franks and Rick Renzi, as 'boy.' Finally, Renzi, a former college linebacker, rose from his chair and said to McCain, "You call me that one more time and I'll kick your old ass." McCain lunged at Renzi, punches were thrown, and the two had to be physically separated. After they went to their separate offices, McCain called Renzi and demanded an apology. Renzi refused. Apparently this posture made McCain admire him, as they became fast friends.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/new-book-mccain-once-phys_n_95595.html


here's what COs in the military say about him:

I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/06/commander_in_chief/


here's the best line:

"People say that you get these McCaingrams," Norquist said. "He yells at you, and before you get back to your office you get the apology note, which is the equivalent of somebody who knows that this happens and is prepared for it."

[OneTeam OneDream]

throughout the course of the campaign Obama has charmed the socks off all of us with his eloquence and appeal ......


Certainly not ALL of us...

[tiny]

mccain wont release his psychological records so no one knows, but psychologists say that 9 out of 10 POWs (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19853292) suffer from PTSD and mccain was stuck with one of the worst torturers for 5.5 years.

maybe he made it out, but who knows?

what we do know is that he has a history of being ill tempered since that time:

Having a temper doesn't always go hand in hand with ptsd and it's not actually the symptom I would be most worried about. At the very least temper is visible. It's the other times, subtle symptoms, that cloud the mind, I would worry about.

I spent an evening as "the enemy" not knowing my SO thought I was keeping him captive until well into the night. I didn't even know he was having a flashback. Think of the ramifications of our president having a flashback during some important negotiation. Just something that I've been running over in my mind lately.

Certainly not ALL of us...

You are correct, OTOD.

[EriRae]

Can you list foreign policy points of both campaigns, where you think they diverge and what exactly is it that scares you with McCain's?

McCain wants to spend more time, more money, and more troops in Iraq. Obama wants to get us out of Iraq on a timetable.

Obama wants to concentrate on Al Qaida, in Afghanistan, and even in Pakistan if necessary. McCain doesn't think that is possible right now because his objective is to "win" in Iraq. Once we have won, he will turn his attentions to Afghanistan.

Obama is ready to discuss our options with other world leaders. McCain is ready to start WWIII rather than sit down across the table from Pakistan, Iran, South Korea, etc. McCain is unwilling to compromise.

This was all laid out in the first debate, if you wish me to site sources. I'm unable to provide a link. Perhaps some kind soul would do that for me.

[dmytryp]

Hey, Mel
Kudoos to you for actually defending your candidate and not going into "but McCain..." mode. It is somewhat hillarious, given the number of people who voted "best of the best" and "solid" in DW's thread, that your answer was the only one doing this.
I do, however disagree with many things you said.
I read through about half of that hatchet job. I love taking things out of context.

For instance, Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber If you've ever listened to THE WHOLE ANSWER, it is not only eloquent, but it is brutally honest and Direct. He answered with a specific number "36% to 39% for what you earn above $250K" THREE TIMES but it took a lot of creative bending and out of context sampling to make his response to Joe the Plumber sound bad. In fact, his answer to Joe the plumber (to include his candor) is why i'm voting for him.

I disagree that this was out of context. Whether you agree with the approach or not. Whether you think it is fair or not -- it is a topic for another discussion. Obama's plan is redistribution of wealth (I suspect geared more by his idea of "fairness" than any other economic guidlines -- but this is, too, for another discussion). The clip took the important part to make a point. All the rest is just window dressing and sugarcoating it for the voters to sawllow.

Abortion: I agree with him. Period. And he has the gonads to just come out and PUBLICALLY admit his views in brutal honesty. No round about pansy double talk that you get from the GOP when it comes to selecting judges, Obama answers questions candidly and that is another reason I'm voting for him

In what way was this a hatchet job? Obama has pretty extreme stances on abortion on another side of the spectrum from Palin. Both do not represent the mainstream (and you can see that even in the debates here). If Palin is criticized for her stances, his are fair game as well.

Rev Wright. Again, an out of context hatchet job, but this one is more personal. Rev Wright said some pretty inflammatory things that reflect the view of the black community. For instance, it is a well documented fact that the US government DID intentionally mistreat blacks with Syphilis and did a study on how it would effect them over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
He also said some harsh things that are true. America has done some things overseas that has come back on us. He is right. But it is a hard thing to hear. But regardless of whether I agree or not, I believe someone who was smart enough to go to Harvard is smart enough to know what to believe and what not to believe. Just because he knows someone that I may not like doesn't automatically make him unfit to be president.
Sorry, here we part ways completely.
Equating 9/11 to Hiroshima is moral equivalence at its worse.
Saying America brought it on itself does have some nuggets of truth in it, but to embrace it the way Wright did is MOS (http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/)
In the most extreme cases, we encounter Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome (MOS): “it is all our fault; and if we can only be better, we can fix anything/everything.” This hyper-critical attitude can be seen with particular clarity in the response of some progressives and radicals to both the 9-11 attack in 2001 in the US (http://www.bidstrup.com/hate.htm), and the 7-7 attack in 2005 in London (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1527323,00.html). For many, “What did we do to make them hate us?” trumped “What are they telling themselves that makes them hate us so?” In a sense, the very preference for the former question underlines our desire to be in control. Maybe we can fix what it is that we do to them, so they’ll not hate us so. Maybe even, they’ll like us.
It is embracing of your enemy's narrative. An enemy that doesn't share your ability to self-criticize and would use it against you. Much like in Durban I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001)
The AIDS myth is blood libel -- pure and simple. If he wanted to bring up the experiment with Syphilis he could have done so. If US gov was a person, Wright would be facing libel suit
And finally, Obama's association with Wright (much like he himself said) is fair game. What you take out of it, is another story.


