So did anyone besides me watch the debates last night? What are your thoughts after watching. I am slightly leaning toward one candidate but am still not convinced. There are 2 issues I have with McCain. First the tax cuts for the rich. Personally I don't see how that will help the economy. Is a millionaire really going to miss the tax money I mean how much money does one need anyway. Can we really afford to be giving anyone tax cuts right now? Second I am pro-choice and don't want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned which many say he will lean towards. Then there is Obama slightly inexperienced, great ideas wanting change but will he have the power to really "change" anything. The economy is in the crapper and I don't see either one making much headway until they turn that around which will take years. This sounds crazy but I fear McCain will die in office or Obama might just get assassinated. Will any of us really win here???
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
no, i didnt watch the debate...however, i too have thought about him dieing in office and definately do not think sarah palin would be capable of running the country. At least if Obama was assassinated, I believe Biden would be capable. Since McCains philosphies are much like Bush's, I dont think anything will change if he wins. Plus, this will sound very shallow, but i'm gonna say it anyway. His looks annoy me, the fact that he cant raise his arms above his head annoys me, and his rich ass snotty wife annoys me
They showed the debate live at 2 a.m., and they're showing it again tonight at 11pm. I watched some of the recap this morning on BBC, and I read the analysis. I made my decision long ago, and the debate didn't really sway it. Kristen, I agree with you about McCain. He annoys me. His barbie-doll trophy wife (who he left his first wife for) annoys me. Sarah Palin just plain scares the shit out of me. The vice presidential debate will be interesting, because Joe Biden is so experienced and respected, and nobody heard of Sarah Palin before McCain chose her because he needed a pair of boobs on the ticket to entice women voters - which in itself is insulting to women.
Re: tax cuts for the rich
Who do you think keeps the economy running? The so-called rich invest their money in the market or directly in their companies. Those same companies provide jobs to the non-rich. The more the rich are taxed, the more it hurts everyone, not just them.
Also, the top 10% of wage earners pay almost 65% of income taxes.
Donna, the people who buy the most goods and services that the rich own and/or invest in are....the middle and lower class. The rich would not be rich w/o them.
They can afford taxes, and if they don't like it, well they can always move to another country and try to make the same money there. LOL, don't think that is going to happen.
Additionally, who do you think is mostly in our military fighting our wars (albeit bad wars and grossly mismanaged by a sorry-ass administration). Ummm, that would be the middle and lower class, too.
I have no problem that the "rich" make money from the middle and lower classes. The "rich" are providing goods and/or services that are a value that they exchange for value (money). What would the middle class and poor be buying if someone didn't create it in the first place? That's the point of capitalism, that everyone gets something of value.
So, Dave, then you don't mind paying taxes? People poorer than you could say that you should pay more because you can afford it.
It surprises me that more companies don't leave this country since we have the second highest corporate taxes in the world.
And what does being in the military have to do with an economic discussion?
Biden himself endorsed McCain until he was asked to be second to Obama. I think Obama will say anything to be elected. And what he does say I don't agree with. I think he is like Edwards, only spending enough time in the Senate to fund his presidential campaign. I am not a huge fan of McCain, but I believe he is a good man who puts his country above person gain. I think he has proved that. As far as taxes go, Obama's "tax cut" is really wealth redistribution. He isn't planning to cut the actual % of taxes the middle and lower class pays, he is just going to cut you a check for $500 or $1000, just like the Bush administration did. He will give you this "tax cut" even if you don't pay taxes. He is buyiung votes. The upper class pays most of the taxes in the country, and btw, Obama definition of rich keeps channging, last definied by his spokesman as $200,000 a year. If you own a small business, you are going to fall into this catagory. If the rich move their business elsewhere, who will the middle class work for. As for Roe v. Wade, McCain does not wish to overturn it, and even if it was overturned it would not mean the end of abortion if that is what is important to you. It would just revert to being decided by the states as to the funding and legislation for such an act. There is a great video on u-tube by machosauce you should watch.
well if I made $200,000 a year I would consider myself RICH so I do agree with him on that. He did say $250 during the debate though. People always amaze me who make that kind of money how they don't consider themselves rich. PLEASE!!, if they didn't have to have the fancy cars and McMansions they wouldn't have such high bills and could live more than quite comfortably. $200,000 is alot of money!!! I am not looking for a tax rebate just don't think we should change the structure now with the state of the economy.
and yes we do have one of the highest corporate taxes but there are so many loopholes and tax deductions available that corporations don't actually pay the full portion of them. Should you really be able to deduct fancy meals out entertaining clients, sporting events, along with expensive cars and everyother overindulgence you have in your life. NO!! I have friends who own a restaraunt and they deduct things that should never be allowed. What a joke!!!
I do agree that McCain is a good man who puts his country above person gain but I think he is very far removed from what it means to strugle and work hard for very little.
I will be very interested as Vicki said to see the VP debates and if McCain didn't have Palin I would be leaning more in his direction. Like I said I am still undecided and that in itself is a bit of a shame since like me there are many others who feel the same. It really bothers me that Palin is willing to take this position when her family really needs her and I don't care what anyone says you can't do it all at that level. One child with down syndrome and one pregnant is a whole lot to handle and children need there mother.
what about their father? He has stated he will be Mr. Mom if they go to washington. If people can't support that then women's rights has taken a big turn back. I disagree that $200,000 is rich (and you are right, it started at $250, but he has amended that) If you own a small business you have risked your own money, you probably have loans to pay off and you should not be expected to pay for others who have not risked as much. I am very much against handouts, and yes, I am against the bailout. I think it sets a bad precedent. I do agree their are too many loopholes for taxes, I am for a flat tax. Many of the causes of this bailout are a result of people getting loans they should never have gotten. The gov. should not have forced the banks to take on bad loans, and people should have stayed in their means to get their house. My friend is a doctor who makes over $200,000 a year I am sure, but he also has over $120,000 in student loans to pay back plus start up fees if he decides to start his own practice. If he is able to do this it would provide jobs for the area. If his taxes go up he may not be able to hire as many people, or may not be able to open the business at all. You can't just judge that a person "won't miss it" without taking all that into consideration.
