who would you vote for and why?

[dako81]

Dako,
Nice try. :thumbup: I think Iraq passes the "walks like a duck" test. It's a war.

So I've been successful at getting you to NOT vote for McCain? Can I do the victory dance now...??? :cheer:

Hotei

When did I say I would vote for McCain? Was I drunk? I haven't voted yet on the poll if you check.

It's not a war, if you want to play by their rules and want them to play by their rules, it's not a war. You can personally call it whatever you want, but it is a conflict and an authorization of military force.

But if you insist that it is a war, are taxes slavery or conscription? Does taxes pass the "walks like a duck" test?

 

[mdr]

<snip>
I notice that McCain is enjoying a strong lead in our poll here...

I noticed that too. Come on Obama fans, we need some help with these numbers, so don't be shy, quit watching the Olympics for a minute opcorn: and vote!

 

[mdr]

<snip>

But if you insist that it is a war, are taxes slavery or conscription? Does taxes pass the "walks like a duck" test?

Dako,
Conscription/slavery is a little off-topic but I see where you're going with it. We had this debate already with King George III back in 1776. It wasn't TAXES that the colonies objected to. It was "taxation without representation". There's a big difference. If you don't feel you're being represented properly that's a different question, one you'll have to take up with your local/state/federal elected officials.

Hotei

 

[mdr]

When did I say I would vote for McCain? Was I drunk? I haven't voted yet on the poll if you check.
<snip>

That's a good point Dako, but I don't recall saying you would vote for McCain. I merely asked if I had convinced you NOT to. I'd rather you voted for Obama, but I'd settle for a draw with such a worthy debating adversary :innocent:.

 

[Officerjive]

Why bother voting? I live in a reliably democratic precinct, so the fire station down the street will open early, lots of annoyingly loud people with signs will parade around throughout the day, and when the polls close, the count will report back to Virginia election center as one point for Obama, and that will figure into the electoral vote tally for the state.
In the end, those electoral votes will be based on the fringe swing counties between the urban and deep-rural parts of Virginia that have a chance to go either way based on turn-out, voter intimidation, absentee ballots from nursing homes, etc.
But no matter who wins, I assure you my company that receives money to work on government projects will still be wasting millions of dollars for the next 4 years. The projects may change, but the federal spending will go up. It always goes up.

 

[dako81]

Dako,
Conscription/slavery is a little off-topic but I see where you're going with it. We had this debate already with King George III back in 1776. It wasn't TAXES that the colonies objected to. It was "taxation without representation". There's a big difference. If you don't feel you're being represented properly that's a different question, one you'll have to take up with your local/state/federal elected officials.

Hotei

I just have to laugh. We didn't have this conversation in 1776, we weren't around then. And do you really believe they didn't object to the taxes? Just the representation huh? And that's the only thing that caused the revolution? lol

People left Britian for freedom, religous and political. When they arrived and started doing their own thing, the British didn't like it because Britian's idea for the colonies was to milk the resources of the new world to purpetuate their empire in Europe, and keep their colonies under complete rule. When people started to decide that they didn't want to be controlled by their old government, officials in the colonies tried to ask for help, specifically Thomas Hutchinson, the royal Governor of Massachusetts. He wrote some letters to the British gov't that Benjamin Franklin just so happened to receive. He felt that his friends in the colonies should know what was written in these letters (that the British gov't ought to send a bunch of troops over to supress the ones who did not really care to be ruled). So he sent them back the America and then they got leaked. This is known as the Hutchinson Letters Affair. Well, anyways, Benjamin Franklin left for America in 1774 to help write the Declaration of Independance.

When the British Government put a tax on tea and attempted create one source for tea to the americas, the British East India Company, smugglers immediately began importing tea and avoiding the tax. The tax was 3%. They revolted over 3%...

One of the tax protesters was John Han****, and his ship was seized by customs and he was defended by John Adams. Samuel Adams along with many other wealthy smugglers started getting together and having protest meetings. At some of the rallies right before the night of the Boston Tea Party, as many as 8000 people were said to have attended. 8000 people is a very very significant amount of people considering the number of people in the colonies...Oh but it was only over some representation right? They were perfectly fine with the taxes.......

That is all for now, I completely lost my train of thought. And my girlfriend just walked into the shower naked and left the door open...

