Obama's Experience

[The AD]

Should it really be an issue? If it is, exactly how much experience does he need before he should be President? Another four years? Another eight?

In my opinion the experience thing is merely Republican spin doctoring. Their candidate is an old guy who has been in D.C. forever so you work that in your favor by saying the other guy doesn't have the experience needed to be President. But, despite the fact McCain has been in the Senate for twenty years, has he held a major leadership role in the Senate? Oh yeah, he hasn't because he's such a maverick. Neither Obama nor McCain has any executive experience, so neither side can rant about that.

I think the majority of people are going to vote for McCain or Obama based on how they perceive each man's personality, ability to lead and stance on the issues. I really can't believe there are that many people who agree with Obama's positions on the issues, but think he's too "green" to be President. But, if you're one of them let me know.

[RootSkier]

This thread is guaranteed to cover some new ground. :rolleyes:

[Tap]

Bush didn't have shit for experience...well, maybe fucking around the oval office while his Dad was there

the country will speak on Nov. 2nd. then it's done.

[jon gaper]

he ran the group which took $50,000,000 in annenberg grants and $50,000,000 in daley's taxpayers matching funds to help chicago kids get a better education in one of the worst school systems in america.

[jon turner]

From an interesting Time article published back in February:

Does Experience Matter in a President? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html)

Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine. At the same time, the value that voters place on résumé is constantly shifting. James A. Baker III is an authority on this. In 1980, he managed the campaign of his well-credentialed friend George H.W. Bush, under the slogan "A President we won't have to train." But the public mood was sour on Washington, and victory went to an outsider, Ronald Reagan, who had never served in Washington. Eight years later, the mood was stay the course, and Bush's experience as Vice President was his ticket to victory. Then the atmosphere turned again, and in 1992 the public demanded someone new. Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."


The article notes how some experienced presidents haven't necessarily lived up to their experience (Nixon), and less experience has been successful (Reagan) as well as made mistakes (Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs).

[lemon boy]

Comparing Obama's experience to some other Presidents:
2 more years governing experience than Reagan.
5 more years governing experience than Bush.
Neither of which had any experience at the Federal level.
6 years more than Teddy Roosevelt
4 years more than Franklin D. Roosevelt
10 more years than Dwight Eisenhower
3 more years than JFK

Of course, I will grant that he does have a lot less experience than somebody like Richard Nixon.

The experience thing is IMVHO just a pink flamingo, just something that decorates the yard and some people might pay attention to them but it's the house that really matters.

What's more, with the Palin pick, McCain has signaled that this line of attack is done.

[Jim S]

This thread is guaranteed to cover some new ground. :rolleyes:


lol! I needed that!
:D:D

[advres]

...then it's done.

http://cdn.myxertones.com/tn/c/493828/big/?t=20080523110923

[Jim S]

I don't think it matters because they both suck. Isn't this the bottom line?

McCain is experienced and fucked up with Palin; lord knows what his next Gilligan-like move will be

Obama is promising all your wildest dreams will come true with big government

That's all

[RootSkier]

Dude, Obama isn't promising anything of the sort. At least not to me.

[CUBUCK]

Comparing Obama's experience to some other Presidents:
2 more years governing experience than Reagan.
5 more years governing experience than Bush.
Neither of which had any experience at the Federal level.
6 years more than Teddy Roosevelt
4 years more than Franklin D. Roosevelt
10 more years than Dwight Eisenhower
3 more years than JFK

Of course, I will grant that he does have a lot less experience than somebody like Richard Nixon.

The experience thing is IMVHO just a pink flamingo, just something that decorates the yard and some people might pay attention to them but it's the house that really matters.

What's more, with the Palin pick, McCain has signaled that this line of attack is done.


What is Obama's governing experience?

[The AD]

Obama is promising all your wildest dreams will come true with big government

What candidate doesn't, though? I think most of us are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.

[lemon boy]

What is Obama's governing experience?

You mean besides his 10 years in state and federal legislatures? :rolleyes2:rolleyes2:rolleyes2

I expect though that you're simply deliberately misusing my terminology which was not intended to imply anything about govenorship, rather the generic participation in government.

[Rubicon]

You mean besides his 10 years in state and federal legislatures? :rolleyes2:rolleyes2:rolleyes2

Words mean things.

Senators don't govern.

[The AD]

Words mean things.

Govern 1 a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy


Senators don't govern.

By this definition I'd argue they do. They control and direct the making and administration of policy, certainly.

[mr_gyptian]

Comparing Obama's experience to some other Presidents:
2 more years governing experience than Reagan.
5 more years governing experience than Bush.
Neither of which had any experience at the Federal level.
6 years more than Teddy Roosevelt
4 years more than Franklin D. Roosevelt
10 more years than Dwight Eisenhower
3 more years than JFK

Of course, I will grant that he does have a lot less experience than somebody like Richard Nixon.

The experience thing is IMVHO just a pink flamingo, just something that decorates the yard and some people might pay attention to them but it's the house that really matters.

