This is being posted to highlight that any candidate whose every word is documented will show themselves to have lapses in memory or judgment from time to time. Doesn't it seem the press (and TSB posters) spend way to much time on the personal characteristics of each candidate rather than analyzing the efficacy of their underlying policy proposals?

Quote :

"It would be hard to make a better case against a Barack Obama presidency than the one Obama has made in his own words. The most memorable thing about Obama's speeches is not generally what he says, but rather how large and enthusiastic the audiences are. If voters pay attention only to the symbolism and get caught up in the excitement of the Obamessiah and his throngs of fainting disciples, he stands a good chance of winning in November. If voters pay attention instead to the things Obama is saying, the case against an Obama presidency will be clear. Obama's youthful appearance is often cited as one of his biggest assets, but when he opens his mouth he doesn't always come off as presidential or even particularly intelligent. The political figure who perhaps has received the most ridicule in the past twenty years is Dan Quayle (due largely to a misspelled word on a flashcard he read during an appearance at a school). I wonder how much more grief would have been heaped on Vice President Quayle if he had made any of the following gaffes committed by Barack Obama (from Michelle Malkin): · Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12. · Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." · Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. Some of Obama's gaffes go beyond simple slips of the tongue and confusion over numbers though and display a lack of knowledge on important issues as was the case when he commented on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." As Malkin pointed out, the real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan is because Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages. Worse than the lack of knowledge of the languages spoken in other nations is that he lacks an understanding of the threat posed by some of them. Or maybe he doesn't. It is really a bit confusing. In Portland, Oregon, Obama said of Iran, "They don't pose a serious threat to us." The following day in Billings, Montana he said: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave." Maybe it depends what the definitions of "grave" and "serious" are. As I said, it is all bit confusing. Maybe that is why so many focus on the crowds at Obama's events, rather than to what Obama is actually saying to them. If voters are paying attention to what Barack Obama says they will see not only a lack of knowledge of important issues, but on some of the issues where he is informed, an attempt to hide his true position and past votes. In the Saddleback Church forum last week, in response to Rev. Rick Warren's question, "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?" Obama responded: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade." As blogger Cassy Fiano points out, the idea that someone running for President would dodge such an important question in that way is "beyond ridiculous" and obviously an attempt to be as ambiguous as possible so that he does not offend those who disagree with the very radical positions he has taken on the issue of abortion during his political career. Obama's past comments and votes on abortion legislation definitely say more about him than anything he is saying on the subject now. Another example of actions speaking louder than words can be found when we listen to Obama's money talk. According to Obama's tax returns from 2000-2006, the Obamas have given far less to charity than John McCain has. In all but the two most recent years reported, the Obamas gave around 1% or less of their income to charity. Their contributions increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007. But if you listen to Obama's words you will hear that he is very concerned about the least among us. According to the following statement from an Obama speech earlier this summer, it appears pretty much everyone who isn't Obama is a lesser being: "...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals." If Obama is able to slow the rise of the oceans then ending poverty and securing peace should be a cakewalk. I suppose he will only be able to accomplish such feats if elected President though. This week John McCain pulled ahead of Obama in many polls and projections. Maybe voters have finally started listening to what Obama has been saying now that the thrill of his oratory is wearing thin."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_case_against_obama_in_his.html

8/23/2008 8:32:30 AM

8/23/2008 10:00:35 AM

Quote :

"Their contributions increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007."

That might have something to do with McCain being around 45 times as wealthy.

8/23/2008 10:09:56 AM

Standard fare for any human candidate. Do you really want to make an argument against Obama based on the measure of lapses in memory and judgement? Do you know anything about John McCain?

His recent rise in the polls is due to the situation in Georgia. McCain is the national defense candidate.

8/23/2008 10:47:31 AM

Quote :

"Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.""

lol, is that for real? If so, Obama supporters can pretty much never dis McCain for a slip up... So McCain might not know how many houses his wife has bought, which can fluctulate a lot if you are talking investment properties as well, but Obama doesn't know how many fucking states there are?

8/23/2008 12:45:55 PM

^^^ while it still is affected some by the wealth you have, it was a % not a set number. Im sure Obama makes more money than I do and I donate about 5%4%(my bad, im down to 4% because I didnt change the contribution from last year and my pay went up) a year to charity organizations and im certainly not running for president.

[Edited on August 23, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2008 12:52:04 PM

Quote :

"lol, is that for real? If so, Obama supporters can pretty much never dis McCain for a slip up... So McCain might not know how many houses his wife has bought, which can fluctulate a lot if you are talking investment properties as well, but Obama doesn't know how many fucking states there are?"

wow... yeah. i think someone needs to caption a pic of obama just like joe captioned a mccain pic with something like "i can haz housez... i looze count". obama's pic should say

"i can haz 58 statez... i iz popoolar"

p.s. this is very damning actually if you think about it... wow... 58 states??? WTF and i actually like him.


[Edited on August 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2008 1:14:10 PM

Could have been a joke.

