Third Party & Independents Archives

I will give you credit David for a new twist in the Obama fantasy. Obama the “do-gooder”, “honestly good”, the “real deal”, and more preposterous acclimation’s are actually quite funny. You may even convince some readers he is not even a politician…just a humble man committed to rid the world of evil and sin.

Your self-proclaimed status as seer and portrayal as one endowed with special knowledge used only for good is difficult to swallow.

David, do you ever dig beneath the headlines or latest Moveon.org screed to actually find out what drives markets? I think not. Instead you write, “Now, in the face of investigations and world wide scrutiny into the cause of the oil price surge, oil prices plummet $50 a barrel in a matter of weeks” and expect knowledgeable folks to agree. What exactly have these investigations found? Where are the criminal suits and prosecutions? Where is the evidence of world-wide collusion in fixing oil prices?

You name three prominent Republicans as being corrupt for personal gain and advantage and then say, “It can be confusing making out the good people though, in the public arena, because once they achieve fame, they are easily confused with those seeking fame for personal gain.”

Let’s see here, this statement seems to imply that the virtuous Democrats are not recognized as such because they have been mistaken as politicians, and not as they really are, defenders of all that is righteous, good and holy. Wow, that’s a real stretch. They look like ducks, walk like ducks, talk like ducks, but are really swans.

David, I love reading your stuff, it keeps me entertained and gives comfort in knowing the competition is getting very desperate indeed.

I like Obama and I will be voting for him come November but I need to point out that this post puts Obama on a pedestal that’s nearly messianic. lol but I still liked the post and do agree with 99% of it. … good job Mr. Remer

BHO is running for president because it was the next higher job available for his promoters to make money off his candidacy. His election to the Senate was something of a fluke, as his Rpblcn opponent dropped out of the race, and he ended up running against a carpetbagger. He is probably surprised that he got his party’s nomination, and overwhelmed by it. I believe that he also has a much different view of his prospects of actually being elected, than his supporters have.

David,
Staying politically independent, I realize that this is a loaded question. For why I see Obama as a Child of the 80’s who grew up knowing that the Founding Fathers of America gave the Children of the 21st Century the Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to address the issues that their Parents and Grandparents could not, do not, and will not debate about building a Better World. Knowing that he has attended school for Constitutional Law and has worked as a Community Organizer, as an American Layman Citizen I would enjoy openly debating him about Americas’ ability and capability of building a Better World. However, I see McCain as a Youth of the 60’s that still does not understand why the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s said the Sky is the Limit. And having learned this election that he and his running mate Palin have been taught about the Civil Rights Movement and Kent State, I wonder if they still believe that Man lives in a Limited World?

Because why I realize that cars powered by wind and Americans owning Mini Power Plants must still remain a dream, I also know that My Fair Share of the Energy is 400 kW per hour plus the fuel that I use. So why I see the Children of Today needing to build a Better World that will use over 3 Giga Watts of Electricity in the next forty years, I see the Children of Government & Society needing to develop a World capable of given the Children of the 22nd Century the ability to build a 128 Giga Watt Economy.

For why I am glad to see McCain camp move from the ideology that we cannot build a better world to one of reform. I have to ask myself what reform he is talking about when in a War of Culture his own running mate is a poster child for what is wrong with Washington. No, I do not take this stance lightly nor do I want to disrespect McCains’ Unalienable Right to be Ignorant of the Law. However, I am glad to see most Conservatives not being caught by the smoke that his “Spin Master” is trying to blow up their butt.

No, I believe that if the Media Pundits had the Courage to ask the tough questions of what the Candidates are going to do to tackle the Issues of Poverty, Jobs, and Personal Budgets that Obama would win the Debate outright. For why Americans still have the right to believe that you cannot make every American a millionaire the Poor would not work, I wonder how many of My Peers want to talk about the millions of citizens who have become millionaires since the 1970’s.

Jim M said: “David, do you ever dig beneath the headlines or latest Moveon.org”

My credentials on that score are ever present in the archives of this column, thank you. The question is do you dig beneath the talking points of the right. I haven’t a clue what MoveOn is talking about because I don’t follow what steeped partisans dedicated to power have to say, whether they be left or right.

As for the investigations, they are like turning on a light in a roach infested kitchen at 2AM. All the roaches scatter out of the light in a heartbeat. That is what accounts for the fall of oil prices. Someone turned on the lights in order to see, and the roaches scattered as not to be seen.

The biggest roach of all stood in broad day light thinking no one would look there. GW Bush refused to depress the price by releasing oil from the reserve. His part in this is unmistakable and his VP and many loyal supporters profited handsomely. For this cockroach, what is power if one can’t reward one’s personal favorites at the expense of one’s critics, eh?

But, thank you for playing the incensed Rightist who utterly misses the point, yet again. The government was designed to reflect the best in its people and promote the best interests of the nation. Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress and the White House have made of mockery of that design, and hold in contempt any who would seek to restore it.

I understand where you are coming from. That is the difference between your comments and mine.

GW Bush refused to depress the price by releasing oil from the reserve.

Isn’t this one of the places that Obama agreed with Bush? He stated he would not release oil from the reserve, only changing his view after gas prices were already starting to fall…

Mr. Remer’s essay doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. What exactly makes him or anyone believe that Barack Obama of all people has the solution to all of these problems? If he did, then where and when did he put forth the effort to solve them as a senator in Illinois or the United States Senate?

Did he author any bills as he has every right to do and propose his solutions? Where are these bills he wrote that Republicans fillibustered? They’re nowhere, that’s where.

I dislike this kind of political analysis where you just praise somebody in vague terms especially when it also hass one-sided viewpoints about the wisdom and honesty of everybody else. I half expected the essay to end by saying that Obama’ll be crucified but then rise from the dead after three days and save the world. What does Obama really stand for and why based on his record do we believe anything he says?

As someone that lives in Illinois, I would support Liam and our state. We could really use a Senator here helping to straighten out the Dem Gov and Dem House that have done nothing together other than get elected. It is a mess, and it would be effective IMO for Obama to speak out. Unless/until elected he probably will not. But I sure hope he does when all of this is done. Businesses and Doctors are leaving Illinois are a record pace.

David I to believe that speculation was the biggest culprit in the recent oil run up. To think otherwise only shows how partisan some people have become regardless of the facts. Even the Corporate media is reporting on this issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

Yet we still hear the same old mantra of drill for more and most Americans cant see the facts for themselves.

The amazing thing is how low the bar has been set and how people still believe the “fundamentals are strong” line. Or better yet the “proven reformers” will go to DC and clean up the mess with strict regulation of wall street.30 years of disinformation is hard to overcome.

As for the investigators I know it’s time to go after those in the administration in charge of upholding the laws that have been violated and not enforced. Hopefully that is where an Obama administration can be effective from the git go. The dismal failures of this administration will only continue to fester under another republican administration.

Henry, the short of it is, there are those who, upon entering adulthood, are brought to the fork in the road of their life and face the question, do I live for myself, or do I become more than myself and live to serve the interests of all?

Getting elected to public office is NOT PUBLIC SERVICE, and deserves no appreciation nor thanks from the people. PUBLIC SERVICE is what one does while in office for the American people and the American nation. Was Gov. Murkowski a public servant or an elected official? How about The Hammer? Or Nixon? Mark Foley? What about these Republicans the Interior’s inspector general found at the Minerals Management Service’s royalty collection office in Denver partying, having sex, using drugs and accepting gifts and ski trips and golf outings from energy company representatives with whom they did government business?

These are not public servants. These are opportunists who used government to serve themselves, not the people or our nation. Obama proved his decision to serve the people’s interests in the S. side of Chicago, foregoing wealth, esteem, and notariety working for the people of the churches, helping them organize and achieve some measure of purpose and hope in dealing with their losses of jobs and dreams that came with them.

One can argue whether Obama has all the answers. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that he does not. But, he has served the interests of the people he chose to represent as a community organizer, as a representative of his State government, and in his U.S. Senate role. Obama is not a maverick, someone you can’t depend upon. He has demonstrated time and again that the people he represents can depend on him acting in a manner that he believes will be in their best interests.

McCain admits to shame over his first wife, over his academic background, over his confession to the Vietnamese, over his role in the Keating 5 incident, and over his inability to maintain decorum and a cool head under stress. All this he has admitted in public venues by word or action.

So, who is that has the record that demonstrates service to others instead of self. The one who has a record of service that he is proud of and for which even his most ardent haters have been unable to find any evidence of direct misconduct or abuse of others for self, or the one who has many regrets and shame hanging over his recollections of his past?

It is the most damning statement of our times that after electing and reelecting an incompetent without knowledge as a compass, by way of associations with power and an inordinate sense of privilege, that America would even consider making this monumental mistake yet again for a third time in a row by electing the often dishonorable Sen. John McCain whose actions so parallel that of the current sitting president as to be obvious to any who seek to compare their histories; not their milestones, their histories.

Our experiment in a democratic republic is failing. We the American people are responsible for that failure. We who have grown as dependent upon the marketing and advertising of our politicians as we have upon the foreign oil that has helped cripple our economy for more than a year now with massive net exports of American wealth, much of it from Americans who have very little to begin with.

We who rely on political parties dedicated to power and NFL style loyalties of absolutely no import at all in lieu of the Parties’ only primary purpose being the acquisition and retention of power, the nation be damned.

McCain is known for one, and only one, selfless act in his whole life, and he reuses it time and again to justify all the many other misdeeds and errors in judgment which he confesses so much shame over in an attempt to win voter’s sympathies and redemption.

It is disgusting. McCain is disgusting as he trashes now his one act of selfless heroism those 5 decades ago, in order to shamelessly win the prize he feels so entitled to, and so desperate to achieve at the end of his days. He has lied, deceived, and trashed his opponent in direct contradiction to his vow to run a clean campaign.

He has no ethical discipline, no principles to guide him, and no time to learn to become a better person than the one he confesses shame to being since his days in Hanoi Hilton. And the fact that 45 or so percent of the American public would support him is proof extant that America is failing this Noble Experiment in rule of, by, and for the people.

