Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Leroy]

I guess Christians suck.

[clement]

I guess Christians suck.

I'm sure many do.

[ghostrunner]

The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much concern about waste in social programs as opposed to waste anywhere else in government. What about all the waste in the military? But the military is such a sacred cow in our system that if you say anything remotely critical of it, or how it's run, you are immediately painted as unpatriotic. Yet it's perfectly commonplace to demonize those people who are most vulnerable in society, those on welfare, food stamps, unemployment and other safety net programs. In other words, if you're poor, you're irresponsible.

I was having an interesting conversation with some friends at dinner the other night (I'm in France atm), and I brought up this very American perspective of how in France there are extremely generous entitlement programs, and there is a great deal of abuse of them. I raised the example of someone I knew who was unemployed for three years, and only got a job 2 months before his very generous (by US standards) unemployment benefits were set to expire. I commented that the system needs to be changed to prevent this kind of disincentive to work. The husband of a good friend of mine (who is thoroughly upper middle class, works as an engineer, never been unemployed) came back and said, "Who cares if people abuse the system? Is it more important to catch the abusers than it is to make sure that the people who really need it get the assistance? Sure there is waste, but I'm not suffering from it. So I pay a little more in taxes, but I'm happier knowing that people who need the assistance will get it rather than worrying about the people who don't need it taking advantage of it."

Now I'm not saying I completely agree with his perspective, but I found that view to be thorough refreshing (and completely un-American). Americans are so hung up on principles of justice and merit that I feel we lack basic compassion for the unfortunate. Sure, many of us will dole out money to selected charities, but for some reason government can't get involved in it or they'll screw it up. Government is viewed as an inefficient bureacracy, but only when it comes to social programs, education and healthcare. But somehow the military, the police, firefighters and other non-social programs are immune from this broad-brush kind of criticism, except when a clear case of abuse has been identified.

Earlier in the thread someone brought up the idea that they would like to be able to save for their own retirement and not be required to put their money toward a low-yield system like Social Security. I understand that sentiment, especially for those among us who are responsible enough to plan for the future. But if you go to that kind of system, what do you do about the poeple who didn't plan or planned recklessly and are left without money at the end? Are you just going to say, "Well, too bad mr. 70-year old retiree, you didn't plan well and so now you have to spend your final 10 years living in a dumpster." Is that really what we want for a society of total personal responsibility?

As far as healthcare is concerned, I just find you can't have an honest discussion about it in our system of political dialogue, just like it's impossible to have an honest discussion about welfare, the military, or even abortion and gay rights. Everything gets caught up in sound bites, scare tactics, and demagoguery on both sides. The reality is, if you are under a managed care or HMO system, the quality of your healthcare is basically worse than most socialized medicine systems in Europe (and more expensive). If you have a truly private health plan, then you are likely better off. But there's no reason to think that the people who are wealthy enough to have this type of plan cannot continue to pay for it in a socialized system. They just might have to pay a little more for it.

I'm wondering who is talking about the environment in this election. If every time we go through an economic downturn or oil prices spike the environment gets sacrificed as an issue, then we clearly are not responsible enough to deal with this issue, and will only be when it's too late. People care about their gas tanks first and foremost and that's a big problem. The amount of discussion about environmental issues in Europe (which is also going thru pretty tough economic times) dwarfs the real discussion and action about it in the US. Unfortunately I'd say Asia is pretty similar to the US in this regard (outside of Japan).

Good comments.

I think there's plenty of waste in the military and law enforcement. Military contracts come under a pretty good deal of criticism - $200 wrenches and so forth. Part of the issue is what you want government doing and what you think it's best suited to. Libertarians (and I lean that way, though less than I used to) tend to think the government ought to be doing specific things that only it can take care of. Defense and law enforcement come under that umbrella. We might not like the way it's done all the time, and have issues with it's use, but without security you can't worry about all this other stuff. So it has warts, but what's the alternative?

