On Obama:
The longer I am out here, the more I realize how much of an international world we really live in. Korea has a higher percentage of people online than the US. Baidu is much more powerful in China than Google is in the US. On average, Indians perform 2x as good, for 1/2price in almost every industry. China owns 70% of US public debt.
What happened to the US? 50 years from now, we will look back on the past 8 years and we won't talk about Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Dick Cheney, or even Israel/Palestine. We're going to talk about the quick and immediate demise of the US. Now that Rome has fallen, we don't talk about the miscellaneous scandals of the time, we talk about how they failed to understand how the world was changing. Yes, I will debate with you on this Hodge.
Yes, Zac. The economy does change. The winners ride the change and the losers let it slip away (read: China under Mao, Persia under the Ayatollahs, France under quasi-socialists.)
The Republicans today are not ready to step up and secure a foothold for the US. We're no longer running world policy (see: Darfur, Climate Change, World Trade.) We barely even have a say anymore. This world will be run by companies, whether you like it or not (more than it already is) and we need to support the Dagnys, Franciscos, Hanks, and Howards who support US businesses and technology to ride the economic wave. My votes go to: Bloomberg (sorry Hodge, I left him out intentionally, but I'm glad you brought it up), then Giuliani, then Obama.
Here's a breakdown:
- Socialized health care will be awful. Eliminating stem cell research will be worse.
- Taxes really hurt our economy. But, they're nothing compared to what our economy will look like without Mexican immigrants.
Love always,
timmy
9 comments:
I just want to add my opinion as well. I agree strongly with everyone that we do not have a solid candidate this year or the previous election. Just so every one knows, I'm registered as an independent before I make my views. The Republicans in general I feel are very weak candidates with the best being McCain only because he is not a yes man to his party. The Democrats in my mind are the strongest party if they would put to rest this stupid national health care idea, which is going to strip everyone under 40 of retirement before the age of 85. The best plan I've heard of so far is Romney's although I don't know all the details only what I heard in the New Hampshire debates. I realize this was a little back and forth, but I am an independent.
With all things aside with the candidates all being bad, I would have to go with potential and this would be Obama. I can't say that he'll be good, but he does have the most potential out of all the candidates.
I also would like to make a little side note directed towards Zac and those that think like him.
I applaud your individualistic ideas and trying to encourage change by voting outside the two party system.
Unfortunately, we live in a two party system that will not change in the near future, and it's people like you that put President Bush in office in the first place. Maybe you don't vote for Bush directly but taking votes away from Gore by voting for Nader essentially put Bush in office and looked how that turned out.
With another election that has the potential of being very close. Vote for the democrat or republican that best represents your views and save your third party vote for the senate race in New Hampshire.
I'm not sure who nooks is but I'm glad to see you posting, and reading what I have written
Two comments, you say you applaud my voting outside the party but you don't think the two party system will change for a while. You right, with out people voting (like you perhaps) then it WILL not change. And I won't save my vote for the senate race, cause if you don't agree with a candidate, then why the fuck vote for him or her.
As for who put Bush in office, it is not those who don't vote for him it is those who do. Also if you look at Bush's first elction he neither one the popular or the electoral vote so thus it was not I nor you nor anyone who really put him in office
My lengthily take as a registered independent:
I am also finding it rather difficult to like any of the candidates this year. Although I always will lean towards free market policies, I also will absolutely not let my vote help the religious right in this country come to any more power than they already have. I do agree that there is a need for some change in the US regarding foreign policy, energy, and not so much how many federal dollars are spent, but a reallocation of where they are spent. Overall I stand for the fairest, most efficient and most responsible solutions, regardless of the political party.
We have drawn up a rather large deficit paying for a war in Iraq which I am not totally opposed to as the US has remained safe from terrorism the past 6 years. This has come at the cost of $485 billion and more importantly 4,000 American soldiers killed and much more injured. There has been a slowdown of violence in Iraq as of late and and it appears the surge may be working. My hope is the coming 1-2 years we will be able to SLOWLY and methodically remove ourselves, while training the Iraqi's to be independent and take responsibility for themselves (and not kill each other over religious differences). If we take our foot of the lid of this hot pot, will we still be safe from west-hating extremists? This is a very tricky ordeal that is going to require time and money and there is no way around that. Dem. candidates say they will withdraw in 60 days? Good luck. Remember many were critical of Reagan for building up the military that brought an end to communist Russia and the Berlin wall. If once again we can out-spend the Muslim extremists, and Iraq can stabilize, many years from now this whole deal may have a positive light. The Libyans are talking business with Europe these days…that’s a step in the right direction. We need to wean Iraq off of our supervision, and slowly shift those dollars to make energy science jobs the sexiest highest paying jobs in the US. The deficit by historical standards not that out of control as a % of GDP.