These people seek to be ruled by the cleverer and more devious likes of John McCain, clearly their superior and deserving to be their leader by lack of virtue that will not allow what is good or right to stand in his way of success at achieving his goals. Losers would respect such a candidate. No surprise there.

j2t2,

No one has said that speculation wasn’t what caused a traded commodity to increase in price. Why do you think that speculators thought that the price would increase? Seems to have happened once the Democrats were in charge and it seemed that access to oil was going to be curtailed.

Once even the democrats started to agree to more drilling did the price drop, not because of collusion but because of an understanding of the markets and long term trends. Knowing that in a few years the amount of oil we import will be decreasing and domestic production will be increasing will cause the markets to drop. If one has an understanding of how markets work. Factcheck even looked into this:

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

Or, I suppose you could believe that all the people with money agree to do things and sit in meetings to determine how best to rip off the people who don’t have money… I always found this odd, I would go after the guys who have money if I wanted more, personally, but I’m not rich so I suppose I just don’t get it obviously.

He has lied, deceived, and trashed his opponent in direct contradiction to his vow to run a clean campaign.

As has his opponent.

Yet, one is lauded by you and the other is vilified.

Did ya join the Democrat party David? You sound just like one.
Fact is Obama aint any better than McCain. He’s just as bought and paid for as McCain and anyone else from either major party that’s ever run for President. And he aint gonna do jack for the working class. Instead he’s gonna do just like every other President has for the last 50 to 60 years and serve the special interest that’s bought him with there campaign bribe money.
The fact that Obama and McCain are so close shows that folks are liking way the both are lying to them.

Jim M., and thank you for that last line referencing the desperation of the competition. The view of one seeking to dismantle the United in these United States of America. Your words speak truer than you intend, I suspect.

We should be a united people electing our most capable leader from those willing to suffer the grueling schedules and myriad tasks, appearances, and throngs of people wanting to be in the same air space as someone whose picture is on TV. That would be the best and ideal for a people of a United States.

But, there are so many who approach it as they would a civil war, and who use words like competition, and opposition, and whose phrases exalt disdain for any who have the temerity to express themselves differently, or bare any insight upon the real motives of what takes place in the name of greed, power, and self-service.

If McCain wins, 5% of Americans will benefit. If Obama wins, 100% of Americans will benefit, though 5% a bit less than if McCain were to win. That is the sure and plain truth of the short term economics of the election. Does it matter? Not to half of Americans being polled apparently. That is not a harbinger of good things for America’s future.

Trickle down economics is elitist economics. The fact that more than 40% of Americans polled, only 10 to 15% who could even remotely be considered the elite class financially, support such elitist economics in their choice of McCain, is a testament to the prowess of marketing and advertising’s evolution to be able to package caca as Creme de le’Creme custard pie, while those full of it walking about with brown stained lips singing its praises to their fellow elites.

Reminds me of the 3 Stooges in tuxedos and top hats. I understood their being fooled into voting for GW Bush in 2000. It was a whole lot harder understanding why they would reelect him in 2004. But, now, they have disowned and repudiated their choice of 2000 and 2004 only to be marketed into supporting his twin in 2008.

Makes me ponder sometimes if the North might not have been better off letting the South secede. Let the people choose their nation of the enlightened by education in philosophy, science, and humanities, and the other nation of industrial and agricultural barons, slavery, and ignorance in a two tiered aristocracy founded upon marketing of compassionate conservative servitude, according to the whims of the master and church inquisitor, of course.

I think Obama’s big error, that he keeps making, is to run against Bush and keep trying to say that McCain is exactly like Bush.

For starters, the idea of another Bush actually appeals to about 30% of Americans. But when he says it, those who don’t like Bush then start comparing him to McCain and noticing the comparison isn’t as obvious as Obama wants you to believe. Once you start to question this attack against McCain, the whole reason for Obama starts to disappear. Also, you gotta remember, the 70% or so who don’t like Bush aren’t all liberal Democrats. Lots of them are actually frustrated conservatives mad that Bush isn’t conservative enough or hasn’t been good at ramming through conservative ideas. This is not bringing America together like Obama claims. This is trying to divide America over Bush, and the polls show that it isn’t really working that well.

It’s baloney to say that McCain’s only qualification was being a soldier. The guy’s been in the Senate for decades and until he ran for President against Barack Obama, even Democrats talked about him as an independent minded, good and decent man. But now they’re just mad that he’s in the way of Obama becoming president.

Obama and McCain are both attacking each other, and not everything either of them says is 100% fair and balanced. Politics ain’t bean bag. Complaining about it is also just more politics too.

Thank you Ron Brown, for shedding your independent disguise and revealing your closeted penchant to judge all those who don’t think like you, decide like you, speak like you, as the opposition. Your remark reveals a complete lack of comprehension of what it means to be independent as a voter.

And independent in this election has 3 choices, McCain, Obama, and anyone else who hasn’t a prayer in hell of winning. According to your comment, anyone not choosing McCain simply HAS to be a Democrat, you know, one of them!!!

Millions of independent voters will vote for McCain without becoming or even liking the Republican Party. Same is true for the millions of Independents who will vote for Obama without becoming or even liking the Democratic Party.

You comment is more honest at least than pretending to be an independent who just happens to favor McCain. Real Independent voters respect fellow Independents even if they choose the other candidate, without branding them as partisan in such a sophomoric simple minded way as partisans are prone to label anyone not like them.

I respect independent voters who will vote for McCain on the experience and foreign policy issues. They have a reasoned case to make in that regard. But, if they are Independent voters, they would never try to shackle fellow independents as partisans for having chosen Obama for similarly well reasoned purposes.

I respected you as a McCain supporter. Until this last comment. Now, it is difficult to picture you as an independent at all. Not because you support McCain, but, because you feel compelled to label anyone supporting Obama as a partisan Democratic loyalist. That Us vs. Them mentality is a dead giveaway to partisans masquerading as independents for any number of deceptive reasons. What are yours?

Liam said: “This is trying to divide America over Bush, and the polls show that it isn’t really working that well.”

That is one helluva an astute observation, Liam. And one that escaped me until reading your comments. It is clear that the entire campaign on both sides have now decided to throw themselves down the slippery slope of mudslinging and disparagement of each other. Now the partisans can argue over who started it - forcing the other campaign to slide down the slope with no choice in the matter. The only winners in that contest is the marketing and advertising firms and media running the mudslinging ads. The American people will not benefit from it.

But, there are the debates still coming up. Going deceptively or inaccurately negative against one’s opponent in a televised debate is an enormously risky venture. And the candidate that enters those debates with a slew of lying and distorted ads which they approved can be be forced on the defensive in a televised debate.

The Polls show the majority of people have already decided McCain’s ads are not accurate. If I recall correctly, a smaller majority think Obama’s ads are not accurate. If I were Obama or McCain, I would insure the ads are very accurate and not deceptive in nature from this point forward. We will see if each believes the other can’t refrain. Kinda like a game of chicken on the highway. Who will throw out a fair and accurate ad first? Or will the debates follow the ads into the mud, depriving the public of an true information on policy issues and plans for dealing with what concerns them most?

We will see.

Rhinehold said: “Yet, one is lauded by you and the other is vilified.”

Not lauded for those reasons, though, Rhinehold. And, in my opinion, having watched the ads, there is less deception and no outright lying in Obama’s ads, though distortions are obvious.

McCain saying Obama would rather lose a war than an election polled very negatively for McCain, as it should have. McCain’s claim that Obama would raise taxes with the clear implication that ALL Americans would be the target of those tax increases is another blatant lie about where Obama has stood on taxes from the beginning of laying out his economic plan.

Obama’s ads distort by claiming McCain is going to favor the corporate lobbyists with more of the same Bush catering. Though it is true in Obama’s ads that McCain has current and former corporate lobbyists working close to him on his campaign.

Obama should just come out with ad that is totally true and verifiable. Something like, “Look, if McCain wants to pick a Bitch for VP who claims the only difference between herself and a female pit bull canine is lipstick, one has to question Sen. McCain’s judgment in the Oval Office. We don’t need another president who finds friendship and love in Vladimir Putin’s eyes.”

You know, something straight forward and factual like that. :-)

Rhinehold naively said: “I suppose you could believe that all the people with money agree to do things and sit in meetings to determine how best to rip off the people who don’t have money… I always found this odd,”

Rip off 10 cents from 300 million people and you walk away with $30 million dollars, Rhinehold. Not so odd to go after small amounts from great numbers. Somebody dreamed up shaving percentages of single pennies in accounts off to an offshore account. Added up to millions in just a few weeks. C’mon, Man, where is your larcenous imagination. Rich people have a lot to lose and guard it tenaciously. Poor people figure they won’t be targets since they have so little. Which makes them even easier targets, and worthwhile in very large numbers, as in the gas pumps across America.

Of course, overdoing it can bring too much attention. It was about two weeks from the announcement of Congressional investigations in the NY Times and WSJ to the first sustained deceleration in oil prices. Coincidence? No. I don’t thihk so. If one has the smarts to use speculative and hedge markets to achieve billions in profits, one has the smarts to back off when prying eyes announce they will be turning in your direction. They know an exit sign when they need one.

Rhinehold said “Why do you think that speculators thought that the price would increase? Seems to have happened once the Democrats were in charge and it seemed that access to oil was going to be curtailed.”

Or it could be because -
from the link “Then, apparently to make sure the way was opened really wide to potential market oil price manipulation, in January 2006, the Bush Administration’s CFTC permitted the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the leading operator of electronic energy exchanges, to use its trading terminals in the United States for the trading of US crude oil futures on the ICE futures exchange in London – called “ICE Futures.””
What a coincidence that the Dems came into Congress on Jan 9, 2006 with a very slim majority.

Rhinehold said “Once even the democrats started to agree to more drilling did the price drop, not because of collusion but because of an understanding of the markets and long term trends. Knowing that in a few years the amount of oil we import will be decreasing and domestic production will be increasing will cause the markets to drop. If one has an understanding of how markets work.”

