Why Barack? Because it's time for adult leadership

Good opinion piece

Embracing change is the only way to go!

Frankly, if the choices are between hope and fear it doesn't seem like there should be any question.

I was thinking that instead of "change" Obama should be saying "Progress." People fear change because it's uncertain but how can you argue with Progress?

Paul - Excellent point!

And is "upstart" just another code word?
It seems, since Reagan, we look down our noses at intelligence/intellectualism--we want to elect someone who we'd like to have a beer with! Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a helluva hangover cuz of Chimpy McFlightsuit!

Change is good with a plan. It's never good just for to say you've made changes. The only changes I've heard Obama talk about scare me to death.

Kim - The whole concept of electing someone down to earth a la "have a beer with" is frankly, illogical.

First off, why would we want a beer drinking buddy to run the United States? Don't we want someone who is capable of understanding complex issues and making some of the most critical decisions there are to make? Don't we want someone who is capable of communicating those complex ideas to us and to the rest of the world?

Second, the whole idea that someone like George Bush is "just like us" is delusional. George Bush is the son of an elite family with wealth and privilege, who used the family connections to get ownership of a baseball team (which he didn't do a good job of), a governorship (which he arguably did a better job of), and a Presidency, which speaks for itself. He is no more connected to "the common man" than any of the other rich and connected elitists in Washington DC. In fact, no one who has attained the level of achievement and/or connection to become President has any clue what the current day average joe experiences in their day to day lives. [A good example is John McCain's need for a cue card to know how much a gallon of milk costs - the man likely never has purchased groceries in his life.]

That's not to say some Presidents didn't start from humble roots. Abraham Lincoln is the classic example of someone who raised himself up from a poor, unprivileged upbringing by his own shear will and determination to reach the highest office in the land. Bill Clinton is a more recent example of someone whose early life was not one of privilege.

And yes, Barack Obama is another example of someone who rose himself up from meager roots, a fatherless household, facing prejudice in a time when being a minority (and perhaps worse, a mixed race minority) was a trial in itself, and learned to appreciate the struggles of the average person better than virtually anyone in Washington. If either of the candidates is "in touch with the average voter" it's Barack Obama.

So here we have someone who both understands the reality of all the rest of us, and is intelligent and articulate enough to get things done.

It's that simple, folks.

I gave you a ten
Please post your article to
friends on gather

Marilyn - Yet what George Bush has done and what John McCain has decided he will do isn't scaring you to death. Perhaps a rethinking of priorities is warranted. We need to do something different. The only thing radical that Obama is suggesting is that the government govern for ALL Americans, not just the few who supported you. Not just your friends in high places. Not just your party. ALL Americans. Think about it.

Ever since Obama started slipping rightward toward the center, his poll numbers have been slipping. Unfortunately this plays right into the "we don't know who he is" crowd.

Leadership is not about moving to where the majority is, leadership is about persuading the majority to follow where you want to go.

I aree with the 'change" vs. "progress" comment above.

WM - The left wing of the Democratic party can be as self-serving as the right wing of the Republican party. Leadership is about making things happen.

And I'll add - that leadership isn't about convincing people to do what you want them to do, leadership is about finding the right path forward that considers your viewpoint AND their viewpoint. The end result often doesn't give either side everything they want, but it usually is what the people as a whole want. Leadership is about remembering that you govern for everyone, not just the ones that agree with you.

When people say they want a "regular" guy what they mean is they want someone as dumb as they are, which is why George W seemed like one of them even though he came from a wealthy family and flunked out of Yale. By comparison someone like Obama who has worked hard against prejudice to make his name is viewed as "elitist" because he's intelligent and articulate. Says something about the American public, doesn't it?

David - 10 points for this one. very well put.

Kim - Chinmpy McFlightsuit - if I could rate that comment I would have looked for a 10+!


I don't know why anyone in the general voting population ever decided it was better to elect "an average guy who I feel I could have a beer with" (would this beer be before, after or in between AA meetings). Seriously, have any of these same people ever thought, I could handle being President for 4 years minimum of the greatest country under god on the face of this earth. I know my IQ and it is nothing to sneeze at but I couldn't do it and do even a half way decent job. Well that was before the bar was lowered so much by...........to steal from Kim CHIMPY McFLIGHTSUIT. I want the president to be intelligent, and I want the president to not be afraid of using this intelligence. If I or anyone else dosen't understand a few words in a speech then I know how to use a dictionary and I WILL go look it up and LEARN it.

