I watched the debate in California this evening. What a weird setting, in the Kodak Theater where they typically do the Oscars. With many of the same people in the audience, too.
It wasn't really all that much of a debate as much as it was a discussion. These two cats have so many similar decisions that it's hard to find what they disagree on and how that aligns with my own opinions. But the refreshing thing is that they actually have positions with detailed points. Yes, they took their digs on Bush, and to a lesser degree the Republican party, but there was a lot more substance than I'd expect on a televised debate. That's really encouraging.
The truth is, I'm not sure which I'll vote for in the primary, assuming it matters at that point. Obama is very passionate, an idea guy, and not that it should matter, but not an old man. Clinton is actually much more interesting when she's not making a speech, and generally I think she has a good record of getting things done as a senator. I don't agree with all of the politics of either one, but I generally do on the things I think are important. It's a tough call.
But unfortunately, deciding which way to vote in terms of party is going to be easy. The Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell, no matter who they nominate. I wish that were not the case. Like in 2000, John McCain and Bill Bradley would've been a much more interesting race (McCain and the human Al Gore of today). But it's just the same old bullshit from the Republicans, and McCain, who I would've once thought about voting for, has gone off to wacko land. It's a shame.
And I really don't understand why people keep suggesting Ron Paul to me. In the bigger picture, I don't care for him because he tries to intellectualize everything to a level that suggests everyone else doesn't know any better, and that bothers me. Furthermore, some of the more prominent things he considers "issues" include gun rights and pro-life. I'm sorry, but that's pandering to gain emotional stock, and neither are top-10 issues right now.
I really think at this point that the Democratic winner will be our next president. It shouldn't matter that it's a woman or non-white person, in an ideal and intellectual world, but it will matter. And fortunately in this case, I believe that in either case we'll have a qualified leader. Sure, it's possible they could crash and burn, but for now at least, I have a reasonable degree of confidence. It'll be an interesting four to eight years, regardless.
"The Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell, no matter who they nominate."
Ooooh...can we hold you to that. ;)
If you want me to be way too honest here - I think our country is still lame enough that it will matter to a certain segment if the next president has darker skin or lacks a penis. That makes the race much closer than one would initially think.
Well it does seem absurd that we've only ever had old white guys as presidents, so it's certainly historically significant. Again, you can intellectualize it all the time, but if race and gender didn't matter, we could expect that income levels and various measures of success would be even across all demographics.
The Republican race at this point is obviously going to come down to McCain and Romney. Like I said, McCain is going too right crazy, and Romney is playing the fear cards the way Bush has for years. People are tired of that shit. They can't win like that.
I, too, was very skeptical of Ron Paul at first, primarily due to all of his wacko Internet supporters and their conspiracy theories. However, I agree with nearly all his policies which, more than just about any other politician, have remained consistent over time.
I think this statement by him from just after 9/11 is spot on: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst091701.htm . How can you read that and not be amazed how right he was? He clearly understood the post-9/11 world six days after the attacks than most politicians in Washington (including everyone in his party) do six years after.
P.S. Your blog is pulling up John McCain ads!
Hillary's photo is slated to appear in Webster's Fourth Edition next to the term "duplicitous".
Until she shares her opinion on nuclear power and other important issues (instead of lamely stating "I'm agnostic"), forget it. She is little more than personified clay, having been molded by her husband and a host of Carville-esq spin-masters.
If Hillary wins, your goal of saving $1 million dollars by age 55 will be unreachable - taxes will be through the roof.
The only Democrat from Ohio I'd vote for is the man, himself, Jerry Springer.
An Obama/Romney race would be a fight worthy of my attention.
Oops...understood...and I thought it was the spell checker being stupid...
If McCain wins the Republican nomination, even though I'm going to vote Democratic regardless, I won't be nearly as upset if the Republican's win as I would be if Romney were on the ballot. Although I'm not exactly on the same page with McCain, at least he's the closest to fitting with the issues that are more important to me.
Of course, I'd love to see Obama get the nomination.
I don't agree with Paul's position on abortion and can't stand his pandering to the gun lobby. I also don't understand why people expect that a person should have the same position on issues their whole life. That's stupid in a world that constantly changes. Who honestly forms an opinion and never changes it?