Were life so simple Rhinehold, unfortunately I disagree with your analysis of the sudden and dramatic drop in oil prices. Why-
From the link “A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.””

I know but thats a good thing all of these speculators are doing right? Not really

From the link “But how today’s oil prices are really determined is done by a process so opaque only a handful of major oil trading banks such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have any idea who is buying and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that set physical oil prices in this strange new world of “paper oil.””

Rhinehold said “Or, I suppose you could believe that all the people with money agree to do things and sit in meetings to determine how best to rip off the people who don’t have money”

From the link “In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes. The CFTC defines a speculator as a person who “does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.””

Rhinehold said “I always found this odd, I would go after the guys who have money if I wanted more, personally, but I’m not rich so I suppose I just don’t get it obviously.”

Which could explain why we are not rich and they are Rhinehold.

So it is safe to say IMHO that oil speculation caused the run up of prices and not supply issues as the repubs would have us believe. Why did they start going down? Was it because the speculators were worried that supply would increase immediately after the dems agreed to look at drilling or because the big hedge funds are, as David said, running like cockroaches now that the lights have come on?
The link-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

DRR said “Now the partisans can argue over who started it - forcing the other campaign to slide down the slope with no choice in the matter.”

David, McCain declared it was necessary for his side to start running lies and other types of negative ads because Obama would not agree to attend town hall meetings as McCain wanted him to do. So as you can see it was Obama’s fault that McCain started the negative ads. The logic is “when McCain gets mad because you won’t do exactly what he wants you to do it’s your fault.”

David,
Why I agree that not all citizens seeking Elected Office are doing it for the right reasons I do believe that today more and more Americans are aware of the problems that forced the Elders of the 70’s to hold the Democratic and Republican Leadership to a limited world. However, as one who has been learning to play with the Argument of Stupidity held by those over the age of 30 for many years. I am moved by the fact that the Left and Right of Society showed me that they had Common Sense in 2004 when they refused to take me on in a straight up debate over the issues.

So, why the Republicans may believe McCain and Palin is their Obama and Biden, I do not see either party willing to match my personal bold opinion of making every American a millionarie. And why I can only dream of the day that America will have a Presidential Candidate that will take that position, I hope that the Rich are ready to be Poor given the current policies of the Whitehouse in order to pay for the two wars and their unwillingness to support the vuale of the dollar.

j2t2 said: “The logic is “when McCain gets mad because you won’t do exactly what he wants you to do it’s your fault.”

Yeah, as a parent, I grew very used to hearing that argument from my daughter when she got mad. Fortunately, she has grown up considerably in the last couple years. Some people never do.

Henry, giving every American a million dollars would insure every American has a million dollars for about 48 hours. Within a year, a substantial percentage of Americans would be a long way from being a millionaire. And within 2 years, the bankruptcy filings would return in growing numbers.

The American educational system simply does not prepare most Americans, even if they do graduate H.S. and get an Associate’s Degree, to manage their finances well. And even if they did, there will always be scam artists, thieves, and serendipity when it comes to managing wealth.

That said, I agree entirely that the wealth distribution system in this country is way, way out of balance, and poses serious threats to the viability of our economic future going forward, not to mention political stability if the gap widens further further.

That Us vs. Them mentality is a dead giveaway to partisans masquerading as independents for any number of deceptive reasons. What are yours?

I have entertained the idea of becoming a registered independent for about the last year now. I have been trying to determine that worth largely by way of observing the views and statements of so called indies mainly on this blog and occasionally at other sites. The recent polling tied in with what I read has convinced me that there is no particular value at this point in time in doing so. I have come to the conclusion that many indies really are nothing more than closet repubs or dems who are looking for an easy way to escape the responsibility and embarrassment of having to justify their support of either duopoly party. There are some here who attack absolutely everything liberal or conservative likewise. It also seems to me that most indies have largely conservative leanings. For a while I thought that maybe indies were by way of separation a more insightful and responsible lot. Their wisdom, or should that be lack of, have determined the last two presidential elections. They most likely will determine this one also. A McCain election will virtually insure a continuation of past policy. A continuation that will do nothing to lead this country out of its current regression of which republican policy is responsible.

I think there is value in the concept of an independent party. Unfortunately indies seem largely just as lost and indifferent in their directions and leanings as those who defend major party values. They take pride in their ability to demand that the major parties cater to them. Unfortunately pride does not equate to any greater image of responsibility. Actions indicate responsibility and I have seen few actions over the last decade that would indicate a more informed or profound third party electorate.

I think that for now I will remain a dem. At least I know where I stand. And I don’t have to go to all the trouble of trying to mask my true leanings in an effort to appease a group of people who mostly seem ashamed to do so.

David

The word wisdom seems to be popping up quite a bit here at watchblog recently. I think it is a word that has been used way to little. It really says everything about the current state of our nation. McCain, Bush, and Bush’s fed have been taking the stage throughout our economic crisis trying to convince the nation that we are an economically sound nation, in spite of reality. They have been playing the populace for fools in a vast effort to mask their lack of wisdom. Now they in their wisdom will attempt to convince the populace that it is not their fault. The sad part is that a rather large percentage of the populace will not have the wisdom to see through that lack of conservative wisdom.

If McCain wins, 5% of Americans will benefit. If Obama wins, 100% of Americans will benefit, though 5% a bit less than if McCain were to win. That is the sure and plain truth of the short term economics of the election.

Benefit how?

The statement is not only subjective, to the extreme, but also not accurate if you are just looking at their tax policy.

An independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

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

But, that ignores what people may or may not be looking for for improving their station. Are they looking for more freedom? Less dependence on foreign oil? Less debt?

It is nice that you can tell everyone what you think they care about and want is as you see it and claim it as fact, but it falls flat to most people who see through the political machinations that you have to go through to get there.

McCain’s claim that Obama would raise taxes with the clear implication that ALL Americans would be the target of those tax increases is another blatant lie about where Obama has stood on taxes from the beginning of laying out his economic plan.

There is a difference in saying that someone is a target of a tax increase and that someone would feel a tax increase as a result.

If in the end the middle class is still paying those increase in taxes through their being embedded in the items and services they purchase, aren’t they still subjected to a tax increase?

And what Obama’s plan does to retirees… well, I am shocked that AARP isn’t screaming. Ok, not really, but they should be.

David
I didn’t mean to sound like I was branding ya as anything. If ya took it that way I apologize. Your free to vote for who ever ya want and I do respect that. I might not agree with your choice, and I don’t, but I do still respect your right to vote for the person you think is best for the job.
It’s just that I’ve been hearing the same stuff ya wrote from every Democrat around. Maybe if someone would come up with something new. Like where Obama really stands on the real problems facing this country. But then I aint been hearing anything like that out of McCain’s supporters either.
I’m NOT a McCain supporter. I don’t like him any better than I do Obama. Maybe if the ticket was reversed. I might be able to stomach a Palin/McCain ticket a little better. But I doubt it.
Right now I’m not sure if I could in good conscious vote for any candidate of any party. The only one that comes close is Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party. And I’m having problems there.
Maybe I’ve just gotten too cynical.

David said, in reference to my remarks, “I understand where you are coming from. That is the difference between your comments and mine.”
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2008 11:11 PM

Excuse me David, for all your talk about roaches and lost ideals, it still doesn’t make you knowledgeable of how publicly traded commodities work. By your very own words you have confirmed the accuracy of mine. You wrote, “GW Bush refused to depress the price by releasing oil from the reserve.”

“Depress” the price is just an obscure way to say lower prices. You and I agree that increasing supply lowers prices. And David, it works every time. Increasing supply by producing more oil from our known reserves will work the say way. Thanks for your valued confirmation.

David,
While given every American a million dollars in one lump sum payment would destory the Market, the fact that every American could make a million dollars each and every year through hard work and investment is a matter of fundamentals and the American Dream.

Sure, one only has to look at management over the last forty years to see the problems of given money away to citizens who are uneducated; however, I do believe that the Labor could do no worse than their counterparts. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the Poor would do a lot better than the Rich given the same opportunities over the next forty years.

Neverthless, the raising of wages to offset the policies of President Bush a few years ago will do nothing except price America out of the Global Market. Yet, finding ways for the Consumer to generate additional income to cover Health Care and other Basic Needs of Citizenship would keep the cost of doing business low while increasing the need to expand the supply of Goods and Services.

In fact, why I am not allowed to propose a Third Party and still keep My Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights. I do see an opening for some Independent Citizens to start one based on the Ideology of Educating the Consumer. For if one is to truely reform Washington than IMHO the best way forward is to force the Democratic and Republican Tickets to debate the Needs of the Consumers of America along with the limitations of what Governments and Corporations.

Henry,

Look at the lives of those who have ‘won the lottery’ and then filed bankruptcy within years to see how what you suggest would work.

If people were good at managing their own finances and planning, they wouldn’t need to play the lottery, just as individuals with the same abilities would not NEED $1,000,000 in the first place.

BTW, when everyone has 1,000,000, how much do you think a new Escalade is going to cost?

David:

So in the end, You support Obama because his motives are pure and McCain’s are corrupt. McCain is self serving, Obama isn’t thinking of himself at all.

So this campaign is good against evil?

CH

Craig, if that is what you want to think, who am I to tell you what to think?

I can tell you that our economy is suffering demand side, consumer side weakness, and McCain’s supply side, production side favoring policies will not do a thing to help our economy that part of our economy. Among other things, this is why Obama is the better choice for me. But, you are free to interpret what you wish from what you read.

Jim M, thank you for acknowledging that there was ample supply, it was just being locked up by the Bush family for profitable reasons. I appreciate that.

And if your argument is to have any merit WHATSOEVER, you will have to produce evidence that even ONE oil tanker was turned away from port with its cargo hold empty. You won’t, because you can’t, because there NEVER was a supply shortage. The logical consequence of these facts are what you try to argue around, and it is so obvious as to make your position on this issue ridiculous.

But, thank you for playing!

Rhinehold,
Thanks for proving my point. For why some lottery winners like AIG and other in the Market have fail prey to poor judment so should every American be kept in poverty becuase of the actions of these people?