8/23/2008 1:40:44 PM

It was a joke. He was smiling as he said it, and the audience laughed. He was obviously joking about all the states he had visited in a short amount of time. Barack Obama does not think there are 57 states, jesus christ...

8/23/2008 2:00:28 PM

well, the reason the media is focusing on Obama's personality as opposed to his policy proposals is because he has no policy proposals, other than CHANGE, HOPE, and BELIEVE!!! Unless, of course, you consider his "policy proposals" to be whatever the hell the Democratic party wants to do at the time.

8/23/2008 2:32:44 PM

Quote :

"p.s. this is very damning actually if you think about it... wow... 58 states??? WTF and i actually like him."

yeah, come on people - grow up.
Does Obama have to say "LOL ROTFL" after every joke he cracks?

8/23/2008 4:41:31 PM

well, not if it's actually a joke. every knows naggers can;t count

8/23/2008 6:29:00 PM

Quote :

"His recent rise in the polls is due to the situation in Georgia. McCain is the national defense candidate."

McCAin hasn't really risen in the polls too much, Obama has just dropped some.

8/23/2008 11:13:52 PM

Quote :

"well, the reason the media is focusing on Obama's personality as opposed to his policy proposals is because he has no policy proposals, other than CHANGE, HOPE, and BELIEVE!!! Unless, of course, you consider his "policy proposals" to be whatever the hell the Democratic party wants to do at the time."

Wow repeating some over and over really does make it true.

8/23/2008 11:14:40 PM

^ Enlighten us. Regarding health care, education and the economy, explain Obama's policy proposals and why they will be more efficacious than McCain's.

8/24/2008 8:29:12 AM

^ I've been asking that same question for 3 months. Even devoted a thread or two to asking it. Yet, even though every Onama supporter on here insists they are voting for Obama based on policy reasons, they also say they would just rather not explain which policy proposals they support and why they support them over McCain's.

No one wants to think of themselves as being blinded by personality and charisma. But the fact is that if people could easily see themselves being manipulated, car salesman wouldn't be in business.


[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 11:21 AM. Reason : ``]

8/24/2008 11:20:05 AM

Fine goddamit. I'm not blinded by personality and charisma, and your continuing suggestion of it socks is my number one problem with you. It's dismissive, arrogant, and intellectually dishonest.

Here's your policy proposals and why I support them. It's saturday so I can take an hour just getting them out there.

Health Care
• Obama would mandate that all children have health care coverage.
• He would create a national public insurance program that would
allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health care
similar to that available to federal employees.
• He supports universal health care, and believes that the government
should buy prescription drugs in bulk to reduce costs.
• His plan would require all employers to contribute toward health
coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan.
• He wants hospitals to be graded on performance and switch to more
cost-effective, computerized record keeping system.
• Obama would create a national health insurance exchange to reform
the private insurance market.

Where as McCain would offer a refundable $2,500 tax credit and $5,000 for
families and would open health care markets by allowing providers to practice
nationwide, rather than restricting them regionally, allowing the
purchase of health insurance across state lines.

I support Obama's health care plan because I think an easy to enroll in public plan that’s affordable and mirrors the great benefits government employees get is necessary for us. I also agree with mandating children to health care. Although at first McCain’s plan does seem more realistic, I really really don’t want for-profit health care in control. Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care for a reason. On the other hand with McCain we essentially have a plan that perpetuates the same old right wing demagoguery. A la, they hype up the propaganda that big government is automatically bad and that the solution to everything is Laissez Faire, which is what has gotten us into the current insurance situation we are in now. You don’t really get what you pay for in many cases, and you can get dropped when you become too much of a liability. 44 million uninsured Americans....stop and think about that - and we want to essentially continue the system? That's simply not pragmatic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8/24/2008 12:35:07 PM

Education
Obama: Obama also wants to give parents more options when they pick a school for their children, but he would limit those choices to public charter schools. He does not support vouchers for children to attend private and parochial schools. He is the first presidential candidate ever to propose accrediting all schools of education that train teachers.
McCain: He supports school vouchers, home schooling, charter schools and any program that allows parents to chose the school their child will attend.

Here's more nuance:

