I didn’t watch the debate last night, but I did read the entire transcript of it. I have, in the past, had democratic leanings. I’m not really of that orientation these days, but I’d still like to know what the dems stand for. The short answer seems to be that they stand for what they think people want to hear.
That said, I attempted to score the debate based on who was more or less obnoxious to me. I gave up arrows for things that I thought were good, and down arrows for things that I thought were bad. I think that Obama got a raw deal because one of his questioned dealt with health care, something that I generally disagree with dems on, earning him a demerit when others didn’t have the chance to earn that penalty. In general, the most odious democratic concept to me is the raising of the minimum wage. It just seems pathetically stupid to me. Hello, the money doesn’t come from no where. It seems like inflation waiting to happen. I mean, it’s all the same in the end, as I will inflate too – it’s just pointless and stupid to change the scale. Here’s what I came up with:
1) Biden +3: He’s intentionally casting himself as a straight shooter sort of guy, sure, I see his strategy, but I like him best nonetheless.
2) Dodd +1: I can’t remember why he’s plus one. I guess he just wasn’t annoying. Either way, not memorable.
3) Edwards 0: I kind of like Edwards.
4) Barak 0: I think he’s at least a little bit different. Still didn’t hear him adopting any actual views, but he talked about having new views, whatever that implies.
5) Ricardson 0: The only one who got no positive or negative marks. He might as well have not been there.
6) Clinton -1: She wasn’t particularly useful in either direction, but she annoyed me once and earned a -1.
7) Gravel -2: Yes, he didn’t get to answer many questions. But really, who is he anyway? He was a little too whiny, he should give up.
8) Kucinich -4: He actually had a -5 before he redeemed himself on some topic, whatever it was. Man, this guy bugged the crap out of me.
Words 
Ha ha, yeah, the money doesn’t come from nowhere — it comes out of the pockets of the ultra-rich! That’s no secret. The balance of wealth just changes slightly — no need to cry Red Scare just yet.
I agree that the Democrats have nothing new or memorable to say for the most part — and that that’s precisely because nobody wants to hear anything radically new or strikingly memorable — but if I had to choose, I guess I’d go with Edwards, since he’s easiest on the eyes.
I really, really, really, really WANT to love Hillary… but she just refuses to throw me a bone.
Can we actually have a debate? I was just lamenting — IRL — the other night to fellow Bigwhoopers Lara Hanson and Stephen Schaefer that it’s so sad around here ever since we stopped having discussions about things.
:-(
One thing that I have a hard time understanding: why is it that the “ultra-rich” are so despised for being successful? Why should they be punished for doing well? Or, why should they be punished for having their parents do well? How is this their fault? And how do you anticipate the economy will survive without people having the assets to fund everything from the top down? Do you anticipate that the newly liberated minimum wagers will band together into co-ops for the purpose of financing a sprawling housing development? I somehow don’t see that happening.
That said, I’d be annoyed if the “ultra-rich” were paying less, percentage-wise, than the middle class and the lower class. It’s hardly communism to support a nice healthy flat tax over all brackets. I have no idea what party supports such ideas, but it seems reasonable to me.
One of these guys, and I can’t remember who, claimed that taxes would not go up, despite the increase in government, because he proposed to increase the taxes on purchases. Now, sure, tax the crap out of the cancer sticks that we insist upon bombarding our health care system with, but are 10% sales taxes really going to stimulate the economy? He said America should become a nation of savers – sounds nice on paper, and I like to squirrel away money and pay with cash, but holy crap, we’d be up a creek if everyone did that.
Did you intentionally use Obama’s first name and everyone else’s last name?
I used his last name in the same list that I used everyone else’s last name.
Actually, I know Jonathan Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Obama Barak, and I think it’s Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Jim Dodd, Mitch Kucinich (?), and Gravel could be just about anything, but I’m certain it’s a guy.
Do you have a point? I bet you do!!!
It’s Dennis Kucinich. It’s unfortunate that he’ll never win if for no other reason than not enough people can pronounce/spell his name.
So, do you not think there should be a minimum wage at all? Let’s start there.
And yes, Lara, good catch! Obama Barack totally has the first name familiar thing down. So does Hillary, but with guys, “ol’ pal Obama” has more of a ring. They can say it without feeling like their penises are shriveling up. He’s male, and it’s a macho name: “Oh-bomb’-ah!” And just like that: nobody has to feel castrated for liking a Democrat.
Mitch is the GM of the Lakers. Mitch Kupcheck or something like that. That’s where I got confused. Obama has a distinctive first and last name. Here’s a question:
Are Americans ready to elect a president whose name is decidedly un-American? I think that were he really the Manchurian candidate, he would have picked a name that’s more intrinsically trustworthy. Like Thomas Franklin or something. George Lincoln. Reagan “Stonewall” Jackson if he’s trying to be tough on his philibusters.
As for minimum wage, and all political arguments, I don’t really care that much. After all, I can do nothing to change any of it, depressing though it may be. Our country, at least the two mainline parties, have established an impenetrable wall against any change. This is why I’m hoping that Paul fellow runs as an independant so I can vote for him with 17% of my friends to prove the point that we’re annoyed with reps and dems.