In fact, seeing that Management has seen an increase of over 500% in wages over the last forty years and has done nothing to improve the world that we live in than should the policy of the next President take away these gains. For did we not discuss a few years ago that President Bush screwed up when he agreed to split a piece of gold in half.

In fact, IMHO the Stock Market should be allowed to enter into a free fall as happened in the Great Depression. For why many Investors would lose their life savings and businesses, the Poor in Society would not be hit as hard. Yes, a hard line to take, but when the DOW landed at about 7500 I do believe that the Market would right itself given the present political philosophy.

And why I do not believe an Escalade will be a SUV of the Future, the production cost would remain about the same if the Million Dollars was made by the Consumer instead of the Employee. That is if Parents will keep the Greed of a Few out of the equation.

However, if you want a picture of what can be done. Well, buy a brand new house for $500,000.00 and pay %250,000.00 for your Escalade. Now do you want to try and explain to a Citizen making $16,500.00 or less a year why that cannot invest in making a million dollars a year by selling their excess electricity to the National Power Grid?

Rhinehold,
Thanks for proving my point. For why some lottery winners like AIG and other in the Market have fail prey to poor judment so should every American be kept in poverty becuase of the actions of these people?

In fact, seeing that Management has seen an increase of over 500% in wages over the last forty years and has done nothing to improve the world that we live in than should the policy of the next President take away these gains. For did we not discuss a few years ago that President Bush screwed up when he agreed to split a piece of gold in half.

In fact, IMHO the Stock Market should be allowed to enter into a free fall as happened in the Great Depression. For why many Investors would lose their life savings and businesses, the Poor in Society would not be hit as hard. Yes, a hard line to take, but when the DOW landed at about 7500 I do believe that the Market would right itself given the present political philosophy.

And why I do not believe an Escalade will be a SUV of the Future, the production cost would remain about the same if the Million Dollars was made by the Consumer instead of the Employee. That is if Parents will keep the Greed of a Few out of the equation.

However, if you want a picture of what can be done. Well, buy a brand new house for $500,000.00 and pay %250,000.00 for your Escalade. Now do you want to try and explain to a Citizen making $16,500.00 or less a year why that cannot invest in making a million dollars a year by selling their excess electricity to the National Power Grid?

Ron Brown, I understand your disappointment and failure to find a candidate to support. When the candidates are embedded within political parties and those parties’ aims are power instead of good governance, it taints the candidates even if they have the best of intentions.

I recognize that there are some good qualities Obama and McCain will bring to governance, but, they are dramatically different, and my choice is made on the basis on of which set of good qualities are most needed and will do the most good for our country in the next 4 years.

Our country is not suffering from a constriction of producers, but limitations on consumers ability to consume. Since more than 60% of our entire economic activity is consumption based, we need a president who is going to shore up the consumer side of our economy, which in turn will benefit suppliers. There will be a cost in doing this and that money must come from somewhere without being added to the national debt. Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the top 5% of income earners to help cover those consumer stimulation policies, and to raise tax rates on corporations by 5%, from 15 to 20%, while lowering taxes by $1000 on the middle and lower class wage earners, is a sound plan for stimulating the consumer side of our economy.

McCain’s plan is devoid of such details in large part, and what is revealed doesn’t add up. McCain says he will cut pork spending. OK, that accounts for 18 billion dollars a year, assuming he cuts Republican pork as well as Democratic. So, he is up 18 B. But, then he proposes to cut corporate tax rates, and retain the Bush tax cuts set to expire, while dramatically increasing spending on military growth, keeping us in Iraq the entire 4 years in office, and all this in the face of a half trillion dollar 2009 Deficit. His numbers just don’t add up. In order for them to add up, he would have veto all spending bills until an across the board cut of between 5 and 10% of the budget were agreed to by the Congress. That is not in the universe of reality or possibility, and would indiscriminately increase hardship and suffering on millions of Americans whose government assistance is all that keeps them from becoming homeless, forced to crime, or malnutritioned.

And I am sorry, but, this is not what I am reading from Democrats for Obama, who don’t seem to know or want to know how the economics of the next 4 years are going to play out. It will be at the very least, 2010 before our economy has a chance of regaining its footing, and it could easily be 2012 or beyond depending upon global economic events and additional unforeseen shocks to our economic system in the interim, like a credit card industry partial failure (increasingly likely) or war with Pakistan or an renewed arms race and cold war with Russia.

Picking presidents is never a choice between perfect candidates. It is always a potential choice between candidates whose limited and imperfect understanding, education, experience, and policy priorities will best meet the top priority needs of the nation and her people for the next terms in office. That is how I approach my decision, and I hope one day in America’s future, that will be how most Americans approach their decision. That day is nowhere near however, as I am sure we could both agree.

It is however, our responsibility as voters to deliberate and make the best possible choice we can in choosing the direction our nation will take in electing our leaders. It is the least that our democratic republic system demands of us, and though such a decision may be difficult given the choices, abdication of that voting responsibility is an abdication of citizen duty and responsibility in our form of government, as I see it.

Rhinehold said: “If in the end the middle class is still paying those increase in taxes through their being embedded in the items and services they purchase, aren’t they still subjected to a tax increase?”

This appears to me a subtle argument in favor of monopolization and justification for profits without limit even to the point of undermining the entire economic system that afforded those profits.

The notion that private enterprise must and will pass all costs of anykind including social and taxation costs on to the consumer in order to support infinite greed, illogical on a number of fronts. First, competition and market share act as limits on how much cost and cost increases can be passed on to the consumer without losing market share and economies of scale of operations. Unless a monopoly or oligopoly exists in which all competitors agree to act synchronously in passing tax costs to the consumer. And I know you have written that you do not support the concept of monopoly, and therefore, I conclude you would not oppose legislation and oversight which sought to prevent such monopolistic behavior from occuring in our markets.

We agree that our international competitive position would be enhanced by doing away with corporate taxes altogether. However, if we are to avoid the consequent dramatic increase in deficits and debt, one would have to logically agree to increasing the taxes on personal wealth to compensate, since increasing taxes on non-wealthy consumers would undermine the efficacy of our consumer driven economy. I suspect however, that that is not a logical direction you would be want to move toward. Which would be illogical while insisting on the elimination of corporate taxation.

And so, we end up in disagreement on this issue of taxation, yet again. Government MUST pay for its operations and HALT this passing of debt to those who do not yet have a vote in the matter. And that requires taxation where taxation least impedes and undermines our economic viability. That one locus of least harm for taxes is on personal wealth, and the most fair method of tapping that personal wealth taxation is through a flat tax rate which all income earning persons participate in at the same rate.

I know we disagree on this, but, it does come back to this.

Rhinehold said: “Benefit how?

The statement is not only subjective, to the extreme, but also not accurate if you are just looking at their tax policy.”

You overlook the obvious, Rhinehold. Any plan that actually prevents deferral and accumulation of debt benefits everyone down the road, by preserving the integrity of our economic base. Not subjective at all. Folks making over $250,000 per year in annual income receiving a modest tax increase does not bankruptcy make for those individuals, unless they have grossly mismanaged their quarter mil. income already, which is not our or the government’s responsibility.

On the other hand, while Obama’s $1000 tax cut for the other 95% of wage earners would ALSO benefit their dependents who are NOT wage earners. Ergo, the other 95% of the population.

Happy to help you see the implications beyond the stated obvious.

RickIl, I commend your rationale for choosing at this time not to register Independent. It appears well reasoned to me.

Yes, the growth in Independent voters has come predominantly from the Republican Party in the last 6 years according to what I have read on the matter. And it is very convenient in resolving the cognitive dissonance as you point out, of defending the GOP while holding concurrent deep criticisms of its officials actions. Convenient because they can still vote Republican without having to wear the brand of shame, created by the sex scandals (another at the GOP Convention between Bush agency rep’s and oil industry lobbists involving cocaine, wild sex parties, etc)., and corruption (ala Abramoff and Foley and now Palin), and of course the biggest of them all, absolute fiscal destruction at the hands Republican rule.

The growth of registered Independent voters is not very meaningful, as I once thought it was. The rise of now two Independent Parties however, is quite a different and more significant matter. Not that either of these two incarnations will rise to replace the Duopoly, but, that they open door and chart the direction from which a viable movement can come one day in which Party Loyalty and election victory are not the be all and end all of the objectives of the movement and its followers.

But, until that day, registering Independent still has a valid rationale as a protest act, though marginal for the moment. More fundamentally however, it represents a more objective approach to political behavior and policy, in general, by its crossovers, and that is potentially indicative of a sea change in our political environment.

David
I’m not looking for a perfect candidate. Them animals just don’t exist. I’m just looking for one that will work to solve the real problems of this great country. I just can’t picture either McCain or Obama doing that. And I’m not all that sure if the Republican ticket was reversed like I mentioned earlier that Palin would do much if anything. And I know Biden sure wouldn’t. He’s more a part of the problem than McCain is. And that’s going some.
Right now the only candidate I see that would try to work on the many problems our great nation faces is Chuck Baldwin. But I’m not real sure of some of his stands. Anyway he’s most likely got my vote this time around.

We have an interesting race cranking up around here for County Sheriff. A couple years ago the incumbent won reelection over his predecessor by an overwhelming (88%) majority. This year we have a 3 way race for the job. The incumbent (D), His predecessor’s son (R), and the Chief Deputy (I). Right now they all seem to be in a dead heat.
Here’s how is stacks up so far.
The Incumbent 30%
The Republican 29%
The Independent 29%
Undecided 12%
The incumbent has done a very good job and has gotten the Sheriffs Department out of the ole boy mode. He’s up graded out of date equipment, added 5 very badly needed deputies, and has made it generally safer of his deputies to do their jobs.
The Republican candidate seems to want to take the department back into the ole boy mode. He doesn’t like the computers in the cruisers that can tell an officer if there’s warrants for the driver or occupants of a vechile. Or if the vechile is stolen. Something any cop would like to know before aproching one. Specially if their closet backup is from 10-30 minutes away. He also want to get rid of 10 deputies.
The independent wants to form a police department to work under him and separate from the deputies and give them more authority than the deputies.
Right now the incumbent has my vote. We don’t need a new department answering to the Sheriff. And we sure as hell don’t need the ole boy system back.

