Obamanomics

[Konrad]

The Wall Street Journal has a great article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries) about the possible effect of Obama's economic plan on the US economy.

Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
July 29, 2008

What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?


AP
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.

To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.

Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.


First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.

The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!

Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)

On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.

On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.

Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.

Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.

Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush

[Gnioss]

tl;dr

[Slak]

While that article does point out some important problems with Obama's economic policy, it skirts around the issues prevalent in fiscal policy. Overall it comes across as a doom and gloom article without offering any real insight into fiscal issues that America faces.

I dunno, seems more like a scare tactic article than a real attempt at explaining realities of American economics.

[Diraker]

Not my issue and bias doesn't automatically imply falsehood but this is an op-ed piece written by a partisan in a News Corp (Rupert Murdoch and Fox News) publication. And I dunno it seems ballsy for republicans to be talking of potential bad economies coming from democrats considering the state of the economy Bush has left us.

Anyway more about tyhe bigger picture. The McCain camp has gone stupid and desperate. More of that shit and maybe I will vote this time around.

[Konrad]

The Wall Street Journal is routinely rated as the most respected newspaper in the world, and their editors were champions of free people and free markets back when Murdoch was still in diapers. So good job at trying to equate them to Fox News.

Secondly, very few economists have pointed a finger at Bush or his policies for the current state of our economy. The truth is that the tax cuts and other fiscal policies have buoyed the economy over the past six years. However, even the tax policies that Obama has rolled out after the primary are policies that would wreak havoc on an already weak economy.

I'm not sure what "bigger picture" you are looking at besides the economy, because when it comes down to it, "It's the economy, stupid".

[Diraker]

The WSJ op-eds have been right leaning for years now and their association with News Corp certainly has tarnished their reputation. Most folk realize Fox News and News Corp is a joke. And you didn't comment on the partisan writer writing in the op-ed section. Regardless, bias doesn't automatically mean falsehood so take the bias comments for what they are worth...little. I could pull some economic op-ed articles by Paul Krugman from the NY Times sort of do a partisan McCain scare article. In the same way as you'd dismiss Krugman and the NY Times I dismiss the Bush Sr. guy and the WSJ. And I pointed this out in the last thread on taxes and economics. When the economy isn't so good the president can run from it but if things go well the president can claim that his policies are working. Much of what happens is beyond the presidents' and US governments' control although of course who is president and who controls congress matters.

Anyway Konrad there's been something on my mind for a few weeks and I'll just put it here. I's regarding economics and the idea that the "invisible hand" (think Adam Smith) works from the bottom up. There' no sort of uber consipracy where the elite 12 control economics and such. Anyway right leaning folk understand this (usually) very well (it's generally folk on the left who think there's some sort of mega think thank controlling things). Take these same sort of bottom up, self feeding very dynamic economic system and think in those terms regarding evolution and the bottom up workings of life. Think of natural selection and mutations and the driving forces of evoultion has the "invisible hand" and it also works from the bottom up.

Anyway just wanted to bring it up. The book is The Mind of the Market by Michael Shermer.

[Elad]

Soush INC

[Soushia]

It took me two reads...but the slant is undeniable.


It goes something like this...

-Clinton was bad with the economy

-The republican congress was the only thing to save us from the democratic president.

-No mention of the 8 years of Bush-a-nomics

-Nafta is great

-Obama is a boob.


He could have just written that and saved 3,000 words. This is only slightly less incindiary than my "Al Gore is Satan" website.


p.s. Read the last line of the article to find out where the bias comes from.

[Shokar]

Soush INC

LOL, nice call, Elad!

[Soushia]

I totally owe Elad a beer next weekend!

[Elad]

maybe some of the darker ones...not a big fan!

[Oakbone]

biggest problem with our economy is 1 thing. GOVERNMENT SPENDING. the end

[Silver]

biggest problem with our economy is 1 thing. GOVERNMENT SPENDING. the end

+1

[Aradorn]

line item veto++

[Mourne]

biggest problem with our economy is 1 thing. GOVERNMENT SPENDING. the end

qft

[Diraker]

Yes republican spending has gone to ridiculous levels.

[Aradorn]

umm the republicans arnt the ones who want to give everyone in America free health care... they also arnt in favor of all the government handouts that eat through our budget like a fat kid eating cake

[Gnioss]

$542,521,362,253
How much healthcare will that buy?
A lot.