Matt may jump in here with an argument for a complete free market, where all wages are self-regulating, but I’m not necessarily for that either. I just don’t think that raising the minimum wage addresses the issue. All it does is shift the numbers; it’s like grade inflation at Ivy League schools.
The real issue here is that we have masses of people who are unskilled to the point where they have no leverage to change their state in life. Why are they unskilled? The first quarter of it is the educational system. Even the most motivated, most disciplined student of average genetic predisposition to intelligence from Baltimore City will only be able to acheive 75% of what a similarly gifted individual from Goshen could do. Bump it to 85% if he’s a minority and you factor in corporate escalators for advancement of minorities.
But the last three quarters is solely on the student. I work with such students, not at Northrop (who just now is letting us bring camera phones into work, hip hip hooray), but at my other thing. Other people failed them a little bit, but the biggest cause of their current lack of skill is themselves. I work with adults who realize this and are trying to remedy it – the tragedy is that 15 year old kids don’t have that foresight.
I really hate labor economics. I loathe what unions represent, since they allow for crappy workers to get the same benefits as good ones, but I see their purpose. I don’t like the idea of rewarding illegal immigrants with jobs, but I also don’t like the idea of those jobs not getting done. I think if you close the borders, unionized unskilled citizen laborers will de facto raise their own minimum wage, even if it’s not wholesale integrated into law. It’s a pain in the ass that it has to work that way.
This Onion article relates well to this post:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/john_edwards_vows_to_end_all_bad
No, his name is BARACK OBAMA…Obama is his last name…not Barack.
And I think you should have concerns about the ultra-rich, from a Biblical standpoint, Mr. Furst. The high will be made low, etc etc.
It’s not to say their aren’t/won’t be ultra-rich who get into heaven, but we shouldn’t even know that they are ultra-rich, because they give most of it away. Money is one thing Jesus is pretty clear about…it’s not our own…and we aren’t to keep it.
See that’s what happens when you have two names, neither of which sound like first names.
I’m a little surprised that you are on the “apply Biblical premises” to government kick. As you know, it is not wealth/success that is the issue – it’s the love of money and the self-reliance/pride that one develops that is the issue. Abraham, Job – any of the patriarchs really, were successful and wealthy.
Now, I tend to agree with you – there’s a limit to what people need, and accepting the responsibility that comes with the power of wealth is a big part of being blessed with success. But I’ve always been opposed to imposing our ethos on the general population. We can’t, as Christians, punish (or enforce Christian ethics upon) the wealthy in this fashion. I’m surprised that you’d suggest it. I know a lot of people that believe we need to have a religious state, but I didn’t think you were one of them.
I watched the debate, and it was pretty friggin awkward, especially when the well-placed Black Reverend Audience Member fumbled his entire response to the candidates.
Biden was the only one who sounded like he believed anything he was saying, I definitely think he “won” the “debate”.
That Gravel dude is a friggin lunatic. I actually think he could out-cheney cheney if he were a republican…but he’s really only here because he wants to talk about vietnam.
Kucinich is a keebler elf.
Hilary, Obama and Edwards clearly don’t care about anyone, or have opinions about anything. They’re telling you things they think you want to hear, provided you want to hear really stupid meaningless crap. I think Hilary is being handled by her handlers and has very few privileges in terms of having an opinion about anything. Edwards at least has a solid haircut and is pretty good with the hand gestures. Obama is definitely black, which is nice.
Richardson kept repeating that he was different from everyone else and not having a reason why.
I can’t even picture Dodd. If he was there, he fooled me.
Here’s what they need to add to make the next one of these better (and let’s face it — it’s entertainment, not debate)…add a real-time scoring thing where viewers can score each candidate on an “are they actually answering the question they were just asked” scale. This should be displayed as a graphic on the screen and updated live during the duration of their answer. At the end of the night I’d like some sort of cumulative score displayed for each candidate.
Then, you should be able to TXT some number to some other number and vote for a winner, and that person would get a record contract and put out an album.
Ha ha ha… I knew that sounded slightly off! Barack Obama. Barack Obama. Barack Obama. I will commit it to memory!
What do you mean by “close the borders”, Furstie? You mean how the U.S. has operated since the beginning of time? Illegal immigrants have never been allowed to stroll over the border to legally work here — we’ve always had laws in place for that. It’s that the ultra-rich EMPLOYERS who want to cut corners and save a buck have been enabling them to come over here and work for peanuts! The laws are there — they’re just not being enforced. If you take the ability to break the law away from the employers, they’re forced to hire people at the minimum wage, and then they lose money. Enter Bush’s “Guest Worker” program.
I think it needs to be pointed out that Biden is a U.S. Senator… from Delaware? That’s kind of working against him. I mean, you or I could be a senator from Delaware every other Wednesday after work and on weekends, and nobody would be any the wiser.
Delaware was the first state. Watch out.
I happen to agree with you on where you place the fault for the illegal immigration problems. Yes, crack down on the employers, and actually inhibit the flow of immigrants. Then, however, you’ll have a surplus of jobs that no Americans want to do, so you start bringing the immigrants in again, this time more officially so that you can tax them like everyone else.