What's more, with the Palin pick, McCain has signaled that this line of attack is done.

could you even type that with a straight face?

are you really comparing being a community organizer, state legislator, and senator to governing California, Texas, or New York. Or running the European theater in WW II?

I can't even tell if you are drinking Kool Aid or smoking crack at this point.


Unfortunately this is my biggest problem with both of the candidates. Experience in the Senate as it applies to being an commander in chief doesn't really translate. Kinda like being the funniest clown in the circus, you're still a fucking clown.

[Rubicon]

Words mean things.




Govern 1 a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy


sov·er·eign: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere


Senators share power.

Senators don't govern.

[The AD]

sov·er·eign: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere.

OK, if you have a problem with the word sovereign how about definition 1b for "govern:"

b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

Do you agree Senators govern under that broader definition?

[Cono Este]

CHANGE = Trust me I don't fucking know right now so ask me when I get there.

[lemon boy]

could you even type that with a straight face?

are you really comparing being a community organizer, state legislator, and senator to governing California, Texas, or New York. Or running the European theater in WW II?

I can't even tell if you are drinking Kool Aid or smoking crack at this point.


Unfortunately this is my biggest problem with both of the candidates. Experience in the Senate as it applies to being an commander in chief doesn't really translate. Kinda like being the funniest clown in the circus, you're still a fucking clown.

Indeed I can and did.

You may recall if you read any of my post that I do not believe the experience argument to be particularily meritorious on its own. My examples are intended to be superficial, the experience argument is itself extremely superficial.

But to answer your question:
Yes, 10 years in state and federal legislatures is something I do consider to be valuable experience governing (or in government for the clueless would be wordsmiths) easily on par with the governors [the title not the act of :rolleyes: ]

But if we're talking the value of a person's life experience then one could argue that Obama comes out middle of the road against the above list: better than some (GWB) and worse than others (Ike).

But again, the experience argument is not a real one IMO, it is all about one of two things: a) scoring points in lame internets debates or b) swaying those voters that don't have particularily strong political views.

As for your biggest problem with either candidate by that measure, you're then definitionally going to be fuct always - there is quite literally nothing that can prepare one for the experience of being POTUS except for being the POTUS and even after 8 years some (GWB) continue to show a dramatic flair for being bad at the job. All we can do is guess at whether the person has some completely unknowable "it" to be good at the job.

Rubicon- you continue to be a fail. Try to keep up: I wasn't using the word to be cheeky and I don't give a shit if you substitute the words in government for governing the effect is the same.

[Rubicon]

OK, if you have a problem with the word sovereign how about definition 1b for "govern:"

b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

Do you agree Senators govern under that broader definition?

LOL! Sure, choose an alternative definition and I will agree that senators govern. :smile:


The problem with having no executive experience is that decision making is a skill that has to be learned by doing it. Working within a group is not the same as being the sole decision maker. There is a diffused responsibility associated with being a member of a decision making body that isn't there when it is all on you.

[Buster Highmen]

CHANGE = Depart from the current administration's aberration of GOP principles, fucked economy, unbalanced foreign policy, disrespect for privacy and cocksucking of the super wealthy.

[The AD]

The problem with having no executive experience is that decision making is a skill that has to be learned by doing it. Working within a group is not the same as being the sole decision maker. There is a diffused responsibility associated with being a member of a decision making body that isn't there when it is all on you.

I agree and that's why former governors have fared so well in Presidential elections. In this particular election neither candidate has that experience, though, so I agree with lemon boy that we need to look for that unknowable "it." You have to look at the two candidates and decide which one you think would make a better leader. In my opinion both men are capable as leaders, but Obama is much more closely aligned with my views on the issues.

[Rubicon]

I don't give a shit if you substitute the words in government for governing the effect is the same.

But that is critical to the discussion of why experience is important. If it's all the same to you then you likely don't have any executive experience, so you don't understand why it is important. Or maybe you don't really care about the OP's question and are just playing the political hack in this thread. Either way, not really anywhere to go after that.

[lemon boy]

But that is critical to the discussion of why experience is important. If it's all the same to you then you likely don't have any executive experience, so you don't understand why it is important. Or maybe you don't really care about the OP's question and are just playing the political hack in this thread. Either way, not really anywhere to go after that.

Yawn.

you continue to attempt to phrase my argument as something it is not which is why you continue to fail.

edit:
Along that vein- Please read my posts again and give credit to the words that I have used, in the manner that I have used them and with the clear meaning that I have intended them to be used with. While it is true that words have meanings, you also must give credit to how the words are used and intended. I know this is a radical departure for you as you've shown a clear tendency to not be able (or willing) to do so but give it a try, you might find it refreshing to understand someone's point of view as it was intended rather than how you've chosen to misinterpret that point.

[Rubicon]

In this particular election neither candidate has that experience, though,

True. If I were going to pound away at this point I might argue that decades of senatorial experience at the federal level is preferable to what Obama has had. Because it allows you the chance to be involved in the inner workings of Washington. But, in the end, I think that would be a weak argument.



but Obama is much more closely aligned with my views on the issues.

