he made a good point.


symbols vs substance.

Funny, here I thought we should just pick the best person for the job.


not white people rat, working people.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 10:42:07 AM

I wouldn't count on Europeans being too welcoming.

"Oh, I'm coming here because I'm scared of our black president."

"You stayed for Bush but leave now?"

"Yes, I'd say I'm even worse than your stereotypes about Americans."

6/4/2008 10:44:23 AM

Quote :

"see. i can't tell you for sure whether mccain or obama will do these things. but i can tell you which party has caused every one of those things in the past 7 years. larger tides of politics don't bode well for mccain at all."

Remember it or not, there was a time or two when a Republican president didn't completely fuck everything up. The very fact that McCain proposes to do nothing drastic shows he has much better potential to fix our economic problems - by not doing anything.

Admit it, Obama has yet to propose a good plan for anything. This = uncertainty = not good for economy. Add in a democratic congress and you have a near formula for disaster.


The reasons for Obama may be shallow, but many of them still count. I'm a fan of getting the other nations in the world to hate us less (I'd love to see Obama bash corn based biofuels a little, btw). His healthcare system is doomed to failure, but he'll probably just appoint Hillary to a position of power and let her do it.

Also, his rhetoric should be faulted for not focusing on the issues (Hillary was much better at this), but he has shown himself to be good at it. He has really addressed some things that other politicians would not touch and pulled it off well. He has shown some significant degree of political bravery and honesty not often seen.

6/4/2008 10:59:45 AM

^^you just don't get it do you?

no god forsaken amount of money from any government or any amount of taxes going to be able to pay for dependencies and amount of lazyness we develop as a country because of "the government taking care of everything"

humans a trained like sheep, and once you start giving him something for free he'll never work for it again and if we can get free healthcare, why not get free "foodcare". isn't that good for health? don't we all need food to be healthy? oh and since i'm poor and don't pay for it why should i care for it??

I didn't buy it in the first place, it's those racist white schmucks that pay taxes to pay for it and they can buy me a new one if i demand.

fuck socialism

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM. Reason : ^^]

6/4/2008 11:06:39 AM

Haha dude you are insane seriously

6/4/2008 11:08:01 AM

I doubt Obama would enact the type programs you fear.

If he did, I wouldn't complain too much. I'd rather have the evil power of the state used for something worthwhile.

6/4/2008 11:09:24 AM

Quote :

"European countries such as Germany have somewhat lower GDP per capita but a more even distribution of that wealth."

We've covered this already, wealth distribution is a meaningless non-issue, freedom is where its at.

I just got back from Europe not too long ago, and while they're more free than us in some respects, they're a lot less free in others. Taxes are staggering, their entitlement programs dwarf ours, they still have a myriad of state run industries. Starting a business (from an accountant I got into a convo with in Germany) is a hellish regulatory nightmare. Unemployment is high, welfare fraud is rampant. Their problems with immigrants are ridiculously more severe then ours, due to their nationalism, xenophobia, and unwillingness to integrate immigrant populations. Gasoline, in terms of US dollars, exceeds $10 per gallon.

Quote :

"Norway and Ireland come to mind."

Let's see, Ireland has slashed taxes and regulation in recent years to the point that other EU countries are complaining that its a "predatory" tax haven. Norway may be a socialist paradise for all I know, but since they're famous primarily for suicide I somehow doubt it.

Still, despite all its shortcomings, I see Europe doing a lot better in the 21st century than the USA. They have so far managed to resist consolidation, and I think it's going to take Brussels a while to overcome thousands of years of fierce tribalism and nationalism to impose a truly centralized government on Europe. For the foreseeable time being, they represent the federalist ideal a lot more closely than the US. Competition from the margins, Ireland, Estonia, etc... is going to force market reforms in the larger countries sooner or later. Its already a hot topic in France and Germany, although the reforms they're proposing are still rather modest right now.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ']

6/4/2008 11:11:08 AM

dude, rat...you need some medication my man

6/4/2008 11:13:31 AM

megalo. Thanks for the first hand account, but they dont want to hear it. It seems most of their decision is based on emotion and its foolish to try to reason with that.

Oh, did you hear any talk about a flat income tax? Ive heard that many euros are considering a move to it soon. Hopefully we will follow.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 11:17:03 AM

All I know is that the worse economic collapses in American History were the direct result of Republican Administrations.

6/4/2008 11:19:14 AM

^^ We don't have to reason with Europe, the way their political system is structured right now is pretty much guaranteed to produce batter results than ours, while it lasts.