On the candidates:
I wish to hell Rudy would become viable because I think he's a businessman who made many positive changes in NYC (despite being what you would call a scumbag in his personal life). Better yet Bloomy, but he wont run. McCain has good ideas, and is the more moderate GOP candidate in my eyes and I could see myself leaning towards him or even Romney. I don’t know if I could stomach casting my vote to the dem's, but if I had to I'd probably vote Clinton. She's an incredibly intelligent person, and the most moderate of the liberals. I wish Obama wasn’t so damn charismatic either. The guy is a great speaker and it makes you like him, but he's too far left for me on multiple issues with no experience behind him.
Some Philosophy:
Anyone who studies economics knows tax and spend does not work, but a truly capitalistic society is Darwinistic and that is un-American. As a society we will always care for the people at the bottom who have no chance for education, health, happiness, so I draw the line at minimum standard of opportunity for all. It’s the responsibility of everyone to care about the overall well being of the nation, which means gov't subsidy to create a minimum and quality standard for schools, healthcare, and housing are important. Some liberal said to me yesterday, "I would rather be taxed more, and know that we are taking care about the children born into poverty, who have no opportunity for a good life" My response was simply, "You fucking hippy". What the guy was basically saying was "I'm fiscally republican socially democratic" I'm sure you've all heard people say this. This makes absolutely no sense at all; If you are truly a fiscal republican you know that the solutions to the problems of this country need to be incentive based and brought about by the private sector. Why are private schools of higher quality? Why should social security be privatized? Why will it be the private sector that solves the energy dilemma? Because business works.
This doesn’t mean you can't think liberally about social issues like abortion or stem cell research. Just like we have to be fiscally responsible, again we need be responsible for our own social decisions. We should be free to make our own choices on these issues without involving any faith if we so choose. Watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" filmed out in S. Dakota and Colorado, and you will instantly throw out Huckabee maybe even McCain. The power of the right wing conservative movement is not only present but growing rapidly in parts of this country. Last I heard there was a separation between church and state…..its more like a horror flick than a documentary.
So now I sound like Mr. neo-con/war-hawk but I promise you that I am far too open minded to embody this title. I just want the fairest most efficient solution. It requires people above all to take responsibility for themselves and to come up with ways to get people who cant take responsibility for themselves to do so.
Writing this has given me a chance to understand my own opinions better.
Hey fellas, just wanted to say before I started that I am a huge fan of this open debate that has started here and I hope that it doesn't lose momentum. Lets try and keep this going.
A couple general points before I get into any specifics.
1) The primary system must be one of the most fucked up ways of nominating the potential leaders of a country, let alone the most powerful country in the world. I've seen numerous potential alternatives to the current system presented in the economist and all make more sense than the current model. Also, the voters who turn out for primary voting are not representative of the electorate as a whole (this year possibly being an exception with the huge independent turnout so far, which sheds some light on how discontented most of the nation is with the status quo).
2) The electoral college needs to be reformed or eliminated. It truly bothers me that my vote will not matter at all. Rhode Island is going to vote democratic in the next election no matter who I vote for. I know that if it was eliminated candidates would simply pander to urban areas and focus there efforts in the most populated regions of the country, essentially spurning rural areas, but at least my vote would make some fucking difference. That has to be better than what we have now. Has anyone come across any rational alternativs to the current system?
Ok now onto the current situation...