I'm still unconvinced about socialized healthcare. I've had an HMO, and parts of that were frustrating, but ultimately I've been pretty satisfied with the quality of healthcare. Though I admit I'm pretty healthy. Paying bills and figuring out what to pay is a different story. I've also heard complaints from Canadians and British about the quality of their healthcare, specifically wait times. Personally, I think employers and employment ought to be taken out of the mix. I don't know why everyone can't be required to have some form of healthcare just as we do with car insurance. If people are out of work, or under a certain income, they could qualify for help. Seems like if we're all pooling money into 3 or 4 insurance companies as individuals, then the benefits and cost ought to be fairly similar to what the government could provide. I also wonder how these insurance companies and their employees would be affected by socialized health care.

Service is a big problem with government too. People don't like going to government offices here, of almost any sort. I don't go to the post office anymore. They deliver mail wonderfully, but the customer service is lousy. I'm not even a big complainer about service, because I've been on the other side. I go to the UPS store just to mail letters now, and I'm much happier. The DMV is another. People have limited interaction with government workers, and to the extent they do it's not a good experience. So it shouldn't be too surprising if people are skeptical about government taking anything over.

On the other hand, the private sector can't seem to get the flimsiest grasp on air travel.

I think the environment is being talked about indirectly through energy. Though the Republican emphasis on drilling is dismaying. Drilling should be done, IMO, but it's not something you make a slogan out of. I don't know why but some have a knee jerk dismissiveness about things as simple as energy saving light bulbs. To the extent government does get involved, they've made a lot of bad decisions. Bush put $1 billion toward fuel cell technology in 2003, which seems like a bad choice. Ethanol has been pushed by the government (more pork) despite it's drawbacks. Obama wants to loan 4 billion dollars to the US auto industry to develop cleaner cars, and I have serious reservations about that.

I don't think Social Security ought to be eliminated, but I would like the choice to opt out, or at least put some of the money elsewhere. But then people have a problem with that because you're not contributing to the pool. There's also the risk that my investments would be bad, and then I end up needing more than my share later. I think this is why it doesn't go anywhere.

[Popeye_Card]

The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much concern about waste in social programs as opposed to waste anywhere else in government. What about all the waste in the military? But the military is such a sacred cow in our system that if you say anything remotely critical of it, or how it's run, you are immediately painted as unpatriotic. Yet it's perfectly commonplace to demonize those people who are most vulnerable in society, those on welfare, food stamps, unemployment and other safety net programs. In other words, if you're poor, you're irresponsible.

I was having an interesting conversation with some friends at dinner the other night (I'm in France atm), and I brought up this very American perspective of how in France there are extremely generous entitlement programs, and there is a great deal of abuse of them. I raised the example of someone I knew who was unemployed for three years, and only got a job 2 months before his very generous (by US standards) unemployment benefits were set to expire. I commented that the system needs to be changed to prevent this kind of disincentive to work. The husband of a good friend of mine (who is thoroughly upper middle class, works as an engineer, never been unemployed) came back and said, "Who cares if people abuse the system? Is it more important to catch the abusers than it is to make sure that the people who really need it get the assistance? Sure there is waste, but I'm not suffering from it. So I pay a little more in taxes, but I'm happier knowing that people who need the assistance will get it rather than worrying about the people who don't need it taking advantage of it."

Now I'm not saying I completely agree with his perspective, but I found that view to be thorough refreshing (and completely un-American). Americans are so hung up on principles of justice and merit that I feel we lack basic compassion for the unfortunate. Sure, many of us will dole out money to selected charities, but for some reason government can't get involved in it or they'll screw it up. Government is viewed as an inefficient bureacracy, but only when it comes to social programs, education and healthcare. But somehow the military, the police, firefighters and other non-social programs are immune from this broad-brush kind of criticism, except when a clear case of abuse has been identified.

Earlier in the thread someone brought up the idea that they would like to be able to save for their own retirement and not be required to put their money toward a low-yield system like Social Security. I understand that sentiment, especially for those among us who are responsible enough to plan for the future. But if you go to that kind of system, what do you do about the poeple who didn't plan or planned recklessly and are left without money at the end? Are you just going to say, "Well, too bad mr. 70-year old retiree, you didn't plan well and so now you have to spend your final 10 years living in a dumpster." Is that really what we want for a society of total personal responsibility?