McCain wants to spend more time, more money, and more troops in Iraq. Obama wants to get us out of Iraq on a timetable.
Both candidates want to withdraw. McCain wants to do it after the nebulous "victory". Obama according to the equally nebulous "situation on the ground".
Given the actual situation and the fact that even the muchreviled Bush administration is talking about withdrawing at the moment, this is a minor difference and not the chasm people try to make of it. Definitely not something to be "scared" about. And it makes your point about Afghanistan moot. Though, I actually doubt that anybody thinks any signifficant progress in Afghanistan would stop terrorism.



Obama is ready to discuss our options with other world leaders. McCain is ready to start WWIII rather than sit down across the table from Pakistan, Iran, South Korea, etc. McCain is unwilling to compromise.


This is the only point that might be considered as "scary". The problem is, it is just propaganda and has no relevance to the actual situation.
I'll put aside the claim that McCain doesn't want to talk to an ally (Pakistan).
Sitting across the table is not the end all be all of diplomatic measures. To claim that because he doesn't want to talk to North Korea, Iran and Venezualla's leaders doesn't mean McCain is ready to start a war. He is pretty clear that he favors diplomatic measures against Iran. North Korean situation is on a way to be resolved and Venezuella (no offence to Maxmordon0 is insignifficant in the greater scheme.
So, basically, both McCain and Obama are pro diplomatic pressure. True, McCain is percieved as the more likely to use military force. This within itself is not a bad thing (if the enemy shares this view). Dealing with Iran has to have a military option looming in the background. Otherwise it is an exersise in futility.
But I said "percieved". Let's look a little deeper (or wider). McCain would have a Dem Congress that would hold him back vis-a-vis nilitary option. Obama will have the backing of the same Congress. So, in reality, I think Obama would be the more likely one to actually use force (and he is supposedly prepared to do it, as his words vis-a-vis Pakistan suggest).

[EriRae]

So, basically, both McCain and Obama are pro diplomatic pressure. True, McCain is percieved as the more likely to use military force. This within itself is not a bad thing (if the enemy shares this view). Dealing with Iran has to have a military option looming in the background. Otherwise it is an exersise in futility.
But I said "percieved". Let's look a little deeper (or wider). McCain would have a Dem Congress that would hold him back vis-a-vis nilitary option. Obama will have the backing of the same Congress. So, in reality, I think Obama would be the more likely one to actually use force (and he is supposedly prepared to do it, as his words vis-a-vis Pakistan suggest).


Force after diplomacy has failed is acceptable.
Force for force's sake is not, at least not to me.

We have fought wars without Congressional approval in the past.

I know you're the OP and all, but you're not going to change my mind any more than I will change yours. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

[EriRae]

"I'm calling you a f------ jerk!" he once retorted to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Nobody talks bad about Grassley. NOBODY. He most certainly is not a "f------ jerk." When my brother was in the Gulf War (when it first started and nobody knew WTF was happening), we couldn't get through to Harkin, or Nussle, or any of our other representatives. So we called Grassley, and he called my parents back and spoke to them personally. Not that you wanted or needed to know that, but not all congressmen are out for money or power or want to be President. Some just want to do their job for their constituents.

[dmytryp]

Force after diplomacy has failed is acceptable.
Force for force's sake is not, at least not to me.

We have fought wars without Congressional approval in the past.

I know you're the OP and all, but you're not going to change my mind any more than I will change yours. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?
Believe it or not, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I have no problem with people deciding one candidate's foreign policy suits their views more and voting based on that. I might disagree with their assesment (like I do with Bravo's in this thread), but it is a reasonable approach.
What I am trying to do is to understand the sources of "his foreign policy scares me" hyperbole and the subsequent suggestions that McCain will use force for the sake of force. They lack the factual basis and similar to "Obama will turn US into socialistic country" scare tactics.

[dgiharris]

by dmytryp
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgiharris
I read through about half of that hatchet job. I love taking things out of context.

For instance, Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber If you've ever listened to THE WHOLE ANSWER...