It isn't even all about his lack of grace, maturity, and intelligence. I just am sickened by the number of voters who will fall prey to the muck rakers and their use of "the Big Lie".

I read the other day that McCain who is airing an attack ad regarding Obama's recent trip. Of course he slams him on not going to the hospital. More discouraging is the fact that apparently McCain had a second attack ad that was to be used if he had gone to the hospital.

It is way past time that we elect someone with intelligence, grace, stregnth, leadership skills, and above it all with the presence of what should be demanded from the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Paul - Everyone likes to feel like they "belong." GWB make it look like he was just an affable guy, and people could relate to that more than the intellectual Gore and Kerry. This year the Republicans are trying to do the same to Obama, yet Obama is so unlike the others that you really have to delude yourself even more than usual to fall for it.

"It is way past time that we elect someone with intelligence, grace, stregnth, leadership skills, and above it all with the presence of what should be demanded from the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!" (Deborah, above)

I absolutely agree. We're electing a President here. It's time we took our responsibility in this country more seriously.

Brilliant absolutely brilliant.

Think about it The Press Loves Obama. Something is wrong. The man is a post turtle. Do we choose a president by press? We know the media is owned by Corporate interests that have a very good reason to keep the status quo. They are backing Obama who seems on the surface to want to change the status quo.

Why do I think there is something wrong there?

Very excellent. There are some great comments in here. I do believe we need a big change and I hope and pray that the first of those many necessary changes is electing Obama.

Engaging that which (and those who) we fear in meaningful dialogue is the only way to know where we stand and how to move forward. To date, McCain's policies are based on "what we know" rather than "how we can know more". To me, that is the biggest difference between the candidates ... and the definition of leadership.

Col George,

Where do you get the impression that the media loves and are backing Obama? Quite frankly, that is totally illogical, and a quick check of the media shows this to be totally incorrect.

They have been giving McCain a free ride and bearing down on Obama.

You need to look with open eyes, instead of preconceived notions.

Col George - Besides what Con Job says above, you are deluding yourself that the reason Obama is popular is because "the press loves Obama." Frankly, your rationale is contradictory, delusional, and insulting to just about every American.

Take for example this: "We know the media is owned by Corporate interests that have a very good reason to keep the status quo."

Besides the obvious that this is contradicted by the facts, what you are saying is that rather than back the candidate that is so clearly closer to the corporate interests (for the record, that would be McCain), the media somehow have discerned that Obama - who appears outwardly to be less tied to corporate interests, and in fact, often goes overboard in railing against them - is actually pulling some sort of double, triple, switch-back fake-a-roozie on all of us (except you and the media itself, of course) and is really not the "change" candidate but actually the "status quo" candidate.

Oh, and by the way, the "media" are supposed to have a "liberal bias," remember. So you can add that to the illogical, contradictory, inaccurate, and totally fallacious "argument" you offer.

This is why most people here on Gather and elsewhere don't take such statements seriously.

Only in America can a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth be thought of as a regular guy because he puts his foot in his mouth(it's easy forget that Bush went to an Ivy League school, and that McCain is practically Navy royalty) and a guy who grew up in average economic circumstances be thought of as elite because he shows he's educated.

Debra - Agreed, and I would add that leaders offer their own directions. John McCain as of late has totally discarded his own mythology of "maverick" and instead jumped completely onto the Rovian Express. He parodies himself. John used to be a bigger man; now he has chosen to become small.

Wilma - Exactly. All one needs to do is stop believing the propaganda machines and think for themselves. If more people did that we would have a more effective government.

But I suppose saying this somehow makes me elitist. Which will come as a shock to my blue collar, Catholic upbringing and parents who still think of me as "normal."

David - the average American has no interest in fleeing the propaganda machine. The television has been telling them what to do for a long, long time and I believe that most folks find it easier to let someone else think for them. It's a shame but it's the truth.

Nick - Unfortunately, you may be correct.

Col George, you are slipping buddy.

I'm not scared of "change". I'm scared of "socialism". That's why I won't vote for either McCain OR Obama - both represent bigger government, interventionist foreign policy, more spending, more government control. All the things I oppose. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

Wm H: "Leadership is not about moving to where the majority is, leadership is about persuading the majority to follow where you want to go.

