Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[bhiggy1961]

Wait.

You're saying, if my house gets destroyed by a natural disaster... and I don't have insurance that covers it...

...it's the government's responsibility to replace my stuff?

THIS IS AMAZING NEWS!

Can the government fix everything that goes wrong in my life???

[RaptorQuiz]

The government bailed out the banks during S&L. The government bailed out Bear Stearns. The only thing the government doesn't bail out are citizens.

It's not about earning something vs. having something handed to you, it's about a government not giving breaks to corporations at the expense of the citizenry.

The government bailed out banks and Bear Stearns? The goverment (read: Fed) did a minimum to stop those entities from rolling over and dying a bloody death all over the place, which would've absolutely devestated the already floundering economy, at that point.

The finanical sectors had already taken terrible hits when the Bear Stearns nightmare came unglued - I've never had more clients calling my cell phone than when that news first hit.

Investor confidence is all that powers this economy in a down turn like we are in. The government bailed out every citizen of this country by doing what it could to dampen the effects of the Bear Stearns (etc) issues, without going so far as to be directly taking control of private sector businesses.

[Sean O]

The government bailed out banks and Bear Stearns? The goverment (read: Fed) did a minimum to stop those entities from rolling over and dying a bloody death all over the place, which would've absolutely devestated the already floundering economy, at that point.

The finanical sectors had already taken terrible hits when the Bear Stearns nightmare came unglued - I've never had more clients calling my cell phone than when that news first hit.

Investor confidence is all that powers this economy in a down turn like we are in. The government bailed out every citizen of this country by doing what it could to dampen the effects of the Bear Stearns (etc) issues, without going so far as to be directly taking control of private sector businesses.

In other words, they will bail out a company, but not the citizens affected by the immoral actions taken by those companies.

If the government hadn't deregulated those industries, and loosened the restrictions on sub-prime lending, this wouldn't be an issue. Corporations are forced, legally or illegally, to make the most profit regardless of the cost. Deregulation lets them run wild, and this is the end result. As the proponents of the devastatingly illogical concept of laissez faire, it makes sense that the two largest economic crises of the last 40 years were under Conservative regimes.

[bhiggy1961]

I find it funny that liberals get upset when they are called a liberal. I am proud to be called a conservative. Maybe it's because they know liberals are unelectable and they have to hide what they truly are. On another note about Katrina, maybe, just maybe if the people would have took the warnings and evacuated instead of choosing to stick around to see what they could steal, or whatever other crimes they could commit (rape, etc.), it wouldn't have been such a mess. But we shouldn't pursue that theory when it's sooo much easier to just blame the administration.

[RaptorQuiz]

I find it funny that liberals get upset when they are called a liberal. I am proud to be called a conservative. Maybe it's because they know liberals are unelectable and they have to hide what they truly are. On another note about Katrina, maybe, just maybe if the people would have took the warnings and evacuated instead of choosing to stick around to see what they could steal, or whatever other crimes they could commit (rape, etc.), it wouldn't have been such a mess. But we shouldn't pursue that theory when it's sooo much easier to just blame the administration.

You should try toning down the over-the-top rhetoric.

It's hard to agree with somebody that uses phrases like "choosing to stick around to see what they could steal" - There is a point you're making, and it is valid, but by stating it in an offensive way, you're just giving people an out to ignore what you're saying, and in stead attack the way you're saying it.

[Sean O]

I find it funny that liberals get upset when they are called a liberal. I am proud to be called a conservative. Maybe it's because they know liberals are unelectable and they have to hide what they truly are. On another note about Katrina, maybe, just maybe if the people would have took the warnings and evacuated instead of choosing to stick around to see what they could steal, or whatever other crimes they could commit (rape, etc.), it wouldn't have been such a mess. But we shouldn't pursue that theory when it's sooo much easier to just blame the administration.

Wow. So the elderly, poor, and working class (if you think you'll lose your job and your livelihood, you'd probably stay) are just criminals. Regardless of whether evacuation should have taken place (and whether the administration called for an evacuation with enough time, and provided adequate help for evacuation, which history says they did not), and regardless of whether the administration had protected New Orleans prior (which they did not, as the Army Corps of Engineers will tell you), there was no response to those most vulnerable after the hurricane hit.

As for the liberal comment, I'm as left wing as can be, because I've seen what the right wing does to this nation. The difference is, I'm intelligent enough to debate on the issues, while you throw around baseless stereotypes as a crutch since you don't appear to know the issues.

Stick to the subjects and not the names.

[bhiggy1961]

You should try toning down the over-the-top rhetoric.

