Please don’t inflict another 4 years of clueless right-wing government on yourselves and the rest of the world.
McCain might seem like a change from Bush, but have you noticed how much his previously independent rhethoric has changed since becoming the republican nominee? He’s towing the establishment line more and more, and becoming more of a negative compaigner by the day. And anyone who picks Sarah Palin as a running mate needs their head examined.
If the best line he has is to pull out the old “my opponent is a socialist” rhetoric then it shows the desperation in the republican camp. I know America is staunchly capitalist and more right-wing than Europe, even Britain, but if you hold the ‘American Dream’ as your benchmark, you need to recognise that a land of opportunity does not truly exist if the odds are already stacked in the favour of those belonging to favourable socio-ecomonic groups. If the lion’s share of opportunities are only accessible to those who start high enough up the ladder to afford a good education and standard of living from day 1, it’s not opportunity, it’s a class system by proxy – one only a fortunate few will break out of. McCain talks about wealth creation, but seems to ignore that the best way to create the most wealth is to give everyone the best chance of raising themselves up to a good standard of living, not just a select few, and that requires social investment – tax cuts for those who have already ‘made it’ do not create anywhere near as much wealth overall. But that’s not what people in the top 2% earnings threshold want to hear of course, which increasingly seems to be the group the republicans are representing.
It’s your choice, I hope for all our sakes you make it wisely.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
You either have to be rich or have rich backers to be the US president, so why should their society be based on anything but wealth? Bush Jnr showed us that you don’t have to be anything but rich to be President.
Loved your comment on Sarah Palin. I’ve only listened to a few radio snippets of her speaking. The last time I heard a worse presentation of poorly scripted bolderdash was the last time I watched a major award ceremony on TV. McCain would have a better partner if he chose Palin’s English namesake. The US candidacy race is no less surreal than MOnty Python so they’d have nothing to lose. Please, just finish the damn elections already!
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Well, it is a sad commentary on the state of the republic when people from outside feel compelled to issue pleas like that.
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
George Washington’s farewell address
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
George Washington lived in a world where the US was isolated from everyone else by months of sea travel – i.e. an insular world which bears no resemblance to the modern world, so his rather outdated advice should be taken with a pinch of salt. If you don’t think political outcomes in the US are a concern outside those shores, you’ve missed most of the last 100 years, especially since US presidents in that time have regularly gone against Washington’s advice.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
It doesn’t matter.
You have entirely missed my point.
It is about an idea … one can engage with the world without having military bases all over the planet and multitude of political-military alliances to worry about, hardly any of them being of any national importance to the US.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Steve, I find it funny you talk about McCain’s tactics when Obama keeps comparing McCain to Bush. A little biased, no? Also I find it interesting that you don’t have any problems with Obama’s economy plans, ie more taxes for every entity that makes over 200k a year. You do realize these are all the companies that provide jobs for people right? I read your blog and I agree with you on promoting competition, it greatly benefits the customer, but to accomplish this we have to encourage small business and create more jobs. And you think taxing companies that offer jobs is the right course to take? Thats just like Obama’s horrible idea of heavily taxing oil companies and handing american’s a 1 thousand dollar stipend. We’ll cash our checks and head to the pumps, only the gas prices will be raised higher than normal, and may not come down. I don’t agree with all of McCain’s approaches, but a lot of Obama’s proposals are downright idiotic. The last thing we need right now is a noob trying to learn on the job.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
As I understand it Obama’s tax plan involves taxing *households* that earn more than $250,000 per year. The ‘Joe the Plumber’ argument McCain trotted out about a thousand times. As I understand it this affects sole proprietors and very small businesses (‘S corporations’?), and the change is about 4% over this $250,000 level. Assuming that this is on profit rather than turnover, I’d question the number of ’struggling’ small businesses this would actually affect, compared to wealthy individuals, while not affecting the majority of companies which are not in this classification. I also question the argument that a 4% tax rise on profit will discourage individuals from starting / growing businesses. What, do people think ‘I’m going to get 4% less of my profits over $250,000, sod it, it’s not worth it at all then)? I think that’s stretching the argument a bit.
I do think it’s not ideal to increase taxation, but when you have a public education / healthcare system as damaged by underfunding as the US, something needs to be done. Cutting taxes for the wealthy really doesn’t trickle down the way that republicans like to claim it does; to a degree it does, but to lean too far in that direction is just as bad as leaning too far in the tax & spend direction. Right now I’d say the US is too far right to really have a fully effective social fabric, but that’s only my perspective.