I disagree that this was out of context. Whether you agree with the approach or not. Whether you think it is fair or not -- it is a topic for another discussion. Obama's plan is redistribution of wealth..

You are mostly right. The key point of his answer was wealth redistribution. However, that in and of itself is not necessarily evil. The devil is in the detials. They WAY he is going to do wealth redistribution is the key and he describes the way, and that 'way' is reasonable. Increasing taxes on those making more than $250K and only increasing from 36% to 39% from the amount above $250K sounds reasonable to me. I think this is a big reason why GOPs don't like to mention specific numbers and details because it sounds so much more ominous to say "Wealth redistribution".

I make the argument we have been practicing wealth redistribution in this country under the GOP, but instead of giving 'that' money to the bottom 95%, we are giving it to the top 5%


Quote:by dmytryp

Originally Posted by dgiharris
Abortion: I agree with him. Period....

In what way was this a hatchet job?

Agreed, this really wasn't a hatchet job. They presented his view and allowed enough context that I think an intelligent person can make a well informed decision.

by dmytryp
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgiharris
Rev Wright. Again, an out of context hatchet job, but this one is more personal... Rev Wright said some pretty inflammatory things that reflect the view of the black community. For instance, it is a well documented fact that the US government DID intentionally mistreat blacks with Syphilis...

But regardless of whether I agree or not, I believe someone who was smart enough to go to Harvard is smart enough to know what to believe and what not to believe....

Sorry, here we part ways completely.
Equating 9/11 to Hiroshima is moral equivalence at its worse.
Saying America brought it on itself does have some nuggets of truth in it, but to embrace it the way Wright did is MOS

Quote:
In the most extreme cases, we encounter Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome (MOS): “it is all our fault; and if we can only be better, we can fix anything/everything.”

It is embracing of your enemy's narrative. An enemy that doesn't share your ability to self-criticize and would use it against you.

And finally, Obama's association with Wright (much like he himself said) is fair game. What you take out of it, is another story.

This one is more complex and in the little snippet of time I didn't completely make my point.

The context of Rev Wright is that he represents some of the thoughts of the black community. And that some of those thoughts and feelings, though some may be inaccurate, are founded on logical premises.

The best way to explain this would be to take some prevailing thoughts from the 'white' community. In particular, affluent 'whites'. (please give me some slack to generalize/stereotype a bit, i do realize not 'all' whites think this, but it is equivalent to Wright in the sense that not all blacks think like him.)

One thought / phrase that I hear all the time is the 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps' phrase. Then pointing to Colen Powell or Obama and saying "see they did it, therefore everyone can do it".

Having come from poverty I know that this is not a true statement and it is made from people who simply have no real understanding of the issues of poverty. Had I not have had a near genius IQ and been blessed with athletic ability, I probably would not have made it. I was lucky. Yes, I worked hard, but without a few breaks I wouldn't have 'gotten out'.

What does this have to do with Rev Wright.

Obama is black. He comes from the black community. Those so called statements from Wright resonate differently with blacks than they do most whites. And it is not a matter of right or wrong, but of perception. Yes, the AIDS comment is inaccurrate but the 'spirit' of that comment is not. How well does the government look after their own? Funny, we can always scrounge up a few billion dollars for a war or to give to some corporations and oil croonies but we never seem to have money to fix our own communities or schools.

The MOS theory you mention has some merit. But I believe that if we deal with others we have wronged without understanding those wrongs, then any negotiation is doomed from the start.

In short, Rev Wright is not a crackpot, crazy, lunatic. But he is always presented in such a way as to make him sound extreme, when in all honesty he is not that extreme. At least from my perspective. But being firmly immersed in the 'white community' I know exactly how whites feel when they hear those comments. My only regret is that many don't know how I feel. Race relations and discussions have become taboo and that is another reason why I like Obama. He is the first politician to candidly talk about race in a way that can do some real healing instead of the 'masking' we've been doing for the last few decades. Our inability to not only talk about race, but acknowledge how racism and reverse racism is hurting our country is something that allows problems to fester. The best way to keep our festoring problems and make them worst, is to take people like Rev Wright, and invalid the truth of their comments.

That was the hatchet job, though it was extremely easy to do because in order to understand Wright's comments, you need ALOT of context, in fact, a life worth of it and many people just don't have it, or will understand it.

But that being said, I can understand how many are offended by Rev Wright, which is another reason why I like Obama. His willingness to talk about this issue like no one else has.

Back to the MOS thing + Rev Wright thing.

Lets get all our dirty laundry out in the open, pull out all the skeletons, and address these issues. Covering them up, playing political non-acknowledgement games, refusing to see the other side, all of these 'tricks' are not working. If anyone can do this, it is Obama, and the problem I have with GOP hatchet jobs is that it is just more of the same. And his campaign slogans against McCain (i.e. more of the same) could not be more true.