So if Clinton gets elected, how exactly will that make taxes go through the roof? Aside from repealing (or rather allowing the expiration of) the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich, how is she going to raise taxes on anyone? It's nebulous statements like that that make voters appear stupid.
"It's nebulous statement..."
The answer to your question can be found, here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
McCain on the right??? Of who? Karl Marx?
McCain will have difficulty winning the presidency because the conservatives will likely stay home. I don't think I can vote for him. I don't wish to reward the Republican Party for nominating such a liberal candidate. This is a battle between the "country club" Republican establishment and the conservative rank and file, reminiscent of Ford versus Reagan in 1976. Ford won that one, and we ended up with Jimmy Carter. I fear something similar will happen here.
But that's precisely why McCain would be good for the party. He might be too right for me, but he's a hell of a lot more common sense centric than most Republicans. The party doesn't get that average people are not far off in either direction, they're closer to the middle. They're tired of the extreme bullshit.
I just don't like Hillary. Simple as that. I don't agree with her much of the time. I find her annoying. She never really seems to answer anything when I see her speak. She's the worst. If it's going to be a Democrat, I can live with Obama.
As far as McCain, I've heard lots of conservatives say the same thing as PerrysburgGuy - McCain is a liberal in disguise. I'm generally ok with that.
The only problem is that it's coming 8 years too late. McCain should've won the nomination way back in 2000.
The only point where Clinton bothered me last night was in response to one of the immigration questions, which was totally loaded ("What will you do to fix immigration so that black people won't lose their jobs to illegals?"). Instead of getting right to her position, she candy coated it first. Obama just came out and said that's a scape goat that covers up various underlying reasons for unemployment.
At the end of the day, I look at a candidate's Web site, and every last one of them has an issues page. When you look at each one of them, it paints a pretty good picture of what they're about. If they're elected, we need to hold them accountable to those positions.
Jeff said:
"I don't agree with Paul's position on abortion and can't stand his pandering to the gun lobby."
But you admitted in your original post that neither were top 10 issues. I don't agree with Paul's gun control position either, but it's on page six of things I care about. I listen to him a lot, and those are not at the top of list of things he discusses.
The more I hear think Clinton talk, the more I think she is a Socialist rather than a Democrat. I'm a big fan of balancing the budget, but by making both the government and the tax burden smaller. There seems to be a general ideology from the Democratic candidates that the federal government knows how to run your life better than you do. And, to be honest, I get that from the Republican candidates outside of Paul. In that respect, I see little difference between any of them. Federal health care plans, social security, and on, and on. There's very little that the federal government does well. Why would we want to elect someone who tries to tell you that the federal government can do something better?
And not that this alone would cause me to vote one way or the other, but I think it's about time that we end the alternating Bush/Clinton White House pattern (President or VP since 1980!). How does extending that equal change?
The statement that a Clinton presidency means tax hikes isn't any more nebulous than implying Bush helps the rich line their pockets with tax cuts. Taxes have become a method of punishing success and redistributing wealth. If some of that punishment is reduced, those who are already paying little in taxes get all worked up, with people like Clinton fanning the flames. But before I dive into the idiocy of the graduated tax system, back to my point. I don't think anyone would argue that Democrats favor a larger government. That money has to come from somewhere.
And that's the #1 reason why I'm supporting Paul. Make the federal government only as big as it has to be, and let the states do the real work. Get rid of the unfair tax burden. Social security is a joke. Don't fix it, eliminate it. Understand the world you live in by promoting free trade, ending the policy of nation building and being the world's policeman, and understanding the true cause of terrorism. Don't run a government that spends more than it brings in.
Those are the things that are important to me.
But if it's not an important issue, why spend so much time and energy on it?
I have never felt that the Democrats feel they know how to run my life better than me. I don't understand where you get that impression either. I don't understand the aversion to having health care for everyone either, if that's the angle you're referring to. Is it any worse than telling women what to do with their bodies or reading your e-mail without a warrant?
The notion that Clinton = tax hikes is most certainly nebulous. She said she wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts that favored the rich. That wouldn't make a difference to 90% of people. I don't see it as punishing the successful. I'm successful, and it doesn't affect me either.
Democrats don't favor a larger government. Prior to Bush's war, we had a balanced budget, and the government was living within its means. Now it borrows and spends hundreds of billions on a bullshit war. Is that not big government? I think you're buying into a campaign line when you say that Democrats want more taxes and bigger government.