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one Tracy $200,000is alot of money and I would have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who can't make it on that/ Like I said if you don't have to have the best and biggest you'll be fine on a whole lot less than that. I'ld be curious to know what type of home and cars your friend has. Probobly more than they need. Like most Americans.
I am against the bailout as well too many people living way beyond there means who should have never qualified for the loans in the first place. Anyone who bought a house with no money down or an ajustable rate mortgage is a bit foolish.
my friend and his wife don't own a home, they rent an apartment where I used to live for about six hundred a month (this is a mid rate around here) He drives a 1998 ford ranger that he works on himself and she has a newer corolla. They do not live beyond their means and they are trying to pay down their school debt. They plan on saving to build a house one day, but are in the savings mood for that. Houses around here are kind of expensive, I don't know what it is like up there. I would not be able to afford the house I am in now if I tried to buy it today.
I stand corrected it's nice to see someone who has a plan that will actually take him out of debt. So many people I know make great money and have no savings account. Then cry the poverty blues when an unexspected expense comes in.
As for Mr. Palin being Mr. Mom that is great and I am sure he will do that if need be. However, I still think a mom should be available to her kids and being VP isn't going to make that easy. I know many woman think that will set us back but I don't care. There are certain circumstances when childen NEED there mom and I personally think it is sad that she picked a job over that. It's just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree. This is going to sound nuts but many of my friends her age are going through pre-menopause and there emotions are scary, violent and crazy. I hate to think of what will happen if she goes through that while in office. We bettter hide the nuke button.
on that note, I think I will leave you to your opinions on that matter.
Tracy, regarding your comments: Right on! You made your points much better than I did.
There is no choice, here, IMO.
One candidate proposes to shift an unjustified (unconstitutional, even) tax burden to the left; the other to the right.
One candidate assaults these amendments to the Constitution; the other candidate assaults those.
One candidate would deploy our military more in this foreign country; the other more in that foreign country.
Neither takes issue with the size and scope of the federal gov't and how far off course we've moved, and neither seems to recognize that the empire is nearing collapse.
Both are career politicians and deeply entrenched in the machine.
While all this craziness goes on, the American public watches Survivor, thinks their "choice" will make a difference, hasn't written to their representatives in years (if ever), and subscribes to the notion that a third party vote is "thrown away."
We deserve the coming implosion.
yeah that's my problem I am really not comfortable with either choice
Steve, I think there are many people who know that their choices won't make a difference and realize that there isn't much of a choice between the two. I think that many people realize that people in Washington are looking out for their own interests and not the interests of the country.
But most people feel helpless and that they can't "fight city hall."
Steve Roth...never knew YOU were the Grim Reaper!! Some good stuff -and I hear you, our system is broken and needs to be totally torn apart and rebuilt to serve the needs of the country. Hell, we should just have an "American President" contest and the best person wins (I don't like the party designations anyway!).
With all that said, I'm leaning towards Obama, because he does have a plan and is willing to change (TBD if this is just lip service, but I lay odds it isn't). Besides, I can't take another 4 years (IF he lives that long) of a republican mess (I share more of the republican platform views overall). If he doesn't make it 4 years, Palin is a Heartbeat away -SCARY!!
O'bama has been consistent on his tax plan -always has targeted the Rich (I've always heard this to be >$250k). Reminder - Only 10% of all American earn more than $100k. With the deficit we have made for ourselves (IMPLOSION is here), I can't see anyone offering up tax cuts, but I'll take the incentive package in the short term. We need to keep jobs here and give companies incentives to stay here.
Time to roll the dice...I'll take my chances with O'bama.
Sorry for the dark mood, but it's true.
Just curious, did anyone call, write, or email their representatives about the bail-out? I did. All of them - multiple times - and promised them they would lose my vote if they fucked up. I know at least one has already.
Donna, "feel helpless" = hopeless.
We're NOT helpless. We're fucking feckless. If the founding fathers had been like US, our money would still have the queen on it and we'd all be working for Vicki.
I have a Russian friend who said, "America was founded by men, now is nation of 'males.'" When I asked the difference between "men" and "males," he replied, simply: "balls." Sexism aside for a minute, what happened to our collective balls as citizens?
Jeff,
Instead of admitting you're not happy about things and being content to just "roll the dice," as you say, why not DO something to change things?
Jeff + all you other mugs:
Me and Donna, we just have to make it to the grave. I'll be dead in about 20 years. AFAIK, the rest of you have progeny that will have to live thru the consequences of the things that are happening today. I just can't believe there's not more outrage, action, or involvement to prevent leaving a big pile of shit for your children, and their children.
Maybe they'll have balls.
...
They'll need 'em.
...
How to start a revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBG8UtgD0m8&feature=related
It wouldn't be so bad to work me. I'm a nice person.
It's a joke dude!
I can't talk politics anymore. It makes my head hurt. People are afraid of change, they really are, and that's why we're stuck with the two party system.
And now I'm working for you.
Yes, I wrote my congressman, and both Senators about the bailout and about looking into Obama's violation of the Logan act. Heard back from one Senator, doubt I will hear from the congressman. I have several friends who have emailed their reps on these two issues also, last count on that blog is 2782 emails and/or letters.