It's hard to agree with somebody that uses phrases like "choosing to stick around to see what they could steal" - There is a point you're making, and it is valid, but by stating it in an offensive way, you're just giving people an out to ignore what you're saying, and in stead attack the way you're saying it.

I guess I do get carried away sometimes, but the main point I am trying to make is personal responsibility. I get tired of hearing what the government owes it's citizens.

[BigRog]

You do realize we have a member stecropper who is a very highly regarded modder on this site from New Orleans and accusations like that could really offend him and others from New Orleans. I can say I am proud to be a Liberal and not a Conservative because I don't make bullshit statements like you about the people of New Orleans being criminals when I have nothing to base my statements off of.

[RaptorQuiz]

Ironic moment: I am sitting here complaining that "liberals" don't put enough emphasis on personal responsibility, and I am saying people should take care of their own problems...

...as I'm filling out the government form to get one of those coupons for the DTV converter box thingamajig, cuz otherwise I'd probably be too cheap to buy one - and then I'd have no connection to the outside world w/out the internet, at all.

:roll:

lol.

[Sean O]

Ironic moment: I am sitting here complaining that "liberals" don't put enough emphasis on personal responsibility, and I am saying people should take care of their own problems...

...as I'm filling out the government form to get one of those coupons for the DTV converter box thingamajig, cuz otherwise I'd probably be too cheap to buy one - and then I'd have no connection to the outside world w/out the internet, at all.

One of the interesting things about personal responsibility is, like him or not, Obama is putting that at the forefront. He wants to help fix some of the major issues in this country, military and civilian, by offering incentives for those who devote time to service. When you own a part of the country through service, it's an entirely different sort of connection.

He opposes the total lack of responsibility shown by corporations over the last 8 years. No company should get tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. If a company outsources, they need to know they don't get any more handouts. Companies that help out America, by making products like hybrids and alternative fuels will get health care subsidies for their workers, while those breaking the law will get no governmental help. At no point should companies benefit from not helping the nation.

And, apart from that, he's trying to level the playing field. Credit card companies can do virtually anything they want: raise interest rates randomly, charge exorbitant fees without being questioned, etc. without any governmental supervision. Obama will regulate the industry so people don't get suckered into debt through no fault of their own.

Help those who want to help us, not helping those who donate the most to campaigns or who have the best marketing campaign. I think we'd be hard-pressed to say personal responsibility has been a hallmark of the last 8 years.

[BigRog]

to go off topic, is the reason you need converter boxes starting February because the government is selling the rights to the bandwidth or whatever it uses for TV?

[meteamo]

bhiggy1961: Even if the people during Katrina wanted to get out of the area, how would they? There was no plan to do so like there is now. A few days ago, they were evacuating the area. Last week, they started moving out the hospital patients and the pets from the animal shelters? Did they do that last time? They now have planes and buses and they have bracelet IDs for all the people so they can find each other after evacuation? Did they have that last time? They just stuffed people in the dome and sent others in buses all around the country. Some people had no idea where the rest of the family was. Everyone doesn't have their own transportation and even with the amount of warning they were given, there would be so much traffic jams that it wouldn't help some. Everyone messed up last time. It was partially everyone's faults ... Federal, FEMA, Local and State. And only the FEMA director got the blame. More people should have been fired. The only person that seemed like he knew what he was doing was the General afterwards. But that is afterwards and I'm not sure what kind of guy he is. However, people like you more if you are to clean up the mess oppose to those that should have helped beforehand. I'm just glad hopefully everyone learnt their lesson and started evacuations earlier than last time. I just hope they don't get hit as hard as everyone says.

Anyways .... as far as Clinton and Bin Laden goes .... didn't Clinton hand Bush documentation on Bin Laden that Bush chose to ignore? And while Clinton was in office trying to tell others about Bin Laden, didn't the Republicans started to scream "wag the dog, wag the dog". Newt and Ken Starr and some other Republicans were telling everyone that Clinton was trying to distract everyone from the Impeachment hearings and Lewinksy. If everyone started listening to each other and didn't play all these stupid political games, then maybe none of this would have happened. Same thing went with Katrina I'm sure. There was internal bickering between agencies.

What will have to happen before people realize that as long as we bicker with ourselves that we'll be so distracted to see the big picture?

to go off topic, is the reason you need converter boxes starting February because the government is selling the rights to the bandwidth or whatever it uses for TV?

All the stations have to switch to a different HD signal as per the government. If you have Cable, Satellite or Phone Company TV, you don't have to worry. If you have an HD TV, you won't have to worry. Just only those with non HD TV that don't have Cable, Satellite or Phone Company TV. And the government is offering "coupons" for these converters that should cost about 40 bucks.