Let's not forget we piss away billions on interest toward the national debt too. I'm all for lower taxes and smaller government, but we can't neglect that debt burden. Every economist will tell you that weakens our financial strength.
But that's what I mean. I don't see him spending any energy on those issues. I know where he stands on them from his web site, but I don't hear him bringing it up in the media or during debates.
Democrats don't generally favor a larger federal government and more government services? I'm not buying into any line. I'm smart enough to make that determination for myself. When I hear Clinton say things like "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies," (from AP article - http://tinyurl.com/2lro8p) that tells me she believes the government needs to step in because they know better. But, like I said, 75% of the remaining Republican candidates don't strike me as "efficient government" types either.
And there are all kinds of things we tell people they can't do with their bodies. I never hear anyone standing up for a woman's right to use cocaine.
I'm not happy with the money spent in Iraq, or the fact we're in debt to do it. There was a balanced budget during some of Clinton's years, but it happened during a better economic cycle and during peacetime (whether or not the current war is wrong). You also have to account for the role that sessions of congress, controlled at times by both parties, have played.
"The Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell, no matter who they nominate."
Might strong words, and the same ideology that Dems had the last election. Not that I care either way, and I'm just glad Rudy is outta the race. Actually, I don't like McCain or Romney either.
But to say they don't have a chance is so untrue at this point.
If you're honestly comparing the complicated issue of abortion to the use of an addictive drug, we can't have a rational discussion.
You're still talking generalities, and seeing what you want to see. So fiscal responsibility goes out the window because you want to start a war? What about No Child Left Behind? It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president. I can't think of any legislation that stinks of big government and telling people the feds know better.
That, my friend, is why the "tax and spend" assertion is hollow rhetoric. Both parties do it, provided it aligns with their agenda.
Yes, I am honestly comparing the two. There is much hypocrisy in the selective use of the "it's my body" excuse. If the similarities can't be acknowledged (right to privacy, right to do what you want with your body, side-effects of criminalization), then we indeed are moving away from rational discussion. Drug legalization doesn't even directly involve a second party, unlike abortion, which many believe involves another person with rights of his/her own.
I see a lot of generalities on this page. I already stated above that I see little difference between the current crop of candidates of both parties, with one exception.
You're not talking about pot here... you're talking about cocaine.
If you see the similarities, then why do you need to call the Democrats out? Like I said, I stick to my position that Ron Paul tries to over-intellectualize and create an ideal that is not achievable or realistic.
Look past the rhetoric and at the actual budget, and you see that somewhere between 20 and 30% of federal spending is on "defense," and by defense it means warring against a country that posed no threat to us. Another third to half is on social security and Medicare. How screwed up is that? Things liked education are barely on the radar.
If you want smaller government, look at the obvious big tickets first.
Ooooh, I missed a lot of good stuff. Let's see if I can add my two cents.
1. I agree entirely with Walt's assertion that the Dems make it seem like they know better...and they seem to like to penalize you if you manage to do well without them. (I guess I also agree with Walt on the tax issues too then, huh?)
That's exactly one of the big reasons I align myself more with the republican side of things if someone asks.
2. If things were the way I'd have them - both cocaine and abortion would be legal. :) (pot too)
3. I hate NCLB as much as Jeff.
4. I'm ok with 'defense' in general. I'm less ok with 'offense' :) (and the subsequent spending)
These discussions are sadly amusing.
In reality, most of us want the same thing. We want a fiscally responsible and socially compassionate government. Lets only spend what we have and only do so on what we really should.
The assertion that Hillary will raise taxes making it impossible for anyone to save money over the course of 20 years is aburd. So is the idea that she is a Socialist. On the other side, McCain is far from a liberal in disguise.
Why must people use words like liberal and conservative as if they have negative connotations. I am a fiscally conservative liberal. How's that for a contradicton? My idea is to take care of those who truly need the help and the rest of us should take care of ourselves. I want to be safe in my home and abroad. Don't tell me what I can watch or read, but don't tell me how to run my business either.
That's what I've been saying for years, and I know I have an old blog post about it somewhere, from years back. Sure, we can blame the two-party system for that to a certain degree, but why everyone wants to polarize everyone into this or that is beyond me. People who vote the party line annoy me. Even with generally socially liberal views, I've still voted for Republican senators and county commissioners. I will continue to do so where appropriate.
