Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredCletus wrote:Um, hate to break to you, but welfare (AFDC) was eliminated more than 10 years ago.

Really hate to break it to [y]ou -- but we don't have a free market because of the welfare to corporations which dwarfs anything ever spent on the poor and disnenfranchised.

What we need to do is stop welfare to the corporations, let them go out of business, and create massive unemployment. (Note massive hyperbole) Corporate "welfare" is a complicated issue. Republicans don't support it. It's anti-free market.

Republican philosophy says, "Forget them. If they can't run a successful business, find someone who can. All the people who lose their jobs need to find new ones. Successful businesses increase the number of jobs."

Democratic philosophy says, "The employees did a great job. The government needs to help them, not stupid management."

Of course, both parties have heavy corporate influence. Do a Google search and you'll find dozens of corporations that are funding both conventions.

Setting that aside, companies going bankrupt do have massive layoffs and negatively effect markets. No one wants unemployment and entire industries failing. Both Republican and Democratic economists advocated bailing out Bear Stearns.

PTK, I know you're anti-corporation, but consider the number of people a company like Exxon Mobil employs, the number of people employed at companies they do business with, and the number of people employed where Exxon Mobil employees spend their money. Consider that nearly half of Exxon Mobil's stock is own by union pension funds, investment funds, and mutual funds. The better Exxon Mobil does the better your 4th grade teacher's retirement will be.

We need to help the poor and disenfranchised. But we don't need to do things that'll create more poor and disenfranchised in the process.

John McCain's every statement is critiqued by those to his left and to his right. While I don't think his critics are fair and honest, that's as it should be. If McCain appears to be change his position he needs to explain himself.

Barack Obama has been so revered by Democrats that I haven't seen much critique. It's nice to see someone on the left is upset at Obama's apparent move to the center. Obama can't be allowed to be indignant and blame reporters when he "refines" his position.

If you want to be President you have to explain everything. "We The People" shouldn't go easy on either candidate.

I was talking to two McCain supporters yesterday. One is a full time conservative like me, the other is a part-timer. I voiced my view that this is just gonna be one big Obama joyride, but they both think McCain can win.

I just don't see it unless there are more Jeremiahs out there.

Laexile wrote:What we need to do is stop welfare to the corporations, let them go out of business, and create massive unemployment. (Note massive hyperbole) Corporate "welfare" is a complicated issue. Republicans don't support it. It's anti-free market.

Republican philosophy says, "Forget them. If they can't run a successful business, find someone who can. All the people who lose their jobs need to find new ones. Successful businesses increase the number of jobs."

Democratic philosophy says, "The employees did a great job. The government needs to help them, not stupid management."

Of course, both parties have heavy corporate influence. Do a Google search and you'll find dozens of corporations that are funding both conventions.

Setting that aside, companies going bankrupt do have massive layoffs and negatively effect markets. No one wants unemployment and entire industries failing. Both Republican and Democratic economists advocated bailing out Bear Stearns.

PTK, I know you're anti-corporation, but consider the number of people a company like Exxon Mobil employs, the number of people employed at companies they do business with, and the number of people employed where Exxon Mobil employees spend their money. Consider that nearly half of Exxon Mobil's stock is own by union pension funds, investment funds, and mutual funds. The better Exxon Mobil does the better your 4th grade teacher's retirement will be.

We need to help the poor and disenfranchised. But we don't need to do things that'll create more poor and disenfranchised in the process.

The party positions on 'economic rescue policy' for corporate entities and their employees naturally differ, often markedly, from anything that might be labeled philosophically conservative or liberal by a disinterested observer. But not, it appears, in your formulation.

Allow me to paraphrase:

Corporate welfare is complicated. "welfare" welfare is wrong.

But of course each represents mostly hamfisted institutional attempts to redress the economic externalities of rumbustious, well-intentioned, non-centrally-dictated, self-interested collective activities, so neither is really "wrong", just seldom successful in enabling everyone to be happy.



is everyone in hollywood as confused as you seem to be?

drsmooth wrote:

is everyone in hollywood as confused as you seem to be?

Yes. See DMCA.

Of course McCain supporters are going to be optimistic. They're his supporters. I know a lot of McCain supporters who are really optimistic. If you believe in your candidate and aren't sure about the other guy, that's how you'll see it.

Bill Clinton got 370 and 379 electoral votes. He won by 6 and 8 points. Today I think that's unlikely. For Obama to get more than 340 electoral votes almost everything would have to break his way. Even if he wins by 8 points. Obama is as popular as he's ever been, while McCain's image seems defined by the Democrats. Yet most polls have Obama up 3-5 points. While the electoral map puts Obama around 320 electoral votes right now, nearly 100 of those are in states that he's leading by only a few points.

It's hard to imagine it getting worse for McCain. Iraq is improving. Bush isn't going to get less popular. He'll actually be on the news. If McCain picks it up in debates and town halls and actually defines himself, he should move the needle. Last Thanksgiving he was running 20 points behind Guiliani and 15 behind Romney. For a McCain supporters 5 points isn't a big deficit.