I for one am just so tired of 'the same'. I want change, I want idealism. Even though I am pro military, I am willing to let some lefty liberal take the reigns. Let's see what he can do because our pro war (you don't get more pro war than Cheney and Bush) didn't do such a good job did they. Hell, under their watch Russia GOT WORST!!!!

*sigh* sorry for the rant.

Mel

[dmytryp]

You are mostly right. The key point of his answer was wealth redistribution. However, that in and of itself is not necessarily evil. The devil is in the detials. They WAY he is going to do wealth redistribution is the key and he describes the way, and that 'way' is reasonable. Increasing taxes on those making more than $250K and only increasing from 36% to 39% from the amount above $250K sounds reasonable to me. I think this is a big reason why GOPs don't like to mention specific numbers and details because it sounds so much more ominous to say "Wealth redistribution".
I disagree. I think Obama's answer was just as non-comprehensive. Each and every person is unique because of his family status and thus would be affected differently. I posted several times the links to where it showes how taxes are hiked fro much lower incomes than 250k, for example (through vanishing tax credits). But this is again non-related. You called the bloga hatchet job. I disagree. Whether you agree with their stances or not, they didn't twist his words to mean something he didn't.

I make the argument we have been practicing wealth redistribution in this country under the GOP, but instead of giving 'that' money to the bottom 95%, we are giving it to the top 5%


Sorry, no. When you lower taxes on someone you don't redistribute money from others to him. You let him keep more of his money. Obama's proposition is something else entirely. He suggests raising taxes on some and not only lowering taxes on others, but give them money in the form of refundable tax credits. Now, you may think it is justified/fair whatever, but it is what it is -- an actual wealth redistibution.

By the way, US been practicing wealth redistribution from higher earners to lower earners forever, but it didn't call it "tax cuts", it called it welfare.


As for the rest of your post -- it is all valid points and reasons to vote Obama. Which still don't turn the blog into a hatchet job, but a reasonable discussion of your opponent's stances.

EDIT: I know this won't change your mind, but read the rest. It is somewhat informative.

[dgiharris]

I disagree. I think Obama's answer was just as non-comprehensive. Each and every person is unique because of his family status and thus would be affected differently. I posted several times the links to where it showes how taxes are hiked fro much lower incomes than 250k, for example (through vanishing tax credits)....


You know, I must admit, I have not taken a comprehensive look at his entire plan, I'll use my google-fu to find some links.

....Sorry, no. When you lower taxes on someone you don't redistribute money from others to him. You let him keep more of his money. Obama's proposition is something else entirely. He suggests raising taxes on some and not only lowering taxes on others, but give them money in the form of refundable tax credits. Now, you may think it is justified/fair whatever, but it is what it is -- an actual wealth redistibution.

I will have to take a more in depth look at my argument. I think some of my argument may be an emotional response to the 'corporate croonism' that is running rampant in this country.

However, the core of my argument is really that I am in favor of and willing to support measures that benefit the middle class directly instead of indirectly through trickle down economic theory.

Personally, I think swinging back and forth on taxes (tax cuts tax increases, etc) is inevitable and also healthy. The economy is dynamic not static, so changes (that adjust) seem reasonable.

I will go back and force myself to read the rest of it. For you. But damn it, you owe me. What exactly, I'm not sure, but know that one day I will come and collect!!!

gotta go do some work

Mel...

[veinglory]

As a resident foreigner I find it very odd that the campaigns are all about the deseperate needs of the middle class. What am I missing, that in the US the middle class are considered more needy and in need of money than the poor?

[kuwisdelu]

As a resident foreigner I find it very odd that the campaigns are all about the deseperate needs of the middle class. What am I missing, that in the US the middle class are considered more needy and in need of money than the poor?

Because only commies and socialists care about the poor :rolleyes:

[veinglory]

p.s. it is a serious question, in case the tone is unclear. I really don't understand why the rhetoric focusses so tightly on this when the middleclass who, by virtue of having taxable income, probably do have money for food and bus fare. (I paid net tax for the first time last year and much prefer where I am now to where I was before).

[kuwisdelu]

Despite my joking tone, I do think my answer has some truth behind it, which I find kind of pathetic. That's just my opinion, though.

A more reasonable answer is probably because the state of the middle class is probably one of the best indicators of how a country is doing economically overall. When the middle class is suffering how they are now (compared to how they were off, say, eight years ago), it's indicative of our financial crisis. In a purely capitalist system, the poor will alway suffer, but when the middle class suffers, too, something's very wrong. Politicians recognize this and pander to it.

[Monkey]

The middle-class are a large voting block that tends to vote.

[donroc]

There are an old Social Darwinist and a specific religious belief that the poor are poor because they are biologically flawed or their miserable existence is proof they are not of the Elect.

Fortunately, one does not have to be a communist, socialist, or national socialist to avdvocate improving their lives and creating opportunities for them. Our middle class and some of the wealthy are proof one can rise above birth and in my grandparents' cases immigrant circumstances.