Oh either way, either candidate will spend more than previously, won't do anything to help at least stabilize our currency, (I'd like to trade something of value like precious metals), and by letting the dollar decline it is similar to a hidden tax, and it's called inflation. The more the dollar sinks because of the Fed and other reasons, it is like stealing from every one of us. The less it's worth, the less purchasing power we have and the less wealthy we are. So anyways, they're both not going to help anything.

Gotta go.....

 

[Oscar54]

I just have to laugh. We didn't have this conversation in 1776, we weren't around then. And do you really believe they didn't object to the taxes? Just the representation huh? And that's the only thing that caused the revolution? lol

People left Britian for freedom, religous and political. When they arrived and started doing their own thing, the British didn't like it because Britian's idea for the colonies was to milk the resources of the new world to purpetuate their empire in Europe, and keep their colonies under complete rule. When people started to decide that they didn't want to be controlled by their old government, officials in the colonies tried to ask for help, specifically Thomas Hutchinson, the royal Governor of Massachusetts. He wrote some letters to the British gov't that Benjamin Franklin just so happened to receive. He felt that his friends in the colonies should know what was written in these letters (that the British gov't ought to send a bunch of troops over to supress the ones who did not really care to be ruled). So he sent them back the America and then they got leaked. This is known as the Hutchinson Letters Affair. Well, anyways, Benjamin Franklin left for America in 1774 to help write the Declaration of Independance.

When the British Government put a tax on tea and attempted create one source for tea to the americas, the British East India Company, smugglers immediately began importing tea and avoiding the tax. The tax was 3%. They revolted over 3%...

One of the tax protesters was John Han****, and his ship was seized by customs and he was defended by John Adams. Samuel Adams along with many other wealthy smugglers started getting together and having protest meetings. At some of the rallies right before the night of the Boston Tea Party, as many as 8000 people were said to have attended. 8000 people is a very very significant amount of people considering the number of people in the colonies...Oh but it was only over some representation right? They were perfectly fine with the taxes.......

That is all for now, I completely lost my train of thought. And my girlfriend just walked into the shower naked and left the door open...

Oh either way, either candidate will spend more than previously, won't do anything to help at least stabilize our currency, (I'd like to trade something of value like precious metals), and by letting the dollar decline it is similar to a hidden tax, and it's called inflation. The more the dollar sinks because of the Fed and other reasons, it is like stealing from every one of us. The less it's worth, the less purchasing power we have and the less wealthy we are. So anyways, they're both not going to help anything.

Gotta go.....

First off Dako, I want to say that I admire the fact that you actually have a rational for your positions and are willing to defend them, rather than the boilerplate regurgitation of the "Rightwing Talking Points of the Day".

I do not disagree with you on all things you say. For instance I agree 100% that the current economic policies that have resulted in the the devaluation of the dollar is in fact a hidden tax. One that affects wage earners more than the wealthy because they aren't buy euro futures as a hedge. Or that our (yes it is our's) government does dirty work for corporations around the globe, Iraq being a case in point.

I surmise from your posts that you are a "Libertarian" or tend to subscribe to that political theory if you prefer not to be labled.

The problem with the notion that you can have a country with a government that has no power is that it can't govern. I have a coworker who says, "The Government that governs least governs best!", which I believe is a Libertarian mantra, but he can't site one country on the planet that has instituted Libertarian Democracy. Actually, isn't that an oxymoron?

Also, the notion, I gather from your posts, that unfettered free markets and laissez-faire capitalism will create prosperity for all is a nice dream.

As I have said in previous posts, Capitalism is not Democracy. The Democratic Republic form of government is good. The problems start when you allow capitalism to run your government. Then it is not of the people anymore.

Corporations exist for one purpose only, to make money. Not to create good paying jobs for Americans, or make sure our air and water is clean, or that we have a free and just society. Capitalism is doing just fine in Communist China which has none of these.

I vote for the Democrats because even with all their faults for being human and having to deal with the power of the wealthy and corporations, they are the party since the Great Depression that has championed legislation that benefit middleclass working people, from the SEC to Social Security, the GI Bill to the Clean Water & Air Acts, and the EPA.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are the ones that are talking about the future, about Peace and not War, and how we can make life better for all Americans.

If you read this far, thanks.

Lewis

 

[wolfc70]

First off Dako, I want to say that I admire the fact that you actually have a rational for your positions and are willing to defend them, rather than the boilerplate regurgitation of the "Rightwing Talking Points of the Day".