Wow, sorry I didnt' chime in earlier....
Yes I watched the debate and it has made me decide to vote for Obama. I agree with MJ on almost all of her opinions...
1) Obama's plan is $250,000 is rich. You have to remember that taxes are based on what you make after all the deductions. So small businesses that have a profit of $250,000 should be taxed as if they are rich because they are.
2) On the issue of the size of government, I am a government employee so I feel that I have a good idea of what is really going on here. The government is not that much larger. The only increase came from 9/11 where they created new jobs for the Department of Homeland Security. The HUGE problem with government is that we now "contact out" many of our duties. These private companies charge at least 3x what it would cost for a normal government employee...but according to Bush, this is saving tax payers money. If you want to fix overspending in DC, we need to get rid of contractors and renegotiate the union contract so we could fire dead beat employees!!
3) I agree that it is a step backwards for women that she is willing to travel around the world when she should be nearer to her children. I believe in women's lib, but there is a point when a woman can go too far.
4) The president really doesn't have any power so it would be hard for either the make a huge difference unless they have Congress on your side. What McCain wants to do scares the hell out of me, and I agree much more with Obama.
Vicki, I wouldn't mind working for you at all! My current boss is a real asshole... ;)
Sonya, had to laugh at saying the gov't isn't "that much bigger." Bigger than what - than it was in 2000? How about vs. 1850, 1920, even 1950?
Tracy, good on you!! I've heard a LOT of people with bitching about the bail-out - vehemently, even. I always say, "wow, I'd love to read the letter you wrote to YOUR congressman/ senators!"
I usually get a confused look, sometimes a "huh??"
My personal situation has me up in the air about what is "rich." I can tell you that if I made a $250,000 profit I could dump every penny of that back into my business without making a dent, whereas a big tax bill would reduce the amount of spending (stimulus) I could do. OTOH, if the taxes I pay in actually go towards services I can use or comes back in the form of grants, etc. It's cash neutral.
The only difference between "trickle down" economics and "tax and spend" economics is who's supposed to be doing the spending. I can tell you that Govco is a LOT likely to dump their money back into the economy than many of the wealthy people I know. Not picking a side (they're both wrong), just saying...
boy I am glad I was able to spark some lively blog discusion kepp it coming
Sonya you said very well what I meant about Palin. I am glad I am not the only one who thinks that. I get so tired of moms picking there jobs over there children, but that's another issue.
I will only comment on Gov. Palin this one last time because I know she is a polarizing figure for various reasons. Many talk of wanting change, well she CAUSED change...change in her party, change in her state...she held people accountable, even in her own party, when corruption was present...she saw oil benifitting from the rise in prices, so she gave everyone in her state a check from those profits....she doesn't just talk change, she causes it. You might not like her party, you might not like how she chooses to run her family, but she has done what she promised to do for her state. You might think that she is under qualified, but where were these comments when Obama anounced he was running for President after only a few months as a Senator, and an ineffectual one at that? He was only in charge of one commitee- on Afganistan- and he never once called a meeting. His experience is only in running for office. He thinks this should be handed to him, he denounces or threatens anyone who disagrees with him. He hasn't even produced a valid birth certificate since it was proven that the one he has been using is actually his half sisters. But no one can question him without being called racist. I don't get it, you berate Gov. Palin, but you support someone who comes out of the corrupt Chicago political machine. I have said that McCain is not my first choice, I would have prefered Romney on the ticket, but I feel he really works for this country. Obama makes me feel like he thinks this is a personal mandate for him and has nothing to do with service. And those of you that don't like McCain, and that is your right, but to not like him because he is handicapped is just sick. I walk with a cane now, probably will be blind in a few more years and have trouble using my hands some days. Am I walking into ridicule if I come to the next reunion? Will I be creeping you all out because I can't do all you do anymore? Dislike him for his policy, not because of a physical ailment he has no control over.
what about the fact that she is being investagated for having her ex-BIL fired? OK putting the feelings I have for her deserting her family I know she did alot while she was governor its just that she was governing a state with a very small population and much differant issues than those in the other 48 continental states. I wish she would talk she is declining so many interviews that it makes you wonder why? I guess on Thursday night we will see what she has to say. I am looking forward to it. You couldn't pay me a million dollars to be in her shoes.
and just for the record I have no problem with McCains handicap and do wonder about the race issues that will come if Obama gets in. My friend who works for a magistrate will absolutly NOT vote for Obama because she is convinced he will further help the minority into taking over and becoming the majority. She sees alot in her line of work and it has made me consider her point. I HATE when people play the race card and am not prejudice but..........
Did you read about that state trooper...he was caught drinking in his squad car, and he tasered his 10 year old stepson. The man wasn't fire, the state head of the Alaskan state troopers was, and he was offered another position but declined -so he left. He was caught corresponding about financing that he wanted with Palin's opponent after she refused his requests. He was asked to change positions where he would not be in direct conflict with her, but he said no to the transfer. Also, Alaska has the largest budget in the union and one of the most powerful governerships in the country. Their state constitution allows the gov. more executive power than most, I think only two states have as much power in the post. I don't know why they have been hiding her except maybe it is because the main stream press is playing a game of gotcha with her. Biden has been an embaressment, but they don't call him on it. Don't get me wrong - I like Biden, I think he is a good man, just don't agree with his positions.
Tracy,
Until today, all I knew about Palin was that she was a mayor, then governor, in AK, and she was apparently some kind of down-to-Earth, ultra-conservative MILF or something.
Today I saw some of the interviews with Katie Couric on youtube, in which Palin comes across pretty poorly, IMO.
