Bailout

[Minstrel]

I can't recall a single President that would so close to being an outlier as Obama would on either side since George McGovern in 1972 and Barry Goldwater (on the right) in 1964).

That's pretty amusing, since I remember that being said about every Democratic nominee since Clinton, by conservatives. Apparently, to conservatives, anyone left of Bill Clinton is a fringe socialist.

If I wanted to live in Western Europe, I could move there again. I prefer something different.

I prefer there to be some political variety, some mix of right-wing American politics and left-wing European politics.

 

[maxiep]

That's pretty amusing, since I remember that being said about every Democratic nominee since Clinton, by conservatives. Apparently, to conservatives, anyone left of Bill Clinton is a fringe socialist.

I speak for myself. Please don't lump me in with others simply to make a point. Al Gore ran to the left of Clinton, but one look at his record would have shown that he would have governed much like him. John Kerry was feckless. He didn't have the backbone to have a political philosophy beyond winning the next election.

I prefer there to be some political variety, some mix of right-wing American politics and left-wing European politics.

Yep, different strokes for different folks. So which parts of "right-wing American politics" do you like? Which parts of "left-wing European politics" strike your fancy?

 

[Jack RamsaysPants]

He likes the french policy on war.

 

[Minstrel]

I speak for myself. Please don't lump me in with others simply to make a point.

Sorry, you're right. It's just that the group I'm talking politics with seems to be different every election, but similar themes come up. It has nothing to do with you, but I am struck by how every election cycle, conservatives I'm discussing with say some variation of, "Well, [current Democratic candidate] is the most left-leaning candidate I can remember in eons."

Yep, different strokes for different folks. So which parts of "right-wing American politics" do you like? Which parts of "left-wing European politics" strike your fancy?

I'm a big believer in capitalism. While my political opponents may find that surprising, some may recall that, in basketball, I always argue against artificial restraints in the CBA that limit what players can earn. That is me arguing against free market constraints like the salary cap, max contracts, restricted free agency, rookie slot-based salaries, barring high schoolers from playing in the NBA. It always surprises me how I seem to be on the left end of the US political spectrum, yet I seem to be the most ardent free market supporter when it comes to professional sports.

I also think the US is better in terms of freedom of expression. I was quite amazed by the fact that in parts of Europe, Holocaust deniers can be jailed. I think Holocaust denial is both intellectually bankrupt and loathsome, but I can't imagine people not having the right to state their beliefs, dumb as I (and most people) may think them.

However, the core of my belief is that there should be equality of opportunity. To clear up misunderstandings before they arise, I am not for equality of results. I am not a communist. People should be able to rise and fall on their own merits. But the playing field should absolutely be level in order for such a merit-based system to exist. It's hardly reasonable to run a race where some contestants start a mile ahead of the others and then laud the winners for "rising on their own merits." But in our system, that's exactly the situation when some people start with middle class or higher backgrounds, with the attendant benefits like better education, better developmental environment and better post-high school opportunities and some people start with the disadvantages attendant upon being born in ghettos or trailer parks.

Therefore, I don't believe "wealth redistribution" (a tenet of socialism) is an unfair thing. There is absolutely a logical justification for it, not just a "forced compassion" justification. Nothing in a free market comes for nothing, yet we consider an enormous economic headstart exempt from that. I don't think that's reasonable. Wealth redistribution (nowhere near enough to change the economic status of the most-taxed, so not a hindrance to incentive to excel) is simply payment for those enormous differences in opportunity. Further, it's a recognition that the wealth isn't generated alone. Take the best businessperson on Earth and put him/her on a desert island. They will make no money and end up with no luxuries. Capitalism requires a society, and an underclass, in order for the wealthy to earn their money. It's not at all unreasonable that they pay money into that society that allows them to prosper.

Yes, I approve of such things on grounds of compassion, but I don't think it is only coherent in the context of compassion. I think it is also fair and logical.

So to return to your question about what in European politics attracts me, I think they do wealth redistribution better than the US. Universal health care, free university education for anyone, social welfare that allows everyone at least a minimum, human standard of living (clean place to live, food and clothes). And Western Europe has no problems with innovation or with pumping out strong economies. The EU's economy is greater than the US' (to compare entities of vaguely similar size).

Hopefully, that was what you were looking for. I'd be happy to clarify anything that struck you as unclear. I'm always happy to relay where I stand (if I feel I know enough on an issue to hold a position) and what my commentary is rooted in.