[Aradorn]

ive got a better way to fix the health care system and guess what its FREE!




TORT REFORM

[Silver]

Yes George Bush's spending has gone to ridiculous levels.

FIXT

George Bush does not represent the true ideals of the Republican party.

[Miach]

FIXT

George Bush does not represent the true ideals of the Republican party.

The Republican Party no longer represents the ideals of the Republican party. :) They are lost in religion / moral family values / abortion / war on terror and can't remember the times of small government.

[Diraker]

Take back your party...your party has left you.

[Konrad]

The Republican Party no longer represents the ideals of the Republican party. :) They are lost in religion / moral family values / abortion / war on terror and can't remember the times of small government.

tru dat

[Silver]

The Republican Party no longer represents the ideals of the Republican party. :) They are lost in religion / moral family values / abortion / war on terror and can't remember the times of small government.

So true...

That is why I am voting for the Libertarian again.

[Mourne]

Libertarian! But, I would say that both Republicans and Democrats spend too much money. More government intervention in every day life = bad. And yes, Republicans aren't even Republicans anymore. Now I hear people saying things like, "I'm not a Republican, I'm a Conservative."

[Lozzt One]

I've been researching political climate and changes in U.S politics/policies since the Civil War and theres some interesting information out there about party alignment and re-alignment theory. I think that in 20 years from now we will see a change in the current parties as they strive to re-identify with voters. Mainly a shift from this babbling bullshit mainstream media is feeding everyone to actually taking stands on issues that need to be changed. This process will actually occur over the next 20 years and not take 20 years to get to. Kinda think of it as the emergence of the modern parties in the 60s (defined through the Civil Rights era).


Although I have a lot to say about Obama and McCain, It won't benefit this discussion.

[Konrad]

I want to hear what you have to say about it Lozzt.

[Lozzt One]

Well I just took the time to write out a nice response and my browser crashed.

The gist of it is: Government should not bribe voters with policy changes which is what is being done. I think that McCain and Obama both are taking issues that Americans are dealing with and throwing "platform policies" together to woo voters. The average American won't take the time to look into these policies so they will choose the one that sounds like it fits them the best. Any time you deal with economics you are going to fuck with somebody thats the long and the short of it. There is no perfect solution. The rich are either going to get taxed or the poor are going to have nothing because the rich have it all. A major concern should be how do we compensate for having both rich and poor? I doubt we can. In the shape we as a country are in, we should focus on issues that will help us rather than quibble over policies that, lets face it are like i said bribes. What are these issues? Welfare, Employment, Health Care, Foreign Affairs (our relations aren't too good these days). Although these are issues I look at as a major concern, they might not be everybody's cup of tea. Health Care should be a concern considering that we as a leader in the free world have a shitty system that needs to be fixed. This doesn't mean free health care, but it needs infrastructure changes to make it an efficient system that will take care of the people.


I'm not going to cover the other 3 issues but as I said those are issues I have concern about.

[Aradorn]

you are not my brother...

[Soulein]

As a Republican, the Conservative Movement worries me. They spend like Democrats and try to legislate morality, thus creating GOVERNMENT solutions to problems when the opposite is needed. McCain, as someone who professes to be a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican", was the only Republican candidate I could see myself voting for in the primaries, I was pleasantly surprised when things started going his way. I think the fact that he got nominated over a Romney or a Huckabee speaks volumes about where the Republican party is going. Most Republicans I know share my views, but then again California isn't exactly a bastion of the Conservative Movement.

As for Foreign Policy, I am definitely a subscriber to the Neo-Conservative Theory of Foreign Policy. I think the Bush Doctrine has largely pwned itself, and it seems more likely that a McCain Administration will return to the largely successful and incredibly sound "Powell Doctrine" of multi-lateral action with overwhelming force. What I DON'T want to see is a return to the "Law Enforcement Approach" of the Clinton years, neither do I want to see U.S. Soldiers taking off the Stars and Stripes and donning U.N. powder blue (or any other similar breaches of sovereignty).


Edit: From my point of view, voting for a Third party candidate would just serve to put the person I disagree with MORE into office. As a pragmatist, this just isn't an option. If you want third parties to be more than just spoilers, a constitutional amendment to change our electoral system is the only real way to do it.