Truer words were never spoken. Obama is failing to move the majority. He is letting McCain dictate the conversation. For example, the topic re: energy is whether or not we should expand drilling for oil on the outer coastal shelves and in ANWR. Obama could have re-directed the energy debate to the advances being made in wind and solar, to Gore's challenge or Pickens' plan. He could be quoting Bush (America is addicted to oil), and telling Americans that it's time for rehab, and then he could be detailing a treatment plan. I keep looking for a major energy speech from him - something like the one Gore delivered a couple of weeks ago. What is he waiting for?!?!?!!!

Steve - Here's a snippet from a CNN article today:

The Democratic presidential candidate said he wants to eliminate the need for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years.

"To do this, we will invest $150 billion over the next decade ... and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates 5 million new American jobs," he said.

Obama outlined three steps he'd take to meet that goal:


Build fuel-efficient cars and have one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on the roads within six years


Require that 10 percent of the country's energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first term


Call on businesses, government and the American people to meet the goal of reducing the demand for electricity 15 percent by the end of the next decade.

"So there is a real choice in this election -- a choice about what kind of future we want for this country and this planet," Obama said.

The URL: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/04/campaign.wrap/index.html

Apparently he is focusing on energy this week.

Yeah, with more big spending programs and government - created jobs, using $150 BILLION we don't have, but WE still have to somehow pay for.

Then unfunded mandates that are going to tell YOU what kind of car YOU "get" to drive.

No thanks.

Tad - You mean like 500 billion and counting for Iraq?

Steve - Found list listing of the Obama and McCain energy proposals on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.energy.html

Another example of the childish and demeaning behavior of John McCain's campaign:

"Meanwhile, the McCain campaign made fun of Obama's energy proposal Monday by distributing tire pressure gauges to McCain's traveling press corps. The gag was meant to mock Obama's remark last week that "making sure your tires are properly inflated" could help conserve gasoline."

How adult is that?

David -

Yeah, I mean JUST like that. I was (and still am) against that as well.

Thanks for the link, David. I caught a little of it on CNN, and it's about time!!! But I think he's going to have to do better than 10% by the end of his first term; 15% by the end of next decade. Gore set the bar much higher (and achievable): 100% of our electricity from renewables in 10 years. Just a comparison.

I look more closely at his comments, and possibly write an article in response. Again, thanks for the link.

Tad: "Yeah, with more big spending programs and government - created jobs, using $150 BILLION we don't have, but WE still have to somehow pay for."

And you think you're not paying for it already? What do you think "protecting our vital national interests in the region (mideast)" means? Do you think Boone Pickens is lying when he says we are transfering $700billion of our wealth to foreign countries annually? Do you think as a nation we have no interest in changing that dynamic?

Tad: "Then unfunded mandates that are going to tell YOU what kind of car YOU "get" to drive."

Put your ideology aside and look at the problem. Our economy rides on oil, a commodity unlike any other commodity. It is at the core of our economy. We import 70% of our oil, and that percentage is increasing. This is a national security issue.

Just using the economic and national security issues (not to mention climate change, as Gore does - he actually mentions all three) we simply have to get off the oil. How we do that is a national problem. Now you might prefer a "Katrina-like" incompetent government dealing with emergencies, but I don't. No thanks.

Steve said "Put your ideology aside and look at the problem. Our economy rides on oil, a commodity unlike any other commodity. It is at the core of our economy. We import 70% of our oil, and that percentage is increasing. This is a national security issue."

I agree, but I don't think a big government program is the answer. I think the answer is already in the works from private industry. The high gas prices we are experiencing right now are fueling (sorry for the pun) a LOT of research that wasn't commercially viable when gas was $2 a gallon. People are parking and/or selling their big SUV's and looking seriously at hybrids. Others are looking more seriously at public transport.

The change is happening, without the government. All they'll do is get in the way and waste my tax dollars in the process.


"Now you might prefer a "Katrina-like" incompetent government dealing with emergencies, but I don't. No thanks. "

I couldn't have made my point better myself. :)

Tad - I agree that change must be from the bottom up, because the top down approach (or trickle down if you're a Republican) sure isn't working. But I believe that a good government encourages bottom up thinking - and action - in a reasonable time frame. Right now we're reacting to the high gas prices, but as soon as something happens to reduce the cost even a little, or we just get used to the idea of $4/gallon gas, our enthusiasm for change will diminish. It happens time and time again. Remember the oil crisis of the 1970s? Now, tell me, when did the "surge" in SUVs get started? As soon as prices leveled off and people lost their memories.

A good government sets priorities.

The accusation that Democrats are in favor of "big government" has become a sham. Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan all created bigger government and bigger deficits. Clinton/Gore helped reign in wild spending and produced the first surpluses in decades. Which Bush II immediately sunk down the toilet.