The republican party needs to get its shit together. The christian right has driven alot of moderates away from the party. The fact that Mike Huckabee could win a primary is telling of the state of the party. Also, the rhetoric at republican debates sickens me. Free trade and responsible foreign policy are hardly mentioned as candidates try to compete and see who can be the most xenophobic and rattle the biggest saber. This iran situation is a perfect example. Each candidate tries to one up another for the responses they would use to a potential problem in iran all the while ignoring the reality that they are talking about an arab theocracy struggling to maintain control over an increasingly discontented moderate population. Nations like this need to be welcomed into the international system and given economic incentives for stability and peace. Iran's nuclear program is clearly in place as a bargaining chip so lets give them something sensable to trade for it instead of bombing them and further alienating moderate arab populations. But none of this is even on the table which leads us to...
Barack Obama. It seems that his popularity (and Clinton's consistantly high negatives) says more about how fed up the American population is with the status quo than anything else. He has done a nice job of positioning himself as an electable anti-establishment candidate which is not easy to do. I'm with Gluf on the democrats, tax and spend doesn't work economically and the increasingly protectionist nature of the party scares the shit out of me (the rejection of Edwards though could mark a shift towards more sensible economic policies, we'll have to wait and see). I like Obama the person and the leader and I have to admit, his oratory skills have become Kennedyesque in my opinion, which is easily his greatest strength. However, Obama is long on poetry and short on prose. What the fuck does this guy actually stand for? Can anyone name five things he has said he would do as president besides change shit? He needs to tell me more specifics before I can give him any support.
Why can't America support a candidate that offers sensible free market solutions to America's problems? This is what I'm looking for and it fucking sucks that I can't find a candidate in our two party system that offers all/most of these:
1. Mandated but privatized health insurance (like the mass system)
2. low taxes and responsible free trade policies
3. A dominant military that isn't used to enforce democracy around the world, that is better accomplished by providing economic incentives (see China, which is currently debating democratic political reforms that are becoming increasingly inevitable. Also, nobody mentions that china's success has brought more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any other case in world history, how is that not a good thing?)
4. Support of stem-cell research
5. Privatization of social security
6. Green policies, especially a carbon tax, or at least a cap and trade scheme
7. Merit pay for teachers (I wont even get into that for the sake of the ridiculous length of this post)
All of this being said, I have no fucking clue who the hell I'm voting for in November. I'm sure each candidate will change their policies 12 more times before then anyways, so why rush.
Looking forwards to your critiques/responses.
- Hodgie
Forgot to mention one last thing...
Timmy, take a deep breath, America 2008 is not the Rome of the 6th century. We may not be alone at the top for too much longer but I think the predictions of our complete and utter demise are ridiculous. America is still the best at the things that matter in the world. And is it that bad if other nations come and join us at the top? With the increasing wealth generated worldwide the pie is only growing. This is not a zero sum game as you all know. If the result of all of the forces we see emerging today is a more egalitarian economic order, but also an economic order that in sum is better for all the major players involved I don't see how that is a bad thing. Sure, proportionately our power/clout will be reduced, but by no means will it be gone or will we be worse off. The current weakening of the dollar that has so many decrying the value of yuan is exactly what the current accounts deficit that you are so worried about needs.
So please spare me the comparisons to rome, we're not going anywhere significant anytime soon.
Hodgie, your last comment about Rome was the last thing I read so I'll say this, Rome fell slowly and painfully over about a 300 year period, so a US comparasion to Rome would be very applicable. But if we were to share the pie of power I think it would be great for us, mabye it would stop us from trying to police the world.
To Mike Gulf, I've never met nor heard of you but I like the posts and if your in Boston we should get drinks sometime.
On Politics
The Reps, so what I remember learing in social studies in 10th grade is that a republican is fiscally conservative, and small government, but I have seen in the last 8 years and heard from the rep canidates is talk of small gov. but their actions are all more spending, mabye my 10th grade teacher wasn't so smart or mabye the reps are hypocrits, I'm inclined to believe the latter.
As for what I think needs to be done, in the past presidents have used deals to woo the american public to do shit, good and bad. Ted Roosevlet had the Square Deal, FDR had the New Deal, I think we need an individual deal. What we have been slowing losing as the american public is personal responsiblity. If a people are held responsible for their actions, choices, spending then it appears to me that much of the problems of today go away. What does that leave us with for goverment? Minimalistic. Now is that realistic? No people don't want that work that that entails.