[Don]

There are an old Social Darwinist and a specific religious belief that the poor are poor because they are biologically flawed or their miserable existence is proof they are not of the Elect.

Fortunately, one does not have to be a communist, socialist, or national socialist to avdvocate improving their lives and creating opportunities for them. Our middle class and some of the wealthy are proof one can rise above birth and in my grandparents' cases immigrant circumstances.
I subscribe to the free-market theory.

Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and you'll be selling him rods, reels, fishhooks, bait and lures for the rest of his life. :D

[dgiharris]

p.s. it is a serious question, in case the tone is unclear. I really don't understand why the rhetoric focusses so tightly on this when the middleclass who, by virtue of having taxable income, probably do have money for food and bus fare. (I paid net tax for the first time last year and much prefer where I am now to where I was before).


In my opinion,

it is the middle class that is the real driver and stabilizing force of the economy. The better the economy, the better the situation for the poor. The more opportunity for the poor through programs funded by taxes. The more jobs there are, the more needs there are, and the more that trickles down to the poor.

THis is the one model where i do believe that 'trickle down' economics does in fact occur.

The real reason why it occurs for the middle class and not the rich is because when middle class people have money THEY SPEND IT!!!!

Rich people do not spend money, nor contrary to popular belief, use it to create more businesses (though some do). The majority of rich people take their money, put it into investments that really just go into the 'ether'.

Middle Class, on the other hand, go out to eat more often, go to Best Buy, splurge, get their cars detailed and upgraded though they don't need it, etc. etc.

Not to say we shouldn't have programs for the poor. But without opportunity, it doesn't matter how much you help the poor. The better off the middle class the better it is for both rich and poor. Rich need the middle class to do those middle class jobs. Poor need the middle class because it is the middle class that directly interact with the poor

For me, that is why the focus should be middle class first, and i'm not just saying that becuase I'm middle class. And agaiin, i'm not saying F- the poor. They need programs and help to. But again, that help will come from who? The middle class.

Mel...

[Don]

Mel, rich people's money put into investments doesn't just go into the 'ether.' That money is invested, either directly in companies, allowing them to buy capital goods, or in some form of saving instrument, which means the dollars are available to be loaned to businesses for purchasing capital goods, or to consumers for home loans, car loans, or credit of various sorts. FedGov's recent manipulation of the printing presses aside, if there's no capital available for investment, the economy can't grow.

[dmytryp]

In my opinion,

it is the middle class that is the real driver and stabilizing force of the economy. The better the economy, the better the situation for the poor. The more opportunity for the poor through programs funded by taxes. The more jobs there are, the more needs there are, and the more that trickles down to the poor.


You had a good arguement till this point.
The rest -- what Don said.

P.S. I am starting to doubt whether it was a good idea to tell you to read the rest. Payback might hurthttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[astonwest]

The middle-class are a large voting block that tends to vote.
And may just have enough money to donate to future campaigns...

[Autodidact]

Mel, rich people's money put into investments doesn't just go into the 'ether.' That money is invested, either directly in companies, allowing them to buy capital goods, or in some form of saving instrument, which means the dollars are available to be loaned to businesses for purchasing capital goods, or to consumers for home loans, car loans, or credit of various sorts. FedGov's recent manipulation of the printing presses aside, if there's no capital available for investment, the economy can't grow. I think that the evidence shows that a lot of goes to imported luxury goods, foreign travel, and even overseas investments. If there's no consumers who can afford to buy anything, the economy can't grow.

btw, how are we doing with making capital available for business growth under the Bush tax policies, would you say?

[Don]

I think that the evidence shows that a lot of goes to imported luxury goods, foreign travel, and even overseas investments. If there's no consumers who can afford to buy anything, the economy can't grow.

btw, how are we doing with making capital available for business growth under the Bush tax policies, would you say?
I wish people would quit tarring me with the Bush brush. Bush sucks, is that plain enough? Unlike most partisans, however, I think most of the 545 clowns in DC that are running the country suck as well.

[dgiharris]

Mel, rich people's money put into investments doesn't just go into the 'ether.' That money is invested, either directly in companies, allowing them to buy capital goods, or in some form of saving instrument, which means the dollars are available to be loaned to businesses for purchasing capital goods, or to consumers for home loans, car loans, or credit of various sorts. FedGov's recent manipulation of the printing presses aside, if there's no capital available for investment, the economy can't grow.
*
What you say is true as read from a college Macro Economics text book (i've taken both macro and micro). THe problem I have (and i'll admit I need to put more thought analysis behind it) is that it is not a linear correlation between investment dollars and the money that flows back into the economy (as either jobs or direct capital) as a result of those investment dollars. If the American economy was a 'closed' economy in which the money in American investments stayed with America, then I would be more inclined to agree with you. But that is not the case. A huge percentage of money is tied up in overseas investments. Similarly, a lot of these companies (like the one I work for) cares more about keeping their stock price up than actual growth of the company. Thus, money is manipulated in whatever manner best benefits the stock and there are many instances where it results in money being sent to that 'ether' in which it has no real benefit at all.