And mine are more aligned with McCain. IMO, that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this race.

I do think that McCain is much more polished than Obama. Obama is not used to campaigning on the national level and has made numerous mistakes that a more experienced campaigner wouldn't have made. But that is a separate issue and has more to do with reading the national mood and knowing how something will play with the public.

[Adolf Allerbush]

And mine are more aligned with McCain. IMO, that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this race.

Serious question, what exactly makes you more aligned with him? His anti-choice (see Palin), anti-homosexuals, pro-handgun, pro-assault weapons, pro-taxcuts for the rich, anti-environment, etc. stances? or is it something else?

edit to add: What about his choice of VP? Is that a factor for you or do you think he'll be healthy enough for at least the next four years to perform the duties of POTUS? Because I have a strong feeling the stresses of the job are going to be a bit much for the old guy.

[lemon boy]

And mine are more aligned with McCain. IMO, that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this race.

Stick with this one. That right there has the makings of a substantive argument. Your experience ones again and again are failures and the gaffe machine argument also is a failure. But the politics and policy argument, that there has some fuckin meat to it.

[Rubicon]

edit:
Along that vein- Please read my posts again and give credit to the words that I have used, in the manner that I have used them and with the clear meaning that I have intended them to be used with. While it is true that words have meanings, you also must give credit to how the words are used and intended.

I do and this is what you said.




Yes, 10 years in state and federal legislatures is something I do consider to be valuable experience governing (or in government for the clueless would be wordsmiths) easily on par with the governors [the title not the act of :rolleyes: ]


What I see is you trying to equate being in government with governing. If you see no significant distinction between those two than I understand why you think the argument is superficial and there really isn't anywhere to go after that.




b) swaying those voters that don't have particularily strong political views.


I agree. But the reality of this election has little to do with the academic discussion of why experience matters. I get the impression that you are not making a distinction between the two.

[Metatron]

I don't think there's anything that can prepare you for being president, except maybe VP or being a top-level executive staffer...

so, none of them are "experienced" however all of them have all the people they need around them to be an effective president.

[David Witherspoon]

Words mean things.
Learning, you are; even if just leetle baby steps. Good.


Serious question, what exactly makes you more aligned with him? His anti-choice (see Palin), anti-homosexuals, pro-handgun, pro-assault weapons, pro-taxcuts for the rich, anti-environment, etc. stances? or is it something else?
It's his policy of doing things at random, for no good reason, not even because his gut told him to.
See, neither leadership ability nor experience nor policy positions matter when you're a loose cannon.
All that matters is your proven ability to be a Maverick. McCain's got that one locked up, so this election's a slamdunk.

[lemon boy]

What I see is you trying to equate being in government with governing. If you see no significant distinction between those two than I understand why you think the argument is superficial and there really isn't anywhere to go after that.


Again, you miscompute quite deliberately I think:

My belief that this is a superficial argument =/= my weighting of experience.

But if you like I'll give you a comparative weighting:

You continue to focus exclusively on the executive aspect of the experience and are devaluing the legislative experience. I simply don't think that is entirely fair for a variety of reasons:

1. Neither candidate has the experience you're arguing is so important, but one has more of the experience that you devalue.
2. Legislative experience is IMVHO applicable and valueable to the job title: POTUS because while that position is the chief executive it also falls to the POTUS to work with the legislature to enact/promote his (or her) agenda. This is one area that is IMVHO important to the job and one where experience as an executive is clearly less valuable than legislative experience.
3. While McCain clearly has more federal legislative experience, I happen to think that participation in state govt. is also useful and gives a candidate an appreciation for the challenges a state faces absolutely and vis a vis the federal govt.

To be clear:
I do believe that Obama is less experienced than McCain. I simply do not believe that his comparatively less experience leaves him unequipped for the job.


Again, I think this is all so much fodder for the political unmotivated and I believe that the issue has gotten really absurd with the addition of Palin because neither side can really claim it with out looking silly.

[Rubicon]

Serious question, what exactly makes you more aligned with him?

Short answer: He is running against Obama.

Obama is far too socialist/big government/more taxes/gov solutions to personal problems, for me. Obama represents the antithesis of what I want/think the government should be. So put McCain in a vacuum and I wouldn't like him too much but put him up against Obama and he starts looking much better.



What about his choice of VP? Is that a factor for you or do you think he'll be healthy enough for at least the next four years to perform the duties of POTUS? Because I have a strong feeling the stresses of the job are going to be a bit much for the old guy.

His VP choice may well be the most important VP choice in our lifetime. Because of his age. But I am not a "values voter" I don't care what someone believes about god or abortion or gay rights or a hundred other social issues. The POTUS should not be involved in those issues. Those should be dealt with on the state level, and largely are. They do appoint supreme court justices but they have to be confirmed by congress. It is looking like there is going to be a dem controlled congress this time around so it's all good.

As far as the fact that she has been in a bubble for most of her life, I kind of like it. Obama got me all hopped up for change and I think out of all the people on the ticket, McCain/Palin is the most capable of creating it. McCain has one term in him and is accomplished at telling people what they can go do with themselves if he doesn't like them. He also has a history of bucking his own party. Palin is not a political insider and I don't think she will ever be. So I'm pretty happy with a McCain/Palin ticket.