[Lozzt One]

Agreed.

[Soulein]

Agreed.

With whom sir?

[Shokar]

Soulein, you still playing Shadowbane?

[Silver]

Edit: From my point of view, voting for a Third party candidate would just serve to put the person I disagree with MORE into office. As a pragmatist, this just isn't an option. If you want third parties to be more than just spoilers, a constitutional amendment to change our electoral system is the only real way to do it.

New York hasn't gone to a Republican since Reagan, and in this election my vote for a third party has ZERO consequence on the allocation of the New York State electoral votes which will go to the Democrat.

[Aradorn]

mark my words I will run for president one day =) (and my opponent will use this post against me)

[Diraker]

electoral college 4tl

[Yoma]

line item veto++

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

No.

Listen, the executive doesn't make laws. With the line item veto, the executive has too much power to shape laws.

Imagine someone as bad as the current president getting into the office having the line item veto. Imagine him vetoing everything but the pork. Line item veto leads to very bad things.

What we need is for every article of the bill to be germane to the purpose of the bill, which apparently is in the bylaws of the house and senate, but doesn't seem to get enforced.

In short, what we need is less corruption. How we get there... not sure.

[Lozzt One]

The electoral college can be fixed. Just make votes allotted on a proportional basis. Makes for a better system.

[Soulein]

Soulein, you still playing Shadowbane?


Not really, focusing on WAR Beta at the moment. I do log in occasionally, and for banes.

[Diraker]

I mentioned Paul Krugman in a previous post. Bolds by me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Know-Nothing Politics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: “Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!” O.K., I added that last part.

And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid.

Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: “The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Representative John Shadegg.

What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be “insignificant”? Presumably they’re just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, “want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs.”

Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? Don’t count on it.

Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, “They attacked us, and we’re going to strike back” — and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren’t the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.

Let’s also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. “Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man,” declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. “He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.”

It wasn’t until Hurricane Katrina — when the heckuva job done by the man of whom Ms. Noonan said, “if there’s a fire on the block, he’ll run out and help” revealed the true costs of obliviousness — that the cult began to fade.

What’s more, the politics of stupidity didn’t just appeal to the poorly informed. Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter.

Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly — that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy.

All this is in the past. But the state of the energy debate shows that Republicans, despite Mr. Bush’s plunge into record unpopularity and their defeat in 2006, still think that know-nothing politics works. And they may be right.

Sad to say, the current drill-and-burn campaign is getting some political traction. According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling — and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

The headway Republicans are making on this issue won’t prevent Democrats from expanding their majority in Congress, but it might limit their gains — and could conceivably swing the presidential election, where the polls show a much closer race.

In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.

[Mourne]

Shit, basing on how government has been going in this country I think their motto is more like communism is the best policy.

[Thaelcron]

Watch the Whole Thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)

[Soulein]

Watch the Whole Thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)


EPIC!


Dir, I didn't like that guy one bit, but he has a point. The (mostly southern) mega church frequenting, big spending, populist, Democrat turncoats in the party basically take a huge poo on anything resembling the party of Reagan, Goldwater, and Teddy Roosevelt.

Unfortunately, McCain has to appease these fucks or he won't get elected... they are just like any other Bloc or special interest group. He just won't get elected if he ignores them. The same is true in my district... if you aren't in bed with tho local Baptist church, forget running as a Republican.

My friend moderated a debate between the candidates for State Assembly, and one of the candidates was asked how he might approach the problem of Illegal Immigration. He suggested repealing the 14th Amendment to deny Immigrants born in the country automatic citizenship. Another friend of mine in the audience asked if he had considered the other, more positive aspects of the amendment that he would be removing as well.

His answer? "I'm sorry, I misspoke. I mean the 13th amendment...". WTF??? You mean the one that BANS FUCKING SLAVERY??? There was a black lady next to him and she looked like she was going to fuck him up... to say the least it was priceless.

Guess what? He won the election... He also had the support of the local Baptist mega church. GG? I think so.

Despite all of the failings of the Republican party over recent years, I see NOTHING on the other side of the isle that would make me vote the other way. It is so incredibly sad to see the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and FDR slip ever closer to Socialism.