Also, the Republican increases in the military complex is the biggest of the big government programs. Add to that DHS and all the other programs Bush has instituted, plus the huge loan on our children's bank accounts, and you have a big government program to end all big government programs.

Tad: "The change is happening, without the government."

It is much slower than it needs to be in the U.S., and oil/coal/nuclear industries have enjoyed incentives in the form of tax breaks and subsidies for decades. That has given them, and continues to give them, an unfair advantage. Worldwide, "micropower" (conservation, renewables, cogeneration) are growing faster than the fossils or nuclear, but the U.S. hasn't caught on. Other nations (perhaps China) will gain market dominance, and we will once again be an energy importing nation.

Renewable industries are asking for a ten year production tax credit and have shown that with production tax credits, investors establish new manufacturing centers in the U.S. with decent jobs. Pickens makes the case that his wind energy projects are revitalizing rural America.

Tad: "I couldn't have made my point better myself."

So, you don't believe government can be competent? What about the Apollo program, with all of the spin-off technologies that have made it to the market place as a result? Your ideology gets in the way of demanding competent government. After all, we are a nation, and we experience national threats. I assume you are an American (I haven't looked at your profile).

I might agree with Tad to this extent. I don't think government should actually do the work of transfering our economy from a fossil fuel base to a renewable energy base. It should facilitate that transfer through tax incentives (e.g., ten year production tax credit) and subsidies. Government labs, e.g., the National Renewable Energy Lab, are also a very welcome part of this solution, because they do critical research.

But I'll also note that I'm at odds with one of the nation's leading energy experts, Amory Lovins, who thinks that a real "free market" would suffice to transfer our economy to renewables by the 2040s. He notes that the "corporate socialists" oppose such a real "free market" because it would end their tax benefits and subsidies. This is what Lovins says on this issue:

I would like to see the president do something very trans-ideological, cutting across party lines and perceptions in both political camps of what ought to be done. I don’t think very many progressive politicians understand that what we most need in energy policy is a dose of conservative economic principles, that is we ought to let always to save or produce energy, compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which kind they are - savings or supply, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are or who owns them. Let’s see who’s not in favor of that. Who’s not in favor of that will be all the free marketeers in outward appearance, but actually they are corporate socialists in free-marketeers’ clothing. It is very curious to me that many who profess to be political conservatives are the biggest subsidizers of their favorite technologies and the most opposed to real competition. Conversely, many liberals try to subsidize their favorite technologies as much as the other technologies are getting subsidized. Why are we paying so much of our energy bill through our tax bill? Let’s pay it at the pump or at the meter so we know how much it costs. Then we’ll know how much is enough.”

Dave said: "Right now we're reacting to the high gas prices, but as soon as something happens to reduce the cost even a little, or we just get used to the idea of $4/gallon gas, our enthusiasm for change will diminish. It happens time and time again. Remember the oil crisis of the 1970s? Now, tell me, when did the "surge" in SUVs get started? As soon as prices leveled off and people lost their memories."

Yes, I agree...when gas prices come down some, the enthusiasm will wane. The degree of that will be comparable to the degree of the price drop. But the effects will still be major and relevant for years. Using your example of the crisis in the 70's, remember that for years afterwards, the Big3 Detroit automakers failed because they couldn't compete with the Japanese 'rice rockets'? Why? Because the people saw those gas guzzling steel behemoths as stupid, wasteful, and inefficient, and instead went for the toyotas because they were more sensible.

I think the SUV is gone from the scene as a major part of the auto market forever, even if gas goes back to $3 a gallon now. I think people will remain serious about finding and funding alternatives. I think people are sick of giving their money to countries that either barely tolerate us, or openly hate us (iran, saudi arabia, venezuela), and are open to alternatives. I think the change is coming either way. The market will decide how fast, just like it always does.

I also totally agree with you that the Republican lie of pretending to pay lip service to smaller government has finally been shown for what it is. Bush II never vetoed a spending bill in his first term, and even NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending grew more than twice as fast under him as it did "Tax and Spend Liberal" Clinton. Apparently, Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" is just like "Tax and Spend Liberalism", but instead of taxes, we get record debt, which is essentially taxes with interest. GREAT!

Tad: "The high gas prices we are experiencing right now are fueling (sorry for the pun) a LOT of research that wasn't commercially viable when gas was $2 a gallon.