As for oil – you think your gas will be expensive? Hehe, you’ve been subsidised by oil-loving texans for a little too long.
US oil has been undertaxed for decades, and you’ve been setting yourself up for a fall on it. Someone needs to deal with it and wean the US consumer off so much oil – oil prices started to do it last year but it wouldn’t have been so painful if the US wasn’t so attached to cars with huge inefficient engines, which it’s got to because of the low taxation of fuel.
Regarding Obama being a ‘n00b’ – McCain has proven himself to be far more clueless on economic affairs than Obama. He seems to be riding on the war hero / nice bloke / gutsy independent / I-am-not-a-socialist ticket rather than economic qualifications. His strength is supposedly foreign policy, although even in that area I’m not sure his brand of hawkishness is what the US needs right now.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Ah, I think I may have misunderstood somewhat, I think its based on household as well. But even so, I’m not sure I agree with the “add more taxes to people with higher incomes because they can afford it” policy. I put in the hard work for a degree and getting a good job on my own, yet 1/3 of every paycheck goes to taxes. Its a bit unfair to force me to pay more than joe the plumber just because I chose to work in the field of computer science.
I agree that our cars are horrible, I always complain about how we have commercials advertising our cars with “fuel efficient” engines that get 24 miles per gallon. Who are they trying to kid? We have many imports that get 36+ mpg, and they’ve been around for years.
Have you seen the debates between McCain and Obama? Neither side is totally clueless, they just feel there are different solutions to the situation. I don’t buy the picture you paint for McCain. Obama is a smart guy who tries to appeal to the masses in every way possible, regardless if its the right choice or not. We’re slowly heading towards a nation of people holding out their hands, wanting the government to provide everything for them. Get an education, get a job, be successful. These kinds of people will end up paying for the majority of people who weren’t motivated or didn’t care enough.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Any non-anecdotal evidence for this? I don’t see it. To me this only seems to be the usual Republican make-belief. Ayers is a terrorist and Obama a socialist.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Universal healthcare and an education system like europe would be a start, no? (although I admit I have not looked at how europe handled education, I’ve only heard from our lounge forum) People want higher minimum wage, more tax cuts, more welfare benefits. People want more and more, but they want less and less taxes, how does this work? Our national debt keeps growing. No longer are people thinking of how to pay back the debt, its either maintaining the debt or growing it. Where is the responsibility? Our government follows the same spending behavior as all the americans taking on mortgage loans and debt they aren’t likely to repay.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
This is a “No” then?
There is a multitude of reasons, why one votes for either candidate. Not all are economical in their nature. So if Obama gets elected, it doesn’t mean that majority of US citizens want to get spoon-fed.
So any non-anecdotal evidence for this?
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Ok, so its my turn. Where are your non-anecdotal evidence for “Not all are economical in their nature” statement. Start pumping out facts, we can’t hold a debate unless you start throwing out you tube links and article links. Do you not agree with what I say purely because I haven’t bookmarked everything I’ve read, seen, and heard, or do you have your own articles and facts to back up your own claims. If you want to discuss like this, please, start throwing up links.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:41 am
One point I don’t understand is why all the attention is focused on one guy (Obama or McCain).
A hundred year ago it was possible for the President to understand and study all the consequences of a law or decision he must make. Not anymore. The real persons that have the power are the “shadow men” – personal advisers, personal “friends”, high officials preparing reports, etc.
And as far as I could find the differences at this level between both camps is not very great – on some points one camp is better than the other and vice-versa.
Anyway.
What disturb me is that if McCain apply his economic plan it will be catastrophic for the budget. This time I am not sure that outside countries will continue to support the US economics by buying junk paper (aka reserve notes).
On the Obama side I really don’t like that he will be elected on lies. Nearly NONE of his promises can be implemented – the US don’t have the money anymore. Obama acknowledged it himself.
The argument that it is better to elect him as he will at least TRY to do as much of his promises as he can seems hollow for me. Making promises that you know can’t fulfill define in my dictionary a lier. And I don’t want a lier for president.
The only measure that must, can and that both promised to do it is to ameliorate the education system. If they don’t the USA will not survive in its present state in the next 20 years. Irrespective of which one is elected the result will be identical: total cleavage between have and have-not.
Granted. The best reason to elect Obama is the aura he has! The biggest asset of the USA is its capability to strife on enthusiasm and optimism – European are more inclined on pessimism (and if I am not mistaken Asian on pragmatism). Obama would give a welcome boost in USA image – but not much more IMO.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:54 am
“On the Obama side I really don’t like that he will be elected on lies. Nearly NONE of his promises can be implemented – the US don’t have the money anymore. Obama acknowledged it himself.