• Obama opposes school vouchers.
• Obama believes that the problems with education in the US are that
the ‘No Child Left Behind Law’ has failed. He would reform the ‘No Child Left Behind Law’ starting with
funding of the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to
spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on
standardized tests. He would improve the assessments used to track
student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace
and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner.
• Obama proposes the comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan to provide
support to young children and their parents. His plan places key
emphasis at early care and education for infants, believing that it
is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama
would create ‘Early Learning Challenge Grants’ to promote state "zero
to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal
pre-school programs.
• Obama would improve quality and quadruple the ‘Early Head Start’
program and increase funding for ‘Head Start’ program.
• Obama wants to make math and science education a national priority
by recruiting math and science degree graduates to the teaching
profession and would support efforts to help these teachers learn
from professionals in the field. He would also work to ensure that
all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade
levels.
• Obama would address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation
to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention
strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic
plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive
reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
• Obama would expand high-quality after school opportunities by
doubling the funding to the main federal support for after school
programs and serving one million more children.
• He supports transitional bilingual education and would help
‘Limited English Proficient’ students get ahead by holding schools
accountable for making sure these students complete school.
• Obama would recruit teachers by creating new ‘Teacher Service
Scholarships’ that would cover four years of undergraduate or two
years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality
alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching
for at least four years in a high-need field or location.
• Obama would prepare teachers by requiring all schools of education
to be accredited. He would also create a voluntary national
performance assessment so we can be sure that every new educator is
trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching
effectively. Obama would also create Teacher Residency Programs that
would supply 30,000 exceptionally well-prepared recruits to high-need
schools.
• He wants to retain teachers with a plan that would expand mentoring
programs that pair experienced teachers with new recruits. He would
also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so
they can collaborate to share best practices.
• Obama wants to promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher
pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. Districts
will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators
who serve as a mentor to new teachers with a salary increase.
Districts could reward teachers who work in underserved places like
rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in
the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.
• Obama wants to make college affordable for all Americans by
creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and
fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a
college education is completely free for most Americans, and will
cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or
university and make community college tuition completely free for most
students. Obama would also ensure that the tax credit is available to
families at the time of enrollment by using prior year's tax data to
deliver the credit when tuition is due.
• Obama wants to streamline the financial aid process by eliminating
the current federal financial aid application and enabling families
to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing
their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a
separate application.

Where as McCain has nebulous ideas at best even if you visit his website. He does supports sending federal dollars directly to local schools, cutting back on red tape and saving administrative costs. Very little nuance.

McCain simply doesn't articulate a clear plan for public school improvement and that is where most of Americas' children study. My opinion is that he will rest on the laurels of NCLB, and be too busy with the economy and war if he wins. Obama's web page outlines more specific ideas. Granted, many are not new, but I believe he is more in touch with the problems. Given many conversations I've had with my wife and her fellow teachers (was enlightening by the way), Obama seems to have a plan that connects to the highly qualified teacher goal already in place. He is up to speed with what is needed.

----------------------------------------

8/24/2008 12:37:46 PM

Economy

Here are the relative tax proposal charts that break down the impact across different brackets for each candidate:


Additionally, Obama would:
• believes that the NAFTA agreement should be renegotiated to
protect the American economy.
• Obama suggests a $75 billion plan for the economy would offer a
$500 tax rebate to families and a $250 Social Security supplement to
seniors.
• He also would put more money into unemployment insurance.
• He would give federal money States hardest hit by the housing
crisis.
• He would stop mortgage fraud and predatory lending with legislation
that he proposed two years ago.

Additionally, McCain would:
• Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
• McCain supports giving tax breaks to businesses for investing in
equipment and technology.
• He wants to establish a permanent tax credit for research and development.

Here is where I see little personal favor between the two...or rather, this isn't a set of policies that has me running toward one candidate or another - however there is enough I believe in on Obama's side that I feel is more effective. McCain really has no real idea to restrain government spending. Right now, his plan is to (1.) cut taxes for the rich, (2.) spend more on war, and (3.) limit earmarks (which amounts to making piddling reductions in spending on infrastructure). None of which I call good ideas. Any discussion of the challenges facing our economy would only serve to highlight the Bush economic incompetence, and McCain's role in enabling it. For Obama, I think the idea of the US economy has a somewhat broader meaning, more in line with what most Americans understand that phrase to really mean - and his policy proposals are more oriented to producing more broad-based, sustainable economic well-being for the American people as a whole. I like his tax plans far more, and call me a socialist if you will (and you will), but I find it more pragmatic and aligned with my philosophy on supporting the most people the best way we can.

8/24/2008 12:38:27 PM

Quote :

"Yet, even though every Onama supporter on here insists they are voting for Obama based on policy reasons, they also say they would just rather not explain which policy proposals they support and why they support them over McCain's. "

Just because they don't want to do what the guy above just did does not mean they are mindless followers. They may just not feel the need to spend time proving themselves to some partisan douchebag who calls them mindless followers.

Give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they arrived at their position based on reasons that are every bit as valid as yours (or maybe even more so).

I don't think there are any truly mindless followers of Obama or McCain; everyone has their reasons. They can support someone for whatever reason they want. Let them be.

8/24/2008 1:16:23 PM

^^^^ You mention “affordable insurance” several times. What would Obama do to achieve this? Performance grading and technology will do little when consumers are insulated from cost pressures given they are not the ones footing the bill. Americans have come to expect more and more of their everyday health care expenses to be covered by their insurance plan. As more services are covered, they are further insulated from paying attention to costs. In this sort of environment, neither suppliers nor consumers demand cost efficiency given neither is on the hook for the rising prices. This also leads to over-consumption. Why would you not go to the doctor every time you have a cold if the costs are mostly paid for? Why not demand a series of expensive tests even if their efficacy is dubious? This excess demand, coupled with a lack of response to price increases, leads to exponentially growing prices. This has also led the third-party payers (insurance companies) to ration care. The premise of insurance is to cover low-probability events, not your every doctor visit. Providing every American with overly-generous benefits would only insulate more consumers from the rising prices, exacerbating the current situation and forcing people to demand the government foot the rising bill.