Sorry I don’t have the attention span or time to really get into a debate, Bess. I know I’m letting you down.
As for your ridiculous accusation against me, Furstie, I was just surprised by your defense of the ultra-rich. As Christians, we should warn against anyone accumulating large sums of money, because we know that whether they be Christian or not, it’s a lot harder to see God through all of those treasures on earth. The camel and the needle…
Look at Bill Gates as an example. The man can’t hide from money. He tries to give it away, and does to the tune of billions of dollars, but it just keeps on coming? So what should he do?
Listen, as a Christian, as ANYONE, you work as hard as you can and do the best job you can at whatever you do. It’s called the Puritan Work Ethic, and it’s something that was traditionally associated with Christians. Sometimes people go into fields that aren’t for paupers, and if they excel, then they’re paid accordingly. It’s supply and demand, some people supply special/unique skill sets, and as a result their value increases. It’s not their fault that they’re working hard, and it’s not their fault that people are paying them a lot of money.
To hoard it is against the Christian ethic. To squander it on useless crap is too. But to earn it is not.
That’s beautiful, Furstie. Alas, it would be even more fabulous if the system worked that way more than approx. 3% of the time.
*Sits back, props feet up, and munches on popcorn with a satisfied smile as she watches the comment war rage. Thinks to herself, “Now this is more like it!”
I think there’s much less of a “The System” than people think there is.
Bess, if you’re thinking of the lack of Christian altruism in all rich people when you make your comment about the system, I have a few points.
1) Regular rich people are under no obligation to give anyone anything. Perhaps they feel some sympathy, perhaps they feel like they owe the little guy something, perhaps they feel some social responsibility and give accordingly. If not, it’s not their job. It’s not my job to collar them morally to give money. The only pertinent question to this discussion is “is it the government’s job to legislate altruism in the form of graded taxes that ‘level the playing field’?” My answer is no. Tax everyone to the same percentage, take more money from the rich because it’s percentage based, and then tax the crap out of things like cigarettes, booze, Vegas – anything that contributes substantially to other civic costs such as health care and crime prevention.
2) Christian people that don’t give according to their supposed ethic are not under your jurisdiction for judgment. Nor are they under the government’s. If I don’t meet a standard of selflessness, then it is between myself and God. And maybe Lara Hanson, but that’s debatable too.
3) I’d sometimes enjoy hearing what you DO think as opposed to what you DON’T think. Solutions my dear democratic friend, solutions. That seems to be the problem with the dems to me – lots of opinions and lots of ideals, but few sensible, realistic paths to connect realtity to idealism.
Regarding point number two: sure, I agree that ultimately, our sins are between us and God. However, we live in the world and we live in community, and the world and our community see what we do and what we do not do. We should speak out against the sins of the church and strive to correct them.
Are you saying that if I were to decide that I thought I needed to start shooting people because it seemed fun and I didn’t care about how that affected people, it would be okay?
You’ll argue that that is a direct violation of the Commandments of God, but so is not allowing the poor to be fed when you(not you…proverbial “you”) are hording (sp) up treasures on earth. By keeping money and food from those who will die, we essentially kill them. The sheep and the goats. And that means that clearly we do not really know the heart of Christ.
I should strive to not come make phone calls in the middle of writing a comment. I lose my train of thought and therefore my eloquence.
Oh, but that’s not what I was thinking of. You guys are having a debate about something xtian, I guess — I don’t really read those parts anymore since they don’t apply to me & there’s not enough extra space in my brain to store/process what I view as a side/fantasy/pretend thing. Not that it doesn’t have its merits, but introducing it ruins any kind of actual, reality-driven debate that could take (or was in the process, I thought, of taking) place.
What I meant is that from my experience, I don’t think it’s that often that actual skill/merit is directly rewarded with money/success. The “system” in which people would be better-off financially the more learned they are looks beautiful on paper and in the movies & whatnot, but usually it’s more about who you know and how many people you’re willing to walk all over. Call it cynicism but I’ve had more experience in the workforce than you.
My argument, Lara, would have nothing to do with a direct commandment of God. It is a direct commandment to give to the poor. There is nothing that the early church cared about more. Look at the disagreements between Paul and the Judeo-Christians in Jerusalem – almsgiving was something they all agreed wholeheartedly on.
That said, you cannot legislate that ethic onto the population as a whole or the Christian subset of it (imagine if they made a new tax for Christians to help their altruism!?). You can speak to other Christians in saying that they are not doing enough to help those in need, but you can’t induce them to do that. Throw them out of your church if you want, when it comes down to it, it’s not your business. If a Christian is an effective giver, no one else knows about it anyway – it’s really not your (generic your) business no matter what.
Bess, I tend to agree to an extent. However, who says that “knowing people” is a bad skill to have? You’re right, things on paper matter. Getting degrees, having good internships, whatever help people move upward in life. We do control some of that, and to the extent that we can, we need to maximize what we can control and work as hard as we can to overcome everything else.