”
Which is the only saving grace of his candidacy.
Last thing we need now is more idiotic government spending – unfortunately, both of them are perfectly willing to spend more …
As far as the education system … nothing will happen. I don’t think McCain would be willing to rock the boat and as far as Obama .. forget it .. he is in the teacher’s union pocket, the very people that have vested interest in keeping things the way they are now.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:41 am
I wish you Europeans would stay out of our elections: http://paddy3118.blogspot.com/2008/10/dear-americans.html
.
Anyways, I don’t think more money is going to fix our education and health care systems. We already spend as much money per person on health care and the education as other industrial nations. Our health care system provides the best care in the world, but has spiraling cost and coverage issues. Our education system on the other hand spends too much and is behind in the world.
Throwing more money at either is not going to fix the problem. Health care is already growing at several times inflation, and public schools already spend double what most private schools do. We need reforms in the way these systems work to make health care more affordable, and public education actually work for students.
If Obama wins the democrats will most likely have complete control of the government. A government completely given over to one party can actually get things done quickly, too quickly. Without anyone to check them, they will most likely implement over reaching policies that will hamper US recovery and economic growth.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
The US may spend more, but it’s still the only major industrialised nation without a universal health care system, and life expectancy / survival rates are below many others, even it’s nearest neighbour Canada. Personally I read into this that money the US is spending in the health sector is going mostly to wealthy doctors and not delivering what it actually should be.
You say ‘get an education’, but with the costs of university education in the US, not everyone can afford to. In practice, helping everyone to maximise their potential has more wide-reaching benefits for the overall economy than concentrating on those that would make it anyway. Unfortunately if there is a culture of viewing all social support as ‘hand outs’ then it doesn’t work – alternatively conditional funding based on training & opportunity (which requires hard work) is considerably more effective. You’re right that throwing more money at the problem doesn’t necessarily work – a government that views social support as something ‘nasty’ and not worth really thinking about can waste a lot of money very easily. You need someone who has some niew ideas in this area.
Unfortunately popular right-wing opinion (and I repeat, the US is more right-leaning than most countries) claims that this is clearly socialism, and governments should be completely hands-off and just expect everyone to find their own way in life. Funny how most of the people saying that already start off with a pretty good life to begin with. Sure you get the odd person who started with nothing and pulls themselves up to high standing through pure effort – that’s great. However, compare the number of people doing that vs the number of successful people who are born into affluent families, and all of a sudden the American Dream looks like a fairly exclusive club. It’s not about hand-outs, it’s about levelling the playing field a little to give everyone a chance of bettering themselves.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
A couple of links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2006-11-24-luxury-homes-usat_x.htm
Basically my point is that the US is supposedly founded on a principle that all people should be able to achieve success based merely on ability – ie a classless society. In practice however, there is very much a class system in the US, based on wealth, and those born into wealth are more likely to be wealthy themselves thanks to increased opportunity, better education, better living conditions etc. It’s possible to break out of the class you were born into, but considerably harder than it could be with a more progressive social policy. Most people defending the right-wing stance are already successful themselves, and resent it being made ‘easier’ for anyone else (understandable, but short-sighted).
Pervasive social division is a hugely negative thing for any country; those on top of the pile might not want to admit that of course.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Oh, and 36mpg is still pretty crap
These days you should be getting 60+ average, 45+ urban on an efficient car, 50 average on a bigger car. http://www.whatmpg.co.uk/
November 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“However, compare the number of people doing that vs the number of successful people who are born into affluent families, and all of a sudden the American Dream looks like a fairly exclusive club. ”
Well, you are talking about ultra-rich people …
In my case I came to this country with nothing … literally $200 in my pocket and promise of a job.
10 years later I am in the top 10% in terms of income … not rich my any means but, obviously the American Dream is not an exclusive club.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Would I be correct to assume you’d been educated well in Europe before arriving in the US though (which helped you secure that job)? If so, in a lot of ways that’s the best of both worlds.
(of course feel free to ignore the question if that’s too personal – I’m just wondering)
I’m really not talking very rich either – kids from middle class families have a much better chance of being middle class themselves too, and kids from poor backgrounds have a high chance of being poor themselves if they don’t get access to good education. It’s not impossible of course, but it’s a lot harder.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
McCain = C3PO
November 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Yeah, sure I wasn’t educated in this country but I don’t think secondary education is the problem.