I do not disagree with you on all things you say. For instance I agree 100% that the current economic policies that have resulted in the the devaluation of the dollar is in fact a hidden tax. One that affects wage earners more than the wealthy because they aren't buy euro futures as a hedge. Or that our (yes it is our's) government does dirty work for corporations around the globe, Iraq being a case in point.

I surmise from your posts that you are a "Libertarian" or tend to subscribe to that political theory if you prefer not to be labled.

The problem with the notion that you can have a country with a government that has no power is that it can't govern. I have a coworker who says, "The Government that governs least governs best!", which I believe is a Libertarian mantra, but he can't site one country on the planet that has instituted Libertarian Democracy. Actually, isn't that an oxymoron?

Also, the notion, I gather from your posts, that unfettered free markets and laissez-faire capitalism will create prosperity for all is a nice dream.

As I have said in previous posts, Capitalism is not Democracy. The Democratic Republic form of government is good. The problems start when you allow capitalism to run your government. Then it is not of the people anymore.

Corporations exist for one purpose only, to make money. Not to create good paying jobs for Americans, or make sure our air and water is clean, or that we have a free and just society. Capitalism is doing just fine in Communist China which has none of these.

I vote for the Democrats because even with all their faults for being human and having to deal with the power of the wealthy and corporations, they are the party since the Great Depression that has championed legislation that benefit middleclass working people, from the SEC to Social Security, the GI Bill to the Clean Water & Air Acts, and the EPA.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are the ones that are talking about the future, about Peace and not War, and how we can make life better for all Americans.

If you read this far, thanks.

Lewis

I would not use Social Security as a bragging point. SS was set up to help during the great depression. FDR wanted help the senior citizens who had experienced poverty rates as high as 50%. It should have been abolished during the 1939 amendments, as already it was loosing money, and the proposed (at that time) expansion only made it worse.

Capitalism does work, as do some form of regulation. It has been our Governments sloth like repeal of bad regulation that hurts the free market. Our governments antediluvian legislation causes unintended consequences that stifle economic growth. Much of our current legislation is too old to work properly in our current society and business climate. Much of our current legislation should have ceased ab ovo. This is the main reason I am opposed to more regulation that mandates control every day functions and purchases.

Lets take CFL's (compact fluorescent lightbulbs) as an example. Yes the energy savings would be measurable, but what to do with all of the bulbs at the end of their life. All fluorescent bulbs contain mercury to work. The amount is pretty small, but when you suddenly have millions of bulbs being produced, the amount suddenly becomes rather large. Recycling programs are available, but consumers would have to pay to have the bulbs recycled. So most are going to end up in the trash. Not to mention the fact that 99% of all of these bulbs are made in China. Yea, lets pass legislation that sends money to China! Again, the intention is good, but massive unintended consequences lurk right beneath the surface. Yet the mandate was passed anyway.

Same think can be said for Ethanol. It should be my choice if I want CFL's or biofuels. No subsidy, and no mandates. The unintended consequences, as history has taught us, can be horrible.

Please read this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?fta=y

 

[mdr]

Wolf,
Unintended consequences. Thank you for reminding me!!! As an antidote to the enthusiastic support for "Pure Capitalism" shown by you and Dako, please take a look at the era of American history which gave rise to the term "Robber Barons". Or to the current rise of a company called Microsoft. The "Barons" and Microsoft dominated their respective markets in significant part not due to their "better products", but because they engaged in unethical and in many places illegal practices. One aspect of "Pure Capitalism" that escapes most idealists like you and Dako is that it relies on an either underlying assumption of "innate fairness" (a la Ayn Rand) or an underlying assumption that "only the strong will survive - and that's good" (a la Social Darwinism). It's interesting to note that Darwin himself is alleged to have been against "Social Darwinism" probably because he was part of an era where his element of society felt that "Noblesse Oblige".

Hotei

PS: I'm a huge fan of Ayn's literary works. Looking forward to the new movie. I'm with you on SS but how would you handle events like Enron or Worldcom where the retirement account's of hundreds of thousands of workers were stolen from them by the very corporations you guys are so fond of?

 

[wolfc70]

Wolf,
As an antidote to the enthusiastic support for "Pure Capitalism" shown by you and Dako, please take a look at the era of American history which gave rise to the term "Robber Barons". Or to the current rise of a company called Microsoft. The "Barons" and Microsoft dominated their respective markets in significant part not due to their "better products", but because they engaged in unethical and in many places illegal practices. One aspect of "Pure Capitalism" that escapes most idealists is that it relies on an either underlying assumption of "innate fairness" (a la Ayn Rand) or an underlying assumption that "only the strong will survive - and that's good" (a la Social Darwinism). It's interesting to note that Darwin himself is alleged to have been against "Social Darwinism" probably because he was part of an era where "Noblesse Oblige".