Curious if you've seen any these and what you think of them. Was it just a bad day, does she just freeze up, or what?
...or maybe you think she did pretty well?
I'm not trying to provoke anything - I'm too jaded. But I AM curious how a Palin supporter interprets those interviews - just wondering how it looked thru your eyes.
Tracy why do you say Biden is an embaressment? I am curious since I don't know much about him. You make some interesting points all of which just furthers my confusion.
I feel Biden has been an embarrassment because of some of his comments recently. I feel that he is attacking Obama with some of his statements and is not acting how I think a VP should.
ok...on Biden, He has just made some stupid comment that I will linkhere if I can figure out how. The first one is where he askes a wheelchair bound congressman who he calls his "good friend" to stand up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI
the next one is when Biden was interviewed by Katie Couric and he is talking about when the great depression started with the big crash and FDR went on tv...problem is FDR wasn't president, Hoover was, and there was no tv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTBZHf6WyG0
There are more, but you can go to youtube and search "Biden Gaffe" to see them all. No one is bashing him for them, and really they are funny, but if Palin made this kkind of mistake she would be crucified.
Steve - I saw all of Gibson's interview with Palin and most of Courics...I think she did well with Gibson, even though he was a jerk and trying to "gotcha" her. I thouhgt the whole Bush doctrine thing was blown up, and I think she was right to make him clarify that question because "Bush doctrine" has come to mean many things. Go to Charles Krauthammer's site to read his take on this, he is the one who coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" and says Palin had it right and Gibson had it wrong. As for the Couric interview, I thought Palin looked like she was trying to say what McCain would want her to say instead of being herself. If the campaign would just stop trying to coach her and let her speak her mind she would be much better. She is very smart, and has worked hard to get where she is. She is not Washington and she has proven that she will fight the establishment. She started out like most of us, small town public high school, worked her way through state and community colleges. started a fishing business with her husband that they still work at, both having other jobs. She was head of the Alaskan oil regulatory committee which is where she began whistleblowing the corrupt members there, and when the Gov. didn't back her, she quit and ran for gov herself. I have read up on her extensively and am very impressed.
Finally, I hesitate to put this link on, but it is one of the biggest reasons I am against Obama. I do not want to offend pro-abortion people here, but this has nothing to do with the right to choose, it has to do with the rights of a live baby. Judge for yourself, but I hope you will watch and listen to this whole link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo
and I for got one big Biden gaffe, at a speech (I think to MADD?) he stated that he lost his wife and baby daughter to a drunk driver. This, while it was a tragic,heartbreaking accident, it was just that, an accident. there was no drunk driving involved. Biden had to admitt that later and never said why he lied.
yes I saw the Obama video about the live abortions and find it quite disturbing. I do not agree with that aspect of it I am however still pro-choice so........
one things for certian there is so much crap out there that you could pick any one of the candidates and go to youtube and find it (the crap) on any of them. I know I just saw something on McCain like the 10 stupidest things he ever said. I don't care about that stuff I want to hear about the issues and how they are going to solve them. Everyone makes mistakes.
you asked what I ment about Biden, that is why I posted that. I agree about the issues and their stance being what is important. Why doesn't anyone give Palin that consideration?
I think because we are all waiting to hear from her more.
Hey Tracy, thanks for taking the time to reply. I perceive.
I used to live in Delaware and Biden has a history of saying really stupid stuff. My ex-husband used to say, "The only thing standing between Biden and the Presidency is Joe Biden's mouth." (He was on the Democratic primary ticket something like 5 or 6 times, running for President, in case you didn't know.)
A lot of Delawareans gave him a pass many times because of his family tragedy.
Tracy - Biden must have taken the same Class that Hillary took -her "lie was landing in Somolia under sniper fire"....I think that was "How to be a Politician 101".
Steve -Good call on the MILF comment. Wasn't she the teacher in "Varsity Blues"??? I guess I'm jaded when it comes to politics too....just to the other extreme. I'm to the point that no matter who is in office, it really does not matter anymore. There is no one person who can really make a difference. If you take a look at the history of the country, the economy always runs in cycles, boom, Bust, recovery...sometimes worse than others. Who gets elected now can't change the short term all that much...but they sure can screw up the future! Sad but true - The fact that I'm actually thinking of voting is a step-up for me (Indiffernce -not lazy!).
The biggest issue is that you eluded to is that America has become LAZY, ARROGANT and COMPLACENT. We haven't made nearly as many technological strides as other countries, but we sure have tried to become rich along the way, spending a lot without a lot of ROI. We ship jobs off to whoever can do it cheapest -You get what you pay for. To Sonya's point, Unions & Contracts suck....open competition is what keeps an economy going. We have sunk too much into overpaying for "stability" of a contract...look what kind of stability that has yielded. We need to be developing alternative sources of energy now to break free of an "oil based" economy. (Didn't we discuss some of these in a 4th grade science class in 1978?? -Wind, Solar, etc.....). While we stand still, we fall further behind.
I'm with you on the "Revolution" topic. The SYSTEM is broken. We need to rethink how our government should WORK and make the appropriate changes. We should get rid of the traditional parties, and elect the best PEOPLE for the job -who don't have ulterior motives at hand. The job being to make the best decisions for the country, not a party.....Parties are nothing more than a sterotype, why label (&limit) yourself??
MJ -I hear you, but it's still sad to say, the fact that anyone brings race into a conversation in this day & age is a reflection that we have failed miserably in the area of equality.
Jeff, I disagree very strongly with the notion that "no one person can make a difference." History is full of examples of one person making ALL the difference.