Forget about the Ivy League and their outrageous tuition costs .. There is a very well developed system of mid-level educational institutions, namely various types of community colleges and the like, generally lavishly equipped with just about everything you would ever need ( my wife works as a lab manager at local cc … recently she told me they purchased a 3d scanner for about 30 K … sounds like fun)
The problem lies with primary education which is frankly a disaster waiting to happen.
And its not about the money , they have plenty of money … it is about the curriculum ,which is imho ridiculous – the kids here are literally 4-5 years behind from where I was at their age ( and at that age 4 years is a lot .)
Somehow they will need to fix this problem because, frankly, I don’t see how this country will be able to maintain itself as a technology leader.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
@KungFooMasta(11)
You realize that I made a much more modest statement than you did? For me to prove my point I just have to point out one reason and one person that considers it important. (I leave this as an exercise)
But your statement about how the USA are going socialist is much wider reaching. It reminds me of a surreal discussion that has been raised earlier this year in Germany.
There was a mugging in Munich committed by resident aliens, something that is tragic but it happens all the time. Somehow this found its way into national news. Since important elections were imminent, one party started to exploit the case and made a big fuzz about how crime rates are rising. Soon polls were made on the issue, they showed that people had more fear to become victim in criminal assault and considered the crime rates there on the raise. Every assault, usually only shown in the crime section of local papers made national news.
Only there was no crime rate raise. It falls slowly but steadily over the last decades, with a few hiccups. At the same time though news and boulevard magazine coverage of criminal assaults raised.
My point is, that just having a feeling about an issue getting more grave or less, doesn’t mean it actually has to be the case.
Also the confirmatiomn bias is a strong force you have to reckon with. With politics I now draw my informations from a wide variety of sources, also those who contradict my own standpoint. It made me reconsider my positions greatly the last few months.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Its not like I don’t have co-workers, family, friends, radio, tv, internet as sources for information. I don’t blindly believe things I hear/read, I am definately aware of bias. Aside from what people say, its what they do that is difficult to misinterpret. In discussions I usually bring up topics related to things that I’ve experienced or witnessed on some level in the past. I don’t bookmark information to try and convert people to my point of view, I think if people are unsure or want to learn more they can do some personal investigation. (Although I like when people toss me links, but really I’m too busy to do more than read and reply in most discussions) I don’t know how I can prove to you that I don’t try to take in information and bend it to my own beliefs.
Steve, do you ever wonder why so many people immigrate to the United States? If the American dream doesn’t work, why do people keep coming in, since the dawn of our nation? You’d think they would get the picture after a few hundred years, no?
November 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
About immigration, at the risk of generalising I’d say that it’s mostly:
1. Well-educated workers who can earn more in the US
2. Low-cost labour from countries with worse conditions
3. Wealthy businessmen looking for greater opportunities
In fact, your visa requirements pretty much guarantee it’s only those groups that get to operate in the US, right?
Continued immigration from those groups doesn’t for a minute mean that there’s good social mobility within a country. It just says that US companies get what they need to make the most money – skilled workers trained at another country’s expense, and cheap labour, and the individuals get to make more money than they could in the place they came from – which involves being in certain groups, either already trained, or coming from an environment of very low opportunity so that even crappy wages seem good (and there’s always the promise of the American Dream, although few will realise it). Where does that leave the indigenous poor? Grass-roots investment seems to always be labelled negatively as socialism, and maybe that’s because in the US history there’s been no need for it, since people from other countries have come in to fill all the gaps needed, chasing the money. That still seems to leave a lot of indigenous people in a sorry state though.
Personally I think as a ‘young’ country the US could get away with playing a bit fast and loose and not worrying about social fabric very much, because of all the raw materials, space and constant influx of people hungry for opportunity. But when you saturate that land you have to start dealing with all the social issues of a more static, indigenous population, and that has to mean taking more account of utilising the people you already have better, rather than just discarding the ones that are too much trouble and advertising for immigrants who are less hassle.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to people in the US that Europe is like it is not because we’re a bunch of whining lefties, but because it’s had more of these kinds of issues for a few hundred years longer, and policy has evolved to cope with it? Europe used to be a far wilder, less socially responsible place too, but it changed to respond to changing needs.
November 4th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I’m sorry, this was never my belief anyway. It is not about bending, but about awareness. That’s all.
And I too like links to more info to broaden view, eventhough I only have time to skim it at best.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:47 am
> Please don’t inflict another 4 years of clueless right-wing government on yourselves and the rest of the world.
I’m a bit surprised to hear you use stereotypes like that. The government wasn’t clueless because it was right wing, it was clueless because leaders were incompetent. Not very “democratic” of you.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Ok .. Obama it is.
Life goes on.