Quote :

"His plan would require all employers to contribute toward health coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan "

The employer-sponsored system is vastly inefficient. The most perverse effect it has is on consumer choice. When we buy car insurance, we have a wide array of options. With health insurance, our choices are largely confined to what our employer is offering. This leads to less competition among insurance providers as they only have to compete for the business of businesses rather than all consumers. Additionally, businesses are often looking for a one-size-fits-all policy, further reducing the likelihood a plan will fit the consumers needs.

Quote :

"they hype up the propaganda that big government is automatically bad and that the solution to everything is Laissez Faire, which is what has gotten us into the current insurance situation we are in now. You don’t really get what you pay for in many cases, and you can get dropped when you become too much of a liability"

We are far, far from a Laissez Faire health care system. On the contrary, it is government regulation that has gotten us into this mess. What competition is there among insurance providers? Competition and consumer choice have been systematically diminished as a direct result of federal and state policies. On the federal level, the structure of our tax code has led to our current employer-sponsored system, which diminishes competition and consumer choice as mentioned above. On the state level, each state has its own set of regulations and mandates it imposes on insurers. Given most states mandate an excessive list of benefits that all insurance plans must include (often-unnecessary benefits such as in-vitro fertilization, chiropractic care, contraceptives and alcohol-abuse treatment), premiums must rise to cover all benefits. Such mandates limit the consumer’s ability to choose a plan that meets his or her needs. (Even those who religiously oppose contraceptives or do not drink alcohol must subsidize distribution of the former and therapy for the latter). In many ways, forcing insurance providers to offer a laundry-list of additional benefits is analogous to forcing all car companies to offer only cars with cd players, leather upholsteries and automatic transmissions. It is no wonder that premiums continue to rise as additional benefits are mandated. Another by-product of mandates is they attract special interests who will lobby for additional mandates that cover their services. Unfortunately, there has been an upward trend in state mandates. The number of state-imposed health benefit mandates has increased 25-fold over the past quarter-century, with more than 1,000 state-mandated benefit laws on the books today. See the chart below that shows the difference in insurance premiums due to state mandates.



http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba558/

Quote :

"44 million uninsured Americans....stop and think about that - and we want to essentially continue the system?"

First, this number is vastly exaggerated as it includes individuals who are already eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Secondly, even if you assume it is correct, it represents only 14% of the U.S population. Do we really want to force the other 86% of the population into a system they may not want for the sake of the 14%?

Quote :

"Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care for a reason"

They also ration care due to excess demand. This sort of system is extremely inefficient at allocating scarce resources.



[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2008 1:17:27 PM

Kainen

Thanks for listing several of Obama's policies that you support and explaining why you support them. As you can expect, I disagree with your reasoning on several key points, but I respect your views as they have been presented.

Indeed, I agree that neither candidate has a broad economic platform that I find very compelling (which I have previously mentioned as being one my main problems with John McCain), though I tend to lean McCain. In particular, I like that McCain at least nods toward reducing the deficit (though, like Obama, his numbers don't add up to his promises) and I believe that McCain's tax plan is actually a better deal for the working poor. While Obama's plan reduces tax bills for the working poor and middle class, it also RAISES marginal tax rates on the poor by having tax credits that phase out very quickly as individuals earn more money. Raising marginal tax rates at the lower income scale actually reduces a person's incentive to earn more money. IOW: Obama's tax plan actually makes it harder for people to escape poverty.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan


However, I believe that I can convince you that you under-estimate the power of market forces to improve the allocation of health care services today and improve the quality of health care in the future. On my next Soap Box post, I would like to lay out my argument. I do not have time now (working from home actually, typing up report for work), but I will get to it later today or tomorrow.

I just wanted to let you know I thought your posts were great.

PS* carzak, this is TSB, not summer camp. The entire reason we have this section is so people can get into arguments about politics. If you aren't here to either defend your own political views or to mock others, what are you here for? Absurdest humor is Chit Chat and personal drama is the Lounge. Maybe you should check them out.

[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ``]

8/24/2008 1:25:06 PM

^^^^^ I had a previous thread a while back on why a broadening of choice would turn around one of the most inefficient sectors of our economy, K-12 education.

Additionally, Obama egregiously oversteps the authority the constitution gives to the federal government on educational matters. Can you tell me where in the constitution he is awarded this right?