I'm confused by you linking Americans being lazy and complacent with technology: we're lazy and complacent in our citizenship, but greed trumps them when it comes to technology. I have a hard time thinking of anything in modern society that wasn't either invented here, or taken from a weak-assed prototype to a viable product here.
AFA ROI, again, greed always wins. The jobs ship overseas because that's how to maximize ROI for the shareholders. If the jobs did NOT ship overseas, we'd all still be working on assembly lines or in sweat-shops. Only the turn-over rate of off-shoring has increased, IMO.
"Stability of a contract" bungs "free market economics." But we haven't had a "free market" in a long time: we have bail-outs, asymmetric regulation, interest rate manipulation, wage and price fixing, etc. - you know, like Communist Russia.
REVOLUTION:
The system isn't broken - it's just not followed. We don't need to find a new one - we already have a really, really, good one:
One which defines the U.S.; one which the POTUS is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic; one lots and lots of Americans have died to retain.
Sadly, it's the one we've drifted further and further away from over the last 200+ years - to the point where the POTUS calls it "quaint," or says we need to "find ways around it," and the average citizen has never read it.
Geo Washington's farewell address to Congress is an amazing document which you should read - which EVERY AMERICAN should read.
He cautions against a number of threats to the new Union he encountered as POTUS #1.
In 200+ years, we've managed to do almost EVERYTHING he said NOT to do.
E.g., he strongly cautioned against forming political parties, because:
1. They would bitterly divide a people with more in common than not.
2. They would lead to the business of politics instead of the business of the people.
3. They would provide an easy means for unscrupulous megalomaniacs to seize power by lying, manipulation, etc.
Sound familiar?
... and on and on.
McCain, Obama? "Senators, you're no George Washington."
Sorry for ongoing rant, but...
Envision a USA with more than 2 viable parties (or better, with no parties). That would solve the problems of party politics our friend George warned us about.
And all we have to do - is vote for neither the Democrat, NOR the Republican. Every time. Vote some third party. All of us.
And if a Dem or Pub is running unopposed, we can run against them ourselves.
And we have a vast, frustrated population.
And we have an internet to communicate with each other and organize.
Oooo, the possibilities.
If only we weren't afraid, and hopeless. If only we gave a shit. If only the future we'll hand our children mattered to us.
....
Damn.
I think I'm starting a write-in campaign. ;)
"ROTH 2008
Leadership YOU can trust - because HE doesn't trust leadership."
Who wants to be my running mate?
I have voted for a 3rd party in past years, but this year I am voting for Obama because I am terrified that McCain would be elected - although I live in a state that is predicted to vote Democrat I don't want to take that risk this time.
nice to see we are still blogging but what the Hell is ROI?
Return on investment
Hey, I can see France from my house - does that qualify me for foreign policy experience? I'll be your running mate!
Joking aside, Steve, I so agree with you. Americans are afraid, and I didn't realize how afraid until I left the country for a long time and then went back and I was like, "what the hell are you all so afraid of?" The fear in the United States is palpable. People are terrified and they want someone to fix it and make it all better. Americans have no idea of how far reaching the result of this election will be. I was on duty in the cafeteria the other day with one of the assistant principals, and I made an offhand comment that I couldn't wait to eat because I was starving. He said, "Vicky, if the U.S. doesn't sort itself out, we could ALL be starving." It occurred to me at that moment that he was right - so much for the rest of the planet hinges on the decisions that will be made in the next 5 weeks and thereafter. Do you have ANY IDEA how freaking scary it is to know that your future and the future of your children hinges on the election result of another country?
Steve, there are lots of political parties here in the UK and they win seats in Parliament, not just Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem, but the Green Party, the BNP (Nazis!), the Raving Lunatic Party (seriously, that's their name), hell even Sinn Fein have seats in Parliament. Labour are starting to falter because of the influence these other parties have in the Commons. It won't be long before there's a huge shift here.
Vicki, you are probably more qualified than many on Capitol Hill: working and living abroad, you've experienced first-hand the social programs and problems, politics, and policies of 'somewhere else.' As a traitor, er, ex-pat, rather, tho.. I'm not sure.
Jemaine, from the NZ-based "Flight of the Conchords," said: "Most Americans think the US is the best place in the world.
... but most Americans have never been outside of America, so they wouldn't really 'know.'"
I believe that America's golden age may be winding down - but someone else will step up to fill the void after some certain period of "dark ages." Maybe the EU, maybe China.
http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
Re: Parliment - I read somewhere about proportional vs. "winner takes all" democracies. I wish I could remember more, but the jist:
"Winner takes all" systems (like the US) tend towards a two-party system; Proportional systems (many in Europe) tend towards multi-party systems which better represent the population.
Bush winning the nation by a tiny margin = he's POTUS, chooses his VP and cabinet, and the Dems get ZERO representation in the Executive branch.
IIRC, that's the way the US worked ORIGINALLY: highest # of votes is POTUS; second highest is VPOTUS. Likewise in Congress. It's not hard to see that if the US returned to this, Congress would have a crazy mix of parties: a racist Southern party, a real "green" party from the PNW, a whiny uber-liberal party from California and New York, and a bunch of religiously oriented parties from the heartland.
Ok, rambling again, sorry.
Sorry, they're called the Monster Raving Loony Party, not the Raving Lunatic Party. Clearly, I'm not as qualified as I thought.
Steve, I just checked Parliament's website, and these are the parties represented:
Conservative
Cooperative
Democratic Unionist
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru (Welsh National)
Respect
Scottish National
Sinn Féin
Social Democratic & Labour
Ulster Unionist
UK Independence
There are also the Crossbench Peers (House of Lords) but they're not elected. Jamie Lee Curtis' husband sits in the House of Lords, because he inherited a peerage. Peerages are for life. Just a fun fact for you!