As far as healthcare is concerned, I just find you can't have an honest discussion about it in our system of political dialogue, just like it's impossible to have an honest discussion about welfare, the military, or even abortion and gay rights. Everything gets caught up in sound bites, scare tactics, and demagoguery on both sides. The reality is, if you are under a managed care or HMO system, the quality of your healthcare is basically worse than most socialized medicine systems in Europe (and more expensive). If you have a truly private health plan, then you are likely better off. But there's no reason to think that the people who are wealthy enough to have this type of plan cannot continue to pay for it in a socialized system. They just might have to pay a little more for it.

I'm wondering who is talking about the environment in this election. If every time we go through an economic downturn or oil prices spike the environment gets sacrificed as an issue, then we clearly are not responsible enough to deal with this issue, and will only be when it's too late. People care about their gas tanks first and foremost and that's a big problem. The amount of discussion about environmental issues in Europe (which is also going thru pretty tough economic times) dwarfs the real discussion and action about it in the US. Unfortunately I'd say Asia is pretty similar to the US in this regard (outside of Japan).

Good comments.

I think there's plenty of waste in the military and law enforcement. Military contracts come under a pretty good deal of criticism - $200 wrenches and so forth. Part of the issue is what you want government doing and what you think it's best suited to. Libertarians (and I lean that way, though less than I used to) tend to think the government ought to be doing specific things that only it can take care of. Defense and law enforcement come under that umbrella. We might not like the way it's done all the time, and have issues with it's use, but without security you can't worry about all this other stuff. So it has warts, but what's the alternative?

I'm still unconvinced about socialized healthcare. I've had an HMO, and parts of that were frustrating, but ultimately I've been pretty satisfied with the quality of healthcare. Though I admit I'm pretty healthy. Paying bills and figuring out what to pay is a different story. I've also heard complaints from Canadians and British about the quality of their healthcare, specifically wait times. Personally, I think employers and employment ought to be taken out of the mix. I don't know why everyone can't be required to have some form of healthcare just as we do with car insurance. If people are out of work, or under a certain income, they could qualify for help. Seems like if we're all pooling money into 3 or 4 insurance companies as individuals, then the benefits and cost ought to be fairly similar to what the government could provide. I also wonder how these insurance companies and their employees would be affected by socialized health care.

Service is a big problem with government too. People don't like going to government offices here, of almost any sort. I don't go to the post office anymore. They deliver mail wonderfully, but the customer service is lousy. I'm not even a big complainer about service, because I've been on the other side. I go to the UPS store just to mail letters now, and I'm much happier. The DMV is another. People have limited interaction with government workers, and to the extent they do it's not a good experience. So it shouldn't be too surprising if people are skeptical about government taking anything over.

On the other hand, the private sector can't seem to get the flimsiest grasp on air travel.

I think the environment is being talked about indirectly through energy. Though the Republican emphasis on drilling is dismaying. Drilling should be done, IMO, but it's not something you make a slogan out of. I don't know why but some have a knee jerk dismissiveness about things as simple as energy saving light bulbs. To the extent government does get involved, they've made a lot of bad decisions. Bush put $1 billion toward fuel cell technology in 2003, which seems like a bad choice. Ethanol has been pushed by the government (more pork) despite it's drawbacks. Obama wants to loan 4 billion dollars to the US auto industry to develop cleaner cars, and I have serious reservations about that.

I don't think Social Security ought to be eliminated, but I would like the choice to opt out, or at least put some of the money elsewhere. But then people have a problem with that because you're not contributing to the pool. There's also the risk that my investments would be bad, and then I end up needing more than my share later. I think this is why it doesn't go anywhere.

All good comments.

One additional comment on welfare. For me, it doesn't really bug me that there's abuse, because I think it's actually helpful for the economy. Those people will spend every dime you send them, whether they truly "need" the money, or are just abusing the system. They spend money, it pays someone else's salary, taxes are collected, the system moves forward. I think of it as "flow-up economics", which IMO work much better than trickle-down. The problem with trickle-down is that it's a trickle, which by it's very nature is slow and doesn't get everything downstream.

