jerseyhoya wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:What should it say?

Uh, he shouldn't be using a mock presidential seal on his rostrum.

Werthless wrote:What's the best place to see money raised to date? From CNN, I see:

Obama: 272M
McCain: 100M
DNC: 71M
RNC: 111M


Cash on hand:
Obama: 47M
McCain: 22M
DNC: 1.6M
RNC: 38M

Are there more up to date figures?

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:What should it say?

Uh, he shouldn't be using a mock presidential seal on his rostrum.

What in the hell's a rostrum, and who does it offend when he uses it?

And then there was that faux presidential seal that was affixed to Obama’s rostrum on Friday, which got mocked from all quarters. What a bizarre and dumb idea. Why do we have a feeling we won't see this again? It really feeds the arrogance narrative.

Thaler and Sunstein correctly assume that people are busy, their lives are increasingly complicated and they have neither time nor inclination nor, often, the ability to think through even all important choices, from health care plans to retirement options. Therefore the framing of choices matters, particularly using the enormous power of the default option—the option that goes into effect if the chooser chooses not to make a choice.

For example, Obama advocates that where defined contribution savings plans such as 401(k)s are offered, there should be automatic—note well: not mandatory—enrollment by employers of new workers. Contributions to such plans are tax deductible, taxes are deferred on the accumulating money and often employers match part of the employees' contributions. What is at stake is, essentially, free money. Yet when an employee must affirmatively opt in, participation falls far below 100 percent. Obama's proposal would simply change the default option: Employees are in unless they choose to opt out, which they would be free to do.

Abundant evidence indicates that most would not, which would serve the national interest because Americans' savings rate is a disgrace. In fact, in 2005 it turned negative, and if insufficient saving persists, that inevitably will mean bigger government to provide for people who have not provided for themselves.

The Red Tornado wrote:I was in South Carolina this weekend- my wife's relatives could be considered reasonably intelligent people. Yet they believe that Obama is Muslim, Michele called people whitey and whatever stupid nonsense theyve been hearing from their friends in email. The not so subtle racism down in the south is alive and well in some areas. I even saw a billboard directing people to a website about how Obama is worse than Benedict Arnold. (wish I remember the site)

dajafi wrote:George Will has an interesting column on Obama's "libertarian paternalism." I wouldn't have come up with that phrasing (though it works well as a tribute to George Carlin, I guess), but the concept--essentially, changing the default options--is part of what I like about the guy as a policy thinker.

Dare we hope that Barack Obama shares the 'libertarian paternalism' of two of his former University of Chicago colleagues?

dajafi wrote:Also, Joe Klein has a short item suggesting that McCain is frustrated because his top three VP choices--Ridge, Jeb!, and Mel Martinez--are all nonstarters for various reasons (Ridge is pro-choice, Jeb! is a Bush, Martinez was born in Cuba). Presumably Joe Lieberquisling is out for a similar reason.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:George Will has an interesting column on Obama's "libertarian paternalism." I wouldn't have come up with that phrasing (though it works well as a tribute to George Carlin, I guess), but the concept--essentially, changing the default options--is part of what I like about the guy as a policy thinker.

Is this something that people oppose, the opt-out instead of opt-in for 401K plans? I'm just curious. I found the article odd, since it indirectly attributed some behavioral finance findings to Obama (Barack Obama is a "choice architect" aiming to implement "libertarian paternalism.") without citing how Obama has tried to solve these problems in the past. Has he pushed for a change in the transplant and 401K signup procedures?

I don't know, I would have liked to read more about what Obama has said about it, as opposed to his former classmates. The undertitle makes the relationship sound even more dubious.

Dare we hope that Barack Obama shares the 'libertarian paternalism' of two of his former University of Chicago colleagues?

dajafi wrote:George Will has an interesting column on Obama's "libertarian paternalism." I wouldn't have come up with that phrasing (though it works well as a tribute to George Carlin, I guess), but the concept--essentially, changing the default options--is part of what I like about the guy as a policy thinker.

Thaler and Sunstein correctly assume that people are busy, their lives are increasingly complicated and they have neither time nor inclination nor, often, the ability to think through even all important choices, from health care plans to retirement options. Therefore the framing of choices matters, particularly using the enormous power of the default option—the option that goes into effect if the chooser chooses not to make a choice.

For example, Obama advocates that where defined contribution savings plans such as 401(k)s are offered, there should be automatic—note well: not mandatory—enrollment by employers of new workers. Contributions to such plans are tax deductible, taxes are deferred on the accumulating money and often employers match part of the employees' contributions. What is at stake is, essentially, free money. Yet when an employee must affirmatively opt in, participation falls far below 100 percent. Obama's proposal would simply change the default option: Employees are in unless they choose to opt out, which they would be free to do.

Abundant evidence indicates that most would not, which would serve the national interest because Americans' savings rate is a disgrace. In fact, in 2005 it turned negative, and if insufficient saving persists, that inevitably will mean bigger government to provide for people who have not provided for themselves.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Uh, he shouldn't be using a mock presidential seal on his rostrum.

What in the hell's a rostrum...

VoxOrion wrote:
So, in the end, Obama did that for me.

VoxOrion wrote:On a recent trip to Chicago we ran into a bunch of limosine liberal do-gooder types (gray pony tails, beards, you name it) that beat our ear off for a couple of hours - nice people, really, but very "liberal intellectual elite" (unlike any of you). They're all into Obama and started campaigning on us. I didn't want to argue, so I deflected when asked who I was voting for in November, my travelling companion, however, gleefully announced he was an Obamakin and became the belle of the ball. For his solidarity, he received an Obama pin (from a new graying pony tail and beard type who was wearing an Obama hat, t-shirt, and button - he was presumably hanging around Midway evangelizing while he waited for his wife's plane to land).

Later, at the rental car company, the dude saw my friend holding the Obama pin and upgraded us to a GMC Envoy.

So, in the end, Obama did that for me.

jerseyhoya wrote:Big push the last few days off this article in the NYT by every conservative op-ed columnist in the country.

David Brooks turned in this effort today attempting to sufficiently bash Bush in the process to sway people.

jerseyhoya wrote:Big push the last few days off this article in the NYT by every conservative op-ed columnist in the country.

David Brooks turned in this effort today attempting to sufficiently bash Bush in the process to sway people.

"see, see? once the admin stopped being horribly stupid, it started doing some things right - YEARS after it should have"?

in Mosul, the celebrations over the performance of the Iraqis who fought there have glossed over the tremendous — but hidden — role played by American Special Operations forces to clear out the toughest enemy fighters before the Iraqi soldiers arrived in full. “It is underreported how much the secret guys did to set the conditions for the Iraqi Army to go in and do what they did,” the official said.

What remains to be seen is whether the Iraqi government can capitalize on the operational successes with concrete steps that improve the lives of people in the three areas, like basic municipal services and economic opportunities. “The fear is unrealistic expectations,” the American defense official said. “Services do take time.”

“Our political system is weak, the terrorists and former regime members are sparing no effort to overthrow the system, and neighboring countries have their own ambitions,” Mr. Adeeb said.