And I still don't get this "Democrats think they know better" thing. They think they have better ideas than Republicans, but the reverse is true as well.
When it comes down to it, there are enough incentives and deductions that the more money you have, the more you can game the system, and that's why can have an effective lower tax rate even when you're in a higher bracket.
And it's not even a straight percentage. My salary puts me $600 into the 28%, but only that $600 is taxed at that rate. The first $8k is taxes at 10%, the amount above that is 15% up to $31k, and the rest at 25%. So what? Because I make so much I can afford a nice house, and the deductions I get from interest expense and other various deductions make my adjust gross income significantly less. My effective rate last year was more like 19%.
Eric:
"I am a fiscally conservative liberal. How's that for a contradicton? My idea is to take care of those who truly need the help and the rest of us should take care of ourselves. I want to be safe in my home and abroad. Don't tell me what I can watch or read, but don't tell me how to run my business either."
Interesting. I would say I feel exactly the same way. Except I'd be more apt to call myself a socially liberal conservative. :)
Jeff:
"And I still don't get this "Democrats think they know better" thing."
In general, it often seems as if they encourage their help rather than encourage self sufficiency. Basically, if you don't necessarily agree with that approach, it comes off very much like saying, "Sit back and let us handle it, let us take care of you, we can do better than you can."
Eric:
"In reality, most of us want the same thing. We want a fiscally responsible and socially compassionate government. Lets only spend what we have and only do so on what we really should."
Agreed. The catch is that our individual definitions of those things differs greatly. :)
More about the tax thing ...
Clinton years 1993-2000 Tax Brackets:
15/28/31/36/39.6
Bush Years 2003-2007 Tax Brackets:
10/15/25/28/33/35
So, poor people get a 5% break.
Most everyone else gets a 3% break
Except the people who make over $350k as an Individual, they get a 4.6% break.
So my 3% break saved me about $2500 under Bush and using what Jeff told us, about $3000 for him. Great. But, at the lowest end of the higher bracket - they save $15,000.
So, now that we are in the second Bush Jr. recession, and we don't have any terrorists (but ourselves) to blame, do tax cuts really help the economy?
Clinton raised taxes slightly when he entered office and then left them alone. He left office with a budget surplus, now we have a $800 TRILLION deficit. Hmmm. So who really was the more fiscally conservative president?
Very interesting discussion with good points made by all. What a wonderful country we live in where "all" may not only have, but may also express their opinion without fear of retribution from those in power.
We should recognise all positions are important to someone in varying degrees and our task in a representative democracy is to apply our values, needs and wants during the elective process to choose those individuals who will best support ends beneficial to the majority of the population.
With regard to the Presidency, keep in mind the position itself. I want to see someone who has leadership skills, tempered with applied intellect, a mind open to ideas, new and old, a believer of the foundations established in the Constitution and one who will bring the country together with vision and integrity. We must look into their souls, hold ourselves accountable and make the right decision when we vote, for it is too late to hold them accountable after they are elected.
I am more optimistic for our future than I have ever been. We are on the verge of an historic new direction even greater than that which occured in the '60's (yes, I was there!)
Election day remains a long way off and there is much work yet to do, but Obama has struck a chord with me. The answer is in the details ... let's all take the time to examine them as we come to a decision.
I didn't call McCain a liberal in disguise, I asserted that he was not a right wing conservative.
Taxing less does not necessarily mean lower revenues. In fact, revenue is reported to increase. Unfortunately, spending increased at a greater clip. The Republican congress was not very conservative when it came to spending. Overall, W has been a disappointment in that department as well.
Tax cuts will generally favor the rich (in raw dollars at least) because they pay more taxes ( in raw dollars). Low income people pay little federal income tax. What usually screws those people are sales, gasoline, and "sin" taxes.
I think McCain would have to pull a hell of a lot of "middle road" voters to make up for the conservative Republican base he won't pull. I would be suprised if he would win the general election.
The problem with politicians talking about "tax cuts" is that they use the term too broadly. Income tax is one thing, but taxes related to investments are something totally different. So if you can afford to invest and take advantage of various shelters, you can effectively reduce your own taxes. I'm not saying that's bad or immoral, just that "tax cut" in that case doesn't mean shit to someone living at the 10% tax level.