Obama gave an excellent speech today on the state of the economy, discussing how we got into the mess of the currently unfolding crisis, and how he plans to bring average Americans the kind of changes we’ll need going forward.
If anyone missed it, here is a link to his speech:
Barack Obama: Confronting an Economic Crisis

If people are looking for a similar speech from McCain, you’re out of luck, because he didn’t give one. He did go on all the morning shows to inform American workers that we’re the fundamental he thinks is so strong about our economy. (Well gee thanks Mr. McMansions, but I’m really not sure what that’s supposed to mean when everything on Wall Street is melting down.) He also said that we need “reform” and that things need “fixing” and that he’s just the one to do all that — without giving any details or particulars whatsoever. I assume it will have to happen miraculously though, since he has repeatedly claimed he’s strongly on the side of permanent deregulation.
Oh, and I heard he also said something about how we need to create some sort of 9/11 Commission for the Economy — which sounded to me like a tacit admission that he really doesn’t know the first damn thing about economic issues at all.

David:

I am just confused by your conclusion:

Why is Obama running for president? Because it is in his good and capable nature to do so. Why is McCain donning the camouflage of Obama’s policies and representations? That is a question which should be obvious to any who understand his troubled and self-serving past.

You state clearly that Obama is running for noble movitves while McCain is running for less than noble motives.

Of course economic policy is a very valid discussion point. I’m not sure you can judge their hearts as clearly as your comments suggest however.

Craig said: “You state clearly that Obama is running for noble movitves”

Nope. You won’t find “noble motives” anywhere in my text, Craig. If you want to debate what I write, quote the words I write. If you want to debate your own interpretations, by all means, go ahead - I am sure you have a mirror somewhere.

I judge the candidates on their history. Not their hearts. I have no clue what is in their hearts. I have volumes of information about what is in their past however. I like to stick to what is empirically observable. And I defined hallmarks of each candidate’s past in the above article and previous articles about them.

VV, McCain will said he needs a 9/11 type Commission to look into the economy and markets. That would explain his absence of any details.

I swear if he is not careful, he is going to make GW Bush appear to be the brighter bulb in the GOP.

Ron Brown, I hear you. But, I don’t see you providing any evidence to backup your assessments.

Biden has never had executive power to change things. What changes he fought for had to be in the context of compromising with fellow Congress. Same is true of McCain and Obama.

Biden’s past does not reflect Obama’s policy proposals as much as it reflects Obama’s values. But, Biden is running for Pres., nor is Palin.

So, what about Obama’s policy intentions, or McCain’s, specifically, do you not have a comfort level with. If it is just a feeling, well, there is nothing to discuss. But, if you have specifics, those we can shed some light on.

David:

I judge the candidates on their history. Not their hearts. I have no clue what is in their hearts. I have volumes of information about what is in their past however. I like to stick to what is empirically observable. And I defined hallmarks of each candidate’s past in the above article and previous articles about them.

So you judge Obmaa based on his past as having a,

good and capable nature

and McCain as having a,

troubled and self-serving past.

Equally capable and moral people as you come to exactly the opposite conclusions.

It is hard to line up “self-serving”
with adopting children from Africa and pushing for the surge when the war was going badly.

I think you are focusing on the self serving and troubled parts of McCain instead of the self serving and trouble parts of Obama, and thus your conclusion.

David Remer wrote, “And if your argument is to have any merit WHATSOEVER, you will have to produce evidence that even ONE oil tanker was turned away from port with its cargo hold empty. You won’t, because you can’t, because there NEVER was a supply shortage. The logical consequence of these facts are what you try to argue around, and it is so obvious as to make your position on this issue ridiculous.”

David, let’s take a closer look at your simplistic argument of “No empty oil tankers equals adequate supply”. Assume you have two children and both of them are being fed adequately from the supply of milk in your fridge. A few years later you are fortunate and now have four children. Would you need more milk? Now, imagine that in your city every family increased in size as did yours.

The dairy’s still produce and sell the same amount of milk to the grocer as when the cities family’s were smaller. Will you pay more for milk? Will some families have to cut back on milk?

If not, why not. The milk trucks are not being driven to the store empty. What’s changed David? Duh…supply has not kept up with demand. I have heard this twisted logic repeated many times recently by liberals who think they really have a point with the “empty tanker” fairytale.

Magically, in your opinion, despite an indisputable increase in world demand for oil, there is no need for a comparable increase in supply because the tankers are not returning empty. I enjoy our little debates David, but please, give me some real meat to chew on.

Would releasing oil from our strategic reserves temporarily increase supply? Duh…yes, in the same way that spending money from your own rainy day fund tides you over. But, does it make you richer? Nope. Drill here, Drill now, makes us richer.

David Remer wrote, “On the other hand, while Obama’s $1000 tax cut for the other 95% of wage earners would ALSO benefit their dependents who are NOT wage earners. Ergo, the other 95% of the population.”

On page 6 of the Memorandum authored by Jason Furman, Economic Policy Director of the Obama campaign we find that among those 95% of the population are 34 million familes who have “no current tax liability to offset payroll taxes they pay.”

Well now, isn’t that interesting. We have folks who pay no income tax who are already getting an earned income tax credit (a tax refund while paying no taxes) and Mr. Obama wants to also pay their Social Security and Medicare payroll tax. Source:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/obamaandtaxes?source=SEM-google-facts-taxes&gclid=CNmho9K-45UCFQK0GgodDF8Nfg

It’s not “fair” enough that the taxes that you and I pay are used to funnel money to the “worthy”, but now you and I are expected to fund their social security and Medicare payments. And, I am quite certain, should the libs be successful, you and I will pay for their national health care premiums as well.

Well folks, what’s next on the list of “fair”? Rent subsidies (oops, we already have that), food stamps (oops, we already have that), free education (oops, we already have that), free medical care (oops), free car payments (there’s a new one), I think my point is made. It’s all “free”, it just magically appears with no bill attached as long as they keep voting for libs.

Let’s just keep taking from those who produce more than they personally need and give it to someone who doesn’t have as much. Again, I smell the stench of some failed “ism” at work here and it isn’t capitalism.

Let’s just be honest for a moment and take this to its logical conclusion. A little more tax on those who have too much will fix everything today and tomorrow, just a little more tax and so on.

Is more being produced to fund these tax thefts? No. Is the money being stolen producing more jobs, or funding more small businesses? No. How long can we keep stealing from producers to give to others before all are in poverty. If you’re a liberal…the answer is forever.

Sorry, Jim M, but the link you provided appears to defend entirely Obama’s tax plan against smear and lies, and gross deceptions.

34 million families doesn’t even equal the 43 million who can’t afford health insurance, Jim M.
Got a link to Furman’s Page 6 which you reference. Details are important and I can’t discuss it without knowing the details.

McCain has no problem sanctioning 100’s of billions of tax dollars for corporate bailouts as he attested just this week. And here you are whining about 10’s of billions for millions of American families not even employed and in poverty or about to fall into it.

Tsk, Tsk, but, you Republican’s have a very bizarre and hypocritical sense about who government should help with tax dollars.

Jim M. now your arguments are getting just absurd. If everyone seeking oil is getting the oil they seek, THERE IS NO OIL SHORTAGE!

Logic obviously has no place in your comments.

Craig said: “Equally capable and moral people as you come to exactly the opposite conclusions.”

Morality has nothing to do with it. Thank you for your allusion to far right religious measures of empirical and objective evaluation, though.

Equally capable? Well, that is impossible to say, isn’t it, until you give me a name and we compare histories and accuracies? I know of a few hundred sound Republican voting wall street executives of places like CountryWide, Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, Lehman Bros., and a host of others whom you would no doubt call capable. They were nonetheless ABSOLUTELY WRONG about their management of their corporations.

I have written many times over the last couple years of this coming debacle, and these so called, “capable people” OBVIOUSLY did not see what I did or act as I would have to insure My Corporation was not caught in the coming maelstrom.

Wanna try again, Craig?

Craig, I STRONGLY urge you to watch the CNN interview of McCain on his own past. In HIS OWN WORDS, he was not about serving others, but, his own desires, time and time again throughout his youth, his young adulthood, and his manhood through his first marriage. He had one shining moment of putting his suffering comrades ahead of his own desires, and he is still to this day milking it for every bit of personal advantage he can gain from recounting, again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Obama began his career with public service at $12,000 a year, turning down the other option worth far more prestige and vastly more earnings for 3 years. Then he continued from there to this day as a public servant for his constituents, who revere his representation of their interests by a vast majority.

Watch the CNN interviews, in these candidates own words as well as documented historical record which each candidate validates in the interview. It just doesn’t get more honest and true than this.

And if McCain is NOT VERY flagging careful about how deep in the mud he wants to go, Obama has the funds to air excerpts of McCain in that interview to devastating results in campaign attack ads. There is nothing more powerful than a video of a candidate in his own words expressing his regrets for poor decisions and even shameful decisions, again, and again, and again.

If objectivity has any meaning for you whatsoever, watch the CNN interviews. No spin, no interpretation, just the candidates expressing themselves about their histories. It is a real eye opener.

David Remer asks me, “Got a link to Furman’s Page 6 which you reference. Details are important and I can’t discuss it without knowing the details.”

David, OK, let me give you directions. Go to the link I provided and then look at the bottom of the page and click on; “Download Campaign Memo”. Since it’s a memo and not a website…well, you understand.

David also wrote, “34 million families doesn’t even equal the 43 million who can’t afford health insurance, Jim M.”

Yeah…let’s trot out that fictitious 43M number again without a footnote that it includes illegals, those offered health insurance by their employers and choose not to accept, adult children living at home who refuse to work, etc. Care to tell me David how many millions that would subtract from Mr. Obama’s magic number?