 

[Jack RamsaysPants]

Minstrel I get what you are saying about a minimum standard of living, but there is one flaw you can't force people to live higher than their means. In my line of work I often do bids for Housing projects. There is one consistent requirement for the bids the product has to be the sturdiest strongest of it's type on the market. Why is that? Because the tenants thrash it, which to me shows that they lack appreciation for the aide they receive, in their minds they are still the victim and therefore they act victimized, and lash out at the very people that try to help them. Too many of our social programs simply give people fish.I have an Aunt and she and 3 of her 5 adult children live entirely off welfare. Several years ago I offered her a receptionist position at my company, she was unemployed at the time. I told her that her responsibilities would simply be answering the phones and transferring calls, and she could knit (her favorite pass time) all day long if she wanted. She declined as her asthma would make it too difficult to perform her job. I then offered her a job doing some minor data entry and clerical (filing, sorting etc..etc...) work around the office, she declined on account of her carpal tunnel. I stopped offering. 2 months later she called my dad and asked for money so her daughter wouldn't get evicted from her apartment. The scary thing is this pattern of behavior gets passed on and the next generation assumes that this is how life is lived. One of her sons stays employed just long enough to claim unemployment or get injured on the job (it's happened a minimum of 5 times).

I don't have a problem leveling the playing field at all, but that playing field has to be a different one than the one that is being played on now, and frankly it's a long long long road to hoe and we will never see a resolution in our life span. It all starts with educating people about what they are capable of, and it continues with breaking the cycle of welfare.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't have a problem leveling the playing field at all, but that playing field has to be a different one than the one that is being played on now, and frankly it's a long long long road to hoe and we will never see a resolution in our life span.

I agree. But if someone is drowning now, even if the life preserver isn't a far-reaching, permanent solution, it still needs to be used until the person can be lifted entirely out of the water (which, returning back to the real world, means changing the culture of poverty...safer living conditions from violence and better education, for example). Changing that culture is, as you said, a long road and won't be accomplished soon. In the mean time, it's not acceptable to let people drown, IMO.

 

[Jack RamsaysPants]

BTW I just want to point out that I personally think the bailout is necessary. I guess we could hoe that the ship would right itself, but frankly I don't think we want to find out for sure, because if it doesn't, you know what they say, the bigger they are the harder they fall. IOW without the bailout we could theoretically be staring down the barrel of complete economic collapse. I personally don't want to know how ugly that might be. The economy is already a scary place right now, the scarier it gets the less people spend the more companies go under the more people lose work the more mortgages default, the more bad loans and properties banks sit on etc...etc...

Now with that said this also could be the start of a wonderful period of economic growth for the US, but it's going to take some entrepreneurs that recognize some of the niche opportunities that will present themselves.

Economy + Environment = Localization oportunites

 

[Jack RamsaysPants]

I agree. But if someone is drowning now, even if the life preserver isn't a far-reaching, permanent solution, it still needs to be used until the person can be lifted entirely out of the water (which, returning back to the real world, means changing the culture of poverty...safer living conditions from violence and better education, for example). Changing that culture is, as you said, a long road and won't be accomplished soon. In the mean time, it's not acceptable to let people drown, IMO.

Yeah but is it acceptable to take the drowning man out of the water and put him back in a boat with a hole in it? Absolutely not because then you simply have to throw him the preserver again. Right now that's kinda the way things happen. Now if you were to fix the hole in the boat and teach the man to swim that in the long run is more effective, as long as he is willing to learn. Welfare is too easy.

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah but is it acceptable to take the drowning man out of the water and put him back in a boat with a hole in it? Absolutely not because then you simply have to throw him the preserver again. Right now that's kinda the way things happen. Now if you were to fix the hole in the boat and teach the man to swim that in the long run is more effective, as long as he is willing to learn.

Agreed. Both need to happen. You need to fix the boat and save the people already in the soup. Not bothering to fix the boat creates waste.

 

[Jack RamsaysPants]

Just a little more fuel for the fire. IMHO the state of the economy and the need for a bailout, are the results of 30+ years of moving away from US Industry. People used to boast "Made in the USA" as a statement of quality, and the price would support that notion, but the competitive overseas quality wasn't enough less to justify the cost of US made products in most cases. It was also used in an "Anti Anyone else" kind of tone. What was missed though is the economic impact, at least missed by the larger part of the population. All that has mattered is $$$. The mega Corp has deeply damaged our economy which is a vicious cycle.