That research is for drilling in more difficult places and "sequestering" CO2 underground. Very little of THAT money goes to renewables. Most of the investements in renewables are coming from venture capitalists and corporations not historically associated with energy, e.g., Google.

Tad: "...the Big3 Detroit automakers failed because they couldn't compete with the Japanese 'rice rockets'? Why?"

The question is why were the Japanese 'rice rockets' there in the first place. Because the Japanese government instituted efficiency standards, and the Japanese companies developed the technology. The (not so) Big (anymore) 3 fought efficiency standards for years. That's why they couldn't compete.

Tad: "The market will decide how fast, just like it always does."

"The market" is an illusion. It is a marketing symbol used to protect the established industries from competition, as Lovins notes. If it were truly a free market, I might be game to "let the market decide". But we've been paying subsidized energy prices for years, which have almost effectively suppressed renewables.

Lot to go through there Steve, but let's start here:
"It is much slower than it needs to be in the U.S., and oil/coal/nuclear industries have enjoyed incentives in the form of tax breaks and subsidies for decades. That has given them, and continues to give them, an unfair advantage."

Again proving my point. Government needs to get out of the way and let the market work it out. I might be convinced to support some sort of minor government program to subsidize the alternatives, but only because of what you're talking about, and as somewhat of a hedge against the negative externalities involved with petroleum.

"Other nations (perhaps China) will gain market dominance, and we will once again be an energy importing nation."

Only if I can't get that cold fusion project in my basement to work. :)

"So, you don't believe government can be competent? What about the Apollo program, with all of the spin-off technologies that have made it to the market place as a result? "

I think it CAN be competent, and had a better shot at it 40 years ago when it was still a reasonable size. But as you point out so well with the FEMA / Katrina mess, more often than not, it isn't. We certainly can't COUNT on it to be.

" After all, we are a nation, and we experience national threats. I assume you are an American (I haven't looked at your profile). "

I am an American, and yes, we do experience national threats. However, I fail to see how that relates back to defend or refute either of our positions. :)

Steve - You make an excellent point. Everything is subsidized in one way or another. We don't pay the true cost of energy (or pollution, or many other things) so we don't have the complete information needed to make informed decisions.

Simple example from here in Europe. Back in Virginia I paid for trash pickup/recycling via my HOA fee. I have no idea of the actual cost. Here in Brussels I have to purchase the official city bags, different colors for glass, plastic, yard waste, and undefined refuse. I know exactly how much my trash costs me because I have to pay for the bags - more bags = more cost. So the more I recycle (the recycle bags cost less; not to mention it is mandatory), the cheaper my trash bill. The result = more recycling, less waste, better choices when I'm shopping.

"Most of the investements in renewables are coming from venture capitalists and corporations not historically associated with energy, e.g., Google."

And they'll be the ones who hit it big when the advance is made. What's the problem? :)

"The (not so) Big (anymore) 3 fought efficiency standards for years. That's why they couldn't compete."

Agreed. And they've paid the price. You think they're going to let that happen again? That's why they're working on alternative fuel vehicles too. And besides, now Toyotas sold here are made here by large degree, so when they do well, that's good for us too, even if the very top offices are still in Japan.

""The market" is an illusion. It is a marketing symbol used to protect the established industries from competition, as Lovins notes. If it were truly a free market, I might be game to "let the market decide". But we've been paying subsidized energy prices for years, which have almost effectively suppressed renewables. "

Agreed, and I'm in favor of getting rid of all that too. As your quoted economist said, the customer can't make an informed decision when so many of the costs are hidden in government largesse.

Travis Bradford @ MIT states that solar energy is "inevitable". He also says that the process can be accelerated by government policies, as has happened in Japan.

Of course, the difference between incentives for renewables and those for fossils/nuclear is that the former are time limited decreasing and the latter are indefinite and growing. Obama would be for the former; McCain for the latter.

The one big problems with "markets" is that they can't prioritize the future for the greater good. "Markets" are made up of companies, each with a need to make a profit or go out of business. Some companies are innovators and seek the benefits of being first movers. Most companies, especially those in "mature" industries (e.g., auto makers) rely on old technologies that already have paid back the R&D investment and thus are largely pure profit. What is the incentive for an ExxonMobil to invest in renewable resources when its profit comes almost entirely from petroleum? For them to invest in the future, they have to see the people demanding a change. Yet people don't demand a change because it usually costs more in the short run (in part because they don't see the total cost of the current technology).