And…finally, David wrote, “Jim M. now your arguments are getting just absurd. If everyone seeking oil is getting the oil they seek, THERE IS NO OIL SHORTAGE! Logic obviously has no place in your comments.

Absurd? How in the world does your statement above relate to your “empty tanker” nonsense which I disproved with a simple analogy? If everyone seeking oil is getting the oil they seek then why your criticism of President Bush for not releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve to increase supply. David…you can’t have it both ways…come on…give me some real arguments.

Jim M said: “Yeah…let’s trot out that fictitious 43M number again without a footnote that it includes illegals,”

What’s your source for that statement, Jim M? Apparently you believe illegals now volunteer for polling and government surveys, do you? Laughable. Give me your source. Your comments are not a credible source by any stretch of the imagination.

Jim M. your analogy cannot and does not replace empirical fact and evidence. Everyone seeking oil in the world got the oil they sought. There was no shortage.

I can give you an analogy of how a gas combustion engine runs replacing the gas with Gremlins and the compression spark igniting their flatulence. But, the analogy does not replace the FACT that internal combustion engines operate on gasoline, not gremlins, and the the air gasoline mixture is what combusts, not flatulence of 10’s of thousands minute Gremlins too small too see.

Your comments are in dire need of a logic 101 book.

David Remer wrote, “Obama began his career with public service at $12,000 a year, turning down the other option worth far more prestige and vastly more earnings for 3 years. Then he continued from there to this day as a public servant for his constituents, who revere his representation of their interests by a vast majority.”

David, I read Obama’s own account of his community service in Chicago and he mentions, getting toilets and other utilities running, getting street potholes fixed, urging folks to attend city meetings to voice their concerns, and helping people get to the polls and receiving a salary and expenses for his old car. His paid community service amounted to being the middle man doling out federal money. I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

What Obama was doing for pay…many religious organizations do for free. Choosing a political career meant he had to earn his bonafides in one of the most corrupt city governments in the nation. Please don’t peddle that BS about choosing this instead of a prestigious career elsewhere from a sense of nobility.

David wrote; “Then he continued from there to this day as a public servant for his constituents, who revere his representation of their interests by a vast majority.”

Let’s see, is the word “revere” a shortened version of “reverence”? What exactly does reverence imply David…adulation of divinity? Hmmm, is that what’s going on now over in the liberal camp.

David, your comment #263231 means it’s time for me to disengage. I enjoy intelligent interchange but silly isn’t fun. When one resorts to such tactics it simply means they have no further reasonable argument to present. I soundly thrashed the “empty tanker” argument and you give me spooks and farts.

I would ask David what his question, “Apparently you believe illegals now volunteer for polling and government surveys,” has to do with people not having health insurance which was the subject?

David:

I think you do ok. You have a tendency to overrate yourself and your predictions. You are good at remembering the ones you got right and the ones you got wrong.

For instance, lets look for predictions that the surge would work.

On the economy you will be right eventually. When you predict recessions or worse since recessions come and go, eventually you are going to be right.

Of course right now we are not even in a recession. One will come and since recession is always predicted, you will be right!!

On the current financial crisis, I remember one in 1987, (stock market crash), 1991 (recession) 1994, junk bond defaults, 1998, Far east bail out, 2001 (9/11 and the tech bubble), and now we are having another crisis as we transition to the next new economy.

Let me go on the record and say that after this crisis there is going to be another one. when it comes, I get credit for it!!

Real estate was an easy one. After all, if you remember my central premise, all things revert to the mean. And since real estate was growing far faster than the mean, it not is reverting.

You might rmember a concept I have debated you on that I call “the error of extrapolation” which I defined as assuming a current enonomic curve will continue on it’s current path when in fact they do not, they turn. I think we are seeing that now.

That is why doomsday does not come. Cheap interest rates led to consumerism which now is predictably turning course.

The economy is growing slower than the mean up 2.2% in the last year. Unemployment is well within historical norms.

In spite of the alarm on TV, we are fine as a contry. Whenever the economy switches directions there are casualties. The Edsel!!

David, I must say that I too don’t agree with what you are saying about oil tankers.

If there’s only one tanker’s worth of oil extracted out of the ground, then they’ll only send one tanker to pick up that oil. They’re not going to send 2, 5, or 10 tankers to pick up one tanker’s load of oil. This doesn’t say anything about whether there’s too little oil, too much, exactly enough, or anything whatsoever.

I found Jim’s milk analogy kinda hard to follow, so I’ll come up with my own simpler one. I think I can say it in just a few sentences.

Imagine that you need ten truck loads of gravel to cover your driveway. The local quarry only has two truck loads available to sell you. So two trucks arrive at the quarry, fill up, and then drive the gravel to your house.

Does this prove that there’s no shortage of gravel at the quarry, David, and that you got all you need?

To prove that you didn’t get enough, would you need to see eight empty trucks pulling up and getting turned away? Would you pay for those eight extra trucks and their drivers after you were told that you could only get two truck loads? Think about it for a minute.

Factually, BHO regarded his time spent on community service as a complete failure. He couldn’t get people to do what he wanted them to do. Also, when they got organized, he discovered that they wanted different things for themselves than he wanted for them.

David said: So, what about Obama’s policy intentions, or McCain’s, specifically, do you not have a comfort level with.

How about all of them for both.
Obama claims he’ll raise taxes only on the rich. Big deal, the rich really don’t care what their tax rate is. They can afford the loopholes you and I can’t. They most likely will end up paying very little more if any after using the loopholes.
McCain says he’ll keep the tax breaks from the Bush administration. How does he plan on that when he’ll be dealing with a Democrat majority?
But these aint what makes me distrust either one of them. What makes me distrust them is they both are ignoring the real problems facing this great country of ours.
Neither has addressed illegal immigration.
Neither has addressed the deficit except to claim their economic plan will lower it. So what is their economic plans? Neither has said.
Neither has addressed the national debt. Which is $9,684,120,702,000 according to VOIDS numbers. And it’s going up so fast that by the time I got the numbers wrote down it had jumped about $1,000,000,000.
Neither has addressed our failing educational system.
Neither has addressed corruption in government.
Neither has addressed campaign finance reform.
When either candidate starts addressing these I just might consider them. But they’ll have to let us know what they plan to do about these problems other than the usual ‘I’ll work on them’ promise.

Ron Brown, thanks, now we have something concrete to discuss.

Obama claims he’ll raise taxes only on the rich. Big deal, the rich really don’t care what their tax rate is. They can afford the loopholes you and I can’t. They most likely will end up paying very little more if any after using the loopholes.

Myth. The empirical and demonstrable fact that the majority of the federal government’s revenues come from the upper 10% of income earners and corporations, belies your notion that they can escape taxation if they want to. The wealthiest in this country are, as a whole, of average or higher intelligence. They are aware that paying taxes is a good thing when it supports the myriad protective services our federal government provides us all. Warren Buffet is an example of a wealthy person who believes he should be paying more and the lower classes less. He is not alone. Most wealthy persons if polled would object to the wasteful and faulty prioritization for the way their taxes are spent. But, they don’t commit their lives to dodging their tax responsibility as a general rule.

McCain says he’ll keep the tax breaks from the Bush administration. How does he plan on that when he’ll be dealing with a Democrat majority?

Either he is too stupid to grasp the import of your question, or, he intends to bring America’s economy to its knees through repeated vetoes of Congressional Budgets, halting government operations and services until the Congress cries UNCLE. Somehow, I think that strategy will have he result as Bush strategies, fraught with unintended consequences.

Neither has addressed illegal immigration.

Well, they have addressed it. Just not convincingly nor adamantly. I can’t argue with you on their reticence to declare an end to 90% of the illegal immigration now taking place in their first term.

Neither has addressed the deficit except to claim their economic plan will lower it.

True! They pay lip service to the problem but, neither has put forth numbers tied to policies that would result in an end to deficit spending. Obama however, just this week has alluded to the fact that ending deficit spending with so much potential immediate threat to our economy may not be possible in his first term. That at least has a ring of truth to it that is lacking in McCain’s speeches about deficit spending. Cutting $18 billion in pork spending does not equal $500 billion dollars in deficit spending in the coming fiscal year.

So what is their economic plans? Neither has said.

False. Obama’s plan includes the following main components:

raising capital gains 5%

allowing Bush’s tax cut legislation to expire in 2010, and replace it with a tax policy that rewards more small and family businesses and entrepreneurial start-ups

cuts taxes by an average of $1000.00 for those earning under $250,000 per year to stimulate consumer spending and help middle class and lower class workers offset infationary pressures

Reduce our spending in Iraq by withdrawing the majority of armed forces from that country, and redeploying some of them to Afghanistan saving a number of billions of dollars per month over the last 2.5 years of his administration

redirect a portion of our foreign aid and assistance payments to places like Iraq and Pakistan to rebuilding American infrastructure here in the U.S.

breaking down the ties between wealthy special corporate interests and the legislative process, such that government spending is more focused on the needs of the nation, rather than the needs of the likes of Bear Stearns, Exxon-Mobil, and the pharmaceutical industry

greater investment education K through B.A.

creation and expansion of public service in return for college education cost assistance, which will pay dividends in years to come with a better educated population and more entrepreneurial capacity while saving taxpayers the cost of private contractors doing the public service jobs that students will undertake to do at half or less of private sector manpower costs

investments in the long term goal of removing expensive fossil fuels as the mainstay of American energy needs, replacing them as innovation permits with free energy sources like the sun and wind and hydrothermal sources whose only cost will be in harnessing, conversion and transmission

investment in decentralizing energy production such that individual homes and businesses can generate power on site, rather than require additional capital investments and maintenance costs for centralized distribution of power to those sites

And much more, which I can’t recall off the top of my head.