Quote :

"One of the growing concerns voiced by Americans is the rise in economic inequality. While the proverbial pie is expanding, many believe it unjust that some pieces are growing at a faster rate than others. One of the main reasons we have witnessed an increase in income inequality is an imbalance between the demand for high-skilled labor and the supply. Technological progress has played a central role in increasing the premium on skilled labor given it tends to substitute low-skilled processes. As Alan Greenspan writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence: “Technological advance is rarely smooth. It can take years for labor markets to adjust to a surge in such demand. They do so by bidding up skilled-worker pay scales, which attracts workers from abroad and encourages resident workers to acquire more schooling or otherwise gain greater skills. But the response takes time, and access to skilled foreigners is constrained. In the interim, the rise in skilled-worker wage levels, unmatched by a proportionate rise for those with lesser skills, concentrates income in the upper brackets.” (pg 398) While other countries have seen an increase in income inequality due to technological advance, income inequality in the U.S. has increased at a much faster pace. According to many economists, including Alan Greenspan, the primary culprit is our elementary and secondary educational institutions. Again, per Greenspan: “A very likely significant part of the explanation for recent developments appears to be the dysfunction of elementary and secondary education in the United States. A study conducted first in 1995 by the Lynch School of Education at Boston College revealed that although our fourth-grade students on an international comparison scale were above average in both math and science, by the time they reached their last year of high school they had fallen well below the international average…This education disaster cannot be pinned on the quality of our children. Our students were average, or above, at age nine or ten. What do we do to them in the next seven or eight years that they test so poorly relative to their peers in other countries? …It is not surprising that, as a consequence, too many of our students languish at too low a level of skill upon graduation, adding to the supply of lesser-skilled labor in the face of an apparently declining demand.” (pg 399) Arguably, it is the framework in which we supply education that has led to the demise in educational standards. The inefficiencies of a monopoly are well known and for the most part mostly understood. Yet few question the fact that our government has a monopoly on education. It is organized in such a way that competition is practically non-existent. Furthermore, parents are stripped of their freedom to choose what school is best for their child. Their choices are often limited to either a single, public school dictated to them or a private school in which they pay for in addition to the forgone public school. This monopolistic framework straightjackets parent’s ability to freely choose the school that’s right for their child. As such, public schools are faced with few incentives to cater to the wants and needs of their customers. The monopolistic framework does not incentivize administrators to increase efficiency or be conscience of how they spend taxpayers money. Spending has gone so far out of control that, according to the U.S. Department of Education, the expenditure per pupil, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $2,670 in 1961 to 9,266 in 2004.(1) Given that expenditures have more than tripled while educational performance has declined, it is difficult to deduce that our public school system is underfunded. What can reasonably be suggested, however, is that the means in which we dispense educational services is vastly inefficient and in need of reform. What simply needs to take place is a transition from an inefficient monopoly to a publicly funded, but privately supplied, competitive system of schools. The primary difference between colleges and universities and elementary and secondary schools is that the former must always cater to the needs of its students else face the likelihood its pupils decide to get their education elsewhere. The absence of school choice insulates schools from the necessary incentives to provide better education without wasting resources on a burdensome bureaucracy. An ideal system would be one in which parents were provided a tax credit to be spent on the school of their choice, provided their choice meets pre-defined standards. Giving parents the ability to vote with their feet provides a democratic voice that is often never heard by the current monopolistic system. Armed with a choice, parents would demand a broader array of schools that best fit their child. In the face of such demand, teachers and entrepreneurs would meet the such demands with a new supply of schools. For parents with special-needs children, new schools would form to specifically cater to their child’s needs. Children with an affinity for music may find new schools formed that cater to the musically gifted. While this may seem like wishful thinking, it may, too, have seemed preposterous to a former soviet citizen that, under a new system, they one day would have not only one choice in shoes, but over one thousand. One of the principle concerns about providing parents with a choice is that existing public schools would be harmed. This would be true only to the extent that existing schools did nothing to improve their services vis-à-vis their new competition. In order to prevent pupils from seeking better alternatives, existing schools would have an incentive to improve their current service. Many studies involving school voucher programs have shown this to be the case. For example, in studying the effects of the largest voucher program in the U.S., Florida’s McKay program, which provides vouchers for students with disabilities, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MIPR) found that: Public school students with relatively mild disabilities made statistically significant test score improvements in both math and reading as more nearby private schools began participation in the McKay program. That is, contrary to the hypothesis that school choice harms students who remain in public schools, this study finds that students eligible for vouchers who remained in the public schools made greater academic improvements as their school choices increased. (2) Those who see the morality of providing parents the right to choose their child’s school and see the benefits that such choice entails will, fortunately, not have much difficulty choosing between presumed presidential nominees, Barack Obama and John McCain. Per a statement from Obama’s campaign, “…Obama has always been a critic of vouchers...Throughout his career, he has voted against voucher proposals.” Rather than diminish the monopolization of K-12 education, Obama proposes to strengthen it. More alarmingly, he proposes to mimic the likes of “No Child Left Behind” and allow even more of the Federal government in local classrooms. Offering a one-size-fits-all approach only exacerbates the already-excessive bureaucracy and leaves parents even more voiceless in their fight to better their child’s education. McCain’s policies on education are in stark contrast to those of Obama. McCain stated that “we must fight for the ability of all students to have access to any school of demonstrated excellence. We must place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children….Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America.” (3) In over half a century we have witnessed increasing costs per pupil and an increasing number of teachers per pupil, yet very little progress in education. (4) Attempts to reverse this trend have had little effect as they merely patch an already-broken system. As with any monopoly, the government’s monopoly on education has proven to be extremely inefficient, wasteful and, most importantly, lacking the necessary incentives for progress and innovation. Unfortunately, Barack Obama promotes the kind of change that will only add a Federal layer to the existing, onerous layers of state and local bureaucracy. Continuing down the same path will only cause American students to slip farther behind their peers in other countries. The most innovative and efficient sectors of our envied economy have progressed they way they have due to consumer choice and competition. Sadly, these two, powerful forces of change are lacking in the sector where we need them most. References 1) http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 2) http://www2.edweek.org/media/obama_vouchers_response.pdf 3) http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Education.htm 4) http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ch_2.asp "