It's a catch-22 that needs an outside force to see the need to rethink priorities. Armory Lovins and others, as individuals, can see and influence to some extent, but to make change happen in a reasonable time frame (i.e., before it's too late), some umbrella organization needs to step in. That umbrella is why we pay our government. Too often they forget that, which leads to the kind of waste (from both sides of the aisle) that you mention.

David. The trash pick-up system in Brussels - is that a result of government policies, or did "the market" come up with that?

Tad & David. This is a good conversation. Not personal and intelligent. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, I will have to leave for work soon, so I will have to pick this up later. Thanks to both of you.

Hehe the funny thing is I am actually *AT* work. The bank isn't really getting their money's worth out of me today, eh? :)

Seriously, most of this conversation took place over my lunch break, and now I too much get back to the grindstone. :)

Steve - It was a government idea.

Tad and Steve: Agreed. I'm also supposed to be working on something else, but for me it's about 9:15 pm here in Brussels so the day is getting short.

Thanks guys

No, David. What's radical about Obama is that when he changes the taxes, my sister will be one of those who - with federal income tax, SS tax, and state and local income taxes - will be paying out 72% of her income. I'm sorry. I've been without insurance myself, but I would not want my sister or anyone making over $250,000 a year to have to pay that much in taxes so I could have insurance. And those 47 million people he wants to insure? 14 million of them are illegal immigrants. Come on.

And when he wants to give our tax dollars to the UN and let them decide which hungry people to feed? That is not change that I want. The UN should not ever have control of $835 million American tax dollars.

Marilyn, that is absurd, no one pays 72% of their income in Federal/State taxes, no one, not even Warren Buffet, in fact the whole reason people are looking to reform the tax system, as Warren Buffet has explained over and over, is because his secretary pays more taxes that he does.

No, this tax issue is a lie and a dodge to keep people scared, and greedy and in line. Then you throw in the UN for good measure like a good little propagandist for the far right should.

David, nice comments about markets. Markets are great and
capitalism is fantastic, but one thing about markets when there
is not enough capital, only the low-hanging fruit gets action.
Markets cannot do everthing, and they do not represent
human rights or the environment at all.

Think of it a bit like American justice. At any time someone
can get screwed over royally, but unless your damages are
extreme and you have the money you are not going to get
justice. Lawyers have to make a living, and they have the
pick of cases, ie. profit. They make money off damages,
not justice, just like companies make money off profits
not solving people's problems unless they happen to
coincide.

Meanwhile hundreds of millions of people's lives go
by and justice and jobs and services are critical to
them and to the future of everyone. Maybe at some
point in hundreds of years markets will take into account
justice, human rights and the envionment, but all of
us are not going to live forever. I want my justice now,
and that is why I work and pay taxes and do not
commit crimes and am an all around good guy!

Interesting discussions. I have lost all respect for McCain because of the campaign he has chosen to run. I wasn't going to vote for him anyway but his choice to dive into the muck so readily is enlightening as to what type of leader he would be. Originally I thought anybody after 8 years of the FRATBOY Presidency of GWB would be an improvement. But McCain has convinced me, he could be worse.

Marilyn - I'll reiterate what Bruce has already said. What you suggest is absurd and has no basis in reality, either historical or future. In fact, if you looked at the facts you'll find that the middle class are paying a higher proportion in taxes than the rich because the rich have access to many more "tax haven" vehicles that reduce their taxes substantially from the official tax rate.

The Republicans use the "tax and spend" label all the time because it fits with their politics of fear brand. It has no basis in actual fact. Just like the "smaller government" farce. Look at which Presidents have increased the size and cost of government the most - yep, Republicans. The difference between the parties is that the Republicans steer the benefit to the rich and to big businesses (because "they create the jobs and the benefit will 'trickle down'") and the Democrats steer the benefit to the masses. Both sides have positive and negative points that are valid, but both too often go to the extremes.

That's why we need real leadership in the White House.

David H - John, unfortunately, appears to have sold out his own mythology and has chosen to lower himself to Rovian politics. He has chosen to support, and even defend, attacks that he knows are false. I am incredibly saddened by this turn of events. I thought he was a bigger person, but he has chosen to become small.

Bruce - You point out some of the weaknesses of our system of government, or at least of our system of justice. Clearly the "markets" are not guided by justice - there simply are not the feedback loops that would give markets the information needed to adjust their settings. So it takes outside forces. Since individuals have limited power to affect change on a national or international scale, we elect representatives to watch out for our interests. The problem is that we often don't hold them accountable for representing us, and instead they too often represent themselves (or more accurately perhaps, their party power).

