2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

[mojeaux131]

Not to sound like a jerk (I honestly try not to on the forum, ha ha) but to me, there is nothing more serious or important at this time than the fate and future course of the greatest country in the history of the world. If we continue to elect poor leaders, there is little guarantee that our country will continue to enjoy such high standards of living or power. We are so powerful and wealthy and strong, yet so young as a country.

We have to make the right choices. We have to take more responsibility for who we choose to represent us in office. For all his failings, the presidency of George W. Bush with all its repercussions and historical echoes is ultimately the responsibility of the American people. We have to do better. Until we do, we'll continue to get politicians that disappoint us. If the system is inherently flawed, we must change it. If American politics is inherently corrupt, we must make it better. Those who believe we have no chance of doing these things have no business participating in political discourse of any kind. Just my humble opinion, of course.

God has blessed America, but that's not enough. It's up to the people to ensure the continued success, prosperity and progress of this great nation.

[TheNiche]

I disagree. I think the government ought to pay them everything they are asking for.

They are risking their lives and doing jobs none of us want to do to safeguard this country.

We owe them that much.

So are offshore oil workers. Should we give them anything they want?

[houstonmacbro]

So are offshore oil workers. Should we give them anything they want?

Offshore workers aren't soldiers.

Soldiers and military people are protecting our sorry behinds because we're too wimpy to join the military ourselves.

[RedScare]

I would imagine that our military would be very happy to be paid as well as offshore oil workers.

[ricco67]

I would imagine that our military would be very happy to be paid as well as offshore oil workers.

Or at least have some kickin' bennies after they muster out.

Personally, I believe that the more time you serve in the military, the bigger the bennies.

For the recruit that joins out of High school, 50% paid college after 5 years, 80% at 8, and fully comped at 10.

At the 10 year mark, you gotta get creative.

[Trae]

Added a poll.

[ricco67]

Added a poll.

???

[TheNiche]

Offshore workers aren't soldiers.

Soldiers and military people are protecting our sorry behinds because we're too wimpy to join the military ourselves.

Perhaps you so wimpy only because you have an inadequate incentive? What would be the price for you to join the military? I know that there is one. There is, after all, a price that a typical firm will pay you at which I know that you are willing to place your life in danger as you commute each day; as you meet and interact with coworkers that may not be mentally stable; as you are more succeptible to contracting your coworkers' diseases. Your life is in danger as a regular joe, just not as much as if you were a soldier. Danger is inescapable. But what is your price? If the price for military labor were raised by a politician's decree so that wimpy guys like you become inclined to take the risk and join the military, would that be desireable...really? Do we want wimps on the battlefield? For that matter, do we want people with a high tolerance for danger to be rejected by the military because their quota got filled by wimps? Are people that are willing to endure a crappy lifestyle, low pay, and high amounts of danger the kind of people we want on the streets? And do we really want to divert so much more of GDP away from the economy and to the military?

Say we have a need for several million mostly unskilled persons to stop being (minimally) productive in the economy, largely isolate themselves from general society during their youth, and possibly get killed or maimed in a war. Do we really want to pay so much that highly productive and functional members of society take on this role? Not until they become such good soldiers that their worth to us increases...and then we give them better compensation so as to keep them around. But for raw recruits, let us ensure that the people that really want and are motivated by the military intrinsically are the ones that we get. I don't like the idea of using mercenaries, whose loyalties are to whoever pays them the most. Nor do I want wimps, who'll panic under duress and put other people in danger.

[Trae]

???

No, that's the one in my room.

[RedScare]

Say we have a need for several million mostly unskilled persons to stop being (minimally) productive in the economy, largely isolate themselves from general society during their youth,

I thought that is what retail sales is for?

[houstonmacbro]

Perhaps you so wimpy only because you have an inadequate incentive? What would be the price for you to join the military? I know that there is one. There is, after all, a price that a typical firm will pay you at which I know that you are willing to place your life in danger as you commute each day; as you meet and interact with coworkers that may not be mentally stable; as you are more succeptible to contracting your coworkers' diseases. Your life is in danger as a regular joe, just not as much as if you were a soldier. Danger is inescapable. But what is your price? If the price for military labor were raised by a politician's decree so that wimpy guys like you become inclined to take the risk and join the military, would that be desireable...really? Do we want wimps on the battlefield? For that matter, do we want people with a high tolerance for danger to be rejected by the military because their quota got filled by wimps? Are people that are willing to endure a crappy lifestyle, low pay, and high amounts of danger the kind of people we want on the streets? And do we really want to divert so much more of GDP away from the economy and to the military?

Say we have a need for several million mostly unskilled persons to stop being (minimally) productive in the economy, largely isolate themselves from general society during their youth, and possibly get killed or maimed in a war. Do we really want to pay so much that highly productive and functional members of society take on this role? Not until they become such good soldiers that their worth to us increases...and then we give them better compensation so as to keep them around. But for raw recruits, let us ensure that the people that really want and are motivated by the military intrinsically are the ones that we get. I don't like the idea of using mercenaries, whose loyalties are to whoever pays them the most. Nor do I want wimps, who'll panic under duress and put other people in danger.