8/24/2008 1:30:12 PM

Quote :

"PS* carzak, this is TSB, not summer camp. The entire reason we have this section is so people can get into arguments about politics. If you aren't here to either defend your own political views or to mock others, what are you here for? Absurdest humor is Chit Chat and personal drama is the Lounge. Maybe you should check them out. "

This board is not exclusively for politics, and even if it were, so what? I was arguing your contention that the Obama supporters are mindless followers. You dismissive prick.

8/24/2008 1:41:00 PM

Quote :

"I believe that McCain's tax plan is actually a better deal for the working poor."

Oh yes, because of those mystical incentives. Personally, I'd rather have more cash now than be encouraged to somehow get a job that pays more.

(By the way, even your link admits that normal folks probably don't know or care about tax arcana. Talk of incentives breaks down without well-informed rational actors.)

8/24/2008 3:53:35 PM

Quote :

"It was a joke. He was smiling as he said it, and the audience laughed. He was obviously joking about all the states he had visited in a short amount of time. Barack Obama does not think there are 57 states, jesus christ..."

McCain was smiling when he said to get back to him about how many houses he owned, he was obviously joking too

you moron, it wasn't a joke, he meant to say 47 which would be one remaining continental state, but he slipped up...you think it was an intentional joke? wow, how much koolaid have you been drinking

btw lots of modern tornadoes kill 10,000 people...

8/24/2008 8:07:48 PM

It was a meaningless mistake. He does not think there are 57 states. It has no bearing on his capacity to be president. It does not even warrant the attention we are giving it.

8/24/2008 9:07:34 PM

I like obama but I'm wary of my lack of understanding of each's position on these various issues. There are some great posts above, but the education quotes truly puzzle me. I DO believe that we need to advance our educational standing, but Obama's plan looks like an attempt to create a competitive system within the existing framework of government controlled schools, which I doubt is capable. I mean, in the end, you end up measuring the average, right? If so, such a system is still going to be compelled to deliver equity... to make an analogy by referring to school LUNCHES, I'm pretty sure that even a competitive public school rewarding-educator's-success structure will end up prioritizing making sure everyone has the proverbial hot dog rather than being proud of how many students have developed better eating habits while the bad apples among the others have been allowed to let some kids do without lunch or merely settle for letting the kids get as much spam as they can eat, before such poor players are "forced out of the market" by stronger players. Wow, that was convoluted. Anyone else feelin' this?

And yeah, if you wanna talk incentives about the poor, know this. A janitor ain't movin up. But if his same job pays for a more comfortable living, he's more likely to make the purchases that comprise that higher living standard. Like, for example, paying his damn child support. Or even better, paying for his teenage daughter's birth control so she doesn't have a moment in high school where she has to choose between having a baby and working after school so she can pay her own way go to college. People "top out," especially among the poor.

Sure, if you are a twenty-thirty-something working on a PhD, you'll be "poor" in school, but for all you know, if you found a company or climb a ladder, etc, you will certainly be encouraged to continue climbing to dramatically higher pay scales. But those people don't really need incentives. They're already driven.

I DO believe that the richest among us should have to suffer the biggest tax bills. Extracting the same amount of money from the same income pile spread across the vastly greater general population in lower pay scales causes economic limits on that greater quantity of wallets more rapidly. So fuck tax breaks for the rich. If you're a billionaire, you SHOULD feel enough of a pinch to get a bentley flying spur instead of a rolls phantom if it means that it produces the funds that make it possible for several people to be able to make their rent or buy health or car insurance or any other number of expensive things that the mainstream american struggles to acquire just to get by.


as for health... a friend of mine was telling me about a law school classmate from canada that came down here. One day, she had the sniffles. She went to the EMERGENCY ROOM. She was apparently stunned to find out that she wouldn't just be given such a minor remedy. clearly, there's some truth to the idea that, if it's free, people are going to abuse it.

David Sedaris (humorist/frequent NPR personality) had a line from his (book? story? radio recital?) "me talk pretty one day" about how when he moved to France and had to see a doctor, the bill he received for all the services he was rendered was so ridiculously cheap and/or free that he issued the following punchline: (paraphrasing because I don't know the specific wording):
"I can finally afford to be the hypochondriac I've always been afraid to be!"