There are loads more parties, but obviously they didn't win any parliamentary seats, although they could very well be represented in local government. The British National Party (white supremacists - I kid you not) are very popular in local government in poorer areas of the country.
Steve,
I agree some people have made a difference, but far & few between. Who was the last president who really made a difference? I'd venture a guess it was Reagan (Who had limited experience, although he was GOV of CAL). He was a charismatic leader, eloquent speaker, who made America believe in itself at a time when the Economy sucked and threatened to put the hammer down on Iran when we needed it (Maybe O'Bama can do the same??). My comment was that the Economy will run it's cycle regardless of leadership efforts in the short term.
I made a poor attemp on my link about being lazy & complacent on technology. I meant this specifically to the development of alternative fuel sources. We started the development of these ideas when we were in 4th Grade, but then backed off in the 80's after we were able improve our relationships with the Saudi's & OPEC -and this is when we became complacent. We shelved the development of a lot of these programs. To your point, we all have Ipods & internet access to bitch about it! This stuff should have been in place already. Now -it will be another 10 years before any real benefits are realized. Very sad!!
For the record -I like the idea of no parties.
Jeff, I believe there are lots of knock on effects from our complacency re energy sources. Some might say my view is simplistic and naive. We did not persue alternative fuels. We continued to drive gas guzzling cars. We became dependent on Saudi oil. Years later 19 blokes (18 of them Saudis) did something awful, and we went to war about it. Only it wasn't with Saudi Arabia, because we couldn't risk losing our oil supply and weren't willing to change our lifestyle. So we broke the law and compromised our ethics to continue to live in the style to which we are accostomed, and now it's come back to bite us in the arse. Actually, it probably bit us in the arse years ago, going back to the 80s, the cold war, the Taliban, and the oil pipeline that we didn't want to go through Russia. You reap what you sow.
Steve, the golden age is over, and I'm going to start learning Chinese.
this is great we are almost at 50 posts keep it going. Who will be watching the VP debate tonight?
I wonder how far down this thread will get before it dies. I'm lovin' it.
Regarding all the talk about alternative energy/ conservation when we were in school: we were in school in the 70s when OPEC capped production to cause an artificial gas shortage. I don't know what deals, political pressure, or outside-of-OPEC production came online to nullify the cap, but something did. I remember in the late 90's thinking it odd that the price of gas was about the same as when I was at CHS. Cars evolved to be bigger and less fuel-efficient as a result of gas being cheap.
And now China's and India's emerging economies tip the supply/demand balance a little, and suddenly there's another panic - complete with price-gouging, artificial shortages, mass sell-off of guzzlers, run-away prices, and a public outcry for alternatives.
Btw, it takes a lot less fossil fuel to produce an equivalent amount of ethanol energy - meaning it's cheaper and less polluting to use the dino-juice than to make ethanol (adding ethanol to petro brings the price/gallon at the pump UP, not down).
Likewise, producing a solar cell causes a LOT more pollution than the pollution saved by using the solar cell, and an obscene amount of energy is used to make them (they could be a net loss, energy-wise).
Speaking of pollution and energy-intensive manufacture, batteries (for electric cars) are pretty noxious.
Another interesting tid-bit I picked up somewhere:
Oil fields in Texas which were pumped dry and capped off decades ago
...are RE-FILLING! ... to the point of being considered for production again.
Turns out oil may not come from decaying dinos at all - there's a natural process whereby (I forget the specifics) heat from the mantle converts naturally-occurring inorganic substances deep underground into.. you guessed it. The stuff oozes up and fills subterranean hollows wherever the geology is permissive.
Also, there are more confirmed reserves of oil on Earth TODAY than there's ever been. How could that be possible if it's a finite resource we've been using the crap out of for 100 or so years?
There was a landmark study published (in the 1950's, IIRC) which concluded that the Earth's oil reserves would be bone dry by... (drum roll)... (any guesses?)...1995 or so.
The study was conducted by.. (another pause for dramatic effect)...
... Shell Oil. I was shocked to learn that an oil company would try to convince the population that the commodity they sell is "scarce," or "rare," and "almost gone."
Why, that might lead people to believe that the stuff was valuable.
Prior to the first time oil was pumped from the ground - in Venango County, PA, of all places - oil was collected from the (rare) pools where it oozed all the way to surface - "rock oil" it was called, I think. Anyway, the price of "rock oil" went up and up, because it was thought to be finite, almost completely depleted resource... and then a guy named "Drake" pumped for it in PA - I bet the "rock oil" market tanked.
Anyway, people who live in Oil City have tiny little nodding donkey pumps in their back yards. They pump their heating oil right out of the ground. Real estate is real cheap there, too.
Still MORE trivia: not sure of the specifics, but PA=oil is where "Pennzoil" and "Quaker State" get their names.
Sorry for trivia dump. And trust NONE of it, because it's all yanked from my failing memory - which now includes "elephants in the woods."
Vicki, you lost me. What law did "we" break?
Steve, Vicki,
I think we're all on the same page with regard to the Energy issue. Vicki -you are dead on with all the things we could of, would of, should have done (and didn't) -That's Exactly what I'm talking about...Where did we go wrong (and get so greedy??).
Gotta get back to the debate -they are all over the energy issue right now!!