Hotei

You are correct in the fact that our history is riddled with mistakes of capitalism. This is where regulation is important. Monopolies are a burden on free enterprise, they drown out inovation and actually hurt the consumer. So some form of regulatory body is needed to make the playing field fairly level. Nothing is fair, and neither is the market, so failing companies need to fail, and sucessful ones should be rewarded by thier growth. The regulatory body should only intervene(sp) if there are signs of gross misconduct, not some dying small firm crying "wolf" to get saved.

We need to learn from our past, mainly to keep our darker times there.

Justin

 

[mdr]

Why bother voting? I live in a reliably democratic precinct, so the fire station down the street will open early, lots of annoyingly loud people with signs will parade around throughout the day, and when the polls close, the count will report back to Virginia election center as one point for Obama, and that will figure into the electoral vote tally for the state.
In the end, those electoral votes will be based on the fringe swing counties between the urban and deep-rural parts of Virginia that have a chance to go either way based on turn-out, voter intimidation, absentee ballots from nursing homes, etc.
But no matter who wins, I assure you my company that receives money to work on government projects will still be wasting millions of dollars for the next 4 years. The projects may change, but the federal spending will go up. It always goes up.

Officerjive,
You need to do some research on how votes are counted in your state for presidential elections (not primaries). You will apparently be surprised to find that your vote does count.

Secondly, I'll be glad to send you an 800 number for you to report your company's fraudulent activity. I find it unfortunate that you want to blame the government for something that is under your control. Motorcyclists seem to be pretty far to the right on the personal accountability spectrum so step up and do the right thing.

[EDIT]Report Corporate Fraud matters directly to the FBI in Washington, DC, via our toll-free telephone number, 888-622-0117. [/EDIT]

Hotei

 

[mdr]

I just have to laugh. We didn't have this conversation in 1776, we weren't around then. And do you really believe they didn't object to the taxes? Just the representation huh? And that's the only thing that caused the revolution? lol

Gotta go.....

Dako,
Glad to know I can still make you laugh. Let me know when you get out of the shower. Don't want to distract you now :thumbup:

Hotei

 

[mdr]

All,

For those who think their vote will not count in 2008 ... a little history. During the 2000 presidential election where according to Wiki:

New Mexico was decided by 363 votes but has a much smaller population, meaning those 363 votes represent a 0.061% difference
while the 537 votes in Florida are just 0.009%).

In other words, if 538 more dems had voted in Florida Bush would have lost the electoral vote as well as the popular which he lost that year by over 540,000.

Hotei

 

[dako81]

First off Dako, I want to say that I admire the fact that you actually have a rational for your positions and are willing to defend them, rather than the boilerplate regurgitation of the "Rightwing Talking Points of the Day".

I do not disagree with you on all things you say. For instance I agree 100% that the current economic policies that have resulted in the the devaluation of the dollar is in fact a hidden tax. One that affects wage earners more than the wealthy because they aren't buy euro futures as a hedge. Or that our (yes it is our's) government does dirty work for corporations around the globe, Iraq being a case in point.

I surmise from your posts that you are a "Libertarian" or tend to subscribe to that political theory if you prefer not to be labled.

The problem with the notion that you can have a country with a government that has no power is that it can't govern. I have a coworker who says, "The Government that governs least governs best!", which I believe is a Libertarian mantra, but he can't site one country on the planet that has instituted Libertarian Democracy. Actually, isn't that an oxymoron?

Also, the notion, I gather from your posts, that unfettered free markets and laissez-faire capitalism will create prosperity for all is a nice dream.

As I have said in previous posts, Capitalism is not Democracy. The Democratic Republic form of government is good. The problems start when you allow capitalism to run your government. Then it is not of the people anymore.

Corporations exist for one purpose only, to make money. Not to create good paying jobs for Americans, or make sure our air and water is clean, or that we have a free and just society. Capitalism is doing just fine in Communist China which has none of these.

I vote for the Democrats because even with all their faults for being human and having to deal with the power of the wealthy and corporations, they are the party since the Great Depression that has championed legislation that benefit middleclass working people, from the SEC to Social Security, the GI Bill to the Clean Water & Air Acts, and the EPA.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are the ones that are talking about the future, about Peace and not War, and how we can make life better for all Americans.

