Presidential Election Political Smackdown FFA

[Charles Dean]

[Robroy]

Debates are fine, but not worth a hoot when it comes to real information. This is the type of stuff that concerned me about Obama:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-com ... _print.htm

And I just got this in an email about 10 minutes ago. I don't agree with all the bullet points on the first slide but the rest of it sums it up nicely how I view this. And most of the points are only highlights. They are backed up my more - and more damning - information for those that actually want to read the record.
http://www.usawakeup.org/USSA.htm

It is why so many seriously fear for our nation. I have confidence for a simple reason: the opposite of faith is fear and the opposite of fear is faith. I KNOW it is going to get much worse than anyone can imagine before the Lord's return. And not being a pre-tribulationist, I know that if I am still alive when "this generation:" of Matthew 24 is alive, I'm gonna live through 3.5 years of hell on earth. I also know it is all part of God's plan.

I am concerned that my countrymen are as blind today as Germans were in the 1930's. I sincerely HOPE I do not have the opportunity to be proven right and I pray for the kind of actions that bring about CHANGE to renew freedom and responsibility to the individual citizen that have been slowly stripped away ever since the New Deal.

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Charles Dean]

There are countless sociological and psychological studies that say essentially this:

1) if you do not have food shelter and clothing, you more than likely won't be happy.

2) if you have adequate food, shelter and clothing, you'll more than likely be pretty happy.

3) if you have way more food, shelter and clothing than what you actually need, you won't be any happier than #2.

Communism didn't work. It looked good on paper to some people, but it simply doesn't work because people want to be able to work hard and do better than the next guy. Pretty much human nature.

But when you have a pure free market system, you end up with an Oligarchy or a fascist state, which is what we are dangerously close to right now. A few benefitting greatly from the work of many.

I think that there's room for a middle ground. I don't think there's a pure right way or wrong way to do anything. I think many things are better accomplished by private industry. The X-Prize going into space is the perfect example of this. NASA has spent billions and billions on going to space with a ridiculously high mortality rate. Space Ship One got into orbit on less than 25 million. And Branson is going to be even more disgustingly wealthy.

However, when private industry gets in to doing the government's work, It can often be far less efficient.

For instance, the Iraq war with Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton. They charge 3-6 times more per person for the same services that used to be done by Army personell, besides the total lack of audit or oversight by government agencies writing checks to these companies. That's terribly inefficient and a waste of taxpayer money. And even though you hate the idea of universal healthcare of course, it can be far more efficient than the system we currently have. We spend way more on healthcare per capita than almost any other industrialized nation, yet we're ranked 37th. That's pathetic.

I don't think there's one right or one wrong answer. I think sometimes one way is more right than another, depending on how the country is moving at that point in time. Sometimes regulation kills prosperity. Sometimes lack of regulation kills prosperity, like right now.

So i'm not a pure socialist by any means, but I think helping all of the citizens of your country and your neighbors is an honorable and admirable goal.

[Charles Dean]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

I'm with you on "no purely right way" Chuck. I do think there are three general categories of where things should fall into either private or public domains.

First, it just doesn't work for public goods to be provided by the private sector. Let's look at a blaring example: campaign finance. Campaigns are a public good (let's learn enough to vote for the best candidate), but they are financed privately. This creates a system whereby public servants "owe" the private sector. It's the real source of pork barrel politics. We can apply the same principal to environmentalism, and transportation. Anything that everyone must share due to real world constraints should be publicly controlled.

Second, is the stuff that doesn't really effect the public at all. This is pretty much the consumer market, and it functions best by the free hand of capitalism. We're talking about consumption here, like automobiles and televisions.

Third, is the mixed group. This is anything that seems individual, but on closer inspection is more of a public good than we like to admit. Consider health care. It's clear that my good health benefits me, but without it I cannot be productive and may be a burden on society. To some degree, society benefits if I can stay healthy, but not as much as I do. Also in this category are things like education, the study of the sciences, and policy decisions regarding free trade.

It seems to me, like we are pretty good about the second category in this country (even if some think we over-regulate). We are usually good about the first category, but we tend to have a few blindspots (campaign finance being a significant one). But we are lousy with the third category - I'd claim many Americans deny that category even exists. We prefer things to be cut and dried. Education or health care should be fully public or fully private?!? This refusal to be pragmatic on the most complex and important issues facing our society is a great failure.

[Charles Dean]

You make a great point. I've never quite thought of it in those terms.

I had a long debate with a friend of mine about education and government's involvement in education. She was arguing how homeschooled kids and private school kids do far better on testing. And there's a good reason for that. Because they are receiving attention that they wouldn't get in the public setting. And I think that parents should have the right to give their child a better education if they can afford to do so.

However, good education for everyone will help everyone, although indirectly. If we have good, affordable and accessible education for everyone, then everyone is better off. Better doctors, scientists, mechanics, welders, plumbers, electricians, architects, city planners, etc. If education is not good, affordable and accessible, then as a whole our country deteriorates because we aren't bouyed by those who complete their education.

So while better education does help the individual more, better education for everyone does bouy everyone.

Americans do really like to see things in black and white rather than in nuance. Abortion is a great example of this. I am personally pro-life. However I tend to lean left, because I think being pro-life should be more than just being anti-abortion.

Many pro-choice people refuse to believe that there is anything negative about having an abortion and I think many women who have one are not prepared for how difficult that choice is. They also hate groups like Crisis Pregnancy and what not. Why would you be against a group that supported young women in helping them keep their child?

But, if you are going to be pro-life and against abortion, shouldn't you then logically also be pro-welfare? I mean, is the child only worth protecting before they are born, then they're on their own. And when abortions are illegal or limited, this only effects the poor, as the rich can still get safe abortions if they want to, because they can afford them.

And thus why it is such a devisive issue on both sides, because both sides refuse to empathize with the other.

Maybe just as a culture we are unable to reach middle ground? While I never liked Clinton, and still really don't this is something that he did great. He worked hard to create compromise and middle ground.

[uwp]

Fun fact: Joe the Plumber has now had more press conferences than Sarah Palin.

[Charles Dean]

Tina Fey has also been interviewed more times about being Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin has actually been interviewed herself.

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[WestSideBilly]

The hard-core pro-life crowd is by default fairly hypocritical (for the reasons mentioned). It's also a relatively small but very vocal group. The hardcore pro-choice crowd sometimes forgets they're talking about something that is or eventually will be a person; they're also a relatively small but vocal group.

Most people aren't vocal about it, and understand at least some of the nuance of it. Those people aren't heard because it's such an inflammatory issue that it's never discussed. Seriously, have you ever had a discussion on abortion rights with a group of friends? And for those in power who hold a nuanced view of it, it's hard to articulate without getting ripped to shreds by one side or the other (or both).

[WestSideBilly]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

I wanted to add . I found it to be pretty informative...well the first half was. The second half was more substance than style, but the first half laid out a pretty good case why ACORN's voter registration fraud is not a very good reason to believe that there will be widespread (or really any) actual voter fraud.

[Charles Dean]

McCain's and Obama's roasts from the Alfred Smith foundation dinner. These are really funny:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?a ... 4977480080