Let's look at WalMart. this particular store has actually suggested (wink wink) that companies shift manufacturing to foreign soil. As a result US plants downsize, people lose work and are on tighter budgets, so now they shop at.... WalMart. But it's not just walmart, it's Target, Home Depot, Best Buy etc..etc.. the list goes on and on and on. When US products are purchased that money goes into US Wallets, which is then spent in US stores. Go to any large store, Toys R Us for example, now find a product that is made in the USA that isn't a candy product. Do the same at WalMart, Target, anywhere. then think about how many billions of dollars we are pumping out of the US economy. Are there any countries pumping billions back to us?

 

[barfo]

If this was a stunt, it failed. If he really believed he needed to come to DC to save the economy and he put his country first, then it will remembered as a profile in courage.

Wait, if he believes it, it will be remembered as a profile in courage?
If I believe I need to run naked through the airport right now, and I do it, will that be remembered as a profile in courage?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Wait, if he believes it, it will be remembered as a profile in courage?
If I believe I need to run naked through the airport right now, and I do it, will that be remembered as a profile in courage?

barfo

The term, a "profile in courage", was defined by the book of the same name as doing what you believe to be the right thing, even though it costs you an election. Generally, doing what you believe the right thing costs you an election and/or ends your career.

I personally think that he did it partially for political benefit, but I'm not John McCain, so I can't know for sure. My point is if he suspended his campaign because he felt he was the only person that could bring political cover to the Republicans and ended up losing the election as a result of his action, then it's a profile in courage.

You're not running for anything. You running through the airport naked isn't a profile in courage, instead it's likely a profile in a DHS file.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I would have been more impressed with McCain if he'd actually suspended his campaign, and hadn't invited reporters in to the room to cover him while he worked the phones.

This version of McCain is clearly not the same as the man I voted for in the 2000 primary and as a write-in candidate for the general election.

 

[blazerboy30]

I wish. Sadly, I think you're wrong. I don't think the Democrats are particularly left-wing, and that goes for Obama, too. Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle engineered a drive to the center for the party and the party is still very much centrist.

If he wins the Presidency, I'd love to see Obama be as left-wing as the Bush administration was right-wing.

I'm curious to which part of maxie's statement you are saying "I wish". Does this apply to the "socialization train" statement?

 

[Minstrel]

I'm curious to which part of maxie's statement you are saying "I wish". Does this apply to the "socialization train" statement?

Well, yes, but that was tongue-in-cheek. I think "socialization train" is an exaggeration, but I'd definitely be glad to see an actual left-wing administration. I think we've had actual right-wing administrations in my lifetime (Reagan in all ways, GWB on social issues), so I'd like to see some true left-wing administration (again, at least on social issues, which does bleed into financial issies). As my position post suggests, while I like capitalism and the free market, I don't consider "socialism" to be a bad word. Every democracy is a mix of capitalism and socialism, and I think the US should have more socialism in the mix.

 

[maxiep]

I would have been more impressed with McCain if he'd actually suspended his campaign, and hadn't invited reporters in to the room to cover him while he worked the phones.

This version of McCain is clearly not the same as the man I voted for in the 2000 primary and as a write-in candidate for the general election.

I agree. He missed a huge opportunity that probably cost him the election. He should have not held a press conference announcing that he was suspending the campaign. He should have just decided to fly back to DC and announce to the back of the plane that it's more important to attend to the business of the country.

He then could have gone back, declared there's no way he's putting the American people on the hook for $700MM and that Congress needed to find a different solution. He then should have led the House and Senate Republicans to come up with another plan. He could have gone against his President and the Democrats, reinforcing his reputation as a leader and a maverick all in one fell swoop.

While he was back in DC, he could have had Gov. Palin out there stumping for him, telling the crowds that John McCain isn't campaigning because he's working back in Washington trying to take care of them and their children by not putting $700MM on the backs of the taxpayers. He wouldn't have needed to hold press conferences, because he would have had throngs of the press following him around the north side of the Capitol.

He then could have gone to the debate and thrown this yoke around Obama's neck.

Barack Obama is now telling Democrats and Republicans to "get it done". I guess he doesn't realize that he's actually a US Senator himself and should be front and center in helping to shape it.

Both parties have let us down. I'm absolutely disgusted.

 

[barfo]

You're not running for anything. You running through the airport naked isn't a profile in courage, instead it's likely a profile in a DHS file.

Now you tell me.

barfo