On the other hand, people are having to choose between food and drugs. Oh sure, if you can afford the most exotic procedures in the world, you can get them as soon as you please, but if you're in the majority population that simply can't afford necessary care WITHOUT insurance, you'd surely prefer to wait in line to receive a service you otherwise couldn't have gotten at all, right?

ok, I'm done. Maybe I'll vote for Ron Paul. sigh...

alright, a bit more. Iraq is very clearly less important to EACH AMERICAN's immediate future than all of the above issues in the long run, and I applaud the posters in this thread for backing up what they believe in with such detail. gg



so.... yeah... who the fuck to vote for?

8/24/2008 11:15:10 PM

that's right, folks, you heard it here first: This guy Obama, with a Juris Doctor from Harvard, who taught Constitutional Law at the Chicago University School of Law... the guy thinks there's 58 states in the union!!!1

yup. what a maroon. good thing you people here are so smart as to catch that. What a mess we'd be in if we elected that fool.




this thread has been brought to you by: John McCain, What a Maverick (TM) -- because who really needs to know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni?





[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ]

8/25/2008 1:14:07 AM

^ Obama--in his own words:

Quote :

"If they just gave [asthma sufferers] treatment early and they got some treatment in. . .uh. . .a breathalyzer [sic]. . .or a inhalator [sic]--not a breathalyzer. I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours."

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

Quote :

". . .White folks' greed runs a world in need. . . ."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk

--Barack Obama

[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 3:53 AM. Reason : ]

8/25/2008 3:52:08 AM

Joe Schome, The fact that you bitch about Obama critics harping on one "meaningless gaffe" by trotting an equally false gaffe of John McCain's (he never confused sunni and shiite despite Dem talking points) speaks volumes.

8/25/2008 7:39:07 AM

Do we really need to get into a gaffe-quoting contest? McCain has volumes upon volumes, he puts even Bush to shame. Its a non-issue in any case.

Quote :

"While Obama's plan reduces tax bills for the working poor and middle class, it also RAISES marginal tax rates on the poor by having tax credits that phase out very quickly as individuals earn more money. Raising marginal tax rates at the lower income scale actually reduces a person's incentive to earn more money. IOW: Obama's tax plan actually makes it harder for people to escape poverty. "

That article was unclear about what phase-outs are occurring that cause a middle class family to have a higher marginal tax . It was also lacking any supporting math.

[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason : c]

8/25/2008 10:43:13 AM

This is the worst thread

8/25/2008 11:29:34 AM

yeah nobody likes to see Obama pwn Obama, especially not fans of Obama

8/25/2008 11:34:17 AM

Quote :

"Quote : ". . .White folks' greed runs a world in need. . . ." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk --Barack Obama "

That is just shameful. For those of you who might be duped by Hooksaw, here Obama was quoting his former pastor to make a point about black resentment. Obama prefaced this quote stating the words are not his own nor do they represent his point of view.

8/25/2008 11:35:21 AM

^^Sorry you're right we really do need a whole page of discussion about whether Obama really thinks there are 58 states good job

8/25/2008 11:37:35 AM

you're right, we could probably put this in the 3 threads solely dedicated to McCain not giving an immediate concrete answer about how many properties his wife owns, great point

Quote :

"here Obama was quoting his former pastor"

the same pastor that he could no easier disown than his own grandmother, even though he disowned him pretty easy when his campaign told him to

8/25/2008 11:39:43 AM

^,^^ Ironically, the purpose of this thread was to highlight that we spend way too much time on the small stuff and not enough time discussing each candidate's underlying policy proposals. There are several constructive arguments for and against McCain and Obama's policies in this thread if you would like to add to them.



[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2008 2:13:45 PM

I give up, what the hell do you want some of you?

Sometimes I question the effort of even posting halfway organized material because everything derails into bullshit conversation about gaffes and he said she said bullshit. It's a pretty sour investment of time. Pretty sad you guys...

[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 2:21 PM. Reason : -]

8/25/2008 2:21:02 PM

look a candidate can propose and say he is gonna do a lot of things. making it happen realistically is the hard part. All Obama does is spout a bunch of feel good crap that means nothing. he plays the charismatic angle, he plays the populist message and he plays on peoples emotion. He is all show and no substance.

I am running for president, as such if i am elected i will:

End all war
End hunger
End poverty
Help every kid graduate high school with a 4.0 and then go on to college
I will make it so college is free to anyone who applies
I will lower taxes
I will give quality health care to everyone
I will keep America safe

sure it sounds good, but it just isnt realistic. Obamas proposals are just going to add to the government entitlement programs we already cant pay for. It sounds nice and plays on peoples emotions but it wont work. To put it simply, the government has been having entitlement programs since FDR.....and yet they call for more more more. I mean isnt it clear to anyone that they just dont work if we always need more and bigger ones?