[Sean O]

Good points met.

One other thing that needs to be put to rest is whether or not Obama has a plan. Compare the Ethics page on John McCain and Obama's sites:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...2989bdc948c.htm

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

They both look more or less the same, though Obama's gets into slightly more detail about the exact steps he seeks to take. And, obviously, the merits of the actions are debatable. But where Obama's campaign differs is in the true details. McCain offers no absolutes, while Obama links to a 7 page PDF documents with passages such as:

(3) REMOVE THE USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PARTISAN ADVANTAGE: Public office

should not be used to advance political interests. Too often federal workers dismiss the

law that governs political activity, both because of political incentives not to use it and

because of inadequate enforcement mechanisms. As president, Barack Obama will issue

an Executive Order banning the use of public office to further partisan advantage in

political elections. Obama’s Executive Order will create an additional and effective

enforcement mechanism of the Hatch Act’s prohibitions on ideological litmus tests for

non-political hires and other political appointee abuses. Under the enforcement

procedure, any non-political civil servant who believes a Hatch Act violation has

occurred may submit a written complaint with the Inspector General of the agency

involved. Within 60 days of receipt of the complaint, the Inspector General will be

required to investigate and issue a written report detailing the scope of the investigation

and findings indicating whether the complaint has merit. When the agency head’s

decision is challenged, the report shall be made to the President. A finding by the

Inspector General that activity was improperly based upon political considerations shall

be a basis for discipline, up to and including termination.

Before he is even president, Obama has thought through everything he wishes to accomplish, from his time as a constitutional law professor. I'm not flat-out saying McCain has no plan, but i'll take hard numbers vs. vague overviews any day.

[BigRog]

With that said I am hoping I don't see anymore of those how is Obama going to do this or afford that without raising our taxes, etc comebacks.

[meteamo]

Thanks Sean. A Plan is always something good to have.

MY plan right now is to get some dinner. Always good to have as well.

I think no matter who wins, we'll be in a lot better situation that we have been. As you said, they both seem to have plans whereas I don't really remember whether or not if Bush had one. And was it true that long before 9/11, Cheany was looking for his company to rebuild Iraq?

BTW ... I still see signs for Ron Paul 08 on people's lawns. Is there any reason why?

With that said I am hoping I don't see anymore of those how is Obama going to do this or afford that without raising our taxes, etc comebacks.

Two Words: Baseball Cards .... everyone needs to take responsiblity and raise money by selling all their baseball cards. Just kidding.

[Sean O]

With that said I am hoping I don't see anymore of those how is Obama going to do this or afford that without raising our taxes, etc comebacks.

Two thoughts on that. One, Obama is going to re-instate PAYGO (pay-as-you-go), which was removed by the Republican congress in 2002. Under this totally logical plan (which had guided the Senate since 1990), no new tax cuts or non-emergency spending happens without finding a way to pay for it from an existing program. During the Bush administration, our national debt has gone from 5.7 trillion to 8.8 trillion, because the (supposedly fiscal conservatives) had no interest in balancing the budget.

My second thought is tied to the first: Since the Bush administration had zero fiscal responsibility, we are running at massive deficits. This is partially caused by the hundreds of billions spent on the unnecessary Iraq war, but also on a dramatic increase in porkbarrel spending in the Republican-led congress (think Abramoff).

Leaving Iraq, eliminating corporate tax loopholes/giveaways and cutting inefficient programs will hopefully lead to a balanced budget. But unfortunately, this administration has been so careless in their spending, I don't know how Obama will deal with the mess he inherits.

This also ignores the hundreds of billions we've borrowed from China over the past few years, which future generations will have to repay. Let's hope rolling back the tax cuts given to those making over $1m per annum (which were 160x greater than those under $1m) can cover the difference.

[bhiggy1961]

Do you guys honestly believe that a left wing socialist is going to actually cut social programs? No he will cut defense and make many new social programs (health care, guaranteed college educations, etc.) It's funny how he ran in the primary as a far left liberal to get money from the likes of George Soros and the Hollywood left. Now he wants to move to the middle, but in the end it won't work. His insincerity will be shown for what he truly is, a left wing liberal, and we all know from past elections he will go down in defeat. As much as you guys won't admit it, Bill Clinton didn't run as a liberal or govern in his first term like one. His second term he started going left and I believe that is what caused Gore, Kerry, and now Hillary defeat. However now that all of Obama's hype and retoric (and that is all that he is hype and retoric) is done, people are now seeing the true Obama (Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, Tony Rezko). He will go down in defeat and we will all hear he lost because he is black. He won't lose because he is black. He will lose because he is a fraud.

