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

[crunchtastic]

.......... allowing free markets and charities to allocate our scarce resources will inexorably lead to a socially and emotionally optimal economic condition.

In theory, yes. On planet earth, where humans with egos are hard-wired with tribal tendencies, no.

A timely case in point: The Grace Humongo Church could spend its largesse on optimally allocating resources in the name of charity, but instead chooses to build a monument. Did Joel Osteen open the doors to his giant temple of ego in the wake of Katrina?

I'm trying to imagine the optimal economic condition that would occur if, in accordance with free market theory, our policy makers allow Fannie and Freddie to fail. It somehow doesn't seem so great.

[houstonmacbro]

I'm trying to imagine the optimal economic condition that would occur if, in accordance with free market theory, our policy makers allow Fannie and Freddie fail. It somehow doesn't seem so great.

It's funny how those on the right are always screaming about how the liberals (I've heard them equated to communists and socialists) now want to bail out these private institutions at taxpayer expense.

Isn't that at least a form of socialism?

[crunchtastic]

It's funny how those on the right are always screaming about how the liberals (I've heard them equated to communists and socialists) now want to bail out these private institutions at taxpayer expense.

Isn't that at least a form of socialism?

it's the kind where debts are socialized yet profits are privatized. It is a very weird thing our financial system has morphed into.

[houstonmacbro]

it's the kind where debts are socialized yet profits are privatized. It is a very weird thing our financial system has morphed into.

Bizarre and unfair.

[TheNiche]

In theory, yes. On planet earth, where humans with egos are hard-wired with tribal tendencies, no.

A timely case in point: The Grace Humongo Church could spend its largesse on optimally allocating resources in the name of charity, but instead chooses to build a momument. Did Joel Osteen open the doors to his giant temple ego in the wake of Katrina?

I used the word 'optimal', not 'ideal' or 'perfect'. Misallocations are unavoidable in any economic system. And you know what...maybe it isn't a misallocation. Who are you to judge your neighbor's motivations? And he, yours?

I'm trying to imagine the optimal economic condition that would occur if, in accordance with free market theory, our policy makers allow Fannie and Freddie fail. It somehow doesn't seem so great.

The notes that they had already issued would survive them. That cheap accessible home loans were less available would cause home prices to adjust downward. Homeownership would shift, structurally, to a lower rate. And in spite of short-term pain, society would be the better for it in the long term.

[Subdude]

It's funny how those on the right are always screaming about how the liberals (I've heard them equated to communists and socialists) now want to bail out these private institutions at taxpayer expense.

Isn't that at least a form of socialism?

My European friends like to point out that for a country that never tires of preaching the virtues of capitalism and "free markets", our banking system and major league sports are run in a very socialistic manner!

[sarahiki]

It's funny how those on the right are always screaming about how the liberals (I've heard them equated to communists and socialists) now want to bail out these private institutions at taxpayer expense.

Isn't that at least a form of socialism?

Amen.

[RedScare]

it's the kind where debts are socialized yet profits are privatized. It is a very weird thing our financial system has morphed into.

Not weird at all if you are the CEO of one of those financial institutions. The weird thing is how the financial and corporate billionaires have managed to convince a sizeable portion of the population to support their socialized debt management with no hope of ever participating in the spoils of corporate welfare.

[memebag]

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

We need a good, catchy name for the economic system described in that blog entry. It includes not just forcing citizens to pay for private failures, but also forcing citizens to pay no bid contracts in pointless wars. Some good name that we can throw around and everyone will know exactly what we're talking about, only it can't have any obscenities in it if we want it used on TV, so I'm stumped. Suggestions?

[mojeaux131]

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.

Yep, robot.

[RedScare]

Yep, robot.

Nope, just so inextricably wed to his ideology that he cannot rationalize for fear he'll compromise his ideology. Exactly the problem with the country today...two competing ideologies unwilling to yield to the other.

[mojeaux131]

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?

I honestly don't know when providing veterans with benefits became about "feelings". We do it because it's the right thing to do. Period. And for police and firefighters, if they are injured in the line of duty, all their medical expenses should be covered. All of them.

And "on economic principle", a Republican shouldn't mind at all. How is providing educational and medical benefits an "intrusion into the free market"? By that logic, anything the government spends money on is an intrusion into the free market.