Jeff
Donna, when I say we broke the law I mean we lied about our reasons for going to war with Iraq, therefore I consider the war to be illegal. Saddam Hussein was a monster - I don't dispute that - but that wasn't the reason we went to war. When the U.S. government realized it wasn't getting anywhere in Afghanistan, not getting co-operation from and having difficulty bringing down a regime it put in place in the first place, it turned attention to Iraq. That country had NOTHING to do with 9/11/01, but the President used the words "Iraq", "terrorism" and "weapons of mass destruction" alot in the run up to March 2003. And because of fear, the American people bought it. For the past five and half years, I have been asked by non-Americans why? Why have you attacked Iraq? Why are the American people buying the drivel their president is spewing at them? Why are they so scared? Why have you taken our country with you? I have been asked to defend what I believe is indefensible. We all know the reason we attacked Iraq - oil. Americans are not willing to compromise their lifestyle. Period. They drive monster SUVs. Why? How big a car do you need to negotiate suburbia? They live in McMansions. Why? Ten thousand square feet? How much space does one family need? If Americans drove the kinds of cars we drive here in Europe, the U.S. wouldn't need foreign oil. The U.S. would actually produce enough oil for itself. But hey, we're Americans, and it's our God-given right to life the way we want to live, so fuck the rest of you. That's how it feels outside the U.S. It's like the U.S. is holding up a giant middle finger at the rest of the planet. There are some things the U.S. just gets wrong, but Americans can't see past the end of their own nose to realize it. I know I sound right now like I don't love the U.S. I do. It's the country of my birth, it's where I spent the first 26 years of my life, and I'm thankful for the opportunities I was given as a result of that. But I'm also ashamed of the direction the country has taken, the fact that American people are now like sheep and will blindly follow anyone who they believe will protect them from the outside world. I remember when Bush was re-elected. On the morning after the election, one of the newspapers here ran this headline:
HOW CAN 59,000,000 PEOPLE BE SO STUPID?!
That's how the rest of the world sees us. That bugs me.
I agree Vicki the US is greedy! My husband and I are one of the few couples we know who strive to be debt free. We live a nice life and have always lived within are means. We could have a bigger house but are 3 bedroom 1600 SF ranch is big enough, and its paid for. Whats wrong with saving first then buying why does everyone have to have everything NOW. I see it in the schools as well. My son is bugging for a cell phone because everyone has one. Well everyone doesn't have one but the ones who do have nicer ones than me. We live in a generation where parents want to give there kids everything we didn't have growing up. Did we have it so bad? I don't think so!! I know I watched my dad work really hard for a dollar and we were taught to value and respect it. How many people do you know with thousands of dollars in credit card debt. I know plenty!
Further to Vicki's point about the war being illegal:
Congress never declared war, the action was "pre-emptive," and in defiance of the UN.
At one point, King George said of Hussein, "He's seeking WMD and is defying the UN!! That won't stand in a civilized world - it's a 'rogue' nation."
Recently, I saw some US official commenting on Russia's actions in Georgia - which the US strongly opposes. "In this day and age, you don't take your military in to topple governments of sovereign nations"....."in Europe." Wha???
...then we, who already HAVE WMD, told the UN, "fuck off, we'll do it ourselves" - making the US a 'rogue nation.'
The PNAC outlined a "need" to take Iraq before Bush was even elected the first time - several in his administration were signatories of the PNAC. Not hard to imagine they manipulated intel to justify invasion - which if NOT illegal, is only so because it's not on the books. AFAIK, there's no law explicitly forbidding the use of live puppies for skeet practice, either.
As usual, Steve, you have said it so much more eloquently and succinctly.
I thank you for "eloquent", but "succinct" I surely ain't. ;)
As proof, more ramblings:
A small, loosely-organized population with high-minded ideals and God on their side occupy a land of enormous natural resources. Let's call them "Freemen."
Across the ocean is the richest country in the world - the seat of a global financial and geographical empire. They are at the height of development and technology. They have the most powerful military in the world, capable of waging war anywhere IN the world (altho their military is trained in and equipped for 'conventional warfare'- not effective against guerrilla warfare). Let's call them "the Empire."
The Empire is bent on fueling its own economy with the wealth from the Freemen, and has little regard for their people or economy. They take advantage of them financially, they occupy their land with their military. They sometimes rough up the locals to keep them in line - which is OK, because Freemen don't enjoy the same rights as Imperials. They establish one-sided policies designed to acquire the natural resources of the Freemen as cheaply as possible, with little regard for the effects such policies will have on the Freemen. They offer the Freemen no vehicle for recourse - they are expected to just accept things as they are. They reward Freemenites loyal to the Empire with wealth and install them as governors of "Freemenia."
The Freemen grow weary of this, and revolt. They can't possibly beat the most powerful military in the world without resorting to unorthodox tactics, so they do. The Freemen see their revolutionaries as heroes, the Empire sees them as villains and promptly sends out the Imperial military to crush the Freemen - especially any local "governors" who've abandoned their loyalty to the Empire and now side with their own countrymen.
As the struggle continues, it slowly dawns on the Empire that a powerful conventional military fighting an unconventional war is not so quick and easy to win. Especially so when your enemy has nothing to lose; and God on their side; and high-minded principles they believe worth dying for; and they're fighting for their homeland - for self-determination, for their posterity - to break free the yoke of oppression.
The prosecution of a war in a foreign land is taking a toll on the Empire's economy, and while their losses may be comparably small, they're steadily mounting.
The Freemen are getting the crap beat out of them - collateral damage is HIGH. Still, they struggle on - their purpose is, to them, a noble one.
Late 18th century:
Empire = England; Freemen = American colonies.
Late 20th century:
Empire = USA; Freemen = Arab League (al Qaeda)
Seriously: We have met the enemy, and he is us. We have BECOME what we were CREATED to RESIST.
I'd love to know if there's some non-hypocritical way to view American foreign policy in light of American history - any neocons out there, please enlighten me.