Contrast this to a small business. Give a small business an extra year of earnings and what will they do? They will upgrade their equipment, hire more staff, maybe open another store. You know what my Fortune 500 company did with an extra year of earnings in 2006? We bought back our stock so the price would go up $2 a share. Now, does that buy back translate into more money going into the economy. I suppose, but NO WHERE near the extent of the mom and pop small business. And now, our stock (due to the recent downturn) is at it's lowest point in 8 years. In essence, a lot of our money is in that 'ether' I was talking about.

Let me be clear, my argument is not that money to the rich doesn't make it back into the economy. Sure, some of it does. My argument is that on a dollar per dollar basis, the money given to a small business and or middle class citizen does a much better job and has a much more profound impact on the economy than money given to some Fortune 500 company or the rich.

I think the textbook answer is to get a little nebulous about how wealth here generates wealth there but my 'gut' tells me that is not the case to the degree that many believe. Whereas money given to the middle class is much more directly fed into the local economy and thus, has more of a benefit to the economy. That is my argument.

[Ken]

politicians are plenty concerned about the poor living in other countries.

[Don]

*
My argument is that on a dollar per dollar basis, the money given to a small business and or middle class citizen does a much better job and has a much more profound impact on the economy than money given to some Fortune 500 company or the rich.

I'm anti-corporations and pro-small business, and don't put much stock in macroeconomic theories, so you won't get much disagreement from me.

However, remember we have fractional reserve banking, so every dollar put in the bank can be loaned out like a zillion times. Blame that on FedGov and the Federal Reserve, though. I'm also a sound money proponent. :D

[Don]

politicians are plenty concerned about the poor living in other countries.
They're even less concerned with those in other countries than they are with our own. However, they're plenty concerned with buying off the crooks that run those countries. That's why we send all the foreign aid overseas, and more of it comes back here to buy weapons than ends up helping the poor in other countries.

[Ken]

ahh, so that's the deal :-(

[eldragon]

This McCain? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvcuEqGUwmc&eurl=http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/10/this-senator-biden-is-the-man-with-steel-in-his-spine.html)Geez I just spent at least an hour watching McCain videos on Youtube.


McCain blowing up. McCain on Ellen. McCain on being able to walk safely in Iraqi neighborhoods, against much evidence that he hasn't done that, and neither had anyone else.

Interesting.

[dgiharris]

Originally Posted by dgiharris http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2880520#post2880520)
*
My argument is that on a dollar per dollar basis, the money given to a small business and or middle class citizen does a much better job and has a much more profound impact on the economy than money given to some Fortune 500 company or the rich.

I'm anti-corporations and pro-small business, and don't put much stock in macroeconomic theories, so you won't get much disagreement from me.

However, remember we have fractional reserve banking, so every dollar put in the bank can be loaned out like a zillion times. Blame that on FedGov and the Federal Reserve, though. I'm also a sound money proponent. :D

I think the problem (my problem) lies in the fact that we don't really have a 'true' free market.

Our free market seems a bit corrupted by the croonism and corporate influence on the laws and the total lack of accountability to those ubber rich fortune 500 companies and the gazillion golden parachutes that fill the skies.

If that weren't the case, I think i'd agree with you.

Overall, I will say this, when things work they way they are 'supposed to' then I think I can lean more your way. But the current system as is, I think I may be closer to the truth.

But no worries, in 2 wks, Obama will make everything all right. He will right all the wrongs, make the crooked valleys straight, and end world hunger. And failing that, he will at least get us back on track (IMO).

we shall see :)

Mel...

[Don]

Mel, we don't have anything even remotely resembling a free market in the US, nor do I expect to see one anytime soon. Almost everything related to production is regulated in some way, which means the markets are distorted completely out of recognizable shape.

Corporate/political cronyism bears no relation to free markets. Corporate welfare or corporate socialism comes much closer to defining what we have in place today.

The closest thing we've seen to a free market in a long time was the early days of the PC, when new, improved products were hitting the market faster than corporations and government could keep up. Then came heavy corporate involvement, venture capitalists... and the dot com bust.

[kuwisdelu]

Perhaps someone should throw out a definition of "free market."

[Don]

How about Wikipedia for a start?
A free market is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the transfer coerced by a third party.

Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets or regulated markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, which distorts market signals according to free market theory.
With the FDA, OSHA, dozens of other alphabet agencies, and millions of pages of regulations, I defy you to find one single product you can produce and bring to market without the price or supply of that product being impacted by the government.

Even a farmer's market is regulated to some degree.

Whatever you want to call it, free market ain't it.

[Bravo]

that's because we tried to get that in the 1880s and ended up with sweatshops and robber barons.