Republicans support government intervention into the supposedly "free" market all the time, usually to help out private companies.

Nope, just so inextricably wed to his ideology that he cannot rationalize for fear he'll compromise his ideology. Exactly the problem with the country today...two competing ideologies unwilling to yield to the other.

You mean hardwired, right?

Ideology=Programming

Okay, I'll stop now. Well, I'll try to.

[houstonmacbro]

Pissing matches.

[ricco67]

Pissing matches.

Pretty much, I used to be a diehard democrat until I realized that some views presented by some of my (then) party conflicted with how I think some things should be done. The same can be said about the Republican party. Most people simply pick a party because they feel like they NEED a party and rarely look past their ideological ideals about it. I want a pres that is willing to look past his own party for solutions and I think McCain has done quite a bit to do it (though I disagree with his Immigration policies).

[mojeaux131]

Pretty much, I used to be a diehard democrat until I realized that some views presented by some of my (then) party conflicted with how I think some things should be done. The same can be said about the Republican party. Most people simply pick a party because they feel like they NEED a party and rarely look past their ideological ideals about it. I want a pres that is willing to look past his own party for solutions and I think McCain has done quite a bit to do it (though I disagree with his Immigration policies).

Yes. Actually, in that regard, McCain's record is much more impressive than Obama's.

[mojeaux131]

Pissing matches.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to go that way. I prefer to stick to the issues and straight-up debate.

[TheNiche]

Nope, just so inextricably wed to his ideology that he cannot rationalize for fear he'll compromise his ideology. Exactly the problem with the country today...two competing ideologies unwilling to yield to the other.

Why should I yield to those with whom I disagree? Seems like that'd defeat the purpose of voicing or even having an opinion.

And it isn't as though I expect to win every battle, as though I expect that the world will bend unto me. It is very simply that I know what I want and I speak my mind. Are you all that unlike myself?

[crunchtastic]

We need a good, catchy name for the economic system described in that blog entry. It includes not just forcing citizens to pay for private failures, but also forcing citizens to pay no bid contracts in pointless wars. Some good name that we can throw around and everyone will know exactly what we're talking about, only it can't have any obscenities in it if we want it used on TV, so I'm stumped. Suggestions?

locomotialism

edit: was practicing my espanol while watching I Love the 70s on vh1. And dancing.

Dancing to keep from crying over my choices in this next election.

[ricco67]

Why should I yield to those with whom I disagree? Seems like that'd defeat the purpose of voicing or even having an opinion.

And it isn't as though I expect to win every battle, as though I expect that the world will bend unto me. It is very simply that I know what I want and I speak my mind. Are you all that unlike myself?

I believe the word that should be used (But rarely enacted on) is "COMPROMISE."

There are some core beliefs that I believe in, but am willing to trade off some of the ones I'm not die hard for.

Not every politician is going to agree with every one of your beliefs (if they do, they're lying), but you should look for whom you're the most compatible with.

That's the problem with our political (and us as a nation, frankly) is that a great many of us are not willing to compromise for what we want the most and it has to be an all or nothing option.

[TheNiche]

I believe the word that should be used (But rarely enacted on) is "COMPROMISE."

Compromise is inevitable in practice. My honest opinion on the matter is, itself, not open to negotiation.

The only weapon at your disposal is reason. I suggest that you use it without mercy.

[ricco67]

Compromise is inevitable in practice. My honest opinion on the matter is, itself, not open to negotiation.

The only weapon at your disposal is reason. I suggest that you use it without mercy.

I believe compromise IS composed of reason. You have to rationalize what is most important to you as to what the other is.

I mean, if someone put one gun to my cat's head and another to my Ex's head and you have to pick only one, you have to have sound reasoning why you're willing to doom one or the other.

[TheNiche]

I believe compromise IS composed of reason. You have to rationalize what is most important to you as to what the other is.

I mean, if someone put one gun to my cat's head and another to my Ex's head and you have to pick only one, you have to have sound reasoning why you're willing to doom one or the other.

I don't believe you understood my point. What I've been meaning to communicate has been my preference. That is, for instance, that nobody shoot anything dear to me. These are opinions that I will not stray from unless provided a reasoned argument. That you would try to pressure me over the matter is just insulting...or perhaps just embarrassing to yourself.

