I'll be working out some thoughts here and responding to the so-called "debate."
Barack Obama said we can measure our economic fundamentals by the middle class? Like... the proletariat? Okay...
"Because of the lax regulation..." - are you kidding me? When the Democratic Congress blocked bills calling for this? HIS party was directly responsible (given there were Republicans that did the same), and he's shifting the blame.
"We'd all like to lower taxes on everybody..."
Obama deflects the charge of his earmark requests to the charge of McCain cutting taxes from the richest (who by the way put a good amount of money into taxes as it is).
"Closing corporate loopholes" - is supposed to bring in all of this money to pay for 800 billion in new spending for social programs... but those numbers haven't been proven. On either side.
McCain - "There's the issue of responsibility." - right on. And he talks about Eisenhower. Shows he knows Eisenhower's middle name. He sees the need to hold people accountable. I like responsibility. Obama's socialistic plans skirt that.
I'm happy for fiscal responsibility and conservativism as well.
Lower taxes on large corporations so they can make jobs!!! It's true! Look at history.
I love how apparently oil companies are the devil.
Obama's "energy independence" plan is going to take 10 years. He says it's something that must be done. Except in 10 years. Not quite fast-tracked right?
Why does college need to be affordable for everyone? So that everyone can get a mediocre education? I mean, I've been told by people how lousy a bachelors is today. The exact phrase was "A masters is what our parents' bachelors was." Great idea Obama.
HE'S NOT ASKING BUDGETS BARACK! He wants to know if you're going to change your overall strategy and policies based on the market crisis.
Barack. That is not the question. Answer the questions. The lesson of Iraq is not "Should we have even gone to war in Iraq?" It predates what you could have learned.
Why does Obama get so pissy?
"Uh Jim, lemme just make a point. I've got a bracelet too. From Sergent... uhhhhuh... from the mother of uh Sergent..." - nice way to stumble. And he's just said that the President gives meaning to the solider's death... are you kidding me?
Barack says McCain is right a lot. But he also keeps saying it's the same thing as the last 8 years but doesn't actually explain what that is. Quit with the hollow language.
What powers does Obama think the President has??? The President isn't a monarch or a czar (though it seems that could happen soon).
Thoughts On Our Rights
A lot of people in my generation (many people I work with, went to school with, am good friends with) have a socialistic view of how society should work. In many ways it's pretty utopian. It says that we need to give our money to the government so that the government can serve as mother to the populace.
In the terms of healthcare, the idea is that we need mandatory insurance coverage for everyone. It's sort of like car insurance in a lot of states. It's mandatory for everyone with a car. Except that the government doesn't help me out with that.
It seems similar to the idea that if I haven't written a check then I haven't paid for it. We want to pay for everyone to have mediocre healthcare instead of making healthcare cheaper.
From the National Review:
The health-care debate has centered on the uninsured. That so many people do not have health insurance is a consequence of foolish government policies: regulations that raise the price of insurance, and a tax code that ensures that most people get their insurance through their employer. If you don’t work for a company that provides health insurance, you’re out of luck. People locked out of the insurance system still have access to health care. But they often end up in emergency rooms because they did not receive preventive care. For most people, however, it is another aspect of our employer-based health-care system that causes the most trouble: the insecurity it creates. People worry that if they switch jobs, they will lose their health insurance. They worry that their company will cut back on health benefits. Universal coverage is not necessary to address these worries. Making it possible for individuals to own their health-insurance policies themselves, rather than getting them through their companies, would solve the problem. It would also reduce the political momentum behind socialized medicine. Most universal-coverage plans accept the least rational features of our health-care system — its reliance on employer-based coverage and on “insurance” that covers routine expenses — and merely try to expand that system to cover more people. Republicans should go in a different direction, proposing market reforms that make insurance more affordable and portable. If such reforms are implemented, more people will have insurance. Some people, especially young and healthy people, may choose not to buy health insurance even when it is cheaper. Contrary to popular belief, such people do not cause everyone else to pay much higher premiums. Forcing them to get insurance would, on the other hand, lead to a worse health-care system for everyone because it would necessitate so much more government intervention. So what should the government do about the holdouts? Leave them alone. It’s a free country.
I would also suggest reading this article. Need some more reading? 1 2 3 4 5
See, while there is this overlying idea that all of these government programs are going "help people" what they are doing is infringing on liberty and destroying American freedom. I am now required to have healthcare? What if I want to choose where I go? Oh wait, but this is about the minority populace percentage that doesn't have healthcare. We need to give up our civil rights (which, by the way, many have fought and died in the past to gain for themselves, or to preserve for others) in order to give them a value-added service.
Or we could make healthcare cheaper. Make it affordable. And spend taxpayer money on creating jobs and job training and preparation and training for that small percentage. That would provide them with upward mobility and the opportunity to become middle class or higher.
And we still would keep civil liberties!
Now, the question has been posed to me in this comment:
p.s. the constitution doesn’t mention education either — do you disagree that that’s a right?
No. I don't think it's a right. In fact, I agree with Mr. L that most public education is lousy and is most likely due to it being generic and government run. Obama's campaign has put forward the idea to make college accessible and affordable for everyone. College and University then becomes another High School.
I attended public school from 2nd grade through 6th grade in Southern California. I have experienced the good and the bad. But when, in 7th grade, I was sent to a private Christian school, I found out how far behind I was in the curriculum.
When I graduated from private high school and went to a private liberal arts college I was shocked to find how far ahead I was. Taking general education classes such as Intro to Arts (Fine Arts requirement), Western Civilization (History 101 requirement) and Research and Writing (English 101 requirement) I found it hard to concentrate because the material was so basic. Things these college freshman and sophomores should have learned in high school just weren't there.
I worked at Old Navy in West Virginia just after getting my bachelors. It was the only job I could get right out of college that wasn't sales or telemarketing. I quickly moved up the ladder and won over my bosses. One day I had the opportunity to meet the district managers and one of them, a guy in his late twenties, asserted that today's Master's is to us like a Bachelor's was to our parents. And I believe it's very true.
American citizens are required to pour money into mediocre programs that just barely get by, whether they agree with it or not. And that is an encroachment of civil liberties.