If you read this far, thanks.

Lewis

Hey, I admire the fact that anyone on here is willing to read what I post and discuss it with me. I really do, and thank everyone in this conversation. Like I said, I like seeing everyone's point of view. Knowing what other people think gives me a perspective into the world other than my own.

I'm not a libertarian. I really don't affiliate with any political party. They are just two very closely related and similar gangs to me. (But, since I have an opportunity to vote, I vote for at least the most constitutionally principled gang member since going back towards the constitution would be a step in the right direction) I'd say that in my entire sphere of my life, my personal value set could probably define me as something like a voluntaryist. But I'm totally not sure. I just believe that the end doesn't justify the means, and I believe in personal rights and property rights.

Every single government ever in history has failed. So it is kind of hard to name a country that has a better government. But, this is because we haven't evolved that far yet, but we're getting closer. When the founding fathers created the constitution and such, it was a great idea. But don't think that it was absolutely the best thing imaginable and that's how it should stay forever and ever. They created what they could at the time, which was a step in the right direction. I am certain they didn't foresee the great extent to which meddling power mongers would change and manipulate the system that they created. They tried ever, ever so hard, but with time, everything changes. Do you really think we need a Supreme Court to interpret the constitution? They wrote it in plain, common, understandable English. I've read it, it's not vague at all. But power mongers have found a way around that by creating legalese in which anything can mean something different by changing it in a book somewhere, and convincing the common people that it is so complex they won't be able to understand.

What's wrong with people individually and voluntarily interacting and transacting with one another? The phrase "Laissez-faire capitalism" is redundant. And, you know, you're exactly right, capitalism is not democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations (which I'd rather be busninesses bc of what a corp. is), esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-government owned means of wealth." It is an economic structure that is independent of government control or meddling. Guess what the antonym is? Socialism: “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Also “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” Or:
“The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

By you:

“The problems start when you allow capitalism to run your government. Then it is not of the people anymore.”

Well, sorry, but government run capitalism is called socialism, as I’ve just demonstrated with the definitions. By the way, at a young age Obama was very open about supporting socialism. Probably until he realized he should keep that to himself, for awhile… So only when we have a completely socialist society is the government not of the people anymore? Or can it be not of the people before then? In my opinion it can.

A corporation is a legal fiction. It is created and recognized by the government. A corporation is a business that becomes unattached to the personal liabilities of its shareholders or owners. It is it's own imaginary entity who's purpose is to remove responibility and to protect the people in which created it. Corporations exist to limit the liability, through the government, of the people involved in the corporation. If a corporation fails, shareholders only stand to lose their investment, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors. So, corporations exist to make money without responsibility and with the protection of the government if they fail.

Businesses also exist to make money. That’s what most people work for is to make money so, they can afford things they need in life. They make money and purchase things they need instead of getting them by making them so they have more time for leisure, or making money for other things. Apparently you think that businesses and corporations are evil. Maybe you don’t understand because you have not met a business owner or owned a business yourself. A business can’t exist to just make money and not care about anything else. If it does, it will fail. The market punishes bad businesses, and really they don’t get that big before they go out if they’re a bad busniness, so that’s why you don’t hear of many businesses that get punished in this way. The one’s you hear about are protected corporations that are really big and have large political or governmental ties. Businesses that have a monopoly on a service (cable) you often hear of not caring. That’s because they don’t have to since they have a monopoly. But anyways…I hope you really don’t think you can start a business or corporation and blatantly not care about the environment or community your business is in. Businesses that make an effort to appease not only their customers, but their community will be rewarded. Oh and Americans are worth just the same as any other worker from any other plot of land on planet Earth. They’re worth as hard and as smart as they choose to work.

Capitalism doing fine in China? LOL! China’s economy is completely government controlled along with their social structure. How is that capitalism?…See the definitions above and you’ll learn that’s Socialism.

So the dems are just regular people with faults and the r’s are weathly business owners? I don’t understand. The SEC? That’s just government meddling in the economy. Social Security being good, helping the middle class? Ha. Explain how Social Security is good.

“Barack Obama and the Democrats are the ones that are talking about the future, about Peace and not War, and how we can make life better for all Americans.”

Talk is cheap. This should be obvious by now. Name a politician talking the talk AND walking the walk with an established track record of voting for and trying to implement what they’re talking about, other than Ron Paul and government spending and taxes.