If the situation you suggested were to be actualized (however unlikely), then a compromise would be made. Such a tactic is common in practice, but it does not change my preference. Nor should it.

If I am the sole believer in a principle that I hold dear, and the totality of the universe is against me, my principled belief does will not erode if I command the armament of reason. I pity the weak individual that lacks such basic self-respect.

[ricco67]

I have a list of "preferences" that are dear to me but only a few are considered sacrosanct, but in the past I felt the same way on other issues. The list of priorities or preferences that I hold dear to me are far different than when I was 25. In today's climate, I would be considered a "Flip-flopper", but I'm being a realist.

The inability of some people to reexamine or revisit their priorities in political theater, are simply political automatons that are unable or unwilling to change their political affiliation for the sake of simply "going with the party."

My scenario of the cat v. the ex.

20 years ago, I would have chosen the cat to be sacrificed, today i would pick the cat to be saved for the reason that my cat provides me more entertainment, with the equal number of scratches as the Ex.

[houstonmacbro]

We don't compromise because so many of us believe OUR America is better than THEIR America.

[CDeb]

How many Obama supporters does it take to change a light bulb?

When Obama is President, light bulbs will change themselves.

How many McCain supporters does it take to change a light bulb?

Just one. But give him a hundred years, or however long it takes.

[houstonmacbro]

Sorry, didn't mean for it to go that way. I prefer to stick to the issues and straight-up debate.

Yeah, but so many people believe (wrongly) that THEY have the answer for ALL Americans. As if there is a lock on what it means to know what's best for ALL America.

It's kinda like religion. Many religious people feel their religion is better than others or those with no religion.

In some folks' minds there can be no compromise because it would mean the foundation on which they think is ultimately wrong (or at least cracked).

[mojeaux131]

Yeah, but so many people believe (wrongly) that THEY have the answer for ALL Americans. As if there is a lock on what it means to know what's best for ALL America.

It's kinda like religion. Many religious people feel their religion is better than others or those with no religion.

In some folks' minds there can be no compromise because it would mean the foundation on which they think is ultimately wrong (or at least cracked).

If I start to sound like that, let me know. I'll check myself.

Compromise is key to success. No one has a monopoly on the truth. I think depending on the time and place, policies should be adjusted either more to the "left" or more to the "right". For now, I believe policy at the federal level should go more to the "left" while in a state like California they could afford to be more conservative at this point. And there can even be variations within different types of policy in a single place. For example, a place could become more fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time, Eisenhower Republican style.

It's all about balance.

[ricco67]

If I start to sound like that, let me know. I'll check myself.

Compromise is key to success. No one has a monopoly on the truth.

It's all about balance.

Exactly, but for whatever reason, some people are not willing see past the "R" or "D" of a candidate to see if that person IS the one for them.

In this election season, I want from Hucklebee, to Romney, to Clinton, and finally to McCain. It's not because I suddenly turned Republican (briefly stepped on the Democratic side), but simply wanted to pick a candidate that I thought represented what I think is the best way to run the country.

[houstonmacbro]

Exactly, but for whatever reason, some people are not willing see past the "R" or "D" of a candidate to see if that person IS the one for them.

In this election season, I want from Hucklebee, to Romney, to Clinton, and finally to McCain. It's not because I suddenly turned Republican (briefly stepped on the Democratic side), but simply wanted to pick a candidate that I thought represented what I think is the best way to run the country.

I can really respect that, because you have THOUGHT about what you want in a president instead of just towing the party line.

I tell my Democrat AND Republican friends they need to see for themselves where the candidates stand and not just vote straight-tickets.

[BryanS]

Looks like good ole boy, Phil Gramm, "nation of whiners" advisor to John I-don't-have-a-clue-about-the-economy McCain, has quit the McCain campaign.

Phil Graham looks like something that Tom Delay, former roach exterminator, needs to exterminate. What a disgrace for our state. Per his wikipedia entry, taught 12-years of economics at Texas A&M? And McCain has (had) this guy on his campaign team?! (we need a thread on Aggie jokes).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/18/gra...tion/index.html

Phil Gramm, left, said his comments have become a "distraction" for Sen. John McCain's campaign.

I don't know... I don't think they look serious enough in this picture.