P.S. The fact that McCain got nominated at all shows that the Moderate and fiscally responsible Republicans are coming to prominence once again.

[Soulein]

Shit, basing on how government has been going in this country I think their motto is more like communism is the best policy.

In the worker we trust?

[Mourne]

That Barack Roll owns!

[Splicer]

I'm not exactly one to keep up with politics but unless I'm mistaken while manufacturing output might be at a peak, there's 3 million less manufacturing jobs now then there were when NAFTA was enacted. I'm a full supporter of free trade and as an Engineer NAFTA's side effect of forcing manufacturers to be more efficient keeps me in a job. But NAFTA is far from all good.

*Joins the baised article club*

[Elad]

Shouldn't you be on a honeymoon? Congrats on your marriage

[Splicer]

Nah, I've been back since last Friday and thankyou.

[Diraker]

Another op-ed.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B4914192B%2D12AF%2D4623%2DAB18%2 D5EFE91204B04%7D&siteid=djm_HAMWRSSElecH&print=true&dist=printMidSection

Why McCain would be a mediocre president
Commentary: It's not a given that Republican candidate has the right stuff

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In his frivolous Paris and Britney ad, Sen. John McCain has asked the right question: Is Barack Obama ready to lead this country?

Since last January, Sen. Obama's fitness for the presidency has been the only question that matters in American politics. The pollsters and pundits agree that if Obama can show the voters that he's up to the job, he'll win. If not, he won't.

But that begs another question: Is McCain fit to lead America?

That question hasn't been asked, nor has it been answered.

The assumption seems to be that McCain's years of experience in the military and in Congress of course give him the background and tools he'd need in the White House. As Britney might say, "Duh! For sure he's qualified!!! He's Mac!!!"
But is that true? Does McCain have the right stuff?

A careful look at McCain's biography shows that he isn't prepared for the job. His resume is much thinner than most people think.

Here are some reasons why McCain would be a mediocre president.

...

And I've said this before but for me, McCain is disqualified for being president because of what he says about the types of supreme court judges he will nominate. One more pro-religious right judge and we are all fucked.

[Soulein]

Another op-ed.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B4914192B%2D12AF%2D4623%2DAB18%2 D5EFE91204B04%7D&siteid=djm_HAMWRSSElecH&print=true&dist=printMidSection



And I've said this before but for me, Obama is disqualified for being president because of what he says about the types of supreme court judges he will nominate. One more leftist judge with no respect for the Constitution and we are all fucked.

Fixed.

[Diraker]

Yes because the current republican administration has such a good record regarding the Constitution. :smile_ok:

Anyway if you have a link where Obama talks about the types of judges he'd nominate I want to see it. It's my big issue and afaik Obama has failed to even address it. At least McCain has declared his intentions however bad they seem to me.

[Oakbone]

Yes because the current republican administration has such a good record regarding the Constitution. :smile_ok:



I understand your concern regarding the seperation of church and state and the evil religious right and all that. I even tread very cautiously there with you. However where in the constitution does it give one man (Obama) the power to fix all of our problems. I'll promise you this, I'll fix this, I'll take this companies profits in a capitalistic economy and redistribute them through stimulus checks, etc. etc. I know you're main concern is the religious stuff but the current Democratic platform is soo far off from the constitution it's very scary to me. While I won't go so far as to say he is an all out communist, Obama and his friends definitely want this country to go one big step closer to socialism.

Compare Obama's platform to the communist manifesto of Marx and the like and I think you will find some very close ties. I would say that at the very least Obama has Marxist ideas and value system. The people who he has chosen to surround himself with only support that claim imo.

I don't believe anywhere in the Constitution does the FEDERAL gov't have such broad power as an Obama administration thinks it should. We have already strayed way too far from the constitution and its ideals in this country. Why do we want to turn the best country in the world to date into another failed socialist/communist model.

I'm not saying republicans are much better on some of these issues but every Democrat in big positions of power want to take more and more of our freedoms and liberties away. This concerns me greatly.

