Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[ih8music]

Yes, because we all live in a world where it's either Marx or Ayn Rand. Good lord.

Of course not, but you're the one who made the blanket statement that the more people know they can depend on the government, the less motivation there is to be productive. I find that to be utter bullshit, especially when we're talking about something like healthcare. Nobody seeks out getting sick/injured to the point where they go bankrupt because they lack insurance (or are not sufficiently covered). And no one I know (who has a heart) thinks that's a good thing, hopefully including you.

 

So expanding the "welfare state" to reform the healthcare system in a manner which prevents that from happening, or at the very least significantly reduces it, isn't going to suddenly make people lazy freeloaders. That evil Obamacare made a lot of strides toward this goal, but we'll likely still need further reform. And when that happens, it's not going to cause people to alter their behavior one bit... but if you're unlucky enough to get caught in a bad situation, there will be a safety net there to ensure it doesn't also ruin you & your family financially.

[Vacant Horizon]

I think you probably just nailed the key difference between those who support a wider social safety net (welfare state), and those who do not. A conservative like me is more likely to believe the more people know they can always depend upon the generosity of the state, the less reason there is to be productive.

 

yeah, that is a key point. aside from all the rhetoric, it does come down to beliefs based on experience. i think that most people will work if work is available. there will always be some that don't, but that's just the way it is. my experience in working with those who are forced to depend on some form of 'state help' would want nothing more than to be self sufficient. my experience in this is not just listening to people talk...it's real life experience. good points.

[Vacant Horizon]

it's a slippery slope and i'm astonished at how many people who play the game by the game's rules and still have a very tough time are 'conservative'. unfortunately, many are not taught to think about what they believe and we get caught up in rhetoric. meanwhile, we're busting our asses playing by the rules...working, putting up with shit at work, getting shitty health care from overworked shitty practitioners, public school systems that are expected to solve every single problem society has, buying a house, building equity (not anymore)....i'm playing the game and i am just scraping to get by and have some money left over to see wilco once in a while. there has got to be a way we can work together to make life livable for each other rather than being at each other's throats while neither you, me, the conservative, the liberal has any say in what's going on in this corporate run world. corporations aren't even people.

[lost highway]

Stewart had a bit in his debate with O'Reilly where he said basically, 'Look, the U.S. is essentially a social democracy. That's how it has functioned for a long time. It has played a necessary role in people's live in this manner for over a century. The sooner we can admit that, the sooner we can use that structure effectively instead of fighting over some ideal that hasn't existed in forever.'

 

Is there a reason that every country in the G8 has a safety net? Is there a reason why the world's most powerful countries make a social investment for some bare minimum guarantees on their citizen's well being?

 

Norway has one of the biggest welfare systems in the world, and it also ranks highest in the Human Development Index. I'm not simplifying things enough to call that the essential cause, because the success of an economy is complex. But I believe there is a correlation.

 

What I am saying is this: investing in social security, and health has proven to work in countless situations. In Norway you are guaranteed health care, it's nationalized.

 

What conservatives don't get is that you pay for it either way. A healthy society is a more lucrative one. If you leave it to competition (especially with a shade of corporate oligarchy going on) then a major percentage of your country is going to be in bad shape. That's what makes a country sick, broken down, and dangerous.

[IRememberDBoon]

4 billion a year in subsidies to oil companies and thats a low number. Ive never heard one republican say that if we keep giving it they become dependent blah blah blah. everyone depends on food and food costs money

[LouieB]

Wait a sec, people think the debate was scripted, as in each having prepared lines to read? If so, they're pretty good actors.

NOt at all. I didn't see it. Now that it is free I will give it a look.

 

My point was that the regular shows these guys do is largely scripted (though obviously not entirely) so trying to keep up an unscripted debate for 90 minutes might have been a stretch even for these seasoned professionals.

 

LouieB

[Vacant Horizon]

Stewart had a bit in his debate with O'Reilly where he said basically, 'Look, the U.S. is essentially a social democracy. That's how it has functioned for a long time. It has played a necessary role in people's live in this manner for over a century. The sooner we can admit that, the sooner we can use that structure effectively instead of fighting over some ideal that hasn't existed in forever.'

 

Is there a reason that every country in the G8 has a safety net? Is there a reason why the world's most powerful countries make a social investment for some bare minimum guarantees on their citizen's well being?

 

Norway has one of the biggest welfare systems in the world, and it also ranks highest in the Human Development Index. I'm not simplifying things enough to call that the essential cause, because the success of an economy is complex. But I believe there is a correlation.

 

What I am saying is this: investing in social security, and health has proven to work in countless situations. In Norway you are guaranteed health care, it's nationalized.

 

What conservatives don't get is that you pay for it either way. A healthy society is a more lucrative one. If you leave it to competition (especially with a shade of corporate oligarchy going on) then a major percentage of your country is going to be in bad shape. That's what makes a country sick, broken down, and dangerous.