I think you missed my point. Soldiers and military people make our our wimpy, cushy, gentrified whiney, what's on cable tonight, civilian lives possible.

That deserves a lot in my book and certainly more than what they get when they get out.

[houstonmacbro]

Actually we hope we are wrong on the whole "Muslim" thing. If he wins and we are right.... ? We DO however believe that Michelle DOES hate America, as she has stated, she has only recently become "proud" of her country.

Becoming recently proud as an adult doesn't equate to hate earlier.

A lot of Americans, especially black Americans have a dual feeling about this country.

On one hand it smacks you down and on the other, there's no place quite like it with all the opportunities.

As an African American (or as a poor person) you get to see first hand how some people here are the most racist, egotistical, bias, and classist folks around, and other other you get the opportunity to rise above it all through hard work, luck, being born in the right place and time and to the right parents, and sometimes just knowing the right people.

I wouldn't call that hate.

[mojeaux131]

I think you missed my point. Soldiers and military people make our our wimpy, cushy, gentrified whiney, what's on cable tonight, civilian lives possible.

That deserves a lot in my book and certainly more than what they get when they get out.

Exactamente.

And TJones, are you aware of McCain's statement that was quite similar to Michelle Obama's?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/w...a_n_108191.html

""I really didn't love America until I was deprived of her company," McCain said in an interview with Fox News earlier this year. The remark raised the eyebrows of critics who complained that McCain was being treated differently from Senator Barack Obama's wife Michelle, who earlier this year said she was "really proud" of her country for the first time in her adult lifetime."

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/06/joh...-lov-000779.php

I don't think either statement is particularly horrifying or bad, but I think McCain saying something quite similar takes the wind out of what a lot of people are saying.

[musicman]

As an African American (or as a poor person) you get to see first hand how some people here are the most racist, egotistical, bias, and classist folks around, and other other you get the opportunity to rise above it all through hard work, luck, being born in the right place and time and to the right parents, and sometimes just knowing the right people.

this is anyone not just african americans or poor people.

[houstonmacbro]

this is anyone not just african americans or poor people.

Yeah, I suppose it is.

[lockmat]

Exactamente.

And TJones, are you aware of McCain's statement that was quite similar to Michelle Obama's?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/w...a_n_108191.html

""I really didn't love America until I was deprived of her company," McCain said in an interview with Fox News earlier this year. The remark raised the eyebrows of critics who complained that McCain was being treated differently from Senator Barack Obama's wife Michelle, who earlier this year said she was "really proud" of her country for the first time in her adult lifetime."

Michelle was never ever proud of her country until now. What McCain seems to be saying is that he never really appreciated America until then.

Hypothetically, based on their statements, if someone was slamming America, I could see Michelle saying she didn't care since she was never proud of America anyway. Mccains comments leave plenty of room for affinity and pride in his country.

[TheNiche]

I think you missed my point. Soldiers and military people make our our wimpy, cushy, gentrified whiney, what's on cable tonight, civilian lives possible.

That deserves a lot in my book and certainly more than what they get when they get out.

Seems like China is responsible for a lot of that lately, what with such low prices and an artificially low exchange rate. Heck, they're probably the reason that a lot of people can afford cable TV. Maybe we ought to pay annual tribute to them as thanks for the lifestyle that they afford us (among whom are our honored veterans).

[mojeaux131]

Michelle was never ever proud of her country until now. What McCain seems to be saying is that he never really appreciated America until then.

Hypothetically, based on their statements, if someone was slamming America, I could see Michelle saying she didn't care since she was never proud of America anyway. Mccains comments leave plenty of room for affinity and pride in his country.

Come on, man, it's nitpicky. Let's focus on issues. Sheesh.

[lockmat]

Come on, man, it's nitpicky. Let's focus on issues. Sheesh.

I know, we should.

[mojeaux131]

Seems like China is responsible for a lot of that lately, what with such low prices and an artificially low exchange rate. Heck, they're probably the reason that a lot of people can afford cable TV. Maybe we ought to pay annual tribute to them as thanks for the lifestyle that they afford us (among whom are our honored veterans).

Wow....

(twilight zone theme)

Equating the service of veterans with a foreign nation with whom we happen to trade a lot, because someone said the soldiers contribute to our ability to live in comfort and prosperity.

Niche, you are very, very smart, but are you a robot? Do you have...feelings? Do you know what that word means?

ERROR...ERROR....DOES NOT COMPUTE....ECONOMY...PRODUCTIVITY....MONEY...AGGREGATE....GROSS....REVENUE....Fe

ELinGs? WHAT WHAT WHAT.....

INITIATING SHUTDOWN.....

[TheNiche]

Equating the service of veterans with a foreign nation with whom we happen to trade a lot, because someone said the soldiers contribute to our ability to live in comfort and prosperity.

Niche, you are very, very smart, but are you a robot? Do you have...feelings? Do you know what that word means?

This isn't about my feelings. My feelings shouldn't translate to public policy. Neither should yours.