[dgiharris]

Interestingly enough,

I've always just equated our current market with 'free market' and never really thought about it.

To be honest, I do believe that government oversight is VITAL to capitalism, otherwise, you get all the evils Karl Marx preached about.

But, what about this semantic/concept.

Instead of a 'free market' akin to anarchy.

What about a FAIR MARKET

one in which rules are established and created in the interest of the public good and in the spirit of competition and the constitution. Once these rules are set, then the economy underneath those rules are 'free' in the sense that we citizens are free to do as we please within the law.

thoughts???

Mel...

[kuwisdelu]

I've always liked the idea of a "fair market."

IMO, the "free market" as the Wikipedia definition describes is an ideal--one which works great in theory and on a small scale in which everyone cooperates, but impractical and unattainable for a large, modern state's economy. I think it's similar to communism in that respect.

[Don]

that's because we tried to get that in the 1880s and ended up with sweatshops and robber barons.
Actually, the sweatshops and robber barons came along with government granting favors to particular businesses and power to the legal fiction of the corporation. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation)'s got a fairly decent summary.

In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters.

This all began to change in 1819, when FedGov granted corporations autonomy from government oversight, and in 1844 when the British followed suit. Ten years later, the British granted limited liability, and it was off to the races.

Sweatshops and robber barons were enabled by government turning corporations from closely-watched organizations established for specific purposes beneficial to the public interest into fictional people who never died and owed nothing to the public interest.

The more you learn about corporations, the more you learn that textbooks printed by - corporations - and approved by - government - don't always give an unbiased view of the world. :D

[Don]

Interestingly enough, I've always just equated our current market with 'free market' and never really thought about it.

To be honest, I do believe that government oversight is VITAL to capitalism, otherwise, you get all the evils Karl Marx preached about.

But, what about this semantic/concept. Instead of a 'free market' akin to anarchy. What about a FAIR MARKET?

one in which rules are established and created in the interest of the public good and in the spirit of competition and the constitution. Once these rules are set, then the economy underneath those rules are 'free' in the sense that we citizens are free to do as we please within the law.

thoughts???

Mel...

I've always liked the idea of a "fair market."

IMO, the "free market" as the Wikipedia definition describes is an ideal--one which works great in theory and on a small scale in which everyone cooperates, but impractical and unattainable for a large, modern state's economy. I think it's similar to communism in that respect.
What we have today is the end result of government attempting to establish 'fair markets.' Unfortunately, the politician's idea of 'fair' is corporate personhood, limited liability, and millions of pages of regulation that mostly serve as barriers to entry of competitors in the market.

Government talks a good game, but it has no history of creating rules 'in the interest of the public good and in the spirit of competition and the Constitution.' It has a long history of creating rules in the interest of special interests and in the spirit of creating barriers to entry and rules to expand government and corporate power in direct defiance of the Constitution. Yes, I'm invoking Kelo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_vs._City_of_New_London) again. :D

IMO, the "fair market" as you've described it is an ideal--one which works great in theory but has proven impractical and unattainable for a large, modern state's economy. I think it's similar to communism in that respect. ;)

Labor unions were necessary to counterbalance the power government had granted big business through the corporate changes I mentioned in the last post.

Big Government legislation created Big Business, which then required Big Labor as a balancing force that was incapable of maintaining the balance that was required for the public good. Suddenly, the individual was a mouse in a country of elephants... and we wonder why we're all just round pegs to be pounded into square holes in the corporate structure today.

And the politicians have convinced us to blame it on FREE MARKETS... go figure!

[kuwisdelu]

This all began to change in 1819, when FedGov granted corporations autonomy from government oversight, and in 1844 when the British followed suit. Ten years later, the British granted limited liability, and it was off to the races.

Sweatshops and robber barons were enabled by government turning corporations from closely-watched organizations established for specific purposes beneficial to the public interest into fictional people who never died and owed nothing to the public interest.

So...corporations should again be closely-watched organizations operating under government oversight? In other words...regulated?!

[Don]

So...corporations should again be closely-watched organizations operating under government oversight? In other words...regulated?!
As you can probably guess, my first preference would be that corporations not exist at all.

Failing that, I'd prefer the extremely powerful corporate model that exists today be restricted to a specific purpose for the public good as defined by their charter, and overseen by a government that is somehow immune to their direct influence. Corporations did not become the all-powerful beasts they are today when they were restrained by the legislature and assigned specific purpose.

The power of a corporation as it exists today is far to great to be granted willy-nilly.

Limited liability and perpetual life put corporations on a playing field against the citizen that is horribly tilted in their favor. That power should serve the people; the people should not serve that power as they do today.

Note that the vast majority of today's corporations would not exist as corporations under that model.

[kuwisdelu]

I have no great problem with corporations existing. (Hell, I even like some of them.) I absolutely have trouble with corporate law, though, and the power corporations wield over elected officials.