Greed is not a good basis for policy decisions.

Wilma - no, not usually

Marilyn -

As for the health care I have read the plan. He states very clearly that there are 47 million AMERICANS who are either uninsured of underinsured. The plan is designed to help the AMERICANS in that position to get coverage. So nice try on the immigration issue but no go.

72% - I am trying to figure out who is robbing your sister. Or if I really care. Not saying that she doesn't work hard and deserve it, just that I see people every day who also work really hard and do with much less, even going without many times. See she would still be able to guarantee a minimum of over 70K take home after all deductions and then huge returns on taxes. I live in a state that does not have local or state income taxes, but I have lived in states that did. I know very well that loal and state income taxes paid are applied to federal income taxes therefore lowering the amount owed at the Federal level. Social Security stops taking their share somewhere aroung the 85K mark each year so what ever percentage she pays in that stops when she hits that mark.

His fiscal policy is a responsible and reasonable and achievable one. McCains is not reasonable or even real. There is no way to go in make the cuts to your sisters group permanent, no new taxes, no raise in taxes and still manage to accomplish anything good for this country much less fund the war in Iraq that he says if it takes 100 years we should do it. So if he wins we will soon find out if 1- he lied, 2- he schemes enough to find new fees or assessments but not taxes, 3 - if he will just keep going the same route of incredibly huge debt which will continue to grow rapidly spinning us completely out of control and possibly being the straw that broke America's back.

Amen. I'll give you a 10. Considering the dismal record the Republicans have amassed over the last almost 8 years I cannot imagine why anyone would vote Republican. I cannot trust anyone who would encourage me to vote Republican. Stupidity is not and never has been a virtue.

Thanks Deborah. The problem that some people will believe anything that allows them to justify their predetermined position. I don't mind people choosing different candidates, but at least do so based on facts, not something you make up.

Robert - After the last 8 years, most Republicans don't want to vote for that track record to continue. Again, the main reason people will vote to follow that is fear. Fear of the guy who doesn't fit the mold, or fear of change, or fear of having to admit that they were wrong.

Just to lend some facts to the tax question that is always distorted:
State tax rates from Wikipedia
Federal tax rates from Wikipedia

The highest state tax rate is about 10% of so in Alaska, Delware or Hawaii.
The highest federal bracket is: 35%

Meaning that there is no place outside of the twilight zone or another universe where anyone could pay 70% of their income in taxes. And those high rates are only for the highest of income earners who are not spending their dollars for food, clothing, housing, energy or health insurance.

Let's get a clue on this tax issue Americans, please.

By the way David K. I love your tree. I am a craggy old tree lover from way back.

Thanks Bruce

Thanks Robert. Took it on Mt. Hood

I know this will get me in trouble with AARP (of which I am a card carrying member) but McCains age really bothers me. I am 67 years old and my mental agility is slowing down. I still think I am as intelligent as I ever was but it takes me longer to absorb things and I have a much harder time concentrating on things. My mind wanders. McCain is four years older then me. Us old guys have a lot of wisdom and experience but I think we perform much better in an advisory capacity rather than leading the charge.

Robert - Thanks for the insight.

Bruce - is it possible that people would also include sales taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, city taxes, gas taxes, "sin taxes" on things like cigarettes and beer, and other various fees and taxes to be coming up with that 70% figure?

Really interesting, article, and great comment thread. More like the serious dialog, and sharing of ideas, of which, I'd like to see more.

Keep up the good work, guys!

Oops! Spoke too soon.

"(because "they create the jobs and the benefit will 'trickle down'") "

That actually worked during the Reagan era. But under Bu$h, the jobs have trickled out of our country.

McCain has truly sunken to a childish level with those Moses and Paris Hilton ads.

Ah, Timothy, where did thr trickle down under Reagan?

Thanks Dorothy. The article did stimulate some interesting discussion winding through a couple of topics.

(and yes, there are still people who think cursing or otherwise demeaning makes them look bigger; ah, the irony)

Tad - I suppose that's possible, but it's apples and oranges. Might as well add in the profit and overhead and transport costs and everything else built into the price of everything we buy, since these are all "add ons" to the actual cost of making the item. Of course, since we're not paying for any of those things our salaries would be adjusted downward as well.

I don't disagree that we seem overtaxed, but the real problem is how the government spends that money. We can argue over whether it is appropriate to subsidize the poor (e.g., free school lunch programs) versus the rich (e.g., tax breaks for "investment"), but I think we all can agree that spending billions on a war we started under false pretenses is an abuse of the public treasury. [I might add that billions of those funds have been squandered and/or "lost" due to mismanagement and corruption, both on our end and theirs, as the Administration has acknowledged. So they hardly deserve reelection under any stretch of the imagination.]