[heyzeus]

I'm mainly just commenting here so that I can have the most recent comment on every thread in social.

This is my civilly disobedient way of saying it's too quiet in the forum right now.

[Freed Roger]

The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much concern about waste in social programs as opposed to waste anywhere else in government. What about all the waste in the military? But the military is such a sacred cow in our system that if you say anything remotely critical of it, or how it's run, you are immediately painted as unpatriotic. Yet it's perfectly commonplace to demonize those people who are most vulnerable in society, those on welfare, food stamps, unemployment and other safety net programs. In other words, if you're poor, you're irresponsible.
.

[/quote]

Once again, Clem is a voice of reason crying out from the wilderness. And just because that wilderness happens to be France, some will instinctively paint Clem as one of those bad liberals. Why can't you just eat some freedom fries Clem?

...We have this stereotype of people having twinkie and steak dinners from food stamps, while they sit at home watching Springer on Sat-TV, while they have their personal injury lawyer on speed dial, while enjoying all the luxuries of disability and unemployment benefits. Somehow there are millions we percieve as having PHDs in milking the system.- or so the Welfare Queen imagery says.

So when there is a chance of a democrat becoming president, a black one nonetheless, one who favors getting the poor health insurance coverage, or beefing up college aid programs - well, all this imagery of giving more money to welfare queens tends to flood the brain and brings out the worst in US. Never mind that billions upon billions more is spent on corporate welfare, military solutions etc.

I'm not saying that there aren't cases of the stereotype being true. Sadly too many people are suckered by our US consumerism into living beyond their means. That is their own fault. But what I find ironic, is that the poorer people in the US get USED in these political debates (by both sides), but they actually don't have a voice in the debate. Most people that I know that are lower income are too busy working and trying to survive to be a part of the political conversation. They likely aren't on GRB. Many of them don't give a [expletive] about democrats or republicans.

IMO -We spend way too much time worrying that some dude that doesn't pay any taxes might screw the govt out of a few bucks, while the rich and powerful get bailed out on Wall Street, and billions go down the crapper in Iraq.

Its for this reason, I wish Obama would drop his "universal health care" and "free education for all" language. Its just not realistic with our Bush bankrupted govt, and its not worth the backlash it causes amongst the angry mobs. It just adds fuel to their fire.. More realistic would be restoring the CHIPS program (health insurance for poor kids) and college aid to prior levels.

[ghostrunner]

I've always found it odd that both parties (but particularly Democrats) talk a great deal about the middle class, and there's almost no talk of the lower class. Or even what the lower class is. Even people like Edwards or Obama, when they talk about people having a hard time, they always seem to be referring to the middle class. Seems like some our problems would be helped considerably by getting these people better access to education or training. I have to say i'd consider that a higher priority than health care reform or immigration just to name a couple issues.

[Hudler]

The problem with welfare is that it does nothing to solve the real problem in those peoples lives. If welfare was a FDR program the people who were in it would have to work to get it. Welfare should be a short term assistance,not a life long crutch.

[Freed Roger]

The problem with welfare is that it does nothing to solve the real problem in those peoples lives. If welfare was a FDR program the people who were in it would have to work to get it. Welfare should be a short term assistance,not a life long crutch.

There's some truth to what you say Rex. But this welfare class image is a whipping boy with politics. Too much so IMO. There are much larger issues and wastes in govt right now. Again, I don't think most working lower income people give much thought to politics. but politicians on both sides keep trotting welfare out as a smokescreen. the GOP counts on a backlash against the welfare system.

[UK]

Obama needs to get back to what got him here.. It's the war dummy.

Iraq has cost almost 2x American lives as did 9/11, and has been a tad on the expensive side. In addition, the situtation in Afghanistan was never shored up and is now very problematic. And God help us if we need to do something in Georgia, with 140,000 + in Iraq we kind of left ourselves vulnerable imo.

Obama needs to hammer this point home.

People are blindsided by the surge rather than the lack of judgement by the US gov't as w hole and the lack of vision towards rebuilding Iraq.

Right now, he has to hammer the economy.