I think this:

overseen by a government that is somehow immune to their direct influence

gets to the heart of the issue.

[Don]

I have no great problem with corporations existing. (Hell, I even like some of them.) I absolutely have trouble with corporate law, though, and the power corporations wield over elected officials.
But corporations ARE what they are due to corporate law. I have no problem with the concept of a group of people working together in some organized structure, as long as some specific individuals within that structure are directly accountable for the actions of that organization.

I think the stock model also needs a complete overhaul, more closely approximating bonds with variable interest.
I think this:
overseen by a government that is somehow immune to their direct influencegets to the heart of the issue.
Political influence and limited liability are my two biggest issues.

[kuwisdelu]

But corporations ARE what they are due to corporate law.

I'm just saying there are some redeeming pros to corporate law; but yes, the cons are a load of bollocks stinking up the rest and being exploited to all hell.

[Dale Emery]

What about a FAIR MARKET

one in which rules are established and created in the interest of the public good and in the spirit of competition and the constitution. Once these rules are set, then the economy underneath those rules are 'free' in the sense that we citizens are free to do as we please within the law.

thoughts???

I think your proposal is exactly what the government thinks it is doing now.

It isn't clear to me that "public good" is definable in an operational way--that is, in such a way that someone could know whether any given policy or even any given effect is in the public good.

But suppose we could operationally define public good. Even then, I don't think any small set of people (that is, any subset of the market) can possibly have information that is sufficiently accurate, timely, and relevant to make decisions that are timely and effective at achieving the public good.

Dale

[Dale Emery]

Perhaps someone should throw out a definition of "free market."

I'll try: A market in which parties make transactions unimpeded by force or the the threat of force.

I think you need a few other conditions to make a free market work:

A generally agreed mechanism for resolving contract disputes
Sufficient honesty in describing products and services and in making commitments for future actions
Some way to attend to externalities (effects of a transaction that accrue to parties not involved in the transaction).Those things aren't part of my definition of free market, but I do think they're necessary to build sufficient trust to allow a free market work. And those mechanisms in practice will almost certainly involve the threat of force (i.e. law).

Also, I don't see "free market" as a binary thing (such that a market is either free or not). A market can be free in some ways and restricted by force in others.

Dale

[Dale Emery]

Limited liability and perpetual life put corporations on a playing field against the citizen that is horribly tilted in their favor.

Can you say more about the limited liability and what ill effects you see from that?

My limited understanding of corporations is that incorporating protects the members of the corporation from liability for corporate acts. Is that close to right?

Dale

[kuwisdelu]

I think your proposal is exactly what the government thinks it is doing now.

It may like to think that, some politicians may honestly be trying, but surely some know better. I think it comes down to what Don said about corporations' influence over politics. It would work out far better if we could create a system in which policy makers cannot be influenced by big business.

Also, I don't see "free market" as a binary thing (such that a market is either free or not). A market can be free in some ways and restricted by force in others.

Also a good point. After all, I've never felt the threat of force when going to the grocery store. If we went solely on a personal experience level, I'd have to say we have a free market.

[Dale Emery]

It may like to think that, some politicians may honestly be trying, but surely some know better.

How would a new regulators intentions, beliefs, and practices differ from those of the current government? How would those differences come about?

I think it comes down to what Don said about corporations' influence over politics. It would work out far better if we could create a system in which policy makers cannot be influenced by big business

The free market is a system like that.

Assigning decision-making power to a small set of regulators makes it easier for "big business" to get what it wants. They now have to convince only the small set of regulators rather than everyone involved in the market. And "big business" is far better equipped to wield influence than is the average citizen.

Concentrating power in the hands of regulators creates both the incentive and the means for "big business" to use the coercive nature of law to tilt policy in its favor.

ETA: How would you reduce the ability of "big business" to influence regulators?

Dale

[Don]

Can you say more about the limited liability and what ill effects you see from that?

My limited understanding of corporations is that incorporating protects the members of the corporation from liability for corporate acts. Is that close to right?

Dale
Good old Wikipedia again.

Limited liability is a concept whereby a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a company or partnership with limited liability.

In practice, this means there are two classes of people who can go out, wreck havoc in the marketplace, and not be held personally accountable for their actions; corporate owners and politicians. (Tried to sue a politician lately)?

Limited liability gives corporate officers a veil to hide behind. They can do things for the good of 'the company' that they'd be ashamed to have their name associated with, and if they get caught, and it happens to be illegal, in most cases the corporation will pay the fine or suffer the punishment instead of their personal assets. If there are no corporate assets, the corporation goes bankrupt, and the perp goes free to rape and pillage under another corporate name.

Certain crimes pierce the corporate veil, I know, but it's almost as if government said, "If you sign these papers, you can call yourself Joe Robber, Inc. and rob until you get caught, at which time we'll take whatever's in your pockets, call you bad names, and let you go back to the alley as Jack Robber, Inc. the next time."