6/4/2008 11:23:38 AM

haha you ppl are funny

there's about 6 or 7 countries i can think of, off the top of my head that you guys who want socialism can go migrate to.

have fun and leave. go to canada, wtf are you here trying to make us copy them?

6/4/2008 11:24:03 AM

Can't the people of a nation demand it bend to their collective will?

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 11:28:51 AM

^^There are some guys in Texas who are starting Paulville where Ron Paul is the mayor

You could migrate there

6/4/2008 11:30:39 AM

^^ i know it puts wrinkles on your forehead wondering why 50-60% of the united states has been voting down you tax hungry assholes for the past 40 years, but it's just a reality.

normal hard working individuals want a free economy to fix it themselves and not have mr. obama fix it for them with THEIR money.


but the lazier society gets, the more they'll love your ideas nutsmacker.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 11:31:33 AM

Normal hard working individuals vote against their interests!

Go Middle America!

6/4/2008 11:34:26 AM

^if your in the % thats dumb enough not to get a job with insurance for your family or lazy enough to live off welfare for years on end, i'd want it all for free from da GUBMENT too.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 11:35:44 AM

And McCain wants to take away the incentive for employers to offer their employees health benefits.

6/4/2008 11:39:13 AM

^ don't worry. obama is COMPLETELY removing the need for that.

get educated my lil rapscallion liberals.

6/4/2008 11:40:38 AM

It has been proven time and time again that you have no idea what the candidates stand for, or what their record is.

It is nigh time you get the education.

6/4/2008 11:44:14 AM

Quote :

"me : "Reminds me of a girl I know who is voting for him because he's black. No, I'm not joking and neither is she. It just goes to show you how irrational/incompetent our generation is.""

Quote :

"goldenviper: I wouldn't go that far. If nothing else, electing a black president would be a excellent symbolic gesture against the country's racist history."

EXCELLENT SYMBOLIC GESTURE? Yes, because the point of the presidency is to use a leader's appearance/ persona to make a statement.

Choosing a president based on skin color is STUPID. If you disagree with that, please do the country a favor and don't vote. Better yet, move to South Africa. They used to do that sort of thing there and I hear it worked out well.

Quote :

"Normal hard working individualsAverage Americans vote against intellectual elites who think the "common" man is too dumb to make decisions for himselftheir interests! Go Middle America!"

Keep up the smug attitude, democrats. It put GW in office for a second term. Get a clue, your patronizing tone only hurts your own cause.



[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 11:47:57 AM

Quote :

"We've covered this already, wealth distribution is a meaningless non-issue, freedom is where its at. "

no. no. no.

Wealth distribution matters a lot. A nation could be 10 times poorer than we are and have virtually no crime rate. Mobility is also a neglected point here, which ties in closely to freedom I think.

But another sticking point is this: you're strongly equating government direct intervention with the wealth distribution. European nations are a good example of direct intervention government and fairly even society. We have a much less even society with somewhat less direct government intervention.

What people don't give credence to is the fact that one is possible without the others. Looking at Asia can give a very different picture. There are lots of countries that have/had a very even society with very little (sometimes almost none) direct government intervention. Loose your job there, and lol, good luck getting welfare, you'll barely get unemployment. But if the unemployment rate is like 2%, it's not as much of a problem now is it?

The problem is: can you have no strong government intervention, a fairly even society, and at the same time immigration, diversity, demographic bubbles, and everything else?

I think the most important part of the puzzle is corporate governance - I've been sorely disappointed with this in the last 15 years in our country. Remember, it's not just politicians who run our nation.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

6/4/2008 11:52:33 AM

Quote :

"We've covered this already, wealth distribution is a meaningless non-issue, freedom is where its at."

This may come as a shock, but your arguments haven't converted me to anarcho-capitalism. I value both freedom and equality.

Quote :

"It seems most of their decision is based on emotion and its foolish to try to reason with that."

Actually, I was using economic data. Given roughly equal per capita GDP, lower Gini index is better for the majority of the country's citizens in material terms. They have more (or better) stuff.

6/4/2008 4:45:13 PM

Regarding income distribution, it is meaningless to point to the distribution at any point in time without regard to how people move between the income groups over time. The treasury recently quantified this, showing that it is income mobility that really matters, not a snapshot of current distribution. They found that over half of taxpayers moved to a higher quintile between 96-05 and roughly half who began in the lowest quintile in 96 moved to a higher quintile by 05. Its a bit of a dry read, but well worth the food for thought.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

Quote :

"Remember, it's not just politicians who run our nation."