 

not to mention that these countries (sweden etc.) have high levels of contentment, security and happiness reported. even iceland, which has a pretty bad economy and perpetual gray skies, professes a high happiness rate. there are issues and loopholes with any system, but i think if we levelled the playing field with education, wages, healthcare, food...the world would be a much nicer place. add clean air and it'd be paradise.

 

i was just listening to an interview with AC Newman. he got an artistic grant from the canadian government to make the first new pornographers record. how cool is that. now that is something i would subsidize outright, art. it'd be so cool of wilco and co. didn't have to kill themselves on the road and be a studio band if they wanted too. subsidize wilco not oil! that should be a t-shirt!

[Magnetized]

 

 

not to mention that these countries (sweden etc.) have high levels of contentment, security and happiness reported. even iceland, which has a pretty bad economy and perpetual gray skies, professes a high happiness rate. there are issues and loopholes with any system, but i think if we levelled the playing field with education, wages, healthcare, food...the world would be a much nicer place. add clean air and it'd be paradise.

 

i was just listening to an interview with AC Newman. he got an artistic grant from the canadian government to make the first new pornographers record. how cool is that. now that is something i would subsidize outright, art. it'd be so cool of wilco and co. didn't have to kill themselves on the road and be a studio band if they wanted too. subsidize wilco not oil! that should be a t-shirt!

 

Another thing all those countries have in common is a high degree of atheism, or to be more literally (not just politically) correct, secular humanism. [Emphasis on both words]

 

Subsidize Wilco, not oil. That has a nice ring to it.

[Atticus]

Subsidize Wilco, not oil.

 

huh?

[Lammycat]

NOt at all. I didn't see it. Now that it is free I will give it a look.

 

My point was that the regular shows these guys do is largely scripted (though obviously not entirely) so trying to keep up an unscripted debate for 90 minutes might have been a stretch even for these seasoned professionals.

 

LouieB

Oh shit I thought people were referring to Obama/Romney, not Stewart/O'rly. My bad.

[KevinG]

4 billion a year in subsidies to oil companies and thats a low number. Ive never heard one republican say that if we keep giving it they become dependent blah blah blah. everyone depends on food and food costs money

 

Stewart had a nice bit last night on the intellectual inconsistency of the GOP as it relates to the Oil Subsidies vs. funding for PBS (and more specifically Sesame Street. http://www.hulu.com/watch/410598

 

It also makes me question do the talking heads on TV actually understand what they are saying and don't care, or are they just that stupid?

 

What is apparent, from all of the conversations here in the past couple of days, not only should we continue to give subsidies to PBS and Sesame Street we need to drug test them as well. And I think, unfortunately, Cookie Monster will fail, that dude constantly has the munchies.

 

Predictable response from Sparky, "Why is the government funding any TV, or Big Oil?" Although I don't agree with Sparky on many many things, I can at least trust that he is fully committed to his anti-tax, anti-government, free market stance. And intellectual consistency. Which I believe is lacking on both sides.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

This my Fifth Presidential election with online access.

 

I'm thinking I'm going to become a hermit before the sixth.

[KevinG]

This my Fifth Presidential election with online access.

 

I'm thinking I'm going to become a hermit before the sixth.

 

In four years I am sure we will have talking points beamed directly into our brains. No internet connection needed.

 

Just curious how was the internet coverage back in '96 with Clinton/Dole?

[choo-choo-charlie]

 

What is apparent, from all of the conversations here in the past couple of days, not only should we continue to give subsidies to PBS and Sesame Street we need to drug test them as well. And I think, unfortunately, Cookie Monster will fail, that dude constantly has the munchies.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvnfmWsLbsY

[LouieB]

This is my third election on viachicago. I wanted to stop talking about this shit after the first one.

 

The government subsidy to PBS is a pittance, a total drop in the bucket of federal expenditures. Sure we can drop all subsidies to "educational TV", the arts. and other such French or gay stuff as this, but how much poorer we will all be.

 

Meanwhile subsidies to things such as big oil and big agriculture, that stuff goes on unscathed through all administrations because those folks hold sway. Meanwhile the military can always cry poor no matter how much money they have. The miitary supports whole towns, cities, and even counties, so it isn't ever going to get the serious cutback it deserves. Meanwhile we sit here arguing about subsidies to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed like those folks are robbing us blind.

 

LouieB

[Lammycat]

I'd like to see a debate between the Prohibition Party and the Peace and Freedom Party (Presidential candidate Rosann Barr). That would be newsworthy.

[KevinG]

This is my third election on viachicago. I wanted to stop talking about this shit after the first one.

 

The government subsidy to PBS is a pittance, a total drop in the bucket of federal expenditures. Sure we can drop all subsidies to "educational TV", the arts. and other such French or gay stuff as this, but how much poorer we will all be.