Okay, that wasn't succinct, but I get your point. I'm going back to the other thread to have a drink.
The War on Iraq was started due to the alleged owning of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) by Iraq. The US and British intelligence believed they had credible evidence for the WMD. Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. (See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441)
Both the House and the Senate authorized the war (H.J.Res.114) and President Bush signed it into law. (See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR:)
So the war was supported by the Congress, the President, the people and the UN. Just how was it illegal?
Yes, it is true that no WMD were found but as we know, hindsight is 20/20. Decisions can only be made with the information that is available at the time; a person is not omniscient. Bad intelligence does not make a war illegal.
And honestly, if the war was about oil, why didn't the US just take the oil and we would have had low gas prices? Last time I checked, gas was so cheap-not!
For the record, I am not a big Bush fan or anything but I am so tired of all the revisionist history.
As for Bush being re-elected. The Democrats has such a huge advantage with Bush being in the White House and being Bush and they STILL couldn't run someone who could beat him? Bush won because Kerry, as the terminology goes, is a douche bag.
Donna, thanks for the education. I read the text of h.r.114 for the first time after reading your post, and it was enlightening. I guess it's easier to bitch about what you assume something to be, rather than what it is.
The PNAC document still looks like motive to me, and the WMD intel still looks like means. H.r. 114 is just the opportunity.
Based on your putting me back on track with your post, I'll float this (with some skepticism now) for your comment(s):
The intel was manipulated to make the situation seem more dire than it was. The intel was not a "slam dunk." Intel suggesting WMD was treated preferentially; intel suggesting no WMD was ignored.
The justification for pursuing h.r. 114 (and the impassioned pleas made by the US to the UN in the run-up) were based on lies. And by "lies" I mean deliberately manipulated facts (or lack thereof), not honest mistakes.
The gov't hating conspiracy theorist in me believes this, but in light of other beliefs I've held that you've proven unfounded... whattaya got?
Steve-I'm not into the whole government conspiracy theories, thing. The Fed Gov isn't capable of doing anything competently, including a conspiracy. :-)
I really believe that there was an honest mistake. I don't think Iraq helped their case by not allowing in the weapons inspectors; it just made it look like they were hiding something.
I've wondered if Bush was trying to stabilize Iraq so that Al Qaeda would not just take over the country and then have their weapons. Bush has been very aggressive with the War on Terror. Many people don't like this but I think it has been effective and is necessary to meet the Al Qaeda threat.
A friend of mine wondered why the US Gov didn't just plant WMD in Iraq to MAKE the intel justified after the fact. Now, THAT would have been a conspiracy/cover-up! But they didn't do that.
Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't think Bush is evil with the whole Iraq War thing or anything else. I think he is trying to do the best that he can to keep the country safe. The US isn't used to dealing with terrorism up close and personal so I think there is a steep learning curve.
Okay, now you probably think I'm insane, but there it is. :-)
Far from thinking you're insane, Donna - you make me feel insane.
I remember during the run-up to the invasion telling Melissa, "I just don't know: Bush will go down in history as the guy who saved the world - or he's crazy and will be tried later as a war criminal. Assuming he has access to info we don't, I guess we have to give him the benefit of the doubt."
...and then that info turned out to be wrong. Manipulated, even.
The administration has just done too many things I can't stomach - and they look like a pattern to me:
Secret prisons, torture, pre-emptive unilateral invasions, suspension of civil rights, Cheney claiming to be part of the Legislative, Bush using the signing comments more than any other pres, letting the corps write the laws, etc.
AFA the fed gov't being too incompetent to pull off a conspiracy, I agree.
However, it's not the fed gov't - it's a small group of guys, PNAC guys, using a national tragedy to make a bunch of big changes - ramming them thru Congress in the middle of the night, doing stuff with no oversight, not releasing docs to Congress, etc... it just smells rotten to me.
I've always had an "issue" with authority, and I resent being "governed." I like to think the FF's were like that, too, and that' why the Constitution includes the things it does. Anytime anyone in gov't starts fiddling with that, it's not going to make it 'better.' I'd rather NOT exchange a little of our precious liberty for a little security - and the admin is either doing this like crazy, or it's an evil Orwellian conspiracy.
Neither is acceptable to me.
Steve-why do I make you feel insane?
Yeah, balancing freedom with keeping the country safe is a pickle. I've wrestled with that thought and not come up with any easy answers.
I'm not big on being told what to do, either. However, a limited (i.e. small) government is the only way to go (as opposed to anarchy). The FF really created a great model. Unfortunately, too many people who are in politics get drunk with power and believe that they know what's better for the people than the people themselves and think it's their money rather than the taxpayers' money. And now they think they know something about the economy!
I just don't know how we can turn it all back. And I'm not sure how many citizens want to turn it back.
Okay, now I'm rambling and preaching to the choir (Steve).
Ha!!! You call THAT a ramble?
You are indeed preaching to the choir, with the exception of the liberty/security issue, IMO.
When did "safe" start trumping "free?" That's not what the FFs had in mind, and they certainly did not make things "safer" for their fellow Colonists.
AFA you making me feel insane: I follow the news from several outlets (spanning the gamut of political bias) and I regularly talk about this stuff with anyone who will listen. I considered myself well-informed and objective - then you post a few actual bills and I'm forced to see that I'm not as "informed" as I thought.
When someone called the war illegal, I had grounds to agree - but those grounds were just extensions of my own anger over other issues - not facts. I still disagree with the handling of our "global struggle against terror" and think there's some PNAC fishiness behind it all, but fact-wise, I brainwashed myself. Scary... but thanks for setting me straight.
Post a Comment