I still can’t get over all these Americans every 4 years, “But this guy’s talking about this, and that one’s talking about that!”. Why don’t people realize it’s the same thing every time. I think they should look to what the candidates have actually done, and what they’ve voted for, not what they’re saying at that moment to convince you to come on board with them.

Now, I’ve completely lost my train of thought again. So I hope I rebutted all of the points.

That is all.

Oh just saw I took so long writing this there have been responses:

...I'm with you on SS but how would you handle events like Enron or Worldcom where the retirement account's of hundreds of thousands of workers were stolen from them by the very corporations you guys are so fond of?

Investment insurance for one, but the corporations wouldn’t exist without the government. They would be businesses and be held accountable for theft and fraud. Don’t think I’m fond of corporations. Read above in my post where I talk about them.

You are correct in the fact that our history is riddled with mistakes of capitalism. This is where regulation is important. Monopolies are a burden on free enterprise, they drown out inovation and actually hurt the consumer. So some form of regulatory body is needed to make the playing field fairly level. Nothing is fair, and neither is the market, so failing companies need to fail, and sucessful ones should be rewarded by thier growth. The regulatory body should only intervene(sp) if there are signs of gross misconduct, not some dying small firm crying "wolf" to get saved.

We need to learn from our past, mainly to keep our darker times there.

Justin

I think that the mistakes of gross regulation have caused the snippets of capitalism to be drowned out. Well, by definition I guess you can’t even have capitalism with gov’t regulation, so there I suppose. The playing field will never be level, and nothing is fair. If there is gross misconduct, or fraud, common sense says that the people responsible should be held responsible. Whether it is by private arbiter, or something else, let the market decide.

But I don’t even know if I covered everything I wanted to, probably not. I’m not even going to go back and read any of what I typed so if it doesn’t make sense, I’ll make sense of it later. So I guess I’ll respond to the responses this one gets! HA!

Oh yea, still great conversation by the way…

"We need to learn from our past, mainly to keep our darker times there."

 

[wolfc70]

Enron. That word alone leaves a bitter taste in many peoples mouths. I, for the record, despise comapnies like Enron, for their systematic approach to avoid laws. Enron's now dubious financial condition was artificially sustained by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud. I feel that justice was not done by our "Hug a Thug" legislation and "revolving door" judicial system. People needed to be held to the fire. Only a few really got into trouble, if you want to call it that. Skilling and Lay should have had to pay back every cent they stole from their company.

 

[Cuba]

Who is the real reform candidate?

Article by National Journal Reporter Adam Aigner-Treworgy

HARRISBURG, Pa. - In an election where so many voters are hungry for "change," both candidates are trying to position themselves as the one who can deliver it in Washington. Barack Obama has made famous the tagline "change we can believe in." The first word in one of John McCain's oft-used campaign slogans is "reform," and in recent weeks on the stump he has begun emphasizing his reputation as a "maverick."

But reading between the lines this week, voters may have gotten a glimpse of who the real reformer is. Although the public back-and-forth between McCain and Obama has focused mostly on energy, residing at the root of the candidates' political attacks may be a fundamental difference in their style of governance.

This most recent debate started around the time McCain released an ad stating that Obama would support an "energy tax" if elected president. This point came from an interview that the Illinois senator did with the San Antonio Express-News in which he was asked about increasing taxes on wind power to fund education. "What we ought to tax is dirty energy like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas," Obama said, but such a tax is not actually a part of his economic proposals.

Both candidates support a form of cap-and-trade in which polluters are allowed to emit only a certain amount of greenhouse gases but can purchase extra pollution credits from less-polluting companies. Because "dirty energy" producers would likely be forced to purchase additional credits, a cap-and-trade system could in some ways be seen as an "energy tax" -- but then both Obama and McCain would be in favor of it. The only difference between them would be how high the cap and how expensive the credit.

Obama responded to McCain's attack with an ad of his own alleging that the Arizona senator was "in the pocket" of the big oil companies and "wants to give them another four billion in tax breaks." Although this is technically true, these tax breaks would come from a significant cut in the corporate tax rate across the board, which McCain argues would help spur growth and increase employment levels.

The apparent hypocrisy of Obama's commercial was certainly not lost on the McCain campaign, which quickly pointed out that Obama had supported the last round of tax breaks for big oil companies contained in the so-called Bush-Cheney energy bill. According to an article in the Washington Post written at the time of bill's passage, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included "an estimated $85 billion worth of subsidies and tax breaks for most forms of energy -- including oil and gas," renewable energies and nuclear power.