McCain’s economics are not nearly so specific nor comprehensive, but he does have a plan which includes the following:

Cutting a major portion of the $18 billion a year in current pork project spending by Congress

Keeping trickle down economic theory in place by extending permanently Bush’s tax cuts in the hopes that more of the savings by the wealthiest earners will be passed down to consumers and wage earners than currently is

Offering greater tax incentives to entrepreneurial small business startups and existing businesses to stimulate the economy and increase federal tax revenues from increased economic activity to offset the extension of Bush’s tax cuts

Investing in alternative energy to oil as well as increasing fossil fuel production here at home with subsidies to the oil and gas industries to pay for the capital expense of creating new oil and gas drilling equipment and platforms (which won’t reduce deficit spending but, increase it, however, it would make us less dependent on foreign fossil fuel imports 10 years or more out. However, with increasing world demand, don’t look for increasing domestic fossil fuel supply to offset rising costs of fossil fuels.

And of course more corporate subsidies by the oil and other energy industries to bribe them into developing no fossil fuel alternatives.

Similar to Obama’s plan, McCain would expand use the federal budget to expand both private sector and public sector volunteerism and public service jobs, especially for younger workers.

Revoke the Internal Revenue Service and income tax replacing it with a national sales tax, (unless he has reversed himself on this recently and it escaped me). This would put a greater burden on lower income consumers and less burden on wealthier income earners, while eliminating corporate and capital gains and estate taxation and revenues altogether, with the benefit of making American export business more competitive in the global marketplace.

Cutting entitlement program spending benefits, extending the age to collect such benefits, and privatizing Social Security creating a boon of profits to the very investment corporations which tax payers are no bailing out. He is not clear on Medicare/Medicaid plans save declaring he will lower health care costs without explaining how.

And there’s more in McCain’s plan that escapes me at the moment.

Neither has addressed the national debt.

Both have addressed it and say it is deplorable and we must stop adding to it if our economic future is to remain solvent, and offer the same plans for addressing tax revenues and spending as a the method to at least halt growth in the national debt someday.

Neither has addressed our failing educational system.

Not true. Obama has promised to make more federal funds available for teacher pay increases, federal assistance to students wanting to become teachers in exchange for teaching where teachers are needed most in the country.

And Obama has spelled out a number of plans to fight offset the rising costs of college education.

McCain believes in local control and standards for education and will protect and promote private school options, charter school options, and homeschool options and vouchers for families to send their children to other schools beyond those nearest the student’s home.

Neither has addressed corruption in government.

Where have you been? Both have made addressing corruption in government the centerpieces of their campaigns. When you say things like, this, I have to begin to wonder if the reason you don’t know what thir plans are is because you NEVER listen to what they have to say.

Neither has addressed campaign finance reform.

McCain has addressed it but, without specifics on what he would do other than attempt to break the transfer of money in its many various forms from special interests to political parties and candidates. But, yes, he is woefully short on specifics on just what legislation particulars he would try to sell to Congress for passage.

Obama is pretty much in the same boat as McCain on this one. Long on general promises and way short on particulars.

ohrealy said: “BHO regarded his time spent on community service as a complete failure.”

Care to share your factual source on that comment? Pure B.S. He achieved a tremendous amount of organizing amongst the people through the community churches which had not existed before. As to whether their lobbying force as an organized community was successful in meeting Obama’s or their own expectations, you have captured a modicum of truth. But, this was far from an exercise in establishing totalitarian leadership by Obama in the South Side of Chicago, as your careful and deliberate phrasing implies.

Source please? I want to hear or read Obama’s words that his 3 years spent their were a complete waste of his time and failed effort.

I won’t hold my breath!

Liam, you are taking the ‘tanker’ metaphor much too literally. The tanker represents demand for oil purchased at a given price. At no time did anyone bid for oil purchase only to find that their contract for the purchase was unable to be filled by the supplier due to a shortage of supply.

Price influences the demand and supply equation, such that, in this recent history, purchase demand at bid price never exceeded the producer’s ability to supply.

Now here is the clincher regarding supply, demand, and price. The total global demand and supply for oil is the same today as it was when oil was $145 per barrel. This is verifiable. Google oil supply and demand for the last year.

Thus, actual oil supply was never a factor in the price of oil. There was no shortage. The same amount of oil is available today (though OPEC has announced utbacks in future output) at $92 per barrel as was available when oil was $145 per barrel, and demand for oil has not gone down. The rate of growth of demand has dropped, but, actual purchased demand has not.

Ergo, there never was an oil shortage in real time and actual supply was not what drove the price up. With OPEC announcing output cutbacks a week or two ago, there will in fact be increased potential supply should prices spike again. Whether or not OPEC increases output in response to dramatic price increases or not is NOT a function of actual supply and demand, but of greed and artificial cartel scarcity of supply.

Liam, sorry, I mangled the end of that last sentence.

Whether or not OPEC increases output in response to dramatic price increases or not, is NOT a function of actual supply and demand, but of greed and the artificial creation of a perception of potential scarcity of supply, which, is also known by the word: “Speculation”, as in speculating on the future demand/supply ratio impact on price.

The price rose to $145 per barrel on speculation, not on actual order demand failing to be met by actual supply availability. And if this is thoroughly investigated, I suspect we will learn that much of that speculation was based on profit motivated rumor driven inside traders in the futures and hedge funds centering on oil contracts.

Much as we are beginning to witness now, with Wall Street false rumors about bank and financial institution potential insolvency, promoted by hedge fund and shorting investors to make enormous profits in hours or a single trading day in anticipation of the effect their rumors will have on the price of a corporation’s share price.

The SEC FINALLY is waking up to how this is taking place and attempting to install some rules to combat this speculation driven activity based not on financial fact and data, but, on nothing more than profiteer’s instigated false rumors.

We will no doubt find this activity was behind the dramatic rise in oil futures contracts as well. That, and the fact that the bidders never had to worry about actually winning a bid and taking ownership of thousands of barrels of actual crude oil. That to is be reviewed for potential regulation by the slow to waken SEC.

David, your statement, “Now here is the clincher regarding supply, demand, and price. The total global demand and supply for oil is the same today as it was when oil was $145 per barrel. This is verifiable. Google oil supply and demand for the last year.” is disputed by this reliable source that refutes your statement. I didn’t bother to look any further for more references.

From IEA, “”The other compelling data point in the report is a negative one in that daily [global projected] oil demand is still higher than supply by about 400,000 barrels per day despite the slowing U.S. economy,” Langan said. “That kind of highlights the demand growth that’s occurred in Asia and emerging markets over the past five years.” For the full story click here;

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/13/iea-cuts-2008-world-oil-demand-forecast-on-slower-global-growth/

David wrote; “The price rose to $145 per barrel on speculation, not on actual order demand failing to be met by actual supply availability. And if this is thoroughly investigated, I suspect we will learn that much of that speculation was based on profit motivated rumor driven inside traders in the futures and hedge funds centering on oil contracts.” Your premise is primarily built on fantasy as demand clearly has risen.

There is some truth in speculation being part of the reason prices increased and doesn’t require an investigation as you suggest. Even a novice understands that markets are driven somewhat by rumor and perception. A rumor of a merger affects the price of the stock involved just as a weather forecast of an impending hurricane or drought will affect the price of oil and crops. Prices rise and fall on the markets perception of reality. You call this greed. More reasonable folks would call it a profit motive based upon a measure of calculated risk and yes…that is speculation. What in the world is wrong with that, we all do it every day in our lives. To not speculate means that we don’t consider that today’s decisions are tomorrow’s reality.

Jim M, do you not know the difference between the words PROJECTED and Existing?

There was no oil shortage during the spike. I can project Obama will win in Nov. but, that does not necessary make it a true event in the present or future. IEA said projected, as in speculating upon the future. And as I have said consistently all along it was speculators who drove the price up, NOT actual supply shortages (as in insufficient supplies to meet current demand at market price).

When you are wrong and have lost an argument due to an oversight or misunderstanding, it is far easier and efficient to just admit the error and move on. But, if you wish to pursue a failed argument, I am happy to oblige you.

David
Thanks for your reply. Some of what ya said I haven’t heard. Some of McCain’s ideas I like. But not many. Some of Obama’s ideas I like. But not many.

I don’t know either plan on ending 90% of the illegal immigration when the Democrats want it for the potential votes when amnesty is declared again. And the Republicans want the cheap labor. Both would be bucking their own party. Something I can see McCain doing, given his record, more than Obama.

Raising the capital gains tax won’t only hit the rich in their wallets, it’ll hit the working folks too. Anyone that has a 401K, and that’s a whole heap of middle class working folks, will be paying more on the dividends they get. This will reduce the amount they have to spend in retirement. I just don’t see this as helping the middle class like Obama claims he wants to do.
True, a national sales tax will hit the poor and working class worse than it will the rich. This is where McCain shows where his true loyalties are.

I don’t see where throwing money at a problem has ever resolved very many problems. Unless the problems exist because of lack of money it seems to only make the problems worse.
I don’t see our educational system’s problems as being caused by a lack of money as such. While money might be needed in some areas to build more modern and/or badly needed schools, or to buy badly needed supplies and equipment, most of the problems lie in the federal mandates attached to that money.
One of the things that sticks in my crawl at most the board meetings is spending most of the time trying to figure out if we’re in compliance with all the contradictory mandates the feds have thrown at us. And which ones of the several contradictory ones we can best get by with violating in order to get anything done.
Does Obama plan to get rid of these contradictory mandates?
Does he have a plan to end the dumbing down of our youngins?
Does he plan to raise the standards in order to graduate?
I don’t see where there’s anything wrong with having students work off their loans in community service. But when will they be required to do this? I can see problems if they have to do it while they’re still in school. Some students might not be able to work off their loans and keep passing grades. That adds up to wasted money. And I can see some trying to duck out of community service after they graduate. That’s something that would have to be worked out.
Obama has a couple of good ideas here. But I’m not convinced that more federal money is the answer.
McCain’s idea of more local control of the schools sound very good to me. But when he starts talking about vouchers he makes me nervous. That more federal spending and mandates. Something we don’t need right now.

OK, both are talking about government corruption. But how do they plan on ending it? Just a change of power aint gonna do it. It’s gonna take getting rid if the corrupt politicians. Something that only the voters can do.

Both candidates are long on general promises and very short on specifics. And that right there is where I can’t support either of them.