8/25/2008 5:18:42 PM

Quote :

"Or even better, paying for his teenage daughter's birth control so she doesn't have a moment in high school where she has to choose between having a baby and working after school so she can pay her own way go to college. People "top out," especially among the poor."

Maybe he could *gasp* teach is daughter not to be an idiot or a slut. I know, call me crazy, but that seems to solve the problem about pregnancy right there...

8/25/2008 5:47:56 PM

Quote :

"The Real Obama Basic facts. By Thomas Sowell Critics of Senator Barack Obama make a strategic mistake when they talk about his “past associations.” That just gives his many defenders in the media an opportunity to counter-attack against “guilt by association.” We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood, or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics. Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands. Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama’s election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers’ money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance — but an alliance is not just an “association” from being at the same place at the same time. Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that. Unfortunately, all that most people know about Barack Obama is his own rhetoric and that of his critics. Moreover, some of his more irresponsible critics have made wild accusations — that he is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim, for example. All that such false charges do is discredit Obama’s critics in general. Fortunately, there is a documented, factual account of what Barack Obama has actually been doing over the years, as distinguished from what he has been saying during this election campaign, in a new best-selling book. That book is titled The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso. He starts off in the introduction by repudiating those critics of Obama who “have been content merely to slander him — to claim falsely that he refuses to salute the U.S. flag or was sworn into office on a Koran, or that he was born in a foreign country.” This is a serious book with 35 pages of documentation in the back to support the things said in the main text. In other words, if you don’t believe what the author says, he lets you know where you can go check it out. Barack Obama’s being the first serious black candidate for president of the United States is what most people consider remarkable but how he got there is at least equally surprising. The story of Obama’s political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot — after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates’ petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with. Despite his words today about “change” and “cleaning up the mess in Washington,” Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates. Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini. Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic party: “People don’t come to Obama for what he’s done, they come because of what they hope he can be.” David Freddoso’s book should be read by those people who want to know what the facts are. But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change the minds of Obama’s true believers, who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts. "

I don’t know of any major presidential candidate in recent history who has received less critical examination than Obama.


The overwhelming majority of his supporters have blindly followed the lure of his inspiring and empty public discourses. Like the pied piper attracting easily amused children with arousing melodies, Obama’s ‘crusade’ has been fueled by widespread incompetence. He’s led a growing mass from low income, uneducated communities to rallies that lack substance regarding domestic or foreign policies. His devoted followers each feed off his emotional allure and physical magnetism. He dominantly possesses a keen and knowledgeable insight into mass psychology, and has perfected deceptive public intrigue and maneuvers. Followers march in brainwashed unison through downtowns, each high on the delusional euphoria soaked in with promises of 'change' in America. As adrenaline takes control over any diluted sense of practicality or reason, the cliché and redundant call for change is backed more by his illustrious visions and promises of a modern Utopian society. Such optimism hides his lacking significant political rhetoric

Nevertheless, he is still gaining support from many who have never experienced one of his rallies. The majority of independents and swing voters (and the majority of America) rely on television, periodicals, and radio to do the dirty work and "report" the unbiased cold, hard, facts pertaining to these candidates, current foreign and domestic issues, and the investigative reports over the scandals that are rampant across both parties in Washington. The press remains consistent though, and yet far from reporting with any credible or fair manner.

Today we are dealing with a press that reports mostly with an inherent leftwing political agenda expressed creatively by eluding or distorting facts and spinning at will. In actuality, it shouldn’t take a conservative predisposition to see that their 'honest', non-opinionated reports are consistently incomplete factual synopses which neatly veil their ideological indoctrinations dispersed throughout the prose or report. They are sly, creative, and ruthless to opposing ideals. From headline and article titling, to the careful choice of photographs that are routinely altered, to taking soundbites out of context, the media is a powerful force that will try to influence popular opinion on every level.

However, liberals and Obama supporters watch the news, read the paper or listen to NPR for constant moments of clarity. I’m sure it's quite assuring to see your political ideals expressed to millions of undecided voters. Unless you are straight ticket, however, some skepticism must exist in your intellect to spot the consistent misinforming, partial reporting, and now, the complete neglect to provide any unbiased reporting and investigative journalism that exposes the real Obama.

10/7/2008 9:31:18 PM

haters.

10/7/2008 9:43:53 PM

10/7/2008 10:24:04 PM

How come the majority of people seem to think that it's McCain who hasn't said much about his policies...and what he does says doesn't make a lot of sense.

Example from last night:
-buy a ton of homes and resale them so people can afford their mortages
-work on all of his ideas at the same time (they are all priority number 1 and can be done at the same time)
-AND have a spending freeze on everything except defense, veterans and entitlement programs?

Huh?

Foreign Policy
-let's talk small and carry a big stick
-"But the Russians, I think we can deal with them but they've got to understand that they're facing a very firm and determined United States of America that will defend our interests and that of other countries in the world." - seems a little threatning to me...

10/9/2008 12:19:14 AM