That's why we should have continued Reagan's legacy of devolving power back to the states. With the federal government's influence rapidly growing, there is a much easier target for third parties to be politically influential given the shear concentration of political power. Requesting the federal government take on a larger role in any sector will surely attract the attention of third parties, whether they be corporations, religious groups, or any other interest group. This is simply human nature.

I think it was a telling sign when Google finally capitulated and hired a lobbyist. Given the ideology of Google's founders, I think it's safe to conclude they were not looking to influence policy out of greed, but rather hedge against the likelihood of either their competitors influencing policies not in their favor or the federal government imposing further restrictions on their means of business.

Devolution, in addition to deregulation, is the only sure way to decrease corporate political influence.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 8:17:55 PM

More big gov't interference in the economy is not what is needed and pretty much all Obama and his crowd offers.

6/4/2008 9:17:50 PM

Quote :

"on a side note, who the fuck voted for either Obama or Clinton in that online poll? I mean, if you prefer them as a candidate, that's one thing, but how could anyone think either of them would be "best for business""

Well there are serious reason to think that

1) Historically stock market returns are higher under democrats, we can talk about whether or not its a statistical aberration but it does seem as if democrats in general are not bad enough to generate a negative effect.

2) Ending the war. War is the largest discretionary expense. Ending Medicare is not realistic. Ending the war is. This means less co-option of private resources by the government.

3) Much of the spending by democrats is on transfer payments which is not spending in the same way war is. It goes back to the private market in someone else's hands. This generates a deadweight loss from taxation but it is not clear what the effect on economic growth is. I can provide more on the difference between deadweight loss and growth if you want.

4) Improved international relations. International support for the US can be key in breaking down barriers to entry in other markets. Its harder for US companies to make inroads in emmerging markets when the populace distrusts America.

5) Better response to shocks. Regardless of policy ideas perhaps the most direct impact a president can have on the US economy is his or her ability to handle shocks - natural disasters, oil embargos, financial meltdowns. The ability to keep the investors and consumers calm is non-trivial and is probably what accounts for some of the effect seen in (1).

Quote :

"EXCELLENT SYMBOLIC GESTURE? Yes, because the point of the presidency is to use a leader's appearance/ persona to make a statement."

This is not nothing. If Bush had pursued much of the same policy but with say Clintonian persona there would likely be much more international support for a solution in Iraq and even more international pressure on Iran.

In this particular case, if you don't think it will make a tangible difference in foreign relations that a person of color is the President of the United States you are kidding yourself. If nothing else it imbues an enormous amount of credibility into the arguement that the US is changing directions.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2008 12:51:35 PM

McCain hates the troops and doesn't want us to be safe:

6/5/2008 1:04:46 PM

I guess my question is this: In a country where we are out of money to spend, what's going to happen when Obama enacts all these high spending programs?

6/5/2008 1:27:29 PM

Quote :

"I guess my question is this: In a country where we are out of money to spend, what's going to happen when Obama enacts all these high spending programs?"

Thats what all the CHANGE is about, lots and lots of change adds up to billions of dollars.

Homeland security underfunded moron? Figure you would find mccain spending less on defense to be a plus.

6/5/2008 1:37:11 PM

^Right, but...there has to be some real consequence. Will the programs simply not be implemented when Obama learns the reality of the situation, raise taxes across the board, or will he just let the economy continue to circle the drain as it has been?

6/5/2008 2:05:52 PM

Just checkin in to say that if average Americans don't want someone smarter than they are to be president then they really are idiots

If they were smart they wouldn't be average Americans!


[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : argh im killin myself with typos]

6/5/2008 2:14:26 PM

Quote :

"Ending Medicare is not realistic"

While ending Medicare/Medicaid may not be realistic, preventing its expansion is more prudent in my opinion. Having witnessed the inefficiencies Medicare and Medicaid have yielded (and most government run health care systems), it is in the country's best interest to move away from the direction of a government-sponsored health care system and more towards a market-based system (While many confuse our current system as a free market, a closer look into the myriad of federal and state regulations reveals our system to be much more distinguishable from a free market). This is not to say a system completely void of regulation is best, but that a system which allows individuals to exercise greater freedom to choose what is best for themselves and freedom for businesses to supply what is desired would be a step in the right direction.

To tie all that back into the subject line, whichever candidate can steer us in the direction of a more efficient health care system, the more resources we will have available to expend on other goods/services.


[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2008 5:13:53 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/140553

this thing says obama and gives many facts and figurs

6/9/2008 3:08:26 AM

I just read the article...where did it say Obama is the best candidate for the economy?

It says that the bad economy should favor Obama, but not the other way around.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 3:23 AM. Reason : 2]

6/9/2008 3:22:58 AM