[meteamo]

Nobody who has made it this far into the primaries is a fraud. Even Bush and Clinton ... no matter how much people may not like them weren't and aren't frauds. People may disagree with what they've done or what their beliefs are but they aren't frauds.

[SeanRobinson]

What happened to the "respectful" part of this conversation?

Blanket-labeling the guy you don't agree with as "a left-wing socialist" without evidence and then dismissing him for being "a liberal" accomplishes nothing but baiting.

How about you tell us exactly which of Obama's proposed programs you don't like and then clearly explain why they classify as "socialist"? For that matter, why don't you give us a definition of socialist as you see it?

[bhiggy1961]

Haha wouldn't socialized medicine be considered a socialist program? Look I think we all know the definition of socialism. It's when a government controls things ( housing, medicine,etc. ). Maybe you guys don't like the word fraud, so I will call him a wolf in sheeps clothing if that's any better. Anyone who has the most liberal voting record in the senate and then gets to the main election and runs as a centrist in my opinion is a fraud.

[Sean O]

Haha wouldn't socialized medicine be considered a socialist program? Look I think we all know the definition of socialism. It's when a government controls things ( housing, medicine,etc. ). Maybe you guys don't like the word fraud, so I will call him a wolf in sheeps clothing if that's any better. Anyone who has the most liberal voting record in the senate and then gets to the main election and runs as a centrist in my opinion is a fraud.

You are so ignorant, it hurts.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Then read this: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

In the mean time, you've had two different admins, one Left, one Right, telling you to correct how you're acting. You've done nothing. Consider this an official warning: keep it to the issues.

[piratesmvp04]

to go off topic, is the reason you need converter boxes starting February because the government is selling the rights to the bandwidth or whatever it uses for TV?

To my understanding, the government is ordering TV to go digital in order to free up the air waves for emergency teams. But I'd double-check that before you go around telling your friends. That's at least part of the reason, though.

[piratesmvp04]

Every poll has Bush around 28%, and Cheney far worse. The Democrats have picked up 3 major congressional seats in deep-red districts (even if at least one of them was a blue dog). The chairman of the RNC and other top brass are saying how they must "rebrand". Twice in the past week McCain/Bush fundraisers have been moved because of lack of demand. Major evangelical organizations are telling their people to sit this election out. The DNC has dramatically more money on hand for this year. Even when there was republican competition, democratic registration and voting tallies far outpaced republican.

Obama is definitely far to the left, but the difference is, he's still shown a better ability to work across the aisle on important matters than the other pansies in the democratic party. Whether it's nuclear non-proliferation in the senate or on civil rights (in the police videotaping matter) back in Illinois.

Congress' rating is 8% last I checked a few weeks ago. It's the worst in US history. Why is it so low? Because Nancy Pelosi was a fool to make promises she couldn't keep. When she came into power, the price of gas was $2.09/gallon. She said she'd lower it, and it actually doubled while she was in power. She said she'd end the war in Iraq, and the war is still happening. This is why the ratings are so low. She should not have made promises that she couldn't keep. This is a lesson to all politicians!

[DeuceBlades]

Two thoughts on that. One, Obama is going to re-instate PAYGO (pay-as-you-go), which was removed by the Republican congress in 2002. Under this totally logical plan (which had guided the Senate since 1990), no new tax cuts or non-emergency spending happens without finding a way to pay for it from an existing program. During the Bush administration, our national debt has gone from 5.7 trillion to 8.8 trillion, because the (supposedly fiscal conservatives) had no interest in balancing the budget.

My second thought is tied to the first: Since the Bush administration had zero fiscal responsibility, we are running at massive deficits. This is partially caused by the hundreds of billions spent on the unnecessary Iraq war, but also on a dramatic increase in porkbarrel spending in the Republican-led congress (think Abramoff).

Leaving Iraq, eliminating corporate tax loopholes/giveaways and cutting inefficient programs will hopefully lead to a balanced budget. But unfortunately, this administration has been so careless in their spending, I don't know how Obama will deal with the mess he inherits.

This also ignores the hundreds of billions we've borrowed from China over the past few years, which future generations will have to repay. Let's hope rolling back the tax cuts given to those making over $1m per annum (which were 160x greater than those under $1m) can cover the difference.

I totally agree Sean, plus if he does try to cut into it, it is gonna take longer than 4 years to balance it. Clinton had to do it after Bush senior, see a pattern here?

[bhiggy1961]

A few good reads:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-inter...st-connections/

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3275