I'm guessing you are solidly in the Obama camp?

[Tippster]

Changing toward a Theocracy is change as well, just not the change I believe in.

I still want to see the evidence that Democrats are for Taxing the hell out of everybody and creating huge government bureaucracies and the Republicans are fiscally conservative and for limited governmental roles in our daily lives. This has absolutely NOT been the case since Ronald Reagan won office in 1980... the polar opposite has been the case.

I'll keep posting it 'til my keyboard breaks - the last POTUS to shrink the Federal headcount was Bill Clinton.

[telepariah]

I am a left winger. Amy Goodman is a left winger. Angela Y. Davis is a left winger. Barak Obama is not even close. :fm:

[Adolf Allerbush]

Short answer: He is running against Obama.

So I'm pretty happy with a McCain/Palin ticket.


I'm guessing you are solidly in the Obama camp?

Yeah, I like the Obama/Biden ticket. Biden is an old school type of politician that has nice foriegn policy expr. and isn't affraid to speak his mind (for better or worse) and also go up against his party. I think he could be a good person for Obama to bounce ideas off of with regards to foreign policy in particular. The environmental stance of the democrats in general has always been more along the lines of what I would like to see when compared to the republicans. Although I like a candidate like Nader when it comes to the environment. I don't care if gay people marry so I don't really like that republicans trying to involve government in issues like that and abortion. It's just not the governments (state, federal or local) business IMO. I don't really care very much about the gun deals as I think while limiting handguns and assault rifles would probably decrease violent crime...it's also damn near impossible to implement and people could go out and probably find the weapons regardless of their use being legal or not. The current republican administration has driven the country into severe debt...I see that continuing with McCain/Palin due to perpetuation of the same economic policy of the current administration. I think Obama in particular is less influenced by old school politics and big business...although not totally detached. Palin seems to be pretty entrenched in the oil industry so I don't see the McCain/Palin ticket doing anything to aggressively move the country away from our dependence on oil. Palin being influenced by oil companies also makes me think it’ll be more of the same pandering to oil and big business even though she hasn’t been in politics very long. Shit, I could go on and on but that's sort of where I'm coming from.

[Buster Highmen]

Short answer: He is running against Obama.

Obama is far too socialist/big government/more taxes/gov solutions to personal problems, for me. Obama represents the antithesis of what I want/think the government should be.

Obama says he intends to lower your tax rates. Forgive my presumption here, but you just don't come off as the kind of person making over 250k/year. On the other hand, it is magnaimous of you to shoulder paying for the marshalling of the largest federal government in history under the Bush regime.



His VP choice may well be the most important VP choice in our lifetime. Because of his age. But I am not a "values voter" I don't care what someone believes about god or abortion or gay rights or a hundred other social issues. The POTUS should not be involved in those issues. Those should be dealt with on the state level, and largely are. They do appoint supreme court justices but they have to be confirmed by congress. It is looking like there is going to be a dem controlled congress this time around so it's all good.

"Shouldn't " is a long way off into fairy land here, bub.


As far as the fact that she has been in a bubble for most of her life, I kind of like it.

So ultimately, you're confessing to agree with the Arch Druid's original point.


Obama got me all hopped up for change and I think out of all the people on the ticket, McCain/Palin is the most capable of creating it. McCain has one term in him and is accomplished at telling people what they can go do with themselves if he doesn't like them. He also has a history of bucking his own party. Palin is not a political insider and I don't think she will ever be. So I'm pretty happy with a McCain/Palin ticket.


I think the point Rube is making is that he's a hopeless partisan. Give him credit for stating it like it is.

[Rubicon]

I still want to see the evidence that Democrats are for Taxing the hell out of everybody and creating huge government bureaucracies and the Republicans are fiscally conservative and for limited governmental roles in our daily lives. This has absolutely NOT been the case since Ronald Reagan won office in 1980... the polar opposite has been the case.




We have over committed ourselves on several fronts IMO. Obama wants to do more of the same. I think it is really sad that we have gotten to the place where one of the most pressing questions we face today is "how is the government going to pay for everything". This country doesn't exist to support a government. Yet that is the mentality we have adopted because we have been thinking of the government as the solution to our problems rather than a necessary evil that should be kept as small as possible. McCain's stated intent at least is to shrink government and cut taxes. He has proven himself to be enough of a pissy little firebrand that I believe he just might do it, not caring who he has to piss off in the process.

So while McCain's plan may not be a proven path to success, Obama's plan is taking us in the direction that got us in this mess in the first place.

I don't care about historic stereotypes. I care what the candidates are saying this time around, and what their histories tell us about them. If you believe Obama, he will make the government larger. If you believe McCain he will make government smaller.

If someone wants smaller government there is only one choice for that.

[Tippster]

Bill Clinton in 2008?

[Adolf Allerbush]

I don't care about historic stereotypes. I care what the candidates are saying this time around, and what their histories tell us about them..