Feelings are a private matter. They should not be institutionalized, forced upon others.

Passion, "will in the future be our enemy." Our nation must rely on, "reason, cold, calculating unimpassioned reason." -Abe Lincoln"

Thanks, Lockmat.

[lockmat]

This isn't about my feelings. My feelings shouldn't translate to public policy. Neither should yours.

Feelings are a private matter. They should not be institutionalized, forced upon others.

Thanks, Lockmat.

no, thank Abe.

[mojeaux131]

This isn't about my feelings. My feelings shouldn't translate to public policy. Neither should yours.

Feelings are a private matter. They should not be institutionalized, forced upon others.

Thanks, Lockmat.

Ah, but your "feeling" seems to be that the work soldiers do is little different in effect from the work that Chinese factories do in providing us with cheap goods. And this is completely incorrect.

Feelings (or the lack thereof, IMHO) like yours are in fact institutionalized and forced on others when a soldier loses an appendage in Iraq and can't get the proper benefits upon returning to the States, because of an uncooperative bureaucracy or policies that don't think losing an appendage is "enough" to warrant decent benefits.

I am far from the only one who feels this way. And my original point was simply that it was ludicrous for the Republican candidate to oppose the 21st Century G.I. Bill.

Feelings and empathy constitute a large part of human reason, anyhow.

[houstonmacbro]

My point is that if we are going to fight this war, and it seems like we are, we should finance ALL the costs and not just the immediate ones on the battlefield.

Why stop with billions for missiles and not for ongoing human costs associated with lingering effects of it.

[CDeb]

As an African American (or as a poor person) you get to see first hand how some people here are the most racist, egotistical, bias, and classist folks around, and other other you get the opportunity to rise above it all through hard work, luck, being born in the right place and time and to the right parents, and sometimes just knowing the right people.

I got news for you and Shelly: America isn't even close to being unique in that regard.

[livincinco]

Ah, but your "feeling" seems to be that the work soldiers do is little different in effect from the work that Chinese factories do in providing us with cheap goods. And this is completely incorrect.

Feelings (or the lack thereof, IMHO) like yours are in fact institutionalized and forced on others when a soldier loses an appendage in Iraq and can't get the proper benefits upon returning to the States, because of an uncooperative bureaucracy or policies that don't think losing an appendage is "enough" to warrant decent benefits.

I am far from the only one who feels this way. And my original point was simply that it was ludicrous for the Republican candidate to oppose the 21st Century G.I. Bill.

Feelings and empathy constitute a large part of human reason, anyhow.

How do you calculate feelings into a capitalist economy? I don't mean to denigrate people who choose to serve in the military by any means. I have a very high level of respect for them, but they all choose to serve knowing the compensation that they are going to receive. On economic principle, a Republican candidate should oppose the GI Bill because it's government intervention into the free market.

Shouldn't you make the same argument for police and fire that are injured or killed in the line of duty?

[RedScare]

This isn't about my feelings. My feelings shouldn't translate to public policy. Neither should yours.

Feelings are a private matter. They should not be institutionalized, forced upon others.

Not only am I unaware of any law prohibiting feelings being incorporated into public policy, I am having a hard time thinking of any public policy that DOESN'T incorporate feelings, whether directly or indirectly.

[crunchtastic]

Words like 'economic principle,' and the ever popular 'free market' -- not to mention the very idea of Phil Gramm as ecomonic advisor to John McCain, compel me to post a link to this, hot off the presses from one of the best economics bloggers in the business. It's called "Idiots Fiddle While Rome Burns."

Enjoy! I need to get back to Bloomberg for my morning dose of crazy.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/politics/index.html

[TheNiche]

Not only am I unaware of any law prohibiting feelings being incorporated into public policy, I am having a hard time thinking of any public policy that DOESN'T incorporate feelings, whether directly or indirectly.

You confuse normative aspirations as being objective observations.

[TheNiche]

Ah, but your "feeling" seems to be that the work soldiers do is little different in effect from the work that Chinese factories do in providing us with cheap goods. And this is completely incorrect.

Feelings (or the lack thereof, IMHO) like yours are in fact institutionalized and forced on others when a soldier loses an appendage in Iraq and can't get the proper benefits upon returning to the States, because of an uncooperative bureaucracy or policies that don't think losing an appendage is "enough" to warrant decent benefits.

I am far from the only one who feels this way. And my original point was simply that it was ludicrous for the Republican candidate to oppose the 21st Century G.I. Bill.

Feelings and empathy constitute a large part of human reason, anyhow.

Hasn't anybody ever heard of charity? If you feel bad about something, give to one. That's how you do your part. But don't confuse your part with my own. They are not the same.

Different things that are naturally occuring in a world with or without feeling-based public policy are going make unique individual people feel bad and in different ways. No mix of policies can accomodate everybody. Our resources are finite. Even if the objective is to accomodate everybody's feelings optimally, having the starting point be an economic policy based upon objective emotion-less policy and allowing free markets and charities to allocate our scarce resources will inexorably lead to a socially and emotionally optimal economic condition.