 

Meanwhile subsidies to things such as big oil and big agriculture, that stuff goes on unscathed through all administrations because those folks hold sway. Meanwhile the military can always cry poor no matter how much money they have. The miitary supports whole towns, cities, and even counties, so it isn't ever going to get the serious cutback it deserves. Meanwhile we sit here arguing about subsidies to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed like those folks are robbing us blind.

 

LouieB

 

But Louie, does it pass the "should we borrow money from China to pay for it" test? Obviously tax breaks for the rich, increases in military spending that wasn't ask for, a possible war with Syria and or Iran, is what is worth putting on our Chinese credit card (and remember this is what GWB and it must be ok cause it got us to a great place economically). Programs that help people or promote the common good, that does not pass the test.

 

Really Louie, why would we want a common sense balanced approached to the deficit? It is like someone who plans to payoff their 100K credit card by deciding not to go to Starbucks twice a week, but still buying that nice 52" flat screen (replacing the 48" one they got last year). See that there makes fiscal sense.

[ih8music]

Just curious how was the internet coverage back in '96 with Clinton/Dole?

I recall a lot of email-based politicking... but also bleeding into newsgroups and AOL forums (is that what they called them?). It all seemed grass-roots-based, though... I'm sure it wasn't entirely, but it didn't seem as obviously coordinated with major party talking points as it is now.

 

And there were plenty of news sites covering the election, but I don't recall any large sites having a hyper-partisan bias and influence like we have now.

 

Pretty sure that the Drudge Report was around at the time, but they didn't really seem to make major political waves until the Monica Lewinsky scandal. That's probably where the modern age of internet political propaganda began.

[IRememberDBoon]

Before President Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now, we've seen 31 consecutive months of job growth and 5.2 million new private sector jobs.

 

.

[LouieB]

But Louie, does it pass the "should we borrow money from China to pay for it" test? Obviously tax breaks for the rich, increases in military spending that wasn't ask for, a possible war with Syria and or Iran, is what is worth putting on our Chinese credit card (and remember this is what GWB and it must be ok cause it got us to a great place economically). Programs that help people or promote the common good, that does not pass the test.

 

Really Louie, why would we want a common sense balanced approached to the deficit? It is like someone who plans to payoff their 100K credit card by deciding not to go to Starbucks twice a week, but still buying that nice 52" flat screen (replacing the 48" one they got last year). See that there makes fiscal sense.

 

That's it exactly. Before I noticed you posting this I figured I was being attacked by one more right wing Wilco fan (still to me a contradiction in terms...) I continue to say that it is time for the whole country to figure out its priorities, but things are shaping up to be even worse for whomever wins beit Barack or Mitt. If we scaled back the military, including all the wars overseas, alot of our bases, the war on drugs, the war on war on war and began a long hard look on what we really need the government to do (and again I work for the government I see what could be scaled back), taxed people fairly and according their ability to pay (pretty commie I know) and stopped trying to decide who should do what with their bodies, we might still have some money left over to get people healthy and support the disabled and elderly, while finding jobs for everyone. Not likely though.

Before President Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now, we've seen 31 consecutive months of job growth and 5.2 million new private sector jobs..

You have been listening to entirely too much left wing media. Only people on the left want to hear this. The rest of the country wants to hear bullshit from liars.

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

Before President Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now, we've seen 31 consecutive months of job growth and 5.2 million new private sector jobs.

 

He didn't hire them.

[KevinG]

He didn't hire them.

 

by that logic the job numbers shouldn't be tied to any president or politician. And as a result the economy is not the result of any politician policies.

[Tweedling]

I enjoy being a "contradiction in terms".

[Vacant Horizon]

That's it exactly. Before I noticed you posting this I figured I was being attacked by one more right wing Wilco fan (still to me a contradiction in terms...) I continue to say that it is time for the whole country to figure out its priorities, but things are shaping up to be even worse for whomever wins beit Barack or Mitt. If we scaled back the military, including all the wars overseas, alot of our bases, the war on drugs, the war on war on war and began a long hard look on what we really need the government to do (and again I work for the government I see what could be scaled back), taxed people fairly and according their ability to pay (pretty commie I know) and stopped trying to decide who should do what with their bodies, we might still have some money left over to get people healthy and support the disabled and elderly, while finding jobs for everyone. Not likely though.

You have been listening to entirely too much left wing media. Only people on the left want to hear this. The rest of the country wants to hear bullshit from liars.

 

LouieB

 

can't argue with any of this. just reading it makes me feel lighter. if only...

[Tweedling]

So out of the debate, the best that Obama can do is "capitalize" on the Big Bird comment? It's kinda sad if you ask me. Is this what his campaign really wants to focus on with 4 weeks going into the election? I was telling somebody today, there is a stark difference from the Obama campaign 4years ago. I'm pretty sure he had it all but wrapped up against McCain by this time....