Aren't the candidates "histories" the same as "historical stereotypes"?

[lemon boy]

If you believe McCain he will make government smaller.


Can you name some federal programs that McCain plans on eliminating or shrinking?


If someone wants smaller government there is only one choice for that.

Yep, his name is Bob Barr.

[Buster Highmen]

Aren't the candidates "histories" the same as "historical stereotypes"?
I read it as party stereotypes, but it still doesn't make sense. The GOP used to be more focused on financial responsibililty, but not so since Nixon.

If you're for small government and given the Republican controlled congress and POTUS (up until 2 years ago) why is the government bigger than ever and our debt bigger than ever? And as far as the non invasive government, another cawing point, why are our rights to privacy being eroded?

Nothing the GOP stands for or is even extolled is what they do. But dammit, team loyalty is what matters.

[Adolf Allerbush]

If someone wants smaller government there is only one choice for that.

Are the Dems or Republicans suggesting an increase in the size of the federal gov? Or is this just something you're basing off of "historical stereotypes".

[spindrift]

Obama is far too socialist/big government/more taxes/gov solutions to personal problems, for me.

Don't know much about the realities of economics do you? Pretty happy with what Bush has done for you and the economy? Ready & willing to vote for more of the same?

When are people going to figure out that there are a number of ways "secret taxes" happen - including various combinations of inflation, deficit spending, bracket creep, etc. ?????

If you have not figured it out already, for most Americans, after the music stops every dollar of Bush "tax cuts" will cost several dollars. But it sounded good. Too bad you got to pay maybe a couple bucks for each one you got. I'll personally offer you that deal 7 days a week ;). And now you are ready to bark, roll over, sit, etc for the next doddering idiot who snaps his fingers and utters the words "tax cuts"? So sad...

[spindrift]

C
Yep, his name is Bob Barr.

You mean "I'll darn good and well tell you what to do with your uterus" small government Bob Barr? That Bob Barr? I just want to be sure we are talking the same "small government"...

[DharmaBum]

Ultimately, this election will be decided on one of two factors. The first is a simple issue. If a majority of voters decide that they can cast their vote for a black man, Obama wins. If not, then McCain wins. Whether we like it or not, race has been in this country's politics since the civil war. The second issue is a little more "conspiracy theorist" based. This country is run by and for the wealthy; the top 2-3% on the economic scale. They don't care about you and me, and they get what they want. They wanted Clinton in '92, and he gave them Nafta while claiming to the rest of us that he felt our pain. They wanted Bush, because the world economy runs on oil and well, do the math. I don't know who they want this time. I thought they wanted Hillary and I'm hoping now that maybe democracy will work this time and we'll actually elect someone fair and square.

[lemon boy]

You mean "I'll darn good and well tell you what to do with your uterus" small government Bob Barr? That Bob Barr? I just want to be sure we are talking the same "small government"...

dude, you're gonna confuse our less intellectually nimble members with that kind of talk.

[PNWbrit]

Obama is far too socialist

I doubt you could even explain what socialism is without cut and pasting the internetz or quoting Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Savage sound bites.

Let alone accurately detect it in a candidate.

[timvwcom]

I don't have the patience this afternoon to read this whole page of drivel... :D

But I will comment that;

The idea that being a Governor makes you a better President is FAIL!!!

The truth is that being a Governor make you a better Presidential CANDIDATE. Without the hundreds of specific votes on myriad of policy, your enemies have little ammunition with with to nail you on some issue.

Also, the idea that having more experience makes you a better President is FAIL!!!

Using this stupid idea, George W Bush would be a fuckin fantastic President because he already has 7.5 years of ACTUAL experience as President. Only an idiot would even consider this the truth these days.

MY REVELATION TO YOU COMMONERS:
Having a broad base of knowledge, and the intellect to turn that knowledge into wisdom in the decisions faced by a President is THE measure of a good President.

Done! And "you're welcome."

[Tippster]

Tim, sit down and have a drink.

[365wp]

Obama is far too socialist/big government/more taxes/gov solutions to personal problems, for me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html


Obama got me all hopped up for change and I think out of all the people on the ticket, McCain/Palin is the most capable of creating it. McCain has one term in him and is accomplished at telling people what they can go do with themselves if he doesn't like them. He also has a history of bucking his own party. Palin is not a political insider and I don't think she will ever be. So I'm pretty happy with a McCain/Palin ticket.

McCain reversed his position on two bills that bear his name, presumably to make his party happy. He has completely caved to the pressures of the GOP so he could get to where he was today. Otherwise, Romney would have been standing on that there podium.
Palin was managing Ted Stevens' 527 group.
Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

Same shit, different year.

[Adolf Allerbush]

I don't have the patience this afternoon to read this whole page of drivel... :D

But I will comment that;

The idea that being a Governor makes you a better President is FAIL!!!

Also, two of the worst presidents according to both parties have been former governors (i.e. GWB and Carter)

[Rubicon]

Obama says he intends to lower your tax rates.

This may come as a surprise to you but I don't vote for people based on what they will do for me.