Can anyone name something other than defense that the Gov't runs well or efficiantly. Hell even our defense is run the greatest. The schools are borked despite having more money than ever. The fannie may freddie mac is another fine govt example. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, hell most all welfare programs are run terribly. Most private charities can get upwards of 90% of the money to their cause. I think most of this forced charity is lucky to get 60% to the causes they are supposed to help through gov't stealing from the people to help out those whom they feel like it. I for one am sick of it. The Federal gov't has gone to far and grown to big. It needs to be cut down at the legs and soon. It's getting rediculous

When an induvidual has the freedom to make a choice good or bad, for the most part that affects 1 or maybe a handful of people. I call that Liberty! We have the right to choose, for better or worse, what we do with our lives. When the gov't or some politician makes a choice (and usually bad ones) it affects much more than that 1 person. That is not what I call Freedom or Liberty.

I could go on all day but me lunch is getting cold.

I Love this country so much and want to see it go back to its founding principles of small gov't, especially on the federal level. We have and are losing too many of our freedoms today and it's only getting worse.

I dont think I'll be voting for either canidate this time around. I'll have to write in which may be a wasted vote but at least I'll be able to sleep at night.

Just because you may hate the Bush administration doesn't mean we should vote in a Marxist because "well, at least it's a change"

[Soulein]

Yes because the current republican administration has such a good record regarding the Constitution. :smile_ok:

Anyway if you have a link where Obama talks about the types of judges he'd nominate I want to see it. It's my big issue and afaik Obama has failed to even address it. At least McCain has declared his intentions however bad they seem to me.

Did you not read my posts? I don't think Bush has done a good job at all. In fact, I criticize many social conservatives (like Bush) for their populist and constitution bending agendas.

[Gnioss]

I'm not saying republicans are much better on some of these issues but every Democrat in big positions of power want to take more and more of our freedoms and liberties away. This concerns me greatly.

:boggle:

I don't even know how to respond to this. Our current administration has, arguably, done more to disrupt the balance of power in this country, and by extension made us greatly less free then any other administration in the history of our country. I realize that's a bold claim but the sad part is that it isn't hyperbole.

[Ablate]

If you aren't guilty, why do you care if they search you, your house, your colon, or your car with no warrants? that's just loony talk.

[Yoma]

:boggle:

I don't even know how to respond to this. Our current administration has, arguably, done more to disrupt the balance of power in this country, and by extension made us greatly less free then any other administration in the history of our country. I realize that's a bold claim but the sad part is that it isn't hyperbole.


Well, you have to understand, in conservative talk universal healthcare means "Taking away my freedom of paying out the ass in order to line the pockets of oligarchic health insurance companies while they unethically deny coverage to push up their profit margins".

Edited for clarity.

[Mutt]

Universal health care means they dont deny coverage, at least its supposed to

[Oakbone]

Universal health care means they dont deny coverage, at least its supposed to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2547393/Patients-should-not-expect-NHS-to-save-their-life-if-it-costs-too-much.html

"The National Institute for Health and Clinical Guidelines (Nice) has ruled for the first time that saving a life cannot be justified at any cost, in a review of its ethical guidelines.

Nice is facing increasing accusations that it is giving undue weight to financial considerations - rather than medical benefits - when making decisions on whether to allow drugs or other treatments on the NHS. Doctors and patients have alleged that they are treated with contempt by the organisation and that life-saving drugs are being unfairly denied.

Cant wait till we get this GREAT healthcare. I'm not saying the system is perfect now, but do you honestly believe the gov't won't screw it up beyond belief. Plus once you go doen the national HC route there is no going back."

I'm sorry but when did healthcare become a right? It seems like in todays society we want to eliminate all forms of risk which doesn't help us out as a whole even though it may help out a select few.

I'm sorry but I'm sick of the losers in this country dictating policy for the rest of us because they CHOOSE (again that's called liberty) not to prioritize their spending. Same with the mortgage crisis. If you take the risk thats how the cookie crumbles. The gov't can't provide a safety net for every choice you make in life, that is what families are for. We just can't afford it.

[Oakbone]

:boggle:

I don't even know how to respond to this. Our current administration has, arguably, done more to disrupt the balance of power in this country, and by extension made us greatly less free then any other administration in the history of our country. I realize that's a bold claim but the sad part is that it isn't hyperbole.


If you are a suspected terrorist or enemy of the state maybe. But for the average American I would have to disagree. Since when did we give terrorists rights anyway even if they are 'americans'.