David Remer asks, “Jim M, do you not know the difference between the words PROJECTED and Existing?

David, having a problem with “projected”? I guess that means we have no reason for concern over our “projected” national debt. OK, just for you, here’s reality.

“Worldwide oil production has barely budged, despite record prices. Since the start of 2004, oil’s price has gone from $33 per barrel to $132. Production, meanwhile, has risen just 1.8 percent, to 84.6 million barrels per day. That’s not enough to keep pace with the world’s growing thirst for oil, which has increased 3.7 percent during the same time. And the imbalance between supply and demand keeps pushing prices higher. It’s one of the main reasons gasoline now costs more than $4 per gallon.”

Source; http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/26/BUHH10S61B.DTL

Jim M, you continue to argue speculation on future demand EXCEEDING future supply. On that point there is no argument.

Your argument absolutely supports mine, that it was not shortage of oil in the present that caused the price to rise, but, speculation on future shortages.

Thank you for agreeing with me. No tanker (representing demand) has been turned away empty for lack of supply to fulfill a contract bid for oil. Real shortages don’t YET exist.

This is also evidenced by OPEC’s announcement of cutting back on production. The supply is there, for the present, so much so, that OPEC is scaling back output in order to create artificial scarcity as any upstanding cartel monopolist oligopolist group would to increase profits.

As for the national debt, it is a horrible burden as it is, without even having to project its growth into the future. $430 billion dollars spent on interest on that debt this year is problem enough.

Projected debt is instructive in deciding what to do today to mitigate the consequences of future debt. Just as projected oil shortages in the future are instructive in crafting policy action today that will mitigate the consequences of future shortages.

But, this has nothing to do with the $147.20 price of oil in July which driven to that level by speculation, and much of that speculation was fabrication about supply and demand in near term, which was false, as OPEC’s cutbacks attest.

If there really were a shortage, OPEC would be pumping at capacity and prices would continue to rise as demand rose. That is obviously NOT the case with oil now below $100 per barrel, despite, as you pointed out, a growth in consumption.

The facts and reality speak very clearly on what happened and how the consumers the world round got raped for a trillion dollars by speculators (some people involved with the selling and buying of oil contracts) over shortages that never existed.

Ron B. said: “Raising the capital gains tax won’t only hit the rich in their wallets, it’ll hit the working folks too.”

True enough, Ron. But it will increase gov’t. revenue, offset some deficit, and permit the gov’t. to assist those in desperate need. There is no free lunch. If the voters demand assistance after Hurricane Ike, the gov’t must raise the revenue to provide that assistance.

Or, cut assistance elsewhere and redirect that funding to the Ike victims. Obama intends to cut spending in Iraq. McCain intends to cut spending across the board affecting students in school lunch programs to NASA future program planners.

Both candidates will cut spending. I prefer prioritizing spending cuts rather than across the board cuts. The latter, to me, demonstrates a simple minded approach, and Obama’s, a more rational and proportional approach.

I needed a house. Throwing $145,000 at the problem got me a house. Throwing money at a problem can, and usually does, solve current real time needs at least in the short run. The government exists to serve the needs of the voters in areas where the voters individually cannot provide those needs for themselves, the military being a perfect example.

Throwing money at the victims of Katrina and Rita prevented 100’s of thousands of American citizens from dying for lack of housing, food, health care and transportation.

Throwing money at some problems can be counterproductive like the welfare system of the 1960’s through early 1990’s. It bred dependence and undermined motivation to contribute in return for money. But, one cannot make the argument blanketly, that throwing money at a problem won’t solve a problem. It often does, and depends on the problem and the contingency costs of throwing money at the problem.

Often, the contingency costs of throwing money at a problem can create far greater problems over time than not throwing money at the problem in the first place. The government could nationalize all oil and gas production in the U.S. and provide fossil fuel energy to the public at no out of pocket cost at the point of energy consumption.

It would solve many problems for 100’s of millions of Americans, but only in the short term. Over a longer term it would keep us dependent upon a vanishing source of energy and increased oil imports, and completely fail to shift our nation from fossil fuel to unlimited and ultimately cheaper sources of energy like sun and wind.

I can’t speak to School board’s problems with federal regulations. I have no experience in that area. I can say our nation’s and young people’s futures would be enhanced if our country would adopt what every other modern and emerging nation has adopted, a national educational system with national standards designed to bring student’s future needs into alignment with the nation’s future needs, such that they compliment each other synergistically.

Does Obama plan to get rid of these contradictory mandates?

I do not know. I have not heard him address that issue.

Does he have a plan to end the dumbing down of our youngins?

He does have a plan to increase teacher quality and enhance school security where crime and aberrant behavior interfere with learning. McCain also has a plan, cut federal funding to states and local public school systems and increase funding for vouchers for private education.

Neither will be a perfect solution to all our educational problems. You must choose which would better serve the students and the nation’s future. The heart of the problem is not addressed by either candidate: whether education should be a universal entitlement and mandate.

I would prefer a policy that stipulated that education for every child is an entitlement PROVIDED that child’s behavior comports with the needs of the classroom and educational experience. Failure of a child to comply with the school’s needed rules for promoting education for all, should result in a process by which that student’s failure to comply ends with their parents bearing the burden for educating that child at their own expense.

That or a system of fines levied against parents for behavior which repeatedly disrupts learning for other students or compromises the security and safety of other students. But, it would have to be standardized, and nationally applied, in order to function and solve these problems in American schools over time.

As for political corruption, a lot can be accomplished by an attorney general’s office that is willing to enforce existing laws and regulations. Something that has been absent under Republican rule. Also, both McCain and Obama have spoken to using the bully pulpit to expose ethics violators, and corrupt practices to the public. It is a start. Bush has been a major contributor to corruption in government, rather than a liquidator of it.

David Remer writes; “True enough, Ron. But it will increase gov’t. revenue, offset some deficit, and permit the gov’t. to assist those in desperate need. There is no free lunch.”

How many times will it take for liberals to understand that tax increases are not guaranteed to increase revenue…sometimes yes, sometimes no. What portion of these doubtful increased revenues does Mr. Obama propose to use in reducing our deficit?

Liberals tell their audience every day that there is a free lunch. Free for them at any rate.

“He achieved a tremendous amount of organizing amongst the people through the community churches which had not existed before.”

Source please? Not daily Kos, or some other spin doctor I hope.

“I want to hear or read Obama’s words that his 3 years spent their were a complete waste of his time and failed effort…I won’t hold my breath!”

Well, if you had held your breath you’d be dead by now. BHO’s supporters seem to think that Axelrod and Daily Kos are the only people who ever heard of their candidate before this year. The media here in Chicago includes people who are not in their employ, and have discussed contemporary events daily for decades. I said before, “Factually, BHO regarded his time spent on community service as a complete failure.” and I stand by it, as my understanding of both his own writings in his own words, and his reason for entering politics in the first place.

David
I thought I had posted my reply to your last comment. Reckon I didn’t. Had to attend to my grandson. Seems he’s kinda like his granddaddy was when he was a youngin. He thought that he could jump from the hay loft to get to supper a little faster and not get hurt. Maybe the next 6 weeks with a cast on his leg will teach him different. At 13 your invincible.
Anyway, I’m not saying that money can’t solve some problems. If the problem is because of lack of money it’ll solve the problem.
But I don’t think that the lack of money is why the US has fallen behind the rest of the developed countries in education. It’s the lowering of standards that has caused it.
Same with the lack of discipline. It’s also been caused by lowering of behavior standards. Not because of lack of money.
The loss of qualified teachers in some school systems can be attributed to some degree to low pay. But frustration with a failing system also leads to it. To some degree more money could help this problem.
But standards have to be raised. The standards for passing, discipline, and teacher qualification all need improving nationwide. It’ll take getting rid of the stupid curve grading system that’s been in place for the last 3 or 4 decades where it’s possible to get an A with 20%. And start making students get at lest a 80% to pass.
It’ll take expelling students whose behavior continuously disrupts the classroom and/or present a danger to the safety of the school.
And it’ll take qualified, dedicated teachers.
The last one is the only one that money will help with. The rest are only a matter of setting the higher standards and sticking with them.
I don’t know if national standards are the answer or not. But they just might work as long as the feds don’t start issuing contradicting standards like the do mandates.

Ron Brown, expelling students onto the streets is not a solution. Money is required to establish alternate special needs schools for those students who are unable to conform to and learn in traditional classroom settings.

Schools have to be made safe, especially in low income (poorly funded) school districts, so that students can focus on learning and watching each other’s backs. That requires money.

It also requires criminal juvenile laws that make disruption of school environments a crime, assault or violent intimidation of other students a crime, punishable by juveniles being sentenced to alternate secure school environments where not just academics are taught, but civilized and legal behavior. That will cost a lot of money, but, will pay for itself over the life of that student who learns to be civilized.

Research shows nutrition is essential to optimal learning, and nutritional needs cost money.

Money is not the whole answer, but, a very big part of the answer. Problem is, America is out of money and has been having to borrow ever greater sums of it since 2001. The opportunity cost of having elected GW Bush and Republicans to power. The opportunity cost of voters failure to kick incumbents out of office when government fails to perform as voters expected.

And one last fundamental flaw in our education. Creationism. This country absolutely has to put that issue behind us if we are to compete educationally with the rest of the world. Either offer it as an elective, or restrict it altogether from public schools. For this nation to be failing in teaching the empirical sciences, social sciences, and humanities due to a religious war taking place in our school boards and government is a death knell for our nation’s future.

What student is going to respect the teachings of their schools when those very same schools can’t agree on the curriculum from one year to the next and when parents and administrators battle over whether academics is going to pollute student’s souls or not. America needs a national educational standard based on the empirical world and empirical analysis and problem solving. If parents want their children to be taught more than this, they have every right to homeschool or private school at additional cost for additional education above what the national standard education provides. But, the war in our schools must end.

Money won’t solve this problem. Political will and insight into the where this war leads us, will.

Yeh Obama still running in a winning track.I hope that he will be the next US president.Thanks.
—————————
siva

sreevyshcorp