Bottom line - the government has a role in managing our country, but we must be vigilant that they engage in that role wisely and effectively (I think efficiently may be too much to ask for). At times the government has been more effective; this is not really one of those times. But I foresee better - and more honest - management as we move forward, depending of course on what choice the country makes in the upcoming election.

Timothy - Yes, McCain has chosen to become small. It's very disappointing, and clearly demonstrates his inability to take on the job of managing the nation. It's time for him to go back to the Senate, where he can work effectively. The White House needs to be run by someone who takes more seriously the awesome responsibilities of the office of the President.

I've never read so much bullshit in all my life.
I hope that all you Obama backers have learned to speak Arabic & studied the Koran, cuz that's where Obama wants to take us.

Guy - And what exactly makes you think an Obama Presidency is somehow going to turn us into an Islamic country? The idea is preposterous on its face, and contradicted by every fact there is regarding the Presidential candidates.

Kind of hard to put any credence in your line of reasoning when you spout such non sequiturs, "supported" only by obscenities.

As others have said, how we choose to communicate reveals a lot about ourselves.

> Bruce - is it possible that people would also include sales taxes,
> property taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, city taxes, gas
> taxes, "sin taxes" on things like cigarettes and beer, and other
> various fees and taxes to be coming up with that 70% figure?

Tad,
While it's probably possible someone might make that exaggerated claim, that was not what was said, but ....

Let's think about it.
The top tax rate in the country would be 45%, from my above comment.
I am not sure what the maximum sales tax is, but here is CA is it 8.5%
That would be 53.5% if I spent all of my money on taxable items.

The problem that I see is that most Americans do not know much
math and are told things like that 70% thing and get very upset.

A little common sense and arithmetic goes a long way Tad.

The other side of looking at this is by taking one variable and thinking
about its maximum and minimum by holding everything else constant.

For example, let's say we could do without taxes Tad. Ones
first thought might be, I can buy 45% more stuff, I am 45% richer
if I do not have to pay taxes. Easy, right?

Wrong. Big corporations spend tremendous amount of money on
economic simulations to figure out what is the maximum price
they can charge for their product. If everyone all of a sudden got
a 45% raise, what would you do?

It is likely that if you were an employer over the next few
years you would not hand out a single raise until things got
back to equilibrium.

As a business owner you would try to see how much of that
45% raise you can get a hold of from your customers.

My main problem with a certain class of Republicans is that
they do not try to educate the American people about this,
starting with Reagan, but even before that, they try to scare
people about taxes, and it has become a finely honed skill.

The American people have to trust our buisness leaders and
poliicans, and those leaders have taken advantage of that trust
and screwed us over, and we cannot do anything about it until
people understand it ... but no one can get a fact in edgewise to
most people becuase they are paralyzed with fear tactics.

Bruce - Every time I hear someone say "tax and spend" liberal I think of "borrow and spend" conservative. Both have some element of truth in them, but just enough to give credence to the mythology each party wants to create for the other.

As you say, the key is educating the electorate. This is hard to do when virtually all campaign ads mischaracterize the facts (at best) or outright lie about the facts. They boil all complex issues down into black and white choices. They take advantage of the multiple voting rules of Congress to say that someone "voted against" some benefit simply because he voted no on some silly parliamentarian vote about whether to agree to vote on the real bill. Or because they voted no on some silly amendment that was introduced at the last minute to a legitimate bill solely to either gain favor for the sponsor's pet project or worse, solely to have something they could point at as a "no" vote. The cynicism of the campaigns, especially the recent Rovian Republican wing campaigns like McCain has stooped to, is allowed only because most people are too busy with their own day to day lives to factcheck everything coming out of the candidate's mouths.

It's time we as voters took more responsibility for our choices and started holding candidates and elected officials accountable for their misrepresentations.

What happened with the rebate checks? As soon as pople started getting checks gas and food prices went up. Corporations a very good at fleecing the public. In their eyes we are just so many sheep to be shorn.

I personally never saw a rebate check. But that's okay, because it's only giving me back my tax refund early anyway. It's not like the government is giving me money. But it gives the government something to brag about without actually having to do anything.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes

Nope not into politics

I think Paul has a good point!

April - Understood. I wish I could say the same sometimes. :)