If you live in an area that is very pro-Obama, as I do, it doesn't look good for McCain. But this is a diverse country. I've found that the enthusiasm for Obama varies widely.

drsmooth wrote:Allow me to paraphrase:

Corporate welfare is complicated. "welfare" welfare is wrong.

But of course each represents mostly hamfisted institutional attempts to redress the economic externalities of rumbustious, well-intentioned, non-centrally-dictated, self-interested collective activities, so neither is really "wrong", just seldom successful in enabling everyone to be happy.

is everyone in hollywood as confused as you seem to be?

Of course. They're Democrats.

Corporate welfare and social welfare are both wrong in theory. In both posts I point that out. Yet I also say that we can't abandon social welfare or corporate welfare. I think you got that since you summed up what I said in the above paragraph.

Corporate welfare has more to do with interest group politics than national economic well-being.

And a lot comes from states in what amounts to a zero-sum competition for various industries. Louisiana, for instance is shoveling money at the film industry, and it's largely been effective. Will this spur economic development in LA? Maybe, but these movies would be made somewhere.

steagles wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:TP, it's mostly two uncles. I think I've heard the word Haliburton 10 times already this weekend. It's beyond a lost cause.

I try with some of my cousins who aren't as set.

Well, if they think Bush and Cheney went to war to enrich HallieBerryton, they are beyond hope.

Still, if you get one of them one-on-one, you might be able to get your views heard.

no, bush went to war because saddam tried to kill his father.

And we now know it was false... Saddam didn't try to kill Bush I. The supposed "assassination attempt" was on the confession of one man, made under duress of torture.

When the Bush campaign attacked Kerry in 2004 as weak on defense, John McCain stood up against his party saying that wasn't true. In 2008, when John McCain gets attacked, John Kerry... is the one doing the attacking. What's fascinating is that many of the judgements John Kerry referred to were proven wrong before he offered McCain the Vice Presidency. So, in 2004 those judgements were good enough to govern with Kerry and now they get derision. At least when General Clark attacks McCain he has a leg to stand on.

Kerry is someone who is betraying a friend that stood by him when it was inconvenient and contradicting his words and actions from 2004. Bush painted Kerry as a flip-flopper in 2004 based on what was politically advantageous for him. I guess nothing's changed. I question the sincerity of Kerry's words today. Even if they are sincere, He should have sat this election out. Morality, however, takes a back seat to politics. The messed up thing is that I'd still vote for him instead of Bush.

For some reason I never believe anything you post.

Is John Kerry even relevant in this election cycle?

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Is John Kerry even relevant in this election cycle?

Yes. And so is Jimmy Carter. And I can't wait until we here more about Jane Fonda.

jerseyhoya wrote:http://getdrunkandvote4mccain.com/

That's pretty much the only excuse, right?

McCain's very probably going to lose because, one, the economy is in the crapper (I forget the rule about GDP growth and the fate of the incumbent party... Paul?), and two, the country thinks, correctly, that Bush has done an all-time awful job. Not only does McCain have little to do with it; I'm starting to sincerely believe that Obama has relatively little to do with it.

You guys on the right basically know this. TP, it's pretty rich that you cite "the disastrous consequences of the left's good intentions" at the end of the most ideological administration both at home ("Tax cuts yay! We cants go wrongz!") and abroad (Iraq) we've ever seen. In both areas, Bush makes the previous champ--LBJ, of course--look like a piker.

dajafi wrote:McCain's very probably going to lose because, one, the economy is in the crapper (I forget the rule about GDP growth and the fate of the incumbent party... Paul?), and two, the country thinks, correctly, that Bush has done an all-time awful job. Not only does McCain have little to do with it; I'm starting to sincerely believe that Obama has relatively little to do with it.

You guys on the right basically know this. TP, it's pretty rich that you cite "the disastrous consequences of the left's good intentions" at the end of the most ideological administration both at home ("Tax cuts yay! We cants go wrongz!") and abroad (Iraq) we've ever seen. In both areas, Bush makes the previous champ--LBJ, of course--look like a piker.

That's the rule--Fiorina's retrospective voting model, otherwise known as it's the economy stupid. The problem with the model is how to measure the independent variable--the economy.

It also relies heavily on people's impression of the economy, absent of facts or true understanding.

Doesn't mean it isn't a true indicator, but it's an ugly one. It's not like you can't find the top two economists in the world disagreeing on what the problems are and what to do about it (both exclaiming that the other's views are patently false) - expecting joe six-pack to understand it is too much to ask for.

VoxOrion wrote:It also relies heavily on people's impression of the economy, absent of facts or true understanding.

Doesn't mean it isn't a true indicator, but it's an ugly one.

Fiorina's work did use public perception of the economy. I think the common question is whether your personal financial situation is better or worse than it was last year. I'm not sure that's all that fuzzy, and since I'm not some snobby elitist, I think people can do a pretty good job of evaluating their personal economic circumstances.

Don't gross estimators and individual perception vary largely from one another, though? There has to be some attitude/perspective to the answer, even if it's a snapshot in time. For example, isn't it likely that guy who was fine paying his mortgage in 2002 might answer in 2008, when he's still fine with paying his mortgage but aware of a mortgage crisis, say he's worse off thanks to this exterior perception that doesn't actually relate to his life situation?

Am I making sense?