I think one of the reasons that Rudy is not winning for a couple of reasons. One like Gulf, and Tim said he is a buisness man, and lately big buisness is the scapgoat for most of our problems. 2 his personal life, but that is one I don't understand because how many presidents do we know who have fucked up personal lives? Kennedy a god damn american hero was a known womanizer and literaly on drugs for the majority of his presidency. Then Mr. Clinton again sticking cigars where they may or may not belong. And Mrs. Clinton who didn't send his as to the curb, but she might win the seat if not the presidency(god allah, yhwh help us)
Hodgie again, why does everyone need health care? Think who is going to benefit from it? They don't and if they want it they should have to find the jobs to get it. But I do believe kids to the age of 18 should have health care, that would be ok to have privatized or gasp...socialized system to pay for it.
In a mandated privatized or socialized health care system, there are no incentives to be healthy, I mean they other guys pays for my smoking, drinking, twinky diet. But if I know I have to incur costs and my premium might increase I might think twice about my trifector diet mentioned above. You all brillantly talk of incentive, but it you for some reason forget it when it comes to health care.
Look forward to seeing more, keep up all this talk guys and girls.
Hodgie, your last comment about Rome was the last thing I read so I'll say this, Rome fell slowly and painfully over about a 300 year period, so a US comparasion to Rome would be very applicable. But if we were to share the pie of power I think it would be great for us, mabye it would stop us from trying to police the world.
To Mike Gulf, I've never met nor heard of you but I like the posts and if your in Boston we should get drinks sometime.
On Politics
The Reps, so what I remember learing in social studies in 10th grade is that a republican is fiscally conservative, and small government, but I have seen in the last 8 years and heard from the rep canidates is talk of small gov. but their actions are all more spending, mabye my 10th grade teacher wasn't so smart or mabye the reps are hypocrits, I'm inclined to believe the latter.
As for what I think needs to be done, in the past presidents have used deals to woo the american public to do shit, good and bad. Ted Roosevlet had the Square Deal, FDR had the New Deal, I think we need an individual deal. What we have been slowing losing as the american public is personal responsiblity. If a people are held responsible for their actions, choices, spending then it appears to me that much of the problems of today go away. What does that leave us with for goverment? Minimalistic. Now is that realistic? No people don't want that work that that entails.
I think one of the reasons that Rudy is not winning for a couple of reasons. One like Gulf, and Tim said he is a buisness man, and lately big buisness is the scapgoat for most of our problems. 2 his personal life, but that is one I don't understand because how many presidents do we know who have fucked up personal lives? Kennedy a god damn american hero was a known womanizer and literaly on drugs for the majority of his presidency. Then Mr. Clinton again sticking cigars where they may or may not belong. And Mrs. Clinton who didn't send his as to the curb, but she might win the seat if not the presidency(god allah, yhwh help us)
Hodgie again, why does everyone need health care? Think who is going to benefit from it? They don't and if they want it they should have to find the jobs to get it. But I do believe kids to the age of 18 should have health care, that would be ok to have privatized or gasp...socialized system to pay for it.
In a mandated privatized or socialized health care system, there are no incentives to be healthy, I mean they other guys pays for my smoking, drinking, twinky diet. But if I know I have to incur costs and my premium might increase I might think twice about my trifector diet mentioned above. You all brillantly talk of incentive, but it you for some reason forget it when it comes to health care.
Look forward to seeing more, keep up all this talk guys and girls.
Zach,
I see what you're saying but the percentage of uninsured by choice is far lower than the percentage of uninsured b/c they either don't have a job or have a job that doesn't provide insurance. It's much different for families with kids too b/c they are insured through their parents.
So I guess what I'm saying is that we need to decouple health care coverage from employment. Why not some plan that will allow anyone to get insurance from private health care providers independent from their job but also have it be optional if you decide that you don't need it? Does that make sense? Is it economically feasible?
Also, the US isn't even 300 years old.
Oh one other thing, I think the reason why Rudy's personal life is such an issue is for two reasons:
1. The Christian right form the base of the party form which he is trying to be nominated and we all know that doesn't fly well with them.
2. He doesn't have the charisma/likability to make people look past that shit. Kennedy had a mystique around him thicker than some of the girls Saunak hooked up with in college. He could get away with that shit, Rudy can't.
Also, I find it hilarous how much he mentions 9/11, its just insane at this point. I hope somewhere on the internet there is a ticker keeping track.
Post a Comment