McCain refused to support the president's bill, and at the time said his opposition was due to the large number of funding packages targeted at special interests -- specifically Big Oil. He even mused to his colleagues in Congress at the time: "I wonder what it's going take to make the case for fiscal sanity here?"

Although Obama voted for the bill, he too remarked that he felt the bill was misguided, saying in his speech on the Senate floor that he voted for the bill "reluctantly," calling it "a step forward," but "not a very big step."

So while both senators saw major problems with the 2005 energy bill, Obama decided that the good aspects of the bill outweighed the bad, whereas McCain determined that voting against the good parts of the bill was necessary to send a message about pork barrel projects, which he has consistently criticized.

While visiting a nuclear power facility in Michigan last Tuesday, McCain responded to his opponent's commercial and the allegation that he was in the pocket of Big Oil by criticizing Obama's support for the energy bill: "I think he might be a little bit confused because when the energy bill came to the floor of the Senate, full of goodies and breaks for the oil companies, I voted against it. Senator Obama voted for it. People care not only what you say but how you vote."

By Thursday he had found a much pithier message, telling a crowd in Ohio, "I know he hasn't been in the Senate that long, but even in the real world, voting for something -- voting for something means you support it, and voting against something means you oppose it."

But the U.S. Senate isn't quite the "real world," and voting against something there doesn't always mean you oppose all of it -- especially when a bill is already certain to pass. In a place where compromise and concession are part and parcel of productivity, senators often feel forced to vote for bills they feel are less than perfect in order to achieve their ultimate goal. McCain is opposed to that practice.

"The system is so badly broken that they try to present us with a choice of voting for stuff that has pork barrel projects in it and some good things in it to force us to vote for them," McCain told reporters on his plane last week when asked about his opposition to the energy bill. "I have consistently voted against those kind of entrapments because then pork barrel projects and the good deals and the benefits never stop."

Obviously, McCain hasn't said "no" to every bill that contained earmarks. In fact, he's voted for specific earmarks that he regularly lambastes on the stump, including $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana (McCain often tells audiences that he isn't sure if that was "a paternity issue or a criminal issue"). Still, McCain prides himself on his record of voting against bills that he sees as the products of a "corrupt" system, often bragging about his earmark-free tenure in Congress and promising crowds that he will put an end to the practice if elected president.

"Public money should serve the public good," McCain told a crowd at the Disabled American Veterans conference in Las Vegas last weekend. "And if it's me sitting in the Oval Office, at the Resolute desk, those wasteful spending bills are going the way of all earmarks, straight back to the Congress with a veto. And you will know their names and I'll make them famous."

Back on his campaign plane, McCain said that this is the fundamental difference between himself and Obama.

"There's a clear difference between someone who nearly a million dollars a day proposes pork barrel projects and therefore would support a bill that has lots of pork in it," McCain said, referring to the total value of Obama's requested earmarks. "Between those of us who are reformers, who are trying to fix the system and saying, no, no, we're not going to take the pork. We're not going to take the special-interest deals that ends up with people in federal prison, with people indicted, and there will be more indictments.... So it's a difference between the reformers and the 'go along to get along' system."

It's probably not fair to simply label Obama as a part of the "go along to get along" system, but his support of the 2005 energy bill suggest a willingness to play Washington's game for what he sees as a greater good -- or at least a "step" in the right direction. Although McCain has supported many compromises during his time in the Senate, and he has said that many of those bills did not turn out exactly as he would have written them, he has also been much more willing to vote against something because, in his view, the bad outweighed the good.

So despite the Obama campaign's reliance on buzzwords such as "hope" and "change," when it comes to reforming the system in Washington, Obama may actually be more of a pragmatist, while McCain may be the real idealist in the race.

 

[mdr]

Dako,
Good last post. Really. No joke here. You've got a whole lot of good points. I guess my only problem with "voluntaryism" is that it still envisions some sort of arbitrary oversight mechanism to resolve conflicts among businesses or between business and the consumer. A "court" system to enforce the personal and property rights of which you speak. "Courts" usually end up needing "laws" to define what "rights" are. "Laws" end up needing legislatures... you see where I'm going don't you...

What most rational people want to avoid is a return to the "wild west", where everyone had to carry a sixgun to enforce their own version of "justice". I don't see how the "voluntaryism" system can avoid that trap... or do you not see that as a bad thing? (more curious than critical at this point...)