"Shouldn't " is a long way off into fairy land here, bub.

What exactly are you afraid of happening?



So ultimately, you're confessing to agree with the Arch Druid's original point.


I must have gotten up on the short side of the bed this morning because that one went right over my head.



Aren't the candidates "histories" the same as "historical stereotypes"?

Buster read it right.


I read it as party stereotypes, but it still doesn't make sense. The GOP...

If you're for small government and given the Republican...

Nothing the GOP...


Despite what that massive processor between your ears has told you, I care little for either party. I will be voting for the candidate, not the party.

[Rubicon]

Can you name some federal programs that McCain plans on eliminating or shrinking?

No, but neither is he proposing 1 trillion dollars in new programs.


Don't know much about the realities of economics do you? Pretty happy with what Bush has done...

psssst, Bush isn't running.



And now you are ready to bark, roll over, sit, etc for the next doddering idiot who snaps his fingers and utters the words "tax cuts"? So sad...



Are the Dems or Republicans suggesting an increase in the size of the federal gov? Or is this just something you're basing off of "historical stereotypes".


McCain's message is smaller gov. Obama's message is 1 trillion dollars in new government spending. My preferences have nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with what I think is likely from each candidate.

[Rubicon]

I doubt you could even explain what socialism is without cut and pasting the internetz or quoting Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Savage sound bites.


I know your ancestors intentionally breed long noses so they would have something to look down while talking to the French, so you probably can't help yourself. But you should take a lesson from Buster. He at least makes a pretense of having a conversation.





Let alone accurately detect it in a candidate.

"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."


What Obama is advocating may not be your brand of socialism but it is still socialism none the less.

[Rubicon]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html



If I based my opinions on campaign adds, that might really bother me. It's a good thing I don't

[Adolf Allerbush]

McCain's message is smaller gov. Obama's message is 1 trillion dollars in new government spending. My preferences have nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with what I think is likely from each candidate.

McCain's message is change nothing and continue on with the status quo for all practical purposes. This includes $10B/month on Iraq. Obama suggest lots of social programs to combat poverty, help the economy, aid healthcare for all citizens, etc. in the hopes that this will in the end help the average citizen. Now, unless you're part of the top 2% of the population in income you will not be taxed for Obama's programs. If you're for small government neither of these parties is really for you. McCain claims to want to reduce government spending all the while giving no time table to get out of Iraq and in fact has said he will stay as long as it takes. You have a 100% chance of there never being small government with McCain and without any change in social programs. You have lots of new social programs under Obama and a marginally larger fed government than today. There is no way of saying for certain what will happen with the Federal gov if McCain were to win...but since he's already stated that he's happy with the direction the economy and country are headed under the current adminstration it would be a safe bet to assume the federal government will grow at the same rate it has under GWB. As far as I can remember GWB never campaigned on a platform to increase government spending and increase the size and scope of the federal goverment...but look where believing GWB got you...and yes, I'm assuming you took GWB at his word since that's what you're doing with McCain...if that's not the case I'm curious as to why the sudden trust in the GOP?

[lemon boy]

No, but neither is he proposing 1 trillion dollars in new programs.

What was that line? Oh yeah, words have meanings :rolleyes:

You're being disingenuous again.

It's fine, by all means please do say that McCain is for a brand of government smaller than Obama (it's a fair if debateable point) but don't give me this horse shit about smaller as in the absolute sense - cause that flat is not part of his platform.

[PNWbrit]

You do a reasonably proficient snoot peer yourself chum. Affecting an uphill aim doesn't make it any less of one.


What Obama is advocating may not be your brand of socialism but it is still socialism none the less.

Oh I see..... :rolleyes2

Just out of interest and since you're obviously an expert at all this complicated stuff explain for us what's not socialism?

[Rubicon]

What was that line? Oh yeah, words have meanings :rolleyes:

You're being disingenuous again.



The Obama and Clinton plans are nearly identical in that they focus on access by making it possible for everyone to have coverage in an existing private or public plan and by making a Medicare-like program also available for those who don’t have private coverage. Both would spend about the same to accomplish near-universal coverage—at least $100 billion a year.

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/03/a-detailed-anal.html


Four years of this and we are 40% there, eight years and we are 80% there, and that is just health care. Has any large government program ever stay within budget? Hell, health care alone could run us an easy trillion all by itself. Never mind the other things he wants to do.

[lemon boy]

Four years of this and we are 40% there, eight years and we are 80% there, and that is just health care. Has any large government program ever stay within budget? Hell, health care alone could run us an easy trillion all by itself. Never mind the other things he wants to do.

Fail again.

Say it with me: McCain is for a government smaller than Obama*

Saying McCain is for smaller govt. is simply not the case.



*again, debateably but a fair point

[Buster Highmen]

This may come as a surprise to you but I don't vote for people based on what they will do for me.

OK. Consider the national debt. How is it going to be paid off? Who owes the war debts?

I understand the argument that lowering taxes will generate revenue. But as much as I imagine you believe that, what I see in inflation, the adjusted GDP, the Gini index, cost of everything from higher education to homes don't support that position. Neither does the great depression.

If we don't agree that the economy is fucked right now, there's no point in continuing any discussion. What I do know is that the money I've worked for is losing value, investments are much trickier and less likely to generate a decent return. I'm looking at some smart kids who might want to go to the best colleges and I have concerns about how they're going to do it.

I think we'd agree Capitalism has a number of attractive and functional attributes. But I think we probably differ in whether it's a perfect system, especially with regard to the conglomeration of wealth that occurs. What about that?





What exactly are you afraid of happening?

I'd rather not descend into the use of the word afraid. But I am concerned about the religious right and their plan to foist their beliefs on me or my family. Many religious nuts try to do that in any capacity they can and I really do think that it is a source of concern. I think some of the focus on Palin's baby is a sad farce, but the videos of her ranting about God wanting a pipeline reflects precisely what I do not want in government.



I must have gotten up on the short side of the bed this morning because that one went right over my head.

AD started this thread on the premise of Obama's lack of experience. You remark that it's an attractive attribute of Palins. You agree, is all.






Buster read it right.




Despite what that massive processor between your ears has told you, I care little for either party. I will be voting for the candidate, not the party.
I have no massive processor and I really wish you shitheads would lay off that crap. Anyway, I suppose that your posting always comes off as being stilted so far right that you'd vote republican.

Aside from the position I've taken recently with Palin (who I now think is a complete fundamentalist wackjob), I'm trying to focus on the stuff that's important to me like the health of the economy and civil liberties. I know that there's a bunch of the less dimly lit about that consider me to be some ultra librul, but that only goes to show they haven't looked too closely.

As for Obama, meh...I'll probably vote for him despite my reservations if only because of McCain's history in Arizona politics and his desperate lunge at getting votes via Palin. I share a lot of common values with the supposed GOP platform of small noninvasive government, but that's not what we go in any of the last 5 Republican presidents. The dumbest thing of all is that Clinton is the only who shrank the government the most and got the budget under control. But that asshole also provided the wealthy with less regulation and allowed corporate mergers that I don't think should have been allowed.

I'd like to see a candidate who develops plans to encourage small businesses and greater economic diversity in the form of tax breaks for smaller biz instead of large ones. I'd like to see the Iraq vets get college paid for, see a war on energy. And I'm baffled by the 2nd amendment advocates who don't seem to give a shit about the intrusion on the 4th amendment. And I'd like to see a lot more antitrust legislation pass as well as more regulation on the banking and financial industries. As for health care, single payer would be great and would encourage small businesses who are now hamstrung with worker benefits.

So let me close with some ridiculous parable: governments are like gardens. If you ignore them, don't water or feed them, they will fail. And that would be OK. But what I don't buy is when someone bitches about how the government is failing and CAN'T succeed. It CAN succeed if the American people would just pay some fucking attention.

[Rubicon]

If you're for small government neither of these parties is really for you.

I agree. But the only realistic choices I have is one of these two yahoos. So I have to choose the guy I think will hurt the nation least. For my values that guy is McCain.


As far as I can remember GWB never campaigned on a platform to increase government spending and increase the size and scope of the federal goverment...but look where believing GWB got you...and yes, I'm assuming you took GWB at his word since that's what you're doing with McCain...if that's not the case I'm curious as to why the sudden trust in the GOP?

This theme keeps coming up: voting for a party. I don't vote for a party I vote for a man based on his ideas. More people should do this. If they did, we would likely have more than two viable political parties in this country. Do you disagree?

[Buster Highmen]

I agree. But the only realistic choices I have is one of these two yahoos. So I have to choose the guy I think will hurt the nation least. For my values that guy is McCain.



This theme keeps coming up: voting for a party. I don't vote for a party I vote for a man based on his ideas. More people should do this. If they did, we would likely have more than two viable political parties in this country. Do you disagree?

I don't think it's reasonable to vote for a man independent of the party he represents. So most of my position is that the Republicans have done a shitload of damage to the country over their last encumbencies.

My real problem with any candidate is continuing 'business as usual' which serves the objectives of the lobbyists and the super wealthy and fucks over the rest of us, speaking as a member of the middle class.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Do you disagree?

I do not disagree...but I don't think that's a realistic approach...regardless good on you if you like McCain...at least you have your reasons...like you said, people who blindly vote by party affiliation are one problem among many with our current situation.

[lemon boy]

I agree. But the only realistic choices I have is one of these two yahoos. So I have to choose the guy I think will hurt the nation least.

I vote for a man based on his ideas. More people should do this. If they did, we would likely have more than two viable political parties in this country.

Do your lips get tired from talking out of both sides of your mouth or what?

[David Witherspoon]

No, but neither is he proposing 1 trillion dollars in new programs.Nah, McCain doesn't need to propose - it'll just turn out to cost a trillion or so when he decides to make good on his "bomb bomb iran" promise.

[Rubicon]

what's not socialism?


A country where the majority of the federal budget goes for something other than social programs.

[Adolf Allerbush]

A country where the majority of the federal budget goes for something other than social programs.

Since SS isn't part of the federal budget I guess you're insinuating that the Military is a social program? I disagree with that.

[PNWbrit]

A country where the majority of the federal budget goes for something other than social programs..

:confused:

That would seem to allow room for a completely socialist system to operate - social intervention, nationalization of the means of production, wealth re-distribution, dismantling of capitalist systems, institutions and "free" markets.

So long as we spent 51% of the federal budget on the military.

I'm sure that's not what you mean is it?

[David Witherspoon]

I have a feeling you're looking for meaning where there was none to begin with.

[Rubicon]

Since SS isn't part of the federal budget I guess you're insinuating that the Military is a social program? I disagree with that.


I'm not concerned with how the cards are shuffled. SS is an expense that the fed gov has to cover. The money doesn't materialize out of thin air.

If Obama gets the nod in Nov and institutes all that he has promised I'm not sure you would need to include SS in the budget for the social programs to be consuming >50% if it.

[jon turner]

I'm not concerned with how the cards are shuffled. SS is an expense that the fed gov has to cover. The money doesn't materialize out of thin air.

If Obama gets the nod in Nov and institutes all that he has promised I'm not sure you would need to include SS in the budget for the social programs to be consuming >50% if it.

Social Security is paid solely through social security taxes, which people pay through their paychecks. They then get the money back later when they begin to collect. It is supposed to be set aside for those that pay into it to collect later, but the government has borrowed this money to pay for its non-social programs which is an issue. So, SS is not an expense the gov should have to cover, except for the fact that they are using that money for other programs and not paying it back. I believe there are ways to not pay your SS tax. I know I don't have to, since I pay into a vested retirement fund.

I for one would much rather the government's money go towards programs to promote the well-being of its populace rather than military action that does very little to nothing to protect us, some would argue it has actually increased the threat to us by angering more people around the world towards our country.

I would gather you would rather see the net inflows and outflows of the government's money just decrease as a whole both for social programs, wasteful spending, and inappropriate military actions. John McCain has proposed none of this thus far.

If you listened to Obama's speecnh, yes you would have heard proposals to provide health care for those who can not afford it (if you still want it in the traditional means, you don't have to take the federal program), education funding (which is badly needed), and I believe infrastructure funding (which is also badly needed), but he said he would not raise taxes for the average person. I believe he only wants to raise taxes for the >250k or so crowd, which are at historic lows if I'm not mistaken. He said he wanted to reward companies that provide jobs to Americans and keep jobs from going overseas. He also said he wanted to go through current budget policy and cut out all the wasteful spending, which would actually help to make government smaller. Reallocation of these funds and a more even tax base (as in the rich get taxed at higher rates because they have more money to start with, which has been the traditional way it was done up until the republican controlled government of the last 20 years) should help to pay for any new programs he is creating. That is what I heard he wanted to do.

Providing good health, good jobs, and good education for the individual does not only benefit that individual, but also promotes a healthier nation with lower crime rates (because people have jobs and feel less desperate), lower medical costs (because people don't get desperately sick as often), a stronger economy, among other benefits. The typical Republican response is "the market will sort everything out" - it hasn't so far. I will agree that there are some benefits to a market based policy, but the market doesn't care about personal well being and business can be rather ruthless.

You can choose to disagree with this if you want, but the last 20 years of deregulation and privatization have left us with the largest gap between rich and poor since the great depression. John McCain can continue to say the economy is strong and healthy, but the average wage for the middle class has dropped about $2000 since the year 2000 after gaining ground in the 1990's (when Bill Clinton's government actually balanced the budget and lowered total government spending, something that hadn't been done since Reagan took office in 1980).

If you want to read more about this, check out the Economic Policy Institute for some good info:

http://www.epi.org/
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/

[timvwcom]

Social Security is... good...

WOW, jon turner GOES OFF!!! :eek:

[jon turner]

WOW, jon turner GOES OFF!!! :eek:

Sorry, I end up spending a lot of my down time reading stuff that the average person seems to avoid. The highest thing on my list of to-read's at the moment is the nearly 100page pdf file "A Plan to Revive the American Economy" that Economic Policy Institute just put out. But, I'm stuck having to do stuff for my MS program while teaching high school, so it's hit the back burner. Does that make me a nerd?

[timvwcom]

Sorry, I end up spending a lot of my down time reading stuff that the average person seems to avoid. The highest thing on my list of to-read's at the moment is the nearly 100page pdf file "A Plan to Revive the American Economy" that Economic Policy Institute just put out. But, I'm stuck having to do stuff for my MS program while teaching high school, so it's hit the back burner. Does that make me a nerd?

Don't apologize... I'm stoked!!! I just wish I had the bravado to say what I feel in this raucous public setting. :(

Edit: Oh yeah, N3RD5 rule!!!

[Jer]

Bush didn't have shit for experience...well, maybe fucking around the oval office while his Dad was there

the country will speak on Nov. 2nd. then it's done.

Why will they speak on November 2nd? You're talking about the USA when you said "the country", right?