I'm sorry but most people I talk to are more worried being able to make their own decisions than their phone getting a CIA wiretap. Oh, and btw, whether you like it or think it is wrong or illegal or whatever, we are currently in a WAR, with troops on the ground in harms way. I think that at least factor into some of the discussion. Bush has been very bad on many things especially when it comes to spending but their has not been any major attacks on our soil since 9/11 and our aggresive policy no doubt has helped in that aspect...

Whether its worth it or not who knows, history will decide. It may end great with a nice friend (democracy) in the middle east or it may start WW3. Hindsight is 20/20. We won't know a lot of answers until many years down the road.

[Mutt]

What that refers to is not paying for ultra expensive remedies when there are other options available. At least thats how it works here.

No one is going to be denied because they are having a heart attack, etc.

If you are fighting cancer you have the known and accepted options like chemo, etc.

It is not a guarantee that the government will pay the bill for some procedure still in testing somewhere that costs in the extreme multiples of the known treatments.

[Oakbone]

Right, but you already won't get turned down for any operation in any ER in the U.S. whether you can pay for it or not, whether you are a citizen or not... Hence we already in a way have free health care for the poor. We have medicare or aid w/e for so almost every eldery is covered. Plus in most states any minor is covered under some form of welfare anyway if they can't afford it.

I'm not saying let kids die in the streets but honestly, when the "poor" in this country have cable TV and a car but refuse to pay for health care forgive me when I don't feel sorry for them. Not having health care is also a nice incentive for getting a better job with better benefits and whatnot, it encourages advancement and productivity imo. Handing out all these new "rights" won't do anyone much good, if anything just makes the fiscally irresponsible more irresponsible.

[Mutt]

True enough there are pros and cons to each system

[Aradorn]

screw health care i want the government to pay for me car... wait no my house... how about my grocery bill? my power bill? while we are at it i dont want to pay for anything!

[Konrad]

What is the deal with people thinking they have a right to health care? "Health care" is made up of millions of people putting forth their time and effort to provide remedies to physical ailments: whether they are doctors, nurses, software designers, drug companies, equipment manufacturers, etc. What claim does anyone have to these people's time and effort?

[Diraker]

Kill the Poor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I)

[Silver]

I spent 14K a year for my family's health insurance.

[Konrad]

What exactly does that add Diraker? It has nothing to do with wanting to kill or hurt anybody. Nor does it have anything to do with wanting anyone to go without proper health treatments. The fact remains however that we live in a free society, and no one has any right to claim that someone must give of their time and effort to help anybody else.

[Diraker]

It shows the contempt people have for the poor.

And I was more responding to the stuff I saw on previous pages not your post Konrad. Your post actually snuck in while I was doing the linkage. But since you are here, and I've said this before, that if one can justify cops and fire departments (including all those people working and designing) as a "right" people have then the same arguments apply to health care.

Also late last night I was youtube browsing some old songs since I was kicking ass in Rock Band. (several new 5 gold stars and flawless performances). I was thinking about how cool it would be if Rock Band had those early 80's punk songs instead of that emo crap punk shit.

[Konrad]

But since you are here, and I've said this before, that if one can justify cops and fire departments (including all those people working and designing) as a "right" people have then the same arguments apply to health care.

The difference is that police and fire departments are equally beneficial to the local community which pays for those services at a local level. Police are especially justified, considering their job is to protect certains rights of individuals against infringement by others. On the other hand, the beneficiaries of health care range dramatically to a point where it is very easy to see who benefits by what procedures and at what cost.

You might have an argument that certain health care procedures should be provided for at the local level, because they could be seen as equally beneficial to all who contribute. However, the only reason for doing so at a national level is a belief in the merits of collectivism.

I'm working on typing up my thoughts on solutions for health care, I'll probably put them up later today.

[Splicer]

I used to design devices to help the physically disabled function normally. I went along for an installation of the devices for a guy who couldn't walk. He was getting about 3000 dollars in equipment that would allow him to get a job fielding phone calls from home. The guy had a 72" HDTV in his living room. The TV alone cost more than the equipment the state was buying for him so he could work. That's when I lost all faith in the government properly spending my money on welfar. When they can't differ from the people who have to have help to survive to those who just want it so they can spend their own money on a 72" HDTV they need to turn the job over to somebody who can.

[Timestretch]

http://www.nozzlerage.com/