Hotei

 

[mdr]

Enron. That word alone leaves a bitter taste in many peoples mouths. I, for the record, despise comapnies like Enron, for their systematic approach to avoid laws. Enron's now dubious financial condition was artificially sustained by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud. I feel that justice was not done by our "Hug a Thug" legislation and "revolving door" judicial system. People needed to be held to the fire. Only a few really got into trouble, if you want to call it that. Skilling and Lay should have had to pay back every cent they stole from their company.

Took the words out of my mouth. The problem is what do you do if Skilling and Lay have already spent (or otherwise lost or wasted) their employee's pension fund money.

On a similar train of thought, is the thought of spending a few years in a country club jail really going to deter a billion dollar fraud? Remember Michael Milken? SOB was indicted on 98 charges of fraud and spends 24 months in prison. MONTHS not years. Lets see, thats $500,000,000 per year. Who says crime doesn't pay. Anybody seriously think that the bond industry should be "free from regulation"? Or the mortgage industry? Or banks? Our economy is in serious trouble in good measure because people like George Bush, John McCain and his economic advisor Phil Gramm have been systematically eviscerating the fiscal regulatory structure.

PS: Just read headline of our local paper: "Norfolk man accused of $100,000,000 fraud scam." I'll let you know how much time he does... if any.

 

[sportrider]

two candidates have been added to the poll, if you already voted and wish to change your vote P.M. me and I'll do it

 

[dako81]

Dako,
Good last post. Really. No joke here. You've got a whole lot of good points. I guess my only problem with "voluntaryism" is that it still envisions some sort of arbitrary oversight mechanism to resolve conflicts among businesses or between business and the consumer. A "court" system to enforce the personal and property rights of which you speak. "Courts" usually end up needing "laws" to define what "rights" are. "Laws" end up needing legislatures... you see where I'm going don't you...

What most rational people want to avoid is a return to the "wild west", where everyone had to carry a sixgun to enforce their own version of "justice". I don't see how the "voluntaryism" system can avoid that trap... or do you not see that as a bad thing? (more curious than critical at this point...)

Hotei

Thanks! I want to start out by saying, I'm not sure how absolutely everything would work. And I don't claim to know everything. And I appreciate your willingness to read that long post I made!

I think that where you get hung up is the idea of our current court system. The court system today is broken. It's real broken. Mostly because the government runs it and uses it to make money. But anyways, one solution would be a commonlaw court system, or something that I'd like to call a common sense court system. This would be a looser pays system based on basic individual rights and property rights. Looser pays because that's the discouragement for frivolous suits.

The rights would be pretty much common sense type things that your mom teaches you when you're growing up. You don't harm other people or their property, you don't lie or defraud someone, etc. Pretty simple. If there was a conflict between a business or customer, they could take that problem to a private "court". The court would be based on honesty and fairness, and customer service. Obviously the two parties involved disagree. So professional jurors could be brought in with a professional arbiter to hear the evidence. This would all be out in the open. If the court was known to be biased, people would choose a different court.

But keep in mind that a conflict between an individual and a business could be bound by a contract. When someone chooses to do business with someone, say hiring a roofer, they could both together draw up a contract, have a meeting of the minds as to price, what will be done, when, etc. Also, a good business person, wanting to satisfy customers, would include a portion in the contract that says if there is discrepency, a case will be heard at XYZ arbiter or in XYZ court. That way it will all be out in the open, up front. Also, wanting to satisfy even more customers or draw more business, the business could let the customer decide up front what court they would like to use if there are any problems. That's just one way it could be done. I don't know everything, so there could be more ways.

About things being like the "wild west", it's an individuals responsibility to protect their rights and property. Not nanny government's job to protect your property for you. It makes sense, people are responsible for themselves and their own actions. Since it's people's responsibility to protect themselves, many people will have guns. If people don't want to have guns, they could contract with a protection agency for their services. This way both parties would know what's expected, and if the agency fails at their job or doesn't fufill the requirements of the contract, they're liable and I'm sure they'd have some sort of insurance plan to help protect themselves against this.

But that's not exactly how it could happen, I mean, that's just a possibility. I think I'm probably just as curious as you are about it. But, I don't think that it would be like the wild west. I think there would be more responsible people carrying guns, that would be ready to protect the people around them if someone was trying to commit a crime. Instant response. But that is based on the assumption that people are generally good, which is what I think.

:thumbup: